I have to chime in on this. I'm libertarian in my social views and very conservative in my fiscal views. On the subject of gay marriage, I support a civil union. The term marriage has too much religious baggage for many to accept.
The problem many of my friends have with the homosexual lifestyle is the free switching of partners and the apparent lack of commitment of the relationships. I personally think that giving them a civil union that has the same responsibilities and difficulty of divorce is good. It would impose a commitment that other can see. I do think that homosexual sex is wrong, but the fact that people are attracted to the same sex and wish to spend their lives together is not wrong. Russel Madere Webmaster 504.832.9835 SunShine Pages by EATEL www.sunshinepages.com -----Original Message----- From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:49 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Activist Judges (Was: Court allows Schiavo stay to expire) My fiancee and I are taking a required marriage prep class for marriage in the catholic church. In these sessions, we're told why the catholic church is against gay marriage. They argue from the basic premise that the sexual unions that result from marriage, in order to be a true reflection of god's love, must be fruitful. Any union that cannot bear children, thus, cannot be a true reflection of God's love....thus no gay marriage. Most people can easily dismiss this premise, including many catholics. All the same, the religion has every right to define THEIR sacrament of marriage however they want. But when a person argues against gay marriage on the basis of their religious beliefs, they are confusing the religious sacrament of marriage with the legal definition of marriage. While religions may require that a couple be "open to children" in order for a legitimate marriage to exist, legal institutions (states) do not, and CANNOT, impose such a restriction. As such, their arguments have no legal basis, and any continued arguments against gay marriage in this vein must be chalked up to bias or discrimination. > > Take Gay Marriage. Those against it say it say indulging Gay > tendencies is "unnatural, immoral, and wrong". Therefore, allowing > Gay's to marry should be constitutionally illegal due to this moral > problem as defined by them. > > 1.) If people are born gay then it's natural (if not then it's a choice). > 2.) If God provided for gays then it can't be immoral. > 3.) If neither 1 nor 2, then not 3. > > Insisting that "they" be the ultimate arbiters of morality is, in itself, > wrong. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:148175 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
