Gay Marriage

[IncitingRiots]

"My point was who are you to ***ert your moral values on society? Or judge other's values to be wrong?"

Point well taken, but I could ask you the same question. I don't feel like I am ***erting my values on society at all. There are universal morals and then there are individual morals. It seems to me that pedophilia should fall under the category of being universally wrong. Then again, I am sure you make the same argument about ****sexuality. I can sense a circular argument taking shape.

"Regarding the term evil. I meant no offense to you by its use, what term do you use to describe such acts? Is it evil? Or what defines evil to you?"

I didn't even notice you use the term evil so I took no offence to it. To me evil and good are really subjective. What one person deems to be evil another person might consider it to be good. For the sake of argument let's use Hitler as an example. What he did is seen by people the world over as being evil. To him he thought what he was doing was good. I am not condoning genocide, just using an example. The person who gives half their paycheck to charity every month and is seen as a good person is just as capable of going on a killing spree, as the serial killer; who is seen as evil, is capable of loving a puppy. To me there really is no such thing as evil, there is only good and bad. Even then nothing is really good or bad, it just is. Notions of good, evil, right and wrong ultimately depend, I think, on moral subjectivity.

[oatmeal]

Since God ins***uted marriage and authored it's definition, I believe the state should hold to His ruling......
****sexuals are free to breathe, eat, provide their shelter, defend their lives,
and pursue happiness.
But it is interminably clear that God has witheld from them not only holy matrimony, but indeed, the very act that defines them.


You can change and redefine state laws; but God's holy word does not change.
As far as why we are seeing this thing blossom and grow out of all proportion
to it's real size, I believe you will find the answer to that in JohnD's post.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by oatmeal

But it is interminably clear that God has witheld from them not only holy matrimony,

Matrimony can only be regarded as "holy" if it is consecrated by a given religious body. I support the rights of religious bodies to determine who they will and will not marry.

The Catholic church will not bless the union of divorcees. There is neither reason nor basis to enshrine such restriction in civil law - if only for the quite obvious reason that not everyone is Catholic!

Likewise, whether you or your religious body believes that "God has withheld" marriage from same-sex couples, that does not stand as a reasonable basis for restricting them under civil law.

but indeed, the very act that defines them.

That you regard the sex act as the defining characteristic of gay and lesbian people is most telling.

[oatmeal]

[QUOTE=asdf;28160]Matrimony can only be regarded as "holy" if it is consecrated by a given religious body. I support the rights of religious bodies to determine who they will and will not marry.

The Catholic church will not bless the union of divorcees. There is neither reason nor basis to enshrine such restriction in civil law - if only for the quite obvious reason that not everyone is Catholic!


Whatsoever God has joined(man and woman)let no man put asunder.
If two be joined in matrimony it is deemed holy by God, save for the cause of divorce.


Likewise, whether you or your religious body believes that "God has withheld" marriage from same-sex couples, that does not stand as a reasonable basis for restricting them under civil law.

God created man and woman, not civil law.....The ins***ute of marriage belongs to God for his purpose, not civil law.



That you regard the sex act as the defining characteristic of gay and lesbian people is most telling.[/QUOTE]




Words have a meaning: actions speak more clearly than words; We have come to a point
in America where we are redefining words and there meanings.
God will not be mocked: He changes not.

[sunofmysoul]

Originally Posted by oatmeal

Since God ins***uted marriage and authored it's definition, I believe the state should hold to His ruling......
****sexuals are free to breathe, eat, provide their shelter, defend their lives,
and pursue happiness.
But it is interminably clear that God has witheld from them not only holy matrimony, but indeed, the very act that defines them.


You can change and redefine state laws; but God's holy word does not change.
As far as why we are seeing this thing blossom and grow out of all proportion
to it's real size, I believe you will find the answer to that in JohnD's post.

a question.

God commanded in the beginning for us to multiply and fill the earth...
procreation was a large part of the initial beginning of marriage.

Do we now believe that all marriage is for this purpose?
Or is one of the primary purposes, changing? Now that we have filled the earth, can marriage have room for those who do not meet the ability to fulfill this command? (we now use birth control which is food for thought...)

A second question, would be what of those who do not fit into the "foreordained ins***ute" definition of male or female? what of the intergender?



thanks,
soms

[sayso]

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

Thanks for the dictionary definition of indulgence, it was not needed but thanks anyway.

No, that statement doesn't say anything about the qualifications, but if one were to read more than just the first page they would learn. None of that changes the fact that you so arrogantly tried to liken pedophiles to Satanists because of what you consider to be indulgence.

To answer your last question; who is forcing them? The answer is quite simple. They are forcing themselves. For some sick and twisted reason I will never understand they feel the need to do these sorts of things. They know it is illegal and immoral yet they do it anyways. They are weak-willed scum of the earth and I wouldn't mind personally executing every last one of them.

Aren't you applying a double standard to say that as a satanist you may indulge in whatever you like but another may not if what they desire is different then what you desire?

I am sorry if I misunderstood but I thought that when you listed "The nine statements of the satanic bible" you said that they (the statements) say it best. I took that to mean that your entire belief could be summed up in these statements.

Here's another statement you listed:

VIII Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!


So does this mean that satan represents pedophilia since it qualifies as a "so-called sin"? This either means what it says or it doesn't, right?

The way I see it, you personally may not completely understand or believe in all the tenants of your own religion.

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

As a Satanist I see myself as my own god, the master of my life and my universe. I do not believe in any anthoprmorphic deity of ultimate good or ultimate evil.

For some sick and twisted reason I will never understand they feel the need to do these sorts of things. They know it is illegal and immoral yet they do it anyways. They are weak-willed scum of the earth and I wouldn't mind personally executing every last one of them.

Double standard again. You as a satanist can be your own god, unaccountable to anyone or anything; master of your own universe. However, if someone else lives by this same self-centered standard indulging in their own whims without restraint then because you see it as immoral they should be executed.

[IncitingRiots]

"Aren't you applying a double standard to say that as a satanist you may indulge in whatever you like but another may not if what they desire is different then what you desire?"

I never said people couldn't do what ever desire; they can. However, one must be aware of the consequences of their actions. That is what "responsibility to the responsible" means.

"I thought that when you listed "The nine statements of the satanic bible" you said that they (the statements) say it best. I took that to mean that your entire belief could be summed up in these statements."

No, Satanism can not entirely be summed up by those nine statements, or even the entire Satanic Bible. There is alot to learn about TLHP and you certainly can not get it all from one book. Satanism is a journey, not a destination. The reason I listed those nine statements is because you asked how I can be a Satanist without worshipping Satan. I cordially obliged you in answering your question by informing you that the "Satan" in Satanism is a metaphor and entirely different than the Christian concept of Satan.

"So does this mean that satan represents pedophilia since it qualifies as a "so-called sin"? This either means what it says or it doesn't, right?"

The "sins" that statement refers to the "Seven Deadly Sins". One could argue that pedophilia falls under lust, which, I suppose it could. However, committing an act of pedophilia breaks two of the 11 Satanic Rules of the Earth: "Do not harm little children" and "Do not make sexual advances unless given the mating signal". These "rules" are really more indicative of things the Satanist would avoid doing anyway by their own nature. It really seems now that this discussion has turned from the issue of gay marriage towards you trying to link Satanism with pedophilia. You are doing a horrible ***, if I do say myself.

"The way I see it, you personally may not completely understand or believe in all the tenants of your own religion."

If that is the way you see it; you are blind my friend.

"Double standard again. You as a satanist can be your own god, unaccountable to anyone or anything; master of your own universe. However, if someone else lives by this same self-centered standard indulging in their own whims without restraint then because you see it as immoral they should be executed."

You are putting words in my mouth once again and it is becoming quite annoying. I never said I am unaccountable to anyone or anything. Everyone is is accountable. As I said people must be aware of the consequences of their actions. Sure people can do what ever they want, but, if some sick freak were to molest any of my friends' kid or my nephews; I would see to it they got was coming to them. Then I too, would have to deal with the consequences of my actions. I would be accountable to the State, but when I die; I will not be accountable to anything.

[sayso]

It really seems now that this discussion has turned from the issue of gay marriage towards you trying to link Satanism with pedophilia.

No that isn't really what I'm trying to do. I am aware that in all religions it is wrong to generalize. Simply because someone claims to be of a certain religion that does not mean that they will hold strictly to that religion's belief and statements of doctrine.

Just as there are some who claim to be Christian, who do compromise and do despicable things, there are those in all religions including satanism who do despicable things, because in each case it is the individual who decides whether or not they will follow the "rules" of their own religion.

The only thing that is different about your religion is that you are your own god so that means you make the rules right? Or is your statement about being your own god wrong when it involves satanism? Who is the god who made up the satanic bible?

You are putting words in my mouth once again and it is becoming quite annoying.

Sorry, I didn't mean to annoy you. I'm just trying to understand exactly what restrictions satanism puts on it's followers and if they have no leader who made the rules.

So I guess you are saying that satanists believe in obeying man made laws, huh?

[IncitingRiots]

"Just as there are some who claim to be Christian, who do compromise and do despicable things, there are those in all religions including satanism who do despicable things, because in each case it is the individual who decides whether or not they will follow the "rules" of their own religion."

This is true, but I think someone who claims to follow a religion, system of belief etc. but thinks they can pick and choose what to obey and what not to obey isn't actually a member of that religion. If you have to pick and choose then you are probably subscribing to the wrong set of beliefs.

"The only thing that is different about your religion is that you are your own god so that means you make the rules right?"

Well yes I make my own rules, so does everyone in one way or another. However, we live in a society based on laws and rules that we have to follow in order to function in said society. Yes one can choose to ignore these rules and laws, but they do so at their own peril.

"Who is the god who made up the satanic bible?"

No "god" made up The Satanic Bible. It was written by Anton Lavey and much of it is influenced by the writings of people like Ragnar Redbeard, Ayn Rand, H L Mencken, Jack London and Frederich Neitzche.

"I'm just trying to understand exactly what restrictions satanism puts on it's followers and if they have no leader who made the rules."

They aren't really really restrictions. As I stated these "rules" are nothing more than examples of types of behavior a true Satanist would naturally avoid. They aren't listed to tell you how to "be" a Satanist, they are listed to tell you if you "are" a Satanist. The same goes for The Nine Satanic Sins. They aren't really "sins" just things a Satanist would naturally avoid out of their own volition.

"So I guess you are saying that satanists believe in obeying man made laws, huh? "

Well many do. As do most people out there regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof. Not breaking the law is just plain common sense. There are those who feel that, as their own gods, the laws of man don't apply to them. They are en***led to that opinion but have only themselves to blame if they decide to break these laws and get caught.

Personally I am an Anarchist. I feel I don't need a cop to tell me the right thing to do, nor do I need some government trying to dictate what I can and can't do. Unfortunately we do have a government and I don't think that is going to change in my life time so I am bound by these rules simply because I enjoy my own freedom. That is not to say that I would just go around murdering innocent people for no reason, because I wouldn't and if I really wanted to I would do it regardless of the consequences, but I sure wouldn't mind the freedom to grow a giant field of marijuana in my back yard.

[TRiG]

Originally Posted by disciple

****sexuality is not about love but sex

Who do you think you are?

TRiG.

[sunofmysoul]

Originally Posted by disciple

Greetings IR

First of all many people do see ****sexuality as a sin and our God does say this act is an abomination. He is your God too by the way whether you want Him or not, and that is not a slam against you just a fact.
I cannot stop people from "wanting" to do anything but a society without morals and laws will soon crumble. There are many people who "want" to steal, rape, kill and a variety of other acts God also considers to be sin and I'm sure you would not want these to become legal. Now I am not equating the desires of ****sexuals with rape and murder, I am making a point about where ignoring God's law will lead.
Everyone does deserve to love and be loved, but ****sexuality is not about love but sex.

I certainly understand TRiG's frustration with this sentence.
It stems from ignorance, so knowing this I shall try to ask you to consider the alternative...Is heterosexuality not about love , but only sex?
Does it not more depend on the desire, the act, and not the orientations?
Yes a heterosexual act, or a ****sexual act can be about the sex. But what we so easily miss, and are not perhaps ready to understand is that ****sexuals would like the same freedom and privilege we so easily take for granted, to love and commit themselves to another, have a relationship that is NOT just about the sex, but about love, commitment, friendship, courage, sacrifice, sharing, caring, and all that good stuff that comes in a relationship.
Your statement only reveals the fact that you know absolutely nothing about ****sexuality.

There are many men who love other men but do not engage in sex with them. We were not created to sodomize one another man or women.
God made man and woman obviously different to fit together in marriage, each
one honoring and respecting the other in love. We were not created to do whatever we please to, or with someone else. There are men who think they love small children and wish to have sex with them, should that be allowed?
Condoning immoral behavior by saying it is legal does hurt my family because surly it will lead to worse and more perverse behavior.

Making something legal does not make it right. I will agree with that.
Consider that old guys were allowed to marry little girls in biblical times. (pedophilia would be allowed biblically speaking as long as one married the child) We now find that to be unacceptable. (as we gain knowledge in science, and evolve in our understanding we are able to make more enlightened decisions) We now realize that young girls getting pregnant at an early age is not only physically harmful to both the mother and child, but that in our present age, the child is not emotionally ready to be a parent. Henceforth we see more and more states, making stricter laws about age limits. (slowly but hopefully surely).

Sin has a detremental
effect on society so the idea that what one does in privacy does not harm others is false. There are absolute truths and morals and logically must come from One who is absolutly moral and truthful. God has given us boundries to protect us, we would do well to listen to His law. But as I know and you know
humans have a hard time keeping away from things that will harm us and that will seperate us from God. That is why we need a Savior and Redeemer and when we finally realize that we need something that we can't do for ourselves
break the hold of sin on our lives, God offers us freedom and life through Jesus Christ. Thanks for listening IR.

ah here i would struggle with absolute morals, as I do not believe we can really use those, but rather an absolute standard that we would base our decisions off of. (always choosing the greater good or the lesser evil)....

[Austin Canes]

Originally Posted by sunofmysoul

I certainly understand TRiG's frustration with this sentence...

Yeah, it's not reasonable to say that ****sexual people are not and cannot be in 'real' love.

The physical aspect is not all that defines ****sexuality; but that is what many religious people are taught. In fact, the ignorance and distortion about that is so 'pervasive', that many a GAY person has slipped under the religious-radar, simply by having a wife and several children.

The numbers of divorced (from heterosexual marriages), ****sexual people (with kids) I've known, proved to me a long time ago, that sexual-orientation (or iden***y) is about far more than what people do with their body parts.

...Your statement only reveals the fact that you know absolutely nothing about ****sexuality...

You are correct.

...ah here i would struggle with absolute morals, as I do not believe we can really use those, but rather an absolute standard that we would base our decisions off of. (always choosing the greater good or the lesser evil)....

Very sensible and reasonable.

[alanmolstad]

While I believe the term, "marriage" should be reserved for legal unions between members of different sex, I have no problem with members of the SAME SEX being allowed to forum the same types of legal unions called "Domestic partnerships" or "Civil unions"

This means the the GAYs should be protected under the law in the same manner as straight people are...as well as binding the gay under the same laws too.

By this I mean that getting a "Dissolved Civil Union" should be the same mess as for straight people getting a divorce...(meaning lawyers and lots of screaming).


In this way then the religion's people of faith can feel that they have protected the idea of the Christian "marriage" and at the same time have offered the Gays the same protections and demands given to others who are not Gay.

The term "marriage" is reserved for the straight unions, ...without any meanings to this other that the term will simply mean "Union between two of different sex"

sorta like the term "straight" simply means in this context to have a tradition view of sexuality....and "gay means to be attracted sexualty to a member of the same sex.

The terms themselves do not cause anyone to believe their rights are missing....they are just terms to help us understand who is turned on by who....

[asdf]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

While I believe the term, "marriage" should be reserved for legal unions between members of different sex, I have no problem with members of the SAME SEX being allowed to forum the same types of legal unions called "Domestic partnerships" or "Civil unions"

This means the the GAYs should be protected under the law in the same manner as straight people are...as well as binding the gay under the same laws too.

By this I mean that getting a "Dissolved Civil Union" should be the same mess as for straight people getting a divorce...(meaning lawyers and lots of screaming).


In this way then the religion's people of faith can feel that they have protected the idea of the Christian "marriage" and at the same time have offered the Gays the same protections and demands given to others who are not Gay.

The term "marriage" is reserved for the straight unions, ...without any meanings to this other that the term will simply mean "Union between two of different sex"

sorta like the term "straight" simply means in this context to have a tradition view of sexuality....and "gay means to be attracted sexualty to a member of the same sex.

The terms themselves do not cause anyone to believe their rights are missing....they are just terms to help us understand who is turned on by who....

Hi Alan,

First of all I'd like to say I (greatly!) appreciate your empathy and ability to see that gay people are deserving of protection and the validation of their relationships under civil law. That's a pretty fundamental baseline in my opinion, even for those who consider same-sex relationships to be immoral.

I understand that you're saying that your proposed definition of "civil union" or "domestic partnership" should entail exactly the same rights, responsibilities and protections under law as "marriage". Again, that's a step in the right direction, but it's one that doesn't work for me, and I believe it will not ultimately be deemed acceptable.

"Separate but equal" is a concept that has had a long history in U.S. law—from separate Colored and White drinking fountains to segregated schools to anti-miscegenation laws. The concept has been ruled uncons***utional—and rightly so. To set up a separate and parallel ins***ution from the one that heterosexual people are able to participate in, you enshrine into law that gay people are Other, that their relationships are almost-but-not-quite as valued by society as opposite-sex relationships.

We already have a perfectly good word and a perfectly good ins***ution to refer to the voluntary union between two people in a committed, monogamous, lasting intimate relationship—marriage.

I understand that some religious people object. The solution is not to allow one sectarian religious view of marriage to define reality for all Americans—the solution is to allow religious exemption (which currently already exists), allowing churches to continue to perform marriages only for those they choose.

Churches have discretion over those they choose to marry. The Catholic church (for example) is, and will remain, free to perform marriages only between a never-married Catholic man and a never-married Catholic woman. Non-Catholics, divorcees and same-sex couples need not apply. They can (or should be able to) go to the justice of the peace for that.

This is pretty much textbook First Amendment stuff here—no compulsion for the Catholic church to violate its conscience; no compulsion for the civil authorities to kowtow to Catholic teachings.

[alanmolstad]

I believe we should reserve the term "Marriage" to mean: "A legal union between two people of different sex"

This meaning does not place a value on itself, but simply helps people to understand the sex of the people in the union.

Its like the terms "****sexuality" or "Gay" when used in this context do not place a value on the sexuality but are just terms used to help people understand what form of sexuality we are talking about.

The benefit of reserving the term "marriage" to mean the union of different sexes is that we show respect to the feelings and traditional beliefs of people of faith like myself.

after all, it was a gay person who came up with the term "Domestic partnership" to describe this form on single-sex legal union after all....

I am just saying that we should make legally clarifying this different meaning to the terms to avoid a pointless debate.

Marriage - union of different sex
Domestic partnership = union of the same sex

[alanmolstad]

My suggestion for a clear diffinition between the two different forms of union with a totally different use of words is also something that would REALLY help the averagfe person get a heads-up before going to a social event.....(ie a marriage or a Civial union)

In the real world it would break down to being like this:

You open your mail one day and find an invitation to a co-worker's child's "marriage"

From the use of the term "marriage" you know a head of time what to expect....you know this will be an event where a man and a women are going to be united in legal union.

However lets say you open the same invitation and see you are asked to attend the union of Cris and Pat in "Domestic Partnership"

Now you know a head of time to expect that this is a union between two people of the same sex.

Everyone walks in the door of the church that day knowing what to expect, and no one gets grossed out, pukes, or points fingers. Everyone there "understands"...

Everyone there knew going in what to expect to see going on...

[asdf]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

My suggestion for a clear diffinition between the two different forms of union with a totally different use of words is also something that would REALLY help the averagfe person get a heads-up before going to a social event.....(ie a marriage or a Civial union)

In the real world it would break down to being like this:

You open your mail one day and find an invitation to a co-worker's child's "marriage"

From the use of the term "marriage" you know a head of time what to expect....you know this will be an event where a man and a women are going to be united in legal union.

How about you know from the names on the invitation? Or you know by knowing the people to whose wedding you are going?

However lets say you open the same invitation and see you are asked to attend the union of Cris and Pat in "Domestic Partnership"

Now you know a head of time to expect that this is a union between two people of the same sex.

Everyone walks in the door of the church that day knowing what to expect, and no one gets grossed out, pukes, or points fingers. Everyone there "understands"...

Everyone there knew going in what to expect to see going on...

Perhaps bigots who would be induced to vomiting at the sight of two men or two women publicly affirming their love should simply stay away from weddings in which they don't know the people.

That's an absolutely terrible reason to create a separate, parallel ins***ution to marriage.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by asdf

Perhaps bigots who would be induced to vomiting at the sight of two men or two women publicly affirming their love should simply stay away from weddings .

that is one of the reasons my idea is so good.....it gives everyone a heads-up before things get out of control.

I also believe my idea allows for people to have different views oin the matter without everyone needing to get in each others face over it.

If a gay couple want to make their relationship binding, then they get to...

Nothing about the straight's marriage and the gay's Domestic Partnership is different...only the terms used are simply in context of making things more clear to everyone.

to clarify that one union is between members of different sex, and another union if between members of the same sex.

The terms are different, like being called "Straight" or "gay" is simply a means to distinguish a person's sexual iden***y.
No judgement is employed in calling me "Straight" or in calling another "gay"

The same with the term marriage and Domestic partnership....the terms are different and simply explain things better.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

that is one of the reasons my idea is so good.....it gives everyone a heads-up before things get out of control.

I also believe my idea allows for people to have different views oin the matter without everyone needing to get in each others face over it.

If a gay couple want to make their relationship binding, then they get to...

Nothing about the straight's marriage and the gay's Domestic Partnership is different...only the terms used are simply in context of making things more clear to everyone.

to clarify that one union is between members of different sex, and another union if between members of the same sex.

The terms are different, like being called "Straight" or "gay" is simply a means to distinguish a person's sexual iden***y.
No judgement is employed in calling me "Straight" or in calling another "gay"

The same with the term marriage and Domestic partnership....the terms are different and simply explain things better.

It's catering to people with bigoted and ****phobic views, creating a permanent undercl***, employing the old "gay panic defense" argument, using the exact same arguments that gave us Jim Crow laws, and fetishizing/exoticizing gay people.

But other than that, yeah, great idea.

[alanmolstad]

I believe my views are a good way for both sides of the issue to get what they really want...

thats the question I would ask anyone who thinks my idea is wrong..."What are you really after?"

Get right down to the bare bones of the real goal you are seeking....and you will find that my idea fits nicely there with both sides.

I also believe that the people on both lunatic ends of the question that disagree with me are not actually seeking equality nor respect for traditional understandings,,,,,rather they just want to hurt the other side.

shame on them.....

thats all i can say to some people,,,,,shame on them.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I believe my views are a good way for both sides of the issue to get what they really want...

As I said from the beginning, I think your proposal is a step in the right direction. Acknowledging the humanity of gay and lesbian people is a crucial first step, and one that many people don't seem to make.

thats the question I would ask anyone who thinks my idea is wrong..."What are you really after?"

Get right down to the bare bones of the real goal you are seeking....and you will find that my idea fits nicely there with both sides.

That is indeed a great question. Here's how I'd break it down.

What I'm really seeking for my gay and lesbian friends: simple, straightforward equality in the eyes of civil law. Legitimization in the eyes of society. That they are not treated as pariahs by their own government.

"The other side" could be seeking one of two things, neither of which I believe is well-served by your suggestion of a "separate but equal" ins***ution parallel to marriage. They could be seeking:

1. Complete delegitimation of gay and lesbian people. Denial that they exist, or trying to force them either into the closet or into "reparative therapy". No recognition of their humanity, no acknowledgment that they have or want to form meaningful, intimate relationships.
2. The religious liberty to determine standards of morality according to their own consciences. The ability to refrain from participation in, or blessing of, same-sex relationships. The freedom to denounce ****sexuality.

For those who want 1), I simply have nothing to say, except my confidence that they will lose in the marketplace of ideas.

For those that want 2), I can appreciate and respect that, though I think it's wrong and harmful to young gay people. I support the rights of religious groups & organizations to refrain from conducting marriages they deem immoral.

But that's no reason to create a parallel ins***ution of "domestic partnership". Going back to my example of the Catholic Church, they may (as an organization), decide that marriage is only a union of a never-married Catholic man and a never-married Catholic woman, but that's no reason to rename a union of two Jews, or two men, or two divorcees, into something other than "marriage", simply to pander to Catholics' religious beliefs. Civil government is not, and should not be, in the business of determining orthodox spirituality. (That's for the best, for both Church and State.)

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by asdf

What I'm really seeking for my gay and lesbian friends: simple, straightforward equality in the eyes of civil law.

then can you understand how offended by my ideas are the people who don't want the Gays to be equal under the law?

[TRiG]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

then can you understand how offended by my ideas are the people who don't want the Gays to be equal under the law?

Frankly, I care very little how "offended" bigots might be at anything.

TRiG.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by TRiG

Frankly, I care very little how "offended" bigots might be at anything.

TRiG.

Im sure there are just as many guys of not more on the other side that are ready to tell me that "They are not worried about offending perverts"...

Thus you see the wisdom in my idea in that it offends people on both ends of the question ...

[asdf]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

then can you understand how offended by my ideas are the people who don't want the Gays to be equal under the law?

Of course. What does their offense have to do with whether your suggestion is a just solution?

Thus you see the wisdom in my idea in that it offends people on both ends of the question ...

That's a very odd criterion for determining the wisdom of a particular idea.