• 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!

Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

Should churches be made to wed same sex couples?

  • Yes. Churches should have to wed same sex couples.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    54
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).
 
The results so far, only counting signed-in votes are:

0 yes
44 no
1 other
 
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.
 
no, this would impede on religious freedom.
 
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.
 
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.

You've given me the difference between "civil marriage" and "personal marriage" at least a few times now, and I'm still baffled as to why. I have no idea what you're trying to say with it or why you think it has any bearing on anything I've said.


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.

It doesn't matter. Gender-based discrimination is NOT the precedent being set, so it's NOT the basis on which future cases involving plural marriage will have to be decided. You may wish it were otherwise, but it's NOT.
 
Churches do NOT have to wed SS couples. Just find ones that does. Simple.
 
You've given me the difference between "civil marriage" and "personal marriage" at least a few times now, and I'm still baffled as to why. I have no idea what you're trying to say with it or why you think it has any bearing on anything I've said.

It has bearing in that anything dealing with the personal side of marriage, love, attraction, religion, tradition, should be left out of the legal argument for civil marriages. This is exactly why the argument should be made on gender grounds instead of sexuality grounds. Sexuality is about attraction, gender is a physical characteristic.


It doesn't matter. Gender-based discrimination is NOT the precedent being set, so it's NOT the basis on which future cases involving plural marriage will have to be decided. You may wish it were otherwise, but it's NOT.

We haven't seen it argued yet in court, but neither have I seen the counterargument of group marriages used in court. Because any judge worth his salt would say that if someone or some group wishes to challenge the rules regarding group marriages then they should bring their own reasons to court in order to do so. No case sets an absolute precedent for every other case that may be like it. If this were so, then same sex marriage would already be allowed based on Loving v VA.

SSM advocates must argue their case and give all of their reasons why they should be allowed to marry, just as anyone against them must argue all the reasons why same sex couples should not be allowed to marry and what the state's interest is in preventing it. Very few issues have only one reason to support them or one reason to be against them. And this is certainly one with many reasons on both side.
 
It has bearing in that anything dealing with the personal side of marriage, love, attraction, religion, tradition, should be left out of the legal argument for civil marriages. This is exactly why the argument should be made on gender grounds instead of sexuality grounds. Sexuality is about attraction, gender is a physical characteristic.


We haven't seen it argued yet in court, but neither have I seen the counterargument of group marriages used in court. Because any judge worth his salt would say that if someone or some group wishes to challenge the rules regarding group marriages then they should bring their own reasons to court in order to do so. No case sets an absolute precedent for every other case that may be like it. If this were so, then same sex marriage would already be allowed based on Loving v VA.

SSM advocates must argue their case and give all of their reasons why they should be allowed to marry, just as anyone against them must argue all the reasons why same sex couples should not be allowed to marry and what the state's interest is in preventing it. Very few issues have only one reason to support them or one reason to be against them. And this is certainly one with many reasons on both side.

OK, rogue; you've apparently got your own agenda here regardless of anything I've actually said, so please carry on without me.
 
Churches can be racist, they don't have to marry interracial couples or even black couples if they don't want to. That's fine. Another church down the road will do it, no problem. Churches are private organizations that can restrict what they choose to do, they cannot, however, force society at large to abide by their restrictions.

If you're a church and don't want to marry gay couples, don't. More power to you. Just get out of the way of other people who do want to do so.
 
Slippery slope fallacy? No thanks.

when the opposing side utilizes an incremental approach, it's not a slippery slope fallacy; it's recognizing the direction of movement.
 
Back
Top Bottom