• 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!

If SSM is Legalized, Should Churches be "Forced" to Perform Gay Marriages?

If SSM is Legalized, Should Churches be "Forced" to Perform Gay Marriages?


  • Total voters
    104
No but churches dont do marriages they do weddings.
 
Don't confuse this with a similar poll (that gave me the idea for this one). I'm not asking if you think churches will be forced to perform gay marriages, I'm asking for your honest opinion if you believe they should be forced to do it.


By forced, I mean anything that the govt could use to penalize churches for failing to performing the ceremonies, including removing tax exempt status if they don't, etc.

According to a minister I know from Canada, in order to validate marriage licenses ministers from his province are required to obtain some type of official credentialing from the provencial government. However, once granted the minister must agree to validate any marriage lisence presented without discrimination functioning as type of government officer. This does not mean they are required to be married in the church, but does mean the minister must violate their conscience and what they believe is obedience to God in exchange for the priveldge to marry their own church members in what some christians believe is a faith based ceremony.
 
By forced, I mean anything that the govt could use to penalize churches for failing to performing the ceremonies, including removing tax exempt status if they don't, etc.
Absolutely not. First off, separation of church and state. Second, churches aren't the only place where people get married.
 
Marriage is a legal document that awards benefits to couples that are romantically involved, but so too can civil unions.

Marriage is a form of unification under religion and is separate from State unions, which are papers and benefits devoid of God.

Should Christians be tolerant and equally treat those who are gay by marrying them, yes, (for it is not their place to judge) but should they be forced to do so, no.

The State’s responsibility is to ensure equal rights are awarded to all, e.g., financial benefits, which can be done without religious marriage via State sanctioned unions, and homosexuals and heterosexuals should both have the right to enter into a union through a Judge.

Religion will eventually grow into modernity and be more accepting, but it will be done slowly and from within the Church and its members rather than by legal obligations forced upon it by the State.

In the mean time, it is the Priests, Ministers, Rabbis, Imams, etc to determine if they will or will not marry people under their respective religions.
 
Marriage is a legal document that awards benefits to couples that are romantically involved, but so too can civil unions.

Marriage is a form of unification under religion and is separate from State unions, which are papers and benefits devoid of God.

Should Christians be tolerant and equally treat those who are gay by marrying them, yes, (for it is not their place to judge) but should they be forced to do so, no.

The State’s responsibility is to ensure equal rights are awarded to all, e.g., financial benefits, which can be done without religious marriage via State sanctioned unions, and homosexuals and heterosexuals should both have the right to enter into a union through a Judge.

Religion will eventually grow into modernity and be more accepting, but it will be done slowly and from within the Church and its members rather than by legal obligations forced upon it by the State.

In the mean time, it is the Priests, Ministers, Rabbis, Imams, etc to determine if they will or will not marry people under their respective religions.

No religion owns marriage. Marriage is and has been a civil union. It was only when religions were gaining political/social power that they started to care about marriage. Society owns marriage, not religion. I am just as married as anyone who went through a church, religion, mentioned God. They have the same legal marriage I have.

So no religions doesn't get to claim marriage just because they mistakenly believe they own the word or the institution. They are wrong.
 
Don't confuse this with a similar poll (that gave me the idea for this one). I'm not asking if you think churches will be forced to perform gay marriages, I'm asking for your honest opinion if you believe they should be forced to do it.


By forced, I mean anything that the govt could use to penalize churches for failing to performing the ceremonies, including removing tax exempt status if they don't, etc.

Absolutely not. The government could not refuse to issue the marriage license to same sex couples, but churches are more than free to refuse their services to acts that are against their doctrine.
 
No religion owns marriage. Marriage is and has been a civil union. It was only when religions were gaining political/social power that they started to care about marriage. Society owns marriage, not religion. I am just as married as anyone who went through a church, religion, mentioned God. They have the same legal marriage I have.

So no religions doesn't get to claim marriage just because they mistakenly believe they own the word or the institution. They are wrong.

They "own" the term when it is performed by them, but that, I'm sure, will change in time. Legislation can be passed to call judge performed unions marriage, thereby making unions via church representatives or judges marriage, which I also agree should be done.

(and some church representative are performing marriage, which is the fight from within that must take place for religion to change, and this internal struggled can only be benefited by society as a whole changing the term of judge unions, i.e., changing them to marriage)

Forcing churches to marry all is too far in that it violates religious freedoms (which makes it very impractical in this era to resolve this issue), but it's societies' responsibility to provide an alternate option through non-religious means, which the above suggestion accomplishes.

Religion will eventually follow, and changing societies' terms, i.e., judge sanctioned unions into marriage, will help pave the way for religious change and tolerance from within; whereas force will only be despised and fought against.

I agree religious institutions should change and allow same-sex-marriage, but I disagree with how it should be achieved.
 
They "own" the term when it is performed by them, but that, I'm sure, will change in time. Legislation can be passed to call judge performed unions marriage, thereby making unions via church representatives or judges marriage, which I also agree should be done.

(and some church representative are performing marriage, which is the fight from within that must take place for religion to change, and this internal struggled can only be benefited by society as a whole changing the term of judge unions, i.e., changing them to marriage)

Forcing churches to marry all is too far in that it violates religious freedoms (which makes it very impractical in this era to resolve this issue), but it's societies' responsibility to provide an alternate option through non-religious means, which the above suggestion accomplishes.

Religion will eventually follow, and changing societies' terms, i.e., judge sanctioned unions into marriage, will help pave the way for religious change and tolerance from within; whereas force will only be despised and fought against.

I agree religious institutions should change and allow same-sex-marriage, but I disagree with how it should be achieved.

They don't "own" the term. They are simply using the term. They don't get to determine other people's marriages.

It is like how some religions believe they hold a monopoly on God.

No one I have ever known has advocated for any churches to be forced to perform any weddings for any couple they don't want to.

But marriage is different than the wedding rite.
 
Back
Top Bottom