Originally posted by Woodencross:
Again, I ask, have you ever heard of ROME?



Being an ex-Southern Baptist (but a current Catholic/Episcopal mix), I know how the pulpit uses Rome as a prime example of how decadence can destroy a society, though being an avid reader of Roman history/philosophy, I know how it was a combination of economic decay, military decline, constant barbarian incursions and actually, Christianity itself that led that led to it's fall. Yes, social and moral decadence certainly had it's hand in hastening things, but it in of itself was NOT the cause of The Fall...

If you recall, Constantine moved the capital of the empire to Constantinople so Rome became less of an important fixture in terms of protection and governance, but this was long after the barbarian tribes had beaten down the far-flung borders of the Empire and started roving inwards. This also signalled the rift between the Eastern (Byzantine) and Western (Roman) Empire; guess which half ended up being better protected and linked to economic trade/prosperity?

Anyway...

I'm flummoxed by this entire issue; I fully believe that homosexual couples should have the EXACT same rights and burdens that us heterosexual couples have through marriage, but I'm probably in the minority that I think they shouldn't share the same title (marriage).

It's a wording thing for me.

In my world where I'm the self-appointed Deity/Emporer, the way I would run things is that in terms of legal status, CONSENTING and of-age heterosexual AND homosexual couples could apply for "unions". The definition of "marrriage" in terms of a religious rite (be it Hindu, Islam, Christian, Jewish, etc., etc.) would be entirely up to each religion to define precisely what type of couples could lay claim to the label and who would be allowed to take part in a religious ceremony. The government certainly shouldn't be allowed to force it's secular views down the throat of organized religion, but nor should organized religion be able to dictate to the government who should or should NOT be discriminated against.

I don't care how you cut it, these "marriage" clauses or amendments that are floating around are DISCRIMINATION in their current format. Yes, they do protect the definition of marriage, which has ALWAYS had the common definition of "man and woman" and always should, but it does piss me off that the government sees fit to give the shaft towards homosexuals in terms of the various priveliges and burdens that are associated with such a joining when they aren't demanding for wholesale religious acknowledgement of their status, but SECULAR acknowledgement of their status.

What's wrong with that?

I'm all for keeping "marriage" sanctified to whatever degree that various religions see fit to keep it as, but this is one area where the government should kiss off.

JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe