Protest the passage of Prop 8

[Tonks]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" 
<kempermentor at ...> wrote:
> So the actions of the group in Michigan seemed RIGHT, RIGHT, 
> RIGHT!!!!!  Or at least not WRONG^3.

Tonks:
(I too am not going to be popular here. I will put on my fire proof 
robes.)

A church is not a public place. The public is welcome, but the building 
belongs to the parish/church, not the public. Therefor it is WRONG to 
walk into a church and stage a demonstration during the service! If you 
want to demonstrate outside, fine, not inside. That is trespassing and 
I hope those people are arrested for this. It would be no different 
than if you had your views in your own home and someone who didn't like 
what you said or some item hanging from your fireplace, barged into 
your home and demostrated in your living room!  (I don't know if that 
church did what you said or not, I have never heard that they did, and 
it doesn't matter, it is their space to do what they want.)


Cabal said:

NO ONE EVER stated that churches should have to perform same-sex-
marriage's.

I am a Married Atheist, we were married by a mayor in a town meeting 
room.

99.9% of Homosexual's, would be more than happy to have that right.

Why is it, that so many religious people act like same-sex-marriage is 
going infringe their rights?

Why is it, they think it will affect them in any way?

It won't.

Tonks:
Are you saying that 99.9% of Homosexuals are Atheist? I don't think so. 
Many are members of a religion and would want to be married in that 
religion. I do not have a problem with a church wedding for 
homesexuals. I do have a problem with a civil marriage.

Why would you, if you are not religion and therefor not concerned with, 
as they say, 'living in sin', even feel that it was necessary to 
be 'married' by the state? (this might be a trick question)

As to if same sex civil unions were going to affect religious people, 
it will have a major impact on everyone because it will have a major 
impact on our culture and the way that our government functions.

The purpose of 'marriage' in the eyes of the government is to santify a 
union between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing and 
raising children (more citizens for the state). And the civil law that 
provides for this marriage is in place to protect those children and by 
extention the mother. It is not there to provide for health care and 
Social Security benifits for same sex couples, it is there to provide 
and protect the children of a hetrosexual union. 

Also same sex marriage has the effect of 'normalizing' a union that 
will cause children to become confused. This is what concerns me the 
most. Young child go though a phase, which most of you know, where they 
form thier idenity as male or female and their sexual orientation. When 
it becomes 'normal' in society to marry either the opposite or the same 
sex, I think that children will become confused and it is possible for 
this to result in more homosexuality than we currently have, which in 
turn means a lower birth rate and less citizens for the state. 

Also making same sex marriage legal as a civil union make for more 
potential abuse of the system that was orginally put in place to 
protect children. I am not gay, I am not married. I do not have heath 
care or a good retirement program. I could marry my best friend to get 
those things. The fact that we do not have sex with each other is no 
ones business. I would be using the system for other than what the 
system was set up for, and at a time when the system is already 
strained beyond its limits.

I don't think that we need to label homosexuals as bad, or sick or 
immoral or as having a 'choice' of behaviors. People should be accepted 
as they are in society, in the workplace, in the churches. But this 
doesn't mean that the definition of 'marriage' in the eyes of the state 
has to be changed. This is more than just the 'right' of one group of 
people. It has far rangeing consquences that many people who only see 
a 'rights' issue are not considering.

Carol said:
Carol, who dislikes any restriction on the free expression of opinion
in the name of political correctness and the labeling of opinions we
disagree with as bigotry or oppression

Tonks:
I agree. I feel that I can not express how I really feel about this 
issue because it is not PC to do so.