quote:

---

Originally written by Drew:

Opposition to civil unions for homosexual couples is motivated by fear and hate only - there is no other explanation. "Traditional marriage" is not "under attack" - how can a formal government union of two monogamous homosexual men possibly threaten a heterosexual couple's marriage?

Fear and hate. How easy it is for so called Christians to forget the "loving thy neighbor" and "removing the log from your own eye" passages of the Gospel - theoretically more important to Christians than the OT or the letters of Paul they rely on for their hate-mongering.

Furthermore, where is the harm? All the other non-Christians can get married, be they Jews, Muslims, or even Atheists. Furthermore, homosexual marriage is not looked at as wrong by a number of Christian sects and certainly not on the part of the Unitarian Universalist church. Why should bigoty fundamentalist Christianity hold the prevailing view? Boo-urns, I say.

Frankly, I think the state probably ought to just get out of the marriage licensing business altogether. It draws in only nominal fees, and the common law has progressed to the point that comparable contract law largely makes many of the will, trust, and estate arrangements redundant. Hospital visitation rights and insurance policies could be handled just as comparably.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Drew:

You wouldn't be so quick to tear down separation of church and state if your religion wasn't sitting on top of the pile right now, and there's no guarantee it will remain there. So many people don't have a problem with a formal prayer in school now, but what if they decided to start making it to Allah? Believe it or not, separation of church and state protects your interests too.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

If it wasn't "used word-for-word in a binding legal document" then I fail to see how anyone could be expected to follow it as law.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Drew:

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

If you don't follow my faith, why do you take select bits out and turn them into law? That is what I'm trying to get across here.

---

What selected bits am I taking out to turn into law? As I mentioned, I would be all for eliminating regulation of marriage and the corresponding benefits it awards to those hetero couples out there. The state's interest in regulating and providing benefits to married couples is largely derived from its interest in promoting population growth. However, the state could just as easily create this incentive by instead allowing any couple or individual tax benefits for raising children.

If anything, I champion full-blown separation of church and state, because I believe that when religion becomes involved in government, oppression of non-members of that religion invariably ensues. It certainly happens today in my home state of Kentucky.

EDIT: Furthermore, who's to say that Judaism or Christianity or Islam or Voodoo have a monopoly on good ideas for social organization? Just because a particular practice is a part of your faith tradition doesn't mean that it can't exist independently as a good idea for the social contract. That's like Al Gore taking credit for the Internet.

Because we are talking about laws that necessarily effect everyone in a country, we necessarily are talking about the social contract/politics. Given this, what could be a valid social reason, outside of religious opposition, for not allowing civil unions of gay couples?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

But that was a Judao-Christian concept that was taken and as such, it falls into the hands of Judao-Christins to remove it from the hands of the government, seeing as nobody else has any religious-based reason to do so. As such, your analogy is horrendously exagerrated.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Nick Ringer:

quote:

---

Originally written by a genius
I defy you to find any place in the constitution that says that there should be a seperation of church and state. Go ahead and look. It isn't there.

---

I thought this was a joke for a moment.
.
.
.
Then I saw the other things you had written.

Can't wait for your next post. Wish I could come up with little jewels like that one! Such a little son of gOD you are with your "infernal666hate" screen name and seventeen years of -- no doubt -- abstinence from sodomy (masturbation qualifying, gOD can see what you do under the sheets).

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Ash Lael:

Yes, I am offended, and I should not have to "prove" my motives. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Drew:

It's just my opinion, Ash, and you're free to contest it. Are you offended? Can you prove that your opposition to gay marriage is truly motivated by anything else?

It's all well and good that you dislike the notion, but why are you so concerned with what other people choose to do with their lives? All that only some of this relatively small portion of the population want is the right to form lasting, monogamous relationships with the person they love, and be able to recognize that person as a spouse for legal purposes such as rights to healthcare and estate. What possible basis do you have for denying these people such rights that you as a hetero enjoy? Because this denial essentially makes them second-class citizens, and religious motivation or no, it really seems to me to come from a place of mean-spiritedness.

If the law gives people the right to choose not to believe in the Bible, why should the Bible be allowed nevertheless to oppress their rights?

---