NOBODY WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. YOU POLITICALLY CORECT PEOPLE JUST LIKE TO MAKE UP THINGS TO BE MAD ABOUT.

In response to Roman. If we are to follow Roman's argument, and I quote, "I think you all forget (or are simply oblivious to) the fact that marriage is based on the ability of a man and woman to procreate and naturally start a family," then senior citizens who have lost spouses shouldn't be given a chance at marriage. Furthermore, people who can't conceive (are sterile) shouldn't get married because they can't produce a baby. If society is going to restrict marriage to couples who can make babies, then those who can't need not apply. Is that your argument Roman?. Roman, in his or her next sentence, adds, "This is not a requirement of marriage, but the fundamental basis of it." Trying to cover for sterile couples or couples who choose not to have children? When Roman says, "now maybe I don't know all about the birds and the bees, but show me two men who can make baby and maybe I'll change my mind on the issue," he or she doesn't probably know that in the times we live in, men and women can become parents through artificial insemination and adoption. Roman seems to make fun of the fact two men or women in the act of love (sex) can't conceive and thus can't have the rights and privileges that married couples do. Unless you think the USA is a theocratic society, then I don't mind if you think that two men can't have have access to marriage. But last I checked, this is not a theocratic society, and is not ruled by any one religion. Does freedom of religion or lack thereof ring any bells? Unless I am incorrect in my assessment, the USA is a secular society where its citizens have the rights to religious freedom. The only sound argument against same sex marriage is based on religious beliefs. What gay men and women want is not special rights but rights equal to those of their heterosexual counterparts. Sexual orientation is not matter of choice, but even if there was, the only sound argument against it is based on the Bible. Now is the Bible our rule of Law? Then you should tread more carefully lest you fail to follow its rules. Jose, Mathematics Instructor Louisiana

Wow, Excellent article. Discrimination in any form is wrong on every level. Sometimes you just have to check the calendar to make sure it is 2004 and not 1804! Robyn Kramer, mel's mom

I see your point, and I respect your opinion on this issue in general. I don't think it needs debating that discrimination is harmful to society as a whole. However, I'm not sure that what you're saying completely applies in this instance. An organized religion is a different entity than the U.S. government (Bush's administration aside). While it is and always should be wrong for the federal government to legally allow discrimination of any kind in a civic arena, I'm not sure that you can force any purely religious to deem any action against its fundamental beliefs as acceptable. If church and state are to remain seperated, you can't legislate that a religion must allow homosexuals to participate as clergy. The only option that people have is to not become or remain a member of that denomination. If a majority of people (within or outside) that denomination feel that their practice is unacceptable, that denomination will slowly shrink and disappear. So, basically, I agree with your general point, but I don't think you can blame the United Methodist Church for holding to their fundamental beliefs either. Overall, great article. Keep up the good work. Scott, student Penn

Kudos to you, Melody, for taking a resolute stance on this issue. The right-wing zealots no longer have the "Red Commies" to bash, so they focus their hypocrisy on feminists and homosexuals. I think Jerry Falwell even went so far as to say that 9-11 was the result of the "feminists and the homosexual agenda." The cookie-cutter atmosphere that is PENN prevents many students from speaking out on this issue. Perhaps, too, it is an age thing; an 18 year old might possibly feel less secure in his/her sexuality than someone in their late 20s, and, therefore, would be less likely be willing to have their own sexuality questioned by standing up for basic civil rights for gay people. Hit me up and we'll get the protest started, ok? Jamie, Student- Penn class of 2006 Philly

Oh so now not only are we supposed to let gays get married, but religions are supposed to be forced to allow their ministers to violate the religion's creed and be openly homosexual? I guess Catholics are supposed to allow openly gay men become priests too? Wow. I don't think its gays that are under attack from the red states. I think the converse is true- there is an all out attack by gays and gay sympathizers to attack the traditional notions and beliefs that our society was founded on. There is a case being heard now in New Jersey to determine whether gays can get married. They consider the state "ripe" for lawsuits to force the legalization of gay marriage for New Jersey to become the second coming of Massachusetts, even though a majority of legislators and constituents disagree with the idea. I ask you- when will this barrage from the homosexual left wing end? Nobody is telling you you can't have gay sex. You just can't hold certain religious positions because your sexual orientation conflicts with a core of that religion, and you can't get married because marriage is between a man and a woman. It has been for 10,000 years now. Though I don't agree with many of the far right wing views, a stand needs to be taken against this all out assault on traditional values, which, as we learned from 11 states in this past election, a vast majority of Americans hold. Roman, Nova law philly

I guess Catholics are supposed to allow openly gay men become priests too? You would be *amazed* at the percentage of priests who are gay, Roman. It's in the 40-50% range. It's the elephant in the room that we Catholics refuse to acknowledge. Topher Brown, Student Penn browncs@sas.upenn.edu

Well Roman, 'traditional' acts cover a great deal. You seem to show off how many people voted for the anti same-sex marriage amendments as some sort of proof that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry. In 1954, in the wake of Brown v. Board of educated, the poll numbers at the time in most southern states were even more in support for segregation than they are today for bans on same-sex marriage. If they were allowed to have voter-approved amendments on segregation, a lot of southern states would have amendments now legitimizing segregation, and in fact Alabama STILL does have an amendment to their state constitution to this effect, it just cannot be acted on because of Brown. Tradition? You like tradition, like the western tradition dating back to the old testament of slavery? That has been an very visible part of MANY civilizations through the 19th century, and still is in some. We do not enslave other human beings for the same reason that gays and lesbians want the right to marry - human dignity and equality demand it. Tradition is perhaps one of the worst, and most self-serving excusing for any argument for discrimination. Tradition was used by the Confederacy, it was used by those who once denied interracial couples the right to marry, and Roman, it is now being used by people such as yourself to justify denying gays and lesbians marriage and all the rights and responsibilities that come with it. It's the easiest argument for you because, perhaps, since you do not understand how someone could be gay or lesbian, it makes the universe make a bit more sense in your mind to rely on tradition. To hell with equality and silly notions such as equal rights - we have tradition instead. Michael Patterson, Student Philly mjp2@sas.upenn.edu

Wow Patterson, so you compare gay marriage to slavery and civil rights. People used to be tortured and treated as something less than human (what was it 3/5 of a full vote or something close to that?). Are people torturing you or saying you you are less than human? Are people counting a gay person's vote as only 3/5? It is a ridiculous argument to compare slavery and other atrocities committed on the basis of somebody's skin color to gays not being allowed to marry. Actually, that is a pretty offensive comparison to attempt to draw, Patterson. I'm sure slaves would really feel your pain. What martyrs you are. I think you all forget (or are simply oblivious to) the fact that marriage is based on the ability of a man and woman to procreate and naturally start a family. This is not a requirement of marriage, but the fundamental basis of it. Now maybe I don't know all about the birds and the bees, but show me two men who can make baby and maybe I'll change my mind on the issue. Further, it is a sad statement on society that homosexuals and much of the left wing now believe that all children are not entitled to the most simple and basic necessity: a mother and a father. Sorry, but 2 mothers or 2 fathers just isn't the same thing, no matter how masculine or feminine the other same-sex partner may be. Roman, Nova law philly

Since she violated her churches rules I agree there were consequences called for: churches are rarely if ever democracies (to quote the current Pope) but what about churches were gay couples are welcomed to participate in joining ceremonies that they can call whatever that church feels is correct for them? Where does a secular government get the right to interfere? As to "marriage" that English term is at best hundreds of years old, more often than not only for the nobles and no one else (what did animate property need with "marriage") and as to 10 thousand years, well since the earth was created 6000 years ago that sort of statement is just blasphemy. What next Roman, we're descended from monkeys? Oh and for those in doubt be very sure you can both "make a family and a baby" without any sort of government license so the entire "marriage is about babies" is just silly and evidensed by the next argument that inevitably follows that what gays are after is insurance, property rights etc: none of which involve babies and to which per the equal rights aspects of the United States Constitution every one has a rightful expectation of being treated equally. Finally the Framers were very careful to embed religious freedom in the fundamental documents of our country and that means government doesn't get to tell individual religious organizations who they can and cannot marry no more than government can specifiy who can and cannot partake in Communion: both sacraments that it is up to the church to decide how to handle. If government cannot tell a church TO marry gays it cannot tell the same church TO NOT marry gays. Or would it be acceptable at some future time for the United States government to FORCE The Roman Catholic Church to bestow the sacrament of Communion on whomever the government designates? Lin

When I read Melody's article, I sort of thought she was making a big deal out of something that isn't much of a problem at Penn. Then I see posts like Roman's. You were right, Melody, we need to do something about this. Roman, you should just admit that you are homophobic. You think gay people are creepy. That's the only way your "arguments" make sense. Yes, Patterson did compare gay rights to black rights. True, gay people aren't enslaved in this country, but they are often treated like 2nd class citizens. The other comparison Patterson made that you failed to attack was interracial marriage. If you're going to make a "tradition" argument concerning gay marriage, then you shouldn't believe in legalizing interracial marriages. Also true if you believe in the "most people don't approve of it" argument. If so, many states would still outlaw interracial marriage. Marriage may be based on the ability of a man and woman to raise a family, but if you use this argument, then you shouldn't let sterile people get married. Or women post-menopausal. Or people who don't want to have kids. Yet, these people are allowed to get married, and gays are not. I agree that children should have two loving parents take care of them. I believe that a gay couple can do this just as easily as a heterosexual one (and empirical research studies agree with me.) Moreover, gay couples can already adopt kids, so why do you even care if they get married?! What bugs me about this "all children are entitled to a mother and a father" argument is that so many of the people making it are also pro-life...which means they want single women to bear children and take care of them by themselves. wtf?! Be logical, people. I'm not saying you're doing that, Roman, because I have no idea of what your views on abortion are. It's just another pet peeve I have. Roman, when you said, "You just can't hold certain religious positions because your sexual orientation conflicts with a core of that religion" you were correct and logical. Churches make their own rules. However, when you said, "you can't get married because marriage is between a man and a woman" you were essentially saying, "you can't do it because you can't." I'll repeat, you offered absolutely no logical argument as to why gay marriage should not be allowed. The religious argument makes sense. But why should the government also ban gay marriage? wow

I guess there are studies out there that say different, but I have a hard time believing children who are raised by a single parent or by two same-sexed parents are just as well off as those raised by a mother and a father (in the same household). Who does a young boy look to when learning to become a man? How does he learn how to form healthy relationships with women? How does a young girl grow into a strong, confident, caring woman? How does she learn to understand and bond with men? Both parental genders inform how a child will deal with those of his/her own gender and those of the opposite. Not having one or the other, in most people IÃ?ve met in such cases, is a source of pain for that person. I canÃ?t see how another mother or father instead addresses that issue. Sure, you can get gender role models outside of the nuclear family, but it is the day-in day-out, waking-to-sleeping interaction that is really ingrained during childhood. This isnÃ?t an argument for or against gay marriage; I just doubt one of the pieces of evidence brought to the table. I have only a few gay friends, and I donÃ?t know any one that was raised by a gay couple. I respect and, yes, love, my gay friends and have a hard time denying them the equal civil rights I enjoy in marriage. But at the same time, I also donÃ?t believe that a gay couple is the same as a heterosexual couple, especially when it comes to child rearing and raising. Would I, or could I deny them the raising of children? No, but I think it is disingenuous to say that having a mother AND a father doesnÃ?t matter, and is easily replaced by two mothers or two fathers. Brian Boston

I think that the issue that we're sidestepping is that marriage has both civil and religious implications. Proponents of traditional marriage hold to the belief that they should not be "told" whom they have to marry - their church or faith should be the final authority on it (within boundaries). They also believe that the government shouldn't tell any religious organization who it has to marry. I couldn't agree more. Catholic priests should be able to marry whomever they wish and with whatever requirements they, as a church, desire. We think nothing of religious requirements requiring circumcision or wearing particular clothing as a profession of faith. On a side note, using procreation as a defense of traditional marriage is quickly falling apart. With scientific advances and the advent of fertilization clinics, the need for the male of the species is diminishing. Pretty soon, any two women can choose to have a child and the need for any male component will fall by the wayside. I believe that the major part of the issue is that governments have honored the institution of marriage in a legal and civil sense. It is used to determine who has a say in child custody, tax liability, or someone's medical care and their estate. It was natural social evolution, but the issue has now come to a head. There is one solution that I think we, as a nation, need to explore - separate the concepts of "religious" marriage and "civil" marriage. When people are married in a religious setting, there are actually two ceremonies - one, usually in a vestibule, where they sign the legal documents and the other in the sight of God (or Allah or the Goddess or whomever). When we separate out the two institutions, the issue falls apart. Religious groups are able to maintain their definition of marriage (which differ from religion to religion) and the civil definition can easily be extended to any two people who love one another (and is far less assailable as a "morals issue"). I believe that Beth Stroud has a great deal of courage in coming out. It's hard to come out even to family, let alone against church precepts and a potentially hostile congregation. I think that Melody's comments on the issue are poignant and that the issue remains one of "justice and equality, not sexual orientation." Bill DeVoe, Software Engineer Colorado bdevoe@ottovon.com

On a side note, using procreation as a defense of traditional marriage is quickly falling apart. With scientific advances and the advent of fertilization clinics, the need for the male of the species is diminishing. Pretty soon, any two women can choose to have a child and the need for any male component will fall by the wayside. So instead of same-sexed couples being second class citizens, all males will be, what, sperm factories? Men will just be "evolved" out of the species? When reading a post about "justice and equality", I find the above comment shockingly out of place. And just because we have the ability to eliminate a male from the procreation equation (in all but his Ã?donationÃ?), does that mean thatÃ?s the way to go? Is modern science pointing the way to a better future, where two women can carry and raise a child without any interference from a male? What about gay men who want to raise a child? "Just shut up and put your donation in the cup"? In the modern day, procreation canÃ?t really be the strongest defense against same-sexed marriage, but do not make the mistake of dismissing it completely. It is a very emotional issue, and to tell people that it does not matter, or that it is Ã?falling apartÃ? will quickly turn them against you. You only need to look at exit polls from this past election to get a hint of that. Shocking statements and actions may get your point across, but they almost never will get you agreement from across the table. Brian Boston

Thanks for the comments, Brian. I think that your focus on the side note I posted is interesting (I only wrote 3 sentences on it). I do feel that procreation as a defense of marriage is falling apart. The exit polls aside (which I felt were more about faith than, in particular, same sex marriage), there must be a stronger defense of marriage than just "it's how it's always been done", "it's what the Bible says" and "it encourages procreation". I have continued to search for and have failed to find a defense of marriage (or arguments against same-sex marriage) beyond these approaches. Marriage should continue to be a strong societal bond, but should procreation be a valid defense? In that, I respectfully disagree. Women, as the primary progenitors of the species, are in a unique position. I think you failed to imagine the future I described wherein males are not needed "in all but his 'donation'", but en toto - two X chromosomes (one from "mom" and the other from her female "spouse") make females. As science progresses, the need for Y chromosomes (and hence males) may be a thing of the past. Could men become second-class citizens? Certainly. Could the male of the species entirely die out? Possibly. Do I think it will ever happen? No. Is this the way we're headed? Hardly. I strongly encourage acceptance or at least understanding of individual differences. I agree that procreation is an emotional issue, but I feel that, as a defense of marriage, it is beginning to have the same effectiveness as that of genetics as a defense for slavery. Do we need to have a calm discussion of the issue? Absolutely. Are those "across the table" arguing using things other than "shocking statements and actions"? Unfortunately not that I can see. And does procreation stand up as a valid defense of marriage? Again, not that I can see. Bill DeVoe, Software Engineer Colorado

Roman, while I really believe your intentions are good, you are completely out-of-touch with reality on this topic. Like Michael, I'm tired of hearing tradition as a justification for discrimination. Were women launching an all out attack on traditional values when they demanded the right to vote? It is not something I'm particularly proud of, but my grandfather was a prominent anti-suffragist in London. He believed that by giving women the right to vote, the government would destroy the traditional male-run family structure that had existed since the dawn of time. In his view, marriages would collapse because the man could no longer be the sole decision maker on matters of highest importance. Unfortunately, he was hardly alone in his belief. Flash forward to today. You attack Michael for comparing gay civil rights to slavery or the black civil rights movement in this century. Do gay citizens count for only 3/5 of a vote? Of course not. Is it perfectly legal to fire someone in 36 states because of their sexuality (46 for transgender employees)? Yes. Do hate crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation often go unreported in your "traditional" states? Yes. Did the government once pass laws banning gay sex between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes? Yes. The fact we don't treat gays in America as badly as we did slaves does not mean that it is ok for us to continue to treat them as a separate class of citizens. If that means that gay-lovin' liberals are "attacking" tradtional values, then that's a sign that those values need reassessment. I honestly don't understand the evil in allowing a gay man to visit his dying partner in the hospital after an accident... or in allowing any of the 1000+ rights and protections that come with a State-sanctioned marriage. (a civil union does not provide these same benefits, and is limited to the state where the union occurred) A church shouldn't have to change its core beliefs because the government tells it to -- if the Catholic Church wants to ban gay marriage in its parishes, then that is an issue for the Catholic Church to deal with. But if two individuals are in love and want to commit to spending their lives together, what is wrong with allowing the State to recognize their marriage as it would any other? the habit, student penn

And what is wrong with the government and at 2/3 of the population desiring to leave marriage the way it has been for the last 10,000 years (no, i am not a creationist Lin, nice try at a cheap shot)? Disallowing inter-racial marriage was discrimination based on skin color, which is not allowed under federal law. Interracial marriage doesn't go against long standing tradition either, as i'd bet money that at least some interracial marriages existed in the first 1000 years AD. Further, interracial marriage does not fool with the laws of nature as gay marriage would. A black person and white person can procreate together the same way two white people or two black people can. And like I constantly remind you anti-marriageists, the scientific ability of a man and woman to procreate is the fundamental basis for a man and a woman. No, this does not mean that sterile men or women cannot marry. Like I said, procreation is the fundamental basis of the institution of marriage as a whole, not each, individual marriage. Having children is not a requirement of each specific marriage. That is silly to even suggest. Could you imagine conducting sterility tests of every potential marriage partner? Or further, forcing people to sign contracts swearing never to divorce, or at least not until the couple had a child? That is not my argument, so don't try to twist it into that. A married man and woman may perfectly well choose to never have a child, and thats fine. Obviously I don't think that man was created the way it was explained in Genesis, but the fact that in the book God is said to have created man and woman, not man and man, illustrates the oral tradition that has existed since the beginning of recorded time. It is not for you extreme left wingers to suddenly change this. As for child-rearing, I am not pro-gay adoption either. I believe that it is not up to the government (or any extreme left winger for that matter) to say to any child, "Sorry, no mother and father for you. Here's 2 fathers instead." Again, every child deserves a mother and father. Yes, Wow, I am pro-choice (PP member), and any woman who gets pregnant has every right to choose to not have the baby. It is her body. Conversely, the government, in an attempt to promote better family values, cannot tell a single woman who can't afford to raise a child to have an abortion. The difference is, while the government can't stop a woman from having a baby if she wants one, even if it may not ultimately be the best thing for society, the government can prevent the further erosion of family values by disallowing gay marriage. Just because family values in this country are not perfect doesn't mean the government should simply say "to hell with it. Do whatever you want." It is in society's benefit for the government to promote good, sound family values, not trash them by liberalizing every last family value. That means that the government has to draw lines sometimes. And that line is drawn at man and woman. Roman, Nova law philly

Roman, what about gay marriage offends you so deeply? It cannot be that a child raised by gay parents is worse off then one raised by one raised by heterosexual parents. Because, as stated before, studies show that children of gay parents do just as well as those raised by hetero parents. You cannot argue tradition because all traditions change with time or simply die. Look at all of the laws set down in the bible. Half of them are no longer practiced. Also being homosexual is not a new practice. Many people have been homosexual before the 20th century. It is absurd to say that marriage is based on procreation. A marriage based solely on procreation will most likely fail. It may have been the basis of marriage when women were sold to husbands, but marriage itself has already changed to make your argument obsolete. Do you hate gay people so much that you can't let them have this right? It's not making a mockery of marriage. As Melody said 15 second proposals on TV do that. The divorce rate does that. If these people are so committed to each other that they want to have this binding marriage, I say let them have it. Let the narrow minded conservatives scream and shout and yell for their outdated ideals. Annabelle, student penn

Roman, will you be my wife? Hugh G. Rection

What's wrong with government deciding what sacraments they can bestow? Well for 250 years it's been anti-American for the government to tell churches who they can bless with their sacraments, it's also unconstitutional. 2/3 of the people, or whatever, do not get a vote in what my church or anyone elseÃ?s decides is right for themselves: The Pope in Rome doesn't take a poll of American Protestants to decide his churches policy and I strongly doubt any Evangelical Baptist groups care one whit what I think of their stands and rules on any number of issues: nor should they. Some keep sputtering, "Because it just is!" as if there's an argument there, well there isn't. What civil society has as its core duty is maintaining the civil order of its community. ThatÃ?s why arbitrary murder is against state law, it's very disruptive. marriage is similarly promoted as a stabilizing factor and promoter of community and all marriages will do that. People with religious objections to homosexual people and behavior are certainly free to seek out like minded people an d religious institutions but they have no right, moral authority or legal constitutional privilege to tell other people how to run Their religions and that's what legislating against gay marriage, in churches that decide to bestow that sacrament upon willing gay couples, is doing. Then I am also waiting for the agreement with the notion Federal law, or state, has the authority to determine who in a Catholic Mass qualifies for receipt of the Host in Communion. Because marriage in a church is a religious rite and just how far out do you need to get to be comfortable with the government of EITHER William Jefferson Clinton OR George W Bush in deciding for churches who gets to receive their blessing? 10,000 years ago MY ancestors were painting themselves blue and living in MATRIARCHAL clans with nothing we'd recognize as marriage. Tradition is the last refuge of the loser. Lin

Oh my. I just realized what this is all really about, no wonder there are so many confused posters arguing constitutional logic and civil rights to no avail! It's all based on that preposterous"being gay is merely an unfortunate lifestyle choice". So THEN if people are prohibited from marrying people of the same sex they'll reconsider their choice of lifestyle and go date people of the "natural" opposite gender. Not mean-spirited bigotry at all but instead caring for miss-guided people who need some guidance from those that know better; and who is more suited to that than the Federal Government? (irony alert) The "we only want to SAVE you..." line. Only right up against that entire "creationism" steaming pile of crap is that merely sad. But then laws against evolution don't harm real people. John

Government is not required to sit back and let churches make their own rules about what people can and cannot do. Some cults require people to drink poison Kool Aid. Oh but I guess, Lin, that each religion has the right to legislate itself. Or maybe not. Government makes laws for society, and churches work within those laws. Thats why government has the right to say marriage is man and woman. Roman

Well, Roman, I'm really glad you're pro-choice because that makes your argument a lot more logical. At least you consistently believe that a child deserves a man and a woman as parents. The only problem is that you have no logical argument for WHY a child "deserves" a mother and a father. I could imagine being against gay marriage if there was evidence that having two parents of the same sex is not as good as having parents of opposite sex. But, like we've mentioned already, there is in fact evidence that it doesn't matter. Really the only argument you can make about it being "bad" to have 2 dads is that kids will make fun of you in school. Ya know what? Kids will make fun of you for lots of things. And they'll make fun of you for having a white mom and a black dad. Or a rich mom and a poor dad. Or an American mom and a chinese dad. But we still allow these unions (and we should!) Please give me the evidence for why it's worse to have opposite sex parents than same sex ones. I just don't see it. Interracial marriage does go against some traditions. Moreover, there were gay unions or "marriages" (that word isn't that old) so to speak for thousands of years. Where did you learn that they didn't exist?! Where did you learn that interracial marriages have been more ubiquitous over time? Homosexuals have existed forever. Every once in a whlie a civilization accepts and respects their unions. Just like every once in a while civilizations respect interracial marriage. Read up, dude, before you start making claims about what has or has not happened in the past. Both types of marriages have always existed, and both types have always been marginalized. You said having children is not a requirement for each specific marriage. If so, why not let gays marry? Of course it would be ridiculous to force couples to have children, or to test couples for sterility before allowing them to marry. I think it's equally ridiculous that we'd want to ban gays from marrying! Besides, they only make up 10% of the population. Their marriages would fall into that category of sterile ones that remains small. And why is there so much focus on procreation when the world is over-populated as it is? Our gay couples would be doing society a service to take some of the unwanted children and raise them. I guess I just don't understand how having two loving parents of the same sex is an erosion of family values. These parents will raise children with moral values. I can see how having 4 parents and a broken family from divorces and remarriages is an erosion of family values, as is having one parent. But how is having two capable, competent and loving parents a problem?! When their relationship is stable and secure? Family values are extraordinarily important to me, but I just don't see how homosexuality goes against them. wow

Equating celebrating the love of two adult persons in a church that welcomes them with cult-induced suicide says all that is needed in argument against government imposed religious views. But at least it cleared up all the posing at logic and reason: nice to see the hate out in the open. Bob

so the self-proclaimed "pro-choice" Roman doesn't see the government as having the right to intervene when a woman decides to kill her baby but DOES see a reasonable government role in stopping two adults of the same sex from celebrating their love in a church that welcomes them. All I can say; it's surely a good thing you're straight Roman because with your head so far stuck up your ass there wouldn't be any room for your social life if you WERE gay. Unbeleivable