Reply With Quote
I would say you have that backwards.
The government got itself involved with church affairs when it started regulating marriage.
Tbh, whenever a hurricane is about to hit New Orleans, morons go out into Bourbon and Canal with signs saying it's because gays live there. It's fun hearing them get insulted by everyone.classic
I wonder when god is gonna unleash his wrath on New York. He must be really in pissed to see all those gots getting married. I'm surprised the Empire State Building is still standing.
I would say you have that backwards.
The government got itself involved with church affairs when it started regulating marriage.
Except that it didn't force churches to do a single thing.
You're right. Churches did as they always do. The difference is marriage was always performed by a priest, and government stayed out of it. The government made it their business to control marriage. It's not the churches trying to interfere. Government already has. the churches just want to maintain the traditional definition and morality of marriage.
By interfering with government.
lol morality
marriage has been around since the ancient Greeks
And the Greeks had several Gods and temples which sanctified the marriage.
marriage has been around since the ancient Greeks
And governments that recognized and applied laws to the marriages.
Jeez. if the gays want to marry each other for estate reasons then let them. Make it totally legal with all the medical power of attorney, inheritance, joint property, etc. Treat them exactly the same as any other married couple.
The quid quo pro should be that employers shouldn't have to supply the same equality for employee benefits if they choose not to on moral/personal grounds...(example, paying all or part of "family" insurance benefits for conventional unions) If they gay couple wants or needs those employer provided benefits they can always search out a gay friendly employer. It's the same principle in reverse...don't enforce your beliefs on others who don't share the same views.
So employers who don't believe in mixed race marriages should be able to refuse insuring those families on that basis?
I agree with all of this 100%. I don't think an employer should be forced to recognize a gay marriage.
Once again you talk out of your ass and obviously just assumed Greeks used a religious process with marriage. There was no ceremony involved with marriage in ancient Greece. All it required was a man and woman basically agreeing to get married.
"don't enforce your beliefs on others who don't share the same views"
An employer who refuses to treat an employee in a same-sex marriage as any employee in a heterosexual marriage is ENFORCING his beliefs on his employees.
why is that bull ?
Because you are forcing someone who morally believes that gay marriage is wrong to PAY HIS MONEY for the gay spouses health coverage IF he provides it to heterosexual couples. It's just not right. If you don't think that people should be able to force their moral beliefs on others then your logic in this case is flawed.
which would be ridiculous. you can't just deny someone benefits on personal/moral grounds. legal grounds, fine. but morality/personal grounds isn't well-defined at all. it leaves things open to interpretation. if govt. is going to give the okay to legal marriage b/w gays, then they've set a standard for what is sanctioned everywhere. businesses included.
because then that opens the door to other things. don't like Jews because you don't agree with them on several moral points? so now you can choose not to insure him? that would be ridiculous.
Chump, I have no problem with mixed race marriages. I also have no problem with gay marriages. I don't draw the line there but TECHNICALLY? When an employer is VOLUNTARILY giving a benefit to his employees that he pays out of his own pocket/profits?
Yeah, he should have the right to choose who he gives those benefits to, just like the employee has a right to choose to work there or somewhere else.
From what I know (could be wrong), almost all employers have a flat rate they contribute to each employee's medical plan. They'd still have to pay the flat rate towards the gay employees' health plan, so I'm not sure if anything would change at all.
Duh...so the employer is up front and Jews know that benefits will be limited if they work there and can look for employment elsewhere. No one says he has to work at THAT company.
I'm just saying that it is reverse discrimination to force someone to be "equal" on the benefits he is VOLUNTARILY providing to employees if he morally disagrees with the premise.
it's his "loss" from a business sense by limiting his talent pool but IMHO it should be his choice.
So you believe racial discrimination should be legal.
I disagree.
so.....gay business owners should do the same?
so then you're basically allowing people do indiscriminately discriminate?
that's all fine and good when you're full-blooded aryan and don't have a thing to worry about. but for the rerst of us there's this thing called discrimination we've got to worry about. look it up.
As an example, I still pay 100% of my employee and their wife and children's coverage as a benefit. It's my choice. If a single male employee decided to marry his brother who just got AIDS so he could get the benefit of my company paid insurance for his brother I don't think it is morally right for the Federal Government to REQUIRE me to give his brother the same benefits I VOLUNTARILY give the immediate families of my other employees.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions