The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by **Jack Burton** » Mon May 14, 2012 10:35 am

So my wife and I were having a discussion/debate on the subject of gay marriage. We are both for gay marriage but we come at some of the issues from different sides. Basically she doesn’t agree with me about my views regarding gay marriage and religious institutions. I am of the point that religions should have zero say in a state/government’s ability to recognize a marriage between gay people provided the person who performed the marriage is licensed. It’s essentially a legal process(it’s a lot more than that but from a state/legal standpoint it’s a legal contract) and any religion who has a problem with the legal aspect of it that’s their problem. You are married and should be recognized legally as such. Nobody should be able to deny you that legal right and if it pisses off some wackos well that's just nice a bonus imo.

So that’s the point we agree on. Where we differ is I don’t think the government has any right to try and force churches/temple/whatever to have to allow gay marriage in their religion. I don’t really think anyone should sue for that right. The idea of making laws that require a church/temple to have to allow for gay couples to be married just seems like a bad idea to me. I don’t like the idea of the government getting into religions business(except in extreme cases like abuse or clearly harmful/shady stuff ) and vice versa.My wifes basically of the opinion that you make it legal it should be the law across the board and it's up to the religions to accept that it's the law.

Am I being a little close minded here? I was married by a Justice of the Peace(a gay one at that and btw a super nice guy.) and I could give two craps that the Catholic Church doesn’t technically recognize my marriage and I just assumed other people can do the same. Now I am about as lapsed a Catholic as you can get so maybe some gay men and women with stronger religious ties than mine can’t accept a non-religious ceremony. Still I don’t think it’s something you can just force certain religious organizations to accept.
What do you think?

by **GHERU** » Mon May 14, 2012 10:40 am

No - marriage is a legal institution as well as a religious one. Just so happens that most religious leaders are certified to sign the legal document stating that two people are married. Everything else that happens in a church/ect is extra for religios purposes.

If a church doesn't want to have a gay wedding, its their right - just like its their right not to have a Jewish wedding, Muslim..
and if they don't want gay members they have that right, just like they don't have to have Jewish or Muslim members.

is anyone saying they should be forced to do this (beyond people saying that the Left is going to say this)?

by **Rockman** » Mon May 14, 2012 10:42 am

Ru is right.

by **Rockman** » Mon May 14, 2012 10:47 am

FTR none of the Churches I've ever attended have turned out anyone for any reason unless they present a potential threat to the members of the congregation. Gang related stuff, stalking, threats, that kind of thing. I know there are churches who will turn out members for certain things, but in my experience it is usually the members own choice because they get offended by something the church says. Which I have no problem with.

by **Chesscub** » Mon May 14, 2012 10:57 am

As a gay man, here's my perspective. I don't care what religions allow/don't allow. They can have orgies or animal sacrifices in their chapels for all I care. All I care about is government recognition of my marriage.

Where I have issue is religions forcing the government to not recognize my marriage. The reason gay people protested the Mormon church in 2008 is that they spent millions of dollars to influence voters to vote for Proposition 8 and then tried to keep it quiet.

by **Gladiator X** » Mon May 14, 2012 11:05 am

Rockman wrote:Ru is right.

Verily.

Nuff hath been said.

by **Apache Chef** » Mon May 14, 2012 11:06 am

As it stands, churches don't have to marry any members of their own congregation if they don't approve of the marriage. Straight or gay. The government shouldn't be able to tell them what to do any more than they should be able to tell the government what to do.

by **Jack Burton** » Mon May 14, 2012 11:14 am

Chesscub wrote:Where I have issue is religions forcing the government to not recognize my marriage. The reason gay people protested the Mormon church in 2008 is that they spent millions of dollars to influence voters to vote for Proposition 8 and then tried to keep it quiet.

I agree with you 100% on that. They had no business lobbying like they did.

by **Log-Man** » Mon May 14, 2012 11:29 am

I have to wonder why one would even want to get married under a religion that says they're not people.

by **Doc Jon** » Mon May 14, 2012 11:40 am

Chesscub wrote:As a gay man, here's my perspective. I don't care what religions allow/don't allow. They can have orgies or animal sacrifices in their chapels for all I care. All I care about is government recognition of my marriage.

Where I have issue is religions forcing the government to not recognize my marriage. The reason gay people protested the Mormon church in 2008 is that they spent millions of dollars to influence voters to vote for Proposition 8 and then tried to keep it quiet.

I agree with Ru and with this.

by **Timbales** » Mon May 14, 2012 11:44 am

Religious institutions should not be required to perform gay weddings, but if they employ people they must follow the law.

by **Rockman** » Mon May 14, 2012 11:45 am

Timbales wrote:Religious institutions should not be required to perform gay weddings, but if they employ people they must follow the law.

depends on the what kind of employment.

If it's a janitor then I don't see how that should ever come up.

But if you have someone in a position of ministry then that person should meet the requirements of that church's specific doctrinal beliefs.

by **Rockman** » Mon May 14, 2012 11:46 am

Anyways employment laws are a different bag of worms, I think bigots should be free to discriminate against folks however they like, and as a consumer I'm free not to patronize those places.

by **Timbales** » Mon May 14, 2012 11:47 am

Rockman wrote:
depends on the what kind of employment.

If it's a janitor then I don't see how that should ever come up.

But if you have someone in a position of ministry then that person should meet the requirements of that church's specific doctrinal beliefs.

if the janitor is gay and they refuse to give him spousal health insurance, but offer it to opposite sex married couples, that would be illegal.

by **Starlord** » Mon May 14, 2012 11:51 am

I'm with RU on this one. Personally I don't give a rat's ass what the religious sect says about anything. Just keep their noses out of government. The government needs to acknowledge it.