a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)

"Pete Stavrakoglou" wrote in message
...
"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010042008420946517-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-04-20 05:19:00 -0700, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
said:

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , Pete Stavrakoglou
writes
wrote in message
...

So you think the constitution allows you to enforce your religious
beliefs
on other people, just because it doesn't specifically say a church
can't
do this?

Stephanie

Do you believe that your beliefs should be imposed on others? Only
the
beliefs of religious people should not be considered? I am free to
use my
influence to affect public policy just as you are. Whether I am a
religious
person or not has no bearing on that.

However no religious beliefs should be used to constrain any person not
of that religion. Also all religions should be treated equally. (None
of them are real anyway) So the three Middle Eastern religions of
Judaism, Christianity and Islam should hold as much sway as the far
eastern Hindu, Sikh, Shinto, Buddhist etc as the Native American
religions...

Therefor a civil gay marriage would be permissible by the state.
Possibly even multiple partners as practised in Islam and Christianity.

However I would not expect any faith who does not support the principal
to give the happy couple the blessing of a religious ceremony. That is
important. Whilst the religious groups should not impose their rules on
society likewise, within reason, the reverse should also be true.

The "within reason" is that some religions make sacrifices, others use
narcotics and some practice child abuse.

BTW Should you want to impose any religious based law on me I am at
liberty to do the same to you. Even if my religion is diametrically
opposed to yours.

Your beliefs are your beliefs, religious or otherwise. By your measure
you
have no right to impose your beliefs on anyone else. You believe that
gay
marriage is OK, you have no right to impose that on anyone who believes
otherwise.

However the reverse should also be true.
A religious lobby should not be able to impose dogmatic law and rules on
an entire population which might not follow that religion, in a supposed
secular nation.

A change in Federal Code recognizing same sex marriage, does not mean
religious groups would be forced to sanction such marriages. As such you
would be able to maintain your status quo without anything being imposed
on you.

The sad thing is those homosexual catholics (yes there are quite a few)
who have their loving relationships denied by their faith. They more than
any others have been abandoned by their church.

This country is not a theocracy, and we should be able to accommodate
those who have chosen not to follow faiths they do not believe in. As far
as those homosexual Catholics and other Christians, Jews and Muslims, who
are in same sex marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships, I am
sure they would love to have a degree of acceptance from their religion,
not be forced to deny their faith. Especially from a religion which is
supposed to be tolerant and charitable.

Being tolerant and charitable has nothing to do with a church accepting
homosexuality. In most Christian denominations, homosexuality is viewed
as sinful. Those denominations that don't hold that view are not in line
what the scriptures have to say about it. The church can be no more
tolerant of sin than Jesus was. He accepted sinners but not their sin. A
person who decides to join a church and then expects the church to bend on
matters of morality according to their wishes is wrong to expect that to
happen.

But organizations do change, and even churches change over time. Why
shouldn't a person join a church, and attempt to change it internally?