BS: On Same-Sex Marriages

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 11:13 AM

That's great, Amos!

JohninKS....BRAVO!! Thanks for that; have sent it to several gay and lesbian friends.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 11:03 AM

The mayor of San Diego today announced he is reversing his position on the subject of same sex marriage, because he has decided to lead from his heart, and henceforth oppose the state ban. He said something to the effect that he cannot act to deny happiness to people, such as his own daughter, a lesbian.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 09:53 AM

I find it extremely difficult to give a damn about the tender feelings of either the homosexual extremists or the conservative ones. All citizens should have equal rights, legal and financial. The organized religions can worry about sacraments.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 09:31 AM

akenaton

Right from the start I've said that from the point of view of people who believe in the traditional institution of marriage, redefinition is an infringment of their rights.

Other points like promiscuity,the break-up of marriages or civil unions, or religious issues have absolutely nothing to do with redefinition.......Its all about the word.

What akenaton actually said at the start -

Regardless of "Gay Marriage", homosexuals will never gain social acceptance while the vast majority of the population perceive the homosexual act as disgusting...Ake

A few other things he said along the way -

The problem is that homosexuality and how we view it has become a political issue, when in fact it is an issue of morality.

But there are sincere people out there who do care.....committed Christians, people who believe in the "sanctity" of marriage, in short, traditionalists just like folkies.

The homosexuals want their lifestyle accepted by Christianity or Islam, regardless of the firmly held beliefs of the followers of these religions.

Homosexuality is a moral issue to devout Christians,or Moslems. Maybe not to you or I. As far as people's rights are concerned, there are many many more Devout Christians and Moslems in this world than homosexuals. Therefore, should this minority (homo sexuals) have the right to subvert the core beliefs of the religious?

Nice to see that he can be flexible in his arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 08:37 AM

IMHO, the most salient part of the article Wolfgang linked is this: The couple said the reaction exposed the belief in parts of society, including the gay and lesbian community, that minority groups should be grateful for equal rights. "If gratitude is a condition of these rights, then they are not full and genuinely equal," the women wrote. This is happening in Australia, but this perspedtive is almost certainly universal (and it should be).

John, what you are saying is entirely true. What I find interesting is the reversal that is currently occurring in the US; without getting wrapped around the axle on terminology, there are churches which are recognizing homosexual unions while the government, in almost all jurisdictions, is not. It also remains true that such will not be recognized as real [whatever you want to call them] until significant changes are made in the law at the Federal level.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 08:32 AM

Regardless of how you may wriggle or twist, Greg has let the cat out of the bag.....This issue is about the word...MARRIAGE.
You don't really care about rights, they can be and should be granted by civil union and should be exactly the same.

No, its all about redefining the meaning of marriage to suit the agenda.

Right from the start I've said that from the point of view of people who believe in the traditional institution of marriage, redefinition is an infringment of their rights.

Other points like promiscuity,the break-up of marriages or civil unions, or religious issues have absolutely nothing to do with redefinition.......Its all about the word.

Just keep repeating that phrase and like Bee, you might gain enlightenment........ But I doubt it   ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 06:42 AM

Two interesting court cases with some relevance to this thread commented upon
in this article

This article also reports the POV of the Lesbian couple in one of the two cases.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 05:38 AM

Having been absent during the entire duration of this thread, I'll repeat essentially what has been said before elsewhere:

At the formation of the US, and adoption and ratification of the original US Constitution, there were several "states" that were founded essentially as theocracies. The seeking for "religious freedom" as commonly perceived now is largely a myth. What was sought was only freedom from one theocracy in order to establish a slightly different one. (The differences were largely a matter of who gets to have political power?)

The constitutions of several existing entities - later states - included a variety of provisions considered intolerable now by most people. In a couple of pre-Constitutional states, for example, "jews and chinese" were prohibited from owning property, the state could tax the people for the construction of churches "of the right religion," school teachers were constitutionally required to be "members of THE church," etc. Restrictions on blacks were sparse since a.) there weren't many of them, or b.) they weren't considered people.

As a consequence of the existing of dictatorial theocracies in some potential states, the delegates of several others were sent back to the second Constitutional Convention with "ratification conditional on the addition of" the IMPORTANT (IMO) part of the First Amendment:

CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY RELIGION.

Because of this provision, the pastors who counselled me prior to my participation in the SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE in what was then my church emphatically asserted that the state has no power to require that I "get a license" in order to enter into any SACRAMENT of ANY church. I see no reason why that should be different now, although some bigots continue to attempt to place civil restrictions on some "actions and behaviours" commonly associated with the rites of their specific religions.

I was advised that I should get the license as a means of having "legal civil recognition" of the partnership that we intended, and to avoid ambiguity of our "married" status with respect to civil law. The two pastors with whom we consulted, of two nominally separate "religions," both agreed that they could perform the rites and sacraments for our "Sacred Marriage" regardless of whether or not we obtained the civil license for our separate civil marriage.

Any "church" that believes that a license is necessary for any sacrament (not in conflict with civil law) isn't much of a church. Any one who enters into a "Sacred Marriage" without a license, thereby ignoring the rather substantial civil benefits to be had, probably isn't too bright.

For those whose belief dictates it, engaging in a "marriage" not blessed according to the belief of their faith is "sinful," and the MARRIAGE SACRAMENT according to the rites and ceremonies of their faith is needed.

Since the "marriage license" has NO AUTHORITY with respect to one's beliefs, there is no clearly valid reason why any pair of citizens should be prohibited from forming the civil partnership represented by the "marriage license" if they choose to follow the conditions in CIVIL LAW of that "marriage."

A marriage license DOES NOT require the couple to have sex, and it should be no concern of the state whether they do or do not. It DOES NOT REQUIRE the couple to have children, and it should be no concern of the state whether they do or do not. It does not, in fact, even require that they be "of good moral character" (despite numerous attempts to define such a condition) but only that they are persons capable of entering into and observing the civil requirements of a simple form of formal legal contract.

The license DOES REQUIRE in most places, that they hold property jointly and equally (joint property rules vary), that either can speak for the other (an automatic power of attorney in many cases), and that they each, and both together, are responsible for their actions with respect to property. Although for the most part any debt contracted by one automatically becomes their joint obligation, even this provision of most civil marriage statutes is so loosely enforced that most real property sellers are advised to "get both signatures" on any contract. (Most states have provisions that allow "real property" to be registered in the name of one or the other separately, if done deliberately, although the divorce settlement may obscure or ignore even this separation.)

Some may consider it a "defect" that for purposes of marriage - and divorce - children are considered "property" of the marriage, but there has been little progress in finding another legal (civil) status for them. The abandonment - or abuse - of children arguably places a substantial burden on the rest of the community, and much of "domestic relations" law in the US is devoted to assuring the physical management and disposition of said property, in much the same manner as the requirement that any other property (or debt) abandoned by one is the responsibility of the other(?).

The "act" legitimized by a marriage license is not significantly different than the formation of any other form of legal partnership. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY RELIGION, or with whether any sacraments, moral imperatives, rites, and/or services are observed. I would much prefer that it remain that way.

Those who think that limiting the participation in this civil act "cheapens" their SACRED MARRIAGE don't have much to be proud of in their own faith, and need to look to what their own faith holds to be the rights and obligations of those observing its sacraments.

There is no reason that this civil status - of two persons acting as one for matters in CIVIL LAW - should be denied because of race, religion, sex or sexual preference, disability, age, or any other reason unrelated to the ability of the two partners to make the agreement willingly and knowingly.

The only way to keep the law OUT OF MY RELIGION is to keep it separate, and to avoid giving it ANY jurisdiction over what I hold Sacred, including keeping it OUT OF any decision about whom I may love or with whom I may associate. The argument that "only a few" are affected is vacuous. ("How many people are homosexual" has no bearing, if at least two are, and I believe I know at least two.)

ANY MARRIAGE licensed by the State is ENTIRELY A MATTER OF CIVIL LAW, whether called a marriage, a civil union, or by some other name. There's nothin' "holy" about it, and quibbling over what it's called just means more chances for dumb legislators to make competing, conflicting, stupid laws.

Most of the arguments in this thread are whether calling something an automobile means it has to be a Buick, opposed by those who want always to be a Mercedes. Licensed marriage - in civil law - does not mean the same thing as the sacrament of marriage in one's religion, if one has any faith worth honoring.

John

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 04:18 AM

Following your previous contention akenaton that
"I believe multi -person sexual relationships are much more common among "homos" than "hetros"
12 Sep 07 - 05:19 PM

I posted the following day that the recent study of sexuality and sexual behaviour in the UK and run as a series of programmes on the BBC found that this was not actually so.

"if you compare the number of multi - person sexual relationships between young homosexual males and heterosexual males of the same age with no family the numbers even up considerably!"

This shouldn't really be so suprising as in many Western societies boys are encouraged to persue sexual fulfilment while girls are tradionally taught to seek momogomous fidelity although this pattern is beginning to break down.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 03:54 AM

Ah promiscuity......wondered why it had gone so quiet.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 10:37 AM

I had tried to write "divorce rates" (which in the local context of my post could have made sense) but the second " got lost. So I am guilty of being a source of misunderstanding.

"Number of different sex partners" is the correct expression. The source is again D. Symons, Evolution of human sexuality, who quotes many different studies.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 08:24 PM

That would depend on whether the divorce rate is based on proportion of marriages that end in a divorce, which I think would be the more likely way, or on proportion of the population that go through a divorce, which would match Dave's point.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 08:23 PM

McGrath of Harlow

Would I be correct in assuming that people who favour the word "marriage" being extended to include single sex relationships would see "adultery" as needing the same extension?

Well we can't have that. The vast majority see adultery as the union of a man and a woman.

We have come a long way indeed if hetrosexuals in conventional adulterous relationships should feel ashamed of their way of life and beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 06:31 PM

Surely there are NO same-sex divorce rates for those countries that don't allow it. So the rates for those countries are nil whereas in those that do recognise such partnerships it is much higher.

Therefore not allowing same sex marriage reduces the divorce rate, which everyone agrees is a good thing.

Amazing what statistics do...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 06:30 PM

I think that a court would probably be open to the suggestion that adultery would count as "unreasonable behaviour" - though the question might arise as to whether "adultery" was a legally correct word for it, being a word that is traditionally associated with the term "marriage"

I don't think I've ever heard it used in that context.

Would I be correct in assuming that people who favour the word "marriage" being extended to include single sex relationships would see "adultery" as needing the same extension?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 01:32 PM

Actually I'm glad that the question about "divorce" rates was asked as it seems that there is (at least in the UK) a significant legal difference between Civil Partnerships and heterosexual marriage.

The grounds for dissolution of a civil partnership are that the partnership has broken down for good (i.e. irretreivable breakdown) by -
Unreasonable behaviour or
Two years seperation, and the consent of the other partner or
Five years seperation or
Desertion

Unlike heterosexual marriage this does NOT include adultery as a ground for dissolution of the partnership.

Like many on this thread I had understood that there was little real "discrimination" between the two forms of partnership in the UK now I'm not so sure........

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 01:15 PM

Akenaton - I know what motivates you now. You're a troll - pure and simple. You're full of opinions that may or may not be yours and may or may not be how you feel about the subject that we may or may not be discussing. And your true feelings about all of this may or may not have been expressed earlier in the thread if we would just bother to read it. Or not.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 12:29 PM

AND...These statistics are for male/ female unions without children.

If male/ female unions with children were taken into the equation the difference would be much higher.

This of course has nothing to do with the point we have been discussing.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 05:42 AM

"Same-sex couples' "divorce rates? Extremely different for male-male (very high compared to female-male) and female-female (low, probably even lower than female-male)."
Wolfgang

I would be interested in seeing the source of these statistics as they appear to disagree substantially from the survey carried out in Sweden 1995 and 2002 by the Institute For Marriage And Public Policy.

Of course this survey is only looking at legal breakdown of civil partnerships, the first country to grant same-sex marriage was The Netherlands in 2001, Belgium followed in 2003 and Canada Spain and South Africa in 2005 so it is a little premature for statistics of contrasting divorce rates to be available.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 02:04 AM

I have always found Wolfgang to give his statistics honestly, whether they support his opinion or not....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 06:44 PM

sorry Dick - just trying to introduce some objective information into the discussion! I get a bit fed up of "opinions" introduced as bold statements of fact!

"Bruce...Wolfgang gave some statistics further up this thread.

Male/male divorce rates, very high compared to female/male.
female/ female roughly the same as female /male."
- From: akenaton
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:19 PM

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 06:38 PM

Emma B. -
:In Sweden where civil partnerships have been established long enough for the kind of research about "divorce" it was found that homosexual unions between men were 1.48 times more like to break up than heterosexual marriages without children. It was higher amongst female/female unions. " Or maybe 1.49
So what?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 06:38 PM

There's your problem then. Whether you tackle it by changing the definition of marriage or by changing the discrimination against civil partnerships is surely a secondary matter. I'd suspect that there would be less resistance to the latter way of approaching it.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Greg B
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 05:57 PM

Modifying the forms does no good. The Federal Government doesn't
recognize 'civil partners' as anything but two single people.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 05:47 PM

Sounds as if your forms in the States ought to be modified, and your laws as well if necessary, to give that option - "Civil Partners, filing jointly." As has been done in many other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 05:18 PM

As far as I'm aware it's too early to produce any statistics on divorce rates for those countries that allow same sex marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 05:10 PM

ooops! 1.49!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 05:07 PM

lets get the "facts" right at least......
In Sweden where civil partnerships have been established long enough for the kind of research about "divorce" it was found that homosexual unions between men were 1.48 times more like to break up than heterosexual marriages without children.
It was higher amongst female/female unions

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:52 PM

When I fill out the income tax form (hopefully) before April 15th every year, there are a couple of boxes I have to check. One says "Single," one says "Married, filing jointly," one says "Married, filing separately," and one says "Head of household." When both members of a married couple have income, they get the best tax break by checking "Married, filing jointly."

The form does not give the option "Civil Partners, filing jointly." If civil law defines "marriage" as a union between man and woman only, then same sex couples in a civil union do not qualify for the tax breaks that heterosexual couples get. If a committed same-sex couple tried to take advantage of this tax break, they might find themselves liable for a charge of tax fraud. Thisi is discrimination.

I am retired, my wife is still working. I qualify for Medicare, but as we all know, Medicare is pretty piss-poor coverage. My wife has health insurance as one of the benefits of her job, and she includes me under her insurance as her spouse—her marriage partner. There is no option for "civil partners." Once again, discrimination against same-sex couples.

This, and many other things, discriminate against same-sex couples, even in "civil unions," by denying them the rights and benefits that marriage would allow them.

These things are not a matter of someone's preferences or distastes. They are objective, concrete matters of discrimination against a specific minority.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, there is also the matter of the population explosion. Same-sex couples do not add to the problem. There are a few places in the world, specifically parts of Indonesia, where homosexuality is encouraged in hopes of keeping the birth-rate down.

But since heterosexuality and homosexuality are not matters of choice, there is little chance that these governments' efforts will accomplish their desired purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:26 PM

And also of course in Civil Wars.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:25 PM

Well, that also happens where people have gone through civil marriages. And also religious ceremonies...

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Peace
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:20 PM

'"Joseph and Michael Smith, civil partners" '

Except when they're yelling at each other. That is when they are not civil partners.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:19 PM

Bruce...Wolfgang gave some statistics further up this thread.

Male/male divorce rates, very high compared to female/male.
female/ female roughly the same as female /male.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:13 PM

"...because they aren't 'single men'" - as demonstrated by the fact that if either of them were to attempt to get married (to some woman) until and unless the civil partnership had been dissolved, they would be committing a serious offence, and any such "marriage" would be null and void.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:08 PM

"Joseph Smith, a single man and Michael Smith a single man." That would be a daft way of putting it, because they aren't "single men" - they have entered formally into what in the UK would be called "a civil partnership". Something of the form "Joseph and Michael Smith, civil partners" would be a far more appropriate way of expressing that in this context.

It's not really analogous to the racial/racist use of "separate but equal", because that was about pretending there was a difference where there was no relevant difference whatsoever. If it were a question of asserting a difference between gay men and straight men, or lesbian women and straight women, in order to justify treating them differently as individuals, the analogy would indeed be fair - however that's not what is implied.

The point is it can be reasonably argued that there are differences between the relationships which can justify using different names. That's what I meant by the analogy of baseball and cricket or beer and cider.

It could well be that the popular definition of the word "marriage" might change over time, to include both kinds of relationships. That would be the time to change the dictionaries. In the meantime the task of bringing the USA into line with other countries where civil partnerships and marriages have equal legal status should not be delayed by treating the issue of the name as crucial, and it does soudn as if this could well happen.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:03 PM

Well, that's it for me. Not wasting any more time here.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:01 PM

Sorry Greg I didn't mean to infer that you were a homosexual, you did make that clear earlier.

(hetrosexual) homosexual activist??...The correct term can be quite important I believe.

KB...I give my personal opinions when I wish to..... I may just be a homosexual who believes in fairness and rights for all...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Peace
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:01 PM

Does anyone have statistics on the success rate of heterosexual marriages as opposed to homosexual marriages?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Greg B
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:46 PM

Homosexual fundamentalists like Greg woul certainly not accept it, for the reasons he has given.

Excuse me?

I am neither a homosexual, nor a fundamentalist.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:34 PM

I have been reading your posts ake. You make strong statements and then later say that you are not stating your personal opinions. I would like to hear it straight up just once without qualification.

So I say again, if you are not against same sex marriages please say so.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:15 PM

Those who believe in conventional marriage would probably go along with what McGrath has suggested.
This situation is already in place in many countries....see Peace's map.
I have written about this futher up the thread KB, you have obviously not been reading my posts.

Homosexual fundamentalists like Greg woul certainly not accept it, for the reasons he has given.

Its as we said right at the beginning, all about acceptance, it has to be the word, nothing else will do.

IT HAS TO BE A REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.....case closed Don!!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Greg B
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:03 PM

McGrath, what you seem to be advancing is the idea of 'separate but
equal.' As was fairly well established during the effort to desegregate
American society, there really is no such thing. Separate, by legal
mandate, is inherently unequal.

By limiting same-sex couples to 'civil unions' you limit their
ability to call themselves 'married' in all sorts of documents
(such as deeds). For example, when taking out a deed on a property
it will read "Joseph Smith, a single man and Michael Smith a single
man" rather than "Joseph and Michael Smith, a married couple."

They are not being treated equally in civil society, because they
cannot use the term which best describes their relationship---
"married."

And that, sir, is absolutely a denial of a very important
civil right.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:02 PM

I am quite sure that those who believe in conventional marriage would be happy to go along with what Mcgrath has suggested.

This situation is already in place in many countries.

Ihave said all this earlier, obviously you have not been reading my posts.

I did add that the "homosexual activists" probably would not accept civil union, as they would see that as having to settle for less than they want.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,mac
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 02:30 PM

get this shirt lifting thread off this forum,for gods sake.Nobody gives a toss

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 01:38 PM

So ake, if you are not against same sex marriages, have we not all been just wasting our time?

If you are not against same sex marriages please say so. You are the only one who has been arguing that side of the question. We could put all this to rest.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 01:20 PM

There's a distinction between, on the one hand, saying that same-sex couples who have entered into a registered civil partnership should have equal rights as heterosexual married couples and, on the other hand, insisting that the term marriage should be extended to cover both types of relationships.

In many other countries no problems have arisen in guaranteeing equal rights without extending the definition of marriage. So far as I can see this is the position which akenaton is in favour of. I can't se where any denial of civil rights is involved in this.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Greg B
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 12:49 PM

Even tho' I have stated many times in this thread that I am not anti- homosexual, you all try to infer that I am.

I am not inferring anything. I state it as a fact, made clear by
your own continued arguments against equal protection of matrimonial
law for homosexuals.

You can't say "I have nothing against black people" and then try
to keep them from moving into your neighborhood (or support your
neighbors' right to do same). If you do, you're either deluding
yourself or everyone else; perhaps both.

One of the best way of being anti-somebody is to deny them their
civil rights.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 12:48 AM

"This thread has nothing to do with how many homosexual friends I have or you have. It is about the effect of homosexual marriage on the rights of everyone, and I have tried to argue from the point of view of those who believe in the institution of marriage as traditionally defined."

Why on earth would you spend the better part of two weeks vehemently arguing a point of view that you claim is not your own?

"they are Joe and Jane public...whether you like it or not."

Hmmm...so who am I, and who are the rest of the people on this thread, and who are the other millions of people who DON'T believe that gay people should be denied the right of civil marriage? Joe and Jane Nobody-Cares-About-Your-Opinion-Now-Shut-Up?

For someone who claims to be "objective", I don't see you trying to argue the other side. I don't see you trying to appreciate the point of view of those who believe that "traditional" marriage is what you make it, and that compassion and empathy are just as important as the right of "Joe and Jane Sixpack" to define what marriage should be.

And you still haven't ever managed to convince us how Joe and Jane are being disenfranchised...

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:57 PM

wow...legal in Spain, serious penalty across in Morocco. It's Spain that surprises me.

And Guatemala? interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:19 PM

Interesting graphic, Peace.