It is a violation of the separation of church and state, and as such, needs to be removed from government endorsement.

It is a clear violation of the separation of church and state that wasn't even added until the 50s. I feel the same way as a Christian would pledging allegiance to "one nation under Allah" or "one nation under no god".

It depends on if the laws are reasonable. If it is a law banning their religion without good reason (ex: human sacrifices), then yes, it should be perfectly okay. If it is telling them not to perform human sacrifices, then that law is reasonable, and should be followed, as that religion is harmful (though they all are, in my opinion, it would be more harmful than others).

If there is an omniscient God, then we would all be doing exactly as it predicts. If it is omnipotent, then that means it has complete control over what we do. If it has a plan, then we must have to follow it. That is not free will. That is puppetry.

Why shouldn't health insurance address major health concerns like this? Covering contraception helps reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, as birth control can be very expensive. Besides, a person may be in an abusive relationship with a partner is sabotaging birth control, and need something covert. Or they may have PCOS or another health condition that can be treated with hormonal birth control.

Of course! There should be publicly funded birth control everywhere of all effective kinds! IUDs and hormonal implants are great long-term solutions to prevent pregnancy, as things like pills and condoms fail more often. Of course, people should always use condoms, as they are added protection against pregnancy, and also help prevent STDs.

If you mean that females should have separate sports teams, then yes. It should be based on sex rather than gender. I don't mean to be trans-exclusionary, but males and females have very different muscles. I'm not sure where they should put someone born intersex, but females are generally less strong, so unless one stands out in that area, they should be put on an all-female team.

As long as everyone consents to it, nothing should be wrong with taking multiple partners. For some reason, when polygamy is brought up, everyone thinks of polygyny. That isn't the only form. It's not about controlling women; it's about having a consensual relationship in which there happens to be multiple people legally recognized, whether that relationship consists of men, women, nonbinaries, or any combination. Also, a quick Google search will tell you that there are no problems when raising children.

This isn't a theocracy. A lot of same-sex couples aren't part of any religion, or they may not take their holy texts literally. Besides, there are a lot of children waiting to be adopted that wouldn't care the sex of the parents. Also, there is no reason to believe that it would harm children in any way. That has been shown to be false.

The question isn't whether or not the fetus is alive. The question is whether or not it is sentient and bodily autonomous. You wouldn't force someone to donate blood, even if to save another sentient being. Likewise, you shouldn't force someone to give incubate what can be called a human, but not a human being, as human beings are sentient and not relying on another's body. Also, criminalizing abortion has statistically shown not only be ineffective, but endanger pregnant people's lives. Besides, "partial-birth" abortion is usually reserved for when severe abnormalities are detected that would endanger the pregnant person's or the fetus' lives. Being forced to give birth to a dead baby, or risk your life for a pregnancy is cruel.