What's with all the new red and pink avatars / profile pictures?

[Mom-ninja.]

 

Morality is not won by popular vote no matter how many people like it.

 

Actually morality is won by popular vote. Fascinating book called The Moral Animal describes exactly how morality came about "by popular vote."

[MercyA]

Pax, all, you're making my hands cold and I'm trying to hand sew lace on dresses. Hard to work a needle with cold hands.

 

:grouphug:

[Free]

 

Because the redefinition would open the door to limiting religious liberty on the basis of discrimination, which is what this argument is all about.

 

I actually don't want to leave it to the states because that would cause a serious division eventually, "Well I'm from OK, and you're from ME, and that means you believe..." and the union is fractured.

 

Allow them the legal benefits of spouse, and all it entails. I've never said I didn't think that. Leave the word marriage alone.

 

And now we have come back a full circle to the beginning of this thread which started with the argument that the word "marriage" has some special sanction and is reserved for only some kinds of unions. Not true. Marriages have long existed in various forms. The definition of marriage has constantly evolved such that modern marriages do not in any way resemble ancient marriages. Now when the public discussion has turned towards including homosexual partnerships under marriage, we suddenly do not want any further redefinition of the word "Marriage".

 

I find it incredulous and unbelievable that all this argument and endless debate, the denial of rights to certain citizens, all this is to protect the word "marriage" from any further change. That is what the debate is about? A fight between mere pedantry vs. Equal rights? Really?

 

Here is what I think. I think how a dictionary defines a word has zilch to do equal marriage rights for gays. Let us be honest and acknowledge that the real issue is that some believe gays should not be allowed to get married. Period. However, they also appreciate that the US stands for equal rights for all its citizens. How can one reconcile these two beliefs? How can one believe that all people should be treated equally under the law and yet believe that some citizens should be denied the right to marry? The way they have chosen to rationalize these opposing beliefs in this case, it seems, is to appropriate the word "marriage" and make it sound as if the Bible invented this concept.

 

My real issue is this - should the laws of the land be based on some people's religious beliefs and value systems? Your answer seems to suggest that you don't have an issue with civil union rights for gays, which I take to mean that you do not believe your religious beliefs need to be imposed on the rest.

[Mom-ninja.]

 

Morality can exist without religion, one does not need belief in a deity to have morals.

 

 

There are many many people who don't belief that. Many. Too many. Sadly.

[SKL]

I would point out that Catholicism is certainly not the only religion that is against homosexuals behaving like married couples. Nor is this view unique to Christians. It's pretty common/standard among world religions and cultural mores. In fact, I challenge anyone to provide a list of cultures, religious or otherwise, that has a consistent history of promoting, tolerating, or granting equal rights to homosexuals behaving like married couples.

 

I'm not actually convinced this is a church-state issue. As someone else pointed out, there are many people who are not religious who do not accept that homosexual relations are comparable to heterosexual ones or otherwise deserving of equal rights. By calling it a religious issue it is easy to shut down the conversation instead of actually working through it.

 

It does bother me to see arguments disrespected just because one source of the purported wisdom happens to be the Catholic church, and it's fair game to diss the Catholic church. (I am not Catholic btw.)

 

Personally I think the state-level trend is toward gay marriage and I'm OK with that. I just think each side deserves a respectful hearing.

[Jennifer3141]

Sooo... not to be a meanie or anything, but there used to be a restriction on this forum about not having political avatars. I looked, and I don't see that listed anywhere as a restriction. Has that restriction been lifted?

 

 

I'll worry about it when the Confederate flag poster is gone. :laugh:

[Guest inoubliable]

 

Is the issue of gay marriage a political one?

 

No. It's a humanist one. But then there are the ones claiming it's a religious one when it suits them, and a political one when it doesn't.

[Orthodox6]

Is the issue of gay marriage a political one?

 

 

Yes. Otherwise why would the Supreme Court be involved?

 

The topic blends civil rights with religion/nonreligion.

 

Yes, it is absolutely political. This thread type is forbidden by board regulations. (Ponder the ill-natured remarks of many, if you wonder why this is the case.) Somebody earlier implied that I should just swallow an AlkaSeltzer and ignore the rules.

[elegantlion]

I would point out that Catholicism is certainly not the only religion that is against homosexuals behaving like married couples. Nor is this view unique to Christians. It's pretty common/standard among world religions and cultural mores. In fact, I challenge anyone to provide a list of cultures, religious or otherwise, that has a consistent history of promoting, tolerating, or granting equal rights to homosexuals behaving like married couples.

 

I'm not actually convinced this is a church-state issue. As someone else pointed out, there are many people who are not religious who do not accept that homosexual relations are comparable to heterosexual ones or otherwise deserving of equal rights. By calling it a religious issue it is easy to shut down the conversation instead of actually working through it.

 

It does bother me to see arguments disrespected just because one source of the purported wisdom happens to be the Catholic church, and it's fair game to diss the Catholic church. (I am not Catholic btw.)

 

Personally I think the state-level trend is toward gay marriage and I'm OK with that. I just think each side deserves a respectful hearing.

 

True, my former protestant denomination is also against gay marriage. But are non-religious people against gay marriage working to squelch it? Or do they embrace a live and let live attitude? I'm asking, I seriously don't know. All of the arguments I've seen against gay marriage have come from religious groups or religious beliefs.

[Jennifer3141]

Religion is also tied together deeply with politics in this country. If you're going to let one go, then I hope all the people with crosses won't be too disappointed as well.

[justasque]

 

 

I'm asking you logically....feeling aside....how does it logistically work to not have all marriages considered valid in one country? How would it even work between countries? Right now the US recognizes marriages from other countries (at least most countries that I know of). Again, I was not married in the US. However, I'm an American citizen as is my dh. Should our marriage not be considered valid in any of the states because we got married in Europe?

 

Really. How would this work?

 

I got married in Jamaica and I'm considered legally married everywhere we go.

 

Edith Windsor got married in Canada, and she has not been considered legally married in the US (at the federal level). This is what today's oral arguments are about. As to how it works - the answer is "not well". It messes with taxes, and inheritance, and a ton of other everyday issues.

[Mom-ninja.]

 

 

I'll worry about it when the Confederate flag poster is gone. :laugh:

 

I've never noticed.

[molon labe]

Maybe another Catholic or religious person will chime in with why exactly gay marriage is wrong, because I've got nothing else.

 

The Catholic Church believes that homosexual acts are disordered in that they are contrary to natural law (the sex act is closed to the gift of life). The Catholic Church views sex as being both procreative (bringing forth new life) and unitative (strengthening the union of the spouses). Sex is said to be disordered when the two purposes are separated from each other, as it would be in the case of homosexuals who cannot procreate (or in the case of the use of contraception to prevent new life). The procreative aspect of sex implies that it be between a man and a woman.

[SKL]

I think we're allowed to discuss things that happen to be hot politically, as long as we're not getting into which candidate or party people ought to vote for (or whether the prez is a [insert word of choice]).

[Catwoman]

Trying to justify discrimination under secular law by using religious arguments is not a compelling argument. She has made a case for what she believes, but has failed to make a case for why that should apply under our Constitution.

 

 

 

Again, I disagree with your assessment of the validity of her argument. She has been asked repeatedly to provide a justification as to why her beliefs, religious or not, should apply under a law that affects everyone. She generally has dodged the question or provided a poor/incomplete explanation.

 

 

I'm sure she feels exactly the same way about your justification for your beliefs.

 

And, again, I do support gay marriage. But I also support others' right to be against it, and I don't have to agree with their argument (or even their reasoning behind it,) in order to respect their entitlement to hold a differing opinion.

[Mom-ninja.]

Edith Windsor got married in Canada, and she has not been considered legally married in the US (at the federal level). This is what today's oral arguments are about. As to how it works - the answer is "not well". It messes with taxes, and inheritance, and a ton of other everyday issues.

 

But not because she was married in Canada. Because she married a same sex partner.

[Rivka]

Yes. Otherwise why would the Supreme Court be involved?

 

The topic blends civil rights with religion/nonreligion.

 

Yes, it is absolutely political. This thread type is forbidden by board regulations. (Ponder the ill-natured remarks of many, if you wonder why this is the case.) Somebody earlier implied that I should just swallow an AlkaSeltzer and ignore the rules.

We have always been permitted to discuss political issues in general terms. What is forbidden is partisan politics, invoking the names of political parties or candidates.

[MercyA]

Or.... you stand up and say "that's ridiculous" and "you're a fool". Because standing up for something and calling stupid out on stupid can lead to progress. Or I guess during the Civil Rights movement, everyone who supported equal rights should have just stood down and let things keep on keeping on?

 

I like you, KK, and I passionately agree that people should and must stand up for what is just and right. However, I think there is a difference between saying, "I believe your argument is ridiculous, and here's why..." and saying, "You're a fool." One is allowed in this forum; the other, I believe, is not.

 

Peace to all.

[Orthodox6]

We have always been permitted to discuss political issues in general terms. What is forbidden is partisan politics, invoking the names of political parties or candidates.

 

 

I appreciate your clarifying. Thanks!

 

I'll shift over, then, to wishing the thread closed on the grounds of hate speech! There's ample supply thus far.

[Guest inoubliable]

I like you, KK, and I passionately agree that people should and must stand up for what is just and right. However, I think there is a difference between saying, "I believe your argument is ridiculous, and here's why..." and saying, "You're a fool." One is allowed in this forum; the other, I believe, is not.

 

Peace to all.

 

I like you, too. :) FTR, I don't think anyone has actually come out and said "you're a fool". It may have gotten dangerously close, I agree. Tempers are rising and blood is boiling for some, myself included. Rather than let my more colorful vocabulary out, I've gone back to mostly reading responses. I think several of us have, and given over to a new group of vocals to keep going while we rest. I hope that's appreciated. It's appreciated on this side, anyway.

[Rivka]

And, again, I do support gay marriage. But I also support others' right to be against it, and I don't have to agree with their argument (or even their reasoning behind it,) in order to respect their entitlement to hold a differing opinion.

In my mind, the question isn't whether justamouse and others are entitled to their opinion. Obviously they are. The question is whether state and federal law should conform to their opinion. That is where it is entirely justified to require that an argument not be religious in nature. I support marriage equality in large part because of my own religious beliefs, but I fully understand that when I argue that it should be a legal and political reality, I must cite a secular rationale.

[Rivka]

And, again, I do support gay marriage. But I also support others' right to be against it, and I don't have to agree with their argument (or even their reasoning behind it,) in order to respect their entitlement to hold a differing opinion.

(Sorry, double post.)

[HollyinNNV]

 

 

I'm asking you logically....feeling aside....how does it logistically work to not have all marriages considered valid in one country? How would it even work between countries? Right now the US recognizes marriages from other countries (at least most countries that I know of). Again, I was not married in the US. However, I'm an American citizen as is my dh. Should our marriage not be considered valid in any of the states because we got married in Europe?

 

Really. How would this work?

 

Logically, feeling aside, here is what I think. If I go to another country, I would not suggest that this other country validate the laws of my home country. For example, I'm sure there are many elements of Sharia law which I would find objectionable as a woman used to US laws. Therefore, I choose not to travel to those countries.I don't want to abide by their laws. I don't suggest that those countries change their laws for my benefit. Their people have decided and that is that.

 

I look at states rights in a similar way. Travel to the state, abide by their laws.

 

How would this really work? I don't have a crystal ball. I'm sure A former president is wishing he had one when he signed DOMA into law.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm sure she feels exactly the same way about your justification for your beliefs.

 

The difference? I can make a sound argument based on how we provide rights under the Constitution without resorting to a religious argument. She can't.

 

And, again, I do support gay marriage. But I also support others' right to be against it, and I don't have to agree with their argument (or even their reasoning behind it,) in order to respect their entitlement to hold a differing opinion.

She is certainly entitled to hold a different opinion. If she could make an argument for her beliefs that didn't require me to accept her religious beliefs, I would even respect it.

[HRAAB]

 

True, my former protestant denomination is also against gay marriage. But are non-religious people against gay marriage working to squelch it? Or do they embrace a live and let live attitude? I'm asking, I seriously don't know. All of the arguments I've seen against gay marriage have come from religious groups or religious beliefs.

 

I think there must be non-religious people against same sex marriage, but I don't know any. I've never seen a website or organization campaigning against same sex marriage that does not have a religious foundation. In my own group of friends and family, the stance on same sex marriage is pretty much divided between religious and non-religious, although there are some religious people I know who support marriage equality.

 

What are non-religious reasons for not extending marriage benefits to same sex couples - reasons that have no basis in religion?

[justasque]

But not because she was married in Canada. Because she married a same sex partner.

 

Right. She would have been in the same boat if she had been married in New York (which did recognize her Canadian marriage.)

[SKL]

True, my former protestant denomination is also against gay marriage. But are non-religious people against gay marriage working to squelch it? Or do they embrace a live and let live attitude? I'm asking, I seriously don't know. All of the arguments I've seen against gay marriage have come from religious groups or religious beliefs.

 

When you say "working to squelch it," it helps to remember how big you have to be in order to put in that kind of coordinated effort. The Catholic church happens to be huge, bigger than the USA itself. So naturally we see its coordinated efforts into these types of matters. Non-religious people are obviously not organized to do any such thing. That doesn't mean they are in favor of gay marriage or neutral toward it. I know people who are Atheist / non-religious but they are quite negative on homosexuality, let alone gay marriage.

 

ETA: And I know some gay people who are religious.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I look at states rights in a similar way. Travel to the state, abide by their laws.

 

 

You keep leaving out that states are expected to recognize and accept legal activities that occur in other states (Full Faith and Credit Clause), and that with the exception of gay marriage under DOMA, they do so without a problem.

[BrookValley.]

I'm sure she feels exactly the same way about your justification for your beliefs.

 

And, again, I do support gay marriage. But I also support others' right to be against it, and I don't have to agree with their argument (or even their reasoning behind it,) in order to respect their entitlement to hold a differing opinion.

 

 

I also support others' right to be against gay marriage. Absolutely. The problem people have is that no one has the right to deny rights based on their religion. You have the right to be whatever religion you want, believe whatever you want, say whatever you want, but religious beliefs have no place in legislation. Anyhow, the short of it is I agree with you, but half the point is missing. It's not about respecting someone else's right to hold a different belief, it's the attempt to use that belief to infringe on others. No one gets to do that.

[Catwoman]

 

 

I appreciate your clarifying. Thanks!

 

I'll shift over, then, to wishing the thread closed on the grounds of hate speech! There's ample supply thus far.

 

:iagree:

 

I thought personal attacks were against forum rules, and while most people have remained civil, a few have definitely crossed the line.

[elegantlion]

 

I think there must be non-religious people against same sex marriage, but I don't know any. I've never seen a website or organization campaigning against same sex marriage that does not have a religious foundation. In my own group of friends and family, the stance on same sex marriage is pretty much divided between religious and non-religious, although there are some religious people I know who support marriage equality.

 

What are non-religious reasons for not extending marriage benefits to same sex couples - reasons that have no basis in religion?

 

tax and benefit issues would be a few. Also the "slippery slope" argument that marriage could be watered down to include your goat and you or stuff like that. I can see a non-religious argument based upon the decay of society. NOt that I hold that view, but if you define marriage between two humans, I still want the exception for time lords. If they don't really exist it won't be an issue, but can we keep the exception in place please. I really like to travel.

[FaithManor]

Does anyone else here get just a little bit scared that the entity that brought us public spending in excess of $175,000 to determine if cocaine makes Japanese Quail engage in s*xually risky behavior, might not be the entity we want to define much of anything to do with s*x and marriage for the rest of us! I guess they needed to do something with all that cocaine they've seized! :glare: Same entity spent a similar sum of money to see why gay men in Argentina engage in risk taking behavior when drunk. Apparently, drunk wasn't the operative word that might have saved the tax payers a tidy sum of money.

 

Sometimes it frightens the beejeebers out of me what we the citizenry allow the feds to make laws about.....

 

Just sayin'

 

Faith

[justasque]

 

 

I like you, KK, and I passionately agree that people should and must stand up for what is just and right. However, I think there is a difference between saying, "I believe your argument is ridiculous, and here's why..." and saying, "You're a fool." One is allowed in this forum; the other, I believe, is not.

 

Peace to all.

 

I agree. And if we are really to consider ourselves able to teach our kids about debate and such classical skills, doing so within the bounds of using thoughtful and respectful language is a worthwhile exercise in practicing what we ideally are teaching. There are probably places where more strident speech is appropriate, but in this space, I think respect is the ideal. We can be respectful of those who come from different perspectives and still argue for our respective positions.

[8circles]

True, my former protestant denomination is also against gay marriage. But are non-religious people against gay marriage working to squelch it? Or do they embrace a live and let live attitude? I'm asking, I seriously don't know. All of the arguments I've seen against gay marriage have come from religious groups or religious beliefs.

 

Yup. My denomination does not marry same-sex couples. Who cares?

 

It's just not relevant to the discussion. The word "marriage" is not owned by any particular belief system. There are many marriages (religious and not) which I don't think are very healthy either to the parties involved or society as a whole. I don't get to say which ones should be recognized by the federal government, based on anything - certainly not based on my religious views. Its hard to respect a view (that one's religious views should dictate federal law) when it is just so non-sensical. It isn't disrespectful of the religious view itself, but of the belief that said religious view should actually matter to the federal government. I can't believe this thread is so long and this point is still so misunderstood.

 

ETA: elegantlion, not disagreeing with you just jumping-off from your post.

[HollyinNNV]

 

 

You keep leaving out that states are expected to recognize and accept legal activities that occur in other states (Full Faith and Credit Clause), and that with the exception of gay marriage under DOMA, they do so without a problem.

 

I was asked what I wished to see. I am saying what I wish to see, not what is currently in existence.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

I appreciate your clarifying. Thanks!

 

I'll shift over, then, to wishing the thread closed on the grounds of hate speech! There's ample supply thus far.

 

Why are you desperate to have this thread closed?

[BrookValley.]

I think there must be non-religious people against same sex marriage, but I don't know any. I've never seen a website or organization campaigning against same sex marriage that does not have a religious foundation. In my own group of friends and family, the stance on same sex marriage is pretty much divided between religious and non-religious, although there are some religious people I know who support marriage equality.

 

What are non-religious reasons for not extending marriage benefits to same sex couples - reasons that have no basis in religion?

 

My father is not religous and doesn't think same-sex couples should be able to get married because they are all child molesters and sub-human. Seriously. And that's the "clean" version of some of his comments. But he is just about as hateful of a bigot as they come, and obviously his "reasons" don't deserve any credibility. At least he's an equal opportunity hater. He doesn't like anybody.

[elegantlion]

 

When you say "working to squelch it," it helps to remember how big you have to be in order to put in that kind of coordinated effort. The Catholic church happens to be huge, bigger than the USA itself. So naturally we see its coordinated efforts into these types of matters. Non-religious people are obviously not organized to do any such thing. That doesn't mean they are in favor of gay marriage or neutral toward it. I know people who are Atheist / non-religious but they are quite negative on homosexuality, let along gay marriage.

 

Non-religious people organize all the time, I just hadn't seen anything like "Non-Religious Americans for traditional marriage" . In this media age, anything can go viral. Petitions, videos, etc. It takes a lot smaller momentum to create a movement than in the past.

 

There are also a lot of laws that kind of raise my hackles, but I'm not worked up enough or feel it will infringe upon me enough to become an activist over it.

[Mom-ninja.]

but if you define marriage between two humans, I still want the exception for time lords.

 

Sigh, there goes my chances of marrying an alien then. I kind of have a crush on a certain vulcan.

 

However, a vulcan and human can procreate so marriage should be fine.

[HRAAB]

 

tax and benefit issues would be a few. Also the "slippery slope" argument that marriage could be watered down to include your goat and you or stuff like that. I can see a non-religious argument based upon the decay of society. NOt that I hold that view, but if you define marriage between two humans, I still want the exception for time lords. If they don't really exist it won't be an issue, but can we keep the exception in place please. I really like to travel.

 

I admit I don't understand the tax and benefit issue. These benefits already exist for opposite sex couples, so from a non-religious standpoint why would a person care about the gender of the dependent? Is there an argument that extending these benefits is not economically sound? If so, shouldn't there be an issue about the benefits my dh and I receive?

 

The slippery slope arguments are just too slippery for me. The more ridiculous they get, the less credible they are.

 

And I totally agree on marriage equality between time lords and humans.

[HRAAB]

My father is not religous and doesn't think same-sex couples should be able to get married because they are all child molesters and sub-human. Seriously. And that's the "clean" version of some of his comments. But he is just about as hateful of a bigot as they come, and obviously his "reasons" don't deserve any credibility. At least he's an equal opportunity hater. He doesn't like anybody.

 

Wow! So putting aside religious, bigoted, ridiculous arguments, what's left. That reminds me of the slippery slope arguments. I read something from a pastor recently where he was arguing that we (homeschoolers) would lose our children to pedophiles if gays had equal rights. Just better off not commenting on those.

[Lady Florida.]

 

 

And I totally agree on marriage equality between time lords and humans.

 

But...think of the children? How many hearts would the offspring of such a union have? What are the genetic possibilities? Is one heart recessive and two dominant? Would they have 3? Split the difference and have 1-1/2?

 

And most important of all: Would the children inherit re-generation abilities?

 

It's almost as confusing as unions between wizards and muggles.

[Matryoshka]

I also hear justamouse saying that she is NOT against equal rights, she just doesn't want the DEFINITION of marriage changed.

 

BUT... the Biblical definition of marriage in many places is one man, many women, and the men are often afforded access to concubines or servant girls too, with God's explicit blessing. Oh, and a man is supposed to marry his brother's widow, even if he already has another wife or wives. Oh yeah, and if a man rapes a woman, he's supposed to marry her afterwards. Is that the definition we shouldn't change??

 

Where in the Bible is the definition Christians are hanging on to? I don't recall a verse anywhere defining it as only being one man, one woman. Just the examples above.

 

Honestly, I don't want to have Middle Eastern norms from 3000 or so years ago held up as being the unchanging definition of marriage. But the definition can't change, right?

[Runningmom80]

 

 

AFA Churches go, they shouldn't be FORCED to go against their ancient, religious beliefs. Race is not a moral issue, homosexuality is.

 

 

 

Scienece has disproven this. Sexuality is no more a choice than skin color.

[I.Dup.]

Did you seriously just draw an analogy between committed same-sex relationships and murder?

 

Yes, you did. Unbelievable.

 

 

No. That wasn't an analogy. She wasn't directly equating same sex relationships with murder. She simply mentioned them both in the same paragraph. Probably a mistake, but they certainly weren't being equated.

 

So since she mentioned them in the same paragraph, I guess that is license to completely FREAK OUT and lose all sense of adult ability to participate in a civil conversation? Chill the freak out. She's sharing her opinion. She was NOT equating murder with gay marriage. Even if she hasn't done the best job with making a case of why gay marriage should be forbidden across the board, that's okay. She is not on trial. Good grief.

 

You'd think some of you would be able to hold in your hatred and inner chaos long enough to have a civil conversation, to at least try to prove you're superior to those of us who are religious, or something, since that is what you seem to believe. We, the religious, are so oppressed and oppressive. You, the non religious are so tolerant and accepting. Right? Apparently not.

[Catwoman]

Why are you desperate to have this thread closed?

 

I don't think she's desperate to have the thread closed. I think she's just seeing the probability of many hurt feelings as the thread further escalates into emotional arguments rather than civil discussion.

 

Personally, I think the moderators should step into threads like this, to remind everyone of the forum guidelines and to tell people to knock it off with the personal attacks.

 

(And I'm not saying that you attacked anyone -- I was thinking of a few others who shall remain nameless. :) )

[BrookValley.]

 

Wow! So putting aside religious, bigoted, ridiculous arguments, what's left. That reminds me of the slippery slope arguments. I read something from a pastor recently where he was arguing that we (homeschoolers) would lose our children to pedophiles if gays had equal rights. Just better off not commenting on those.

 

My dad is, um, special, shall we say? :laugh: The one thing I have done in my adult life that he actually agrees with is homeschooling. Why? Because if I sent my child to school, the system would "teach him to be gay." He actually believes that.

[I.Dup.]

BUT... the Biblical definition of marriage in many places is one man, many women, and the men are often afforded access to concubines or servant girls too, with God's explicit blessing. Oh, and a man is supposed to marry his brother's widow, even if he already has another wife or wives. Oh yeah, and if a man rapes a woman, he's supposed to marry her afterwards. Is that the definition we shouldn't change??

 

Where in the Bible is the definition Christians are hanging on to? I don't recall a verse anywhere defining it as only being one man, one woman. Just the examples above.

 

Honestly, I don't want to have Middle Eastern norms from 3000 or so years ago held up as being the unchanging definition of marriage. But the definition can't change, right?

 

I agree with you. It's confusing to me. I will admit that.

[BarbecueMom]

 

 

NOt that I hold that view, but if you define marriage between two humans, I still want the exception for time lords. If they don't really exist it won't be an issue, but can we keep the exception in place please. I really like to travel.

 

Well, technically River is human, just conceived in the Time Vortex, but technically she married a robot version of the Doctor anyway. Timey wimey.

[Catwoman]

My dad is, um, special, shall we say? :laugh: The one thing I have done in my adult life that he actually agrees with is homeschooling. Why? Because if I sent my child to school, the system would "teach him to be gay." He actually believes that.

 

Well, of course he does.

 

If anyone is going to teach your child to be gay, it should be his own mother.

 

(Oh. Wait. That's probably not what he meant, is it? ;))