• 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%

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

    Votes: 53 98.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • Total voters
    54
OscarB63 said:
forcing churches to wed same sex couples is like forcing the WNBA to allow male players or forcing the united negro college fund to give scholarships to white kids.
Click to expand...

Not quite. There is a growing number of religious leaders who are recognizing homosexuality as not a sin. Therefore, there are religious organizations who would voluntarily allow gay marriage ceremonies to be performed at their church.

Personally, however, I don't understand why people would get married in a church that they don't regularly attend if they really want to have a religious ceremony. I mean if a couple is religious enough to want a religious ceremony, I would think that they would be religious enough to attend a church regularly, and would be aware of that church's official stance on the issue.
 
Not to copy Jerry, but I'm pretty sure there are still churches which will not marry interracial couples. If bringing down bans on interracial marriage did not lead to forcing those churches to marry interracial couples, then why would bringing down same sex marriage bans lead to forcing churches to marry same sex couples?
 
samsmart said:
Not quite. There is a growing number of religious leaders who are recognizing homosexuality as not a sin. Therefore, there are religious organizations who would voluntarily allow gay marriage ceremonies to be performed at their church.

Personally, however, I don't understand why people would get married in a church that they don't regularly attend if they really want to have a religious ceremony. I mean if a couple is religious enough to want a religious ceremony, I would think that they would be religious enough to attend a church regularly, and would be aware of that church's official stance on the issue.
Click to expand...

Nah. Brides today just want the bells and whistles of a church wedding for the videography. Member of the church? Regular attendance? Religious? Immaterial.
 
This is obviously a ridiculous argument and against freedom of religion.
To support this is to pick and choose when the wall between church and state may be ignored.
 
Goobieman said:
...the wall between church and state may be ignored.
Click to expand...

This brings up an interesting point. The people who tend to argue that same sex marriage will lead to churches being forced to marry same sex couples are often the same people who are trying to dismantle separation of church and state. Perhaps they see it as a roadblock to achieving their goal.
 
No and flat out NO. Churches are private organizations and shouldnt be forced to perform same sex marriages. Hell when Vermont passed it, they put in a clause that protects churches from such lawsuits.
 
CriticalThought said:
This brings up an interesting point. The people who tend to argue that same sex marriage will lead to churches being forced to marry same sex couples are often the same people who are trying to dismantle separation of church and state. Perhaps they see it as a roadblock to achieving their goal.
Click to expand...

The "wall of seperation between church and state" (as Jefferson coined it) meant that the state couldn't interfere into the affairs of the churches.
 
MissLToe said:
The "wall of seperation between church and state" (as Jefferson coined it) meant that the state couldn't interfere into the affairs of the churches.
Click to expand...


So you think it is a one way street?
 
MissLToe said:
The "wall of seperation between church and state" (as Jefferson coined it) meant that the state couldn't interfere into the affairs of the churches.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of people who want the state to enforce their religion and so they have a strong incentive to deconstruct the separation of church and state.
 
MissLToe said:
The "wall of seperation between church and state" (as Jefferson coined it) meant that the state couldn't interfere into the affairs of the churches.
Click to expand...

Also that the church couldn't put their laws in legislation. It's a two way street.
 
First last and always stop arguing there is something in the Constitution regarding church and state. It's not there.
Second the State should not be able to force a Church do do anything, but should be able to keep a Church from such things as polygamy, and anything having to do with a Cult like Sharia law.

I like the poll so far, only 2 nut bars.
 
I don't see anything wrong with polygamy as long as everyone is a consenting adult.
 
Your Star said:
Also that the church couldn't put their laws in legislation. It's a two way street.
Click to expand...

Right. However, some people want to change the meaning of the first amendment to mean that there should be no religious ANYTHING connected with the government which is clearly not the orginal intent of the Founders since they had church services in the Capitol Building, prayers before Congress, etc.
 
Councilman said:
First last and always stop arguing there is something in the Constitution regarding church and state. It's not there.
Click to expand...

Well, it is there in the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

That is church (religion) and state (Congress).
 
MissLToe said:
I don't see anything wrong with polygamy as long as everyone is a consenting adult.
Click to expand...

Polygamy isn't legal because it's currently a legal nightmare to get a divorce between two people. Imagine a divorce between 5 people? 7? Polygamist should be allowed to marry but it shouldn't be recognized by the government (isn't it like that in Utah already). It's simply a bureaucratic nightmare. Marriage should be between two consenting adults.
 
There is no need to force it, Churches are increasingly choosing to marry same sex couples, bidness is bidness.
 
Hatuey said:
Polygamy isn't legal because it's currently a legal nightmare to get a divorce between two people.
Click to expand...

That's not why it isn't legal. :roll:
 
Harshaw said:
That's not why it isn't legal. :roll:
Click to expand...

Really? Why isn't it legal then? Historically polygamy has been legal far longer than marriage between a man and a woman. It was only with the codification of marriage laws that it became truly illegal.
 
I will add only this: those who claim ( in other debates ) that there is no possible way for there to be a separation of church and state are on dangerous ground with regard to things of this nature. That is, it is a sword that cuts both ways: If there is no possible way to have separation of church and state, it becomes the state's responsibility to ensure that churches are a good force in society. As such, if the majority of people believe it to be an injustice for gays to be treated unequally, they ought to force churches to do what what it deems to be right, and thereby force them to marry same sex couples.

This is perfect example of how churches are protected from the state by the separation clause. Tear down that wall at your own risk, you conservatives. I can assure you that if you succeed, I will be one who advocates of necessity, and by right, for the interference of the state in church matters.
 
Hatuey said:
Really? Why isn't it legal then? Historically polygamy has been legal far longer than marriage between a man and a woman. It was only with the codification of marriage laws that it became truly illegal.
Click to expand...

For moral, traditional, and religious reasons. The difficulty in dissolving it plays little role, if any. The very idea is laughable on its face. Smacks of someone who wants to justify keeping it illegal when all the other arguments for keeping it so are being stripped away.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
The difficulty in dissolving it plays little role, if any.
Click to expand...
Indeed - denying someone their rights because it is difficult for the state to prrcess the mechansm of that right would be immediately ridiculed if some other right were in question.
 
Harshaw said:
That's not why it isn't legal. :roll:
Click to expand...

Only polygamy on a legal marriage contract is illegal. It is not illegal for a man to have a wedding ceremony marrying two women at the same time as long as he only has one of them sign the marriage license and only claims one of them as his legal wife. He can publicly say all he wants that he has two wives and not be arrested. He can introduce both women as "my wife" and not be arrested. As long as he only has one marriage license between him and one of the women.

It is a lot like same sex marriage now. It is completely legal for two men to say they are married, even in a state that does not allow same sex marriage or recognize them, as long as they are not claiming they are married on legal forms.
 
roguenuke said:
Only polygamy on a legal marriage contract is illegal. It is not illegal for a man to have a wedding ceremony marrying two women at the same time as long as he only has one of them sign the marriage license and only claims one of them as his legal wife. He can publicly say all he wants that he has two wives and not be arrested. He can introduce both women as "my wife" and not be arrested. As long as he only has one marriage license between him and one of the women.

It is a lot like same sex marriage now. It is completely legal for two men to say they are married, even in a state that does not allow same sex marriage or recognize them, as long as they are not claiming they are married on legal forms.
Click to expand...

OK. So what?
 
Goobieman said:
Indeed - denying someone their rights because it is difficult for the state to prrcess the mechansm of that right would be immediately ridiculed if some other right were in question.
Click to expand...

It's not even a question of rights. No legislature anywhere ever said "oh, we have to make this illegal because it's too hard to dissolve." As I said -- laughable on its face.
 
roguenuke said:
Only polygamy on a legal marriage contract is illegal. It is not illegal for a man to have a wedding ceremony marrying two women at the same time as long as he only has one of them sign the marriage license and only claims one of them as his legal wife. He can publicly say all he wants that he has two wives and not be arrested. He can introduce both women as "my wife" and not be arrested. As long as he only has one marriage license between him and one of the women.

It is a lot like same sex marriage now. It is completely legal for two men to say they are married, even in a state that does not allow same sex marriage or recognize them, as long as they are not claiming they are married on legal forms.
Click to expand...
If 'saying so' was all that mattered, there's be no fuss over same-sex marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom