View Poll Results: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/rational?

Voters
212. You may not vote on this poll
  • NO

    179 84.43%
  • YES

    22 10.38%
  • OTHER

    11 5.19%
Page 7 of 33 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 325

Thread: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/rational?

  1. #61
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    1.)Unless they make wedding cakes. Hahahah
    2.)But I don't think it's likely that churches will be forced to perform same sex marriages, not in the short term anyway. It's certainly not reasonable to force them to perform same sex marriages.
    1.) also false, the number is still ZERO
    2.) won't happen in my life time
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  2. #62
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    And what's not clear about "by the standard you use to judge, you shall be judged"?
    .
    easy because it doesnt address the claims you already made
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  3. #63
    Advisor HK.227's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    320

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) again not really an answer, what civil law cases do you think make this likely
    2.) what discriminatory practices? there are none that the church is participating in that are ILLEGAL
    3.) really theres a trend over cases be based on hurt feelings and winning? can you provide ONE example i dont know of any.
    1. As I've already expressed, the likeliness of success of a given lawsuit ultimately depends on the judge (or jury) rendering the verdict.

    If you meant something else by your question, you're gonna have to specify.


    2 & 3. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ma...exual-adoption

    Religious institutions have for some millenia (at least since Hammurabi) been forced to act against their religious creed via litigation. We normally think of this as a good thing when it comes to stoning women for adultery and such, but the development of said trend didn't stop there, as the link demonstrates. To put a finer point (and a little more recent perspective) on it, the advent of human rights is what we normally think of as seriously curtailing the power of religion to interfere in our lives. However, the question nowadays seem to be more of a matter of if and how human rights' ability to interfere in the lives of others should be curtailed.

    This is a subset of the discussion of positive versus negative rights; if rights should be limited to someone not being allowed to actively interfere with your rights, or if they should be required to actively provide said rights for you. Or, in relation to the the premise of this thread, is it enough that a given religious institution not be allowed to interfere in marriages of people they don't like, or should they be required to provide such marriages. Well, as the linked article shows, at present churches in Massachusets are not only disallowed to interfere in adoptions of children to gay people (negative rights), they are required to let them adopt children under their care (positive rights). This is a clear example of an institution being required to actively provide rights for someone they didn't have to provide rights for earlier, and thus a trend indicator.
    Ok, that does it! I waste Professor Plum with the lead pipe.
    Oh yeah? Well say hello to my little friend, Colonel Mustard! Candlestick to the face!
    This is the last time I'm playing Clue with you two...

  4. #64
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    Quote Originally Posted by HK.227 View Post
    1. As I've already expressed, the likeliness of success of a given lawsuit ultimately depends on the judge (or jury) rendering the verdict.

    If you meant something else by your question, you're gonna have to specify.


    2 & 3. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ma...exual-adoption

    Religious institutions have for some millenia (at least since Hammurabi) been forced to act against their religious creed via litigation. We normally think of this as a good thing when it comes to stoning women for adultery and such, but the development of said trend didn't stop there, as the link demonstrates. To put a finer point (and a little more recent perspective) on it, the advent of human rights is what we normally think of as seriously curtailing the power of religion to interfere in our lives. However, the question nowadays seem to be more of a matter of if and how human rights' ability to interfere in the lives of others should be curtailed.

    This is a subset of the discussion of positive versus negative rights; if rights should be limited to someone not being allowed to actively interfere with your rights, or if they should be required to actively provide said rights for you. Or, in relation to the the premise of this thread, is it enough that a given religious institution not be allowed to interfere in marriages of people they don't like, or should they be required to provide such marriages. Well, as the linked article shows, at present churches in Massachusets are not only disallowed to interfere in adoptions of children to gay people (negative rights), they are required to let them adopt children under their care (positive rights). This is a clear example of an institution being required to actively provide rights for someone they didn't have to provide rights for earlier, and thus a trend indicator.
    1.) i already did, you cant claim you have seen it on "civil cases" which this would not most likely be in end and then not give examples . . .
    what examples of civil cases are you talkign about that also show people and judges dont care about rights and the constitution and about no laws being broken

    2.) this doesn't answer but thank you for providing it because it shows your confusion . . .and adoption agency is not the CHURCH no matter who owns it

    this is the same reason St Lukes hospital cant deny people based on religion it had NOTHING to do with religion and is NOT a church

    so examples of people trying (and failing) to expand their religious rights where there are none are not examples of "hurt feelings" they are in fact examples of brekaing the law and rules and rights they work against your claims of "hurt feelings" and support the reasoning why CHURCHES arent in any danger of being forced to do marriages

    an institution saying its "religious" or it in fact being "religious" doesn't give it a blank check to do as it will

    adoption has ZERO to do with the church/religion and thats why that institution lost

    so now just like question 1 i ask 2 and 3 over again

    A.)what discriminatory practices? there are none that the church is participating in that are ILLEGAL (AS TO DENYING MARRIAGES)
    B.) really theres a trend over cases be based on hurt feelings and winning? can you provide ONE example i dont know of any.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #65
    Advisor HK.227's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    320

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) i already did, you cant claim you have seen it on "civil cases" which this would not most likely be in end and then not give examples . . .
    what examples of civil cases are you talkign about that also show people and judges dont care about rights and the constitution and about no laws being broken

    2.) this doesn't answer but thank you for providing it because it shows your confusion . . .and adoption agency is not the CHURCH no matter who owns it

    this is the same reason St Lukes hospital cant deny people based on religion it had NOTHING to do with religion and is NOT a church

    so examples of people trying (and failing) to expand their religious rights where there are none are not examples of "hurt feelings" they are in fact examples of brekaing the law and rules and rights they work against your claims of "hurt feelings" and support the reasoning why CHURCHES arent in any danger of being forced to do marriages

    an institution saying its "religious" or it in fact being "religious" doesn't give it a blank check to do as it will

    adoption has ZERO to do with the church/religion and thats why that institution lost

    so now just like question 1 i ask 2 and 3 over again

    A.)what discriminatory practices? there are none that the church is participating in that are ILLEGAL (AS TO DENYING MARRIAGES)
    B.) really theres a trend over cases be based on hurt feelings and winning? can you provide ONE example i dont know of any.
    Ahh, I get it. You thought I claimed to have seen such cases. I didn't. If you would care to reread the line of enquiry, I simply said that I would consider the success of such a lawsuit as being likely.
    Furthermore the article in question is not an example of expanding religious rights. Previously the institution was allowed to discriminate based on sexuality. Now they aren't.
    Regarding your example with religious institutions of healing, you are somewhat off-target. Religious institutions used to be able to choose who they offered treatment, today they aren't.

    A: The premise of your question is illogical. The poll asks if churches will legally be obliged to perform marriages for people they don't want to. Not if they are already required to do so.

    B: In law, hurt feelings are referred to as "Emotional Distress". Here is an example. Emotional Distress Claims: a Future Trend in Oklahoma? | Human Resources News
    I'm sure we both agree that the employer was out of line, and should be required to pay compensation. However, 20 years ago, he most likely wouldn't be. 50 years ago, the employee would have been laughed out of court. 200 years ago, the employer could have beat him silly and not faced any charges. Like the previous example, this describes a trend.
    Ok, that does it! I waste Professor Plum with the lead pipe.
    Oh yeah? Well say hello to my little friend, Colonel Mustard! Candlestick to the face!
    This is the last time I'm playing Clue with you two...

  6. #66
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    Quote Originally Posted by HK.227 View Post
    1.)Ahh, I get it. You thought I claimed to have seen such cases. I didn't. If you would care to reread the line of enquiry, I simply said that I would consider the success of such a lawsuit as being likely.
    2.)Furthermore the article in question is not an example of expanding religious rights. Previously the institution was allowed to discriminate based on sexuality. Now they aren't.
    3.) Regarding your example with religious institutions of healing, you are somewhat off-target. Religious institutions used to be able to choose who they offered treatment, today they aren't.
    4.)The premise of your question is illogical. The poll asks if churches will legally be obliged to perform marriages for people they don't want to. Not if they are already required to do so.
    5.) In law, hurt feelings are referred to as "Emotional Distress". Here is an example. Emotional Distress Claims: a Future Trend in Oklahoma? | Human Resources News
    I'm sure we both agree that the employer was out of line, and should be required to pay compensation. However, 20 years ago, he most likely wouldn't be. 50 years ago, the employee would have been laughed out of court. 200 years ago, the employer could have beat him silly and not faced any charges. Like the previous example, this describes a trend.
    1.) not thats not what i think, i was asking you WHY you have the reasoning you do. When you stated because of civil cases, yes i wanted you to expand on that but thats it., and i STILL have that question as to why you see it as likely.
    2.) yes it is . . . just cause it was going on doesnt mean they were "allowed" or that it wasnt a rights violation it just wasnt pushed or fought against
    some things have to be challenged . . just like gay rights . . .
    banning marriage, gay marriage was in fact the state overstepping its boundaries and that was challenged and it is losing
    3.) correct because once challenged it was found to violate rights
    4.) I agree the question is illogical but not for the reasons you claim
    I agree its illogical because the idea that it will happen is illogical, but there are some here that swear its right around the corner
    5.) i didnt ask what anybody thinks emotional distress was i ask for cases that show a trend to support the churches being forced to do marriages.

    your opinion of that case and how it would of done 20, 50, 200 years ago doesnt do so since the constitution exist and that wasnt a church

    I dont understand why the question is so trying for you?

    im simply asking you what your reasoning is for you to think its likely a church will be forced to do marriages it doesnt want to.


    all that aside we are getting sidetracked
    maybe im not being specific enough. Im looking for logical, fact based and reasoning based in or at least loosely based on legality/rights/constitution etc. . .

    Dont get me wrong you are free to just feel its likely for whatever reason you want but i was looking for answer that could factually hold weight, other than subjectively

    so i only have ONE question, forget the rest, basically do you have anything besides just a gut feeling or hunches, thats what im looking for, something with some logical meat to it, something again, im looking for something fact based and reasoning based in or at least loosely on legality/rights/constitution etc

    do you have anything like that?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #67
    Advisor HK.227's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    320

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) not thats not what i think, i was asking you WHY you have the reasoning you do. When you stated because of civil cases, yes i wanted you to expand on that but thats it., and i STILL have that question as to why you see it as likely.
    2.) yes it is . . . just cause it was going on doesnt mean they were "allowed" or that it wasnt a rights violation it just wasnt pushed or fought against
    some things have to be challenged . . just like gay rights . . .
    banning marriage, gay marriage was in fact the state overstepping its boundaries and that was challenged and it is losing
    3.) correct because once challenged it was found to violate rights
    4.) I agree the question is illogical but not for the reasons you claim
    I agree its illogical because the idea that it will happen is illogical, but there are some here that swear its right around the corner
    5.) i didnt ask what anybody thinks emotional distress was i ask for cases that show a trend to support the churches being forced to do marriages.

    your opinion of that case and how it would of done 20, 50, 200 years ago doesnt do so since the constitution exist and that wasnt a church

    I dont understand why the question is so trying for you?

    im simply asking you what your reasoning is for you to think its likely a church will be forced to do marriages it doesnt want to.


    all that aside we are getting sidetracked
    maybe im not being specific enough. Im looking for logical, fact based and reasoning based in or at least loosely based on legality/rights/constitution etc. . .

    Dont get me wrong you are free to just feel its likely for whatever reason you want but i was looking for answer that could factually hold weight, other than subjectively

    so i only have ONE question, forget the rest, basically do you have anything besides just a gut feeling or hunches, thats what im looking for, something with some logical meat to it, something again, im looking for something fact based and reasoning based in or at least loosely on legality/rights/constitution etc

    do you have anything like that?
    1: That should be obvious. As I have already explained, the trend has been moving from negative towards positive rights pretty much since liberalism was invented.
    If you disagree, you don't have to provide a counter-argument, but there's not really much of a point in us talking otherwise.

    2: That would require you to provide some sort of evidence that anyone has been charged with violating said rights before it became illegal to discriminate on base of sexuality.

    3: As with #2, that does not constitute any violation a priori.

    4: I am not "some here". Please constrain yourself to attributing things to me that I have actually said.

    5: This question is a strawman.
    It is a strawman because I never claimed there was a trend towards specifically forcing churches to do marriages, but merely that more restrictions are being forced upon them, and that I considerd the specific restriction mentioned in the poll as being likely at some point in the future. Nevertheless such a trend actually exists, though not in the US. State churches in other countries (mine for example) are obliged to marry people who have had a divorce. The priests made quite a racket about it, back in the day. There was actually less trouble a few years ago, when the law was changed again, and the church became required to perform gay marriages. But as I've indicated, I suspect that either discriminatory or emotional distress laws could be used to introduce to the US the same rules that apply in some other countries.

    6: "so i only have ONE question, forget the rest, basically do you have anything besides just a gut feeling or hunches, thats what im looking for, something with some logical meat to it, something again, im looking for something fact based and reasoning based in or at least loosely on legality/rights/constitution etc"

    You want hard facts for something that doesn't exist at this point in time? Sorry, but to predict the future, you are forced to rely on the interpretation of trends, not solid evidence.
    Ok, that does it! I waste Professor Plum with the lead pipe.
    Oh yeah? Well say hello to my little friend, Colonel Mustard! Candlestick to the face!
    This is the last time I'm playing Clue with you two...

  8. #68
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    Quote Originally Posted by HK.227 View Post

    You want hard facts for something that doesn't exist at this point in time? Sorry, but to predict the future, you are forced to rely on the interpretation of trends, not solid evidence.
    so you dont have any other than gut feeling or hunches, nothing that has any logical meat to it. Nothing that is fact based and or reasoning based on or at least loosely based on legality/rights/constitution etc

    got it thanks

    if you do come up with something let me kno id be interested in reading it. Its the whole point of this thread to see if theres any logical reasons to believe this will happen.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #69
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:44 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,234

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    weird im a christian and i see ZERO reason to infringe on others equal rights nor does anybody at my church including clergy. Also theres nothign about respecting equal rights that factually gives false testimony
    but there are Christians out there that do want to infringe on rights
    In another thread you said you didn't belong to a Church. Which is it?

  10. #70
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

    Quote Originally Posted by it's just me View Post
    In another thread you said you didn't belong to a Church. Which is it?
    well i doubt that but ive been here almost 5 years and there was two times where i didnt have a church so the reality is i have one anything else?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Page 7 of 33 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •