Fascinating discussion.....i can't resist it....

i like the stuff about America being founded on an ideal. It would be nice if that were absolutely the case, but i think it is debatable is it not? It is possible, after all, to attribute the expulsion/emmigration of those on the Mayflower to the fact that they were not allowed to impose their extreme religious views and life choices on the rest of the population and so stamped off to the New World and set in motion the murder and removal of an indigenous people.....which i would suggest has a lot more in common with the Bush regime than the 'ideal'. The original colonists' idea of religious freedom was not simply the freedom to worship as one wished, but also the "freedom" to impose that view on others. You could argue that the religious right in the States are upholding the earliest and finest traditions of the country.

Just as an aside, i can't understand why gagged_louise has somehow equated gay adoption with international adoption, when the two are quite clearly separate issues. Certainly in the UK, gay adoption is about same sex couples adopting children from this country. The issue of going abroad was only tangled up with it because sometimes before the law changed same sex couples who really wanted children would go abroad to get round the legal stuff. i'm not defending that, but surely saying one has a problem with gay adoption because some gay couples go abroad makes no sense. You obviously have a problem with the international thing - fair enough - but that doesn't have any relevance to the gender or sexuality of the prospective parents. i think you need to separate these issues out in your mind, beacuse i have to say i think your mixing them together under this subject comes over as homophobic. What are your objections to gay adoption per se? What are your objections to international adoption?

My father is a Christian Minister and his take on marriage was interesting (especially as Master and i were preparing to have our Civil Partnership - btw the title Civ Partnership is in itself an way round religious objection to gay marriage). My father pointed out that the sacraments of the church are actually (something like - there may be some i've left out, cos i'm not, on the other hand, a Christian minister) baptism and eucharist and such like. He says that marriage existed prior to Chirstianity....in fact it is a social contruct in which a community/society would recognise and legitimise the relationship between two of its members. This becomes a religious ceremony for various reasons; on the good side, because your community is a relgious one, oyu beliefs are religious and it adds to the proceedings; and on the bad, because the church set itself up as the arbiter of all knowledge a social interaction etc. His argument therefore is that suggesting that the church/religion has any more right to comment on marriage than anyone else is nonsense, because marriage as an institution/concept is bigger than that. Plus he unearthed some evidence that same sex "marriages" did take place at various times - inc, it would seem between Christian crusaders going to the Holy Land.

i do find it extraordinary that people - like the 'god hates fags' lot and Falwell etc get so excited about gay marriage. "You're Christian you say? And you think the best expression of that is to get all excited about two adults who want to register a loving relationship? You do know that people are starving don't you? That children are being abused? etc etc are you sure you know what the word Christian actually means, bless you?"

Oh dear i've wittered on. Perhaps if i look at Tom's arse now, it'll one shut me up and two make him feel less repressed. Look, pansexual ogling!