Issues with same sex families..yet again..

[Set]

On the issue of it being in the Bible in the first place...

People often scream at me for "misinterpreting" the Bible (*snort* Just 'cause the truth ain't pretty...) but they're the ones who do it constantly. You might want to read this part of the website Outwarddoodles posted, he explains it better than I can.

Let's not forget the Bible has also been mistranslated, deliberately changed, and has had entire chunks left out of it.

[Terastas]

Personally, sharing such legal things doesn't seem like such a big deal. I say allow it. But in addition (because I'm a devoted christian) gay marraige of the religous type I feel shouldn't be practiced. That case is not as much a part of the legal system though.

*nods* I'm with Kzinistzerg in that I think all partnerships should be treated as domestic partnerships, regardless of how they are religiously partnered. That said, marriage doesn't enter into the constitution at all, which means a minister would lose his right to lawfully wed, but would be free to decide for himself whether or not someone can be wed religiously.

[outwarddoodles]

Joker: A lot of people interpret the bible differently. I know a lot of devout Christians whom accept homosexuality. My older brother attends a Southern Baptist Church, and has taken his own time to scrutinized the bible, and he has told me he believes that the bible in no way makes being gay a sin or gives any reason to disrespest people whom are gay.

It's all in interpretation sometimes. But, regardless, it's still religion, and there is such a thing as "Seperation of Church and State."

[Baphnedia]

A few things that come to mind (and I say these things in roughly the same way every time I see this issue come up):

The legal advantages of marriage (join accounts, joint tax returns, greater tax breaks, tax breaks for kids, better credit, better insurance rates, right to adopt, etc) amount up to many thousands of dollars per year for every married couple in money saved. Partnerships should be likewise recognized, but are not. As was previously said in this thread, marriage itself is a religious ceremony.

Heck, not even all religions have marriage defined. In some cultures, the more men that contribute to the making of one baby, the stronger the baby will be (somewhere in South America). As Outwarddoodles said just before me, separation of church and state is essential: for any long-term avoidance of corruption of faith and power.

Another issue that was brought up by some friends of mine who are Wiccan (and other, similar faiths), once tried to establish a coven on a military base. I am the only member of that group who was allowed to stay in the Army. Only one chaplain (of the dozen or so) on that base supported the idea, the others didn't support it because the Army didn't recognize it as a religion. Likewise, many religions suffer huge setbacks because the US Gov't doesn't recognize them, because members of major religions vote to keep smaller and sometimes newer religions from being able to share in the tax free status that recognized religions in the US share.

[Kzinistzerg]

I don't understand my ANY religions have a tax-free status.