Maybe then, we should find out, who defined marriage first before jumping on one group.
And, I completely agree with you: "Churches should not be agents of the government" Yves On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:38:25 -0500, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it should be the other way around. Religions should get out of > marriage. If people want some sort of civil commitment that would give > the legal benefits of what we now consider marriage fine. If they want > the religious ceremony with it, then they can schedule a separate > ceremony. Churches should not be agents of the government. > > larry > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:22:22 -0500, Nick McClure > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey, I think the government should get out of marriage all together. > > > > Marriage is a religious thing. Government has turned that into something > > beyond religion. > > > > If people want to sign civil contracts they can go right ahead and do that. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Yves Arsenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:40 AM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: Re: Gay Marriage( Was: Re: Activist Judges) > > > > > > One thing about gay marriage..... > > > > > > This is just my 2 cents... > > > > > > In my opinion it should be "classified" differently than traditional. > > > > > > The human rights issue is only speaking about one's right to choose. > > > Yes, everyone has the right to make their own choices whatever they > > > might be. > > > > > > But, one relationship is pro-creative and supports the continued human > > > existence, while the other cannot. They must be distinguished. All > > > emotionalism aside, that is reality. Anyone who voices a disagreement > > > with the whole gay marriage thing are almost immediatly branded as > > > "intolerant", while it is factual that there are both "good" people > > > and "intolerant" people on both sides of the debate. > > > > > > Emotionalism is killing our right to disagree on sensitive issues. And > > > people have the right to disagree, it's ok you know. And it doesn't > > > warrant being called "intolerant" etc.... I'm not speaking about > > > people (on both sides of the discussion) that suffer from "verbal > > > diahrea". Of course there are some comments that are plainly based on > > > intolerance, or emotionalism. Not on facts. > > > > > > I'm not in the business of telling people what they can or cannot do, > > > but I should be able to be honest about the reality of the relations > > > in mind as I see it. Pro or against, we all have that right. > > > > > > I would also, push the envelop one step further in issues regarding > > > possible financial (or legal) advantages to being married... I knew 2 > > > sisters, who for many years were living together and un-married. I > > > believe people who have a committed relationship together financially > > > should have financial benefits. Those sisters had many investments > > > together, like a home, car...etc. That should apply to heterosexual > > > couples, gay couples brothers, sisters....etc. > > > > > > Basically, strong committed relationships should be acknowledged. > > > > > > Yves > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:148366 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
