• 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
The Catholic church should be free to be as backwards and primitive as it has always been.
 
Why is this even a question? He has every right to refuse to perform the ceremony if he wants, they can go elsewhere and take their money with them. People have a right to be bigoted, everyone else has right to tell them where to go.
 
Cephus said:
Why is this even a question? He has every right to refuse to perform the ceremony if he wants, they can go elsewhere and take their money with them. People have a right to be bigoted, everyone else has right to tell them where to go.
Click to expand...

It's a question because SSM is a question. It's a good one, too.
 
LuckyDan said:
It's a question because SSM is a question. It's a good one, too.
Click to expand...

But it's not a good question. It's a bigoted one. I'm sure the people who were against interracial marriage decades ago, against blacks in an integrated military, etc. thought they were good questions too. They were just wrong.
 
LuckyDan said:
It's a question because SSM is a question. It's a good one, too.
Click to expand...

It is a question easily and obviously answered "no" by any reasonable person. It may be a question, but it is not an issue.
 
I am happy to see a poll vote of 100% on this issue. The government can't interfere with the beliefs of a Church or Religion.

These Homosexual Laws permit Marriage they don't say in a Church.

Civil ceremonies have the same legal standing as a Religious one.

The only ones who might be forced to participate of face sanctions are Civil workers.
 
Dezaad said:
It is a question easily and obviously answered "no" by any reasonable person. It may be a question, but it is not an issue.
Click to expand...

SSM was once easily and obviously answered "no" by reasonable people. If it becomes the law of the land, as our pro-SSM friends tell us very confidently it will, this will be the next question.
 
Cephus said:
But it's not a good question. It's a bigoted one. I'm sure the people who were against interracial marriage decades ago, against blacks in an integrated military, etc. thought they were good questions too. They were just wrong.
Click to expand...

Were there religious exemptions on inter-racial marriage? That's where the favorite analogy of SSMers breaks apart.
 
LuckyDan said:
Were there religious exemptions on inter-racial marriage? That's where the favorite analogy of SSMers breaks apart.
Click to expand...

A church can deny to marry an inter-racial couple, the only reason there is this law with regards to SSM is because of political pandering.
 
LuckyDan said:
It's a question because SSM is a question. It's a good one, too.
Click to expand...

No. It's a nonsense one. No church is forced to marry anyone. It's silly to presume this woudl change.
 
LuckyDan said:
Were there religious exemptions on inter-racial marriage? That's where the favorite analogy of SSMers breaks apart.
Click to expand...

Sure. Hell, there was a justice of the peace a couple years ago who refused to do it. He's a public servant, so it's a bit different, but yeah, it's still going on. And it was common back in the day.

This is a complete non-issue. 39 to 0. No one is trying to force a pride parade into the doors of anyone's church. Not even the mostly flamingly liberal of liberals or the gayest of gays seems to care if some stodgy minister doesn't want to marry them. The same stodgy ministers refuse to marry people for all kinds of other reasons too, and there are plenty of other places and people who will be willing to marry them.

This is manufactured fear that this will somehow lead to the gay apocolypse where everyone is forced to salute the flag with "Born This Way" by Lady Gaga and engage in a ceremonial gay one-nighter on their 13th birthday. No one is trying to take anyone's rights. They just want to have the same rights. That includes the right to be refused by a stodgy minister, like straight people routinely are for whatever reason as well. At least they then know not to give that church any of their money.
 
Last edited:
Dezaad said:
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.
Click to expand...

You oppose the spread of religion? By what means should the spreading of religion be stemmed? I believed your claim until I read that. You sure your "vigorous opposition" is not just a case of political expediency?

Dezaad said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hummm, why would something so devoid of substance illicit such a pissy, ideologue response from you? Seems even raising the question about people's opinons pisses you off. What is the mindless far left so worried about?
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
A church can deny to marry an inter-racial couple, the only reason there is this law with regards to SSM is because of political pandering.
Click to expand...

On bibical grounds? Hell - on LEGAL grounds? I don't think so.
 
X Factor said:
^^^ Incidentally, to my left wing friends, I was just responding in kind to the post I was replying to by calling the far left "mindless". I didn't really mean it, it's just, sometimes the high road gives me a nosebleed.
Click to expand...

The better cons on this board must stop kissing left wing ass, X. That's why they keep coming at us so unpreparedly - they just know we're gonna be nice about it. They think we're panzies. And some of us are.
 
LuckyDan said:
On bibical grounds? Hell - on LEGAL grounds? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

A Priest does not have to marry two people that don't fit the gounds set by the church. Now, the Catholic Church has LONG married inter-racial couples (the Church is far more integrated racially and has been for far longer than nearly all Protestant sects.) Fact is, religious institutions are not FORCED to marry anyone they don't want to. The Church was not required to marry my wife and I. We had to meet the requirements set out by the Archdiocese of Atlanta, and could not get a Church wedding before those requirements were met. The Church will still continue to deny same sex marriages as they do not qualify for a Catholic wedding - and never will.
 
LuckyDan said:
The better cons on this board must stop kissing left wing ass, X. That's why they keep coming at us so unpreparedly - they just know we're gonna be nice about it. They think we're panzies. And some of us are.
Click to expand...

What the heck are you talking about? Not all Conservatives are going to fall for red herrings like this one. You know, there are knee jerk types on both sides, but there are also people who THINK on both sides. Those who can think also realize that religious groups are not going to be forced to grant marriages to gay couples. They can always get a civil marriage in locales where it is legal.
 
ludahai said:
A Priest does not have to marry two people that don't fit the gounds set by the church. Now, the Catholic Church has LONG married inter-racial couples (the Church is far more integrated racially and has been for far longer than nearly all Protestant sects.) Fact is, religious institutions are not FORCED to marry anyone they don't want to. The Church was not required to marry my wife and I. We had to meet the requirements set out by the Archdiocese of Atlanta, and could not get a Church wedding before those requirements were met. The Church will still continue to deny same sex marriages as they do not qualify for a Catholic wedding - and never will.
Click to expand...

You're Catholic. I was talking about Christians. (ba dink boop)

But seriously folks . . .

I can't tell what your argument is with my post.
 
LuckyDan said:
The better cons on this board must stop kissing left wing ass, X. That's why they keep coming at us so unpreparedly - they just know we're gonna be nice about it. They think we're panzies. And some of us are.
Click to expand...

Panzies is not what we would call right wingers. We have much more entertaining names for them. I would tell you what those names are, but I would get kicked out of the gay mafia if I did.
 
LuckyDan said:
Is it common? (And I'm still not sure it's legal.)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't think it's common, since racism is rightfully looked down upon in this country, but it is legal.
 
Redress said:
Panzies is not what we would call right wingers. We have much more entertaining names for them. I would tell you what those names are, but I would get kicked out of the gay mafia if I did.
Click to expand...

The cons here are just too damn ready to apologize and make friends with our lib counterparts. I won't name names, but there are strong con posters who seem to go out of their way to say, "Oh, but I'm not a racist. or a homophobe, like those others." And they still get eaten up. SCREW that.

PS. Sooo. . . . you're gay too? Not that there's . . . .skip it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom