First of all, I am not gay, but I am not against homosexuality. I am concerned about the success and tactics of the movement. What is the biggest reason people want same sex marriage? I would say that it is so homosexuals who are also religious can get married in the church, and be able to have it recognized "by god." But I see this as partial insanity because the bible contradicts this idea, and many Christians will not recognize it as valid.
So are gays wanting to change the religious/political construct of marriage, and get churches to accept this? To me, this is a losing battle because it clearly does state in the bible that homosexuality is wrong. I do not agree with this stance, but it seems to be written into the moral code of Christians, and several other religions that recognize marriage. I think it would be more effective if gays were to focus on marriage rights than it is to focus on what it is "called." If they started a movement that did not involve the word marriage at all, it could be more effective. People clearly don't like the term "civil union." It does sound cold, like going and getting paperwork drawn up or something that dry. I am not against "gay marriage," because I am not religious, nor do I think it is wrong. But what I am saying is I think this is a losing battle (legally) because it involves trying to change religion's deep-seated moral constructs. There has to be a better way to increase the rights of homosexuals, and prioritize one step at a time-from a political strategist's perspective. I'm very curious about what you think!
Yes I believe so. And also what job interviewer is going to ask your relationship status-that is illegal!! lmao
when governments decided to legally recognize "marriages" as a separate entity in addition to the individual/citizen. they opened this door, while religious requirements vary. what about this legal distinction requires the "spouse" to have different genitals? to gain the secular rights/privileges/responsibilities bestowed by their government to this recognized entity.
this mentality can be analogous to tax exempt religious institutions meddling in political campaigns. how is it always ok... cheap grace?
I do not think it is okay for religious institutions to meddle in the courts, but they do it anyway. I don't agree with the tax exempt issue either.
Ideally, when cases get to the Supreme Court level, those judges are supposed to be non-biased and not swayed by political or religious or popular demand. I believe in our Supreme Court is worth a damn, they will make this situation right. But I wonder how long before this actually happens.
legally recognized mating, which includes benefits financially is desirable among all sexual orientations. why should it be reserved solely for the pious?
Not sure why your point is germain. Marriage and domestic partnership are identical in every detail except name, so, in effect, a domestic partnership is a marriage by any other name, and there's nothing stopping people in domestic partnerships from saying they are married.