posted
You know, Irregardless, that people argued the same thing about people who were A) not Married in the "Official" Church, and later B) married to someone of a different nationality, race or religion.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senoj, I feel for you, and back when the MA amendment fight was going on, I sent an email to supporting her vote to not approve the amendment. I also stated that I wouldn't necessarily support my church if they recognized same-sex marriage (which is true, I'm on the fence on that). It was my way of reminding the politicians not to overstep their bounds.
What frustrated me (in MA) was the way the amendment supporters tried to frame the issue as one of political process, rather than ideology. Except that at no point had the political process been subverted. When the amendment wasn't voted on, due to the convention being closed prior to it coming to the floor, there were rules that were followed to make it so. And when the vote was taken, and it didn't pass, the proper process had occurred. Now, people complained of backroom deals, but look at it this way: the fact that these backroom deals worked strongly suggests that the the citizen's representatives decided school and road funding was more important than barring homosexuals from legal marriage. Obviously they weren't such strong supporters of the amendment to begin with, IMO.
Of course, I've really diverged from the thread topic. Congrats to California, and to two guys I know who will likely take advantage of this, which should help their chances at adopting a very lucky child.
posted
I'm suspicious of the timing of this announcement. And since the conventional wisdom is that it will scare out conservative voters, it almost seems like they must be behind it. Could they really be that evil, though? To manipulate their chattel by bringing about what they fear most?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always wondered if instead of calling it 'gay marriage' they would have just asked for a 'civil union' that had all the same legal definitions as a traditional marriage then maybe all of this wouldn't be such a big deal. In my very unscientific survey of people I asked who are against gay marriage they had no problems with a gay civil union that had the same legal definitions as marriage. We'll never know though...
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: Yes. This is one reason opponents of same-sex marriage perceive it as at attack on marriage -- i.e., changing the millennia-old universally understood definition of the word, apparently to serve a political/ideological agenda.
Well, perhaps we should go back to that millennia-old universally understood definition of the word.
When marriage was a contract between two men, passing ownership of a woman and some goods between them.
Or perhaps you meant the age-old definition of marriage making a contract of one man and as many women as he liked.
Wait a minute...it almost looks like the definition of marriage has changed over time.
Hmmm...nah, can't be. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Is this something that is just a plan to give McCain the California Electors, or will O'bama's popularity drive the amendment into the dust?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
DarkKnight, separate but equal has a history of not working out too well in the end, in the USA. To make it equitable, we'd likely have to convert all heterosexual marriages to civil unions, and you'd have the same objections about "taking away our marriage!" as you do now.
posted
Pooka - So evil conservative voters passed this to get evil conservative voters against it? Or maybe you are saying evil conservatives passed this to get all the other conservatives (we all know conservatives are either total idiots or completely evil) to take to the streets and do what they are told to do? Seriously?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously. I am a conservative, and I've been very vocal in my opposition to gay unions. I take this all very seriously.
It actually occurred to me when it happened in MA. I guess I don't see the Republican Party as having the corner on righteousness, is the thing.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bokonon - I don't think it would go that way. I think in the end civil unions, once recognized by all states and given the same legal definitions as marriage would in a short amount of time become 'marriage' and would be completely interchangeable without as much anger over losing 'traditions'. People don't change do sudden changes well, it takes time. But that is just my opinion, there is no real way to prove it. (edit: because there is no x in recognize!)
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Javert, I've found that when people talk about the "Historical" or "Universally held" beliefs or definitions, they are really meaning those definitions that they were taught.
Marriage has had many different definitions over many different cultures and over many different times. Women have been considered everything from Master of the home to property, arrangements have historically been made by parents, guardians, or the ruling government. Polygamy has been honored around the world historically, while historically any woman just entering puberty is eligible to be a bride, while infertility were grounds for divorce.
Got to love those good old days.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:we, at least in California, are starting to come around to the idea that gays are not going to topple society or "the institution of marriage...
If that were true, the citizens of California would not have enacted a ban on gay marriages.
First of all, that was 8 years ago. Times change. Second of all, it only passed because California's domestic partnership laws were so good.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: There's also a legal status called 'dead', which can be applied accurately (to people who really are dead), or inaccurately (to people who are alive). The legal recognition doesn't change the reality.
Are you suggesting that a gay couple that gets legally married are somehow not married?
Yes. This is one reason opponents of same-sex marriage perceive it as at attack on marriage -- i.e., changing the millennia-old universally understood definition of the word, apparently to serve a political/ideological agenda.
Actually, the idea of government registered marriages is not "millenia-old". If it bothers you to have a government that isn't supposed to be run according to religious beliefs registering marriages impartially, the answer is for them to get rid of the government registration. It isn't to perpetuate the discrimination.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I've always wondered if instead of calling it 'gay marriage' they would have just asked for a 'civil union' that had all the same legal definitions as a traditional marriage then maybe all of this wouldn't be such a big deal. In my very unscientific survey of people I asked who are against gay marriage they had no problems with a gay civil union that had the same legal definitions as marriage. We'll never know though...
You should read the court's decision. I hear people saying all the time that gays "shouldn't flaunt it". "Why do they have to talk about it all the time". And yet, if the state calls the status "marriage" for opposite sex couples and "civil unions" for same sex couples, they pretty much force people to out themselves. Sometimes in really inappropriate circumstances.
The court's decision took note of that. If the state is using the term "marriage", it should use it impartially, and without any regard whatsoever to the religious use of the term.
Not to mention the fact that there are religions in which same sex marriages are performed. To have the state insist on a religious definition that doesn't recognize same sex marriage as marriage is to have the state pick one religion over another. And that's most certainly against the Establishment Clause.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could they really be that evil, though? To manipulate their chattel by bringing about what they fear most?
It's possible. That's how I've felt about the GOP for a while-- that the social issues they use to sway a certain voter really don't matter to the core party.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well having read through the thread I was considering not commenting and standing in silent agreement with Senojretep. However, after seeing the way his comment was lambasted (along with his character) I feel like I should at least step forward and show that there are like minded individuals. This is in no way to put myself on a pedestal or lecture from a podium.
However, it seems to me that whenever there is a thread like this one, like-minded individuals seem to cluster and congregate there and agree with each other, chasing off anyone with a dissenting opinion.
My view on this issue is that marriage is between a man and a woman, an institution meant for the propagation of our race. Both in purely physical (procreative) terms and in environmental (upbringing) terms.
More later, but I have to go now.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: My view on this issue is that marriage is between a man and a woman, an institution meant for the propagation of our race. Both in purely physical (procreative) terms and in environmental (upbringing) terms.
My partner and I have a wonderful 8 year old daughter, who would not have been born had we not determined to have a child. Our union therefore resulted in procreation.
On the other hand, I know of childless couples. Some by choice and some not. Some who knew they were infertile or had chosen not to have children before they married. Should they have been prevented from marrying?
In Jewish law (though exceptions are made), if a couple has not been able to have children for 10 years, the man is supposed to divorce his wife and remarry. Do you think that's how the government should work it? Either produce offspring, or dissolve the marriage? I mean, if procreation is the be-all and end-all of marriage.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: after hearing about the Cali Supreme Court decision.
Just please don't say Cali. It's super annoying non-Californian-but-wish-I-could-be jargon. Possibly as bad as the abominable "Frisco."
LOL Sorry... Actually I just didn't want to spell out the whole word. And I don't want to live in Cali anyway, I'm a Michigan loyalist. Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I find threads like this...difficult.
Should I wander out without saying anything so as not to offend anyone?
I think the courts got it wrong; I strongly disagree with the court's rationale. Furthermore, I disagree with granting marriage rights to homosexual couples on an ideological basis. And I feel the need to say that, since I don't want other Hatrackers who also believe that to feel isolated and marginalized, as I did when I read all the responses thus far.
Not that I have a problem with anything that's been said in the thread; it's all very understandable and even laudable. Certainly if the judgment had gone the other way I'd be similarly effusive. But it's hard to feel like something I believe in quite strongly is so abhorrent to so many other Hatrackers.
*wanders away, conflicted*
You are right to voice your opinion, and you are right to speak out on behalf of other Hatrackers who hold similar opinions.
But we must look at what is at the heart of your opinion, and ask how those opinions can be fit into the public arena, and more importantly, how they can be fit into the secular political arena.
I'm going to assume that you are objecting on moral grounds and that those moral grounds are founded in religion. Consequently, you are free to hold those beliefs, but YOUR ARE NOT free to force those beliefs into the political arena. Though of course, you are free to express your views, and engage in public discussion, and have your views taken into consideration.
But we simply can not allow religion to dictate law. There are a very many religions that take no more than an oddly curious attitude toward same sex couplings. Why should your religious beliefs override their religious beliefs. That's why we try our best to keep religion out of politics, because to allow it in, invariably forces one religious view as law to override many other contrasting religious views.
For example, the Catholics, more or less, don't believe in divorce. While a Catholic can be legally divorces anywhere, they are not considered divorced by the Catholic Church. Is it fair to force the Catholic view onto everyone else as a matter of law? Should their views dictate life for everyone else - Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, Protestant, agnostic, atheist?
Since when do the religious views of a few dictate law to the majority?
The question is simply, regardless of your personal beliefs, can you think of any justifiably legal reason to deny standard rights to a select group of people who are otherwise law abiding?
Your religious views simply can't dictate enforcement of law, nor can you dictate your religious and moral views as law itself.
Because if your religion can say it's wrong, can the overwhelming majority of non-Christian religions then overrule you on shear numbers alone?
You are certainly free to hold your moral and religious view, and you are certainly free to express those views in the public arena in hopes that they will influence decisions. But, really, you can not hope or expect you personal moral and religious views to dictate matters of law to a vast majority of people who do not share your beliefs.
I welcome your input, just as I welcome the input of people saying that 'Harry Potter' is anti-religion, but I draw the line when you try to force that view as a means of controlling the actions and beliefs of everyone else.
Yes, make your voice heard in the public arena, but don't expect to make your religion a matter of law. You may personally feel that 'marriage' is exclusively between a man and a woman, and I support your religious and moral belief in that.
But the question is, once again, is there any LEGAL reason to deny common rights to a select group of people that you personally don't like?
My grandmother (a Norwegian) didn't like Swedes, so maybe we should forbid all people of Swedish decent from getting married?
Certainly, you can see the folly of that, but how is that any different that forbidding 'gay' people from forming legal unions. For preventing them from access to rights and benefits enjoyed by all others?
This, in my mind, is a purely legal issue, independent of any moral or spiritual beliefs.
Absolutely, your moral and spiritual beliefs should guide and control your own actions, but they should not dictate to the world.
Again, and knowing I'm repeating myself, this is purely a legal question. Can we reasonable select a small group of otherwise law-abiding people, and deny them common rights simply because we don't like them?
Really relishing the debate, but reminding the other side that they must debate in the context of the discussion.
posted
However, it seems to me that whenever there is a thread like this one, like-minded individuals seem to cluster and congregate there and agree with each other, chasing off anyone with a dissenting opinion.
Part of that may be because we've had this argument many times before, and a) we can all rattle off our opinions quickly, and b) dissenters who have been through this before may be hesitant to enter the thread in the first place.
Personally I like it when old arguments come up again, especially when new members are around to add different perspectives.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember when the preponderance of posters here was on the other side of the issue from me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boots: I almost quit Hatrack the first time I was here because of that. David Bowles talked me into staying.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm going to assume that you are objecting on moral grounds and that those moral grounds are founded in religion. Consequently, you are free to hold those beliefs, but YOUR ARE NOT free to force those beliefs into the political arena.
There's really no reason to claim that religiously based beliefs are the ONLY beliefs that need to be guarded against.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: While I'm at it, what are the determinations a legal system should go through in order to determine whether a moral belief becomes a law?
How do you think a system can/should distinguish between a law based on religious moralism and say, secular human moralism?
Would such an evaluation even be fair?
Harm. Plain and simple.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
We will continually be bickering to each other unless we take the time to actively consider the opposing points of view.
Because of past threads like this I've gotten to know many of the reasons why people are against the notion of gay marriage, and can no longer discount such people as "homophobic zealots."
Philo you state that you think that marriage has two purposes, the creation and the upbringing of children.
Lisa already brought out the argument that if marriage is only for the creation of children than any childless marriage is by its nature a false one.
The upbringing is another question. Why is bringing up children in a gay house bad for the children?
And then there is the one thing that everyone seems to avoid, the big question.
Love.
Are we not taught that Love is the answer, the reason for marriage?
Do you believe its impossible for two women or two men to be in Love?
Love conquers all, even gender.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And then there is the one thing that everyone seems to avoid, the big question.
Love.
Are we not taught that Love is the answer, the reason for marriage?
Do you believe its impossible for two women or two men to be in Love?
Love conquers all, even gender.
I don't think it's the government's responsibility to decide whether or not to validate a couple's love.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: How do we define harm?
Using observation, logic and common sense.
Which is why I am open to conversation. Harm can be argued.
Show me how two consensual adults of the same sex getting married harms you. There are scientific studies that have looked at this very question, I believe.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got no problem with those criteria. But someone-- using observation, logic, and common sense-- might come to a completely different conclusion about the harm possible with a redefinition of marriage than I might.
It's anything but simple, Javert.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which is why [the government] should validate [marriage] for everyone or no one.
Is this what you meant, Javert?
Yes.
quote:But someone-- using observation, logic, and common sense-- might come to a completely different conclusion about the harm possible with a redefinition of marriage than I might.
If they can back that conclusion up with evidence, then the discussion begins.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The secular danger of the acceptance of gay marriage is the fear of sudden social changes in an ongoing society. This is not a fear borne of religious thought, but of Change without consideration of the results of that change. It's not an idle or bigoted concern.
The truth is that legal gay marriage will upset society in many ways, and whether you approve or disapprove of it, you can't deny that many many people will be upset and angry. This will also affect society.
"That's how it's always been" is not necessarily a religious argument, nor one we should dismiss immediately.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: While I'm at it, what are the determinations a legal system should go through in order to determine whether a moral belief becomes a law?
How do you think a system can/should distinguish between a law based on religious moralism and say, secular human moralism?
Would such an evaluation even be fair?
This is a very good point. Regarding religious moral law becoming Legal law, I think it hinges on a degree of universality. Regardless of religion we universally agree that you do not indiscriminately kill other, nor steal their property, nor cause the bodily harm. All religions would support those view, and they are sufficiently agreed upon to the extent that the fact that they are incorporated into religious canon should not bar them from being law. In a sense, while found in religion, the universally extend beyond religion.
But there are very specific religious belief that while valid in their religious foundation, can not be universally applied to all people. The Catholic /divorce example would be a good example. While Catholic believe this and can find religious doctrine and writing to back it up. Virtually all other religions can find doctrine and writing that counter that belief. Consequently, we can not impose the will and belief of a few onto those whose own religious belief are counter to that of the Catholics.
Now religious views and beliefs should indeed guide us in our personal lives, and we are certainly free to try to spread those view to others. But, we are not free to force those views on others. Your personal beliefs should not dictate my life.
As to some kind of test for when religious morality can justifiable be force into secular morality and law, that seem difficult.
On one hand you can not let the majority truly rule because that can, will, and frequently does stomp on the right of innocent minorities. However, the opposite of that is that the views and beliefs of a small minority should not be force on the majority in the interests of protecting that minority. Whatever test we use must be applied fairly and uniformly.
So, the courts must find some compromise that is uniformly fair and reasonable, and uncolored and unclouded by personal beliefs.
So, once again, I ask the core question, regardless of your personal beliefs and personal choices, it there any reasonable justification for selecting a specific group of people and denying them rights that are taken for granted by all?
More important, can you deny those right to a group simply because you don't like them?
I think very much, laws against homosexuality have been for that very reason; we don't like these people, so we are going to make what they do against the law.
Keep in mind that morality and legality are not one and the same. Many things are against the law that are not immoral, and many things that are religiously immoral are not against the law.
People want to make this discussion about everything that it is not. The religious say that is alter the definition and purpose of marriage, and from a religious aspect that is true. But from a legal perspective, again, is there any justification of selecting a small group of otherwise law abiding people and denying them a right.
Was it fair to deny women and blacks the right to vote? Certainly many people thought women and blacks were too stupid to vote. Was it fair to deny inter-racial marriage? Certainly many people didn't like inter-racial marriage, but is that justification to deny it?
Lots of people don't like the idea of what gay people do behind closed doors, but really, unless you are personally involved in it, everything that happens behind all closed doors is kind of icky.
If there is a greater moral crime in gay activity, it is not the crime of being gay, it is the crime of fornication and promiscuity. And the Moral Crimes of fornication and promiscuity apply to all people of all races, all religions, and all sexes and all ages. Yet, fornication and promiscuity, which are in my mind the greater crimes, are generally left to the individual in terms of law. Not totally, but mostly.
On the other hand, keep in mind that we do restrict the rights of some minorities and do so with the full consent of most of the public. For example, criminal felons do not have full citizen rights. By virtue of their crimes, some of the lifelong rights have been restricted. We do not give minors full citizen rights. Adults can choose to fornicate and be promiscuous at will, but we limit the nature and extent to which minor can engage in that activity. For example, a minor can not give informed consent to have sex with an adult.
So, on one had their is precedences for limiting the rights of some people. But again, in light of the existing and generally accepted limitations, can we justify selecting a group of people based on sexual orientation and restricting their rights?
You may certainly find it morally offensive, but is that enough to make it legally offensive.
Does anyone remember the TV show 'Kate and Allie' (1984) starring Jane Curtain. This was a show where two single/divorce women with children joined their households together to form a single family unit. I believe 'Allie' was played by Jane Curtain.
Now this wasn't a 'gay' show. These were two normal heterosexual women who were forced by circumstances to form a joint family unit. Despite the fact that they were clearly just that, a family unit, they could not benefit from being a family unit the way a typical couple could.
I could see them forming a 'civil union' in a circumstance like this which would have allowed them to share insurance benefits, to allow hospital visits, and perhaps even extended the power to make medical decisions, etc....
This is really very much of a side point, but the central point is, that I can see circumstance in which 'civil unions' seem reasonable for couple other than homosexual couples. Though I admit the point is very much of a side track.
posted
I dislike the argument about rights and religious persecution. I feel like it is about entitlement and I don't think anyone is entitled to having the perks of a government sanctioned marriage (including straight folks). Instead the government must see giving the perks as in its self interest- creating a more stable society. I think that people arguing for same sex marriage need to answer that question- how does changing the system make it better? Personally, I think that there are many obvious answers to that question and therefore am in favor of ssm. But if I was unable to come up with a benefit to society, then I would not argue for it. I also think that people are more likely to respond favorably to this argument then if you disagree with me you are a hate filled bigot.
My ideal situation would be to make all unions civil unions. I also would like to see people in non sexual unions be able to take advantage of them. I like the buddy system. Having someone that is official in charge of taking care of things when you are unable to is a good thing. Marriage can be for the churches. Officially, we can all have partners- a nice gender neutral term.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Marriage can be for the churches.[/QUOTE} I'm unwilling to cede that to religion. If you're just using that as shorthand for "not the government" though, that's fine, but I'd appreciate the clarification.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm going to assume that you are objecting on moral grounds and that those moral grounds are founded in religion. Consequently, you are free to hold those beliefs, but YOUR ARE NOT free to force those beliefs into the political arena.
There's really no reason to claim that religiously based beliefs are the ONLY beliefs that need to be guarded against.
I agree with you about that 100%.
They are, however, the only ones that have a Constitutional Amendment forbidding them from being established into law.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The gay-marraige thing is going on here as well as a ban on casinos, abortions, etc. Its all about religon here.
I am very much against casinos being built in the next town over and it has nothing at all to do with religon.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
"My ideal situation would be to make all unions civil unions. I also would like to see people in non sexual unions be able to take advantage of them. I like the buddy system. Having someone that is official in charge of taking care of things when you are unable to is a good thing. Marriage can be for the churches. Officially, we can all have partners- a nice gender neutral term."
Oddly, I like this idea. In a sense, the government is not, and should not be, in the business of sanctifying marriage. It should be in the business of contract negotiations by which civil rights and responsibilities are defined, documented, and enforce.
Marriage, as in spiritual marriage, should be exclusively in the realm of the church.
I can see people getting spiritually married, but not legally married. In the matter of such a marriage, all arbitration would be in the hands of the church, and those individual would not be afforded the right and privileges afforded by law.
Equally, you could sign a contract which registers your rights and responsibilities from a legal stand point and affords the privileges that accompany such a legal contract, with out also obtaining the further addition of marriage.
Or, you could do both.
In matters of Marriage, it would be left to the individual church to decide who they would and would not marry and why. Keep in mind that Church Marriage would have no force of law; it would be arbitrated by the church.
Civil Unions would remain simply a matter of civil law that is applied in a uniform and reasonable fashion.
So, I agree, the State should be involved in civil contracts, not marriage, and marriage should be left to the churches.
quote:The truth is that legal gay marriage will upset society in many ways, and whether you approve or disapprove of it, you can't deny that many many people will be upset and angry. This will also affect society.
This argument, and most others that are now made against gay marriage, were used to justify the laws we used to have against interracial marriage. Why are these arguments more valid in this situation?
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Actually, the idea of government registered marriages is not "millenia-old". If it bothers you to have a government that isn't supposed to be run according to religious beliefs registering marriages impartially, the answer is for them to get rid of the government registration. It isn't to perpetuate the discrimination.
I agree 100%. Government has no business in the matter. As far as governmental regulation goes, I believe any group of two or more consenting adults ought to be free to do whatever they want to each other, whenever they want, employing whatever tool/implements/utensils/substances they want. However, I deny that my taxes should be used to either endorse or license these activities (regardless of whether the participants are hetero-, homo-, bi-, tri-, quadro- or whatever else), or to officially proclaim things that simply aren't true, and that includes denying the correct definition of words.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
1) One favorite argument against Gay Marriage is that it will lead to a society that allows Polygamy or Bestiality. This slippery slope is a danger to be thwarted now.
Reading the last page of notes, however, it seems that denying Gay Marriage may lead to a slippery slope where all marriage is banned in favor of civil unions--something not on the conservative agenda.
Chris you seem to argue that Change is the problem, not what direction that change is going. I counter that gay marriage is not the change, but a sign that the change has come.
2) Adultery and Promiscuity are sins. If they are not crimes, they are certainly crime's second cousin, cause for denouncement and higher insurance rates.
The only way to be sexually active and not be promiscuous or to be committing adultery is to be married.
If you are gay, you can't be married.
Hence, if you are gay your only choice is abstinence.
For a man, this is moral castration.
It is illegal to punish a US citizen with Castration.
So either way, the poor guy is breaking the law or close to it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
