Forced g a y marriage?

I think most level headed people here will agree that gays deserve equal protection under the law and that they should be allowed to marry.

However, should churches be FORCED to allow gay marriage in their buildings, even if they don't agree with it? Gays could certainly be married in more liberal churches or even in state houses, but should more conservative, by-the-book churches be forced to forego their beliefs and allow this practice to take place inside their building?

I'm split. While I have absolutely no qualms with gays getting married, I have a hard time saying that every church should allow it to take place. Shouldn't the church, as a private institution, be allowed to practice and disallow whatever actions they want (assuming they stay within the realm of the law)? Then again, religious buildings are tax exempt, and on top of that, businesses aren't allowed to be discriminatory, so why should churches be allowed to?

It raises an even more fundamental question; should the owner of a private business reserve the right to refuse service to whomever they choose?

On an unrelated note, why in the hell is gay and homosexual censored from topic titles?

I think most level headed people here will agree that gays deserve equal protection under the law and that they should be allowed to marry.

However, should churches be FORCED to allow gay marriage in their buildings, even if they don't agree with it? Gays could certainly be married in more liberal churches or even in state houses, but should more conservative, by-the-book churches be forced to forego their beliefs and allow this practice to take place inside their building?

I'm split. While I have absolutely no qualms with gays getting married, I have a hard time saying that every church should allow it to take place. Shouldn't the church, as a private institution, be allowed to practice and disallow whatever actions they want (assuming they stay within the realm of the law)? Then again, religious buildings are tax exempt, and on top of that, businesses aren't allowed to be discriminatory, so why should churches be allowed to?

It raises an even more fundamental question; should the owner of a private business reserve the right to refuse service to whomever they choose?

On an unrelated note, why in the hell is gay and homosexual censored from topic titles?

mikeg0788

you cant force them to do anything

for a second i thought you were talking about some kind of weird fetish.

As long as a church is willing to do the ceremony there is no reason why the state should not recognize it...that being said no church should be forced to provide the ceremony...

While I agree with the fact that homosexuals should be allowed to marry...the court ruling in califonia was a slap in the face to all those that legally voted to have it made illegal...forcing cahnge on a population builds nothing but resentment....

No, Churches don't have to do anything like that.

Churches open for gay marriage because they want more members, with possible attention from news stations.... which is sort of pathetic. Don't see any other reason why they would, and they definetly aren't being forced.gamer_marrik

Because they don't think marriage is always a union between a man and a woman?

As long as a church is willing to do the ceremony there is no reason why the state should not recognize it...that being said no church should be forced to provide the ceremony...

While I agree with the fact that homosexuals should be allowed to marry...the court ruling in califonia was a slap in the face to all those that legally voted to have it made illegal...forcing cahnge on a population builds nothing but resentment....

Omni-Slash

As long as a church is willing to do the ceremony there is no reason why the state should not recognize it...that being said no church should be forced to provide the ceremony...

While I agree with the fact that homosexuals should be allowed to marry...the court ruling in califonia was a slap in the face to all those that legally voted to have it made illegal...forcing cahnge on a population builds nothing but resentment....

Omni-Slash

In the same way that civil rights rulings were a slap in the face to everyone who voted for the Jim Crow laws.NearTheEnd

Wait there was a vote and the outcome was ignored and overuled or something? If you would be so kind as to clear that up for me.:)funkadelichika

Churches don't have to marry gays if they don't want to.

/thread.

Churches are private organizations, they will never be forced to do anything :|ViolentPressure

why does the government need to be involved with marriage in the first placeH8sMikeMoore

[QUOTE="ViolentPressure"]Churches are private organizations, they will never be forced to do anything :|Omni-Slash

What does the government forces churches to do?

[QUOTE="funkadelichika"]Wait there was a vote and the outcome was ignored and overuled or something? If you would be so kind as to clear that up for me.:)Omni-Slash

What does the government forces churches to do?

ViolentPressure

[QUOTE="ViolentPressure"]

What does the government forces churches to do?

Omni-Slash

The governemnt won't forces Churches to support something that is strictly against their religion. It's very clear that homosexuality is prohibited in Christianity.

It just pisses me off that Americans are making such a big deal about this. Many countries in Europe have legalized Gay marriage now and guess what? Nobody gives a **** anymore, everyone has the same rights and everyone just lives their own freaking life in peace.

Why are Amrican so obsessed about restricting the rights of people who are different from them?

The governemnt won't forces Churches to support something that is strictly against their religion. It's very clear that homosexuality is prohibited in Christianity. ViolentPressure

why does the government need to be involved with marriage in the first placeH8sMikeMoore

Because its a legally binding contract.

The ceremony is just religious tradition.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]why does the government need to be involved with marriage in the first placemikeg0788

Because its a legally binding contract.

The ceremony is just religious tradition.

that dosent make sense

why would the government need to issue those contracts in the first place

[QUOTE="ViolentPressure"]The governemnt won't forces Churches to support something that is strictly against their religion. It's very clear that homosexuality is prohibited in Christianity. Omni-Slash

Religious freedom is a human right. One cannot trump another.

And if the government tries to start controlling the church. . . .well, Christians have a bit of a reputation for having a lot of paranoia and very short fuses.

[QUOTE="funkadelichika"]Wait there was a vote and the outcome was ignored and overuled or something? If you would be so kind as to clear that up for me.:)Omni-Slash

[QUOTE="mikeg0788"]

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]why does the government need to be involved with marriage in the first placeH8sMikeMoore

Because its a legally binding contract.

The ceremony is just religious tradition.

that dosent make sense

why would the government need to issue those contracts in the first place

Because your tax status is based upon it. With the stability of modern marriage in general though, I think it's about time we get rid of the marriage tax discounts and penalties.

When Americans get married in Canada, and want to divorce, one of the couple has to live here for a year.

Just thought that was funny, and information you needed to know.

>_>

:P

As long as a church is willing to do the ceremony there is no reason why the state should not recognize it...that being said no church should be forced to provide the ceremony...

While I agree with the fact that homosexuals should be allowed to marry...the court ruling in califonia was a slap in the face to all those that legally voted to have it made illegal...forcing cahnge on a population builds nothing but resentment....

Omni-Slash

How is restoring rights to a populace a slap in the face? That's like saying that desegregation was a slap in the face to all those who legally voted to keep blacks away from white establishments or that abolishing slavery was sending a message that the country didn't care about farmers' votes.

No churches can not and should not be forced to accept gay marriage and there tax free status should not be revoked Church and State are separate which means that the government can not regulate church activities or tax the churches because it would be unconstitutional. However government has forced its rules upon church-linked charities, for instance the Massachusetts state court in 2004 issued a ruling that said that Catholic Charities adoption agency had to give same-sex couples equal adopting rights. The result was that Catholic Charities withdrew its adoption agency and thousands of orphans suffered- i guess the unreasonable steps of elitist judges and gay activists, rather than compromised forced the Charity's hands and the orphans suffered again. Anyway on this subject i think that it would be best for kids to grow up with a mom and a dad, and that two moms or two dads can be bad for the child's development. At the heart of that issue is that people seem to think that they have "a right to a child"- According to the Catholic Church however people don't have a right to a child, which the Church says can lead people to view children as property, and it says "in this area only the child has legitimate rights".whipassmt