Bush and his gay marriage stance
 

From Comcast.net News:
President Bush says Americans should respect homosexuals, but he wants to make sure marriage is defined strictly as a union between a man and a woman.
Government lawyers are exploring measures to enshrine that definition in the law, the White House said Thursday. They are watching two state court cases "in terms of what may be needed" to ensure the sanctity of man-woman marriage, said spokesman Scott McClellan. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is weighing whether to legalize same-sex unions, as is a Superior Court judge in New Jersey.
McClellan declined to say whether Bush favored a constitutional amendment that the House is considering, which would ban gay marriage. But he said, "This is a principle he will not compromise on."
Bush said at a news conference Wednesday that "I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other."
Still, he urged Americans not to ostracize gays.
"I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own," the president said, invoking a biblical passage from the Gospel of St. Matthew.
"I think it is very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country," Bush said.
The Vatican launched a global campaign against gay marriages Thursday, warning Roman Catholics that same-sex unions was "gravely immoral."
"There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family," according to its orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a 12-page guide approved by Pope John Paul II. "Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law."
Bush's remarks Wednesday were a nod to conservatives who were angered earlier this month after he distanced himself from a House proposal for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., was the main sponsor of a proposal to amend the Constitution to read: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." It was referred on June 25 to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.
Musgrave wants "to let the people decide, not unelected judges who are virtually unaccountable to voters," she said Thursday on NBC's "Today."
Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000, and is still trying to bridge the gap between his conservative base and critical swing voters. Some advisers fear any hint of intolerance will alienate middle-of-the-road Americans.
Recent polls have shown that just over half of Americans oppose gay marriage, though that opposition has been declining in recent years. A CBS-New York Times poll released Thursday found that 55 percent oppose gay marriage and 40 percent support it.
Bush's statement touched off passionate responses from groups with an interest in the issue.
"There is a real movement for same-sex marriage, and if the president doesn't intervene, and if he doesn't take leadership in this area, we could lose marriage in this country the way we know it," said Franklin Graham, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and the son of the Rev. Billy Graham. "I think the president is doing the right thing."
Gay-rights activists and a member of Congress took offense at Bush's comment that "we're all sinners," interpreting the remark as one directed at gays and lesbians.
"While we respect President Bush's religious views, it is unbecoming of the president of the United States to characterize same-sex couples as 'sinners,'" said Matt Foreman, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's executive director.
Rep. Janice Schakowsky, D-Ill., wrote Bush a letter charging that he "seemed to equate homosexuality with sin," and demanding that the president apologize.
McClellan said Bush was not singling out homosexuals as "sinners."
"The president doesn't believe in casting stones. He believes we ought to treat one another with dignity and respect," McClellan said.
The Human Rights Campaign, which says it is the nation's largest gay and lesbian political group, branded Bush's exploration of a law on gay marriage a "call to codify discrimination."
In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allowed states to ignore same-sex unions licensed elsewhere. Bush's aides have said they are studying ways to strengthen the law.
"We ask the president to explain to the American people why DOMA does not already meet the objective he set this morning," the Human Rights Campaign said Wednesday.
The group also pointed to a statement by Vice President Dick Cheney that suggested he had a different view than Bush's.
Asked during in October 2000 debate whether homosexuals should have all the constitutional rights enjoyed by each American citizen, Cheney said: "I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area."
"People should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into," said Cheney. "It's really no one else's business, in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard."
Cheney's daughter Mary is a lesbian

What does everyone think about this new mess? Does it make any sense for our government to make rules on peoples private lives, and infringe on benefits of people? Who feels it about time the damn Vatican and evangelist groups shut the hell up? This here is another case in point why seperation of church and state is needed. Hopefully, this won't turn into one of many dark days that already mar our nations history...

I don't think that the vatican or evangelist groups should shut up as you put it, they are exercising their freedom of speech to talk about an issue that they feel strongly about. As are you, when you say they should shut up. No one should be denied freedom of speech.

People say that the sanctity of marriage will be ruined if homosexuals are allowed to marry, I say the sanctity of marriage has already been ruined by the amount of divorces and the ease with which they are carried out. if you pledge your life to another person but there is always the option of divorce then what is the point really?

I personally think that marriage shouldn't be legislated at all. I believe that it is a religious institution and should be only a religious institution. I'm sure Unitarian churches would gladly marry homosexual couples.

It is my opinion that the Vatican and the Evangelical groups have the same right to free speech as everyone else. However, that doesn't mean that they have the right to force their morals and beliefs down our throats. Hell, it seems like half the time they end up making hypocrites out of themselves anyway (i.e. Pat Robertson asking his followers to help him pray for the deaths of three Supreme Court justices.)
What in the hell makes the Religious Right think that they can put limits on the boundaries of love and marriage? When two people, regardless of sexual orientation, decide to spend the rest of their lives together they should be allowed to bind that union according to their beliefs. The state and the government should stay out of it.
I think Matt is right. There is no more sanctity in marriage. Divorce, prenuptual agreements, and marriages of convenience have ruined it.

depends if you look upon marriage as a religious, moral or legal partnership.

morally and legally, i see no reason not to allow gay marriages. as for religiously - if those overseeing the catholic church wish to take that stance, it's theirs to take. it's just another bit of intolerance they're endorsing.

Bad for bosch!

ok, that was obviously a joke...

I don't see why two consenting people shouldn't be given the same rights as two other consenting people. That is all i have to say on the matter.

i find this realy shocking coming from a man who likes to reem his country in the ass

This is probably just another of his petty excuses for killing Uday and Qusay.

Too many idiots............Go away Bush. PLEASE YOU WORTHLESS TEXAN BUM GO THE FUCK AWAY.

It's amazing what's acceptable nowadays. People are rolling in their graves. Yes, I think gay marriage is wrong. I believe marriage was meant to be a union between a man and a woman. Same sexes are incompatible sexually for a reason---IT WASN'T MEANT TO BE! It's a sexual perversion. No two ways about it. Look at the way gays act in their gay pride parade. It's disgusting and wrong. I believe people should have the freedom to do what they want, but to allow the institution of marriage to become another gay pride badge is wrong. What'll be next?

in no way should Bush be allowed to let this pass into law. he is in fact enforcing his religious beliefs onto those who don't share them. it is against the practice of seperation of Church and State. and as far as the gay pride parades, so what??? is it anyworse than the Mardi Gra parades? those get pretty bad. anyways, i said many time before and i'll say it again, you stay out of my private business and i'll stay out of yours. this is about giving a couple legal validation. if states are forced to recognize common-law marriages between a man and a woman, who did not get legally married, there fore living in sin (according to the religious) and yet their "union" gets legal recogniztion, how does that make the possibilty of legal gay marriages worse for our society?

My thoughts exactly..What does it matter if the couple is a man/woman, woman/woman/, or man/man? They are still just regular citizens, and VOTERS if Bush plays his cards right. But we all know how itelligent Bush is..

a quick retort
 

How is being gay a "sexual perversion" as you put it CGFiend? I respect your opinion, as I'm sure you respect mine, but I am curious in this matter. What makes it wrong or immoral? Why isnt it meant to be? Use a non-biased source. No Bible, no religious ideas, no dogma, since each of those things is highly subjective and questionable. Just because it doesn't produce a child, or "further the species" or fit your narrow view doesnt make it wrong. The fact is is that it isnt wrong at all, just different. And if it wasn't suppose to happen or meant to be, it wouldn't be occuring. Not only that, but your comments reflect a large amount of ignorance. It seems that whenever gays want something, its seen as them trying to become better than anyone else and that they are flaunting a "sinful" lifestyle. Two words, bull shit. They are trying to get equal rights. To see that gays not discriminated against is to be blind. And you want to talk about flaunting? Gays get our "straight" lifestyle shoved in their face every day. People are free to express themselves in anyway they choose. And their is nothing wrong with it at all, expression is the greatest human gift. The only thing wrong is the fact social straps, dogma, and shitty ideas hold people down. And rest assured, the only ones "rolling in thier graves" are the ones who lived a small, fearful life.

Retort indeed...
 

How is being gay a "sexual perversion" as you put it CGFiend? I respect your opinion, as I'm sure you respect mine, but I am curious in this matter. What makes it wrong or immoral? Why isnt it meant to be? Use a non-biased source. No Bible, no religious ideas, no dogma, since each of those things is highly subjective and questionable. Just because it doesn't produce a child, or "further the species" or fit your narrow view doesnt make it wrong. The fact is is that it isnt wrong at all, just different.

No species on this planet besides humans has any sort of homosexual relationship. Not to mention the fact that sex organs were designed for male and female interaction, not male and male or female and female. The anus wasn't meant to be used as a sexual orifice. Whatever designed us clearly meant us to be heterosexual, not otherwise. So, I reject anything that goes against nature. Homosexuality (especially where sexual intercourse is concerned) is a direct defiance of the laws of nature as they have been designed and is wrong in my opinion. Call it ignorant if you want. It's a fact. Perversion? How about the gays fantasizing of getting AIDS from a lover? Speaking of AIDS, look at the AIDS statistics. A high proportion of victims are gay, when compared to heterosexual deaths. If you can't see the sick perversion then I feel sorry for you.

Boohoo for the gay people. I could care less if they get any rights whatsoever. It's society's fault for allowing these freaks of nature (fitting, isn't it?) to be heard. That's how I feel about it. Nothing you say will change my opinion.

um......ouch??
 

You are free to feel how you wish. So long as you don't violently attack a person, shoot someone, or bomb a building because of your ideas, live like you want. But here are a few parting thoughts. Your line of thinking (shared by many...an unfortunate circumstance) is nothing more than hate and intolerance masked with "facts" and "logic". One of the main reasons our world condition is so shitty because of hate and intolerance. Your line of think does this world no good in the long run. I want to think people have come along way, but times like this tell me otherwise. And one more final note: You want to talk about natural perversions? They are everywhere and I better you use them, you "sinner"! Men now fly, "against nature" as we have no wings. Men go into space. "Against nature" because we need atmosphere to survive, but space has none. Men dive in oceans and lakes for prolonged times. "Against nature" because we have no gills. Men travel at 50mph daily in cars. "Against nature" because humans can't travel a fraction of 50mph. There are thousands of things we do that defy natural law. And many more will come. Yes, people die in those things, but people still die by obeying "natural law" Which leads to the thought...Maybe all this isnt a perversion of nature, but the way nature is suppose to go. Man as evolved to the point where everything is possible and natural law goes out the window in a sense. People have reason, intellect, and knowledge. Animals don't. But alas....I'm done. I could go on for hours, but it is pointless. And I don't feel sorry for gays or myself, I only feel sorry for those limited by fear, ignorance, and dogma. I would hate to be in their shoes.

If i wanted to get married to a guy, don't you think i'd want my tax benefits and shit? One of the reasons gay people want to get married is so they can get the legal benefits that provides. Sure, its a love thing to, but everyone likes tax benefits right? Marriage stopped being a religious thing a long fucking time ago. Its nothing more than a way of legalizing, and pleging your love for someone. Some people consider it religious, but a lot don't these days, and i think that is a reason Gay marriage is acceptable. I can understand gay people getting forced to resign from church positions, and any religious thing, but fuck the church. No one needs to be part of it, and it is nothing anyone needs. The church can't possibly keep marriage holy and sacred, why? Because marriage is much more than it used to be, its not just a holy thing anymore.

I think that gay couples should be able to have the same rights as married couples but should NOT be given gay marriages . As far as the US is concerned, marriage has its roots in Christianity, and by definition it is between a man and a women. Gay couple can have the tax breaks and all the rest that married couples have, just don't go redefining words.

and here was me thinking that the US was multicultural. what about other religions who marry? what about non-religious unmarried heterosexual couples - should they be allowed the same rights as married couples? they're obviously not entitled to marry, since they're not christian. at the very least, they shouldn't have to.

i dont see why gay couples cant be married by law and just not by church, we have separation of church and state for a reason! if you wanna marry someone of the same sex i say go for it and more power to you. if it feels good do it!

*keep YOUR laws off MY body*

I used to feel safe being around religion and religious people because my mum is Christian Orthodox and so am I.

However, I have been recieved with concentrated agression by many when I explore ideas outside religion, and I have observed that a large amount of Christians I have come across are not free, they are bound by their book which has been interpreted differnetly and translated differently 1001 times.

I am currently in Greece, with a God fearing family that make me feel dirty for having certain opinions, for example, "Whats wrong with the number 666?" "it's the number of the devil." I have found that religion has closed a lot of minds, rather than opened and freed them.

and the thing is, most of the nice people I know aren't religious, they don't live their lives by religion and dogmas, but use the tool named the brain to make their own minds up of how to be the best person possible.

Bush, go screw a cow or something, or at least give up your presidency to someone who has an IQ over 100. Or alternatively, bring back Clinton.

Just because someone has the opinion that being gay is wrong, doesn't mean they base their opinion on religion. I have no religion. I'm not closed-minded at all, I just happen to think homosexuality is wrong---based on my own moral beliefs. I find homosexuality disgusting because of its sexual implications and its going against everything we know as natural. That's my OWN opinion, not something someone else drilled into me. So far I've been attacked as being ignorant and closed-minded. How can you even begin to know me? You can't, so lay off the rhetorical adjectives. I've said my piece. I'm through with this thread.

Update
 

By the way.....Bonobo apes also practice same-sex relationships, a Great Ape relative of ours and an animal. Natural law has changed again. And no sympathy stance please. Your condecending tone towards gays and me has been dulely noted.

Mr Bush has once againt showed the world just how much of an idiot he is. :weird:

gay couples are okay, Bush is being stupid.

My $.02

marriage is a dirty word no matter what combination of man/woman/ape/ape you put together. Not that I'm against people getting married, just fairly disillusioned by the whole thing.

forget taxes or sex, marriage was always suppose to be about love, now it's an excuse for celebrities to get in the news.

---theworm
"still in need of more therapy sessions"

i actually agree with bush, gay people shouldn't be able to get married. a child is supposed to be brought up by a mother and a father, not a feminine guy and an even more feminine guy. they should be happy we don't execute them for bein gay...that's what they woulda done back in my day.

My Thoughts
 

It feels to me as though a few different issues are getting mixed together here.

1) Gays & Lesbians: Natural?
2) Gays & Lesbians: Should have right to get married?
3) Gays & Lesbians: I like them \ I don't like them

These are all separate issues that must not affect each other.

If it is natural or not can be left up to scientists and anthropologists. However, along the lines of a previous post:

What is the definition of natural?

One definition the Webster dictionary gives is:

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin naturalis "of nature"
Nature: "the external world in its entirety"

Now, looking at this definition as a guide, is not all that is contained in the universe, a natural object? Be it wood from a tree, a star in space, a nuclear bomb or even George W Bush...

The very fact that it exists in nature, forcibly makes it a part of nature. It is within the realm of the natural existence, for if not, how could it exist?


So, as far as I'm concerned, It has to be natural.

Now about the second issue, should gays & lesbians get married?
Well, this is somewhat of a harder question to answer, for marriage is a social construction, it is created and exists because we as a society made it so. It is not bound by rules of logic, of reason, of science. It is bound by us, imperfect humans :)and in being so, creates the type of conflicts that we see here on the message board.

There is no right or wrong answer to it. Now, to complicate matters even more, it is not a social construction that stands independently of everything else. It is blended together with all other forms of social construction, such as freedom of speech, individuals rights, society's rights, evening gatherings of the book club, night out with the boys and any other type of social construction/interaction.

Having said that..., well, I suppose we can leave it at "What do we want our world to be like" and from that we can each formulate our answer, the problem is, we will all likely have different answers and what is important to remember that all of these things, these laws, these social constructions are a means to an end, the end being that answer, that world we envision (let us not hope that we create law and social constructs in order to merley maintain a static society).

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that we all need to step back and place this issue in a much large context of who we are as a society, a civilization, of who we want to become, and from there, ...still not have an answer :)

that's one of the fun things of choosing to live in "society"

and finally, for I have ranted on way too long...

3rd question: I like them \ I don't like them

Well, this is where we have to remember that we have chosen to live in a "free" society (don't get me started on that:)

So it doesn't really matter weather or not I like gay people or not, I don't have to interact with them, I don't even have to talk to them, but I do have to respect them as fellow human beings.
That is a right that transcends age, gender, orientation ethnicity and... even... Presidency... :)

Nice post Digital brownie

Hmmm...gay marriage...a subject one can sink their teeth into.

Marriage started out as a legal institution...for the longest time, there were no benefits from it save the fact that you could now live together without getting branded heathens and possibly stoned. You were endorsed by Church and God!

Then...along came governments and government regulations. Especially in the areas of income tax. There are many benefits out there given to married couples that aren't given to unmarried couples, but this appears to be the major one everyone talks about.

NOW...if churches were still the only source for marriage, then we'd need to change the benefits system as it was obviously a conflict of church and state...but churches and religious people could set whatever restrictions on it they wanted. But that isn't the way it is...churches aren't the only people that can do a marriage anymore and it be legal. And then you have some religious organizations out there that will marry a same sex union, thus giving it a religious endorsement, BUT it won't be recognized by the government.

So...now we have a governmental regulation on marriage. And it's discriminatory.

Hate gays if you want. Claim it's 'against nature' all you want. Read up on seagulls sometime. Watch nature shows. Same sex matings do happen in just about any species that forms social groups...flocks, herds, packs, etc. People are always going to be people out there that cling to their hate and use whatever reasons they want to justify it. It's called 'having a closed mind'. I accept this as inevitable. They have their hate and they're welcome to it.

But the US government should not endorse hate of any type...and should not push a prejudice or discrimination down our throats.

Hate gays if you want, but they should get equal treatment under the law.

It's too futile

It's in my belief that either way that we will legalize gay marrages anyway because mainly it's all about public opinion and the fact that even if ther is a ban it can be repealed both by law and constitutional amendmemt (21st amendment)

I give it 10 years becore they finally recover from the hangover provided by bush on the issue and by then the majority of gay america will be more accepted in public america anyway to legalize it.

Forget it Bush.....it's too long of a process and it will be repealed anyway within a few years

Gee arnt message boards fun?

personaly i don't mind gays as long as they don't smear it in everyone elses faces. Gays should be able to marry though in our scociety today it doesnt mean to much to the rest of the world because they can just divorce. If they realy want to thats fine.
Saying that its "unatural" is most deffinatly wrong from what digital brownie (nice poast) said. if you took this thread and many labout the same subject you would find that more than half think its fine for gays to marry. As long as everyone respects everyone else (which doesnt happn unfortunatly) we wouldnt have to deal with subjects like this.
I dont have to like gays but I will still respect them.

Also religous people I dont mind you as long as you dont shove it down my throat, it is your right to say what you want but leave me out of it.

as long as people keep their religon, sexuality, and anything else others may not want to know about im fine with them.

Ohh and one more thing Fuck Bush. Maybe if the president had an IQ over 3.5 we could live in a peaceful and happy country and scoicety;)

My reply is to CGFiend and him alone.
Yours was a typical school-boy statement, fearing gays because they are different and you are not yet able to feel safe in your own sexuality. Its ok to be how you are, gay, straight, bisexual, foot-fetishist, masichist, whatever. It is completely irrelevant. I have found that the majority of gays are the nicest people I have ever met and they only reason I find myself not wanting to hang around with any is because of what my friends would think. Im straight. I know that and am secure in this knowledge. This means I have no problems with gays at all as long as they understand that I will never want anything more than a standard male friendship. It took me ages to undo the conditioning of school and society and to open my mind. I have stopped reading the papers and magazines telling me what I should do, where I should go and what I should think and now am completely free to make up my own mind. I think both you and bush are idiots with security issues (no pun intended for the more intelligent reader). Someone said that bush is basically looking to legalise discrimination and this is whats he is trying to do. A wake up call for all of you americans. The power that you so proudly tell me of, lies in your hands. You run america, not the politicians. Stand up and be counted.

Anyway back to the point. Homosexuality is seen in many species. Someone at my uni has 2 gay dogs. She loves them. I find the thought hilarious that one will try to hump another, no matter who is around to be shocked. I wont go through every species in which I know homosexuality exists, but I will tell you it exists in plenty. I freed my mind of the oppression and propoganda and I ask you to do so too.

On a final note, CGFiend, why don't you examine why you hate gays? Homophobia is such a sad thing for an insecure small-minded man to suffer from. You have a lot to learn.

So somehow a smart president will magically make everyone in the US love and accept gay people?

Whatever.:rolleyes:

This is my first time reading through the forums here at Winamp and this thread caught my attention. Why? Because I'm a homo myself.

I'm really surprised to read most of your responses. I can tell you, after hearing enough homo-hating bullshit, you get a little bit disillusioned with society as a whole sometimes. I expected to read this thread and find that there was a big gay bashing, which is pretty typical of most online forums. I should mention that this summer has been good for gay rights and that polls are showing that people are becoming more comfortable with what is sometimes referred to as the "ick" factor of homosexuals, which I don't really think I need to go into detail about. What happens in my bed stays in my bed--the way it should be and what Lawrence vs. Texas made legal.

So I'd like to say thanks for your understanding.

There's one thing I'd like to mention. I've met people that I've talked to for long periods of time who got to know me and liked me decently well. After finding out that I'm gay they stopped talking to me. Have that happen a few times...the picture is pretty plain. This sounds an awful lot like a pity party, but I'd just like to show that people are hypocrites, people aren't fair and that homo injustice is rampant.

In closing I thought that a little bit of humor might be nice to soften this serious debate--not to belittle its significance. I received this in an email. For those of you that don't know Leviticus 18:22(I think) says that men are not supposed to sleep in the same bed as men as they would with women. Keep reading Lev. and you'll get to 19:27 which expressly forbids cutting your hair if you're a male. And this, which I received in an email--My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who
sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I've heard about those "wierd" mandates in Leviticus. I find it extremely intresting that people choose to follow some of those teachings but not others.
/checks back of shit
90% cotton, 10% polyester
Guess I'm going to hell.

I heard a quote a while ago, I believe it was Pierre Trudeau:

"The government has no business in people's bedrooms." (May not be exact)

But on a similar note, why do you need a paper to prove your love?

The bible says many things and then contradicts them in the very next section;

Marriage : http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/marriage.html

Capitail Punishment : http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/capital.html

How many animals in the ark? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/twos.html

From the wonderful Skeptics Annotated Bible

So, the Bible dosen't say anything that makes any sense. It's full contradictions and sex....lots and lots of sex. I'm sure theres something about men not touching women in there as well. Okay, thats the religious clap-trap out of the way.

This 'homosexuals are perverts' etc garbage. I don't understand it, I really don't. How can what people do in their private lives possibly, in anyway, be of concern to anyone else? If I see two men or women kissing in the street, does this offend me? Of course not, it's none of my damn business. Infact, I find it good that two people have found each other and love each other.

"Homosexuals are perverts", "Blacks are stupid", "Jews are the anti-christ"...all this is pure hate. Nothing more, nothing less.

Regarding penises were not meant to go up the anus. Who says? God? Phhfff! 'God' said alot of things that just plain stupid.

If Jews are attacked, then I'm Jewish.
If women are attacked, then I'm a woman.
If homosexuals are attacked, then I'm homosexual.
If blacks are attacked, then I'm black.

If any of the religious members want to debate the bible, let me know, but you better know your stuff.

Damn! I was having a nice evening until I read some of the replies in this thread.:mad:

Peace

Marvinb

Just read my previous post. Got a little excited there, didn't I? *sigh* If I've upset anyone...sorry.

Calm now restored.

Peace

Marvinb

Somebody posted this earlier:The way I see it, the problem is not religious belief, it's the method of sharing those beliefs that gets people's panties in a bunch (no pun intended). I would say that it's just as offensive to have "morally equivalent" lifestyles shoved in my face, but I understand that playground earth is not known for it's fair play.