Without Shaytans Alchemy Gay couples Would be child-less and extinct within A generation.
Patience
Patience
The Gay Fray
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
If he's worth his salt (or, if he's from Arrakis, water) as a good Big Business Republican, hopefully he's invested in the cash cow of anti-retroviral pharmaceuticals. I hear they've been making a killing for many years...
And on the subject of how dangerous homosexuality is, I came across a new twist to the tired "If everyone was a homosexual, the human race would go extinct" dilemma. Someone suggested, try answering it with something like "What if everyone in the world was Mother Theresa?" Or insert some other celibate person, like nuns in general or what have you.
If homosexuality is inherently wrong for not procreating (which is not entirely the case anyway), then nuns, monks, priests (yikes?) or anyone else who take a vow of celibacy are also inherently wrong.
Another suggestion that I have also thought of myself but in a different context other than homosexuality: if everyone was a medical doctor, who would collect the trash? Who would build houses or pave roads?
Of course, a doctor could do those things in his spare time, but anyway...
Wow. Such timing!
If he's worth his salt (or, if he's from Arrakis, water) as a good Big Business Republican, hopefully he's invested in the cash cow of anti-retroviral pharmaceuticals. I hear they've been making a killing for many years...
A government subsidized killing, at that.
In a communal, hunter-gatherer band..everyone shares genes.
All of them are pretty closely related.
Hunter-gatherer peoples have to work to remain in positive caloric balance...whan you throw in women nursing infants, it can get hairy.
A hunter-gatherer woman's caloric intake is such that she can only nurse one child at a time, if she's lucky. If not lucky, she starves and dries up. The child dies.
The quality of the diet is such that the baby may need to nurse up to the age of four. Plenty of time for a drought or hard winter to hit the band.
This is why hunter-gatherers pretty much remain at replacement value: each two adults has two children who make it to adulthood.
Gay people are men and women who are still going to hunt, going to gather...but not add any more children to feed.
And they share genes with the reproducing people around them. Meaning that they still promote their own genetics, just not as directly. They improve reproductive success for the people around them-who are all their brothers, sisters, first cousins, etc.
My suspicion? Gayness only became "wrong" when we invented agriculture, because, by golly, you had better get out there and make babies to work the land for the tribe. Not to mention fight that other tribe over there who has the better land, because we want it.
It was only then that the lack of babymaking became a societal negative, rather than a positive.
And I'm afraid that's why homosexuality was declared sinful...or at least my best guess of why.
Well, now the planet has too many people on it for comfort. Especially as I (and hopefully others) consider it our responsibility to leave space for other creatures to exist.
So it has become a societal negative to have over replacement value; in fact we ought to have less.
All of them are pretty closely related.
Hunter-gatherer peoples have to work to remain in positive caloric balance...whan you throw in women nursing infants, it can get hairy.
A hunter-gatherer woman's caloric intake is such that she can only nurse one child at a time, if she's lucky. If not lucky, she starves and dries up. The child dies.
The quality of the diet is such that the baby may need to nurse up to the age of four. Plenty of time for a drought or hard winter to hit the band.
This is why hunter-gatherers pretty much remain at replacement value: each two adults has two children who make it to adulthood.
Gay people are men and women who are still going to hunt, going to gather...but not add any more children to feed.
And they share genes with the reproducing people around them. Meaning that they still promote their own genetics, just not as directly. They improve reproductive success for the people around them-who are all their brothers, sisters, first cousins, etc.
My suspicion? Gayness only became "wrong" when we invented agriculture, because, by golly, you had better get out there and make babies to work the land for the tribe. Not to mention fight that other tribe over there who has the better land, because we want it.
It was only then that the lack of babymaking became a societal negative, rather than a positive.
And I'm afraid that's why homosexuality was declared sinful...or at least my best guess of why.
Well, now the planet has too many people on it for comfort. Especially as I (and hopefully others) consider it our responsibility to leave space for other creatures to exist.
So it has become a societal negative to have over replacement value; in fact we ought to have less.
Somethin' else to think about ....
It's a question I haven't raised in a while, but on the subject of homosexuals not procreating, and thus not being fit for marriage ....
Well, I'm adopted. The woman I call "Mother" has never been able to bear children of her own, owing to uterine cysts that eventually demanded hysterectomy.
And if procreation is the purpose of marriage—e.g., the context in which the question first arose—should she be allowed to marry? I mean, even heterosexually?
And what about the elderly? I assure you, my grandfather's third wife was, without question, beyond reproductive viability on their wedding day.
Giambattista said:
It's a question I haven't raised in a while, but on the subject of homosexuals not procreating, and thus not being fit for marriage ....
Well, I'm adopted. The woman I call "Mother" has never been able to bear children of her own, owing to uterine cysts that eventually demanded hysterectomy.
And if procreation is the purpose of marriage—e.g., the context in which the question first arose—should she be allowed to marry? I mean, even heterosexually?
And what about the elderly? I assure you, my grandfather's third wife was, without question, beyond reproductive viability on their wedding day.
You can't In-Directly continue your seed, faced with the fact that Gay people are exactly the opposite of natures aim to Unite and Reproduce.
Question:
Alpha- What would happen to the human race if everyone was homosexual 3000 years ago?.
(Insert answer here)
Peace.
Trans-Sexual..... ?
Could you define the Sex at Birth of this So called Trans-Sexual?. :bugeye:
Peace.
Danzig at Sparta
Well, there are two possible answers:
To the first, it seems to me that if everyone was homosexual, it wouldn't happen spontaneously. Rather, we would see it happening over the course of generations.
To the second, though, nature does provide. There is a somewhat viable theory suggesting that as humanity transformed from nomadic to sedentary societies, one of the first things people did was look around and figure out what got them high.
Three thousand years ago, between hemp, ergot, coca, alcohol, and other mind-altering substances, men and women would have gotten to the mess-around eventually.
Hell, I recall once seeing Central American pottery that depicted a high priest receiving an hallucinogenic enema.
To a third, one might wonder what would happen to the human race if we didn't engage in recreational sex. I mean, quite clearly, even celibacy doesn't eliminate sex drive. So people would probably be reproducing a lot more.
The Eurotas would have been a boneyard instead of a river.
EmptyForceOfChi said:
Well, there are two possible answers:
(1) The species would fail to adapt to necessity and disappear.
(2) Nature would provide.
(2) Nature would provide.
To the first, it seems to me that if everyone was homosexual, it wouldn't happen spontaneously. Rather, we would see it happening over the course of generations.
To the second, though, nature does provide. There is a somewhat viable theory suggesting that as humanity transformed from nomadic to sedentary societies, one of the first things people did was look around and figure out what got them high.
Three thousand years ago, between hemp, ergot, coca, alcohol, and other mind-altering substances, men and women would have gotten to the mess-around eventually.
Hell, I recall once seeing Central American pottery that depicted a high priest receiving an hallucinogenic enema.
To a third, one might wonder what would happen to the human race if we didn't engage in recreational sex. I mean, quite clearly, even celibacy doesn't eliminate sex drive. So people would probably be reproducing a lot more.
The Eurotas would have been a boneyard instead of a river.
I got something to say:
I killed your baby today.
And it doesn't matter that much to me
As long as it's dead.
—The Misfits
I killed your baby today.
And it doesn't matter that much to me
As long as it's dead.
—The Misfits
Oops. Call Fred Phelps?
Well, the conservative Christians (or other religions) rarely ever take their simplistic notions of nature's imperative to the obvious conclusion. They only take it to the level where the people they dislike the most are prohibited.
EmptyForceOfChi said:
Uh. Unrealistic hypothetical situation.
If I may repeat myself, what if everyone had taken a vow of celibacy for religious or spiritual reasons? If people are wrong for doing that, or sexually active heterosexuals who practice birth control are also wrong, then why is it only the burden of two persons who can't, by the nature of their relationship, reproduce, is it suddenly wrong?
I can't reproduce with people I don't have sexual relationships with. Are those relationships wrong because they don't lead to procreation? Should all my friendships and acquaintances lead to reproducing the human race, since that is apparently the end that I am required to fulfill? Please explain.
Should I strive to be like most male species in the lower animal world: spreading my seed as often as possible with as many females as possible?
Why, even human males do this! And very well.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
This argument can easily be turned around on you why is it that sexualtiy has to be brought into friendships and acquaintances that should not be sexual.
He Said, She Said
He Said, She Said
Either way ....
Last week, sex advice columnist Dan Savage issued a "Choicer Challenge" to homophobes:
Earlier today he posted a response from a lesbian who protested the underlying premise of the Choicer Challenge:
As far as I know, Mr. Savage has received no response from Mr. Cummins.
____________________
Notes:
Savage, Dan. "Choicer Challenge". The Stranger. May 25, 2011. TheStranger.com. June 2, 2011. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=8308624
—————. "A Pro-Choice Lesbian". Slog. June 2, 2011. Slog.TheStranger.com. June 2, 2011. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/06/02/a-pro-choice-lesbian
He Said, She Said
Either way ....
Last week, sex advice columnist Dan Savage issued a "Choicer Challenge" to homophobes:
Last week, the leader of British Columbia's Conservative Party, John Cummins, told a radio interviewer that gay people shouldn't be covered by the BC Human Rights Act because being gay is "a conscious choice."
Like truthers (9/11 was an inside job!), birthers (Barack Obama was born in Kenya!), and deathers (Osama bin Laden is alive and well and living in West Hollywood!), choicers would appear to be just another group of deranged conspiracy theorists who can't be dissuaded by science or evidence or facts. And John Cummins isn't the only choicer out there. We have lots of choicers right here in the United States (Tony Perkins, Rick Santorum, "Stephen Colbert," et al.).
But what if the choicers are right? What if being gay is something people consciously choose? Gee, if only there were a way for choicers to prove that they're right and everyone else is wrong... actually, there is a way for choicers to prove that they're right!
I hereby publicly invite—I publicly challenge—John Cummins to prove that being gay is a choice by choosing it himself.
Suck my dick, John.
Like truthers (9/11 was an inside job!), birthers (Barack Obama was born in Kenya!), and deathers (Osama bin Laden is alive and well and living in West Hollywood!), choicers would appear to be just another group of deranged conspiracy theorists who can't be dissuaded by science or evidence or facts. And John Cummins isn't the only choicer out there. We have lots of choicers right here in the United States (Tony Perkins, Rick Santorum, "Stephen Colbert," et al.).
But what if the choicers are right? What if being gay is something people consciously choose? Gee, if only there were a way for choicers to prove that they're right and everyone else is wrong... actually, there is a way for choicers to prove that they're right!
I hereby publicly invite—I publicly challenge—John Cummins to prove that being gay is a choice by choosing it himself.
Suck my dick, John.
Earlier today he posted a response from a lesbian who protested the underlying premise of the Choicer Challenge:
I'm sure you know this, but for plenty of homos, queers, etc. there really is a choice to be made. Gay men tend to think that biology determined everything right from the very first cell division—before you were even a person—but that overlooks a lot of other people's experiences and furthermore, it overlooks how boys are socialized to follow their dicks/desires right from the beginning. You might have made a choice so long ago you think it's nature that did it for you. Or maybe there are some bio-homos out there. But as for me, I tried heterosexuality, but living in NYC in a time when "experimenting" was encouraged I realized I could choose something else. I recognized a future for myself in all the miserable magazine articles about women perpetually dissatisfied with their boyfriends, husbands, etc. and realized that I could pass on all that and still enjoy the lipstick and fashion (allegedly designed to help women attract men). I could have been another miserable straight women; instead I made the happy choice to be a lesbian. Not because I had to, but because I liked it. I highly recommend it, Mrs. Palin.
As far as I know, Mr. Savage has received no response from Mr. Cummins.
____________________
Notes:
Savage, Dan. "Choicer Challenge". The Stranger. May 25, 2011. TheStranger.com. June 2, 2011. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=8308624
—————. "A Pro-Choice Lesbian". Slog. June 2, 2011. Slog.TheStranger.com. June 2, 2011. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/06/02/a-pro-choice-lesbian
Um...
(Gee, I feel like I'm about to go for a swim in a piranha tank here...)
I ID as pansexual.
Which is to say that...yeah, I'm in a monogamous relationship...but I find people attractive irrespective of gender and naughty bits.
Male, female, both, neither. :bugeye:
The thing is...I would be required to put a higher priority on the passing opinions of others than my own happiness if I allowed what society thinks to dictate who I choose as a partner.
Do you think other people should have that power over me? I don't. I'm not giving it to them.
As for my marriage rights...since if I pick a partner with one set of genitalia it's sanctioned, and another set and there's no legal protection whatsoever...when it's the same relationship in substance... it seems terrifically arbitrary.
And I pay taxes. I should be able to get the same civil rights for my relationship, simply by virtue of paying said taxes. I don't get a second-class citizenship discount.
That's brilliant.
(Gee, I feel like I'm about to go for a swim in a piranha tank here...)
I ID as pansexual.
Which is to say that...yeah, I'm in a monogamous relationship...but I find people attractive irrespective of gender and naughty bits.
Male, female, both, neither. :bugeye:
The thing is...I would be required to put a higher priority on the passing opinions of others than my own happiness if I allowed what society thinks to dictate who I choose as a partner.
Do you think other people should have that power over me? I don't. I'm not giving it to them.
As for my marriage rights...since if I pick a partner with one set of genitalia it's sanctioned, and another set and there's no legal protection whatsoever...when it's the same relationship in substance... it seems terrifically arbitrary.
And I pay taxes. I should be able to get the same civil rights for my relationship, simply by virtue of paying said taxes. I don't get a second-class citizenship discount.
That's brilliant.
New York?
New York?
Speaker says it's down to accommodating religion
Azi Paybarah of Politcker NY reports:
Or, as Politico's Ben Smith puts it, "the terms of conservative surrender". But he also reminds that it's Albany, after all.
____________________
Notes:
Paybarah, Azi. "Amendments to Marriage Bill Taking Shape, Vote Uncertain". Politicker NY. June 22, 2011. PolitickerNY.com. June 23, 2011. http://www.politickerny.com/2011/06/22/amendments-to-marriage-bill-taking-shape-vote-uncertain/
Smith, Ben. "New York seems to be about to pass same-sex marriage, maybe". Politico. June 22, 2011. Politico.com. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensm..._be_about_to_pass_samesex_marriage_maybe.html
New York?
Speaker says it's down to accommodating religion
Azi Paybarah of Politcker NY reports:
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said he has seen the proposed changes to the same-sex marriage bill that could address Republicans demands to protect religiously affiliated organizations from discrimination lawsuits and financial penalties if they deny services to gay couples.
“They are not necessarily defined amendments,” Silver, a lawyer, said. “They would just guarantee certain religious freedoms for religious institutions.” He added, “There’s no final agreement on exact language.”
“They are not necessarily defined amendments,” Silver, a lawyer, said. “They would just guarantee certain religious freedoms for religious institutions.” He added, “There’s no final agreement on exact language.”
Or, as Politico's Ben Smith puts it, "the terms of conservative surrender". But he also reminds that it's Albany, after all.
____________________
Notes:
Paybarah, Azi. "Amendments to Marriage Bill Taking Shape, Vote Uncertain". Politicker NY. June 22, 2011. PolitickerNY.com. June 23, 2011. http://www.politickerny.com/2011/06/22/amendments-to-marriage-bill-taking-shape-vote-uncertain/
Smith, Ben. "New York seems to be about to pass same-sex marriage, maybe". Politico. June 22, 2011. Politico.com. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensm..._be_about_to_pass_samesex_marriage_maybe.html
Challenge of the Year
Challenge of the Year
Brought to you by today's sponsors, religion and homophobia
Let's just go with a quote. A challenge. A translation.
Let that ... uh ... sit for a moment.
Now let's move on to the lede:
Apparently, Fr. Torres was photographed, topless, with a handsome young seminarian with a dreamy look in his eyes that might be drugs, might be post-orgasmic satisfaction, or just a dreamy set of peepers. And now the bishop apparently wants Torres to seek reparative therapy and take an HIV test, as well as leave his pulpit.
Fr. Torres intends to take his case to Rome, and apparently challenged officials, "Let them measure my anus and see if it is dilated."
What possibledonut punch line could I contrive? This one writes itself.
____________________
Notes:
The Freethinker. "Accused of being gay, Spanish priest challenges Church to measure his anus". July 12, 2011. Freethinker.co.uk. July 14, 2011. http://freethinker.co.uk/2011/07/12...allenges-catholic-church-to-measure-his-anus/
Challenge of the Year
Brought to you by today's sponsors, religion and homophobia
Let's just go with a quote. A challenge. A translation.
Let that ... uh ... sit for a moment.
Now let's move on to the lede:
With no apparent evidence other than a photograph of Spanish priest Andrés García Torres hugging a young Cuban seminarian, the Catholic bishop of Getafe has leapt to the outrageous conclusion that there is something gay about two topless men in a warm embrace.
Apparently, Fr. Torres was photographed, topless, with a handsome young seminarian with a dreamy look in his eyes that might be drugs, might be post-orgasmic satisfaction, or just a dreamy set of peepers. And now the bishop apparently wants Torres to seek reparative therapy and take an HIV test, as well as leave his pulpit.
Fr. Torres intends to take his case to Rome, and apparently challenged officials, "Let them measure my anus and see if it is dilated."
What possible
____________________
Notes:
The Freethinker. "Accused of being gay, Spanish priest challenges Church to measure his anus". July 12, 2011. Freethinker.co.uk. July 14, 2011. http://freethinker.co.uk/2011/07/12...allenges-catholic-church-to-measure-his-anus/
Yes, the Thrill Does Wear Off a Bit
Suquamish!
Did I just hear you say, "What? Who?"
The Suquamish Tribe in Washington state became the second, after the Coquille of Oregon in 2009, to legalize same-sex marriage:
We in Washington state are always proud of our local tribes ... when they do something really cool that gets us noticed in the national news. Or, in this case, The Maddow Blog.
Sealth would be proud, we think. Hope.
____________________
Notes:
Lavin, Celeste. "Same-sex marriage unanimously approved!" The Maddow Blog. August 2, 2011. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.MSN.com. August 2, 2011. http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/02/7230890-same-sex-marriage-unanimously-approved
Suquamish!
Did I just hear you say, "What? Who?"
The Suquamish Tribe in Washington state became the second, after the Coquille of Oregon in 2009, to legalize same-sex marriage:
In March, 28-year-old Heather Purser brought up the matter in a tribal general council meeting. She proposed a council vote, which finally took place yesterday. The result? A unanimous vote in favor of same-sex marriage.
Now, as long as one spouse is an enrolled member of the tribe, same-sex couples can legally marry under Suquamish tribal law.
The Port Madison Indian Reservation is the Suquamish reservation in Washington State (which does not recognize same-sex marriage) and is home to over 6,500 people. Reservations operate as federally recognized sovereign nations, so a same-sex marriage conducted in the Suquamish Tribe is recognized just as a same-sex marriage conducted in New York state is.
(Lavin)
Now, as long as one spouse is an enrolled member of the tribe, same-sex couples can legally marry under Suquamish tribal law.
The Port Madison Indian Reservation is the Suquamish reservation in Washington State (which does not recognize same-sex marriage) and is home to over 6,500 people. Reservations operate as federally recognized sovereign nations, so a same-sex marriage conducted in the Suquamish Tribe is recognized just as a same-sex marriage conducted in New York state is.
(Lavin)
We in Washington state are always proud of our local tribes ... when they do something really cool that gets us noticed in the national news. Or, in this case, The Maddow Blog.
Sealth would be proud, we think. Hope.
____________________
Notes:
Lavin, Celeste. "Same-sex marriage unanimously approved!" The Maddow Blog. August 2, 2011. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.MSN.com. August 2, 2011. http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/02/7230890-same-sex-marriage-unanimously-approved
Faith Forward
No, it's not what you think. It's more of what you might hope for.
Apparently it's one of those stories where he turned out to be the only straight guy in a group of four. And after cutting ties with them because his Christian conscience couldn't reconcile their gayness, he heard from God, re-established contact, apologized, and moved to the Boystown neighborhood of Chicago with two of those friends. Over the years, he has become a reliable contact point to mediate between the gay and evangelical communities.
The sum effect of his work to this point seems to be increased tolerance among certain evangelical Christians, and potentially to the point that comprehension is possible. Theologian Mark Jordan, a Harvard professor, suggests, "There comes a moment when you have to shut up—you have to silence your angry conversation and submit yourselves in some way to the judgement of God."
And here he is not pointing at the homosexuals. He refers to the Christians, because the path forward is to integrate faith with understanding, so that the faithful might learn to trust God to be the Judge.
That, at least, seems to be integral to the working theory. It seems the underlying moral of the story. I could be wrong.
Source: British Broadcasting Corporation
Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15034651
Title: "Why conservative Christians flock to a Chicago gay bar", by Christopher Landau
Date: September 23, 2011
Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15034651
Title: "Why conservative Christians flock to a Chicago gay bar", by Christopher Landau
Date: September 23, 2011
No, it's not what you think. It's more of what you might hope for.
Can one man build effective bridges between evangelical Christians and Chicago's gay community?
That is the hope of Andrew Marin - who has spent the last decade living in Boystown, Chicago's officially-designated neighbourhood for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) residents.
He works to try and bring Christians and gay people together in open conversation about sexuality and spirituality - and that includes running a large-scale meeting four times a year at Roscoe's, one of America's most famous gay bars.
That is no small achievement in a culture where openly gay people and evangelical Christians have long viewed each other with suspicion.
But Andrew Marin's determination to bring polarised opposites together in dialogue has grown in ways he never imagined.
That is the hope of Andrew Marin - who has spent the last decade living in Boystown, Chicago's officially-designated neighbourhood for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) residents.
He works to try and bring Christians and gay people together in open conversation about sexuality and spirituality - and that includes running a large-scale meeting four times a year at Roscoe's, one of America's most famous gay bars.
That is no small achievement in a culture where openly gay people and evangelical Christians have long viewed each other with suspicion.
But Andrew Marin's determination to bring polarised opposites together in dialogue has grown in ways he never imagined.
Apparently it's one of those stories where he turned out to be the only straight guy in a group of four. And after cutting ties with them because his Christian conscience couldn't reconcile their gayness, he heard from God, re-established contact, apologized, and moved to the Boystown neighborhood of Chicago with two of those friends. Over the years, he has become a reliable contact point to mediate between the gay and evangelical communities.
The early years were extremely difficult, he says, as he struggled to work out whether he could reconcile his friends' sexuality with his Christian convictions.
"When I went to gay bars or events with my friends, I felt bad, because I felt that I should have been saying to people: 'You're wrong and you need to change.'"
But rather than condemning local people, he decided that he should be an open-minded Christian presence.
That decision brought with it some unexpected results - and an unanticipated nickname.
"For the first three years, everybody just called me Straighty Straighterson - because I was literally the only straight male [they met]. People would start talking to me about God and church and the Bible - people would just bring their questions to me."
So chance conversations in bars and clubs spelt the beginnings of what is now an organisation at work throughout the United States.
"When I went to gay bars or events with my friends, I felt bad, because I felt that I should have been saying to people: 'You're wrong and you need to change.'"
But rather than condemning local people, he decided that he should be an open-minded Christian presence.
That decision brought with it some unexpected results - and an unanticipated nickname.
"For the first three years, everybody just called me Straighty Straighterson - because I was literally the only straight male [they met]. People would start talking to me about God and church and the Bible - people would just bring their questions to me."
So chance conversations in bars and clubs spelt the beginnings of what is now an organisation at work throughout the United States.
The sum effect of his work to this point seems to be increased tolerance among certain evangelical Christians, and potentially to the point that comprehension is possible. Theologian Mark Jordan, a Harvard professor, suggests, "There comes a moment when you have to shut up—you have to silence your angry conversation and submit yourselves in some way to the judgement of God."
And here he is not pointing at the homosexuals. He refers to the Christians, because the path forward is to integrate faith with understanding, so that the faithful might learn to trust God to be the Judge.
That, at least, seems to be integral to the working theory. It seems the underlying moral of the story. I could be wrong.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Homosexuals, why do you care to marry? Why do you need a form from your corrupt government, who doesn't want you married in the first place to say that you are in love and married? Marriage is a union between one man and one woman, not a man, woman, and the state. If you ask for something and you get nothing you don't keep nagging until you get what you want, you take it. What I see happening is all this bottled up emotion being unleashed. Homosexuals vs. the church, church vs the Govt, people vs people. We are building a catalyst for a little social undoing, get ready.