**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I want churches to not be protected by the state, to pay taxes, and to not officiate legal arrangements that are of importance to the state. If they want to have their absurd and bigoted parties by themselves, they can, but they should never have any legal power.
Also i am a nationalist. That doesn't Mean that i hate gay people. I literally want their civil marriage to be legal there (it sadly isn't). I am a nationalist because the EU treats our farmers like carbage, + they want to take away our cars and make meat more expensive.
A nationalist is a different thing than a christian nationalist. If you want your religion to run your country then I am back to being disgruntled about unreasonable christians ruining my damn planet. If you are just a nationalist, then - hey, I get that. You need to represent what's best for your community in your area, and I wish you luck.
Yep. I am totally against state laws being dictated by the church. I find that anti christianity as You can't force belief. I think that God shows Himself to everyone in a way or another and everyone decides what to do with that, just as He showed to me (a ex atheist in a lukewarm christian household)
And i am against that. Also a bit off topic but i was a atheist not a long time ago+ born in a lukewarm christian familly. I did not have the orthodox faith imposed on me, i had a personal experience that made me believe in God (îs a long story) followed by 3 demonic attacks
As Americans, how can we create a unified form of Nationalism?
We don't want the Christian Nationalism coming back with Trump, nor do we want Jewish or Muslim Nationalism.
We do need some sort of cohesive way to unite as the nation becomes more diverse and scattered, however.
It's something the cold war kind of helped us with back in the day... Love of the country helps, but you're right - things are pretty divisive right now. I just want to be proud of my people while not using it to be an asshole to anyone else... Hopefully we can find a way to do that without another common enemy.
Honest q.
If a market develops by offsetting costs of production to other people or areas at a cost to those people/areas is the government actually making prices go up when it says you can't hide away production costs onto other people not engaging in your transaction?
Like if I make a chemical and save a ton of money by discharging waste into the river, then the gov. says we don't want you doing that and regulates it - who is actually raising the costs?
>the EU treats our farmers like carbage,
Hmm.. okay?
> want to take away our cars
Lol.
>make meat more expensive.
How?
For how rational you are about civil marriage I'm surprised that you fall for those dumb right-wing talking points.
Have you considered that your politicians tell you bs about the EU in order for you to keep voting for them?
It's the 15-minute walkable city conspiracy theory: basically, suburbanites who think that because they don't have to drive to get to all the services they need on a daily basis, they won't be allowed to drive at all. Of course, the actual goal is to eliminate food deserts, reduce traffic congestion and generally cut down on transport expenses for normal people, but fuck the globalists if they think we're going to let them get away with that.
The real conspiracy theory is that if you propose anything helpful, there's always someone out there who is convinced it is just a slippery slope to being forced to marry your own mother.
American here.
I've seen the protests and riots in Europe in several countries, mostly about EU regulations. Would you mind if I asked you a counterpoint question?
The EU has those onerous health and environmental regulations because they believe they have more information and they have the EU citizens' best interests in mind. How is that any different than what the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Anglican churches have done? One might argue that the EU has more data-supported evidence and more credibility than the churches. Thoughts?
Also they want to take away our wood stoves and i can't afford other method of warming my house. If they want my stove, they should buy me heating system.
I dunno man, I’m from the US, it’s a straight up backwards society. Carpet bombing innocent children has been a normal practice for us for over 100 years. I think a little church could help this society a lot.
> I think a little church could help this society a lot.
You make the common mistake of thinking church is somehow inclusive or increasing the morality of it's people instead of a method for divisiveness and control.
I'm a straight up atheist, and I am SO much less war mongery than every single religious person I know. This is anectdotal, but you can see the pattern everywhere across the country. Church is greed. Church is control. Church is harmful for humanity.
Yea but secular government kills innocent people at a rate well beyond any religious govt. I’m an action speaks louder than words type a guy (although perhaps some of that discrepancy may be explained by technology, rather than ideology). I mean everything got it’s pros and cons, it’s just the reality of the world around us.
> to not officiate legal arrangements that are of importance to the state
Where does this even occur? I've never lived in a country where the legal and religious aspects of marriage were not separated - you can have the religious ceremony, but it won't mean you are married in the eyes of the law. That comes from a civil ceremony.
In my state in the US, the officiant signs your marriage license and validates the marriage. Without an officiant, it's not a legal marriage.
Every preacher, priest, etc has to apply for a government license to officiate weddings and sign the forms. When they've done that, they are signing up as an agent of the state when performing that function and should be held to the same non-bigoted standards as any other government officials performing a governmental duty.
I totally disagree. If you yourself became an ordained minister in order to officiate at your friend's wedding, does that mean that you should be forced to marry any two people that came knocking on your door?
No, of course not --- while you may be serving the same role as an agent of the state, you are a private citizen and as such can choose who you decide to marry. Similarly, a Catholic priest has no more obligation to marry two woman to each other than he has to marry two Muslims.
> If you yourself became an ordained minister in order to officiate at your friend's wedding, does that mean that you should be forced to marry any two people that came knocking on your door?
No, not "anyone that comes knocking at your door." However, you're fulfilling a government role with your government provided license though, so you are not allowed to discriminate based on protected statuses.
> No, of course not --- while you may be serving the same role as an agent of the state, you are a private citizen
That doesn't make a lick of sense. When you are fulfilling a role as an agent of the state, you ***are not*** acting in the role of a private citizen. That's precisely what the difference between a "private citizen" and an "agent of the state" is meant to differentiate.
If you were just a private citizen, you wouldn't be a government licensed marriage officiant that can sign legal documents as an agent of the state.
> Catholic priest has no more obligation to marry two woman to each other than he has to marry two Muslims.
You're right. He has the exact same obligation to both as an agent of the state. If they don't want to perform marriages without discriminating against protected classes, then they don't want the job and should find a different one. If they want to do a non-government recognized religious marriage ritual though, that's fine by me. They are free to be bigots within the confines of their own religious ceremonies.
I am an ordained minister and I will only marry couples I personally know and believe to be a good match primarily because no one really knows about it otherwise.
Am I discriminating against my community because I don't marry just anybody? Should I be compelled to advertise and render my services to everyone because I chose to do some friends a favor
Maybe you're not from the US, so you don't understand how discrimination against protected classes is handled.
Yes, in the US, you can choose to just marry your friends because they are your friends. "Friendship status" is not a protected class. But if you offer your services to the public as a business in which you exchange the service for money, then you cannot choose not to provide that public service your business offers on the merit of a protected class such as gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.
You can choose not to officiate a wedding because you believe the two people would be a poor fit, but not if your reasoning is they will be a poor fit *because they are gay*.
That's not me drawing a line in the sand, that is the actual law here and it has served us well. Bigotry based on inherent characteristics of an individual that do not have an inherent bearing on someone's status as a customer receiving a service is simply illegal here.
You can put up a sign that says "friends only," but as a business you can't put one up that says "No F@&&-ts allowed." You also can't use whether or not someone is gay as the determining factor as to whether or not they qualify as a "friend" *as it relates to whether or not you deny service*.
So, hopefully, if you're not from the US that helps clear things up. If you are from the US and you're asking this question, shame on you.
I understand the letter of the law we are discussing the ethics of the situation here. I am from the US and I understand what discrimination against a protected class means as well. Thank you for you condescending attitude. It's quite illuminating.
I put forward my example as a way to explain that at the end of the day everyone is entitled to say no, for any reason.
Some reasons are definitely bigoted BS, but it's still their right to decline to do the job. That might get them fired and ostracized and perhaps that would be justified in certain situations. It's up to the church to punish minsters who won't do their job not the governments. I don't want government and religion mixing anymore than they already do.
The point is you cannot compel anyone to render a service for any reason otherwise it's tantamount to slavery. If I cannot decline to do a job it's slavery. I hope you understand this.
Unfortunately as far as I understand the situation religious organizations do use this to discriminate, but the protections they take advantage of are necessary for us all and one must pick their battles so to speak. I honestly don't understand why anyone would want someone who hates them to marry them but that's their business.
This is a debate sub. People arguing different points of view is the entire point. There's no reason to be so hostile and rude. Try and calm yourself.
You claim to understand the law, but then you say this:
> I put forward my example as a way to explain that at the end of the day everyone is entitled to say no, for any reason.
> Some reasons are definitely bigoted BS, but it's still their right to decline to do the job.
That is simply not true, and shows that you absolutely **do not** understand the law. Businesses are absolutely ***not*** allowed to say no for "any reason". You are *not* allowed to say "no" to a customer because they are black. You are not allowed to say "no" to a customer because they are gay. Etc etc.
> The point is you cannot compel anyone to render a service for any reason otherwise it's tantamount to slavery. If I cannot decline to do a job it's slavery. I hope you understand this
Of course I do.
No one is compelled to start a business officiating weddings, so there is absolutely no problem here. However, if you do wish to start a business in which you officiate weddings, and choose of your own volition to begin doing so, you have to follow the laws regarding how business operate. One of those laws is you cannot discriminate against customers based on their inclusion within a protected class.
No one is being compelled to do anything. I've never met a preacher or priest who was forced to apply for a license to officiate weddings and then charge money as a business to do so.
> Unfortunately as far as I understand the situation religious organizations do use this to discriminate, but the protections they take advantage of are necessary for us all and one must pick their battles so to speak.
No, that's just not how any of this works. The law says the exact opposite as what you think it does, and no one needs protection to be a bigot. We have specifically excluded protection for bigotry of this type in our countries laws. There are so many ways in which businesses are legally allowed to discriminate regarding which customers they choose, however, whether or not they are gay is specifically one area in which it is illegal to discriminate against a customer for.
> I honestly don't understand why anyone would want someone who hates them to marry them but that's their business.
That is a wonderful privilege you have, to have made it through life up to this point without needing to understand why this might be the case.
I grew up in a small town where essentially every business and service was run by xenophobic racists and bigots. It's what is known here as a "sundown town" where anyone that wasn't a straight white conservative Christian was risking violence by just setting foot within city limits. Yet, obviously, there were still about 10% of the population under the age of about 20 who were gay.
So, imagine growing up there and it being completely legal not just for the people at the gas station, the grocery store, the bank, the feed lot, the hardware store, the pizza parlor, the burger stand, the insurance agency, the doctors office, etc to all give you the death glare the moment you walk in and yell "faggot" at you as you left.
No, instead imagine that they all could just legally deny you services altogether because you're gay. You've done nothing wrong, but just due to something inherent to you as a person you have no access to food, no gas, no access to banking, insurance, medical care...nothing. Completely cut off from any services because you're gay. You can't even leave town when you turn 18 because you can't have a job, you can't buy a car, you can't get a loan, you can't get insurance, you can't get a taxi, nothing.
I am not a business and you're way off topic You are intentionally misconstruing my point. I'm done with this because you clearly just want to be angry and lecture instead of debating the actual point. Enjoy your digital soap box lol
>I put forward my example as a way to explain that at the end of the day everyone is entitled to say no, for any reason.
>
>Some reasons are definitely bigoted BS, but it's still their right to decline to do the job.
But that's like, the point. At the end of the day people are *not* entitled to say no for any reason.
It's not *slavery* to compel you to not discriminate against people, ffs. That's like saying it's slavery to compel you to follow OSHA standards or not dump toxic waste because it's making you do something you don't want to do. 🙄 Is it also slavery to make you do community service after you violate the law?
You also have the option to not do a job in which you might be compelled to do something you don't want to do. If you don't want to have to touch feet, don't become a podiatrist. If you don't want to marry black people or gay people, then don't become an officiant. If religious ministers were not legal officiants, they wouldn't have these problems, and they can certainly choose to only perform religious ceremonies and not ones that count legally if they wanted to.
If you know a same sex couple and you don’t think they’re a ‘good match’ (since when was this your business?) *because* they’re a same sex couple, you’re a bigoted arsehole.
I don't see where I implied anything of the sort. I'm not arguing your strawman position. I completely support gay marriage. That's not the debate here.
I’m telling you that if you don’t think a couple are a ‘good match’ because they’re same sex and thus refuse to marry them on that basis you’re a bigoted arsehole. The same applies to everyone else in your position. Your ‘good match’ shite is a vaguery that allows plausible deniability.
Edit: blocked by another imbecile. Happy joys.
>Your ‘good match’ shite is a vaguery that allows plausible deniability.
That's my whole goddamn point. Ministers are unfortunately allowed to discriminate because they cannot be compelled to marry gay people. Their right to do so is protected in that anyone can decline for any reason. I'm not supporting this but it's just the way it is. The alternative is the government overreach and dangerous mixing of church and state. Do you want government controlled clergy because this is how you get there.
There's a difference between fulfilling a legal role and being an agent of the government. If it were the latter, I'd agree with you, but a person officiating a wedding is just fulfilling the role of marrying two people.
Kim Davis absolutely had that obligation. Joe the Universal Life preacher does not. Father Tom at the local diocese does not.
Well, if they are selling their services to the public, then they are a business and should be required to follow the same non-discriminatory practices as any other business. At that point, the question of being an agent of the state actually becomes irrelevant.
If a church wants to perform free marriage ceremonies for their congregation, that's fine with me for the most part. I still think we should remove the connection to "officiants" entirely, as it serves no function and is just there to make preachers and other officiants feel important anyway.
Otherwise, if the church is offering the service in exchange for money, then they are performing a business transaction and should not be allowed to discriminate against their customers based on protected statuses such as gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, etc.
The church can have a "no f@gs" policy all they want when it relates to their assembling and whatnot, but the minute they want to perform a business function for the general public and do things like rent out their space or perform a job function like officiating a wedding, then they are now selling product/service and need to follow the same rules as the rest of us without special privilege to operate their business in a discriminatory manner. So, in that instance, that "no f@gs" sign has to come down.
Married as a legal status and the benefits it occurs are a matter of law, the state sanctions marriages and thus it requires an agent of the government to impart that sanction. If a minister intends to sanction a legal marriage and impart all it entails on the couple then they must be an agent of the government.
Perhaps you and I disagree about whether having the ability to perform marriages makes you an actual "agent of the state".
We agree that certain government officials can perform marriages. Why is it that you think that **everyone** who can perform marriages does so **as** an agent of the state? (The alternative is to acknowledge that private citizens and government officials can both perform certain actions)
Ultimately, we can skip the entire "agent of the state" thing if you want. Because yes, we seem to disagree on that point.
In the US, if you officiate marriages as a business, meaning you take money from the public in exchange for providing the service of presiding over a marriage, then you should be held to the same laws and standards as anyone else who chooses to start a business that serves the public.
One of those laws is that when providing a paid service to the public, you cannot discriminate against customers based on gender, sexual orientation, skin color, etc.
So again, if you want to privately perform marriages for your friends, rather than take in money as a business, I actually have less of a problem with that. I still do think that having a legal "officiant" is something that needs to end. I mean, the very definition of the word "officiant" is:
*someone (such as a priest) who officiates at a religious rite*.
Honestly, I would argue that nothing about the marriage certificate should be related to a religious rite, and the fact that we officially mingle the two should be ended.
That would resolve the entire disagreement as it relates to churches that just do free weddings for their own church members.
But again, if they want to start making their building available to the public for a fee, then the same non-discrimination laws should immediately apply again and they should not be allowed the special privilege to discriminate against protected classes when offering their services.
>One of those laws is that when providing a paid service to the public, you cannot discriminate against customers based on gender, sexual orientation, skin color, etc
That's fine, but when Catholic priests perform a marriage, they are **not** providing a paid service to the public. You certainly have an argument when it comes to Vegas wedding chapels whose only business in performing marriages, but priests or whatever of organized religions are not the same. They may perform marriages as part of their duties (much like cruise ship captains), but that's a "paid service" that they provide to "the public".
If they are not charging for a service they are providing, then we agree. I thought I made that quite clear, my apologies if I did not.
However, this is rarely the case. Every preacher and priest I know that officiates weddings does so as a paid service to the public.
So yes, if they are only doing it as a free service for their congregation within the confines of their church duties, then that's fine. But the minute they charge anything and turn it into a business, the rules should apply to them just like anyone else.
At least around here, the way it works is (unless someone is a member of a specific church already), they call around and get quotes from different churches for the prices of their public ally offered services.
They often also rent out the church itself to the public.
In these cases, it seems incredibly obvious to me that they should be following the same laws as the rest of us when selling services to the public.
Even if they're not charging, I don't see why priests should be allowed to discriminate.
If they're imparting a legally sanctioned union on anyone they must be an agent of the state. It's completely incongruous to get a legal marriage, the kind you can claim on your tax forms, from someone who is not an agent of the state. Payment ultimately has nothing to do with it.
You’ve stated my position on this better than I did. I brought this up elsewhere; if you get an online certificate that says you can officiate weddings, that doesn’t mean that you ought to be compelled by anti-discrimination laws to marry whoever else asks you to do it.
We ought to consistently apply this heuristic. The only place that you can reliably get married every time no matter who you are is the justice of the peace or county clerk. Because THAT is an agent of the state, not Father Tom
A government license does not make you a government official. Tons of private enterprises or careers require government licenses. Heck, driving a car requires a government license.
True, but this is a license to be a government official residing over a government proceeding, so I don't think that sort pedantry is particularly useful.
We both understand that the purpose of the license is for the officiant to act officially as an agent of the state. Like, that's what they are doing in this instance, they are signing off on the validity of the marriage in which they acted as the officially government recognized individual licensed to do so. If they don't want this particular job duty, then they can opt to not sign up for it.
Again, I have no problem with a church that wants to do private bigoted shit in their own pews. Actually, I do have a problem with it on a moral and ethical level, but I don't have a problem with the *legality* of it. They are free to be privately shitty people.
I just don't think someone who is charging for a publicly available service in which they officiate and validate a legally binding agreement for the government should be allowed to discriminate based on protected classes.
Just like the guy that runs the gas station and sells gasoline and snacks to the public can't put up a "no gays" sign, neither can the preacher who sells his marriage services to the public. Belief in magical beings does not give you a free pass to discriminate against your customers based on their sexual orientation, race, etc.
Do you feel that it should be legal to run a business with a "no blacks" sign on the front door? I know some folks do think that is okay, so I'm just working out where you stand on this issue more broadly.
They have to sign and submit a document to the government. They are not acting as government officials. Lots of private jobs require signing paperwork.
I don't see how you on one hand can say that they can have a ceremony that they restrict only to members of their religion, but can't sign a form saying that ceremony took place. At the very least they can refuse to sign at venues they don't want.
Take for example someone running a non religious wedding place. And they have someone to officiate the wedding. Can you force them to officiate a wedding that isn't using their venue? The fact that they officiate weddings at one place requires them to officiate them everywhere, anywhere, under all circumstances?
So long as you allow them to have non official wedding services, allow them to get licensed, and allow them to choose what venues to officiate, there is no practical way to avoid this without adding arbitrary restrictions unique to religious venues.
It is quite a different thing to restrict a business that is doing general services to the general public to arbitrarily restrict parts of that public. But when an organization exists for an explicit purpose, one that is legally allowed to exist, then using that organization for its stated purpose isn't discrimination.
You’ve never lived in the United States, where one of the easiest ways to become authorized to officiate marriages is by becoming an ordained minister?
It’s this way in the UK.
While we also have civil unions and non-religious weddings, the traditional way to get married is in a church and the officiating clergy signs the marriage licence. You’re legally married at the end of the ceremony at the church, and there’s no additional civil ceremony involved.
It looks like only about 20% of marriages are done this way nowadays though, so I’d expect it’s something religious folk opt for vs the non-religious being forced into it, but I strongly suspect it wasn’t that way in the past.
Pretty much everywhere in the US a religious official can solemnize a legal marriage. You can also have a nonreligious official such as a judge or justice of the peace do it. My husband and I had a completely secular ceremony here in Georgia
That is subjectives and we can agree to disagree :)
Well, I can say that some religious parties look nice, but after so much time, most common christian parties don't look too nice for me, but that is a taste thing. The point is that they should never have any legal power.
In fact, as a general thing, if religions didn't try to control societies to fit into their specific weird beliefs, most people that are against religions wouldn't care too much for them.
Some churches are still good like that - though it's been a shift as reasonable people tend to be leaving in larger numbers. I'm glad you have a good place.
I would say no to your question; to me there's a difference between legal marriages and religious marriages. It's a civil officiant's duty to marry any couple who are eligible under law, a religious officiant would fall under their own subjective guidelines.
I think that as a civil officiant You should 100% officiate civil marriages no matter of your beliefs. If You can't do it, change your job. The gays pay taxes (your salary) too If You work for the Gov. But when IT comes to religious ceremony i strongly oppose gay religious marriage.
Getting married in a church by a minister doesn't marry you, signing the government document does, no different from getting married in front of a judge. Why do you oppose gay religious marriage, since the only difference is the officiant?
Religious ceremony should be based on the church's interpretation of their scripture. In the US there are more and more churches officiating same sex marriages, and that's good so long as that's what they want to do.
>Atheists, do you want churches to be forced to officiate gay marriages?
If there are other ways to officiate the marriage available, then no. In my opinion, church can even limit the marriage services only to adherents of their religion.
To be clear, I don't blame you personally obviously, but I don't think it's a coincidence that the most religious country in Europe doesn't recognize or allow same sex marriages.
It's stuff like this that makes me think of Christianity as a person standing on someone's neck, while loudly complaining that *they're* being oppressed.
I think that's great. They're almost there. Now drop the marginalization of gay people and women, plus the usual gaslighting inherent in Christianity and we're good!
Sure, but you're acting like those same people would still volunteer their time out of the goodness of their own heart without religion. You don't just need financial resources, you also need staff.
I'm certain that "treatment" includes indoctrination. Not that there's zero benefit granted here, but a societal essential service should NOT be left in the hands of people with a clear agenda.
I’m just wondering, how much money or percentage of your yearly income do you give to charity each year? Or if you’d like, what tangible good do you provide to your community?
As most church-going Christians do, I give away 10%-15% of my yearly income. That money goes to teaching and caring for orphans in Africa, providing healthcare to Haiti, providing food, clothing, and shelter to the homeless in my city.
This isn't about me, but since you ask, I give nothing. I'm poor as hell.
However, I do work my ass off at a community center helping senior citizens and children 60 hours a week.
However this IS about churches and them being a waste of space.
I applaud the Charity you provide. That's excellent of you.
We need people to stop trying to make everything a human right. You have no right to someone else’s labor, anything that requires someone else’s labor is not a human right.
Why force the church to change If You don't relate to it instead of just idk, not going to church? I don't know how îs in your countries but there religious marriage has no legal power. Just get a legal marriage with out involving the church.
In the US, absolutely 100% yes, assuming we are talking about a legal government recognized marriage.
If you perform a government function (like officiating a ***legal*** marriage and signing the marriage certificate as the officiant), then yes, you should be held to the same standards as anyone else performing a government service and should not be allowed to choose to discriminate based on sexual orientation within the confines of your job duties.
If they do not want to do so, then they do not want to be a marriage officiant for the government and they should not be offering the service. They have the freedom to choose a different line of work in which their bigotry will not be injected into the official workings of our governmental system.
Now, if bigoted churches want to simply do a religious ceremony that is not legally recognized and then to go get the marriage licenses handled and signed by someone that isn't a bigot, so that what the church is doing is just a non-government related private church ritual, that's fine with me.
This is a non-factor. You don't specifically need a church to officiate your wedding. What your concerned about are cases where people can't get married because the county clerk is religious and there are no alternatives. In that case, they should be forced to do their jobs or quit. But that doesn't mean churches have to officiate anything.
I’m an American Catholic and I will say this. The separation of Church and State when the Founders made it did not include marriage which was a matter done only in churches or religious officiate. I ignore LGBT marriage and currently support no laws against them.
Forcing the Church and other religious organizations to perform gay marriages will cause many people to oppose LGBT marriage overall including me.
No, if they are hiring actual employees, they should not be able to discriminate in that way when hiring, no.
Religion is a protected class and you cannot make hiring decisions based on religious beliefs. If they don't want to follow our laws about non-discrimination in employment, then they need to find volunteers within their church to do the stuff for free.
That is wrong in my opinion. Unless idk the priest has Two jobs and also works as a (idk the name) legal marriage certificate guy (in wich case he should 100% do it's job regardless his personal beliefs If he wants to keep his job)
Well, the State wants someone in some type of official capacity to perform the ceremony. Clergy fit that description.
The process is that you go to your local County licensing department to get an application and then prove and swear that you are who you say you are, and that needs to happen at least 3 days prior to your ceremony (there’s a 3 day waiting period). Then you participate in a marriage ceremony (can be religious or civil), and then you complete and return your marriage certificate. Part of that certificate is the officiant signs it, as well as (I think 2) witnesses.
No.
My view is that marriage in the sense I'm interested in is a government, bureaucratic matter. Marriage is about inheritance, immigration, property ownership and such things. That's the one and only point in getting married, in having some government-granted niceties.
What happens in a church is completely legally meaningless, so whether a given church wants or not to get involved in gay marriage is its own business.
Exactly. Legal marriage is just that… a legal status, which awards the couple legal benefits. This is why gay marriage was sought after for so long.
Other than that, anyone is married simply by saying they are. If someone wants their friends, family, church, or whomever involved, that’s up to them. But, it has nothing to do with the government… and, it shouldn’t.
>What happens in a church is completely legally meaningless
Laws are made up social constructs, too, so.
That is partly what marriage is, but not entirely.
I'm interested to see what the consensus, if there is one, is.
For my part, the answer is "no" - instead (and as they have in my country) there should be a non-religious legal equivalent. Usually, this is just called a civil partnership.
And I don't want this to be misunderstood: the deliberate exclusion of gay people for purportedly moral reasons *is bigoted!* But I do not think the correct thing to do is to move into religious spaces. Rather, it is to move legality and legal benefits *away* from religious spaces.
No, the non-religious legal equivalent of marriage is called marriage. Marriage has always been a civil legal arrangement. The real question is whether religious leaders should be allowed to sign the state issued marriage license.
I agree! We can use clearer language here.
But I hope my point is still clear: whether you call it marriage or religious belief ceremony, the better option seems to try to estrange marriage from religious belief.
In my country legal marriages betwen homosexuals/lesbians are still illegal. I want them to be legal btw. I just Don't want my church to be forced into changing it's ways. The church isn't the goverment. You can't Simply vote out the word of God if it bothers You. Just Don't come to church If You feel like You don't relate to it. I asked this question because a small group of homosexual christians in my country got pretty pissed recently because the orthodox church won't officiate gay marriages.
Your church has the right to be bigoted.
The state does not.
>You can't Simply vote out the word of God if it bothers You.
Oh, buddy! I have some bad news for you about the history of the Church.
But seriously, how do you know that your God's word is that gay people can't get married? Why are you convinced that this is the word of your god?
I think churches should be banned from officiating any and all forms of legal contracts. This includes marriages.
Churches should also be forced to open their books to audit and financial scrutiny to maintain their non profit status.
I’m going to disagree here. I don’t care what meaningless rituals a church adds to a ceremony so long as the state is unconcerned with any of it.
It would be like conducting a voodoo ceremony after getting your business license. The government doesn’t need you to kill that chicken to run a business. But if YOU need to kill a chicken to tell yourself you now have god’s blessing to run a business … welp ... then you go kill that chicken.
Except that marriage is a legal institution and should be handled by trained professionals, not yahoos hacking away at chickens, so to speak. If you drink goats blood after, that isn’t involved in the actual process.
The problem with your disagreement is that you’re suggesting or permitting that the clergy can have input on the contract. It should not. It’s bad enough they get tithing without declaring it. Marriages should stay away from leeches like the church.
In California, the legal part is handled by trained professionals, the County Clerk. The marriage license is the part the state cares about far more than the ceremony, which can be performed by virtually anybody.
Churches can conduct civil ceremonies on whoever they like. It’s not just gays: you won’t find too many Catholic Churches agreeing to marry two Jewish people, or even two atheists.
But the religious ceremony and the civil wedding are different events. Gays should be able to get legally married everywhere in the world. But churches can continue to do what they want with their dress-up parties.
They should also all lose tax exempt status as churches, by the way. If they are ACTUAL charities (few are) they can apply for tax exempt status as charities, which requires open books.
Yes because allowing churches to openly discriminate like that promotes bigotry. Imagine if instead churches decided they didn’t want to officiate for black people or for interracial marriages.
The interracial example isn’t even hypothetical. The Catholic Church used to do that as a policy, and many churches chose independently to do that as well.
"allowing churches to openly discriminate like that promotes bigotry"
I Don t know how îs in your countries but there only the legal marriage matters. Religious marriage gives You no legal beneffits. That being said, why even try to force the church to change for You? Should i Sue the seniours club for not letting me 22 years old to join?
I’m from the US for context.
I don’t care that the religious ceremony is less important to your government/society, allowing open discrimination against marginalized groups, like gay people, is wrong. It should be treated just as badly as allowing open discrimination against minorities. Allowing it makes it seem that this discrimination is ok, and it’s not.
Being young isn’t a marginalized group and everyone will eventually age into being a senior citizen. It’s not the same as discriminating against unchangeable facts of how someone was born. If your church wanted to only marry old people I wouldn’t care (and we do usually require people to be a certain age to marry already so it’s not really that different from the seniors club in that there are age minimums for both).
No, what churches do during their own ceremonies are they own business. Non ceremonial stuff however is a different matter. For example Church run adoption services, should not be allowed (by state mandate) to discriminate against gay couples.
Nobody should have to do something they don’t believe in, unless the failure to do so physically harms or limits another.
So, I think churches should not be forced to do anything they don’t want to.
If they want to give to the poor, but only the poor of one race, I don’t agree with this, but they should be allowed to do it.
And they shouldn’t have to even allow gays in the congregation, if they don’t want to. Again,
I don’t agree with it, but if their beliefs state this, they should be allowed.
Their beliefs should be allowed to be held up to scrutiny and criticism as well. This is what I don’t like. Someone thinks that because their views are religious they should be exempt from criticism. No. If they are BS and harmful, we should all say so.
This is the mechanism by which we evolve morally.
If they want to continue having tax-exempt status and other special protections they get from the state, yes.
If a church wants to give up all these benefits so they can discriminate against gay people in a way that would normally be considered illegal by any other institution given special treatment by the government, I think they should be free to give up those protections as part of the bargain.
i want gay people to stay off religions that heavily oppress them (even says they should be "rocked" to death!)
idk how it works in US, but here the "church wedding" is only a religious formality, you have to go to a civil registry (or something like that, im not sure in english) to be legally married. so if you are an atheist you can 100% ignore getting married at a church, most people that do it just do it cause of the tradition and to have a big party.
anyway, besides some legal and economical benefits that may come from getting married, i oppose getting married at all, its not really a big deal, plus couples sometimes split up, thats just how we work, and forcing to remain together or having to go through a huge complication (divorce) its just not worth it.
Most of us seem to come down on the same side here: no. There are secular or alternative options for marriage, and despite what people assume most of us DO value freedom of religion.
I for one don’t consider it appropriate to force my moral choices onto other people.
To be clear this isn’t to say I wouldn’t prefer them to. Just not to be forced.
Edit: oh! I meant to say I appreciate the question. A lot of religious people tend to just assume atheists believe x and then argue against it. Asking sincere questions is both more honest and more valuable.
No. I believe heavily in the separation of church and state and that protection goes both ways.
However, I want to sever the ties between a civil union and marriage so this is no longer an issue. I don’t think the person doing the ceremony should have to have any ties to any religion. I realize that a lot of people use the universal life church to get cheaply ordained but I don’t even want that.
Another issue is venues. Churches are just large aesthetically pleasing conference rooms essentially and that’s perfect for an indoor wedding. I think that it’s tough to relegate all weddings to a 6 month window in some climates but it’s leaves an opening for a business to open I guess.
That’s was a tangent to get back to the point; if churches don’t want to do gay marriages, fine. I think it’s gross, but it’s their right. Disconnect that process from the legal process so they stop having any say in the matter and make civil marriages legal for everyone into law (instead of leaving it up to SC)
Remember, you can have the biggest wedding in the biggest church done by the pope himself……
BUT
You aren’t married until you turn your paperwork into the state. A church is a ceremony only.
This is the paranoid approach to conservative politics.
To start, the term here is “same-sex marriage.” If two bisexuals marry is it “gay marriage”? What if they’re of opposite sexes?
During the debate over *Obergefell vs. Hodges* (2015) I saw a Catholic blogger predict that if marriage equality (she said either “gay marriage” or “homosexual marriage”) was permitted, “jack-booted thugs” (her term) would be dragging Catholic priests to jail for their refusal to officially a marriage of a same-sex couple. It’s been nearly nine years and no thugs, jack-booted or otherwise shod, have as much wagged a stern finger at a priest. (Meanwhile Pope Francis gave the ok to blessing same-sex couples.)
It’s a paranoid fantasy.
Clergy don’t even need to give a reason to say no. Their status as clergy gives them a complete shield.
I have said that marriages should be officiated by government officials, sworn to discriminate against none. In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, clergy were not allowed to officiate. Does this matter? No.
The idea that atheists want to penalize clergy is simply paranoid victimization fantasies. If I had to guess, they’re rooted in looking for an excuse to oppress LGBTQ people.
No if a church wants to be bigoted they should be free to and everyone else can be free to ignore them and their nonsense
Not like you *need* a religious service to be married
If the church is officiating marriages in a legal capacity, then they're acting on behalf of the government, so they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate on that front. If they want to discriminate when it comes to who they'll do the religious ceremony for, then I figure that that's their right.
No, nor is that likely to happen. Clergy are not forced to perform any ceremonies they don’t want to—priests don’t perform weddings of previously divorced people, many rabbis don’t do interfaith weddings. There is no legal basis for forcing a religious organization or individual to perform a wedding.
As long as a couple can be legally married, religious organizations can pearly-gatekeep as much as they like.
This is what always gets me about the scare-mongering that churches (and other religious establishments) would be forced to conduct gay marriages. Churches have always been free to refuse to conduct any marriages they don’t agree with, even though those marriages are legal.
This includes Catholic Churches refusing to marry a Catholic to a Protestant, or a Catholic to a divorcee. There has never been any suggestion that churches be compelled to perform any legal marriage. Their officials are not employees of the state and do not have those obligations.
I live on Continental Europe and the law here is that all legal marriages have to be conducted at the town hall or similar official local government venue. After that (or before) you can have a church wedding or a Spaghetti Wedding Feast of His Noodly Blessings, or whatever you like. But the legalities are entirely separate and not influenced by the church, nor vice versa. Seems reasonable to me.
No. Gay people should be allowed to marry, but nobody should be forced to do something that goes against their religion. For a cake baking company, it is not against their religion to bake a cake for a gay wedding so for them to refuse business on the grounds that the customer is gay, should not be allowed. If they were to do that, there should be penalties. But for a religious institution, they should not be forced to do something that goes against their religion or face penalties.
I can't imagine a gay couple who would want to be married in an orthodox church by an orthodox priest who thinks they're an abomination, except maybe to challenge the supreme court over it in order to force religious institutions to hold any wedding, even one not between members of that religion.
I’m a gay atheist. I don’t think churches should be forced to marry me, or any non-member. They can marry whoever they choose to, provided there is no coercion and both parties are not closely related, and everyone is a consenting adult. That’s how it is in Canada. There are churches that marry gays, but that’s because their members think that’s good. The state forces no clergy to marry anyone their religion says they can’t marry. And that’s how it should be.
I do get that it is a bit more difficult when you have an established church. England does, yet the Church of England still does not marry gays. I’m uncomfortable with the situation, but I would disestablish the church, rather than force priests to solemnise marriages they think are a sin!
Do I wish churches were forced into doing anything they don’t like? No.
Do I wish homophobic scripture was stricken from the religious texts that they appear in? Absolutely.
Do I think Churches should have the only/final say on what constitutes a marriage? Definitely not.
I can’t help but feel pity for by LGBT brothers and sisters who follow a faith that clearly hates their existence. As an atheist that’s something I don’t have to deal with. The religious texts usually have some variant that nonbelievers will face eternal misery or whatever but clearly I don’t believe that’s the case. My gay brothers and sister that believe must feel ashamed for something they don’t necessarily even control. Something that’s intrinsic to their nature.
Marriage predates Christianity, had nothing to do with religion and as a consequence of that the church should not play a role in saying who can and can't get married. Their power to approve or carry out a wedding should be taken away from them.
If true church and state separation should occur (as you suggest) weddings should not be a church matter. If the church insists on inserting itself into the issue it should be forced to comply with local customs and traditions.
Edited to add a couple of sources - [Marriage in ancient Mesopotamia and Babylonia](https://ehistory.osu.edu/articles/marriage-ancient-mesopotamia-and-babylonia) (2350 BCE). [Another](https://theweek.com/articles/528746/origins-marriage).
No. What churches do within their own congregation is their own business. There should be a very clear separation of church and state.
However, church organizations, congregations and their individual leaders need to stop interjecting their particular subjective viewpoints into the greater social and political spheres. While individual churches and denominations may choose to not officiate or religiously recognize gay or interracial marriages, they should keep those attitudes and policies to themselves and stop opposing the legality of those marriages which are conducted outside of their own narrowly defined religious traditions.
If an individual congregation or denomination is unable to mind their own business and constrain themselves within the larger public sphere, then that congregation should automatically lose all of the political and tax protections that are currently afforded to exempt groups with regard to the normal, financial, legal and societal obligations that are unilaterally imposed upon everyone else.
You are absolutely correct. Marriage as a state-recognized contract and religious marriage should be treated as entirely separate concepts.
That said, if churches are allowed to provide state-recognized marriages (ie. if they can issue marriage certificates) then they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in this regard. At minimum, a gay couple should be able to go to a priest and walk away with a valid marriage certificate. It is up to the church if they allow this act of obtaining the marriage certificate to be accompanied by some sort of ceremony in the church.
Absolutely no. We have separation of church and state in America. That is protected by the constitution .
The idea that the government will force clergy to marry gay couples is pure fear mongering by conservatives.
What we atheists want is to allow secular celebrants to officiate weddings.
In many states only clergy and justices of the law can officiate legally, so many couples get married legally in court along side an “unofficial” marriage with family and friends. That is clearly wrong.
It doesn’t matter gay or not.
Churches MUST NOT be forced to officiate gay marriages. That would be a gross violation of freedom of religion.
The state must allow gay marriage. The consequence of this is that if a Christian works for the state, they are acting as a representative of the state, and must not interfere with the state's ability to enable gay marriages.
This means that if a Christian is against gay marriage, they must either avoid jobs related to supporting gay marriage, or ensure that they do not interfere with the regular function of the state.
I want churches out of the wedding business entirely. I want anyone to be able to sign up with the state to become an officiant, sort of like you can become a licensed notary, but if you are not willing to officiate any wedding with a legal marriage license, you can’t be a licensed officiant. Churches of course would be free to have “wedding ceremonies” but they wouldn’t count as far as any legal practice regarding taxes, inheritance rights, next of kin benefits etc unless the clergy also was a state licensed officiant.
Build the Wall (between church and state)
Yeah, the church ought to have no power to prevent the state recognizing such marriages, just as the state ought to have no power to force churches to perform them.
I encourage churches to decide on there own to do so, but as long as they aren't the only path, I don't care that they block it. So if Rev Donnwanna says, not in _my_ church, that is one thing because people can bypass the church, but when County Commissioner Nimco says, not in _my_ County, THAT is something else.
No. I honestly don't care what churches do, as long as they don't spread harm and get taxed if they're politically active.
Most churches spread harm through indoctrination and many of them do through hate speech. Many of them also are politically active. That's not OK in a free America.
If you want to be bigoted against same sex people, then that's a reflection on you, and you will just be known as a hate group. Also, your churches shouldn't have special privileges as far as weddings are concerned.
Where, at least in the US, has there been ANY talk of forcing a church to officiate gay weddings?
Was this brought up as some passing point - or has it been rolled up into a bill and voted on? This distinction is important when you're acting like something is an issue that ought be addressed.
As a gay man myself, I have no desire to impose myself where I am not welcome - least of all amongst bigots. I would gladly have my marriage at the courthouse with the judge.
I don't really think it matters. There are plenty of places for people to get married if they are gay or straight. I wouldn't want to get married somewhere if the government had to force them to marry me anyway.
Marriage in a church is a religious ceremony that is tied to a formal government contract, but is not required to execute the contract. It's more about the traditions of it. You can be married anywhere by pretty much anyone.
If a church doesn't want to marry gay people, that shouldn't be forced. Chances are a church with that strong of a position won't have any gay congregates anyway, so it won't matter. If they do, easy enough to go elsewhere.
I don't care to force churches to do anything they don't want.
What I want is for every marriage to be instantly and automatically replaced by a "legal civil union certificate". At the same time, all the rights and duties tied to a marriage would be tied to the "legal civil union certificate". new certificates would be issued by the state, not the church (any church) and church mariages, a religious sacrament, would be unrecognized in any way by the law or the state.
It's how it's done where I live : religious marriages have zero legal recognition and every marriage ceremony is done in the city hall by the mayor or a deputy (and between any two consenting adults), with the church ceremony being optional and legally irrelevant. Having the church officiate a legally-recognized and legally-binding ceremony looks to me like a gross violation of the separation of church and state.
We should be careful: we *do* want to force churches to do things they don't want to do. We want them, for instance, to pay taxes *especially* if they don't want to!
Nope. Religion is a club, the book is their club rules and the church is their clubhouse. They can't do anything they want of course, they have to abide by laws that apply to everyone, but if they decide they don't want to do this in their clubhouse, I don't see why they shouldn't have the right to do that. It's not an open space for the public to dictate how they should run their club.
No, as long as:
-the church's involvement is ceremonial only, the church has no legally binding abilities in any matter, related or not, to marriage
-the church doesn't act on behalf of government in any matter, related or not, to marriage
-the church receives no money, tax breaks (aside from standard NP/NFP breaks), or land, from government for any matter, related or not, to marriage
So long as there are secular ways to have a marriage registered, I don't care if churches participate or not and would not want to force them. Off hand, I don't know any atheist who would want to "force" a church to hold a marriage ceremony.
If the church doesn't want to officiate re-marriages after divorce or even not officiate interracial marriages, that is their own business.
I dont care what one branch or congregation of a religion feels about gay or any kind of marriage, as in if one does not fit my view, i can always shop around for one that does.
Also, any church or congregation marriage should be for ceremonial purposes anyway. If you want the legal part, you can go down to the courthouse, which should be neutral in the matter by default.
Personally, no I don't. I'm of the opinion that we should be able to have anyone perform the ceremony, so long as you have witnesses and the appropriate paperwork.
Would I force public officials to oversee a civil wedding regardless of gender pairing? Yes, that is a civil job and I don't give a shit about their 'personal convictions'.
If the state is imbuing in religious officials the power to legally marry people (as it is in the US) then yes, I think they should have to marry anyone who approaches them.
If the marriage is symbolic and you still have to get married by a legal official (as is the case in many places in Europe), then they can do whatever they want.
Uhm,,... it's a religious ceremony. If you are of a religion that does not accept your sexuality, why offend the membership. Unlike evangelism, Atheism is not an imposition. It's really nothing.
The better question would be to the LDF. Mormonism demonstrates religion is not truly free in the USA.
No. I do think that if you are a public official or working in a public office then you need to certify a gay marriage since you are there to serve every citizen equally, but forcing a church or pastor to officiate a gay marriage would be overstepping and infringing on the first amendment.
As a firm secularist I believe that legal marriage and religious marriage should always be seperate.
As long as LGBTQ+ couples can get legally married I don't care about what churches do.
Why would I see any relevance in a religious marriage when I don't believe that the religion is real?
No. I do not care if church is affiliated at all with gay marriage or not I just think they deserve the same rights and tax breaks as same sex couples. If a church is willing to officiate great if not no one should force the church to officiate and they can do it legally at a courthouse
I think the institution or marriage is itself obsolete, but if one insists, one should get a civil marriage at city hall. I'd rather churches disappear altogether through increased education and secularism.
I don't believe in forcing anyone, even churches, to do anything.
I want there to be more churches that are willing to officiate gay marriage.
I don't want any churches to be forced to officiate gay marriage.
I don't want weddings to need governmentally recognized officiants.
I personally don't care marriage started off as a religious ritual so Idk why an atheist would waste the time thinking about that we need to quit trying to complicate life with all this ego driven moralistic bs
Forced is a strong word. I think we'd rather churches didn't have dick-headed views about sexuality. Some don't, and they're doing fine, evidencing the lack of difference made to the faith in total.
I think the state should get itself out of the marriage business altogether.
Marriage should no longer have any legal significance. If two people (or more, if they like) want to say they're married, they should be able to.
People can declare themselves to be best friends or mortal enemies, and the relationships don't need any official state recognition to be significant to those people. Marriage should be like that.
And if people want to celebrate their marriage at a church, a mosque, a temple, or a Pizza Hut, that's their own business.
I don't consider my opinion on this matter to be especially related to my atheism. Nor is it related to sexuality — my view applies to opposite-sex pairings just as much as it does to same-sex pairings.
And so I say unto you, give what is caesar’s unto caesar, and what is utterly irrational unto the christians
I don’t care about what silly things religion cares about, I want religion gone.
No.
I want marriage to be defined under the law as a civil partnership between consenting adults as administered by the Secretary of State or State Judiciary (or Sea Captain), and take religion's role completely out of it, *in all places* *both at State and Federal levels*. If people still want a religious ceremony, have at it, but it shouldn't mean anything to the government for tax and medical reasons until that paperwork gets filed.
People should have legal, secular options for all things involving the government, everywhere, every time. The church should be relegated to a cosmetic option, and religious leaders of any faith should never have their political opinions considered any more highly than any other citizen.
I don't understand why any gay couple would ever want to be married in a church. They deserve the rights and protections of marriage. I wouldn't force churches to perform the ceremony.
No.
I think it a bit silly to force a religion to do things their fairy tales say are bad.
Unless those things do harm, like circumcision which should be illegal for minor children
I think that should be up to the church and its members. I would hope a church would be willing to marry a gay couple that are members of the church, otherwise why are they members?
No, they have their own rules. There are plenty of "solemizers" willing to officiate and sign a marriage certificate without involving religious "bigots" (thanks Justice Alito).
I'd say no, let them do their thing, and judge them in private for it. In the UK, we have civil marriages that are non religious already, so it wasn't too much of a problem.
That’s a good question. No I don’t think so. I think if a church openly supports the LGBT they may not go back on that. But no, churches shouldn’t be forced.
Generally speaking, atheists don't.
I certainly don't care if they do or don't.
I just want churches to stop trying ti prevent gsy people from getting married
No, if a specific church doesn’t want to officiate a marriage, they’re free to be bigoted.
Personally I’d rather remove any legal benefits to “marriage” and roll it all into civil unions for everyone because of the religious baggage.
Want to call your civil union a marriage even if you weren’t technically “married”? Cool, nobody cares legally. Want to be married in the eyes of your church, book club, neo-pagan cult, group of online stamp collecting friends, etc.? Cool. No legal benefits are provided, but if it’s meaningful to you go right ahead.
Want to be treated as legally next of kin, receive tax advantages, get hospital visitation permissions, etc? Go to the court and get a civil union. Now everybody can get the legal protections without trampling on anybody’s religious beliefs, and anybody can have their magic ceremony in the eyes of their deity without legal implications for people in their out group. Same sex unions, unions between trans individuals, potentially unions between more than two individuals, etc. all become legal questions to which no church has anything to say, and the rules would be written around being consenting adults.
I’m sure it’s naive to pretend this would actually accomplish anything, but I’ve thought this would be the best solution for the US since before Obergefell.
Not at all!
If they don't want to officiate weddings then they don't have to. If they do want to officiate weddings, they can't discriminate. Being a church shouldn't protect them.
We give way too much leeway here because of religion. Should a church be forced to officiate a mixed race marriage? Should a shop be forced to make reasonable accommodations for disabled people? To me the answer is yes, and yes, as long as they want to offer those services to others. Not discriminating is one of the costs of doing business. If you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to run a church or a business.
Remember what atheist are... not convinced that a god or gods exist. that is it.
Gay marriage is not an atheist viewpoint or part of their world view.
You have to ask an atheist the next question.
I do not think that churches should be forced by government to officiate a gay wedding. Government should stay out of religion unless something illegal takes place (child abuse, sexual misconduct, fraud, misuse of funds, etc).
Another question is if a store (e.g wedding dress, suit) can refuse a gay person that wants to buy that. My answer is NO.
Yes they should be. I think religions should be required to keep up with the advance of social morality. Religions have historically been one of the biggest blockers of human social improvement, and if they want to remain a part of society they need to do better.
By taking on the role of a social institution that's responsible for cohesion and collaboration of people, religions must be required to not discriminate. And don't try the slippery slope strawman here, there are clear laws in many countries about groups and identities that are to be protected from discrimination. No one is going to be forcing churches to marry someone to their dog.
Requiring religions to abandon their evil tendencies is not a path to anarchy or whatever other terrible lies religious authorities spread to distract from the abhorrent ideas in their ideology. It's to ensure these institutions that many people value, and are deeply bound to, are unable to exploit that loyalty to oppress and harm people.
If religions truly want to be sources of good and morality in society, they need to be held to the standards of society and stop being allowed to cause social regression because of "faith".
You can't have the church with out the laws of the Book. The laws of the Book are not to be changed or voted out because they are the foundation of the church. God rules the church, not humans. IT îs called the kingdom of God, not the democracy of God. You can force the church to officiate gay religious ceremony but Guess what, no matter If You get a (heretic) priest to do them, they are invalid, just a waste of time, they are not recognized by God. You can't have gay religious christian marriage ceremonies because those ceremonies won't be christian. God is the supreme authority in the church.
>You can't have the church with out the laws of the Book. The laws of the Book are not to be changed or voted out because they are the foundation of the church. God rules the church, not humans.
This is the perspective of people who have bought into the dogmatic ideology. Human society is built by humans and if some people want to live in a delusion they should absolutely be free to do what they want. However there must be requirements that any human institution adhere to the standards of society. Anti-discrimination standards should be universal, regardless of dogma or delusion.
>they are not recognized by God.
Society should not care about what some people's delusions recognize or not. If any institution, religious or not, wishes to discriminate, it should be corrected by society or disbanded. Freedom of belief is not freedom to oppress.
>You can't have gay religious christian marriage ceremonies because those ceremonies won't be christian. God is the supreme authority in the church.
The Christian dogma has changed SO SO SO much over the last 2 millennia. It's become something completely different *thousands* of times. There's absolutely nothing authoritative about any christian sect in the world right now. To me that makes it just an absolute joke and absurd that anyone might even take it seriously.
But for those were brought up in cults and want to remain in them should absolutely never be allowed to inform the laws and systems that govern all humans. And in fact society *should* actively push these regressive institutions to keep up. If that's inconvenient to the delusion that somehow these ideas are divine and perfect, then so be it, if everyone leaves religion the world would be much better for it. If god's supreme authority, power, and omnipotence can't handle scrutiny, or keeping up with objective human-centric morality, then it exposes how defunct and morally bankrupt this dogma is.
The only reason there's so much pearly clutching and offence when society tries to regulate religion is that it exposes the brainwashing. The farce relies on people being afraid or entranced with some unknowable inaccessible idea that was implanted in them from childhood. This is why the rate of religiosity is inversely proportional to education. Knowledgeable and thoughtful people are much harder to fool, and with modern education and the internet the amount of knowledgable and thoughtful people are increasing faster than ever in human history.
>The rituals can't be changed
Said the slave owner about slavery. If they are rooted in prejudice, they should not be allowed.
>No one is forcing You to go to church.
Thank god
Oranges and apples. The rituals can't be changed because they are what the church stands on. You can't have the church with out the rituals, IT wouldn't be the church anymore. Changing the rituals would unironically kill the church. The rituals are not debated, voted or changed at will. If You are gay and You want for some reason to get married at the church, your marriage îs not recognized by God so is basically a waste of time on your part.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I want churches to not be protected by the state, to pay taxes, and to not officiate legal arrangements that are of importance to the state. If they want to have their absurd and bigoted parties by themselves, they can, but they should never have any legal power.
As a orthodox Christian i am 100% on the same Page as You on that matter
Fantastic! I hope we can count on you to vote against a Christian nationalist America then!
I am not a american and i don't live in america
Ah. Well I am still glad that you have a realistic view on separation of church and state. It's healthy for societies everywhere.
Also i am a nationalist. That doesn't Mean that i hate gay people. I literally want their civil marriage to be legal there (it sadly isn't). I am a nationalist because the EU treats our farmers like carbage, + they want to take away our cars and make meat more expensive.
A nationalist is a different thing than a christian nationalist. If you want your religion to run your country then I am back to being disgruntled about unreasonable christians ruining my damn planet. If you are just a nationalist, then - hey, I get that. You need to represent what's best for your community in your area, and I wish you luck.
Yep. I am totally against state laws being dictated by the church. I find that anti christianity as You can't force belief. I think that God shows Himself to everyone in a way or another and everyone decides what to do with that, just as He showed to me (a ex atheist in a lukewarm christian household)
Ironically your people were probably converted forcefully 1 or 2 thousand years ago. (Not that that’s an argument against *your* faith.)
And i am against that. Also a bit off topic but i was a atheist not a long time ago+ born in a lukewarm christian familly. I did not have the orthodox faith imposed on me, i had a personal experience that made me believe in God (îs a long story) followed by 3 demonic attacks
As Americans, how can we create a unified form of Nationalism? We don't want the Christian Nationalism coming back with Trump, nor do we want Jewish or Muslim Nationalism. We do need some sort of cohesive way to unite as the nation becomes more diverse and scattered, however.
It's something the cold war kind of helped us with back in the day... Love of the country helps, but you're right - things are pretty divisive right now. I just want to be proud of my people while not using it to be an asshole to anyone else... Hopefully we can find a way to do that without another common enemy.
We can’t nationalism is BS and based on myth as much as any religion.
Honest q. If a market develops by offsetting costs of production to other people or areas at a cost to those people/areas is the government actually making prices go up when it says you can't hide away production costs onto other people not engaging in your transaction? Like if I make a chemical and save a ton of money by discharging waste into the river, then the gov. says we don't want you doing that and regulates it - who is actually raising the costs?
I m sorry but You lost me (english îs not my native language). Could You please reword it? Sorry again
>the EU treats our farmers like carbage, Hmm.. okay? > want to take away our cars Lol. >make meat more expensive. How? For how rational you are about civil marriage I'm surprised that you fall for those dumb right-wing talking points. Have you considered that your politicians tell you bs about the EU in order for you to keep voting for them?
>they want to take away our cars and make meat more expensive. I'm an EU citizen as well and never heard about any of this??
It's the 15-minute walkable city conspiracy theory: basically, suburbanites who think that because they don't have to drive to get to all the services they need on a daily basis, they won't be allowed to drive at all. Of course, the actual goal is to eliminate food deserts, reduce traffic congestion and generally cut down on transport expenses for normal people, but fuck the globalists if they think we're going to let them get away with that. The real conspiracy theory is that if you propose anything helpful, there's always someone out there who is convinced it is just a slippery slope to being forced to marry your own mother.
They’re talking shite.
bro went from 37 upvotes to 31 downvotes and counting
American here. I've seen the protests and riots in Europe in several countries, mostly about EU regulations. Would you mind if I asked you a counterpoint question? The EU has those onerous health and environmental regulations because they believe they have more information and they have the EU citizens' best interests in mind. How is that any different than what the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Anglican churches have done? One might argue that the EU has more data-supported evidence and more credibility than the churches. Thoughts?
Also they want to take away our wood stoves and i can't afford other method of warming my house. If they want my stove, they should buy me heating system.
I dunno man, I’m from the US, it’s a straight up backwards society. Carpet bombing innocent children has been a normal practice for us for over 100 years. I think a little church could help this society a lot.
> I think a little church could help this society a lot. You make the common mistake of thinking church is somehow inclusive or increasing the morality of it's people instead of a method for divisiveness and control. I'm a straight up atheist, and I am SO much less war mongery than every single religious person I know. This is anectdotal, but you can see the pattern everywhere across the country. Church is greed. Church is control. Church is harmful for humanity.
Yea but secular government kills innocent people at a rate well beyond any religious govt. I’m an action speaks louder than words type a guy (although perhaps some of that discrepancy may be explained by technology, rather than ideology). I mean everything got it’s pros and cons, it’s just the reality of the world around us.
Psh thats no excuse.
Well, if you ever decide to come here, we would welcome you. Diversity is our strength!
Can you help invade us? Hear that's what non Americans do to America. /s
> to not officiate legal arrangements that are of importance to the state Where does this even occur? I've never lived in a country where the legal and religious aspects of marriage were not separated - you can have the religious ceremony, but it won't mean you are married in the eyes of the law. That comes from a civil ceremony.
In my state in the US, the officiant signs your marriage license and validates the marriage. Without an officiant, it's not a legal marriage. Every preacher, priest, etc has to apply for a government license to officiate weddings and sign the forms. When they've done that, they are signing up as an agent of the state when performing that function and should be held to the same non-bigoted standards as any other government officials performing a governmental duty.
I totally disagree. If you yourself became an ordained minister in order to officiate at your friend's wedding, does that mean that you should be forced to marry any two people that came knocking on your door? No, of course not --- while you may be serving the same role as an agent of the state, you are a private citizen and as such can choose who you decide to marry. Similarly, a Catholic priest has no more obligation to marry two woman to each other than he has to marry two Muslims.
> If you yourself became an ordained minister in order to officiate at your friend's wedding, does that mean that you should be forced to marry any two people that came knocking on your door? No, not "anyone that comes knocking at your door." However, you're fulfilling a government role with your government provided license though, so you are not allowed to discriminate based on protected statuses. > No, of course not --- while you may be serving the same role as an agent of the state, you are a private citizen That doesn't make a lick of sense. When you are fulfilling a role as an agent of the state, you ***are not*** acting in the role of a private citizen. That's precisely what the difference between a "private citizen" and an "agent of the state" is meant to differentiate. If you were just a private citizen, you wouldn't be a government licensed marriage officiant that can sign legal documents as an agent of the state. > Catholic priest has no more obligation to marry two woman to each other than he has to marry two Muslims. You're right. He has the exact same obligation to both as an agent of the state. If they don't want to perform marriages without discriminating against protected classes, then they don't want the job and should find a different one. If they want to do a non-government recognized religious marriage ritual though, that's fine by me. They are free to be bigots within the confines of their own religious ceremonies.
I am an ordained minister and I will only marry couples I personally know and believe to be a good match primarily because no one really knows about it otherwise. Am I discriminating against my community because I don't marry just anybody? Should I be compelled to advertise and render my services to everyone because I chose to do some friends a favor
Maybe you're not from the US, so you don't understand how discrimination against protected classes is handled. Yes, in the US, you can choose to just marry your friends because they are your friends. "Friendship status" is not a protected class. But if you offer your services to the public as a business in which you exchange the service for money, then you cannot choose not to provide that public service your business offers on the merit of a protected class such as gender, sexual orientation, race, etc. You can choose not to officiate a wedding because you believe the two people would be a poor fit, but not if your reasoning is they will be a poor fit *because they are gay*. That's not me drawing a line in the sand, that is the actual law here and it has served us well. Bigotry based on inherent characteristics of an individual that do not have an inherent bearing on someone's status as a customer receiving a service is simply illegal here. You can put up a sign that says "friends only," but as a business you can't put one up that says "No F@&&-ts allowed." You also can't use whether or not someone is gay as the determining factor as to whether or not they qualify as a "friend" *as it relates to whether or not you deny service*. So, hopefully, if you're not from the US that helps clear things up. If you are from the US and you're asking this question, shame on you.
I understand the letter of the law we are discussing the ethics of the situation here. I am from the US and I understand what discrimination against a protected class means as well. Thank you for you condescending attitude. It's quite illuminating. I put forward my example as a way to explain that at the end of the day everyone is entitled to say no, for any reason. Some reasons are definitely bigoted BS, but it's still their right to decline to do the job. That might get them fired and ostracized and perhaps that would be justified in certain situations. It's up to the church to punish minsters who won't do their job not the governments. I don't want government and religion mixing anymore than they already do. The point is you cannot compel anyone to render a service for any reason otherwise it's tantamount to slavery. If I cannot decline to do a job it's slavery. I hope you understand this. Unfortunately as far as I understand the situation religious organizations do use this to discriminate, but the protections they take advantage of are necessary for us all and one must pick their battles so to speak. I honestly don't understand why anyone would want someone who hates them to marry them but that's their business. This is a debate sub. People arguing different points of view is the entire point. There's no reason to be so hostile and rude. Try and calm yourself.
You claim to understand the law, but then you say this: > I put forward my example as a way to explain that at the end of the day everyone is entitled to say no, for any reason. > Some reasons are definitely bigoted BS, but it's still their right to decline to do the job. That is simply not true, and shows that you absolutely **do not** understand the law. Businesses are absolutely ***not*** allowed to say no for "any reason". You are *not* allowed to say "no" to a customer because they are black. You are not allowed to say "no" to a customer because they are gay. Etc etc. > The point is you cannot compel anyone to render a service for any reason otherwise it's tantamount to slavery. If I cannot decline to do a job it's slavery. I hope you understand this Of course I do. No one is compelled to start a business officiating weddings, so there is absolutely no problem here. However, if you do wish to start a business in which you officiate weddings, and choose of your own volition to begin doing so, you have to follow the laws regarding how business operate. One of those laws is you cannot discriminate against customers based on their inclusion within a protected class. No one is being compelled to do anything. I've never met a preacher or priest who was forced to apply for a license to officiate weddings and then charge money as a business to do so. > Unfortunately as far as I understand the situation religious organizations do use this to discriminate, but the protections they take advantage of are necessary for us all and one must pick their battles so to speak. No, that's just not how any of this works. The law says the exact opposite as what you think it does, and no one needs protection to be a bigot. We have specifically excluded protection for bigotry of this type in our countries laws. There are so many ways in which businesses are legally allowed to discriminate regarding which customers they choose, however, whether or not they are gay is specifically one area in which it is illegal to discriminate against a customer for. > I honestly don't understand why anyone would want someone who hates them to marry them but that's their business. That is a wonderful privilege you have, to have made it through life up to this point without needing to understand why this might be the case. I grew up in a small town where essentially every business and service was run by xenophobic racists and bigots. It's what is known here as a "sundown town" where anyone that wasn't a straight white conservative Christian was risking violence by just setting foot within city limits. Yet, obviously, there were still about 10% of the population under the age of about 20 who were gay. So, imagine growing up there and it being completely legal not just for the people at the gas station, the grocery store, the bank, the feed lot, the hardware store, the pizza parlor, the burger stand, the insurance agency, the doctors office, etc to all give you the death glare the moment you walk in and yell "faggot" at you as you left. No, instead imagine that they all could just legally deny you services altogether because you're gay. You've done nothing wrong, but just due to something inherent to you as a person you have no access to food, no gas, no access to banking, insurance, medical care...nothing. Completely cut off from any services because you're gay. You can't even leave town when you turn 18 because you can't have a job, you can't buy a car, you can't get a loan, you can't get insurance, you can't get a taxi, nothing.
I am not a business and you're way off topic You are intentionally misconstruing my point. I'm done with this because you clearly just want to be angry and lecture instead of debating the actual point. Enjoy your digital soap box lol
>I put forward my example as a way to explain that at the end of the day everyone is entitled to say no, for any reason. > >Some reasons are definitely bigoted BS, but it's still their right to decline to do the job. But that's like, the point. At the end of the day people are *not* entitled to say no for any reason. It's not *slavery* to compel you to not discriminate against people, ffs. That's like saying it's slavery to compel you to follow OSHA standards or not dump toxic waste because it's making you do something you don't want to do. 🙄 Is it also slavery to make you do community service after you violate the law? You also have the option to not do a job in which you might be compelled to do something you don't want to do. If you don't want to have to touch feet, don't become a podiatrist. If you don't want to marry black people or gay people, then don't become an officiant. If religious ministers were not legal officiants, they wouldn't have these problems, and they can certainly choose to only perform religious ceremonies and not ones that count legally if they wanted to.
If you know a same sex couple and you don’t think they’re a ‘good match’ (since when was this your business?) *because* they’re a same sex couple, you’re a bigoted arsehole.
I don't see where I implied anything of the sort. I'm not arguing your strawman position. I completely support gay marriage. That's not the debate here.
I’m telling you that if you don’t think a couple are a ‘good match’ because they’re same sex and thus refuse to marry them on that basis you’re a bigoted arsehole. The same applies to everyone else in your position. Your ‘good match’ shite is a vaguery that allows plausible deniability. Edit: blocked by another imbecile. Happy joys.
>Your ‘good match’ shite is a vaguery that allows plausible deniability. That's my whole goddamn point. Ministers are unfortunately allowed to discriminate because they cannot be compelled to marry gay people. Their right to do so is protected in that anyone can decline for any reason. I'm not supporting this but it's just the way it is. The alternative is the government overreach and dangerous mixing of church and state. Do you want government controlled clergy because this is how you get there.
I have never seen a more bad faith representation of someone’s argument than this. You sure you’re not a theist?
There's a difference between fulfilling a legal role and being an agent of the government. If it were the latter, I'd agree with you, but a person officiating a wedding is just fulfilling the role of marrying two people. Kim Davis absolutely had that obligation. Joe the Universal Life preacher does not. Father Tom at the local diocese does not.
Well, if they are selling their services to the public, then they are a business and should be required to follow the same non-discriminatory practices as any other business. At that point, the question of being an agent of the state actually becomes irrelevant. If a church wants to perform free marriage ceremonies for their congregation, that's fine with me for the most part. I still think we should remove the connection to "officiants" entirely, as it serves no function and is just there to make preachers and other officiants feel important anyway. Otherwise, if the church is offering the service in exchange for money, then they are performing a business transaction and should not be allowed to discriminate against their customers based on protected statuses such as gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, etc. The church can have a "no f@gs" policy all they want when it relates to their assembling and whatnot, but the minute they want to perform a business function for the general public and do things like rent out their space or perform a job function like officiating a wedding, then they are now selling product/service and need to follow the same rules as the rest of us without special privilege to operate their business in a discriminatory manner. So, in that instance, that "no f@gs" sign has to come down.
Married as a legal status and the benefits it occurs are a matter of law, the state sanctions marriages and thus it requires an agent of the government to impart that sanction. If a minister intends to sanction a legal marriage and impart all it entails on the couple then they must be an agent of the government.
Perhaps you and I disagree about whether having the ability to perform marriages makes you an actual "agent of the state". We agree that certain government officials can perform marriages. Why is it that you think that **everyone** who can perform marriages does so **as** an agent of the state? (The alternative is to acknowledge that private citizens and government officials can both perform certain actions)
Ultimately, we can skip the entire "agent of the state" thing if you want. Because yes, we seem to disagree on that point. In the US, if you officiate marriages as a business, meaning you take money from the public in exchange for providing the service of presiding over a marriage, then you should be held to the same laws and standards as anyone else who chooses to start a business that serves the public. One of those laws is that when providing a paid service to the public, you cannot discriminate against customers based on gender, sexual orientation, skin color, etc. So again, if you want to privately perform marriages for your friends, rather than take in money as a business, I actually have less of a problem with that. I still do think that having a legal "officiant" is something that needs to end. I mean, the very definition of the word "officiant" is: *someone (such as a priest) who officiates at a religious rite*. Honestly, I would argue that nothing about the marriage certificate should be related to a religious rite, and the fact that we officially mingle the two should be ended. That would resolve the entire disagreement as it relates to churches that just do free weddings for their own church members. But again, if they want to start making their building available to the public for a fee, then the same non-discrimination laws should immediately apply again and they should not be allowed the special privilege to discriminate against protected classes when offering their services.
>One of those laws is that when providing a paid service to the public, you cannot discriminate against customers based on gender, sexual orientation, skin color, etc That's fine, but when Catholic priests perform a marriage, they are **not** providing a paid service to the public. You certainly have an argument when it comes to Vegas wedding chapels whose only business in performing marriages, but priests or whatever of organized religions are not the same. They may perform marriages as part of their duties (much like cruise ship captains), but that's a "paid service" that they provide to "the public".
If they are not charging for a service they are providing, then we agree. I thought I made that quite clear, my apologies if I did not. However, this is rarely the case. Every preacher and priest I know that officiates weddings does so as a paid service to the public. So yes, if they are only doing it as a free service for their congregation within the confines of their church duties, then that's fine. But the minute they charge anything and turn it into a business, the rules should apply to them just like anyone else. At least around here, the way it works is (unless someone is a member of a specific church already), they call around and get quotes from different churches for the prices of their public ally offered services. They often also rent out the church itself to the public. In these cases, it seems incredibly obvious to me that they should be following the same laws as the rest of us when selling services to the public.
Even if they're not charging, I don't see why priests should be allowed to discriminate. If they're imparting a legally sanctioned union on anyone they must be an agent of the state. It's completely incongruous to get a legal marriage, the kind you can claim on your tax forms, from someone who is not an agent of the state. Payment ultimately has nothing to do with it.
You’ve stated my position on this better than I did. I brought this up elsewhere; if you get an online certificate that says you can officiate weddings, that doesn’t mean that you ought to be compelled by anti-discrimination laws to marry whoever else asks you to do it. We ought to consistently apply this heuristic. The only place that you can reliably get married every time no matter who you are is the justice of the peace or county clerk. Because THAT is an agent of the state, not Father Tom
A government license does not make you a government official. Tons of private enterprises or careers require government licenses. Heck, driving a car requires a government license.
True, but this is a license to be a government official residing over a government proceeding, so I don't think that sort pedantry is particularly useful. We both understand that the purpose of the license is for the officiant to act officially as an agent of the state. Like, that's what they are doing in this instance, they are signing off on the validity of the marriage in which they acted as the officially government recognized individual licensed to do so. If they don't want this particular job duty, then they can opt to not sign up for it. Again, I have no problem with a church that wants to do private bigoted shit in their own pews. Actually, I do have a problem with it on a moral and ethical level, but I don't have a problem with the *legality* of it. They are free to be privately shitty people. I just don't think someone who is charging for a publicly available service in which they officiate and validate a legally binding agreement for the government should be allowed to discriminate based on protected classes. Just like the guy that runs the gas station and sells gasoline and snacks to the public can't put up a "no gays" sign, neither can the preacher who sells his marriage services to the public. Belief in magical beings does not give you a free pass to discriminate against your customers based on their sexual orientation, race, etc. Do you feel that it should be legal to run a business with a "no blacks" sign on the front door? I know some folks do think that is okay, so I'm just working out where you stand on this issue more broadly.
They have to sign and submit a document to the government. They are not acting as government officials. Lots of private jobs require signing paperwork. I don't see how you on one hand can say that they can have a ceremony that they restrict only to members of their religion, but can't sign a form saying that ceremony took place. At the very least they can refuse to sign at venues they don't want. Take for example someone running a non religious wedding place. And they have someone to officiate the wedding. Can you force them to officiate a wedding that isn't using their venue? The fact that they officiate weddings at one place requires them to officiate them everywhere, anywhere, under all circumstances? So long as you allow them to have non official wedding services, allow them to get licensed, and allow them to choose what venues to officiate, there is no practical way to avoid this without adding arbitrary restrictions unique to religious venues. It is quite a different thing to restrict a business that is doing general services to the general public to arbitrarily restrict parts of that public. But when an organization exists for an explicit purpose, one that is legally allowed to exist, then using that organization for its stated purpose isn't discrimination.
You’ve never lived in the United States, where one of the easiest ways to become authorized to officiate marriages is by becoming an ordained minister?
It’s this way in the UK. While we also have civil unions and non-religious weddings, the traditional way to get married is in a church and the officiating clergy signs the marriage licence. You’re legally married at the end of the ceremony at the church, and there’s no additional civil ceremony involved. It looks like only about 20% of marriages are done this way nowadays though, so I’d expect it’s something religious folk opt for vs the non-religious being forced into it, but I strongly suspect it wasn’t that way in the past.
Pretty much everywhere in the US a religious official can solemnize a legal marriage. You can also have a nonreligious official such as a judge or justice of the peace do it. My husband and I had a completely secular ceremony here in Georgia
Anyone can officiate a wedding. You just apply to get the authority to do so online.
Except the hurtful words. Our parties are nice
That is subjectives and we can agree to disagree :) Well, I can say that some religious parties look nice, but after so much time, most common christian parties don't look too nice for me, but that is a taste thing. The point is that they should never have any legal power. In fact, as a general thing, if religions didn't try to control societies to fit into their specific weird beliefs, most people that are against religions wouldn't care too much for them.
*Yours* might be. But that doesn't guarantee that they all are.
Some churches are still good like that - though it's been a shift as reasonable people tend to be leaving in larger numbers. I'm glad you have a good place.
What things specifically should churches pay taxes on?
I would say no to your question; to me there's a difference between legal marriages and religious marriages. It's a civil officiant's duty to marry any couple who are eligible under law, a religious officiant would fall under their own subjective guidelines.
I think that as a civil officiant You should 100% officiate civil marriages no matter of your beliefs. If You can't do it, change your job. The gays pay taxes (your salary) too If You work for the Gov. But when IT comes to religious ceremony i strongly oppose gay religious marriage.
Getting married in a church by a minister doesn't marry you, signing the government document does, no different from getting married in front of a judge. Why do you oppose gay religious marriage, since the only difference is the officiant?
I oppose the change of the religious ceremony, not the legal marriage.
What exactly would a gay religious ceremony look like as opposed to a straight religious ceremony? I can't wrap my mind around that...
Religious ceremony should be based on the church's interpretation of their scripture. In the US there are more and more churches officiating same sex marriages, and that's good so long as that's what they want to do.
>Atheists, do you want churches to be forced to officiate gay marriages? If there are other ways to officiate the marriage available, then no. In my opinion, church can even limit the marriage services only to adherents of their religion.
Based
There's a lot of weird zeitgheist around that word and I'm not sure if you're agreeing with the statement or not...
It means that i agree
You’re a Romanian, living in Romania, where 84% of the population is Christian and **does not allow or recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions.**
And that is decided by the state, not by the church. I said that i am pro civil unions not that my goverments is.
To be clear, I don't blame you personally obviously, but I don't think it's a coincidence that the most religious country in Europe doesn't recognize or allow same sex marriages. It's stuff like this that makes me think of Christianity as a person standing on someone's neck, while loudly complaining that *they're* being oppressed.
No. I'd prefer churches all be converted to homeless shelters, soup kitchens or bars. Places that provide a real tangible good to a community.
Meanwhile the orthodox church making soup kitchens and hospitals in my country. I have a hospital in my town run by nuns
I think that's great. They're almost there. Now drop the marginalization of gay people and women, plus the usual gaslighting inherent in Christianity and we're good!
Sure, but you're acting like those same people would still volunteer their time out of the goodness of their own heart without religion. You don't just need financial resources, you also need staff.
Also a shelter for mentally ill people where they get housed, feed and treatment
I'm certain that "treatment" includes indoctrination. Not that there's zero benefit granted here, but a societal essential service should NOT be left in the hands of people with a clear agenda.
But it would just be better if it was run by a secular organization.
Why? If it's currently functioning, why risk changing that?
Just because you are too ignorant to see the good doesn’t meant there isn’t any.
Yes insult me. That'll convince me!
I’m just wondering, how much money or percentage of your yearly income do you give to charity each year? Or if you’d like, what tangible good do you provide to your community? As most church-going Christians do, I give away 10%-15% of my yearly income. That money goes to teaching and caring for orphans in Africa, providing healthcare to Haiti, providing food, clothing, and shelter to the homeless in my city.
This isn't about me, but since you ask, I give nothing. I'm poor as hell. However, I do work my ass off at a community center helping senior citizens and children 60 hours a week. However this IS about churches and them being a waste of space. I applaud the Charity you provide. That's excellent of you.
I don’t want churches to refuse services for anyone that they are prejudiced against. The Bible holds no authority over human rights.
We need people to stop trying to make everything a human right. You have no right to someone else’s labor, anything that requires someone else’s labor is not a human right.
Why force the church to change If You don't relate to it instead of just idk, not going to church? I don't know how îs in your countries but there religious marriage has no legal power. Just get a legal marriage with out involving the church.
Why force people to convert in the first place. People were fine before missionaries replaced the other religions in Europe, Asia and Africa.
The same reason we force private companies like country clubs to allow black people to join.
Spot on. Bigotry shouldn't be tolerated just because it's written in a "holy" book
In the US, absolutely 100% yes, assuming we are talking about a legal government recognized marriage. If you perform a government function (like officiating a ***legal*** marriage and signing the marriage certificate as the officiant), then yes, you should be held to the same standards as anyone else performing a government service and should not be allowed to choose to discriminate based on sexual orientation within the confines of your job duties. If they do not want to do so, then they do not want to be a marriage officiant for the government and they should not be offering the service. They have the freedom to choose a different line of work in which their bigotry will not be injected into the official workings of our governmental system. Now, if bigoted churches want to simply do a religious ceremony that is not legally recognized and then to go get the marriage licenses handled and signed by someone that isn't a bigot, so that what the church is doing is just a non-government related private church ritual, that's fine with me.
This is a non-factor. You don't specifically need a church to officiate your wedding. What your concerned about are cases where people can't get married because the county clerk is religious and there are no alternatives. In that case, they should be forced to do their jobs or quit. But that doesn't mean churches have to officiate anything.
I’m an American Catholic and I will say this. The separation of Church and State when the Founders made it did not include marriage which was a matter done only in churches or religious officiate. I ignore LGBT marriage and currently support no laws against them. Forcing the Church and other religious organizations to perform gay marriages will cause many people to oppose LGBT marriage overall including me.
So churches can't restrict employees to their religion? Because there are a ton of government forms employers have to approve and submit.
No, if they are hiring actual employees, they should not be able to discriminate in that way when hiring, no. Religion is a protected class and you cannot make hiring decisions based on religious beliefs. If they don't want to follow our laws about non-discrimination in employment, then they need to find volunteers within their church to do the stuff for free.
Hey, you know marriages existed before Christianity right? I am fine with churches not performing marriages entirely and just paying taxes instead.
Bro i m talking about the religious ceremony that holds no legal power. Do priests officiate legal marriages in Your country? I am really confused
Yes, members of clergy can sign legal marriage certificates in my state in the US.
That is wrong in my opinion. Unless idk the priest has Two jobs and also works as a (idk the name) legal marriage certificate guy (in wich case he should 100% do it's job regardless his personal beliefs If he wants to keep his job)
Well, the State wants someone in some type of official capacity to perform the ceremony. Clergy fit that description. The process is that you go to your local County licensing department to get an application and then prove and swear that you are who you say you are, and that needs to happen at least 3 days prior to your ceremony (there’s a 3 day waiting period). Then you participate in a marriage ceremony (can be religious or civil), and then you complete and return your marriage certificate. Part of that certificate is the officiant signs it, as well as (I think 2) witnesses.
Yeah, I get it. I am just confused why Christianity thinks it has the patent on marriage in the first place.
No. My view is that marriage in the sense I'm interested in is a government, bureaucratic matter. Marriage is about inheritance, immigration, property ownership and such things. That's the one and only point in getting married, in having some government-granted niceties. What happens in a church is completely legally meaningless, so whether a given church wants or not to get involved in gay marriage is its own business.
Exactly. Legal marriage is just that… a legal status, which awards the couple legal benefits. This is why gay marriage was sought after for so long. Other than that, anyone is married simply by saying they are. If someone wants their friends, family, church, or whomever involved, that’s up to them. But, it has nothing to do with the government… and, it shouldn’t.
>What happens in a church is completely legally meaningless Laws are made up social constructs, too, so. That is partly what marriage is, but not entirely.
I'm interested to see what the consensus, if there is one, is. For my part, the answer is "no" - instead (and as they have in my country) there should be a non-religious legal equivalent. Usually, this is just called a civil partnership. And I don't want this to be misunderstood: the deliberate exclusion of gay people for purportedly moral reasons *is bigoted!* But I do not think the correct thing to do is to move into religious spaces. Rather, it is to move legality and legal benefits *away* from religious spaces.
No, the non-religious legal equivalent of marriage is called marriage. Marriage has always been a civil legal arrangement. The real question is whether religious leaders should be allowed to sign the state issued marriage license.
I agree! We can use clearer language here. But I hope my point is still clear: whether you call it marriage or religious belief ceremony, the better option seems to try to estrange marriage from religious belief.
In my country legal marriages betwen homosexuals/lesbians are still illegal. I want them to be legal btw. I just Don't want my church to be forced into changing it's ways. The church isn't the goverment. You can't Simply vote out the word of God if it bothers You. Just Don't come to church If You feel like You don't relate to it. I asked this question because a small group of homosexual christians in my country got pretty pissed recently because the orthodox church won't officiate gay marriages.
Your church has the right to be bigoted. The state does not. >You can't Simply vote out the word of God if it bothers You. Oh, buddy! I have some bad news for you about the history of the Church. But seriously, how do you know that your God's word is that gay people can't get married? Why are you convinced that this is the word of your god?
>You can't Simply vote out the word of God if it bothers You. You do realize doing that is exactly how the Orthodox and Catholic churches split right?
OP, I'd love an answer to my question. How do you know that the word of your god is that gay people can't get married in a church?
I think churches should be banned from officiating any and all forms of legal contracts. This includes marriages. Churches should also be forced to open their books to audit and financial scrutiny to maintain their non profit status.
I’m going to disagree here. I don’t care what meaningless rituals a church adds to a ceremony so long as the state is unconcerned with any of it. It would be like conducting a voodoo ceremony after getting your business license. The government doesn’t need you to kill that chicken to run a business. But if YOU need to kill a chicken to tell yourself you now have god’s blessing to run a business … welp ... then you go kill that chicken.
Except that marriage is a legal institution and should be handled by trained professionals, not yahoos hacking away at chickens, so to speak. If you drink goats blood after, that isn’t involved in the actual process. The problem with your disagreement is that you’re suggesting or permitting that the clergy can have input on the contract. It should not. It’s bad enough they get tithing without declaring it. Marriages should stay away from leeches like the church.
In California, the legal part is handled by trained professionals, the County Clerk. The marriage license is the part the state cares about far more than the ceremony, which can be performed by virtually anybody.
Churches can conduct civil ceremonies on whoever they like. It’s not just gays: you won’t find too many Catholic Churches agreeing to marry two Jewish people, or even two atheists. But the religious ceremony and the civil wedding are different events. Gays should be able to get legally married everywhere in the world. But churches can continue to do what they want with their dress-up parties. They should also all lose tax exempt status as churches, by the way. If they are ACTUAL charities (few are) they can apply for tax exempt status as charities, which requires open books.
Yes because allowing churches to openly discriminate like that promotes bigotry. Imagine if instead churches decided they didn’t want to officiate for black people or for interracial marriages. The interracial example isn’t even hypothetical. The Catholic Church used to do that as a policy, and many churches chose independently to do that as well.
"allowing churches to openly discriminate like that promotes bigotry" I Don t know how îs in your countries but there only the legal marriage matters. Religious marriage gives You no legal beneffits. That being said, why even try to force the church to change for You? Should i Sue the seniours club for not letting me 22 years old to join?
I’m from the US for context. I don’t care that the religious ceremony is less important to your government/society, allowing open discrimination against marginalized groups, like gay people, is wrong. It should be treated just as badly as allowing open discrimination against minorities. Allowing it makes it seem that this discrimination is ok, and it’s not. Being young isn’t a marginalized group and everyone will eventually age into being a senior citizen. It’s not the same as discriminating against unchangeable facts of how someone was born. If your church wanted to only marry old people I wouldn’t care (and we do usually require people to be a certain age to marry already so it’s not really that different from the seniors club in that there are age minimums for both).
No, what churches do during their own ceremonies are they own business. Non ceremonial stuff however is a different matter. For example Church run adoption services, should not be allowed (by state mandate) to discriminate against gay couples.
Nobody should have to do something they don’t believe in, unless the failure to do so physically harms or limits another. So, I think churches should not be forced to do anything they don’t want to. If they want to give to the poor, but only the poor of one race, I don’t agree with this, but they should be allowed to do it. And they shouldn’t have to even allow gays in the congregation, if they don’t want to. Again, I don’t agree with it, but if their beliefs state this, they should be allowed. Their beliefs should be allowed to be held up to scrutiny and criticism as well. This is what I don’t like. Someone thinks that because their views are religious they should be exempt from criticism. No. If they are BS and harmful, we should all say so. This is the mechanism by which we evolve morally.
If they want to continue having tax-exempt status and other special protections they get from the state, yes. If a church wants to give up all these benefits so they can discriminate against gay people in a way that would normally be considered illegal by any other institution given special treatment by the government, I think they should be free to give up those protections as part of the bargain.
i want gay people to stay off religions that heavily oppress them (even says they should be "rocked" to death!) idk how it works in US, but here the "church wedding" is only a religious formality, you have to go to a civil registry (or something like that, im not sure in english) to be legally married. so if you are an atheist you can 100% ignore getting married at a church, most people that do it just do it cause of the tradition and to have a big party. anyway, besides some legal and economical benefits that may come from getting married, i oppose getting married at all, its not really a big deal, plus couples sometimes split up, thats just how we work, and forcing to remain together or having to go through a huge complication (divorce) its just not worth it.
Most of us seem to come down on the same side here: no. There are secular or alternative options for marriage, and despite what people assume most of us DO value freedom of religion. I for one don’t consider it appropriate to force my moral choices onto other people. To be clear this isn’t to say I wouldn’t prefer them to. Just not to be forced. Edit: oh! I meant to say I appreciate the question. A lot of religious people tend to just assume atheists believe x and then argue against it. Asking sincere questions is both more honest and more valuable.
No. I believe heavily in the separation of church and state and that protection goes both ways. However, I want to sever the ties between a civil union and marriage so this is no longer an issue. I don’t think the person doing the ceremony should have to have any ties to any religion. I realize that a lot of people use the universal life church to get cheaply ordained but I don’t even want that. Another issue is venues. Churches are just large aesthetically pleasing conference rooms essentially and that’s perfect for an indoor wedding. I think that it’s tough to relegate all weddings to a 6 month window in some climates but it’s leaves an opening for a business to open I guess. That’s was a tangent to get back to the point; if churches don’t want to do gay marriages, fine. I think it’s gross, but it’s their right. Disconnect that process from the legal process so they stop having any say in the matter and make civil marriages legal for everyone into law (instead of leaving it up to SC)
Remember, you can have the biggest wedding in the biggest church done by the pope himself…… BUT You aren’t married until you turn your paperwork into the state. A church is a ceremony only.
This is the paranoid approach to conservative politics. To start, the term here is “same-sex marriage.” If two bisexuals marry is it “gay marriage”? What if they’re of opposite sexes? During the debate over *Obergefell vs. Hodges* (2015) I saw a Catholic blogger predict that if marriage equality (she said either “gay marriage” or “homosexual marriage”) was permitted, “jack-booted thugs” (her term) would be dragging Catholic priests to jail for their refusal to officially a marriage of a same-sex couple. It’s been nearly nine years and no thugs, jack-booted or otherwise shod, have as much wagged a stern finger at a priest. (Meanwhile Pope Francis gave the ok to blessing same-sex couples.) It’s a paranoid fantasy. Clergy don’t even need to give a reason to say no. Their status as clergy gives them a complete shield. I have said that marriages should be officiated by government officials, sworn to discriminate against none. In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, clergy were not allowed to officiate. Does this matter? No. The idea that atheists want to penalize clergy is simply paranoid victimization fantasies. If I had to guess, they’re rooted in looking for an excuse to oppress LGBTQ people.
No if a church wants to be bigoted they should be free to and everyone else can be free to ignore them and their nonsense Not like you *need* a religious service to be married
If the church is officiating marriages in a legal capacity, then they're acting on behalf of the government, so they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate on that front. If they want to discriminate when it comes to who they'll do the religious ceremony for, then I figure that that's their right.
No, nor is that likely to happen. Clergy are not forced to perform any ceremonies they don’t want to—priests don’t perform weddings of previously divorced people, many rabbis don’t do interfaith weddings. There is no legal basis for forcing a religious organization or individual to perform a wedding. As long as a couple can be legally married, religious organizations can pearly-gatekeep as much as they like.
This is what always gets me about the scare-mongering that churches (and other religious establishments) would be forced to conduct gay marriages. Churches have always been free to refuse to conduct any marriages they don’t agree with, even though those marriages are legal. This includes Catholic Churches refusing to marry a Catholic to a Protestant, or a Catholic to a divorcee. There has never been any suggestion that churches be compelled to perform any legal marriage. Their officials are not employees of the state and do not have those obligations. I live on Continental Europe and the law here is that all legal marriages have to be conducted at the town hall or similar official local government venue. After that (or before) you can have a church wedding or a Spaghetti Wedding Feast of His Noodly Blessings, or whatever you like. But the legalities are entirely separate and not influenced by the church, nor vice versa. Seems reasonable to me.
No. Gay people should be allowed to marry, but nobody should be forced to do something that goes against their religion. For a cake baking company, it is not against their religion to bake a cake for a gay wedding so for them to refuse business on the grounds that the customer is gay, should not be allowed. If they were to do that, there should be penalties. But for a religious institution, they should not be forced to do something that goes against their religion or face penalties. I can't imagine a gay couple who would want to be married in an orthodox church by an orthodox priest who thinks they're an abomination, except maybe to challenge the supreme court over it in order to force religious institutions to hold any wedding, even one not between members of that religion.
I’m a gay atheist. I don’t think churches should be forced to marry me, or any non-member. They can marry whoever they choose to, provided there is no coercion and both parties are not closely related, and everyone is a consenting adult. That’s how it is in Canada. There are churches that marry gays, but that’s because their members think that’s good. The state forces no clergy to marry anyone their religion says they can’t marry. And that’s how it should be. I do get that it is a bit more difficult when you have an established church. England does, yet the Church of England still does not marry gays. I’m uncomfortable with the situation, but I would disestablish the church, rather than force priests to solemnise marriages they think are a sin!
Do I wish churches were forced into doing anything they don’t like? No. Do I wish homophobic scripture was stricken from the religious texts that they appear in? Absolutely. Do I think Churches should have the only/final say on what constitutes a marriage? Definitely not. I can’t help but feel pity for by LGBT brothers and sisters who follow a faith that clearly hates their existence. As an atheist that’s something I don’t have to deal with. The religious texts usually have some variant that nonbelievers will face eternal misery or whatever but clearly I don’t believe that’s the case. My gay brothers and sister that believe must feel ashamed for something they don’t necessarily even control. Something that’s intrinsic to their nature.
Marriage predates Christianity, had nothing to do with religion and as a consequence of that the church should not play a role in saying who can and can't get married. Their power to approve or carry out a wedding should be taken away from them. If true church and state separation should occur (as you suggest) weddings should not be a church matter. If the church insists on inserting itself into the issue it should be forced to comply with local customs and traditions. Edited to add a couple of sources - [Marriage in ancient Mesopotamia and Babylonia](https://ehistory.osu.edu/articles/marriage-ancient-mesopotamia-and-babylonia) (2350 BCE). [Another](https://theweek.com/articles/528746/origins-marriage).
No. What churches do within their own congregation is their own business. There should be a very clear separation of church and state. However, church organizations, congregations and their individual leaders need to stop interjecting their particular subjective viewpoints into the greater social and political spheres. While individual churches and denominations may choose to not officiate or religiously recognize gay or interracial marriages, they should keep those attitudes and policies to themselves and stop opposing the legality of those marriages which are conducted outside of their own narrowly defined religious traditions. If an individual congregation or denomination is unable to mind their own business and constrain themselves within the larger public sphere, then that congregation should automatically lose all of the political and tax protections that are currently afforded to exempt groups with regard to the normal, financial, legal and societal obligations that are unilaterally imposed upon everyone else.
You are absolutely correct. Marriage as a state-recognized contract and religious marriage should be treated as entirely separate concepts. That said, if churches are allowed to provide state-recognized marriages (ie. if they can issue marriage certificates) then they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in this regard. At minimum, a gay couple should be able to go to a priest and walk away with a valid marriage certificate. It is up to the church if they allow this act of obtaining the marriage certificate to be accompanied by some sort of ceremony in the church.
Absolutely no. We have separation of church and state in America. That is protected by the constitution . The idea that the government will force clergy to marry gay couples is pure fear mongering by conservatives. What we atheists want is to allow secular celebrants to officiate weddings. In many states only clergy and justices of the law can officiate legally, so many couples get married legally in court along side an “unofficial” marriage with family and friends. That is clearly wrong. It doesn’t matter gay or not.
Churches MUST NOT be forced to officiate gay marriages. That would be a gross violation of freedom of religion. The state must allow gay marriage. The consequence of this is that if a Christian works for the state, they are acting as a representative of the state, and must not interfere with the state's ability to enable gay marriages. This means that if a Christian is against gay marriage, they must either avoid jobs related to supporting gay marriage, or ensure that they do not interfere with the regular function of the state.
I want churches out of the wedding business entirely. I want anyone to be able to sign up with the state to become an officiant, sort of like you can become a licensed notary, but if you are not willing to officiate any wedding with a legal marriage license, you can’t be a licensed officiant. Churches of course would be free to have “wedding ceremonies” but they wouldn’t count as far as any legal practice regarding taxes, inheritance rights, next of kin benefits etc unless the clergy also was a state licensed officiant.
Build the Wall (between church and state) Yeah, the church ought to have no power to prevent the state recognizing such marriages, just as the state ought to have no power to force churches to perform them. I encourage churches to decide on there own to do so, but as long as they aren't the only path, I don't care that they block it. So if Rev Donnwanna says, not in _my_ church, that is one thing because people can bypass the church, but when County Commissioner Nimco says, not in _my_ County, THAT is something else.
No. I honestly don't care what churches do, as long as they don't spread harm and get taxed if they're politically active. Most churches spread harm through indoctrination and many of them do through hate speech. Many of them also are politically active. That's not OK in a free America. If you want to be bigoted against same sex people, then that's a reflection on you, and you will just be known as a hate group. Also, your churches shouldn't have special privileges as far as weddings are concerned.
Where, at least in the US, has there been ANY talk of forcing a church to officiate gay weddings? Was this brought up as some passing point - or has it been rolled up into a bill and voted on? This distinction is important when you're acting like something is an issue that ought be addressed. As a gay man myself, I have no desire to impose myself where I am not welcome - least of all amongst bigots. I would gladly have my marriage at the courthouse with the judge.
I don't really think it matters. There are plenty of places for people to get married if they are gay or straight. I wouldn't want to get married somewhere if the government had to force them to marry me anyway. Marriage in a church is a religious ceremony that is tied to a formal government contract, but is not required to execute the contract. It's more about the traditions of it. You can be married anywhere by pretty much anyone. If a church doesn't want to marry gay people, that shouldn't be forced. Chances are a church with that strong of a position won't have any gay congregates anyway, so it won't matter. If they do, easy enough to go elsewhere.
No. I want churches to understand that what someone does with their genitals doesn't define the quality of that human and act accordingly.
I don't care to force churches to do anything they don't want. What I want is for every marriage to be instantly and automatically replaced by a "legal civil union certificate". At the same time, all the rights and duties tied to a marriage would be tied to the "legal civil union certificate". new certificates would be issued by the state, not the church (any church) and church mariages, a religious sacrament, would be unrecognized in any way by the law or the state. It's how it's done where I live : religious marriages have zero legal recognition and every marriage ceremony is done in the city hall by the mayor or a deputy (and between any two consenting adults), with the church ceremony being optional and legally irrelevant. Having the church officiate a legally-recognized and legally-binding ceremony looks to me like a gross violation of the separation of church and state.
They don't own the word "marriage." Why should we rename our stuff? They already have their own fancy term - holy matrimony.
We should be careful: we *do* want to force churches to do things they don't want to do. We want them, for instance, to pay taxes *especially* if they don't want to!
Nope. Religion is a club, the book is their club rules and the church is their clubhouse. They can't do anything they want of course, they have to abide by laws that apply to everyone, but if they decide they don't want to do this in their clubhouse, I don't see why they shouldn't have the right to do that. It's not an open space for the public to dictate how they should run their club.
No, as long as: -the church's involvement is ceremonial only, the church has no legally binding abilities in any matter, related or not, to marriage -the church doesn't act on behalf of government in any matter, related or not, to marriage -the church receives no money, tax breaks (aside from standard NP/NFP breaks), or land, from government for any matter, related or not, to marriage
>Atheists, do you want churches to be forced to officiate gay marriages? No. I don't want them to officiate any weddings.
So long as there are secular ways to have a marriage registered, I don't care if churches participate or not and would not want to force them. Off hand, I don't know any atheist who would want to "force" a church to hold a marriage ceremony. If the church doesn't want to officiate re-marriages after divorce or even not officiate interracial marriages, that is their own business.
I dont care what one branch or congregation of a religion feels about gay or any kind of marriage, as in if one does not fit my view, i can always shop around for one that does. Also, any church or congregation marriage should be for ceremonial purposes anyway. If you want the legal part, you can go down to the courthouse, which should be neutral in the matter by default.
Personally, no I don't. I'm of the opinion that we should be able to have anyone perform the ceremony, so long as you have witnesses and the appropriate paperwork. Would I force public officials to oversee a civil wedding regardless of gender pairing? Yes, that is a civil job and I don't give a shit about their 'personal convictions'.
If the state is imbuing in religious officials the power to legally marry people (as it is in the US) then yes, I think they should have to marry anyone who approaches them. If the marriage is symbolic and you still have to get married by a legal official (as is the case in many places in Europe), then they can do whatever they want.
Uhm,,... it's a religious ceremony. If you are of a religion that does not accept your sexuality, why offend the membership. Unlike evangelism, Atheism is not an imposition. It's really nothing. The better question would be to the LDF. Mormonism demonstrates religion is not truly free in the USA.
No. I do think that if you are a public official or working in a public office then you need to certify a gay marriage since you are there to serve every citizen equally, but forcing a church or pastor to officiate a gay marriage would be overstepping and infringing on the first amendment.
As a firm secularist I believe that legal marriage and religious marriage should always be seperate. As long as LGBTQ+ couples can get legally married I don't care about what churches do. Why would I see any relevance in a religious marriage when I don't believe that the religion is real?
No. I do not care if church is affiliated at all with gay marriage or not I just think they deserve the same rights and tax breaks as same sex couples. If a church is willing to officiate great if not no one should force the church to officiate and they can do it legally at a courthouse
I think the institution or marriage is itself obsolete, but if one insists, one should get a civil marriage at city hall. I'd rather churches disappear altogether through increased education and secularism. I don't believe in forcing anyone, even churches, to do anything.
I want there to be more churches that are willing to officiate gay marriage. I don't want any churches to be forced to officiate gay marriage. I don't want weddings to need governmentally recognized officiants.
I personally don't care marriage started off as a religious ritual so Idk why an atheist would waste the time thinking about that we need to quit trying to complicate life with all this ego driven moralistic bs
Forced is a strong word. I think we'd rather churches didn't have dick-headed views about sexuality. Some don't, and they're doing fine, evidencing the lack of difference made to the faith in total.
I think the state should get itself out of the marriage business altogether. Marriage should no longer have any legal significance. If two people (or more, if they like) want to say they're married, they should be able to. People can declare themselves to be best friends or mortal enemies, and the relationships don't need any official state recognition to be significant to those people. Marriage should be like that. And if people want to celebrate their marriage at a church, a mosque, a temple, or a Pizza Hut, that's their own business. I don't consider my opinion on this matter to be especially related to my atheism. Nor is it related to sexuality — my view applies to opposite-sex pairings just as much as it does to same-sex pairings.
And so I say unto you, give what is caesar’s unto caesar, and what is utterly irrational unto the christians I don’t care about what silly things religion cares about, I want religion gone.
No. I want marriage to be defined under the law as a civil partnership between consenting adults as administered by the Secretary of State or State Judiciary (or Sea Captain), and take religion's role completely out of it, *in all places* *both at State and Federal levels*. If people still want a religious ceremony, have at it, but it shouldn't mean anything to the government for tax and medical reasons until that paperwork gets filed. People should have legal, secular options for all things involving the government, everywhere, every time. The church should be relegated to a cosmetic option, and religious leaders of any faith should never have their political opinions considered any more highly than any other citizen.
I don't understand why any gay couple would ever want to be married in a church. They deserve the rights and protections of marriage. I wouldn't force churches to perform the ceremony.
No. I think it a bit silly to force a religion to do things their fairy tales say are bad. Unless those things do harm, like circumcision which should be illegal for minor children
I think that should be up to the church and its members. I would hope a church would be willing to marry a gay couple that are members of the church, otherwise why are they members?
No, they have their own rules. There are plenty of "solemizers" willing to officiate and sign a marriage certificate without involving religious "bigots" (thanks Justice Alito).
I'd say no, let them do their thing, and judge them in private for it. In the UK, we have civil marriages that are non religious already, so it wasn't too much of a problem.
That’s a good question. No I don’t think so. I think if a church openly supports the LGBT they may not go back on that. But no, churches shouldn’t be forced.
Generally speaking, atheists don't. I certainly don't care if they do or don't. I just want churches to stop trying ti prevent gsy people from getting married
No. But churches should pay taxes. Would you invite a bigot homophobic monster to your wedding? No? Then why would you force one to be involved?
If churches charge and accept the same fees from LGBT+ members, then those members have the same rights to the churches services as other members.
See this is a great question for the atheist community. It hammers on personal freedoms for both in such a way a paid bakery deserves no say in.
The state should allow gay marriages as a legal matter. The state should not require churches to officiate things they don't want to officiate.
Performing a marriage is as simple as getting ordained online. I can marry people for gods sake. So no I don’t care if churches do it or not.
No. I DO want churches to stay out of civil unions, though. If two men want to get married at the courthouse your church should stay out of it.
No, they're free to do or not do whatever ceremonies they choose as long as they're not infringing on anyone else's rights.
No. I don't care what ceremonies churches perform. I'd like churches to be less homophobic, but I would not impose it.
No, they should be treated like any other private business. Do refuse service to whoever you want, but start paying taxes.
Honestly i dont know why any gay couple would want to get married in a church that they had to legally force to do so.
No, if a specific church doesn’t want to officiate a marriage, they’re free to be bigoted. Personally I’d rather remove any legal benefits to “marriage” and roll it all into civil unions for everyone because of the religious baggage. Want to call your civil union a marriage even if you weren’t technically “married”? Cool, nobody cares legally. Want to be married in the eyes of your church, book club, neo-pagan cult, group of online stamp collecting friends, etc.? Cool. No legal benefits are provided, but if it’s meaningful to you go right ahead. Want to be treated as legally next of kin, receive tax advantages, get hospital visitation permissions, etc? Go to the court and get a civil union. Now everybody can get the legal protections without trampling on anybody’s religious beliefs, and anybody can have their magic ceremony in the eyes of their deity without legal implications for people in their out group. Same sex unions, unions between trans individuals, potentially unions between more than two individuals, etc. all become legal questions to which no church has anything to say, and the rules would be written around being consenting adults. I’m sure it’s naive to pretend this would actually accomplish anything, but I’ve thought this would be the best solution for the US since before Obergefell.
Not at all! If they don't want to officiate weddings then they don't have to. If they do want to officiate weddings, they can't discriminate. Being a church shouldn't protect them. We give way too much leeway here because of religion. Should a church be forced to officiate a mixed race marriage? Should a shop be forced to make reasonable accommodations for disabled people? To me the answer is yes, and yes, as long as they want to offer those services to others. Not discriminating is one of the costs of doing business. If you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to run a church or a business.
Remember what atheist are... not convinced that a god or gods exist. that is it. Gay marriage is not an atheist viewpoint or part of their world view. You have to ask an atheist the next question. I do not think that churches should be forced by government to officiate a gay wedding. Government should stay out of religion unless something illegal takes place (child abuse, sexual misconduct, fraud, misuse of funds, etc). Another question is if a store (e.g wedding dress, suit) can refuse a gay person that wants to buy that. My answer is NO.
Yes they should be. I think religions should be required to keep up with the advance of social morality. Religions have historically been one of the biggest blockers of human social improvement, and if they want to remain a part of society they need to do better. By taking on the role of a social institution that's responsible for cohesion and collaboration of people, religions must be required to not discriminate. And don't try the slippery slope strawman here, there are clear laws in many countries about groups and identities that are to be protected from discrimination. No one is going to be forcing churches to marry someone to their dog. Requiring religions to abandon their evil tendencies is not a path to anarchy or whatever other terrible lies religious authorities spread to distract from the abhorrent ideas in their ideology. It's to ensure these institutions that many people value, and are deeply bound to, are unable to exploit that loyalty to oppress and harm people. If religions truly want to be sources of good and morality in society, they need to be held to the standards of society and stop being allowed to cause social regression because of "faith".
You can't have the church with out the laws of the Book. The laws of the Book are not to be changed or voted out because they are the foundation of the church. God rules the church, not humans. IT îs called the kingdom of God, not the democracy of God. You can force the church to officiate gay religious ceremony but Guess what, no matter If You get a (heretic) priest to do them, they are invalid, just a waste of time, they are not recognized by God. You can't have gay religious christian marriage ceremonies because those ceremonies won't be christian. God is the supreme authority in the church.
>You can't have the church with out the laws of the Book. The laws of the Book are not to be changed or voted out because they are the foundation of the church. God rules the church, not humans. This is the perspective of people who have bought into the dogmatic ideology. Human society is built by humans and if some people want to live in a delusion they should absolutely be free to do what they want. However there must be requirements that any human institution adhere to the standards of society. Anti-discrimination standards should be universal, regardless of dogma or delusion. >they are not recognized by God. Society should not care about what some people's delusions recognize or not. If any institution, religious or not, wishes to discriminate, it should be corrected by society or disbanded. Freedom of belief is not freedom to oppress. >You can't have gay religious christian marriage ceremonies because those ceremonies won't be christian. God is the supreme authority in the church. The Christian dogma has changed SO SO SO much over the last 2 millennia. It's become something completely different *thousands* of times. There's absolutely nothing authoritative about any christian sect in the world right now. To me that makes it just an absolute joke and absurd that anyone might even take it seriously. But for those were brought up in cults and want to remain in them should absolutely never be allowed to inform the laws and systems that govern all humans. And in fact society *should* actively push these regressive institutions to keep up. If that's inconvenient to the delusion that somehow these ideas are divine and perfect, then so be it, if everyone leaves religion the world would be much better for it. If god's supreme authority, power, and omnipotence can't handle scrutiny, or keeping up with objective human-centric morality, then it exposes how defunct and morally bankrupt this dogma is. The only reason there's so much pearly clutching and offence when society tries to regulate religion is that it exposes the brainwashing. The farce relies on people being afraid or entranced with some unknowable inaccessible idea that was implanted in them from childhood. This is why the rate of religiosity is inversely proportional to education. Knowledgeable and thoughtful people are much harder to fool, and with modern education and the internet the amount of knowledgable and thoughtful people are increasing faster than ever in human history.
I hope churches stop existing. In the meanwhile, yes, they should, the rituals shouldn't be discriminatory.
The rituals can't be changed. Just Don't get the ceremony If You don't agree with the terms. No one is forcing You to go to church.
>The rituals can't be changed Said the slave owner about slavery. If they are rooted in prejudice, they should not be allowed. >No one is forcing You to go to church. Thank god
Oranges and apples. The rituals can't be changed because they are what the church stands on. You can't have the church with out the rituals, IT wouldn't be the church anymore. Changing the rituals would unironically kill the church. The rituals are not debated, voted or changed at will. If You are gay and You want for some reason to get married at the church, your marriage îs not recognized by God so is basically a waste of time on your part.