I don't have a problem with civil unions as long as they are afforded the exact same rights as straight couples. And only 14 states have civil unions. What's the difference? Because some old ass book says something about it? Hell it says to stone bad kids too, maybe we should adopt that policy too. Who is forcing you to marry a gay person? You should be able to marry anyone. Anyone that is of age and agrees to marry you of course. Unless what you mean is forcing churches marry gay couples. No, I'm not saying that at all. If some church doesn't want to marry a gay couple so be it, there are plenty out there that would.
I'm not religious at all so be clear about that and the book. However, I understand the attachment some can have towards marriage and my option is to leave it alone and work the gay thing out in civil unions. Both parties happy.
Leviticus, the book that all these wingnut christians get the whole anti gay thing from also says this about children.
Civil unions are active in only a handful of states and they're recognized in pretty much only those states. They're not recognized by the Federal Government. "Marriage" offers over 1,000 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits. It also impacts taxation, insurance benefits, pension protection, next-of-kin status, domestic violence protections, wrongful death rights, immigration sponsorship, etc. Even wills, powers of attorney, etc. that can be set up through other legal means that cost a hell of a lot more than a marriage license can be challenged and defeated in court by families of the sick, deceased, etc. So as you can see, there is quite a bit wrong with civil unions...
Unfortunately the texts that discuss homosexuality are not from God or Jesus, but laws created by man. Any biblical scholar will tell you that. They're also mentioned in the same breath as a lot of other laws that we no longer follow for obvious reasons. What I don't understand is how people can reference those verses for the argument of calling homosexuality a sin, but have no such qualms eating shrimp or not stoning their unmarried, no-longer-a-virgin daughters.
I was just re-phrasing what you said so everyone could understand exactly what you meant. No reason to hide your small-mindedness and bigotry. Wear it proud!
There definitely is hypocrisy in religions...no argument there. But Christians believe that God was the author of all Scripture and there are apparent contradictions because people interpret Scripture differently. We just don't know all that is revealed through scripture. For example, fundamentalist types interpret the bible literally, but most all of them are running around with both hands and eyes still intact. (Matt 5:30...And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.) Christians also believe that the New Covenant supersedes the Old, and that's why the dietary laws aren't in place any more. Catholics believe that they have the authority to interpret Scripture given to them by God The magisterium or teaching authority. Protestants don't believe that is so and have their own interpretations. It's almost the same as Catholic interpretation though...it's not radically different.
It's good to point out that if homosexual activity is a sin because it closes the door to procreation, Birth control is equally sinful for that reason...and we can count on two hands the number of sincere Catholic couples that haven't done that.
