Sexual Orientation vs. Race

[Final-Fan]

mrstickball said:

Final-Fan said:

mrstickball said:
I think the problem is that the gays want acceptance by the marriage community, and little more.

Marriage is a union between 2 people, that was setup, and recommended by various religious institutions. Allowing gay marriage abridges those religious rights, since 99% of all established, formal, religions reject homosexuality as a proper context of marriage.

Give them civil unions, give them access to insurance and hospitals. Do not allow them to tread on churches that are against homosexuality...The issue is that we've blurred the lines between what marriage is (a union between a man and a woman, ordained by God) and a civil union (co-habitation with legal rights).

I don't think you can name 99 churches (i.e. denominations or religions) that disapprove of gay marriage for every one I can name that doesn't disaprove.  In fact, I challenge you to try. 

I'll go first:  United Church of Christ. 

And actually, marriage has been a political/economic/generally social arrangement at least as much as it has been a religious one. 

And I question how allowing gay marriages would "tread on" churches that disapprove.  How can gay marriage possibly abridge their rights?  Do you think that those churches will be forced to recognize said marriages?  If so, I agree that that's wrong, but I deny that that is what is being proposed. 

Banning gay marriage because some religions don't like it is like Muslim countries banning alcohol and pork even among Christians because it's against the Muslim religion.  Are we a theocracy now? 

If your problem is that you think that marriage is a term with inherently religious implications to the point that the state shouldn't even be "marrying" people in the first place, and would rather we strip that nomenclature from heterosexual unions and give them and gay unions equal standing in the law, I can respect that and would vote for it (because although I disagree with the first part it would be a solution nonetheless).  Is this the case?  (I think I might have already said something like this to you and if you've already answered in that earlier discussion I apologize for the repetition.)

Ok. I'll start naming denominations against same-sex marriage:

• Seventh Day Adventist
• Baptist (about 20 different Baptist denominations are against it)
• Church of Christ
• Mormons (Latter Day Saints)
• Church of the Nazerine
• Eastern Orthodox
• Jehovas Witness
• Roman Catholocism
• Church of God in Christ
• Church of God (Cleveland, TN)
• Assemblies of God
• Canadian & American Reformed Churches
• United Methodist (although some rogue churches disagree, the conference is against it)

I can keep naming them. Sufficive to say, the ones that do support it are in that 1% percentile both in membership and in # of denominations.

Now, as for how it affects the church, I would cite:

• Ake Green. A pastor that spoke out against homosexuality, and was charged with hate speech in Sweden. 
• Stephen Boission. A pastor in simiar circumstances as Ake Green, now charged with hate speech, and demanded to recant his position against homosexuality, in Alberta, Canada.
  

Just a few points to think about.

AFAIK Shinto doesn't take a stance on gay marriage, and thus satisfies the requirement of does not "reject homosexuality as a proper context of marriage". 

So congrats, you're up to 13/15= 86% so far. 

And as far as I can tell your two examples of negative effect on churches are totally irrelevant.  Not only were those consequences not the result of refusing to officiate or recognize gay marriage, they weren't even TALKING about gay marriage in particular, but gays in GENERAL!  So you are making the argument, not that gay marriage will hurt churches, but gay TOLERANCE will hurt churches.  Is that really your position?  Wait, never mind.  Point is, gay marriage, you've proved nothing.