Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
I now pronounce you groom and groom
This just in: “Brides” and “grooms” are returning to California. State health officials announced they have revised marriage license applications, reinstating the time-honored terms due to popular demand. The terms disappeared from the applications after the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in June, and were replaced by the gender-neutral language “Party A” and “Party B.”
The new paperwork, available in November, will feature blank spaces for applicants’ names and personal information, with boxes for checking “bride” or “groom.” Since the boxes appear next to both names, the form will work for all comers…bride and groom…bride and bride…groom and groom…bride marrying butch woman who wants to call herself a groom…groom marrying effeminate man who wants to call himself a bride…
back to top72 Comments to “I now pronounce you groom and groom”
Just think, all the people who for thousands of years thought marriage was between a man and woman are wrong.
That’s right our present generation thinks marriage between 2 men and 2 women is fine.
Imagine the moral certitude (or audacity) it takes to believe you are right and everyone who came before you is wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Those California forms are rigidly discriminatory against fully conenting adults who seek the human right to marry 3 or 4 or 8 at a time. What does California have against human rights and freedom? Why the random dicrimination against some consenting adults and not others? Why can’t the Los Angeles Lakers apply for “marriage” if they want to?
Report comment to moderator
I think we will see lotsa spats at the desk of the marriage registrar. “Whaddya mean I gotta ’submit’ to you?” “Well, actually the term is ’submit graciously’!!!” “Look, I’ll be your helper and be there for you at the end of a hellishly long nightmare work day, but—” “Now wait just a dog-gone minute, I thought we agreed it would be ME who’d be the stay-at-home helpmeet element in this arrangemt??!”
Report comment to moderator
If the form can be made more inclusive, I’m all for it.
In any event, no matter what the form says, the important thing is that the people of California vote “No” on Prop. 8.
Marriage equality is good for California and good for America.
Report comment to moderator
Butch? Fluff? Catcher? Pitcher?
Legions of California bureaucrats must be working in overdrive at that print shop.
Report comment to moderator
I suppose any racehorse can run in Preakness or Belmont. But no matter how much it seems like a horse to me, if I showed up at the track DEMANDING that my old mule be viewed as and treated like a Kentucky thoroughbred, what would be the reaction?! As Prof Moynihan always said “Everyone’s entitled to his own opinion, but everyone is not entitled to his own facts”.
Report comment to moderator
Seems like a workable solution.
Report comment to moderator
Though I don’t understand why we can’t have 4 different forms? We have lots of different tax forms, it doesn’t seem that complicated.
Report comment to moderator
What? Room for only 2 names?
That is unconstitutionally discriminatory against polyamorous groupings.
And why no blank to fill in species?
California is freigheningly intolerant.
Report comment to moderator
The whole thing is asinine.
There is no such thing as marriage between same sex partners. It’s a sham.
Report comment to moderator
Marriage licenses are a sham period. The only reason they came to be is because of interracial marriage, which before were forbidden in the states.
Report comment to moderator
There is no such thing as marriage between same sex partners.
Except that there is in California, Massachusetts, Canada, and S. Africa to name some of the places.
The law is the law, irregardless of one’s personal feelings.
One does wonder what they teach in law school these days.
Report comment to moderator
Correction:
There is no such thing as marriage between same sex partners.
Except that there is in California, Massachusetts, Canada, and S. Africa to name some of the places.
The law is the law, irregardless of one’s personal feelings.
One does wonder what they teach in law school these days.
Report comment to moderator
ho hummmmm. I know a gay couple who have been together well over ten years and closer to 15. They are getting a “divorce” and are having to handle things just the way the rest of us would. They are discretely trying to sell their business. Their home is up for sale but because of the market it isn’t selling. One has moved upstairs and the other is staying downstairs. Things are tense but isn’t that like it would be for any couple going through this? At least with gay marriage and gay divorce there would be some guidelines on how to share or split things up. My stepmother was sharing an article from AARP with me last night about so many older gays who have no family or friends left. One man is 85 and his partner died long ago. Now there is a program where other gays and I suppose some straights are “adopting” the older people. The story was about an 85 yr old former Broadway dancer who has no one. A person adopted him and every time they go out on tour they send post cards and such. He had to have surgery and this person took time off to be in the hospital with him for 8 hours so he would know someone cared. Face it people times are changing…AARP!!!! For Goodness Sakes!!!! is helping to sponser this program. Although the flip side of this coin is why can’t older straights who have no one be included???
Report comment to moderator
Kim, hetero or homo, it’s horrible to be old and alone.
Report comment to moderator
You must be glad, Lynn. I know how much you hated the “Party A” and “Party B” designations!
Report comment to moderator
Kim it would be nice if all older people had the care and support that they need. Programs like this are started for gays and lesbian though because older LGBT people often have no children and are estranged from their extended families. So in this case being an LGBT person and aging, can be seen as creating unique need. Special programs for LGBT seniors are also often necessary to counter the homophobic discrimination they often face in institutions that help seniors in general.
Report comment to moderator
Well said, Luke.
Report comment to moderator
You must be glad, Lynn. I know how much you hated the “Party A” and “Party B” designations!
Yes, I’d much rather have women and men still able to be brides and grooms, respectively…even if men also get to be brides, and women grooms.
Report comment to moderator
But you have to admit, “Father of the Part A” has a nice ring to it.
Report comment to moderator
That is, “Party A”
Report comment to moderator
#19 – I agree, I think…
Report comment to moderator
We had our Party A when we got engaged and Party B at the reception. I guess Party C was the baby shower.
Report comment to moderator
Kim,
Thanks for the perspective. I too saw the article in the NY Times about older gay couples and individuals. The AARP is sponsoring a conference on them. They do face additional difficulties. As the article pointed out, many elderly gay people have no children or spouse to care for them. I would hope that Christians would look at it as an opportunity to “share a cup of water” in Christ’s name.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Anlir, many Christians do have ministries to the elderly (I volunteer to drive seniors to medical appointments), and being old may (in some ways) be worse for those of us who are single and don’t have children. That is part of the role of the church in society, and one of the blessings of being part of a church (both ends, giving and receiving). It’s nice when the “giving” reaches out beyond the church, and I’ve seen that happen many times. All that, of course, has nothing to do with homosexual marriage except to show one way that it ultimately isn’t the same thing as marriage, but you are right that the church is to minister to those who need it.
Report comment to moderator
PROP 8 ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
This will AGAIN be voted on in Novemeber – its not over yet.
Report comment to moderator
Nor will it be over in November …
Report comment to moderator
Meanwhile back in the real world…we’ve got folks dying in Iraq, making inquiries about soup kitchens over here…
But I do hope that love triumphs in California. What’s that you say, love is only for straights? Oh ye of little faith!
Report comment to moderator
Indeed, we do hope that love triumphs on Nov. 4th!
But even if it fails (and Prop 8 passes), it will not stop one single gay couple from being together. And the Domestic Partners statutes will remain on the books. It will be a hollow victory for the anti-gay forces.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir – 29
Of course the homosexuals can live together, etc, but they marriage between same sex will more than likely END. The vote is going to take place whether the homosexuals like it or not.
Report comment to moderator
To Anlir
I am not trying to be smart I am just curious.
Should gay men be allowed to have children? And if so do they pay women to carry the babies to term and then just give them up?
Doesn’t the financial aspect of that seem kind of unseemly?
Or have a child grow up without a mother?
Or expect a woman to hand over a new born baby like she is dropping off a package?
Report comment to moderator
“it will not stop one single gay couple from being together. And the Domestic Partners statutes will remain on the books. It will be a hollow victory for the anti-gay forces.”
It won’t even necessarily mandate that the marriage certificates go back to their format. In a post Prop 8 California, we may still have people pronounced groom and groom; they just wouldn’t have the same genitals. We’ve opened up a flood gate for personal liberty that it will take more than prop 8 to quell.
Nick,
Yes. Most of the gay men I know who are raising children (including recently the guy who teaches my weight class at the gym and his husband) adopted. In cases where gay men hire a surrogate mother, I believe it’s more common to have the egg donated than to use the surrogates own egg. Just has when a straight couple hires a surrogate mother, they use the eggs of the woman who will be raising the child or a donated egg if hers are not fertile. I’d like to think that more gay men would adopt though, it’s cheaper and better for society. But in any event, the moral conundrum of surrogate motherhood is NOT unique to homosexuals.
Report comment to moderator
I can’t believe I just said “homosexuals”! I think it was all the talk about egg donation and formal issues that caused me to use such a medical and diagnostic term. Excuse me. I meant to say that the ethical (Ouch, I caught myself using another bad word) conundrum of surrogate mother hood is NOT unique to gay men.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #31
Q: Should gay men be allowed to have children?
A: Yes, on the same basis as anyone would be allowed.
Q: And if so do they pay women to carry the babies to term and then just give them up?
A: If it’s legal. It’s not any different than straight people who pay a pregnant woman’s expenses, who’s going to give them her child after it’s born.
Q: Doesn’t the financial aspect of that seem kind of unseemly?
A: Yes, it’s unseemly, but no more so than it is for straight people to pay for it.
Q: Or have a child grow up without a mother?
A: Lots of children grow up with one parent. It doesn’t mean they will lack in role models, influence, and guidance of the missing gender. Straight people do it every day. It’s not easy, but it is done.
Q: Or expect a woman to hand over a new born baby like she is dropping off a package?
A: If a person sees a baby as nothing more than a “package to be dropped off” their moral compass is screwed up. No law can fix that.
What any of this has to do with marriage is beyond me. We don’t put straight people through this kind of grilling before they get married.
Report comment to moderator
12 — “Irregardless” is not a word; only those who confuse the words “irrespective” and “regardless” ever make that blunder. And it’s a confusion of words to think that two men can be married. One hopes that somewhere they’re teaching English vocabulary.
Report comment to moderator
Even if a state calls it “marriage” between two members of the same sex, all that’s doing is promoting a legal fiction. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
Thank you for pointing out the ill-use of “irregardless.”
Report comment to moderator
California is all set up now with a marriage form that will also accommodate Steve and Lassie or any other disgusting liberal/gay perversion that we have not yet considered.
Report comment to moderator
It may be legal “fiction” to conservative Christians, but it’s a legal reality for gay people and their families. One call it “fiction” all they want, but the state recognizes it, and the judiciary is going to enforce the law. An attorney can stand in front of a judge all day and chant that it’s “fiction”, but at the end of the day the judge is still going to enforce the law.
Report comment to moderator
I find it odd that families still have to give consent for organ donation when the person in question has clearly marked his consent on his driver’s license.
I find it equally odd that legal contracts between two unmarried people are often successfully contested by the familiy(ies) involved.
It seems pretty American that any competent adult should be able to enter into a binding legal agreement (revocable, if desired) with whomever he so chooses regardless of number or sex. It should be able to cover hospital visitation, bequeaths, etc.
Marriage, however, is a separate, discrete, and distinct institution that is for one man and one woman.
Just my two cents.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, you don’t understand what a legal fiction is. But feel free to keep prattling.
The Volokh Conspiracy is reporting that the latest poll says the electorate will overturn homosexual marriage in California.
Report comment to moderator
Even if Prop 8 is passed, it still won’t change the Domestic Partnership law in California.
And if it passes, congratulations – you’ve stopped two people from getting a legal document. I’m sure Jesus will be very proud of you. Your victory will be hollow because you won’t stop a single gay couple from having a loving, committed relationship.
It’s kind of sad when you think about how much energy and time conservative Christians spend just trying to make other people’s lives as difficult as possible, both legally and socially.
“Conservative Christianity: Making other people’s lives as difficult as possible for hundreds of years!”
Report comment to moderator
Anlir
If Prop 8 passes and it is of so little account, why does the GLBT coalition want it so badly?
It sounds like “sour grapes” to me.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir
If it passes, homosexuals can have any relationship they want, they just can’t get married in California –
Yes the LORD will be happy, HE never condoned homosexuality ever, no matter how much you would like to delete or change the Word of God.
Report comment to moderator
“because you won’t stop a single gay couple from having a loving, committed relationship.”
This is not my goal. My goal is to preserve marriage as between a man and woman. All these millenia, that’s the way it’s been and it’s been that way for a reason. And not just in the so-called “Christian” societies. In addition to what Victoria posted — that God does not condone homosexual acts — and because the family needs to be preserved as much as possible. That’s my goal. Besides, there’s no reason for this society to become even more debauched than it already is.
Report comment to moderator
Indeed, Bob, it will be a significant legal victory for the Prop 8 folks.
I’m talking about the practical effect on gay people’s every day lives. What about the gay couple a few door down? Do you really think it’s going to stop them from building a life together? Do you think it’s going to stop them from going to church together, going to family get-togethers, going out in public together? Do you really think it’s going to stop their friends, families, churches, and communities from celebrating and honoring their relationship?
I mean, yeah, you’ll make it a little bit safer for a few red-necks to yell “fag!” at them and maybe throw a beer bottle or two. And you’ll bring a little bit of sunshine to Rev. Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church. But you won’t stop gay people from living their lives with dignity or fighting for their equal rights under the law.
Report comment to moderator
California is all set up now with a marriage form that will also accommodate Steve and Lassie or any other disgusting liberal/gay perversion that we have not yet considered.
The slippery slope works both ways. If you are going to blame liberal/gays for slipping into bestiality then we also credit liberal/gays for the freedom of different races to marry. After all black gay men/activists like James Baldwin and Bayard Ruston were MLK’s key men in the Civil Rights struggle.
Bestiality is no more logically related to homosexuality than homosexuality is to interracial marriage. We are comparing A to B to C. If you can compare A to B (bestiality to homosexuality) then I can compare B to C (homosexuality to interracial couplings). Personally I think B & C (heterosexuality and homosexuality) look a lot more like one another than either of them do to A (bestiality).
So don’t blame me for bringing up interracial couplings as something that is “different.” You folks — the ones who brought up polygamy and bestiality — are the ones who started it with bringing in those “different” things into the analysis.
Report comment to moderator
Honestly if there is no such thing as “gay marriage” because of preexting metaphysical reasons then the state has no business taking cognizance of marriage in the first place. It’s time to privatize marriage entirely. Let churches and private organizations define marriage, not government.
Report comment to moderator
I agree Jon – get the government out of the “marriage” business and let the church define it however they want. The state should treat all couples equally under the law with a civil contract.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Would you consider me a CCR? Either way, what about my post 39?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: What you believe God does or does not like is not relevant to the civil law that all Americans have to abide by.
Why don’t you butt your nosy nose out of other people’s business?
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin: California is all set up now with a marriage form that will also accommodate Steve and Lassie or any other disgusting liberal/gay perversion that we have not yet considered.
Gay marriage has been legal in Mass. for a while now and nobody’s proposed any of these slippery-slope progressions you hysterics are always raving about.
It’s been legal in Canada since 2005. (Nationally… since 2003 in Ontario and British Columbia and 2004 in much of the rest of the country.) They don’t seem to be having any trouble with it.
It’s been legal in the Netherlands since 2001. Belgium, Norway, South Africa and Spain also have it.
None of them seem to be crumbling into a moral quagmire.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron,
Regarding your proposal in #39, my response is that I want all couples treated equally under the law.
Short of that, I’d favor a Reciprocal Benefits law, open to anyone, with no special benefits for any couple (including legal marriage under the state).
To be clear, my first choice is for a civil union contract for all couples, giving them a specific set of benefits and rights. Marriage would be removed from the state and given to the church to do whatever they want.
My second choice is marriage equality for all couples.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
You didn’t answer my first question. Second, are you saying my proposal doesn’t treat all couples equally under the law? I would argue it does–it sounds like your proposal assumes some sort of romantic and/or physical relationship. Are you excluding other pairs of people? Plus, you repeatedly stop at couples; I make no such limitation.
Report comment to moderator
#41 “”It’s kind of sad when you think about how much energy and time conservative Christians spend just trying to make other people’s lives as difficult as possible, both legally and socially.”"
What??????
The defense of marriage is priceless and the last words you should use to describe the energies and costs expended to defend this institution is “sad”. Marriage is a core issue that should be defended at all costs.
For those of you who have a passion to defend marriage as ordained by our Creator, do not listen to these putdowns for you are not “sad” as some might label you. Instead rejoice, for you know when you pursue in defending what is good and right, you will be persecuted.
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz: Can you explain why your religious beliefs should dictate the laws that all Americans have to follow?
That’s the issue here. Your idea of the only acceptable definition of marriage is based on your religious beliefs. Many people don’t share your belief; why should they be made to abide by a law based on it that has no other justifcation?
Report comment to moderator
#41 – “”And if it passes, congratulations – you’ve stopped two people from getting a legal document. I’m sure Jesus will be very proud of you…”
What What???? (double even)
Would Jesus be proud if we stopped a man from marrying four women that he loved and all loved him, cause we do.
Would Jesus be proud if we stopped a 13 year old girl from marrying a 43 year old man, cause we do.
Would Jesus be proud if we stopped a man from marrying a woman when he was still secretly married to another woman in another state, cause we do.
There are all sorts of laws that bring restrictions to marriage. To suggest that somehow one is being unloving by trying to defend what marriage should be and what it should not be is inaccurate at best and ignorant at worst.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: Why are your beliefs based on whatever your ideology any better or worse than mine based on a judeo-christian worldview perspective? Who is right, and who is wrong?
Who’s viewpoint should dictate the law?
Report comment to moderator
This is why I call Christianity a “virtuous swindle.” It is not a felicitous phrase, but I don’t have a better one.
What I mean by it is that most of us (atheists and Christians) alike have some general things we agree on as to right and wrong.
The typical secular person does not murder or approve of murder. The typical Christian does not murder or approve of murder.
At times in history, some people engage in murder, but rationalize it in various ways. In modern times (20th Century), the most egregious example of mass murder were by secular monsters such as Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot.
Christians then say we’re better than that because we never murdered as many people.
However, this assertion confused quantity and “quality” (using “quality” ironically). As the book on genocide Blood and Soil indicates, both secular people and Christians (and other religious believers) have murdered large numbers of people with great enthusiasm.
As I’ve said many times: I consider murder, rape, and stealing as wrong. My value in this regard is based on empathy. I wouldn’t like to be murdered or raped, and I don’t like to have my personal belongings stolen from me. Although my justification for this value is different than yours, Chalzz (as yours is based on your belief in a holy book), in practical terms we are in the same “place” as regard to values.
Where we come into conflict is your belief in “sin,”; in particular, the “sin” of homosexuality. To my perception, what you call sin is something I don’t like, but I assign to God so it impressed and convinces lots of other people more.
It is no wonder that evangelical Christians are so desperate to argue that the Bible is “inerrant” (despite the absurdity of this claim to many secular people such as myself) because without this claim the “virtuous swindle” is breaking down.
The Christians often aske, “Why not murder and rape and steal.”
Why not indeed?
I think this problem is a weakness most of the secular people here sweep under the rug.
I am not a cheerful person. It seems quite likely to me that as the “virtuous swindle” of Christianity loses its power, our civilization will quite likely collapse.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (#55):
A good analogy is that of an automobile (you) and its owner’s manual (the Bible). The manufacturer (God) knows how his machines work best. The owner may not know all the mechanical details behind the operating and maintenance rules, but he should abide by them if he wants his car to continue working at its optimum efficiency. He risks expensive breakdowns if he fails to follow the rules or deliberately does the opposite of what they prescribe.
Our Creator designed men and women to function in a monogamous marriage relationship. This arrangement is so basic to the created order that it has transcended virtually all religions and societies for all of recorded history. The few historical departures into the perversions of homosexuality have never lasted and have always been destructive to the societies that encouraged or tolerated them on a major scale. The destructiveness of this perversion is so basically evident to even the most obtuse among us that, to use the analogy, it is akin to putting dirt in your car’s gas tank. You shouldn’t even have to refer to the owner’s manual to recognize the stupidity of the practice.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #53
I am unsure what question you are referring to, since there were no questions in #39. I assume you’re referring to this:
It seems pretty American that any competent adult should be able to enter into a binding legal agreement (revocable, if desired) with whomever he so chooses regardless of number or sex. It should be able to cover hospital visitation, bequeaths, etc.
I addressed that in post #52 – It’s called “Reciprocal Benefits”. I favor that as my 3rd choice.
Bottom line, as I’ve already mentioned, is that I want all couples treated equally under the existing laws which allow marriage.
To re-cap my position (in order or preference):
1. Civil Unions
2. Marriage Equality
3. Reciprocal Benefits
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz: The difference is, I’m not trying to limit what people can do based solely on my beliefs. You are.
So the question remains: How do you justify that?
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin: Which is just a longer-winded way of saying “You should conform to my beliefs, because I believe them.”
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin: The few historical departures into the perversions of homosexuality have never lasted and have always been destructive to the societies that encouraged or tolerated them on a major scale. The destructiveness of this perversion is so basically evident to even the most obtuse among us that, to use the analogy, it is akin to putting dirt in your car’s gas tank. You shouldn’t even have to refer to the owner’s manual to recognize the stupidity of the practice.
This is the one stab you take at trying to provide an objective, non-religious rationale, but it suffers by not being true. Many societies have tolerated homosexuality; none of them have been harmed by doing so.
Please give an example, if you think I am wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz: The difference is, I’m not trying to limit what people can do based solely on my beliefs. You are.
Will I be able to refuse to photograph your wedding or insure your “spouse”. Will I be able pull my kid from class the day you show up to promote your beliefs. I won’t limit you, if you won’t limit me.
Report comment to moderator
Most cultures throughout human history have been polygamous, not one man one woman. Likewise I know of NO evidence of a culture embracing homosexuality and then being destroyed. This is an urban myth. (Unless of course you use stories like Sodom & Gom. as your proof. And even there, assuming the tale is true, no the Bible’s text doesn’t clearly teach homosexuality was the sin for which the towns were destroyed.)
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: Isn’t any law that is passed the imposition of one groups will over that of the rest of the people? And that law is based on the beliefs of the group that pushed for the law. We are all in a similar box to the one you are attempting to place me in.
Report comment to moderator
John Rowe, from reading your posts over time I take you to have a strong grasp on world history and related fields. I am also impressed with your ability to express yourself through writing. You are a scholar.
My first question to #65 is if you know of any modern or ancient cultures that embraced homosexuality. This is not a set up question or a challenge, I really would like to know of any cultures we are aware of that have embraced it.
Regarding the lack of non-polygamous cultures historically, do you support our nation making this option available to the American citizen again (polygamy)?
Regarding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (which I believe literally happened), I agree with you that most likely the destruction was not soley based on rampant homosexuality. I mean look at Lot, he was so depraved he offered his daughters to the mob in place of the angels that had come to visit him. And in the cave Lots daughters used their father to impregnate themselves. Clearly this was a culture that had lost itself to unrestrained sensuality which would include homosexuality and heterosexual deviancy in my opinion.
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz at #66: Maybe sometimes, but I think it should not be. The laws that apply to all of us should be limited to the things that are necessary for a functional society.
So, stealing from people is bad for the community as a whole. It’s rightly illegal.
Pre-marital sex is not. If your religion tells you pre-marital sex is wrong, you’re free to not engage in it and to raise your children to share your belief, but I should not be bound by a law on the matter. For a simple example.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells, you bring up three different sections of the homosexual debate that I don’t think can be lumped into one argument so I broke them down because I do not see them all in the same light, so…
Regarding your example of insurance agents, why has not the homosexual community not made more effort to point out agents or companies that refuse to offer insurance to homosexuals just because they are homosexual. I would stand arm in arm with you in opposition to any business that refuses to offer the same services to the homosexual. Personally, why insurance companies would shoot themselves in the foot this way is beyond me, but show me an insurance company that refuses to offer insurance and I will stand with you against them. I don’t think we will disagree in this section of the homosexual debate.
Regarding education in the public school system (a second arena of debate), it is I who has to consider removing my child from the classroom because promotion of homosexuality as a viable option is taught, not the opposite as you suggest.
And regarding refusing to photograph a gay wedding, now you have entered the gay marriage debate. I would ask you a couple of questions in response;
Would you allow a sincere muslim to opt out of photographing your wedding if he discovered it was for a gay couple or would you cry discrimination and seek court action against him (assuming the law allowed such action)?
What if the wedding were between two heterosexual swingers and they wanted nude photographs as part of the wedding portfolio, would you also permit the muslim photographer the option of backing out of the job or should they sue him for backing out (assuming the law allowed)?
What if it were a polygamous wedding and you did not want to support what you saw to be a destructive measure by those involved, wouldn’t you want the option to back out of photographing?
Some scenario’s to contemplate.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: Even if 250 million agree on a law and ten disagree, it is still the imposition of one groups belief over another.
It would be as difficult (impossible actually) to establish a unanimous list of “things that are necessary for society” as it would be to find a unanimous agreement on any law that is passed. While I agree with you on your premise, it is impossible to achieve.
You state that pre-marital sex is not bad for a culture. I suggest that if right now, each individual in this world limited their sexual activity to only one individual for the rest of their lives, married or not, heterosexual or homosexual, we would almost completely destroy the spreading of the aids virus in one generation because it would no longer have sexual promiscuity to rely on to transfer itself. This would be far more affective than the billions we currently spend on education, application, and treatment of those infected.
Report comment to moderator
McDonald’s surrenders! Boycott declared over
Family group says fast-food giant agrees not to promote ‘gay’ agenda
McDonald’s surrenders!
Report comment to moderator
There are dozens more who might be ‘boycotted’ – we will see what happens.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!