Germany legalises same sex marriage

[Cookiegod]

What I am asking is how can one reconcile that view (the Church view) with the notion that there exists "no cogent reason to not allow any loving couple to commit themselves to a civil union"?

Easy: None of my business.

[bismarck 1899]

To give you some facts: Difference civil union vs civil marriage at that point was only the right to adopt. By the way nobody wants to force chruches to marry gay people. And on that note: The Lutherans (In Germany called Evangelische Kirche, calling them Lutherans is actually somewhat insulting to them because Luther... had some issues), the second biggest denomination in Germany, supports marriage equality.
A civil marriage is very important because of several rights like getting into ER, widow rights and so on.

[Frostwulf]

By the way nobody wants to force chruches to marry gay people. And on that note:

Have to disagree with you here.
http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/ga...sal-of-wedding
http://www.charismanews.com/world/40...church-wedding
From clergy who want to force churches:
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/churc.../29/id/568313/
People who own businesses are already being sued for not wanting to participate in homosexual weddings, suing churches is the next logical step.

[bismarck 1899]

Have to disagree with you here.
http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/ga...sal-of-wedding
http://www.charismanews.com/world/40...church-wedding
From clergy who want to force churches:
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/churc.../29/id/568313/
People who own businesses are already being sued for not wanting to participate in homosexual weddings, suing churches is the next logical step.

Well, I was talking about Germany and here nobody wants that.
Forcing buisnesses not to discriminate is fine with me because if you allow that you open the floodgates. I don't know if that principle applies to churches as well because quite a few of them are discriminatory by design. But even if it would come to that it will be a hollow right. What gay couple would want to marry in a church that disapproves of them and get the cake from people that loathes them. You would have to be a complete fanatic to turn you happiest day into that and most homosexuals are normal people and would not want that.
A black skinned person would probably not buy something in a store owned by a kkk member or marry in front of a racist priest but it is good to know that these people have to follow the rules if necessary. To turn it around homophobic christians could force a gay backery to make their cake, marry in a gay bar in front of a gay priest. But I don't think that many homophobes will do that.
But again in Germany nobody wants that. It was always about equal rights in civil marriage which in Germany is completely seperate from a church marriage. (Only the civil marriage has any legal standing, a chruch wedding is in legal terms basically only a fancy party at a special place, and people who want to have a church marriage often have both marriages on the same day but quite a lot only have a civil marriage)
I just looked it up out of curiosity and only around 20 percent actually still have church marriage. So here 80 percent do not want a church marriage. Even half of the church members don't bother with that.

[Sir Adrian]

It isn't fine. I can sell my goods and services to whomever I want, forcing me to sell to somebody I don't want to for any reason is setting a very dangerous precedent for everybody. If somebody doesn't want to sell to you because you are gay go somewhere else. Best way to hurt a business is to deal with its competition.

[Diocle]

It isn't fine. I can sell my goods and services to whomever I want, forcing me to sell to somebody I don't want to for any reason is setting a very dangerous precedent for everybody. If somebody doesn't want to sell to you because you are gay go somewhere else. Best way to hurt a business is to deal with its competition.

Yeah, it's not fine, but it's real.

This is why political correctness is synonimous of international fascism, this is why modern 'idiocracy' actually loves political correctness, this is why modern leftist and christian parties, with no more values and interests to defend, are converging on this bull**** about fake men/women marrying other fake men/women, building over it the fake and void mythology of 'gender culture', this is why the same contemporary concept of progress, is a fake, a big lethal mistification, which is submerging our western civilization under a boundless ocean of filthy smelly garbage (euphemism forced by ToS).

Politicians (sorry!), like Merkel, Hollande or Bergoglio, who have no more anything to say about the real life of real people, politicians without any real idea and value, hollow men with a hole in place of heart and a cesspool in place of brain, unsing this crap just to keep alive the 'idiocratic' feeling they are progressive and modern, meanwhile they are just cheaters and robbers, the perfect representatives of an idiotic globalist audience of jubilant snowflakes dancing to the rhythm of the ubiquitous and eucharistic soundtrack of techno music, hollow men, fake men with no memory, no roots and no sense.

[conon394]

It isn't fine. I can sell my goods and services to whomever I want, forcing me to sell to somebody I don't want to for any reason is setting a very dangerous precedent for everybody. If somebody doesn't want to sell to you because you are gay go somewhere else. Best way to hurt a business is to deal with its competition.

You are a public business? At least I am and as an LLC given rights and privileges - are you really going to say I can say no darkies or slants or Trump voters allowed (that one actually is tempting)? Out in the rural west what competition 40 miles and 2 hours of driving away in either direction. One of those don't do orders and the other might mostly is mostly happy with its core crowed so again no so much competition. It's one thing to remove somebody for violating a law or being a threat or causing a disturbance. But I really don't want the right to say we don't serve you kind here.

---------------

Yeah, it's not fine, but it's real.

This is why political correctness is synonimous of international fascism, this is why modern 'idiocracy' actually loves political correctness, this is why modern leftist and christian parties, with no more values and interests to defend, are converging on this bull**** about fake men/women marrying other fake men/women, building over it the fake and void mythology of 'gender culture', this is why the same contemporary concept of progress, is a fake, a big lethal mistification, which is submerging our western civilization under a boundless ocean of filthy smelly garbage (euphemism forced by ToS).

Politicians (sorry!), like Merkel, Hollande or Bergoglio, who have no more anything to say about the real life of real people, politicians without any real idea and value, hollow men with a hole in place of heart and a cesspool in place of brain, unsing this crap just to keep alive the 'idiocratic' feeling they are progressive and modern, meanwhile they are just cheaters and robbers, the perfect representatives of an idiotic globalist audience of jubilant snowflakes dancing to the rhythm of the ubiquitous and eucharistic soundtrack of techno music, hollow men, fake men with no memory, no roots and no sense.

You seem a little insecure, seems like your own problem.

[HannibalExMachina]

Yeah, it's not fine, but it's real.

This is why political correctness is synonimous of international fascism, this is why modern 'idiocracy' actually loves political correctness, this is why modern leftist and christian parties, with no more values and interests to defend, are converging on this bull**** about fake men/women marrying other fake men/women, building over it the fake and void mythology of 'gender culture', this is why the same contemporary concept of progress, is a fake, a big lethal mistification, which is submerging our western civilization under a boundless ocean of filthy smelly garbage (euphemism forced by ToS).

Politicians (sorry!), like Merkel, Hollande or Bergoglio, who have no more anything to say about the real life of real people, politicians without any real idea and value, hollow men with a hole in place of heart and a cesspool in place of brain, unsing this crap just to keep alive the 'idiocratic' feeling they are progressive and modern, meanwhile they are just cheaters and robbers, the perfect representatives of an idiotic globalist audience of jubilant snowflakes dancing to the rhythm of the ubiquitous and eucharistic soundtrack of techno music, hollow men, fake men with no memory, no roots and no sense.

aw, they are not like me, and that offends me.

do you have anything of substance to add? would you like to show us you know what you are talking about, by giving us a breakdown of these offending positions, so we can also see what real concerns might arise, as opposed to what you imagine?

because honestly, you have no position, only buzzwords. to have a position, one must be for something, not simply against anything.

[Copperknickers II]

Yeah, it's not fine, but it's real.

This is why political correctness is synonimous of international fascism, this is why modern 'idiocracy' actually loves political correctness, this is why modern leftist and christian parties, with no more values and interests to defend, are converging on this bull**** about fake men/women marrying other fake men/women,

Why are they fake? How are tolerance and inclusiveness not values to be defended? They may not be your own values but you can't say they aren't values.

building over it the fake and void mythology of 'gender culture', this is why the same contemporary concept of progress, is a fake, a big lethal mistification, which is submerging our western civilization under a boundless ocean of filthy smelly garbage (euphemism forced by ToS).

How does same-sex marriage have any effect on western civilisation, except taking it out of the grip of religious fundamentalism and allowing people to be included in society who were previously persecuted?

Politicians (sorry!), like Merkel, Hollande or Bergoglio, who have no more anything to say about the real life of real people, politicians without any real idea and value, hollow men with a hole in place of heart and a cesspool in place of brain, unsing this crap just to keep alive the 'idiocratic' feeling they are progressive and modern, meanwhile they are just cheaters and robbers, the perfect representatives of an idiotic globalist audience of jubilant snowflakes dancing to the rhythm of the ubiquitous and eucharistic soundtrack of techno music, hollow men, fake men with no memory, no roots and no sense.

You're blaming Merkel now, when she voted against the bill? Also since when do you have to be a jubilant globalist snowflake to listen to techno?

[conon394]

Also since when do you have to be a jubilant globalist snowflake to listen to techno?

I dunno - my Daughter likes techno, and she is doing ken-do, Jujutsu, dancing and horse riding so she can be a Marine and then a CIA assassin as a career goal not too snowflake and she still recalls enough from wrestling that I can't hold her in a half or full Nelson - good show girl err snowflake. But in any case not a globalist career end point.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Have to disagree with you here.
http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/ga...sal-of-wedding
http://www.charismanews.com/world/40...church-wedding
From clergy who want to force churches:
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/churc.../29/id/568313/
People who own businesses are already being sued for not wanting to participate in homosexual weddings, suing churches is the next logical step.

It seems that gay marriage was never about "marriage equality" or gaining respectability/acceptance for a historically maligned minority. It seems it was about weakening the First Amendment freedom of association [implicit in the Freedom of Assembly clause] by requiring people to associate with other people with whom they do not wish to associate.

Eventually private societies such as the Freemasons may wind up being sued by women who identify as men who are demanding to be considered for membership [of course it requires a unanimous vote of all the lodge members in attendance at the time to be accepted- a single vote for rejection will result in the applicant being rejected].

[Cyclops]

The law is whatever society (or judges) say it is.

When a handful of elite declare the law has changed and now allows 12 year old children to consent to marriage you have no basis to oppose it because you invoke the law.

Thanks for that completely irrelevant platitude, we are discussing gay marriage in Germany and you seem determined to link it to paedophilia. There has been paedophilia permitted under traditional Christian marriage e.g. Richard II of England married a 9 year old, but its OK, she didn't have to have sex with him until she was 11: while that is an extreme example it is a real one, as opposed to the vague silliness you are posting.

The trend of permitting gay marriage is part of a liberal social movement away from restrictive marriage laws based on possession and control towards equity and consent.

[Sir Adrian]

You are a public business? At least I am and as an LLC given rights and privileges - are you really going to say I can say no darkies or slants or Trump voters allowed (that one actually is tempting)?

There is no such thing as public llc. If you're not rated on the stock market or the state does not have a stake in your company you can conduct your business however you like within the bounds of the law. Llcs are liable only in front of their associates. If you have any moral reasoning to deny business to trump voters you should be able to do so even if you do it in a roundabout way.
Either america is built on free enterprise and can sell selectively or the state can force you to sell to trumpsters and gays and it is not.
If you live in a remote community and you are so disliked that store owners hate you buying from them you have bigger problems than that and should probably move somwhere where people think like you.

[TheDarkKnight]

It seems that gay marriage was never about "marriage equality" or gaining respectability/acceptance for a historically maligned minority. It seems it was about weakening the First Amendment freedom of association [implicit in the Freedom of Assembly clause] by requiring people to associate with other people with whom they do not wish to associate.

I feel like you are being rather wishy-washy with the Freedom of Assembly.

Also I have yet to see a single gay person who wishes to truly associate with homophobes in public.

[Infidel144]

There has been paedophilia permitted under traditional Christian marriage e.g. Richard II of England married a 9 year old, but its OK, she didn't have to have sex with him until she was 11: while that is an extreme example it is a real one, as opposed to the vague silliness you are posting.

A real one? Richard died when she was 10. That would make her a necrophile (sex with Richard when she was 11) rather than Richard a paedophile.

[Cyclops]

A real one? Richard died when she was 10. That would make her a necrophile (sex with Richard when she was 11) rather than Richard a paedophile.

The church sanctioned intercourse at that age, it was in the marriage contract. The current trend in altering the terms of marriage is a move away from structures that allowed this.

[Frostwulf]

Well, I was talking about Germany and here nobody wants that.

So the homosexuals in Germany are different then in the U.S.? Would you mind posting some information where they say they don't want that to happen.

Forcing buisnesses not to discriminate is fine with me because if you allow that you open the floodgates. I don't know if that principle applies to churches as well because quite a few of them are discriminatory by design. But even if it would come to that it will be a hollow right.

None of the businesses being sued has exhibited discriminatory behavior except refusing to participate in weddings. They are being forced against their will to participate in a function that goes against their religious beliefs, or pay the penalty if they don't. These people have sold goods and performed other functions for homosexuals, they just don't want to be forced to have anything to do with what goes against their beliefs.

What gay couple would want to marry in a church that disapproves of them and get the cake from people that loathes them. You would have to be a complete fanatic to turn you happiest day into that and most homosexuals are normal people and would not want that.
A black skinned person would probably not buy something in a store owned by a kkk member or marry in front of a racist priest but it is good to know that these people have to follow the rules if necessary.

I agree with you, but it is happening! And if you don't conform then you will pay the price for not participating in the function.

To turn it around homophobic christians could force a gay backery to make their cake, marry in a gay bar in front of a gay priest. But I don't think that many homophobes will do that.

I find the term homophobic fallacious to begin with. But lets see what happens when a christian goes to a bakery and asks them to make a cake with scriptures. And please be aware the bakers, photographers etc. had no problem servicing homosexuals(photographing, baked goods, hiring, etc.) except and only when forced to take part in the homosexual wedding.
http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christ...hocking-video/
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/this-evangelist-asked-a-gay-bakery-to-make-a-traditional-marriage-cake.-now
I had other things to say, but tired of fighting with this website.

[Pinarius]

So the homosexuals in Germany are different then in the U.S.? Would you mind posting some information where they say they don't want that to happen.

It should be the other way round and this means that you have to demonstrate that homosexuals in Germany are as litigious as their American counterparts.

[Cope]

My argument wasn't a moral one and I do not see how moral considerations play into this question which is essentially about laws and rights, not about whether I religiously condone other people's acts.

Morale considerations are inseparable from the pursuit of justice. Such considerations are therefore inseparable from discussions pertaining to "laws and rights". The latter, in particular, are substantially derived from moral imperatives - hence the term "right", as in "that which is morally correct, just or honourable". Since moral perspectives are infrequently related to one's spiritual self, it stands to reason that one's choice of religion (or choice of no religion) would influence his secular perspectives. Thus that which an individual "religiously condones" would naturally affect his view on secular matters, including his attitude toward "laws and rights".

The church has no business in prescribing secular laws. The content of our faith needs to be freely accepted on an individual level, not enforced by majority pressure.

Here you offer an example to support the assertion I presented above. This belief in the need for a separation between the Church and State is as much a moral judgement as it is a pragmatic one. It recognizes, via empathetic considerations, the inherent immorality or injustice in enforcing a specific spiritual doctrine upon the unwilling. And by your own admission, it is also a religious judgement since the Church is explicit in its teachings that Christ cannot be imposed but must be accepted. Given that this unambiguously demonstrates that your willingness to apply moral and spiritual reasoning (both of which are inextricably intertwined) to secular questions, it is intellectually inconsistent for you to argue that your spiritual convictions can be detached from your perspective on secular matters when it is convenient.

Moreover, the separation of the Church from the State is an institutional separation, not, as you seem to imply, an absolute moral partition. Aside from the patent overlap between secular and religious morality (which I have above attempted to highlight) the governing party of the German polity stylizes itself as "Christian Democratic Unionists" which would ostensibly indicate that their rule is influenced by the teachings of Christ.

You keep mingling the sacrament with the secular institute. There is no doctrine of faith about who should be able to conclude a civil union, only about the sacrament of matrimony. Therefore there is neither a secularly nor a religiously cogent reason to deny the secular institute to same sex couples.

If one agrees with the Church that homosexual activity is sinful yet also accepts the legalization of civil unions he is merely placing one teaching above another. His position is therefore that civil unions may be permissible in the secular world (God endowed man with free will), not that there is "no cogent reason" to oppose them. If, by contrast, it is his view that the secular world is an irrelevance since each man will ultimately be judged according to the laws of God and not himself (There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another? James 4-12) then he would have no cause to consider any secular matter since any such considerations would be inconsequential. And since I see that you offer your views on a wide range of issues, it is not reasonable for me to conclude that you view secular practices as an irrelevance.

Two things:

1. As Iskar pointed out. All unions outside the sacrament of matrimony are indifferent to the church. Basically they exist only on paper.

This isn't true: In discussing the dignity and mission ofthe family, the Synod Fathers observed that, “asfor proposals to place unions between homosexualpersons on the same level as marriage,there are absolutely no grounds for consideringhomosexual unions to be in any way similar oreven remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriageand family”. The Church would not comment on these matters if they were indifferent to "unions outside of the sacrament of marriage".

2. The church does not condemn men living together and having feelings for each other, just the act of sodomy. And this is where the condom rationale comes into play. You shouldn't sin but if you are going to sin and there is no way to stop you from doing it it is better to commit a smaller sin (wear a condom) than a greater one (abortion). Same here. It is better to have a stable relationship and have only one partner than to have many and maybe fall into drug use and other such things.

I quite agree. It is certainly the case that the bible "ranks" the severity of sins, as is evidenced by the disparity in earthly punishments for disobeying God's commands. Nevertheless, my curiosity in this debate was spiked by the statement that "no cogent reason" exists for the Christian to oppose civil unions. Had the argument been that there exist grounds for opposing civil unions but that those grounds were inferior to the grounds for not opposing it (which is the argument you present here) I wouldn't have involved myself in this debate.

[Iskar]

Morale considerations are inseparable from the pursuit of justice. Such considerations are therefore inseparable from discussions pertaining to "laws and rights". The latter, in particular, are substantially derived from moral imperatives - hence the term "right", as in "that which is morally correct, just or honourable". Since moral perspectives are infrequently related to one's spiritual self, it stands to reason that one's choice of religion (or choice of no religion) would influence his secular perspectives. Thus that which an individual "religiously condones" would naturally affect his view on secular matters, including his attitude toward "laws and rights".

Here you offer an example to support the assertion I presented above. This belief in the need for a separation between the Church and State is as much a moral judgement as it is a pragmatic one. It recognizes, via empathetic considerations, the inherent immorality or injustice in enforcing a specific spiritual doctrine upon the unwilling. And by your own admission, it is also a religious judgement since the Church is explicit in its teachings that Christ cannot be imposed but must be accepted.

The extent to which your moral judgement in this matter is derived from the spiritual teachings of the Church is, if it is knowable at all, only known to you and God. Therefore the notion that our views on the secular can be separated from our sense of morality (which for the Christian is guided, at least in part, by spiritual teachings) is not but pretense. It is therefore intellectually inconsistent to argue that your moral and spiritual considerations are applicable to one matter but not another.

Important distinction: I of course apply my moral considerations to religious matters (e.g. whether or not faith should be coerced), but I do not apply them to legal matters, since laws and rights are positive, not "that which is morally correct". Laws and rights are what society sets as binding rules for everyone, end of story. They need not be moral, they only need to be sufficiently plausible/consistent for a majority to agree to them and accept them in everyday life.

If one agrees with the Church that homosexual activity is sinful yet also accepts the legalization of civil unions he is merely placing one teaching above another. His position is that civil unions may be permissible in the secular world, not that there is "no cogent reason" to oppose them. If, by contrast, it is his view that the secular world is an irrelevance since each man will ultimately be judged according to the laws of God and not himself (There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another? James 4-12) then he would no cause to consider any secular matter since any such considerations would be inconsequential. And since I see that you offer your views on a wide range of issues, it is not reasonable for me to conclude that you view secular practices as an irrelevance.

Since when does a civil union imply sex? I don't think same-sex couples need a civil union to have intercourse. Whether or not I condone an administrative procedure towards same sex couples is completely unrelated to whether they have sex or not, so the question of whether they can marry doesn't even touch the teachings of the church.

This isn't true: In discussing the dignity and mission ofthe family, the Synod Fathers observed that, “asfor proposals to place unions between homosexualpersons on the same level as marriage,there are absolutely no grounds for consideringhomosexual unions to be in any way similar oreven remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriageand family”. The Church would not comment on these matters if they were indifferent to "unions outside of the sacrament of marriage".

I quite agree. It is certainly the case that the bible "ranks" the severity of sins, as is evidenced by the disparity in earthly punishments for disobeying God's commands. Nevertheless, my curiosity in this debate was spiked by the statement that "no cogent reason" exists for the Christian to oppose civil unions. Had the argument been that there exist grounds for opposing civil unions but that those grounds were inferior to the grounds for not opposing it (which is the argument you present here) I wouldn't have involved myself in this debate.

You may notice that in the quote you gave the synod fathers pretty clearly state they reject an analogy between a civil marriage and the sacrament of matrimony, which has been my point the entire time. There are simply no religious reasons to oppose a non-religious, administrative act towards same-sex couples.