Re: same-sex marriage

I wonder who is calling such relationships a
sacrament. Separation of church and state ensure that
the actions of the state have no relevance to the
religious position. In other words, the church can
still object to such relationships on religious
grounds. On legal grounds however, explicitly
excluding some from the constitution seems hard to
defend
Of course the homosexual agenda is one which conflicts
with some of the Christian churches who attempt to
exclude them from equal rights under the US
Constitution.
And as you seem to suggest, there may be no good
reason for the churches to behave in this manner. All
that is needed is the understanding that a state
sanctioned marriage is not the same as the sacrament
of marriage as it exists in some churches.
Seems like a straightforward solution to me.
So why do some still object?
Another solution would be to make marriage a purely
religious concept.

--- RFaussette@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 6/9/2006 3:09:09 PM Eastern
> Standard Time,
> pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com writes:
> I fail to see how fighting the rights of others to
> be involved in a loving
> relationship affect your personal survival? In fact,
> I have a real problem with
> those arguing that extending the rights of marriage
> to others somehow
> undermines the meaning of marriage to others? Are we
> so insecure in our own self that
> we feel threatened by others who find happiness in
> marriage?
> How are you being attacked I wonder? What am I
> missing?

> The rights of others to be involved in a loving
> relationship I have no
> problem with. Calling every loving relationship a
> sacrament I have a problem with. I
> think the homosexual agenda is well organized and
> funded and is an attack on
> many aspects of the sanctity of Christianity.
>
> "Others" can find happiness in a loving
> relationship. A man and a woman find
> it holy matrimony.
>
> rich faussette
>
Received on Tue Jun 13 01:21:02 2006