Shii Posted:

Except that’s exactly what they are trying to do. While it hasn’t gained acceptance, they’re trying to force churches to be unable to reject gay couples for marriage.

This is a bald-faced lie, it has been repeatedly called out as a bald-faced lie, and I demand support for it before you continue.

If they allow gay marriage, then the gays will protest against the church for not letting them marry in a place like most others do. It’s not a slippery slope, it’s just how protests work.

And “the church” – you know there’s more than one church, right? Just checking – can say “No.” And no one can force them.

I’m aware that the government should give people equality and equal rights. That’s why I’m pushing for civil unions with equal tax rights.

Your points about “marriage” predating Christianity are moot, by nature of the fact that the rituals accompanying such unions were not Christian in nature, and shared very little beyond the outcome of man + woman together. I’m talking about Christian marriage, and that alone.

No, you’re talking about marriage in the United States of America, a nation founded by Christians, but no longer ruled by them. You’re talking about redefining an existing social institution of that country to satisfy your religious beliefs – which is a no-no in the United States of America.

I know other religions aren’t as strict about homosexuality all the time, compared to Christianity, and if they want to have bonding/marriage ceremonies, go for it.

Another Shii who apparently disagrees Posted:

... let Christians still call their civil unions marriages and undergo the religious/ritualistic aspects as they please.

Reconcile these, please. If any religious ceremony can now be a “marriage” again, even of gay couples, aren’t we right back where we started before your brilliant plan?

Just don’t tell the churches how to handle their own rituals, and who to allow to be married.

No one is doing this, it’s a common scare tactic anti-gay-marriage protesters use without justification, and you’re really getting on my nerves by claiming so. Changing the law of the land can’t change religious practice, by the same token that your religious practice should not control the law of the land. You make this specious claim about trying to straight-arm churches repeatedly. Provide evidence, or STFU.