Mayor of Boston to Chick-Fil-A: Get Lost!!!!

To gauge Christianity I always think to myself - what would Jesus do?

Personally I could see Jesus being disgusted at these pseudo-Christians latching onto a money-driven corporation, gluttonously attacking people for their ways.

These are not Christians. Real Christians would not judge, they certainly wouldn't be corporate sponsored and instead of dragging their children to a fast-food joint to attack homosexuals, they'd instead be helping out at soup-kitchens or giving food to the homeless or helping the needy.

I'm also an atheist, but I still understand the preachings of good folk like Jesus.

reply to post by charles1952

In all honesty and seriousness, I can't recall coming across a group of posters that I admire more, all in the same page. It's an honor to me that you've taken the time to respond.

I am positively giddy - what with all the graciousness. I am not kidding :-) Nice way to start a dialogue Charles

The attack on Cathy is understandable - if regrettable

He is absolutely allowed to speak his mind - and then so is everyone else - and then everyone else after that...

We're in the middle of a culture war Charles - and it's not going to go backwards - only forwards

Some people are reacting to the uppitty-ness of the gay community. If only they would play nice, be happy with what they have...not attract attention to themselves - and not call people haters. If only they wouldn't bother people with all this

On the other side of this - gay people are reacting to being hated

Something an individual might not see or feel the same way if they aren't on the receiving end - and it really doesn't matter if most people really aren't haters - there are enough that are to validate the feelings and fears and anger of the gay community

In the middle are people who really aren't that invested in any of this either way - but they still don't like being lumped into either category

No easy answers here - it's not math. This is how society changes - a tug of war back and forth - bickering, fighting, name calling - and sometimes, unfortunately - violence. It's messy - it's just plain messy

The Civil Rights movement was messy. There were people who didn't see the point - people who didn't want change, people who were afraid of the changes and people who out and out hated

Nobody likes being called a hater - but to be fair - the people who aren't haters don't always call out the ones who are - do they?

All this fuss about Chick-fil-A and all the people lining up to eat there to support freedom of speech - it's not really that simple. I've heard some of the comments some of the patrons have made - and those people are haters. If they're tolerated by people who aren't - well - it becomes a case of birds of a feather by default

Marriage - do you think this is what this is really about?

Think about it Charles - the stakes are high - and this country is standing on the brink of the one change they thought they were never going to have to make

Are people wrong to want to be accepted? It doesn't even matter if it's not possible - if it's not realistic

Are they wrong to want it? Are they wrong to fight for it?

Also - off topic - but Charles, I've always wondered...is it really still 1952 in the place where you live?

:-)

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


You really made the points beautifully!

Charles, one point I want to add is about marriage being to protect the children's interest. That argument would carry some weight if only married people could have children, but anyone of the relationships mentioned (friendship, dating or cohabitation) can create children. ANY sexual encounter can create children. One doesn't have to be married to have children. By the same token, having children is not a requirement of marriage. Many people are infertile, don't want children or are too old to have children. Yet they are permitted to have licenses to marry. Because it means something else to them!. Marriage (to me) has nothing to do with children. I am permitted to marry.

So, the argument that marriage is for the protection of the children, if it ever held water, no longer does. The definition of "family" is changing, whether all of society likes it or not. Like Spiramirabilis so eloquently stated, "The Civil Rights movement was messy. There were people who didn't see the point - people who didn't want change, people who were afraid of the changes and people who out and out hated "

This is a civil rights issue (in my opinion) and it will progress until we'll look back on it with the same incredulity we feel about how once, black people had to drink from their own water fountains.

Under a genderless definition of marriage, the interests of children – and therefore society’s intrinsic interest in marriage – is eliminated entirely. Only the wishes of the two adults in question matter.

Only the wishes of the two adults matter in ANY marriage. If they have children, whether gay or straight, the adults turn their care and attention to the child involved. Unless you (or someone) can tell me how gay people getting married will interfere or change anything about traditional marriages, I'm afraid I cannot agree that "changing the definition" is anything more than a talking point people use to cast fear into an already fearful society. Straight people will still get married and have kids. In countries where gay marriage is legal, there is no change to anything.

Thank you for the kind words. There's nothing I enjoy more than getting into page 52 of a thread, with a handful of people really discussing the issue. It's too bad it takes so long to get there. But I love it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by pavil

 

Of course it's legal. I'm not suggesting he's doing anything illegal. But, as we all know, just because it's legal, don't make it "right".

To be honest, you were comparing them to a quasi Nazi group, hardly a fair comparison. The groups Chick-Fil-A support do not condone nor endorse violence towards Homosexuals. To quite a few Americans, what they are doing is deemed just as "right" as others deem it wrong, same as those on the other side. Neither side in the Gay Marriage argument has a overwhelming lead in public opinion so the topic is still being decided. Political discourse and disagreement have seem to reached their limits in American Politics. America can support large populations that are both in support and against Gay Marriage or any other issue.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Dear Spiramirabilis,

I find there is much I can agree with you about, I'm glad.

The attack on Cathy is understandable - if regrettable

He is absolutely allowed to speak his mind - and then so is everyone else - and then everyone else after that...

Absolutely agreed. And I think I can understand a little, not being gay myself, why there would be anger.

I don't know how to approach this particular idea, so please be patient. I normally don't like going into the past, but here it may bring a little more understanding. Gays feel hated. I assume that's true, and not just a desire to claim victim status. Why the hatred? Is it because straights saw gays as different? Well, certainly gays saw straights as different. If that was the reason it would explain mutual hatred from the start.

Some people are reacting to the uppitty-ness of the gay community. If only they would play nice, be happy with what they have...not attract attention to themselves - and not call people haters. If only they wouldn't bother people with all this

Now that's a good use of sarcasm, I approve Some of your comment may be part of the explanation. The "uppity" part (and I did catch the reference to blacks) may mark the time when the gay movement came "out of the closet." At that point differences between the two groups were emphasized, and to get the point across "shock" tactics were used. On both sides I saw it quickly became an "us against them" matter. I wonder how much of the hatred was based in fear, I'm not sure of what.

Nobody likes being called a hater - but to be fair - the people who aren't haters don't always call out the ones who are - do they?

Always, no. But it does seem that straights are more willing to attack people who are anti-gay (witness the Mayors), then gays are to attack people who are anti-straight (If that makes any sense. By "anti-straight" I mean gays who use violence, hatred, and harassment against straights.)

Yes, there are some haters on either side. I'm not trying for moral equivalence, just wondering if the fact that people (either side) are hated gives them justification for wrong acts.

and it really doesn't matter if most people really aren't haters - there are enough that are to validate the feelings and fears and anger of the gay community

or the straight community. As I mentioned, if I'm in a social setting with gays, I am unwilling to talk about any gay issue, even though it may be one of the most important issues of their lives. My reluctance is out of fear of verbal attacks and fury if I make one false step.

No easy answers here - it's not math. This is how society changes - a tug of war back and forth - bickering, fighting, name calling - and sometimes, unfortunately - violence. It's messy - it's just plain messy

The Civil Rights movement was messy. There were people who didn't see the point - people who didn't want change, people who were afraid of the changes and people who out and out hated

I don't necessarily accept the idea of "messy" as applied here. If "messy" is just how it is and perfectly, albeit regretfully, acceptable, then there is no reason to criticize hatred and, indeed, violence against gays. Goose and gander. I don't approve of "messy" to that extent by either side. I am opposed to violence to make a point on a social issue that is already being discussed in all three branches of government. I'm opposed to "glittering," stalking, and harassment, of individuals, no matter by whom. But yes, there are other methods which can be used.

All this fuss about Chick-fil-A and all the people lining up to eat there to support freedom of speech - it's not really that simple. I've heard some of the comments some of the patrons have made - and those people are haters. If they're tolerated by people who aren't - well - it becomes a case of birds of a feather by default

I'm probably misunderstanding you on this one. Is it illegal for people, not trying to antagonize anybody by jumping into their face with it, to express their hate-filled opinions? And by-standers have an obligation to butt in and shut them up or they will be called haters, too?

Marriage - do you think this is what this is really about?

The entire gay movement? No. But it does seem to be the major focus of the movement right now. As far as I can tell, the only reason why Chick-fil-A is in the news is their support for marriage as it exists.

"Acceptance" as another issue? Forgive me but space is limited.

Charles, I've always wondered...is it really still 1952 in the place where you live?

You've seen my other posts? I'm flattered. Yes, I'm as dull and gray and boring as you think.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952

I visited the website of a group backing the traditional marriage amendment in Minnesota. They have, what from my view, is a good discussion on the subject. www.minnesotaformarriage.com...

Protecting the interests of children is the primary reason that government regulates and licenses marriage in the first instance. After all, government does not license or regulate any other form of intimate relationship – not friendship, or dating, or cohabitation. People are free, under the law, to live as they choose, cohabitate with whomever they choose and engage in sexually intimate relationships with whomever they choose – all without any governmental recognition or regulation.

While death and divorce too often prevent it, the overwhelming body of social science evidence establishes that children do best when raised by their married mother and father. Simply stated, children need both a mother and a father.

Fundamentally, same-sex marriage advocates propose to shift the marriage paradigm away from what definition of marriage is best for society – especially for children – and squarely onto the desires of the individual adults who seek to marry. Under a genderless definition of marriage, the interests of children – and therefore society’s intrinsic interest in marriage – is eliminated entirely. Only the wishes of the two adults in question matter.

I wanted to address this. First of all, to be fair, there are other studies that show children do just as well with two fathers or two mothers. Children are extremely adaptable as long as they are in an environment of love and stability.

Even if you could prove that children do best with a mother and father, wouldn't they do even better with a mother that stayed at home, and a father that never worked overtime? And wouldn't a child do best in a upper-income home where money was not an issue, as opposed to a lower-income home? Should we not allow lower-income people to get married because they might have children who won't do as well? Should we not allow working women to get married, because we think their children won't do as well? I mean, if the state has the right to tell gays they can't marry, then what's to stop them from telling low-income people and working women that they can't get married - in the interest of the children?

I learned from my ATS friend Annee that this country began issuing marriage licenses in the mid-1800's to stop interracial marriage. Of course, they probably said it was in the best interest of the children.

Originally posted by benrl
yea...

Way for a government employee to step on free speech.

Like it or not I thought Corporations where people, and Chick-fil-a by supporting Anti-gay marriage was practicing free speech.

You may not like it, but it is the right of every American, and its wrong for the government to step in.

This is sick.

A corporation IS NOT A PERSON!

And what's with the double-standard? It's okay for them to preach hatred and intolerance of others, but not city officials?

I see this "selective rights" issue is back again.

So many believe in the rights of the constitution, but only for "their side". Anyone else, whether they're gay people, non-religious people, black people, Hispanic people, unemployed people, or even just Democrats... the constitution wasn't written for "them" right?

The corporation steps on the rights of others (which is a STUPID business decision, BTW) through their own expressions of intolerance and hatred, and the city fights back with their own opinion.

I would be one of the first in line to shake the hand of everyone in that government building supporting this statement.

Welcome to the 21st century!

wow all for the votes Mr mayor.

I dont think anyone not gay or trans gives a damn about the gay rights situation except for social ettiquette or to appear more understanding....deep down most dont care just like we dont care about the situation in Syria...two generic events that plague our daily papers with column inches.

You see, nearly every person has some for of prejudice against them....mixed couples, ex cons, priests, politicians you name it we all have people insulting us. Deal with it and grow up....who cares.

reply to post by charles1952


Charles, I picked up on your comment about being "attacked" if you say something wrong?

I'm assuming you don't actually know any gay people, you don't socialize with any gay people, you don't have any relatives or friends who happen to be gay?

It's hard for me to explain this without sounding cliche about it, but you do know that gay people are just like you, right? We don't sit around in bars comparing our latest leotards or talking about what Kylie is up to on her latest tour.

Unless you want to get into what guys (or girls) do in the bedroom together and express your disgust, there is not a whole lot that will make gay people attack you.

Do you automatically agree with every issue every one of your friends or family raise in any discussion? I would hope not.

Gay people are no different to anyone else.

This is the major problem a lot of people have I think - they're isolated in some way from reality. I would urge everyone to have a conversation some time with a gay person. You might just find that we're not weird.

Originally posted by Six6Six
You see, nearly every person has some for of prejudice against them....mixed couples, ex cons, priests, politicians you name it we all have people insulting us. Deal with it and grow up....who cares.

When you are constantly being told through law, government, religion and now even corporations that you are not equal to other Americans, THEN and ONLY THEN do you have any right to tell other people to just deal with it and grow up.

This is not just about insults, this is about the systematic attack on equality from right-wing dictators who think they have the right to control others, primarily because they believe in a fictional sky man who was quoted as saying something once. No matter that all the other things their sky man said are ignored because they're a little too inconvenient - when it's attacking others it's less work and less sacrifice, and it's fun to control others, right?

Man, it's a good thing I know there are sensible and sane Americans out there, because a cursory look at this place could make a guy think the entire USA is packed with religious crazies and little despots.

reply to post by detachedindividual


There is such a thing as corporate personhood, and the Supreme Court has upheld it.

reply to post by detachedindividual

Dear detachedindividual,

You've got a very good point. As I've mentioned, oh, somewhere else, I live in a small town without gay relatives. I do go to the "Big City" regularly and have had perhaps a half dozen solid conversations with gay people. I've only been jumped once, which may be equal to having conversations with any six people picked at random.

I have spent many party hours with a gay man who is a relative of one of my closest friends. Occasionally he will drift into "gay themed" (if that makes any sense) topics and I am surprised at the amount of venom he displays. Not to me, but to the straight world in general. That has taught me to be very cautious in dealing with him. We'll talk about his rock collection, or his small farm, but nothing serious.

But again, my sample size may be far too small for an accurate assessment. Unfortunately, this is not strictly a logical issue, some emotions enter into it.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

You really made the points beautifully!

She certainly did. (No, I don't have a reason for calling her "her," some psychological quirk perhaps.)

It will take me a fairly long time to think about and respond to all of the points made, I may miss some, but I don't want this to end abruptly. Not surprisingly, I take a little different view. I suspect no agreement will be reached here; that's why it's going through legislatures and courts, to force a position one way or the other on people. But I'm hoping for more mutual understanding.

Charles, one point I want to add is about marriage being to protect the children's interest. That argument would carry some weight if only married people could have children, but anyone of the relationships mentioned (friendship, dating or cohabitation) can create children. ANY sexual encounter can create children. One doesn't have to be married to have children. By the same token, having children is not a requirement of marriage. Many people are infertile, don't want children or are too old to have children. Yet they are permitted to have licenses to marry. Because it means something else to them!. Marriage (to me) has nothing to do with children. I am permitted to marry.

OK, nothing you said seems false or offensive, but it can be presented differently.

Society is vitally concerned about it's future, as symbolized by the children. They are not concerned about other relationships, there is no license or other tests for friendships, etc. It seems that marriage is seen as the best place for children to be raised, in general. Partially this is because of history and tradition, and partially because the studies indicating there is no difference in the family setting really haven't been that persuasive. This question isn't going to be resolved by statistics, but in the minds and hearts of people.

Of course, it is physically possible to create children from any sort of relationship. In the future I suspect it will be done in labs without any parents. Besides, it isn't a question of who can produce children, it's more of looking out for the interests of the children when they are born.

So, the argument that marriage is for the protection of the children, if it ever held water, no longer does.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that.

The definition of "family" is changing, whether all of society likes it or not.

Then in that case, no worries. Just sit back and you'll get everything you want.

This is a civil rights issue (in my opinion) and it will progress until we'll look back on it with the same incredulity we feel about how once, black people had to drink from their own water fountains.

It seems to me, and this is only a preliminary thought, that it is a civil rights issue only because the people supporting it want it to be seen as a civil rights issue. This may be off the topic, but:

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."

From wiki www.ask.com... They don't think it's a civil rights issue yet. Some countries do and some don't. Even in this country, as I've mentioned, the state puts a number of restrictions on who can marry, so it hardly seems to be established as a civil right that only gays are being deprived of.

Unless you (or someone) can tell me how gay people getting married will interfere or change anything about traditional marriages,

This may be seen as semantic quibbling, but gay marriage eliminates traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is man and woman joining, etc. That will not be what marriage would be any more. Oh, a man and a woman could still get licenses and go through the motions, but even if the word "marriage" stays the same it will be a different relationship. Instead of entering into a traditional marriage they will be entering into a, what, committed friendship with state benefits?

Only the wishes of the two adults matter in ANY marriage.

Then why have a marriage license? If nothing else matters, then go to it. BUT, the interests of the Society also matter. They are the ones who provide the benefits to marriage that many gays seek. I could be wrong, but it seems that the only two reasons for gay marriage are to obtain material societal benefits, and to obtain the approval of society for their relationships.

This was rushed. I'm not satisfied with my work. Sorry BRB

With respect,
Charles1952

To all,

Alright, I admit it, I've screwed up badly. Instead of arguing with you, I should be learning from you. I'm sorry.

With the new approach in mind, allow me to ask a couple of questions (since I've just named you as representatives of the entire gay movement):

Am I right in thinking that this is primarily (or entirely) a civil rights issue?

If so, what does "Civil rights" mean? Is it a right conferred by government, or one conferred by God which no government can rightfully interfere with? (OK, put some other word in for God if you so desire.)

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
I have spent many party hours with a gay man who is a relative of one of my closest friends. Occasionally he will drift into "gay themed" (if that makes any sense) topics and I am surprised at the amount of venom he displays. Not to me, but to the straight world in general. That has taught me to be very cautious in dealing with him. We'll talk about his rock collection, or his small farm, but nothing serious.

I'm going to ask you to bear with me this time.

Let me ask you to suspend logic - about procreation - for this analogy, but hopefully, it will add some understanding. Imagine that you live in a world of mostly men. Ninety percent of the people are men and you rarely see or talk with any women, one reason being that a lot of women are dressed as men and are "passing" for men. The majority of men in your world see women as "weak, "sissy", "less than", unintelligent, and somehow undeserving of the same respect and rights that men have. Many women get raped, hit, disrespected and belittled by men. Women have a history of oppression. Women have been harassed, hurt, and even killed just for being women. They've been stalked, nailed to fences and dragged behind pick-up trucks - because they are women. Many teen girls, once they realize the world's hatred for them, commit suicide, rather than face a lifetime of hatred they see manifest on the street and in school every day. People call for the death of women at birth. There is legislation (by men) to deny women's rights (that one's not much of a stretch these days...)

However, not all men feel this way about women. Some feel compassion for their plight in life. You are one of these kind-hearted and open-minded men, who see women as different from men, but nonetheless, deserving of the same respect and honor that men get. Even though you've been raised to disrespect and be prejudiced against women.

Now. let's go back to your friend's house and replay your paragraph above.

I have spent many party hours with a woman who is a relative of one of my closest friends. Occasionally she will drift into "female-themed" (if that makes any sense) topics and I am surprised at the amount of venom she displays toward men. Not to me, but to the male world in general. That has taught me to be very cautious in dealing with her. We'll talk about her rock collection, or her small farm, but nothing serious.

Are you still surprised at the venom she displays toward men in general?
Can you understand the fear and the distrust she has toward men in general?
Can you give her the credit she deserves for seeing that you are not one of the oppressive men?

How would she respond if you told her, "You know, I'm not a woman and I have been raised with the same anti-female dogma that other men were raised with, but I have come to see that women are valuable and deserve their rightful place in this world. I still have some of the fear and feeling of "strangeness" about women, but the more I learn, the more I realize that what we've been taught is BS. I just want you to know that even though I don't fully understand you, I do respect you for WHO you are, and don't judge you for WHAT you are."

Just some stuff to think about.

reply to post by pavil

Originally posted by pavil
To be honest, you were comparing them to a quasi Nazi group, hardly a fair comparison.

You're right. Let's compare them, instead, to The Westboro Baptist Church, an organization that is not known for violence, but speaks out against homosexuals and their rights, using religion as their justification.

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
I visited the website of a group backing the traditional marriage amendment in Minnesota. They have, what from my view, is a good discussion on the subject. www.minnesotaformarriage.com...

After all, government does not license or regulate any other form of intimate relationship – not friendship, or dating, or cohabitation.

Just another note on this statement.

The government contract of marriage does not license or regulate an "intimate" relationship. The government contract does not stipulate intimacy in any way. It is assumed by many, but is not part of the contract. It's the same as children. Many assume people "marry and have children", but children are neither required or even desired by many.

Two people can hate each other, never get intimate, not live together and never see each other. They can still get married with the government's "blessing". Marriage is only intimate if the two parties want it to be.

The government's involvement in the marriage contract is the same as their involvement in the contract between a car purchaser and the dealer. If those two parties wish to be intimate and even have children, that's their own personal business and has nothing to do with the purchase of the car.

Originally posted by charles1952

Am I right in thinking that this is primarily (or entirely) a civil rights issue?

If so, what does "Civil rights" mean? Is it a right conferred by government, or one conferred by God which no government can rightfully interfere with?

I consider it so.

The NAACP considers it so.

We are a secular government - - - there is no mention of God in the Official Government contract entitled Marriage License.

The original US Marriage license was for the purpose of making it illegal for interracial marriage. Our forefathers were so consumed and concerned with racism - - - they made Marriage a Government Contract. They could have named it Civil Union and designated the word Marriage to the church - - but they didn't.

It is a legal Government Contract that protects the rights and property of those joining together as a single household. Love - children - god - whatever - - - have nothing to do with it. They are not relevant in this government contract.

The Government Contract of Marriage affords certain privileges - tax breaks - protections - - - not afforded by any other means.

This Government Contract with its privileges - tax breaks - protections - - - can not be denied to any couple who wants it - - - by joining together as a single family union "Marriage".

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
This question isn't going to be resolved by statistics, but in the minds and hearts of people.

Agreed. And my heart and mind is for equal treatment under the law of all citizens. People will always have their prejudices, and I support their right to do so. But when the government SANCTIONS those prejudices, by treating a group of people differently under the law, it lends credence to them.

Then in that case, no worries. Just sit back and you'll get everything you want.

You're right. Equal legal treatment is coming for gay people. But I will not sit back! I will not "wait" for it to happen on its own. I will fight for it every chance I get. I'm a woman in my 50s and have experienced prejudice and oppression in my life - a SMALL percentage of what gay people experience - and to "sit back" would be a selfish and cowardly thing for me to do. Believe it or not, I still experience oppression occasionally... but the government no longer sanctions it. I don't understand ANYONE who has experienced oppression, not having the guts to stand up for equal rights for all.

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."

From wiki www.ask.com... They don't think it's a civil rights issue yet.

Why do you say this? I don't understand how the above excerpt makes you think marriage isn't a civil rights issue... ? Definition:

civil rights

1. rights to personal liberty established by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. constitution and certain Congressional acts, especially as applied to an individual or a minority group.
2. the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality extended to blacks.

Even in this country, as I've mentioned, the state puts a number of restrictions on who can marry, so it hardly seems to be established as a civil right that only gays are being deprived of.

There is a reason that certain people are denied:

Legal contracts can only be entered into by consenting adults.
First cousin marriage laws vary from state to state.
What is the reason for gays not being allowed to marry?

This may be seen as semantic quibbling, but gay marriage eliminates traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is man and woman joining, etc. That will not be what marriage would be any more. Oh, a man and a woman could still get licenses and go through the motions, but even if the word "marriage" stays the same it will be a different relationship.

That's preposterous. Ask the straight people in states where marriage is permitted if their marriage is any different from what it was before. I guarantee you that if gay marriage were legal in all 50 states, my marriage would NOT be ANY different from what it is now.

Instead of entering into a traditional marriage they will be entering into a, what, committed friendship with state benefits?

That will be up to them. It could be that they base their marriage on love, just as the majority of marriages are. They may plan to have children - in ways that are available to them - just as straight couples do. There may be no plans for children. They may want to take in a brood of 6 foster children because they find nothing in life more satisfying than giving unwanted children a loving home. Who are we to judge? Do you care why your neighbors married?

There are MANY straight marriages that are simply a committed friendship with state benefits. Each marriage is a little different from the next. Would it be change your marriage if a couple in the next town married for companionship only?

I still have some reading in this thread to catch up on... Forgive me if I've repeated myself or answered questions that have already been resolved. Loving this discussion! Sunday morning in the BH household...

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
Alright, I admit it, I've screwed up badly.

Nonsense!

If so, what does "Civil rights" mean? Is it a right conferred by government, or one conferred by God which no government can rightfully interfere with?

Civil rights is government.
Inalienable rights is God.