"No Banjo!

:) Thing is what are we going to call a transsexual lesbian who is marrying a hermaphrodite?

I started working out possible combinations and got lost. So best we have one name for all unions.Posted by Jewely, Friday, 29 April 2011 2:17:57 PM"

How about 'confused'?

“I still don't see how two women, or two men deciding to live and sleep together can possibly affect anyone else, secular or not.”

LOL: Is that the best cliché you can come up with suzeonline? Suggestion: read the article again and calmly. Where in the piece does the gentleman say women can’t sleep together?

It isn’t about sleeping together it’s about redefining words.
Many gays are opposed to gay "marriage" to for this very reason.
In Canada, gay "marriage" has opened the door to polygamy court cases and therefore sexism and gender imbalances. So this is just creating more divisions.

“As for same-sex marriage? What business is it of anyone as to who marries whom?”

Lexi:Where same-sex marriage has been introduced Christian charities have been forced to shut down. So it does hurt the community if you have politically-incorrect eyes to see.

Besides we have enough fatherless families in street gangs and jails. So let’s just admit that the sexual revolution hurts some people very much. Let’s not pretend it doesn’t.

And, why bless two women who intentionally seek to rob a boy of his father? Unless, of course, you really have it in for men. Try seeing it from the perspective of innocent children for once.

Good question, Jewely.

>>Thing is what are we going to call a transsexual lesbian who is marrying a hermaphrodite?<<

I settled for "adventurous".

What puzzles me though is that the "secular case against same-sex marriage" as depicted in the article sounds an awful lot like "the religious case against same-sex marriage".

It even has the "some of my best friends are gay" smokescreen that so many religious objectors use, the old "I'm not homophobic, but..." routine.

"Marriage celebrates the male-female bond, which is worth celebrating, but..."

Why could the writer not bring himself to say "and..." instead of "but...", I wonder.

"“Some level of homosexual activity is a normal part of life for a large number of mammalian (and other) species.” Of course it is, but being normal doesn’t make something the norm. To be the norm, a behaviour has to be the behaviour of the majority. Left handedness is normal but it is not the norm."

If (say) it is normal for 10% of sex acts within a species to take place between individuals of the same sex, then a ratio of one homosexual sex act to 9 heterosexual sex acts is the norm for that species. It is the ratio that is the norm, not the activity.

What is the 'norm' for the human species? We don't know, because our cultures have been so infected and distorted by religion and other ideologies that we have no way to tell. The best we can do is look to our nearest biological relatives; and most of them appear to have happy and guilt-free sex with any partner they fancy, with no social repercussions.

simply put marriage was God's idea not man's. Same sex unions will never have God's blessing despite some clerics in robes speaking lies over ceremonies. The same clerics usually deny the resurrection, deny judgement, deny the deity of Christ. For anyone with an ounce of spirituallity we know who they represent and certainly ain't Christ.