• 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!

Should churches be forced to perform gay marriages?

Should churches be forced to perform gay marriages?

  • Im a right leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Im a left leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 1 1.1%

  • Im not American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Im a right leaning American, no.

    Votes: 43 46.2%

  • Im a left leaning American, no.

    Votes: 37 39.8%

  • Im not American, no.

    Votes: 12 12.9%
  • Total voters
    93
Amandi said:
I think someone is messing with the vote. I cant believe that 5 right leaning people voted yes and dont believe that 6 left leaning people did. Until I just voted, there were exactly the same number of yes's as no's. I just dont believe that that happened without someone messing with it.
Click to expand...

Follow this link to see the results. Note that it shows under each choice, the names of those who voted for that choice while being logged in as members of this forum. Those are the legitimate, verifiable votes. As of this moment, none of the choices that support churches being forced to perform homosexual mockeries of weddings have any names under them. All the votes for those choices were made by persons not logged in, most likely by the same one person, messing with the poll.

The only legitimate votes, as of this moment, are seven votes for “Im [sic] a right leaning American, no.”, and eight votes for “Im [sic] a left leaning American, no.”.

All of the votes for “Im [sic] a right leaning American, yes.”, “Im [sic] a left leaning American, yes.”, “Im [sic] not American, yes.”, and “Im [/i][sic] not American, no.”, as well as one vote for “Im [sic] a left leaning American, no.”, are bogus “guest” votes.

———
I just noticed something odd. To look at the list of names under “Im [sic] a right leaning American, no.”, it looks longer than the list under “Im [sic] a left leaning American, no.”, but the latter actually has one more name than the former. What this would mean is that among those who have legitimately voted in this poll, those who identify as right-leaning tend to have longer names than those who identify as wrong-leaning. I wonder if this correlation would hold up on a larger scale, if right-leaning people in general tend to use longer names on forums like this than wrong-leaning people do.
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
Follow this link to see the results. Note that it shows under each choice, the names of those who voted for that choice while being logged in as members of this forum. Those are the legitimate, verifiable votes. As of this moment, none of the choices that support churches being forced to perform homosexual mockeries of weddings have any names under them. All the votes for those choices were made by persons not logged in, most likely by the same one person, messing with the poll.

The only legitimate votes, as of this moment, are seven votes for “Im [sic] a right leaning American, no.”, and eight votes for “Im [sic] a left leaning American, no.”.

All of the votes for “Im [sic] a right leaning American, yes.”, “Im [sic] a left leaning American, yes.”, “Im [sic] not American, yes.”, and “Im [/i][sic] not American, no.”, as well as one vote for “Im [sic] a left leaning American, no.”, are bogus “guest” votes.

———
I just noticed something odd. To look at the list of names under “Im [sic] a right leaning American, no.”, it looks longer than the list under “Im [sic] a left leaning American, no.”, but the latter actually has one more name than the former. What this would mean is that among those who have legitimately voted in this poll, those who identify as right-leaning tend to have longer names than those who identify as wrong-leaning. I wonder if this correlation would hold up on a larger scale, if right-leaning people in general tend to use longer names on forums like this than wrong-leaning people do.
Click to expand...

I also noticed all but one of the ridiculous leaning people have a "first and last" name and none of the logical leaning people do.
 
iguanaman said:
What do you call a church that demands 10% of your income to be a member?
Click to expand...

A much better deal than a government that demands 40% or more of your income.

It does cost money to operate a church, and that money does have to come from somewhere. It's a long-established principle for churches to be funded by tithing voluntarily collected from its members. The word “tithing”, by the way, derives from a root that refers to one tenth.

There's nothing wrong with that. How else do you suppose a church should meet its expenses?


It is, however, quite another thing, if a church will change its values and doctrines, for the sake of money. A church that will put aside the teachings and commandments of God, for the sake of money, is a church that serves Mammon rather than God.
 
Last edited:
I absolutely think churches should be forced to marry gays. I also think all women should be required to have abortions. All gun owners should have to turn in their guns to the government. Every hard working citizen should be required to give half their paycheck to illegal immigrants.


Why do so many conservative minded people believe that people are out to destroy every liberty they have?
 
It is not happening, it is not going to happen, it would be unconstitutional to try, and basically no one thinks they should. I suspect the purpose of the thread is to try and create a false impression that this is an actual issue.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

Redress said:
It is not happening, it is not going to happen, it would be unconstitutional to try, and basically no one thinks they should. I suspect the purpose of the thread is to try and create a false impression that this is an actual issue.
Click to expand...

There have already been steps taken in this direction, that ought to have been seen as clearly unconstitutional, but which have been allowed anyway. The big step was in forcing photographers, caterers, bakers, and such, to provide service to homosexual mockeries of weddings, and to subject them to civil liability and/or criminal charges for refusing to do so. This is blatantly unconstitutional, and yet it has been allowed to happen. Compared to that, it is a very small step from there to forcing churches to participate in homosexual mockeries of weddings.

If we were going to stop short of forcing churches to participate in such sickness, then we would have stopped before we reached the point of forcing businesses to participate in it.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

Bob Blaylock said:
There have already been steps taken in this direction, that ought to have been seen as clearly unconstitutional, but which have been allowed anyway. The big step was in forcing photographers, caterers, bakers, and such, to provide service to homosexual mockeries of weddings, and to subject them to civil liability and/or criminal charges for refusing to do so. This is blatantly unconstitutional, and yet it has been allowed to happen. Compared to that, it is a very small step from there to forcing churches to participate in homosexual mockeries of weddings.

If we were going to stop short of forcing churches to participate in such sickness, then we would have stopped before we reached the point of forcing businesses to participate in it.
Click to expand...

Look at the second word in the thread title. See that word. it is "churches". Not bakeries, not photographers, but churches.

And your ignorance of the constitution is astounding.
 
I'm a big fan of revenge, so it would be delicious to force it on for instance the LSD churches out in utah who put out lying advertising for prop H8. However, i would have to say no, since this fear is obviously the main argument deployed by the anti equality crowd. If we were making no progress *still* on SSM, i'd be all for it, but i see no benefit at this time to incite sympathy towards the bigots by targeting their churches.

Let's keep it focused instead on putting bigot bakers out of work
 
Absolutely not. No religious entity should ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are against its core dogma. The only exception would be if they operate more as a business than a house of worship.
 
Why on earth would churches be forced to perform gay weddings. If someone wants to be gay wed he either finds a priest who is willing to perform that marriage or a judge/city hall to get married.

The right to wed your same sex partner is not the right to force churches who do not approve of said gay weddings to perform them.

So no, I am not an American and I think forcing churches to marry gays/lesbians is totally unacceptable.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

Redress said:
Look at the second word in the thread title. See that word. it is "churches". Not bakeries, not photographers, but churches.

And your ignorance of the constitution is astounding.
Click to expand...

The point is that nobody ought to have been forced to participate in sick homosexual mockeries of weddings, against their will. Not bakers. Not florists. Not photographers. Nobody. The Constitution has already been violated, by forcing this evil on decent people who want nothing to do with it. The line has already been crossed. The precedents have already been set, that will now make it possible to force this evil into churches.

If you think that the Constitution has not already been violated, then it is you who is ignorant of what it says and what it means.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

Bob Blaylock said:
The point is that nobody ought to have been forced to participate in sick homosexual mockeries of weddings, against their will. Not bakers. Not florists. Not photographers. Nobody. The Constitution has already been violated, by forcing this evil on decent people who want nothing to do with it. The line has already been crossed. The precedents have already been set, that will now make it possible to force this evil into churches.

If you think that the Constitution has not already been violated, then it is you who is ignorant of what it says and what it means.
Click to expand...

Again you show your ignorance of the constitution. Or perhaps you can show where it says that businesses cannot be regulated? And you might want to learn the difference between a business and a church. It is kinda important.
 
A justice of the peace would suffice, that's all that matters, legally. Churches can do whatever they want, either alienate and isolate themselves, or get with the times, nobody should force a church to do anything, it's on the church to decide how they want to handle it.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

Bob Blaylock said:
The point is that nobody ought to have been forced to participate in sick homosexual mockeries of weddings, against their will. Not bakers. Not florists. Not photographers. Nobody. The Constitution has already been violated, by forcing this evil on decent people who want nothing to do with it. The line has already been crossed. The precedents have already been set, that will now make it possible to force this evil into churches.

If you think that the Constitution has not already been violated, then it is you who is ignorant of what it says and what it means.
Click to expand...

your hateful not decent churches don't have to marry people against their will in this country

and their is no sick mockery of marriage based on gender just marge between people of the same gender as well as between men and women
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

Redress said:
Again you show your ignorance of the constitution. Or perhaps you can show where it says that businesses cannot be regulated? And you might want to learn the difference between a business and a church. It is kinda important.
Click to expand...

In the First Amendment, it affirms the freedoms of speech, press, and religion; and strongly implies freedom of association, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression. It prohibits Congress from making any law which violates these rights. By incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, these rights are protected from violation by lower levels of government as well.

There is nothing in the Constitution which makes any distinction between an individual, a commercial business, a church, or any other organization. Nothing that implies that any of these may be denied any of these rights.

Government has crossed the line in selectively denying these rights to individual, and to businesses, in blatant violation of the First Amendment. There is no new precedent that needs to be set in order to deny these rights to churches, that hasn't already been set in denying these rights to individuals or to businesses.

The line has been crossed.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

blarg said:
your hateful not decent churches don't have to marry people against their will in this country

and their is no sick mockery of marriage based on gender just marge between people of the same gender as well as between men and women
Click to expand...

If you're not going to write in readable English, then please don't bother addressing me. I'm not even going to try to read the incomprehensible garbage such as you've been writing this evening.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

Bob Blaylock said:
If you're not going to write in readable English, then please don't bother addressing me. I'm not even going to try to read the incomprehensible garbage such as you've been writing this evening.
Click to expand...

you deal in something other then incomprehensible garbage? shocking

could you post a link to some of it
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

Should those responding to a poll be forced to structure their answers with qualifiers that have little to do with the question?
 
US Conservative said:
81601297-same-sex-couple-ariel-owens-and-his-spouse-joseph-barham.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg

gay-marriage.gi.top.jpg


We hear much about gay marriage these days, both in the media and in politics. However, many religions (not just Christians) are expressly against gay marriage. There are exceptions, but in general that is the current situation.

Should churches be forced to perform gay marriages?
Click to expand...

My thoughts TK.
Click to expand...

Who has ever suggested that this should be done?

If it ever happened I missed it.

If you have never read the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution you might want to spend a little time on that. :roll:

That should tell you all that you need to know.
 
Last edited:
US Conservative said:
Fair enough (I happen to agree)
but the question was if churches should be forced to do so.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



How would you force them to do this? It would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. :roll:

I'd be interested to hear your story about how this could be done.
 
WillyPete said:
I feel that the irrational fear of this very outcome is much of what drives the "anti-gay marriage" position.

As though extending beyond the traditional gender barrier on a civil marriage somehow negates the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...


Redress said:
It is not happening, it is not going to happen, it would be unconstitutional to try, and basically no one thinks they should. I suspect the purpose of the thread is to try and create a false impression that this is an actual issue.
Click to expand...


correct correct correct and correct!


this is an irrational fear based on nothing but pure conspiracy theory
the constitution isnt going anywhere and "churches" are protected and have the right to discriminate . . and its a right the super vast majority support

this mentally inane dishonest fear tactic doesn't work on anybody educated, honest and or objective on this subject

its complete nonsense that just gets laughed at

not to mention this has a NEW fear, based on equal rights for gays is even more retarded . . why? because the church has been discriminating against gender, religion, race and sexual orientation WAAAAAAAAY before equal rights started winning for gays. Where was the illogical fear before this since churches were already turning away straights, blacks people they felt was not religious enough etc etc etc

was the church forced to marry blacks when minorities got equal rights? were they forced to marry woman they didnt want to when woman got equal rights? have they ever been forced to marry a different religion they didnt want to? have they ever been forced to marry ever in current american times? nooooooooope lol

anybody that would try would completely fail


Just last summer a black couple was denied a marriage at thier very own church, it was southern church and mostly white . . . it made news . . . it was talked about here . . . . . legally? NOTHING happened because they have every right :shrug:

friends of mine that are STRAIGHT and WHITE and CHRISTIAN had to try FIVE churches before one accept them . . the were both christian but getting married under the womans exact religion, they wouldn't do it because of him . . . eventually the one that would said they had to wait 6 months he had to official proclaim that religion his and take classes . . .

where is the fear for the MILLIONS of those people that were LEGALLY discriminated against lol

its nonsense that holds no weight and if its a new fear its even more of an illogical waste
thinking this is a concern is pure . . . .
:aliens3::scared:
 
Amandi said:
In my opinion, no person in their right mind would want to eat a cake made by a baker that is forced to make the cake for them.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Any baker who wants to stay in business will only produce and sell edible products.
 
Redress said:
It is not happening, it is not going to happen, it would be unconstitutional to try, and basically no one thinks they should.
I suspect the purpose of the thread is to try and create a false impression that this is an actual issue.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



This thread is total BS with zero connection to reality.
 
I hate the whole "left leaning" or "right leaning" but no "somewhere in the middle" or "other" option for polls like this.

I voted "left leaning" based on my stance regarding SSM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom