What are your thoughts on Chruch's refusing to wed gays?

[Windwalker]

How can the church ever marry a couple in the eyes of God that actively involve in the act of buggery(Sodomy) I'm real sorry but this is the reality.

How can the church marry hetrosexual couples who practice anal sex? Do they even ever ask?

 

[viole]

Faith is often something that a lot of people have struggles with. The world will say no you can't do this and God can't do that but in God's world we can do all things through Christ. We can learn to speak to those moutains and tell them to move. We can learn to pray over the sick and see them healed. We can learn to walk by Faith and not by sight and we can learn to love the world as Christ loves us

Do you think you can convince Mount Everest to move to New Jersey, if you ask it in the name of Jesus?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Marisa]

How can the church ever marry a couple in the eyes of God that actively involve in the act of buggery(Sodomy) I'm real sorry but this is the reality.

I'll let you alone with your imagination on all the possible replies that might spring from the shock of having someone ask you to describe, in detail, what goes on in your bedroom. Or any other room in your house. But thanks for the belly laugh, it's the first one today!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Should church's be punished for refusing to marry gays by loosing tax exempt status?
I post a while back that this might happen in order to force Church's to perform
weddings for gay couples and if I recall I took a lot of flack for even suggesting
such a thing could happen.

Well read this.

Churches Who Refuse Same Sex Weddings Could Lose Tax Exempt Status – Downtrend


Churches Who Refuse Same Sex Weddings Could Lose Tax Exempt Status
Now that same-sex marriage is the law of the land, there’s a very good chance that churches who refuse to perform gay weddings could lose their tax-exempt status.

The Daily Caller is reporting that in his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts warned as much.

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage — when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples,” Roberts wrote.



“Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

It’s inconceivable that a Catholic Church – or any house of worship – could be forced to perform gay marriages, even if their religion prohibits it. And if they don’t, they could lose their status as a “church.”

Is this unintended consequences, or was it liberal, gay-rights advocates’ intention to destroy the institution of religion too?

Thoughts?

I don't think you need to force a Church to marry someone. I don't think that Catholic Hospitals should have to give abortions. Why? Because that doesn't stop the people from being able to get married or have an abortion. The cake incident was a strange one. If they refused service because they were gay then that is discrimination. If they refused service because they found the cake itself to be offensive then it is another.

I don't think that churches who exercise their right to religion by refusing homosexual weddings should loose tax exemption.

 

[Marisa]

I don't think that Catholic Hospitals should have to give abortions.

I have no desire to move the goalposts to abortion in this thread, but this is a dangerous statement. There are times when a D&C (an abortion performed in a hospital) is the appropriate treatment to save a woman's life or preserve her ability to have future children. Miscarriages can kill, as Ireland found out not too long ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I have no desire to move the goalposts to abortion in this thread, but this is a dangerous statement. There are times when a D&C (an abortion performed in a hospital) is the appropriate treatment to save a woman's life or preserve her ability to have future children. Miscarriages can kill, as Ireland found out not too long ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

I don't know of any Catholic Hospitals that refuse to do medically necessary abortions. I'm sure there may have been some cases but if the issue is life and death of the short term they still preform abortions. What isn't preformed are abortions that are dangerous long term or not necessarily needed. One does not have to go to a Catholic Hospital for example. I think if we are fighting for our rights to have equal treatment for homosexuals and transgender people we must not forget the fact that people still do have freedom of religion. Freedom of religion, until such time that it is no longer a freedom, should still be treated as such and certain situations of discrimination are obviously not allowed but when available to them they should have the ability to uphold their religious beliefs.

 

[Marisa]

I don't know of any Catholic Hospitals that refuse to do medically necessary abortions. I'm sure there may have been some cases but if the issue is life and death of the short term they still preform abortions. What isn't preformed are abortions that are dangerous long term or not necessarily needed. One does not have to go to a Catholic Hospital for example. I think if we are fighting for our rights to have equal treatment for homosexuals and transgender people we must not forget the fact that people still do have freedom of religion. Freedom of religion, until such time that it is no longer a freedom, should still be treated as such and certain situations of discrimination are obviously not allowed but when available to them they should have the ability to uphold their religious beliefs.

The link I posted if of a case where a woman was allowed to die from her miscarriage in Ireland, one presumes a catholic hospital, because of the that country's zero tolerance for abortion, which until this case included medically necessary D&C. You're correct in that there isn't a large number of people in the US who possess this sort of zero tolerance philosophy and would seek to exclude even medically necessary procedures (although they do exist here). I was responding to your statement that catholic hospitals shouldn't have to perform abortions with yes, in some cases they should because it is the correct course of treatment and in such a case is not elective. That's all.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The link I posted if of a case where a woman was allowed to die from her miscarriage in Ireland, one presumes a catholic hospital, because of the that country's zero tolerance for abortion, which until this case included medically necessary D&C. You're correct in that there isn't a large number of people in the US who possess this sort of zero tolerance philosophy and would seek to exclude even medically necessary procedures (although they do exist here). I was responding to your statement that catholic hospitals shouldn't have to perform abortions with yes, in some cases they should because it is the correct course of treatment and in such a case is not elective. That's all.

Then I should have worded it different. Catholic churches shouldn't have to preform any kind of elective abortions.

 

[Marisa]

Then I should have worded it different. Catholic churches shouldn't have to preform any kind of elective abortions.

Totally agree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know of any Catholic Hospitals that refuse to do medically necessary abortions. I'm sure there may have been some cases but if the issue is life and death of the short term they still preform abortions. What isn't preformed are abortions that are dangerous long term or not necessarily needed.

... even if it's medically appropriate.

A hospital is a licensed institution that employs licensed professionals to provide medical care. This licensing - and professional ethics - generally places the good of the patient ahead of all other concerns, including the beliefs of the doctor performing a procedure or the religious doctrine of the hospital.

One does not have to go to a Catholic Hospital for example.

There are many places that can only support one hospital, so the presence of the Catholic hospital can prevent other area hospitals to be built where abortion can be provided (or IVF performed, etc., etc.) Also, when you're taken to a hospital in an ambulance, you often don't have a choice in where you're taken.

Now that I think about it, these restrictions can have effects that stretch beyond the hospital itself. My ex and I visited a fertility specialist at one point, and she told us right off the bat that she couldn't do IVF *at all* because she had privileges at a local Catholic hospital.

I think if we are fighting for our rights to have equal treatment for homosexuals and transgender people we must not forget the fact that people still do have freedom of religion. Freedom of religion, until such time that it is no longer a freedom, should still be treated as such and certain situations of discrimination are obviously not allowed but when available to them they should have the ability to uphold their religious beliefs.

In professional settings, we often take on restrictions that wouldn't normally apply. For instance, a profession's code of ethics might require a practitioner not to discriminate on the basis of gender, which might conflict with the religious beliefs of someone whose religion forbids contact between men and women.

IMO, these sorts of requirements are valid because they're based on legitimate concerns and membership in a profession is voluntary.


Edit: but none of this is relevant to same-sex marriage unless we start licensing churches, which I'm sure as heck not in favour of.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then I should have worded it different. Catholic churches shouldn't have to preform any kind of elective abortions.

There's quite a wide gap between "elective" and "necessary", and in that gap, there's a lot of space where abortion (or procedures that are considered "abortion" by some, like IVF) is medically indicated. Maybe it's not the only option, but it's potentially the best of a set of options.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

How can the church marry hetrosexual couples who practice anal sex? Do they even ever ask?

No they dont ask in the eyes of God a good husband would never bugger the Mrs.
Is not just anal, sodomy is anything considered as the wrong hole to reproduce.
Is about the church, not my belief although i do understand why the church is reluctant an im sure the above has a lot to do with it.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

I'll let you alone with your imagination on all the possible replies that might spring from the shock of having someone ask you to describe, in detail, what goes on in your bedroom. Or any other room in your house. But thanks for the belly laugh, it's the first one today!

We dont need details by default a homosexual sexual relationship crosses those borders.

 

[Windwalker]

No they dont ask in the eyes of God a good husband would never bugger the Mrs.
Is not just anal, sodomy is anything considered as the wrong hole to reproduce.
Is about the church, not my belief although i do understand why the church is reluctant an im sure the above has a lot to do with it.

Well, that drops oral sex off too. I suppose to be really strict about it, it should never be unless the woman is during a period of ovulation, since reproduction seems the only legitimate reason for sex. So here's what would therefore be the only acceptable sexual relations:

1. Hetrosexuals only
2. Only during ovulation
3. Only if the woman is in childbearing ages (sex after 40 is out, since it's not about reproduction)
4. Only males who have be shown to be viable may be allowed to have sex. A visit to a fertility clinic is required prior to engaging in any form a sex during the acceptable ages and times of the month with his wife.
5. Only women who are shown to be able to bear children may have sex. A visit to a fertility clinic is require for them as well.

Oh, boy. Thank God that isn't the only real reason to have sex, otherwise, you're all screwed! I guess since sex is engaged in for social reasons, and not just just reproduction, then the door is wide opened. Otherwise, any hetrosexual who engages in sex outside the conditions explained in points 1 - 5, who say it is only for reproduction, are lying hypocrites. There. That settles that.

 

[Marisa]

We dont need details by default a homosexual sexual relationship crosses those borders.

And if the church is comfortable with that, why do you think your opinion matters?

 

[Marisa]

No they dont ask in the eyes of God a good husband would never bugger the Mrs.
Is not just anal, sodomy is anything considered as the wrong hole to reproduce.
Is about the church, not my belief although i do understand why the church is reluctant an im sure the above has a lot to do with it.

Many straight couples enjoy anal sex. I know a few. Surprise!

If the church is comfortable marrying the couple, you have 2 choices. You can grab your holy book of choice and begin assaulting people with it; or you retreated to your nearest corner, curl up in the fetal position, and mind your own business.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

... even if it's medically appropriate.

A hospital is a licensed institution that employs licensed professionals to provide medical care. This licensing - and professional ethics - generally places the good of the patient ahead of all other concerns, including the beliefs of the doctor performing a procedure or the religious doctrine of the hospital.

Exactly.

There are many places that can only support one hospital, so the presence of the Catholic hospital can prevent other area hospitals to be built where abortion can be provided (or IVF performed, etc., etc.) Also, when you're taken to a hospital in an ambulance, you often don't have a choice in where you're taken.

Now that I think about it, these restrictions can have effects that stretch beyond the hospital itself. My ex and I visited a fertility specialist at one point, and she told us right off the bat that she couldn't do IVF *at all* because she had privileges at a local Catholic hospital.

The quality of your treatment shouldn't be affected in terms of your hospital being Catholic or non-Catholic when it comes to emergent issues. In your case with the IVF you always have the option to go elsewhere. It may be inconvenient but its also inconvenient for people who live in areas where there are only smaller clinics or no medical facilities at all.

In professional settings, we often take on restrictions that wouldn't normally apply. For instance, a profession's code of ethics might require a practitioner not to discriminate on the basis of gender, which might conflict with the religious beliefs of someone whose religion forbids contact between men and women.

If you are a doctor with a religion that prohibits you to touch women then there is something already wrong here. I think I've already stated that there are abridges to religious freedoms and have already outlined a few. It doesn't infringe upon the rights of the religious if they are fired or unable to be hired for a position in which their beliefs would be detrimental to their ability to preform the job.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There's quite a wide gap between "elective" and "necessary", and in that gap, there's a lot of space where abortion (or procedures that are considered "abortion" by some, like IVF) is medically indicated. Maybe it's not the only option, but it's potentially the best of a set of options.

If you have no medical reason that you need to have an abortion done "today" you can switch hospitals so to speak. The hospital I work for doesn't have neurologists. If someone comes in with any kind of brain injury we stabilize them in the ER and then move them to a different facility. Same thing for behavioral or psychological issues. We don't have a psych ward. We don't take on massive trauma patients ect ect ect. Its a choice of the hospital to not be equip for these as it saves us a lot of money to simply transfer these cases elsewhere. I wouldn't say by any means that "to save money" is higher than "religious freedom" if they choose to be equip for such procedures or to not have them unless deemed emergent or necessary.

 

[Kirran]

I don't think this is the time, but once there's been a greater shift within mainstream Abrahamic religion towards acceptance of homosexuality (i.e. towards actually supporting human rights) then I think the time may come where the removal of tax-exempt status for those refusing to marry same-sex couples will be appropriate.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

Do you think you can convince Mount Everest to move to New Jersey, if you ask it in the name of Jesus?

Ciao

- viole

Do you think for one minute you could not mock people Faiths?