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 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 86 of 86

Thread: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

  1. #81
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:49 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,497

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    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.
    “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

  2. #82
    Student imprtnrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Last Seen
    05-21-11 @ 03:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    270

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Churches do NOT have to wed SS couples. Just find ones that does. Simple.

  3. #83
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    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.
    "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.

  4. #84
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:49 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,497

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    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.
    “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. #85
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,749

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    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.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  6. #86
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,035

    Re: Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    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.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

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