Gay marriage

[Methos]

Honestly what does gay marriage add? They can't settle down and naturally have a family. Its not like they have to make an honest woman out of each other and avoid their children being called bastards. Its really only an attempt to hijack a cultural tradition by people insecure about their own status in society and wishing for validation of their normality. Having gay marriages adds absolutely no society value, and its a pretty sad attempt at retconning a cultural tradition that's existed since the dawn of time. The meaning of words shouldn't just be changed on a whim.

[Cecily]

Honestly what does gay marriage add? They can't settle down and naturally have a family.

So that means that they're not allowed to get married because they can't naturally have children? What about a woman who is infertile? Does that mean she cannot get married because she can't "naturally have a family"? There are things like adoption. Also, I've heard of gay men and lesbians actually having children together and sharing custody of the child.

Its not like they have to make an honest woman out of each other and avoid their children being called bastards. Its really only an attempt to hijack a cultural tradition by people insecure about their own status in society and wishing for validation of their normality. Having gay marriages adds absolutely no society value, and its a pretty sad attempt at retconning a cultural tradition that's existed since the dawn of time. The meaning of words shouldn't just be changed on a whim.

And not allowing gay marriage adds society value? I don't see the point. o_o;

Well, the problem is that there are many benefits that come with marriage that two people who are in love and want to be together would like to have, just like any heterosexual couple. I'm not even sure if civil unions are available in every state -- and if they are, they might not be recognized in other states. Also, civil unions do not even grant all the same benefits as a normal marriage does.

These are just some of the benefits available to married people:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Some of those might be covered by a civil union -- but not all of them are.

The problem is that even if gay people can get civil unions in some states, it's not the same as marriage -- and that is the unfair part. I think that they should be able to marry anyways, but if they're not going to be able to marry because it might "destroy the precious definition of the word" then they need some equivalent. :) Otherwise, it's just inequality.

[The Overlord]

Honestly what does gay marriage add?

Add to what? This question means nothing without explanation.

They can't settle down and naturally have a family.

Actually they do, and from what I've seen on it, statistically they have a better rate of staying together than hetero couples. And just maybe, they're not always looking to 'settle down naturally' and have a family. Ever consider that?

Its not like they have to make an honest woman out of each other and avoid their children being called bastards.

Dude, public school, even private school is a wolf pit and a circus. I was born in wedlock and of normal hetero parents, and I've been called far worse than a bastard. Society will always find something to ridicule. What's your point?



They live a homosexual lifestyle; your abnormality is their normality. Maybe they don't give a damn what you think. Ever consider that?

Hijack? Interesting use of terminology. Christianity hijacked practices and beliefs from faiths that preceded it, but I'm guessing you'll use the church argument back yourself up, again, what's your point?

Having gay marriages adds absolutely no society value, 

That's an opinion. Who says it has to add something to be valid? The point is it causes no harm to heterosexual couples, and that's something you're all scared of. As I've said, I've heard the arguments: Some believe it violates normal marriage, which can't be proven. You're trying to turn the argument 180 degrees and attack from the other side, implying that it must carry some societal good. Once again, the argument fails miserably.

and its a pretty sad attempt at retconning a cultural tradition that's existed since the dawn of time.

This too, is an opinion.

The meaning of words shouldn't just be changed on a whim.

Who says this is a whim? Homosexuality has existed since the 'dawn of time' as well; all the classic civilizations had to find ways to deal with it too. It says something harsh about our society when we have such simple-minded and naive views of sexuality.

[Oniya]

The meaning of words shouldn't just be changed on a whim.

Actually, if we're getting back to original meanings, I like the original meaning of gay.

First three in Webster's New World dictionary:

gay (gā)

adjective

   1. joyous and lively; merry; happy; lighthearted
   2. bright; brilliant - 'gay colors'
   3. given to social life and pleasures - 'a gay life'

Etymology: ME gai < OFr < ? Frank *gahi, swift, impetuous, akin to Ger jäh


That's it, I think we should all have gay marriages. Much better than the alternative.  *nods sagely* 

[Methos]

So that means that they're not allowed to get married because they can't naturally have children? What about a woman who is infertile? Does that mean she cannot get married because she can't "naturally have a family"? There are things like adoption. Also, I've heard of gay men and lesbians actually having children together and sharing custody of the child.

And not allowing gay marriage adds society value? I don't see the point. o_o;

Well, the problem is that there are many benefits that come with marriage that two people who are in love and want to be together would like to have, just like any heterosexual couple. I'm not even sure if civil unions are available in every state -- and if they are, they might not be recognized in other states. Also, civil unions do not even grant all the same benefits as a normal marriage does.

These are just some of the benefits available to married people:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Some of those might be covered by a civil union -- but not all of them are.

The problem is that even if gay people can get civil unions in some states, it's not the same as marriage -- and that is the unfair part. I think that they should be able to marry anyways, but if they're not going to be able to marry because it might "destroy the precious definition of the word" then they need some equivalent. :) Otherwise, it's just inequality.

If it adds nothing and the status who is that marriage doesn't include members of the same sex, its incumbent upon them to demonstrate that the change is somehow worth while as they are the ones who wish a departure from what currently exists. Benefits can all be covered under civil unions. And playing around with the whole "what about old people or infertile women" thing is nothing more than sophistry and its entirely beside the point. Marriage existed between two members of the opposing gender as th anchor for the family for thousands of years. Did it always result in children no, was family the primary rational for it - yes.

[Methos]

Add to what? This question means nothing without explanation.

Actually they do, and from what I've seen on it, statistically they have a better rate of staying together than hetero couples. And just maybe, they're not always looking to 'settle down naturally' and have a family. Ever consider that?

Dude, public school, even private school is a wolf pit and a circus. I was born in wedlock and of normal hetero parents, and I've been called far worse than a bastard. Society will always find something to ridicule. What's your point?

*snip*

They live a homosexual lifestyle; your abnormality is their normality. Maybe they don't give a damn what you think. Ever consider that?

Hijack? Interesting use of terminology. Christianity hijacked practices and beliefs from faiths that preceded it, but I'm guessing you'll use the church argument back yourself up, again, what's your point?


That's an opinion. Who says it has to add something to be valid? The point is it causes no harm to heterosexual couples, and that's something you're all scared of. As I've said, I've heard the arguments: Some believe it violates normal marriage, which can't be proven. You're trying to turn the argument 180 degrees and attack from the other side, implying that it must carry some societal good. Once again, the argument fails miserably.


This too, is an opinion.

Who says this is a whim? Homosexuality has existed since the 'dawn of time' as well; all the classic civilizations had to find ways to deal with it too. It says something harsh about our society when we have such simple-minded and naive views of sexuality.

Yes homosexuality has existed a long time. On the other hand the people in it were never considered to be in marriages, and from the Romans onwards its been considered a deviant practice. By the same token everything you've written is an opinion, so if you have no real rebuttal to it there isn't any point in engaging in debate. Essentially everything you have to say exists on some bizarre axis in your mind around 'religion is evil' and its honestly rather tiresome to listen to that phrase churned out with slightly different wording again and again.

[Cecily]

If it adds nothing and the status who is that marriage doesn't include members of the same sex, its incumbent upon them to demonstrate that the change is somehow worth while as they are the ones who wish a departure from what currently exists.

Uh, what? I don't understand the whole point that 'allowing gay marriage adds nothing to society' -- if anything it adds to society because equality is something that every society should have, or at least try to have. How does not allowing it add anything to society? How does allowing gay marriage effect heterosexuals at all?

I'm not gay, or bisexual, and I still support gay rights and marriage. Using the term 'they' as if it's only gay people who want gay marriage to be allowed is pretty silly.

Benefits can all be covered under civil unions.

Key word: can. They're -NOT- all covered under civil unions.

playing around with the whole "what about old people or infertile women" thing is nothing more than sophistry and its entirely beside the point.

Your implications in your post earlier implied that because gay people cannot 'naturally start a family' that them getting married means nothing. Plenty of people who get married never have children even if they're capable of it... it's not like there are any laws that say people who get married have to start a family, obviously.

Marriage existed between two members of the opposing gender as th anchor for the family for thousands of years. Did it always result in children no, was family the primary rational for it - yes.

So? We don't live in a time similar to thousands of years ago. That's like saying that slavery should still be allowed because humans did that thousands of years ago. Just because people who got married traditionally did it and had children doesn't mean that's all what married couples do now. Things change, and having equality for everyone regardless of their sexual orientation is something that everyone should want. :)

[RubySlippers]

So that means that they're not allowed to get married because they can't naturally have children? What about a woman who is infertile? Does that mean she cannot get married because she can't "naturally have a family"? There are things like adoption. Also, I've heard of gay men and lesbians actually having children together and sharing custody of the child.

And not allowing gay marriage adds society value? I don't see the point. o_o;

Well, the problem is that there are many benefits that come with marriage that two people who are in love and want to be together would like to have, just like any heterosexual couple. I'm not even sure if civil unions are available in every state -- and if they are, they might not be recognized in other states. Also, civil unions do not even grant all the same benefits as a normal marriage does.

These are just some of the benefits available to married people:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Some of those might be covered by a civil union -- but not all of them are.

The problem is that even if gay people can get civil unions in some states, it's not the same as marriage -- and that is the unfair part. I think that they should be able to marry anyways, but if they're not going to be able to marry because it might "destroy the precious definition of the word" then they need some equivalent. :) Otherwise, it's just inequality.

Many of these could be corrected with Federal Legislation confering these right to Civil Unions save in the Military and I will add homosexuals cannot legally serve in the military. Others just need state laws such as with visitation rights. None require gay marriage per se just a legal recognition of a Civil Union so why not focus on that?

I suspect you might get more support than if you seem to attack the sanctity of marriage as the people of faith see it. I favor this approach it would likely be easier to get save in Florida now, our Amendment 2 pretty well shafted the logical and simple approach.

[Methos]

Uh, what? I don't understand the whole point that 'allowing gay marriage adds nothing to society' -- if anything it adds to society because equality is something that every society should have, or at least try to have. How does not allowing it add anything to society? How does allowing gay marriage effect heterosexuals at all?

I'm not gay, or bisexual, and I still support gay rights and marriage. Using the term 'they' as if it's only gay people who want gay marriage to be allowed is pretty silly.

Key word: can. They're -NOT- all covered under civil unions.
Your implications in your post earlier implied that because gay people cannot 'naturally start a family' that them getting married means nothing. Plenty of people who get married never have children even if they're capable of it... it's not like there are any laws that say people who get married have to start a family, obviously.

So? We don't live in a time similar to thousands of years ago. That's like saying that slavery should still be allowed because humans did that thousands of years ago. Just because people who got married traditionally did it and had children doesn't mean that's all what married couples do now. Things change, and having equality for everyone regardless of their sexual orientation is something that everyone should want. :)

Marriage is a tradition and a religious act that takes place between a man and a woman. I oppose changing the meaning of the act and the word to include things it was never meant to contemplate. There is no practical benefit to allowing gays to marry. All of the government benefits can be covered under civil unions without profaning tradition and religion with a ludicrous redefinition of the term just because some minority group believes it would give them warm fuzzies. Even Barak Obama doesn't see in utility in it and isn't he the left wing messiah?

[Apple of Eris]

Just a note, in the United States of America, marriage is not a religious act. Marriage is a Civil act - it is technically, a contract between two indivduals.

In fact it can best be compared to forming a business partnership or even a corporation.
*shrug*

[RubySlippers]

Tell many of the churches that, they will disagree.

[The Overlord]

Yes homosexuality has existed a long time. On the other hand the people in it were never considered to be in marriages, and from the Romans onwards its been considered a deviant practice. By the same token everything you've written is an opinion, so if you have no real rebuttal to it there isn't any point in engaging in debate. Essentially everything you have to say exists on some bizarre axis in your mind around 'religion is evil' and its honestly rather tiresome to listen to that phrase churned out with slightly different wording again and again.

This in turn is also an opinion, and this has become a very tiring and circular debate.

Once again:

The case that gay marriage needs to 'add something' to society remains utterly subjective.

You have to prove it's a bad thing to say it's wrong. Again, there's no case here. The point remains is that California made it alright and then rescinded. Now that's it been on the books, making it illegal is a clear violation of civil rights.

Unlike the Romans, we have the opportunity to show that we've evolved in the past 2000 years and come up with an amicable solution to this. We led by example by electing our first black president. If America is a true world leader, then we can lead by example here too.


When religion stops committing atrocities in the name of belief, I'll stop calling it out. If religion is enacting a violation of civil rights or condoning it, then yes, it is committing evil. Religionists like to delude themselves that just because it's written in their book or they think they can interpret it from their book, it's just fine. You can't have your cake and eat it too; you're trying to justify your faith and push it on everyone. And you still have cause to wonder why some of us want to fight you?

The continuous hidebound blithering of the religious right that believes they know better for all of us is even more tiresome. Of all the churches, the Mormons have some of the least latitude in all this. Here’s a church that practices polygamy, or at least sects of the Mormon church continue to do so. Talk about hypocrits.

The Catholics can't talk either; while they've been pushing dogma all these years, they've quietly been doing altar boys. At least with married gays it's consensual between adults. Sick.

Again I make my point; as a liberal I want to give everyone a choice on civil rights. As conservatives you want to give them a choice too, so long as it's yours, and you'll use the weight of your churches to enforce it?  And then you come out of your corner and accuse of being against organized religion? You want to accuse ME of being an instigator? That's rich.

Just a note, in the United States of America, marriage is not a religious act. Marriage is a Civil act - it is technically, a contract between two individuals.

In fact it can best be compared to forming a business partnership or even a corporation.
*shrug*

Which nicely makes the case.

Again, this religion sticking its nose into law, and forgetting the cardinal rule-

Isn't-your-business-get-out…

[Methos]

Actually the American constitution and the declaration of independence were all basically cribbed from the philosophical work of John Locke. Locke believed that our rules and morality were all our divine patrimony and the reason that the anarchy Hobbes positited didn't transpire was divinely inspired. The entire framework of Anglo-American law is rife with judeo-christian values whether you like it or not.

It always amuses me that while liberals proclaim their "tolerance" as some sort of cherished value, the hatred they show towards religion and anyone who doesn't agree with them is anything but tolerant.

How many times do people need to point out on this board to you Overlord that more crimes have been committed in the name of Communism and other aestistic creeds than have ever been comitted in the name of religion before you give you tired "religious attrocities" tripe a rest? People commit attrociities and your sad delusion that religion is the sole inspiration for them is either entirely wilfully blind or intellectually dishonest. Stalin, Mao, Robbespiere, and Pol Pot are among the greatest butchers in history and religion had absolutely nothing to do with their ideologies.

I don't think much of Mormons, on the other hand there is really nothing particularly damaging to soceity in their quaint fairy tale of a founding. It doesn't devalue any existing societal structures, and yet the cultural marxism that passes as liberalism these days hasn't seen a pillar of society that it wouldn't like to tear down consequences be damned.

Given that you don't seem to think we shouldn't judge other people's relationships in any case and everyone should do whatever feels good - what hell is your problem with even the fringe Mormons who want to have a dozen wives? Why not just sign onto N.A.M.B.L.A. 's agenda for that matter while your at it. If you can't judge other people relationships for 'moral content' then where do you get off saying poligamy is wrong or pedophillia is wrong? According to you "its all about their choice" as opposed to any societal standards which is simply incoherent. But then again the only coherent thought you seem to have is that you hate religion for a variety of incoherent reasons.

[HairyHeretic]

Right, time to cool it down folks, before anything else gets said that works people up further.

[Methos]

I find the the comparison that some people like to make between gay marriage and interracial marriage to be misleading Trieste. They remained marriages between two members of the opposite gender, and the skin tone of either partner served as no barrier to the creation of a normal family unit. For that matter marriages between different ethnic groups had been common practices forever, so the only real issue at stake was American's internal fixation with race. Their was no change to the definition of what constituted a marriage.

As for the Churches that sanction gay marriages, most of them have very little religion left in them and are no more than left wing talking shops. But given the plunging attendence for those sort of organizations there really won't be much division amongst them given twenty or thirty years time. The serious religious organizations are united in their opposition to gay marriage, given that homosexuality is sort of viewed negatively in that whole Bible thing.

There have already been studies conducted on it in Europe Trieste. The devaluation of marriage and family has rather severe consequences. Family was society's traditional building block. Quicky and easy divorce already dealt that institution a body blow and gay marriage would cheapen it even further. The result has been greater impermanence in people's relationships and that lack of stability has social costs. Marriage is a practice that should be taken seriously, changing it on a whim is simply a bad idea.

[Trieste]

I find the the comparison that some people like to make between gay marriage and interracial marriage to be misleading Trieste. They remained marriages between two members of the opposite gender, and the skin tone of either partner served as no barrier to the creation of a normal family unit. For that matter marriages between different ethnic groups had been common practices forever, so the only real issue at stake was American's internal fixation with race. Their was no change to the definition of what constituted a marriage.

But many of the same accusations of slippery-slopeness that you are stating come from that debate. The reference you made to pedophilia, for instance, was a popular deterrent at the time, and it has since been proven that no, people will not go and wed their dogs or their newborn children simply because you let other people marry who they want. It does not work that way.

As for the 'normal' family unit, it's not always one man, one woman, and many children. There are many different and varied forms of the family and not all of them consist of what we would define as a nuclear family. And there has always been a fixation with differences, be they religious, racial, or otherwise... the US just happened to have one with blacks versus whites - although if you look, you'll also find extreme resistance to whites marrying Asians, hispanics and other ethnicities throughout the history of the US. It's just not as well-popularized.

As for the Churches that sanction gay marriages, most of them have very little religion left in them and are no more than left wing talking shops. But given the plunging attendence for those sort of organizations there really won't be much division amongst them given twenty or thirty years time. The serious religious organizations are united in their opposition to gay marriage, given that homosexuality is sort of viewed negatively in that whole Bible thing.

What right have you or I or anyone to decide what church is more valid than another? A church is a church is a church - and I might add that 'godlessness' was an accusation flung at the Episcopalian church when it first began ordaining women, yet very few people would consider Episcopalian churches ungodly ... unless you're a Roman or Orthodox Catholic but they don't really like anyone, so they don't really count. (And before you go there, that was a joke. I grew up around Catholicism; I'm allowed.) The so-called serious religious organizations are far from united, and are declining in attendance just as much as other churches.

There have already been studies conducted on it in Europe Trieste. The devaluation of marriage and family has rather severe consequences. Family was society's traditional building block. Quicky and easy divorce already dealt that institution a body blow and gay marriage would cheapen it even further. The result has been greater impermanence in people's relationships and that lack of stability has social costs. Marriage is a practice that should be taken seriously, changing it on a whim is simply a bad idea.

I would very much like to see these studies, and I'll be happy to read them once you point me in the right direction. We can discuss them then.

I would also like to hear the opinion on how allowing more people to get married would devalue the institution of marriage further than things like Britney Spears' 24-hour drunken marriage-plus-annulment. Or, if you don't like current cultural icons, how about Elizabeth Taylor's 8 or 9 husbands? And how do you know that same-sex marriages are not more stable than hetero marriages specifically because they know what a gift it is?

I don't understand how anyone can decide that they can judge the sanctity of someone else's union. Leave it to God, honestly... but for those of us here on Earth right now, the legal right has nothing to do with the religious rite of marriage. As I said, religion is religion and will either allow it or not allow it. It's the civil right, not the religious right that is on the table. Nobody is arguing that every single church ever has to marry gay couples left and right. What people are calling for is equal rights under the law. Equal insurance coverage. Equal tax breaks. Equality in their daily lives, whether they are religious or not. For me? I personally agree with the stance that government should not be involved in this. Filing joint taxes and having governmental regulation of marriages seems just silly to me. But if there is going to be such silliness in the US, it should be open to all couples, everywhere.

And this is all being said, mind, from the standpoint of someone who really doesn't have much use for marriage ... to either sex. When I look at someone and find myself attracted to them, their gender is the very last thing that occurs to me. Their smile, their sense of humour, their intelligence, their figure, all of this stuff is more important than gender. I honestly don't see how that's such a bad thing that if I happen to fall for another woman, that I should not be able to propose to her, and follow through on that. Why should I not be allowed to pledge my life and my love to whomever I choose? How does that threaten anything at all? Because that's pretty much what the personal side of it comes down to.

[Moondazed]

And after reading all of this I find myself wondering just what it is that's being defended?  'Traditional' marriages are failing more often than succeeding, so the whole man + woman thing must not be the perfect configuration some people tout it as.

[The Overlord]

And after reading all of this I find myself wondering just what it is that's being defended?  'Traditional' marriages are failing more often than succeeding, so the whole man + woman thing must not be the perfect configuration some people tout it as.

That's pretty much it. I suppose someone would want to argue that allowing homosexual marriage would be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back and totally wrecked the concept of marriage, but please don't insult our intelligence by posting it.

Again I maintain this is a completely abstract concept; there is no actual way that you can prove gay marriage is sinful or somehow going to shatter society. You can believe it, but you can't prove it, and if we want to pass laws based on such fairy tales then I must ask if the entire system is due for an overhaul...forcibly if need be.

[Huntress]

okay just a few points and i don't want to insult anyone here by what i ahve to say.
1. people are entitled to believe what they want to believe...calling it a fairy tale isn't very good debate ettiquette.
2. Gay marriage doesn't take away from straight marriage. If you want to get married in a Church that doesn't accept homosexuals, do it.
3. civil unions=/= marriage. don't tell people who deserve their american rights to be happy with less than that which they deserve.
that's really all i got to say...

[The Overlord]

1. people are entitled to believe what they want to believe...calling it a fairy tale isn't very good debate ettiquette.

I'm trying to make a point here on separating reality from the beliefs of one or more factions.

It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, making it a proven case to argue so it holds water with people that don't believe it is what's important here. If religionists don't do that, then it means they're expecting us to share their beliefs, and thus we're back to the argument of individual rights and freedoms. But then religion at large doesn't have a real problem with the suppression of rights and freedom.

The basic premise that homosexuality is a sin, therefore punishable in an afterlife, and therefore must be illegal here on the mortal coil....OK, I won't use fairy tale, but I will use mythology. You can slice it any way you want, call it what you want, but it's still just a belief.

Mythology is a fair term; whether we call religious dogma a religion, a cult, or a mythology is entirely based on cultural relevance, i.e., how many people currently believe it. Christianity and all its branches started as a cult, and in the end they're all going to be mythology.

The debate here, is not whether religionists have the right to believe what they want; the point here is whether they have the right to push those beliefs on others whether they like it or not.

They don't.

What is bad debate etiquette here is believing your opinion overrides others just because your books say it does.

And in that respect, about 99% of we've all said here is just fluff. It comes down to one crucial point, which from here on will be my response in this thread:

None of your business.

[Huntress]

well i get you're passionate about this...but you don't need to be so harsh. As a Christian, I resent that you say "in the end it will be a mythology". I find that very insulting.
I, personally, agree that gay marriage won't hurt anything and that gay people should be allowed to marry. It's a constitutional right that no one should have the right to take away.
Just...remember that we are people too. All of us. And yelling at others doesn't make your point.

[The Overlord]

well i get you're passionate about this...but you don't need to be so harsh. As a Christian, I resent that you say "in the end it will be a mythology". I find that very insulting.

It's not insulting, or at least it's not meant to be insulting.

Long before and along side Christianity were beliefs: The Norse gods, the pantheons of the ancient Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians. Christians believe in one god, Hindus believe in many. Who is to really say which is more right?

Many of these faiths passed into antiquity, it would be naive to think Christianity won't. Sure, it might not happen for many, many years, but in the end, all that will remain of Christianity will be the same; crumbling relics and books, and the remains of the places of worship they used to dwell in.

I'm not saying it's pretty, but there you have it. Like everything else it will evolve or pass away...all we have to do is look at world history to see this.

I'll end here, as this is a derailment from the real topic.

[Huntress]

*nods* but Christianity has lasted 2000 years...think on that for a moment.

Back on topic, though...
I'm not trying to condescend; i hate when people do that to me. I just...Be aware. :)

[The Overlord]

Honestly what does gay marriage add? They can't settle down and naturally have a family. Its not like they have to make an honest woman out of each other and avoid their children being called bastards. Its really only an attempt to hijack a cultural tradition by people insecure about their own status in society and wishing for validation of their normality. Having gay marriages adds absolutely no society value, and its a pretty sad attempt at retconning a cultural tradition that's existed since the dawn of time. The meaning of words shouldn't just be changed on a whim.

Methos you're repeating yourself, therefore I shall respond as I said I would, on the only subject that matters here-

It's none of your business.

[The Overlord]

*nods* but Christianity has lasted 2000 years...think on that for a moment.

Back on topic, though...
I'm not trying to condescend; i hate when people do that to me. I just...Be aware. :)

I'm not here to insult anyone's faith, but I have no problem giving it a good hard kick when someone uses it as license to believe they hold the moral high ground and can pass universal laws with it.