Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

[Fragony]

Doesn't matter what it is, two reasons against gay marriage, enforcing it is a breach of the seperation of church and state that works both ways, and it is a small group they shouldn't claim what belongs to many, they can live the life they want without taking that.

[Koga No Goshi]

Now, you're thinking.

Good response, Koga. Very on-point and decisive.

Pharaoh thanks you.

This is purely for my curiosity.... does anyone here have any gay friends or relatives they are on good terms with? I noticed a couple times in this discussion people said "wow, am I the only person against this?" or something similar. It left me wondering, wow... are there so few people who have gay friends or relatives?

I'm just curious.

Personally, of course I Knew a lot of gay people. I wasn't friends with the couple I (suspected) were gay in high school, but that was really just luck of the draw more than avoidance. The three or so that I heavily suspected were gay (or just by common knowledge were, even though they never said so out loud to me personally) in my class hung out with the popular girls and of course the popular girls looked at me like I was a deformed ladybug on their sandwich.

In college, I knew lots. I did Student-to-Student Peer Counseling (called SSPC on our campus) for two years and not only had a lot of training seminars which touched on sexuality and relationships, STD's and safe sex, but also of course talked to a lot of struggling students who came in during office hours to talk to someone. Though frequently I saw these people only once and we weren't friends or classmates, it was a big campus.

I had a lot of female friends who had had sexual encounters with other women, but of course, I think anyone who knows a good deal of women knows that sexuality is a harder to pin down thing for them in many cases. They are freer and more liberated about everything from hugs and kisses to flirting to sex when it comes to gender crossing than men are allowed to be in our society, without necessarily being gay. My sister's best friend for a couple years of college was a lesbian, and through her my sister (heterosexual) got really involved in the UC-Irvine gay clubs on campus. I didn't really know many of them firsthand other than meeting a couple when I was visiting my sister and hanging out in the campus coffeehouse where she worked and a lot of her friends would come in. Since most were female it got me over the stereotype that lesbians were bulldikes or all masculine and butchy. Many you would have no way of knowing were lesbians.

I had a friend, whom I did not know was gay right off the bat, live with me for about a year after a big fight where his family had cut him off over something unrelated to sexuality. (Fight over his paychecks, which they had cashed and spent and threw him out when he was pissed about it.) I found out he was gay later, but that didn't bother me-- he had a lot of issues though. I suppose the fact that we were very good friends for years and he didn't tell me till very late despite my ... what the forum would call... "Berkeley liberalism", is proof that he had a lot of hangups about it. He was very "straight"/closeted and had multiple girlfriends over the course of time I knew him.

I had a lot of college classmates who were gay, ranging from normal to rainbow hair. I had a couple of friends that hung out in my "circle" who were, and it was no big thing to anyone. I was surprised (pleasantly) that rather than the "omg... omg, DID YOU HEAR?" reaction that people in my high school had to the topic, people in college treated it like absolutely no big deal.

[Koga No Goshi]

Doesn't matter what it is, two reasons against gay marriage, enforcing it is a breach of the seperation of church and state that works both ways, and it is a small group they shouldn't claim what belongs to many, they can live the life they want without taking that.

The first argument doesn't make sense and the second argument doesn't work in a secular democracy. Have an argument that applies to the U.S.?

[Fragony]

The first argument doesn't make sense and the second argument doesn't work in a secular democracy. Have an argument that applies to the U.S.?

Oh, ok, doesn't make sense. Church can't interfere in state business and visa versa that is how it should be, state can merely set up a civil contract the rest is outside their realm of influence. Well that is how it should be but it always wants more.

[PanzerJaeger]

This is purely for my curiosity.... does anyone here have any gay friends or relatives they are on good terms with? I noticed a couple times in this discussion people said "wow, am I the only person against this?" or something similar. It left me wondering, wow... are there so few people who have gay friends or relatives?

I'm just curious.

My best friend is, and I know a lot of gay people through him. Some of them I would call pretty good friends.

[Redleg]

Actually observations and comments about homosexual behavior are irrevelant to the topic. Since the topic is about the legalization of gay marriage.


The Federal government enacted legislation to provide equal rights to all regardless of age, race, religion, and sex. The Federal government has yet to enact a constitutional amendment that define's marriage as a union between man and woman only.

States also have enacted legislation to provide equal rights to all in line with the Federal Government.

If the state does not enact a constitutional amendment to define marriage they have opened the door for constitutional challenges of legislative law, given most states have defined marriage as a partnership between two people. Some states are indeed attempting or do have constitutional amendments in place.

So while people will argue about the slipperly slope theory, I just don't see it anylonger given the state has defined it as a partnership between two people both historically and in many cases in the law itself. I thought that arguement was valid at first, but when I look into the history of marriage, and the actual legislative law for the states I have lived in, I dont see the slipperly slope theory being valid where the state has defined marriage as a union between two people.

So until the constitution at the state is amended, and the constitution at the federal level is also amended to define marriage, courts have no consitutional recourse but to declare any law denying human couples the ability to have a state sanctioned marriage as unconstitutional.

So this is not the courts legislativing law from the bench, its a failure of the individual states to address the actual definition of marriage that the people wish for the state to have, and place it into their constitution.

[KukriKhan]

A very close family member living in Arizona is lesbian. Her partner of two years and she were in a car wreck in May, hit by a drunk driver. Both were examined and released from hospital. Two weeks later, her partner dropped dead one morning while sitting in their garden drinking coffee. No warning, just *plop*, face down, no breathing, no heartbeat, dead.

Gina (the dead partner) grew up in New Hampshire, but had been alienated from her family for over 30 years. A year ago, convinced that they loved each other and wanted to share life, the couple flew to NH to reconcile with family, and announce their intentions, giving each other "promise rings" in front of Gina's family, who seemed to take it all pretty well.

Now Gina is deceased. Sarah (my relative) cannot dispose of any of Gina's property, Gina's family blames Sarah for Gina's death and refuses to travel to Arizona to assist, and responds to phone calls and emails in vile, abusive, homophobic language, and Sarah cannot even get a copy of Gina's Death Certificate, because she is not the legal next-of-kin.

We hafta fix this. If Redleg and I decide to go into business together to sell widgets over the internet, and file the appropriate paperwork - even though we've never physically met, and he's in Kansas, me in California, if I drop dead tomorrow, HE has more rights to dispose of my assets that my Sarah does her Gina's. And that ain't right.

[Ser Clegane]

Thanks for sharing this, Kukri - I can only imagine how terrible it must be for your relative to face these bureaucratic barriers while trying to cope with these tragic personal loss.

My sincere sympathies go to her.

This shows that there are actually real people with tangible problems behind this discussion, not just some vile people with an agenda to corrup society and to pave the way for marriages between people and livestock/appliances.

The sad thing is that a civil union that covers the rights (or at least a good chunk of them) that married heterosexual couples have, seems to be something that would get the consent of a rather broad majority - and that it is the fringe groups on both sides wanting the full enchilada (i.e. gay activists that would not stop before even the church would be forced by law to marry gay couples on one side, some opponents of gay marriage who would see any form of legally condoning gay relationships as a step towards the destruction of soviety) or nothing are often the ones that are blocking a pragmatic approach.

[Koga No Goshi]

Oh, ok, doesn't make sense. Church can't interfere in state business and visa versa that is how it should be, state can merely set up a civil contract the rest is outside their realm of influence. Well that is how it should be but it always wants more.

Well maybe you are not aware, but in the U.S., that social contract is called marriage. Yes, marriage is claimed as having religious overtures. But it is still a legal contract separate from any church or religion's jurisdiction, in the U.S. Marriage existing as any sort of exclusive right only for certain groups of the population is unconstitutional under our laws, regardless of whether or not religious people feel the word itself means that marriage contract under the government must only recognize man + woman.

Maybe I just misunderstood what you were saying, you make short vague comments so I can't be sure.

Regarding everyone "agreeing" to just revoke marriage and replace it with a generic civil contract or civil union legal status, that sounds good-- but it is not what is being proposed. And I suspect you'd find just as much stiff resistance, if not more, to removing it. The whole legal defense of keeping it and not extending it to gay couples is 'tradition' and 'sanctity of marriage' and 'traditional definition of marriage.' So it's hard to picture these same people suddenly agreeing to disband the legal entity of marriage altogether. What's being proposed over and over in the U.S., are state ballot measures and Federal amendments to the Constitution to ban gay marriage. The discussion should reflect that, because theoretical discussions of deconstructing marriage and replacing it with something else is not what is going on, or even being proposed, by lawmakers or interest groups.

So until the constitution at the state is amended, and the constitution at the federal level is also amended to define marriage, courts have no consitutional recourse but to declare any law denying human couples the ability to have a state sanctioned marriage as unconstitutional.

In not so many words that is precisely what I have been saying. It is off-base for people to argue that this is "activist judges" or "legislating from the bench." If a law comes up excluding equal rights for certain groups it is the duty, not the "partisan judgment call" of a judge to overturn it. As stated before, if you do not believe this to be the case, I would wonder what exactly people think the judiciary's role IS supposed to be. Unfortunately I think too many people have come to view it as "rendering popular opinion rulings on issues in a way I agree with", and anything else as "activist judging."

Now Gina is deceased. Sarah (my relative) cannot dispose of any of Gina's property, Gina's family blames Sarah for Gina's death and refuses to travel to Arizona to assist, and responds to phone calls and emails in vile, abusive, homophobic language, and Sarah cannot even get a copy of Gina's Death Certificate, because she is not the legal next-of-kin.

Thanks for sharing Kukri. This is not "in a vaccuum." This is not "maybe what-if's." This happens to people every single day. This is exactly the kind of scenario I mentioned more than once and it's not rare or some remote theoretical. It does happen to people, and it's a complete injustice. I don't see how anyone can support this nebulous legal status as a good thing.

gay activists that would not stop before even the church would be forced by law to marry gay couples on one side, some opponents of gay marriage who would see any form of legally condoning gay relationships as a step towards the destruction of soviety) or nothing are often the ones that are blocking a pragmatic approach.

I am sure you can find some tiny fringes who want to "force it into churches", just like you can find fringes who advocate mass deportation for gay people or preach that natural disasters are God's punishment of tolerating gays. However I think we are frankly giving the public in general too much credit assuming that taking these fringes realistically is the reason they are lukewarm-resistant to the idea of recognizing gay marriage. First off, many churches already will either formally, or on the side, conduct gay marriage ceremonies. It really comes down to the individual clergymen in question and their personal beliefs. And some churches openly accept gay couples. So the idea that gay couples will "have to" next try to force some kind of totally unconstitutional law to force churches to conduct their weddings is just a scare tactic. Nor do I know of any such proposal, aside from one person mentioning an activist group protesting a church. But on any large scale, I do not believe this is something anyone is serious about messing with, and nothing that would pass the legislatures OR the courts anyhow, and thus not something people should be making their decision about.

That is, incidentally, something I am extremely annoyed with the Knights of Columbus about at the moment. Here in California the radio, even PROGRESSIVE radio is FLOODED with support ads to overturn the gay marriage ruling, saying that it's going to "force" people who object on moral grounds to accept it including churches. And they throw in this odd statement, too.... "kids in public schools make a joke out of it, just like they did when gay marriage was legalized in Massachussetts." My eyes almost bulged out... HUH? We are supposed to vote on a state ballot based on not wanting kids in school to make fun of something? And it ends with "Paid for by the Knights of Columbus."

The level of fearful, uninformed kneejerk reactionism this ad was trying to play towards doesn't speak well about the "reasonableness" of the so called middle.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No problem! I could have sex with pretty much anything PARTICULARLY if it was a dare. I do recognize a particularly unique element to male/femal sexuality.

I think that I see it from a unique perspective in that I am honest with myself. I could engage in a sexual relationship with a man if I had to - and most likely enjoy it. I prefer females and am currently dating a girl that I love very much and that I am attracted to.

Here are some estimates for you:
I'd have to say that 99% of the porn that I watch is heterosexual. The other 1% is gay, but the interest clicks on or off for me. Of the heterosexual porn that I watch around 50% is exotic women (Black or Asian in particular), 25% is some sort of professional or scenario based fantasy and the rest is a mishmash of whatever I was thinkign about all day. I am liberated sexually. I don't engage in promiscuous sex (by todays standards) and strongly believe in heterosexual monogomy.

Gah!

Why do you do this, you are a Christian?!

Talk about fuel for the fires of hypocrisy.

Also, why on earth would you watch specifically homosexual porn? I would cut my throat sever my limbs and pluck my eyes out before I engaged in sodomy.

[Lemur]

I would cut my throat sever my limbs and pluck my eyes out before I engaged in sodomy.

Dude, that's some sick, kinky stuff you're talking about. Most people have some dark fantasies, but self-mutilation and self-blinding? That is some sick kink you got going there.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well I was just making a point. The point was, I do not like sodomy, and I do not like losing my limbs. But I'd nonetheless choose the latter.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Rhyfelwyr-

Lemur beat me to it. Don't forget the spankings.

quite honestly christian hypocrisy is not that surprising. Much of the Bible contradicts itself, for one. Secondly, pastors, cardinals, preachers, and popes alike are guilty sinners, who often do not live up to their own standards. The people who go to church are not pure, and that is probably why they go.

I won't bash TuffStuff for being honest about his thoughts and feelings on the subject. I won't bash TuffStuff personally or use ad hominems. I will point out the inconsistencies of his argument and ask him to correct them, before I consider his argument valid.

If I cannot beat a validly presented argument from the other side, I haven't won the debate, and at best it's an "agree to disagree" situation. But the other side hasn't presented a valid argument yet, by most reasonable standards.

PS- keeping this PG-rated, I'd much rather be explored from behind than lose a limb or an eye. Temporary discomfort is worse than permanent amputation/blindness.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Gah!

Why do you do this, you are a Christian?!

Talk about fuel for the fires of hypocrisy.

Also, why on earth would you watch specifically homosexual porn? I would cut my throat sever my limbs and pluck my eyes out before I engaged in sodomy.

I'd kill a man, too if he was a jerk and I could get away with it.

Sodomy means BJ's too.

I view people as inherently amoral - probably because I am inherently amoral. I'm also a reformed vicious psychopath. I'm a Christian because I am so fundamentally flawed. I look to reduce my reliance on things that don't matter or are harmful physically, emotionally or spiritually. Or I could just embrace them and tear the world apart.

The only borders that we have are self imposed; consciously or not. Unless there is a clear biological function to something physiological that can be scientifically quantified - I will err on the side of caution. I firmly believe that our minds and "free-wills "determine much more than we think they do.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think that using a q-tip on your ear, or having a colonoscopy could qualify as sodomy as well. It's just an archaic and senseless term for something which should be legal between consenting adults, because it's no one else's business.

[Lemur]

For some reason this thread is reminding me of this girl Ana's license plate ...

[Koga No Goshi]

I'd kill a man, too if he was a jerk and I could get away with it.

Sodomy means BJ's too.

Where the hell were you when I was in Catholic high school, Tuff? You wouldn't believe the bent over backwards metal slinky arguments they can come up with to try to deny that sodomy is anything other than anal sex between two men. Even right after the teacher in religion class made explicit what it constituted.

[Askthepizzaguy]

You are a sick, sick man Lemur.

Don't ever change!

[ICantSpellDawg]

Where the hell were you when I was in Catholic high school, Tuff? You wouldn't believe the bent over backwards metal slinky arguments they can come up with to try to deny that sodomy is anything other than anal sex between two men. Even right after the teacher in religion class made explicit what it constituted.

I was the kid in class using every biblical argument about why the book was garbage. I was the one investigating the dead sea scrolls and earlier christian sects that pre-dated the Nicene creed. I flunked Theology in my Senior year because I refused to pass even thought the teacher told me he would pass me - i did summer school.

I literally received a detention for heresy, thinly veiled in class disruption. I was a terror.


I now see why I was wrong

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm sorry your life has been so tough, Tuff.

Thanks for sharing with us. I still disagree with you on stuff, of course.

Personally, I find any moral message spread by Biblical teachings either predated by secular morality, superceded by secular morality, or rendered obsolete because of how archaic it is. Stoning heretics, prostitutes, and cutting the hands of thieves is barbaric, cruel, and inhumane. I find the idea of burning in hellfire forever, cast out of eternal bliss by a supposedly loving God figure, merely because you have kissed a man or drank a few beers in your life to be repugnant.

I also note that most of the old testament laws are ignored because they make no sense, or because people consider them antiquated. I personally find that sodomy is just as sinful as eating the "wrong" kinds of meat, and few follow the dietary rules either. The varying accounts of Jesus are often in conflict with one another, and he isn't here to clear his name or refute what is said about him.

I also find that faith/religion are on the same level of thinking as fortune cookies, horoscopes, tarot cards, palm readings, astrology, lucky charms, voodoo, luck, fate, karma, aura, destiny, possession, angels, demons, leprechauns, dragons, gnomes, and zombies. It's interesting fiction, but nothing worth spending your life worshipping.

That's my opinion, having heard the opposing view so many times in my life. However, none of that discussion matters here. The point is, why should we discriminate against two gay men or two lesbians who want to live together and call it marriage? It affects nothing that straight people do, and they already are getting the legal rights associated with marriage as civil unions, etc.

All we are arguing over at this point are unrelated issues, and whether the word "marriage" itself should be used. Quite frankly you could call it "spinach noodle" and it would be the same *expletive* thing. All this uproar over a word, it's astonishing. Especially when one side has argued that marriages end in divorce, so why does it matter anymore anyway?

If that's the case, stop arguing and let gays have equality.

No offense intended to anyone for their differing, personal views. I am merely allowed to express mine.

[Fragony]

Maybe I just misunderstood what you were saying, you make short vague comments so I can't be sure.

Nope, was just wrong, different situation then here I guess. My other point still stands though, that gays should want to be husband and husband out of respect for the feelings of others about the status of marriage. America being a religious country and the holy order of the bruised star being what it is they will probably demand a marriage with backing of the church, seen it before.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The United States is not a religious country, and it's not a secular country. It's both.

And even if it were the majority, the rights of minorities must be respected, and the state is officially secular.



Just to clarify my previous post; if it's not a big deal, then it shouldn't be illegal.

[Fragony]

The United States is not a religious country, and it's not a secular country. It's both.

And even if it were the majority, the rights of minorities must be respected, and the state is officially secular.

Nothing should be respected there should just be equal rights. It that is there people ought to stop complaining, as far as I am concerned a civil contract is the best solution. Anyone's freedom ends where someone elses freedom begins. It's the perfection of balance and it should not be messed with, what that balance is depends on the society.

[Koga No Goshi]

Nothing should be respected there should just be equal rights. It that is there people ought to stop complaining, as far as I am concerned a civil contract is the best solution. Anyone's freedom ends where someone elses freedom begins. It's the perfection of balance and it should not be messed with, what that balance is depends on the society.

I somewhat addressed this already but again this is great "in theory" but this is not what is being proposed in the U.S. nor, as I would argue, even realistic. Straight people are not any happier about the idea of removing marriage from the law than gay people are about being excluded from it. The solution is inclusion into one set of rights, be it called marriage or something else. But I have a very hard time imagining that people who spent all this time at the "traditional definition of marriage" argument will suddenly consent in large numbers to dismantle legal marriage and replace it with a civil union that they will share with gay people.

I'm sure you'll see as much, if not more, refusal to accomodate that proposal.

I understand what you are saying Fragony, but if it won't work in the U.S., it's just kinda vaccuum talk.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Nothing should be respected there should just be equal rights.*

It that is there people ought to stop complaining, **

as far as I am concerned a civil contract is the best solution.***

Anyone's freedom ends where someone elses freedom begins. ****

It's the perfection of balance and it should not be messed with, what that balance is depends on the society. *****

* I agree, we should have equal rights for gays and straights, and everyone in between.

Therefore, we then agree by default that gays should be allowed to marry, because straight people can.

** When people's rights and freedoms are trampled on, be it by the state, the majority, or a minority, they have a right to complain and petition the government for change.

Free speech and all.

*** Why is it the best solution? I hear opinions, but I don't hear reasons.

**** Wrong, people's freedom ends where other people's protected rights begin. There is a difference between a freedom and a protected right. Your freedoms and your protected rights are not infringed when gays marry, and their freedoms and constitutionally guaranteed rights are being infringed upon when you prevent them from marrying.

By using this argument, you box yourself into a corner and either ignore the realities, or are forced to concede that you are wrong.

***** I don't buy the cultural argument. Just because a culture thinks gay marriage is inappropriate, that does not mean it should be that way. Just because a culture forces girls to marry at a young age, that does not mean it is right. Just because people used to eat other people, accepted by a culture, that does not mean it is right.

Just because your beliefs system or your culture condemns an activity, that does not mean your opinions should be the basis of law. Law should be founded upon the natural rights and protected freedoms of all, using rational, provable arguments to conclude when something is unjust.

The opposition has not used a rational provable argument to conclude that gay marriage is unjust, and they continue to refer to things which do not form the basis of law to reach that conclusion; such as opinion, religion, or votes. We do vote on laws, but the system is designed to reject unjust ones even if the majority thinks a certain way. That's how minorities are protected.

I would prefer a clear, straightforward argument; why gays should not be allowed to marry, using reason. Tell me, and we will have that discussion. Until then, the opposition concedes the argument by default because they are avoiding it.

[Fragony]

I somewhat addressed this already but again this is great "in theory" but this is not what is being proposed in the U.S. nor, as I would argue, even realistic. Straight people are not any happier about the idea of removing marriage from the law than gay people are about being excluded from it. The solution is inclusion into one set of rights, be it called marriage or something else. But I have a very hard time imagining that people who spent all this time at the "traditional definition of marriage" argument will suddenly consent in large numbers to dismantle legal marriage and replace it with a civil union that they will share with gay people.

I'm sure you'll see as much, if not more, refusal to accomodate that proposal.

I understand what you are saying Fragony, but if it won't work in the U.S., it's just kinda vaccuum talk.

Let me put it this way. Here in the Netherlands we have the party Sinterklaas, your santa claus comes from it. It's always under attack, it's a white clerigal figure with a band of blacks 'the piets', unclear if they are really blacks, or as the folklore says they are black because they like chimney's. He was really from Turkey, but in our folklore he comes from Spain. It doesn't matter anyway because it is perfectly harmless, but there is always the lunatic who wants multicolored 'piets' because just the existance of anything just doesn't go well with the idea of chronological progress. But kids love Sinterklaas, it's a fun warm and cosy party. Those people asking for the 'piets' to be multicolored, aren't they asking a bit much? Why does it need to be changed.

[Askthepizzaguy]

That's a different situation, and a different argument altogether. It has no basis in this discussion.

I'm afraid I must charge you again with avoiding the discussion itself. I don't want metaphors or comparisons, I would like to talk about this real, specific issue.

[Fragony]

That's a different situation, and a different argument altogether. It has no basis in this discussion.

I'm afraid I must charge you again with avoiding the discussion itself. I don't want metaphors or comparisons, I would like to talk about this real, specific issue.

If people consider it to be the best day of their life, there must be something about it. Why neglect that, it's a ceremony all that fun, traditions, not everybody wants to jump from a plane. I have fond memory's of Sinterklaas, there would be a knock and presents. We can keep adressing the legal (I would rather call it nihilistic, doesn't anyone want a bit of color in their lives anymore) aspects but that would do other considerations a disservice.

[Rhyfelwyr]

ATPG the Bible does not contradict itself. The OT is the story of God teaching the Jews to obey his laws one step at a time. This is done through several covenants, which the people break each time. So while at first in the OT we see people being stoned for their sins, this is just the beginning, as they recognise the basic sins. Then, by the time we reach the NT we should have reached the point where we can forgive these sins and avoid them ourselves. The NT is what applies to Christians today. On a seperate note, if you think the punishments God told them to inflict on people were harsh, you should consider their alternative of Baal. Children were sacrificed by fire regularly to him, as well as other abominations eg male prostitution. The former of course being infinately worse before anyone here goes nuts.

On topic, as a Christian I see it as my duty to prevent sinful acts being comitted. You can try to create a utopia by giving everyone total freedom in their private spheres and a philosphy of everyone minding their own business. But in the end relativism and human reasoning just don't get you that far, indeed you will get only a dystopia, be it an anarchic world where everyone may do as they please, or the opposite of a totally controlled world where people have no freedom at all. If you compromise as most people who employ reasoning do, well then that is what you get - a compromise. You can't make it perfect, no human can.

I used to think like that, but God opened my eyes. Yes people may think it is crazy, but God is sovereign and infinitely good, human reasoning brings only relativism which will not give you the answers you look for. The thing is, its seems pretty pointless trying to explain God's existance through my human abilities, its one of these things that you "know when you know". Then you can pursue goodness as best as you can, and realise that evil is not just blatant harm to other people. By its nature it is much more corrupting than that, if you give it a foothold in this fallen world then it will grow and consume it.

[Koga No Goshi]

That's a different situation, and a different argument altogether. It has no basis in this discussion.

I'm afraid I must charge you again with avoiding the discussion itself. I don't want metaphors or comparisons, I would like to talk about this real, specific issue.

Why aren't you a mod, anyway? :)

Thanks for bringing the discussion tightly back on topic. It has had to meander through every possible trap door escape route like "gay people aren't really a category of people" to "it's sinful."