A majority of Americans support the secular recognition of same-sex couples. From a religious respective...?

...What is your reaction?





SOURCE: Pew Research. http://people-press.org/report/553/same-sex-marriageA majority of Americans support the secular recognition of same-sex couples. From a religious respective...?
Why should anyone care what people do if it has no effect on them. If they want to be married then why not it's their life let them live it how they want. After all this is America land of the free and if the main reason for being against it is a Religious one then it defiantly needs to stay out of law.





Religion has no place in Laws of this country as they say separation of church and state.A majority of Americans support the secular recognition of same-sex couples. From a religious respective...?
Same-sex couples should get secular recognition. There is nothing you can do to prevent someone from liking someone else. This is America, you should be with whoever you like.





From a religious angle, we really can't force a religion to change it's doctrine. So, if a religion doesn't want to preform a ceremony for gays, then we really can't do anything about it.
Those are some fascinating statistics - catholics are more in favour than protestants!





Note though that there is a majority in favour of civil unions, but not a majority in favour of same-sex marriage. This is an important point - I suspect because religious people feel uneasy about marriage being described as anything other than between a man and a woman. Civil unions are not necessarily a good idea. They fall short of properly being marriage and as some same-sex couples in New Jersey have discovered, that can actually make things worse. The resulting problems have resulted in the matter being brought to the state's supreme court.





The British perspective could possibly provide a way out... we already have same-sex marriage, and getting it passed through Parliament was interesting as the 26 most senior bishops of the Church of England are members of the House of Lords and therefore entitled to speak and vote on it. Most of them (and it has to be admitted that the C of E can be pretty liberal on most things thanks to its history - think of episcopalians, who are the American equivalent) were in favour of it on the grounds, as some said in their speeches during the passage of the legislation, that it encourages stable relationships.





However, to ensure their support, the Bill was carefully drafted. Gay marriage is not called gay marriage here - it is officially called civil partnership, though the legislation is pretty much an exact copy of the legislation relating to marriage. In fact it is the same as marriage except that adultery is not a ground for divorce, but the difference of the name enabled the government to say that it isn't marriage as their response to religious people opposed to it. It was also laid down that no ';marriage'; ceremony is required, and there must be no religious service associated with it. That way, no member of the clergy can be asked to perform one.
The ';religious perspective'; is irrelevant. If you and your religion don't approve of a certain practice, then don't do it. But your personal beliefs don't give you the right to dictate the personal lives of others. Your religious freedom ends where it begins to infringe on the civil rights of others.
I personally don't care *what* churches do.








Addendum: Poohcat1 - ';However, I do object to that particular lifestyle being taught as ';normal'; to kids in school. It is not normal in any way, shape or form.';





Homosexuality is no more or less ';normal'; than heterosexuality.





I don't know what this ';lifestyle'; you're referring to is, though.
Because 'they' haven't read: ';The Jesus You Can't Ignore';, by John MacArther. gty.org and also 'they' haven't known about: ';The Darwin Delusion';, by Erwin Lutzer's cds, and also: ';The Tale Of Two Graves';, by him as well. rtwoffer.com
It matters not to me what two people of legal age do behind closed doors. However, I do object to that particular lifestyle being taught as ';normal'; to kids in school. It is not normal in any way, shape or form.
I think the state should get out of marriage altogether. Allow civil unions between any and all mentally competent consenting adults, and if they want the sacred imprint of marriage upon it, they should go to their priest/rabbi/imam/shaman/etc.
I also support it.
Let the gays marry. I think it will stimulate the economy. i.e. more marriages, more money being transfered.
Consensus never makes right or morals.
it's not a big deal....I don't care....it's up to the individuals...