Homosexual civil unions

[z0wb13]

Jim, you are onto something very real here. Anyone who promotes same sex unions as the equivalent of marriage is showing that they have a very shallow understanding of Trinitarian theology and of the sacramental nature of creation, including and especially, the nature of man and woman as created by God. …

the discussion is about civil marriage, not canon law. i don’t see how any of this is applicable outside of catholic marriages.

 

[z0wb13]

I asked this question on another website and got no true answers.

Can anyone name 3 healthy aspects to a homosexual civil union?

I only ask this becasue, many will agree, that even traditional marriages have their share of problems, but it is far more complicated in an homosexual relationship.

it’s not an strong argument that because something is complicated it shouldn’t be allowed. but here are examples that you requested from wikipedia. they are all sourced

In 2009, a pair of economists at Emory University tied the passage of state bans on same-sex marriage in the US to an increase in the rates of HIV infection.

Several psychological studies have shown that an increase in exposure to negative conversations and media messages about same-sex marriage creates a harmful environment for the LGBT population that may affect their health and well-being.

Marriage recognition would increase the government expenses for Social Security and Federal Employee Health Benefits but that increase would be more than made up for by decreased expenses for Medicaid, Medicare, and Supplemental Security Income.

i hope this meets the definition of healthy. i can also tell you that marriage status is good for the children of gay people, by affording their family public recognition. it has also been shown to correlate with lower divorce rates, both gay and straight.

the counter argument would be to show 3 unhealthy aspects of gay marriage, without resorting to the old testament or by using any other metaphysical arguments.

 

[JimG]

So, am I right to assume that you have no objections to homosexual ‘civil unions’ or ‘civil partnerships’ then because they do not use the actual word “marriage”?

rossum

Actually, I do object to civil homosexual unions as well as to heterosexual cohabitation, since they both are mere counterfeits of actual marriage. Such counterfeits have already been detrimental to our society over the past 50 years, as anyone my age has observed through simple experience. Increasing divorce rates, single-parent households, unmarried parents, increasing rates of extramarital sex, more children without fathers, more children dependent on government. There is an adverse economic impact to the devolution of marriage which we have seen over the past decades. Gay marriage won’t be the final cause of the end of marriage and all it entails, only another nail in the coffin along the way.

 

[rossum]

Actually, I do object to civil homosexual unions as well as to heterosexual cohabitation, since they both are mere counterfeits of actual marriage.

So, your whole spiel about the meaning of “marriage” was irrelevant. You are against homosexual partnerships whatever they are called. Thanks for wasting everybody’s time.

rossum

 

[Elizabeth502]

Actually, I do object to civil homosexual unions as well as to heterosexual cohabitation, since they both are mere counterfeits of actual marriage. Such counterfeits have already been detrimental to our society over the past 50 years, as anyone my age has observed through simple experience. Increasing divorce rates, single-parent households, unmarried parents, increasing rates of extramarital sex, more children without fathers, more children dependent on government. There is an adverse economic impact to the devolution of marriage which we have seen over the past decades. Gay marriage won’t be the final cause of the end of marriage and all it entails, only another nail in the coffin along the way.

Great post. I couldn’t say it better. That is indeed the point. This is not a static situation, but a dynamic one, like a decaying body. Just yesterday on MSNBC were two well-publicized stories: one on Charlie Sheen’s unique view his life’s purpose (which is to experience and investigate every possible unconventional lifestyle), another was an interview, the content of which is summarized here:

imdb.com/news/ni8193152/

As evidenced in an interview with MSNBC’s Martin Bashir yesterday, Noel Biderman, founder of adultery website AshleyMadison.com is either really delusional or in total denial about the true impact his site is having. Biderman claims he’s saving tons of marriages and preventing divorce by letting his clients conduct affairs with the kind of ease only the internet can provide. Cheaters, he claims, are noble folk. In fact, according to his estimations: "They do love and cherish their families, the economic situation, their extended family, but what they don’t cherish is what goes on or doesn’t go on in the bedroom and that’s what they’re looking to change. They want to stay within their marriage. That’s why they’re pursuing an affair. If they wanted to leave, they could leave. Many people do pick up and leave, for their own selfish…

[

Wonderful. Let’s debase ourselves as much as possible.

Charlie Sheen said he loves his life, surrounded by his twin boys and two 24-year-old girlfriends. Sheen, who has long had a penchant for prostitutes and porn stars, lives with two women whom he calls his “goddesses”: Natalie Kenly, a graphic designer and Rachel Oberlin, a porn star. “You’ve read about the goddesses, come on. They’re an international sensation. These are my girlfriends. These are the women that I love that have completed the three parts of my heart,” Sheen said. “It seems crazy to everybody else, but for us it works,” Kenly said about their abnormal arrangement.

“Natty and Charlie have their own special connection, I have my own connection with Charlie and then Natty and I also have our own relationship,” said Oberlin, who is also known as adult film star Bree Olson. The embattled actor opened up his Beverly Hills home, which he now shares with his two girlfriends and his twin sons with soon-to-be ex-wife Brooke Mueller, to ABC News this weekend

Item 2

As evidenced in an interview with MSNBC’s Martin Bashir yesterday, Noel Biderman, founder of adultery website AshleyMadison.com is either really delusional or in total denial about the true impact his site is having. Biderman claims he’s saving tons of marriages and preventing divorce by letting his clients conduct affairs with the kind of ease only the internet can provide. Cheaters, he claims, are noble folk. In fact, according to his estimations: "They do love and cherish their families, the economic situation, their extended family, but what they don’t cherish is what goes on or doesn’t go on in the bedroom and that’s what they’re looking to change. They want to stay within their marriage. That’s why they’re pursuing an affair. If they wanted to leave, they could leave. Many people do pick up and leave, for their own selfish…

msnbc.msn.com/id/29350847/ns/health-sexual_health/msnbc.com/id/39949080/ns/technology_and_science-science/

The adultery website AshleyMadison.com isn’t good just for two-timing — it can drive scientific research.

To study infidelity, researchers scanned publicly accessible ads from 200 men and 200 women chosen at random from the site, which was started in 2001 and, as a “discreet dating service,” caters primarily to people already involved in a relationship. (The name of the site was taken from two popular names for baby girls back then, supposedly in an effort to attract women.)

“The study of adultery is important in the broad sense, because it helps us understand who we are,” researcher James Hare, a behavioral ecologist at the University of Manitoba in Canada, told LiveScience. "Humans are inclined to put themselves on a pedestal above other living things, though time and time again, data reveal that we are a product of the same selective forces and evolutionary processes that have shaped all life.

“To me, acceptance of this fact diminishes the sense of entitlement humans feel and, in the end, fosters an ethic that is more in accord with the world around us — and ultimately less likely to lead to the demise of our species and those we share the planet with.”

](

 

[BPW75]

If I put two of my children in separate but equal rooms (same size, furniture, etc.) is that somehow unequal because the rooms are separate? The argument is simply a projection of the “separate but equal” American Civil Rights issue where in fact the rights afforded to blacks were NOT equal to those of whites.

So assuming that civil unions afford equal rights under law to homosexuals as marriage does for heterosexuals, your friend’s argument is a red herring.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Sorry for the double quote in my post above.

 

[z0wb13]

Actually, I do object to civil homosexual unions as well as to heterosexual cohabitation, since they both are mere counterfeits of actual marriage. Such counterfeits have already been detrimental to our society over the past 50 years, as anyone my age has observed through simple experience. Increasing divorce rates, single-parent households, unmarried parents, increasing rates of extramarital sex, more children without fathers, more children dependent on government. There is an adverse economic impact to the devolution of marriage which we have seen over the past decades. Gay marriage won’t be the final cause of the end of marriage and all it entails, only another nail in the coffin along the way.

none of that is related to gay marriage. you are drawing a spurious conclusion, especially because gay marriage hasn’t even been legal for more than a few years in any state. with regard to gay marriage being another nail in the coffin of marriage, the opposite appears to be true, based on empirical evidence and statistics. check out this article from statistician nate silver:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ssmstats2.png

The differences are highly statistically significant. Nevertheless, they do not necessarily imply causation. The decision to ban same-sex marriage does not occur randomly throughout the states, but instead is strongly correlated with other factors, such as religiosity and political ideology, which we have made no attempt to account for. Nor do we know in which way the causal arrow might point. It could be that voters who have more marital problems of their own are more inclined to deny the right of marriage to same-sex couples.

your argument is essentially a red herring; it has nothing to do with gay marriage. the reasons for increasing divorce rates is better correlated to on fault divorce laws and greater financial independence of women.

Elizabeth502: Wonderful. Let’s debase ourselves as much as possible.

this also has nothing to do with gay marriage, it’s another red herring. your post might make more sense in another thread, but i fail to see it relevancy to this discussion. btw, thanks for the link to that article, it’s long and (43 pages) and i haven’t sorted through all of it yet (i’m got to page 9 and had to take a break). but a glaring problem i see is that with any scholarly article that long there is usually some sort of data, usually from surveys or experiments conducted by the researchers. that article is wholly rhetorical argument, but i’ll have to finish it before i can make an informed decision as to its merits.

anyway, data supports that gay marriage would help to strengthen the institution of marriage. if gay marriage can be shown to be detrimental to society, empirically, then it would strengthen the argument against it, but from all the numbers i have seen, this isn’t the case.

 

[rossum]

So assuming that civil unions afford equal rights under law to homosexuals as marriage does for heterosexuals, your friend’s argument is a red herring.

Currently they do not in the US. States are not obliged to recognise same sex unions contracted in other states while the are obligated to recognise out of state (heterosexual) marriages. If current challenges to DoMA succeed then all states may have to recognise same sex marriages but still would not have to recognise same sex civil unions.

There may be other legal differences as well; IANAL.

rossum

 

[z0wb13]

So assuming that civil unions afford equal rights under law to homosexuals as marriage does for heterosexuals, your friend’s argument is a red herring.

what is the benefit of making two distinct classes?

just because the two unions would have exactly the same legal status, they may not be conferred the same social status. a civil union would be a second rate marriage. and then you might hear a bunch of straight couples demanding civil unions and it would be an unending mess.

but, if you can somehow ensure that civil unions and marriages were exactly the same, irrelevant of the people entering into such contracts, then why not call a spade a spade? they’re both marriages in that case.

the problem you are making in you argument is assuming that both would be the same. history shows that it doesn’t work out like that, so why should anybody assume that separate but equal should be any different this time around?

 

[PassingThru]

Actually, I do object to civil homosexual unions as well as to heterosexual cohabitation, since they both are mere counterfeits of actual marriage. Such counterfeits have already been detrimental to our society over the past 50 years, as anyone my age has observed through simple experience. Increasing divorce rates, single-parent households, unmarried parents, increasing rates of extramarital sex, more children without fathers, more children dependent on government. There is an adverse economic impact to the devolution of marriage which we have seen over the past decades. Gay marriage won’t be the final cause of the end of marriage and all it entails, only another nail in the coffin along the way.

So, in order to show the negative effect of gay marriage, you are pointing out the collapse of traditional marriage due in no way to gay marriage, as gay marriage did not exist?

Interesting logic, that.

 

[onmywayagain]

it’s not an strong argument that because something is complicated it shouldn’t be allowed. but here are examples that you requested from wikipedia. they are all sourced

i hope this meets the definition of healthy. i can also tell you that marriage status is good for the children of gay people, by affording their family public recognition. it has also been shown to correlate with lower divorce rates, both gay and straight.

the counter argument would be to show 3 unhealthy aspects of gay marriage, without resorting to the old testament or by using any other metaphysical arguments.

I’ll give you 3 unhealthy aspects of gay marriage.

1.Levels of promiscuity. It has been reported as early as 1984 that in San Fransico gay men have reportedly had up 4-6 partners a month. What does that lead to?

2.Health risks. It has been noted that both straight and gay couples can both spread STDs but it with the level of promiscuity in the gay community it can lead to higher numbers.

3.Monogamy. In a study 66% of couples say they had sex outside their relationship within 1 year of the relationship and about 90% had sex outside relationship within 5 years. Now the same can be said for straight couples as well , but the issue is same sex partners and the risks that come with it.

This is sourced from John Riggs who is a doctor. Not my own sources. So if you want to debate his research then contact him, not me.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Actually, I do object to civil homosexual unions as well as to heterosexual cohabitation, since they both are mere counterfeits of actual marriage. Such counterfeits have already been detrimental to our society over the past 50 years, as anyone my age has observed through simple experience. Increasing divorce rates, single-parent households, unmarried parents, increasing rates of extramarital sex, more children without fathers, more children dependent on government. There is an adverse economic impact to the devolution of marriage which we have seen over the past decades. Gay marriage won’t be the final cause of the end of marriage and all it entails, only another nail in the coffin along the way.

Very well said

 

[rossum]

I’ll give you 3 unhealthy aspects of gay marriage.

1.Levels of promiscuity. It has been reported as early as 1984 that in San Fransico gay men have reportedly had up 4-6 partners a month. What does that lead to?

Irrelevant to gay marriage since no gey marriages existed in San Francisco in 1984. More useful would be a contemporary study from San Francisco of comparative rates of promiscuity among non-married gays (male and female) and married gays (male and female).

2.Health risks. It has been noted that both straight and gay couples can both spread STDs but it with the level of promiscuity in the gay community it can lead to higher numbers.

We need to know the level of promiscuity among gays (of both sexes) in gay marriages. The data needs to relate to gay marriage to be relevant.

3.Monogamy. In a study 66% of couples say they had sex outside their relationship within 1 year of the relationship and about 90% had sex outside relationship within 5 years. Now the same can be said for straight couples as well , but the issue is same sex partners and the risks that come with it.

What are the equivalent figures for gay marriage. You are making assumptions rather than actually measuring the real statistics.

This is sourced from John Riggs who is a doctor. Not my own sources. So if you want to debate his research then contact him, not me.

You, or Dr Riggs, need to do a lot more work on what married gays (of both sexes, not just men) do rather than making assumptions. I can no doubt find some figures for some promiscuous heterosexuals which have no relation for the figures for married heterosexuals.

Old and irrelevant data will not convince anyone other than those who are already convinced. Where is your data from married gay men and women? I would not be at all surprised if that data showed that married gays were less promiscuous than their unmarried counterparts.

rossum

 

[mackbrislawn]

i think that DOMA is probably on it’s way out. here’s the reasoning:

the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection. various court cases (loving v virginia, turner v safley) have ruled that marriage is a fundamental human right. so while the idea of gay marriage might be unpopular now (just as interracial marriage was once unpopular), in thirty years people will look back at this debate and wonder what all the noise was about.

the other big legal problem for people advocating against gay marriage is that it’s impossible to prove standing. it’s impossible to say that gay marriage is going to damage anybody else.

In regards to marriage being a right, when you think about it, marriage is not a right and never has been. It is not a right for straights, not for gays, not for nobody.

It’s this way. When you go to get your driver’s license, you are told that driving is not a right but a privilege, and if you meet certain conditons and requirements, you can be given a license giving you the prvilege of driving.

The same with marriage. If you meet certain conditions and requirements, you can be given a license granting the privilege of marrying. Being hetersexual is not one of the requirements.

One of the conditions that is present though is that the prospective partners be of the opposite sex. However, this condtion does not violate equal protection because this condition applies equally to everybody, to to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

Should the requirement that the prospective partners be of the opposite sex be eliminated? This is another question that can be debated on its actual merits, separate from the specious notion of “rights.”

 

[JimG]

So, in order to show the negative effect of gay marriage, you are pointing out the collapse of traditional marriage due in no way to gay marriage, as gay marriage did not exist?

Interesting logic, that.

I wasn’t arguing from the proposed negative effects of gay marriage, since gay marriage is legal in only a few places. Rather I am pointing out that marriage would be of little interest to gays if it had not already devolved into a nearly meaningless word retaining little of what it meant 50 years ago.

Artificial birth control, no-fault divorce (“walk away free laws”) promiscuity, cohabitation, extra-marital and pre-marital sex, adultery and fornication, have already brought marriage down to such a state that gays are willing to claim it, not for what it once meant, but for what they think it will mean to them now–legal and moral acceptance of their lifestyle.

But it won’t do that. It will just make the word even more meaningless. Suppose we decide to call physicians, osteopaths, chiropractors, podiatrists, homeopaths, naturopaths, Reiki paractitioners, and tribal medicine men, all by the equal and non-discriminatory title of “Doctor.” with no further qualifications. It just makes the title meaningless, and requires that we do a lot more investigation to determine what’s really the case.

"Oh, you’re married? Are you capable of marital relations, as in complimentary sexes? Is procreation a possibility? Did you take each other in a permanent, unbreakable commitment, in sickness and in health, for better or worse, until death? Did you forsake all others? Or is this only for “as long as love shall last?” Or are you keeping your options open?

See, it’s hard to tell if marriage means anything anymore. That’s the only reason gays want it.

And of course, my original point that homosexual marriage is simply not possible remains valid. There can be no marital relations, and no marriage, between non-complementary sexes. You can’t make a square triangle. It’s not possible.

 

[PassingThru]

I wasn’t arguing from the proposed negative effects of gay marriage, since gay marriage is legal in only a few places. Rather I am pointing out that marriage would be of little interest to gays if it had not already devolved into a nearly meaningless word retaining little of what it meant 50 years ago.

Artificial birth control, no-fault divorce (“walk away free laws”) promiscuity, cohabitation, extra-marital and pre-marital sex, adultery and fornication, have already brought marriage down to such a state that gays are willing to claim it, not for what it once meant, but for what they think it will mean to them now–legal and moral acceptance of their lifestyle.

But it won’t do that. It will just make the word even more meaningless. Suppose we decide to call physicians, osteopaths, chiropractors, podiatrists, homeopaths, naturopaths, Reiki paractitioners, and tribal medicine men, all by the equal and non-discriminatory title of “Doctor.” with no further qualifications. It just makes the title meaningless, and requires that we do a lot more investigation to determine what’s really the case.

"Oh, you’re married? Are you capable of marital relations, as in complimentary sexes? Is procreation a possibility? Did you take each other in a permanent, unbreakable commitment, in sickness and in health, for better or worse, until death? Did you forsake all others? Or is this only for “as long as love shall last?” Or are you keeping your options open?

See, it’s hard to tell if marriage means anything anymore. That’s the only reason gays want it.

And of course, my original point that homosexual marriage is simply not possible remains valid. There can be no marital relations, and no marriage, between non-complementary sexes. You can’t make a square triangle. It’s not possible.

So, to summarize your clarification:

Straight people screwed up traditional marriage so much over the last 50 years it is now desirable for the gays. And if you let gays have access, that will be the final straw, and then marriage will be truly and completely meaningless. Its already mostly meaningless without the involvement of gays, but they will push it over the edge.

Somehow, that didn’t improve your assertion.

Super awesome that you lump all the gays together and make a blanket assumption that they would never want the positive aspects of marriage. How charitable. Love the sinner and all that…

To your final point, gay marriage, as it is legally defined, does exist. Your acknowledgement or lack of acknowledgement is not required for this to be true. I do not mean to say you should validate its existence in any practical or theological way, but I would surely hope you are aware that it does exist in spite of your disapproval, as it has no bearing…

 

[rossum]

In regards to marriage being a right, when you think about it, marriage is not a right and never has been. It is not a right for straights, not for gays, not for nobody.

But the pursuit of happiness is a right. There is certainly a legal argument to be made on that basis. Many surveys show that married people are happier than single people.

The same with marriage. If you meet certain conditions and requirements, you can be given a license granting the privilege of marrying. Being hetersexual is not one of the requirements.

One of the conditions that is present though is that the prospective partners be of the opposite sex. However, this condtion does not violate equal protection because this condition applies equally to everybody, to to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

Two comments. Firstly, the condition of opposite sexes is not universal;there are already places in America and elsewhere where two people of the same sex can get married. Secondly, this is exactly the argument that was rejected in Loving v Virginia; everyone was free to marry someone of the opposite sex and the same race. Equal conditions for everybody. The Supreme Court threw that argument out. I suspect that they might do the same in this case when it gets that far.

rossum

 

[Elizabeth502]

But the pursuit of happiness is a right.

But happiness is not limited to the state of marriage. Despite surveys, there has never been a scientific or legal showing that only married people are happy or capable of achieving happiness. This doesn’t fly legally. When deprived of personal goals, people (including heterosexually married people when marriage disappoints) are nevertheless capable of pursuing and achieving happiness. By no means does marriage in itself promise happiness.

It’s the pursuit of happiness that is guaranteed, not the result of happiness. People who have all the rights and freedoms and license and privileges and even wealth in our society, are often rather unhappy and are included in suicide statistics every year.

This is just another manufactured demand (not a “right”) on the part of the Gay Lobby.

 

[z0wb13]

In regards to marriage being a right, when you think about it, marriage is not a right and never has been. …

lucky for me, i don’t have to think about it, because the supreme court has already ruled otherwise. it was first recognized as a “fundamental right” in loving v virginia, and reaffirmed in various other cases after that. so with all due respect, you are wrong.

onmywayagain: This is sourced from John Riggs who is a doctor. Not my own sources. So if you want to debate his research then contact him, not me.

it was pointed out already by rossum, but your figures are irrelevant. they are not related to gay marriage. furthermore, even if they are still correct, how would allowing marriage between gay people increase promiscuity? one of the reasons that some gay men may be promiscuous is probably related to their being forced into the closet. if you feel like you are some unlovable freak, that probably hurts your self esteem, which often leads to more risky sexual behavior. the stigma attached to homosexuality is more likely to cause promiscuity than just being gay. i’m only speaking anecdotally, but most or all of the gay people i’ve met would choose a stable, monogamous relationship over a party lifestyle.

something you seem to be missing is that gay people are just like you and me and everyone else. they want basically the same things as everyone else, with love and acceptance ranking near the top. but the stigma attached to who they are, by bigots and homophobes and people that quietly assent to that discrimination, forces many gay people into dangerous and undesirable positions, just as it would force any other normal person to the brink. and so i’m not misunderstood, gay people are normal.

pardon the analogy, but if you beat a dog for years, the thing turns into mean, snarling beast. and if you treat a person like subhuman garbage, they start to feel worthless and act accordingly. but to be honest, i sort of laid a trap for you. i knew that when i asked for actual unhealthy reasons against gay marriage that there weren’t any, and that you would be forced to come up with something along the lines that you did. so i’m sorry if i deceived you, but try to imagine that you belonged to the last class of people that are legally discriminated against, and how that might affect your outlook and behavior.

JimG: And of course, my original point that homosexual marriage is simply not possible remains valid. There can be no marital relations, and no marriage, between non-complementary sexes. You can’t make a square triangle. It’s not possible.

the discussion is about civil law, not what the catholic church requires for a marriage to be valid. various people have pointed out instances were the “marital act” (sex) is not required, such as the very old, the impotent, the paralyzed, and perhaps even, those people that don’t want to have sex.

gay marriages are not looking for catholic sanctions, just legal ones. please explain how sex is a requirement for marriage. or actually, don’t, because it isn’t a requirement under civil law. if you can find some court case or a law from the last century that supports what you are saying, then fine, but otherwise you have to concede the point. otherwise, you risk adopting the position of putting your fingers in your ears and going “la la la la la” really hard. and by the way, gay people do have sex. i know, just take deep breaths, relax, it doesn’t effect your life one iota;p

JimG: Rather I am pointing out that marriage would be of little interest to gays if it had not already devolved into a nearly meaningless word retaining little of what it meant 50 years ago.
… have already brought marriage down to such a state that gays are willing to claim it, not for what it once meant, but for what they think it will mean to them now–legal and moral acceptance of their lifestyle.
But it won’t do that. It will just make the word even more meaningless.

i think there is something interesting in here, but i’m not sure if i follow you exactly. you seem to be saying 2 things (cmiiw):

1. legal gay marriage would make the word (idea?) of marriage, which is already nearly meaningless, even more meaningless.
2. legal gay marriage wouldn’t afford gay people legal and moral acceptance anyway.

i see a few problems with these lines of reason, especially the second. if gay marriage were legal, it would be legally acceptable as a matter of course. i know i’m throwing down a tautology here, but i think that it’s valid. as for moral acceptance, whose moral acceptance? it probably won’t make every single individual happy, but morals are more flexible than most people will readily admit. and the laws tend to shape morality more than any other influence.

take the case of slavery. it used to be legal and moral in the south. but it was illegal in the north, and over time it became morally indefensible. then the civil war happened, and the laws changed in the south. but the morality didn’t. it took morality 100 years to catch up with the law, and it was dragged there kicking and screaming. so, if you legalize gay marriage now, in another hundred years, most people will probably look back and think “wow, that was really barbaric the way we used to legally discriminate against 10% to 15% of the population for no logical reason. strange that it was those that claimed to be the most loving and charitable among them that led the charge against equality.”

as to the first point, the evidence seems to indicate the opposite of what you are saying. see the figures i provided in my earlier post.