Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Smacks wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
To try to make statements to basically equivocate getting married in a church to a business transaction no different from renting out chuck e cheese for a birthday is madness.

I agree with you 100% it is not the same thing...

But it should be!

And that is a position some people have... and others see that as an attack on religion, because it effectively will become one. I don't think the laws will change until society is ready to forcibly have the government remove religion from society.

And while there are specific laws which protect people against discrimination in some circumstances, 'Discrimination' is not actually illegal. You can't argue that you have the right to never be discriminated on any level in any aspect of society. You only have those rights in limited and explicit parts of society and only for some identified 'protected classes'. You can be denied a job because you are ugly, denied housing because you smell bad and denied access to a business/job due to physical attributes like age, height, weight, ability to lift something and so on. All are discrimination, all legal.

How about refused service?

I can refuse service because you are fat, poorly groomed, ugly, annoying, loud, under age... and there is not a damn thing you can do about it as those would not be protected classes and not covered under the current laws.

Now I also risk the backlash of being on the 5 oclock news for not serving someone for a pointless reason and harming my business in the meantime, but the government can't do a damn thing about it.

You're welcomed to that opinion in The UK. That's not how it works in the US. Nor should it.

nkelsch wrote:
You can be denied a job because you are ugly, denied housing because you smell bad and denied access to a business/job due to physical attributes like age, height, weight, ability to lift something and so on. All are discrimination, all legal.

Depending on where you are, obviously.

Down here, turning someone down for a job because of their appearance is illegal. The only thing on your list there that would be legal is the 'ability to lift'... but if you're applying for a job that requires heavy lifting, and you're not capable of heavy lifting, then turning you down isn't a matter of discrimination, it's a matter of suitability.

And yes, certain employers (several boutique clothing stores and gyms over the years) have tried the 'Yeah, but fat and ugly people aren't suitable for presenting our brand in a positive way' approach in front of wrongful dismissal hearings, and in every case I'm aware of they have lost.

nkelsch wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
To try to make statements to basically equivocate getting married in a church to a business transaction no different from renting out chuck e cheese for a birthday is madness.

I agree with you 100% it is not the same thing...

But it should be!

And that is a position some people have... and others see that as an attack on religion, because it effectively will become one. I don't think the laws will change until society is ready to forcibly have the government remove religion from society.

Okay. Well thank you, that is a polite objective response. Perhaps we can agree to to disagree. One man's attack could be another man's regulation. Exalted.

I can refuse service because you are fat, poorly groomed, ugly, annoying, loud, under age... and there is not a damn thing you can do about it as those would not be protected classes and not covered under the current laws.

I could be at least three of those things! :p

Race and religion are protected though, and I think sexuality probably 'should' be where it isn't already. The church is a slightly awkward case because they are historically public spaces that have become 'sort of' corporately owned, and now exist in a world where the public is much more diverse in terms of belief than it would have been when churches were built and dedicated.

They are historically places of worship.

 cincydooley wrote:
They are historically places of worship.

And places where people get married right?

 Smacks wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
They are historically places of worship.

And places where people get married right?

People that belong to that parish and are of that faith.

And adhere to the tenets of said faith.

A better example might be comparing a church to a corporation.

I can't just walk up to a business and demand that they let me rent the conference room for a party. Most places have certain rules about the conference room and the use of it is reserved to employees of that company with rules about how to reserve it, who gets priority, etc. Joe Smith down the street isn't on the "gets to use it" list and shouldn't be.

Same with a church. There are rules about who gets to use the sanctuary/meeting rooms/gym/whatever you might have, and it is reserved to members of the congregation with further rules about who gets priority, how to reserve it, etc.

Edit: Now "how do we force churches to let gays get married there" is probably pretty off topic to the whole "how do you force gays to not get married without using religion as the justification" topic of the thread. And if religion is off-limits as a justification for attacking homosexuality then we should probably keep homosexuality off-limit as an attack against churches.

 insaniak wrote:


Down here, turning someone down for a job because of their appearance is illegal. The only thing on your list there that would be legal is the 'ability to lift'... but if you're applying for a job that requires heavy lifting, and you're not capable of heavy lifting, then turning you down isn't a matter of discrimination, it's a matter of suitability.

Ultimately, denying someone a job because of their being ugly IS illegal here in the US (unless your job is to be a fashion model or something), however most places that hire people to work are VERY good with coming up with "legal" reasons to deny your employment at their place. Sure, the "real" reason may be because of your skin color, gender, age, aesthetics, weight, etc. but if asked, they'll tell whoevers asking a reason full of legalese, to make the non-hiring a completely legitimate reason.



As to "renting" a church for a wedding, most places that I know of require a minimum of 6 months of pre-counseling done by a staffmember/pastor/priest of that congregation, which you have to pay for. Plus, there's paying for the use/time (as in, the electric bill for the lights, sound, etc) of the facility, the preacher/clergyman's time, etc. Without being a member of that church, I can't see any reason why a gay couple would want to subject themselves to that sort of ordeal when, in MOST churches they will be either turned away for not following the religion, or they will be looked down on, and proselytized during the entire process. And for people to suggest that the US government should "force" churches to open their doors and perform ceremonies for gay couples, clearly doesn't understand the constitution.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
They are historically places of worship.

And places where people get married right?

People that belong to that parish and are of that faith.

And adhere to the tenets of said faith.

The thing is that used to be everybody. Now it isn't.
Marriage also used to be between a man and a woman. Now it isn't.
Things change.

And when the requirements of people who live in a parish (such as the need to get married) start to conflict with a big corporate organization like the catholic church. I don't think it as black and white as saying "oh this big billion dollar sociopolitical organization seems to own everything, I wonder how that happened? I guess they must be right". The government can and should protect the rights of local people. If a local person is gay and christian and wants to have a legal marriage in their local community church, I think there is certainly some entitlement and room for compromise.

Edit: nevermind, off topic.

Can we get a MOD clarification on this?

If we can't use religion to argue against same-sex marriage, can we also stop arguing against religion and how it relates to same-sex marriage?

Or is religion okay to be included now and we can go back to "God says you can't get married" for a couple pages before we lock this?

 Smacks wrote:

The thing is that used to be everybody. Now it isn't.

I'm no religious historian, but I'm fairly certain there were other religions in the past, too. Regardless, it's irrelevant.

Marriage also used to be between a man and a woman. Now it isn't.

It is in the Catholic Church.

And when the requirements of people who live in a parish (such as the need to get married) start to conflict with a big corporate organization like the catholic church. I don't think it as black and white as saying "oh this big billion dollar sociopolitical organization seems to own everything, I wonder how that happened? I guess they must be right". The government can and should protect the rights of local people. If a local person is gay and christian and wants to have a legal marriage in their local community church, I think there is certainly some entitlement and room for compromise.

There is no need to get married. Nor is it a right. And it certainly isn't a right for you get married wherever you want.

 cincydooley wrote:
There is no need to get married. Nor is it a right. And it certainly isn't a right for you get married wherever you want.

Agree to disagree.

 d-usa wrote:
Edit: nevermind, off topic.

Can we get a MOD clarification on this?

If we can't use religion to argue against same-sex marriage, can we also stop arguing against religion and how it relates to same-sex marriage?

Or is religion okay to be included now and we can go back to "God says you can't get married" for a couple pages before we lock this?

I'm happy to drop the discussion if it is off topic.

 Smacks wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Edit: nevermind, off topic.

Can we get a MOD clarification on this?

If we can't use religion to argue against same-sex marriage, can we also stop arguing against religion and how it relates to same-sex marriage?

Or is religion okay to be included now and we can go back to "God says you can't get married" for a couple pages before we lock this?

I'm happy to drop the discussion if it is off topic.

It's not a bad discussion to have.

But I know the initial goal of the thread was to have a discussion about "non-religious" arguments against same-sex marriage. And when we start to talk about "should churches be forced to participate" we really need to let the religious argument against same-sex marriage back into the discussion IMO. If we don't If we don't we just kind of end up with a "you have to let us use your religious building but you can't use your religion to argue against why we shouldn't" kind of scenario (at least within the initial topic of this thread).

That's my only concern at this point.

What I don't understand, is why these gay people who insist on being married in a church want to be married in a church that rejects them in the first place. In their shoes, I'd be flipping them the bird, honestly..... (Edit: The church, not the gays)

And it's not even a necessary requirement to be married. If you live in the same abode together for a unspecified *cough*unremembered*cough* time, you can legally be married in the eyes of the state.

 Slarg232 wrote:
What I don't understand, is why these gay people who insist on being married in a church want to be married in a church that rejects them in the first place. In their shoes, I'd be flipping them the bird, honestly..... (Edit: The church, not the gays)

And it's not even a necessary requirement to be married. If you live in the same abode together for a unspecified *cough*unremembered*cough* time, you can legally be married in the eyes of the state.

I also don't particularly understand why a gay couple who wanted Pasty Chef X to make their wedding cake will sue Pastry Chef X when Pastry Chef X says, "feth off, I hate gay people, go die," instead of taking their business elsewhere. If you successfully force someone to make you food against their will, the amount of spit and other bodily fluids you'll be eating as a result is probably pretty impressive.

Yet people do it. I understand the need for test cases to get the law all hashed out, but Jesus.

 Slarg232 wrote:
What I don't understand, is why these gay people who insist on being married in a church want to be married in a church that rejects them in the first place.

The vast majority of gay people who want marriage rights don't care about getting married in churches. There are some people who are members of churches and want to be married in their church, but can't be because they are gay. Some of those people want their churches to change, because they feel they are members of the church and that are hurt that their own faith does not embrace them. Some churches tell their members that not being part of the church means burning forever in Hell and never having communion with God or eternal peace. Raise children on that belief, and then when they grow up to be gay, some of them will not want to leave the church, no matter how vehemently the church itself wants them to go.

friendlycommissar wrote:

The vast majority of gay people who want marriage rights don't care about getting married in churches. There are some people who are members of churches and want to be married in their church, but can't be because they are gay. Some of those people want their churches to change, because they feel they are members of the church and that are hurt that their own faith does not embrace them. Some churches tell their members that not being part of the church means burning forever in Hell and never having communion with God or eternal peace. Raise children on that belief, and then when they grow up to be gay, some of them will not want to leave the church, no matter how vehemently the church itself wants them to go.

Yeah, except the majority of modern and major religions deem homosexuality to be wrong on basically every level... So, if you are truly a member of that church/religion then you can't/shouldn't be gay and in that church.

I have seen news articles in states where gay marriage has been passed, where a VERY small minority of churches have said, "if you are gay, and want to be married, we'll do the ceremony" because the pastors felt that the true love aspect needed more respect than being a hardliner to his/her doctrine.But it should remain that way, as in, down to the individual pastor/priest/rabbi/clergyman to decide whether he/she feels it is morally right to marry people who love each other regardless of what his faith/doctrine tells him/her is wrong.

You don't need to be married in a church, at least not in the US. You simply go down to a civic building/courthouse and can have the state issue a marriage license.

If you want a religious marriage you do it in a church but a religious marriage and a state marriage are two separate entities.

 d-usa wrote:
It's not a bad discussion to have.

But I know the initial goal of the thread was to have a discussion about "non-religious" arguments against same-sex marriage. And when we start to talk about "should churches be forced to participate" we really need to let the religious argument against same-sex marriage back into the discussion IMO. If we don't If we don't we just kind of end up with a "you have to let us use your religious building but you can't use your religion to argue against why we shouldn't" kind of scenario (at least within the initial topic of this thread).

That's my only concern at this point.

I guess the argument could be made that allowing a gay wedding to take place in a church would be somehow destructive to the church's sacred mojo, and then the gayness would need to be exorcised, before it can be used for worship again.

The problem with the initial topic restrictions is that there are no good arguments against same-sex marriage from a purely civil point of view. Arguments about family and normality etc... are fairly easy to refute. So the argument dissolves into something like "It's ickky and I don't like it", or at worst "it's decadent and will destroy society" which is hard to justify.

The argument against the sanctity of the church building is really the same argument made from a religious perspective.

The argument of the church being property is much more compelling.

It might be relevant that there does exist some sort of agreement between church and state that Church weddings are recognized as legitimate state weddings. In the UK (for example) a church is one of the few places that a wedding can legally take place. So it follows that this agreement could run both ways. For a church to be recognized by the state as a legitimate place where a wedding can take place, the church must in turn recognize and accommodate other legitimate state weddings.

 paulson games wrote:
You don't need to be married in a church, at least not in the US. You simply go down to a civic building/courthouse and can have the state issue a marriage license.

If you want a religious marriage you do it in a church but a religious marriage and a state marriage are two separate entities.

They are usually combined though by having the religious officiant sign the state issued license.

 easysauce wrote:
as they say seaward,


any young man who is not a liberal, has no heart

any old man that is not conservative, has no brain

This maybe the dumbest thing I've read in awhile.

 Smacks wrote:
. In the UK (for example) a church is on of the few places that a wedding can legally take place.

Are the church weddings "real weddings" in the UK?

I want to say that in Germany everybody signed all the legal paperwork in the civic office, and the religious wedding was just a formality with no legal impact whatsoever.

I could be wrong though...

 d-usa wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
. In the UK (for example) a church is on of the few places that a wedding can legally take place.

Are the church weddings "real weddings" in the UK?

I want to say that in Germany everybody signed all the legal paperwork in the civic office, and the religious wedding was just a formality with no legal impact whatsoever.

I could be wrong though...

I think the religious content is somewhat incidental, but the church building is very important. I went to a wedding recently where they wanted to have the wedding outside, but when the official turned up, we were told that it wouldn't be legal, and so the ceremony had to be moved inside to a chapel.

As a Reformed Jew and a Gay Man, the only non-religious argument I have encountered (as explained to me by a very cute homophobe) is that children who are raised in same-sex households turn out homosexual and mentally scarred and broken.

The empirical evidence points to Homosexuality being extremely benign. I can get married (I live in Massachussetts, the greatest goddamn state) thank God. If I couldn't, I'd be furious. Why can't I mark my love with a ceremony for God? Because other people think that their (same exact freakin') God says it's bad? I think that is simply dumb.

#Jesussaidnothigabouthomosexuality

 Chowderhead wrote:
As a Reformed Jew and a Gay Man, the only non-religious argument I have encountered (as explained to me by a very cute homophobe) is that children who are raised in same-sex households turn out homosexual and mentally scarred and broken.

The empirical evidence points to Homosexuality being extremely benign. I can get married (I live in Massachussetts, the greatest goddamn state) thank God. If I couldn't, I'd be furious. Why can't I mark my love with a ceremony for God? Because other people think that their (same exact freakin') God says it's bad? I think that is simply dumb.

#Jesussaidnothigabouthomosexuality

Chowder.... Isn't jewish anymore?

I DON'T KNOW YOU, YOU'RE NOT THE CHOWDER I KNOW!!!!

Do you even sail boats anymore?!?

( )

Who let Chowder back in?

 Smacks wrote:


I think the religious content is somewhat incidental, but the church building is very important. I went to a wedding recently where they wanted to have the wedding outside, but when the official turned up, we were told that it wouldn't be legal, and so the ceremony had to be moved inside to a chapel.

Again, this is in no way similar to the US, where outdoor weddings re exceedingly common.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Smacks wrote:


I think the religious content is somewhat incidental, but the church building is very important. I went to a wedding recently where they wanted to have the wedding outside, but when the official turned up, we were told that it wouldn't be legal, and so the ceremony had to be moved inside to a chapel.

Again, this is in no way similar to the US, where outdoor weddings re exceedingly common.

So are church weddings "real weddings" in the US? Or is it similar to how d-usa described, with the legal part taking place elsewhere?

Slarg232 wrote:

 Chowderhead wrote:
As a Reformed Jew and a Gay Man, the only non-religious argument I have encountered (as explained to me by a very cute homophobe) is that children who are raised in same-sex households turn out homosexual and mentally scarred and broken.

The empirical evidence points to Homosexuality being extremely benign. I can get married (I live in Massachussetts, the greatest goddamn state) thank God. If I couldn't, I'd be furious. Why can't I mark my love with a ceremony for God? Because other people think that their (same exact freakin') God says it's bad? I think that is simply dumb.

#Jesussaidnothigabouthomosexuality

Chowder.... Isn't jewish anymore?

I DON'T KNOW YOU, YOU'RE NOT THE CHOWDER I KNOW!!!!

Do you even sail boats anymore?!?

( )

Reformed Judaism is simply Judaism with Smartphones, expensive lattes, and equality. And Rabbis who play Plants Versus Zombies.

Good to see you again, Slarg my man!

MrDwhitey wrote:Who let Chowder back in?

Well, after you bound me, gagged me, and left me for dead (again), I managed to hitchhike out of Jakarta and get home.

So no-one.