• 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!

If SSM is Legalized, Should Churches be "Forced" to Perform Gay Marriages?

If SSM is Legalized, Should Churches be "Forced" to Perform Gay Marriages?

  • Total voters
    104
iguanaman said:
Right after we take away all your guns....
Click to expand...

Well, that makes sense. You'll need the guns to force the churches to perform the ceremonies. It all becomes clear now.
 
X Factor said:
Don't confuse this with a similar poll (that gave me the idea for this one). I'm not asking if you think churches will be forced to perform gay marriages, I'm asking for your honest opinion if you believe they should be forced to do it.


By forced, I mean anything that the govt could use to penalize churches for failing to performing the ceremonies, including removing tax exempt status if they don't, etc.
Click to expand...

Oh, natural consequences of one's actions is force now? Churches that preach politics, attempt to write federal laws, and hire lobbyists in Washington. D.C., have no business claiming separation of church and state at tax time. But keep pretending that it'd be a penalty for not performing gay weddings. No church has ever been forced to preform a straight wedding they didn't want to perform. That blatantly false pretense is really an acknowledgement of the churches' guilt in acting as political organizations and then suddenly being separate at tax time.
 
No one is asking the religious/churches/mosques to recognize marriage. That's why it's being debated on a legal basis.
 
The way I see it is every "marriage" done under the law should be considered a civil union, whether it's straights or gays tying the knot. The state handles all the legal stuff -- guaranteeing the spouse doesn't have to testify in court against the other, hospital visitation rights, insurance rights, inheritance rights, etc. That all should be under the law a "civil union." If the two people also want to give it spiritual significance, then that should be handled by a church and then they can call it a marriage. No church that believes homosexuality is wrong should be forced to perform any such ceremony. Gay people who want to add "marriage" to their civil union will hence need to find a church that's okay with gay marriage to perform the ceremony. That seems fair to me.
 
Luna Tick said:
The way I see it is every "marriage" done under the law should be considered a civil union, whether it's straights or gays tying the knot. The state handles all the legal stuff -- guaranteeing the spouse doesn't have to testify in court against the other, hospital visitation rights, insurance rights, inheritance rights, etc. That all should be under the law a "civil union." If the two people also want to give it spiritual significance, then that should be handled by a church and then they can call it a marriage. No church that believes homosexuality is wrong should be forced to perform any such ceremony. Gay people who want to add "marriage" to their civil union will hence need to find a church that's okay with gay marriage to perform the ceremony. That seems fair to me.
Click to expand...

Marriage is already a legal term, if the churches are so unhappy, let them come up with a different term for it.
 
Hatuey said:
No one is asking the religious/churches/mosques to recognize marriage. That's why it's being debated on a legal basis.
Click to expand...

shhhhhhhh

dont ruin a perfectly good strawman
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
Marriage is already a legal term, if the churches are so unhappy, let them come up with a different term for it.
Click to expand...

I could live with that. As long as gays and straights end up with the same civil rights, I'm happy.
 
Luna Tick said:
I could live with that. As long as gays and straights end up with the same civil rights, I'm happy.
Click to expand...

So long as we're not playing any "separate but equal" games, I'm fine with it. Same rights, same titles, no differences.
 
Cephus said:
Marriage is already a legal term
Click to expand...
This is true:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

if the churches are so unhappy, let them come up with a different term for it.
Click to expand...
I doubt the churches are unhappy with the legal term. But by your reasoning, anyone who is unhappy can simply come up with a different term for it.
 
Cephus said:
So long as we're not playing any "separate but equal" games, I'm fine with it. Same rights, same titles, no differences.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. That was my idea behind making the state-based union called a "civil union" whether the couples are gay or straight and then calling it a "marriage" if a religious institution has done a ceremony -- also regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.
 
Luna Tick said:
I agree with that. That was my idea behind making the state-based union called a "civil union" whether the couples are gay or straight and then calling it a "marriage" if a religious institution has done a ceremony -- also regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.
Click to expand...

no need to make a new title, just grant equal rights and be done with it

and the problem is that "civil unions" across the country have already been proven to be weaker and not as legally binding as marriage, so why take steps backwards

as far as religion goes, they already have their on totally separate thing that legal marriage has no effect on

religious marriage is meaningless to the debate
 
AGENT J said:
no need to make a new title, just grant equal rights and be done with it

and the problem is that "civil unions" across the country have already been proven to be weaker and not as legally binding as marriage, so why take steps backwards

as far as religion goes, they already have their on totally separate thing that legal marriage has no effect on

religious marriage is meaningless to the debate
Click to expand...

I could live with that as long as gay couples are given completely equal status to straight ones. In that case, I think there should be no religious requirement for marriage. If the couple does all the paperwork it's supposed to with the state and meets all the legal requirements, they should be fully married under the law regardless of whether they perform a ceremony in a church or other religious institution. They can, of course, do a religious ceremony if they want to, but only of they want to. An atheist couple that marries only via the state should be considered just as married as anyone else.
 
Luna Tick said:
1.)I could live with that as long as gay couples are given completely equal status to straight ones.
2.)In that case, I think there should be no religious requirement for marriage.
3.) If the couple does all the paperwork it's supposed to with the state and meets all the legal requirements, they should be fully married under the law regardless of whether they perform a ceremony in a church or other religious institution.
4.)They can, of course, do a religious ceremony if they want to, but only of they want to. An atheist couple that marries only via the state should be considered just as married as anyone else.
Click to expand...

1.) exactly equal rights
2.) there isnt any religious requirement now. Religion has nothing to do with legal marriage
3.) this is already true
4.) They already are, currently gays just dont have equal rights but they should
 
AGENT J said:
1.) exactly equal rights
2.) there isnt any religious requirement now. Religion has nothing to do with legal marriage
3.) this is already true
4.) They already are, currently gays just dont have equal rights but they should
Click to expand...

Then we're in agreement. Get these legal rights to gays in all 50 states any way we can.

Given the religious extremists we have in the US, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of them try to sneak in a religious requirement for marriage to be binding. Don't let them.
 
Luna Tick said:
Then we're in agreement. Get these legal rights to gays in all 50 states any way we can.

Given the religious extremists we have in the US, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of them try to sneak in a religious requirement for marriage to be binding. Don't let them.
Click to expand...

they can try all they want the constitution will stop them every time, they are fighting a losing, selfish, hypocritical battle
 
AGENT J said:
they can try all they want the constitution will stop them every time, they are fighting a losing, selfish, hypocritical battle
Click to expand...

Yes, they are. It's similar to the losing battle they once fought to stop interracial marriage, something bigots also considered unnatural. I truly believe they see the handwriting on the wall and know that it's only a matter of time before gays have full marriage rights in all states. They see that happening and feel threatened by it. How long it will take, I'm honestly not sure. If it goes state by state, it may take something like 20 years, with the blue states giving them the rights first, followed by the less-right wing red states and finally the reddest states begrudgingly coming on board. Alternatively, a Supreme Court ruling could order all the states to accept gay marriage. If that's the case, it could happen quickly, given that the court is due to rule on Prop 8 and DOMA soon. I think it's a little unlikely that their ruling will be so sweeping that it does that, but it's possible. I think it's more likely that they just throw out Prop 8 and DOMA and keep it a states rights issue, in which case each state will offer same sex marriage rights one by one over a longer period of time.
 
Luna Tick said:
Yes, they are. It's similar to the losing battle they once fought to stop interracial marriage, something bigots also considered unnatural. I truly believe they see the handwriting on the wall and know that it's only a matter of time before gays have full marriage rights in all states. They see that happening and feel threatened by it. How long it will take, I'm honestly not sure. If it goes state by state, it may take something like 20 years, with the blue states giving them the rights first, followed by the less-right wing red states and finally the reddest states begrudgingly coming on board. Alternatively, a Supreme Court ruling could order all the states to accept gay marriage. If that's the case, it could happen quickly, given that the court is due to rule on Prop 8 and DOMA soon. I think it's a little unlikely that their ruling will be so sweeping that it does that, but it's possible. I think it's more likely that they just throw out Prop 8 and DOMA and keep it a states rights issue, in which case each state will offer same sex marriage rights one by one over a longer period of time.
Click to expand...

I give it 10 years max
 
Taylor said:
I doubt the churches are unhappy with the legal term. But by your reasoning, anyone who is unhappy can simply come up with a different term for it.
Click to expand...

Which is fine with me and people are free to ignore the churches entirely. However, they do not get to lay claim to a legal term that is already in use and insist that the state change their terminology.
 
Luna Tick said:
I agree with that. That was my idea behind making the state-based union called a "civil union" whether the couples are gay or straight and then calling it a "marriage" if a religious institution has done a ceremony -- also regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the state is already using that term, it's not going to change. If the churches want to find a different term, that's up to them, they cannot impose that decision on others.
 
Cephus said:
However, they do not get to lay claim to a legal term that is already in use and insist that the state change their terminology.
Click to expand...
Some would argue that that's what many advocates for gay marriage are doing...
 
X Factor said:
Don't confuse this with a similar poll (that gave me the idea for this one). I'm not asking if you think churches will be forced to perform gay marriages, I'm asking for your honest opinion if you believe they should be forced to do it.


By forced, I mean anything that the govt could use to penalize churches for failing to performing the ceremonies, including removing tax exempt status if they don't, etc.
Click to expand...

Courthouses yes, churches no. It's key to remember that marriage as a legal and civil institution is separate from marriage as a religious institution.
 
Taylor said:
Some would argue that that's what many advocates for gay marriage are doing...
Click to expand...

Hardly. There's already a perfectly acceptable word in use, we've established that "separate but equal" is an unacceptable concept in this country, therefore they ought to use the word we already have to refer to an equivalent thing.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Courthouses yes, churches no. It's key to remember that marriage as a legal and civil institution is separate from marriage as a religious institution.
Click to expand...

It's key to remember that marriage as a legal and civil institution is the only thing that means a damn thing. Marriage as a religious institution is about as important as a sweet 16 party.
 
Cephus said:
It's key to remember that marriage as a legal and civil institution is the only thing that means a damn thing. Marriage as a religious institution is about as important as a sweet 16 party.
Click to expand...

But ordained ministers performing a marriage ceremony are from a private institution rather than civil servants.
 
grip said:
But ordained ministers performing a marriage ceremony are from a private institution rather than civil servants.
Click to expand...

So? They're leeches on society who ought to go get productive jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom