Gay marriage (1 Viewer)

[Spartans Rule]

And its surprising how those who support gay marriage are so quick to denounce anyone's opinion that strays from their own. A debate is for two sides and doesn't always include a winner. Try opening your mind a little to what others have to say and maybe you will receive the same.

This is not a complex issue. We're not talking economics or foreign policy here where there are all sorts of theories and strategies and valid points to be made on both sides. This is a matter of personal freedom which the government has no business being involved in. It shouldn't even be an issue.Being open-minded doesn't mean you have to agree with the other side. You can carefully consider the opposing arguments and still find them to be pointless and wrong.

 

[shuke]

just make "civil union" a "marriage between 2 homosexuals"

I thought the whole point of this was that there can't be a "marriage" between two homosexuals.

my point is to make a "civil union" legally the same thing as a "marriage" but under a different name so all states have to accept it and all that stuff...

Why do you care so much about the word? I'm waiting for you to respond to my question about how you feel about two atheists going down to the county courthouse and getting married.

I've answered that like 4 times now, go look it up, k?

You said they had to act in accordance to the rules of the church or something, and then I asked you about instances when a church wasn't involved, and you didn't answer.K?

again, I answered that...I said a marriage between two athiests still follows the laws set up at the beginning of this country which were based onthe Christian values on marriage...*shakes head*for the fifth time...

So you don't care about the religious aspect of marriage, since you are fine with atheists being "married".Your argument basically boils down to what was deemed "right" when the country was founded?What are your thoughts on slavery and a woman's right to vote?

 

[larry_boy_44]

So you don't care about the religious aspect of marriage, since you are fine with atheists being "married".Your argument basically boils down to what was deemed "right" when the country was founded?What are your thoughts on slavery and a woman's right to vote?

*shakes head and turns sarcasm*all the...*ends the sarcasm*what the heck are you talking about? I can't even type the stuff sarcastically... seriously... what do you ant me to say? "YEAH BRIGN BACK SLAVERY!!"??I mean, seriously...The point is marriage is referring ot something VERY VERY specific between a man and a woman... some people take this as a very VERY sacred act and it means a lot to them and they feel that it is an infringement upon thier RIGHTS to have a union between two gay people be called a marriage...is this all really that hard for you to understand?

 

[Outside Contain]

So you don't care about the religious aspect of marriage, since you are fine with atheists being "married".Your argument basically boils down to what was deemed "right" when the country was founded?What are your thoughts on slavery and a woman's right to vote?

*shakes head and turns sarcasm*all the...*ends the sarcasm*what the heck are you talking about? I can't even type the stuff sarcastically... seriously... what do you ant me to say? "YEAH BRIGN BACK SLAVERY!!"??I mean, seriously...The point is marriage is referring ot something VERY VERY specific between a man and a woman... some people take this as a very VERY sacred act and it means a lot to them and they feel that it is an infringement upon thier RIGHTS to have a union between two gay people be called a marriage...is this all really that hard for you to understand?

I can be understood, but why should their feeling that their "rights" has been infringed dictate what others are allowed to do? That can quite as easily be undestood.I can understand why people should not be allowed to run a red light but not wy gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. If the only explenation is that a bunch of people will get their feelings hurt then those people need to get around their egos and let others pursue happiness.But I have a sneaky feeling that this is not really what the "no marriage" phalanx are about...

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Why is their not an ammendment to criminalize adultery. To stop adulterers from getting tax breaks. How about coveters? Quit using religon to justifry intolerance and predjudice. In your cjhurch, do what the #### you want, but get you ### #### theocratic bull#### out of my governemnt, it doesn't belong there.Not this is nolt directed at ferris but all who use this weak and tired argument.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see adulterers looking to get the extra tax break with the person they are screwing around with. This isn't even the same argument.I know what point you are trying to make here, but these examples are at best faulty.It all boils down to this: this country was founded on God-fearing principles. Practically all laws are made based on morality. Most of those laws are based on what could be called "biblical morality." To say that religion has no place in our government is a bit narrow-minded. Our government would not be what it is if it weren't for the influences of religion.

i am talking about the governmental enforcement of sin fyi. Your response only further enforces my point. Might I ask which particular judeochristian faith we should write into laws.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Also, being homosexual in and of itself is not a sin - it's the action of homosexual sex that is sinful.

There could be a whole thread in itself about how much bull#### this statement is. To say that is to try to put icing on what is still a bigoted and hateful position.

I'm surprised you would say that. You're usually on the forefront of acknowledging that complex issues are complex, and criticising those who oversimplify issues. Then again, by oversimplifying this one, it gives you chance to blast those with religious convictions, so I really shouldn't be surprised at all.Anyway, the distinction I'm making here is important because it makes the question of whether homosexuals are born that way or not is irrelevant to whether homosexual sex is a sin or not.

Bottom line: the position of opposing gay marriage is COMPLETELY INDEFENSIBLE except behind the curtain of RELIGION,

No matter how many words you type in ALL CAPS, that statement is not true. Your precious Maurile posted a perfectly logical explanation for homophobia that was independent of religious conviction. You didn't object to that post when it first appeared. Why is it invalid now? Because it's easier to criticize Christians that way? If you're going to accuse others of being hypocrites, wouldn't it be a good strategy to avoid hypocrisy yourself when doing so?(NOTE: Maurile did not endorse homophobia or oppose gay marriage in any way when he made that post. That's pretty obvious to anyone who reads his posts here, but I'm about to bury Jericho deep inside the earth for falsely projecting beliefs upon me, and I want to let Maurile know I not attempting to do the same to him here.)

and since that's all you've got then it has NO BUSINESS being in a discussion about LAW AND GOVERNMENT, unless you are willing to THROW AWAY a free and representative society in favour of an autocratic theocracy.  Full stop.  Game over.  Every thing else is just smoke and mirrors and I have no time for it.

Opposing gay marriage is opposing free society.  HYPOCRITES.

I support gay marriage being legal. I've opposed the proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage from the get-go. I support calling gay marriage "marriage" to close any possible legislative loopholes to block homosexuals from work benefits, estate concerns, etc., through weaselly wording (laws written to cover marriages but not civil unions would be a possibility if we called them different things). It's possible to believe that an action is sinful yet still should be legal, and remain on solid ethical ground when doing so. (More on that later.)Jericho, you've read my posts in the myriad of threads on homosexuality and gay marriage. You already knew where I stood on the issue of gay marriage. Yet you still falsely projected bigotry upon me.

I'm no stranger to receiving false projections on this board w/r/t my Christian faith. My parents aren't Christians, but that doesn't stop some atheists on this board from falsely claiming that I'm only a Christian because my parents shoved their religious convictions down my throat when I was a kid. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and won't in 2004, but that doesn't stop some liberals on this boards from falsely assuming I'm a Republican simply because I'm a Christian. (Imagine their surprise/skepticism when they hear how fervently I supported Paul Wellstone, or when I start explaining a Biblical-based argument for voting for Kerry.)

In most of those cases, I can excuse them out of ignorance. I'm no stranger to incorrectly stereotyping people myself, so I understand how those mistakes are made. But you knew where I stood, and posted that hate anyway. That's a awful thing to do. If you're just going to say whatever you want about others no matter what they actually post, why should we engage you in debate? The sport of catching you the next time you make stuff up out of thin air?

As I said before, you're usually really good about picking up complexities when others rely on oversimplification to advocate their position. The complexity here that you missed is that what is right or wrong isn't the same test as what is sinful (or not sinful), and certainly not the same test as what should be legal or illegal. It's possible to say an action is wrong and/or sinful, but still should be legal, and remain on ethical ground. Recreational drug use is one issue that comes to mind here. Is it unethical to say "I believe recreational drug use is the wrong way to live your life. But I also believe our government's laws and policy toward drug use are inefficient and misguided, and we should give decriminalization of recreational drug use a shot?" I submit that "wrong, but legal" is perfectly defensible in this case. Or wearing Zubaz in public. "If bad taste were a crime, wearing those pants would get the chair, but bad taste in clothing shouldn't be a crime." Again, "wrong, but legal" is perfectly defensible.

How about sex issues? Well, let's examine adultery first. The Bible is consistent that adultery is a sin. Adultery among consenting adults is grounds for divorce, but not a crime in our legal system - if you cheat, your soon-to-be-ex-spouse can bury you at divorce court for it (though not obligated to), but the state won't send you to the slammer for adultery alone. Fornication among consenting adults is indisputably a sin in the Bible. Humans differ on where fornication is right or wrong. Fornication in and of itself is legal, and doesn't become a crime unless one party didn't consent, or if both parties decided to have their party in an inappropriate place like the middle of a street or a public park. So if adultery and fornication are legal when done under unobtrusive circumstances, it doesn't make sense to me for homosexual sex to be illegal. And if we extrapolate a bit, we've found another argument for the legality of gay marriage. We should have a system in place where two homosexuals committed to one another can acquire the same legal status as two heterosexuals committed to one another. It's silly and irresponsible for the USA to not have that system in place already.

Anyway... I entered this thread because it's all too common to see folks get the theology of the issue wrong. And I understand how it would be confusing. The statement, "homosexual sex is a sin that will send you to Hell" is indeed an accurate statement. But it's not a precise one. In this election season, anyone following the campaign, the debates between the candidates, and/or the "debates" among the political junkies on this board are all too familiar with accurate statements that lack precision.

So if "homosexual sex is a sin that will send you to Hell" is an accurate statement, how do we make it precise? I think the biggest barrier we have is understanding that homosexual sex is not in some special class of sin - it's just like any other. Any sin is a sin that will send you to Hell. Homosexual sex is a sin that requires God's Forgiveness in order to go to Heaven. Any sin is a sin that requires God's Forgiveness in order to go to Heaven. An atheist looking to discredit Christianity, or a homophobe hiding behind Christianity to poorly rationalize their fear and hate, will stop short of the context to give homosexual sex and sin its proper context.

As I've said many times on this board - all sins are big enough to require God's Forgiveness, but all sins are small enough to receive God's Forgiveness. So no sinner, no matter what the quality or quantity of sin, is doomed to Hell - we've all got a shot at Redemption.

I suppose folks could argue about whether homosexual sex should be a sin or not, but in the long run of Heaven and Hell, I think that's a moot argument. We're all going to sin and fall short of the glory of God. I know I do daily, no matter how hard I try. If it's not the sins of commission (the stuff I do that I shouldn't), it's the sins of omission (the stuff I should do that I don't). I'm just thankful God isn't keeping score that way.

Why is their not an ammendment to criminalize adultery. To stop adulterers from getting tax breaks. How about coveters? Quit using religon to justifry intolerance and predjudice. In your cjhurch, do what the #### you want, but get you ### #### theocratic bull#### out of my governemnt, it doesn't belong there.Not this is nolt directed at ferris but all who use this weak and tired argument.

Why do you get to choose what is bigotry? Perhaps you need to ensure polygamy or bestiality are also cleared because it is intolerant not to accept these forms of love. Okay, the bestiuality doesn't involve mutual consent (or does it, how are you so sure a dog isn't consenting?).Baiting done.

Now for a serious question -

What rights do homosexuals get by being allowed to marry?

Perhaps if you list them out I will not be as threatened, being as all I can base my decision on currently is my moral code. Oddly, I would bet that my moral code is not dissimialar from the majority of those living in the US regardless of race, creed, gender, etc.

once again with teh bestiality slippery slope. Does that even matter? Do you really care if your neighbor ####s his dog at the infinitely regressive point of this argument. I don't decide that teh constitution does. We are supposed to be a society of equals, and two consensual adults should not be descriminated because of who they like to ####. It really is that easy. Tell me why you deserve to get insurance from your wife, but my friend fernando can't because his partner of 10 years happens to be the same sex as him. They can get mortgages together, they can sign contracts, but people see them as more of a threat than a couple of 17 year old kids with a blood test?

Take a deep breath, and please detail those things that I get as an advantage of being married that a homosexual in a civil union would not get. Is it the marriage penalty you are upset about? Why can't Fernando and his life partner name each other as beneficiaries on their insurance? Maybe I am a bit naieve on this point, but I assumed that through powers of attorney many of the loopholes you are referring to would be closed. Instead you would rather trample on the rights of the many who are opposed to gay marriage by refusing to go the route of civil union. The thing is many if not most peoiple associate marriage with a religious context. Screw them, though, it is not politically correct enough to ever support anything as wacky as that.

Not beneficiaries, but benefits. Many people here have SPOUSES covered on insurance. How many have life partners? A few progressive companies yes, but a majority get screwed because they are not allowed to marry their life partner. That is bs and imo unconstitutional.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Why is their not an ammendment to criminalize adultery. To stop adulterers from getting tax breaks. How about coveters? Quit using religon to justifry intolerance and predjudice. In your cjhurch, do what the #### you want, but get you ### #### theocratic bull#### out of my governemnt, it doesn't belong there.Not this is nolt directed at ferris but all who use this weak and tired argument.

wait...who said adultery should be illegal? I said it should be the only grounds for divorce allowed...but illegal? nope...the post you quoted said nothing about law, it talked about sin... aka - LAW TO GOD!!and quite frankly, the law to God has absolutely nothing to do with our government or anyone elses, and it has absolutely nothing to do with what you or I want...No one said that the government should base thier laws on Christianity... Although the laws WERE based on Christian morals (for the most part)...I never said that being gay should be illegal... I said that "marriage" is between a man and a woman and is a very sacred thing to most people...and many of those who hold it sacred would feel it was lessened by making it be between two men or two women...and I understand thier point, and I also think that if it was really about tax breaks, pension, etc. they'd accept civil unions and b e ok with it not legally being called marraige (but legally working as marraige)

my point is that why is the only sin that ever gets vilified, prohibited and gets the bible thumpers panties in a bunch. It is hatred/disgust of homosexuals couched in religious ribbon. The point is why this sin and not the others. My god the other more defined, explicitly prohibited sins, with the exception of like stealing/killing (way to take credit for those difficult moral concepts that christianity provided our legal system that stealing and killing is bad) are laughed at and blatantly violated at will by m,any Christians. But when it comes time to discuss homosexuality, it is like the paramount of all sins, and it can only be explained through parables in That ridiculousness that is the end of the bible, in the same area that prohibits shellfish eating. Do you not get that this selective enforcement of this debatable (even among theologians and christian sects themselves) becomes the battle cry of religious groups. Wake the #### up....this is rationalized bigotry couched under the pretense of religion..

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I'm not really concerned that gay marriage will lead to marriage with animals or children (for the reasons stated in this thread and others that were deleted by humorless mods). But my questions is: what about marriage between multuple people? Or a man having several wives? Couldn't the same arguments of "consenting adults wanting the same legal rights as two people" be used to support that?

once agin, would this be the worst thing ever? To me this and the other parade of the horibles re guy ####### dogs etc are so much more insignificasnt to the pervasive and systemic human rights abuse that is our current legal discimination against homosexuals.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

So you don't care about the religious aspect of marriage, since you are fine with atheists being "married".Your argument basically boils down to what was deemed "right" when the country was founded?What are your thoughts on slavery and a woman's right to vote?

*shakes head and turns sarcasm*all the...*ends the sarcasm*what the heck are you talking about? I can't even type the stuff sarcastically... seriously... what do you ant me to say? "YEAH BRIGN BACK SLAVERY!!"??I mean, seriously...The point is marriage is referring ot something VERY VERY specific between a man and a woman... some people take this as a very VERY sacred act and it means a lot to them and they feel that it is an infringement upon thier RIGHTS to have a union between two gay people be called a marriage...is this all really that hard for you to understand?

why would a change in law allowing gays to marry in a courthouse affect your religous view of 'marriage. The two atheist marriage doesn't meet your definition, and i doubt would certain muslim or hindu marriages. yet no one is trying to ban those.. Why would this law even affect religous groups?

 

[Outside Contain]

my point is that why is the only sin that ever gets vilified, prohibited and gets the bible thumpers panties in a bunch. It is hatred/disgust of homosexuals couched in religious ribbon. The point is why this sin and not the others. My god the other more defined, explicitly prohibited sins, with the exception of like stealing/killing (way to take credit for those difficult moral concepts that christianity provided our legal system that stealing and killing is bad) are laughed at and blatantly violated at will by m,any Christians. But when it comes time to discuss homosexuality, it is like the paramount of all sins, and it can only be explained through parables in That ridiculousness that is the end of the bible, in the same area that prohibits shellfish eating. Do you not get that this selective enforcement of this debatable (even among theologians and christian sects themselves) becomes the battle cry of religious groups. Wake the #### up....this is rationalized bigotry couched under the pretense of religion..

 

[Peens]

CHANGE THE LAW, OR ####.tia

 

[gdub]

I'm against gay marriage as a Catholic, but I am confused why some feel it is a slap in the face to their values. As long as gay marriages do not find their way into Catholic churches, what more harm can it cause. Our society has pretty much gone to crap with abortions, pornagraphy, etc anyway. This is just one more sin that is being exposed to the masses. Homosexuals will eventually have their day of judgement, if you believe in that. If you are a homosexual or a homosexual that is married, you are still sinning. I think the church is concerned that the sacrament of marriage is not being respected, and rightfully so. The best thing Catholics/Christians can do for homosexuals is pray, not throw stones at them because they want to get married. They are going to need all the prayers they can get one day.

 

[Peens]

I'm against gay marriage as a Catholic, but I am confused why some feel it is a slap in the face to their values. As long as gay marriages do not find their way into Catholic churches, what more harm can it cause. Our society has pretty much gone to crap with abortions, pornagraphy, etc anyway. This is just one more sin that is being exposed to the masses. Homosexuals will eventually have their day of judgement, if you believe in that. If you are a homosexual or a homosexual that is married, you are still sinning. I think the church is concerned that the sacrament of marriage is not being respected, and rightfully so. The best thing Catholics/Christians can do for homosexuals is pray, not throw stones at them because they want to get married. They are going to need all the prayers they can get one day.

Waiting for the, "Oh So Tolerant" Liberals to show up Now. For what it's worth I dont think I've seen a post in this 12 page thread where someone was "Throwing Stones at Gay People" for wanting to get married. Unless you consider Not being in favor of Gay marriage as throwing stones.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I'm not really concerned that gay marriage will lead to marriage with animals or children (for the reasons stated in this thread and others that were deleted by humorless mods). But my questions is: what about marriage between multuple people? Or a man having several wives? Couldn't the same arguments of "consenting adults wanting the same legal rights as two people" be used to support that?

once agin, would this be the worst thing ever? To me this and the other parade of the horibles re guy ####### dogs etc are so much more insignificasnt to the pervasive and systemic human rights abuse that is our current legal discimination against homosexuals.

I'm not saying it would be the worst thing ever - or even a bad thing at all(Biblically, I'm sort of 'old testament': I've had wives AND concubines ). I'm just wondering how people (who are pro-gay-marriage) feel about things such as multiple wives (standing on many of the same arguments as gay-marriage: consenting adults). Also - does anyone know what happens to a man with multiple wives if he wants to migrate to the U.S.? Has this happened?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

The best thing Catholics/Christians can do for homosexuals is pray, not throw stones at them because they want to get married.

Probably the best thing Christians can do for anyone, homosexual or otherwise.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'm just wondering how people (who are pro-gay-marriage) feel about things such as multiple wives (standing on many of the same arguments as gay-marriage: consenting adults).

This question has come up in a bunch of these gay marriage threads. I don't have any moral objection to a marriage between more than two consenting adults, but it doesn't fit quite so neatly into the marriage laws. If there's a marriage between four people and one of them dies, who gets custody of their kids? Who gets the property if there's no will? If one of the four wants a divorce, who pays alimony? For purposes of federal taxation, are some of them treated as dependents?If polygamists all agree on the answers to these types of questions, then I think it would be appropriate for the government to allow them to enter into polygamous marriages. If polygamists do not generally agree on the answers to these questions, it makes it far more complex.

Also - does anyone know what happens to a man with multiple wives if he wants to migrate to the U.S.? Has this happened?

I don't know.

 

[omally]

I'm against gay marriage as a Catholic, but I am confused why some feel it is a slap in the face to their values. As long as gay marriages do not find their way into Catholic churches, what more harm can it cause. Our society has pretty much gone to crap with abortions, pornagraphy, etc anyway. This is just one more sin that is being exposed to the masses. Homosexuals will eventually have their day of judgement, if you believe in that. If you are a homosexual or a homosexual that is married, you are still sinning. I think the church is concerned that the sacrament of marriage is not being respected, and rightfully so. The best thing Catholics/Christians can do for homosexuals is pray, not throw stones at them because they want to get married. They are going to need all the prayers they can get one day.

Catholics are against letting their priest marry too. They are against divorce, birth control, premarital sex, etc, etc. etc. Yet the percentage of them do it anyway, while guzzling down their 5th scotch. The "rules" in their religion is ridiculous, and the religion is filled with hypocrites. We won't even get into the priest being pedophiles. I think many Catholics need to pray for themselves and their Church. Pray for change.

 

[larry_boy_44]

my point is that why is the only sin that ever gets vilified, prohibited and gets the bible thumpers panties in a bunch. It is hatred/disgust of homosexuals couched in religious ribbon. The point is why this sin and not the others. My god the other more defined, explicitly prohibited sins, with the exception of like stealing/killing (way to take credit for those difficult moral concepts that christianity provided our legal system that stealing and killing is bad) are laughed at and blatantly violated at will by m,any Christians. But when it comes time to discuss homosexuality, it is like the paramount of all sins, and it can only be explained through parables in That ridiculousness that is the end of the bible, in the same area that prohibits shellfish eating. Do you not get that this selective enforcement of this debatable (even among theologians and christian sects themselves) becomes the battle cry of religious groups. Wake the #### up....this is rationalized bigotry couched under the pretense of religion..

maybe its the only sin you choose to see that we get mad about...or maybe its because its one of the few sins that most people don't care about that many Christians do...I mean, when Christians talk about how bad pre-marital sex (especially with kids in middle/high school), most people agree it would be better if they didn't...but homosexuality is the only sin we talk about?Why should we rally against murderers? Everyone else does a pretty good job of that... seriously...I talk about how drugs are a sin... I think some of them should be legal (weed specifically), but it is a sin...The biggest reason that Christians talk about homosexualiy so much is because it is CRAMMED DOWN OUR THROATS SO MUCH!!everyone is always talking about how its ok to be great and everyone should do it!! YAY!!and I'm like "no... its wrong..."so I'm a bigot...but yet, people hate me 10 times more than I hate anyone, I just admit that some things are wrong to do, whether people wanna do them or not...Would you consider it wrong if Christianity were made illegal?

 

[larry_boy_44]

I'm against gay marriage as a Catholic, but I am confused why some feel it is a slap in the face to their values. As long as gay marriages do not find their way into Catholic churches, what more harm can it cause. Our society has pretty much gone to crap with abortions, pornagraphy, etc anyway. This is just one more sin that is being exposed to the masses. Homosexuals will eventually have their day of judgement, if you believe in that. If you are a homosexual or a homosexual that is married, you are still sinning. I think the church is concerned that the sacrament of marriage is not being respected, and rightfully so. The best thing Catholics/Christians can do for homosexuals is pray, not throw stones at them because they want to get married. They are going to need all the prayers they can get one day.

here is the other problem...if a gay couple calls my pastor up and asks him to marry them, and my pastor says "no" on the count of the fact that they're gay...then what? Does he have the right to refuse to let them use my church? Does he have the right to refuse to do the ceremony?Or would that be discrimination?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'm against gay marriage as a Catholic, but I am confused why some feel it is a slap in the face to their values. As long as gay marriages do not find their way into Catholic churches, what more harm can it cause. Our society has pretty much gone to crap with abortions, pornagraphy, etc anyway. This is just one more sin that is being exposed to the masses. Homosexuals will eventually have their day of judgement, if you believe in that. If you are a homosexual or a homosexual that is married, you are still sinning. I think the church is concerned that the sacrament of marriage is not being respected, and rightfully so. The best thing Catholics/Christians can do for homosexuals is pray, not throw stones at them because they want to get married. They are going to need all the prayers they can get one day.

here is the other problem...if a gay couple calls my pastor up and asks him to marry them, and my pastor says "no" on the count of the fact that they're gay...then what? Does he have the right to refuse to let them use my church? Does he have the right to refuse to do the ceremony?Or would that be discrimination?

If straight couple calls your pastor today does he need to marry them? Not would he, but does he have to?Why would it be different?

 

[larry_boy_44]

If straight couple calls your pastor today does he need to marry them? Not would he, but does he have to?Why would it be different?

my pastor says yes to straight couples though...I mean, he's married people he doens't necessarily agree with on beliefs...the only real requirement is they have to take a marriage class thing with him...But I am sure he wouldn't marry gay people...but he wouldn't do it simply because they are gay...And are you telling me there aren't gay couples who would try to sue churches tha twon't let them get married in thier churches? You know it would happen...It isn't a matter of he has to let them, its a matter of someone making a fuss because they are being "discriminated against"...

 

[Jericho]

my point is that why is the only sin that ever gets vilified, prohibited and gets the bible thumpers panties in a bunch. It is hatred/disgust of homosexuals couched in religious ribbon. The point is why this sin and not the others. My god the other more defined, explicitly prohibited sins, with the exception of like stealing/killing (way to take credit for those difficult moral concepts that christianity provided our legal system that stealing and killing is bad) are laughed at and blatantly violated at will by m,any Christians. But when it comes time to discuss homosexuality, it is like the paramount of all sins, and it can only be explained through parables in That ridiculousness that is the end of the bible, in the same area that prohibits shellfish eating. Do you not get that this selective enforcement of this debatable (even among theologians and christian sects themselves) becomes the battle cry of religious groups. Wake the #### up....this is rationalized bigotry couched under the pretense of religion..

maybe its the only sin you choose to see that we get mad about...or maybe its because its one of the few sins that most people don't care about that many Christians do...I mean, when Christians talk about how bad pre-marital sex (especially with kids in middle/high school), most people agree it would be better if they didn't...but homosexuality is the only sin we talk about?Why should we rally against murderers? Everyone else does a pretty good job of that... seriously...I talk about how drugs are a sin... I think some of them should be legal (weed specifically), but it is a sin...The biggest reason that Christians talk about homosexualiy so much is because it is CRAMMED DOWN OUR THROATS SO MUCH!!everyone is always talking about how its ok to be great and everyone should do it!! YAY!!and I'm like "no... its wrong..."so I'm a bigot...but yet, people hate me 10 times more than I hate anyone, I just admit that some things are wrong to do, whether people wanna do them or not...Would you consider it wrong if Christianity were made illegal?

The point you're failing to grasp is that a religion calling something a sin is not grounds to make it illegal. Some religions have restrictions against eating meat, but the sale of meat isn't illegal. Divorce is a sin, but it's not illegal. Adultery is a sin, but it's not illegal. Et cetera.So claiming that gay marriage should not be allowed because it's a sin is either an absurd argument, or a transparent cover up for bigotry and hatred.

 

[larry_boy_44]

The point you're failing to grasp is that a religion calling something a sin is not grounds to make it illegal. Some religions have restrictions against eating meat, but the sale of meat isn't illegal. Divorce is a sin, but it's not illegal. Adultery is a sin, but it's not illegal. Et cetera.So claiming that gay marriage should not be allowed because it's a sin is either an absurd argument, or a transparent cover up for bigotry and hatred.

have you not read the last 10 pages of this?When has anyone said it should be illegal?most of the votes against gay marriage are against calling it marriage, plain and simple...I don't care if they get tax & insurance rights... seriously... I've said that 20 times...I don't care if its made legal... for the 100th time...FOR REAL!!do you not read anything?I said gay marraige shouldn't be called gay marriage because if it is ONLY about the tax/insurance benefits, and that is generally the argument, than making civil unions legal and letting htem act as marriage would do the same thing...The reason that isn't ok, is because gay marriage has NOTHING to do with tax/insurance benefits and everything to do with forcing people to say that homosexuality is not a sin and is totally fine for people to be/do...it has nothing to do with equality...

 

[Jericho]

The point you're failing to grasp is that a religion calling something a sin is not grounds to make it illegal. Some religions have restrictions against eating meat, but the sale of meat isn't illegal. Divorce is a sin, but it's not illegal. Adultery is a sin, but it's not illegal. Et cetera.So claiming that gay marriage should not be allowed because it's a sin is either an absurd argument, or a transparent cover up for bigotry and hatred.

have you not read the last 10 pages of this?When has anyone said it should be illegal?most of the votes against gay marriage are against calling it marriage, plain and simple...I don't care if they get tax & insurance rights... seriously... I've said that 20 times...I don't care if its made legal... for the 100th time...FOR REAL!!do you not read anything?I said gay marraige shouldn't be called gay marriage because if it is ONLY about the tax/insurance benefits, and that is generally the argument, than making civil unions legal and letting htem act as marriage would do the same thing...The reason that isn't ok, is because gay marriage has NOTHING to do with tax/insurance benefits and everything to do with forcing people to say that homosexuality is not a sin and is totally fine for people to be/do...it has nothing to do with equality...

The semantic argument is weak also, and is also a veil. The word marriage is used by every religion and every culture, Christianity does not have the market cornered. That is again either an absurd argument or a smokescreen for the Christian agenda of hate.

 

[Peens]

The point you're failing to grasp is that a religion calling something a sin is not grounds to make it illegal. Some religions have restrictions against eating meat, but the sale of meat isn't illegal. Divorce is a sin, but it's not illegal. Adultery is a sin, but it's not illegal. Et cetera.So claiming that gay marriage should not be allowed because it's a sin is either an absurd argument, or a transparent cover up for bigotry and hatred.

have you not read the last 10 pages of this?When has anyone said it should be illegal?most of the votes against gay marriage are against calling it marriage, plain and simple...I don't care if they get tax & insurance rights... seriously... I've said that 20 times...I don't care if its made legal... for the 100th time...FOR REAL!!do you not read anything?I said gay marraige shouldn't be called gay marriage because if it is ONLY about the tax/insurance benefits, and that is generally the argument, than making civil unions legal and letting htem act as marriage would do the same thing...The reason that isn't ok, is because gay marriage has NOTHING to do with tax/insurance benefits and everything to do with forcing people to say that homosexuality is not a sin and is totally fine for people to be/do...it has nothing to do with equality...

 

[larry_boy_44]

The semantic argument is weak also, and is also a veil. The word marriage is used by every religion and every culture, Christianity does not have the market cornered. That is again either an absurd argument or a smokescreen for the Christian agenda of hate.

and your weak arguments aren't even a thin viel for the hate you have for Christianity...where's that pot-kettle-black thing again?oh yeah, and I really don't hate gay people...

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I'm against gay marriage as a Catholic, but I am confused why some feel it is a slap in the face to their values. As long as gay marriages do not find their way into Catholic churches, what more harm can it cause. Our society has pretty much gone to crap with abortions, pornagraphy, etc anyway. This is just one more sin that is being exposed to the masses. Homosexuals will eventually have their day of judgement, if you believe in that. If you are a homosexual or a homosexual that is married, you are still sinning. I think the church is concerned that the sacrament of marriage is not being respected, and rightfully so. The best thing Catholics/Christians can do for homosexuals is pray, not throw stones at them because they want to get married. They are going to need all the prayers they can get one day.

Catholics are against letting their priest marry too. They are against divorce, birth control, premarital sex, etc, etc. etc. Yet the percentage of them do it anyway, while guzzling down their 5th scotch. The "rules" in their religion is ridiculous, and the religion is filled with hypocrites. We won't even get into the priest being pedophiles. I think many Catholics need to pray for themselves and their Church. Pray for change.

before you start throwing too many stones over there, you might want to check into the statistical link between homosexuality and pedophilia. The difference is that you bandy about terms to smear a religion without making sure your house is in order.So and so does this and that so all of their religion is invalidated. Nice.

 

[shuke]

So you don't care about the religious aspect of marriage, since you are fine with atheists being "married".

Your argument basically boils down to what was deemed "right" when the country was founded?

What are your thoughts on slavery and a woman's right to vote?

*shakes head and turns sarcasm*all the...

*ends the sarcasm*

what the heck are you talking about? I can't even type the stuff sarcastically... seriously... what do you ant me to say? "YEAH BRIGN BACK SLAVERY!!"??

I mean, seriously...

The point is marriage is referring ot something VERY VERY specific between a man and a woman... some people take this as a very VERY sacred act and it means a lot to them and they feel that it is an infringement upon thier RIGHTS to have a union between two gay people be called a marriage...

is this all really that hard for you to understand?

This has to be an alias because this is just plain laughable. Way to skirt around the atheist issue.

 

[larry_boy_44]

So you don't care about the religious aspect of marriage, since you are fine with atheists being "married".

Your argument basically boils down to what was deemed "right" when the country was founded?

What are your thoughts on slavery and a woman's right to vote?

*shakes head and turns sarcasm*all the...

*ends the sarcasm*

what the heck are you talking about? I can't even type the stuff sarcastically... seriously... what do you ant me to say? "YEAH BRIGN BACK SLAVERY!!"??

I mean, seriously...

The point is marriage is referring ot something VERY VERY specific between a man and a woman... some people take this as a very VERY sacred act and it means a lot to them and they feel that it is an infringement upon thier RIGHTS to have a union between two gay people be called a marriage...

is this all really that hard for you to understand?

This has to be an alias because this is just plain laughable. Way to skirt around the atheist issue.

I'VE ANSWERED IT ABOUT 10 TIMES!!!! ARE YOU NOT READING?!?!go back to Kindergarden, maybe like 3rd grade... learn how to comprehend what you read again... and get back to me, k?

 

[larry_boy_44]

And are you telling me there aren't gay couples who would try to sue churches tha twon't let them get married in thier churches? You know it would happen...

I seriously doubt it would happen. The church has a right to refuse to "officiate" the marriage.That's fine - that's their right.But who needs the church when you can go down to the courthouse and get a marriage? If it were legal for us, I'd personally stay as far away from the church as possible. We don't need the church to recognize our vows - just the government.I know many people who don't get married in a church. Does that mean they shouldn't get married?

the question isn't what most people would do...its when will someone sue a church for not letting them get married there 'cuz they are gay...it will probalby happen, and the people will probably win...

 

[Peens]

So you don't care about the religious aspect of marriage, since you are fine with atheists being "married".

Your argument basically boils down to what was deemed "right" when the country was founded?

What are your thoughts on slavery and a woman's right to vote?

*shakes head and turns sarcasm*all the...

*ends the sarcasm*

what the heck are you talking about? I can't even type the stuff sarcastically... seriously... what do you ant me to say? "YEAH BRIGN BACK SLAVERY!!"??

I mean, seriously...

The point is marriage is referring ot something VERY VERY specific between a man and a woman... some people take this as a very VERY sacred act and it means a lot to them and they feel that it is an infringement upon thier RIGHTS to have a union between two gay people be called a marriage...

is this all really that hard for you to understand?

This has to be an alias because this is just plain laughable. Way to skirt around the atheist issue.

I'VE ANSWERED IT ABOUT 10 TIMES!!!! ARE YOU NOT READING?!?!go back to Kindergarden, maybe like 3rd grade... learn how to comprehend what you read again... and get back to me, k?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

And are you telling me there aren't gay couples who would try to sue churches tha twon't let them get married in thier churches? You know it would happen...

I seriously doubt it would happen. The church has a right to refuse to "officiate" the marriage.That's fine - that's their right.But who needs the church when you can go down to the courthouse and get a marriage? If it were legal for us, I'd personally stay as far away from the church as possible. We don't need the church to recognize our vows - just the government.I know many people who don't get married in a church. Does that mean they shouldn't get married?

Mac, this is the gist of what I feel. I have no problem with homosexuals getting the same rights that I get for being married. Heck, I was married in a church but still had to register the marriage certificate with the state. m I see these as two different things, one being recognized by a religious body and the other by the state. My fear as I stated earlier is that once the state portion becomes law, there will be lawsuits to force individual churches to recognize these unions. Enforcement will be via denial of tax exempt status.Sure many may think that it would never be this extreme, but just look at the divorce rates now (30 years after the free love and feminist movements) as opposed to the 1960s. Nobody back then would have imagined a culture where divorce is almost the norm and the construct ogfmarriage had little meaning with regard to domestic living and child rearing.

 

[Jericho]

The semantic argument is weak also, and is also a veil.  The word marriage is used by every religion and every culture, Christianity does not have the market cornered.  That is again either an absurd argument or a smokescreen for the Christian agenda of hate.

and your weak arguments aren't even a thin viel for the hate you have for Christianity...where's that pot-kettle-black thing again?oh yeah, and I really don't hate gay people...

They're not supposed to be a veil. I hate Christianity, I'm very open about it. The difference is, my arguments are not weak. They're good, hard questions which expose inconsistencies in your excuses. I call them excuses because they're not really arguments, they're just ways for you to avoid having to say "my religion hates gay people and therefore this country's laws should reflect that" because you know how absurd such a statement would be.

 

[Unlucky]

On the polygamist issue - the reason it's illegal is that most of the time, the girls are forced into marriage at age 12, 13, or 14. They may not realize they are forced because they are so brainwashed and threatened with eternal damnation if they don't submit. The men are 35 year olds that marry their nieces. The 18 to 20 year old boys in the community are kicked out to keep the ratio of girls to men very high. It's really an abuse of human rights, but it's so hard to prosecute because everyone in the town is a polygamist. The girls won't come forward and press charges because they are too scared, and the men won't prosecute because they are involved in the polygamy. I don't think you'll find many normal adult women that want to enter a polygamist marriage. There are many people that swing, which I don't have a problem with. I'd also like to reinforce something Maurile posted a few pages back - the fight to use the term marriage is key because that's the only way the rights will be recognized throughout the country. Civil Unions don't have to be recognized from another state, while marriages do. I'll be curious to see if this issue comes up in the debate on Wednesday.

 

[CrossEyed]

The semantic argument is weak also, and is also a veil.  The word marriage is used by every religion and every culture, Christianity does not have the market cornered.  That is again either an absurd argument or a smokescreen for the Christian agenda of hate.

and your weak arguments aren't even a thin viel for the hate you have for Christianity...where's that pot-kettle-black thing again?oh yeah, and I really don't hate gay people...

They're not supposed to be a veil. I hate Christianity, I'm very open about it. The difference is, my arguments are not weak. They're good, hard questions which expose inconsistencies in your excuses. I call them excuses because they're not really arguments, they're just ways for you to avoid having to say "my religion hates gay people and therefore this country's laws should reflect that" because you know how absurd such a statement would be.

The God of Christianity says that homosexuality is sin. Therefore a follower of Christianity should feel that homosexual marriage is wrong. Where is the inconsistency there?

 

[larry_boy_44]

They're not supposed to be a veil. I hate Christianity, I'm very open about it. The difference is, my arguments are not weak. They're good, hard questions which expose inconsistencies in your excuses. I call them excuses because they're not really arguments, they're just ways for you to avoid having to say "my religion hates gay people and therefore this country's laws should reflect that" because you know how absurd such a statement would be.

ok, so your really the hateful person who is discriminating against people, correct?I mean, I don't care if gay marriage is passed... Really< I don't... I'd prefer if it weren't called marriage for the sake of those who would b eoffended by that and that it is the best way to get a compromise out of this situation...give the gay people "civil unions", make the civil unions act like marriages, but not be called marraiges...problem solved...I don't see why this is such a horrible solution...except, like I said, it has nothing to do with equality, it has to do with forcing your moral beliefs on me...

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

On the polygamist issue - the reason it's illegal is that most of the time, the girls are forced into marriage at age 12, 13, or 14. They may not realize they are forced because they are so brainwashed and threatened with eternal damnation if they don't submit. The men are 35 year olds that marry their nieces. The 18 to 20 year old boys in the community are kicked out to keep the ratio of girls to men very high. It's really an abuse of human rights, but it's so hard to prosecute because everyone in the town is a polygamist. The girls won't come forward and press charges because they are too scared, and the men won't prosecute because they are involved in the polygamy.

Norville was asking about a situation involving all consenting adults. Marrying 12 year olds would presumably remain illegal.

 

[larry_boy_44]

On the polygamist issue - the reason it's illegal is that most of the time, the girls are forced into marriage at age 12, 13, or 14. They may not realize they are forced because they are so brainwashed and threatened with eternal damnation if they don't submit. The men are 35 year olds that marry their nieces. The 18 to 20 year old boys in the community are kicked out to keep the ratio of girls to men very high. It's really an abuse of human rights, but it's so hard to prosecute because everyone in the town is a polygamist. The girls won't come forward and press charges because they are too scared, and the men won't prosecute because they are involved in the polygamy. I don't think you'll find many normal adult women that want to enter a polygamist marriage. There are many people that swing, which I don't have a problem with. I'd also like to reinforce something Maurile posted a few pages back - the fight to use the term marriage is key because that's the only way the rights will be recognized throughout the country. Civil Unions don't have to be recognized from another state, while marriages do. I'll be curious to see if this issue comes up in the debate on Wednesday.

if the NATIONAL government makes civil unions legal, EVERY STATE WILL HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THEM!!are you guys really that stupid?

 

[Jericho]

The God of Christianity says that homosexuality is sin. Therefore a follower of Christianity should feel that homosexual marriage is wrong. Where is the inconsistency there?

There's nothing inconsistent with feeling it's wrong, just as there's nothing wrong with feeling that adultery is wrong. But that's not what we're arguing about. The inconsistency comes up when you say "the god of Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I think there should be laws that limit the rights of homosexuals".

 

[larry_boy_44]

The God of Christianity says that homosexuality is sin. Therefore a follower of Christianity should feel that homosexual marriage is wrong. Where is the inconsistency there?

There's nothing inconsistent with feeling it's wrong, just as there's nothing wrong with feeling that adultery is wrong. But that's not what we're arguing about. The inconsistency comes up when you say "the god of Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I think there should be laws that limit the rights of homosexuals".

WHO SAID THERE SHOULD BE?!?!other than you assuming we think that, I mean...NO ONE IS OPPOSED TO GIVING GAYS THE RIGHT TO THE TAX BREAKS AND INSURANCE BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE!!many people oppose calling it marriage...either way the argument has nothing to do with denying them rights and everything to do with what the word "marriage" means...if congress would ask for civil unions that act as marriages to pass, it would, more than likely, pass... and it would definately have WAY more support than a bill legalizing "gay marriages"...

 

[Peens]

On the polygamist issue - the reason it's illegal is that most of the time, the girls are forced into marriage at age 12, 13, or 14. They may not realize they are forced because they are so brainwashed and threatened with eternal damnation if they don't submit. The men are 35 year olds that marry their nieces. The 18 to 20 year old boys in the community are kicked out to keep the ratio of girls to men very high. It's really an abuse of human rights, but it's so hard to prosecute because everyone in the town is a polygamist. The girls won't come forward and press charges because they are too scared, and the men won't prosecute because they are involved in the polygamy. I don't think you'll find many normal adult women that want to enter a polygamist marriage. There are many people that swing, which I don't have a problem with. I'd also like to reinforce something Maurile posted a few pages back - the fight to use the term marriage is key because that's the only way the rights will be recognized throughout the country. Civil Unions don't have to be recognized from another state, while marriages do. I'll be curious to see if this issue comes up in the debate on Wednesday.

if the NATIONAL government makes civil unions legal, EVERY STATE WILL HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THEM!!are you guys really that stupid?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

The semantic argument is weak also, and is also a veil.  The word marriage is used by every religion and every culture, Christianity does not have the market cornered.  That is again either an absurd argument or a smokescreen for the Christian agenda of hate.

and your weak arguments aren't even a thin viel for the hate you have for Christianity...where's that pot-kettle-black thing again?oh yeah, and I really don't hate gay people...

They're not supposed to be a veil. I hate Christianity, I'm very open about it. The difference is, my arguments are not weak. They're good, hard questions which expose inconsistencies in your excuses. I call them excuses because they're not really arguments, they're just ways for you to avoid having to say "my religion hates gay people and therefore this country's laws should reflect that" because you know how absurd such a statement would be.

On thew whole I would bet that Christianity in whatever form (and I know there are some pretty far out sects) has done far more good than any other grouping of like minded people. Through sheer numbers alone this would be the case. Sure I know you can point to examples of bad done in the name of religion or point out corrupts priests, pastors etc., but that does not invalidate the religion. That is one thing I like most about you, your open-mindedness and level-headedness.

 

[Jericho]

ok, so your really the hateful person who is discriminating against people, correct?

I just hate Christians, I'm not trying to strip away or limit their rights. There's a difference.

I mean, I don't care if gay marriage is passed... Really< I don't... I'd prefer if it weren't called marriage for the sake of those who would b eoffended by that and that it is the best way to get a compromise out of this situation...give the gay people "civil unions", make the civil unions act like marriages, but not be called marraiges...problem solved...I don't see why this is such a horrible solution...

Because it's an inefficient solution which leaves doors open for abuse and further discrimination, and is in effect still a form of discrimination since they have to have a special term. It's entirely unnecessary from a legal perspective since your objection is religious in nature (which is irrelevant when it comes to law).

except, like I said, it has nothing to do with equality, it has to do with forcing your moral beliefs on me...

When my moral beliefs are based on equality and yours are based on bigotry then yeah, I have no problem forcing my moral beliefs on you.

 

[Jericho]

WHO SAID THERE SHOULD BE?!?!

Anyone who voted 'no'. Because there are laws already that do that, so anybody who doesn't want to change said laws is giving support to those laws.

 

[CrossEyed]

The God of Christianity says that homosexuality is sin. Therefore a follower of Christianity should feel that homosexual marriage is wrong. Where is the inconsistency there?

There's nothing inconsistent with feeling it's wrong, just as there's nothing wrong with feeling that adultery is wrong. But that's not what we're arguing about. The inconsistency comes up when you say "the god of Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I think there should be laws that limit the rights of homosexuals".

So I shouldn't desire that the laws of my country reflect what I believe is right?

 

[pantagrapher]

The God of Christianity says that homosexuality is sin. Therefore a follower of Christianity should feel that homosexual marriage is wrong. Where is the inconsistency there?

There's nothing inconsistent with feeling it's wrong, just as there's nothing wrong with feeling that adultery is wrong. But that's not what we're arguing about. The inconsistency comes up when you say "the god of Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I think there should be laws that limit the rights of homosexuals".

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'm sure that some churches would have no problem marrying/civil-unionizing gays. That's up to them. Gay people can go to the gay-friendly pastors if they want to.

I live in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal. Some churches perform gay weddings. Others don't. As far as I know, no gay couple has sued to be allowed to get married in a particular church.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

And are you telling me there aren't gay couples who would try to sue churches tha twon't let them get married in thier churches? You know it would happen...

I seriously doubt it would happen. The church has a right to refuse to "officiate" the marriage.That's fine - that's their right.But who needs the church when you can go down to the courthouse and get a marriage? If it were legal for us, I'd personally stay as far away from the church as possible. We don't need the church to recognize our vows - just the government.I know many people who don't get married in a church. Does that mean they shouldn't get married?

Mac, this is the gist of what I feel. I have no problem with homosexuals getting the same rights that I get for being married. Heck, I was married in a church but still had to register the marriage certificate with the state. m I see these as two different things, one being recognized by a religious body and the other by the state. My fear as I stated earlier is that once the state portion becomes law, there will be lawsuits to force individual churches to recognize these unions. Enforcement will be via denial of tax exempt status.Sure many may think that it would never be this extreme, but just look at the divorce rates now (30 years after the free love and feminist movements) as opposed to the 1960s. Nobody back then would have imagined a culture where divorce is almost the norm and the construct ogfmarriage had little meaning with regard to domestic living and child rearing.

I see where you are coming from. By your logic, if a Hindu couple wanted to get married in a Catholic church and the pastor says No, then that opens up the church to be sued by the Hindu couple? I really don't think so.I SERIOUSLY doubt any one would sue a church for not marrying them. Why? Because the church is under no legal obligation to marry ANYONE - not even devout members (straight) of their church. The church only takes care of the PERSONAL religious aspect of marriage. The gov't. takes care of the legal aspect. All we want are the legal aspects. I'm sure that some churches would have no problem marrying/civil-unionizing gays. That's up to them. Gay people can go to the gay-friendly pastors if they want to.

...and yet the government does intervene in the area of civil rights. We have a church that was forced by the government to install access ramps for the disabled (this is not a bad thing, but it is an example where the gov't steps into the business of a religion).My guess is that if a Hindu couple wanted to marry in a Catholic church, they would be denied and they probably could find an ACLU lawyer to represent them.

 

[Jericho]

So I shouldn't desire that the laws of my country reflect what I believe is right?

Not without a good objective reason. I believe it would be right for all nubile 22-year-old babes to walk around naked. Do I believe that should be a law? Of course not.Religious beliefs are not a good objective reason for laws. Come up with something more concrete. (ps - you won't be able to)

 

[kt421]

My fear as I stated earlier is that once the state portion becomes law, there will be lawsuits to force individual churches to recognize these unions. Enforcement will be via denial of tax exempt status.

This won't happen. I think the First Amendment might get in the way.Churches shouldn't be tax-exempt anyway (but thats another discussion).