TTY: Prince, RIP

Calamine Lotion · May 2, 2016

evennow said:
It is exactly this in America. Our own Declaration of Independence sets forth "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." Some might argue that marriage is the beginning of the end of life, liberty and happiness. (I would )

It took a long time to get to this point in our American civil society where same sex unions are legal under the law, but at the risk of being stoned to death, I think the distinction between Church and State, between religious teachings and laws is an important one. Even if I don't agree with the teachings of a religion and/or believe in what is being passed off as truths (I consider myself Agnostic) I do believe that unless the actions of a religion directly promote physical harm to others such as Radical Islam then it should be able to function freely without interference from the State. Religious freedom was one of the reasons we went to war to secure our independence in the first place.

The Catholic church opposes birth control, abortion, same sex marriage, etc. but these are all available to citizens of the Unites States in the secular world should they wish to exercise their right to do so under the law. Sure many homosexual Catholics would like to be married in the Church. I get that, but to me the separation of Church and State is an important one. Trying to legislate religious doctrine of any kind from state capital buildings or the White House goes against what many brave people have fought and died for. Prince himself was a Jehova's Witness. I wonder how he would have felt about the government dictating to him what he was permitted to believe under the law?

I don't really understand people who want to be married in a church that thinks their marriage is wrong. But what if the church had events where they feed the homeless, and they wouldn't feed people that were gay? My solution for this is that all churches should be treated like businesses, taxed and audited, but not forced to provide non-essential services. There have been a couple of cases where bakeries refused to provide wedding cakes for gay people. I sort of feel like that is their right. But then what if they refuse to provide a wedding cake for an interracial couple or a Jewish couple?
There was a case where this heterosexual couple wanted to have their hair cut together at the same time. Of course they chose a place that only cuts men's hair, and they refused to cut the woman's hair and were fined $750. http://jezebel.com/barbershop-wont-cut-womens-hair-because-guys-come-to-be-1729415884

Go to another bakery. Go to another church. But they can't really go to another church so easily because they have been taught that this church has the answer to their eternal salvation. And we can't let landlords refuse to rent to certain segments of the population, or employers to refuse to hire them. There are strict laws about that.
I do believe in religious freedom but clearly that stops when what the church is doing is against the law. Mormons practiced polygamy, but now will excommunicate those who practice it. They also refused to allow black people to become ministers until 1978 and had taught that being black was a mark that God had placed on them. That kind of gets to your idea about directly harming someone. If a religion teaches that a group of people with a certain characteristic is against God, you are definitely harming that group of people indirectly, and may be partly responsible for violence against them.
Ideally, people would wake up and stop supporting a church that won't marry them, but maybe it's partially the church's responsibility for teaching them that they need what the church is offering them. If people want to take the church to court, I think I'm willing to let the courts decide. However, if a church does not provide equal services the first thing that should happen is an audit, and they should be taxed. The church benefits from taxes paid by the community. The reason they are tax exempt is supposed to be that they provide services to the community. I bet if they were at risk of losing this tax exemption a great many of them would suddenly find that the Pope or the Wizard of Oz or whoever sets their rules has decided that gay people are welcome to be married in their church.

Layne · May 2, 2016

evennow said:
It is exactly this in America. Our own Declaration of Independence sets forth "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." Some might argue that marriage is the beginning of the end of life, liberty and happiness. (I would )

It took a long time to get to this point in our American civil society where same sex unions are legal under the law, but at the risk of being stoned to death, I think the distinction between Church and State, between religious teachings and laws is an important one. Even if I don't agree with the teachings of a religion and/or believe in what is being passed off as truths (I consider myself Agnostic) I do believe that unless the actions of a religion directly promote physical harm to others such as Radical Islam then it should be able to function freely without interference from the State. Religious freedom was one of the reasons we went to war to secure our independence in the first place.

The Catholic church opposes birth control, abortion, same sex marriage, etc. but these are all available to citizens of the Unites States in the secular world should they wish to exercise their right to do so under the law. Sure many homosexual Catholics would like to be married in the Church. I get that, but to me the separation of Church and State is an important one. Trying to legislate religious doctrine of any kind from state capital buildings or the White House goes against what many brave people have fought and died for. Prince himself was a Jehova's Witness. I wonder how he would have felt about the government dictating to him what he was permitted to believe under the law?

That's a good point, of course. Being equal does not mean that everyone needs to embrace your lifestyle and live it for themselves.

The gay lobby has really embarrassed itself in recent times. All this nonsense about calling round to hundreds of different bakeries or whatever until they victoriously manage to find one that says that they would rather not cater to a lesbian wedding.

There's inequality and then there's "oppression archaeology" in which people desperately search through the dankest caverns of society and then happily cry "homophobe! Sexist! Bigot!" when they find a nugget at long last and then take their spoils to the media.

These people are slime. They are attention-seeking members of the culture of perpetual victimhood.

What ever happened to live and let live? It's now become "if you don't not only accept me but admit that homosexuality is superior and that you are old-fashioned for not becoming a homosexual yourself then you are an evil person."

People need to get over themselves and stop acting like Jehovah's Witnesses trying to convert people.

And I'm not directing this at anyone here--evennow's comment's just got me thinking and I thought I would point out a few of my observations.

Layne · May 2, 2016

Calamine Lotion said:
I don't really understand people who want to be married in a church that thinks their marriage is wrong. But what if the church had events where they feed the homeless, and they wouldn't feed people that were gay? My solution for this is that all churches should be treated like businesses, taxed and audited, but not forced to provide non-essential services. There have been a couple of cases where bakeries refused to provide wedding cakes for gay people. I sort of feel like that is their right. But then what if they refuse to provide a wedding cake for an interracial couple or a Jewish couple?
There was a case where this heterosexual couple wanted to have their hair cut together at the same time. Of course they chose a place that only cuts men's hair, and they refused to cut the woman's hair and were fined $750. http://jezebel.com/barbershop-wont-cut-womens-hair-because-guys-come-to-be-1729415884

Go to another bakery. Go to another church. But they can't really go to another church so easily because they have been taught that this church has the answer to their eternal salvation. And we can't let landlords refuse to rent to certain segments of the population, or employers to refuse to hire them. There are strict laws about that.
I do believe in religious freedom but clearly that stops when what the church is doing is against the law. Mormons practiced polygamy, but now will excommunicate those who practice it. They also refused to allow black people to become ministers until 1978 and had taught that being black was a mark that God had placed on them. That kind of gets to your idea about directly harming someone. If a religion teaches that a group of people with a certain characteristic is against God, you are definitely harming that group of people indirectly, and may be partly responsible for violence against them.
Ideally, people would wake up and stop supporting a church that won't marry them, but maybe it's partially the church's responsibility for teaching them that they need what the church is offering them. If people want to take the church to court, I think I'm willing to let the courts decide. However, if a church does not provide equal services the first thing that should happen is an audit, and they should be taxed. The church benefits from taxes paid by the community. The reason they are tax exempt is supposed to be that they provide services to the community. I bet if they were at risk of losing this tax exemption a great many of them would suddenly find that the Pope or the Wizard of Oz or whoever sets their rules has decided that gay people are welcome to be married in their church.

Oh I didn't see this before making my post below. You brought up bakeries refusing gays and it's rarely an innocent process. These gays are malicious oppression archaeologists, calling round to dozens of bakeries until they find some "homophobes."

The gay lobby has become a really ugly business. And I do mean business.

Calamine Lotion · May 2, 2016

Derek17 said:
Oh I didn't see this before making my post below. You brought up bakeries refusing gays and it's rarely an innocent process. These gays are malicious oppression archaeologists, calling round to dozens of bakeries until they find some "homophobes."

The gay lobby has become a really ugly business. And I do mean business.

"malicious oppression archeologists" - I'm curious if this is your own term or does it come from some website?

I'm curious if you have any evidence that anyone called dozens of bakeries before finding one that wouldn't make a gay wedding cake. I'm not arguing. I'm just curious if this is an accepted belief in some circles and how that came to be.

Layne · May 3, 2016

Calamine Lotion said:
"malicious oppression archeologists" - I'm curious if this is your own term or does it come from some website?

I'm curious if you have any evidence that anyone called dozens of bakeries before finding one that wouldn't make a gay wedding cake. I'm not arguing. I'm just curious if this is an accepted belief in some circles and how that came to be.

"Oppression archaeologist" is my term.

Milo Yiannopoulos suggested the possibility that people would call around. The fact that it would be appropriate to go "homophobe hunting" and no one could really do anything about it is pretty disturbing. These are miserable people, they're bullies looking to ruin other people's lives because they are so disgusted with their own.

Look at all the cases that have come out in the media. These people are vicious. They're suing people and calling them "homophobic" not for refusing to serve gays (they would be happy to) but simply because supporting a gay wedding goes against their religious beliefs. They are going after these people and shutting down their businesses. It's really just pathetic bigoted bullying behaviour.

Calamine Lotion · May 3, 2016

Derek17 said:
"Oppression archaeologist" is my term.

Milo Yiannopoulos suggested the possibility that people would call around. The fact that it would be appropriate to go "homophobe hunting" and no one could really do anything about it is pretty disturbing. These are miserable people, they're bullies looking to ruin other people's lives because they are so disgusted with their own.

Look at all the cases that have come out in the media. These people are vicious. They're suing people and calling them "homophobic" not for refusing to serve gays (they would be happy to) but simply because supporting a gay wedding goes against their religious beliefs. They are going after these people and shutting down their businesses. It's really just pathetic bigoted bullying behaviour.

Okay, so it's not a fact that someone called dozens of bakeries. Isn't it equally vicious to suggest that this happened, lacking proof? It doesn't seem that asking a bakery to bake a cake qualifies as bullying.

Now, personally, I wouldn't sue. I would go to another bakery. But that's a matter of philosophy. As is refusing to bake a cake, when you operate a bakery.

There is a little bit of cognitive dissonance in your argument. You say that these bakeries would be happy to serve gay people, but not to make a cake for their wedding. What? Clearly they are not happy to serve gay people. "You can have a cupcake but we won't make you a wedding cake because we're not going to Hell for you." Really? Not too many years ago these same people would have had a separate drinking fountain for "coloreds" and the reason that changed is because people fought against it. It's social progress, and you're a bakery and you won't make wedding cakes for legal weddings, and you get sued, well, hey there is probably a special place in Heaven for you to reward your martyrdom. lol You can sit right next to Jesus and have all the cake you want. lol
Personally, I would go to a different bakery, but if I owned a bakery, I would be willing to make a cake for almost anyone. I hope you can see that both sides might possibly go beyond the bounds of what most people would consider reasonable. I think the gay people are the ones being bullied and they are supposed to be used to it by now. Someone that won't make a gay wedding cake is getting a nice life lesson about what it feels like when people disagree with who you are at a fundamental level, even though it doesn't affect them in any practical way.

Layne · May 3, 2016

Calamine Lotion said:
Okay, so it's not a fact that someone called dozens of bakeries. Isn't it equally vicious to suggest that this happened, lacking proof? It doesn't seem that asking a bakery to bake a cake qualifies as bullying.

Now, personally, I wouldn't sue. I would go to another bakery. But that's a matter of philosophy. As is refusing to bake a cake, when you operate a bakery.

There is a little bit of cognitive dissonance in your argument. You say that these bakeries would be happy to serve gay people, but not to make a cake for their wedding. What? Clearly they are not happy to serve gay people. "You can have a cupcake but we won't make you a wedding cake because we're not going to Hell for you." Really? Not too many years ago these same people would have had a separate drinking fountain for "coloreds" and the reason that changed is because people fought against it. It's social progress, and you're a bakery and you won't make wedding cakes for legal weddings, and you get sued, well, hey there is probably a special place in Heaven for you to reward your martyrdom. lol You can sit right next to Jesus and have all the cake you want. lol
Personally, I would go to a different bakery, but if I owned a bakery, I would be willing to make a cake for almost anyone. I hope you can see that both sides might possibly go beyond the bounds of what most people would consider reasonable. I think the gay people are the ones being bullied and they are supposed to be used to it by now. Someone that won't make a gay wedding cake is getting a nice life lesson about what it feels like when people disagree with who you are at a fundamental level, even though it doesn't affect them in any practical way.

This isn't about social progression it's about social regression. It's the inversion of the oppressed becoming the oppressors.

There are a number of these cases in the media. It takes a special kind of asshole to spend all that time, effort, and money to sue and try to destroy someone's life over a stupid cake. These people claim to preach tolerance while specifically going after people that they know have different views and setting out to ruin their lives because of their differing views. That is bigoted. The gays here are the initiators. They are the bullies.

You're missing the distinction. They are happy to serve homosexuals over the course of normal business. They are not willing to support a homosexual wedding because that in particular conflicts with their religious beliefs. That in no way demonstrates homophobia any more than if I go to a Muslim-owned restaurant and demand that they cater my wedding with dishes including pork. They are not going to do so because that conflicts with their beliefs. It really doesn't matter how I feel about their beliefs because their beliefs are their own and they are entitled to them just as I am entitled to mine. As a reasonable person, I would locate a bakery or a restaurant that would serve my needs.

My point about how the gays are finding these bakeries was that no one knows how these people tracked down the "homophobic" bakeries. There's a good chance that something disingenuous is going on. Either way, it says a lot about someone as a person if they want to ruin someone else's life over differing beliefs.

These people have a well-known agenda to disparage Christianity. There's a reason they aren't tracking down Muslim bakeries and suing them and making a fuss about it in the media. This stuff isn't occurring coincidentally, make no mistake. They are shameless and selfish bullies. If gays are to be accepted as equal, it also has to be recognized that there are plenty of homosexuals who are assholes, who are absolutely miserable, selfish, destructive people, just like there are terrible people who happen to be heterosexuals.

It's time to call out the selfishness and put an end to the culture of perpetual victimhood. It's not OK to bully people over a wedding cake. It's incredibly immature "eye for an eye" kind of stuff. There really is no defending it.

Calamine Lotion · May 3, 2016

Derek17 said:
So someone loses their livelihood because someone couldn't go to another bakery and they're the bullies?

My point was that no one knows how these people tracked down the "homophobic" bakeries. There's a good chance that something disingenuous is going on. Either way, it says a lot about someone as a person if they want to ruin someone else's life over differing beliefs.

These people have a well-known agenda to disparage Christianity. There's a reason they aren't tracking down Muslim bakeries and suing them and making a fuss about it in the media. This stuff isn't occurring coincidentally, make no mistake. They are shameless and selfish bullies.

They want to ruin someone's life by asking them to bake a cake? Come on. My point is that you said they called dozens of bakeries but you don't know that or have any evidence. How many gay people have actually, and in fact had their lives ruined, and been murdered and maimed because of "differing beliefs?"
And I really don't know how many Muslim bakeries there are, but let's say there are an equal amount. Do you think Muslims are not being disparaged in the media? We must be reading a different Internet or something. Anyway you won't change my mind and I won't change yours. Thank you for being honest.

Layne · May 3, 2016

Calamine Lotion said:
They want to ruin someone's life by asking them to bake a cake? Come on. My point is that you said they called dozens of bakeries but you don't know that or have any evidence. How many gay people have actually, and in fact had their lives ruined, and been murdered and maimed because of "differing beliefs?"
And I really don't know how many Muslim bakeries there are, but let's say there are an equal amount. Do you think Muslims are not being disparaged in the media? We must be reading a different Internet or something. Anyway you won't change my mind and I won't change yours. Thank you for being honest.

Just to let you know I added to the previous post. Sorry, missed your reply.

These bakers are not out to murder and maim homosexuals. That's entirely the point. The gay lobby picks fights with them while saying that what goes on in the Middle East is perfectly fine. It's totally backwards.

- - - Updated - - -

Ketamine Sun said:
Or just take their place and continue the devils work. For you see,regardless of sex or race,we all bow down to the mighty dollar.

That's definitely true.

Calamine Lotion · May 3, 2016

http://www.tmz.com/2016/05/02/prince-sinead-oconnor-arsenio-hall-drugs/

Arsenio Hall Sinead O'Connor's Crazy Prince Didn't Get Drugs From Me!

Sinead O'Connor is blaming Prince's drug problems on his good friend, Arsenio Hall -- but he says the Irish singer is totally full of it.

Sinead went on the attack, saying ... "Two words for the DEA investigating where (sic) prince got his drugs over the decades ... Arsenio Hall (AKA Prince's and Eddie Murphy's bitch)."

She went on to say on her Facebook page ... she's actually reported Arsenio to the Carver County Sheriff's department, which is investigating Prince's death.

A rep for Arsenio says Sinead's claim is "absolutely false, ridiculous and absurd."

She can thank Prince for writing her biggest hit, "Nothing Compares 2 U" -- but fact is, Sinead was NOT close to Prince ... and she's made other outrageous claims about him. She once alleged he punched her and held her against her will at Paisley Park.

caramel sea salt · May 3, 2016

Derek17's outlook and vocabulary remind me of http://americansfortruth.com/issues/homo-fascism-intimidation-by-gay-lobby/.

They talk of "homo-fascist intimidation", "rainbow aggression" etc. Only they are a right-wing, Christian, anti-gay group.

Sad, very sad.

Of course, pointing that out makes me a Muslim-loving leftist oppressor of him and free speech, according to him.

marred · May 3, 2016

https://instagram.com/p/BE8PCipA8Gx/

Link above is to a sketch I just did for Prince and what he meant to me.

Anonymous · May 3, 2016

marred said:
https://instagram.com/p/BE8PCipA8Gx/

Link above is to a sketch I just did for Prince and what he meant to me.

LOL, it's very shit

marred · May 3, 2016

Anonymous said:
LOL, it's very shit

And there's a good chance you are a shit.

Layne · May 3, 2016

12" on the slack said:
Derek17's outlook and vocabulary remind me of http://americansfortruth.com/issues/homo-fascism-intimidation-by-gay-lobby/.

They talk of "homo-fascist intimidation", "rainbow aggression" etc. Only they are a right-wing, Christian, anti-gay group.

Sad, very sad.

Of course, pointing that out makes me a Muslim-loving leftist oppressor of him and free speech, according to him.

Again you make vague claims without substantiating anything. I put forth a detailed argument. You are putting words in my mouth and are failing to address anything specific.

evennow · May 3, 2016

Calamine Lotion said:
I don't really understand people who want to be married in a church that thinks their marriage is wrong. But what if the church had events where they feed the homeless, and they wouldn't feed people that were gay? My solution for this is that all churches should be treated like businesses, taxed and audited, but not forced to provide non-essential services. There have been a couple of cases where bakeries refused to provide wedding cakes for gay people. I sort of feel like that is their right. But then what if they refuse to provide a wedding cake for an interracial couple or a Jewish couple?
There was a case where this heterosexual couple wanted to have their hair cut together at the same time. Of course they chose a place that only cuts men's hair, and they refused to cut the woman's hair and were fined $750. http://jezebel.com/barbershop-wont-cut-womens-hair-because-guys-come-to-be-1729415884

Go to another bakery. Go to another church. But they can't really go to another church so easily because they have been taught that this church has the answer to their eternal salvation. And we can't let landlords refuse to rent to certain segments of the population, or employers to refuse to hire them. There are strict laws about that.
I do believe in religious freedom but clearly that stops when what the church is doing is against the law. Mormons practiced polygamy, but now will excommunicate those who practice it. They also refused to allow black people to become ministers until 1978 and had taught that being black was a mark that God had placed on them. That kind of gets to your idea about directly harming someone. If a religion teaches that a group of people with a certain characteristic is against God, you are definitely harming that group of people indirectly, and may be partly responsible for violence against them.
Ideally, people would wake up and stop supporting a church that won't marry them, but maybe it's partially the church's responsibility for teaching them that they need what the church is offering them. If people want to take the church to court, I think I'm willing to let the courts decide. However, if a church does not provide equal services the first thing that should happen is an audit, and they should be taxed. The church benefits from taxes paid by the community. The reason they are tax exempt is supposed to be that they provide services to the community. I bet if they were at risk of losing this tax exemption a great many of them would suddenly find that the Pope or the Wizard of Oz or whoever sets their rules has decided that gay people are welcome to be married in their church.

I am really finding all of this interesting reading your and Derek's posts. I find myself coming down somewhere in the middle. I think it is very true the text I put in bold above, but still it comes down to how I define "providing services to the community". If a church offers food to the poor through a soup kitchen or other manner, then it should be done so without regard to race, or sexual orientation, but I still come back to the issue of marriage in the church. Catholics believe that "Matrimony" is one of the Seven Holy Sacraments and "For a valid marriage, a man and a woman must express their conscious and free consent to a definitive self-giving to the other, excluding none of the essential properties and aims of marriage." In this sense, I do not see the Church's offering of marriage as a "service to the entire community", but rather a tenet or underpinning of the religious beliefs that bring the majority of the congregation together in the first place.

Don't get me wrong I am back and forth on this issue. It was like when gays weren't allowed in our military, then it was don't ask don't tell, and now who knows. The difference again is that the military is a public organization tied and responsible to laws of the land. Courts deciding on the legality of religious beliefs makes my nose twitch a bit.

Calamine Lotion · May 4, 2016

12" on the slack said:
Derek17's outlook and vocabulary remind me of http://americansfortruth.com/issues/homo-fascism-intimidation-by-gay-lobby/.

They talk of "homo-fascist intimidation", "rainbow aggression" etc. Only they are a right-wing, Christian, anti-gay group.

Sad, very sad.

Of course, pointing that out makes me a Muslim-loving leftist oppressor of him and free speech, according to him.

Rainbow Aggression would be a good name for a band though.

Calamine Lotion · May 4, 2016

evennow said:
I am really finding all of this interesting reading your and Derek's posts. I find myself coming down somewhere in the middle. I think it is very true the text I put in bold above, but still it comes down to how I define "providing services to the community". If a church offers food to the poor through a soup kitchen or other manner, then it should be done so without regard to race, or sexual orientation, but I still come back to the issue of marriage in the church. Catholics believe that "Matrimony" is one of the Seven Holy Sacraments and "For a valid marriage, a man and a woman must express their conscious and free consent to a definitive self-giving to the other, excluding none of the essential properties and aims of marriage." In this sense, I do not see the Church's offering of marriage as a "service to the entire community", but rather a tenet or underpinning of the religious beliefs that bring the majority of the congregation together in the first place.

Don't get me wrong I am back and forth on this issue. It was like when gays weren't allowed in our military, then it was don't ask don't tell, and now who knows. The difference again is that the military is a public organization tied and responsible to laws of the land. Courts deciding on the legality of religious beliefs makes my nose twitch a bit.

I believe the right lawyer could solve it. If they believe, as Hillary Clinton did a few years ago, that "marriage is between a man and a woman" then it seems that there is a way out. A church is allowed to excommunicate people legally and it is legal to have private organizations that are "members only." I don't think it's reasonable for a person who has never attended Catholic services or been a member of the Church to expect to be married there. All they have to do is stop allowing gay people to be members, excommunicate those who are, and make their position clear. I have discussed this with gay Catholics who will argue that the Church is actually about acceptance and love and not judgment. I believe that they are brainwashed and think they are going to burn in Hell if they leave the Church, but also manage a selective awareness of what the Church is about. The Church needs to either allow gay members to be married or excommunicate them.
They benefit from generally having one leader, The Pope, although I'm aware there are branches of Catholicism. The point is though that they can solve this issue, legally, I believe. Again, I would remove their tax exemption but I wouldn't make them perform services that are against their beliefs.
With other churches, you might find one in one town that won't perform the service, but you go to another town and find one that will. It's more complicated then.
I think the important thing I disagree with Derek about is that this is not about "gay rights" but about equality. Imagine if the church wouldn't allow black people to be married. It looks a lot different then to most people.

Layne · May 4, 2016

Calamine Lotion said:
I believe the right lawyer could solve it. If they believe, as Hillary Clinton did a few years ago, that "marriage is between a man and a woman" then it seems that there is a way out. A church is allowed to excommunicate people legally and it is legal to have private organizations that are "members only." I don't think it's reasonable for a person who has never attended Catholic services or been a member of the Church to expect to be married there. All they have to do is stop allowing gay people to be members, excommunicate those who are, and make their position clear. I have discussed this with gay Catholics who will argue that the Church is actually about acceptance and love and not judgment. I believe that they are brainwashed and think they are going to burn in Hell if they leave the Church, but also manage a selective awareness of what the Church is about. The Church needs to either allow gay members to be married or excommunicate them.
They benefit from generally having one leader, The Pope, although I'm aware there are branches of Catholicism. The point is though that they can solve this issue, legally, I believe. Again, I would remove their tax exemption but I wouldn't make them perform services that are against their beliefs.
With other churches, you might find one in one town that won't perform the service, but you go to another town and find one that will. It's more complicated then.
I think the important thing I disagree with Derek about is that this is not about "gay rights" but about equality. Imagine if the church wouldn't allow black people to be married. It looks a lot different then to most people.

I have to point out an important distinction. We should differentiate between 1) homosexual Catholics who attend church and participate in everyday aspects of Catholicism and 2) homosexuals who do the above and wish to get married to a same-sex partner in a Catholic church.

Nothing is stopping homosexuals from functioning as equals. The church only discriminates with regard to performing marriages, not with regard to whom it provides services to. So it is in no way infringing on equality. If this was the case, we would also have to say that the Catholic church is required to marry Jewish couples or anyone else of another religion. This might not seem like a massive distinction but it is significant.

Now with regard to skin colour, it is not a comparable. Skin colour would be something that could result in immediate discrimination and therefore the denial of services because the person could be immediately recognized as "not welcome," which would not be the case with an "appropriate colour" homosexual. The only distinction made between homosexual and heterosexual churchgoers is with respect to marriage. Otherwise, sexual orientation is irrelevant and probably unknown (to the institution, at least). As would be the case if a Muslim couple decided to attend mass conspicuously. They would be allowed but if they wanted to get married, the church would not be able to comply because of religious views.

Layne · May 4, 2016

evennow said:
I am really finding all of this interesting reading your and Derek's posts. I find myself coming down somewhere in the middle. I think it is very true the text I put in bold above, but still it comes down to how I define "providing services to the community". If a church offers food to the poor through a soup kitchen or other manner, then it should be done so without regard to race, or sexual orientation, but I still come back to the issue of marriage in the church. Catholics believe that "Matrimony" is one of the Seven Holy Sacraments and "For a valid marriage, a man and a woman must express their conscious and free consent to a definitive self-giving to the other, excluding none of the essential properties and aims of marriage." In this sense, I do not see the Church's offering of marriage as a "service to the entire community", but rather a tenet or underpinning of the religious beliefs that bring the majority of the congregation together in the first place.

Don't get me wrong I am back and forth on this issue. It was like when gays weren't allowed in our military, then it was don't ask don't tell, and now who knows. The difference again is that the military is a public organization tied and responsible to laws of the land. Courts deciding on the legality of religious beliefs makes my nose twitch a bit.

I also make the distinction that I made above here. As you say, religious marriage is a specific belief of the church. It is not a service that anyone can just opt for.

Again we should note the many differences between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. A Catholic marriage is steeped in many traditions, rights, and responsibilities, some of which do not apply to homosexuals and others of which will not be able to be met. And that's fine. People are equal but different.

TTY: Prince, RIP

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

ɹǝqɯǝɯ uʍouʞ-llǝM

Member

Anonymous

Guest

Member

Well-Known Member

Writers on the storm

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Trending Threads