Either way good rules to follow for those of us that tinker with story telling.

I believe that homosexuality is a sin. But so what? I feel that hatred and injustice are far worse sins. At this stage, the homosexual community is so used to being persecuted by the church that this latest development, even if it just means filling out more paperwork, is like the straw that broke the camel’s back. In this case, the voters in California, backed strongly by the Morman and Christian churches took away a right that had been granted to them. Oddly enough, that made them kind of angry with us.

So this is the situation we’re in, and the situation I disagree strongly with: We have an entire subsection of our country pissed the hell off at us, not because we were spreading the gospel, not for showing Christ’s love, but for the political position we have consistently taken against them. We can say all we want that we’re just protecting the sanctity of marriage (What’s left of it after what this culture has put it through) or that we believe this word is defined this certain way that would preclude them from participating, but in reality what we are doing is pushing our belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman onto them. We’re pushing it onto them when they did not ask for our opinion.

I believe that we need to stand up for righteousness in our own lives and SHOW the world that living in proper relationship with God and God’s word is the best possible way to live. Saying that we believe something is wrong and that therefore a law needs to be passed prohibiting said something does not really change people’s hearts.

And finally, if we’re so worried about the sanctity of marriage, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to first go after adultery? Where is the push to get that made illegal? I would think that would be far more detrimental to the sanctity of marriage than letting some same-sex couples into the club.

If I honestly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and someone asks me the question, should I lie?

My personal view is that marriage is between a man and a woman, because I view marriage as religious. If someone asks me what I believe, I’m not judging them, I’m answering the question.

If a murderer asks me if murder is a bad thing, should I answer no when I believe yes? Doing so would be an act of love towards the murderer, but would disagree with ‘Thou shalt not kill’.

As a Christian we can’t go against Christian principals just because non-Christians think we’re wrong. We can say that civil and religious marriage (because they aren’t differentiated here) can be be a man/man or woman/woman thing or we can say what we actually believe. The answer that we believe to be truth is not the problem here. Asking the correct question is.

Instead of picketing churches and going to the media with their outrage the gay community should be going to congress to differentiate between Civil and Religious marriage.

I also fully agree that the ones christ condemns are the religious people who are putting their beliefs above the well-being of their fellow human beings. However I fail to see how this effects the well being of anyone. The benefits of a marriage contract are trivial at best. You save a little time on filling out paperwork when you do your taxes. Every other benefit that can be gained through a marriage contract can be had by a power of attourney contract and a standard will. (In your hospital example power of attorney would overrule marriage.)

Are we really hate filled bigots laying such oppression on the gay community by asking them to fill out *gasp* DIFFERENT PAPERWORK!!! The horror! We should sacrifice our ideals immediately.

/Also please note that I’m enjoying this debate. It’s good to actually talk this through with someone that has a differing opinion. I look forward to the next round of mental joust. En`guarde.

And really if you can’t feel an emotion towards someone without a piece of metal in on your hand and a legal contract in your pocket, isn’t the love you think you have ridiculously shallow anyways?

Also to your question about gay Wiccan weddings. I honestly have no idea. I’m pretty sure it’s happened, and I’m pretty sure someone got their pantys in a bunch over it, but I’ve never heard about it. So… um… I honestly don’t know?

Anyways, you are fully correct that this country needs to stop combining civil and religious marriage. That would solve a lot of problems. I could care less if the gay community wanted to be legally bound by a contract to give all their stuff to a lawyer if they ever had a fight. Go right ahead. But if you’re going to call it something religious, and it isn’t, it’s going to piss off religious people.

How many Christians would be offended if a large outspoken group of people in America started petitioning the government to change all legal references of cannibalism to communion? Sure it can be loosely argued by taking a bunch of biblical passages out of context that communion is cannibalism, but you’re going to piss off everyone that knows better. To a lot of Christians there isn’t much difference here.

I think the problem really stems from our country combining two things that are really quite different. Civil marriage and religious marriage. My dad went to a wedding in the Netherlands, and because the couple were Christians, the wedding consisted of two ceremonies: the Civil ceremony (which was apparently quite fun and light-hearted) and the religious ceremony (that was long and boring.) Gays want a right to civil marriage. The Christians are in a tizzy over perceived changes to the definition of religious marriage. They’re two different things, except that our country combines them. How many Christians would be offended if gays wanted to be married in a Wiccan ceremony?

Then the vote came up that asked how we are to define marriage. Most of the voters came out with the opinion that marriage is a religious sacrament between a man and a woman (or at least that’s what the churches supporting it pushed for). That’s it. There was a vote to clarify the legal definition of a word and that vote passed.

No one (aside from the occasional head case) is going out trying to stop gay people from loving each other. That’s the important part people are missing here.

You can have a long term relationship with someone, you can live together, you can find happiness with them. Just don’t call it a religious sacrament if it’s not a religious sacrament. Find your own word.

If gay people getting married puts your marriage in jeopardy, you already have some problems. True. If your feelings for another person hinge on what you call them then you also have problems.

My question then is, are all these gay protesters really incapable of feeling love towards another human if they can’t label that love marriage?