tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post5310410390027583726..comments2023-11-02T03:10:39.674-07:00Comments on GeeeeeZ!: GAY MARRIAGE LEGAL IN CALIFORNIAZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-14707122113351745212008-05-22T18:59:00.000-07:002008-05-22T18:59:00.000-07:00we don't have to change others' ideas here, that's...we don't have to change others' ideas here, that's no the point. Just hearing other ways of thinking is always goood.Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-45300688705113925052008-05-22T10:26:00.000-07:002008-05-22T10:26:00.000-07:00Z,I think I may not be saying what I want to say c...Z,<BR/><BR/>I think I may not be saying what I want to say clearly enough. In which case I apologize.<BR/><BR/>No one has to agree with anyone, but there comes a time in every exchange when it's obvious that neither side is persuading the other to change its mind even a hair. When that happens, I believe it's time to agree to disagree and then move on.<BR/><BR/>Write me at home when you have moment. Lots going on right now that'd be inappropriate to share here.<BR/><BR/>XXXXXXX - <A>FT</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-44070370483349348142008-05-22T08:40:00.000-07:002008-05-22T08:40:00.000-07:00FT. Where have I ever said you have to believe any...FT. Where have I ever said you have to believe anything I say I don't believe? Please show me.<BR/><BR/>I think you'll have a rough time finding it. Why must I agree with you?<BR/><BR/>This is my blog and I will never berate anyone here.Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-73057855099461650322008-05-22T07:59:00.000-07:002008-05-22T07:59:00.000-07:00Z, whatever you firmly believe just HAS to be the ...Z, whatever you firmly believe just HAS to be the truth. There's no point in arguing about it. <BR/><BR/>The great trouble with living in this world is that nearly everyone feels just that way about THEIR personal convictions, but rarely do any two people perfectly agree on anything.<BR/><BR/>Result: Often we just have to agree to disagree, and let it go at that.<BR/><BR/>If I can't see what you see, and vice versa, we should not berate one another over our differences in perception. <BR/><BR/>When it comes right down to it, however, I doubt very much if Mr. Bumble's famous, oft-quoted opinion of The Law had anything whatsoever to do with homosexuality either.<BR/><BR/>But let's not quibble.<BR/><BR/>May all things bright and beautiful come your way today and always.<BR/><BR/>~ <A>FreeThinke</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-65394750649552362022008-05-21T21:27:00.000-07:002008-05-21T21:27:00.000-07:00I don't believe that, just because the lyrics CAN ...I don't believe that, just because the lyrics CAN be given other meanings, a song like "We Kiss in the Shadows", when it perfectly fits a libretto, can necessarily be attributed to another meaning like gay love. I just don't. Sure, it definitely DOES have lyrics which can be taken that way, but I'd be highly crazed if I wrote a great libretto and had people suggest songs had such different meanings, I really would.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The only thing I brought up "I FEEL PRETTY" for is the lyric I meantioned.."..and GAAAAY". That's not GAY love, that's happy/gay. no secret meaning there.Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-75639190955919913962008-05-21T20:39:00.000-07:002008-05-21T20:39:00.000-07:00Z,Most REALLY good work is meant to be interpreted...Z,<BR/><BR/>Most REALLY good work is meant to be interpreted and enjoyed on many different levels. <BR/><BR/>There's always so much more in poems, essays and novels than the OSTENSIBLE reason for their appearance.<BR/><BR/>"I Feel Pretty" has no dark side or hidden meanings to it that I can see, even though both words and music were written by prominent gay men, which was certainly NOT the case with Rogers and Hammerstein.<BR/><BR/><A>FT</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-55502358583981160862008-05-21T17:26:00.000-07:002008-05-21T17:26:00.000-07:00You could be right, but that song exactly fit the ...You could be right, but that song exactly fit the context of the two lovers in THE KING AND I, too.<BR/><BR/>"I feel pretty, I feel pretty and witty and gay..." was about being happy and frivolously cheerful, but that could be said to have been subversive, too!<BR/><BR/>"You've got to be taught" also fit the show, but it sure did have implications that applied across the board!Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-29834711814476038672008-05-21T14:17:00.001-07:002008-05-21T14:17:00.001-07:00I wonder if Rogers and Hammerstein realized the br...I wonder if Rogers and Hammerstein realized the broader implications of this lovely song when they wrote The King and I? I have a feeling they did. (Remember how they slipped You've Got to be Taught" into South Pacific against the better judgment of the producer?)<BR/><BR/><BR/>We kiss in the shadows, <BR/>We hide from the moon, <BR/>Our meetings are few, <BR/>And over too soon. <BR/><BR/>We speak in a whisper, <BR/>Afraid to be heard; <BR/>When people are near, <BR/>We speak not a word. <BR/><BR/>Alone in our secret, <BR/>Together we sigh, <BR/>For one smiling day to be free <BR/>To kiss in the sunlight <BR/>And say to the sky: <BR/>"Behold and believe what you see! <BR/>Behold how my lover loves me!" <BR/><BR/>America never thought of R&H as a pair of subversives, but they sure weren't in love with the status quo of their time.<BR/><BR/>Making pointed criticisms of the Power Structure veiled in exotic or mythical settings goes back at least as far as the the Versailles of Louis XIV. Gilbert and Sullivan were famous for it. <BR/><BR/>Sadly, we hurl our brickbats without anything resembling wit or subtlety today. Maybe that's why we of a conservative disposition are so appalled at the sheer grossness of it all?<BR/><BR/>~ <A>FreeThinke</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-11422122470226579692008-05-21T14:17:00.000-07:002008-05-21T14:17:00.000-07:00By the way, since the vast majority are relatively...<EM>By the way, since the vast majority are relatively poor, if we did have direct democracy, we'd soon vote the nation straight into Bankruptcy and Third World Status, because of the "Robin hood" mentality that is always popular among the Have-Nots.</EM><BR/><BR/>A government of the people by the people for the people.<BR/><BR/>Sorry but calling the people too stupid to decide these things doesnt make a decision decided 'by the people' enough of a reason for judicial tyrrany.<BR/><BR/>and elections are on the whole primarily decided on the 'majority'.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry you don't seem to care for what the people decided (believe me I understand what a republic is), but representatives tend to listen to majority's. They're kind of funny that way. Some elitist deciding what the majority wants only works as long as he enjoys a 'majority' <B>vote</B> come election day.elmers brotherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03382038085149828957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-82417188055334815062008-05-21T13:54:00.000-07:002008-05-21T13:54:00.000-07:00Sorry, Elbro, but "the people" as a whole don't ge...Sorry, Elbro, but "the people" as a whole don't get to vote directly on issues like that. Elections are held to "hire" REPRESENTATIVES in the LEGISLATURES to make decisions of that sort FOR the people.<BR/><BR/>The direct democracy you seem to advocate (i.e. simple majority rule) is, as the famous analogy says, the moral equivalent of two wolves and a lamb deciding what's to be eaten for dinner.<BR/><BR/>By the way, since the vast majority are relatively poor, if we did have direct democracy, we'd soon vote the nation straight into Bankruptcy and Third World Status, because of the "Robin hood" mentality that is always popular among the Have-Nots. <BR/><BR/>We're perilously close to that already with a character like Obama achieving such popularity with the ignorant, unthinking mobs out there.<BR/><BR/>We all need to be careful what we wish for. The Law of Unintended Consequences is always at work.<BR/><BR/>~ <A>FreeThinke</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-50803788023312107792008-05-21T10:51:00.000-07:002008-05-21T10:51:00.000-07:00well no one is for mob rule but I would hardly cal...well no one is for mob rule but I would hardly call the results of an election mob ruleelmers brotherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03382038085149828957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-14306896836468272962008-05-20T18:53:00.000-07:002008-05-20T18:53:00.000-07:00The will of the people as interpreted by their ele...The will of the people <B><I>as interpreted by their elected REPRESENTATIVES</I></B> should prevail in most instances.<BR/><BR/>We do not have–––nor SHOULD we have–––a direct democracy–––a faulty phenomenon that invariably ends in TYRANNY.<BR/><BR/>The genius of the Founding Fathers lay in their understanding that "the mere whim of the vulgar populace" should not be permitted in and of itself to make policy.<BR/><BR/>Neither did the Founders intend that we live under an Imperial Judicial Oligarchy, as we do now, because Legislators have abdicated their responsibility to the people, while allowing Jurists to usurp the power of the legislature.<BR/><BR/>This <I>de facto</I> form of government is ILLEGITIMATE, but apparently no one in authority has the courage to stand up and say so.<BR/><BR/>Direct democracy (a polite term for Mob Rule) is ILLEGITIMATE.<BR/><BR/>Judicial Oligarchy is ILLEGITIMATE.<BR/><BR/>Yet, who will rid us of these presumptuous bastards?<BR/><BR/>~ <A>FreeThinke</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-67252259586678187742008-05-20T14:50:00.000-07:002008-05-20T14:50:00.000-07:00I'm sure most people would agree that the will of ...I'm sure most people would agree that the will of the people should be followed (such as in this case, it was put to a referendum) vice some judicial activismelmers brotherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03382038085149828957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-65632885592284958652008-05-20T14:38:00.000-07:002008-05-20T14:38:00.000-07:00Diapproval does not equate to hate. I've used the ...Diapproval does not equate to hate. I've used the analogy of my children because it best describes this concept. I assume you have children so you'd understand what I mean. <BR/><BR/>Can one love the 'sinner' and not the 'sin'?<BR/><BR/>I know that I don't hate homosexuals and I believe that God sees no difference in whether the sin is a homosexual one in nature, a heterosexual one in nature or a lie. (the consequences in this life are certainly different)<BR/><BR/>I do not care what heterosexuals or homosexuals do <B>in their bedroom</B> To force my acceptance or tacit approval amounts to their 'ecclesiastical' interpretation being forced upon me and my children.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The present age is characterized by a concern for "tolerance" and "inclusiveness" regarding differing beliefs and opinions-with one glaring exception. Those who hold to traditional views about marriage and human sexuality are increasingly being targeted by homosexual activists and their supporters. Those who hold to traditional values in public schools, universities, government, and in the workplace are increasingly being persecuted for expressing their Constitutionally-protected religious beliefs and refusing to accept the radical homosexual agenda.elmers brotherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03382038085149828957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-38973474112103342702008-05-20T13:39:00.000-07:002008-05-20T13:39:00.000-07:00Depends on what you mean by "behavior," Elbro. I ...Depends on what you mean by "behavior," Elbro. I wouldn't approve of heterosexuals marching naked in "Het Pride" Parades while indulging in notably bizarre forms of sexual behavior. I wouldn't approve of anyone having full-blown sex in plain sight in the middle of a public space. <BR/><BR/>I tend to dislike people who feel compelled to make what-my-grandmother would call "a holy show" of themselves in ANY context.<BR/><BR/>Religious people should be perfectly free to regard anything as "sin," and preach as vehemently against it as they like, if they are so convicted. <BR/><BR/>What religious people <I>cannot</I> properly do under the Constitution is make our system of Law and Justice conform to any specific version of Canon Law or Ecclesiastical Authority.<BR/><BR/>Now, here are a whole bunch of definitions of the word DISAPPROVE (below). <BR/><BR/>The one I would trust most is Webster's 1913 edition, because political correctness and other forms of mischievous monkeying around with the language had not yet occurred. Any reference work written after 1965 is highly suspect in my opinion.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, all these various sources show "disapproval" to be a first cousin of "hate" or "hatred." <BR/><BR/>If you bother to look up "hate," you should see what I mean. They are not true synonyms, but they are closely related in sentiment.<BR/><BR/>It's perfectly all right to dislike something or someone intensely, despite what the dictates of Political Correctness tell us. <BR/><BR/>What's NOT all right is take action that attempts to thwart another citizen's right "to pursue happiness" as he or she sees fit––– UNLESS the citizen in question derives his pleasure and satisfaction from committing acts of MURDER, RAPE, MAYHEM, ROBBERY, VANDALISM, EXTORTION, or persistent HARASSMENT.<BR/><BR/>As I've said many times in many places, it is regrettable that the Left for nefarious purposes of their own have pushed the realm of PRIVATE, PERSONAL BEHAVIOR into the Legislative and judicial arenas. <BR/><BR/>This push for power has succeeded only in making everything worse for everyone. It is tearing the country apart–––just as the Marxists intended that it should.<BR/><BR/>~ <A>FreeThinke</A><BR/><BR/><BR/>Merriam Webster Online<BR/><BR/>1: to pass unfavorable judgment on<BR/><BR/>2: to refuse approval, to reject<BR/><BR/>–––––––––––––––––<BR/><BR/>The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.<BR/> <BR/>disapprove<BR/> <BR/><BR/>To have an unfavorable opinion of; condemn. <BR/> <BR/>To refuse to approve; reject.<BR/><BR/>–––––––––––––––––––––––<BR/>Cambridge Dictionary of American English<BR/><BR/><BR/>disapprove<BR/><BR/>to think that something is wrong, or to have a bad opinion about someone <BR/><BR/>–––––––––––––––––––––<BR/><BR/><B><I>Webster Dictionary, 1913<BR/><BR/>DISAPPROVE <BR/><BR/>1. To pass unfavorable judgment upon; to condemn by an act of the judgment; to regard as wrong, unsuitable, or inexpedient; to censure; as, to disapprove the conduct of others.<BR/><BR/>To refuse official approbation; to disallow; to decline to sanction; as, the sentence of the court-martial was disapproved by the commander in chief. <BR/><BR/>This verb is often followed by of as, to disapprove of an opinion, of such conduct</I></B><BR/>––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––<BR/><BR/>Wordsmyth<BR/><BR/>dis-ap-prove<BR/> <BR/><BR/>1. to regard unfavorably; dislike; censure.<BR/> <BR/>Synonyms<BR/> <BR/>disfavor, disavow, censure, dislike, <BR/><BR/>Similar Words<BR/> <BR/>objurgate, deprecate, denounce, decry, criticize, condemn, deplore<BR/> <BR/>Definition 2.<BR/><BR/>to refuse to approve or sanction; reject.<BR/> <BR/>Synonyms<BR/> <BR/>Disallow, reject <BR/> <BR/>Similar Words<BR/> <BR/>refuse, discountenance, veto, deny<BR/> <BR/>Related Words<BR/> <BR/>proscribe, censure, blackball, reprimand, protest, discourage, frown upon, take exception to, animadvert <BR/><BR/>––––––––––––––––<BR/><BR/>PS: Don’t you love "objurgate" and "animadvert?" For me both are new ways to register disapproval. - <A>FT</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-80432921670092431282008-05-20T10:36:00.000-07:002008-05-20T10:36:00.000-07:00I don't hate 'them' FT...I just don't approve of t...I don't hate 'them' FT...I just don't approve of the behavior...much like if my children did something wrong..I still love them but not the behaviorelmers brotherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03382038085149828957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-27209413645121202312008-05-20T07:02:00.000-07:002008-05-20T07:02:00.000-07:00As long as there is an US v. THEM feeling in the a...As long as there is an US v. THEM feeling in the air from either side hatred is present.<BR/><BR/>If we could get to the point of asking, "Let's see if we can find a way to iron out our differences," we'll be on the road recovery.<BR/><BR/><A>FT</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-39521235803100887302008-05-19T19:30:00.000-07:002008-05-19T19:30:00.000-07:00I don't hate anyone...I don't appreciate the intol...I don't hate anyone...I don't appreciate the intolerance they have for me or my childrenelmers brotherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03382038085149828957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-39639847538096583812008-05-19T19:08:00.000-07:002008-05-19T19:08:00.000-07:00You're born to fit the mold for this you think...You're born to fit the mold<BR/> for this you think<BR/>The Lord has made you <BR/> righteous, fine, "the best."<BR/>In smug complacency<BR/> you watch the rink <BR/>Of life; cheer for your kind, <BR/> dismiss the rest.<BR/><BR/>And yet, your way of life<BR/> shines like the morn.<BR/>Those who cannot join<BR/> must yearn in pain––<BR/>Anger for the strong<BR/> who fight with scorn––<BR/>Weeping for the weak,<BR/> who hope in vain.<BR/><BR/>Anguish for us all<BR/> because we hate<BR/>Anything that questions<BR/> what we are.<BR/>Everything we know<BR/> we're taught by Fate<BR/>Keeping us suspicious––<BR/> wary––far––<BR/><BR/>From joining in the glowing <BR/> Christian Feast––<BR/>As distant as the West <BR/> is from the East.<BR/><BR/>Alfred Douglas Jervers (1933)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-84315364685028118742008-05-19T17:57:00.000-07:002008-05-19T17:57:00.000-07:00I'd be perfectly happy if they kept in the bedroom...I'd be perfectly happy if they kept in the bedroom...<BR/><BR/>but it ends when the agenda is pushed down kids throats in public school contrary to what parents want<BR/><BR/>or when the placards during the gay pride parade read 'give us your children'elmers brotherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03382038085149828957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-47154688103522924712008-05-18T00:33:00.000-07:002008-05-18T00:33:00.000-07:00Hi FT,Yes all you say is true. This is why I said ...Hi FT,<BR/>Yes all you say is true. This is why I said the law must reflect the ideal situation. <BR/><BR/>It is not possible for the law to guarantee anything. For the sake of future generations, it seems to me, we must strive to reach the goal which benefits society as a whole.<BR/><BR/>PrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-33253684214086528562008-05-17T18:56:00.000-07:002008-05-17T18:56:00.000-07:00Frank Family said:"Whether or not you are gay or f...Frank Family said:<BR/><BR/>"Whether or not you are gay or for gay marriage is not the issue here. The issue is the ability of courts to overrule the wishes of the voters who are the true caretakers of democracy."<BR/><BR/>That's judicial activism in action.<BR/><BR/>Z pointed out:<BR/><BR/>"Californians voted this down in 2000, something like 65% to 35%....<BR/><BR/>But will they revolt in the face of this action today?"<BR/><BR/>I don't know much at all about California demographics (except that it's a solid blue state and the home of Hollywood and San Francisco), but think they're expected to vote it down the next chance they get.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00812877792709736341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-73038409181760153462008-05-17T16:11:00.000-07:002008-05-17T16:11:00.000-07:00Hi, Pris,I usually ask anyone and everyone questio...Hi, Pris,<BR/><BR/>I usually ask anyone and everyone questions like that, I'm glad you answered. I had hoped to get a variety of responses. I enjoy learning what others think and believe.<BR/><BR/>I find it "interesting" that you CANNOT be married in a church and have the marriage recognized by the state as legal and binding, unless you apply to the <I>government</I> for a license. <BR/><BR/>I've never studied the history of that phenomenon, so I wonder just when the state butted into a province that had for centuries been primarily the business of ecclesiastical authority?<BR/><BR/>As for Common Law marriages, I'm pretty sure that after five or seven years of continuous cohabitation the state considers you married–––whether you bothered to go through a ceremony or not. I think this may vary from state to state.<BR/><BR/>This, of course, protects any children from such a union from simply being abandoned without a proper identity, and also gives surviving spouses full rights of inheritance–––at least this was true where I came from.<BR/><BR/>No doubt the ideal family has both a mother and a father who care for each other and are devoted to their children. Unfortunately, that is not always possible in a society such as ours where broken homes have become almost thee norm.<BR/><BR/>I am certain from having observed life at close range for quite a while that heterosexuality, while a biological necessity for producing children, is no guarantee of good parenting.<BR/><BR/>There are all kinds of people in every designated group. It's always a mixture of good, bad and indifferent along with too much craziness these days.<BR/><BR/>Given a clear choice among having a traditional heterosexual couple, a single parent, two women or two men, who may or may not be homosexual, raising a child, naturally the child's biological parents are the most desirable in most cases. <BR/><BR/>A traditional marriage between two divorced heterosuxals sharing the responsibility of raising children from either or both former marriages may be the next best alternative.<BR/><BR/>Being a single parent is likely to be hard on both parent and child, but if the parent is loving, responsible and reasonably solvent, it's probably going to work out all right.<BR/><BR/>Two women or two men raising a child,whether gay or not, would certainly be preferable to putting the child in an institution or farming it out to a series of foster homes PROVIDED the household is stable, committed, solvent, kind and caring.<BR/><BR/>Whenever these sorts of questions come up I think of A Thousand Clowns. Do you remember that?<BR/><BR/>Genuine affection, true bonding, loyalty, devotion and wisdom can come from the most unlikely and unexpected sources.<BR/><BR/>Lunatics, perverts, sadists, masochists, cold-hearted, uncaring, stingy, cruel, stupid, selfish, depriving individuals cut across the whole spectrum of humanity.<BR/><BR/>So too do loving, creative, stable, altruistic, affectionate, generous, sensible, wholesome, nurturing personalities.<BR/><BR/>Being a father means a whole lot more than being a sperm donor, just as being a mother implies 18 to 20 years of intense nurturing and unselfish devotion once the baby has been brought to term.<BR/><BR/>Sadly, many who are biologically fit to be parents are morally, psychologically or financially unfit to complete the task of parenting. The opposite may be true as well.<BR/><BR/>I would add that people of ANY stripe who want to have children simply to AMUSE themselves or FILL some indefinable VOID in their lives are probably a bad "flight risk."<BR/><BR/>I doubt if it really is possible to generalize about these things and be truly fair.<BR/><BR/>Even at its best life is always something of a gamble. There are no guaranteed outcomes in the real world, and as I said, some of the most unlikely situations have produced wonderful results and vice versa.<BR/><BR/>~ <A>FreeThinke</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-16024371965988360202008-05-17T14:50:00.000-07:002008-05-17T14:50:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-53729743848418203942008-05-17T14:49:00.000-07:002008-05-17T14:49:00.000-07:00FT,I don't know if you're asking me but, I'll give...FT,<BR/>I don't know if you're asking me but, I'll give it a shot.<BR/><BR/>I think marriage is a combination of recognition of the State, and the sanctity of the church. I know a couple can be married outside the church. The sanctity of marriage in a church is my personal preference.<BR/><BR/>The only difference between a childless married couple and one with children, is that one is childless, and one is not. <BR/><BR/>However, I believe it would be easier for a heterosexual married childless couple to adopt, than if they weren't married, and easier than for a homosexual couple.<BR/><BR/>As a traditionalist, I also believe that marriage laws must reflect the ideal for children, because the overwhelming majority of married couples do have children. The family has always been the strong foundation of this country. <BR/><BR/>I think It should be honored as such, and encouraged. In this I am not denigrating childless couples or homosexuals. <BR/><BR/>I don't really believe there is such a thing as common law marriage. If a couple wants to be married they will. If not, they won't. Besides, now there are laws which provide for legal protections for non-married couples.<BR/><BR/>PrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com