I'm going to bed in absolute horror over this situation these propositions will be putting people in. I know a lot of the homosexual folks I know don't care one bit if the word marriage is tacked on to the various other labels regarding their serious, loving, magical relationships, but these propositions and bills and all aren't just about a word...
I really hope to wake up and find happier news about these propositions.. though it looks like Florida will be adding a clause to their already restrictive state constitution that defines marriage (sadly, all the benefits that go with said legalized procedure fall under the umbrella of marriage) as purely a man and a woman..
GAH! Finally people all across the country get the chance to, by popular vote, make a move toward tolerance, understanding and PROGRESS.. and what do they do?
Backwards leaping is not something that makes the country stronger.
There are 2 groups - one specific, one general - that are against same-sex marriage:
1. a certain religious group that I think wanted payback for having polygamy banned
2. assorted dysfunctional peoples who tend to rarely have successful marriages (think Jerry Springer guests)
The only good thing is that Obama and a heavily Democratic Congress should push for federal recognition of civil unions. And all the anti-gay-marriage people can make good on their word that they were never against gay people having equal rights...and support civil unions as well (yeah, I know, fat chance).
Yeah, this is the main thing harshing my squee this morning. I was expecting Arkansas, Florida, etc, but the fact that even California is now writing discrimination into its own Constitution makes me absolutely sick. FAIL, California, complete and utter FAIL.
I doubt it will be their top priority, and honestly wouldn't want it to be, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed!
I'm so glad I live in a country where gay rights and the right to marry are protected.
I really don't understand the hate.
Paula and I voted against it (defining a man & woman) here but I gotta tell ya Charlotte, the language of the proposition (using double negatives) was very confusing, and I think it stinks from on high and NOT from the citizens. If I was reading the huge sample ballots they gave out and was still confused, what do you think happened to the seniors or first-time voters?
in other news, Obama will change even more perceptions and his INCLUSION of gays in his acceptance speech spoke volumes about his follow-through.
I did not vote in favor of prop 8 because I was sickened by some of the hypocrsy regarding this proposition. I understand people want to protect traditional marriage, but recognizing same sex marriages do not put other marriages in jeopardy. Unfortunately I had a feeling it would pass because many people kept protesting in favor of it.
Thank you kerryg and SweetiePie. Your sentiments are honestly very much appreciated. It's hard, as a gay Californian in a long-term committed relationship, to not feel pretty depressed this morning, even with Obama's historic win.
I personally am fine with civil unions, as long as they have full rights attached. It will be interesting to see if the mormons and evangelical christians will fight civil union legislation at the national level, after spending months telling everyone that their opposition to same-sex marriage wasn't about hate at all.
My aunt is getting married to her girlfriend of 25 years this weekend in the Northeast, and I was really, really hoping that California would give them a little wedding present. It's so effed up that they've been together only a year less than I've been alive... and yet I not only was married first but am coming up on my 6th anniversary next spring, while they're still counting their blessings that they're able to marry at all.
I'm so sorry for you and your partner. It must be such a blow.
I'm not holding my breath, but we can hope! At the very least it will be amusing, in a depressing sort of way, to see what new excuse they come up with...
Livelonger, I am a straight Californian and am pretty depressed about this, despite Obama's win. I am disappointed in our state and, while I do understand that people voting yes have some strange, archaic, religious/moral reason for doing so, I still don't understand that reasoning at all.
The title of Prop 8 begins with "Eliminates Rights"--why would anyone vote to eliminate someone's rights???
I think a lawsuit will be filed stating that it's unconstitutional. I hope it works--I don't want this discrimination in my state.
It absolutely sucks. I don't know if anyone else saw this, but apparently the legal battles are already beginning---this may not be over yet!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/ … 471/654479
And in regard to certain religious groups being okey-dokey with civil unions, I definitely would not hold my breath! With all the joy of last night, I am just so sad that this happened. How absolutely backwards....
Is it that bad?
You have to see the whole thing though Don't want to go seriously off-top and post a link here, just find a neighbor thread that points there
Glad you found some time to stop by Why don't you start a thread/hub telling us how you are doing nowadays?
I hear you. Pretty sad. Two steps forward, one step back for freedom I guess. I'm not even gay and I ended up writing a hub on this out of pure frustration just now. I want my country to be the beacon of freedom, not the beacon of semi-freedom.
My prop 8 hub on irony in Ca.
ARGHHH! I echo everyone's sentiments here. Bittersweet - is that the word we should be using about this whole thing?
No marriage in Arizona, California and Florida and against the law to adopt children in Arkansas, what's a short Jewish gay man who has been in a twenty year committed monogamous relationship with a six foot black former altar boy supposed to do?
Hope...and write a hub...
http://hubpages.com/hub/Gays--Dont-Lets … -The-Stars
Thank the priest!
The groups claiming they are not against the rights of civil unions will mount another attack. They will say what they need to for any given situation, and will quickly adapt their attack to new circumstances. They'll find new objections, whatever suits their objective (to instill their religion and beliefs on everybody else) regardless of what they said yesterday. It's sad but true.
It's good to know I'm not the only straight person who's depressed about Prop 8 being passed today. I live in California, and I'm a straight ally, so I really pushed to get people to look at 8 ethically and vote no on it. Luckily there are already lawsuits being filed in regards to this unconstitutional law, and with a little more luck, I'm sure this discriminatory legislation will be overturned. There was only a 4% difference between the yeses and the nos.
Proud to be an American, ashamed to be a Californian.
Prop. 8 is headed for the courts and, I believe and hope, extinction. Which does not reduce the shame one bit.
Not only did CA vote for the Prop but FL voters voted against Amendment 2, which wasn't only for the GLBT Community but also for anyone who is lifelong partners that aren't married.
This country needs to WAKE UP and take heed to the men and women that strive day in and day out to keep us FREE and PROTECTED. Hopefully, President Obama will repeal the DONT ASK DONT TELL policy in the Military and then work on the individual states that have passed these hastly laws.
This is bad news, this "amendment" should be overturned.
The same kind of person that supported slavery was the same kind of person that denied woman's voting rights was the same kind of person that seriously hurt black people out of fear was the same kind of person that supported popular Anti-Semitism before WWII was the same kind of person that fought MLK and Malcom X was the same kind of person that instilled fear and hatred about gays and was the same kind of person that spouts anti-Islamic rhetoric under the guise of "Anti Islamic Extremism" was the same kind of person who now votes for these things.
These people won't learn, ever.
They suffer from what Martin Luther King called "conscientious stupidity".
Call me naive, but I was shocked that Prop 8 passed. I know so many people who don't support it that I fooled myself into thinking that's how most people felt. Yes, there are a lot of lawsuits lined up right now, but Prop 8 has many barriers, including people's fear, which is much more powerful than logic and law.
Thanks for starting this topic!
I was sad to read that there had been so much hate aimed at religious groups in California - children intimidated at school, property damaged, web sites hacked etc. It's a great thing to live in a country where you can seek to persuade others freely, and it's ugly to see hate whatever the position you took or take on Proposition 8.
It's sad also that some individuals and groups cannot seem to disassociate belief from hate. Just because one person believes homosexuality is wrong does not mean that person hates homosexuals or considers them as not possessing every inherent right of man - and just because another believes homosexuality is acceptable does not mean he hates those who differ in that view.
Being ignorant and unkind toward those we judge to be ignorant or unkind will not solve anything. Even if two wrongs, they won't make a right.
One thing that is often forgotten is that had Proposition 8 failed there would have been consequences - legal consequences - that would have infringed upon the free exercise of rights of parents, children, ministers, etc. The threat all along was never to homosexuals.
Lost me with this bit. What would the legal consequences that would have infringed on the rights of parents, children and ministers been?
Unfortunately, it's true that religious groups have probably overstepped their bounds in campaigning so aggressively to have a fundamental right taken away from same-sex couples. You point out the most aggressive anti-8 behavior, but what you've overlooked is that millions of Americans - a number that is, no doubt, growing every day - look at religious groups differently now, in a more negative light.
Before, people strongly believed that religious groups should be left alone. Now, you hear more and more that they need to be reined in, have their tax-exempt status repealed, etc. I'm not talking about activists - I'm talking about regular people that are alarmed at how churches have insisted that our founding document, the California Constitution, be amended to take away rights from a minority, at the behest of religious groups' beliefs. It's a bit of a Pandora's Box that the Christianists themselves opened.
Misty Irons, a conservative Christian scholar, wrote about this in depth here. (I don't know her, and have no financial stake in her writing, so please don't snip the link!)
That was a good article. I clicked the link just to skim it and ended up reading it all.
Wow, that article is AMAZING. Finally a piece of work put together by a conservative christian that isn't a quivering, vindictive, sadistic, fascistic, idiot.
If Misty Irons is a conservative Christian, then the definitions of both words (Conservative & Christian) have been turned completely upside down. It is neither conservative nor Christian.
Interestingly, what Irons advocates is making the standard for Christian action and thought the preservation of a Christian's civil rights (the free exercise of religion).
Can you imagine Jesus changing His message for the sake of ensuring that Caesar would continue to allow Him to spread His message.
If that's the standard, then it comes down to what the most pressing civil right is at any given time. A Child of God should simply conform to the cultural pressure and align himself to the current thought and action of the day. It's nothing more than being ruled by cultural consensus, something the original followers of Jesus knew nothing about.
But surely Jesus was the original civil rights activist?
The original civil rights activist would have been Abel. He was the prototype of Jesus.
Did you even read it? All the way through? She didn't in any way shape or form even begin to suggest that Christians should change "His message." Frankly, I am completely perplexed how you could pull an inane idea like that out of her carefully written and meticulous article.
This response is so glaringly typical of religious zeal overwhelming the capacity for rational discourse or even critical reading ability that I could not have hand-picked a better example had I searched for a month.
Not only did she NOT advocate changing "His message," she did not advocate that Christians should "align themselves to current thought or action of the day." You're suggesting that to allow gays to get married is to be interpreted as mandating that Christians become homosexual too... THAT would be aligning themslves to action of the day. You completely missed (ignored) the entire point of "rendering unto Caesar" as she clearly wrote it to mean.
The act of not dictating how other people - NON-Christians mind you in many cases and therefore not ruled by your particular choice of religion - does not equate to "aligning yourself" to the thoughts or actions of others. In fact, Irons is scrupulous in her use of words like "tolerance" (which is insulting in its own right - who wants to be tolerated? I mean, we tolerate things we can't do anything about, like ants at our picnic or the smell of sewage blowing on the wind... so, unless you want to admit that outloud, I'll drop it and say that I digress). So, by using words like tolerance she imparts the notion of difference coexisting rather than difference being regulated by a dictatory majority.
I'm not saying you should't hold your beliefs and stick to your guns about imposing your faith on others and forcing people into subordinate social situations in the name of God, that is your right, but at least if you're going to use written material to support your position, at least read it carefully before you do, as there are those of us who will and have. You do your cause a greater disservice with this kind of thing than remaining silent would have done.
Yes, I did read the entire article.
You are right, that she didn't advocate changing the Message of Jesus. But when the advocacy of preserving your own civil rights becomes your standard for any action or thought, it will automatically change both message and action, depending on the particualr issue.
Frankly, I'm perplexed that you could not conclude the end result of this course of thought. When you change your standard, your thoughts and actions change accordingly.
Otherwise, why didn't Jesus change his message, because for 3 years they were looking for the opportunity to kill him. They didn't like his intolerance of their lifestyle. He preached and taught against it.
And when he appeared before Pilate, He didn't plead freedom of religion.
Actually, if Christians understood the Bible more clearly, they would abandon the attempts to gain political power and be like their first century prototypes and just busy themselves with the message of Jesus regardless of what the politicos thought. The current law should not be a concern, especially when it so clearly goes against God's law. Simply be about the business of a Child of God.
Accusations of intolerance come with the territory, regardless of the issue.
Difference coexisting?????? Tell my wife that she has to "peacefully coexist" with that "different" woman in our bed and see where it gets you.....and me. Talk about a "dictative majority" of one rising up in judgment.:d:
BTW, I'm not imposing my faith on others. And I haven't forced anyone into subordinate social situations. And if that's interpreted to mean that I have spoken on this forum, then so be it. But I haven't forced anything on anyone.
And maybe you should study the material you read more carfully and think about the various implications and ramifications. Words are easy to write and various positions are easy to articulate sometimes, but there are always results that must be anticipated. Many never really think them through to their logical conclusion. They are too shortsighted.
Speaking of shortsightedness, you haven't been very tolerant of my words on this forum to this point. What's the problem?
How can you write all that other stuff, claim you read Irons' article and understand it, and then write that? This statement is exactly what Irons was suggesting should be the mindset of Christians. So, it's like you get it, even claim it as your own desire for a world where "Christians understood the Bible more clearly" and then you continue to argue against your own declared desire and against Irons with whom you supposedly share this same ideal.
Who the hell said your wife has become a lesbian and bring one into your bed? Dude, seriously, where are you coming up with this stuff? I mean, that's hawt, 2 girls are 2x as many as one, and one is hawt all by herself... you should count yourself lucky if your wife is that open-minded, but, I get it, not in your house. No worries. I promise there are no lesbians lurking in your bushes waiting to waylay your wife when she falls asleep and do all sorts of nasty lesbian things to her. Go outside and look if you don't believe me; there's no one out there. I can assure you this is not a real danger. You and your wife are safe. (By the way, there is no monster under your bed or in the closet either.)
I didn't mean to imply that I thought you personally had the power to force anyone to do anything. When I said "majority" I meant as in, you know, like multiple people. I'm sorry if you thought I meant you personally were the majority that passed prop 8. Beyond that misunderstanding, the point was that by barring others from the same rights as heterosexuals and seemingly those with Christian moral compass, then those individuals so barred are in fact forced into subordinate social circumstance. If a group of people do not have equal rights under the law, they are by definition subordinate in the eyes of the law. In some cases, this is reasonable... I have no problem keeping 5 year old children subordinate to me in the right to drive a car. However in the case of consenting adults to marry whom they chose, well, I'm not as keen on subordination.
I was sitting in church once when the topic of gay marriage came up, and the Pastor said, "allowing gay marriage brings hate upon the church".
I seriously couldn't help but get pissed off and say, "the church is what brings the hate, if you let them be and allow them thier own rights to love what they cannot help but love, there wouldn't be any hate."
Religious groups, and religious people, may speak out on political issues with every same right as non-religious groups and people under the US Constitution. This seems to often be forgotten.
I think good people will know, or come to know, that those who stand for morality and genuine rights are helping their whole country and all their fellow countrymen, not doing them a disservice.
As society has become less moral, less inclined to traditional values - and less religious - and as so many movements promulgating an erosion of these things have appeared, it is a wonder than anyone could believe that churches needed reining in. Quite the opposite in fact.
Then they should be sensitive to the fact that propositions such as this are unconstitutional. I know that and I'm not even American.
I personally believe that we need to work on ourselves before we past judgement and decide what is right and what is wrong, after all we are all people one nation under God are we not?With liberty and justice for all, or have all of us forgotten those words as we are to busy judging.
Not everyone sees the decline of "traditional values" as meaning less moral. Racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and misogyny are "traditional values" that I'm glad are eroding in our society. As much as we tend to harp on today's problems, if you take a view of history, you would see that society has become more inclusive, more tolerant and more open. (Maybe you see these as bad things)
Since churches are at least as often on the wrong side of these changes as they are on the right side, more and more people have not only learned to ignore the sky-is-falling warnings of the churches, but they've increasingly seen them as sales pitches for organizations that seek to marginalize and discriminate.
Not just shame on California for PASSING Prop 8, but shame for NOT passing Prop 4! The propagandists have learned how to turn off too many people's God given minds sufficient to control their thinking. And that is the ultimate shame: too much ugly propoganda and too few clear minds. Unliberated minds create dangerous organisms. There I go, being judgmental.
Why are these propositions up in the first place? As a child of the 70's I never heard of such things. What someone does is there business but dont force this on me. Im not forcing my family values or religion on anyone else. It's not a matter of hate toward the person but rather the lifestyle.Keep sepration of church and state, period. And I agree with anglosaxon. As for Prop 4, it shouldnt be an issue. Educate children about respecting themselves and others and teach responsibility and consequences.
I was not being judgmental. I dislike being judged as much as anyone else. Judgmentalism is an attribute of attitude and it seems some unfortunately associate it with certain beliefs. A belief is in my view never inherently judgmental.
I'd agree that society has become more tolerant of some things, but it has also become less tolerant of others. I think it quite plain to see that ideas traditionally considered immoral are more acceptable and ideas traditionally considered moral are less accepted, even with considerable unkindness at times.
Now, by traditional I clearly mean basic Judeo-Christian values.
That is unfortunate because you actually had a moment there where you said exactly what Irons did and still can't see it even though I pointed it out. You are on the same page with her and yet somehow think she's in opposition to you. Frustrating for me too.
Unfortunately, I can't say that you've had "a moment" in this conversation.
Irons and I are not on the same level, nor are we talking about the same thing. That is an appearance only.
Her standard for the actions of Christians regarding this issue is the Consititution.
My standard is Scripture. And, in this instance, they are not the same.
In case, you don't realize it, the "difference coexisting" would mean that all churches would be required to put aside their belief in what Scripture plainly says about this issue and if they don't, the government comes in and corrects the actions of the church.
And that is only the beginning of the scenario.
Freedom of religion protects churches from being forced to marry people they don't want to marry. The Catholic Church routinely turns away people who want to be married in a Catholic ceremony (as do Mormons, for that matter) and I have yet to hear of them being sued or threatened with having their tax-exempt status revoked because of their refusal to marry non-Catholics. Gay marriage would be no different.
Unfortunately, with the passage of Proposition 8, it appears "freedom of religion" CAN dictate that churches who DO want to marry gay and lesbian couples cannot.
ETA: Uninvited Writer, I had been thinking about linking that myself, so I'm glad you did! I don't always agree with KO, but in this case, it's like he and I had an accidental mindmeld. I couldn't agree more with his assessment of the situation.
Involving the Catholic Church is an entirely different matter. They have the status and standing of a "State" around the world. And, unless they somehow give their consent, they are immune to most of the laws in these countries.
As far as a "church" in this country, you need to read and study more of the decisions handed down by various courts. They will spell out for you what is potentially required.
And don't be fooled into thinking that these type of laws will be fought back by religious groups. They will not. It has already been politically determined that they will come about. President Bush publicly said so a week before being elected to his last term.
But the same is true of Mormons, Baptists, etc. ANY church has the right under the US Constitution to refuse to marry people they do not wish to marry, and many of them routinely do. That is not going to change if gay marriage comes to pass, because it is written into the US Constitution. The First Amendment. Read it.
Or consider the Boy Scouts. There are frequent efforts to try to get them to change their no-atheists, no-homosexuals stance, but from a legal perspective, they're a private organization, so they have every right to discriminate against whomever they want. Even the US Supreme Court has upheld this.
Which ones are you proposing I read?
This says it all, very clearly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkzwJXDZ … efault.jpg
Aha, finally we agree. You're right; you and Irons are not on the same level. Her argument is consistent throughout whereas yours contradicts itself and has little if any logical grounds, and, apparently, even flimsy Biblical grounds. So, on that point I agree with you: you and Irons are not on the same level at all. But you aren't as far off from her rational and Biblically grounded argument as it might seem; here, let me show you how:
Irons quotes the Bible thusly:
The apostle Paul writes, "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God" (Romans 13:1).
And she follows with:
Thus, it should be no surprise that when we look to the New Testament for instruction on incorporating Christian beliefs into the laws of the land, we are met with a deafening silence. Jesus, in fact, rebuffed the Jews of his day who sought to hail him as a political revolutionary against the oppression of Roman rule. His famous admonition, "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21) teaches willing submission to the state regardless of whether its laws are "Christian" or not.
THIS is the at the core of her reasoning why Christians should stop being so "fearful" and "meanspirited" as she says in regards to same sex mariage. Her point is clear and obvious and totally Christian. She doesn't even pretend she LIKES gays or lesbians; she's merely pointing out that the law of the land allowing them rights like everyone else does not in any way impact Christian godliness or value. Jesus told his followers to let nations be as they will and practice your Christianity in your heart and deeds.
This does not seem unclear, and I don't require any special "moment" to be able to read this. Irons' point based on this idea is readily apparent, and the reasoning behind her (as you put it...) is obvious. She refers to this document as being, in essence, the American version of Caesar. What follows from there is her explaining how, unlike Caesar, who was frequently tyranical and burned Christians to light up the streets (as she points out), the "American Caesar" has been welcoming to Christians. Her whole point of bringing that up is merely to say, "Hey, America has been tolerant of Christians along with other faiths, and, since we liked having the freedom to believe what we believe; we should not just support the laws of America's Caesar when it suits us or even just because Jesus Christ our Lord tells us to; we should actually recognize what a cool document it is and let it apply to others."
And while you may be cringing and shifting about madly in your chair, writhing with the agony of Jesus' words being defiled by my evil, gay-loving tongue, that is what Irons said, that is what Jesus said, and, check this... that's what you said too. Here, I'mma give you your own words again:
(Bold text mine.)
See, you do - or at least did for a second - get it. You say, "if Christians understood the Bible more clearly they would abandon the attempts to gain political power and just busy themslves with the message of Jesus regardless of what the politicos thought." So, you 1) profess to understand the Bible better than other Christians, and 2) want Christians to abandon attempts at taking political power, the power of Caesar, so that 3) they can get to the business of living life in the fashion Jesus taught.
Which means, even though you may not realize it, you are in complete agreement with Irons and the teachings of Paul, Mathew and Jesus Christ as referenced by Irons, a Christian, and not by me, an evil pagan, from the Bible. Or at least, your words suggest you are. I'm thinking your words may not truly speak for your heart though, as I think these ideas that Irons took from the Bible require more loving acceptance and discipline from the good parts of your heart than you can muster just yet. But you should muster it anyway... just think, if you can allow other people with whom you don't agree to live their lives and be happy, you will be well on your way to actually practicing number 3 up there from your own wise words; you can "get to the business of living life in the fashion Jesus taught."
I think if more Christians did that, there would probably be more Christians.
I actually agree with the idea that there would be more Christians if more Christians did that. It's a shame that Christians on the RR (Religious Right), try to force things on other people and deny other people the basic right to have a civil marriage. It really is, because in this day and age they will fail, it is inevitable. They are only kidding themselves if they think they can force people to obey laws which deny their basic rights, like the right to get married. They are in fact inviting persecution-which is really what these types of Christians are all about- and when they cannot get their way they pout like small children and bemoan the collapse of morals in the world. They just don't get that sometimes people don't want their type of morals, and even supposing if their God was a God of free will they still cannot see the UTTER hypocrisy of passing a law that denies homosexuals the right to marriage while claiming all the time that atheists are using democratic processes to suppress a minority's rights. It completely fails them to see what they are doing is COMPLETELY hypocritical.
All in all though it really is ok in their minds, because "God" is on their side.
I agree. I'm not religious at all, am not a Christian, but think that, on the whole, Jesus Christ was an upstanding fellow and stood up for some moral issues that were unpopular at the time (tolerance, charity, care for the downtrodden, etc). Ironic, then, that living in a much more tolerant, less barbaric time, so many of today's Christians happily corrupt his message and behave more like the Pharisees Christ condemned than Christ himself.
I'm reminded of a quote by Mahatma Gandhi: "I consider western Christianity in its practical working a negation of Christ's Christianity."
Don't blame people for standing up for what they believe in, blame the people who made them believe it!
I agree with you on that !!! I see so much gossip, hate, backsliding, backstabbing, and judging it hurts my heart. I believe everyone is entitled my God we have better things to do then to be judging as it is wrong. Church and State are to be seperated and of course what happens Church is dragged in. I can't change the world but God only knows I wish I could. and I am Love of God and am a Christian, but certainly not proud of some of the fellowers ,what have the churches created as nobody is living by the word of God and many are taking it completely out of context:(
Ummm, and what about personal responsibility? Do we just get rid of it altogether?
I am so tired of the word homophobia. It does not make sense. There is nothing wrong with attending church services. I am sensing more intolerance toward the religous folks here which makes you no different than those who said yes on prop 8. If the US can vote on something like this how about voting prayer and the ten commandments back in school Of course that would be forcing something on someone. In fact why dont we vote on the same issues we talk about every four years and quit arguing.
by WayneAnsell2 years ago
Should the government allow same sex marriage?
by Leta S8 years ago
I'm so proud of my adoptive home state (went to college there) of Iowa for lifting the ban on same sex marriage in a unanimous Supreme Court ruling.Justices wrote that they had “excluded a historically disfavored...
by Kathryn L Hill4 years ago
What do you wish to share with others about the facts concerning marriage in general. It has a long history. What about marriage interests or benefits YOU?Or is there anything about marriage that irritates you or does...
by sneakorocksolid7 years ago
Leave marraige to churches and make it their ceremony not even a public issue and everyone as a matter of law have a civil union.This was a sugestion made by Livelonger and if I didn't word it right it's because I'm not...
by JillEM6 years ago
I have mixed feelings about a Presbyterian convocation recently held. At least they have tabled the discussion of the nature of marriage for another few years before rushing off the deep end like they have done...
by silverstararrow2 years ago
Hello everyone! I've been on HP only for a short while, three weeks to be exact. In that time, I've come across one prominent topic on both the forums and the questions section. The Gay Issue. Why people are gay, how...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.