posted
Letters to the editor over the St. Petersburg Times' recent decision to run same-sex union announcements along with their wedding announcements. While I'm fairly sure this will break along "it's a sin, it's not a sin" lines, what do you folks think?
I support it because I support the concept of marriage, and anything that encourages stronger and more lasting unions is a Good Thing. What sends a better message for unmarried people? The same-sex union of a couple that love each other and want to tell the world, or a pop star that marries and divorces in two days?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:While I'm fairly sure this will break along "it's a sin, it's not a sin" lines,
Actually, there are a few religious people here who have expressed openness for equal marriage rights for homosexual couples, reasoning that their view does not need to be legally established. I think Zan and Pat have fallen into this camp (my apologies if I am mistaken about either of you views!). I just wanted to point out that not everyone who thinks homosexual sex is a sin is in favor of imposing that belief on everybody else.
I think this will break more along legalizing homosexual marriage lines, and can't imagine how it would be otherwise. But we'll still debate it for several pages and viciously insult people on both sides, and one or two people will leave for a while.
Sorry, I shouldn't dump on you.
In any case, I think it's a good idea, and I agree wholeheartedly with your perspective on it. But then, I'm all for legalizing and legally recognizing gay marriage, so no surprise there.
posted
I see this as a triumph, because it just shows that, whether you believe it's right or not, society is moving in a direction where same sex couples will one day have the same rights as heterosexuals. Like evolution, and most controvesies rising from religion vs. society, it's really only a matter of time before society wins, just like it did with heliocentrism.
Society is far too tolerant of far too despicable lifestyles to continue to discriminate against homosexuals. Why is it protected to live your entire life publishing an underground newspaper advocating the death of an entire minority group, but unprotected to engage in a relationship with a member of the same sex.
Okay. Five issues, two paragraphs. I need to stop before I hurt myself.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like evolution, and most controvesies rising from religion vs. society, it's really only a matter of time before society wins, just like it did with heliocentrism.
Okay, this is that general distaste for Christian some people have that I commented on in the other thread, that leads people to make bigoted statements.
I am not gay, but I support equal rights and fair treatment for homosexuals.
I do not consider myself Christian, but I support equal rights and fair treatment for Christians as well.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think he's showing distaste for Christianity, really.
I mean, if I was anything I'd be a Christian, more by culture than be belief, certainly, but...
I think it has been established that society has a way of changing religion. I mean, Christian preachers used to support slavery-- the BIble was even used in that way, but most Christians don't go for that now.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find the casual statement that religion is in opposition to society, and that progress can be measured by the extent to which we move away from religion as a whole to be a bigoted statement. It's also shockingly blind to the overwhelmingly positive effect religion has had over the centuries in creating civilization. It's just the sort of wrong-headed thing said by people who find Christianity, and religion in general, distasteful.
Believe what you will, but why was it necessary to insult all Christians in this post? Why was it necessary for Paul to do the same in his first post on the other thread? By all means, put down hypocrites. Put down sanctimonious people. Disagree with the views of anybody you want.
But that statement was a slam.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, there are a few religious people here who have expressed openness for equal marriage rights for homosexual couples, reasoning that their view does not need to be legally established.
Only because I haven't commented in a homosexual thread 'til now, I'd like to state that that's my opinion as well. I see homosexuality as a sin, but so are fornication and drunkedness, and there's no law against those (though they can lead to broken laws, but they aren't against the law in themselves). And what about gluttony? That's a sin, but if a law was made against it, the majority of the US population would be behind bars. As long as it's not endangering anybody but the people involved (not to say that the people involved will inevitably be in danger), I don't believe there should be a law against it.
Okay, that's all. Anyway, about this article...when they say "union", I think they mean "marriage", right? Or as close to marriage as is legally possible for them? I'm just not up and ons with this legal mumbo jumbo. If it's merely two homosexuals that start dating, I think that's extraordinarily stupid and is totally out of proportion. If it is marriage, though, or close to it, I don't see the problem with it.
posted
That would make a wonderful debate on a different thread--what has the more "civilizing" factor--Religion on Society or Society on Religion.
However, for this one, this is the free market at work. If more people either want same-sex announcements or do not care if they are in their paper than those who will refuse to buy that paper because of this decision, then they will remain.
I think they are great, and am looking forward to the Gay Wedding Show on BRAVO next season.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's also shockingly blind to the overwhelmingly positive effect religion has had over the centuries in creating civilization
Overwhelmingly positive? I dont think I would say that as a matter of fact. For the most part (I would like to preface this by saying that it is not simply in refernce to all christians but to all religions, so that I hope to offend no one) religion has had a terrible impact upon the history of mankind. It has caused men to go to war in order to change the relgion of others, it has created an atmosphere of intolernace towards gays, blacks, and other races of man, and most importantly, it allows its follows to justify dispicable acts of evil (september 11). While religion does have some good impact on society, clearly the history of man is a testament to the destructive power of religion.
I applaud those who believe, as I do, that we cannot define love and we certainly should not ill-define it. Marriage should be the union of two people who love each other and want to share that with the world. While I am not gay, I have witnessed first-hand the hardship that follows from telling the world. I have seen a good friend nearly shot by his father for being gay all in the name of God.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that Christians are often slammed in pop culture. Just look at how many stories have crazy preacher-types as the baddies. That has always hacked me off.
But religion DOES respond to changes in society, and it does seem sort of evolutionary. I mean, slavery, the vote for women, etc. have all been issues that society faced, and people tried to make religious arguments to defend the status quo.
I don't think real Christianity has a problem with women voting, or people of color having equal rights under the law, but religion was used that way.
I don't think that societal recognition of gay couples will cripple Christian beliefs or anything. Some folks use those beliefs to prevent societal change, and that is thier right.
I think Idem is saying that the change itself is kind of inevitable, as many social changes are, regardless of the various religious beliefs of the components of that society.
I mean, he didn't even use the word Christianity; I'm sure Allah probably forbids the man-love, too. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know this came up in the other post. I was there. I remember saying that I in no way find Christianity distasteful. But do you deny that there have been times when religion, particularly Christian religion, has conflicted with society as a whole? Actually. You are right. I was wrong. I suppose I should have said religion took an opposite stance from science, not society. For in the case of Heliocentrism, religion WAS the prevailing society.
I think you will agree with me, however, when I say that the church was wrong when it fought against heliocentrism, but at the time, the sentiments were much the same as they are today on issues like homosexuality and evolution. The idea that the earth revolved around the sun was an affront to God and undermined the sanctity of faith. Now, of course, that issue has been relegated to the history books and Christians see no problem in following God and believing in heliocentrism at the same time.
All I said was that the issue of homosexuality is in the same place now that heliocentrism was then. Social science says it's fine. The courts are slowly but surely coming around to the same thing. Most importantly, homosexuality is no longer seen as a mental illness. Science has taken up the homosexual's part. Religion stands opposed. Those religious organizations that do begin to accept homosexuals take flak from both sides. It's an ugly fight. But the end, history tells us, is inevitable. A triumph for human rights.
As for religion's overwhelmingly positive affect on society, you'll get no arguments from me. I'm a protestant myself (though clearly a bit of a malformed one.) The contributions of people specifically inspired by religion to art, family, yes even politics and science are magnificent. However, when religion takes up one of these causes that become more important to its followers than the very people they try to reach, wars start, people are persecuted, and general badness ensues.
Hopefully no wars will start over evolution or homosexuality, but people ARE being persecuted. Not least those compassionate religious people who interact with others who are not so compassionate. But the world is changing. Unfortunately, it can't change all at once and there will be a lot of hardship before it's done. Every time I see an article like this, it reminds me that the end will be good, though.
Let me just end by saying, when I go to church and see the "God Hates Fags" bus sitting outside in the parking lot to protest the pastor's teaching that is not condemning enough for them, I think "Go, Pastor. Tell it like it is." Christianity is not the problem. Christians who turn their brains off and forget that they are only FIGURATIVELY sheep are the problem.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oops, Olivet! I think I used the word Christianity now. Damn.
Anyway, I just thought I would share what I mean by saying a split. Religion and science did not always disagree that homosexuality is against God and Nature. If you have time, listen toThis episode of This American Life, which is my absolute favorite radio show of all time.
Jerry,
How could I forget to mention the havoc that emerges when completely different religions meet!
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you will agree with me, however, when I say that the church was wrong when it fought against heliocentrism, but at the time, the sentiments were much the same as they are today on issues like homosexuality and evolution.
I do agree with you, both on heliocentrism and on this issue. Both of those are cases where I would say religion was wrong. My point was just that it would be arrogant to say that when religion and "society" disagree, religion is necessarily (i.e., always) the one that is wrong.
posted
I'm sure this has been said before, probably a lot more succintly:
The difference between heliocentrism and homosexuality is that there was never a law in the Bible that could be interpreted as saying the earth shouldn't rotate the sun, but there are verses that many Christians could reasonably say go against homosexuality. Same with slavery, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong. The only examples I can think of involving slavery were when people were trying to get out of it. That doesn't include verses where slaves were told to be good slaves. That doesn't necessarily mean that slavery was condoned.
The problem with the places in history where there was a fight between "science" (or human rights) and "religion" is that they were usually led be a huge...how do you say it? They were times when religion was the driving force of everything and the guys in charge had to keep themselves there. I'm talking about huge organizations with one guy in charge, and they took over everything. Religion in many places has changed a lot since then, and has been broken up into more of a personal experience rather than a governmental one. I guess my point is that there were many reasons for the guys in charge of the church in the old days to want to make sure everyone knew who was boss, and to resist something that might make them lose a foothold. I'm not sure it's still like that anymore, and the view that homosexuality is a sin is more likely to be a personal feeling rather than a force of nature.
posted
If I knew that a newspaper's policy was NOT to run same-sex union announcements, I would NEVER post my own marriage announcement there.
I think they should post divorce announcements though too.
"Scopatz/xxx split" The ex-bride wore a smart business suit as she was rushing between meetings. The ex-husband wore kahki pants, short-sleeve shirt, blue tie and a blazer. In greeting friends after the event, the ex-husband was heard to report that he planned to "catch up on his onanism."
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The difference between heliocentrism and homosexuality is that there was never a law in the Bible that could be interpreted as saying the earth shouldn't rotate the sun, but there are verses that many Christians could reasonably say go against homosexuality.
I think this is a weak statement because of all the dozens (hundreds?) of verses condemning actions that Modern Christians do not condemn.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that religion was used as a tool of the powerful doesn't change the fact that the people on the ground believed it was still rooted in God. But I'm afraid I can't agree with your first statement. At the time of the "war" over heliocentrism (almost used the word jihad. That would have turned some heads, maybe) took place, it was the view of the religious organization that the scriptures demanded belief in a geocentric universe. I haven't really done much research into the topic, so I'm not sure which verses they used, but it was a firmly held belief that was incorporated into the religion as a whole. Nobody denied that part of being a christian meant that you have to believe in geocentrism. Whether we still interpret the scriptures that way or not, at the time the belief was seen to have a foundation in the scripture.
Conversely, a lot of the laws that really are blatantly spelled out in scripture are now blatantly ignored every time you sit down to barbecued pork chops. The prohibitions homosexuality, however, even if you do still hold them to be true, should not prevent same sex couples from being able to claim the same rights as couples that straights enjoy.
If a gay couple have been together for thirty years and one of them dies, the other can't collect the life insurance.
Once again, seriously listen to the above linked show. I think you'll find it interesting.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle will now insert her obligatory post on old vs. new covenant and how Christians are not bound by the old law, e.g., the listings of prohibitions in Leviticus.
Edit: sorry, this was in response to:
quote:I think this is a weak statement because of all the dozens (hundreds?) of verses condemning actions that Modern Christians do not condemn.
[ January 30, 2004, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: there was never a law in the Bible that could be interpreted as saying the earth shouldn't rotate the sun
Actually, Joshua 10:12-13 and Habakkuk 3:11 were interpreted in exactly that way, as part of the anti-heliocentrism argument.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris' newspaper doesn't list them. I have absolutely no idea whether or not it's in the workings, though. I'm not privy to that level of planning. I would guess that if management thought they could do it without annoying major advertisers, they'll get around to it eventually.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very Well. Old vs. New Covenant is a very good point. Then what is the new Covenant?
quote:Mat 22:37 And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' Mat 22:38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. Mat 22:39 "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' Mat 22:40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
None of the following can be found anywhere in the red letters of the Bible, so might as well stop looking...
"Keep not thy sexual desire focused upon thine own gender, but only in those whose sex organs look not like yours. Be not like those who lie with men as though they are women for they shall never enter the kingdom of heaven."
If I'm not mistaken, the above quoted passage from Matthew IS the new covenant, right? There's no more. That's it. No huge scrolls of law, no prescriptions of penalties for specific crimes. Those words of Christ sum up his entire ministry. John 3:16 notwithstanding. The letters by Paul were all written after the church was already formed! Take another look at that. Paul was a missionary, but he was no Christ. Therefore his insights, his revelations, and his studies may be true, but his commands were not binding. That's why hair braiding is still allowed, and that's why homosexuals should be treated with respect.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sun Revolving around the earth question--Doesn't God "stop the Sun" during one of the wars for Cannaan?
More importantly I disagree with you that there are not important people who seek to maintain their earthly/political power over large congregations by blocking too swift of social change.
Even worse, there are Wolves in Shepherd's Clothing who's only claim to fame, power, and the worship of their followers is by attacking any social change.
While these leaders call themselves Christian, and confuse or connive many good Christians into following their hate filled ways, they themselves are more of a problem than Gay Marriages, Heliocentric Universe Dbate or Evolution ever were.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1pe 3:3 Whose [adorning] let it not be the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on apparel;
1pe 3:4 but [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible [apparel] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
Put in context it's pretty easy to see that Peter is not writing that braiding of hair should be prohibited. If it were, then we would be prohibited from wearing clothes too.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
My opinion tends to run a little like this in this situation, but not in all of them.
They had to "interpret" the heck out of those verses to get them to say that there's no way for the earth to rotate around the sun. I mean, for goodness sake. It says "Let the sun stand still over Gibeon", not in the whole universe. If I looked up and the sun hadn't moved for three hours, I might say the sun had stopped, too. (Actually, I guess I did.) It's a figure of speech, regardless of whether he thought the sun actually had to be stopped or not. Not that you didn't know that.
But I also feel that it takes quite a bit of special interpretation to get those verses about homosexuality to not mean homosexuality. I know how you feel about this; I'm sorry. I just think the verses about homosexuality lean more towards condemning gay marriage than condoning.
But that's not what this thread is about.
I guess it boils down to how I define interpreting, in this sense, and I'm not going to even go there. That would offend everyone in this forum. (In case there were any left who weren't already.)
Posts: 264 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where in my posts do you get that I think homosexuals shouldn't be treated with respect?
Paul is not Jesus, but Paul is considered an apostle of the church whose writings were inspired by God. They're still scripture.
The Bible does have some specific things to say about homosexuality in both the Old and the New Testament, and a whole bunch to say about what marriage is supposed to be about. In every instance, marriage is described as being between a man and woman.
I'm really quit sick and tired of people assuming that I hate homosexuals just because of my religious beliefs. I think the behavior is a sin. I don't hate the people. I don't condemn them, I don't judge them.
I am just as much a sinner as they are - I just don't happen to share that particular sin. But I have plenty of others I need to repent of every day.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, you are right. The verses about homosexuality do much that condemns it. Nevertheless, those verses are right next to the ones about not eating pork. The laws against homosexuality were in the old covenant that Belle so rightly made the distinction of.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry Belle. I figured we were mostly in agreement. I didn't mean to attack you. I was referring to those people who want to make sure that the incident which inspired this thread never happens. Those who want to see homosexual couples treated like vermin. Those who want to see that they are never given rights. Those who want to see their fellow man suffer for his desires.
Basically, I'm talking about the God Hates Fags guys. I strongly disagree with those people who want to keep homosexuals from being able to legally confirm their commitment, but my revulsion is reserved for those who go out of their way to trample on them. People who have "Marriage = Man + Woman" bumper stickers.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, there's plenty of good stuff about homosexuality in the NT too...gimme a sec and I'll find 'em.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recognizing Homosexual civil unions or whatever, wouldn't necesarily change the beliefs of the church, or of religious people. No reason why it should.
There is also no real support for having those religious views dictate secular law. I mean, lots of things are considered sin and condemned by various religious texts that are NOT illegal.
And I think there are some Christians, who, to this day, even now, actually DO believe that those verses prohibit braiding and make-up and stuff. I sort of think they're crazy, but whaddya gonna do? Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I forget if I read it on hatrack, but I recently saw a citation of a fun verse in Revelation that hardly supports slavery, but does suggest its going to come around again before the end.
Revelation 18:13, I think.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Romans 1 26For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
quote: 1 Corinthians 6 9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
posted
Yeah, I know. I just saw those on the God Hates Fags website. Not that I'm accusing you of being of that crowd, but I thought I would look before posting. That's really why I put in the bit about Paul.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel weird about the idea that the OT is virtually obsolete because of the new covenant, and that anything written by Paul can be left out because he wasn't God. (Which, I must point out, neither were any of the other people who wrote the Bible.) They might as well stop selling Bibles and just sell sweatbands that say "Love God, love others".
Posts: 264 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nevertheless, that bit from Corinthians is really interesting. Beause you see, nobody is kicking Alcoholics or "Drunkards", out of churches. Nor are they refusing to print their wedding announcements, nor are they denying them insurance benefits. I really am sorry this discussion turned religious because it was about social change in Homosexuals' favor. The very fact that we are arguing about this shows that the tides are turning. BTW, did anybody have a chance to listen to the radio show I referenced above? I'm not going to convince you.
But away from the emotionally charged to the hypothetical. Do you think the next generation will still be having this argument? What about a hundred years from now?
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you're right. The bit about Paul was an easy answer and I shouldn't have written it. Obviously his words are scripture because we have faith in God. If we doubt the words of Paul, we must doubt the human scribes who wrote the Bible. While it's an interesting topic, and very heated, the council of Nicea is a thread for another day. Consider the point about Paul being written off withdrawn.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
"You have defeated me in battle. Henceforth, we are brothers. Let us fight for the right as one!" -Sir Didymus, Labyrinth
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keeping in mind that I'm not theistic, I would say that the Old Testament is obsolete. Rather, the events in the New Testament fulfill the prophecies of the OT. Different thing.
I tend to give St. Paul the same respect I give the Rev. Billy Graham. He's undeniably Christian, he's done a great deal of good in spreading the word and helping others, but I feel that some of his opinions are completely wrong and come from his own beliefs rather than from God.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I will be honest. I turned on the broadcast and listened to the first bit, but I couldn't turn it up loud because my kids were sleeping, and I ended up tuning it out. I'll have to try again later. I did get the beginning though. _____
The problem (this has been said before too) is the confusion about whether Christians hate gays. I guess some do. But I don't think most Christians think people with drinking problems or gay people or anyone like that should be hated and kept out of the church. We just don't believe we are supposed to celebrate and condone them living those lives proudly.
The Bible says they won't enter the kingdom of God. But he's talking about a "drunkard" in the sense that he loves drinking and does it alot and doesn't give a rip. (He loves his sin, in other words.) That is different from a Christian alcoholic who hates his sin and wants to change.
1. We don't hate people who do things that we don't agree with. 2. We don't have to say we agree with them.
edit: Sorry, it takes me too long to type. I'm a really good speaker, but terrible with the written word. I keep trying to type what I would say, and the written word cannot be treated like that. Therefore my posts take forever to type and are often tedious.
posted
But religious belief and law are two different things.
People can, of course, attempt to prevent the recognition of homosexual unions based on their beliefs. I think it is not only common, but a necessary part of social change. It keeps things from changing too fast.
Now, I know that to Mormons, my marriage isn't as... what? holy?... as a temple marriage, but their belif does not mean that my marriage isn't legal, or that I personally don't consider it holy.
I think that can be extrapolated to a larger scale, too. I mean, religious people of many different flavors don't recognize homosexual marriage as in any way equal to their own, and when they do become legally accepted, that probably won't change. It doesn't mean, however, that the married homosexuals take their bonds lightly.
The one letter that was headed, "An Insult To Real Marriages" made me laugh. Britany Spear's marriage was somehow more 'real' than two fellows who went to Canada for a privaledge denied them in the U.S.? *snort* I'm more insulted by the popularity of "Whoops!" marriages than by two committed individuals who probably got death threats over their announcement.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, that whole Brittany Spears thing bugs me. Not just because it happened, but because of how people keep using it. I don't think anyone thinks that scenario was a good idea, nor would most people consider it a "marriage", rather than a moment of stupidity. Her "marriage" meant nothing, obviously. Do people keep bringing that up because the state let her have this "marriage" but wouldn't let gays, or what? How could they have known how it would end? I just don't understand why a lot of people keep using this to prove...something. I don't know what it proves. That people are stupid? Duh.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used it because I consider it unfair that two heterosexual people can abuse the marriage vows legally and without much fuss, but committed and dedicated homosexual couples are left out.
I'm in favor of lasting relationships. I'm in favor of lifelong romance and love and caring for children and forming strong family bonds. I don't especially care what sex the people involved are, or what they do after hours. I submit that if people who truly want to be family were allowed to be, our society would be the stronger for it. And it completely escapes me why anyone would have a problem with that.
[ January 30, 2004, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
-Sir Didymus, Labyrinth
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[feels very non-hypocritical]
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
