The historical answer is A, a church ceremony recognized by the state.

I think I agree that there is a historical basis of a "church ceremony recognized by the state" so long as the history in question is Judeo-Christian/European.

I ask in completely sincere ignorance: Is this universal? How does it work in other societies? Is it primarily
religious, civil, or neither? Does an overarching religious or civil framework exist in (non-colonized) Asia? The Brazilian rain forest? Which takes precedence? Do defacto gay marriages exist in societies that have less extensive or radically different religious or civil infrastructures?

In many cases simply creating a different name with the same legal protections would minimalize the outcry against the homosexual community. Don't believe me? Ask a coworker if homosexuals should be able to live together, share bills, take care of each other when they're sick, and any number of other things that married heterosexuals do for their spouses and most will answer "sure its a free country". Then ask if homosexuals should be allowed to be married. The answer is usually no.

I understand what you are saying and agree that many people would react as you describe. I don't think it would resolve the debate in any way, but I personally see "creating a different name with the same legal protections" as already having been accomplished. It's a civil union in front of the Justice of the Peace down at the town hall (no attempt to invade a church to get married!!). Seriously, though, I guess i do see it this way -- separate the civil from the religious aspects -- but I'm going to guess that is the kind of thing that is being struggled over and that resolution is far, far away.

Homosexual marriage is an attack on the accepted definiton of a marriage, whether you want it to be or not. Redefinition of marriage is what most homosexuals seek, not realizing that politically redefining marriage is a religious war by its nature, since the church doesn't think its any of the states business.

Now *there's* a fly in the ointment. I'm guessing that civil authorities will continue to assert that it is their business, that the existence or non-existence of a marriage will increasingly be determined on a civil, not religious, basis (like if you get an annullment from the Catholic Church, you'll still have to obtain a civil divorce to be considered legally unmarried, right?) This leaves religious authorities in sort of a secondary position, I'd say, with authority deriving pretty much from the loyalty of their own adherents and with enforcement capabilities limited to membership penalties (like excommunication, say).

Anyhow, I was going to say that "attack" seemed like a pretty strong term, but then my attempts to come up with a better one didn't seem to work...."challenge", no...OK, "attack".

Definintion of a new relationship would allow for more understanding. Read this understanding that I think homosexuality is a sin, along with heterosexual promiscuity by the way, and you'll see that I desire to be civil and understanding but I refuse to simply write off my convictions.

Well, done. In my own, overcompensating way, I might do more to earn a "thumper" moniker.

I also would like to point out that the extra hurdles that must be jumped by homosexuals in order to parent.

Interesting point. It's quite easy for straight people to accidentally become parents even when they are ill-suited to it, whereas a gay couple needs to be pretty serious about wanting to be parents before attempting it. I hadn't thought of that.

Are we concerned that gays will actually have health insurance or other benefits as a result of marriage? I'd almost vote for *anything* that helps somebody get health insurance in this country!

This sort of touches on what bothers me about the issues of sexual preferences/religious preferences/race/etc. and the issues they "demand." Why should homosexuals/religous groups/ethnic groups be given special rights/protections through laws that are called "hate crimes." If you commit murder or assault be it black on black or white on white, it should be treated the same as if it were white on black person or redneck on homosexual. It's all hate when you kill or hurt someone intentionally and there shouldn't be any guidelines as to the punishment for it. I can't recall ever hearing a murder of a white by a black or a heterosexual by a homosexual being called a hate crime. Seems like a one way street there because the one attacked is in the minority so it is automatically a hate crime. It's a crime, punishable by the laws that govern it, plain and simple.
And that brings me to my opinion that gays should not have any more rights than a straight person, but I think that they should not be denied any rights that a straight human being has becasue they are gay. Same for their religious preference, color of their skin or whatever makes them different than another person.
Diversity is what makes the world an interesting place, if everyone were the same, it would be pretty damn boring here on Earth...

That's my $0.02

The normality of homosexuality is certainly questionable. If you mean it that it shows up throughout history then of course you'd be right. However prevalence is not what were discussing. If everything that is prevalent is normal, then so murder must be called normal, but no ones passing laws protecting it.


I guess it would be a hard-core, fringe sociologist or anthroplogist that would call murder normal, but that might not be as much a stretch as I imagine. There are still societies that routinely practice infanticide, aren't there? If so, I guess that would be an opportunity for an anthropologist or someone to describe that murderous societal behavior as normal.

I see your point on incidence, though. I guess destructive hurricanes and tornadoes would be considered normal as negatively as we might feel about their visits.

I don't reduce this to the incidence argument, though. I think of homosexuality as normal not only because it has been present for so long as we can tell, but for a few other reasons. First is that, somewhat like hurricanes and tornadoes, homosexuals aren't really subject to being deprogrammed. They are the people that they are. Second, I'm perhaps more willing to extend my personal definition of normal based on the practical aspects of the society in which I live and the people whom I work and play with. If I got it into my head to decide that homosexuals were not normal, my days at work would be miserable!! Imagine moping around all day thinking how abnormal some of my coworkers are when instead I could be appreciating how well John tells a joke, and how considerate Jane (the Does) has been to me. i think they wouldn't take it very well if I decided in my heart of hearts that they were abnormal.

Instead rightness, or even correctness, is the point. A thoughtful person who condemns homosexuality will condemn it not only for what it does to society (basically that it propegates itself)

Other than society continuing to give birth to homosexuals at some, perhaps poorly understood, rate, I wonder do you mean that by "propogating itself" do you mean that they are taking over? That somehow their numbers should be contained or reduced? Maybe we just wouldn't agree on the whole propogation hypothesis.

but for what it does to the individual practicing it. For every happy gay couple (I know, I know), you find I can point to as many gay people who say the lifestyle led them to depression.

I don't guess I'll ask you to list every negative thing that you think follows from homosexuality, but I *do* want to take a moment to stand up for depressed heterosexuals!! (Like myself!) I'm not going to say that there aren't depressed homosexuals out there who are depressed because their life seems to lack meaning or that they aren't in satisfying social relationships, or because they are just depressed. How this connected to sexuial orientation I fail to see, save that both homosexuals and heterosexuals might be marginally less depressed if people were nicer to them!

I don't see sexual orientation as a complete absolute. I'm guessing you can find homosexuals who *were* deprogrammed in some fashion. A woman who worked for me many years ago was what i would call a "path of less resistance" lesbian. She was married to a guy, but really felt overwhelmed by her experience of the man-woman dynamic. During the course of her employment, she divorced that guy and took up with a very nice woman from the office next to ours. Did this make her a bisexual? A latent lesbian? I don't know, and I didn't really care. All I know is that she was great to work with and she made a much happier homosexual than a heterosexual.

Since we can't see the truth for the personalities, it makes it impossible to prove beyond a doubt. It is purely anecdotal. Therefore whether or not its wrong or right must be decided away from or before individuals are concerned or bias is inevitable.

I'm not sure what you mean by this but it sounds like "it all depends on your point of view"?

II also would like to point out that the extra hurdles that must be jumped by homosexuals in order to parent. Therefore insuring that only those serious about parenting would actually be given the opportunity to do so. This hurdle dramatically changes the appearance of homosexual parenting. If the hurdles were less the seriousness of some parents would be equally less.

I guess I'm also unsure on what you mean here. Is it "If we make it hard enough, then those who get over the hurdles, it's OK"?

I now consider myself a pretty big gay-rights supporter but what you mention here is where I draw the line quite firmly. I'm very much against discrimination of all kinds but I am also very much against "proscrimination". I don't think boosting someone's benefits simply because they were previously squashed does a damned bit of good. It only creates more ill-will.

Somewhere along the line, Equal Rights became More Rights, and I don't like that at all. I'll leave out the word "marriage", but if two people (gender omitted) want to live together, support each other, get health insurance, buy a house, get a bank loan, and get benefits one their partner dies, I'm all for that.

Anyone should be able to have access to the rights my wife and I have access to. But if you want to give these other people extra rights, this is where I'll always disagree.

The hate crimes issue really doesn't jell with me. You kill because you hate, are angry, or whatever. At this point you're punishing someone more for their thoughts than for their actions.

Greg

In reply to:

---

also would like to point out that the extra hurdles that must be jumped by homosexuals in order to parent. Therefore insuring that only those serious about parenting would actually be given the opportunity to do so. This hurdle dramatically changes the appearance of homosexual parenting. If the hurdles were less the seriousness of some parents would be equally less.

---

thats a "yes and maybe " comment down this way.

Lesbian couples can get pregnant simply by visiting the local Fertility clinic and either getting it free on the tax payer, paying the cost of the AI themselves, or by using the old Turkey Baster method or as my cousin did the old fashioned way.

Their hurdles to parenting this way are not much higher than any average man and woman who have kids - either deliberately or accidentally.

If the lesbian couple decides to not go this route and to adopt a kid, then yes, maybe the barrier is a little higher than it would be for a "straight" couple in this situation [e.g. no kids, wanting to adopt].

However, if you are a a couple of gay men - forget it, you cannot visit the local Fertility clinic to get your kid underway [except maybe - to make a deposit].

As far as adopting - the authorities here would run a mile before they'd let you [as gay men] adopt any kids - they wouldn't want the heat from all those lesbian or "straight" childless couples wanting to adopt the same kid when it became public that some gay men got in ahead of them.

I guess the underlying perception by the public is that gay men are more promiscuous than lesbians.

I don't have evidence one way or the other on this to make a comment, but I think thats the basis on which the authorities are making their value judgements about who is allowed to adopt kids.

BTW: Update on my cousin - she seperated from her [lesbian] partner 2 years after she gave birth to the boy [conceived the "normal" way] - she now lives with another [lesbian] partner and the original partner pays child support [and will do so until the child is at least 16]. Thats no different than if they were a straight couple and had seperated - whether they had married or not.

Apparently the new partner just adores the kid. Looks like it all worked out for my cousin.

A thoughtful person who condemns homosexuality will condemn it not only for what it does to society (basically that it propegates itself) but for what it does to the individual practicing it.

Whoa there, Reverend...

How, exactly, does it "propagate itself"? Gay couples rarely propagate at all, and the few that do produce heterosexual/gay offspring in about the same ratio as the public at large. Are you suggesting that homosexuality somehow causes more homosexuality?

And as for "...what it does to the individual practicing it", I take the point of view (splitting hairs, I know) that it isn't the homosexuality that causes the problem, but other people's reactions to it (or should I say against it?) that creates difficulty.

The above arguments are predicated on my very firmly held conviction that homosexuality is NOT a lifstyle choice, but is a physical condition "hard-wired" at birth... no, make that at conception. For any heterosexual who doubts this, consider the following: What inducement could I offer you to have (and enjoy) sex with someone of the same gender? Oh, I know -- gay people are just weak-willed individuals with no moral sense who are easily persuaded by perverts to engage in sinful, abnormal acts, is that it?*

Yeah. Right.

tanstaafl.

*This sentence is in no way directed towards revlmwest whose insight and elocution in this thread has been outstanding.

It's easy to see how some people perceive that homosexuality propogates through society. With each year that passes the gay population becomes more visible - we see more openly gay people in the street; more friends and family members come out to us; more positive gay images are broadcast to us via television and other media.

Fact is, the gay population is no more substantial now than it has ever been, but more gay people are coming out than has ever been the case. The more people come out, the more confidence repressed homosexuals will have to do likewise. Eventually most gay people will feel no need to hide or repress their sexuality and the "propogation" will be over. I'd like to think that time isn't so distant.

I'd come out myself, but I'm far too busy developing MP3 players.

Rob

And as for "...what it does to the individual practicing it", I take the point of view (splitting hairs, I know) that it isn't the homosexuality that causes the problem, but other people's reactions to it (or should I say against it?) that creates difficulty.

Reading through the thread, I KNEW someone would get to my point before I did. So I'm just here to support this basic thought. Imagine a world where many openly discriminate against you, and most 'accept' you, but only through the filter of finding you an 'abberation'. The whole time (especially as a child) thinking "What did *I* do to deserve this?" I'm fairly certain that unless you were made from sterner stuff than most, you would veer off into depression at some point.

And for the record, I know a LOT of heterosexuals who are depressed precisely because of their relationships (or non-relationships) with people of the opposite sex. I think relationships by their very nature bring the best and worst out of people, regardless of orientation.

I live in Raleigh, NC, which, while firmly in the bible belt, is a fairly urban place and is plagued with the redneck community much less than the surrounding area. At the same time, it is unabashedly southern, which tends to mean, at least in this case, that there is a lot of reasonably conservative Christianity.

I don't really have a very strong handle on the community at large, as it is very eclectic, ranging from native southerners to transplanted Yankees (that's northerners, to all you damn furriners ), so I'm forced to simply give you a few examples.

First off, I'd like to introduce you to my mother. She's 66 years old and grew up in and around Raleigh, which didn't acquire many outsiders until the late 60s, when IBM started up a plant near here and sent a lot of New Yorkers down. She grew up in a fairly affluent family, though, (her father owned the local Studebaker dealership) so she was never redneck-y. She's a proper southern lady. (Thinking about the older women in ``Steel Magnolias'', if you've ever seen that movie, will get you pretty close.) Around 1990, her husband, my father, a man she'd been married to for twenty years or so, realized or admitted that he was gay. (I believe -- no one's ever come right out and told me.) I don't believe that she can talk about it. I remember one time that she tried to tell me, and just sobbed and couldn't get it out. I'm not sure whether that had to do with the homosexuality, though, or the embarrassment of having wasted 20 years of her life in a lie. The interesting part of this story is that she now has a reasonably close male friend who is gay, or who she assumes is gay, at any rate. He owns a fairly ritzy local restaurant or two. She mentions it occasionally. And it elicits from her, more than anything else, tittering. She seems somewhat amused by it. I think she's too genteel to ever bring it up in conversation with him, but it doesn't seem to offend her in any way. Which I think is pretty impressive, given what my father, who was always, in my experience, a jackass, regardless of his sexuality, put her through.

My other story is much less personal. I happen to have grown up in a Southern Baptist church. The Southern Baptist organization was originally founded around the concept that each member and each church was autonomous, and that the organization existed to create a large front. That is, moneys collected by hundreds of churches were better distributed than piecemeal, one church at a time, and other similar concepts, rather like why it's better to be in a group healthcare plan than to be insured on your own. This organization was to deal with external society, not really something to homogenize the churches. (In the last 15 years or so, this is much less true, though, as the Southern Baptist Convention becomes more and more fascist. No offense intended, revlmwest.) Back in 1992, Pullen Memorial Baptist Church's pastor decided to marry a gay male couple, and put it to the church's board of deacons, who, in turn, put it to the congregation. There was a lot of debate on the matter, but the church voted, by something like 65% to perform the marriage, based largely, as I remember, on the fact that one of their self-stated issues was to provide service to the community. The marriage was performed, and the church was ousted from the Raleigh Baptist Association, the North Carolina Baptist Convention, and the Southern Baptist Convention. Also, many of the church's members were ostracized in their workplaces and communities, as were the couple's parents. Interestingly, most of the significant minority in the congregation who voted against the marriage remained members. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Raleigh is a quite fractured community on this issue.

A third minor point is that Raleigh's mayor during the early 90s was, according to people in the know, quite gay. Yet he openly spoke against the gay community.

Also, there are three or four openly gay nightclubs in Raleigh that I'm aware of. One of them was going to lose their liquor license if they didn't stop their drag queen competition. They stopped it and kept their license, apparently not bothered again. Which I find odd.

well, i'm jumping into this thread a bit late (been busy at work), but i thought i'd throw in my two cents. i'm a gay man who's been in two long-term relationships that were/are, for all practical purposes, marriages. the first lasted nearly ten years, and my current marriage is coming up on five years. we live just outisde of chicago.

i'm guessing chicago is like most major cities, in that the level of social conservatism varies pretty widely across different sections of the metropolitan area. dupage county, 15 miles west of chicago, is one of the most conservative counties in the country. wheaton, a town in dupage, is home to a number of conservative christian organizations and colleges. other areas, such as evanston and oak park, not to mention most of the city proper, tend to the liberal side. the prevailing attitude toward gay or lesbian couples seems to vary in pretty close correlation to the level of diversity (in either ethnicity or income-ranges) in the overall population.

what would i want from an official marriage? all of the points that have already been made by others (insurance, legal rights, financial benefits, etc). we, as a gay couple, are routinely denied much that others take for granted. today, we can gain a certain amount of that back by taking careful steps. i choose to work for an employer who offers same-sex couples full insurance benefits. we've met with a lawyer to draw up papers giving each other certain rights, including powers of attorney, etc, that are a pale comparison to the comparable rights given to a married couple. it's not possible for many gay couples to take these steps -- it's expensive, it's a pain in the neck, and not everyone is able to find a job in their field and their home town that will provide insurance benefits.

i believe it's not fair that we should pay the same taxes to the same government as a non-gay married couple do, but be bestowed with fewer rights and benefits in return. simple as that. do i care if it's called "marriage" under the law? hell, no. i couldn't care less. i just want my fair share of legal rights. if the most expedient way to achieve that is to change the legal definition of marriage, great. if that's not possible, and we create a new form of civil union, fine. but imagine all of the bearocracy, forms, and red tape that are set up around "married/unmarried" status that would have to change to reflect the parity of marriages and civil unions. imagine how many laws at the local, state, and federal level that would need to be rewritten. it's something that could never be fully accomplished in a lifetime, i believe. it would be so much easier to redefine "marriage" and be done. this isn't about religion, at all, and i'm sorry some people feel the need to drag that into the equation.

regarding adoption, we've considered it. i could name 15 people right now, mostly straight, who have tried to convince us to. apparently they think we'd make great parents. who knows, maybe someday.

--dan.

regarding adoption, we've considered it. i could name 15 people right now, mostly straight, who have tried to convince us to. apparently they think we'd make great parents. who knows, maybe someday.

I know few people that I would actually say that to but a lot of people I would love to tell to never have children. Good luck to you if you should try.

Just out of curiousity, have they done any studies to correlate the percentages of gays in the human population to that of other animals?

it would be so much easier to redefine "marriage" and be done. this isn't about religion, at all, and i'm sorry some people feel the need to drag that into the equation.

So you're saying that you don't care about marriage itself per se. All you want is to have the same civil/community benefits that a married couple would have.

Interesting. As the reverend said, it's hard to separate marriage from religion because the state recognizes it as a religious institution (despite us patting ourselves on the back about separation of church and state). I see the dilemma.

Last I heard this, which was ten years ago and even this was most likely horribly inacurate, 10% of the population is gay. Not an insignificant amount, even if it is somewhat faulty in accuracy.

Greg

Since 90 percent of statistics are made-up anyway, that doesn't really mean anything.

But I don't think getting married in a court house by a judge is exactly a religious ceremony. So how can the states see marriage as only a religious institution. And if tax laws are different for single people than for married people, again how can it only be a religious institution. People don't need to believe in any religion to get married.

I don't see how church and state can ever be totally separate no matter how hard they try to make it that way.

I think it is a little more than just redefining what marriage is. What about the whole ceremony and such? Plus, if it's done by a priest or what not (I'm 19 though, so I haven't researched this much and only been to a few weddings ), it seems like quite a religious ceremony. I can totally understand the difference though if it's done in a courthouse.

So you're saying that you don't care about marriage itself per se. All you want is to have the same civil/community benefits that a married couple would have.

hmm, let me clarify that. the most important part of marriage is the commitment, and the relationship between the two people. i'm perfectly happy forming the commitment portion of my marriage completely in private. i don't need a public service to recognize that.

the other benefits of marriage, the civil/community benefits you mention, i can't replicate fully on my own. that's where i want parity.

Interesting. As the reverend said, it's hard to separate marriage from religion because the state recognizes it as a religious institution (despite us patting ourselves on the back about separation of church and state). I see the dilemma.

i don't buy into this. marriage may have started as a religious institution (in our western society, as someone pointed out), but it really has been overshadowed as a civil institution. you can go to a justice and be legally married. the clergy is now acting as an agent of the government ("by the power vested in me...") in performing marriage, not the other way around. if the federal government wanted to amend the definition of marriage, from a civil standpoint, to include same-sex couples, i don't see how that would require any religious organization from changing their policies or beliefs. if a church chose to not perform marriages for same-sex couples, i think that's their right. i would never ask or expect the government to force a religious group to endorse same-sex marriage.

now, please don't assume that i represent or speak for the entire gay-couple community. there are those for whom the religious aspects to marriage are important, or who have other ideas about what's important to them. i'm only speaking for myself, and the impact this has on my particular situation.

--dan.

A church can refuse to marry people of the opposite sex for whatever reasons they want. I don't know that a state can refuse if you have the required license and blood tests.

I am currently in a long term relationship with a golden retriever. I love her and she loves me. We had our wedding day all planned out months in advance, but when the day came the priest backed out and said he couldn't marry us because my fiance won't be able to say "I do". I then asked him how deaf mutes get married. I showed him that she shakes positively when asked "if she does". He wasn't impressed. He said it's a free country and we can love eachother all we want, but he couldn't marry us because it's, quote, "abnormal". All we want to do is get married so we can live happily ever after, along with all the benefits from the state. We deserve the rights of any other loving couple and we should be recognized and accepted like all other married folks are.

Sure, as an interspecies couple we may be in the minority and some people may consider us weird, but we're no different in our dreams and ambitions. We just want to start a family. Besides, it's been shown throughout history that interspecies relationships are normal - just look at the donkey or the killer bee! We were just born this way and we fell in love and the state should recognize that and give us our health insurance. My fiance takes a liking to antifreeze eventhough it's not too healthy for her, and I try to keep it out of her reach, but I want that insurance just in case.

When our constant attempts at producing offspring continuously failed, we seriously considered adoption as a viable alternative. Needless to say, our application for a human child was denied, eventhough they claimed but failed to prove that my partner is indeed an unfit mother. They offered other alternatives such as finding a male golden retriever to donate sperm, but I didn't like the idea of another creature knocking up the love of my life, even if it was artificially inseminated. We eventually ended up taking in a neighbor's kitten that was being given away, and although me and my partner are unmarried and our child is a bastard, we are one big happy family.

This was my second attempted marriage and that's why I wanted it done right. My previous attempt with my ex Crystal also wasn't recognized by the state, or anyone else for that matter - they actually called her discriminatory objectist slurs such as "pet rock"!

Oh what fun it would be to crawl inside d33zY's mind for at least a few minutes.

Oh what fun it would be to crawl inside d33zY's mind for at least a few minutes.

Just remember to bring an air-sickness bag.

ok, d33zy, you got me. that was pretty funny. i think it really misses the point, but it's funny, i'll give you that.

--dan.

"I don't see how church and state can ever be totally separate no matter how hard they try to make it that way. "

In my personal opinion, this statement is about the truest thing said in this whole thread. Unfortunately, for religious/irreligious people alike their beliefs are the premises by which they view right and wrong, and this influences what the state views as legal/illegal. I'm sure there probably isn't a person on this board who doesn't have at least on major qualm with some state sanctioned law based on his or her beliefs. The best the state can do is not throw people in jail for observing their own beliefs and practices and beyond that I suppose majority rules.

Okay, that was pretty funny. I especially liked the reference to the Donkey and the Killer Bee.

there are those for whom the religious aspects to marriage are important

And this I never understood, at least not from a philosophical viewpoint. I would have figured that gay people would want to stay as far away from Christianity and its rituals as possible.

Keep in mind that I don't fully understand either homosexuality or Christianity, but how can a person be both Christian and gay? I thought Christianity had some very specific and unambiguous tenets against same-sex couples. Wouldn't that just be choosing to ignore certain parts of the bible?

And I do watch "Six Feet Under" so I see the David character going to church etc., I just wonder how that's reconciled at a philosophical level.

the clergy is now acting as an agent of the government ("by the power vested in me...") in performing marriage, not the other way around. if the federal government wanted to amend the definition of marriage, from a civil standpoint, to include same-sex couples, i don't see how that would require any religious organization from changing their policies or beliefs. if a church chose to not perform marriages for same-sex couples, i think that's their right. i would never ask or expect the government to force a religious group to endorse same-sex marriage.

You did a much better job of stating this. With respect to your earlier point...

imagine all of the bearocracy, forms, and red tape that are set up around "married/unmarried" status that would have to change to reflect the parity of marriages and civil unions.


Playing devil's advocate with myself, I can ask the "Where does it all end?" question that I think some folks opposed to same-sex marriage ask: Three-or four-way marriages? The return of polygamy? In the end though, I don't get too hung up by "what-ifs" -- better to deal with the problem at hand.
...your "red tape" argument is pretty compelling. Forget what I said about civil unions if it implied any new category. You have my vote.

Thanks, BTW for joining this discussion. It probably actually addressed Greg's original question and perhaps kept this from becoming a Total Hetero Chin Wag.

(Oh, and if it comes to that will NWA take my UAL miles?!?)

but how can a person be both Christian and gay? I thought Christianity had some very specific and unambiguous tenets against same-sex couples. Wouldn't that just be choosing to ignore certain parts of the bible?

Some people claim to be both Christian and gay. Their arguments are sketchy at best even when looked at from a purely academic viewpoint.

And this I never understood, at least not from a philosophical viewpoint. I would have figured that gay people would want to stay as far away from Christianity and its rituals as possible.

Tony, I'll second your bewilderment. With respect to some news I have read WRT the Catholic church, what it looks like to me is a group of folks fighting hard to be accepted by a huge institution that is doing its utmost to reject them. I just keep wondering "*Why* do you want to belong???"

I don't know that anbody can really answer that save the folks wo want to belong, so I'm not really looking for an answer, but the questions persists.