minx

the lawyers are only sweaty b/c they're lard asses. more sweaty lawyers, sweet ass!

it would stop raining

my new, favorite spray

arch--you're on top of me. nice work

YAY! he probably doesn't need that extra hole in his head. glad it's getting fixed

flyingpig/pink and kevbone are a fantastic couple already. they look adorable in their matching lycra

link didn't they try this in the seattle schools? or was that based on income/neighborhood? i seem to recall the district getting sued over and over by the parents of kids who were being bussed away from their neighborhood schools. ??

1. Taking meth 2. Patronizing gay prostitutes 3. Diddling teenagers 4. Accepting bribes 5. Assaulting mistresses 6. Fixing contracts 7. Lying to the whole world Nope. Can't find 'em. Does it count if I myself was a teen when I diddled other teens? only if you a) diddled yourself in front of other teens or b) diddled a teen of the same gender. as we've clearly established in the preceding 10 pages of drivel homosexual diddling is absolutely forbidden but only if you're part of the christian right.

This is the point where discussions between many christians and those with more secular views breakdown. ..the supposition is that b/c it is in the bible it is right and there can be no arguing the point. i don't believe in the existence of god therefore i can't accept that foundation for an argument.

nope you're definitely not the only one learning stuff. i like discussions like this. mostly mature with a small side of sarcasm. it's definitely eye opening to read the views of other people. i always find it interesting

and perhaps i should ammend my comments earlier to "...deeply held christian beliefs." (i don't know tanstaafl's religious affiliation)

Sideshow issue. No one here actually believes that the term 'marriage' is going to be purged from the lexicon, legal or otherwise. Perhaps we should discuss polygamy now. I thought that Off's point was that since the term marriage is loaded with both legal and moral/religious meanings, that it would be better to completely separate the two so that the state was only involved in the legal side via the civil union, and those that wanted to acquire the moral/spiritual sanction offered by a particular church or faith could feel free to do so if they wished. i think that's what OW meant. i know it's how i feel and how i would put forth the concept in a legal sense if it were up to me. h/e, that's not how i've heard it mentioned by the media at all. just the idea that instead of marriage, it could be called civil unions to provide legal standing to homosexual couples. i've never seen it presented as a replacement for marriage. apparently even the concept of civil unions soley for homosexual couples is not familiar to some folks. question for the homosexual/gay folks out there. which term do you prefer for use in semi-serious discussions?

minx honey, untrue. You know me. I have deeply held religious beliefs and I'm in favor of...well, technically I'm really in favour of marriage but I'd settle for unions. carry on everyone. i stand corrected! but you are a particularly unique individual

What is group B's 'explicitly secular moral framework', exactly? group B views gay pron and goes to strip clubs and violates the 4' rule.

OK it's just me. I didn't say that heterosexual folks couldn't/wouldn't use the term marriage in a legal/secular context. Just that there has been discussion of the use of the term "civil union". I didn't specify if it would only apply to homosexuals or not. Just that it has been proposed as an option for homosexual couples. I didn't say eliminate

Panther-- google it. the information is out there. it's more than a theory. i wouldn't say it lives up the standard of "fact" yet. there is plenty of scientific evidence that indicates that its not a choice. i thought the concept had been fairly well covered by the media. in fact it adds to a certain measure of my frustration that there is a simple practical solution to the disagreement and people can't even get behind that. those that i know with deeply held religious beliefs feel that even a secular civil union is more than they can bear. even though it wouldn't provide any measure of religious sanction to the union, it's still not OK. the thing i find funny with the genetic argument is that there are several species that exhibit homosexual as well as bi-sexual behaviour. it seems to be a normal, although less common behaviour in multiple species. why are we so freaked out about in humans.

I was waiting for someone to say that... What do you think natural selection has to say about homosexuality? since it tends to reduce the population in over populated ecosystem, not much.

panther, two things 1) i disagree with you about homosexuality being a choice. don't have time to look up old studies but it seems that homosexuality is a genetic thing 2) is this the first you've heard of people giving marriage a different title in a secular context? if so i find that frightening b/c the concept has been around a while. if you haven't heard of it clearly many of the religious side may not be listening to all the arguments and possible solutions either.

"legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The "separation of church and state" you refer to is Jefferson's position that there should not be neither state sanctioned religion nor restrictions on its practice. At issue here is whether our Judeo/Christian influenced collective morality should impact our country's law-making. The constitution also guarantees equal protection under the law. I interpret this to mean that the right of secular marriage should be extended to all people, including gays. That is probably a more specific point of argument than where the morality embodied in our laws (including this one) comes from. The sources of that morality are historical, complex, and, if you go far enough back in time, probably unknowable. tvarsh--nice response to this. the issue regarding judea/christian values should influence are lawmaking really disturbs me. there is a not insignificant number of people in this society who are religious but not christian. what the hell makes christians so certain their way is the only way and that there morals should dictate the lives of others?

a particularly salient point for me. i would've had no problem in joining in a "civil union" rather than a "marriage". I don't care what you call it. the practical end point is the same. if gay folks want to get married in a religious ceremony then they should joing a church that's not got a problem with it. i don't believe religions should be forced to accept it if they don't believe it. however, what the heck is the problem with the civil union?????? provide a gay couple with the same financial and legal protections as a heterosexual couple is a problem how???? hell, homosexuals should start their own religion and then demand to be able to marry. then what? we've really muddied the waters then.

"legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" At issue here is whether our Judeo/Christian influenced collective morality should impact our country's law-making. No it shouldn't

the religious people who are against gay marriage/abortion/etc use the bible as the foundation for these opinions. i don't have a problem with this these same people feel compelled to push for laws based on these non-secular beliefs. i have a problem with this. the underlying argument is that they are compelled by god/bible/jesus to prostelytize or convert non-believers. they believe that they are obligated to try and make not only this society but every society conform to the rules/beliefs set forth in the bible. fine--move to a society that wasn't founded on the separation of church and state. it frustrates me that issues being decided in the secular arena are decided based on the religions of people. i've given up. there is no room for discussion with the relgious folks about these issues. i don't believe. i'm not going to believe. they can't consider the fact that the bible/jesus/pope/priest/pastor might be wrong. if they hold a belief outside of their religion they're sinners. that's a pretty big burden to bear if you are religious. it's a pretty big wall to talk to if you're not. there is no room for negotiation on these issues. i wish we could keep church and state separate but apparently that makes some folks bad christians.

I didn't realize that atheists made up 5% of the population. I figured that the number would be smaller. interesting.

facts are neutral. morals are not.

not that you're wrong to do it. not that i wouldn't do it. but that's one reason why it's hard for retail, brink and mortar business to stay in business.