• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

United Church of Christ sues over NC ban on same-sex marriage

Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

None of what I said was opinion. And no, there's nothing better about light skin color.

And there is nothing worse about contraception either, so please provide the facts that contraceptives are evil. You just make stuff up and lie. Typical Con.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

And there is nothing worse about contraception either, so please provide the facts that contraceptives are evil. You just make stuff up and lie. Typical Con.

Except that contraception inhibits the natural end of sex.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Marriage is a legal institution.

Wrong, in the state I am in marriage can be performed and not be state recognized. You know nothing about marriage obviously.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Except that contraception inhibits the natural end of sex.

And that does not make it evil. It makes it a different outcome. Anti-biotics inhibit the natural end of life, yet I doubt you think they are evil.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Wrong, in the state I am in marriage can be performed and not be state recognized. You know nothing about marriage obviously.

Marriage is a legal institution. Against a fact there is no argument.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

And that does not make it evil. It makes it a different outcome. Anti-biotics inhibit the natural end of life, yet I doubt you think they are evil.

Anti-biotics do not directly inhibit any function of the human body.
 
What many don't see is that in order for this lawsuit to succeed, you have to establish a Church's right to legally officiate a municipal contract. In other words, you have to join Church and State. Do you really want the Church in government, or do you want the wall of separation respected?

So, I'm against this lawsuit, and my opposition has nothing to do with gay rights.

Anybody who has been around for as long as you have, knows that's not true. ;)
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Gay marriages are harmful to society.

Cars also are known to kill people, but the individual risk is so minimal that they should not be banned.

Why don't you tell me exactly how you are harmed. I agree with you that gay marriage is not traditional, but I also recognize that it is none of my damn business, nor that of the government.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Gay marriage harms the moral fabric of society because it promotes sodomy.

"Moral fabric" is not a measurable harm. It's a poorly-disguised slippery slope fallacy.

Sodomy is already legal, and marriage does not "promote" sodomy. Ask any married man: marriage and sex are not the same thing. In fact, marriage promotes monogamy, which actually reduces the harm caused by sexual activities.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Why don't you tell me exactly how you are harmed. I agree with you that gay marriage is not traditional, but I also recognize that it is none of my damn business, nor that of the government.

I am not personally harmed, however society is harmed by the acceptance of immorality. And the government has the right to protect the common good.

"Moral fabric" is not a measurable harm. It's a poorly-disguised slippery slope fallacy.

Sodomy is already legal, and marriage does not "promote" sodomy. Ask any married man: marriage and sex are not the same thing. In fact, marriage promotes monogamy, which actually reduces the harm caused by sexual activities.

It's not a fallacy.

A sanction of marriage is a sanction of sexual activity between the married couple. For same-sex couples, this necessarily means sodomy.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

I am not personally harmed, however society is harmed by the acceptance of immorality. And the government has the right to protect the common good.



It's not a fallacy.

A sanction of marriage is a sanction of sexual activity between the married couple. For same-sex couples, this necessarily means sodomy.

You want to explain to me how society is harmed? I just don't see it. However, I do see someone in favor of the establishment of a religion here, which is unconstitutional. If one church is allowed to perform heterosexual wedding ceremonies, but another church that, based on their own religious beliefs, is not allowed to perform gay wedding ceremonies, then their first amendment freedom of religion has been violated. It's as simple as that.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

I am not personally harmed, however society is harmed by the acceptance of immorality. And the government has the right to protect the common good.



It's not a fallacy.

A sanction of marriage is a sanction of sexual activity between the married couple. For same-sex couples, this necessarily means sodomy.

And monagamous sex between two men causes what sort of harm, exactly?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

You want to explain to me how society is harmed? I just don't see it. However, I do see someone in favor of the establishment of a religion here, which is unconstitutional. If one church is allowed to perform heterosexual wedding ceremonies, but another church that, based on their own religious beliefs, is not allowed to perform gay wedding ceremonies, then their first amendment freedom of religion has been violated. It's as simple as that.

It damages societal mores by causing them to accept sodomy.

They do not have a religious right to officiate a legal marriage.

And monagamous sex between two men causes what sort of harm, exactly?

It damages social mores.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

UCC ministers are, in fact, ministers. Same as Lutherans or Baptists. The UCC isn't one of those "back of the Rolling Stone get ordained classified ad" deals. In fact one of the spiritual progenitors, and one of the churches that "United" into the UCC, was the Congregational Church of the Plymouth Pilgrims (you know, the Thanksgiving ones). The church that I've been a member of reflects this in it's name - Mayflower. (Though I think my wife got them in the divorce).

Umm.. UCC is from the Evangelical (and) Reformed Church which was founded in 1747 by German and Swiss immigrants. Where their main driver was the Mercerburg Theology movement (I'll get back to that) and Congregational Christian Church started in 1937 in Seattle. Then there were other CC groups created as well.

And the UCC is very small about 900,000 members. Most of the members actually live in the Northeast and ironically, President Obama is a member.

The Mercerburg movement (accepting some Catholic ideas) gained ground after Franklin college and Marshall college joined together in 1849 and became Franklin and Marshall college.
 
Last edited:
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

It damages societal mores by causing them to accept sodomy.

They do not have a religious right to officiate a legal marriage.



It damages social mores.

Yes they do. And you are promoting the establishment of a religion when you deny a recognized mainstream church from practicing their faith.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

It damages societal mores by causing them to accept sodomy.


It damages social mores
Still non-specific, unidentified "harm" to a concept rather than something substantive. This is why your side lost before the Supreme Court. "Societal mores" is not a person, place, or thing that can have some measurable harm caused to it. It's just a vague concept you base on your own personal opinion and wish to force upon the rest of society. Contrary to the core principles of the United States of America, I might add.

Same-sex marriage is legal in many states, and sodomy is legal in all of them. Are you telling me this has caused you to accept sodomy?

They do not have a religious right to officiate a legal marriage.
.

The marriage in question was not a legal marriage. It was just a private ceremony, which you think should be illegal despite the existence of the first amendment. Clearly, your perception of the first amendment means only the freedom to practice religion when it conforms to your idea of Christianity.
 
Last edited:
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

If a person presides over a marriage which is plainly invalid by law, they should be punished. UCC ministers (who aren't priests, BTW) are not above the law.

Government issued marriage licenses are more evidence of too much government in our private lives.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Government issued marriage licenses are more evidence of too much government in our private lives.


So you don't want the government issuing marriage licenses. OK, I can hang with that. Marriages would be performed by religious organizations and all such marriages (same-sex or different-sex) would be recognized equally by the government for Civil Law purposes in establishing a legal family spousal relationship and next of kin where one did not exist before.

That means that if a different-sex couple get married in a Baptist Church - the government recognizes them as married.

If a same-sex couple get married in a UCC Church - the government recognizes them as married.



Atheist of course would not be able to get married because as of now they would have to go to a Mayor, Judge, County Clerk, Justice of the Peace, etc. that are functioning in a government capacity to perform non-religious marriages, since the government would't be doning marriage - those people couldn't perform them anymore. But we'll just ignore them in the context of your statement.


*************************

That OK with you? All marriages performed my ministers of the clergy for their respective organizations are recognized equally?



>>>>
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Government issued marriage licenses are more evidence of too much government in our private lives.

I agree with you on that. When our forefathers got married, they didn't get a license. They had a wedding ceremony, and they were married. Marriage licenses were invented in Medieval Europe as a way For the Church to extort money from people, but in the colonies which later became the United States, it began as a way to separate the races. Each state had their own rules, and most states did not grant licenses to a couple, one of whom was white, and the other not.

Beyond that, I would argue that marriage is a fundamental right, not a privilege, and the government has no business regulating it.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Yes they do. And you are promoting the establishment of a religion when you deny a recognized mainstream church from practicing their faith.

No they don't.

Still non-specific, unidentified "harm" to a concept rather than something substantive. This is why your side lost before the Supreme Court. "Societal mores" is not a person, place, or thing that can have some measurable harm caused to it. It's just a vague concept you base on your own personal opinion and wish to force upon the rest of society. Contrary to the core principles of the United States of America, I might add.

Same-sex marriage is legal in many states, and sodomy is legal in all of them. Are you telling me this has caused you to accept sodomy?



The marriage in question was not a legal marriage. It was just a private ceremony, which you think should be illegal despite the existence of the first amendment. Clearly, your perception of the first amendment means only the freedom to practice religion when it conforms to your idea of Christianity.

Are you really claiming that laws like this don't make sodomy societally approved of to a greater degree?

Government issued marriage licenses are more evidence of too much government in our private lives.

Insofar as the government treats all religions as equal, I don't see how they could practically be avoided.

I agree with you on that. When our forefathers got married, they didn't get a license. They had a wedding ceremony, and they were married. Marriage licenses were invented in Medieval Europe as a way For the Church to extort money from people, but in the colonies which later became the United States, it began as a way to separate the races. Each state had their own rules, and most states did not grant licenses to a couple, one of whom was white, and the other not.

Beyond that, I would argue that marriage is a fundamental right, not a privilege, and the government has no business regulating it.

The modern licensing scheme was designed by secular governments, not by the Church.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

I'm not sure about that. Someone will have to explain why the penalty of $200 and/or a Class 1 misdemeanor isn't appropriate for a SSM ceremony. They can't get a license, as required, and can't perform any ceremony without a license. If they do they're subject to fine and charged with a crime.

It violates the 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion to require any religious official or really anyone at all to be penalized for not having a license to perform a religious ceremony. It would be one thing to penalize them for signing a marriage license that the religious official knew was false or sign it falsely/under false conditions. This is not that. In order for any marriage to be legal, it requires a) the marriage is not prohibited by the laws of the state and b) (in most cases at least) that the marriage license be signed and filed with the state.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Marriage is a legal institution. Against a fact there is no argument.

Marriage is both a legal contract and private relationship. That is a fact.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Why don't you tell me exactly how you are harmed. I agree with you that gay marriage is not traditional, but I also recognize that it is none of my damn business, nor that of the government.

Marriages as they are in the US (and the West in general) are not traditional. We choose are mates, and that choice is most often based on love. Our families have very little say (for most of us) in who we marry. Women have equal rights in a marriage to men. We can divorce without having to prove any extreme circumstance necessitates that divorce.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Government issued marriage licenses are more evidence of too much government in our private lives.

They are government contracts that establish relationships of legal kinship. They are very much akin to adoption paperwork and/or birth certificates, which do much the same thing, just with less laws that pertaining to those relationship statuses.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Are you really claiming that laws like this don't make sodomy societally approved of to a greater degree?
You haven't been forced to approve. If people change their minds, that's their business. "Approval of sodomy" is not measurable harm.
Insofar as the government treats all religions as equal, I don't see how they could practically be avoided.
North Carolina isn't treating all religions equally. They are fining ministers for holding a private ceremony if the state doesn't approve of that ceremony. You still don't seem to grasp this, it's not a "fraudulent marriage," it's not a legal marriage as far as the state is concerned. Therefore it's just a private ceremony the state is stepping into.

The modern licensing scheme was designed by secular governments, not by the Church.
So don't get married, then. If you don't want to, that's your choice. But you still haven't demonstrated any kind of harm caused by two men signing a legal contract with each other.
 
Back
Top Bottom