It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Alxandro
Everybody already has individual rights to do whatever they want.
It's when they decide to label and segregate themselves by demanding ___ rights when problems start happening.
But then again, the Democrat party is made up of many segregated groups by design.
As for a church being legislated to perform gay marriages, that would be illegal, in any state, because it removes the freedom of religious organizations to do as they please within the confines of their own religious doctrine.
Originally posted by jheated5
Would gay people accept civil unions, if it granted the exact same benefits marriage does??? Or do they want the marriage title??
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by benrl
AH and now you see the real problem.
That the government should have NEVER EVER got involved and made marriage a legal institution.
Since they did, they have an obligation, not only morally but lawfully, to provide that service/rights/privelege to ALL consenting and legal adults.
I agree 100%, it should be called marriage at ALL, it should be called Civil Unions, at the state and federal level.
These are contracts between you and a government body, not God or a church.
Denying these rights to a community based on moral ambiguity and hatred is just nonsense.
As for a church being legislated to perform gay marriages, that would be illegal, in any state, because it removes the freedom of religious organizations to do as they please within the confines of their own religious doctrine.
~Tenth
I TRULY believe that the aim is not LEGAL RIGHTS, but some kind of MORAL "atta-boy" from the Government, to say that churhes that believe homosexuality is an abomination should be legally bound- TO CHANGE THEIR BELIEFS...
If the government gives this endorsement, thats their call.. We can't project that onto the church as a belief system without our society crumbling from the lack of moral fiber and support for the traditionally reporoductive family..
Originally posted by sensible1
I TRULY believe that the aim is not LEGAL RIGHTS, but some kind of MORAL "atta-boy" from the Government, to say that churhes that believe homosexuality is an abomination should be legally bound- TO CHANGE THEIR BELIEFS... If the government gives this endorsement, thats their call.. We can't project that onto the church as a belief system without our society crumbling from the lack of moral fiber and support for the traditionally reporoductive family..
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by sensible1
I TRULY believe that the aim is not LEGAL RIGHTS, but some kind of MORAL "atta-boy" from the Government, to say that churhes that believe homosexuality is an abomination should be legally bound- TO CHANGE THEIR BELIEFS...
That's literally impossible. You think what you want, but you'd be wrong on so many levels I cannot start to explain to you..
Nobody in the gay community has ever asked for this. Please show me evidence. Otherwise it's just your opinion, backed up by an emotional argument and sorry to say, worth nothing.
If the government gives this endorsement, thats their call.. We can't project that onto the church as a belief system without our society crumbling from the lack of moral fiber and support for the traditionally reporoductive family..
Lol, that's also very untrue.
Please prove to me how homosexuality is somehow threatening the American family or causing America to crumble?
Do you think that killing 500 thousand Iraqi women and children + thousands upon thousands more in the war on terror is being morally just?
What about all the other indiscretions of your nation over the last 30 years? Moral fiber?
Yeah..right.
~Tenth
reply to post by sensible1 I TRULY believe that the aim is not LEGAL RIGHTS, but some kind of MORAL "atta-boy" from the Government, to say that churhes that believe homosexuality is an abomination should be legally bound- TO CHANGE THEIR BELIEFS... That's literally impossible. You think what you want, but you'd be wrong on so many levels I cannot start to explain to you.. Nobody in the gay community has ever asked for this. Please show me evidence. Otherwise it's just your opinion, backed up by an emotional argument and sorry to say, worth nothing. If the government gives this endorsement, thats their call.. We can't project that onto the church as a belief system without our society crumbling from the lack of moral fiber and support for the traditionally reporoductive family.. Lol, that's also very untrue. Please prove to me how homosexuality is somehow threatening the American family or causing America to crumble? Do you think that killing 500 thousand Iraqi women and children + thousands upon thousands more in the war on terror is being morally just? What about all the other indiscretions of your nation over the last 30 years? Moral fiber? Yeah..right. ~Tenth
Let's not turn this into another "Evil America" thread... believe me, most Americans know too well the attrocities that have been committed by our government against the people of the world. It's just that, as a country we are too divided to even be able to agree that the sky is blue and that healthy grass is green. But back onto topic...
The federal government cannot dictate doctrine to the church, and likewise the church cannot leglislate to the state. Or that is how I understand the First Amendment... if I'm wrong, someone please enlighten me.
If a gay couple wants to marry before God, they don't need the church's permission. God is more than a building and a lobbying group.
well, there is one issue that matches what he tries to argue.
A church can lose its tax exempt status for keeping with their Ideology if it conflicts with public policy.
An example of this was desegregation... How many churches still teach that or hold that Ideology?
Tax Exempt status could be consider the "government' approval he talks about, and the Changing of doctrine and beliefs to accommodate said government approval.