I've been following/reading your excellent posts on the subject and this caught my attention that I never thought of:
"BTW, if these unions are about loving couples committing for the sake of obtaining some benefit, and not about sex/sexuality/reproduction, then why can't I marry my sister or my Dad or my Mom. Not that I would want to, but there is no argument against extending the definition if we are going to redefine marriage to be either than husband and wife."
Yeah, might as well legalize/rewrite and perhaps produce more 'normal' beings to help support the movement.
8 days ago I received an email from a very highly respected person suggesting that my postings about sexuality and religion did not accord with my stated beliefs about love as the core of an acceptable God, and the logical extensions of this into earthly relations.
My riposte to Jonah about his experience with teenagers etc was taken as being an unfair case in point. That is, that it was OK for Jonah to raise his experience as a denigration of my experience, but the riposte was not a good thing. I can live with that, but I was surprised.
I like Cindi, and Greg, though its probably a year or so since I talked to them on the 'phone. Cindi has gone from atheist to agnostic to committed Christian in the time I've been reading her posts. I can understand that, people under sentence of pain or death tend to look beyond the physical to the spiritual to maintain the flagging spirits.
But, in terms of Speakeasy, it goes way beyond Cindi's conversion. I find SE becoming more and more homophobix, more and more influenced by intense CHRISTIAN beliefs, more and more intolerant of those who believe in alternatives.
How do you see it?
Ian Clark
Gladstone QLD
Australia
AKA IanC/OZ

Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic