Gay Marriage declared legal across the United States in Supreme Court ruling

[Busti]

How is it trivial? Yes it may be legal now, but it's still going to be looked at with great negativity by many and until it isn't, the LGBT is going to continue to push and be/feel oppressed in some manner. Churches not being required to serve gay marriage is also FAR from trivial. Roughly 70% of United State citizens identify as Christian (About 220 Million people) If even just 10 percent of them feel this is wrong (many of which will be avid Church goers and even working for the church) that's 22 million people who very well could cause conflict WHEN a homosexual couple inevitably goes to one seeking to be wed. It's not a matter of IF but WHEN. Then it will be taken to court and largely publicized and argued once more if Church's should have the right to refusal. At which point there's no longer separation of Church and State and it's unconstitutional. There are alternatives, but at some point some homosexual couple is going to choose to go this route, and the aftermath won't be pleasant for any of the parties involved.

With trivial I meant to say unimportant to legalize or not to legalize. I agree it is still an important point to address on its own!

Edited June 27, 2015 by Busti

[Darvan Korematsu]

Well I must say. I was coming home from summer camp today (and still on the road) and me and my Troop (I am a Boy Scout) stopped at a Golden Corral as our tribute dinner before we got home and I saw that as the headline and I was kinda "Da fuq?" when I saw that because I never thought that decision would occur so quickly. How I see it, decent toleration leap in America and propaganda to feed to the countries that hate America. IMO I think people like ISIS might use something like this as leverage for their American hate. But eh, whatever, to each their own.

[Skullkin]

With this passing in the Supreme Court, would it be fair to think that if the church is the last bastion of "morality" against homosexual marriage, the credibility of the church itself would be damaged? Pope Francis himself no longer condemns the homosexual people, as he's been quoted as saying: "When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn’t be marginalized. The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem…they’re our brothers."

He's a politician in a lot of ways, so it's not certain if the catholic church's ultra-conservative ideology is truly reflected through him. However, should some of his influence ring true, it wouldn't be unheard of that gay marriage within a church could happen.

Truthfully, marriage at the hands of a representative of religion is an archaic rite of passage. I don't believe it'd be a total loss if it never happened.

If you think that's bad, I strongly suggest you see how homosexuality in Africa is treated in today's world. It's utterly deplorable.

The pope only speaks for Catholics, not Christians.

As a Christian myself, I can tell you, there are big differences between Catholicism and Christianity.

For one thing, Christians don't see the Pope as a holy man. They see him as some average joe who thinks he speaks on behalf of god--or basically, that the pope is a false prophet of sorts. We also don't have priests you have to confess to, or rosaries--those are strictly catholic things.

[Chase]

Okay. Just going to drop this one off here.

The right of refusal - if taken AWAY from religious institutions - violates that organizations right to religious freedom in America. A church is not a cooperate business, but more-so a community of American citizens practicing their faith by not conducting a ceremony for a marriage their deity isn't going to be part of by default.

Yes, there -ARE- Homosexual Christians. Yes, it -will- be inevitable when a homosexual couple attempts to hold a marriage ceremony in a church.

Assuming the church is being somewhat biblical in practice, they -SHOULD- deny that couple because it would be heretical to go through with the proceedings. (I am aware that some churches -DO- and I -am- aware that it can be seen as discriminatory to deny people the right to be married when it's a national right given to American citizens and it can be so easily attributed to a citizen's sexual orientations.)

The reason a church's right of refusal is NOT discrimination is because the church is NOT denying the couple because they are homosexual, but because the church believes Marriage is only reality when God is involved and Scripture clearly states that in order for God to be involved, there must be One Man/One Woman.

To illustrate this. It is perfectly acceptable to be a gay churchgoer. If a Church is being assuredly biblical (under the current covenant-...Gaunt...Mael....) they usually allow the homosexual in with open arms, let them join the choir and small groups and partake in mission trips, and allow homosexuals to apply for being elders, deacons, and church staff - with only a noticeable dropoff of homosexuals in ministerial positions (and by this point, we're not talking about a lot of people and even then it's up to congregational vote and religious institute process -which differs for Catholicism- whether ANYONE gets to preach and be on the payroll - so it's not because of their orientation that there not many gay pastors.)

TL:DR - If you want to sue someone because you feel discriminated by a church because they didn't let you marry your gay partner, you would need to sue God Himself - because the biblical church wouldn't use that right of refusal they are granted to deny a marriage unless God wouldn't be a part of it to begin with. Fighting the followers over this would at best be a waste of time, and at worst be a possibly catastrophic infraction of the 1st Ammendment for another group of Americans, divide the country even further, and ruin one group of people for the sake of another.

It's at that point that the fight stops being about Equality and more about holding an opposing worldview down.

[Maelstrom]

The current covenant, being the new instead of the old testament, where does it define marriage as man and woman again? I really don't recall. Or was this selective editing of old covenant rules? Cuz I still don't remember where Jesus said men should not marry other men and women should not marry other women.

TBH it's been a while and I don't remember your argument about what was relevant and what wasn't now.

[Chase]

Genesis - through the Adam and Eve narrative, which is why the obnoxious Christians out there compose their arguments as "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

The argument however has nothing to do about sexual intercourse or the purpose of it -being- one man and one woman biblically - it's just the precedent that was set, followed by later reactions from God that would indicate homosexuality not being a part of God's original intention when it came to instituting romantic bonds.

The constitution of the traditional Christian marriage happens when a man and a woman have sex for the first time, using all genitalia that was designed for the purpose of procreation. Biblically, the phrasing reads "The two became one", followed by God's command to "Go and be fruitful" - and is interpreted by scholars to indicate that from then on - Adam and Eve would become one unit - a married couple.

The biggest concern with the right of refusal however isn't "Oh my goodness this is a couple of men/women trying to wed and we don't agree with their choices." - but rather "Oh my goodness, God wouldn't be a part of this union - so therefore it wouldn't be - traditionally - a marriage and it would be a waste of our time doing the ceremony, along with being heretical."

The note there - is that the worry isn't sprouted from homophobia or discriminatory mindsets - you could come to that realization without being rude to a homosexual couple at all. Naturally the "Why is the ceremony heretical" question will follow, but then you have to explain that God wouldn't be part of the union - and that in a Judeo-Christian marriage, God is a part of it, and it is used to glorify Him in return even before the concept of reciprocated love between two individuals - which is what rules in the realm of "Civic Marriages" held by the municipal annexes in this country.

You wouldn't have to tell them their wanting to be wed is "wrong", or "sinful" in the slightest. You would have give them your theological reasoning and it would fall on the couple to respect it as your right to worship freely.

[Maelstrom]

Hmm, that's one set of reasoning that I've heard not at all from religious opposition.

So god made adam and eve as a unit and told them to be one. Does compatibility and personality work into it at all? Cuz it's like, god said this, and anything else is taken as heretical. With the last being taken as true by theists without being explicitly stated by god.

And your explanation is more of, it's a waste of time, rather than it's a bad thing. Another first in my personal history of arguments against such a thing.

Such things always beg the question of why, though. That really isn't explained.

god took a rib from adam to make a woman, eve. could got not have taken a rib from a future adam to make future steve, without whom adam is not whole? Genitalia notwithstanding. Societies have taken it that same sex couples are more pure, since they are thought not to have any possibility of being mistaken with lust. It seems that lust > love for the church, in that respect.

Men and women have been fruitful. overpopulation in china and india argue that fact. is that all there is to god's mandate? why can they not hold a ceremony with the hope and wish that god may choose to be a part of it? as interpreters of religious texts are aware, there are many meanings to words and phrases. it has been the key to their adaptation from ancient to modern times. men and women may be 'fruitful' in other ways.

god preaches love for all, does he not? it still seems really odd to make these petty distinctions to me.

[Chase]

nononononono - You see, to the believer, heresy -is- a bad thing and -is- the main reason churches don't go about this - aside from higher ups having their own not-very-Christ-like spells of lacking love for their fellow man regarding this topic.

Eve was explicitly MADE to be helpful and a boon to Adam. Personality and compatibility are not questioned - especially the latter due to the fact.

I wouldn't know about other societies, but the Judeo-Christian one has never taken same-sex couples in higher regard over heteros. The deal with Homosexuality not being intended is determined later on in the biblical timeline - where we see God's stance on the issue rather overbearingly in the razing of Sodom and Gomorrah. Logic would have it given all of the textual evidence, that God wouldn't destroy two cities if the chance of Homosexual couples being a part of the design existed. That just would seem like a bit -more- of an overreaction than it would look to secular parties. If God made a Steve for an Adam - would God raze their hometown the moment they find each other - if it was His intent? No, because then it wouldn't be an act against God in the first place.

You actually brought up a rather interesting bit of information by bring up "fruitfulness" - in that it's quite possible that God may only be found in "fruitful" relationships - which means there -is- no chance for God to be in a relationship that would not have the possibility of bearing children, which would then mean that pastor would have to explain that to the couple.

If you were to ask -me- personally, God is in every -person- whenever they accept Christ as their lord and savior. This means that there is quite the possibility that the entire "Christian" argument is debunked because accepting Christ into your heart as Lord would fill the God-shaped void for the individual and wouldn't need God in the union - Here we have an outdated covenant (the covenant with Adam - Go and be fruitful) clashing with the Messianic Covanent of Christ - a covenant very agreeable to Homosexual individuals.

This is where the beliefs fall on the active minister - Even if the theology is exploitable, the government doesn't have a right to force him or her to conduct the ceremony unless they can explicitly prove the refusal of service was due a "hate crime" against homosexual people and would have to be -very- careful not ot violate the minister's rights granted under the 1st Amendment in doing so.

There's a book that I'm going to recommend to you here Mael, because C.S. Lewis would do a better job explaining the distinction of "Love" than I would. It;s entitled "the Four Loves"

These loves are known as Empathetic love, Friendly love, Romantic love, and "Agape" being unconditional divine love. The concept Christians have here is that not all love is the same. Because of this, it is possible to preach "Love" while not being an advocate for same-sex romantic relationships, because Romantic love is it's own - in a group of others.

[Shamitako]

So, like, one of the things a lot of people don't get. Is that in the biblical concept of marriage, marriage is about making children not so much love

[Gaunt]

And here's another reason i don't like religion: too many "rules" that often clash between themselves because the "sacred text" is really outdated (and confusing/open to different interpretations) but that aside i really don't see a problem if a church refuses to hold the ceremony they can go to another one (that is more open) or to a civic institution.