Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Noctis
Okay, and here is what you are ignoring:
If they aren't Christian anyway (which they can't be a true Christian if they're homosexual, considering that's against Christian beliefs), then why can't they just accept it being called a civil union with all the same tax and other benefits that are typically associated marriage?
Sure, marriage is just a word to them, but to me it's much more than that. And if, to them, it's just a word, what's the big deal with calling it something else?
|
You can still believe in God and be a homosexual at the same time. Religion is changing all the time so for you to take a firm stance on this is premature. 500 years ago the only Christians were Catholic. Now there are Protestants, presbyterians, Born agains, Mormons, Quakers, etc. For someone to be a true Christian nowadays you basically have to believe in Jesus. This, however, is besides the point. This country is supposed to seperate its legislative thinking from religion. Marriage is available to the public and thus should be seperated from church, thats why you can get married in city hall. The marriage license is a public document signed by a government official. For a body of government to deny the said public license to anyone because of their sexual orientation is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. There are times when you have to put your emotions and religious observances aside and do what is best for your country. These people are our citizens, they pay taxes, vote, can be drafted, and are human beings. This has nothing to do with religion and should not be viewed as one form of thinking being overruled by another. It is a simple solution to just call them 'civil unions' but that would just be treating them differantly from everyone else, or in other words, discriminant.
02-25-2004, 02:26 PM
Linear Mode
