Bush wants a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages

What exactly is so funny about it, Apex?! Then as an african-american, have you forgotten what's it like not to receive the same rights as another law abiding citizen of U.S.? Either that, or you're just too young to remember and your parents never conveyed to you of what it was like to live in the US before the '70s and'80s. How embarassing is it for you as a minority to refuse the rights of equality for another minority group, knowing how people of color have struggled so hard to attain such right in this nation...yet you turn around and deny that to a fellow citizen on the basis of your religious faith? Like I said, is pathetic to know people like you would use religion to justify your bigotry. Not too long ago, white folks often used the bible to justify slavery and the second class status of Black Americans less than 50 years ago...and some areas of the south, there are whole communities who still damn the black man as being an abomination to humankind. Did you sell out and just become oblivious these facts as an African American?

And HOW exactly do you arrive to the conclusion that homosexuality is MORALLY wrong outside of your relgious beliefs? Since when does the Bible make you more rigthteous than someone of another faith or who is non-religous? It's mentality like yours that give organized religion a bad name. Instead of thinking for your fellow man's humanity, you'd rather rely on religion to make your views for you. When, as an African American, are you going to think for yourself and do justice to the plight that Dr. M.L. King had started for equality for all citizens in this country?

AND I don't know where you were educated, but any psychology class would have taught you that HATE is a learned trait and hardly something to be written off as being part of our "human nature". It's human nature to learn and be communal, NOT hate. It's pathetic to read from all your posts how you paint yourself as ignorant, justifying hate with relgion and then state you're a person of color in the U.S. who refuses equality to another minority group.

I'm of mixed ethnic heritage myself, a baptised Roman Catholic (though agnostic) and come from a huge family that practices almost every major religion in this nation (yes, it makes for interesting family gatherings, but we've learned long ago that family comes before faith). I've studied world theology for well over a decade and know all too well the prejudice that's incorporated in all organized religion (chances are there is a faith out there that will condemn you to one sort of "hell" on another, regardless of your personal religious faith...lame). I've always come away from the perspective that religion's role in today's modern society is to inspire man to live positively, encourage a positive environment and contribute positively to one's community. The moment people began using religion to exclude and ostercise members of a positively contributing community, those people and their religion began losing credibility...and you, Apex, are a prime example of that.

As I said before, the issue at hand is primarily equality, and secondarily the right to marriage. Yes, I know there are homosexuals who insist on being MARRIED, regardless of it's legal implications...that's a whole separate issue altogether. Marriage has been derived out of cultural and religious practices, but we've come to a point in our American society that marriage has been made a legal issue and this is where the issues of inequality has come to head. It's now come time that marriage be defined legally and see how it affects laws that protect citizens from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

It's scandals like these that atheists use as an argument to abolish organized religion altogether because they'll argue, "...see how religion festers division and hate?! see how those religious advocates can no longer think for themselves...?" I don't agree with this extreme mentality, but I do see there point. I'm all for religion or any moralistic practice that teaches community, tolerance, understanding and acceptance...anything to encourage a positive environment and progress.

Believe what you want to believe what your Bible (that has most likely being decyphered and reinterpreted from several languages over thousands of years where your English written copy is most likely totally INACCURATE) or whatever teaches you, just don't use your faith to ostercise and exclude another tax paying and law abiding citizen. This is the reason why we need to separate church and state. It's bad enough having to deal with every day prejudice in this country, let alone deal with another ignorant minority oppressing another minority (like a bucket of crabs...always someone else to pull ya down).

Garoad, not sure if you got that statement correct because that is the whole point of this issue. The reason why queers want to be able to be married is to have the same LEGAL rights marriage certificates have afforded citizens of this nation. Yes, I agree there are some queer folk who want to get married regardless of legal implications, but their reasons are a totally different matter altogether. They just want to have the right to do so, totally based on equality. Not that I disagree with them, but it's kind of like a black man insisting on attaining membership in the KKK in the name of equality.

Understand that originally, I never supported homosexual getting married, because to me, "marriage" was a religious ceremony...and if the particular religion condemns homosexuality, then why bother? Just to cause a commotion for the the hell of it? yes, we know you drama queens out there! But legally, "marriage" is no longer just a religious station. Legally, "marriage" affords one rights that domestic partnerships/civil unions doesn't. Now, unless the government comes around and rectifies these discrepancies, we'll never reach a fair and proper conclusion...and the longer this issue is put off, the bigger this will get...as proven in our own U.S. history.

There was the 19th Amendment, which prohibited the sale and use of alcohol, and was approved even though most people in the US did drink alcohol.
If Bush gets this into the cinstitution ( Doubtful ) then I think this will be the first time that something has ben put into the constitution to deny someone rights. [/QUOTE]

I can't imagine anyone "preferring" or choosing to have family members and best friends shun you - to totally shut you out of their lives after you somehow find the courage to come out to them, or feed you off a paper plate, as if you are some loathesome diseased thing. To have swinish, ill-bred, tacky, white trash Baptists like the "Reverend" Fred Phelps condemning you to hell, regardless of all the many good things you may have done. It's a whole lot easier to lie to yourself and others and get married and have children, and oh, that doesn't work. Been there, done that, as they say.

[/B]

OUCH! Guess that's lessons learned...hard, but hopefully learned...but I truly hope you're as happy as you deserve to be.

No offense intended, but I just can't bring myself to read the entirety of your verbose posts for some reason. (Been in a lazy mood when visiting here lately, I'll read it when I'm less tired.) So if I misunderstood something you've said, or whatever, I withdraw any comments.

I can't remember what I was responding to when I posted that, but I think I was under the impression that your proposal was "a civil union with legal rights equal to marriage" as the ultimate solution. Actually from what I just quoted it does seem to be what you're saying. What I was trying to point out was that some people here believe that even making marriage/civil unions equal legally it is still not truely equal. Of course if I misunderstand your point, this is all moot.

The question wasn't directed to you, that was to all.

I want to add a few questions to the discussion too...so:

-Do you think this changes the definition/meaning of marriage in the United States?

and

-Is the definition and meaning of marriage subjective? How should marriage be defined? How is it defined?

Looks like this genie just will not go back in the bottle. Everytime a couple gets married, the Right wingers will find it just that much harder to stop it. Yah!



Thank goodness for America, land of the free

- Cryus Appolo

Cryus, first of all, as a human being I feel it fit that I and anyone else can voice their own opionions, whether anyone finds it as ignorant or not. It seems that I am being ostercised for displaying my point of veiw, I am not a "We" I am an "I". Yet you also bring the color of my skin into this matter by insult me blatantly saying that im a sell out and that im unaware of the racisim that did and still does take place in America. You claim that im oppressing a "fellow" minority, but would you say the same if I were a white man? or is it just because im black, and I should know just as well as anyone how hard it is too be considered equal?? Then does this mean if someone were too be homosexual and black that they would be a double negative?

Yes, although, I do now understand that God and the bible have no place in this "argument", and I apologize for trying to incoporate my religious beliefes into this matter where it dosent belong. But do not accuse me of being unaware of the color of my skin, and not knowing my racial backround when in itself racisim is a far more devoloped case of discrimination and prejudice. Im not oblivious to my African American heritage, I observe and learn from it just as well as you do.

It is too judge another human being, that of which is human nature, hate or love can only evolve from it.

-p.s. I quote from the book "ANTHEM" when I say this; "I am. I think. I will."

David,

Hope things are better now.

Good post. I'm always skeptical when I see someone of one ethnic, religious, or (fill in the blank) group speak on behalf of another. Kerry wants to be "America's second black president". *yawn*. Pathetic really. Catch phrases and doublespeak save us from having to talk real issues though don't they?

You shouldn't apologize for "incorporating your religious beliefs into this matter". That is, in fact, what the democratic process is supposed to be about.

The phrase "separation of church and state" is both over used and misused. I often wonder why those words (which don't actually appear in the Constitution) are used rather than actually quoting from the document the only slightly longer actual text. The founding fathers didn't envision America as being an atheist state any more than they envisioned a deist state or a Baptist state for that matter. By far MOST people back then were religious in one way or another (even Thomas Paine!) and what they wanted to avoid was an "official" state religion (like the Church of England). I think we have done a pretty good job of that in the intervening 200 or so years. Religion (for better or worse) plays a much smaller role in society than ever before, by any measure. But the rhetoric we are constantly subjected to makes it sound like the Taliban are running the country.

Nobody in America should be embarrassed to have an opinion, even if it is an uniformed one. We all have a duty I think to constantly re-evaluate our own opinions and refine them when we discover new facts. All opinions can be viewed as a form of prejudice, and only constant study and reflection make them less so.

Apex wrote:


I know Cy in RL and yes, he would say that if you were a white man. Actually, I think he'd place even more weight on you in this case if you were a white male, as historically in this country, they have been the ones to oppress.

<end comment to Apex>

Beyond that, I think that while some people use thier religion as a reason for thier opposition to gay marriages, I find it unfair to use religion to set the standard in this country.

I'm not a religious person (I personally think its BS and for those who cannot do for themselves, but that's just my opinion), but I do think people should be free to practice whatever religion they choose. I am not opposed to religion, other than for myself.

What I *am* opposed to is using religion to craft laws and morals in this country. The laws are to represent ALL of us, not just the religious folk. Gay marriage is a perfect example of where equal rights and religion do not always meet eye to eye.

Religious morals justifies denying millions of Americans the opportunity to have the same recognition as their heterosexual peers. That's wrong. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that.

-Apex Titan

Let's get you a bit informed as to what the word "Ostracise" means: Avoid speaking to or dealing with. That being said, we're hardly avoiding you, and I think I'm dealing with you just fine...in fact, if ya haven't caught on yet, many have actually "called you OUT". Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you the one who brought out the fact that you're African American?...you did so of your own volition, correct?! I made no insult to you except pointing out the fact that you're using religion to justify your bigotry, period. And yes, I expect more from a person of color (or any other minority group) who's grown up in this society, and expect them to be a bit more understanding and compassionate on the topics of discrimination and bigotry in our American society. Instead, you reply with this so-called retort without rationally explaining why you think you're more righteous than another a queer tax paying and law abiding individual to deny them the same rights afforded to their heterosexual counterparts.

So since YOU decided to bring your so self righteous religious point of view, and proceeded to bring your ethnicity into this string, know that you'll be called out on such points. No one else made you post the things you said, including the fact that you're African American. If you didn't want those aspects scrutinized by all on this forum, you should have put a bit more thinking into the kind of bigoted postings you've made in the name of your God...or were you just being elitist and think others who don't follow your faith should be denied their equal legal rights?

And what is this remark all about: "You claim that I'm opressing a 'fellow' minority, but would you say the same if were a white man..."...I didn't "claim" squat...YOU'RE THE ONE who made the postings on the basis of religion to rationalize not allowing equal rights to be given to tax paying non-heterosexuals. I don't care what color your skin is...as I've said so clearly before, the topic here has always been about equal rights, but you're too busy backpeddling and not addressing the said topic. How can you use the name of God to deny the rights to a fellow citizen based on their sexual orientation? You obviously have issues of accountability here because your point of view is blatanly discriminatory...and you're have the nerve to state in one of your postings that HATE is human nature, when it's not. It's a LEARNED trait, and any psychologists/professional in the field of the human condition/psychology will tell you the same. Then again, those are terms of science and we all know religion doesn't mix with common sense or science.

SO, regardless if you were a white person, my argument will still be the same: You can't deny equal rights to a tax paying citizen on the basis of sexual orientation. The fact that you're a member of a minority group in this society, I expected you to be understanding and compassionate of the issue of inequality that's being played out here...but no, you have to make this all about you and your own ignorance on the topic. As a person of color, I also expected you know better...to recall what it's like to have your rights withheld from you because you're a minority. Obviously, you don't...or if you do, then can you explain to everyone here why you can justify denying the legal equal rights to another tax paying citizen on the basis of sexual orientation? Marriage IS NOT a religious term, but a legal term in this country. As I said before, this has never been a religious issue...this has ALWAYS been about a legal issue of equality.

SO, Apex, you decided to open your mouth on this topic and I encourage you to enlighted all of us (just so you don't FEEL OSTRACISED) on how you, a minority in the U.S. as YOU had pointed out, can rationalize discriminating against another tax paying, law abiding minority group...and how your God rationalizes this discrimination to a legal level?

Again, this another reason why the separation of church and state needs to be reinforced in the laws of this nation. Btw, the California Constitution makes it quite clear that you can not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, which makes that Knight's Initiative unconstitutional. I know in other states, the laws vary on this topic, which will be addressed soon enough I'm sure.

BTW, for those non-heterosexuals that are offended by the term "queer", I mean it in no derogatory way...just used it for a lack of a better term.

"If it's your life, then make your own life decisions...take accountability and claim your life for yourself as it was meant to be...don't be a follower and then blame someone else for a poor decision you made for your life."

-Greg Crandle, theorist

Actually we're all discovering that religion plays a far bigger role than anyone had anticipated...otherwise we wouldn't be discussing all this. And whether or not people should be embarrassed for making uninformed opinions in this form can be argued. I've no problem people posting their opinions, so long as they understand their are ramifications for doing so...people are going to reply.

A reply to an uninformed opinion or to correct a mistake is no problem, the problem is when that reply turns into a downgrading flame designed to discredit the person who made the error. Nobody knows everything about everything, so *everyone* will be corrected about something from time to time. But IMO we still have the right to be pissed off when someone can't correct our errors in a respectable way.

Speech over

OH PLEASE...! And the earth isn't flat either! If that wasn't th e most obviouss statement...

The only reason such dialogue really gets good on a forum like this is when someone makes a hasty remark without giving much thought to what they're saying. Lessons in life to be learned...if you're going to post something on a very controversial subject, get informed and then make an informed statement. If you take the time make a discriminatory statement, at least on this forum, don't be so naive to think no one is going to address you.

It appears there's only a problem when they refuse to admit to their own ignorance...and then try to segue to another topic to try to overlook their thoughtless statement. Fortunately, their are members here who will not sit idly by and allow ignorant comments to be posted without a thoughtful reply. Opinions are always welcome in a debate, but the least one can do is to give far more merit to the discussion by at least giving their opinions some thought before making hasty remarks they can't take back.

Ok, I generally stay out of these conversations, uh... just because, but after reading 200+ posts, I feel mildly obligated to reply.

First, the religion part, then the happy part.

Ok, So, the universe was created by God, or so I'm told. Where did God come from then? Oh, I see, He's always existed. He must've been pretty bored before He created the universe, huh? So... God has ALWAYS existed, but the universe couldn't possibly have always existed, huh? I see.

And the Bible isn't God's word; it's what Bob heard Sally heard from God.

Ok, now the happy.

I'm really really pro gay marrages, equality, and all that fun stuff. So, go, marry, be happy, break down walls, do these things, because they need to be done. Too many people live in fear of too many things. My favorite part is when someone I know says that male homosexuals are icky, but female homosexuals are ok. Wha'??? Generally the argument has already been won for you when this comment comes up. If I lose friends in SL over this then, eh...

I just thought everyone should know that I do have viewpoints on things, I just generally don't express them.

P.S. The Earth is TOO flat!!!

P.P.S. I am in no way religous, and my only issue is with the churches. Yet, in case someone may have been bothered by it, I DID capitalize all the "important" words.

Yes it is obvious; I said it because some posts here (not just yours, others as well) seem to ignore this and try to debase people rather than simply correct a perceived mistake. If I mistakenly say that blueberry muffins are teh suck, and I honestly believe that, I would hope that the reply wouldn't be: "OH please...you idiot! 80% of Americans like them!"

Apex has been posting very civil replies so far I think (even if I don't agree with all he says), but I don't know if I can say that about this entire thread. What bugs me is the condescending attitudes that appear to surface when there's a disagreement. Every time I read something like that here I think to myself that I should probably bail out of the discussion, however important a topic it may be.

Dio:
Well, I would hope that nobody here gets treated differently in game from a stupid political thread on an off topic forum. I even hear conservative talk radio hosts and liberal senators with 100% different views get along just fine after a heated debate. But maybe I should just stick to posting spam...

ANYWAY, I don't mean to hijack, so...

How is marriage defined in the US? I don't mean what is the definition--I mean, what creates/determines the definition?

Hmmm, did one imply you're an idiot in a past posting? Or are you just projecting? Apologies if I came off that way...And what exactly am I ignoring, Garoad? There is not a damn thing I've ignored...quite opposite actually. If you've read my posts, I came into this string quite late (around page 10 I think)...even held my tongue for a bit until I saw statements by a few that I thought was waaay out of line. If anything, I've been very direct and concise as to what I had issues with and whomever's points of view they belonged to. As I said before, I've no issue with other people expressing their views, regardless if they gel with mine or not. All I ask is that if you're going to take a point of interest, you should be able to offer some reasoning (rational hopefully) as to why anyone should engender derogatory remarks or oppression to a minority group that's obviously legally unjust. Either you're for discrimination or you're not, either you're for equal right or you're not. If you're gonna take a stand, contribute to the dialogue and be prepared support your views. I don't find Apex's comments civil whatsoever...spouting commentary of refusing the legal rights to a minority group in our nation on the rational of religion is hardly civil.

It's a way of life for many on this forum to have to deal with outright prejudice and discrimination on a daily basis...is sad, it's wrong, but it's reality. This is a legacy our generations have inherited from our country's forefathers who're also defined today as not only historic figures, but they were also racists/slavers...that's mere fact. We can't change the past, but we can certainly enfluence the present and future environments, and hopefully in a positive manner to prove we've learned from our mistakes...and as a society, we'll be sure to make even further mistakes because it's all trial and error.

Unlike your comments, I'm not just stating things just to state things...nor does anyone need your patronizing, if not dismissive commentary to note what's the obvious. I'd like to think we're all accountable adults here, but obviously not. Most who're profoundly affected by discrimination in this country, know that part of the problem is enabling such environments by not saying anything...by not doing anything. It's obvious by the postings who're affected personally by the topic of inequality in the U.S...and there those who're obviously fortunate enough not to be directly affected by such issues...must be nice. I hope someday we all can know what that must feel like. One would hope that people aren't just making flippant remarks, but there those who just can't resist adding fluff commentary on this string...which is sad since this topic reflects greatly as a sign of the times and the outcomes of such issues will affect us greatly on how we as citizens of this country will interpet equality for all.

If it's flat, how come we have hills and mountain ranges?

Like ive posted in one of my 1st post involving gay marriage.



But you still say that im using my religion too deny homosexuals the right too get married, when I even said in another post I am FOR gay marriage. Although I dont agree with homosexual marriages on a biblical perspective(That being since there is no amendmant or law that sates "Seperation of Church and Sexual Preference.", It is not equal too deny a human being their choice to be wedded, because thats not what America's "goal" stands for. Even the bible tells treat others as you would yourself like too be treated, under certain guidelines.

I must say Im relizing now that its a privelage to be able too agree or disagree on these forums...

Cyrus,

I was referring to the style of the posts in this thread here, and yes, *I* was not talked down to but I didn't mean to say that it was me that was. What you (not JUST you, remember) aren't thinking about is how you'd feel if you said something that turned out to be wrong and someone corrected you via a flame. This is 14-15 pages long and probably most of it has been flames rather than discussion.

I just believe that it's possible to have a meaningful discussion with people you don't agree with without it turning into a flame fest... I never meant to single you out, though. This thread looks dead anyway, nobody's staying on topic anymore. (Hey I made the effort )

ahhh...got you...sorry, my misunderstanding. I even bothered to re-read the first few pages of this string...and now I really wished to had jumped into the thick of things earlier on...but I think I made my stance quite clear.

There are few things in this world that gets under my skin than when people use religion to justify hate and violence (ie. the middle east issues)...it's played a part in too many of our world's historic wars, not to mention our current world wars. Religion has gotten so out of touch of current events and modern society...maybe that's why there are all these new factions being formed every day because the more established religions no longer speak to current issues of today's society. Those religions that refuse to change, to "modernize" their practices, tend to viewed more and more fanatical due to their refusal to evolve.

I know the topic of religion is no shallow issue, particularly due to the fact that religion for many is a way of life if not a major part of the make up of world cultures (ie. latin cultures). Hundreds of years ago, when they couldn't explain natural wonders like lightning storms and earthquakes, the wise members of communities, often times shamen or some sort of holy person, are looked upon for the answers as to why such events take place...and often times, reasons were often written off as the "wrath of a diety" of some sort. To make matters worse, most people lacked any education, which was often reserved for the wealthy or the aristocracy...so anything the shamen/clergy were often taken as word of fact.

What confounds me is that in today's world of technology and education, I can't believe how naive, or how far people will take their faith, to the point where it's beyond attainable rationalization. It's no wonder why religion is becoming less and less a major part of our culture, as more unsavory aspects of various religions surface in mainstream media (ie. sexual abuse in the clergy...and not just the Roman Catholic Church). I'm sure it doesn't help if the government starts bluring the lines of what's considered religious or legal fact.

Well, we're WAY off topic now, and this is aimed at nobody in particular, but what the heck...

What confounds *me* (with reference to the previous post) is the selective indignation that is applied in situations such as this. Can we hold everyone that has religious belief responsible for wars in the past that involved religion? I think it would be a vast oversimplification to say that religion alone was responsible for wars that swept Europe and the Middle East, as opposed to, lets say, the desire for personal power on the part of a few. What about wars that have been based on nationalism, the belief in a particular political party or form of government? And how can we say for sure that at least SOME of those wars, whether initiated for good reasons or not didn't result in a better world? I really think you have to take these things on a case by case basis rather than saying that all wars have a simple common explanation with a simple, no-cost solution.

What about the extremely liberal and well meaning government of Washington DC who has let its citizens drink lead contaminated water (thousands of times over EPA limits) for, well, they don't know for how long, potentially decades, or how many people (23,000 and counting) because they never bothered to test the water. What about the governments of nearby Virginia who now admit that they haven't been testing their water either? I've yet to hear talk of anyone being fired, demoted, or even reprimanded over this.

Selective indignation and outrage is bad because it doesn't produce very good solutions. When Clinton was leaving office he arbitrarily set EPA water contamination limits higher. Bush, at the suggestion of EPA allowed the new limits to undergo further testing before bing implemented. OUTRAGE! So where is the outrage now that you learn the local governments don't even test your bloody water?

Remember those hanging chads in Florida? OUTRAGE! SO now we have fully electronic voting systems going in all over the country that leave no nasty audit trail to be dealt with. Where is your outrage now?

I don't know about some of you, but I have plenty of outrage to go around, and it doesn't end when "my party" controls the white house, or when one law gets changed in one direction or another in a couple of cities.

In American outrage is a useful thing, getting people motivated to vote, and take other actions actions to demand change. I just hope people are generous with their outrage and can keep it stoked up beyond what the pundits and "special interest" organizations promote, and all the way to actual solutions of these problems.

There are many problems in our modern world (I'd say most) that can't be laid at the feet of religion, or any one politician or political party. Funny I don't hear the outrage about the problems though, just about individuals, or groups of people. We emotionally have to identify "bad guys" and once they are sufficiently thwarted we turn our outrage elsewhere. For some of you who have evoked concern about various types of discrimination, I really don't see how you're doing any better.

Mac, your points are well taken, particularly about how selective people are about what they choose to be outraged over.

That said, I think the criticism of religion in this thread is entirely appropriate. The prejudice against homosexuals is rooted squarely in religious belief and teaching. If religion teaches bigotry then it's fair to call religion bigoted. I think this is an inevitability of the belief system. How do you teach that people are equals when you also teach that anyone not like you is damned? The Christian idea of equality is that everyone has an equal chance to become a Christian or "suffer the consequences." That's the opposite of the golden rule. It's barbarism dressed up in sunday best. All the three major religions are that way.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in no way equates with "do like I do or else." Religion is full of these kinds of contradictions. It takes common sense, subverts it, and then pretends to be the sole proprieter of it. The statement "God is love" is a perfect example. They might as well say "lampshades are bacon." Only love is love. It's a bait and switch. Religion hijacks words and changes their meanings. Look how thoughtlessly people interchange morality and religion as if they were synonims. They aren't. Religion is a dictatorship that pretends to be freedom. It's bigotry that pretends to be compassion. It's blackmail that pretends to be altruism.

If someone embraces a belief system that condones torturing people for eternity for the heinous crime of having contrary ideas, they're a bigot... no matter how indoctrinated they are into believing that they aren't. If someone tries to pass laws to deny people equal rights and protections based soley on sexual orientation, they're a bigot. The actions themselves and their consequences are what matter, not the religious memes that try to justify them. Of course there are people who run the entire spectrum of temprement in every religion, but that doesn't change the fact that prejudice is at the very core of religious thought. It couldn't exist without it. If there's no "us" and no "them" there's no "flock."

The herding instinct that religion manipulates and exploits so effectively made good evolutionary sense when we were in isolated tribes. It's no longer necessary. The things that make us all the same so vastly outnumber the things that make us different that we ought to see them as inconsequential and far less important than the common sense need for peaceful coexistance and equal rights. The only conceivable reason that we still place such undue emphasis on our differences is because we're still thinking of clubbing the other guy over the head and stealing his meat. It's a throwback and in evolutionary terms has become a hinderance.

Even if you do believe in the magical man in the sky it can't be a justification for discrimination. Anyone who can feel justified in doing so based on their belief is far more dangerous to society than two people who want to bond in matrimony but happen to be of the same sex. Religion is dressed up in a nice candy coating, but it has a rotten core.