Homosexuality

[Quahom1]

Quahom1,

Ok well.. you obviously made up your point. There are indeed some groups who ask for the legalization of pedophilia... That is simply disgusting... You know I agree with you on this.

That said, I'm sure many of those groups ask for heterosexual pedophilia legalization... (I don't want to go check, as you said, I don't want to see those websites).

I'm not sure why you're posting over and over speaking about pedophilia on this thread... I think we clearly showed there was no link between the two. Do you try to show the readers there is one in order to disgust them of homosexuality?
___
Kal

I didn't start this Kal. I have no problems with homosexuals. I do have a problem with kids being involved in any sexual behavior. I do have issue when a statement is made that something is not when it most assuredly is. As assured that you are that heteros engage in what we've been discussing concerning children, I am assured that homosexuals are doing the same thing. Therefore, not only can heterosexual deviants be placed squarely in this offshoot of the original post, but certain people who call themselves homosexual, as well.

You must admit that pedophilia can be a homosexual act.

Or else deny it. I've proved it. You originally attempted to show that homosexuality had nothing to do with pedophilia. I called your bluff. It can be.

Q

 

[bruceg]

Thread is acting strangely. Doing a post to see if it clears up.

 

[iBrian]

No apology in order - homosexuality is a controversial issue on religious forums, and bound to generate strong feelings.

And best to avoid linking to those particular websites, as it will help promote them inadvertently, on an issue I'd rather CR were not seen to be promotional of.

Bruce is right that we should stick as close to the topic of homosexuality and avoid mixing it up with paedophilia as best we can, as paedophilia is a form of sexual predation that crosses lines of adult sexuality.

If anyone is interested, there are a couple of existing discussions on the politics board that might be worth considering for a couple of points raised:

The ACLU, NAMBLA, God, and The O'Reilly Factor
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=430Free Speech - morally wrong?

 

[bruceg]

Thought that might clarify things to some: If you were talking about heterosexual sex, would you automatically drag in rape and discuss the topic only in terms of non-consentual sex?

Putting the focus on the consentual acts between adults:

The core question was what's wrong with homosexuality?

So far, the objections seem to be:
1) It's not "natural"

2) Biblical/Torah/Koran/etc verses prohibit it

3) It's a sexual act outside of marriage and hence a sin

4) It's being taught as normal in schools

5) Can't have kids from it

6) Homosexuals are so PUBLIC about it....

So far counter-arguments:

1) Significant proof exists that it's something people are born with, and hence natural. It also occurs in nature - well documented with animals.

2) There are many prohibited things- why pick on one supported by one or two verses rather than others that are more "weighty" by volume (e.g. sabbath violators)

3) So's hetero sex, but since "marriage" is limited to hetero (for what reason?) there's an out there for regular sexual expression.

4) [My point - don't know if anyone else has raised it] So's heterosexuality - it's infused into textbooks discussing "families" of dad, mom & kids - and taught explicitly in sex ed to a much greater degree than homosexuality (which it probably should be, given relative ratios)

5) Heterosexual couples who can't have kids can still get married - so this is a red herring argument.

6) [Mine again-didn't see a response to that sally in the list earlier] Geez louise, all these wierd straight people walking through the mall holding hands, putting hands in each others back pockets, and lip locks in corners and hallways. Keep it in your own bedroom and away from me....

I think I got the summary about right - did I miss stuff folks?

.... Bruce

 

[Quahom1]

Thought that might clarify things to some: If you were talking about heterosexual sex, would you automatically drag in rape and discuss the topic only in terms of non-consentual sex?

Putting the focus on the consentual acts between adults:

The core question was what's wrong with homosexuality?

So far, the objections seem to be:
1) It's not "natural"

2) Biblical/Torah/Koran/etc verses prohibit it

3) It's a sexual act outside of marriage and hence a sin

4) It's being taught as normal in schools

5) Can't have kids from it

6) Homosexuals are so PUBLIC about it....

So far counter-arguments:

1) Significant proof exists that it's something people are born with, and hence natural. It also occurs in nature - well documented with animals.

2) There are many prohibited things- why pick on one supported by one or two verses rather than others that are more "weighty" by volume (e.g. sabbath violators)

3) So's hetero sex, but since "marriage" is limited to hetero (for what reason?) there's an out there for regular sexual expression.

4) [My point - don't know if anyone else has raised it] So's heterosexuality - it's infused into textbooks discussing "families" of dad, mom & kids - and taught explicitly in sex ed to a much greater degree than homosexuality (which it probably should be, given relative ratios)

5) Heterosexual couples who can't have kids can still get married - so this is a red herring argument.

6) [Mine again-didn't see a response to that sally in the list earlier] Geez louise, all these wierd straight people walking through the mall holding hands, putting hands in each others back pockets, and lip locks in corners and hallways. Keep it in your own bedroom and away from me....

I think I got the summary about right - did I miss stuff folks?

.... Bruce

No Bruce,

You didn't miss a trick.

v/r

Q

 

[Kaldayen]

You must admit that pedophilia can be a homosexual act.

As long as you admit that pedophilia can be a heterosexual act. Fine.

What I won't admit is its place on this thread. It's like speaking about a new extraordinary ecological car and someone comes along saying it's crap because he had an accident with it while driving drunk... It's gonna happen cause some people who should be in a psychiatric ward aren't.

Bruce, indeed. Thanks for the summary.
___
Kal

 

[Faithfulservant]

Have any of you seen a Gay Pride parade in New York? Pretty graphic.. people stripping off their clothes and fondling each other openly on streets with children on them or others who are offended by such blatant acts. Carrying signs with hard core graphics and lewd remarks. I dont understand how this promotes pride in their community..

I attended a rally called Mayday for Marriage which was in protest of the gay marriage.. there were only about 100 people protesting outside the key arena in Seattle whereas the arena was jam packed full of people. Was interesting because when I was watching the news later on that night.. they said there were a thousand plus and didnt show the footage to prove it even though the media was there in force the entire time.

 

[Quahom1]

As long as you admit that pedophilia can be a heterosexual act. Fine.

What I won't admit is its place on this thread. It's like speaking about a new extraordinary ecological car and someone comes along saying it's crap because he had an accident with it while driving drunk... It's gonna happen cause some people who should be in a psychiatric ward aren't.

Bruce, indeed. Thanks for the summary.
___
Kal

Agreed Kal.

C'était une pensée provoquant la matière, pour tous les nous...

v/r

Q

 

[Kaldayen]

Faithfulservant,

I must agree with you on this. I'm not sure if it does more good than bad for the community's image. Some people think that as long as we speak of the community, may it be good or bad, it helps.
On one side, it gives anti-gays some weapons to say : "shame on them."
On the other, it gives many social groups a window to show the world that they exist. Many community support groups make themselves known that way. (I'm not speaking of the old-leather-guy-dancing-on-a-speaker, that's another story).
I never saw the NY Pride, but I did assist the Montreal one many times and I know that "people stripping off their clothes" are a very small part of the parade. Should we totally ban them? Maybe... Would we lose a lot of the media coverage? Probably...

Quahom1,

Thanks for the french effort. Though, webtranslators often forget to translate the meaning It's a thought-provoking matter, yes.
___
Kal

 

[Quahom1]

Faithfulservant,

I must agree with you on this. I'm not sure if it does more good than bad for the community's image. Some people think that as long as we speak of the community, may it be good or bad, it helps.
On one side, it gives anti-gays some weapons to say : "shame on them."
On the other, it gives many social groups a window to show the world that they exist. Many community support groups make themselves known that way. (I'm not speaking of the old-leather-guy-dancing-on-a-speaker, that's another story).
I never saw the NY Pride, but I did assist the Montreal one many times and I know that "people stripping off their clothes" are a very small part of the parade. Should we totally ban them? Maybe... Would we lose a lot of the media coverage? Probably...

Quahom1,

Thanks for the french effort. Though, webtranslators often forget to translate the meaning It's a thought-provoking matter, yes.
___
Kal

Merde,

That was not a web translator. That was me. Je le regrette.

v/r

Q

 

[ISFP]

Have any of you seen a Gay Pride parade in New York? Pretty graphic.. people stripping off their clothes and fondling each other openly on streets with children on them or others who are offended by such blatant acts. Carrying signs with hard core graphics and lewd remarks. I dont understand how this promotes pride in their community...

Faithfulservant- i'm gonna agree with you here. Pride events really aren't my thing for pretty much this same reason, at least not the huge events in big cities. smaller gatherings where things are a little less hectic and way less explicite are fine with me. i don't think public lewdness should be anything to be proud of, no, regardless of who's being lewd in public. hets and queers alike can keep it in the bedroom. being proud of your relationship, yourself and your community is one thing, but doing so in a way that's likely going to be offensive or gross is just tasteless.

 

[TimMurray]

The core question was what's wrong with homosexuality?

So far, the objections seem to be:

1) It's not "natural"



2) Biblical/Torah/Koran/etc verses prohibit it



3) It's a sexual act outside of marriage and hence a sin



4) It's being taught as normal in schools



5) Can't have kids from it



6) Homosexuals are so PUBLIC about it....



So far counter-arguments:



1) Significant proof exists that it's something people are born with, and hence natural. It also occurs in nature - well documented with animals.



2) There are many prohibited things- why pick on one supported by one or two verses rather than others that are more "weighty" by volume (e.g. sabbath violators)



3) So's hetero sex, but since "marriage" is limited to hetero (for what reason?) there's an out there for regular sexual expression.



4) [My point - don't know if anyone else has raised it] So's heterosexuality - it's infused into textbooks discussing "families" of dad, mom & kids - and taught explicitly in sex ed to a much greater degree than homosexuality (which it probably should be, given relative ratios)



5) Heterosexual couples who can't have kids can still get married - so this is a red herring argument.



6) [Mine again-didn't see a response to that sally in the list earlier] Geez louise, all these wierd straight people walking through the mall holding hands, putting hands in each others back pockets, and lip locks in corners and hallways. Keep it in your own bedroom and away from me....

Thanks for the useful summary of the discussion to date although this does rather present things as seeming like all the arguments against homosexuality have been successfully counter argued (ie any further homophobia is just predudice which obviously you can't argue against).



Personally I don't think that all the above arguments have been successfully counter argued. eg

1) Significant proof exists that it's something people are born with, and hence natural. It also occurs in nature - well documented with animals.

I’m not qualified to argue against this statement but I would ask why nature would evolve to this state when it prevents reproduction. What advantage is gained (genetic or otherwise) by having a single sex species that is incapable or reproduction. As a mutation it would have to die out after a single generation. It’s only chance of survival would be to piggy-back on a reproducing society and ‘convert’ a proportion of that society each generation (the choice argument). Alternatively the homosexual culture must become asexual and gain the ability to reproduce and repopulate. As a disease it could be passed from generation to generation but that would require society to argue that homosexuality is a virus and therefore curable.

2) There are many prohibited things- why pick on one supported by one or two verses rather than others that are more "weighty" by volume (e.g. sabbath violators)

This doesn’t argue that homosexuality is wrong. It simply argues that there are other things wrong as well. I.e. you can’t tell me I’m wrong unless you yourself are perfect.

3) So's hetero sex, but since "marriage" is limited to hetero (for what reason?) there's an out there for regular sexual expression.

Only the hetrosex outside marriage is wrong and that’s the difference. Since marriage is biblically defined as one man and one female it is always going to be impossible to have homosexual sex inside a marriage. There is also a strong argument that the very act of the first heterosexual sex creates the marriage before God as there are many places in the old testament (Christian / Jewish bible) where the words and the acts are interchangeable.

4) [My point - don't know if anyone else has raised it] So's heterosexuality - it's infused into textbooks discussing "families" of dad, mom & kids - and taught explicitly in sex ed to a much greater degree than homosexuality (which it probably should be, given relative ratios)

Other than the prejudice element I think that this argument is just an extension of point 1. i.e. the view of ‘its not normal so we shouldn’t pretend that it is’

5) Heterosexual couples who can't have kids can still get married - so this is a red herring argument.

No, this is just an extension of point 1. It’s not individual couples that we are arguing over, it’s a general concept i.e. in general hetero couples can have kids (they have the right parts at least) however homo couples can never biologically have kids (they only have half the parts they need)

6) [Mine again-didn't see a response to that sally in the list earlier] Geez louise, all these wierd straight people walking through the mall holding hands, putting hands in each others back pockets, and lip locks in corners and hallways. Keep it in your own bedroom and away from me....

This is just the prejudice argument or an extension of the others. I’ll deal with it assuming it is just prejudice. Prejudice alone is unarguable and has no place in a decent society. As an unarguable point there is no point in using it to try to convince others!

 

[bananabrain]

before i get to the real subject matter, i'd just like to say that:

a) i think bringing paedophilia into this thread is completely unhelpful and irrelevant.
b) i REALLY think we ought to delete this list of organisations promoting it, links or no links. i don't think we should even mention the name of these disgusting, filthy desecrators of the Divine Image, may the name of the wicked rot. can someone deal with this please?

now, to resume:

Now in the OT, God the Father called homosexual behavior an abomination.
Abomination
1. n.
The feeling of extreme disgust and hatred; abhorrence; detestation; loathing; as, he holds tobacco in abomination.
2. n.
That which is abominable; anything hateful, wicked, or shamefully vile; an object or state that excites disgust and hatred; a hateful or shameful vice; pollution.
3. n.
A cause of pollution or wickedness.
4.
an action that is vicious or vile; an action that arouses disgust or abhorrence; "his treatment of the children is an abomination"

can we have an end of this rather silly habit of posting dictionary definitions of translated words from the bible as if it actually helped us to understand the context of the original hebrew words?

in this case the word is "ToEV". it is customarily translated as "abomination", of course. the same word is used for eating insects. interestingly, in verse 19 bestiality is not described as toev but tevel, which is a different word and one far better translated as "perversion", in that it is related to a status change. i would prefer to go with what looks far more like an actual *definition* and for that i suggest deuteronomy 7:26:

"You shall not bring an abomination into your house, and like it come under the ban; you shall utterly detest it and you shall utterly abhor it, for it is something banned."

in other words, a "toev" is something we (and that means jews) are *not allowed to do*, not something that is necessarily inherently wrong. it's just something forbidden. of course, there are other things which appear to be inherently wrong (like idol worship) which are also called "toev", but the sheer number of things that are "toev" leads one to conclude that it is largely a *ritual* categorisation.

guess the concept that majority rules is something of a hangover from our idea that democracy is what it claims to be. I don't think that just because the majority says it is okay that makes something right, "Sometimes, the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many" (Captain Kirk i believe). Even if you were in a situation where the majority of people found murder to be desirable and even "right" it would not logically follow that it was. Masses have been know to be wrong from time to time (think Hitler and Nazi Germany; George Bush jr and Republican America; John Howard and Liberal Australia for example).

for this very reason Torah law states "after the majority you shall incline" but with the caveat that *the opinion of the minority must be preserved and protected* - presumably in case it eventually becomes a majority opinion. obviously this applies only to cases where G!D's opinion is sufficiently obscure as to be unclear. either way, Torah certainly understands that the majority can sometimes be wrong - the episode of the golden calf among others ought to make that clear at any rate.

what is particularly interesting for me at the moment is the tizzy the anglicans have got themselves into. obviously they have found a way that the "old testament" laws can be disregarded (or they would ban bishops who ate bacon too!) so what are really at issue are the "new testament" prohibitions. what i think we really ought to do is look at these and see where if any the loopholes are!

oh, by the way, i don't like public nudity and people fondling each other on floats, straight or gay. keep it indoors, people. it's really not very pleasant for other people and is an imposition of values which i don't agree with.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Quahom1]

before i get to the real subject matter, i'd just like to say that:

a) i think bringing paedophilia into this thread is completely unhelpful and irrelevant.
b) i REALLY think we ought to delete this list of organisations promoting it, links or no links. i don't think we should even mention the name of these disgusting, filthy desecrators of the Divine Image, may the name of the wicked rot. can someone deal with this please?

now, to resume:


can we have an end of this rather silly habit of posting dictionary definitions of translated words from the bible as if it actually helped us to understand the context of the original hebrew words?

in this case the word is "ToEV". it is customarily translated as "abomination", of course. the same word is used for eating insects. interestingly, in verse 19 bestiality is not described as toev but tevel, which is a different word and one far better translated as "perversion", in that it is related to a status change. i would prefer to go with what looks far more like an actual *definition* and for that i suggest deuteronomy 7:26:

"You shall not bring an abomination into your house, and like it come under the ban; you shall utterly detest it and you shall utterly abhor it, for it is something banned."

in other words, a "toev" is something we (and that means jews) are *not allowed to do*, not something that is necessarily inherently wrong. it's just something forbidden. of course, there are other things which appear to be inherently wrong (like idol worship) which are also called "toev", but the sheer number of things that are "toev" leads one to conclude that it is largely a *ritual* categorisation.


for this very reason Torah law states "after the majority you shall incline" but with the caveat that *the opinion of the minority must be preserved and protected* - presumably in case it eventually becomes a majority opinion. obviously this applies only to cases where G!D's opinion is sufficiently obscure as to be unclear. either way, Torah certainly understands that the majority can sometimes be wrong - the episode of the golden calf among others ought to make that clear at any rate.

what is particularly interesting for me at the moment is the tizzy the anglicans have got themselves into. obviously they have found a way that the "old testament" laws can be disregarded (or they would ban bishops who ate bacon too!) so what are really at issue are the "new testament" prohibitions. what i think we really ought to do is look at these and see where if any the loopholes are!

oh, by the way, i don't like public nudity and people fondling each other on floats, straight or gay. keep it indoors, people. it's really not very pleasant for other people and is an imposition of values which i don't agree with.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Good morning Banana,

If I knew the Hebrew language, I would reference it, however I'm stuck with what I do know, and the words I were taught to use, to read the word of God.

If you look closely, you'll see that the only difference between my definition use, and yours, is that yours is not set in bullet form, or numbered sequentially. Yet both give descriptors and show differenct contexts in which the words apply, or are utilized.

Bishops and "Anglicans" can eat pork, because the new testament implies that they can (Peter's dream/vision of the sheet of animals lowering from Heaven). Like many parts of the new testament (and old), this story seems to carry a double meaning. One can be, "unclean animals" are nolonger unclean and can be eaten, and the other implication is that the unclean animals are symbolic representations of gentiles or non-believers, the "Ger".

The New Testament does not appear to have loop holes concerning homosexuality. In fact as someone pointed out earlier, the Centurian who approached Jesus to heal his servant, may in-fact have been practicing homosexuality, and his ailing servant may have been his lover. Jesus wondered at the strength of the faith of the soldier, and told Him to go home (to his healed servant). Some Bibles include the words "and sin no more", but that was a later addition to the text, not part of the original Greek and Hebrew books.

Jesus made it very clear that no one sin is greater or lesser than anyother, and if one was broken, all were broken, except for Blasphemy (that is taking credit for the work of the Holy Spirit). We all fall short of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Paul on the other hand (often speaking on his own merit) argued against many things including homosexuality. However there is thought that Paul took homosexuality personally, and that the "thorn in his side that the Lord would not remove", may have been Paul's own homosexual nature, and was being used by God to keep the proud, willful Paul, humble and dependent upon the Lord.

So, perhaps you are correct on homosexuality. It is forbidden. And while most will abide by the "rule", some choose not to, and maybe that is why there is a stigma, and a loathing.

v/r

Q

 

[Quahom1]

Banana,

I just thought of something (imagine that)

You said, "...in this case the word is "ToEV". it is customarily translated as "abomination", of course. the same word is used for eating insects..."

Does that mean that John the Baptist would have fallen under this descriptor in the Torah?

If so, then an "abomination" announced the coming of the Lord...(NT).

v/r

Q

 

[Faithfulservant]

BB are you interested in being the forums translator of hebrew?? since you and a couple other are privy to this elite language should we assume that we cant share definitions of the original transcripts of the bible? I for one am interested in other languages and their uses and am trying to learn greek and hebrew for my own purposes. Also, as much as you like to point out that the OT is written for the Jews.. Christians use it continually and thats just something you are going to have to learn to be tolerant of as much as it pains you.

Thank you

 

[Kaldayen]

1.I’m not qualified to argue against this statement but I would ask why nature would evolve to this state when it prevents reproduction. What advantage is gained (genetic or otherwise) by having a single sex species that is incapable or reproduction. As a mutation it would have to die out after a single generation. It’s only chance of survival would be to piggy-back on a reproducing society and ‘convert’ a proportion of that society each generation (the choice argument). Alternatively the homosexual culture must become asexual and gain the ability to reproduce and repopulate. As a disease it could be passed from generation to generation but that would require society to argue that homosexuality is a virus and therefore curable.



2.This doesn’t argue that homosexuality is wrong. It simply argues that there are other things wrong as well. I.e. you can’t tell me I’m wrong unless you yourself are perfect.

3.Only the hetrosex outside marriage is wrong and that’s the difference. Since marriage is biblically defined as one man and one female it is always going to be impossible to have homosexual sex inside a marriage. There is also a strong argument that the very act of the first heterosexual sex creates the marriage before God as there are many places in the old testament (Christian / Jewish bible) where the words and the acts are interchangeable.


4.Other than the prejudice element I think that this argument is just an extension of point 1. i.e. the view of ‘its not normal so we shouldn’t pretend that it is’



5.No, this is just an extension of point 1. It’s not individual couples that we are arguing over, it’s a general concept i.e. in general hetero couples can have kids (they have the right parts at least) however homo couples can never biologically have kids (they only have half the parts they need)



6.This is just the prejudice argument or an extension of the others. I’ll deal with it assuming it is just prejudice. Prejudice alone is unarguable and has no place in a decent society. As an unarguable point there is no point in using it to try to convince others!

Hello M. Murray,

1. You might want to have a look at this thread about a possible theory explaining this : http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1689

3. Religious marriage is biblicaly defined that way. But civil marriage is based on law. In a society where state and church should be separated, religion shouldn't influence law.

4. Many things aren't "normal" but are accepted by society nowadays, we should protect minorities.

5. Still, if you're arguing that marriage is only meant for procreation, then someone who cannot have kid should'nt be allowed to marry... hetero or gay. We don't witness that happening...
___
Kal

 

[bruceg]

BB are you interested in being the forums translator of hebrew?? since you and a couple other are privy to this elite language should we assume that we cant share definitions of the original transcripts of the bible? I for one am interested in other languages and their uses and am trying to learn greek and hebrew for my own purposes. Also, as much as you like to point out that the OT is written for the Jews.. Christians use it continually and thats just something you are going to have to learn to be tolerant of as much as it pains you.

Thank you

I think BB has a good point- when you are using Hebrew scripture (or any other language) to prove a point, it's usually a good idea to make sure you have at least a reasonable translation... one of the problems I see with using the Bible as a "proof" of anything - there's enough different translations out there with differing words that the meaning often becomes lost in translation (like "virgin" and "young woman" - a sloppy translation that has affected the core of many denominations beliefs...)

 

[Quahom1]

Religious marriage is biblicaly defined that way. But civil marriage is based on law. In a society where state and church should be separated, religion shouldn't influence law...

Many things aren't "normal" but are accepted by society nowadays, we should protect minorities.

Still, if you're arguing that marriage is only meant for procreation, then someone who cannot have kid should'nt be allowed to marry... hetero or gay. We don't witness that happening...
___
Kal

Hello Kal,

1. If you are referring to the United States Law, the separation of church and state is not a constitutional edict. It was a statement made by President Jefferson in a letter to evangelicals in Connecticut, who were concerned about the "government" establishing a national religion and/or restricting citizens from following the religion of their choice. He coined the phrase "separation of church and state"



The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for its citizens and protects those who would hold office from being denied from that office due to their religious belief (Article 1, and Article 6 paragraph 3).



Also, marriage is not a right for anyone. It is a privilege bestowed by the government of the people, by the people and for the people (in the United States). That is why anyone wanting to marry must apply for a license. In order to get that license, the couple must meet the criteria set down by the law.



If one does not feel that the law is fair, then one must petition to have the law changed. That requires a majority vote in order to change the law.



Case in point would be the November elections held in 2004. On the ballot of 11 states, petitioners successfully put the "right" for same sex couple to marry, up before the citizens of those states. The majority of each of the 11 states' citizens voted against granting that "right" to gay couples, including the State of Oregon (considered being the most liberal of the 11 in regards to this issue).



2. I wouldn't say that things that are not considered normal are accepted by society, but rather they are tolerated, or ignored. And you are correct, about protecting minorities, of their "rights". That has nothing to do with anyone demanding privileges that others have, just because they have them, and the minority wants them. Again this is based on the United States form of law.



3. The law says that marriage is between a man and a woman, not a fertile man and fertile woman. Many people do not find out they can't conceive until after they are married. Therefore your argument would imply that their marriage should be dissolved...and that would imply the government interfering with religious beliefs, which would violate the Constitution.



Let me put it this way. Two men, one with sight and one who is blind, and both want a license to drive a car...does the blind man have "right" to drive? No, because he does not meet the criteria set down by the law.



Gay couples do not meet the criteria of the law to have the privilege of a civil marriage. In order to change that one must change the Constitution, which requires a majority vote by its citizens.



In the uniqueness of the United States wherein one state generally recognizes the laws of another, this issue is highly disruptive. Most states have declared they will not recognize a marriage between gay couples. No state recognizes "polygamy" for example, and the states that do recognize "civil unions" of gay couples are having problems of their own.



Sometimes protecting the minority takes a second seat to the protection of the nation as a whole, and sometimes protecting the minority takes front seat because it protects the nation as a whole.



The bottom line is that the nation as a whole must be protected.



v/r



Q



The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one...

 

[iBrian]

Just to point out that the earlier list has been removed. Probably a good idea before we get the wrong sort of people Googling their way here.