Do you have to be religious to get married in a church? Religion should have nothing to do with defining marriage in the eyes of our government.

I agree. Maybe I misread your previous posts. I thought you said that the churches define what marriage is. I think I'm missing your real point.

Just telling it like it is. I don't think a lot of folks even realize it because of the intoxication of religion. If you look up the word "bigot" in the dictionary it clearly fits. It is one thing to disagree with a personal lifestyle and another to want to dictate it.

I may disagree with the religious point of view and think the world would be a better place without it but I am not utterly intolerant of religion. I would pick up arms today if someone tried to prevent people from going to the church of their choice. But if you try to dictate my life or others (homosexuals) based on this religious value and not common sense I will turn on you.

I, and maybe others on this board have seen weddings performed in a church, a hotel, a wedding chapel, and in other places.

I saw one wedding performed by two priests: one Christian, and the other by a Rabbi. My lady friend is Jewish. The man she married was a Christian.

I have seen several weddings in my uncle's family performed by a JOP.

If one persons pairs up with another, however what it is: man/woman, or SSM, and is performed by a priest or a JOP, then whoever witness that are viewing a wedding.

The JOP (Justice Of the Peace) married several of my cousins in short, simple ceremonies. My cousins are or were Jehovah's Witness. One of them coverted into another church, Baptist, I don't know. But he observes Christmas. He is the only member of my uncle's family who observes Christmas, and sends Christmas cards.

Add taking heroin to the list of having sex with animals, dead bodies, and children when speaking out against two consenting adults wanting to make their love official in the eyes of the world.

When this is what religion does to basic logic it is little wonder that non theist movements are growing faster than any organized religion today.

Actually it's not necessarily the acts, it's the urge.

A sick bastard may have sex with children simply because they are weak.
But it takes a special kind of defect to create the kind of urge that makes a pedophile think that having sex with a child is "normal"? They do.

That's the same difference between a guy/girl who sleeps with their gender in prison because there's no other way to relieve sexual tension.
Then you have the defective human that thinks having same-gender sex is the way they were supposed to "be". They do.

That's the difference that zoophiles say exists between they, who love animals, have a sexual attraction to them and would never dream of hurting one, and a bestialist, who only uses animals for sexual gratification. They do.

That has nothing to do with religion. It's just stating the facts as they exist. The human sexual urge is a f'd up mess. Some of the messes are just bigger and messier than others.

PN is just being a snot.

He jokes more than he is ever serious.