Easy, buddy. I'm one of the only friends you've got here .
But all kidding aside, I've explained myself to you earlier on this matter, on the board an in pms as well. I don't "support" it as much as I just don't give a shit, and here's why (again):
If you go by the letter of the law of the Catholic Church (of which I'm a member), City Hall "marriages" aren't real marriages anyway. Now if my neighbor Joe married his wife Nancy at City Hall twenty years ago, and we've been friends for the last ten, and their "marriage" (or lack thereof) doesn't offend me, then why should a City sponsored marriage between a gay couple bother me? Neither is recongnized by the Church, so it's no skin off my apple. I'm just trying to be consistent.
And if they're entitiled to Government benefits, then they should get them. You're still a pretty young guy and I hope you've enjoyed good health. But you have no idea what a simple battle with a more than serious disease can do to a bank account. If a gay couple being married makes one of them eligible for the other's health insurance, that ain't a bad thing in my opinion.
As far as the morality of it all: I'm not going to preach eternal damnation on a message board any more than I'm going to get in my car, drive to the South Bronx, and preach peace and love to teenaged gangbangers. In short, it ain't none of my fucking business. It's between them and God. And I've used this one before but I'll use it again anyway: To paraphrase David Puddy, "They're the ones going to hell, not me."
It wasn't my intention to call you out or anything, PB. I suppose I just assumed that, if the issue is important enough that the Catholic church worked against gay marriage, it would matter to you.
Originally Posted By: Frank_Nitti
@IvyLeague - Klydon's not spouting legal mumbo jumbo on polygamy, he's expanding on exactly what I said in post #722805--it's not possible to share marital rights and responsibilities equally between more than 2 people. No amount of covering your ears and burying your head in the sand changes this. The only ones arguing the polygamy point are people from Utah or those searching for a diversion via a straw man argument.
We can't and won't base our laws on what "God" supposedly said, that's insane. God has said, or has been interpretated to have said, a lot of things which simply don't hold up in the modern world. Being a creationist and a follower of institutionalized religion are NOT dependant concepts. I'm a creationist because my natural intuition and study of science leads me to it. No religion has the institutional right to tell anyone they've actually spoken to and speak for this creator, though. Atleast not in this country they don't.
What I'm saying, at least in relation to klydon, is that he can't argue against polygamy based on the interest of the state while, at the same time, arguing that gay marriage doesn't hurt the interest of the state. The best family unit is the most natural one that has been in place, as the building block of society, for millenia - father, mother, children. You can argue that polygamy shouldn't be allowed because it doesn't meet that criteria but you can't then turn right around and argue for gay marriage. It's entirely inconsistent and dishonest. It shows the hypocrisy of some supporters of gay marriage on this issue and how - as much as they espouse them - the Constitution, equal rights, equal protection, etc. doesn't mean a hill of beans to them. It's all about their agenda.
Last edited by IvyLeague; 06/28/1306:16 PM.
Mods should mind their own business and leave poster's profile signatures alone.
.
