1 new of 293 responses total.
well, look at it this way. If Jews, Moslems, adn Christians all worship the same God, They all say they want peace, adn tehy all keep fighting each other, SOMBODY has got it wrong! Therefore among thinking Christians, there should be no objection to discussing the best way of dealing with homosexuality. twenex, I suppose the problem is that most christians do "not" want to deal with homosexuality. They don't want anythign to do with it. they don't want to talk about it, they do not want to hear about it. They do not want to know what goes on between homosexuals in the beadroom, they don't want to think about it. Most christians also view marriage as a sacrament. it is something the church puts a blessing on. IT IS A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY. As such, they cannot tolerate it being debased by ordering them to bless what they view as a sin. I know, I know, no one is ordering them to bless anything. But that is how they feel it is being pushed. How many of these homosexual couples are going to want to get married in church? How many of them are going to push their respective diocese to accpt them because the law says it is now legal? How long before some church finds itself sued becuse they are discriminating against gays by not letting them get married in the chapel? (don't laugh, we have seen people sue over other things equally as ridiculous) And down that slippery slope in the far, far future, is it possible that the law will say that a church cannot discriminate, and by doing so, will force the church to either change its beliefs, or penalize it? In effect, is that not the state making a law with regards to religion, and a violation of the constitution? My personal preference is that we accept civil unions with all teh rights and privelages of a monogomous couple, but that it bextended beyond sexual relationship. Why should I have to F--k someone to have a civil relationship and extend to them benefits from my medical insurance?
You have several choices: