Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution.

But then you would stray off-topic without any hope of correction.We think only of your welfare.Meanwhile, back at the topic: I think the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens, despite its gendered language, said it best more than two hundred years ago: So simple.

It is remarkable that two centuries ago the French were able to reconcile a Supreme Being with liberty and equality, something many Americans (and apparently some Irish) have not yet managed to do.A reasonable test of harm, in any case, would eliminate those matters that merely evoke disapproval. Were it otherwise, we would tie each other up in knots of this distaste or that dislike. Besides, what would the priggish do without someone to condemn?Because religious opponents of gay marriage cannot demonstrate any harm to their own estate from it, they seek to redefine the meaning of harm to include the tolerance of unwelcome difference. Perhaps pagan marriages are next on the list?The Bible is not the law of the land, and marriage is not the property of any church. To all religious opponents of liberty I say:Take care of your own life, and leave the living of other lives to those who live them. Feel free to attempt to dissuade others from gay marriage--otherwise, if you don't like homosexual marriage, don't marry one.I have not yet met the person whose own life was so perfect that they could spare much time for improving another's; content yourselves with the belief that your God will mete out any justice required, and then mind your own business: the kingdom of marriage is of this world.Based on the stats on failed hetero marriages, you have much to do at home.

No, Faith--the low water mark you set on the dead children in New Orleans is still unmatched.There is no "perversion" freely entered into by all concerned that I would not vigorously defend from oppression--even yours.And a kiss of peace to you, too, dear.

I do know about PMs, brenna (don't tell the other admins, but I've been seeing other forums).The bit about you going off-topic in PM exchanges was meant to parody the intrusions into private lives we see advocated in this thread.

I don't have time tonight to reply at length, Iano, and the thread will doubtless close by tomorrow morning.Suffice it to say that I believe your objections are indeed religiously inspired: since homosexuality is not a religion, I do not see it as religious intolerance, merely the intolerance of the religious.You invoke your religion incessantly in your participation here, and you assure us that it informs all your thoughts and deeds.It is a bit late to get shirty at being taken at your word.Yes, rights, rights, rights: we rarely see intolerance moving to deny people their duties. Many former social institutions were crucial to the economies and general welfare of entire nations and their familial institutions--slavery, for example: its preservation, too, was held to be a bulwark between continued social order and chaos; empire, the white man's burden, was seen as both a right and a duty, no?I do not need a guarantee of social stability to seek the overthrow of oppressive institutions or the correction of unjust denials of them; if society must quake to be just, so be it.My country nearly tore itself apart over slavery, and a great blood debt was paid. But that was not the cost of a grand social experiment, it was the price of past injustice. If your nation's institutions of heterosexual marriage need strengthening, then look to it: your own dreams aren't more likely to come true just because you crush someone else's.

What, you don't like dogs?The hyperbole is yours, Iano--bestiality is often the first arrow out of the quiver when the gay-bashing starts.Yes, I fought in a war, but it was not against oppression--it was a war to preserve an unjust colonial world.By the way, shot any false Christians lately?Good night...sweet dreams of the sweet prince of peace, brother.