Hatton, there's a huge political compromise when you realize that, exactly as you've said, marriage is a sacrament, not anything legally binding. The legally binding part of the whole process is the license, that license should be open to any two people that want to exercise it. The divorce process (having bee through it once already) is a dissolving of that contract, how painful it is or isn't is up to the two people involved.
"There is example after example after example where sexual relations between members of the same sex are viewed as, and I'm using a nice phrase here, "not right." I don't care what level of psychology, physiology or "feel good" science you want to put on it, that's Biblical fact." I'm gonna call ya here, could you provide chapter and verse for each example please? IMO the only verse that applies here is "Judge not lest ye be judged yourself". C. Hatton Humphrey wrote: >> One argument I've gotten in the past at this point is "well, it's just a >> term; why do you care?" And my response is always "Why do *you* care what I >> call it?" >> > > <cf_White_Russian_Warning count="Too Many"> > David, ya know I really respect you and think you're great and all... > but here's where I stand on this. > > I have NO PROBLEM with you and your partner having the same rights AND > RESPONSIBILITIES as me and my wife have, including the requirement for > a divorce in front of a civil judge (even in most divorces aren't > "civil" in the least). > > But for me, the term marriage is a sacrament, something sacred. You > can't apply logic to any level of reasoning I give... and not just > because of the warning (which is still vaid as I write this). > Marriage by religious definition is between a man and a woman. There > is example after example after example where sexual relations between > members of the same sex are viewed as, and I'm using a nice phrase > here, "not right." I don't care what level of psychology, physiology > or "feel good" science you want to put on it, that's Biblical fact. > > I've actually just erased a pretty long (and alcohol induced) rant on > a lot of things... I'll make my point then.... > > Simply put, I think that as far as the "law" goes, I think that you > and your partner *should* have the same *legal* rights as me and my > wife do. I don't undersand why your partner couldn't make decisions > for you if you were incapacitated (Yay Firefox spell-check) or take > care of your kids if you were to die. I think that you should qualify > as a "family" when it comes to medical or dental insurance. I also > think that you should be able to file taxes with the same penalties > that my wife and I currently encounter. > > And if something happens that makes you and your partner split up, I > think that you should have to go through the same hell that hetero > couples that own property, credit and even have kids together, should > have to go through. > > But I don't think that you should call it marriage. That to me is a > sacred word. Again, I can't explain it. Maybe because I come from a > broken home and am working hard to make sure that the example and > definition is set for my children. > > If that's bigotry, so be it. I stopped caring when I realized that > there was no form of political compromise on this situation, > regardless of how much I was willing to bend. > > I'm done now. Good night folks! > </cf_White_Russian_Warning> > > Hatton > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:280616 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
