Homosexual marriage

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

But Rian, how does this justify imposing this belief on someone else?

I impose the exact same way you impose - by my vote. (and I only have one vote, btw - the way some people talk, you think I had a million! )

I assume you voted in the presidential election - you just imposed your belief about who is the best candidate upon those who had sincere beliefs that another person was the best. I hope you vote in the in-between elections - every time you do, you impose your belief about what is best for society on someone who has the opposite belief. Put up a sound wall on a part of the freeway, yes or no? You vote; you impose your belief on some who believe differently. Allocate more funds to the local library, yes or no? You vote; you impose. Define marriage definitions so 3 people can get married, yes or no? You vote; you impose. Broaden the discussion of origins in public schools by mandating teachers teach about faults in the Darwinian theory and allow discussions of creationism/ID and what is and isn't scientific about it, yes or no? You vote; you impose.

I honestly do not understand this objection, Count. Do you agree with what I said in the paragraphs above?

Sorry to use the loaded word "impose," but what makes it right for you to say to someone else that they cannot choose to do something that, in your opinion, goes against God's design?

I vote based on whether I think something is right or wrong. If I think it's wrong, I'll add the further consideration of is it enforceable to the point where it will be a responsible use of limited resources. I hope you use the same criteria; do you?

Clearly, if you think it goes against God's design, you will not do it, since even though you say you desire some things against God's design I'm assuming you don't do those things despite your desire.

Sadly, all too often I do

But what privileges your belief in God's design over their belief in God's design? Or mine?

And what privileges their belief in God's design over mine? Or yours? We each get one vote, and I hope we all vote responsibly.

Why should your belief that God did not design marriage for same-sex couples mean that a couple that believes God DID design it so (or a couple that believes God did not design it at all) cannot be married? Isn't it better to leave that decision to those couples? After all, if you allow your belief in God's design to trump theirs in respect to this decision for them, how does that have any more validity than, say, someone with a belief that God's design calls for slavery then imposing a slave system on a formerly free country? Or anything else motivated by what is seen as God's design?

BTW, I know many blacks are really offended by the comparison to slavery.

Is it your belief that if two people have sincere beliefs, then the least restrictive one should be chosen?

Simply put, I still fail to see a reason why your judgement (or that of anyone not involved in the relationship, myself included) should be prioritized over that of those people actually in the relationship, if they want to get married. Where is the harm?

Wouldn't you vote in polygamy issues, even if you weren't involved in a polygamous relationship? Wouldn't you vote about what age is appropriate to marry at, even if you weren't into marrying 14-year-old kids?

As to the one issue in your post I see as a clear harm point, I'll now address the issue of "demeaning."
First here, this is not a society in which one cannot have children without a good stable marriage between a man and a woman.

N.B. - aye-yi-yi, a triple negative - that took a while to figure out!!

So even if that is best (which I don't necessarily agree with), it isn't the default situation; it isn't what we should be comparing to. Is it better for a child to have a single mom and her girlfriend or two moms actually married? Is it better for a child to have two feuding parents of different genders or two loving parents of one gender?

And what of the truly loving polygamous couples that undoubtebly exist among the dysfunctional ones? Should we legislate that polygamy is fine because there exists some truly loving/good couples? Should we outlaw heterosexual marriage because there exists some truly awful couples? I just don't think that kind of reasoning is valid.

I feel those are just as legitimate potential situations. And I really think that in the modern world, the question of having two loving and MARRIED parents of whichever genders is much more important than the question of whether those parents are of the same or different genders.

And I sincerely disagree.

But to say that the one you marry (civil contract committing two people to each other in the eyes of the state, remember) has to be of the opposite gender strikes me as far more demeaning to those who are closest, sexually and/or mentally, to someone of their own gender than allowing same-sex marriage is to people of the other gender. It is saying to a gay person that they are not competent to choose who to commit themselves to; that's demeaning.

I don't think it's saying that. For example, a man who sincerely falls in love with a married woman - it's not like saying he's not competent to choose. It's just a sad fact that love doesn't always work out. There are many, many people who want to be married but are not. And the more I see of polygamous marriages, the more I think that some are truly based in love. But I will vote against making them legal because I don't think marriage should include that definition.

But allowing a gay marriage is not telling the other gender it is unnecessary. No marriage is a closed system. There is no question anywhere that both genders are necessary and important. Every person needs both genders in his or her life - but he or she also needs more than one other person in that life.

Marriage uniquely involves parenthood, and I think it's critically important to a child's best interests to have one male and one female parent. I hope there's lots of other good influences in the child's life, but marriage/parenthood is unique.

To say that one's espoused must be that other gender is demeaning for the reason I said above - it implies that the person who wrote the law is more competent to choose the gay person's mate than the gay person is. No one is proposing to uproot one gender entirely from their lives - merely not to have to MARRY that gender.

And it's demeaning to me to say that my thoughts on what should make a marriage is wrong.

One person, one (hopefully) sincere and thoughtful vote, based on what each person thinks is best for the society in which they live.

Very good post, Count - I just truly do not understand your "imposing" issue. Hopefully my comments will bring you over to how I see it! If not, perhaps you can try explaining it to me again. I really try to see and understand what you write

[Count Comfect]

Rian - I'll come back to it in more detail, because I don't have very long right now. But here's my imposing issue, in brief:

Making a law that prevents someone from doing something OR, conversely, requires them TO do something is an imposition. There are justifications for impositions; harm is the primary one, if not the only one. But that is an imposition.

If I make a law that allows something but does not require it, that is not an imposition.

So if there is a law that says "a man and a woman may marry, and take on X responsibilities in return for Y rights" that is no imposition.

But if it says that "two people of the same gender may NOT marry, etc., while a man and a woman may," that is preventing homosexual couples from doing what heterosexual couples do, and it would require a justification for the imposition.

This is because I believe that individual freedom of action is paramount. To prevent someone from doing something or require them to do it limits that freedom of action and must therefore be justified.

So while you feel you are not "imposing" because you are merely using your vote, which we all have, as you see fit, I see the law you are (hypothetically) voting for against gay marriage as an imposition, preventing gays from marrying, whereas the law I would be (hypothetically) voting for that allows gay marriage as no imposition, because it neither requires nor prevents.

It is not you, individually, imposing on gay person X, individually, but you, the collective society, imposing on gays as a group by preventing them from doing what non-gays can.

The obvious counter to this is the belief that gays can do the same thing - they have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite gender as anyone else has. But marriage does not seem to be mostly about the gender differences* - it is about love, and sex, and companionship, and all those things... and for a gay couple, those are all there with someone of the same gender.

*And note: as above, CHILDREN and MARRIAGE are different policy issues in this society. Regardless of my triple negative

Gotta run.

[inked]

Count,

'This is because I believe that individual freedom of action is paramount. To prevent someone from doing something or require them to do it limits that freedom of action and must therefore be justified. '

It is justified by the society and history and vote. You just don't like the outcome.

Do you favor speed limits? gun laws?

[Insidious Rex]

Speed limits and gun laws are designed to PROTECT individuals within our society from undue harm. Anti gay marriage laws are not of their ilk. There is no immanent danger of direct harm to innocents as there is when some reckless twit decides to drive 150 miles an hour down main street or when some thug decides to use an illegal gun in a robbery. The question of how does gay marriage harm people has been asked again and again without any useful response. Siting ‘tradition’ over and over tells us nothing about harm. Using the bible as ones source for justifying the harm of gay marriage is useless as well.

[inked]

Beg to differ, IR,

Here's the testimony in Boston regarding gayness and parenting and marriage.

It's lengthy, but quite persuasive that there is a real difference between marriage and gay(temporary)partnering with children.

http://voteonmarriage.org/leghearing.shtml#dawn

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

Beg to differ, IR,

Here's the testimony in Boston regarding gayness and parenting and marriage.

It's lengthy, but quite persuasive that there is a real difference between marriage and gay(temporary)partnering with children.

http://voteonmarriage.org/leghearing.shtml#dawn

How ridiculous. Because one person had a messed up child hood it means the concept of gay marriage is bad?

I was traumatized by six years old in my household. I was stuttering, blacking out and having nightmares caused by molestation, physical and verbal abuse, and abandonment.

This isnt about homosexuality. Its about really bad parenting and criminal behavior. What does that have to do with homosexuality? What does that have to do with gay marriage? Its a red herring.

EVERYTHING that was said in that statement could have been said about one of any of tens of thousands of STRAIGHT households. There are countless cases of child abuse, neglect, mistreatment, abandonment, etc. Wanna a hazard a guess how many of them involved heterosexual parents?

[inked]

IR,

I meant the whole of the testimony given before the Court, not just the one account.

However, I am glad to see that you think that one account of something does not establish an absolute fact about the general state. Since the relatively few "monogamous" relationships engaged in by homosexual couples seldom last four years, and the anomalies of longer relationships are truly anomolous, you can't base a pattern of relationship on insignificant numbers of exemplars, right?

The other testimony before the court is EXTENSIVELY documented from studies. That was the primary reference. Did you look around or just hone in on the "advantages of a a gay parent" as primary custodial parent in a normative gay lifestyle? And, to be sure, there are hetero-couples who treat kids badly, but that is not the normative behaviour of those couples en masse. That's the significant difference that real marriage makes versus civil partnership pretending to be what it is not and can never be.

Heather may have two mommies and Sandy may have two daddies, but to be sure Heather and Sandy both ahve a mother and a father somewhere. What Heather and Sandy don't have are married parents.

[Count Comfect]

Inked - gun laws and speed limits have very nice, clear harm justifications. I'd rather not be shot or hit at 75 mph, wouldn't you?

A justification for an imposition is not "it has been around a long time" or even "we voted for it," unless "we" is unanimous. A justification for an imposition is something like "it is harmful to person X" or "person Y will be unable to do good thing Z because of it." I felt I made this very clear in my previous post.

[inked]

Count,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../03/ngay03.xml

Gay equality law will undermine religious belief, claims bishop
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
(Filed: 03/06/2006)



Hotels and bed and breakfasts could face prosecution for turning away homosexual couples under new government proposals to protect gays and lesbians from being denied "goods, facilities and services" because of their sexual orientation.

The proposed regulations, which could also affect shops that refuse to offer wedding lists for same-sex couples, are being introduced after complaints of discrimination by the homosexuals.


Lord Mackay of Clashfern
The proposals were attacked yesterday by a former Lord Chancellor and a senior Church of England bishop, who warned that they would hit Christian businesses, charities and faith schools.

The Sexual Orientation (Provision of Goods and Services) Regulations, which are out for public consultation until Monday, will make discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation illegal in the same way as race or gender.

They could affect schools that are accused of failing to deal with homophobic bullying as they would other bullying, or golf clubs that turn down applications for membership on the grounds that the applicants are gay. But Lord Mackay of Clashfern and the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, said in a statement issued by the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship that the proposals could also undermine people's rights to exercise their religious beliefs.

The fellowship said that while churches might be granted exemptions, the new legislation could have a detrimental impact on a wide range of religious individuals and organisations.

For example, it claimed, teachers could fall foul of the law if they failed to promote events such as gay and lesbian month or did not give homosexuality equal prominence in lessons to heterosexuality.

It also warned that, under the new regulations, it could become illegal for Christian conference and retreat centres to refuse bookings from gay and lesbian groups, or for Christian hostels to refuse beds to same-sex couples.

Lord Mackay said: "For people of religious faith who believe that the practice of homosexuality is wrong, these proposals seem to me to carry a serious threat to their freedom in their voluntary and charitable work and in relation to earning their livelihood in a number of occupations."

Bishop Nazir-Ali said several of the main faiths in Britain would have "serious difficulty" with the regulations. "They will certainly affect a great deal of charitable work done by the churches and others. It is the poor and disadvantaged who will be the losers."

Rupert Kaye, the chief executive of the Association of Christian Teachers, said: "Diverse individuals and organisations should be free to agree to disagree. They should not be required by law to show 'mutual respect' to individuals or organisations whose beliefs or lifestyle are anathema."

Senior Muslims were also critical. Dr Majid Katme, the spokesman for the Islamic Medical Association, argued that the proposals demonstrated that the Government was prepared to discriminate against faith communities in order to promote "equality".

"The right to hold deep faith convictions that affect the way people think and behave in every aspect of life is sacrificed in these regulations," he said.

The proposals were broadly welcomed by the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, which said it strongly agreed with the Government's aim to respect "the dignity and worth of each person".

It said Christian groups that were calling for wholesale exemptions were attempting to sabotage the central purpose of the proposals


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




Try this lengthy legal response about impositions due to alleged discrimination...

Really long, really detailed, really practical stuff...

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=316


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is really absurd to try to hold that it makes no difference to falsely establish gay couples relationships as marriage. The above make it very plain that it is the intent of <2% of the population to hold 98% in absolute bondage to their error by force of law. They don't want equality, they want control.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by inked

Gay equality law will undermine religious belief

Here's hoping.

But no, it is far more important to preserve the right of belief-based groups to discriminate against gays than it is to establish the right of gays to not suffer such discrimination, clearly.

[inked]

It's not really about what Tom and Johan or Lilac and Rosebud do in the bedroom at all. It's about undermining society to promote an agenda to cravenly yield to </= 2% of the population at best.

The point is not equality. It's control. But if you think the tail should wag the dog, happy wagging. On the other hand, if you think the population should vote and the majority rule, happy complaining.

Isn't this the "tails I win, heads you lose" argument. Name the benefits that accrue to society on the basis of the approval of gay "marriage". Name the destructive effects. Put them in the balance and weigh.

Is it worth it?

Or, is there a need for promoting social functioning that supercedes individual expression?

[The Gaffer]

No, it's equality. Where is the evidence of harm?

[inked]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

No, it's equality. Where is the evidence of harm?

Getting equal? http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=324

Mandatory homosexual curriculum :http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06060101.html


Highjacking Civil Rights http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...2/285fhdqe.asp

The Netherlands and family http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...QwZWNjYzkzYjg=

It ain't the Bedroom at Disney World http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...02/199804.html

*******

"• A Christian high school in Wildomar, Calif., is being sued for expelling two students on suspicion of being lesbian. The parents' suit claims that the school is a business under state civil rights law, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

• Catholic Charities in Boston, where same-sex marriage is legal, recently shuttered its adoption agency rather than serve gay and lesbian couples in conflict with church teaching. The church's request for a religious waiver from state antidiscrimination rules has made no headway.

• Christian clubs at several universities are fighting to maintain school recognition while restricting their leadership to those who conform to their beliefs on homosexuality.

Meanwhile, the Christian Legal Society and similar groups are mounting a national effort to challenge antidiscrimination policies in court, claiming they end up discriminating against conservative Christians.

"The fight over same-sex marriage - and two very different conceptions of the ordering of society - will be a knock-down, drag-out battle," predicts Marc Stern, a religious liberty attorney at the American Jewish Congress."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0601/p13s01-lign.htm

*********

limiting free speech: http://www.marriagedebate.com/2006/0...manonymous.htm

************

Three for you and you for Three.....

Three's Tyranny?
The legal and cultural issues of polygamy and polyamory are taken up in two very different magazines of late, the gay weekly The Advocate and the neo-conservative Weekly Standard. While the Advocate is boldly open to legally recognized pseudo-polygamous unions as part of the new order, the Standard argues that the move toward polygamy and polyamory (in legal briefs and culturally in such developments as HBO's Big Love television broadcast) represents a threat not just to traditional marriage but to democracy itself.

The Advocate considers how much visibility to give to polyamory in the marriage debate, given the ways in which the very mention of a more-than-two marriage seems to confirm all their opponents fears:

“There is a feeling of not wanting to allow the right wing to change the subject from the question that is really being asked, which is, What reason does the government have for denying committed same-sex couples the legal commitment of marriage?” says Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, which seeks equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. “Because the Right doesn’t have the answer to that question, they are eager to change the subject.”

While there are grassroots efforts by straight people to legalize polygamy, there has been no noteworthy effort by LGBT activists to bring polyamory into the fight for marriage equality. “We’ve been very involved in work for same-sex marriage rights,” says Chvany. “Even if we aren’t interested in using them ourselves, they are important to our community as a whole and to people we care about.”

In the Weekly Standard, Stanley Kurtz writes:

Far from offering a democratic solution to the problem of multipartner unions, egalitarian polyamory simply reveals another face of the polygamy dilemma. It is inherently difficult to keep multipartner unions together. The traditional solution is to rely on rules, clear lines of authority, the suppression of emotion, and a sense of obligation to kin. Collective solidarity is the material and spiritual payoff for all the sacrifice. Yet the polyamorists cultivate love, resist authority, dispense with organizational rules, and try to wish jealousy away. Once all the stability-inducing sacrifices have been dispensed with, impermanence is the inevitable result.

Polyamory is a cover-all term for a bewildering variety of relationship forms--everything from open marriage, to bisexual triads, to a man with multiple women, to a woman with multiple men, to large sexual groups, and many more. The "rules" governing these arrangements are entirely flexible. There might be three "primary" partners who actually live together, and several additional "secondary" partners (collectively shared or not) to whom the three "primaries" are less committed. The levels of commitment, and the range of partnership and mutual involvement, are subject to continual change and renegotiation. Open and honest communication is the only rule. Polyamorists emphasize that multipartner unions take intense and constant work. Yet this need for a higher level of monitoring and negotiation only highlights the forces pushing against stability.

The contrast between postmodern polyamory and the patriarchal polygamy of Muslim fundamentalists resembles the nineteenth-century duality of "free love" and Mormon polygamy. Mormon plural unions were authoritarian and relatively stable (although even in the nineteenth century they had very high divorce rates). The free love experiments nearly all collapsed after a few short months or years, although new experiments were generated continually for decades. That record of instability was repeated when the hippie communes of the 1960s and 70s fell apart.

This might not matter were it not for the problem of children. Family stability is highly desirable for children. Not only would legally recognized polyamory be unstable, but the legitimization of polyamory would also be incompatible with one of our core reasons for giving marriage the backing of law at all: to reinforce monogamy as a cultural value.

You can't send the message that marriage means fidelity when even a small portion of recognized marriages are polyamorous. The reliance of Western marriage systems on monogamous companionate love for stability is all but ignored by the advocates of polyamory, who have little or nothing to say about children. Over and above prevention of individual abuses, protection of the broader cultural ethos of monogamy is the reason both polygamy and polyamory must go unrecognized in America. Democratic culture depends on monogamous marriage. The alternatives are either too authoritarian to be adapted to our society or so hyper-individualist that they cannot perform the work of families. And recognition of either alternative would undermine the monogamy on which the stability of American marriage depends.
http://merecomments.typepad.com/mere..._tyranny_.html

Societal dissing for equality? Equally unhappy or what?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

Since the relatively few "monogamous" relationships engaged in by homosexual couples seldom last four years

Hey inked. Since we don’t ALLOW gay marriage you cant compare heterosexual marriage to homosexual marriage. And when you look at places where gay marriage exists you see no such data nor do you see societies imploding and turning into hedonistic anarchies like you would suggest.

And, to be sure, there are hetero-couples who treat kids badly, but that is not the normative behaviour of those couples en masse.

Are you suggesting that homosexuals as a rule treat kids badly “en mass”? That’s a condemnation even extreme for your rhetoric. The fact is, we live in a ‘heterosexual couple’ society where we have 50%+ divorce rates and kids suffer quite nicely thanks to the heterosexual parents ability to take marriage quite lightly. So the very notion that you would condemn ALL gay marriages as toxic for children because of the possibility of divorce and instability is the height of bigotry and inconsistency and a nice example of true double speak: we need to stop the gays because they might end up doing exactly what we do and that could hurt the children!

What Heather and Sandy don't have are married parents.

You know the sad thing is that you are hell bent on constantly promoting the concept of gay marriage as some kind of abomination and by definition an abuse of children which of course reinforces that notion IN our society that in turn makes kids in that situation that much more of a pariah and that much more likely to be psychologically effected by the prejudices of current society. So for someone who preaches so loudly about not hurting the kids, you sure are happy to keep them in a disadvantaged position if it serves your purposes of being able to say “See! They suffer! Because they know they live in a sick household!”. Well how bout doing the Christian thing and instead trying to make their lives better by accepting the families they live in rather then rejecting them “en mass”.

[The Gaffer]

Because hating gays is more of an absolute than loving thy neighbour, clearly.

Funny how the god-botherers are all ant-relativism except when it doesn't suit their prejudices and/or impulses.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Hey inked. Since we don’t ALLOW gay marriage you cant compare heterosexual marriage to homosexual marriage. And when you look at places where gay marriage exists you see no such data nor do you see societies imploding and turning into hedonistic anarchies like you would suggest.

Like the Netherlands, right?

[inked]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Because hating gays is more of an absolute than loving thy neighbour, clearly.

Funny how the god-botherers are all ant-relativism except when it doesn't suit their prejudices and/or impulses.

Easier to badmouth than to answer specific harms, Gaffer? I really thought you would respond to the suggested harms rather more individually.

I find that the rhetoric turns to "hate-mongering" accusations anytime anyone suggests - with data, too - that the rosy world view that gay=homosexual is somehow not = gay in the sense of happy. But the realities are otherwise.

That's not hate. It's fact. And I don't think society should suffer for the sake of <2% as it in fact suffers. But check out the links and let me know when you think specifically about the data.

[The Gaffer]

OK inked, but I thought you had a good understanding of what constitutes data:

Link No 1: opinion, not data. The only data in there is your 2% gay / 70% religious. I don't claim to know how many gays there are, but I do know that around a million people regularly attend Anglican churches in the UK (pop: 60 million), which is far less than 70%. So, clear evidence of bias there.

Link No 2: appears to be about education. No data as such, just some rant about not being able to opt out of the curricullum. The main complaint seems to be that teachers will have to talk about homosexuality positively. Again, not data, just op-ed.

Link No 3: attacks the parallel between gay rights and civil rights movements, based on the premise that being gay is about "desires and preferences" not about immutable characteristics. So, not data, assertion.

* sigh *

Link No 4: tries to link gay marriage to "out-of-wedlock" birthrate, which shows a staggering ignorance of biology and a truly mind-boggling logical gynmastic. It also doesn't report any data, merely asserting a "spike" in birthrate. And this is the argument that is being trotted out around the world? Thanks for further proof that the objectives of evangelicals is to drag society back into the dark ages.

Link No 5: "cultural degradation", "hordes of extroverted homosexuals" crawling all over Disneyland. Interesting how they say:

Of course, homosexuality is not the most insidious of social trends that undermine the continuity of the traditional family -- the essential governing unit and innate building block of natural society. That unfortunate distinction is reserved for those who divorce -- particularly men who abandon their responsibility as husbands and fathers.

So why aren't they lobbying for the abolition of divorce? I'll tell you why: because nobody would listen to them. Gays, being a minority, give them a perfect target which either feeds upon the existing prejudices of the majority or which the majority can ignore because it doesn't affect them.

OK, that's enough. I have all the data I need.

Evangelical God-botherers are a nasty (Link 5), pernicious (3-5) and psychologically unbalanced (4) group who place greater value on imposing their own moral template on society than on loving their fellow man.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Like the Netherlands, right?

*sniggers* If you intend to imply that the Netherlands are the scene of imploding societies and hedonism you may have been reading too much of Inked's links than is good for you.

There's a lot that can be said about the Netherlands, but not that.

[Nurvingiel]

The Nethelands is awesome! I met some very lovely Dutch people when I was on exchange. <sarcasm> Clearly they managed to turn out okay despite their society falling apart around them.</sarcasm>

Also, who's talking about hedonism here?

he·don·ism n.

1. Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses.

2. Philosophy. The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good.

3. Psychology. The doctrine holding that behavior is motivated by the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

This philosophy has nothing to do with gay marriage! I mean, this is the gay marriage thread right? I forgot where I was for the moment.