On Nov 13, 2008, at 1:49 AM, David Cake wrote: > Which is why civil unions granted by the state, and leaving > the sanctity of the marriage sacrament to the churches won't satisfy > any bigot. There will immediately be gay friendly churches and > religions that want to sanctify gay marriages, and once gay marriage > is made purely a religious question, it becomes clearly > unconstitutional for the state to legislate about it.
Some "bigots" say that the only issue they have is with the legal definition of 'marriage'. The question is would they accept no definition at all. It's an empirical question. > his > argument relies on the idea that there is nothing wrong with churches > wanting to impose their understanding of the sacrament of marriage on > the entire community, including non-believers and gay friendly > churches. I have no idea where you got that. You certainly can't infer it from anything I said. > The good news is, > the pro gay marriage side clearly skews hugely with demographics, so > it is probably one of those things that, if the pressure is kept up, > will inevitably fall over the line one of these decades. I agree that the current approach will work eventually. I fid that a poor argument against adopting a strategy that might work sooner. > I think > a) the idea that heterosexuals, as a class, have any common > understanding ... This is a giant straw man. I didn't day anything about "heterosexuals, as a class". Clearly some Jews and some Hopis do not believe they are a 'chosen people'. This doesn't mean that others don't have a right to hold such beliefs as long as they don't act on them outside their community. -- No matter how far you have gone on the wrong road, turn back. -Turkish proverb _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
