"[T]he position of the United Church of Christ is that homosexuality is not a sin"

[glockmail]

Got Virgil on the ropes now...

Here's the scenario- you're a preacher in a Christian church in po-dunk Maine or Massachusetts and a couple comes in and asks you to marry them. They know you as a devout Christian who taught them both about the Bible. They tell you that they are both virgins and they are obviously in love and all that and they want a nice church wedding. Oh, and their parents are all big time ACLU trial lawyers, so can afford the biggest and the best.

One big problem though- they're both men. Gay as all hell!

So what the hell do you do? If you say yes you're basically condoning homosexuality. In fact you'd be enabling it. No question you'll be Lucifer's boyfriend in the afterlife for a long, long time. If you refuse, you'll have your sorry ass dragged through court, the church will go bankrupt, not to mention all the vicious crap that goes with publicly dissing homosexuality.

Come on maineman- tell us what you'd do.

His answer? "[T]he position of the United Church of Christ is that homosexuality is not a sin..." http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...0&postcount=27

[Insein]

My position has always been homosexuals should be allowed to have civil unions and receive all the benefits that the government gives married couples through law. It just makes sense.

However, marriage is a religious sacrament. It should be the Church's sole discretion as to whether or not they will allow them to celebrate their civil union as a marriage. There shall be no law created to infringe upon the rights of religous freedom. If a religion doesn't acknowledge a civil union as a marriage in the Church's eye, then you have to respect that religion's decision. People trying to force religions to conform to laws that contradict their basic beliefs is against the first ammendment's freedom of religious persecution.

[PostmodernProphet]

It just makes sense.

it did not make sense to the gays in Massachussets......it was a civil union law that they took to court and had declared unconstitutional as being a "seperate but equal" provision......

[Insein]

As long as they get equal tax rights and privileges by law then what is the difference? Marriage is a religious institution recognized by government. Not the other way around. Government can not force a church to acknowledge a civil union.

I think these people hurt themselves when they are arguing semantics.

[glockmail]

As long as they get equal tax rights and privileges by law then what is the difference? Marriage is a religious institution recognized by government. Not the other way around. Government can not force a church to acknowledge a civil union.

I think these people hurt themselves when they are arguing semantics.

Obviously their agenda isn't equal rights, but to tear down traditional marriage.

[Insein]

Obviously their agenda isn't equal rights, but to tear down traditional marriage.

Could be the case for some. For those that just want to be with their partner, government should allow civil unions.

[PostmodernProphet]

Could be the case for some. For those that just want to be with their partner, government should allow civil unions.

/shrugs.....you don't need civil unions just to "be with their partner".....a durable power of attorney for health care and a will can solve those problems just as easily......

[Insein]

/shrugs.....you don't need civil unions just to "be with their partner".....a durable power of attorney for health care and a will can solve those problems just as easily......

Yes, its a work around. But why should they have to work around it when its really not that big a deal. Married couples can file jointly. Allow gays that are joined as a civil union to file jointly. Ends the argument. The semantics are what is dragging this out. People with different agendas are using the semantics to further the divide in people and making them easier to control.

[PostmodernProphet]

Allow gays that are joined as a civil union to file jointly.

why not allow two single people who share an apartment to file jointly, then....or BFF, even if they live across town from each other.....the purpose of marriage isn't to save taxes.....

[PostmodernProphet]

People with different agendas are using the semantics to further the divide in people and making them easier to control.

lol....the people looking to control you are the ones demanding that society change to accommodate their choices.....I say enough is enough....I used to be willing to tolerate them, now I say fuck 'em......

[darin]

why not allow two single people who share an apartment to file jointly, then....or BFF, even if they live across town from each other.....the purpose of marriage isn't to save taxes.....

...or groups of people and/or animals.

Married folk have benefits because society SHOULD encourage men and women to form families. Homos as couples have NOTHING to offer society but increased rates of suicide, domestic violence and infection.




We should offer benefits, however, to homos who enter a treatment program and complete it no longer being 'inclined' to have sex with others of their gender.

[Missileman]

We should offer benefits, however, to homos who enter a treatment program and complete it no longer being 'inclined' to have sex with others of their gender.

They're still waiting for Santa to bring such a program down the chimney.

[glockmail]

Yes, its a work around. But why should they have to work around it when its really not that big a deal. Married couples can file jointly. Allow gays that are joined as a civil union to file jointly. Ends the argument. The semantics are what is dragging this out. People with different agendas are using the semantics to further the divide in people and making them easier to control.

Why make a big deal and change the laws for all of society?

[Insein]

Same reason that blacks or women couldn't vote at one point. They had a work around right? Women would bug there husbands enough and blacks... well I guess they didn't. Guess we shouldn't have changed the laws for the rest of society there either.

All assholes with agendas aside, gays are people. We don't have to agree with their lifestyle. We don't have to like what they do. We do have to treat them as people though. If they want to join together in a civil union then so be it. Its all about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness FOR ALL.

[PostmodernProphet]

Same reason that blacks or women couldn't vote at one point. They had a work around right? Women would bug there husbands enough and blacks... well I guess they didn't. Guess we shouldn't have changed the laws for the rest of society there either.

????....sorry, but that's pretty lame....you acknowledge that blacks didn't have a "work around" and come up with a pretty shallow claim that women did....then try to call it a parallel with gays being legally able to enforce things like hospital visitation and inheritance (two of the biggest complaints advocates raise regarding marriage)....in truth, the only other two I have ever heard raised are health insurance benefits and taxes and unmarried couples living together equally get neither.........

If they want to join together in a civil union then so be it. Its all about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness FOR ALL.

/shrugs....you keep saying that, but that isn't the argument....the current debate is regarding marriage, not civil unions.......