• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What if a Minister refuses to perform a gay wedding ceremony?

What if a Minister refuses to perform gay ceremony?

  • Should be allowed to refuse.

    Votes: 69 98.6%

  • Should be forced to perform.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Should be stripped of license.

    Votes: 1 1.4%

  • Should be arrested.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    70
Centrist77 said:
you may have been very clear 1000 times in threads but that doesnt mean "I" know them or put you in my mental Rolodex as anti-abortion, lol ? :shurg:

I dont have one, only guy I ever remember is that poster who was a troll and got banned and his name was some play on words, cant remember it now but if I saw it I would.

also it would depend on HOW you want them to be hard to obtain, thats what I would base :my" decision on. Because the fact remains that currently that is impeding and trying to back door peoples rights/freedoms but you may have very reasonable ideas, again I dont know them.

I know I defended you and a thread im not allowed to talk about upstairs ;) lol
Click to expand...
Yes, it was appreciated and still is. I was also happy to do the same for you. :)


I dont think anything about you on the subject yet, dont know enough info like I said above.



again you would unknowingly be wrong because I always blast extremist, and on this board ive never met a pro-choice extremist, what would that be? how would you define that?

a person who would allow free abortion 24/7 on every corner, at any time, for any reason, even after viability and after its immediately born?

then yes they would DEFINITELY be a nutcase. :D

give me an examples if you have some in mind and Ill answer honestly
Click to expand...

Centrist, there's enough abortion threads here without turning this into one. The trouble I have with accusing people of "extremism" is it's all a matter of perspective, isn't it? You're example of what would be required for you to see someone as being a pro-choice extremist show that you, yourself have a sliding scale (advocating abortion after birth? Who's going to say that?) and a much lower threshold for seeing someone as an anti-abortion extremist (where, apparently, only trying to limit abortion through the use of the legal process is enough). I'm not criticizing you for it, we all do it. My main difference of opinion with you, here, is that I don't believe I can criticize someone I disagree with as being an extremist without acknowledging that my own views could also be seen as extreme.
 
When I attended church regularly, the pastor, a man I greatly respect, refused to perform the marriage ceremony of the daughter of one of my wife's friends, who was (and remains) a member of that church. I've forgotten the reason but it was, as I recall, biblically sound. The pastor said he would perform the ceremony after some conditions had been met, which meant delaying the marriage a considerable time.

Sorry to be so vague, but if anyone is curious I'll ask my wife for the details. The point is, the pastor was within his rights, and the couple were married soon after at another church.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
Yes, it was appreciated and still is. I was also happy to do the same for you. :)




Centrist, there's enough abortion threads here without turning this into one. The trouble I have with accusing people of "extremism" is it's all a matter of perspective, isn't it? You're example of what would be required for you to see someone as being a pro-choice extremist show that you, yourself have a sliding scale (advocating abortion after birth? Who's going to say that?) and a much lower threshold for seeing someone as an anti-abortion extremist (where, apparently, only trying to limit abortion through the use of the legal process is enough). I'm not criticizing you for it, we all do it. My main difference of opinion with you, here, is that I don't believe I can criticize someone I disagree with as being an extremist without acknowledging that my own views could also be seen as extreme.
Click to expand...

I agree thats why I told you I have no judgement of you or what a pro choice extremist would be unless you gave me examples.

I agree its a very subjective term but in general I look for a mixture of logical, civil, rational vs right liberties and freedoms vs majority/miniority vs objectivity.

again alot of that is subjective too but it is what it is, extremist IMO will always be nuts IMO but id be willling to discuss why or why not with anybody. :shurg:
 
Redress said:
Not really a concern since it is unlikely, and would require a complete overhaul of the first amendment which is unlikely. Anything is possible, but things like this have a very remote chance of happening.
Click to expand...

Well, as I've pointed out before, I wouldn't have expected to see a push to ban circumcision succeed (not that it has yet) or a Supreme Court Justice say that burning the Koran may not be protected free speech either.
 
X Factor said:
Hummm, not exactly the same but this raises some interesting issues.

Group Loses Tax Break Over Gay Union Issue - New York Times
Click to expand...

Im going to apologize in advance because im feeling lazy and only skimmed it so feel free to call me an ass if I get it wrong :D

For me this is a non issue and RIGHT because I am on record as saying that any religion that gets involved in a PUBLIC service or business it is NOT allowed to discriminate because those things have nothing to do with RELIGION.

now again I didnt read the article so I may have it wrong but for example St. Micheal's Hospital has no right to not allow me spouse visitation rights because I only have a legal marriage and not a religious one. Or not treat me in the ER if Im gay

or

If a church opens up a foster placement agency which has to run by rules of the fed/state gov it has to play by ALL the rules since foster placement is not a religious matter.

if they want to be involved in these NON religious matter they must play by the rules or give up their privileges

now personally, if Im guessing right, they should have been able to keep their status IMO but had to be open to ALL public, forfeit their public option/profits from their property or give up that business.



just my two cents
 
Centrist77 said:
I agree thats why I told you I have no judgement of you or what a pro choice extremist would be unless you gave me examples.

I agree its a very subjective term but in general I look for a mixture of logical, civil, rational vs right liberties and freedoms vs majority/miniority vs objectivity.

again alot of that is subjective too but it is what it is, extremist IMO will always be nuts IMO but id be willling to discuss why or why not with anybody. :shurg:
Click to expand...

A different discussion for a different thread. :)
 
X Factor said:
Well, as I've pointed out before, I wouldn't have expected to see a push to ban circumcision succeed (not that it has yet) or a Supreme Court Justice say that burning the Koran may not be protected free speech either.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that circumcision is a medical procedure? Parents cannot rely on faith healing over actual treatments for a child with cancer either. That is because...it is different than SSM, which is not, guess what...a medical procedure.
 
SPC said:
See what I mean? All they would have to do is threaten to pull the church's tax exempt status.
Click to expand...


Wow, here is a telling quote from that article:

“When people hear the words ‘open space,’ we want them to think not just of open air and land, but that it is open to all people,” said Ms. Jackson. “And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs.”
Click to expand...

So all the sudden if you get 501c3 tax breaks, you're "publically subsidized" and have to abide by Fed rules on discrimination? Uh-oh....
 
X Factor said:
Only time will tell. Would you have ever expected to hear a Supreme Court Justice suggest that the first amendment may not protect speech based on someone's reaction half a world away?
Click to expand...

Supreme Court justices have said many stupid things.
 
Your Star said:
And the SCOTUS will eventually claim that law unconstitutional. And besides even if they don't, DOMA will be ruled unconstitutional, and people can travel to New York, get a marriage license, and your state will have to recognize it. Besides when my generation starts to vote more, any SSM law will be passed. It's inevitable, and you can't do anything about it.
Click to expand...

Just for discussion....States will not have to recognize a license of any sort from another state. They don't have to now. The USSC will indeed be forced to rule on SSM at some point though which will only then decide the issue.
 
They don't have to and AREN'T SUPPOSED TO

/thread
 
SPC said:
With Gay marriage now being made legal in 6 states, what should be the reaction to a minister refusing to perform the ceremony?
Click to expand...

No church, or minister, should be forced to perform a gay marriage ceremony.
 
Look if the Church of Satan doesn't want to marry gays I'm fine with it!:2razz:
 
winston53660 said:
Yeah I know. I think the whole Church of Satan is more a work of performance art than anything else.
Click to expand...

You're probably right. I've only come across one member, and that was on the net. He seemed to be drawn to the power trip angle. Odd bunch.
 
This liberal is going on record saying that the religious freedom for clergy to refuse to perform a same sex marriage, or any other marriage, is far more important than the small infringement on equality such an action by a clergy member would represent. I am unequivocal in my opposition to forcing clergy to marry couples they do not want to marry. I would vigorously oppose any movement to force them to.

I am an atheist opposed to the spread of religion, and who fully and vigorously supports same sex marriage.
 
The notion that clergy will be forced to marry same sex couples is a red herring that the far right leadership is using in order to frighten it's ignorant followers. It is demagoguery with zero substance used to manipulate. Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom