Disagreeing with homosexuality or not is your right. Just as is disagreeing with heterosexuality, non-sexuality or tri-sexuality. (I'm not sure if tri-sexuality is a real word, but on this thread that likely doesn't matter.)

What your neighbour does with his or her friends is really none of your damned business, with the caveat that the parties are of legal age, mostly of sound mind (that sort of thing). Because laws were written and established millenia ago does not mean they pertain today, and the authority of THE CHURCH has waned over the ages--rightfully or not rightfully, your MMV.

Tell me why common law marriage between heterosexuals is now recognized by the state (and under law also), but 'common law' is NOT under the law in the case of alternate arrangements? Sounds like Greek democracy to me. Good for some, but NOT all. (I'd like all people to be free, but only within the boundaries we've established. (?? And by who, whom, what and just when were we given this right?))

Clinton is expressing the policy as given to her by her employers--the people elected to ensure the warm shit keeps steaming. Love is not guided by policy, it is decided by inclination, stuff that happens between hears and souls, and social circumstance. I don't mind disagreements--they are part of life and so they happen. But pronouncements about right and wrong based on the writings of ANYONE thousands of years ago have little utility today. Good to think about and consider, but some of you are treating it as though it was the last word!. Fuck, since when?

People holding the Bible in one hand and an olive branch in the other will be seen as people holding a book in one hand and an olive branch in the other. People holding two Bibles will be seen as people who have two books and no olive branch. Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.

Tell y'all what: I won't come back from Mt Sanai if y'all don't talk shit.

BM