>I posted on the nonreligious reasons for homosexual marriage being a non-starter.
In my opinion the government should leave it up to the churches and priests. Nobody has the right to tell you what version of Christianity is the best for you, so it’s not right to outlaw gay marriage because it would imply that your version is more wrong than someone else’s. We have a first amendment and guarantees religious freedom.
I dislike being rude, but as I posted, did he even read the post? For that matter, it’s not “outlawing gay marriage”– you can’t outlaw something that is already illegal.
Stop the red herrings and use the brain in your skull, or show yourself for the troll that you seem to be; despite the opening that you believe it should be left to the churches and priests, you seem to ignore the entire social structure that is already part of the government. That is why the guy who shacks up with a girl for a week doesn’t have to fear for his salary, but the guy who is married to a woman for a few years does face losing cash, even without children.
It should be pretty clear that the topic of the right religion isn’t involved– the effects of a dominant religion on marriage in various cultures is mentioned. That’s it.
Oh, and the exact text of the first:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That does not guarantee religious freedom, actually. It says that congress (the federal law-maker) can’t make a state religion (such as England has/had) or outlaw a religion (i.e., “no more Mormons”). Actually, your suggestion to leave it to the priests, without re-writing just about all of our existing property laws, would result in MANY state-established religions. (I would like to note that I’m using “state” in the national sense, not the unit-of-the-country sense.)
Here’s a question for you and your base assumptions: can you find a major world religion that does NOT have a marriage-between-reproducing-pairs arrangement?
PS–love Pali’Sucks, part of why I hope for a good response.