Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Can churches be forced to marry homosexuals?

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 5:38:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As I understand it, churches are exempt from the government forcing them to participate in same sex marriages. However, I have heard the argument that churches are being subsidized by the government through their tax exempt status in which case churches could start paying taxes or stop issuing State marriage licenses. Either way, it doesn't appear that churches will be unwillingly marrying homosexuals. Your thoughts?

*I have also posted this in the religion forum - I don't really know where this goes...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 5:46:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 5:38:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
As I understand it, churches are exempt from the government forcing them to participate in same sex marriages. However, I have heard the argument that churches are being subsidized by the government through their tax exempt status in which case churches could start paying taxes or stop issuing State marriage licenses. Either way, it doesn't appear that churches will be unwillingly marrying homosexuals. Your thoughts?

*I have also posted this in the religion forum - I don't really know where this goes...

The whole idea of a state marriage license is outdated. I wish we'd stop discriminating against single people, but apparently the gays have more influential lobbyists and better PR people than we do. The church should perform marriages as it sees fit, and the government shouldn't care whether you live with anyone or not.
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 6:03:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No, I don't think they will be forced to conduct marriage ceremonies between gay couples due to the fact that the Constitution protects religious groups. It is important to recognize that many churches are recognizing same-sex marriages.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 6:05:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 5:46:32 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:38:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
As I understand it, churches are exempt from the government forcing them to participate in same sex marriages. However, I have heard the argument that churches are being subsidized by the government through their tax exempt status in which case churches could start paying taxes or stop issuing State marriage licenses. Either way, it doesn't appear that churches will be unwillingly marrying homosexuals. Your thoughts?

*I have also posted this in the religion forum - I don't really know where this goes...

The whole idea of a state marriage license is outdated.

How so?

I wish we'd stop discriminating against single people, but apparently the gays have more influential lobbyists and better PR people than we do. The church should perform marriages as it sees fit, and the government shouldn't care whether you live with anyone or not.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 6:18:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 6:05:17 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:46:32 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:38:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
As I understand it, churches are exempt from the government forcing them to participate in same sex marriages. However, I have heard the argument that churches are being subsidized by the government through their tax exempt status in which case churches could start paying taxes or stop issuing State marriage licenses. Either way, it doesn't appear that churches will be unwillingly marrying homosexuals. Your thoughts?

*I have also posted this in the religion forum - I don't really know where this goes...

The whole idea of a state marriage license is outdated.

How so?

Basically the reason the government started issuing marriage licenses is because it used to subscribe to the idea that encouraging traditional nuclear families was best for society. The US clearly no longer believes this, since we have an epidemic of divorce, single parents raising kids, and now gay marriage is legal. Furthermore, if gay marriage is legal, there is no possible argument against polygamy either. So if we don't think traditional marriage is good for society, then there is no reason to subsidize it via tax breaks and other preferential treatment for married couples. For example, why should Social Security benefits pass onto the surviving partner upon death? That policy penalizes single taxpayers for no good reason.

So I'd like to see marriage continue as a sacrament ministered by the Church, which is what is has always been, with no state recognition of it. Keep religion and government separate, and don't treat adam, eve or steve differently based on marital status.
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 6:21:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
separation of church and state anyone?

Why don't we have the government make a small correction to all laws related to "marriage" and substitute that word with "GUHPL" or

"government union of human pairs license"

To avoid confusion, they could use wording such as:

GUHPL (government union of human pairs license, formerly known as Marriage)

Churches would then take back the term marriage (Holy Matrimony) in the traditional sense and these would be two distinct events. That way, if you want the government "goodies" for getting GUHPL'd you just go and fill out the form and pay for the license . You can do this with someone of the same sex, another sex, someone you know, or not, whatever. This is just about the goodies.

Then, when you fall in love and want to spend your life with someone, you get Married in a church, in the traditional sense. No license, no tax implications, etc.

Yea, I'm sure that's gonna happen.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 6:25:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 6:21:13 PM, ax123man wrote:
separation of church and state anyone?

Why don't we have the government make a small correction to all laws related to "marriage" and substitute that word with "GUHPL" or

"government union of human pairs license"

To avoid confusion, they could use wording such as:

GUHPL (government union of human pairs license, formerly known as Marriage)

Churches would then take back the term marriage (Holy Matrimony) in the traditional sense and these would be two distinct events. That way, if you want the government "goodies" for getting GUHPL'd you just go and fill out the form and pay for the license . You can do this with someone of the same sex, another sex, someone you know, or not, whatever. This is just about the goodies.

Then, when you fall in love and want to spend your life with someone, you get Married in a church, in the traditional sense. No license, no tax implications, etc.

Yea, I'm sure that's gonna happen.

Basically what I've said, except I'll go one step further and ask you why there should be any extra government goodies for married people anyway... It's discriminatory to single people.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 6:46:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 5:38:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
As I understand it, churches are exempt from the government forcing them to participate in same sex marriages. However, I have heard the argument that churches are being subsidized by the government through their tax exempt status in which case churches could start paying taxes or stop issuing State marriage licenses. Either way, it doesn't appear that churches will be unwillingly marrying homosexuals. Your thoughts?

*I have also posted this in the religion forum - I don't really know where this goes...

I heard that in one European country churches have to do it. Individual pastors may decline but the church building has to be used for the ceremony. I made a thread about it once.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
srhelsel609
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 7:22:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No, churches and other religious institutions in the United states have the freedom of religion, that can be found in the 1st amendment of U.S. Constitution. So if a church finds homosexuality a sin or disprove of it, they can reject a pair from partaking in the holiness of marriage. The pair would have to go to a different church or a person who has the power to marry a couple.(Ex a justice of the peace or judge)
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 12:20:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 6:25:23 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/27/2015 6:21:13 PM, ax123man wrote:
separation of church and state anyone?

Why don't we have the government make a small correction to all laws related to "marriage" and substitute that word with "GUHPL" or

"government union of human pairs license"

To avoid confusion, they could use wording such as:

GUHPL (government union of human pairs license, formerly known as Marriage)

Churches would then take back the term marriage (Holy Matrimony) in the traditional sense and these would be two distinct events. That way, if you want the government "goodies" for getting GUHPL'd you just go and fill out the form and pay for the license . You can do this with someone of the same sex, another sex, someone you know, or not, whatever. This is just about the goodies.

Then, when you fall in love and want to spend your life with someone, you get Married in a church, in the traditional sense. No license, no tax implications, etc.

Yea, I'm sure that's gonna happen.

Basically what I've said, except I'll go one step further and ask you why there should be any extra government goodies for married people anyway... It's discriminatory to single people.

You are correct, every person should be treated equally regardless of bed partners.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 5:01:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 6:18:45 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/27/2015 6:05:17 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:46:32 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:38:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
As I understand it, churches are exempt from the government forcing them to participate in same sex marriages. However, I have heard the argument that churches are being subsidized by the government through their tax exempt status in which case churches could start paying taxes or stop issuing State marriage licenses. Either way, it doesn't appear that churches will be unwillingly marrying homosexuals. Your thoughts?

*I have also posted this in the religion forum - I don't really know where this goes...

The whole idea of a state marriage license is outdated.

How so?

Basically the reason the government started issuing marriage licenses is because it used to subscribe to the idea that encouraging traditional nuclear families was best for society. The US clearly no longer believes this, since we have an epidemic of divorce, single parents raising kids, and now gay marriage is legal. Furthermore, if gay marriage is legal, there is no possible argument against polygamy either. So if we don't think traditional marriage is good for society, then there is no reason to subsidize it via tax breaks and other preferential treatment for married couples. For example, why should Social Security benefits pass onto the surviving partner upon death? That policy penalizes single taxpayers for no good reason.

So I'd like to see marriage continue as a sacrament ministered by the Church, which is what is has always been, with no state recognition of it. Keep religion and government separate, and don't treat adam, eve or steve differently based on marital status.

You are right in that religion needs to separate out its marriage from the state's definition of marriage. The state however has a vested interest in marriage simply because it is a contract and someone needs to enforce the contract when the arrangement is dissolved.

The state is also the one on the hook should dissolving a marriage turn to wild west style where the person in charge of finance steals all the money leaving their ex poor and destitute.

I would prefer that the state stop supplying a standard template for the contractual terms and require that couples wishing to get a marriage license file a contract.

On another note Christianity has delegated its rules to divorce to the state, which is another reason why the religious standards are all mixed with the states standards in their head and are unable to realize they are two different things.

Christianity needs to institute its own arbitration based upon the rules of Christianity like many Muslim communities do so people in those communities can opt into the those rules and agree to be under arbitration. Of course should a person not want to opt into those standards and agreement to arbitration they move to state standards as the final rule of law in the land. Better yet, they already signed a contract that holds them to arbitration and defines when they can or can't leverage the states courts.

If Christianity does not want to be forced to marry gays then stop issuing state marriage licenses and focus on the religious ceremony. They are not the same thing.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 5:03:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 7:22:09 PM, srhelsel609 wrote:
No, churches and other religious institutions in the United states have the freedom of religion, that can be found in the 1st amendment of U.S. Constitution. So if a church finds homosexuality a sin or disprove of it, they can reject a pair from partaking in the holiness of marriage. The pair would have to go to a different church or a person who has the power to marry a couple.(Ex a justice of the peace or judge)

There is no reason why the US could not strip all clergy/religion from issuing state marriage licenses. That is a privilege not a right.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:21:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 5:38:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
As I understand it, churches are exempt from the government forcing them to participate in same sex marriages. However, I have heard the argument that churches are being subsidized by the government through their tax exempt status in which case churches could start paying taxes or stop issuing State marriage licenses. Either way, it doesn't appear that churches will be unwillingly marrying homosexuals. Your thoughts?

*I have also posted this in the religion forum - I don't really know where this goes...

I'll reply here as well (since this is where the action on the topic is).

Supreme Court of the United States in 1970, in the case Walz versus Tax Commission of the City of New York; it was a stunning 8-1 decision. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Warren Burger made very clear that a tax exemption is not a subsidy; that was affirmed by other justices in concurring opinions. A subsidy would be the transfer of tax money to institutions. That"s not what"s going on here". Rather, the tax exemption is granted with respect to institutions the government does not feel that it has the right to tax on the one hand and on the other hand, institutions that it believes are essential to the Commonwealth and to the commonweal, to the well-functioning of society.

http://www.str.org...
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:37:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:21:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:38:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
As I understand it, churches are exempt from the government forcing them to participate in same sex marriages. However, I have heard the argument that churches are being subsidized by the government through their tax exempt status in which case churches could start paying taxes or stop issuing State marriage licenses. Either way, it doesn't appear that churches will be unwillingly marrying homosexuals. Your thoughts?

*I have also posted this in the religion forum - I don't really know where this goes...

I'll reply here as well (since this is where the action on the topic is).

Supreme Court of the United States in 1970, in the case Walz versus Tax Commission of the City of New York; it was a stunning 8-1 decision. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Warren Burger made very clear that a tax exemption is not a subsidy; that was affirmed by other justices in concurring opinions. A subsidy would be the transfer of tax money to institutions. That"s not what"s going on here". Rather, the tax exemption is granted with respect to institutions the government does not feel that it has the right to tax on the one hand and on the other hand, institutions that it believes are essential to the Commonwealth and to the commonweal, to the well-functioning of society.

http://www.str.org...

It's tough for members of government to make what are expected to be rational statements when government itself is irrational. A subsidy and a tax exemption both have the result of putting funds in someones pocket that otherwise wouldn't be there. Call the word what you like, the impact is the same:

govt: Hey, church, the polls say my constituents are pro-gay marriage. Here's 2000$ - just do the thing.
or
govt: Hey, church. I heard you refused a gay marriage today. How do you like your tax exempt status?

I make no claim whether the above actually has or would happen, only that I don't really see the point of the SC ruling.

Second, based on the above statement, the government apparently thinks that businesses are not "essential to the commonwealth".
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:39:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:21:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:38:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
As I understand it, churches are exempt from the government forcing them to participate in same sex marriages. However, I have heard the argument that churches are being subsidized by the government through their tax exempt status in which case churches could start paying taxes or stop issuing State marriage licenses. Either way, it doesn't appear that churches will be unwillingly marrying homosexuals. Your thoughts?

*I have also posted this in the religion forum - I don't really know where this goes...

I'll reply here as well (since this is where the action on the topic is).

Supreme Court of the United States in 1970, in the case Walz versus Tax Commission of the City of New York; it was a stunning 8-1 decision. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Warren Burger made very clear that a tax exemption is not a subsidy; that was affirmed by other justices in concurring opinions. A subsidy would be the transfer of tax money to institutions. That"s not what"s going on here". Rather, the tax exemption is granted with respect to institutions the government does not feel that it has the right to tax on the one hand and on the other hand, institutions that it believes are essential to the Commonwealth and to the commonweal, to the well-functioning of society.

http://www.str.org...

Yes, thanks for your response. I meant to respond on the other thread (after I had done some research), but got sidetracked. I will respond tonight. Feel free to remind me.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:42:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:39:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:21:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:38:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
As I understand it, churches are exempt from the government forcing them to participate in same sex marriages. However, I have heard the argument that churches are being subsidized by the government through their tax exempt status in which case churches could start paying taxes or stop issuing State marriage licenses. Either way, it doesn't appear that churches will be unwillingly marrying homosexuals. Your thoughts?

*I have also posted this in the religion forum - I don't really know where this goes...

I'll reply here as well (since this is where the action on the topic is).

Supreme Court of the United States in 1970, in the case Walz versus Tax Commission of the City of New York; it was a stunning 8-1 decision. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Warren Burger made very clear that a tax exemption is not a subsidy; that was affirmed by other justices in concurring opinions. A subsidy would be the transfer of tax money to institutions. That"s not what"s going on here". Rather, the tax exemption is granted with respect to institutions the government does not feel that it has the right to tax on the one hand and on the other hand, institutions that it believes are essential to the Commonwealth and to the commonweal, to the well-functioning of society.

http://www.str.org...

Yes, thanks for your response. I meant to respond on the other thread (after I had done some research), but got sidetracked. I will respond tonight. Feel free to remind me.

Lol. No problem. It was more that the point was part of the general discussion, rather than soliciting a response.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:58:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 6:46:54 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:38:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
As I understand it, churches are exempt from the government forcing them to participate in same sex marriages. However, I have heard the argument that churches are being subsidized by the government through their tax exempt status in which case churches could start paying taxes or stop issuing State marriage licenses. Either way, it doesn't appear that churches will be unwillingly marrying homosexuals. Your thoughts?

*I have also posted this in the religion forum - I don't really know where this goes...

I heard that in one European country churches have to do it. Individual pastors may decline but the church building has to be used for the ceremony. I made a thread about it once.

And you believe everything you "hear"?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 1:34:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:42:01 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:39:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:21:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:38:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
As I understand it, churches are exempt from the government forcing them to participate in same sex marriages. However, I have heard the argument that churches are being subsidized by the government through their tax exempt status in which case churches could start paying taxes or stop issuing State marriage licenses. Either way, it doesn't appear that churches will be unwillingly marrying homosexuals. Your thoughts?

*I have also posted this in the religion forum - I don't really know where this goes...

I'll reply here as well (since this is where the action on the topic is).

Supreme Court of the United States in 1970, in the case Walz versus Tax Commission of the City of New York; it was a stunning 8-1 decision. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Warren Burger made very clear that a tax exemption is not a subsidy; that was affirmed by other justices in concurring opinions. A subsidy would be the transfer of tax money to institutions. That"s not what"s going on here". Rather, the tax exemption is granted with respect to institutions the government does not feel that it has the right to tax on the one hand and on the other hand, institutions that it believes are essential to the Commonwealth and to the commonweal, to the well-functioning of society.

http://www.str.org...

In 1983, the Supreme court viewed tax exemption as a form of subsidy:

Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income. Deductible contributions are similar to cash grants of the amount of a portion of the individual's contributions. [Footnote 5] The system Congress has enacted provides this kind of subsidy to nonprofit civic welfare organizations generally, and an additional subsidy to those charitable organizations that do not engage in substantial lobbying.

https://supreme.justia.com...

Let us assume the worse case scenario - tax exemption is a subsidy. The church still has options to avoid same-sex marriages should it choose to do so. Wouldn't you agree?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 6:00:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 5:38:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
As I understand it, churches are exempt from the government forcing them to participate in same sex marriages. However, I have heard the argument that churches are being subsidized by the government through their tax exempt status in which case churches could start paying taxes or stop issuing State marriage licenses. Either way, it doesn't appear that churches will be unwillingly marrying homosexuals. Your thoughts?

*I have also posted this in the religion forum - I don't really know where this goes...

This is a legal question. I suspect that the answer is no.
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 6:36:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 5:38:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
As I understand it, churches are exempt from the government forcing them to participate in same sex marriages. However, I have heard the argument that churches are being subsidized by the government through their tax exempt status in which case churches could start paying taxes or stop issuing State marriage licenses. Either way, it doesn't appear that churches will be unwillingly marrying homosexuals. Your thoughts?

*I have also posted this in the religion forum - I don't really know where this goes...

They shouldn't be. Marriage should just be privatized, and civil unions should be the legal version for all couples. The legal affair of marriage and the ceremonial affair are mixed up.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 7:56:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
No, Churches cannot be forced to marry homosexuals, or anyone for that matter. Homosexuals have the option of being married by a Judge, to consummate their relationship and make it legally binding.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 7:58:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 7:56:18 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
No, Churches cannot be forced to marry homosexuals, or anyone for that matter. Homosexuals have the option of being married by a Judge, to consummate their relationship and make it legally binding.

The Church is not the state, and we need to keep the two separated to avoid the abuse of power that could come from such a relationship.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 9:04:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 7:58:48 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 7/31/2015 7:56:18 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
No, Churches cannot be forced to marry homosexuals, or anyone for that matter. Homosexuals have the option of being married by a Judge, to consummate their relationship and make it legally binding.

The Church is not the state, and we need to keep the two separated to avoid the abuse of power that could come from such a relationship.

Thank you for your posts. You have proven and are the exemplar of my point in the OP. Good job !!!!!!!!!
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 9:06:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 9:04:05 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 7/31/2015 7:58:48 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 7/31/2015 7:56:18 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
No, Churches cannot be forced to marry homosexuals, or anyone for that matter. Homosexuals have the option of being married by a Judge, to consummate their relationship and make it legally binding.

The Church is not the state, and we need to keep the two separated to avoid the abuse of power that could come from such a relationship.

Thank you for your posts. You have proven and are the exemplar of my point in the OP. Good job !!!!!!!!!

Sorry, somehow, that got posted in the wrong thread. My apologises.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 9:15:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 9:06:56 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 7/31/2015 9:04:05 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 7/31/2015 7:58:48 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 7/31/2015 7:56:18 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
No, Churches cannot be forced to marry homosexuals, or anyone for that matter. Homosexuals have the option of being married by a Judge, to consummate their relationship and make it legally binding.

The Church is not the state, and we need to keep the two separated to avoid the abuse of power that could come from such a relationship.

Thank you for your posts. You have proven and are the exemplar of my point in the OP. Good job !!!!!!!!!

Sorry, somehow, that got posted in the wrong thread. My apologies.

It's okay!