crabs, it is impossible to think in a vaccum. Everything you have ever read or heard can effect how one thinks. Only an arrogant fool believes his thoughts have not been influenced by experience.
don't ell me what the Bible says...tell me what YOU think.
carbs, I am not going to waste my time with you on anything of substance. I'll take a swipe at you for being the fool that you are, but for substance you are a just waste of time.
And approving gay marriage will also approve polygamy
and why is that?
Because the basis of the argument is simply because they want to marry. That marrying is a fundamental right. That people can enter into any type of relationship that they want and call it marriage because it is so deeply personal.
And approving gay marriage will also approve polygamy
gee, doesn't polygamy have its roots in the bible, from a time when it was morally acceptable for a man to have multiple wives? maybe even before then?
And approving gay marriage will also approve polygamy
gee, doesn't polygamy have its roots in the Bible, from a time when it was morally acceptable for a man to have multiple wives? maybe even before then?
Well there may be something reference to polygamy somewhere in the Bible, but generally, no. Adam had Eve, Abraham had one wife. I don't know of specific instances of polygamy or acceptance of the practice. But the question is do you want polygamy approved? If yes, the question would be who should decide and how.
I don't know of specific instances of polygamy or acceptance of the practice.
then you need to read a little bit more of the bible than just that which suits your moral positioning. look no further than the book of genesis. in fact, you may actually want to re-read genesis and take away your claim about abraham: chapter 16, versus 1-3: "1.16.1. Now Sarai, Abram's wife, bore him no children. She had an Egyptian slave-girl whose name was Hagar,
1.16.2. and Sarai said to Abram, "You see that the LORD has prevented me from bearing children; go in to my slave-girl; it may be that I shall obtain children by her." And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.
1.16.3. So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave-girl, and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife.
jacob had rebecca and leah. moses had two, solomon had several hundred wives. david was also know to have several. need i find more examples for you?
it was also common practice in old testament times that if a man died his brother would take his wife as his own, even if he already had a wife.
But the question is do you want polygamy approved?
But the question is do you want polygamy approved?
hmm. i don't think i said that.
You didn't ask the question, I did. You also didn't answer it. Do you approve of polygamy? Because if gay marraige is approved there is no logical reason to disallow it.
Gen.16 [5] And Sar'ai said to Abram, "May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my maid to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May the LORD judge between you and me!"
[6] But Abram said to Sar'ai, "Behold, your maid is in your power; do to her as you please." Then Sar'ai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her.
Now does this sound like a good situation? Is the Bible saying this is good?
Genisis 19: [31] And the first-born said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth.
[32] Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father."
[33] So they made their father drink wine that night; and the first-born went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
[34] And on the next day, the first-born said to the younger, "Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father."
[35] So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
[36] Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father.
[37] The first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day.
[38] The younger also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites to this day.
[14] "When you come to the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and dwell in it, and then say, `I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me';
[15] you may indeed set as king over you him whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.
[16] Only he must not multiply horses for himself, or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, `You shall never return that way again.'
[17] And he shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply for himself silver and gold.
By Robert B. Bluey CNSNews.com Staff Writer October 27, 2003
(CNSNews.com) - The Supreme Court's decision outlawing sodomy laws will face its first constitutional test when a Kansas man asks the state appeals court to free him from a 17-year sentence for having homosexual sex with a minor...
omg ares... you were right... this guy IS the most ignorant idiot on the net! And you base that on what? I disagree with someone's opinion on morality and I am an idiot? That sure is some powerful logic there.HELLO.... polygamy is not inherently homosexual and polygamy is certainly not exclusively practiced by those who practice incest... I didn't say it was. Maybe you are to ignorant to understand what was posted. The point was just because these things are mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean that they are approved of. I guess I give some people to much credit in connecting the dots. I'll try harder to keep simple for you.can we stick to one issue please? One would think Jethro, with your limited capacity for understanding, you would at least try to stick to one subject and not ramble on confusing an issue with irrelevant information. People like you, with an obviously limited intellect, can't seem to make connections between moral issues.Oh... and by the way Jethro.... since I know you will ask, I am neither gay nor do I practice polygamy or incest for that matter. I don't care what you do. But I would be interested in the basis of why you think gay marriage is okay and it appears polygamy.
I didn't say it was. Maybe you are to ignorant to understand what was posted.
uh no. one of your retorts to my biblical base of polygamy was lot's drunken incest with his daughters, hardly a case of polygamy, which, in case you didn't know, was one man, many wives.
The point was just because these things are mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean that they are approved of.
one would think that if god didn't approve of it, he would have said something about it, dontcha think? maybe the 11th commandment? thou shalt not have more than one wife.
People like you, with an obviously limited intellect, can't seem to make connections between moral issues.
and you base your assumption that she has limited intellect on a single post. you really don't know one damn thing about her, do you?
I didn't say it was. Maybe you are to ignorant to understand what was posted.
uh no. one of your retorts to my biblical base of polygamy was lot's drunken incest with his daughters, hardly a case of polygamy, which, in case you didn't know, was one man, many wives.
Can you think or must someone take you by the nose and rub your face in it? The point was do you think the Bible condoned all of those actions? I guess I will have to spell it out for you next time. O-K-A-Y?
The point was just because these things are mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean that they are approved of.
one would think that if god didn't approve of it, he would have said something about it, dontcha think? maybe the 11th commandment? thou shalt not have more than one wife.
Doesn't it say do not commit adultery?
People like you, with an obviously limited intellect, can't seem to make connections between moral issues.
and you base your assumption that she has limited intellect on a single post. you really don't know one damn thing about her, do you?
I attacked her because she attacked me. I will not take that crap without comment. But did you criticize her verbal assault?
adultery-volunntary sexual intercourse between a married man and a woman not his wife or between a married woman and a man not her husband.
What is your point? See Genesis 2:2] Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
[24] Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.
not in old testament times it wasn't. adultery as defined by the hebrews was exclusively between a married woman, and a man not her husband. if you'd like me to find the hebrew etymology of the word for you, i'll be more than happy to.
as for your citations from genesis, remember moses wrote it. and that he had two wives.
President Bush has asked Congress to enact a constitutional amendment making it national law that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The perceived need for a constitutional amendment should be an embarrassment for all of us -- it's simply more evidence of our moral decline. If it were possible for previous generations of Americans to know about this marriage controversy, they'd probably be embarrassed and shocked, and might ask, "What in the hell has happened to America?"
You must be kidding. They didn't think it was necessary. But since there are so many people ignoring the law of their own states it is time that it be done. Besides a constitutional amendment lets the states decide.
In ancient Rome, for example, the Emperor Nero is reported to have married, at different times, two other men in wedding ceremonies. Other Roman Emperors are reported to have done the same thing. The increasing influence of Christianity, which promoted marriage for procreative purposes, is linked with the increasing intolerance of homosexuality in Rome.
In North American, among the Native American societies, it has taken the form of two-spirit-type relationships, in which some members of the tribe elect to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these two-spirit men.
SO they had to know it could be an issue even in the late 1700's are you kidding yourself??
Before it could become part of the Constitution, it would need to be approved by a two-thirds majority in the United States House of Representatives and the Senate, and then ratified by 38 (three-fourths) of the state legislatures. The FMA was introduced in the House on May 15, 2002, and again on May 21, 2003, by Representative Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado), but no vote has taken place on it. Three-fourths of states already have enacted laws in accord with the similarly-worded Defense of Marriage Act. President George W. Bush announced his support for a similar amendment on February 24, 2004.
maybe this is why NO VOTE has taken place on it on prior indroductions?
The perceived need for a constitutional amendment should be an embarrassment for all of us -- it's simply more evidence of our moral decline.
I think that coming to grips with accepting the homosexual segment of our society is evidence that we are advancing our morality in much the same way that we dealt with slavery and continue to advance civil rights.
If it were possible for previous generations of Americans to know about this marriage controversy, they'd probably be embarrassed and shocked, and might ask, "What in the hell has happened to America?"
Previous generations would see...say...Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell...and be shocked and ask "What the hell has happened to America?"
In ancient Rome, for example, the Emperor Nero is reported to have married, at different times, two other men in wedding ceremonies. This ain't Rome.Other Roman Emperors are reported to have done the same thing. The increasing influence of Christianity, which promoted marriage for procreative purposes, is linked with the increasing intolerance of homosexuality in Rome.
So? Society can make these decisions.
In North American, among the Native American societies, it has taken the form of two-spirit-type relationships, in which some members of the tribe elect to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these two-spirit men. So you believe in uncivilized practices?
SO they had to know it could be an issue even in the late 1700's are you kidding yourself?? I do not think they ever thought that such immorality would ever make such a splash. This was a Christian nation.
Before it could become part of the Constitution, it would need to be approved by a two-thirds majority in the United States House of Representatives and the Senate, and then ratified by 38 (three-fourths) of the state legislatures. The FMA was introduced in the House on May 15, 2002, and again on May 21, 2003, by Representative Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado), but no vote has taken place on it. Three-fourths of states already have enacted laws in accord with the similarly-worded Defense of Marriage Act. President George W. Bush announced his support for a similar amendment on February 24, 2004. So maybe 3/4 will approve of the Constitutional amendment.
maybe this is why NO VOTE has taken place on it on prior indroductions? we have a different situation now.
Christopher Hitchens wrote a column in yesterday's Wall Street Journal about two gay men who live near him, and raise children from a previous marriage.
"When I become bored or irritated by the gay marriage battle -- and I do, I sometimes do -- I like to picture the writhing faces and hoarse yells of the mullahs and the fantics. Godless hedonistic America, not content with allowing divorce and pornography, has taken from us our holy Taliban and upright Saddam. It sends Jews and unveiled female soldiers to our lands, and soon unnatural brotherhood will be in the armed forces of the infidels. And now the godless have an election where all they discuss is the weddings of men to men and women to women! And then I relax, and smile, and ask my neighbors over, to repay the many drinks and kind gestures that I owe them."
I'll take that as a "no, I cant think for myself"
The definition has changed, you just don't want to see it because you would have to deal with the fact that it, like everything else, changes.
If you were capable of understanding what I have been saying you would know that my point has been who decides if ,when and how change is to occur.
crabs, it is impossible to think in a vaccum. Everything you have ever read or heard can effect how one thinks. Only an arrogant fool believes his thoughts have not been influenced by experience.
your point was that it's been defined as just one specific thing for 5000 years...which is just plain wrong.
of course...just put it in your own words, with your own thoughts.
don't ell me what the Bible says...tell me what YOU think.
your point was that it's been defined as just one specific thing for 5000 years...which is just plain wrong.
That was Charles Krauthammer's point. And it is basically true. Marriage=1 man + 1 woman.
don't ell me what the Bible says...tell me what YOU think.
carbs, I am not going to waste my time with you on anything of substance. I'll take a swipe at you for being the fool that you are, but for substance you are a just waste of time.
it was less than 5000 years ago that 1 black man + 1 white woman = not marriage...instead, a crime.
in other cultures marriage meant 1 man + many women.
and further back, it meant 1 owner + 1 servant = marriage
I don't think you can
And approving gay marriage will also approve polygamy
okay Pee-Wee
and why is that?
And approving gay marriage will also approve polygamy
and why is that?
Because the basis of the argument is simply because they want to marry. That marrying is a fundamental right. That people can enter into any type of relationship that they want and call it marriage because it is so deeply personal.
And approving gay marriage will also approve polygamy
gee, doesn't polygamy have its roots in the bible, from a time when it was morally acceptable for a man to have multiple wives? maybe even before then?
and priests lifestyle is generally filled with buggering little boys...want some examples?
no it's not.
and priests lifestyle is generally filled with buggering little boys.
There you go again, lumping all priests as child molesters.
And approving gay marriage will also approve polygamy
gee, doesn't polygamy have its roots in the Bible, from a time when it was morally acceptable for a man to have multiple wives? maybe even before then?
Well there may be something reference to polygamy somewhere in the Bible, but generally, no. Adam had Eve, Abraham had one wife. I don't know of specific instances of polygamy or acceptance of the practice. But the question is do you want polygamy approved? If yes, the question would be who should decide and how.
and priests lifestyle is generally filled with buggering little boys...want some examples?
And do you approve of it, dickhead?
Because the basis of the argument is simply because they want to marry.
no it's not.
What is it then? If you think you know.
I don't know of specific instances of polygamy or acceptance of the practice.
then you need to read a little bit more of the bible than just that which suits your moral positioning. look no further than the book of genesis. in fact, you may actually want to re-read genesis and take away your claim about abraham: chapter 16, versus 1-3: "1.16.1. Now Sarai, Abram's wife, bore him no children. She had an Egyptian slave-girl whose name was Hagar,
1.16.2. and Sarai said to Abram, "You see that the LORD has prevented me from bearing children; go in to my slave-girl; it may be that I shall obtain children by her." And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.
1.16.3. So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave-girl, and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife.
jacob had rebecca and leah. moses had two, solomon had several hundred wives. david was also know to have several. need i find more examples for you?
it was also common practice in old testament times that if a man died his brother would take his wife as his own, even if he already had a wife.
But the question is do you want polygamy approved?
hmm. i don't think i said that.
But the question is do you want polygamy approved?
hmm. i don't think i said that.
You didn't ask the question, I did. You also didn't answer it. Do you approve of polygamy? Because if gay marraige is approved there is no logical reason to disallow it.
Gen.16
[5] And Sar'ai said to Abram, "May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my maid to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May the LORD judge between you and me!"
[6] But Abram said to Sar'ai, "Behold, your maid is in your power; do to her as you please." Then Sar'ai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her.
Now does this sound like a good situation? Is the Bible saying this is good?
Genisis 19:
[31] And the first-born said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth.
[32] Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father."
[33] So they made their father drink wine that night; and the first-born went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
[34] And on the next day, the first-born said to the younger, "Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father."
[35] So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
[36] Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father.
[37] The first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day.
[38] The younger also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites to this day.
How about this? Does this sound good?
Here is a good link on Christianity aand ploygamy: http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/R/RussowPolygamy/RussowPolygamy.pdf
Deut.17
[14] "When you come to the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and dwell in it, and then say, `I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me';
[15] you may indeed set as king over you him whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.
[16] Only he must not multiply horses for himself, or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, `You shall never return that way again.'
[17] And he shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply for himself silver and gold.
Q. Does the Bible condone or condemn polygamy
http://www.scripturessay.com/q75.html
this guy IS the most ignorant idiot on the net!
Is he?
Civil rights lawyer files suit challenging Utah ban on polygamy, citing Texas sodomy case
Kansas Man Tests Supreme Court's Sodomy Ruling
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 27, 2003
(CNSNews.com) - The Supreme Court's decision outlawing sodomy laws will face its first constitutional test when a Kansas man asks the state appeals court to free him from a 17-year sentence for having homosexual sex with a minor...
no...check the context THX
(a priest's lifestyle is generally filled with buggering little boys).
YES, you branded ALL priests.
Now let see those examples.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
omg ares... you were right... this guy IS the most ignorant idiot on the net! And you base that on what? I disagree with someone's opinion on morality and I am an idiot? That sure is some powerful logic there.HELLO.... polygamy is not inherently homosexual and polygamy is certainly not exclusively practiced by those who practice incest... I didn't say it was. Maybe you are to ignorant to understand what was posted. The point was just because these things are mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean that they are approved of. I guess I give some people to much credit in connecting the dots. I'll try harder to keep simple for you.can we stick to one issue please? One would think Jethro, with your limited capacity for understanding, you would at least try to stick to one subject and not ramble on confusing an issue with irrelevant information. People like you, with an obviously limited intellect, can't seem to make connections between moral issues.Oh... and by the way Jethro.... since I know you will ask, I am neither gay nor do I practice polygamy or incest for that matter. I don't care what you do. But I would be interested in the basis of why you think gay marriage is okay and it appears polygamy.
I didn't say it was. Maybe you are to ignorant to understand what was posted.
uh no. one of your retorts to my biblical base of polygamy was lot's drunken incest with his daughters, hardly a case of polygamy, which, in case you didn't know, was one man, many wives.
The point was just because these things are mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean that they are approved of.
one would think that if god didn't approve of it, he would have said something about it, dontcha think? maybe the 11th commandment? thou shalt not have more than one wife.
People like you, with an obviously limited intellect, can't seem to make connections between moral issues.
and you base your assumption that she has limited intellect on a single post. you really don't know one damn thing about her, do you?
I didn't say it was. Maybe you are to ignorant to understand what was posted.
uh no. one of your retorts to my biblical base of polygamy was lot's drunken incest with his daughters, hardly a case of polygamy, which, in case you didn't know, was one man, many wives.
Can you think or must someone take you by the nose and rub your face in it? The point was do you think the Bible condoned all of those actions? I guess I will have to spell it out for you next time. O-K-A-Y?
The point was just because these things are mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean that they are approved of.
one would think that if god didn't approve of it, he would have said something about it, dontcha think? maybe the 11th commandment? thou shalt not have more than one wife.
Doesn't it say do not commit adultery?
People like you, with an obviously limited intellect, can't seem to make connections between moral issues.
and you base your assumption that she has limited intellect on a single post. you really don't know one damn thing about her, do you?
I attacked her because she attacked me. I will not take that crap without comment. But did you criticize her verbal assault?
Doesn't it say do not commit adultery?
yup. now go look up what the definition of adultery is, and always has been.
adultery-volunntary sexual intercourse between a married man and a woman not his wife or between a married woman and a man not her husband.
What is your point? See Genesis 2:2] Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man."
[24] Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.
This to me implies monogamy. Did you read these links?: http://www.scripturessay.com/q75.html
http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/R/RussowPolygamy/RussowPolygamy.pdf
not in old testament times it wasn't. adultery as defined by the hebrews was exclusively between a married woman, and a man not her husband. if you'd like me to find the hebrew etymology of the word for you, i'll be more than happy to.
as for your citations from genesis, remember moses wrote it. and that he had two wives.
Did you read this link?: http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/R/RussowPolygamy/RussowPolygamy.pdf
If not go to it and scroll down to the heading: Examples of Polygamy in the Old Testament.
President Bush has asked Congress to enact a constitutional amendment making it national law that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The perceived need for a constitutional amendment should be an embarrassment for all of us -- it's simply more evidence of our moral decline. If it were possible for previous generations of Americans to know about this marriage controversy, they'd probably be embarrassed and shocked, and might ask, "What in the hell has happened to America?"
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20040303.shtml
The perceived need for a constitutional amendment should be an embarrassment for all of us -- it's simply more evidence of our moral decline.
Maybe your entirely wrong on this....who's to say our 4-fathers left this out intentionally???
You must be kidding. They didn't think it was necessary. But since there are so many people ignoring the law of their own states it is time that it be done. Besides a constitutional amendment lets the states decide.
In ancient Rome, for example, the Emperor Nero is reported to have married, at different times, two other men in wedding ceremonies. Other Roman Emperors are reported to have done the same thing. The increasing influence of Christianity, which promoted marriage for procreative purposes, is linked with the increasing intolerance of homosexuality in Rome.
In North American, among the Native American societies, it has taken the form of two-spirit-type relationships, in which some members of the tribe elect to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these two-spirit men.
SO they had to know it could be an issue even in the late 1700's are you kidding yourself??
Before it could become part of the Constitution, it would need to be approved by a two-thirds majority in the United States House of Representatives and the Senate, and then ratified by 38 (three-fourths) of the state legislatures. The FMA was introduced in the House on May 15, 2002, and again on May 21, 2003, by Representative Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado), but no vote has taken place on it. Three-fourths of states already have enacted laws in accord with the similarly-worded Defense of Marriage Act. President George W. Bush announced his support for a similar amendment on February 24, 2004.
maybe this is why NO VOTE has taken place on it on prior indroductions?
I think that coming to grips with accepting the homosexual segment of our society is evidence that we are advancing our morality in much the same way that we dealt with slavery and continue to advance civil rights.
Previous generations would see...say...Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell...and be shocked and ask "What the hell has happened to America?"
Change is good.
In ancient Rome, for example, the Emperor Nero is reported to have married, at different times, two other men in wedding ceremonies. This ain't Rome.Other Roman Emperors are reported to have done the same thing. The increasing influence of Christianity, which promoted marriage for procreative purposes, is linked with the increasing intolerance of homosexuality in Rome.
So? Society can make these decisions.
In North American, among the Native American societies, it has taken the form of two-spirit-type relationships, in which some members of the tribe elect to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these two-spirit men. So you believe in uncivilized practices?
SO they had to know it could be an issue even in the late 1700's are you kidding yourself?? I do not think they ever thought that such immorality would ever make such a splash. This was a Christian nation.
Before it could become part of the Constitution, it would need to be approved by a two-thirds majority in the United States House of Representatives and the Senate, and then ratified by 38 (three-fourths) of the state legislatures. The FMA was introduced in the House on May 15, 2002, and again on May 21, 2003, by Representative Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado), but no vote has taken place on it. Three-fourths of states already have enacted laws in accord with the similarly-worded Defense of Marriage Act. President George W. Bush announced his support for a similar amendment on February 24, 2004. So maybe 3/4 will approve of the Constitutional amendment.
maybe this is why NO VOTE has taken place on it on prior indroductions? we have a different situation now.
Race and behavior are two different things.
Christopher Hitchens wrote a column in yesterday's Wall Street Journal about two gay men who live near him, and raise children from a previous marriage.
"When I become bored or irritated by the gay marriage battle -- and I do, I sometimes do -- I like to picture the writhing faces and hoarse yells of the mullahs and the fantics. Godless hedonistic America, not content with allowing divorce and pornography, has taken from us our holy Taliban and upright Saddam. It sends Jews and unveiled female soldiers to our lands, and soon unnatural brotherhood will be in the armed forces of the infidels. And now the godless have an election where all they discuss is the weddings of men to men and women to women! And then I relax, and smile, and ask my neighbors over, to repay the many drinks and kind gestures that I owe them."
unfortunately bigotry and ignorance are not.
Civil disobedience is a proper procedure.
Ask Rosa Parks.
civialized is of moral and intellectual advancement
hmmm maybe we have currently not advanced(evolved) enough to accept the fact that same-sex relationship is acceptable in our culture???
Ask Rosa Parks.
She is nothing more than matter, energy and time in your views. Why should we care what she thinks?