quote:Also, the reason marriage isn't a right is because what if someone doesn't want to marry you? Did they violate you're right to marriage?
Marriage isn't a singular right, of course, unless we wanted it to be possible for someone to marry themselves, as you suggested. The idea behind 'marriage' in this context--in almost all contexts--is, naturally, two consenting adults who choose that they want to function in the community as a unit, also being entitled to the standard benefits of that coupling.
The right to get married is like the right to vote. You can't vote when there is no election, but you still have the right to vote. You can't get married if no one will agree to it, but you still have the right to get married.
Doug, would you do me a favor and answer my last question?
"How would you react, Doug, if you and your fiancee, male and female, were denied marriage because you didn't agree with the local religion? Would you be offended at that point and demand your right to be married? Or would you accept that it was not the will of the community that you be wed and just move on? I think you're taking this "right" for granted because it IS readily available to you and your partner with no restrictions whatsoever."
quote: Homosexuals make up ~10% of the population, depending on your source, and will never be anywhere near a large minority of the population.
So, what is your threshold for a group to be large enough to be worthy of equality? Is it OK to deny equal employment and equal housing to Ukranians until they are >15% of the population? I like you Doug, but this arguement appalls me.
quote: Second, any type of legal protection granted by marriage can be achieved in the current system by use of current legal forms: Power of attorney and so forth. Many lifelong homosexual partners have these set in place and often work better than marriage because they can't be torn apart by the family courts.
I've addressed this before. Why should a committed gay couple have to go through the enormously more expensive and complicated process of hiring attorneys and peering into crystal balls to try and anticipate all future ways their union will be challenged in order to have the same protections of their union a drunk straight couple can get by dropping a few bucks at the Elvis Chappel of Love? I think it is naive to assert that all types of legal protection that a gay couple might need in the future even can be foreseen and addressed in advance, whereas a straight couple will get them all under the banner of "marriage", without having to take any additional precautions.
quote: Third, if we are going give "equal rights" to a minority of the population, then you must give it to all minority populations, like polygamy. What if someone wants to marry themselves?
No, it does not follow that because the complaints of one group are found to be ligitimate that all complaints of all groups must be found to be legitimate. How is your statement any different that saying "Well, we can't decide in favor of this plaintiff because then we'll have to find in favor of all of them."?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Rivka, questioning religious perspectives is not attacking them, and certainly can't be interpreted as an attack on you and your religious beliefs. If you disagree, fine, explain why -- but I have to say, thus far, it seems almost as though you're looking to stifle discussion, not actually defend your point of view.
Lalo, did you read Shan's earlier post and my reply to it? I was responding to each selection -- even though I find this a "go ahead! prove me wrong!" challenge. But statements like "I'm not finding any that are particularly appropriate for this day and age out of those 613," don't make me feel like I'm having a dialogue with an open-minded person. They make me feel that a very very very basic tenet of my beliefs is being treated with casual disdain, and dismissed.
Unlike some Hatrackers, I really try hard not to argue for the sake of arguing.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is polygamy that different? If a man or woman wants several spouses and everyone agrees to it, why can't they do it? How would they be harming anyone in society?
I'm not advocating it, but you blew that one off too quickly Eddie.
I don't think so. The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I like all you guys, you know. So I'm going to back out of this dicussion as gracefully as I can, and I hope I have not made anyone feel personally attacked. As a person whose actions were dictated by religious feeling for most of my life, I hope you all know that I respect those who have faith, even when I don't agree with them. I know how hard it can be to hold an unpopular belief.
Doug, the issue of polygamy isn't really the same, as it has some more complicated legal issues, but honestly, I don't see why consenting adults can't enter into partnerships of more than two people. Is it because I have the flu that polygamy/polyandry doesn't seem like that big a deal to me right now? *giggles*
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Lalo, really - what's the deal with being against polygamy but for gay marriage?
What if the second spouse was the same sex - you know, one spouse for reproduction, one for whatever, and everyone legally covered. Are you better with that?
quote: don't think so. The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically.
They may not be equal, but they certainly are comparable. A heterosexual and a homosexual marriage aren't equal either from your own definition.
It has been argued that gay marriage should be allowed because it harms no one and gays should be afforded the same rights as everyone else. If all parties are in agreement in a polygamous arrangement, how are they hurting anyone else? Why should they not be granted the same rights?
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If all parties are in agreement in a polygamous arrangement, how are they hurting anyone else? Why should they not be granted the same rights?
That's certainly better than the always popular wife-to-present-to-world-and-raise-kids and mistress-for-fun arrangement.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea of polygamy doesn't really bother me, but I wonder about certain differences. Now, I don't claim to understand the heart of a polygamist, but I myself could never be married to more than one person.
Because when you get married you're telling that person that you love them more than anyone else in the world. I can't see myself saying that to more than one person.
If that's possible for some people, I wouldn't judge them. But the issue of marriage benefits become much shakier with polygamy than they do with homosexuality. If we let anyone marry as many people as they wanted to, abuses of the system would run rampant. For that matter, you'd be hard pressed to get a company to pay health benefits for 14 wives.
Basically, I don't have a problem with polygamists getting married, but I highly doubt we could make it work to treat those marriages as we would a two person union.
The reason, then, that homosexual marriage and polygamy are not comparable is that one works within the current system without harming anyone and the other one could potentially destroy it, if benefits were involved. Not because its a sin or a pagan weapon of war, but because we simply have no infrastructure to make it work.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caleb, are you saying we should allow gay marriage because its easy to do so, but not grant polygamy because it would be hard? I think fighting the battle for giving them their rights would be far harder than the changes to the infrastructure that would have to occur.
A lot of changes had to be made to give African Americans equal rights and are continuing to be made today, but we did it because it was right regardless of how hard it would be.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I just had something of an epiphany. I think I know where, way back, the trains split tracks.
You're seeing marriage as a way to really, really say "I love you more than anything." Traditionally, marriage has been a way to bind and build society - create a foundation on which society can be built.
Maybe that's why marriage has fallen apart so much? Because, honestly, with greater independence and less emphasis on group projects (farms and so on), the only self-interested reason in the world to get married is because you're crazy in love and want to show it?
It isn't romantic and dreamy, but there are many reasons other than headlong romanticism to get married (I've heard). OSC himself does a great deal of writing on it.
If you think marriage is basically a permanent love letter (which loses meaning if the love isn't happening), then polygamy doesn't make sense and gay marriage does.
If you think love is one part of a marriage but not all, and that as an institution it is both more encompassing and more important and the structure of marriage essential, then the idea of marriage as a rescindable love letter is ... incomplete?
(I'm just trying to figure things out. No offense intended anywhere.)
Added: "We can't do polygamy because it's complicated." That's not going to work.
posted
I agree with you that polygamists should have the right to get married to whomever they wish.
All I'm saying is that I'm not sure how to do that responsibly, which is not an issue for homosexual marriage.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, if I ever had a child and that child chose or was born homosexual (and no one can claim, with any substantial evidence, that this point has been decided), I would still love them.
Yes, I would want them to have the same rights and priviliges and responsibilities as a heterosexual person or couple. This includes the right to adopt and raise children together. Even though I am by no means sure this wouldn't result in some substantial psychological problems in life. Not because homosexuality is wrong, but because society's recations to it is so mixed and often cruel or even violent that the child might really get a raw deal, which would result in possible issues.
Then again, until we start requiring permits to have children-something I am when I see certain news articles in favor of, until I cool off-the blatantly underqualified and unfit parents-to-be, there is no Constitutional grounds to deny this privilege to homosexual couples.
Personally I say concerning marriages make all of them a civil union. It would be the civil union that binds the couple together legally and confers all the rights and responsibilities under American laws of marriage. The civil union must be seperate, obviously distinct from any religious marriage. Swear to God not to cheat on your spouse, to share things, etc., but do that in church. Swear according to the law not to do those things and to do other things in a courtroom. It completely sidesteps the religious restrictions on homosexual unions and is, according to our American ideals and our Constitution, the only way to go. The fact that state governments have made bigoted and discriminatory laws to the contrary doesn't change that fact.
That said, just because a person thinks homosexuality is a sin does not, by that belief, make them a bigot. This is a common attack that is just as stupid, in my opinion, as the attack that homosexual unions should be legally impossible because God says so. The first goes from a belief to a label-belief that homosexuality is a sin to the label bigot (whether specifically said or not). The second goes from a belief to a law-I believe God says this, therefore it should be law.
I don't care if you think the disapproving Christian is a bigot, and I don't care if you think the homosexual is a sinner. Such things are completely outside a discussion of what the law is and is not, and what has been made of it. Even though more than half of Americans, according to polls, believe homosexual marriages should remain impossible here, that does not mean such a stance is lawful. We are not governed strictly by percentages. We are a republic, not a direct democracy. We have rules laid down on this issue quite specifically in the Constitution, and until and unless the Constitution is amended by the correct process, homosexual marriages should be legal in any state in the Union. Frankly, it is my belief that they are legal in America, but there are many laws on the state lawbooks that are illegal and wrongly adhered to.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shan is obviously not paying ANY attention if he can't find any of the 613 commandments that are still applicable today.
The first one springs immideately to mind "Be fruitful and multiply" is certainly considered one of the commandments.
Or, how about "Thou shalt not kill." Always applicable. Or "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Usually a good one to follow along to.
How about imitating god's good and upright ways, or loving god? There are ten commandments specifiying our relationship with god.
Or learning torah and teaching it. That seems pretty applicable to any jew, or even many christians. There are 6 commandments concerning our relationship with Torah. For a jew, obviously these would all still be applicable.
From leviticus, we are not supposed to stand idly by while a human life is in danger. Nor are we supposed to wrong anyone in speech.
Nor are we supposed to cherish hatred in our heart.
The list goes on and on and on... This is a small sampling, shan. Obviously, you weren't looking very hard. Either that, or perhaps you just want to undermine a religion that isn't yours.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Well I don't know where you got that idea--perhaps from my pondering about the nature of polygamic love?--but it is not my personal definition of marriage.
But to be honest, I don't think it should matter to you what I think marriage is about. All that matters is that I want the right to join in union with whomever I wish, and be privvy to the various societal benefits that are given to recognized monogamous relationships.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dignity is not something that is ever specifically granted in American law. How could something so nebulous ever be written into law?
That does not mean that our laws are not designed to protect it, however. The dignity Caleb is speaking of is at the heart of the American Dream (to go cliche-y).
Caleb does not want to be married in any church. He wants a civil union that confers the same rights and responsibilities upon him and any future partner as does any heterosexual couple in America. What the Law is and should be is not a discussion that includes words like "sin" and "Will of God" and other such disapproving statements. We are not a theocracy, we are a republic. Someone, anyone please show me where in the Constitution it states that homosexuals are somehow inferior citizens when compared to heterosexuals, and then perhaps I can understand a basis for prohibiting homosexual unions.
No one can show much such a thing. The very idea of an "inferior citizen" flies in the face of everything America stands for. Not American citizens, not American churches, and not an American God, but America itself. Marriages are not a "public blessing", they have substantial legal benefits and responsibilities attached to them.
Other people have said it better. Whether or not an action or a thought is a sin to a specific religious group-no matter how numerous and powerful that group may be-has no bearing on whether or not the sin should be legislated. The Law is seperate from religion. Your religion's preacher or pastor or Pope or mullah or ayatollah or priest did not make this nation a republic and write its laws. In America, human beings are human beings, period. That means that, until they committ a crime, they have the same rights and responsibilities as every other human being in America. Homosexuality is not a crime, anymore than sodomy is a crime or interracial travel is a crime. State laws may say such things are crimes, but the fact of the matter is that those laws are unConstitutional and against our sacred ideals as Americans. They're only adhered to because collectively we don't have the balls to strike them down. We don't have the ability as a nation to ensure that religious laws and restrictions only apply to followers of those religions, and not to other citizens.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* You're quite welcome:) Although I do have to lament, as a heterosexual male, all the wasted potential! I've seen pictures of you on www.foobonic.com, specifically the one with all the wimmins. *sigh*
quote: Swear to God not to cheat on your spouse, to share things, etc., but do that in church. Swear according to the law not to do those things and to do other things in a courtroom. It completely sidesteps the religious restrictions on homosexual unions and is, according to our American ideals and our Constitution, the only way to go.
Rakeesh, that's exactly how I feel. If homosexuals want benefits from the marriages that heterosexuals have, then let them have it.
I just don't they should expect Christian churches to marry them (for reasons I said earlier in the thread).
posted
I may be mistaken, but has anyone EVER argued that Christian churches should be forced to marry anybody? They don't have to perform wedding ceremonies for any heterosexual union, so I don't see why people are concerned about it. It's not as if those of us in favor of human rights are trying to edit Church doctrine.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You should get that looked at, Zan. It appears to me that your condition is colloquially known as "glutton for punishment" Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wetchik, the thing is, I haven't seen a single person claim to be for forcing churches to recognize it. I think you have been incorrectly interpreting posts.
posted
The strange thing is, though, that there already are a small number of Christian churches that will marry gay couples and will declare them married before God. I've attended more than one such wedding myself. I never cease to be amazed at the number of Christians who speak in the name of Christianity when what they are really espousing is their own narrow little version of it.
Additionally, most gay people simply don't care what the churches that oppose them think. Very few gays are actively trying to get churches to marry them. The overwhelming majority of the effort is to change civil law.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, let me re-phrase that last bit. The overwhelming majority of the effort is to secure equal recognition of their union in the civil arena. The majority of the effort expended in changing laws has been from the anti-gay side.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I never cease to be amazed at the number of Christians who speak in the name of Christianity when what they are really espousing is their own narrow little version of it
Are you saying that I'm "espousing" my own narrow little version?
Well, you're right. Not many think as I do. Not many Christians believe that there should be unions at all. Was that supposed to be insulting? Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it wasn't supposed to be insulting, and it wasn't directed at you specifically, either.
However, that said, you do seem to write in a manner that sounds like you're speaking for Christianity in general when in reality there is no one on the planet who can do that. One can only speak for one's own version of Christianity. My point is that there are plenty of Christians now - and their numbers are growing - who believe that homosexuals are equal in the eyes of God and who believe that a monogamous homosexual relationship is not sinful. I'll readily admit that these thinkers are still a minority, but they do exist and they do call themselves Christians.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, must be my misinterpretation... When you make statements like:
quote:I just don't [think/believe] they should expect Christian churches to marry them (for reasons I said earlier in the thread).
When you add words like just, and basically reiterate this point in every post, it begins to seem like there are people, particularly in this thread, who are somehow arguing that churches should bend to the state.
We get it. No one is arguing that position in this thread.
That was what I was responding to, the repeated restatement of a point no one has attacked... It makes it sound like you are defensive, and perhaps (knowingly or not) trying to goad people into arguing with it because they misinterpret it as being an argument for the restriction of marriage rights in civil law.
I realize now that this isn't the case, but surely you can see this repetition as distracting?
posted
The thing is Caleb, if a community does not want a particular aspect of society. Whether that is drinking, excessively loud music, or homosexual marriage, a community/state/country has the right to provide or deny it according to the wishes of the majority. It is not persecution to not allow a gay couple to get married in North Carolina, when they can be married in Vermont.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, she just works all day, Paul. And I don't have the luxury of playing on the forum from work.
A 1000 apologies to all the irritated - I didn't stick to my main idea closely enough - which was this:
I don't think it's justifiable to pick and choose which laws you'll follow.
Which is where rivka and I started to diverge. I was informed that she knew those particular books better than anyone, in original languages no less, and followed all the rules, period. I questioned that by tossing out a handful of quotes. I might not read Greek or Latin, but I do read King James, so I figured I could point out an item or two. All in the spirit of lively debate, you know.
I also stated that Jesus himself questioned blindly following all the rules and exhorted his followers to the great commandments of "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself."
And like I said, feel free to hang me for a heretic, but questioning blanket statements that are made is not an attack on anyone. So - get over it!
P.S. For anyone that remembers this particular story - a young man approached Jesus asking what he needed to do to gain access to Heaven and stated that he followed all of those inummerable laws to the letter. Do you remember what Jesus said? Get rid of all that you possess and follow me. Think on that for a minute.
For the life of me, I can't see Jesus condemning another person. As far as I can tell, He just loved them, sometimes gently and sometimes toughly. But nonetheless, He loved. And that's what he told us to do.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just some heathen baiting people that obviously know better. Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shan, for what it's worth, I got that you were questioning the assertion that the poster in question followed ALL the old testament laws, verbatim, not that you were picking on religion, or the religious beliefs of a group of people.
Like, I know of a guy who never so much as kissed his wife before the "I do"s. That, to me, was weird and scary-- and I was a firm believer in waiting for marriage for, you know, the REAL goodies. My point being that individuals do sometimes take religious rules to unhealthy extremes.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don’t think the real problem is people picking and choosing what law to follow: I believe in a lot of the values conveyed by the Bible, but I also disagree with a lot of them.
If you view the Bible as a historical document, written by real people (a collection of stories, if you will) which will be coloured by historical political events as well as the author’s personal bias and motivations, then I think this approach is perfectly sound and rational.
If however you believe that the Bible is 100% truthful and is literally the word of God, perhaps it becomes more difficult to justifying picking and choosing. There is a middle ground – people who believe the Bible is an important spiritual text and believe it is based on the words of God, but also recognise the historical context in which it was written and regard it accordingly.
I think the problem arises where someone picks and chooses, then bases their belief solely on the law/statement that they selectively chose. That is, if you’re prepared to say “I believe xyz is a sin because Paul said so and that is enough for me’ I think it is hypocritical not follow all of Paul’s (or whichever book’s) teachings.
Of course, such hypocrisy is fine when it’s done in private. Everyone can believe whatever they want, and base it on whatever they want. It’s when people start it to impose their own personal beliefs on other people who may not agree that I have a problem.
For me, this includes homosexual marriages – both secular and religious. (I’m not saying that churches should be forced to marry homosexual couples; but I see no problem with the Anglican churches that do, and their congregations who agree with that decision.)
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lalo, really - what's the deal with being against polygamy but for gay marriage?
What if the second spouse was the same sex - you know, one spouse for reproduction, one for whatever, and everyone legally covered. Are you better with that?
Yes, Kat. Exactly. I'm for homosexual marriage, but against polygamy. The only way I'd be happy is if it were homosexual polygamy.
Just, y'know, out of curiosity, how did you pull that crap out of what I said? Reproduced below, in italics:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How is polygamy that different? If a man or woman wants several spouses and everyone agrees to it, why can't they do it? How would they be harming anyone in society?
I'm not advocating it, but you blew that one off too quickly Eddie. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think so. The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically.
The merits of polygamy -- as you may have noticed had you paid closer attention -- are arguable. I don't have a firm stance on it yet, neither condemning nor praising it. But homosexual monogamy -- pay careful attention to the subtle differences between the terms "polygamy" and "monogamy" -- has nothing to do with polygamy, no more than heterosexual monogamy has to do with polygamy.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- don't think so. The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They may not be equal, but they certainly are comparable. A heterosexual and a homosexual marriage aren't equal either from your own definition.
It has been argued that gay marriage should be allowed because it harms no one and gays should be afforded the same rights as everyone else. If all parties are in agreement in a polygamous arrangement, how are they hurting anyone else? Why should they not be granted the same rights?
ZGator, like I said, polygamy's an entirely different can of beans. Heterosexual and homosexual monogamy are equivalent, especially by my definition of them. Both are an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between a couple. Polygamy, as I said above in my address to Kat, may be able to stand on its own in an argument -- but in an argument over monogamy, I'm afraid I fail to see how it's compatible with the discussion.
Why not introduce pedophila while we're trying to make intellectually false comparisons to homosexual monogamy?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have the time right now but i'll post again soon.
Since it seems nobody remembers my true position on this subject, and everybody is getting angry with me, let me just say:
I'm of the "All or nothing" crowd. You can't just pander and destroy an instiution over a thousand years old just for one group. If you want to totaly redefine what marriage is then you must include EVERYBODY under the sun, not just what groups you like. So change it for everybody or don't change it for anybody.
Posts: 7083 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for stating that so clearly. However, I now have to respond that I think that is a ridiculously simplistic approach to the situation. I believe that out of all the possible changes to the conventional idea of marriage, some proposed changes will have merit and others won't. To simply say, we'll if we let you have your change then we have to implement all changes ad absurdem is to stick your head in the sand. This attitude, I feel, is a cop out and it is, quite frankly, insultingly dismissive of what I feel is a valid complaint.
quote:Both are an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between a couple.
heterosexual monogamy - an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between 2 members of the opposite sex
homosexual monogamy - an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between 2 members of the same sex
polygamy - an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between more than 2 members of either sex
They still seem fairly comparable to me.
quote:But homosexual monogamy -- pay careful attention to the subtle differences between the terms "polygamy" and "monogamy" -- has nothing to do with polygamy, no more than heterosexual monogamy has to do with polygamy.
I never said that homosexual monogamy did have anything to do with polygamy. Maybe you're the one who needs to pay better attention.
quote:The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically.
Maybe you missed it, but many people don't find homosexual relationships to be morally equal with heterosexual relationships any more than polygamy is. You're still avoiding the question instead responding with backhanded insults. If society should allow homosexual marriages, why shouldn't it allow poygamous marriages as well? As Caleb pointed out, there certainly would be more legal issues to deal with in legalizing polygamy, but if it's the right thing to do, that shouldn't stand in the way.
quote:Why not introduce pedophila while we're trying to make intellectually false comparisons to homosexual monogamy?
Because we all realize that pedophilia has a definite victim. One of your chief arguments has always been that there is no victim in homosexuality. Who is the victim in polygamy if all parties are in agreement?
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
So I'm going to back out of this dicussion as gracefully as I can, and I hope I have not made anyone feel personally attacked. As a person whose actions were dictated by religious feeling for most of my life, I hope you all know that I respect those who have faith, even when I don't agree with them. I know how hard it can be to hold an unpopular belief.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Hi, Imogen! Well said. 
