I never said Churches should not be allowed to marry couples fo the same sex.
I can see how that first point may have been misinterpreted. I did not mean to imply that Churches should not be allowed to marry same sex couples. I was trying to say that in that 'solution' saem sex couples be allowed to be married in the civil sense, but not force churches that may not currently allow same sex marriages to perform 'marriages' of same sex couples. ( I have re-written this like 4 times, and I am still not sure I am getting my point across clearly...sorry about that - try reading it again from a different viewpoint and hopefully my meaning will come across) Again, my point of contention here is not with any religious institution but with the way the government handles the naming of the civil contract more commonly known as 'marriage'. On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Eric Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > Scott...Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry in a church (or other > religious institution) if said church has no issues with same sex marriage? > That's not very equal...if Sam wanted an example of you suggesting > discrimination...there would be one... ;-) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 7:28 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: interesting opinion piece on Beck and the teabagging party > > > <snipped> > There are two courses of action, that I see, that will facilitate this: > > 1. Allow gay couples to be 'married', in the civil sense. Not allowed > to marry in a Church, but, in the eyes of the law, to be 'married'. To > be allowed to file for a 'marriage license' and to call their > significant other their husband or wife. This is what Conservatives > are fighting against. > > 2. Stop using the word 'marriage' in a legal sense. Change it to > something else....FOR EVERYONE. And allow EVERY COUPLE, regardless of > the gender make up of that couple, to have the same rights under the > law. Conservatives fight against this as well...why? I have no idea. > > My point, Sam, is that gay couples are treated differently under the > law solely because they fell in love with someone of the same sex. > That is a pretty good ans simple example of discrimination. > > In my opinion,m telling a gay couple they cannot get 'married' be > cause they are gay, in the civil sense, is the same as telling a black > couple they cannot get 'married' because they are black. Imagine the > uproar if a black couple was told they cannot get married, but they > can have a 'civil union'. > > > -- > Scott Stroz > --------------- > You can make things happen, you can watch things happen or you can > wonder what the f*&k happened. - Cpt. Phil Harris > > http://xkcd.com/386/ > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:326517 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
