The US version is called "Permission" and was produced by Public Interest (http://www.publicinterest.tv). It won the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Rights Award at the sixth annual "Media that Matters" film festival in 2006.

http://www.mediathatmattersfest.org/watch/6/

You go Girl!

All religion is not the problem here.  The heart of the message of most religions is to love one another but this message has been distorted to fit the agenda of people in power.  Their are many people including myself who are religious and still believe that gay and lesbian and any other variation of sexual orientation should have all the same rights as heterosexual people.

I disagree. Religion is precisely the problem...at least it is at the very core of the problem. The message of most religions isn't "love one another". The message of most religions is "believe in things for which you have never nor will ever receive evidence". The message of most religions is "toe the line and make sure you stay within the societal standards set by irrational beliefs". The message of most religions is, "think and live just as illiterate sheep herders did thousands of years ago".

This is the reason why we have debates like the one involving gay marriage. It shouldn't be a debate at all. But because too many people can't shake the irrational notion that homosexuality is wrong due to religious conditioning, it becomes a hot topic.

Religion is to blame for this irrationality. Your magic sky fairy is a dick.

You are confusing Church edict for religious tenent. The two are not the same, and if you look at what is credited to Jesus as his sermons, teachings, and admonishments, you'll find the core message is about love and caring for those less fortunate. It isn't until the founding of his Church, after his death that various people start trying to put their own spin on his message and start trying to divide people and gain power for themselves.

Early Chrisitanity was pretty much a Judaic Apocolyptic Cult that was convinced the end of the world was nigh and the only way to ensure you would live on in the After life was by doing good works, living life as a servant to others, and caring for those less fortunate than yourself.

Weekly religious services help teach me compassion for friends, gay freinds included. Religion helps teach me to care for the handicapped, including one of my immediate family members.

Considering gay marriage, I try to disregard religious teachings in the interest of fresh conscientious reflection on the issue. Current laws don't permit anyone to marry anyone else he/she chooses. For example, large portions of society scorn marriage between siblings, minors, first cousins and same-sex couples.

If a son is raised solely by two fathers, he may grow up to accidentaly fall in love with his own mother, whom he never knew. Without cautious marriage practices, he could marry her and conceive her children, his own half-siblings.

Perhaps some religious traditions have prevention of incest as their purpose. I'll grant that this is an extreme hypothetical example to prove a point.

I endorse the celebration of all loving relationships. But a relationship with a biological family member is an example of a loving relationship which is not meant to be expressed with sexual love.

Thoswe are Church services and Church teachings, T Cardone, not religious ones... but given your beliefs I'm surprised by your confusion of them.

Any child put up for adoption, product of a divorced marriage, artificial insemination, or any number of other ways could "hypothetically" result in the exact same situation.

You don't seem to be proposing any sort of legal action to prevent this in any other way. Why the double standard? Besides a siimple blood test would rveal any such circumstances and prevent it.

If you want to be compassionate to your "gay friends" try letting them live the life they were born to as they wish, rather than dictating to them what they can and can't do. Religion/Church has no place in governmental policy or legislature. You wouldn't want a non-Christian majority to develop in this country and start passing laws that will not allow you to live your life as you feel God wishes for you too... so why do you insist on doing it to others?

So take your Church teachings out of the equation enitrely. What is the secular reason for disallowing same sex marriage? I bet I can refute each and every one.

Hi Damon. Your distinction between church teaching and religious teaching is not familiar to me. I view my church as religious, so they are nearly synonymous terms to me.

I agree that many situations could result in the hypothetical result of a person unknowingly falling in love with a relative. And, yes, a simple blood test would prevent accidental consummation of that love.

I don't want to dictate how any of my friends or enemies live. There is a principle of separation of church and state in our laws. Yet many U.S. laws share a philosophical foundation with Judeo-Christian teachings.

There are secular philosophical reasons for disallowing some marriages. The example I gave illustrates that a man could inadvertantly fall in love with a close biological relative. While their love would be sincere, they likely wouldn't marry after learning the truth of their kinship. Some loving relationships don't meet the criteria of a marriage. I question whether or not gay relationships meet the criteria.

I'm not saying I know the answer. I don't want to restrict what anyone does in the bedroom. But I'm uncomfortable with expanding the definition of traditional marriage. If everyone could marry who they chose, siblings could marry siblings. "Marriage" could become meaningless. And I additionally believe single-sex parenting should be a last resort only, since it could deprive a child of a mother or father.

I want to point out that I said "ALL" religion is not the problem.  I would agree that conservative and credal religions have played a huge part in the issue of same sex marriage.  And yes Rob, many churches preach the "toe the line" message.  But as Damon pointed out, the original message of Christianity (which is the only faith I can knowlegably speak about) was to take care of others less fortunate and treat other people with care and compassion.  This original message was distorted by the church leaders in power and even by the people who wrote the Bible.  (Not all of us Christians believe that the Bible is the "word of God". 

Anyway, there are a lot of churches and denominations fighting for same sex marriage rights including the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Church.  So no, ALL religion is not the problem.

T - In order to understand the difference between religious and Church teachings you need to study the bible, something most Christians have never done. Sure they've sat in Church while someone else has selected specific quotes and then interpreted them for them, and even a few (though far too few) have read the bible from cover to cover (something I think everyone who calls themselves a Christian should attempt to do every two years minimum).

That is not the same as actually doing a scholarly study of the bible. Which books were written when? Who were they written by? Why were these books included in the bible and not others? If the very concept of a written history did not exist during both Jesus' time and when the books of the bible were first being written, then how can it be that everything in it is a literal description of what happened? Where do the quotes about homosexuality exist in the bible, what did they mean in the original language, and why were they written? Why does God, according to the OT, consider homosexuality akin to eating bacon or lobster, or wearing linen and silk shirt, or cotton and rayon trousers? Why does he say it is okay to sell your daughter into slavery and beat and stone people who work on the Sabbath?

This nation was NOT founded on Judeo Christian beliefs. This nation was founded on the beliefs that religion should not be a part or parcel of the government. That all thinking Men should be allowed to worship as they choose. This nation had a large amount of non-Christians (Diests and Unitarians to be specific, though there were a number of agnostics as well) who were largely responsible for the Declartion of Independence and the Constitution. The set up of democracy and the ideas of a confederacy owed themselves to non-Chrisitans in the form of the Greeks and Iriqouis Nation.

The history of your nation and religion is NOT what you think it is. Before you go around telling people what they can and cannot due, and the principles behind the founding of this nation, perhaps you should actually study said history. You may be surprised (please come back when you get to the part about the Catholic Church marrying men to other men, including their priests, I'd love to hear what you think about that).

Actually, we want the measure in Maine to *lose* ["No on 1"] because it's trying to take away the equality that the legislature already passed.  Just a heads-up :)

Exactly!  That's why it should be illegal for kids to be raised by a single parent.  Whenever anyone finds themself in a situation where they're a single parent raising a kid, their kid should automatically be taken away and adopted out to a June and Ward Cleaver model of perfection family :D

Oh, wait...

I apologize because I need to interject here.

First, this is not just about adoption rights or the right of a gay couple to have children; this is about the right of two loving people to be married. We have many gay citizens here in the United States who pay their taxes, follow the rule of law, etc. and these people have been in commited relationships for years. And yet, when they decide to make the very personal decision to formally commit themselves to each other, society says no.

Right now a straight man after serving 20 years in prison for raping a 15-year-old girl has more of a right to marry than any gay or lesbian individual in this country. But I suppose you might say he would make a good father. So, it's "ok," right?

Anyway, "T. Cardone," the idea that it takes one man and one woman to make a child is very true--biology says we need sperm and egg. However, you are very mistaken if you believe that a straight society of father and mother is the only one capable of raising a child.

There is, unfortunately, a difference in this world between marriage and creating a family with children.  This is true for straight, as well as gay, persons.  To deny someone the right to marry the one they love is counterproductive.  Just because they are not allowed to marry does not affect how they will live their lives.  The couple will love each oher with, or without, marriage. 

So I feel where you are coming from, and agree that marriage, in a civil context, should be abolished.  This way those perverts won't be crying for something they can't have--no one will.  Life will be fair for all.  After all, no one can dictate who someone can love.  So why should be confer benefits on anyone because a couple wants to be together?  Doesn't this discriminate those poor unfortunates who never find love at all?  They should get the tax breaks....

Clearly not, TC. If they did, there would not be disease, famine, poverty and premature death in the world that clearly has an abundance of all of those.

The question isn't do all children have a right to one male and one female adult in their lives.  It is "Do all children have the right to a safe and happy home environment?"  In my family, well, I had an abundance of adults seeing me through my early years.  So many of my friends did not, either because of the war, or other reasons, including divorce.

At least two had a pair of daddies; the kids are fine, thanks.  Sadly, these dads could never marry, but they managed to raise two happy healthy productive offspring.  The fact that they managed doesn't change the basic nature of what you propose, which is just wrong. As someone else here proposes, if anyone cannot marry, then perhaps noone should be allowed.  After all, marriage isn't necessary, right?

I can't endorse a system that refuses a couple a basic civil right. The one I amthinking of atm is marriage.

If you believe because same sex couples would deny the right to a child to have btoh a mother and father, they should not be allowed to marry, then by extension you believe that barren couples or those with no desire to have children should not be allowed to marry. Does this mean those who are married should have the weddings put aside?

What about children who have a parent die, or whose parents get divorced. By this same reasoning, it is then in the child's best interest to be removed from said home, placed in foster care or an orphanage until a pair of parents can be found for them, or until such time the parent remarries.

Does this a tad bit ridiculous? So does your argument. You may have convinced yourself that the need for a mother and father is reason you are against same sex marriage, but that same logic leads to things I'm willing to bet you would never even consider doing, and would probably fight against.

Historically, society strives to provide both male and female parent role models for the next generation. Of course, it's inevitable that numerous families fall short of this ideal. But when we set up a system that purposely excludes the possibility of some children ever having both a mother and father in their lives, we will be drastically changing the fabric of society.

Barren couples should have the right to marry because they would have kids if they could. Or they could adopt and provide a child with a mother and father.

Single parenting still holds out the hope that the parent may remarry, thus providing a parental role model of each gender to the child/children.

Depending on the scenario, and their relation to the child, gay individuals are probably the best parenting option for children in many cases. But don't support any system that would deny a child access to both his biological parents when possible. That goes for children in heterosexual adoptive homes too. But even if the parents are adoptive, children will still want both a mother and father.

I said they could get them back after they got married. And now you are saying barren couples should be allowed to married because they would have children if they could. You also didn't say anything about those who got married with no intention of having children... all of which just further exposes that it is the thought of homosexuals having the same rights asw us that is the real problem.

Just own up to it.

And for the record, a man can be every bit as protective, nurturing, and sensitive as a woman, just as a woman can be every bit as authoritive and disciplinarian as a man. The sex has nothing to do with the roels in a relationship or even with a child. Any psychologist can tell you that.

I should also mention that a smae sex couple does not have to deny their child the right to their biological parent(s). That is an assumption on your part.

T Cardone:

The only logical solution to your inane postulation is obvious: outlaw marriage.  And I have no problem with that, in fact, such would be the approach of a truly enlightened society.  Instead, this culture has instituted a system of deliberate discrimination against ALL those who might choose another lifestyle.

You probably don't realize this, but at the exact moment a couple is pronounced "husband and wife", over 1,000 civil and legal benefits accrue to them that are unavailable to the rest of society's inhabitants.  There is no more glaring example of discrimination in this culture, and for my money, the only fair, humane, and intelligent solution is to abolish the institution of marriage and everything connected with it.  Abolish it, outlaw it, consign it to the oblivion it deserves.

The totally erroneous assumption that having two parents, of different sexes, is somehow the only system that can work is at best a last gasp, desperate attempt to rationalize overt discrimination.  Your closed-minded suggestion completely ignores a host of negative, even dangerously destructive possible outcomes, not the least of which is child abuse.

I had two parents, of different sexes, and my life would have been infinitely easier had they both been neutered, due specifically to the horrific abuse I and my siblings suffered for decades at their hands.  I would have gladly exchanged them for a single gay hooker, and can easily say that alone would have spared me half a century of pain, humiliation, grief, and disillusionment that your ilk never seems to have a problem with being inflicted on children.  It's right there in your own compendium of fairy tales, fables, and fabrications, particularly the old testament.

Your view on this issue exposes you as a barren soul, devoid of compassion, bereft of real-life experience, and self-absorbed to an extent that renders you irrelevant.  Par for the course for those who flatter themselves with the term "conservative", when what they actually mean is "authoritarian".

Funny how Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, huh?  And yes, it most definitely existed in his day.

Oh yeah, and for the record I have been married twice--for twenty years to my current wife, with whom I have a ten year-old daughter.  She has been taught from birth not to think like you people, and routinely garners rave reviews from all who meet her as highly intelligent, deeply compassionate, and as well-adjusted as any child could hope to be.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.  Again, par for the course...

"But I doubt a man's abililty to ever be a mother, and I doubt a woman's ability to ever be a father."

Ah ... so it's not just about homophobia ... or a narrow version of marriage that focuses on children ... it's also about sexism and strict division of roles. I see.

Auntie Hosebag,

You've made several assumptions about me in your response. But I don't really mind them, or your insults, because I expected no less when I chose to post my viewpoints on this webpage.

I expect to be in the minority here. I suspect your view that marriage should be outlawed is also in the minority here and in broader society.

Laws should should provide the same rights to married people and unmarried people, maybe in civil unions. But there is a danger that systems could develop which would extend the definition of marriage so far as to make marriage meaningless.

I know straight women who entered into a domestic partnership with each other strictly for the financial benefit. Is this an abuse? Traditional marriage can already be abused this way. Why broaden the possibility of abusing the system?

Anyway, since traditional marriage is bad in your view, why should we call gay relationships marriage? These relationships are admittedly different.

So we should not allow singles to parent either, right?  After all, they don't have a partner.  Sometimes, their partners die.  They should give up their children then, right?

Awwwww.  Poor little hate-monger feels insulted.  And even worse, he says I made "assumptions" about him.  Boy, your life is really tragic, huh?

Three times in one paragraph you used declensions of the word "abuse", a subject you know absolutely nothing about.  If I was as weak as you, I suppose I could consider that an insult.  I don't.  Ignorance is its own punishment.

You don't know any straight women who entered into a domestic partnership with each other for financial benefit, unless you're deliberately distorting a roommate situation.  Nobody chooses to be gay, which is just one of thousands of facts about gays you refuse to learn.  Nobody would willingly invite the kind of misery upon themselves that comes from the religion-driven Armies of Hate around the world that are always looking for a target.  And absolutely nobody would choose to pretend to be gay, for the same reason and more.  This is the routine modus operandi for right-wing ideologues; first, change the subject; second--lie.

You have a problem with reading comprehension, I guess.  I never said marriage was "bad".  Hell, I'm on my second one already.  If I thought it was so "bad" why would I do it again?  I suggested that the only fair, humane and intelligent solution to the controversy around marriage is to do what a second-grade teacher would have to do: if you can't all play nice with the toys and share, then we should just take the toys away from you.  We ARE, after all, dealing mostly with children here, at least among those who want to keep everything for themselves.  Most gay people don't need a marriage license to prove they love each other, but they are acutely aware of the benefits that come with one.

Marriage is a business arrangement between the state and two partners.  Why do you think it's called a "contract"?  It wasn't originally that way, wasn't intended to be, but once lawyers get involved...

So, you see, marriage is already meaningless.    Myself, I would be loath to understand why gays would even want to be married, given the obstacles, pitfalls, and dangers that abound throughout it, but my many gay friends assure me it's as much about the rights they're being denied as anything else.

What if you were told you can't buy a house because you're not married?  I'm willing to bet we'd hear some howling from you.  In fact, you'd pull out every lie, distortion, and misdirection you could to make your case--that's what right-wingers do.  Ever hear of Iraq?

But for some reason--and this is where religion rears its evil head--you are obsessed with anointing yourself as "normal" and everyone different from you as flawed in some manner.  Yes, you have it all backwards, as usual, but that's not my point.

The point is you are no better than anyone else.  On a simplistic, kindergarten level, that's what religion claims to be about.  We are all supposed to be Sky Daddy's children, right?  One can only imagine what your type would have done to lepers, or prostitutes, or the handicapped.  Wait a minute, didn't Jesus himself get into trouble for helping such people out?  And who was it that objected?  Why, it was all the T. Cardones of the ancient world.  Hmmmmm....

I guess the more things change...

Auntie Hosebag,

You assume I know nothing about abuse. You assume you know my gender.

Then you decide what I do and do not know about events in my own life.

I apologize if I caused you to lose your temper and argue in such a hypocritical manner.

Every child should have a mother and a father; that's my conviction. You're free to disagree.

Amen Martin!!!!  So many great points.  I agree whole heartedly. 

Patrick - I am a hetero married woman so I don't presume to know the gay/lesbian experience.  But it is my belief that different is not equal.  Even if domestic partnerships provided every right that marriage does, it still segregates people.  Why should "marriage" be saved for only one portion of society?  I guess I don't want the LGBTQ community to settle for anything less than what the rest of the world already has.

Keep up the good fight!

Marriage is intended to transfer rights of property and create legal bindings of family where no blood relationship exists.

That is all. That is all marriage has historically meant. Our nation at somepoint decided to change the definition of marriage and make it about supporting a unit because a couple together was decided to be more stable and productive than two individuals apart. We recognized that if they chose to have children they would also be able to use various breaks to help raise that child and therefore are more likely to produce a healthy and productive citizen.

That is ALL marriage in this country is about from a civil perspective. Keep your talk about nature and house, and dog out of it. Civil institutions should be dealt with through logical application of existing law, and where ever possible should seek to keep government out of he affairs of adult private citizens.

A homosexual couple is capable of raising children, regardless of how that child was produced. They are as deserving of the benefits and protections and legal recognition that all marriages receive from the State.

I understand your own bias would like to dismiss this, but this is your problem. No one is forcing you to have a homosexual marriage, preside over one, attend one, or support one. You are allowed to live your life without having anyone elses morality being forced on you. Please allow others the same courtesy.

Hi Keaven,

Well, if Marriage equals love, I Love my dog, my House, my Books, my sister, my brothers, and many other things. 

I don't need to be married to them to establish this relationship.  I don't need to have sex with them to establish that I love them.

To say that a homosexual relationship is it's own identity as a opposed to being a mimic of somehting that is unique (ie. a marriage between a man and a woman, I think would be disengenuous.)

The homosexual act mimics what goes on in a heterosexual one. Clearly the same organs are used and have the same functions and requirements for arousal... So clearly the laws of nature must change as well as the man made laws that would try to force themselves on natures laws..

I'm probably not being clear in these arguments. But I think you are fighting against nature and your own humanity more than me..

Trying to muddy the water with slippery-slope, faulty analogous hoopla? Well.. all I can say is, if the love you have for your spouse is the same as the love you have for your dog, siblings, or your house.. well.. i feel sorry for your wife.

It is not nature I fight against, but the government, for entertaining the notion that Equal Protection Under the Law only applies to *some* American citizens.

The argument is not what function marriage served in the fledgling communities of our past, but what function they serve today. In today's world, marriage is not simply an institution of procreation - many battles have been fought, and won, on that front already in the US (by heterosexuals looking for sexual equality and freedom), so it is on that foundation I make my claim: Since it has been established already in this country marriage is about the expression of love and commitment between two adults and the contract they make with the government, I reassert the point that there is no legal basis to deny homosexuals the same.

The definition of marriage does not have to change since no historical definition of marriage was based on the partners being of opposite sex. It is a convention, a tradition, but not a requirement. It shouldbe noted until DOMA passed there was no legal requirement at all from the USA that the two people being married had to be off opposite genders.

I must ask why do you keep bringing nature into this? Civil law is not about nature, it is about creating and enforcing the rules of society. What you wrongly define as un-naturalis in fact seen in every species of mammal. Hopmosexuality is in truth perfectly natural. What you will have a harder time establishing is marriage as in one male and one female partner bound for life. It is far more rare among animal species than homosexuality.

Learn a lesson from history, separate but equal never is.

Well Damon,

Civil Law works best when it is a reflection of what is human nature.  An illustration to consider would be that scientists seek to discover the physical laws of nature and then put man-made measurements to them to be able to describe them.  Some of them are correct some are not.  The scientific law never overrules the law that is trying to be explained.  At best it can only describe how it works.  To say it's not natural for something to be a certain way is in fact it's greatest argument against it as Civil Law should be a reflection of Natures Laws and not working against them.

Random point: Stick Two homosexual men on an island.  They will cease in one generation. Stick a Male and Female on an island they may last several generations.

One of the greatest arguments against homosexuality is that it doesn't naturally produce children, (one of the most patriotic things that can be done in a culture or nation is to procreate and raise children that are productive members of society creating a great deal of wealth and support for previous generations)  Sure anyone can raise a child, but there is still an affinity that child will have towards its birth mother or biological father that simply will not be to the adoptive parent.  To me this suggests once again a beating ones head against a natural barrier that is stronger than mere civil legislation.

This next part is a little crude I am sorry for that. I'm not interested in being insulting, only advancing a thought.

Your argument is that studying animals would lead us to discover natures laws.  If you want to believe you are no more than an animal I can't really tell you not to behave like one.  Some animals are known to eat their mates after procreation.  Not exactly what I'd call a great argument for doing the same. But it's possible to legitimize whatever you want if you look long enough for a reason.  Many female mammals are often led by one male mammal, I guess that would be a case for polygamy.  So there are certainly many animalistic behaviours that would be abhorrent, to the normal flow of humanity. 

As far as lessons from history, it is odd to me that we always see civilizations at their "pinnacle" - so called..and they usually have a degree of homosexuality in them.  But rarely is the pinnacle the ideal that was struggled for in the beginning of that society.  And often the forces that are at work at the "pinnacle" often seem to be the demise rather than the success of the culture.

Jim you should learn how to craft a coherent argument. First you say natures law reveals this and this and this. Then you say we shouldn't take the fact that nature created homosexuality in all mammals. You talk about polybamy as abhorrent to the normal flow of humanity, but there are numerous instances in the bible of polygamy as a perfectly acceptable state, as well as plenty of historical proof, if you care to google, of polygamy in human cultures around the world.

Also there exists ceremonies for uniting men for life under God dating back at least until the 4th century.

And another thing, no child has a natural affinity for their birth parents. That is why it is such a suprise when a child finds out they are adopted. Children bond with their parental figures, regardless whether there is any biological relation or not. This is a known and well established fact.

You don't want homosexuals marrying. We get it. All your reasoning is fatally flawed though. Why are you trying to hide (albeit poorly) behind reason. Just admit you think it is evil and a sin (though even that is not true if you are going by the actual words of the oldest and most correct interpretations of the bible) and be done with it.

Thanks for the insight Damon, you're right I don't craft my arguments very well.  But I don't believe that humans and animals are on the same level, Perhaps you were misunderstanding the nuances.  The natural laws referred to were those that govern humanity not animals.  For instance among animals it's ok for the Alpha male to go in kill the old male and destroy the young of the old males offspring, while this is not the case among humans.  (At least it is not acceptable here in the US.)

I think you would have to agree that humans have a higher or at least different moral code(although your arguments are contrary to this).   Yet a study of human nature can reveal some important things.  There are feelings of betrayal when one's Word to another is violated.  There is a spirit of people that can be pleasurable to be around.  There are things that can break a man's spirit.  These sorts of things are pretty much universal, little laws of man's nature extend to every area of life. Relationships included.

You are correct about Polygamy of course I presumed to argue off of the Biblical standard and as you said "Hide behind reason".  If you're intent is to peg me a Bible believer you don't have to try.  I will gladly state that I am.  But I am not the one that introduced the Bible to the conversation... in the interest of Biblical accuracy the proper context for marriage from a Christian viewpoint is as Jesus stated:

MARK 10:6-9

     6    But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

     7    For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.   What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

So it was not in the original creation of God to have polygamy as His model, nor was it the intent to have the same genders be as one flesh, and that sir is out of Jesus own mouth.    

Paul stated in one of his epistles that if anyone else should come and preach any other thing let him be accursed.. So the 4th century uniting of men under God would not be religiously acceptable...

You are very well versed on the Bible evidently.  May I ask what Jesus referred to when he was speaking of Sodom and Gomorrha and Lot escaping it's destruction.  Strangely enough the "righteous" sodomites were not among those that left with Lot.  And Jesus didn't hold them up as example of people to model after rather they had become a parable of what the world was to be like and the destruction it would undergo.. Unfortunately whether you like it or not the mentality of you dear people is the same as was the mentality of the residents of Sodom.

     5    And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them...  And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.  Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.Genesis 19:5-9

Hope all your surface arguments (logical and religious) have been mostly taken care of so that the only reason you have for doing what you do is that you want to do it.  It's not common sense nor is it scriptural conviction that guides your will in this matter it is something that you have a desire for and you do not have any control over that desire to change it so therefore you justify it any manner you can.

This is what Paul has described to be Sin reigning in your flesh.  (you wanted me to say that I believe it is sin, yes I do.) Don't worry this is normal, and is the case regardless of what the ‘sinful' behavior is.    For me there was only one way to overcome sinful desire and that was: realize I needed a full dependency on a power and Life greater than my own. The Spirit of Jesus Christ.  That dependency on Christ has conquered sexual ‘sins' in my life.  If it can conquer that it can conquer anything.  Yes I even know former homosexuals that are now committed Christians.  At least one happily married to a woman!  There is freedom!

Jim: Asside from the fact that every biblical scholar (as well as the bible itself) will tell you the sin of Sodom has *nothing* at *all* to do with homosexuality, I do appreciate where you're coming from, from a religious stand point. I am very religious as well.

however, religion has nothing to do with this conversation. We are talking about a secular government, and that governments responsibilty to ensure equal protection under the law.

One could make the aregument that the government has nothing to gain from issuing civil unions to its citizens, and therefor should refrain from doing so. However, they do issue them. And since they do, there is no lawful reason to deny homosexuals from entering into that same contract.

You can argue the theology of it all you like, but that has nothing to do with the civil issue. I don't really care if the church approves of my marrage or not, since there are no rights and responsibilities aforded me by the church uppon marriage... but there *are* rights and responsibililties aforded me by the secular governement, and it is those rights and responsibilities that you have no lawful claim to deny me.

When I think about it, love must be the most important part. I must concede that two men or two women can love each other in a way that benefits them and society.

I've consistently opposed gay marriage. But I sometimes wonder if I've been wrong to do so; I examine my conscience.

Society has universally valued marriages, which makes sense because marriages preserve and perpetuate society. Society is a group of people. The large societal group is made up of smaller groups, and the fundamental group is the family: the first group to which we ever belong as children. New families, new pieces of society, are created by marriages.

A gay partnership creates a two-person group, but that group can't grow. I can see why society values this type of partnership less than a traditional marriage, which creates a family: the fundamental unit of society .

But some gay couples raise children, so maybe society should view them as family-producing partnerships. To be prefectly honest with myself, I have to admit that I couldn't provide the best possible environment for a child if I was in a same-sex relationship. I don't think that gay partnerships are the same builders of society as traditional marriages.

I expect that society will continue to value child-producing marriages more than gay partnerships. For all their beneficial qualities, same-sex partnerships can never achieve the same things as traditional marriages. I can't, in good conscience, pretend that it's good to equate a same-sex partnership with a marriage between a man and a woman.