Story Comments
Posted by: jovial 1 year ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
80%
jovial1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are both correct. In order to become a person who performs marriages, the requirements are very slack. There have been cases where people have become ordained by churches on line to perform marriages, baptisms, and other ceremonies for a small fee. Not a bad side job. It seems that there is no shortage of places to go. If one place won't marry you there are many other places to go that will. The clergyman or priest can refuse to marry anyone they please. Is this right?
Reply-
100%
Dionys1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes. A clergyperson or priest can refuse to marry whomever they please based on their own personal opinon regarding the people becoming married, sacramental issues (such as one not being a part of the Church & the Church being conservative Catholic / Evangelical / et cetera), or Church law.
Reply
Within the Catholic Church, Church law supercedes any kind of local law, especially in regards to the sacraments. Of which Holy Matrimony is one. I, personally, hate that the Church allows for this kind of discrimination but I support their right to follow their own doctrinal truths surrounding Holy Sacraments. Just as I support the Native American Church's use of Peyote (or whichever of the Churches it was that used it as a sacrament).
Federal or State law should never force a religious group to conform to their view of what sacraments should be. Anyone who follows a faith tradition should understand this, even though the discrimination falls in an area they don't like. Once the state or federal government steps in and says what the Church HAS to do, then they can step in and do ANYTHING. Including the requirement that all churches NOT be allowed to wed homosexual partners.
What needs to happen is for this to become a civil right. Then the churches that will not wed homosexuals will see a downturn or reshuffling of parishoners and those that will wed homosexuals will see an upturn or reshuffling of parishoners.
On a side note, there are some Roman Catholic Priests who DO marry homosexuals against Church Doctrine (and some who ordain women against Chruch Doctrine). So there's hope for change, even within this old institution.-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is the foolish idea. That homosexuals have somehow have a right that never existed. They started screaming that they were being discriminated against. That somehow created the myth that homosexual marriage was a right. Created out of vapor. You start with a right that never existed and some liberals sign on to that false premise. Show me in the constitution where it exists. The supreme court of California created it and the people spoke on proposition 8. They have spoken in the vast majority of states the same way.
Reply
So tell me where in the constitution it exists.-
100%
Dionys1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They are being discriminated against. Why should church policy and Church doctrine prevent two people who love each other from being wed in a civil ceremony?
Reply
Marriage should be a right for two people who love one another.
"Show me in the constitution where it exists."
How about the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Constitution: (Preamble)"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,"
Bill of rights (Within the Constitution): "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Ninth Amendment (try reading it, troll).
You want to play the "show me in the constitution where it exists" game?
Show me in the constitution where it says I can't "accidentally" kill you with a potato. Specifically. Or even show me in the constitution where it say YOU can get married to someone of the opposite sex.-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The fact of the matter is the historical precedence. Where in the past did this right of homosexual marriage exist. The Mormons left to go to the west to be able to practice having one man marry more than one woman. When the country caught up to them they had to go down to one woman to one man. Never was the concept of two men or two women considered a marriage. This goes back for thousands of years. So you tell me where did this right come from. Almost all of the states have spoken on the issue. One man and one woman. Live with it or leave.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" This goes back for thousands of years. "
Reply
Seriously? Have you, as the self-proclaimed Christian you are, actually read the Bible?
There's plenty in there about polygamy. Lots of husbands having multiple wives or wife-concubines. Not the 'bad' people, but the ones sanctioned and chosen by God. -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Will13131 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
talk about ad hominem.. and yes .. hate toward people of your ilk.. well hate might be a little strong.. just pity ..
Reply
and you can show me NO PLACE in the constitution that would allow you to marry or to keep anyone else from marrying so you attack ME..
you're a hateful bigoted a............
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
Poulenc
alakazam
Goppy
GehlLady
DropkickaLib
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.