I remember reading somewhere the Spartan soldiers used to fuck each other and shit, because it created a stronger bond between them and thus a more successful unit.Varegg wrote:
Not in SpartaCameronPoe wrote:
I wonder do people realise that in ancient Greece women were viewed merely as procreation machines, all males had a wife for babies and a young male lover.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual … ent_Greece
Same in Rome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual … cient_Rome
'Successful unit'. Uggghhh.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
I remember reading somewhere the Spartan soldiers used to fuck each other and shit, because it created a stronger bond between them and thus a more successful unit.Varegg wrote:
Not in SpartaCameronPoe wrote:
I wonder do people realise that in ancient Greece women were viewed merely as procreation machines, all males had a wife for babies and a young male lover.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual … ent_Greece
Same in Rome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual … cient_Rome
PS How did yet another thread get turned into another inane Islam-bashing thread?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-17 14:33:59)
OH - we'd be going back to the middle ages. As far as relationships go, I can hardly stand going out with a girl two years younger than me - I can't imagine who past my age could tolerate the immaturity to have a meaningful relationship. I'm sorry, but between 14 and 16 you still don't know what you really want, in most cases.
I can see where Lotta_Drool is going with his argument, and hope that this study isn't used in courts as a justification for paedophilic rape.
I wonder how people would react to a "cure" to homosexuality. I can see it being used like cosmetic surgery. If you don't like yourself the way you are, you get operated/take medicine. If there are sex changes, why not cures to homosexuality? But maybe this isn't politically correct enough.
-kon
I can see where Lotta_Drool is going with his argument, and hope that this study isn't used in courts as a justification for paedophilic rape.
I wonder how people would react to a "cure" to homosexuality. I can see it being used like cosmetic surgery. If you don't like yourself the way you are, you get operated/take medicine. If there are sex changes, why not cures to homosexuality? But maybe this isn't politically correct enough.
-kon
Again, I wonder how many guys here are gay but they don't come out of the closet, which reinforces the theory of gayness being a mental condition, rather than a choice.
Care to share these 'rules'?Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Because the religion hasn't changed and people are still following fucked up rules from said fucked up era.m3thod wrote:
I hope you realise that practise was the norm back then. WHY do you people insist in comparing the modern era with events of ancient history?
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
He's refering to the Sacred Band of ThebesCameronPoe wrote:
'Successful unit'. Uggghhh.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
I remember reading somewhere the Spartan soldiers used to fuck each other and shit, because it created a stronger bond between them and thus a more successful unit.Varegg wrote:
Not in Sparta
PS How did yet another thread get turned into another inane Islam-bashing thread?
The Sacred Band of Thebes (ancient Greek: 'Ιερός Λόχος τών Θηβών Hierós Lókhos tón Thebón; the holy strike-force of Thebes) was a troop of picked soldiers, numbering 150 age-structured pairs which formed the elite force of the Theban army in the 4th century BC.[1] It was organized by the Theban commander Gorgidas in 378 BC and it played a crucial role in the Battle of Leuctra, and was completely annihilated in the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC.
Plutarch reports that the Sacred Band consisted of homosexual couples and the reason was that lovers would fight more fiercely and more cohesively at each other's sides than would strangers with no ardent bonds. So according to Plutarch (in his Life of Pelopidas[2]), the inspiration for the Band's formation came from Plato’s Symposium, wherein the character Phaedrus remarks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
I would look at this 'loosening of the boundaries' as being more akin to the way in which African Americans began American life as slaves, then became freed but segregated and then eventually considered equal. There was a time when a black life was not considered as valuable as a white life, that was the 'norm', then education and enlightenment led to a slow and steady shifting in this perception. Similarly science has come to show that certain physiological factors contribute to a person's sexuality and that to demonise a person because of factors they have no control over is just not justifiable. To apply this type of cultural opinion shift to something like paedophilia is quite a leap and not something I can foresee in this lifetime, not unless Gary Glitter becomes Prime Minister.OrangeHound wrote:
No. That would not happen in today's culture. But, if I lived 40-50 years ago and someone wrote "responsible citizens of the United Sates will not vote for or support a Government proposing homosexuality or homosexual marriages", I would have said it won't happen.Braddock wrote:
Read my above post...responsible parents will not vote for or support a Government proposing the lowering of the age of consent to a ridiculously low age.OrangeHound wrote:
While I would agree about pre-puberty children, the definition of a minor is really a modern thought. Historically, puberty was seen as the age at which people could be married and engage in sexual relationships.
Everyone gets all upset when the Texas Mormons were marrying off 13 and 14 year olds, but that is not an uncommon practice in the light of history (and even some other cultures today).
I'm not advocating the practice. I'm just wondering how much our society is willing to lower its sexual boundaries.
The sexual boundaries in the United States have been loosening for decades ... I really don't know where it will stop.
I am really curious why the United States has put in laws protecting sexual relations of post-puberty boys and girls when it has been a custom as far back as history is recorded. Seriously, there is a tremendous amount of sex that happens beginning at those early years, but the government has put in place all these laws to restrict and punish people doing "natural" activity.
So, since homosexuality is such a "natural" behavior that has been unfairly restricted by "ignorant" laws, then why would not the protections of teenagers also be lifted as Americans become more "enlightened".
(Caveat - again, I'm not supporting anything here, I'm just pointing out the similarities.)
What do mean "neglect?". Are you expecting the Catholic church to make charities and support the gays? Gays are alowed to be catholic, the modern church has always allowed it. Catholics are taught to treat homosexuals with respect and dignity that all humans deserve. More hate for the Catholic church as usual.Braddock wrote:
This could be a huge blow to all those people out there who believed homosexuality was something sexual deviants chose to pursue. Furthermore, if it in fact turns out that homosexuality is congenital the Catholic church's neglect of the homosexual community could be seen as equivalent to neglecting people with down syndrome or spina bifida...it's not very Christian hating or ostracising someone because of something they are born with.
Last edited by NAthANSmitt (2008-06-17 15:03:52)
I'm talking about attitudinal neglect. So a gay couple can be recognised in the eyes of God these days the same as any other couple? I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the Catholic church did not approve of gay marriage or equal rights for gay people...NAthANSmitt wrote:
What do mean "neglect?". Are you expecting the Catholic church to make charities and support the gays? Gays are alowed to be catholic, the modern church has always allowed it. Catholics are taught to treat homosexuals with respect and dignity that all humans deserve. More hate for the Catholic church as usual.Braddock wrote:
This could be a huge blow to all those people out there who believed homosexuality was something sexual deviants chose to pursue. Furthermore, if it in fact turns out that homosexuality is congenital the Catholic church's neglect of the homosexual community could be seen as equivalent to neglecting people with down syndrome or spina bifida...it's not very Christian hating or ostracising someone because of something they are born with.
"Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.
Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.
Source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp
So, the Catholic Church is 'cool' with the whole gay thing as long as homosexuals live their whole life in a state of complete sexual abstinence and do not act on the impulses their God has chosen to 'bless' them with by way of a brain with patterns akin to that of the opposite sex?
Last edited by Braddock (2008-06-17 15:19:07)
as someone pointed out, child and arranged marriages are still common practices in parts of the world.m3thod wrote:
I hope you realise that practise was the norm back then. WHY do you people insist in comparing the modern era with events of ancient history?CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
how old was alia when mohammed consecrated the marriage? he married her at what like age 6? how old was he? these days that would be considered peodiphile but back then this is to be considered normal practice? i guess back then women were treated like breeding machines anyway. if you had too many girls, you'd leave them on a mountaintop to avoid the dowry payments. what a f'ed up world we came from and some still live in
IT MAKES YOU LOOK FUCKING STUPID.
Do you realise how FUCKED up it was back then? Where is your condemnation for crucifiction? little boys being fucked in the ass by men in ancient Rome? Being hung drawn and quartered...they chop your dick and balls of and BURN them in front of your eyes for god sake, being boiled alive, having your eyes gouged out and so fucking on and on.
My mistake - it was Ayesha - not alia. Also she was age 9 when Mohammed consecrated the marriage - age 6 when he married her.
It's interesting that many of the screwed up things you mentioned that were practiced back in the old days are common techniques used in ME cultures for ruthlessness. Al Qaeda used these techniques, terrorists in algeria against the French, etc. does it make it right that it was done by Christians in the past? no. i'm not defending them either.
looking and being stupid are two different things.
It doesnt.I'm talking about attitudinal neglect. So a gay couple can be recognised in the eyes of God these days the same as any other couple? I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the Catholic church did not approve of gay marriage or equal rights for gay people...
To put things in perspective heterosexual persons are called to live abstinence until they are married. Both fornication and homosexual acts are both mortal sins. That is not to say that they cannot be forgiven for falling to sin. Being gay is just another cross to bear.[url=http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp]Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.
Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.[/url]
So, the Catholic Church is 'cool' with the whole gay thing as long as homosexuals live their whole life in a state of complete sexual abstinence and do not act on the impulses their God has chosen to 'bless' them with by way of a brain with patterns akin to that of the opposite sex?
I don't see what's terrible about homosexuality. Sexual relationships between two men usually occur when they're both of an age that they can make responsible decisions. I see no difference between a guy and a chick having sex and two guys having sex. Sure, I may not get hard from other men, but if others do then so be it.
Also, on a side note... preventing gays from marrying, in my opinion, is no different than preventing blacks from using the same water fountains as whites.
Before anyone pulls the idiotic pedophilia card again: homosexuality does not inherently harm others. If two men or women consensually have sex, then that's fine. Technically, pedophilia alone doesn't harm others... but child molestation and exploitation do (and pedophilia is often linked to molestation and exploitation).
Also, on a side note... preventing gays from marrying, in my opinion, is no different than preventing blacks from using the same water fountains as whites.
Before anyone pulls the idiotic pedophilia card again: homosexuality does not inherently harm others. If two men or women consensually have sex, then that's fine. Technically, pedophilia alone doesn't harm others... but child molestation and exploitation do (and pedophilia is often linked to molestation and exploitation).
Child marriages are not confined to the Islamic faith. It tends to be a cultural thing and the faith is used an an excuse to carry it out.CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
as someone pointed out, child and arranged marriages are still common practices in parts of the world.m3thod wrote:
I hope you realise that practise was the norm back then. WHY do you people insist in comparing the modern era with events of ancient history?CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
how old was alia when mohammed consecrated the marriage? he married her at what like age 6? how old was he? these days that would be considered peodiphile but back then this is to be considered normal practice? i guess back then women were treated like breeding machines anyway. if you had too many girls, you'd leave them on a mountaintop to avoid the dowry payments. what a f'ed up world we came from and some still live in
IT MAKES YOU LOOK FUCKING STUPID.
Do you realise how FUCKED up it was back then? Where is your condemnation for crucifiction? little boys being fucked in the ass by men in ancient Rome? Being hung drawn and quartered...they chop your dick and balls of and BURN them in front of your eyes for god sake, being boiled alive, having your eyes gouged out and so fucking on and on.
My mistake - it was Ayesha - not alia. Also she was age 9 when Mohammed consecrated the marriage - age 6 when he married her.
It's interesting that many of the screwed up things you mentioned that were practiced back in the old days are common techniques used in ME cultures for ruthlessness. Al Qaeda used these techniques, terrorists in algeria against the French, etc. does it make it right that it was done by Christians in the past? no. i'm not defending them either.
looking and being stupid are two different things.
Sure I'll concede torture is used in the middle east today, oh wait it's also used by a western Christian super power by process of extraordinary rendition. Torture is torture no matter how much you dress it up. Put your own house in order before preaching to the world.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
marriage did not mean sex in the 7th century. It was the norm to marry individuals in the community if something were to happen to their family and that person found themselves in a situation without any immediate family
how do you draw the distinction between pedophilia as does not harm others? i'm lost as to how you get to that conclusion. i view pedophiles as predators targeting young people because they are exactly that young and vulnerable. easy to manipulate. as an older adult, you can talk circles around most young people. there is also a bond of trust around adults that young people are socialized into having that gets violated here. so i'm not sure what you mean here - please clarify how pedophilia alone does not harm other people.HurricaИe wrote:
I don't see what's terrible about homosexuality. Sexual relationships between two men usually occur when they're both of an age that they can make responsible decisions. I see no difference between a guy and a chick having sex and two guys having sex. Sure, I may not get hard from other men, but if others do then so be it.
Also, on a side note... preventing gays from marrying, in my opinion, is no different than preventing blacks from using the same water fountains as whites.
Before anyone pulls the idiotic pedophilia card again: homosexuality does not inherently harm others. If two men or women consensually have sex, then that's fine. Technically, pedophilia alone doesn't harm others... but child molestation and exploitation do (and pedophilia is often linked to molestation and exploitation).
i don't see homosexuality as evil. what i see as bad is the 'in-your-face-ness' of the agenda these people are pushing. Check out the Folsom Street Fair. this is way beyond what i call good taste and inclusiveness. if you want to celebrate your gay-ness, fine - just don't fuck eachother in the street. uh....i'm gonna hurl!
According to this new scientific study it would seem being gay is a cross to bear because God has chosen to foist it on certain people...that doesn't seem very fair for an all-loving, all-powerful God does it? As for the whole sexual abstinence before marriage thing...would you buy a car without test driving it?NAthANSmitt wrote:
It doesnt.I'm talking about attitudinal neglect. So a gay couple can be recognised in the eyes of God these days the same as any other couple? I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the Catholic church did not approve of gay marriage or equal rights for gay people...To put things in perspective heterosexual persons are called to live abstinence until they are married. Both fornication and homosexual acts are both mortal sins. That is not to say that they cannot be forgiven for falling to sin. Being gay is just another cross to bear.[url=http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp]Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.
Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.[/url]
So, the Catholic Church is 'cool' with the whole gay thing as long as homosexuals live their whole life in a state of complete sexual abstinence and do not act on the impulses their God has chosen to 'bless' them with by way of a brain with patterns akin to that of the opposite sex?
Sex requires a certain level of responsibility in each adult, that's all. The approach the church takes is simply ridiculous, I mean advocating that condoms are evil and against God while AIDS gets spread like wildfire around Africa is the height of irresponsibility. I was raised a catholic in the conservative catholic Ireland of the 1980's and there's one thing I've learned in life and that is that Christianity has many valuable, common sense principles and teachings but the Catholic church itself is a disgraceful, hypocritical travesty of an institution that is predominantly full of hypocrites and paedophiles.
again captain spaulding, I ask you, Mardi gras offends you? Spring break celebrations offend you? Music videos offend you? all of these are examples of situations where rampant sexuality is thrown in our faces.
Let me state a few personal positions.Braddock wrote:
So, the Catholic Church is 'cool' with the whole gay thing as long as homosexuals live their whole life in a state of complete sexual abstinence and do not act on the impulses their God has chosen to 'bless' them with by way of a brain with patterns akin to that of the opposite sex?
(1) I could care less whether or not the state accepts gay marriages.
(2) I believe that some very vocal corners of the Church have unfairly demonized homosexuality, while ignoring their own (even sexual) sins.
(3) I believe that the Church feels threatened by the homosexuals
(4) I believe that the Church doesn't know how to show love to the homosexuals.
and finally ...
(5) When the "heterosexual" Church is first able to abstain from their "evil" sexual practices (e.g., affairs, pedaphilia, divorce, lust, etc.) then they have my permission to start addressing homosexual abstinence.
But, in the Church's defense and in contrast to your statement, every "impulse" that one might have are not all from God, or under the approval of God. So, please do not imply that every "impulse" one might have is under God's approval ... well, I guess unless you believe in Universalism
fine. cultural thing. i agree. used ayesha as example since i don't know the names of the thousands of girls currently being exploited like thism3thod wrote:
Child marriages are not confined to the Islamic faith. It tends to be a cultural thing and the faith is used an an excuse to carry it out.
Sure I'll concede torture is used in the middle east today, oh wait it's also used by a western Christian super power by process of extraordinary rendition. Torture is torture no matter how much you dress it up. Put your own house in order before preaching to the world.
gitmo is a country club compared to how Nick Berg and the others were treated.
how does one extract information from an enemy hell bent on your destruction. should we just let them go? i mean really - just let them go? if we give them trials, this sets precedents that will effectively bankrupt us in legal defenses. the enemy knows this and is trying to use our own laws against us.
can we just kill the gitmo prisoners? what happens if we take them out of the equation?
how about surveilling them somehow (perhaps chip implants) so when we let them go, we can trace their movements. if they re-join jihadist elements, then we can know where to bomb.
unfortunately, there is no way to tell who's the hard core jihadist and who is not. this i grant you. i mean the jihadist isn't going to willingly tell you what he knows, right? so you hold him for a while to take him out of circulation so that his services cannot be used by the enemy. or, do you think we should simply punish them and give them back to fight another day?
perhaps (and i hope this is true) you are more concerned with those people in gitmo who were in the wrong place at the wrong time? true i'm sure some of this exists. it has been reported that many were turned in as retribution by others. where is integrity in this culture? i mean really.
beating up detainees just brings nothing but trouble. trust me.
Your position is a moderate one, it's a shame more people within the Catholic church couldn't think along similar lines.OrangeHound wrote:
Let me state a few personal positions.Braddock wrote:
So, the Catholic Church is 'cool' with the whole gay thing as long as homosexuals live their whole life in a state of complete sexual abstinence and do not act on the impulses their God has chosen to 'bless' them with by way of a brain with patterns akin to that of the opposite sex?
(1) I could care less whether or not the state accepts gay marriages.
(2) I believe that some very vocal corners of the Church have unfairly demonized homosexuality, while ignoring their own (even sexual) sins.
(3) I believe that the Church feels threatened by the homosexuals
(4) I believe that the Church doesn't know how to show love to the homosexuals.
and finally ...
(5) When the "heterosexual" Church is first able to abstain from their "evil" sexual practices (e.g., affairs, pedaphilia, divorce, lust, etc.) then they have my permission to start addressing homosexual abstinence.
But, in the Church's defense and in contrast to your statement, every "impulse" that one might have are not all from God, or under the approval of God. So, please do not imply that every "impulse" one might have is under God's approval ... well, I guess unless you believe in Universalism
In relation to my statement about all impulses being God-given, I personally don't think any impulses are given to us from a higher being, I just don't think about life that way...I'll leave arguments on that issue to the theologians.
It's probably a mental abnormality, as very few people would freely choose to be disowned by their friends, family, and mainstream society.
however, it's also quite clear that it cannot be a hereditary trait (a homosexuality gene isn't exactly favored for reproduction)
however, it's also quite clear that it cannot be a hereditary trait (a homosexuality gene isn't exactly favored for reproduction)
if i have a kid, i do not want them to be exposed to this stuff. it's so in-your-face nowadays. for adults who are capable of making these kinds of decisions, it's one thing.God Save the Queen wrote:
again captain spaulding, I ask you, Mardi gras offends you? Spring break celebrations offend you? Music videos offend you? all of these are examples of situations where rampant sexuality is thrown in our faces.
me personally, i'm fine with people going to mardi gras, etc....for adults.
the media on the other hand IS INDEED throwing sexuality down our throats. every magazine i see practically has a scantily clad babe on the cover. i love girls truth be told, but what is this telling our young girls? are they valued for their intelligence and character? what about their abilities to be a good friend or mother? how about their integrity? i look at lindsay lohan and paris as examples of what young girls are aspiring to be these days and it's really depressing me. No i do not like this either. Barbie Dolls and other toys put unattainable body images into young girls' minds. today's latest crop of reality shows celebrate drunken dubachery and bad behavior and i think confuses young people as to how they should behave. Especially with today's absent parents - broken families, mom/dad work all the time, lack of communication between parent and child, etc. Additionally, girls are portrayed in films as just eye candy, etc. music videos...wow. now there is just a prime example of this poor self esteem reinforcement. So what i'm saying here is that through constant media bombardment and not enough people teaching what is considered 'good' and 'normal' behavior, people will imitate what they see in life and on tv. The original safety nets we had to help reinforce the societal morals we held in the past has been increasingly eroded (church, family units, wholesome TV and movies and books).
The homosexual agenda seems even more over the top - check out the Folsom Street Fair. i've mentioned it several times since i'm close-by SF.
You're still using a girl born hundreds of years ago when the practice was socially accepted. If you want to condemn child marriages in todays time and age then you have my full backing.CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
fine. cultural thing. i agree. used ayesha as example since i don't know the names of the thousands of girls currently being exploited like this
Nick Berg. Agree truly horrendous act. But first and foremost why travel to a country with absolute no shred of law enforcement? Currently being run with absolute impeccable incompetence? Why? He was White AND Jewish what on earth do you think was going to happen to him if he got caught. And i understand he was travelling without security. Nick Berg knew the risks and demonstrated ignorance on a massive scale and ultimately paid the price. Nick Berg is not blameless for his demise.CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
gitmo is a country club compared to how Nick Berg and the others were treated.
The issue i raised was not the treatment of gitmo prisoners, rather i pointed out that you cannot complain about torture practices used within the ME when the country that you live actively utilises torture techniques within secret prisons on foreign soil.CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
how does one extract information from an enemy hell bent on your destruction. should we just let them go? i mean really - just let them go? if we give them trials, this sets precedents that will effectively bankrupt us in legal defenses. the enemy knows this and is trying to use our own laws against us.
can we just kill the gitmo prisoners? what happens if we take them out of the equation?
how about surveilling them somehow (perhaps chip implants) so when we let them go, we can trace their movements. if they re-join jihadist elements, then we can know where to bomb.
unfortunately, there is no way to tell who's the hard core jihadist and who is not. this i grant you. i mean the jihadist isn't going to willingly tell you what he knows, right? so you hold him for a while to take him out of circulation so that his services cannot be used by the enemy. or, do you think we should simply punish them and give them back to fight another day?
perhaps (and i hope this is true) you are more concerned with those people in gitmo who were in the wrong place at the wrong time? true i'm sure some of this exists. it has been reported that many were turned in as retribution by others. where is integrity in this culture? i mean really.
Last edited by m3thod (2008-06-17 16:04:33)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
To sum up this thread... Religion is typically outdated in its view of gay people, gay people are often born with neurological traits that favor homosexuality, marriage should be separated from government, and civil unions should accommodate gay people in addition to straight ones.