Same-Sex Marriage

[Nico]

Personally, I think it's about people. And peoples rights. One could have endless discussion about politics, and rights, and points of views, ethics and tolerance, and religion, but...

in the end it boils down to TWO people. Two people in love, two people who want nothing more than to share their lives.

And if I am allowed a statement about religion: "God does not discriminate. People do."

[Spell]

Personally, I think it's about people. And peoples rights. One could have endless discussion about politics, and rights, and points of views, ethics and tolerance, and religion, but...

in the end it boils down to TWO people. Two people in love, two people who want nothing more than to share their lives.

And if I am allowed a statement about religion: "God does not discriminate. People do."

Completely agreed. Where I live, Same-Sex marriage is not frowned upon at all, and everyone has the right to marry another person, regardless of gender. I only wish more countries would support this.

People decide for their own who they want to love, nobody else.

[Jude]

To deny anything against a specific group of people 'just cause' is wrong.

Yes, child molesters should be able to hang out at chuckee cheese!  ...wait.

Just as my statement misrepresents your position, you've misrepresented the anti-gay marriage crowd.  No one is denying anything "just cause."  They have their reasons and their opinions; whether or not you believe they're valid is another subject of debate.

*whiney voice*
but...but... they are two men! they can't get married!

Stating things like an extremist does not add force to your argument.

Bull shit. They have every right to do the exact same thing that everyone else is able to do.

And a conservative would say they do have the same right straight couples do:  the right to undergo the process of marriage with someone of the opposite sex.  They would claim that not even a straight person has the right to marry someone of the same sex, thus equality exists.  Surely you're starting to see the definition problem.

E.V.E.R.Y R.I.G.H.T

See above.

It's called human rights. Remember when it wasn't lawfully for a mixed racial couple to attend a movie together? Remember when it wasn't legal for women to vote? Most of the same excuses they are using to keep marriage in the woman-man category are the same excuses that they were using then.

I wasn't around then, so I have no idea.  But from what I know of history the women's suffrage movement was about preserving patriarchal power and the mixed-racial couple was about misguided preservation of genetic purity--what exactly does that have anything to do with the reasons why people oppose gay marriage?

Why would a woman want to vote? She has more important things to take care of.
Why would a homosexual want to get married? It's a religious thing.
Mixed racial couples are a perversion! Think of the children!
Homosexuality is a perversion! Think of the children!

Even by your own admission, there's no similarity between women voting and homosexuals being allowed to marry other homosexuals.  I'm fully confused about what sort of point you're trying to make here when you set up an expectation and then violate it yourself seconds later.

Discouraging a couple from an event simply because of their sexual preferences is defiant of human rights. If they are going to allow anyone to do it, they have to allow everyone to do it.

Again, they do allow everyone to marry people of the opposite sex.  Or did you mean the definition that everyone should be able to marry anyone they want to?  That's the problem with taking a hard stance on any real issue and trying to argue about human rights--there is no moral authority or objective reality from which the whole concept of human rights comes from to begin with.  Most people on the earth believe they come from god, which consequently, they also believe god doesn't want gays getting married.

It's called playing fair. Yeah, I know. "Life isn't fair". Whatever. That is absolutely no excuse whatsoever. It's even more of a reason to allow it.

There are plenty of good arguments for homosexuals being allowed to married; you managed to hit on exactly none of them because of the extreme way you went about making your argument.

This is why marriage is not merely liturgical. At times that are most crucial, marriage turns out to have enormous game-changing implications. It is far simpler to just let them marry and be done with it. If we try to make special case laws just for gay people that more or less duplicate the laws for straights, then each and every condition will have to be spelled out. This only increases beaurocracy, and does nothing to trim the size of government. But if we just say that gays can marry, there is no need to add other special case laws.

I don't buy the size of government argument.  All you really have to do is basically clone the laws from marriage and call it a civil union; a simple copy and paste job.  It means a few extra pages on your Government Guide to Paying Taxes; oh noes.  The table of tax rates increased by one column, the size of government has grown!

You said it.....  I myself take offense to anyone who calls religion itself a mental weakness, or someone who says all religion is bad.  There are many, many things I seriously dislike about Christianity, but even I have to admit there are a few good things.  As I said, I don't hate Christians, I just seriously dislike the stupid ones.  If a Christian person is open minded and doesn't preach to me about how Obama is the Anti-Christ, or I'm going to Hell for liking men, and/or being Pagan, then we'd get along just fine.

The problem is the fanatics; the people who can't see the forest for the trees.  Jesus Christ, the one that they supposedly all follow, taught love and tolerance.  But power corrupts and people started using the name of God to justify their means.  Sadly, the general population never questioned anyone claiming to be doing the work of God for way too long.  People need to start practicing what they preach.

Gonna have to disagree with you here, the problem is the people who practice everything they preach.  The reason why the moderates are so easy to get along with and co-exist with is that they disregard many of the tenets written in the bible.  Nearly every religious doctrine the world has ever seen is full of all sorts of first century garbage, arcane laws, and social policies which fly in the face of our twenty-first century sensibilities.

Not that I'm saying religion is the source of all of the world's problems, or that it's necessarily bad, I just think people in general are relatively unaffected by religion when it comes to their moral character, and religion is a subjective tool which can be used to support whatever innate motivation these people have.

in the end it boils down to TWO people. Two people in love, two people who want nothing more than to share their lives.

You don't have to be married to share your life with someone.  The idea being debated is whether or not society should give them certain benefits, protections, and shared responsibilities to encourage their coupling in the same way society encourages straight couples.  Personally I'm laying out that I don't think society should be encouraging any sort of behavior, that's a nanny state, I don't want a government that's telling us how to live either by direct mandate, or subtle economic influence.  I want to be free to live my life however I choose without there being any disadvantages to the way I want to live.

[sakuratears]

You know, as a Christian, I'm going to have to say this...

We live in America...and as such we are suppose to be all equal. Same sex couples SHOULD have the same rights as straight couples...that includes marriage.

[Talia]

You know, as a Christian, I'm going to have to say this...

We live in America...and as such we are suppose to be all equal. Same sex couples SHOULD have the same rights as straight couples...that includes marriage.

"SING IT LOUD AND PROUD!"

Politics and Relgion have no place in the bedroom...or T.V.'s unless it is being used to watch adult
DVD's!

[Mathim]

This is indeed the most ignorant and uncalled for statement someone has made in a long time, Mathim.  Congradulations on the honor.

Then you're calling some of most well-known founding fathers and top scientists of today ignorant. You should do a little research before you just assume I made this up myself.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Then you're calling some of most well-known founding fathers and top scientists of today ignorant. You should do a little research before you just assume I made this up myself.

If their statement says that in order for there to be freedom and peace on this planet, than the vast majority of the population must give up their way of life and belief systems.  That in order for the human people to co-exist nearly all people must give up what is part of their culture, then yes I will call them ignorant.  That statement is about as hateful and idiotic as they come.  Such a statement has no buisness in an argument regarding tolerance and equality.  You should put a little thought into your statements before jumping on the anti-religion band wagon.

[Kotah]

Yes, child molesters should be able to hang out at chuckee cheese!  ...wait.

Just as my statement misrepresents your position, you've misrepresented the anti-gay marriage crowd.  No one is denying anything "just cause."  They have their reasons and their opinions; whether or not you believe they're valid is another subject of debate.

The problem is, that for a lot of people it is just cause. why in the hell should Dick and Joyce have any concern for what Tom and Joe want to do? They are forcing their christian beliefs on an entire group of people. The homosexuals. Now, while child molesters may be forced to abstain from their preferred sex, I do believe that most homosexual couples that want to get married are legally consenting adults. The most common answer I have found for the reasons to deny homosexuals the equal right to marriage have varied:
"God want's marriage to be between a male and female"
"Homosexuality is gross anyway"
"They are just perverts, we shouldn't let them marry. It gives the impression that it's alright."
"They aren't christian anyway, why would they want to get married?"

I tend to find these excuses to be rather lacking. So I throw them into a "just cause" box. The arguments tend to go along the lines of: "why do you think this is wrong?", "because god says (insert other christian apologetic)", "But they have nothing to do with you, so why do you care?", "Because it's just wrong", "but why?", "Because it is".

And a conservative would say they do have the same right straight couples do:  the right to undergo the process of marriage with someone of the opposite sex.  They would claim that not even a straight person has the right to marry someone of the same sex, thus equality exists.  Surely you're starting to see the definition problem.

As a nurse, I have to treat every single patient exactly the same. I don't get to pull out little stops because I don't agree with something they may have done. While arranged marriages still exists, most Americans are allowed to choose who they are going to spend the rest of their lives with. Unless, of course, you are a homosexual. In which case, well, you can't. It's that simple. Unless you subscribe to the christian family ideal, you are going to be denied that possibility. A man can, in some religions, go out and marry 5 women, some of which may be related... However, if you want to marry another consenting male you are disallowed.

Why? because it is their religious right. However, for homosexuals, there is an inequality in which you are denied the right to make a life decision because of other peoples religion.

I wasn't around then, so I have no idea.  But from what I know of history the women's suffrage movement was about preserving patriarchal power and the mixed-racial couple was about misguided preservation of genetic purity--what exactly does that have anything to do with the reasons why people oppose gay marriage?

The woman's suffrage movement was about being denied the unlawful denial of representation.

As stated in my before post:

Most of the same excuses they are using to keep marriage in the woman-man category are the same excuses that they were using then.

Because they are. If you read lower. I gave examples of excuses to keep women out of polling places, and anti mixed racial semantics.

Even by your own admission, there's no similarity between women voting and homosexuals being allowed to marry other homosexuals.  I'm fully confused about what sort of point you're trying to make here when you set up an expectation and then violate it yourself seconds later.

What? I am fully unclear about when I stated that they had nothing to do with each other. They clearly have things to do with each other. For one thing, they are both struggles for basic rights. By your own admission, both of my examples were about the preventions of a christian ideal being replaced by human rights. Not everyone in America subscribes to the christian word. Also, both of those examples were eventually changed in the repressed group's favor. They are both, also, still struggles that continue today.

Again, they do allow everyone to marry people of the opposite sex.

Again, if they are going allow a freedom for people to marry, they should allow for people to marry the people they want to. Before we get more pedophile rights, We should all agree that they should be legally consenting adults.

Or did you mean the definition that everyone should be able to marry anyone they want to?

See above.

That's the problem with taking a hard stance on any real issue and trying to argue about human rights--there is no moral authority or objective reality from which the whole concept of human rights comes from to begin with.

What do human rights have anything to do with a moral authority? Human rights should be views as a amoral subject. The problem with this whole matters is everyone is trying to force their own moral authority, i.e. God, into the debate.

Most people on the earth believe they come from god, which consequently, they also believe god doesn't want gays getting married.

Not everyone on earth believes in god. Not everyone that believes in god, thinks that gay's shouldn't be allowed to marry.

There are plenty of good arguments for homosexuals being allowed to married; you managed to hit on exactly none of them because of the extreme way you went about making your argument.

There are plenty of arguments for homosexuals to not be allowed the basic human right of choosing their own life partner and celebrating it in the perscribed manner of tradition; you managed to hit on exactly none of them because you were to busy trying to textually throw down on me.

[Valerian]

Let's all try to avoid extreme and/or loaded language, whether quoting someone else or not, okay?  Further religion-specific debate should go to another thread, in any case.  Thanks.

[Jude]

The problem is, that for a lot of people it is just cause. why in the hell should Dick and Joyce have any concern for what Tom and Joe want to do? They are forcing their christian beliefs on an entire group of people. The homosexuals. Now, while child molesters may be forced to abstain from their preferred sex, I do believe that most homosexual couples that want to get married are legally consenting adults. The most common answer I have found for the reasons to deny homosexuals the equal right to marriage have varied:
"God want's marriage to be between a male and female"
"Homosexuality is gross anyway"
"They are just perverts, we shouldn't let them marry. It gives the impression that it's alright."
"They aren't christian anyway, why would they want to get married?"

I tend to find these excuses to be rather lacking. So I throw them into a "just cause" box. The arguments tend to go along the lines of: "why do you think this is wrong?", "because god says (insert other christian apologetic)", "But they have nothing to do with you, so why do you care?", "Because it's just wrong", "but why?", "Because it is".

So basically what you're saying is that you don't agree with their ideas; that's different than saying they don't have them.  My objection was your painting people as having opinions without justification.  I disagree with their justifications as well, I just don't think it's intellectually honest to say they don't have them, which was my objection.

As a nurse, I have to treat every single patient exactly the same. I don't get to pull out little stops because I don't agree with something they may have done.

So uh... you don't treat people of varying genders differently?  You don't take into account people's religious beliefs when acting either?  Jehovah's witnesses don't take blood infusions, etc.  It doesn't matter anyway, I have no idea why we're talking about this.  The fact that you're a nurse has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.  Nor does how you administer health care.

While arranged marriages still exists, most Americans are allowed to choose who they are going to spend the rest of their lives with. Unless, of course, you are a homosexual. In which case, well, you can't. It's that simple. Unless you subscribe to the christian family ideal, you are going to be denied that possibility. A man can, in some religions, go out and marry 5 women, some of which may be related... However, if you want to marry another consenting male you are disallowed.

You don't need to be married to spend the rest of your life with someone.  You're completely mischaracterizing what's going on here.  They're being denied certain privileges that are offered to straight couples; marriage is completely meaningless beyond those related perks except in a religious context.

Why? because it is their religious right. However, for homosexuals, there is an inequality in which you are denied the right to make a life decision because of other peoples religion.

Yep, and I completely agree this is wrong.

The woman's suffrage movement was about being denied the unlawful denial of representation.

Confused.

As stated in my before post:
Because they are. If you read lower. I gave examples of excuses to keep women out of polling places, and anti mixed racial semantics.

And I was arguing about the justifications you gave because it didn't seem like they were actually in line with the real historical motivations.

What? I am fully unclear about when I stated that they had nothing to do with each other. They clearly have things to do with each other. For one thing, they are both struggles for basic rights. By your own admission, both of my examples were about the preventions of a christian ideal being replaced by human rights. Not everyone in America subscribes to the christian word. Also, both of those examples were eventually changed in the repressed group's favor. They are both, also, still struggles that continue today.

I think you're stretching and I don't see the relevance anyway.

Again, if they are going allow a freedom for people to marry, they should allow for people to marry the people they want to. Before we get more pedophile rights, We should all agree that they should be legally consenting adults.

You're fundamentally dodging the issue.  The bottom line is that religious people believe that marriage is defined as a union between man and woman.  There's a lot of tradition and history backing up this claim.  No one's saying that if you're a man you can't marry any woman you want and that if you're a woman you can't marry any man you want; they're arguing that men having a union with men, and women having a union with women is fundamentally not marriage.  I say let them have that point; who cares, what does it matter what it's labeled as?  As long as the same privileges are afforded to same-sex unions, why is it so important that it's called marriage?  Better yet, why is anyone entitled to special privileges because they're having a committed relationship with someone?

What do human rights have anything to do with a moral authority? Human rights should be views as a amoral subject. The problem with this whole matters is everyone is trying to force their own moral authority, i.e. God, into the debate.

Human rights are clearly a moral issue, as it is considered "wrong" to deny someone their human rights.  You can't separate them, they're inextricably linked.

Not everyone on earth believes in god. Not everyone that believes in god, thinks that gay's shouldn't be allowed to marry.

There are plenty of arguments for homosexuals to not be allowed the basic human right of choosing their own life partner and celebrating it in the perscribed manner of tradition; you managed to hit on exactly none of them because you were to busy trying to textually throw down on me.

First of all, my objection to your comments was the level of extremism you conveyed through them, not because I disagree with your ultimate conclusion.  I wasn't trying to "textually throw down on you" either, I was just objecting to how black and white you seem to view the issue.

I actually don't disagree that homosexuals should be able to choose their life partner and celebrate it amongst themselves however they like.  There are no laws that prevent that.  That's not what the same-sex marriage issue is about; same-sex marriage is about changing the law so that homosexual relationships are allowed to undergo the same process that straight relationships are currently, in order to gain extra privileges afforded by the law.  There are several ways to go about it.

You can be inclusionary and change the way we view marriage legally so that it incorporates the union of a man and a woman, or you can take the "separate but equal" route and create a different institution with a different name (i.e. civil unions) and leave marriage alone.

It's wrong to deny homosexual couples the ability to share insurance, to adopt with equal consideration a straight couple, etc.  But it's also wrong to force religious people to "accept" same-sex marriages as equal to their own in a religious and symbolic sense.  Everyone deserves equal protection under the law, it's in the constitution, but no one has the right to mandate how other people think.  That's why many Christian groups are angry at homosexuals demanding to be married.  Their idea of marriage only allows for a man and a woman, and they feel that if the laws are changed, it will force them to abandon their principles on that subject.

[Trieste]

Locking for a while.

Edit: Unlocked. Play nice, please.

- If you must use sarcasm, please keep it to a minimum and undirected.
- Don't take things personally.
- Take a breath if you need to.
- There are no girls on the internet.

[Kotah]

- There are no girls on the internet.

<3

You know what Stuart? I like you. You're not like the other people here in the trailer park. Oh no, don't get me wrong, they're fine people, good Americans. But they're content to sit back, maybe watch a little Mork and Mindy on channel 57. Maybe kick back a cool Coors 16-ouncer. They're good fine people, Stuart. But they don't know what the queers are doing to the soil.


And with that, I am leaving the discussion all together.

[Scott]

<3

You know what Stuart? I like you. You're not like the other people here in the trailer park. Oh no, don't get me wrong, they're fine people, good Americans. But they're content to sit back, maybe watch a little Mork and Mindy on channel 57. Maybe kick back a cool Coors 16-ouncer. They're good fine people, Stuart. But they don't know what the queers are doing to the soil.

HEY!!! what's wrong with Coors?

[Ket]

What isn't wrong with rocky mountain piss water?

/hijack

[Scott]

What isn't wrong with rocky mountain piss water?

/hijack

but... but... the label turns blue when it's as cold as the rockies.

[Farmboy]

Are people OK with basically asking not to confuse "faith" and "religion"? Faith is something in your mind, while religion is in the world. Faith is necessary to keep a marriage going. And faith in your beliefs is necessary to get on with life. But clearly you can have faith in your beliefs without religion. As many have pointed out when arguing for or against creationism, even a scientist has to have faith in the number system. But a religion is an institution, and every great metaphysical thinker and teacher, such as those whose teachings are the foundations of religion, has to challenge the tenets of his or her religion in order to advance the cause of their faith. One great example of this is Martin Luther's Ninety-Five Theses.

All I'm saying is, please do not be offended about what I say about religion. I am not talking about your faith. It is against my religion to let anyone tell me an answer to a question I can figure out on my own. Life is, to me, like a test, and that would be cheating. I don't go to church, but I am not an atheist. (It is also against my religion to blame others for my temptations or to claim that I can define the word "God". I teach that Justice is the truest form of Love. Obviously, I am influenced by Jesus, but do not accept all his teachings. When people ask me where my church is, I point to the public library.)

I perform weddings. If it were legal to marry gays in my state, I would. I wish I could. I don't mind a religion saying they don't want to ordain women or marry gays, but it should not be against the law for others, like me, to do it. That is tantamount to state religion, and it is unconstitutional.

Please do not be offended by me. I am doing my best to be a good person, too. Thanks.

[Talia]

HEY!!! what's wrong with Coors?

There's nothing wrong with Coor's light. It's more likely the person at the other end holding the bottle.....maybe there pissy.  ;)

[Trieste]

Er. Can we leave off the off-topic minorly necroposting, please? :P

[Acinonyx]

Here, from what I was told, the reason for the tax-relief that married couples, but not civil unions enjoy (at least in Germany) was meant to be a positive financial thing for PARENTS for the benefit of the children. Since over time the idea of family has changed a little and not every couple wants children anymore and homosexuals do not have to remain childless either and there are a heckload of single moms and dads, why not keep the whole tax-thing fixed to the children? People with children get a bit of tax relief, people without children don't, whether they're married or not.

The other legal rights that are very necessary - concerning healthcare, decisions, duties and rights, last names, etc. - could be regulated by the same legal bond for all, regardless of gender. That could be called marriage or anything else. The most important thing is the *equality*, and what it is called is secondary, as long as every couple gets the same package.

Since "civil union" is a crappy word, have someone invent a shiny new word and leave the (then legally meaningless) term marriage to the religious, if they think they need to keep their special label. As a homosexual with wedding plans, I'd be perfectly happy with that.

[Zakharra]

 The problem is that Christianity isn't the only religion in the US. Why should the Christian view of marriage dictate what equals marriage  for the entire country? Marriage has a heavy religious meaning. What if the religion allowed for multiple wives?*

* personally, polygamy should allow for  multiple wives and/or husbands. Why should the men have all the fun? Women deserve more than one man too.

[Muninn]

US gay marriage ban challenged in federal court

This is probably old hat to some but I have been living under a rock for a while. Some of the comments made by supporters of prop 8 make me feel ill.

Now watch as the churches start throwing money to hire the sleaziest and best lawyers (no offense to any lawyers or kin) to win.

Edit to fix link. ~Trie

[Jude]

While I sincerely hope that this court case goes well, I'm also worried that its success could be a bad thing.  Social change in America is best done incrementally, so that people who are opposed to it are given time to adjust (think of dipping your toe in the pool before diving in).  Each generation is more socially liberal than the previous, as long as we continue to move the ball forward at a sane pace, in time we'll win all of the social arguments.

One of the reasons why I think Abortion is still such a contentious issue is that it wasn't done incrementally.  Roe vs. Wade was a rather sudden change and a shock to the system of a good portion of the country.  Since then, the religious right and by extension conservatives have used it as an issue on which to campaign, raise funds, and divide the country.  We're at a point now where more of the country wants stricter abortion legislation than those who want to keep the status quo (though polls indicate that they prefer only slightly stricter controls), i.e. they want to take a step back in time on the issue of women's rights.

I think if same-sex marriage is forced down the throats of the country when it's still not viable enough to be rendered unto law via the election process, it will become another permanent wedge issue and eventually lose ground in the same capacity.  This is ultimately why I favor incremental change, civil unions if you will, over radical reform.  The government needs to move along with the society, because if the government progresses faster than the society, it throws everything out of whack in my opinion.

[Talia]

While I sincerely hope that this court case goes well, I'm also worried that its success could be a bad thing.  Social change in America is best done incrementally, so that people who are opposed to it are given time to adjust (think of dipping your toe in the pool before diving in). 

One of the reasons why I think Abortion is still such a contentious issue is that it wasn't done incrementally. 

I think if same-sex marriage is forced down the throats of the country

Jude I think the world as had plenty of time to think and digest a lot of new ideas, thoughts and positive ways to change. The real problem is a lot of people don't think at all, give it proper attention or are just to closed minded to care. I think the gay community is more tired of having other people's believes and thoughts crammed  down their throats. What exactly is a sane pace?


What's insane is they say the law is past and it's legal. People get married and then they have the balls to pull the rug out from under them........That's done incrementally wrong!

[Jude]

First of all, the majority of Americans are not for Gay Marriage.



I don't think it's sane to force a change in the law that goes against the sentiments of the majority of the country.  Incremental change prevents cultural blowback like the kind we've seen with abortion.  Take a look at the break down via age groups:



Assuming their beliefs don't change, as the people who most staunchly oppose gay marriage die off, there should be a shift in the greater population towards a majority mandate for gay marriage.  However, if the courts step in and force people to accept gay marriage when so much of the population doesn't agree with it, it's not like their hearts are going to soften and they'll sudden accept it as a legitimate institution.  In an America where Populism is surging, going against the wishes of the majority of Americans is a good way to polarize even more people against whatever initiative you're supporting.

I'm not saying that gay activists should give up, no, they should continue to draw attention to the fact that they are being discriminated against.  That is the engine of social change:  the generation of sympathy for and normalization of whatever group is being mistreated.  It's not a genuine shift in cultural opinion if it's forced, and while it may look like victory, I'd assert that it's only a temporary boon and a longterm setback as it was for abortion.

The elimination of discrimination against racial minorities is a good model for progress any group to follow that is seeking to gain legislatively guaranteed rights.  It was a long process and hard fight, a hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation the Civil Rights Movement was in full swing.  Changing cultural and societal attitudes isn't something that happens overnight.  But if the battle is fought properly, you truly can change society for the better.  Today, Racism is absolutely not acceptable in any form.  Sure, people will argue fringe cases and unclear situations about whether or not racism is actually a factor, but no one who is sane in America will come out and say that they don't like a particular racial group.

[Talia]

First of all, the majority of Americans are not for Gay Marriage.


I don't think it's sane to force a change in the law that goes against the sentiments of the majority of the country. 

Population has nothing to do with evoking change as a country or nation. It's about accepting that others have the freedom to live and have the same rights as everyone else  period.

That's exactly my point no amount of giving people time to think things over is going to change the ignorant. They are just to closed minded to weigh it properly and see the points of others.......

Jude..I wish I had your phone number because I hate debating in text and even more so to type it!

So when we make laws we should do with population in mind...what next class, economic,....race  seriously.


Then for abortion men should have no say at all as a population. We don't need their input ...after all the change doesn't occur to their bodies??