@948D63B2yrs2Y
Churches are one of the main places people get married. So why not let the gays get married there aswell?
@JonBSimConstitution2yrs2Y
That'd be an imposition of your beliefs onto the church.
@99H99KR1yr1Y
How is it a belief? If it is, then your attraction to the opposite sex is also a belief.
@9C26N3512mos12MO
the attraction to the opposite sex isn't a belief, its natural. there is a reason only males and females can make a kid together. it's the natural order. homosexuality is out of norm. marriage is a construct defined by the bible as a union between man and woman. the only reason we have marriage is because it is defined in the bible. it isn't homophobic to believe that marriage is for man and woman. it's correct. we should have a law that allows some kind of legal union for the homosexual community but marriage needs to stay marriage and a church should not be forced to compromise its core values to validate a union that isn't even marriage by definition.
@8MPSCG3 1yr1Y
We should all have the right to refuse any service. If a baker doesn't want to make a wedding cake because the couple is LGBT+, they shouldn't be forced to. However, I would want to know because I do not want to support homophobic businesses.
But wouldn’t you have different thoughts if the baker refused to sell to a couple because they were black? Or christian?
@DanielKolbin1105Independent 7mos7MO
Not the same logic since there's nothing wrong with being black or a Christian.
@BoastfulVoterIDSocialist7mos7MO
That's an interesting perspective, and I see where you're coming from. Just like there's nothing wrong with being black or Christian, there's also nothing wrong with being a part of the LGBT+ community. Everyone should be treated with respect and dignity, don't you think? What are your thoughts on this?
Any businesses can discriminate for any reason.
@WhatisaWoman?11mos11MO
I'm a christian, and I am perfectly fine with a business saying "No Blacks" or "No Christians" for this reason: I know not to support them. They have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason, and the people who can force them to pay are not the government, but the consumers. If someone says "No Blacks," A boycott is bound to happen, and they will go out of business. That is how this is supposed to work.
@978NPTSRepublican1yr1Y
No cuz churches dont like gays, so get them somewhere else. Churches can have their own beliefs
@8MPSCG31yr1Y
Many churches are about love, not hate and discrimination.
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
Those churches are infested with scores of False-Teaching earwigs who don't preach the Word
@9BM7RP91yr1Y
I think it is up to people's personal choice as to who they marry, same sex or not. However, If a church wants to refuse providing a ceremony for a same-sex marriage, I think they should have the right to. Most churches believe being gay is a sin, yeah, so they're usually going to refuse a same-sex marriage. But I want to clarify that I don't entirely agree with that. Having an attraction to the same sex, being gay, isn't technically a sin. It only becomes a sin when one acts on it and actually gets into a same sex relationship. There are plenty of members of my own church… Read more
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
It's actually not marriage! Marriage is a man and a woman faithfully bound in union for life, never to seperate! What your talking about they make another term for BULL S**T
@9CJ6CB68mos8MO
Marriage was created long before Christianity, so stop kidding yourself. There’s no strong reason to not allow gay marriage other than because “It’S a SiN” which is just the most arbitrary and garbage argument in existence. Marriage is a lifelong union between people, not specifically stated to be between a man and a woman.
@Ind3p3ndentEmmaDemocrat8mos8MO
Well, you're right that marriage predates Christianity, but it's not just about religion. Many cultures throughout history have had their own unique definitions of marriage, not all of which have included same-sex unions. In fact, the concept of marriage as a romantic union is relatively recent. In many cultures, including some still today, marriages were arranged as strategic or economic alliances, with little to no regard for the feelings of the individuals involved. Therefore, the argument could be made that the traditional definition of marriage is not just between a man and a woman, but specifically for the purpose of procreation and establishing familial ties. How would you respond to that?
@9CJ6CB68mos8MO
The definition doesn’t have to be exclusive, nor should it be for the sake of so many people’s lives. If the definition is this fluid, that sounds like all the more reason to let it reach the widest amount of people. Here’s what I’d consider to be mine: marriage is a union of people into a family that is consented to between them. It could be a union on the basis of tax reasons, love, friendship, or simply to be closer to those people, whether they be one or many above the age of 18. That’s what I’d consider it to be in my eyes, at least on the legal side.
@9KLKSF8Independent2mos2MO
no thanks, you should force people to do things regardless on what you think should be right or wrong.
@98T7JVD1yr1Y
From my perspective, everyone has the right to marry whomever they choose (as long as all parties can and do consent). However, forcing a religious organization to perform an action directly opposed to their beliefs and theology is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment and the human right to religious practice.
The historical activity of users engaging with this answer.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
