It was funny today listening to Rush backpedal from "a man and a woman" to "males & females". Whatever could this mean for the well worn "...but then polygamy should be legal!!" argument if we've already decided that "males & females" is the 3,000 year old immutable definition of marriage?
I fail to see the moral argument against polygamy or same-*** marriage, especially from the Christian right. Their own Christ defines his relationship with the church as a marriage, and there are billions of women and men in there. So how can a man marrying many women, or men, be bad when t3h sabior does it?
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.
[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]