Or pandora's box. However you want to look at it. Let's get political. But first let me preface this: I don't really consider myself a huge political person. Sure, I have opinions, but I'm not one to get into big long debates--mostly because if I don't know a ton about a subject, I feel it best not to put my foot in my mouth. I do, however, like to be informed. I've done some reading on this and would love to hear what you guys think. But first, some ground rules.
1. Play nice (and intelligent). I'm not a fan of closed-minded, rude arguments. I'm a fan of discussion.
2. This is NOT a debate over homosexuality. I'm not really interested in your opinions about whether homosexuality is right or wrong.
3. This is NOT a debate over who should be able to use the word "marriage" or whether the word "marriage" is religious or not.
4. If you can come up with concrete examples to back up your opinion, please feel free to use them.
5. If you feel you can't follow these rules, I'd rather you stop reading now. :)
6. I don't base my friendships on political views, so don't worry. I'll still love you in the morning.
So on to the question. Along with many many arguments on the table for and against the recognition of same-sex marriage, it has been argued that religious institutions could potentially be in trouble if same-sex marriage is recognized as a civil right. Churches could lose their tax-exempt status if they deny marriage ceremonies to same-sex couples. Religious adoption agencies could be shut down if they deny access to same-sex couples. And so on. So let's pretend same-sex marriage is considered a civil right across the entire country (not just California and Massachusetts). Do you think religious institutions would be in jeopardy if they didn't offer services to same-sex couples. Do you think the separation of church and state would be on the rocks in this situation?
I already know my opinion on this, but I want to hear yours.
3 years ago