• 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
joG said:
But there is considerable reason to doubt that it is unconstitutional to allow the state to interfere in religious practice and force a citizen to act against the moral code of his religion. That was why we decided not to draft people into military duty at a time of war. If we thought it unconstitutional to make someone defend the country, it seems very odd that we should allow the state to force the baker to supply a ceremony his religion says is a severe crime against his God.
Click to expand...

There has to be a limit to what "religious practices" actually are. Some are trying to argue that anything a religious person does and can link, no matter how tenuously, to their religious beliefs, is a religious practice. That is nonsense. I've got no problem with non-profit religious churches being able to decide who they marry and who they do not marry in their church. They can decide which religious ceremonies to carry out, they can decide not to marry gay people, they can decide not to marry interracial couples, people older than a certain age, I don't care. Religious ceremonies are just that, ceremonies, these people aren't actually married unless they get a piece of paper from the state anyhow. However, when it goes beyond churches, with people simply deciding that their religion doesn't allow them to perform services which they are charging the general public for, but only for certain groups of people, that's discriminatory and should not be permitted.

If you want to have a 501c(3) registered religious non-profit charitable organization that bakes cakes only for religious people, knock yourself out. If you try to do the same thing in a regular storefront that is open to the general public, you need to follow the laws that apply to all businesses, screw your religion.
 
Dragonfly said:
Funny, since I agree with you I guess that means your own opinions aren't worth knowing either.

Go figure. :roll:
Click to expand...

You want to play games and not answer direct questions. I'm not going to.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

Ikari said:
Expansion of powers, forever war, increased survallence of the population, installation of corporate capitalism, the fact that we jail more people per capita than any other country in the world, lack of political competition, shutting down economic mobility, militarized police against a civilian populace, etc.

But my statement as it relates to this topic is just one of disbelief. I don't think government is a good source for limitation on government power. I don't put much faith in government's self restraint.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Whenever you allow government to cross a line, you know that very soon, it will be trying to cross another.

And we've already seen government cross a very big line, that it should never have been allowed to go anywhere near, in forcing private businesses to participate in disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddings.

It is madness to think that having crossed that line, that government will not take that one relatively small step further in forcing churches and ministers into this evil as well.
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

Ikari said:
Of course I don't trust them. Government is not a trustworthy system. Necessary, yes; but not trustworthy. We are responsible for it and it requires our input and control to keep. The founders warned us well as to this. It's a basic of government, seen time and time again in human history.
Click to expand...

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” — Popularly attributed to George Washington, but the provenance is uncertain.​
 
Re: Should churches be forced to perform sick homosexual mockeries of marriages?

Bob Blaylock said:
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” — Popularly attributed to George Washington, but the provenance is uncertain.​
Click to expand...

Imagine what those people would have thought about corporations. If you really want to talk about force, look at big tobacco, big pharma, gun lobbies, etc.

That's ****ing power. That's force.
 
Cephus said:
There has to be a limit to what "religious practices" actually are. Some are trying to argue that anything a religious person does and can link, no matter how tenuously, to their religious beliefs, is a religious practice. That is nonsense.
Click to expand...

That's the backward way of looking at it. It is not correct to state that there should be a limit to the activities or inactivities of a free people, with the implication that government is authorized to impose and enforce these limits.

The correct way to look at it is to see the need for limits on the power of government, to interfere with the affairs of a free people.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
That's the backward way of looking at it. It is not correct to state that there should be a limit to the activities or inactivities of a free people, with the implication that government is authorized to impose and enforce these limits.

The correct way to look at it is to see the need for limits on the power of government, to interfere with the affairs of a free people.
Click to expand...

And how does that stop people from simply declaring their religious beliefs to do anything they want? You know, like not pay taxes? To sleep with underage girls? To murder people of other faiths? Where do you draw the line and how do you justify that line being drawn there?
 
Cephus said:
And how does that stop people from simply declaring their religious beliefs to do anything they want? You know, like not pay taxes? To sleep with underage girls? To murder people of other faiths? Where do you draw the line and how do you justify that line being drawn there?
Click to expand...

I think the point is to recognize that where there is such a conflict, that the burden should be very solidly and heavily on the side of government, subject to the principle of strict scrutiny, to prove a need to impose restrictions on individuals—especially where such restrictions may come in conflict with the sincerely held religious or moral beliefs of those individuals—and not on individuals to prove a need for their freedom to be respected.
 
Dragonfly said:
Which translates nicely into SSM should be perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

That's absurd.

Nothing that I have said supports the deranged idea of allowing government to redefine marriage into something that it has never been, and can never be.

Marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman. Nothing else is marriage, an no corrupt act of government, or of a diseased society, can make it otherwise.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
That's absurd.

Nothing that I have said supports the deranged idea of allowing government to redefine marriage into something that it has never been, and can never be.

Marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman. Nothing else is marriage, an no corrupt act of government, or of a diseased society, can make it otherwise.
Click to expand...

Bob Blaylock said:
That's the backward way of looking at it. It is not correct to state that there should be a limit to the activities or inactivities of a free people, with the implication that government is authorized to impose and enforce these limits.

The correct way to look at it is to see the need for limits on the power of government, to interfere with the affairs of a free people.
Click to expand...

So you're admitting you're just one big gigantic hypocrite then?

You can't have it both ways.

You can't have minimal government intervention yet have government intervention into things like marriage.

You can't say government interference is wrong then turn around and say it's right.
 
Dragonfly said:
So you're admitting you're just one big gigantic hypocrite then?

You can't have it both ways.

You can't have minimal government intervention yet have government intervention into things like marriage.

You can't say government interference is wrong then turn around and say it's right.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

Marriage is what it is. There is no political ideology that can make it otherwise. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

I do not see where you get from calling for limits on the power of government over the freedom of individuals to the evil desire to try to redefine one of the most essential of all human institutions into a twisted, evil caricature of itself to the destruction of any society which embraces such an act.

In any event, to attack and undermine marriage in such a manner certainly requires a rather extreme and absurd degree of completely unwarranted government interference.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Not at all.

Marriage is what it is. There is no political ideology that can make it otherwise. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

I do not see where you get from calling for limits on the power of government over the freedom of individuals to the evil desire to try to redefine one of the most essential of all human institutions into a twisted, evil caricature of itself to the destruction of any society which embraces such an act.
Click to expand...

Marriage isn't this static, unchanging institution as you and other like minded individuals think it is. It has changed and adapted to culture countless times over across the world. It is ignorant to try and establish "ground rules" for something so nebulous and changing as marriage.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I think the point is to recognize that where there is such a conflict, that the burden should be very solidly and heavily on the side of government, subject to the principle of strict scrutiny, to prove a need to impose restrictions on individuals—especially where such restrictions may come in conflict with the sincerely held religious or moral beliefs of those individuals—and not on individuals to prove a need for their freedom to be respected.
Click to expand...

Why? Why should the government have all the work when the people are the ones making the claims? Why shouldn't the people have to prove that these beliefs actually exist and actually stem from their established religious faith? Following the Hobby Lobby decision, people don't even have to prove the belief is true, they just have to claim that they have it and stamp "religion" on it and that means the government has to keep their hands off. That's ridiculous. I'm sure you'll stand behind this right up until Christianity is no longer in power and other religions start doing things that get in the way of Christianity, then you'll scream your fool head off.
 
Cephus said:
Why? Why should the government have all the work when the people are the ones making the claims? Why shouldn't the people have to prove that these beliefs actually exist and actually stem from their established religious faith? Following the Hobby Lobby decision, people don't even have to prove the belief is true, they just have to claim that they have it and stamp "religion" on it and that means the government has to keep their hands off. That's ridiculous. I'm sure you'll stand behind this right up until Christianity is no longer in power and other religions start doing things that get in the way of Christianity, then you'll scream your fool head off.
Click to expand...

Because government is supposed to be the servant, and the people its rightful master; and not the other way around.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Because government is supposed to be the servant, and the people its rightful master; and not the other way around.
Click to expand...

It is the servant. It's the people who keep voting those in office into office to do these jobs that you hate.
 
Cephus said:
It is the servant. It's the people who keep voting those in office into office to do these jobs that you hate.
Click to expand...

Which is why certain essential rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights and protected for all against the tyranny of the majority. Government is not supposed to be just the servant of the majority, but the servant of all the people.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Which is why certain essential rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights and protected for all against the tyranny of the majority. Government is not supposed to be just the servant of the majority, but the servant of all the people.
Click to expand...

But it's never been that way, it's not even possible for it to be that way. In fact, you don't even want it to be that way, I'm sure you're not out there demanding marriage equality for gays. That's just tyranny of Christianity, something you're apparently all in favor of. You're just a bloody hypocrite, you only care about it when it's *YOUR* side not getting their way. When it's someone you don't like, screw them.
 
I do not know of any Church that has been forced to perform gay marriages?
 
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?

My thoughts TK.
Click to expand...

No. If: The church collective/body which that ordinator is connected to got together and decided on their stance before a case presented itself. Only IF: That church body is legally and officially recognized as a religious structure.

However irritating it might be - I still believe a religious body has the right to determine how they perform according to their religious edict. It's not denying someone the ability to get married.
 
JANFU said:
I do not know of any Church that has been forced to perform gay marriages?
Click to expand...

Because it hasn't happened. But for these people, it's just a hop, skip and a jump from "churches forced to perform gay marriages" to "anyone who claims any religious justification for any kind of discrimination."
 
Cephus said:
Because it hasn't happened. But for these people, it's just a hop, skip and a jump from "churches forced to perform gay marriages" to "anyone who claims any religious justification for any kind of discrimination."
Click to expand...
Yeah Gay Marriage and the next will be incest and pedophilia will be legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom