[WhoisAlanGreenspan?]

Although I didn't ask them, I met a "couple" just last night who've been together for something like 20 years. These two gents have whatever kind of glue holding their relationship together that you or I might have with our own spouse. I don't apologize or make up with my wife because of a legal "marrage" or because I'm a christian. We stay together because we love each other and work at it. After 20 years together, you've got to realize they must do the same.
I don't think these two are attacking religion or christianity in any way. I think like Doug's picking on fondness for goats, saying it's a deliberate attack on christianity muddles the debate and weakens our side's argument.

[doug from upland]

I didn't say it is a deliberate attack on Christianity. My point, even to the gum-flapper flame thrower, is that once we have changed the definition to what some group wants, the next group will come along and demand something else. The definition will continue to be changed.

[singsong]

I don't apologize or make up with my wife because of a legal "marrage" or because I'm a christian.

Big mistake. Do it in the name of God and you'll have a lot less problems.

I think like Doug's picking on fondness for goats, saying it's a deliberate attack on christianity muddles the debate and weakens our side's argument.

It's a valid point, that I've used myself. It does put the issue in perspective and show how ridiculous gay-marriage is. Animal "love" is a fact of life just like homosexual, but the mere presense of an a$$-itch does not entitle someone (or something) to the place reserved for real marriage.

[TheCrusader]

"I think ---saying it's a deliberate attack on christianity muddles the debate and weakens our side's argument."

Christianity, (and religion in general), has the most to lose by this outrageous, twisted redefinition of marriage. Your thinking is shallow, and weak. What has always kept marriages together are the vows promised at the wedding ceremony, the children that need to be raised and cared for, the recognition that Jesus said marriage is indisolvable except for adultery, and the well known fact that marriage is the basic institution and the glue that holds together all civilized societies. Human "love" waxes and wanes and is as fickle as the weather, (witness the 52% divorce rate since the first attack on marriage that arrived under the banner of "no-fault divorce").

The ancient and modern purposes of marriage are to provide vows and a contract which help protect a betrothed man and woman from straying from each other, to maintain unity and cohesion, to protect the children of the marriage, and to provide basic rules and structure for the institution of marriage in a civilized society.

Any sexual relationship between two males or two females is nothing but a filthy, disgusting, debauchery of nature and of God's obvious plan for His creation to love and honor one another and to procreate the human species on earth. Any "marriage" of two homosexual perverts is not a marriage, nor will it ever be - regardless of what four liberal, pinko scumbags sitting on the Mass. Supreme Court may have invented.