Does Gay Marriage threaten traditional Family Values?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Does Gay Marriage threaten traditional Family Values?

Post #1

Post by McCulloch »

WinePusher wrote: I don't think gay marriage is immoral by any means, I just oppose it because I support traditional family values.
McCulloch wrote: But gay marriage does not harm nor does it challenge traditional family values. I don't want to close down the Indian restaurant up the road because I like Italian food.
WinePusher wrote: It challenges the future of the nuclear family, which is generally one mother and one father and a # of children. Anything that does not include these factors (such as single motherhood, foster homes, divorces, and gay marriage) should be avoided in order to preserve traditional family values.
Does Gay Marriage threaten traditional Family Values?
Are Traditional Family Values in any danger of not being preserved?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #71

Post by micatala »

mormon boy51 wrote:
McCulloch wrote:
mormon boy51 wrote: Exactly, but I think that most churches fear that they will be forced to, or sued because they wont marry a gay couple.
Churches today are allowed to refuse to marry people for whatever reason they wish. They can refuse to marry a couple if either or both are not members of their church, or denomination. They can refuse to marry a couple if they do not participate in premarital counseling by a minister of the church. They are allowed to refuse to marry a couple if he has hair too long or she has hair too short. They can refuse to marry a couple if their astrological signs don't match properly. They can even refuse to perform a wedding for racial reasons.

No church has been sued for refusing to perform a marriage. What form of paranoia creates this fear?
nygreenguy wrote:The government and the courts have always upheld the right of religious organizations to discriminate.

For example, a non-christian sued the Salvation Army for not letting him be a bell ringer and the SA won because they are allowed to chose who works for them. Your worries are simply baseless.
It is not baseless at all. Just because it didnt happen that time, doesnt mean it wont.

McCulloch, you said that churches can deny marrying someone for racial reasons. If someone did that the couple would probably sue them for doing that, same thing could happen to churches who wont perform gay marriage.
Your fears ARE baseless in the sense that there is no evidence that supports the fear.

If "it could happen" provides a basis for this fear, then we also have a basis for fearing, in fact much MORE so, that those who want to prevent gay marriage will then move on to preventing marriage between people of different races, or between people of different religions, or perhaps they will prevent non-Christians from being married all together. Perhaps they will seek to outlaw gay relationships, or prevent gays from voting, or lock them up in concentration camps.

Some other things that we should fear because they "could happen" are:

Churches that now allow gay marriage will be prevented from doing so.

Catholic churches might be sued by beer manufacturers for only serving wine.

Churches displaying crosses might be sued for displaying an "instrument of torture" which causes some people emotional distress.



Obviously, anyone is allowed to be afraid of whatever they want. However, if there is no precedent for the feared event actually occuring or essentially no possibility that it will, then it is fair to label the fear as baseless.

If one objects to the term "baseless" then we could perhaps simply compare fears regarding which is most likely.

Can the fear that churches will be forced to perform gay marriages be shown to be any more likely than the other examples I have provided?
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
nygreenguy
Guru
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:23 am
Location: Syracuse

Post #72

Post by nygreenguy »

mormon boy51 wrote: It is not baseless at all. Just because it didnt happen that time, doesnt mean it wont.

McCulloch, you said that churches can deny marrying someone for racial reasons. If someone did that the couple would probably sue them for doing that, same thing could happen to churches who wont perform gay marriage.
Legal precedent has upheld the right of churches to discriminate. What about this dont you all get? The constitution guarantees this right.

Your fears REALLY are baseless.

User avatar
Kuan
Site Supporter
Posts: 1806
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:21 am
Location: Rexburg, the Frozen Wasteland
Contact:

Post #73

Post by Kuan »

micatala wrote:
mormon boy51 wrote:
McCulloch wrote:
mormon boy51 wrote: Exactly, but I think that most churches fear that they will be forced to, or sued because they wont marry a gay couple.
Churches today are allowed to refuse to marry people for whatever reason they wish. They can refuse to marry a couple if either or both are not members of their church, or denomination. They can refuse to marry a couple if they do not participate in premarital counseling by a minister of the church. They are allowed to refuse to marry a couple if he has hair too long or she has hair too short. They can refuse to marry a couple if their astrological signs don't match properly. They can even refuse to perform a wedding for racial reasons.

No church has been sued for refusing to perform a marriage. What form of paranoia creates this fear?
nygreenguy wrote:The government and the courts have always upheld the right of religious organizations to discriminate.

For example, a non-christian sued the Salvation Army for not letting him be a bell ringer and the SA won because they are allowed to chose who works for them. Your worries are simply baseless.
It is not baseless at all. Just because it didnt happen that time, doesnt mean it wont.

McCulloch, you said that churches can deny marrying someone for racial reasons. If someone did that the couple would probably sue them for doing that, same thing could happen to churches who wont perform gay marriage.
Your fears ARE baseless in the sense that there is no evidence that supports the fear.

If "it could happen" provides a basis for this fear, then we also have a basis for fearing, in fact much MORE so, that those who want to prevent gay marriage will then move on to preventing marriage between people of different races, or between people of different religions, or perhaps they will prevent non-Christians from being married all together. Perhaps they will seek to outlaw gay relationships, or prevent gays from voting, or lock them up in concentration camps.

Some other things that we should fear because they "could happen" are:

Churches that now allow gay marriage will be prevented from doing so.

Catholic churches might be sued by beer manufacturers for only serving wine.

Churches displaying crosses might be sued for displaying an "instrument of torture" which causes some people emotional distress.



Obviously, anyone is allowed to be afraid of whatever they want. However, if there is no precedent for the feared event actually occuring or essentially no possibility that it will, then it is fair to label the fear as baseless.

If one objects to the term "baseless" then we could perhaps simply compare fears regarding which is most likely.

Can the fear that churches will be forced to perform gay marriages be shown to be any more likely than the other examples I have provided?
Racial Integrity Act
Pace Vs. Alabama
Morril Anti-Bigamy Act
Mormon Church Vs. United States
Polygamy Laws Expose Our Hypocrisy

I feel there is a base for our fears.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

Kung may ayaw, may dahilan. Kung may gusto, may paraan.

User avatar
nygreenguy
Guru
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:23 am
Location: Syracuse

Post #74

Post by nygreenguy »

mormon boy51 wrote: If one objects to the term "baseless" then we could perhaps simply compare fears regarding which is most likely.

Can the fear that churches will be forced to perform gay marriages be shown to be any more likely than the other examples I have provided?
Racial Integrity Act
Pace Vs. Alabama
Morril Anti-Bigamy Act
Mormon Church Vs. United States
Polygamy Laws Expose Our Hypocrisy

I feel there is a base for our fears.[/quote]'
I purposely said precedent. Laws/acts which have consistently been upheld, not hundred year old examples.

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Post #75

Post by dianaiad »

nygreenguy wrote:
dianaiad wrote:
That's not the fear...exactly. In certain circumstances, though, it could very well be. The examples you give are true...but what if the only reason that a minister refuses to marry two people IS because they are gay--when the government not only supports and authorizes gay marriage, but has quite a few laws on the books prohibiting discrimination against someone because of sexual orientation?

It is a very real fear, and it's not a good idea to simply discount it. The government has threatened the non-profit status of churches for considerably less than that.

The real fear is of more government intervention in religious matters; of a very basic and fundamental CHANGE in the way marraige is seen, traditionally and religiously...and there are those of us who are very well aware that the government has, does, and probably will continue to put legal pressure on religions to change their practices to conform in this matter.
The government and the courts have always upheld the right of religious organizations to discriminate.

For example, a non-christian sued the Salvation Army for not letting him be a bell ringer and the SA won because they are allowed to chose who works for them. Your worries are simply baseless.
Not exactly, no.

More importantly, the government has been very discriminatory itself against those religions which either do not, or are perceived to not, toe the line as to marriage as defined by the government. Shoot, B.H.Roberts, duly elected to the House of Representatives, was not allowed to take his seat because he was a Mormon...and Mormons were polygamous. Reed Smoot, who eventually was the principal force behind the formation of the National Park Service, was elected to the Senate----and was not allowed to take his seat for three years.

.....Reed Smoot, who happened also to be an Apostle in the church, was not a polygamist himself. That didn't matter.

......and while I am not a member of the FLDS, nor do I agree with their beliefs, that Texas invasion of their compound a couple of years ago, based upon a fraudulent (and known to be fraudulent at the time) phone call, on a pretext that has since been shown to be absolutely bogus--and let's not forget those Baptist buses--proves that your statement is either exceptionally naive or ignorant (as in...you don't know your history).

It has happened. It does happen, even now, and it will, indeed, happen again.

So please, don't give me the 'my fears are groundless' line. That's like telling the guy who just got mugged that he doesn't need to worry about walking down that street again--after all, there's no crime in this city.

A raised eyebrow is the least you would get.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #76

Post by McCulloch »

dianaiad wrote: Reed Smoot, who eventually was the principal force behind the formation of the National Park Service, was elected to the Senate----and was not allowed to take his seat for three years.

.....Reed Smoot, who happened also to be an Apostle in the church, was not a polygamist himself. That didn't matter.
He was elected in 1902 and while there was a protracted legal battle to oust him, because he was a leader in an organization that, at the time, promoted an illegal activity, his opponents lost, on February 20, 1907, and he remained a senator for 26 more years.

So, based on that, we should conclude that in the twenty-first century, the US lawmakers might try to force Mormon churches to perform same-sex marriages and that such a law would survive the inevitable constitutional challenge.

It is beginning to sound a bit paranoid to me.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Post #77

Post by dianaiad »

McCulloch wrote:
dianaiad wrote: Reed Smoot, who eventually was the principal force behind the formation of the National Park Service, was elected to the Senate----and was not allowed to take his seat for three years.

.....Reed Smoot, who happened also to be an Apostle in the church, was not a polygamist himself. That didn't matter.
He was elected in 1902 and while there was a protracted legal battle to oust him, because he was a leader in an organization that, at the time, promoted an illegal activity, his opponents lost, on February 20, 1907, and he remained a senator for 26 more years.

So, based on that, we should conclude that in the twenty-first century, the US lawmakers might try to force Mormon churches to perform same-sex marriages and that such a law would survive the inevitable constitutional challenge.

It is beginning to sound a bit paranoid to me.
??

You forgot the bit about the Texas FLDS compound, and, oh yeah....your claim that the government NEVER DOES THIS.

Perhaps a re-reading of George Santayana might be in order, here.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #78

Post by McCulloch »

dianaiad wrote: You forgot the bit about the Texas FLDS compound, and, oh yeah....your claim that the government NEVER DOES THIS.
Did I make such a claim? I believe that it is unlikely, but I don't think I said never.

Do you make a distinction between governments preventing a religious organization from doing an act which has been prohibited by law and forcing the same to do something allowed by law? Got any examples of the later?
dianaiad wrote: Perhaps a re-reading of George Santayana might be in order, here.
Thanks, I'll add him to my list. Did you have any particular work in mind or merely the aphorisms,
  • Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it
  • Only the dead have seen the end of war
  • There is nothing impossible in the existence of the supernatural: its existence seems to me decidedly probable
  • Happiness is the only sanction of life; where happiness fails, existence remains a mad and lamentable experiment
  • Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim
  • Matters of religion should never be matters of controversy. We neither argue with a lover about his taste, nor condemn him, if we are just, for knowing so human a passion.
  • The Bible is literature, not dogma.
  • Profound skepticism is favorable to conventions, because it doubts that the criticism of conventions is any truer than they are.
  • The young man who has not wept is a savage, and the older man who will not laugh is a fool.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Post #79

Post by JoeyKnothead »

LOL

"I fear using the term marriage will negatively impact my ability to discriminate".

What a lousy reason to allow folks to use the terms they seek to use.

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Post #80

Post by dianaiad »

McCulloch wrote:
dianaiad wrote: You forgot the bit about the Texas FLDS compound, and, oh yeah....your claim that the government NEVER DOES THIS.
Did I make such a claim? I believe that it is unlikely, but I don't think I said never.
actually, you aren't the one who claimed that 'the government has always upheld..." that was indeed someone else. However, believing it to be unlikely, in the face of, for instance, the FLDS compound assininity, is somewhat naive.

D
McCulloch wrote:do you make a distinction between governments preventing a religious organization from doing an act which has been prohibited by law and forcing the same to do something allowed by law? Got any examples of the later?[\quote]

How about the difference between the government forcing a religion to abide by a law directly aimed AT that religion, and preventing someone from doing something required by law BECAUSE of his or her religion?

I can show you examples of both of those. In fact, I've already given one, with Reed Smoot.
McCulloch wrote:
dianaiad wrote: Perhaps a re-reading of George Santayana might be in order, here.
Thanks, I'll add him to my list. Did you have any particular work in mind or merely the aphorisms,
  • Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it
  • Only the dead have seen the end of war
  • There is nothing impossible in the existence of the supernatural: its existence seems to me decidedly probable
  • Happiness is the only sanction of life; where happiness fails, existence remains a mad and lamentable experiment
  • Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim
  • Matters of religion should never be matters of controversy. We neither argue with a lover about his taste, nor condemn him, if we are just, for knowing so human a passion.
  • The Bible is literature, not dogma.
  • Profound skepticism is favorable to conventions, because it doubts that the criticism of conventions is any truer than they are.
  • The young man who has not wept is a savage, and the older man who will not laugh is a fool.
The aphorisms are a good start; particularly that oft repeated, yet considerably ignored, one about those who do not learn from the past being condemned to repeat it.

Post Reply