06-30-2003, 04:53 PM | #51 | |||
College Prospect
Join Date: Apr 2003
|
Quote:
Sachmo is exactly right on this point. You have to be a member of the Catholic church (and provide proof of this fact, among other things) for them to marry you. I don't see the government forcing anyone to marry anyone. As was previously stated, they can always just go to a justice of the peace.
__________________
"All I know is that smart women are hot. Susan Polgar beat me in 24 moves in a simultaneous exhbition. I slept with the scoresheet under my pillow." Off some dude's web site. |
|||
06-30-2003, 04:53 PM | #52 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Here
|
Quote:
Don't even get me started, I have to do a hell of a lot of lying to the priest in order to get married in the catholic church. Where to start... |
|
06-30-2003, 04:54 PM | #53 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Here
|
dola, its more than proof of being a catholic by the way. Basically, you have to be as pure as evian water in order to get married there.
|
06-30-2003, 04:57 PM | #54 |
Rider Of Rohan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Port Angeles, WA or Helm's Deep
|
Qualifier: I am not trying to put words into your mouth, so please correct me if I am mistating your position.
Skydog, would it follow then that any act defined as "sinful" in the Scriptures is therefore a barrier to marriage? In other words, that willful accumulation of wealth, gluttony, etc., would ellicit disqualification?
__________________
It's not the years...it's the mileage. |
06-30-2003, 04:58 PM | #55 |
The boy who cried Trout
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: TX
|
Well, one positive effect of any law allowing gays to marry might be an increase in the number of gay/lesbian churches. Supply and demand and all of that.
|
06-30-2003, 04:58 PM | #56 | |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
Quote:
No, according to the Scriptures, which makes it clear on what is right and wrong, if you choose to put your faith in that. If you have been chosen to minister the Gospel to others, as Ben and pastors have been called to do, then that is the authority in spiritual matters. However, many can say the right words and act all godly in front of others (even faking out a pastor) while not putting their faith into the principles of the Scriptures. There is no way to avoid that but those that have been called, esp. in performing a sacred marriage ceremony, you have no choice but to adhere to the truth of the Gospel - as best as we can. |
|
06-30-2003, 05:00 PM | #57 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Maassluis, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
|
Do I understand correctly that in the USA people can only marry if they are part of a religion?
That's sad... |
06-30-2003, 05:00 PM | #58 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Guys should be allowed to be married, but no church should be forced to marry them. It is simply contrary to the spirit of America to deny equal rights to a certain group simply because some people's morals get in way. Weren't we supposed to protect the minority rights from the majority's mob rule?
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
06-30-2003, 05:01 PM | #59 |
College Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkeley
|
No MIJB, that is not the case at all. Any (hetero) couple can get married (aside from relatives, underaged, already married, etc)
|
06-30-2003, 05:02 PM | #60 | ||
Torchbearer
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: On Lake Harriet
|
Quote:
Actually, as someone alluded to above, the wedding isn't 100% legally binding unless the couple has taken the steps necessary under the law of the state to apply for and be granted a marriage license. I don't want to belittle the roll of the minister, but I think the a wedding officiant (minister or otherwise) may be similar to that of a notary. They are "licensed" by the state to officiate and witness the wedding and sign the marriage certificate, which will ultimately result in the grant of the marriage license. Quote:
I'm not sure this is a "natural next step." The legalization of gay marriages would have little if any effect on religious organizations, who would still be free to marry or refuse to marry whomever they choose. As sachmo pointed out, there are already rules (Catholics certainly come to mind) about who can get married in certain denominations. The legalization of gay marriages would serve to grant spousal benefits to partners in the eyes of the law, but not necessarily in the eyes of the church. |
||
06-30-2003, 05:02 PM | #61 |
Rider Of Rohan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Port Angeles, WA or Helm's Deep
|
The issue I have with this concept is that it puts the burden of marital "sanctity" onto a Church-defined punch-list, instead in the hearts of men and women where I feel it should ultimately reside. Rather than compelling people to meet the standards of a Church-authorized marriage, I feel that the Church should encourage those who wish to get married to follow scriptural laws or Jesus' teachings or (fill in blank) as they live their lives together. Would Jesus have rejected anyone from getting married if the foundation of that marriage was love?
__________________
It's not the years...it's the mileage. |
06-30-2003, 05:02 PM | #62 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
That's incorrect. There are civil ceremonies for atheists and those that do not wished to be married in a church.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
06-30-2003, 05:04 PM | #63 | ||
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'! |
||
06-30-2003, 05:05 PM | #64 | |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
Quote:
If I can answer in part. Being sinful (which we all are) is not the barrier to marriage but in the authority of those performing the sacredness of a marriage ceremony in upholding the Scriptures. Anyone can point out the hypocracy of priests and others throughout history (what else do you expect from sinful man?) but I would also point out the very many that were the opposite. |
|
06-30-2003, 05:07 PM | #65 | |
Norm!!!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Manassas, VA
|
Quote:
Last edited by heybrad : 06-30-2003 at 05:14 PM. |
|
06-30-2003, 05:09 PM | #66 | |
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
|
Quote:
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'! |
|
06-30-2003, 05:10 PM | #67 | ||
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Maassluis, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
|
Quote:
Quote:
I mean, if your job is to marry people for the law (not for the Chruch), then your religion should be totally ignored. Don't like two men getting married? Find another job. I don't understand why a man-and-woman can marry and a woman-and-woman can't, entirely based on the fact that one of the two has the wrong gender. |
||
06-30-2003, 05:12 PM | #68 | |
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
|
Quote:
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'! |
|
06-30-2003, 05:15 PM | #69 | |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
Quote:
If you don't put your faith in the principles of the Scriptures or don't have any principles that you live by (besides what you make up as you go along), then it really would not matter and can be much debate. |
|
06-30-2003, 05:15 PM | #70 | |
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
|
Quote:
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'! |
|
06-30-2003, 05:16 PM | #71 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
|
MIJB--
SkyDog, and others, want the freedom to be a minister and to perform legally binding marriages without the government forcing them to accept beliefs that go againt their religion. Our constituion protects those rights as "the free exercise of religion." Just as it was no answer to the people in Texas to say "if you want to perform sodomy, go to another state," it is no answer to a minister to say "if you do not want to endorse this type of marriage, find another job." In both instances, the constitution gives the person the right to perform their act right there, right then--even if 99.99% of the population does not agree with it. That's personal liberty over the "tyrrany of the majority" and it almost still brings a tear to my eye. |
06-30-2003, 05:19 PM | #72 |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
hey brad
Only in those areas the Scriptures makes it clear (like saying something is a sin or something that glorifies God). Things like driving a SUV is sinful does not fall into this. Too many churches and religions fall into the trap of legalism which goes beyond the simple teachings of the Gospel. |
06-30-2003, 05:20 PM | #73 | |
The boy who cried Trout
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: TX
|
Quote:
Skydog, if this did happen, I would be strongly opposed to it. Everyone talks about keeping the church out of the state, but we also need to be on guard to keep the state out of the church. Hope that makes sense. |
|
06-30-2003, 05:22 PM | #74 | |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
Quote:
Well said but there still have to be restrictions to personal liberty, otherwise there would be no laws. It is a fine line. |
|
06-30-2003, 05:24 PM | #75 | |
Norm!!!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Manassas, VA
|
Quote:
|
|
06-30-2003, 05:25 PM | #76 | |
High School JV
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Akron, OH
|
Quote:
Not true, I am not Catholic and was married in a Catholic church. |
|
06-30-2003, 05:26 PM | #77 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Maassluis, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
|
Quote:
I completly agree with you if your job is to marry and you don't want to marry couples for the Church. If the couple is not willing to live by the rules they say they believe is the only true way to live by, then why do they want to join a group they truly do not want to join? All, I think I wasn't clear enough in my original question. Now I have the perception that in the USA you have to choose: - religious marriage - non-religious marriage That sounds different as what "we" have in the small and overpopulated Netherlands, as we have only one choices: - marriage for the law - marriage for the law and a seperate ceremony for the religious group |
|
06-30-2003, 05:27 PM | #78 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
|
A--
I agree. I am certainly left of center, but I do not fall into the camp of far leftists that believe that the right to scratch my ass is a fundamental right under the constitution. There is a line to be drawn for sure--and it is a pretty fine one. Last edited by albionmoonlight : 06-30-2003 at 05:27 PM. |
06-30-2003, 05:30 PM | #79 | |
Mascot
Join Date: Feb 2003
|
Re: I Hope this never happens....
Quote:
Gays should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it's consentual and not hurting anyone. Two men or two women expressing life long love and commitment is perfectly acceptable to me, and should be acknowledged by some diocees. I think that churches have the right to refuse to marry couples if that's their feeling, but I don't think it should be banned. I feel the same way about bi-racial, bi-sexual, bi-lingual and bi-bi Miss American Pie or any other consenting adults. Adults should be allowed to love whomever they choose without having to catch crap from the rest of us.
__________________
It's not my show, but I'm on that show - Dick Juaron |
|
06-30-2003, 05:31 PM | #80 | |
The boy who cried Trout
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: TX
|
Quote:
I think he meant that one of the pair has to be a Catholic. Last edited by sachmo71 : 06-30-2003 at 05:32 PM. |
|
06-30-2003, 05:36 PM | #81 |
Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
By the way, most evangelical churches (which is different than the fundamental churches) do not have a problem with gays marrying. As I pointed out before, it is not the act of being gay but in engaging in homosexual acts that the Scriptures calls a great sin. In the debates on whether to allow gays to marry in a denomination-sanction ceremony, the evangelicals proposed that it must come with a vow of chastity. This truly separates the couple (which it can support) from the act (which it cannot support). But I do wonder how realistic that is?
|
06-30-2003, 05:38 PM | #82 | |
Mascot
Join Date: Feb 2003
|
Quote:
Allowing two people to get married but not allowing them to get busy.... don't think it's very realistic.
__________________
It's not my show, but I'm on that show - Dick Juaron |
|
06-30-2003, 05:42 PM | #83 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Um... it's basically the same thing, only you've just changed the words around . However, the church marriage is ALSO a marriage for law.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
06-30-2003, 05:45 PM | #84 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Maassluis, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
|
Quote:
Last edited by MIJB#19 : 06-30-2003 at 05:45 PM. |
|
06-30-2003, 05:46 PM | #85 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
But you have to admit having two people get married and believing they won't have sex is just silly.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
06-30-2003, 05:56 PM | #86 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Maassluis, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
|
Quote:
In the Netherlands you get married in the morning for law. (Truly) religous people go to their Church/Mosque/whatever in the afternoon and have additional ceremonies there to marry again, though this time in the name of The Lord/Allah/whomever. If I understand correctly now, SkyDog (and others) do(es) the two seperate things in one. Here I can see SkyDog's concern to see religous marriages turn into theatre marriage only to make the scene cooler, make the attandance report look better and have a better dressed person with possibly more experience in enthausiastic speaching. From other replies, I get the feeling it's already a common way of marrying, though with the extra aspect of having two women in white, the scene getting even cooler. |
|
06-30-2003, 05:59 PM | #87 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Maassluis, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
|
Quote:
Mind the ... |
|
06-30-2003, 05:59 PM | #88 | ||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Yes. Quote:
Why? I can't see it at all. After all, no one has to get married in the religious setting. They can go down to City Hall and get a marriage just as legal. So I don't see a concern with making religious marriage a 'theatre marriage', because it basically already is (since it is extra stuff you don't HAVE to do).
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
||
06-30-2003, 06:28 PM | #89 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Here
|
The government can't and won't force a church to marry 2 people they do not want to marry. tell me 1 thing the government makes churches do that goes completely against their beliefs (along the lines of forcing a church to marry 2 people). The government doesn't force you to include particular members. It doesn't force the Catholic church to offer everyone the eucharist.
I get the feeling people using this argument are actually trying to find an easy way to veil their fear of homosexuals, and it is a very weak argument being presented. And I'd argue well over half of Americans who get married in churches don't do so out of their love for religion, but do so because of the show it involves (the grand church, looks good for the family...) |
06-30-2003, 06:46 PM | #90 |
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
Shit, I got married by a Justice of the Peace in a Hotel. My wife and I are vastly different religions and so we decided to do it on neutral ground by a neutral party.
The government can't and won't require Churches to marry anyone they don't want. It flies in the face of over 200 years of US law and hundreds of years before that of English Common Law. Not to mention it's entirely against the 1st Ammendment. That's just fear tactics used to scare people into making a knee-jerk reaction to this issue. Frankly, I'm pretty disgusted that some folks have even brought it up or are arguing it. Unless you receive federal funds, there's not a damn thing the government can do to you. If you're holding your hand out for money, I (as a voting citizen) have a right to start to impose rules on your group. If you don't want the rules, don't take the money. As for gay marriages, I have no problem with that. One of the common "slams" against gays is that they're all promiscuous. Well, allowing them to get married and form a legal union takes away a lot of that bias. Then, if they want to share property, get loans together, get joint health benefits, etc. - they have to be legally joined. And go through the same pain of divorce that any normal married couple has to go through to separate. The door swings both ways. Last edited by Blackadar : 06-30-2003 at 06:47 PM. |
06-30-2003, 06:48 PM | #91 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
I always thought that was funny, since straights seem to be fairly promiscuous as well .
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
06-30-2003, 07:14 PM | #92 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
This argument about marriage is why I favor civil unions. They would have all of the same legal standings, but wouldn't be a marriage as defined by religions. Any couple would be free to enter a civil union if they did not want to go through a religious marriage ceremony. This mmakes civil unions and marriage seperate and allows straights to enter into civil unions if they choose to forgo the teachings of religions.
I realy hope that the Constitution will not be soiled by a bigoted amendment. The Constitution should not be used as an exclusionary document.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
06-30-2003, 07:26 PM | #93 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Satellite of Love
|
" This argument about marriage is why I favor civil unions. They would have all of the same legal standings, but wouldn't be a marriage as defined by religions. "
...Not all religions beleive that it is wrong to be homosexual. |
06-30-2003, 07:30 PM | #94 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Sabotai: True, but enough do that it would solve some problems. Churches would of course still be free to marry whomever they choose, but te civil union would be issued from the state and not connected to any religion. While I don't think a minister is ever going to be forced to marry anyone by the state, I do think there will be a bunch of lawsuits and fighting re gay marriage. This is a way to get past some of that. Of course some will still see it as a portend of the end times, but those people will never be happy.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
06-30-2003, 08:26 PM | #95 | |
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
|
Quote:
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'! |
|
06-30-2003, 08:43 PM | #96 | |
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
Quote:
On what grounds? Sorry to disagree SkyDog, but this is ludicrious. There's no basis at all for the suit. None. Chucked out of court in a heartbeat. It's just a scare tactic to deflect attention away from the real discussion. |
|
06-30-2003, 08:49 PM | #97 | |
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
|
Quote:
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'! |
|
06-30-2003, 09:14 PM | #98 | ||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
As a law student, I don't see it. Not a chance in Hell. Firstly, there is no standing by anyone who doesn't agree with churches being able to perform legal marriages. Quote:
I agree.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams Last edited by ISiddiqui : 06-30-2003 at 09:15 PM. |
||
07-01-2003, 05:16 AM | #99 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
|
Re: I Hope this never happens....
Quote:
Why not? It is just a legal contract. Adults should be able to enter into marriage contracts with anyone that they want to, and the government should recognize that contract. Besides, married people are taxed higher than single people, so the government stands to increase their revenue by getting off the religious soapbox. |
|
07-01-2003, 06:45 AM | #100 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
|
Quote:
Before I get the wrong idea here, can you elaborate on what you mean? Are you saying that people get married in ceremonies that mention Jesus Christ but are not "serious" about him? What do you mean by "serious about Jesus Christ" exactly? The wedding ceremony in the church is not the marriage. It is a ceremony surrounding the marriage. You sign the paperwork that gets you married. I was not married in that kind of setting, but my best friend was and as Best Man I had to make sure those things were taken care of. The ceremony did not get them married. The paperwork signed in the back before it ever started was what got them married. You can be just as married as anyone else without any mention of prophets, deities, or religious references at all. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|