Like I said before, I think the Catholic Church does great things by doing things outside their community and I think it would be a big loss to have them close up their adoption agencies because of this. I’m not Catholic but it seems that doing things for sinners is part of their job so I don’t get why this one is so triumphantly awful so as to stop an entire program that helps out needy children. But, that’s their prerogative and they can do as they wish in that regard. Still, I think some of the things they do are big assets to society, indeed.

The problem is that they’d be getting a huge pass if we altered secular law because it went against their religious law. That’s why we have a separation of church and state. That’s why we can have civil laws that don’t fall in line directly with those of any religious entity. They don’t need to recognize any unions they don’t consider proper – case in point, remarried Catholics or homosexual marriage. That’s the point. It’s a civil marriage, not a religious marriage. One word can have more than one definition.

The thing is, within the eyes of the government, a marriage is simply that: a contract. It’s not ordained by any religious entity. It’s not a holy union. It’s a contract. But people want to be married, they don’t want to be united, or civilly contracted together. People want that word. I don’t belong to any religion yet I still see myself getting married at some point. It’s a cultural construct that has grown beyond the religious realm and become part of American society. It doesn’t need religion to exist, even though it still does in its religious form. And even if the government abolished secular marriages and instead changed the terminology to simply “civil union,” that wouldn’t fix the current issue regarding adoption. That’s just coming down to semantics at that point.

Just as someone married in a Jewish temple isn’t religiously recognized by any church of another faith yet a Catholic couple would have no trouble indeed saying that their Hebrew brethren were indeed married, that’s the same thing here regarding same sex couples.

Your beliefs would only work if the carious churches were relegated to being nothing – and I mean nothing at all – but places where their respective faithful gathered to worship together. Such a thing is what the Godless want because it would effectively destroy said churches and their religions.

Is that what you want? Be honest.

Churches, especially Christian ones, are involved in “secular” activities because charity – Good Works – is part of their faith. They’ve also been the cornerstone of such services in America throughout its history.

I don’t see where it’d be wrong to give them a “huge pass” when it comes to recognizing what they consider to be egregiously sinful and unnatural unions.

And of course, we disagree on whether or not legal sanctioning of a nuptial union is a right in the first place.

But and lastly, I’d rather see the government get its secular hands off marriage entirely and treat them all as “civil unions” solely bound by contract law.

Ohh I use them correctly because Mo-bomb-ed was no prophet. But you know whats more offensive? That muslims say that Jesus will come back, break the cross and make war with non muslims til the planet is islamicfied. Now thats much more offensive than one guy putting quotes around the word “prophet”.

I dont give a crap what they think of me dissing their pedophile “prophet”.

A Catholic organization is limited by their own restrictive beliefs and that’s fine, but it shouldn’t be the law of the land for the rest of society. Not everyone is Catholic and not everyone believes that being homosexual is a sin, is wrong, or is unnatural. To deny gay couples the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts simply because it would mean that Catholic organizations would no longer be in the adoption business seems like that’s letting the Catholic belief system determine secular law, which goes against the freedom of religion.

Clearly, it’s a delicate balance in order to not infringe upon everyone’s beliefs, but when it comes down to it, the religious world will always be different from the secular laws of America. Gays are people, and they should have the same rights as their fellow citizens regardless of their sexuality. I feel confident that this could be attained in a way that doesn’t infringe upon any religious freedoms – I don’t believe they do – even though those same religious entities that condemn homosexuality will never be on board with this, will fight this endlessly, and that is their right based on their freedom of religion, but should never win based on that same exact freedom.

Elric66 – You don’t need to put quotes around prophet. Just because you don’t believe in Mohammad doesn’t automatically make him illegitimate to all who do.

No, you are delusional that you refuse to see it. I’ll go by what their unholy books dictate.

“Get over it, man! You’re diluting your efforts and attention, and that could lead to either missing something actually important or being dismissed as a nutjob Islamaphobe.”

Whats an “islamophobe”?

“Okay, Elric66 – you go ahead and worry about the extreme fringe, but realize that they really aren’t affecting your life in any way, shape, or form.”

Was islam’s “prophet” part of the “extreme fringe”? I doubt you will answer that.

Why must religious groups and organizations be penalized and damaged instead of the gays? Why, in your opinion, does the gay’s desire to have legally recognized marriages – civil unions don’t seem to satisfy them as Prop 8 showed – trump Constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms?