Is it moral for a church to refuse performing a same-sex marriage.

Posted by: Mathgeekjoe

  • No, gays and lesbians deserve to be treated equal.

  • Yes, it is moral for a church to refuse a same-sex marriage.

32% 11 votes
68% 23 votes
  • lol "religious freedom" -- my religion is the religion of axe murdering, and you're restricting it by having laws against axe murder

  • ^fuzzycat actually brings up a very good point, how far are we willing to go accomodate religious beliefs, if we're going to allow people to discriminate because of religious beliefs than point me in the direction of a church in which taxes are a sin.

  • ^ I want to go to that church!

  • After reading the question again and thinking about it, there is nothing moral about refusing people from getting married. Morals are personal.

  • Considering that morals are completely subjective, as far as the church is concerned they are doing the morally right thing.

  • Yes, the same logic applies to saying, "is it moral for a Muslim church to refuse to do a Christian marriage?" Of course because based on the religions founding beliefs, it would be immoral for this to happen. just like for Christians it is immoral to marry homosexuals.

    Posted by: Hunts
  • Religious freedom extends to the point where it would be violating the rights of others. Marriage is not a right. Take your "wedding" elsewhere where you are accepted.

  • It's actually immoral for a Christian church to have gay marriage cause that's against the Bible.

  • Morality doesn't exist, but they should have the right to serve (or refuse to serve) whoever they choose. If you don't like their policy, go to a different church.

  • It's not a matter of morality, it's a matter of discrimination against an entire religion, whether you like it or not.

  • I believe as if it is completely okay for a church to refuse service to a same-sex couple because you cannot force someone to preform a service that is against their beliefs. But if there is a church that would marry them, it would be that minister's choice. You cannot force anyone to do anything that is against their beliefs.

  • of course not in romans 1 27 its says no to it duh!

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T18:11:20.0678606-05:00
FuzzyCatPotato has a point. If my religion said it was okay to murder people for whatever reason, shouldn't I have that right since prohibiting it would be taking away my religious freedom?
TheMarquis says2015-04-10T18:12:20.9431064-05:00
Getting married in a church isn't a necessary thing you need. I only even oppose the new Indiana law because history books tell me that business owners can get out of hand with things quickly. You can get married somewhere where the people don't hate you or "your lifestyle choices," as they like to say. Find a lawyer or some other form of clergy. Get married somewhere special to you.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T18:13:49.6817474-05:00
This is why a civilized society shouldn't have laws protecting superstition. You choose to believe in myths, there is no need to protect your choice to deny reality.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T18:16:49.9957938-05:00
"This is why a civilized society shouldn't have laws protecting superstition. You choose to believe in myths, there is no need to protect your choice to deny reality." What?
TheMarquis says2015-04-10T18:17:33.0851614-05:00
@BrianTheLiberal: The lines between reality and superstition are not always clear. That's like making laws that say news organizations have to tell the truth. The truth through human eyes is grossly subjective. It is a very dangerous thing to let the state decide what is and is not reality. That isn't much different than a Theocracy as it wouldn't allow a lot of crazy outliers who are occasionally right. We used to think Okapi were a magical animal made up by African tribes. Then we found a bunch of them. We can't go around telling people that we know as a fact what truth is. That's not a proper thing to do. Faith also gets people through hard things. The majority of religious people don't want to hurt anybody.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T18:18:04.2697613-05:00
"What?" - What part of what I said was confusing for you?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T18:20:25.8406688-05:00
Do you mean by superstitions and myths, religion. There is no need for religions to protect their choices?
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T18:22:30.7818697-05:00
TheMarquis, you're right, the line isn't always clear but why should we have laws protecting that arbitrary line in the first place?
TheMarquis says2015-04-10T18:25:40.3350659-05:00
That line is a very important thing. Being aware of that line and using years, decades or centuries even, of tests and reasoning to decide what goes on which side is what makes a person a free thinker or a close minded individual. And our truth is changing all the time. I think that we should let them do whatever with two big caveats: nobody gets seriously damaged in any way or we start shutting down the churches that allowed it and they cannot mix themselves with government.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T18:31:06.5607016-05:00
Mathgeekjoe, I said a civilized society wouldn't have any laws protecting religion. I believe everyone should have the right to practice their religion, but it is a personal choice and these "religious freedom" laws would have no limitations.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T18:34:42.4804421-05:00
TheMarquis, I still don't understand why there should be laws protecting it. Everyone believes in different things, yes, but why are there laws protecting it?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T18:35:59.7062715-05:00
Because otherwise you could have churches facing punishment for refusing to perform a gay marriage.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T18:37:55.3157887-05:00
Brian, random question, what are your opinions about nuclear weapons?
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T18:38:52.4729490-05:00
But where is the line drawn? That is the issue here. If my religion commanded me to make at least one human sacrifice a day, my religious freedom should be protected and I should be allowed to do that, right?
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T18:40:11.8790912-05:00
Nuclear weapons? I don't have any real opinion on them, but they can be good for defense purposes. Why is this relevant?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T18:40:34.8693798-05:00
"But where is the line drawn? That is the issue here. If my religion commanded me to make at least one human sacrifice a day, my religious freedom should be protected and I should be allowed to do that, right?" Line is drawn at infringing on others rights, of course there may be disagreements on what is infringing on rights (gay marriage).
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T18:41:28.8287421-05:00
"Nuclear weapons? I don't have any real opinion on them, but they can be good for defense purposes. Why is this relevant?" It isn't relevant, that is why I said random question. I was just wondering.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T18:42:23.1860590-05:00
"Line is drawn at infringing on others rights, of course there may be disagreements on what is infringing on rights" - But discrimination and rejecting gay people, or any people, for whatever reason, is infringing upon their rights.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T18:44:29.4676978-05:00
Civil unions instead of gay marriage doesn't infringe on their rights.
CyberConor says2015-04-10T18:47:52.7841582-05:00
For the record, I voted first. And I have to agree with the liberal on this one. You can't infringe someone's 1st amendment right, and religion and state are seperate.
TheMarquis says2015-04-10T18:48:07.5052900-05:00
@BrianTheLiberal: We always have to protect people's rights to believe things. How would you feel if a religious regime took over and made your opinions and beliefs unprotected but allowed others to have their religions? That's how a lot of Middle Eastern countries are. They have "religious freedom" in the sense that you are allowed to get yourself shot for not saying God's name in the right middle eastern language. And both the Soviets and the Nazis believed they were of logical and skeptical minds, which in many ways both were, and attacking people who lived outside of reality. The space between attacking something and just not protecting it is not a very long hop.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T18:50:59.1266917-05:00
"Civil unions instead of gay marriage doesn't infringe on their rights." - Don't start this again. I already refuted your argument regarding this flawed statement on a previous poll. Stop bringing this up, because it's not even relevant to the actual issue of this poll.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T18:52:54.2540445-05:00
TheMarquis, not having laws protecting religion =/= anti-religious tyranny. Just because a society doesn't have laws protecting religion doesn't mean the right to practice of religion is banned or restricted in some way.
TheMarquis says2015-04-10T18:55:05.4886368-05:00
@BrianTheLiberal: You are very wrong about that. Iran is my example. You are allowed to be any religion you want. You also have to have your religion listed on your ID card. And you gotta know that "hate crime" doesn't show up on their list of laws. Not protecting a belief is the same as letting it get ravaged completely. I am not saying to fully support the religion because you shouldn't. But letting people feel safe in their practice is a very important part of a free country.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T19:03:36.4880097-05:00
TheMarquis, Okay but that brings me back to my original comment. Protecting religion is not the same as protecting the religious person. There should be no laws protecting religion, at all. But protecting an individual regardless of their religion is clearly something Iran doesn't recognize. That is the difference here. The United States doesn't protect atheists, but we are still allowed to be atheists. The same should be applied to religion. People should have the right to be religious, but no laws should protect the beliefs of the person, especially over the rights of other people.
TheMarquis says2015-04-10T19:05:11.9857675-05:00
@BrianTheLiberal: I see what you mean, but I think our laws protecting religion should be kept on the books just as a precaution.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T19:07:14.2598217-05:00
A precaution from what?
TheMarquis says2015-04-10T19:08:02.1197013-05:00
@BrianTheLiberal: No laws to throw religious people under the bus entirely can stand if we still have the rules we have now.
TBR says2015-04-10T19:12:29.2801635-05:00
Yes. This is not a part of the general debate.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T19:14:18.1660695-05:00
They would still have freedom of speech, and the freedom to practice their religion, just not the freedom to use their religion to dictate legislation or force their beliefs on everyone else. Technically, a lot of these religious freedom bills are unconstitutional because they violate the First Amendment that which prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion.
TheMarquis says2015-04-10T19:15:30.9386700-05:00
We don't need to revoke any of their rights. We just need to enforce the separation of church and state for real. That fell apart in the Cold War.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T19:17:20.4258504-05:00
Exactly. There needs to be stricter reinforcement of separation of church and state.
TheMarquis says2015-04-10T19:19:40.1126781-05:00
@BrianTheLiberal: That really isn't what you were saying. If so you worded it poorly. People aren't getting their religious bull into the government due to something being written down wrong. They are doing it because we used nationality to excuse things, still do, and like to connect Christianity to that identity.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T19:25:27.8767902-05:00
That is what I was saying. The law should not be protecting or establishing laws based on religion. Not only is it unconstitutional, it's uncivilized.
TheMarquis says2015-04-10T19:26:58.1694374-05:00
Well then we're in agreement.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-10T21:59:45.4095573-05:00
"This is why a civilized society shouldn't have laws protecting superstition.'' Civilized society should protect all thought equally, as it remains thought.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-10T22:00:50.1795117-05:00
Or are you saying now of all times, Brian, that it is ok for us to be selective of you?
briantheliberal says2015-04-11T03:06:06.2407169-05:00
FreedomBeforeEquality, "Civilized society should protect all thought equally" - What a load of BS. Everyone here knows you don't believe in protective class laws, so what are you talking about? It's okay to protect beliefs, but not actual people? It seems you only believe what you want when it's convenient for you.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-11T08:53:30.4317092-05:00
You misquoted me and left out the part where I said it needed to remain 'thought'. As soon as it crosses the line and infringes on other peoples thoughts and actions ... That's when we have a problem. That's why free speech is ok ... But in your eye bullying is not. You're actually the one suppressing ideas here, on the basis that they don't match up to some logical process you have going on. Gay marriage is fine if it doesn't physically involve actions on part of everyone else who doesn't want it. Through government, I'm involved, so that's not a viable course either. Keep your marriages personal and in your little circle and you'll be left alone.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-11T09:01:26.1425950-05:00
Just so we are clear, gay marriage is not speech and it is not just thought. It is not protected in the same fashion. If you were to find a religion that practiced it ... You could make a case for religious rights, then you'd be ok, but not in another religious institutions church. Go find your own.
CyberConor says2015-04-12T18:24:54.8678651-05:00
Get the government out of marriage. Let marriage be decided by the couple, and if the church doesn't want to marry a couple for what ever reason, they can.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-13T14:43:51.9361497-05:00
I totally agree.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.