Unfortunately for you, the "institution" of marriage is not a set constant.<br><br>In the 1600's marriage was mainly about economics. Current day it's more about love and relationships. It has changed so much over the centuries that arguing about it's meaning and worrying about upsetting traditions is rather silly. The concept that is marriage is constantly evolving, it's time to evolve it further.<br><br>BTW you do realize that from the 5th to about the 14th centuries the Roman Catholic Church blessed same sex unions the same as heterosexual unions as marriage?<br><br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>do realize that from the 5th to about the 14th centuries the Roman Catholic Church blessed same sex unions the same as heterosexual unions?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yeah well... to be honest we don't take much notice of Roman Catholics in England because we're more interested in what Henry VIII thought. <br><br>km<br><br>

Ah yes, Henry VIII, so radical a protestant that he refused to change the theology of the C of E because all he was interested in was the political power of being head of the church. Thank the good lord for the minority of Edward VI, because without the opportunity that gave for Somerset and his stiff-necked puritans to push protestant ideas, England would have reverted to catholicism in no time flat. Of course, Mary I, dumb intolerant biddy that she was, sealed the bargain for protestantism.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>

It looks like Proposition 8 was passed.<br><br>

Californians are 52 per cent homophobic?<br><br>km<br><br>

You wouldn't like it there, the percentage isn't high enough.<br><br>

Oh I get it... because being with the majority of 52 per cent homophobic I'd still have to put up with anything up to a 48 per cent minority of gay supporters who aren't at all heterophobic - good one - but completely wrong because I happen to like California quite a lot. There would seem to be two respectable theories - one that heterosexuality is an equal and alternative sexuality to homosexuality and another that the latter is an affliction requiring sympathy and understanding. So why wouldn't I like it in California?

km

To be homophilic ≠ to be heterophobic.

Sorry for the neologisms.

I agree, and...

to be heterophilic ≠ to be homophobic

so heterosceptics need to go back to the drawing board with their assumptions on that one.

km

An Affliction?

I think California is too gay for you.
There are other states that are better suited to you ideology.