quote:
Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:


I think klinton made an unfair debating move here. I think he took positions to which Dave does not subscribe and forced him to defend them.
Yes. I felt obligated to respond to what I see as fallacies and misrepresentations raised as fact.
They are common misrepresentations, so I gave an obligatory response.

quote:
Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:


But now to turn the tables on Dave:

How does legal recognition of these marriages infringe upon the rights of Christians (a distinction I myself hold)?
Because it forces Christians to accept a standard of "marriage" that goes against 6,000 years of tradition and Judao-Christian biblical teachings. And forces Christians to accept a legal standard that is in polar opposition to what Christianity teaaches marriage to be.
quote:
Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:


Couldn't the government allow legal marriages without endorsing them as J-C marriages (which with a seperation of C/S shouldn't be specifically J-C)?
That is precisely the point. It forces Christians to accept a standard that undermines and contradicts Christian teachings. Under secular law, absent of a Gay Marriage precedent, you can argue that it doesn't undermine Christian teachings or infringe on their rights.

But with a Gay Marriage legal precedent, then Christians are forced to accept the same standard as gays. Which clearly undermines Christain culture, and forces Christians (and others who don't believe in gay marriage) to accept something that is clearly decadent according to their beliefs.

quote:
Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:


So, then couldn't the churches, as they ARE private organizations, fail to recognize such marriages and STILL allow legal recognition?
No, because the new legal standard would undermine Christian religious freedom.

Christian businesses, for example, would be forced to pay spousal benefits to gay spouses, which is in clear contradiction of Christian beliefs. Which would be a travesty.