That is no defense.

That is no defence for what? Are you contending that the laws that are put in place to defend people's rights should not be used to defend people's rights?

 

 

Very well. What law affords any couple an inherent right to participate in any and all specific civil institutions?

As far as I am aware, there are none. However there are laws that prohibit discrimination in such institutions, and many of them are central to the philosophy and origins of the American way of life.

 

 

I don't think that's quite the case but I'll play ball.

It has been the case through much of the thread. Rather than seeing it as playing ball, I suppose one might see it as making arguments or counter-arguments that relate to those of others.

 

 

I think the law presently provides a viable distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relationships in 49 states. Challenge it.

That was not the distinction you originally asked for. You are now officially moving the goalposts, so to speak.

 

 

Huh?

Many of your arguments seem to be predicated upon sexual or reproductive activity. Correct me if I am wrong - this thread is getting a bit confused.

JaKiri has it right...He represents the States.

 

Homosexuals account for about 5% of the population. It is a small, but vocal interest group. Atheists also make up about 5% and agnostics also make up about 5% of the population. The president (any president, not just Bush) should not to cater specifically to small segments of society. While I believe in States rights, this is one area that I believe that the all of the voters should decide. It should not be left to a President or a judge.

 

The Methodist Church's official position on homosexuality is being challenged and may tear the church apart, as the Episcopalians...or was it the Presbyterians?

To be blunt.... so what? I'm not sure how the church's challenges are my problem.

 

Bush is already catering to a small segment of the population -- evangelicals.

What exactly does the bible say about it? And is the exact text of the methodist bible any different to' date=' say, the anglican bible?

 

I think it's important we know what it says before we start the whole "oh but that's not what it says [b']in the bible![/b]" argument thing again.

 

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

well, this all depends on your religion. if you happen to be christian, jesus preaches quite contrary to that

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Hurrah for God!

Homosexuals account for about 5% of the population. It is a small' date=' but vocal interest group. Atheists also make up about 5% and agnostics also make up about 5% of the population. [/quote']

 

I think those figures are a little off. 10% atheists, 10% homosexual, according to the figures I could find on the web.

 

But it's not the point, even if the minority is only one in every 5 people the rights should be protected as much as the other 4. A bit like the African Americans, if you care for the comparison.