Gay "Marriage" - A Government Intrusion into Religion?

I don't feel that our forthcoming children should have to see these unions as "marriages". It teaches them the wrong message and distorts what my religion teaches as "marriage" - and this is far from what my religion teaches what marriage is. How insidious and how cunning and subtle this initially is for these people "demanding" to name this "marriage" but how destructive it is, and, how our government has no right even going there.

Thanks for responding oldone70.  This is very insidious what is happening....very cunning and subtle, but very destructive.

Welcome to the gang, Blueskies...Watch out for O1...he's smart and he's a CONSERVATIVE!!!

I posted this comment on the Gay Marriage in California site earlier today, but I think it applies here, so will put it here, too.

The problem, of course, is the courts...but the one-third of the population who voted for fruits & nuts is a sizeable minority...large enough that it's not a fringe group level...so obviously, some accommodation must be made for a minority of that size...I agree that 'marriage' is probably not the right word for homosexual arrangements...I draw a distinction between church-sanctioned marriage and state-licensed 'marriage.' What the state does is license a contractual agreement between two people which legitimizes offspring and causes the parties to agree to the body of law pertaining to the transfer of wealth & property from one generation to another, and for protection of the partners if the licensed arrangement falls apart...that's all a state-licensed marriage is...

Church-sanctioned marriage is the real authority for the union between two consenting adults...and traditionally, those church-sanctioned marriages have been between people of different genders...I know of not one mainstream, historically and Biblically correct church that sanctions homosexual unions...there are some trendy, 'social' churches such as the Unitarians and some very liberal Methodist break-away churches that have ordained women and which support homosexual relationships...but those aren't traditional churches.

So, really, there's no harm if the state wants to license a contract between fruits...that's not a real marriage, not to traditional Americans, not to your churches and not to society as a whole. And why should you or I care if Sissy Sam wants to put his (?) partner on his (?) insurance? We're not paying the bill...Sissy Sam will pay it...Why should we care if Sissy Sam may now legally leave property or money to his (?) partner?

The other side of the issue is that the fruits & nuts who 'marry' are also bound by the same legal obligations that hetero couples must comply with...Spousal Support, divorce requirements, if they've somehow created or adopted a kid, then there's child support...property loss...the whole gamut of negative impacts ... and for them, those penalties will occur more often and with more brutality than for most hetero couples...I think it's a sweet irony.

Perhaps, those out of contact with reality judges didn't do our fruity friends much of a favor, after all...

Where do I begin?  A Government Intrusion into Religion, into our day by day lives, and, in the long run, into our national security.  It is Homosexuality Muslims hate so much, along with other permissive behavior of course. (not that they need another excuse to hate us)

I do not want to see F&N's (thank you jC) on TV or elsewhere, I don't even want to think about them.  What bothers me to no end is the fact that a few people dare to override the will of the people in order to please some sick minds.  I know I am to hate the sin and not the sinner, but stuff like this necessitates the need to ask for forgiveness on a daily basis, and then some.

The harm in permitting this nonsense to go on is the subtle brainwashing that comes with it.  What was an absolute no-no just a few years ago is commonplace now.

Welcome to FS, blueskies.  BTW, as you have probably noticed, whenever jC posts, you must bring popcorn.