Support for same sex marriage grows... ever stronger

[MikeH]

Thanks for bumping this thread Imran.

[Ming]

Yep... thanks! Nothing better than seeing yet another BK Pawned Thread

[Tuberski]

Yeah, except we'll see another one because he just abandons these threads and never changes.

ACK!

[Ming]

Yep. Typical strategy.

BK... posts that it has nothing to with his religion or feelings, but it's based on facts that he just makes up

Poly... you facts are all lies

BK... I'll just ignore some of what you say and make up more lies

Poly... proves again his "facts" are all lies

BK... I'll just keep ignoring reality and make some other BS up

Poly... more proof that BK is speaking out of his ass.

BK... Finally admits it's just his opinion and his opinion is more valuable than anybody else's

Poly... contines to laugh at BK's silly and moronic arguments

BK... stops posting and starts all over again in another thread.

[Alinestra Covelia]

And who's next on the same sex marriage bandwagon? No less than former VP Dick Cheney

Interesting. As I recall, his gay daughter was mentioned briefly in the 2004 Presidential election cycle and the conservatives howled in outrage at this.

But it is good to see he's finally standing up for his daughter's rights.

[Q Classic]

Yep. Typical strategy.

BK... posts that it has nothing to with his religion or feelings, but it's based on facts that he just makes up

Poly... you facts are all lies

BK... I'll just ignore some of what you say and make up more lies

Poly... proves again his "facts" are all lies

BK... I'll just keep ignoring reality and make some other BS up

Poly... more proof that BK is speaking out of his ass.

BK... Finally admits it's just his opinion and his opinion is more valuable than anybody else's

Poly... contines to laugh at BK's silly and moronic arguments

BK... stops posting and starts all over again in another thread.

I wish I'd owned the site, since I'd've made that much more invective-filled.

[Ben Kenobi]

Didn't see this.

Are you saying that until 1625, they did it exactly like the Romans

No.

The church always ignored the fact that a marriage was arranged, because to them, if the fathers went along, what the bride and groom wanted didn't really matter.

And in Roman times, this was no different. I'm not really seeing how it's to the benefit of marriage to argue that the Christian way was worse when a Roman could divorce his wife for any and every reason, and she had no right to the same.

And you wish to ignore all the abuse and corruption of the inquisition, but that fact would be inconvenient.

Why did the Inquisition only happen in Spain? It has to do with the state, and the desires of the Kingdom of Spain, not the pope. If it were a worldwide inquisition, then yes, it would have been a papal desire.

No... you are the one that wants the law to only reflect your beliefs. I want the law to be consistent no matter what a person's beliefs are.

So then why are child marriages bad? Isn't it discriminatory?

OK, rights might not exatly be the best words... but the legal rights that go along with marriage.

Any in particular that appeal to you?

I'm not forcing government involvement, they already do civil marriages, and support religious marriages....the government already is involved. That's a simple fact, and will not change just because of your sole beliefs.

No, it won't change, but I am arguing that there is no justification for the state to be involved. The principle behind state involvement has evaporated.

Christians do have a say in the government, but your statement implies that they should be the only ones that have a say... and that is just wrong.

How so? I'm arguing that the state shouldn't be involved at all. That's hardly a position exclusive to Christians, nor does it shortchange atheists.

People get married for love... not the free money you keep claiming they get. And before you make up some story that you know a couple that got married simply for the money and how they didn't love each other, don't forget that some people create religions just to get the tax breaks...

People love free money, and are reluctant to give it up when they get some. Regardless of the whys, ask them to choose between free money and marriage and marriage, and they'll choose free money and marriage everytime.

Oh... so the sole reason governments came about was to enforce religion.

On this issue, yes. That was the purpose for government approval of marriage, particularly in England. The idea was to ban all marriages that weren't done in the Anglican church.

The purpose of the civil marriage law was to extend marriage to everybody, not just the particulars of one church. Today, the situation has changed. If we were to do away with civil marriage, everyone would still be permitted to be married, due to the fact that true religious freedom exists.

Smart people might claim that governments used religions to help control the people
And yes, now that we have religious freedoms, there is a need for the state to ensure those freedoms by not having some wacked out religion decide what's best for everybody else.

How is that one religion deciding, if they argue that the state should stay out of marriage altogether. You aren't insisting that they are the only game in town wrt to religion?

Nobody is stopping your rights at all... just making sure everybody else has the same right. You are the one that want's to keep the basic right of marriage to yourself.

I'm arguing that the state has no right to be involved in marriage whatsoever. I'm also arguing that without state involvement, it would have zero impact on the ability of anyone to get married.

And again, you keep forgetting that you aren't the only religion. Some religions already allow gay marriages... why shouldn't the government recogonize their marriages like they do your religion?

I am aware, and this is precisely why government enforcement is entirely unnecessary. True religious freedom on this issue exists, and gay people can get married.

You are the one that wants extra powers and privileges... Everybody, not just the ones that believe what ever nonsense you believe, should have the same rights.

As you said there are churches that marry gay people. Why is it necessary for state recognition of marriage, if they are not in fact deprived of marriage by religious means?

Frankly, I don't know if the cost of marriage licenses cover all the expenses...
But that's not really an issue. The church get's tax breaks so that they can afford to keep their own records

Yes, the church is considered to be exempt from taxation. It doesn't make sense to tax donations which are already taxed at least once before.

However, you don't have to pay the salary of the priests from your tax dollars. I have to pay the salary of the marriage registrar from mine. What use is the registrar to me, if his sole purpose is to allow people to get married who don't want to get married in church? Why am I paying the official at their wedding, when they aren't paying for my preist?

Please list all the entitlements that non religious marriages enjoy that relgious marriages don't. And I've never said that marriage without the state is worthless... and I've never implied it. But in todays modern society the legal protections offered by the state to married couples is important, and should not just be available to those approved by your religion.

I agree with you that the legal protections should be provided through a 'civil union' arrangement of some sort. I'm arguing more that those who wish to get legally married in the church should be able to forgo those same legal protections. Equal splitting through divorce, etc, they can have that sort of thing. Inheritance, etc.

Where I disagree is that these unions should be entitled to the marriage benefits currently provided by the state.

Yep... just like barbarians and other silly religions, women are treated as second class citizens in the eyes of the Church. The highest levels of the church are denied them simply because of their sex.

You are the one arguing that nuns are less valuable to the church. Sounds awfully sexist to me. Why do you presume that a nun contributes less just because she is a woman?

And your response shows just how moronic your arguments are... From a person that talks about how marriage is a sacrament... I must ask, are nuns allowed to perform the sacraments.

Depends on the sacrament. Baptism, yes. Priests can't ordain. Are you arguing that Bishops are more valuable then priests, just because they can ordain?

the most important thing in the Church.

By your logic monks and laypeople then have less standing then the priests. You are right that the sacraments are important, and that participation in the sacraments is the core of the church. Where you err is in believing that one must perform the sacraments in order to have value, where the truth is that one must receive.

OH, only priests can do that... so Yes, I guess the Church views nuns as less than priests. Also, can a nun ever become the pope? Oh, that's right, only a male priest can head up the Catholic church, women aren't allowed that...

Neither are laypeople for that matter. Are you arguing that laypeople are less valuable because they have chosen the sacrament of marriage over that of ordination?

But all your recent posts do prove one thing... that you have no real argument except "my beliefs are more important than yours"... and my response is that everybody has the right to their own beliefs and the government shouldn't support one vs the other.

I don't see why I'm paying for secular priests to perform marriages to atheists. Why are you paying the salary of mine?

Again... please explain how allowing gays to get married would effect your right to marry a girl of your dreams.

Because 'marriage' no longer means what it did.

Please explain how this would cheapen your marriage... Your obvious response is that your whole point is that government shouldn't be doing it in the first place... well guess what, governments are involved... that isn't going to change.

I would have to clarify with you that I got married in the church, in order to convey what I believe marriage to be. You ask, did you 'get married?' I have no idea what you mean by that. If you mean, did I live with someone for two years and we were 'unioned', then yeah, I can see you meaning exactly that when you refer to 'marriage'.

You will also continue to rant about how much money those marriages are costing you... yet everybody that's married in the eyes of the government gets the same supposed breaks... which seems fair to me.

It's not right for me to be paying the salary of marriage officials, you should be paying them if they are officiating your marriages.

[Q Classic]

You say yourself that some religions already allow gay marriage. Has that not already cheapened the term "marriage" for you, ruining your non-existent marriage to the woman of your dreams?

If then, you still got married, and you or your wife got sick, some of those rights granted by the state would be things like hospital visitation and power of attorney.

Currently, if a gay person got sick, their partner isn't necessarily granted such legal benefits. State recognition of that marriage would allow them to have that responsibility.

For someone who goes on and on about true love seemingly without ever having experienced it, I find it highly offensive that you'd suggest that those in loving, committed, devoted relationships be barred from going to the ends of the Earth and beyond for each other by allowing the law to **** them over.

Then again, if you're willing to let that happen, I question whether you truly understand love--agape, eros, philia, or that last one.

[rah]

I'm confused a touch here.
Doesn't everyone pay for their wedding licences? It's just a matter of who signes it. A judge or a priest. The cost of the marriage license covers the judge's participation so the couple getting married pays for the justice of the peace inderectly. We had to pay for a civil license even though we got married in the church. The priest required it before he'd do the ceremony. And we had to pay the priest on top of it. SO this who pays for what arguement is a SACK OF S***. Maybe someday if you get married you'll know what you're talking about.

And yes, priests are more important than nuns and lay people. Bishops more so, etc. You can tell because the funnier/ornate the costume, the more important. Nuns wear boring habits. When they let lay people participate as deacons and such their custumes suck too. Women have been treated like crap by the catholic church since time began. If you think otherwise, you're a bigger idiot than I thought.

I doubt you'd find any priest that would honestly say that the church doesn't treat women less than men when it comes to participation in the church. At least some other churches aren't so blind/bigoted and let women participate equally.

[Ming]

Didn't see this.

BS... you were finally goaded into responding so you didn't look even more stupid and moronic.

And in Roman times, this was no different. I'm not really seeing how it's to the benefit of marriage to argue that the Christian way was worse when a Roman could divorce his wife for any and every reason, and she had no right to the same.

As usual... you are just trying to change the argument and ignore the fact that you were proven wrong yet again.

Why did the Inquisition only happen in Spain? It has to do with the state, and the desires of the Kingdom of Spain, not the pope. If it were a worldwide inquisition, then yes, it would have been a papal desire.

There were inquisitions beyond Spain... and many of them were just as abusive.

So then why are child marriages bad? Isn't it discriminatory?

Consenting adults... but oh, you keep forgetting that one... and keep trying to bring this strawman back into the picture...

Any in particular that appeal to you?

Yep... all the legal protections that allow us to act like partners in the eyes of the law and government.

No, it won't change, but I am arguing that there is no justification for the state to be involved. The principle behind state involvement has evaporated.

The principle for state involvement has grown, not evaporated. The principle behind religious inolvement is what has evaporated, and there is really no jsutification for religion to be involved.

How so? I'm arguing that the state shouldn't be involved at all. That's hardly a position exclusive to Christians, nor does it shortchange atheists.

Yes... it shortchanges any who don't believe in a god. Your response that some relgion will do the job and marry them is just a crock... people who don't believe in a god, or your specific god don't want to go to something they don't believe in just to get married. I'm arguing that the state should be involved in ALL marriages, and if a religion wants to do it's own superstitious stuff in unison with it so that their believers will feel better, that's ok. I'm arguing that any consenting adults can get married and don't need some stinking religion to approve it.

People love free money, and are reluctant to give it up when they get some. Regardless of the whys, ask them to choose between free money and marriage and marriage, and they'll choose free money and marriage everytime.

Just more of your ramblings... means nothing and has nothing to do with what was being talked about.

On this issue, yes. That was the purpose for government approval of marriage, particularly in England. The idea was to ban all marriages that weren't done in the Anglican church.

The purpose of the civil marriage law was to extend marriage to everybody, not just the particulars of one church. Today, the situation has changed. If we were to do away with civil marriage, everyone would still be permitted to be married, due to the fact that true religious freedom exists.

BS... again, some people don't believe our superstitious mumbo jumbo... there are people that don't believe that religion is needed. So civil marriages are crucial for their freedom to be married without have to go to some church they don't believe in.

I'm arguing that the state has no right to be involved in marriage whatsoever. I'm also arguing that without state involvement, it would have zero impact on the ability of anyone to get married.

I'm arguing that the relgion has no right to be the sole "approvers" of marriage since there are people who have no desire to join a religion. And they have the same rights to marriage as anybody else.

I am aware, and this is precisely why government enforcement is entirely unnecessary. True religious freedom on this issue exists, and gay people can get married.

Yeah... and that is percisely why government enforcement is really necessary. So bigots like you can't stop gay couples from enjoying the same rights as everybody else.

As you said there are churches that marry gay people. Why is it necessary for state recognition of marriage, if they are not in fact deprived of marriage by religious means?

Again... so gays can have the same rights as everybody else.

Yes, the church is considered to be exempt from taxation. It doesn't make sense to tax donations which are already taxed at least once before.

Uhhh... donations to churchs are tax deductable you moron. Anything I give to a church or non profit org is deductable and is not taxed.

However, you don't have to pay the salary of the priests from your tax dollars. I have to pay the salary of the marriage registrar from mine. What use is the registrar to me, if his sole purpose is to allow people to get married who don't want to get married in church? Why am I paying the official at their wedding, when they aren't paying for my preist?

Priests don't get salaries you moron. And the tax breaks religions get do support the expenses of those that work for the religion... so your whole argument here is BS as usual.

I agree with you that the legal protections should be provided through a 'civil union' arrangement of some sort. I'm arguing more that those who wish to get legally married in the church should be able to forgo those same legal protections. Equal splitting through divorce, etc, they can have that sort of thing. Inheritance, etc.

Again... you are arguing that religions people should be given special treatment. Marriage is marriage in the eyes of the law. Again, if you want to add some silly superstition to it, fine, but it doesn't change the fact that you are married by the law of the land.

Where I disagree is that these unions should be entitled to the marriage benefits currently provided by the state.

BIGOT

You are the one arguing that nuns are less valuable to the church. Sounds awfully sexist to me. Why do you presume that a nun contributes less just because she is a woman?

Not arguing... simply stating a fact. CAN NUNS PERFORM THE MOST SACRED RIGHTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH? the answer is no... and only because they are woman. Even child molesters are allowed to perform the HOLY sacraments... just not women. Sounds second class to me

Depends on the sacrament. Baptism, yes. Priests can't ordain. Are you arguing that Bishops are more valuable then priests, just because they can ordain?

Well duh... even the church argues that Bishops are more valuable then priests. Isn't the Pope the most valuable of all... so much so that you attribute certain beliefs in him unlike any other priests... There is a rank in the church, and nuns are on the bottom.

By your logic monks and laypeople then have less standing then the priests. You are right that the sacraments are important, and that participation in the sacraments is the core of the church. Where you err is in believing that one must perform the sacraments in order to have value, where the truth is that one must receive.

There is a reason why they call them laypeople... Yes, they have value, just less than a priest. Again, if the value of laypeople and priests were the same, then they both could perform sacraments

Neither are laypeople for that matter. Are you arguing that laypeople are less valuable because they have chosen the sacrament of marriage over that of ordination?

In the eyes of the Catholic Church... YEP... that's exactly what I'm arguing.

I don't see why I'm paying for secular priests to perform marriages to atheists. Why are you paying the salary of mine?

And I don't see why superstitious groups that call themselves relgions get tax breaks that I don't.

Because 'marriage' no longer means what it did.

Then you are the one that doesn't understand the concept of true love if you think your love will be cheapened by what some strangers do. You must be really insecure if you allow others to effect your love for somebody.

I would have to clarify with you that I got married in the church, in order to convey what I believe marriage to be. You ask, did you 'get married?' I have no idea what you mean by that. If you mean, did I live with someone for two years and we were 'unioned', then yeah, I can see you meaning exactly that when you refer to 'marriage'.

More of your bigoted crap... implying that if you don't get married in a church, it's not marriage.

It's not right for me to be paying the salary of marriage officials, you should be paying them if they are officiating your marriages.

And it's not right for me not to get tax breaks that your religion gets.
Why should I not get the same treatment... and get the same tax breaks a religion gets. So what's your point except another smoke screen to hide the fact that you are simply bigoted against gay people.


As always, you make no real points except, it's against my religion.
No real arguments or logic here on your part... no surprise.

[Ben Kenobi]

You say yourself that some religions already allow gay marriage. Has that not already cheapened the term "marriage" for you, ruining your non-existent marriage to the woman of your dreams?

I was baptised in one of those churches, so yes it does bother me. The difference is that I'm not getting married there. Changing the marriage definition changes it for everyone, not just members of one church.

If then, you still got married, and you or your wife got sick, some of those rights granted by the state would be things like hospital visitation and power of attorney.

All of which can be arranged for a relative or non-relative. I honestly don't get why gay people are complaining. I've had to do that with my mom for my grandmother, as my father used to have power of attorney for her. It's a bit more difficult, but it's not that hard.

Currently, if a gay person got sick, their partner isn't necessarily granted such legal benefits. State recognition of that marriage would allow them to have that responsibility.

They can already make those arrangements legally. I really don't see what the issue is here.

For someone who goes on and on about true love seemingly without ever having experienced it, I find it highly offensive that you'd suggest that those in loving, committed, devoted relationships be barred from going to the ends of the Earth and beyond for each other by allowing the law to **** them over.

Well I wouldn't be so presumptuous. How do you know that I've never experienced true love?

Then again, if you're willing to let that happen, I question whether you truly understand love--agape, eros, philia, or that last one.

I don't think you understand Eros. Sexual love between a man and a woman is very special.

[Ben Kenobi]

Doesn't everyone pay for their wedding licences? It's just a matter of who signes it. A judge or a priest. The cost of the marriage license covers the judge's participation so the couple getting married pays for the justice of the peace inderectly.

Up here, they have special marriage commissioners who are paid by the state. While people pay for their marriage licenses, they are funded through taxation. Marriage licenses are just another fee.

We had to pay for a civil license even though we got married in the church. The priest required it before he'd do the ceremony. And we had to pay the priest on top of it. SO this who pays for what arguement is a SACK OF S***. Maybe someday if you get married you'll know what you're talking about.

I do know what I'm talking about. Up here at least marriage commissioners are state employees paid by the state.

And yes, priests are more important than nuns and lay people. Bishops more so, etc. You can tell because the funnier/ornate the costume, the more important. Nuns wear boring habits. When they let lay people participate as deacons and such their custumes suck too. Women have been treated like crap by the catholic church since time began. If you think otherwise, you're a bigger idiot than I thought.

I don't see them as treated poorly, especially not the nuns. As for their 'costume' being bland, I don't know what to say. Does a priest stop being a priest when he takes his robes off at night? It's not about what they wear, but their office. You can argue that while priests and nuns have different functions, I'm not sure why you believe the nuns are less important in the eyes of God. In the eyes of sexists, sure, but then we know what they believe.

I doubt you'd find any priest that would honestly say that the church doesn't treat women less than men when it comes to participation in the church. At least some other churches aren't so blind/bigoted and let women participate equally.

Are women barred from the sacraments? The word you are looking for is 'officiate", not participate.

[rah]

Has a nun ever participated in selecting a pope? NOPE So yes, I got the right word.

WHERE DOES the fee money go to? to pay for the marrigage commissioners. If they worked for free there wouldn't be a fee. Ok, the government would charge anyway since that's what they do.

[Ben Kenobi]

BS... you were finally goaded into responding so you didn't look even more stupid and moronic.

Right. And you declared victory. I honestly didn't see it till the flurry of posts today.

As usual... you are just trying to change the argument and ignore the fact that you were proven wrong yet again.

How was I proven wrong? I've been saying that argument for a long time now. The two aren't really comparable.

There were inquisitions beyond Spain... and many of them were just as abusive.

Such as?

Consenting adults... but oh, you keep forgetting that one... and keep trying to bring this strawman back into the picture...

Isn't that age discrimination? Why are you discriminating against people because of their age, and because of their religion?

Yep... all the legal protections that allow us to act like partners in the eyes of the law and government.

Specifics? I'm curious. I don't think that we are very far apart, and you would much rather call me a bigot then admit that our positions are really only a hairbreadth away.

The principle for state involvement has grown, not evaporated. The principle behind religious inolvement is what has evaporated, and there is really no jsutification for religion to be involved.

Why's that? Because there are fewer believers?

That's probably an argument that we need more, not less religious involvement, unless that is you hate religion.

Yes... it shortchanges any who don't believe in a god.

It treats everyone exactly the same.

Your response that some relgion will do the job and marry them is just a crock... people who don't believe in a god, or your specific god don't want to go to something they don't believe in just to get married.

Have you been in a unitarian church?

I'm arguing that the state should be involved in ALL marriages, and if a religion wants to do it's own superstitious stuff in unison with it so that their believers will feel better, that's ok. I'm arguing that any consenting adults can get married and don't need some stinking religion to approve it.

Why is it the responsibility of the state to officiate marriages?

BS... again, some people don't believe our superstitious mumbo jumbo...

Our?

What makes you think we are on the same side here? You've labelled Catholicism as superstition. Sure some people don't like it but there are churches for lack of a better term that match your beliefs exactly. True religious freedom exists today.

So civil marriages are crucial for their freedom to be married without have to go to some church they don't believe in.

You mean, the state is their church. Why should we all be paying for their ceremonies and worship services?

I'm arguing that the relgion has no right to be the sole "approvers" of marriage since there are people who have no desire to join a religion. And they have the same rights to marriage as anybody else.

That's great. Nothing stopping these people from loving whomever they want and to be with them their whole life.

Yeah... and that is percisely why government enforcement is really necessary. So bigots like you can't stop gay couples from enjoying the same rights as everybody else.

Where am I trying to stop gay people from getting married in church? I've argued there are churches that will marry them, so this whole 'religion and the state' argument is bunk. What protection do they need? They already have everything.

Again... so gays can have the same rights as everybody else.

Well, you'll have to spell them out exactly. Power of attorney? You know damn well that you can have whomever you want to have power of attorney by filling out the paperwork.

What freedoms are they denied? Absolutely none.

Uhhh... donations to churchs are tax deductable you moron. Anything I give to a church or non profit org is deductable and is not taxed.

So what's the issue? So are donations to the Sierra club, or to Al Gore's global warming club for men.

Priests don't get salaries you moron. And the tax breaks religions get do support the expenses of those that work for the religion... so your whole argument here is BS as usual.

How is that different from secular charities and organisations? It's all the same. Why aren't you calling for them to be stripped of their benefits too?

Again... you are arguing that religions people should be given special treatment.

No, I'm arguing that atheists should not recieve special treatment from the state, as they do now with civil licenses, and marriage officials.

Not arguing... simply stating a fact. CAN NUNS PERFORM THE MOST SACRED RIGHTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH? the answer is no... and only because they are woman. Even child molesters are allowed to perform the HOLY sacraments... just not women. Sounds second class to me

So all men are permitted to do so? No, that's hardly the case. It has nothing to do with sex, but everything to do with the sacrament.

Are you saying that the sacrament should be changed so that they can perform all the sacraments? That would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. The sacraments are what they are, and that includes ordination. If you change ordination, then it's no longer ordination anymore.

Well duh... even the church argues that Bishops are more valuable then priests. Isn't the Pope the most valuable of all... so much so that you attribute certain beliefs in him unlike any other priests... There is a rank in the church, and nuns are on the bottom.

Actually, "the greatest among you must be servant to all."

There is a reason why they call them laypeople... Yes, they have value, just less than a priest. Again, if the value of laypeople and priests were the same, then they both could perform sacraments

That's like arguing that people of equal value do exactly the same thing. Hardly true. In the eyes of God, just because you have different jobs, doesn't mean you are of less value.

And I don't see why superstitious groups that call themselves relgions get tax breaks that I don't.

Again, Al Gore's global warming for men is a fine, registered charity. I don't think he asks what religion you are before donating to the good of Al Gore.

Then you are the one that doesn't understand the concept of true love if you think your love will be cheapened by what some strangers do. You must be really insecure if you allow others to effect your love for somebody.

I'm a writer. I love words. Words are powerful. I hate jargon, and I especially hate the watering down of perfectly good words to make them useless and meaningless.

Even love, what is that? Is it the feeling you get from eating a really juicy hamburger? Or the feeling you get when making love to the most beautiful woman you've ever known who's pledged to be your wife until death do you part?

More of your bigoted crap... implying that if you don't get married in a church, it's not marriage.

It's not. You yourself have proven this when you said you had no problem with applying 'holy matrimony' to the sacrament, and 'marriage' to whatever catch all applies.

And it's not right for me not to get tax breaks that your religion gets.

It's not my fault you don't donate to the Al Gore global warming club for men. It's really a fabulous charity.

[Ming]

I was baptised in one of those churches, so yes it does bother me. The difference is that I'm not getting married there. Changing the marriage definition changes it for everyone, not just members of one church.

BS... it doesn't change it for EVERYBODY... just bigots. Why would you let other people define your marriage, because that's what you are saying. You must not understand love at all...

All of which can be arranged for a relative or non-relative. I honestly don't get why gay people are complaining. I've had to do that with my mom for my grandmother, as my father used to have power of attorney for her. It's a bit more difficult, but it's not that hard.

The fact that you have to do something special and different means it's not equal. Why should gay couples have to do something different just to have the same rights. If they were allowed to get married, then they would have the same rights.

They can already make those arrangements legally. I really don't see what the issue is here.

That's because you are blind and a bigot... you are asking them to do something different than you would have to do.

Well I wouldn't be so presumptuous. How do you know that I've never experienced true love?

Since you think a gay couple across the country getting married would effect your marriage, you obviously have never experienced true love.

I don't think you understand Eros. Sexual love between a man and a woman is very special.

Sexual love between two men or two women is pretty special too... your point?