I rarely speak up on political matters here, but I have to say something on this one.

You are not the victim here. Your rights are not being impinged upon. Marriage isn't a scare resource. It's not like water. By giving the right to others, there isn't any less to go around. To the delight of Vegas, we've got an unlimited supply.

You are free to practice whatever religion you like, and raise your children however you see fit. You do not, however, have the right to deny a freedom to others that you enjoy on the basis that it offends your particular sensibilities or religious beliefs. By your logic, are you attacking the religious freedom of Catholics by eating meat on Friday?

What's alien...

I rarely speak up on political matters here, but I have to say something on this one.

You are not the victim here. Your rights are not being impinged upon. Marriage isn't a scare resource. It's not like water. By giving the right to others, there isn't any less to go around. To the delight of Vegas, we've got an unlimited supply.

You are free to practice whatever religion you like, and raise your children however you see fit. You do not, however, have the right to deny a freedom to others that you enjoy on the basis that it offends your particular sensibilities or religious beliefs. By your logic, are you attacking the religious freedom of Catholics by eating meat on Friday?

What's alien to me is that my children will be raised in a world that dictates who can love whom, and who can share a lifelong, loving commitment to each other, with the rights and responsibilities that comes with.

To all of the above:

Typos happen to the best of us Monkey but I am sure you have never made a mistake. As far as the clip is concerned I did not write the article. The whole clip has no comment from me. I found the article interesting and thusly I clipped it. Because I live in a free society I can read and comment on whatever I chose to. You also have a right to do the same. I have not commented prior to this because I was curious as to who would say what. I am going to comment though after this one and state my views.

As to Monkey in particular you seem to think you know a great deal about me, but I am sorry to say that with th exception of point 1 and my typo you were totally wrong on a...

To all of the above:

Typos happen to the best of us Monkey but I am sure you have never made a mistake. As far as the clip is concerned I did not write the article. The whole clip has no comment from me. I found the article interesting and thusly I clipped it. Because I live in a free society I can read and comment on whatever I chose to. You also have a right to do the same. I have not commented prior to this because I was curious as to who would say what. I am going to comment though after this one and state my views.

As to Monkey in particular you seem to think you know a great deal about me, but I am sorry to say that with th exception of point 1 and my typo you were totally wrong on all the other points. Would you like to try again.

In regards to the largest penis post. I had also commented on that same post which apparently my comment was deleted therefore my views on the said clip are not shown, therefore I can understand how someone could somehow form an observation that perhaps I like penises actually my comments on the post STRONGLY expressed my distaste on said "attraction" but I also eluded to the phallic symbol standing erect on our nation's capital square.

Because I can control who edits these comments now I am sure at least in part my comments concerning the penis post are somewhat clarified.

ericskiff wrote:

What's alien to me is that my children will be raised in a world that
dictates who can love whom, and who can share a lifelong, loving
commitment to each other, with the rights and responsibilities that
comes with.

I guess in a way we agree on this point. We both find it alien that the state should dictate matters of the heart. I would be offended if my children we forced to accept that same sex relationships are the same as heterosexual unions. You on the other hand find it offensive that someone would dare say that the two are not equal.

You would like them both to be the same I on the other hand can clearly see the differences.

I feel strongly that the st...

ericskiff wrote:

What's alien to me is that my children will be raised in a world that
dictates who can love whom, and who can share a lifelong, loving
commitment to each other, with the rights and responsibilities that
comes with.

I guess in a way we agree on this point. We both find it alien that the state should dictate matters of the heart. I would be offended if my children we forced to accept that same sex relationships are the same as heterosexual unions. You on the other hand find it offensive that someone would dare say that the two are not equal.

You would like them both to be the same I on the other hand can clearly see the differences.

I feel strongly that the state should not legislate public policy in regards to abortion nor should it make policy in regards to sexual preferences.

If you wish to lie down with a dog, a horse, another person of the same sex if they are consenting adults I have no problem.

However I will draw a line when it comes to educating my children as to what is considered acceptable behavior. Having the state therefore DICTATE such normalcy is what I find offensive.

You are free to practice whatever religion you like, and raise your children however you see fit. Eric continued

I wish this statement was a truism but in all reality it is not. If I was free to practice my religion or educate my children as I saw fit then we would not be having this discussion. The truth is we have lost that right with the 'gay agenda' telling myself and my children that we must accept the gay lifestyle. I do not have to accept it nor must I tolerate it being taught to my children thusly I shall oppose it strenuously

ERIC CONTINUES:

By your logic, are you attacking the religious freedom of Catholics by eating meat on Friday?.

There is absolutely no correlation.between a state mandate forcing a belief on someone and the Catholic church. The last time I looked the Catholic church was not asking the courts

So your argument is mute.

You mean "moot".

State-ordered gay "marriage" is an attack, not only on legitimate
marriage, but upon religious freedom and the freedom not to have one's
children indoctrinated into alien ideas about marriage.

The last time I looked the Catholic church was not asking the courts to mandate that everyone not eat meat on Friday. So your argument is mute.

The last time I looked, no-one was mandating that all gay couples get married, nor that any straight people be required to marry same-gender partners, nor was i aware that there were a limited number of marriage licenses available so that by allowing gay marriage there wo...

So your argument is mute.

You mean "moot".

State-ordered gay "marriage" is an attack, not only on legitimate
marriage, but upon religious freedom and the freedom not to have one's
children indoctrinated into alien ideas about marriage.

The last time I looked the Catholic church was not asking the courts to mandate that everyone not eat meat on Friday. So your argument is mute.

The last time I looked, no-one was mandating that all gay couples get married, nor that any straight people be required to marry same-gender partners, nor was i aware that there were a limited number of marriage licenses available so that by allowing gay marriage there would be limits on the availability of heterosexual marriage, nor have I ever heard of a straight couple divorcing because, somewhere in the world, a man married a man or a woman married a woman. So I fail to understand how gay marriage threatens straight marriage.

There are many similarities between same-sex marriage and common law marriages. You are free to believe, and teach your children, that both types of unions are immoral. However, civil law requires legal recognition of common law marrriages contracted in states where they are permitted, even if the couple moves to a state where they are illegal. This is a legal pecedent that already exists, but, to my knowledge, has received little attention. It means that the state has already defined some aspects of marriage - the camel's nose is in the tent and it ain't going away. (Common law marriage was frequent on the American frontier due to a shortage of clergy.)

Again, I don't know of any existin...

There are many similarities between same-sex marriage and common law marriages. You are free to believe, and teach your children, that both types of unions are immoral. However, civil law requires legal recognition of common law marrriages contracted in states where they are permitted, even if the couple moves to a state where they are illegal. This is a legal pecedent that already exists, but, to my knowledge, has received little attention. It means that the state has already defined some aspects of marriage - the camel's nose is in the tent and it ain't going away. (Common law marriage was frequent on the American frontier due to a shortage of clergy.)

Again, I don't know of any existing marriages that have been adversely affected by the existence of gay marriage, though there may be some. However, most of the consequences of same-sex unions will not affect people personally, but are in the legal realm - matters of inheritance, hospital visitation, insurance beneficiary status and so on. One of the few places this might affect an individual is in the case of a landlord who might refuse to rent to a gay couple (but this is already considered discriminatory in many states, married or not).

As a matter of fact, marriage wasnèt defined as a sacrament, nor was "benefit of clergy" needed until 1563 - until then, all that was required was a verbal agreement between the two partners, with no clergy or witnesses. The only ecclesiastical involvement was in registering the marriages once they had taken place, which was not a requirement. The Roman Catholic action (at the Council of trent) was a reaction to the Protestants redefining marriage as outside the secular realm. Prior to this, the only state or church involvement in weddings was among royalty and high nobility.

The Ackerman quote is from the book I mentioned. It means is that we let someone we love get away with things that we would never tolerate from a stranger, acquaintance or friend.