View Poll Results: Should churches be made to wed same sex couples?

Voters
68. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. Churches should have to wed same sex couples.

    3 4.41%
  • No. Churches should not have to wed same sex couples.

    64 94.12%
  • Other

    1 1.47%
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 86

Thread: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

  1. #71
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,796

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Under every prevailing argument which says denying SSM is a violation of the 14th Amendment, so too is denying marriages of more than two. I'm not advocating for or against it, so I don't have a stake in it (though I have no problem with it). But that's the way it's going down.

    But I don't know why any advocate of SSM should be against it.
    IF the argument around denying SSM is a violation of the 14th Amendment, there would be some inconsistency in not advocating for plural marriage. I, however, never argue that denying SSM is a violation of the 14th Amendment. My argument is completely different, and based on my position, not advocating for plural marriage is entirely consistent.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  2. #72
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:23 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    IF the argument around denying SSM is a violation of the 14th Amendment, there would be some inconsistency in not advocating for plural marriage. I, however, never argue that denying SSM is a violation of the 14th Amendment. My argument is completely different, and based on my position, not advocating for plural marriage is entirely consistent.
    I know what your position is, and indeed, you may be an exception. However, your position is not one that pretty much any other SSM advocate takes. I'm sure they wouldn't be hostile to it, but it's certainly not their own core argument. (Of course, they MAY be hostile to it, because your view would change if further research yielded different data from that which you're currently operating.)

    But, you raise a qualification which does lead to a pretty solid rule: if one advocates for SSM on fundamental rights grounds, it will be hypocritical to then advocate for the denial of the right to marriages of more than one.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  3. #73
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,796

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I know what your position is, and indeed, you may be an exception. However, your position is not one that pretty much any other SSM advocate takes. I'm sure they wouldn't be hostile to it, but it's certainly not their own core argument. (Of course, they MAY be hostile to it, because your view would change if further research yielded different data from that which you're currently operating.)

    But, you raise a qualification which does lead to a pretty solid rule: if one advocates for SSM on fundamental rights grounds, it will be hypocritical to then advocate for the denial of the right to marriages of more than one.
    I think there could certainly be an argument that the pro-SSM, anti-plural marriage position based on fundemental rights COULD indeed be hypocritical. I think it's less simple and more complex, though, and I would like to see the arguments from some pro-SSM folks against plural marriage, completely on 14th Amendment rights. I think it would be a tough debate to win.

    And I agree. Not too may argue SSM from my position, but I think that the hostility to my position, NOT a rights position at all, makes some of them feel that it disparages gays. On the contrary. It places everyone in the same boat.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #74
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:23 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    Not really. Denying SSM is a violation of the 14th based on gender you can't deny someone the right to enter a contract based on their gender without a state interest, and being able to show that by denying it, it protects that state interest.
    Gender-based discrimination arguments have not prevailed (and for the most part have not even been argued). It's all been on the basis of discriminating against homosexuality.

    If you can show that with polygamy, I'm all ears.
    What state interest is protected by denying marriages of more than one?

    The larger point, of course, is the general argument that it's nobody's business who people choose to marry. If those of the same sex wish to marry, who's to say they shouldn't be able to? Likewise, if more than two people wish to marry, what business is it of anyone else?

    Personally, I really don't care, and to be honest, polygamist aren't really into marriage, so I don't think it would be accepted by the polygamist community all too well. Plus it would be a legal nightmare, while SSM, would just inherit all the rules of opposite sex marriage.
    The only problem I have is that when people try to marry(no pun intended) the two concepts when they are really very different things.
    "Polygamy" is marriage. If there are those who call themselves "polygamists" but reject marriage, then it's they who are using the wrong term. If there's confusion, then it's their fault.

    But that's neither here nor there; this is obviously about marriage, not some other arrangement.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  5. #75
    Educator Dogger807's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    979

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Well it's darn near unanimous that the government shouldn't force ssm requirements on churches.
    Ignorance is the refuge of faith
    It's become very apparent that there is nothing respectable about faith
    "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"

  6. #76
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Gender-based discrimination arguments have not prevailed (and for the most part have not even been argued). It's all been on the basis of discriminating against homosexuality.



    What state interest is protected by denying marriages of more than one?

    The larger point, of course, is the general argument that it's nobody's business who people choose to marry. If those of the same sex wish to marry, who's to say they shouldn't be able to? Likewise, if more than two people wish to marry, what business is it of anyone else?



    "Polygamy" is marriage. If there are those who call themselves "polygamists" but reject marriage, then it's they who are using the wrong term. If there's confusion, then it's their fault.

    But that's neither here nor there; this is obviously about marriage, not some other arrangement.
    Just because it hasn't been fought the way it should be doesn't mean that it wouldn't work. The gender argument is absolutely valid. A person is not allowed to marry another person based on their genders, not sexualities.

    A homosexual person can marry either a homosexual or a heterosexual of the opposite sex. A heterosexual person can marry either a homosexual or a heterosexual of the opposite sex. Both of these are completely legal marriages. However, neither a homosexual nor a heterosexual person can marry anyone of the same sex as themselves. Civil marriage is not about love or attraction. It is about setting up certain legal rights and responsibilities to a person, and legally bringing a non-blood relative into your family and you becoming a legal member of theirs. The personal marriage is about love and/or attraction (most of the time).
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #77
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    The results so far, only counting signed-in votes are:

    0 yes
    44 no
    1 other
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #78
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:23 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Just because it hasn't been fought the way it should be doesn't mean that it wouldn't work.
    So what? That has nothing to do with the throughline of what I'm arguing here.


    The gender argument is absolutely valid. A person is not allowed to marry another person based on their genders, not sexualities.
    If 100% true, it doesn't matter. Precedent is what it is.

    A homosexual person can marry either a homosexual or a heterosexual of the opposite sex. A heterosexual person can marry either a homosexual or a heterosexual of the opposite sex. Both of these are completely legal marriages. However, neither a homosexual nor a heterosexual person can marry anyone of the same sex as themselves. Civil marriage is not about love or attraction. It is about setting up certain legal rights and responsibilities to a person, and legally bringing a non-blood relative into your family and you becoming a legal member of theirs. The personal marriage is about love and/or attraction (most of the time).
    Why do you keep repeating this to me? Did I ever argue against it? No, I didn't. Does it have anything to do with what I'm actually arguing? No.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  9. #79
    Advisor BCR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 04:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    598

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    no, this would impede on religious freedom.
    I use a lot of satire and sarcasm so keep that in mind when reading my posts.

  10. #80
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    So what? That has nothing to do with the throughline of what I'm arguing here.




    If 100% true, it doesn't matter. Precedent is what it is.



    Why do you keep repeating this to me? Did I ever argue against it? No, I didn't. Does it have anything to do with what I'm actually arguing? No.
    First of all, this is the first time in this thread that I have mentioned gender alongside sexuality at all. So there is absolutely no way that I could have been repeating this argument in this thread.

    The point of it was to show where same sex marriage sits in a higher level of judicial review due to it being based on gender, not sexuality, then group marriage or multiple marriages would.

    1st Tier scrutiny includes race, religion, national origin
    Strict Scrutiny: The government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest.
    2nd Tier scrutiny includes gender, illegetimacy
    Intermediate or Middle Scrutiny: The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.
    3rd Tier scrutiny includes everything else, including sexuality (although this is believed wrong by many, it is where it currently is) and number of people in a contract or number of contracts that a person may be in
    Rational Basis or Minimum Scrutiny: The govenment need only show that the challenged classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.

    So when arguing from the gender basis on SSM, it would not be comparable to group/multiple marriages because it is at a different level of scrutiny. To make the argument that group/multiple marriages are comparable to SSM would be opening it up to make the argument that interracial marriages are also comparable to same sex marriages, because they are all on different levels of scrutiny.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 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
  •