• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
41,164
Reaction score
13,550
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
There have been accusations that if same sex couples are allowed to wed that gays will then insist and eventually win the right to be wed by religious leaders and in churches that wouldn't approve.

Now most people realize that this is obviously a ridiculous argument and against freedom of religion, but let's see how many might actually support this.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
74,303
Reaction score
42,413
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
A church is a private organization and can choose to wed or not wed anyone they like. The state, on the other hand, is public and does not have that choice.
Yup, that's pretty much it. The individual churches would not have to marry any couple they do not want to. But the government would have to recognize the Marriage Contract between same sex couples.
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
41,164
Reaction score
13,550
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I also want to say that I will only be counting those votes that actually have a name associated with them as an accepted vote for or against. I figure I will post results every so often so people can know how many registered users actually want or are against this, vice someone who may just be messing with the poll.
 

Gipper

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Any liberal would have to be a complete idiot to vote yes. They're the ones usually clamoring the loudest for a separation of church and state. A vote yes here would make them completely hypocritical.
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,778
Reaction score
20,611
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I actively oppose the idea of forcing churches to do things against their beliefs (provided noone is being harmed of course)
 

GhostlyJoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
4,172
Reaction score
2,297
Location
here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The government should have no authority to force a private religious institution to recognize or perform same-sex marriages. However, should a religious instituion decide to extend the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples, there is no reason the government should treat it differently than any other union.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,928
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I would oppose forcing churches to marry SSM couples.
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,778
Reaction score
20,611
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Maybe this is something liberals and conservatives can agree on?
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
41,164
Reaction score
13,550
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Maybe this is something liberals and conservatives can agree on?
One of a few things that most everyone can agree on. I'm sure there might be a couple of people somewhere who would truly believe in a "yes" vote, but I don't think I know any of them personally and certainly don't think there are any on this board.
 

Laila

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
10,100
Reaction score
2,990
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
No, never in US as they have the separation.

In countries that don't however, it is fair game.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There have been accusations that if same sex couples are allowed to wed that gays will then insist and eventually win the right to be wed by religious leaders and in churches that wouldn't approve.

Now most people realize that this is obviously a ridiculous argument and against freedom of religion, but let's see how many might actually support this.
obviously it won't start with this. it will start with a Church not wanting to hire someone who is homosexual.
 

Kal'Stang

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,747
Reaction score
22,572
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
obviously it won't start with this. it will start with a Church not wanting to hire someone who is homosexual.
As far as I know a church cannot not hire someone due to their sexuality so long as it is in a store or what not. However they can decide to not hire a homosexual to work in their church.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
There have been accusations that if same sex couples are allowed to wed that gays will then insist and eventually win the right to be wed by religious leaders and in churches that wouldn't approve.

Now most people realize that this is obviously a ridiculous argument and against freedom of religion, but let's see how many might actually support this.
Nobody actually believes that if same sex couples are allowed to marry that it would mean churches would be forced to marry them. That is just a thinly veiled consequence of belief fallacy that people pander off in an attempt to scare or piss off people. You would have to be incredibly stupid to actually believe that gays could override the 1st amendment by simply earning the right to marry.
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,111
Reaction score
4,744
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'm opposed to a church being forced to marry anyone that they are not comfortable marrying. A marriage performed by a justice of the peace is just as legal as one performed by a pastor/priest/etc.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
25,473
Reaction score
6,290
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
No sane person, unless they know nothing (or care not) about the US constitution and US history, would suggest such a thing - unless perhaps in jest…
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
41,164
Reaction score
13,550
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
So the tally so far is (of voters that can be trusted, since we can see their names)

0 yes
20 no
1 other (which was explained)

And, yes, I know that this is pretty much what should be expected. I was trying to make the point that without some sort of support for such an issue, there is very little chance that any group could get something like this to override the Constitutional protection of freedom of religion. I'm sure that this was probably one of the same arguments used to try to keep interracial marriage bans in place, most likely met with the same attitudes that we have now, and with good reason. No church in the US, that I know of, has ever been forced by a state to marry any couple that the church didn't approve of. It is against the Constitutional protection of freedom of religion and, quite frankly pointless, especially nowdays, when anyone can get ordained on the internet and sign up with their state to legally perform marriages.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
37,910
Reaction score
20,442
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Hell no! Why would anyone think that would be Constitutional?
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,493
Reaction score
50,043
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There have been accusations that if same sex couples are allowed to wed that gays will then insist and eventually win the right to be wed by religious leaders and in churches that wouldn't approve.

Now most people realize that this is obviously a ridiculous argument and against freedom of religion, but let's see how many might actually support this.


The poll itself constitutes a sort of strawman argument, because if such a thing is imposed, it will not be imposed through the will of the majority, but through the action of activist judges.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
41,164
Reaction score
13,550
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The poll itself constitutes a sort of strawman argument, because if such a thing is imposed, it will not be imposed through the will of the majority, but through the action of activist judges.
Where could they possibly get their position from? It would be in direct violation of the very first Amendment. And no group has ever been told that their right to get married overrides a churches right to not perform their wedding ceremonies.

You want to show me one case where "activist" judges' ruled on something that wasn't at least a little iffy whether about whether what they ruled on was unconstitutional or not, or where what they ruled on was so opposed by most of the population, that anyone and everyone would be calling foul? At least 95% of people (probably more) would agree that churches have a right to not perform weddings that the church does not approve of. No other issue that these so called "activist" judges ruled on would have such numbers.

If it were the case that judges could completely disregard the Constitution, then what would keep them from just disregarding the Constitution on anything. Such an argument could easily be used to say that judges could rule at any time to strike down beastiality laws, age of consent laws, pretty much any laws could be struck down if judges are all likely to go against the Constitution.


Besides the original argument was that there would be support from gays for such a thing. Without support, an issue does not go far.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
There have been accusations that if same sex couples are allowed to wed that gays will then insist and eventually win the right to be wed by religious leaders and in churches that wouldn't approve.

Now most people realize that this is obviously a ridiculous argument and against freedom of religion, but let's see how many might actually support this.
The state is the overall authority over marriage. . . everything else is *up to you - your choice*

You go to the registrar's office (or what have you - it's different everywhere you go). You file your fee - they process your personal info and certify your marriage certificate.

You have choices, then, of who will do your "ceremony" (which, technically, is just signing the paper to certify you were unified): Justice of the peace, a reverend or someone else who's been sanctioned to perform ceremonies (there's a huge variety) - but ultimately the person who signs the line doesn't have to be a religious leader at all (as would be a Justice of the Peace - or as my husband and I married: ceremoniously by a non-religious unifier)

Since there is a vast VARIETY of people to choose from for performing a unification - I don't believe anyone should be FORCED to wed someone they don't *want* to wed.

If a Pharmacist doesn't *have* to dispense certain medications (like certain birth-control pills) *because* of religious beliefs then ministers, etc, shouldn't *have* to unify a couple for whatever personal reason they have if it's in conflict with their espoused religious beliefs.
 
Last edited:

Kal'Stang

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,747
Reaction score
22,572
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
The WNBA or UNC are not even close to being in the same league as religion. Religion and most (not all) of their practices are protected under the first amendment of the US Constitution. The There is no such protection for the WNBA or UNC. In fact I would suggest that by not allowing males to play in the WNBA they are being sexist and by not giving scholarships to white kids the UNC is being racist. Both of which is against the Constitution.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There have been accusations that if same sex couples are allowed to wed that gays will then insist and eventually win the right to be wed by religious leaders and in churches that wouldn't approve.

Now most people realize that this is obviously a ridiculous argument and against freedom of religion, but let's see how many might actually support this.
No, they shouldn't. The government should allow gay couples to have legal marriages. Private religious organizations should not in any way be forced to host marriage ceremonies for gay couples.
 
Top Bottom