I want on the failboat too...dragonbait1November 6 2008, 12:27:13 UTC
If you are referring to gay people getting married in a church that follows the rules set down in Leviticus about homosexuality being wrong, sure, followers of that religion could deny the *Rite* of marriage to a churchmember for being gay.
But that has NOTHING to do with the LEGAL concept of marriage. and NO civil unions (as much as you and Obama want to believe they do) do NOT have the same rights at a FEDERAL level due to Clintion signing the protection of marriage act back in the 90's Its why Best Buy had to deny the employee discount to domestic partners.
As I'm sure you are aware there are several different varieties of Christianity, some of which believe that sexual orientation is irrelevant in the eyes of God. Leviticus is an OLD Testament book, written over 3000 years ago, maybe things have changed?
As for the idea that men should have short hair and women long that isn't from the Bible and there are no passages that support it AFAIK. Not to pull out the obvious but Jesus himself had long luxurious hippie hair.
To summarize, the *Rite* of marriage may be denied by a sect, but the legal concept of marriage (which is open to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Chaos worshipers and all the rest) should be available to all consenting adults, without ethnic or sexual orientation discrimination.
Re: I want on the failboat too...cordreNovember 7 2008, 03:25:01 UTC
I said that civil unions SHOULD have the same quirks...I KNOW they don't. I am too rusty (and don't care) to really dive into the technicalities of the Bible...since I totally don't care about this particular topic enough to think about it. Especially since I am learning a language and 2 instruments. I don't have time to study anything else atm x_x
What does it matter what they are called?dragonbait1November 7 2008, 20:08:30 UTC
So if civil unions had the EXACT same rights etc as marriage then why care what they call it? It's pointless to say "You can have a civil union but don't call yourself married." If a religion believes that being gay is wrong (and they don't preach or practice violence) that's within their First Amendment rights. I disagree with it, but that is MY right. If gay members want the church to change things that is an internal issue. As long as there are venues for them to be married, it's not my concern (As I don't belong to said church).
The Target analogy is faulty. It's more like if you worked for Best Buy, did a great job but flaunted the dress code (like an untucked t-shirt, shorts and sandals). Then say you wanted the company to change the dress code to accommodate you. So you petitioned the employees to support your bid to change management's mind.
Why have 2 legal "unions" that are the same except for the name? That's pointless. If the rights are the same, then just call it marriage. NOT everyone belongs to the same church, why should those rules apply to others?
But that has NOTHING to do with the LEGAL concept of marriage. and NO civil unions (as much as you and Obama want to believe they do) do NOT have the same rights at a FEDERAL level due to Clintion signing the protection of marriage act back in the 90's Its why Best Buy had to deny the employee discount to domestic partners.
As I'm sure you are aware there are several different varieties of Christianity, some of which believe that sexual orientation is irrelevant in the eyes of God. Leviticus is an OLD Testament book, written over 3000 years ago, maybe things have changed?
As for the idea that men should have short hair and women long that isn't from the Bible and there are no passages that support it AFAIK. Not to pull out the obvious but Jesus himself had long luxurious hippie hair.
To summarize, the *Rite* of marriage may be denied by a sect, but the legal concept of marriage (which is open to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Chaos worshipers and all the rest) should be available to all consenting adults, without ethnic or sexual orientation discrimination.
RGB
Reply
I am too rusty (and don't care) to really dive into the technicalities of the Bible...since I totally don't care about this particular topic enough to think about it. Especially since I am learning a language and 2 instruments. I don't have time to study anything else atm x_x
Reply
The Target analogy is faulty. It's more like if you worked for Best Buy, did a great job but flaunted the dress code (like an untucked t-shirt, shorts and sandals). Then say you wanted the company to change the dress code to accommodate you. So you petitioned the employees to support your bid to change management's mind.
Why have 2 legal "unions" that are the same except for the name? That's pointless. If the rights are the same, then just call it marriage. NOT everyone belongs to the same church, why should those rules apply to others?
RGB
Reply
Leave a comment