Someone who supports civil unions but opposes gay marriage

[Keystone Phil]

Wait, in Sweden the State mandates churches to celebrate gay marriages even if they don't want to ? That makes no sense.

Naturally, it makes perfect sense for Sweden.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think I might support the state only recognizing civil unions that would apply the same way to straight and gay couples.

Marriage can be left to churches or anyone else who wants it. The latest development in Sweden where gays are getting married in churches I don't totally get, to be honest (unless they're actually Christian, but rather few seems to be).

Wait, in Sweden the State mandates churches to celebrate gay marriages even if they don't want to ? That makes no sense.

I'm not sure what the current legal status is, but I think they lose their marriage license if they refuse to wed gay couples. I'd have to check though, that might have been withdrawn due to protests from the churches.

However, the Church of Sweden, in its never-ending endeavour to be modern and progressive and not scare anyone away with actually standing for anything (beyond being opposed to racism) has decided to wed gay couples.

Before anyone jumps on me, I wouldn't mind them doing that if I thought it was based on some sort of reasoning with at least some theologiclal elements to it, but I sort of doubt that it is. It's a bit of a joke church, to be honest.

Uh it sounds like they ARE standing for something by wedding gay couples. Are you saying the United Church of Christ stands for nothing by doing so? Can you imagine how a minister who marries gay couples in the south would be treated for example?

[Gustaf]

I think I might support the state only recognizing civil unions that would apply the same way to straight and gay couples.

Marriage can be left to churches or anyone else who wants it. The latest development in Sweden where gays are getting married in churches I don't totally get, to be honest (unless they're actually Christian, but rather few seems to be).

Wait, in Sweden the State mandates churches to celebrate gay marriages even if they don't want to ? That makes no sense.

I'm not sure what the current legal status is, but I think they lose their marriage license if they refuse to wed gay couples. I'd have to check though, that might have been withdrawn due to protests from the churches.

However, the Church of Sweden, in its never-ending endeavour to be modern and progressive and not scare anyone away with actually standing for anything (beyond being opposed to racism) has decided to wed gay couples.

Before anyone jumps on me, I wouldn't mind them doing that if I thought it was based on some sort of reasoning with at least some theologiclal elements to it, but I sort of doubt that it is. It's a bit of a joke church, to be honest.

Uh it sounds like they ARE standing for something by wedding gay couples. Are you saying the United Church of Christ stands for nothing by doing so? Can you imagine how a minister who marries gay couples in the south would be treated for example?

Sweden isn't the South. I know you hate nuances and thinking and things like that, but whether something is a brave stand or not depends on context. For instance, saying "I don't think one should murder all the Jews" would have been a brave stand in Nazi Germany in the 40s, but not so much in modern-day Sweden (although perhaps if one hangs out with people like Lief).

I would applaud the courage of a minister who wed gay couples in Alabama, but I won't do it in the Church of Sweden. They're just trying desperately to be PC while they keep losing members at a rapid pace.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Gustaf I'm pretty sure churches are themselves allowed to choose wether to marry gay couples (99,8%) It's as you say just the Church of Sweden being PC who do it. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think I might support the state only recognizing civil unions that would apply the same way to straight and gay couples.

Marriage can be left to churches or anyone else who wants it. The latest development in Sweden where gays are getting married in churches I don't totally get, to be honest (unless they're actually Christian, but rather few seems to be).

Wait, in Sweden the State mandates churches to celebrate gay marriages even if they don't want to ? That makes no sense.

I'm not sure what the current legal status is, but I think they lose their marriage license if they refuse to wed gay couples. I'd have to check though, that might have been withdrawn due to protests from the churches.

However, the Church of Sweden, in its never-ending endeavour to be modern and progressive and not scare anyone away with actually standing for anything (beyond being opposed to racism) has decided to wed gay couples.

Before anyone jumps on me, I wouldn't mind them doing that if I thought it was based on some sort of reasoning with at least some theologiclal elements to it, but I sort of doubt that it is. It's a bit of a joke church, to be honest.

Uh it sounds like they ARE standing for something by wedding gay couples. Are you saying the United Church of Christ stands for nothing by doing so? Can you imagine how a minister who marries gay couples in the south would be treated for example?

Sweden isn't the South. I know you hate nuances and thinking and things like that, but whether something is a brave stand or not depends on context. For instance, saying "I don't think one should murder all the Jews" would have been a brave stand in Nazi Germany in the 40s, but not so much in modern-day Sweden (although perhaps if one hangs out with people like Lief).

I would applaud the courage of a minister who wed gay couples in Alabama, but I won't do it in the Church of Sweden. They're just trying desperately to be PC while they keep losing members at a rapid pace.

But if that's the position you agree with, who cares? For example it would take A LOT more political courage to support the Minnesota GOP's anti-gay marriage amendment in my district, as any Minneapolis rep who voted for it would be basically instantly dead in the primary in 2012 (though there really is no question as to if the opposition from Rep who is a lesbian is sincere.) That doesn't mean that anyone would praise any Democrat who voted for it for their courage. They'd just watch them get tossed out brutally in 2012. Conversely there are two Republicans in very liberal districts that barely won in 2010 and only did because both districts rely heavily on university's votes, and university turnout in 2010 fell through the floor. Four Republicans voted against it, neither one was one of them. In each of their districts, this is definitely going to hurt, but does that mean I should applaud them for their courage? Meanwhile Rep. Kriesel gave a particularly moving speech against the amendment, but his district isn't the one where this is an unpopular position, and voting for it would be more dangerous politically. Does that mean he should be condemned?

[Gustaf]

Gustaf I'm pretty sure churches are themselves allowed to choose wether to marry gay couples (99,8%) It's as you say just the Church of Sweden being PC who do it. 

But can they refuse and retain the marriage license? (that is, the marriage being recognized as legal by the state)

There was definitely a discussion about a law that would revoke it in those cases, but I don't recall where that eventually ended.

Fundamentally, it seems a bit unworkable for the state to sanction gay marriage and then having the churches acting as state agents giving out marriage licenses but not adhering to that law. Personally, I think the solution to that is to separate those two concepts.

[Gustaf]

I think I might support the state only recognizing civil unions that would apply the same way to straight and gay couples.

Marriage can be left to churches or anyone else who wants it. The latest development in Sweden where gays are getting married in churches I don't totally get, to be honest (unless they're actually Christian, but rather few seems to be).

Wait, in Sweden the State mandates churches to celebrate gay marriages even if they don't want to ? That makes no sense.

I'm not sure what the current legal status is, but I think they lose their marriage license if they refuse to wed gay couples. I'd have to check though, that might have been withdrawn due to protests from the churches.

However, the Church of Sweden, in its never-ending endeavour to be modern and progressive and not scare anyone away with actually standing for anything (beyond being opposed to racism) has decided to wed gay couples.

Before anyone jumps on me, I wouldn't mind them doing that if I thought it was based on some sort of reasoning with at least some theologiclal elements to it, but I sort of doubt that it is. It's a bit of a joke church, to be honest.

Uh it sounds like they ARE standing for something by wedding gay couples. Are you saying the United Church of Christ stands for nothing by doing so? Can you imagine how a minister who marries gay couples in the south would be treated for example?

Sweden isn't the South. I know you hate nuances and thinking and things like that, but whether something is a brave stand or not depends on context. For instance, saying "I don't think one should murder all the Jews" would have been a brave stand in Nazi Germany in the 40s, but not so much in modern-day Sweden (although perhaps if one hangs out with people like Lief).

I would applaud the courage of a minister who wed gay couples in Alabama, but I won't do it in the Church of Sweden. They're just trying desperately to be PC while they keep losing members at a rapid pace.

But if that's the position you agree with, who cares? For example it would take A LOT more political courage to support the Minnesota GOP's anti-gay marriage amendment in my district, as any Minneapolis rep who voted for it would be basically instantly dead in the primary in 2012 (though there really is no question as to if the opposition from Rep who is a lesbian is sincere.) That doesn't mean that anyone would praise any Democrat who voted for it for their courage. They'd just watch them get tossed out brutally in 2012. Conversely there are two Republicans in very liberal districts that barely won in 2010 and only did because both districts rely heavily on university's votes, and university turnout in 2010 fell through the floor. Four Republicans voted against it, neither one was one of them. In each of their districts, this is definitely going to hurt, but does that mean I should applaud them for their courage? Meanwhile Rep. Kriesel gave a particularly moving speech against the amendment, but his district isn't the one where this is an unpopular position, and voting for it would be more dangerous politically. Does that mean he should be condemned?

Again, I know you like to give headshots to people who disagree with you and stand in unmitigated adoration of everyone on your side, but I prefer considering nuances and taking in the whole picture adnd judging people based on reality.

So if someone takes a position out of cowardice I'm not going to applaud it because I agree with it. Why would I? Of course, I'm not going to applaud someone being a Nazi even though that is now controversial, either.

But I'm afraid this kind of thinking  might be a tad too complex for you. If you want to content yourself with thinking D=GOOD, R=BAD, please. Just don't try and make me go along with such silliness.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Gustaf I'm pretty sure churches are themselves allowed to choose wether to marry gay couples (99,8%) It's as you say just the Church of Sweden being PC who do it. 

But can they refuse and retain the marriage license? (that is, the marriage being recognized as legal by the state)

There was definitely a discussion about a law that would revoke it in those cases, but I don't recall where that eventually ended.

Fundamentally, it seems a bit unworkable for the state to sanction gay marriage and then having the churches acting as state agents giving out marriage licenses but not adhering to that law. Personally, I think the solution to that is to separate those two concepts.

That is quite silly indeed. Religious marriages shouldn't have any civil value, they are two separate things. Let the churches perform the marriages they want, how they want. But for the legal stuff, churches shouldn't be involved to begin with.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf I'm pretty sure churches are themselves allowed to choose wether to marry gay couples (99,8%) It's as you say just the Church of Sweden being PC who do it. 

But can they refuse and retain the marriage license? (that is, the marriage being recognized as legal by the state)

There was definitely a discussion about a law that would revoke it in those cases, but I don't recall where that eventually ended.

Fundamentally, it seems a bit unworkable for the state to sanction gay marriage and then having the churches acting as state agents giving out marriage licenses but not adhering to that law. Personally, I think the solution to that is to separate those two concepts.

That is quite silly indeed. Religious marriages shouldn't have any civil value, they are two separate things. Let the churches perform the marriages they want, how they want. But for the legal stuff, churches shouldn't be involved to begin with.

Yeah, that's basically my view as well. The root of this problem is probably that we didn't have separation of state and church in Sweden until the year 2000.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Gustaf I'm pretty sure churches are themselves allowed to choose wether to marry gay couples (99,8%) It's as you say just the Church of Sweden being PC who do it. 

But can they refuse and retain the marriage license? (that is, the marriage being recognized as legal by the state)

There was definitely a discussion about a law that would revoke it in those cases, but I don't recall where that eventually ended.

Fundamentally, it seems a bit unworkable for the state to sanction gay marriage and then having the churches acting as state agents giving out marriage licenses but not adhering to that law. Personally, I think the solution to that is to separate those two concepts.

That is quite silly indeed. Religious marriages shouldn't have any civil value, they are two separate things. Let the churches perform the marriages they want, how they want. But for the legal stuff, churches shouldn't be involved to begin with.

Yeah, that's basically my view as well. The root of this problem is probably that we didn't have separation of state and church in Sweden until the year 2000.

2000, really ? Well, after all, that's still better than most European countries...

[Gustaf]

Gustaf I'm pretty sure churches are themselves allowed to choose wether to marry gay couples (99,8%) It's as you say just the Church of Sweden being PC who do it. 

But can they refuse and retain the marriage license? (that is, the marriage being recognized as legal by the state)

There was definitely a discussion about a law that would revoke it in those cases, but I don't recall where that eventually ended.

Fundamentally, it seems a bit unworkable for the state to sanction gay marriage and then having the churches acting as state agents giving out marriage licenses but not adhering to that law. Personally, I think the solution to that is to separate those two concepts.

That is quite silly indeed. Religious marriages shouldn't have any civil value, they are two separate things. Let the churches perform the marriages they want, how they want. But for the legal stuff, churches shouldn't be involved to begin with.

Yeah, that's basically my view as well. The root of this problem is probably that we didn't have separation of state and church in Sweden until the year 2000.

2000, really ? Well, after all, that's still better than most European countries...

I'm not so sure. France has had legal separation for a long time I believe. Hell, even Mexico has it (or at least my Mexican friend claims so).

The problem with the Church of Sweden is that are still not over the fact that they're not longer a state church.