On topic discussion regarding homosexuality

[Will Linden]

At 10:03 AM 4/12/04 -0600, you wrote:
>I can't speak for Prof. Duncan or anyone else, but my major problem with 
>homosexuality is not the conduct itself (which I consider far less 
>objectionable than many other things more rampant in society), but that I 
>am being required by society in general and the law in particular to 
>accept this conduct.  I am free to object to somebody being a serial 
>adulterer or alchoholic or riddled with body piercings and tatoos

  I am not sure how much longer... haven't there been discrimination suits 
over "lookism"?

 >such a realignment is more appropriate.  Of course, I (and I would expect 
most conservatives) >have no objection to "unoffical" same-sex 
weddings.  Again, live and let live - just don't require me >to "accept," 
"recognize," or "value" it.


   Which is why I consider it dishonest when the "news" media repeatedly 
describe DOMA or the proposed amendments and legislation as moves to "ban 
gay marriage". They would not forbid anyone to conduct any ceremonies they 
choose, or even to call them "marriage". The only thing that would be 
"banned" is REQUIRING GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS to call them "marriage".

    As Chesterton wrote in the context of polygamy "nothing prevents a man 
from having several wives as long as he does not call them his wives-- or 
rather, as long as he does not go through certain public ceremonies to call 
them his wives".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20040412/ed0a7ea8/attachment.htm