Some questions about a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage
Bush's basis for banning gay marriage
On June 5, 2006, Bush gave a short speech concerning the effort to create a Constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage. During that speech, he said the following:
1) How does a legally recognized union between two women or two men affect the union of a man and a woman in marriage?
I have seen a few divorces among my friends over the years, and I have seen plenty of divorces due to my profession, and I can say without doubt or reservation that the end of those marriages were in no way due to homosexuals being allowed to have some sort of relationship. All of my friends and family members who are currently married are in good marriages, and I just do not see that those marriages would be threatened by the oh so dangerous challenge presented to them personally by gays getting married. What does two homosexuals being married have to do with the relationship issues between a married man and woman?
2) If the basis for a Constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage is the protection of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman and the well-being of families, why hasn't there been a push for a Constitutional amendment banning divorce?
It seems to me that divorce is a direct and significant threat to marriage and family. Getting accurate statistics on divorce rates can be problematical, so I will present parts of a summary provided by a group "supporting cultural and legislative efforts to reduce divorce," Americans for Divorce Reform.
If current trends continue, 40% of marriages could end in divorce, and divorce greatly increases the occurrence of problems which definitely undermine the means to "pass along values and shape character." Using the same reasoning as Bush for wanting to ban gay marriage, this country absolutely needs a Constitutional ban on divorce!
3) If the basis for a Constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage is the protection of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman and the well-being of families, why hasn't there been a push for a Constitutional Amendment banning cohabitation?
Cohabitation--often known as "living in sin"--is also an obvious threat to the institution of marriage for the simple reason that it keeps people from getting married. So why not ban that if the reason for a ban a gay marriage is to protect and strengthen the institution of marriage?
On June 5, 2006, Bush gave a short speech concerning the effort to create a Constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage. During that speech, he said the following:
The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them.In light of these comments, I have three questions:
1) How does a legally recognized union between two women or two men affect the union of a man and a woman in marriage?
I have seen a few divorces among my friends over the years, and I have seen plenty of divorces due to my profession, and I can say without doubt or reservation that the end of those marriages were in no way due to homosexuals being allowed to have some sort of relationship. All of my friends and family members who are currently married are in good marriages, and I just do not see that those marriages would be threatened by the oh so dangerous challenge presented to them personally by gays getting married. What does two homosexuals being married have to do with the relationship issues between a married man and woman?
2) If the basis for a Constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage is the protection of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman and the well-being of families, why hasn't there been a push for a Constitutional amendment banning divorce?
It seems to me that divorce is a direct and significant threat to marriage and family. Getting accurate statistics on divorce rates can be problematical, so I will present parts of a summary provided by a group "supporting cultural and legislative efforts to reduce divorce," Americans for Divorce Reform.
- Defining what number the "Divorce Rate" is, however, is elusive and perhaps impossible. There are many different valid measurements. Probably, 40 or possibly up to 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue. However, that is only a projection and a prediction.
- Divorce greatly increases, two- or three-fold, the incidence of all kinds of bad effects on children of divorce, including psychological problems, juvenile delinquency, suicide, undereducation, and teen motherhood. Problems arise from conflict during and after divorce more than from conflict during the marriage, and there is an increased incidence of detriment even if the divorce is low-conflict. Problems persist into early adulthood and affect the marriage and mating choices of children of divorce.
If current trends continue, 40% of marriages could end in divorce, and divorce greatly increases the occurrence of problems which definitely undermine the means to "pass along values and shape character." Using the same reasoning as Bush for wanting to ban gay marriage, this country absolutely needs a Constitutional ban on divorce!
3) If the basis for a Constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage is the protection of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman and the well-being of families, why hasn't there been a push for a Constitutional Amendment banning cohabitation?
Cohabitation--often known as "living in sin"--is also an obvious threat to the institution of marriage for the simple reason that it keeps people from getting married. So why not ban that if the reason for a ban a gay marriage is to protect and strengthen the institution of marriage?
posted by WCharles @ 6/10/2006 04:26:00 PM
25 Comments:
I think you're mixing apples and oranges comparing the legality of gay marriage with divorce. How about comparing the legality of gay marriage with legality of multiple marriage partners, or a teacher marrying an underage student or as was even in the news a while back interspecies marriage?
Divorce does destroy families, no doubt about it. But, it has nothing to do with gay marriage. One is forming a union and the other is disbanding a union.
Marriage was thought of a moral issue. Gays are making it a human rights issue removing morality from the picture. Many of us who oppose gay marriage, oppose it religious or moral grounds. Marriage was instituted by God as a union between a man and a woman.
As you well know, W, there have been laws against cohabitation. Here's an example of how it is still being enforced today.
http://worldmag.com/articles/11925
My concern is there could be a parallel between this issue and Prohibition of the 1930s. Any new federal law could drive society to equate a ban on gay marriage as the modern day Prohibition and thus reject it. Those on the fence because they do not share the moral opinion could be driven over to side with the gays.
I would maintain that I am not mixing apples and oranges here [and shouldn't there be some sort of Constitutional ban on that?].
My point is that if the real basis for seeking a ban on gay marriage is protection of marriage and protection of the family unit, divorce and cohabitation are more direct and real threats. Thus, while divorce has little or nothing to do with gay marriage, banning gay marriage has little or nothing to do with protecting marriage between a man and a woman.
In other words, saying that gay marriage must be banned because it threatens marriage between a man and woman and threatens the family unit is disingenuous. You, on the other hand, have clearly stated up front that your opposition is based on moral and religious grounds, and in so doing you are being honest about the matter.
The root problem here is legislating morality. Actually, the basis for any law is morality, but the definition of the term is changing in our post modern society. When people say that gay marriage threatens marriage between a man and a woman, it is that the whole concept of marriage is being changed. Marriage was a contract, a convenant that was reserved strictly for men and women of consenting age. Though there are civil marriages performed, the majority of them are performed in a church of some kind. If gay marriage is made lawful, it changes the whole concept of marriage. Will it become discriminatory for churches to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony between two gays? Will they lose their tax exempt status? Will the pastor be subject to a lawsuit for discrimination? These questions sound absurd, but a generation or two ago gay marriage sounded absurd. The whole concept of what is morality is being turned upside down, who's to say the fears behind my questions may or may not come to fruition. Brave New World. Because I oppose homosexuality I am now a homophobe, a hate monger. And hate must be eradicated. I must be reeducated, assimilated into the new think.
If gay marriage is legalized, then why not legalize those radical Mormons in the outbacks of Utah who believe in having multiple wives? Hey, polygamy is in the OT afterall. Good enough for King Solomon, it's good enough for me.
I do agree that divorce and cohabitation are direct threats to traditional marriage. At one time both carried stigmas, now they are commonplace. We live in a very imperfect world, a world that is changing.
Regarding your Bach family, when are you going to get a 36B? Didn't you have one at one time? And then you will just have to get a 39 alto trombone...
Now, some of the questions you raised in your post prior to the Bach one get into another topic which we should probably save for another time, namely the separation of church and state. The less separation, the greater the likelihood that some of the answers to your questions are "yes."
I agree with you that legislating morality is a big problem. It is also an issue that is very significant and always present in a democracy, especially in a country as large and diverse as this one. Is it moral for one group's view of morality to be established as law when other groups have a different view? I think that in some instances everyone would agree that the answer is "yes." But where to draw the line? Part of our democracy is protection of the minority, and, again, a big question is where to draw the line.
"Marriage was instituted by God as a union between a man and a woman."
Can you provide a list of scripture verses supporting this statement? I have been looking, but I do not want to overlook anything. You can just list the citations, or, if you want, go ahead and quote the passages.
My tenor is a Yamaha YSL-646--.525 bore with a trigger. I bought it the summer before my sophomore year in high school--which was the year I started playing bass bone. What timing, huh? Anyway, at that time (1977), it was just over half the price of a 36B. The horn still sounds great--big, warm sound for a medium bore horn.
And you're right about an alto being way too small.
Gosh, we can agree on a few things. :-)
OK, some quick thoughts on marriage.
Hebrews 13:4 - Marriage is honorable, whoremongers and adulterers will be judged by God.
I'm using the Old King James version with notes by Charles Ryrie (a Texan). The notes are not inspired but coming from a theologian and Bible scholar, they are worth considering. The word whoremongers in this Hebrews passage is cross referenced with I Corinthians 6:9. There the Apostle Paul lists those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Listed are, fornicators, idolators, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind. To really understand Scripture one must dig into the orginal Greek, my understanding is Ryrie is a Greek scholar and he specifically says the effeminate and abusers themselves with mankind are homosexuals, the first are those who allow themselves to be used unnaturally and the second are active homosexuals. Ryrie goes on to say that Paul was speaking against a culture that included incest, homosexuality, pederasty and other unnatural sexual vices that were prevalent among the Greeks and Romans.
There are many examples or stories of married people in the Bible. All between opposite sexes. I have never seen an example or story about same sex marriage partners. God ordained marriage starting with Adam and Eve and their son's took wives (hmmmmm... must have been sisters?) The geneologies refer to men who begat sons and grandsons and greatgrandsons and so on and so on and they all took wives in order to perpetuate their clan. Never once was there a "begat" that said, "Oh, he was queer and married another man."
All examples point to God sanctioning marriage between a man and a woman. You asked me to prove God hasn't approved gay marriage. As you well know, a negative can't be proved.
Your serve....
Oh, how's your father doing? My grandkids left Friday night, so things are getting somewhat back to normal.
"You asked me to prove God hasn't approved gay marriage."
No, I did not. I asked for scripture passages supporting your statement that "Marriage was instituted by God as a union between a man and a woman." In a manner of speaking, I am asking for proof of your statement, not proof of a negative.
This discussion is going to take a while...Let me give you an idea of where I will be trying to go with it.
What I am looking for is scripture which directly says that marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. Your arguments are well-stated, but they do not provide the direct statements I am looking for. In semi-legal terms, they are circumstantial evidence (and I must say at this point that I might not be able to provide more than circumstantial evidence for my position as well).
One of the first things I will do is point out what I see as the weaknesses of your arguments before I start setting out my arguments. One weakness as I see it is that the 7th chapter of 1 Cor. sure seems like Paul was advocating that people should not get married.
It is going to be some time before I give the kind of response your arguments deserve (and by that I mean they deserve serious consideration), so in the meantime, keep working on them.
As for my father's condition, check the other post. Now that each of us actually gotten back on topic here, I want to see if we can stay there. :-)
My challenge is to show that the Bible approves only heterosexual marriage (or that it expressly prohibits homosexual marriage). This is just part of the overall discussion (more on that later, perhaps in a separate post).
I do "posit that the Bible doesn't speak against" gay marriage, but until recently I had not really examined that issue, and I am still looking into the matter. At this point (in keeping with this being "just part of the overall discussion"), I am not claiming that the Bible approves of gay marriage (and there is a good possibility I never will). I know this sounds like splitting hairs, but it is not. I am trying to focus the discussion for now.
And regarding being circumstantial, as I said, I'm going to be doing the same thing, so I am not going to fault you for that.
"...you will need to address passages such as I Cor. 6:9."
Indeed. And you will need to address what I see as Paul's inconsistencies regarding marriage. And we will both have to address various inconsistencies as we go along.
"The common argument we conservatives use is that Paul is condemning homosexuals in that verse and liberals explain it away saying the verse isn't speaking of gays."
The basic problem I have with this position is that it is based on what PAUL said. Paul was not and is not Jesus. I place far more stock in what is attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. For me, some of what Paul wrote (or what has been attributed to Paul) is in contravention with what Jesus says in the Gospels.
Aside from that, there are problems with basing any absolute argument on Paul's letters. No one has the originals. No one has any of the correspondence from the addressees. Paul was primarily dealing with Gentiles rather than Jews--a fact which must be taken into account when trying to understand his words, their context, and intended meaning. And on and on...
Indeed, these same types of problems are present regarding the rest of the Bible. And that gets us into all kinds of other considerations. The nuts and bolts history comes into play. Exactly who wrote what? When was it written? Who did the translating? Who did the transcriptions? There are many inconsistencies and discrepancies among manuscripts. Why did those occur, and which versions are closer to the originals? And on and on...
This is some of what I alluded to in my previous comment. And before getting into those matters, I want to focus on the express words of the Bible first (and of course that will vary from translation to translation). And that's why I want us to first see if there are any express, direct statements regarding marriage.
"If the Bible condemns homosexual activity, how could it possibly condone gay marriage?"
A legitimate question, but notice that you are making a conclusion which might not be expressly stated. In other words, you are making an interpretation and drawing a conclusion on your own. I'm not going to be critical about that because I will be doing the same thing--and that means you can use some of my tactics on me. ;-)
Like I said, this is going to take a while...
Ah... so the root of the argument in reality is what constitutes God's Word. Do Jesus's words (often highlighted in red print) carry more weight than Paul's or Peter's or John's or James' writings? Those who believe in the inerrancy of the entire Bible, as we know it today, dislike red letter editions for that very reason.
Romans 1:24-32 is pretty clear on homosexuality along with a few other sins. But, one must accept that Paul's words are really God's words. What does it mean when we say Scripture is inspired by God? Literally, God-breathed. But, what does that mean? I contend that even though Paul wrote Romans, for example, as a letter to the Roman church, he was guided by the Holy Spirit to write what he did. Similar to when you or I write something that just amazes others based on some external stimulus, but on a much grander scale.
OK, you're not sure about Paul, how about Moses who wrote Leviticus. Read Leviticus 18:22 concerning homosexuality. Now I do not advocate that we follow all OT Jewish laws, as they do not all apply to us today. For example, I shave the corners of my beard (yes I have one). I eat pork, too. But, basic laws that were established in the OT and reiterated or reinforced in the NT are still valid. Homosexuality is addressed in both testaments.
Concerning Paul's comments in I Cor. 7, I do not see that as a weakness. In vss 1,7,and 8 he does advocate celibacy, but in vss 2 and 27 he approves marriage as a way to avoid sin. In other words, it is honorable to remain single as Paul was in order to devote one's life to God (the basis for Roman Catholic belief in the celibate priesthood), but it is also honorable to marry as long one follows certain rules, like don't discard your wife for the first tall blonde you see with long legs. (Sorry, I couldn't resist). In vs 10 of the same passage Paul says the words, "not I, but the Lord...". This is a reference to Mark 10 where Jesus addresses divorce. Note vss 7-12. Jesus refers to marriage between a man and a woman, no mention of same sex marriages even though homosexuality was common among the Romans and Greeks. Jesus limited his comments to hetersexual marriages. If Jesus was the social liberal some make Him out to be, don't you think He would have been more PC and included men marrying men and women marrying women? I know, I'm leading the witness, that question would be challenged immediately in a court of law.
If your Bible looks like Thomas Jefferson's, like swiss cheese, then it will be a long, interesting discussion.
Our discussion is now getting away from my stated initial focus, but your previous comment and my response herein nonetheless are integral parts of the whole.
That being said, this comment will not directly discuss your citations from Leviticus and Romans about homosexuality. Before getting to that, I need to discuss with you some matters I feel apply to Scripture as a whole, and I will do so by responding to some of your statements.
"But, one must accept that Paul's words are really God's words."
No, one does not. Did Paul make such a claim?
"I contend that even though Paul wrote Romans, for example, as a letter to the Roman church, he was guided by the Holy Spirit to write what he did."
Let's see...Paul was guided by the Holy Spirit, whereas Jesus was the actual, unfiltered source. In light of that (assuming that there is absolute inerrancy in the Bible), then yes, for me the words of Jesus do carry more weight. Here's a current day analogy. Whose words about the Constitution carry more weight: the Founding Fathers (especially those who wrote The Federalist Papers) or today's so-called activist judges? And before you dismiss this analogy as secular, remember that some people (I won't name names) think there should be little or no separation between church and state (my turn to say "I couldn't resist").
"OK, you're not sure about Paul, how about Moses who wrote Leviticus...Now I do not advocate that we follow all OT Jewish laws, as they do not all apply to us today."
This brings up several points. Moses might not have been an actual, unfiltered source like Jesus, but he did have more direct face time with the Almighty than did Paul, which at the least would qualify Moses's writings as "guided by the Holy Spirit," and yet you admittedly do not give credence to or follow some of the laws written down by Moses. I will speculate that you would claim that some of those laws do not apply to us today in part because of what is written in the New Testament. If my speculation is correct, then I would assume that you would take the position that the Word of God can change to some extent. If that is the case, is it possible that the New Testament is now and forever will be the last version of the Word of God? Think carefully about this one. I will tell you that an answer of "yes" is an attempt to place a limit on God.
Well, it's late (later than I think, perhaps?), so that is about all I will write for now.
One last--and brief--point before go to sleep this night. I am not claiming that any of my views are absolutely correct or that I know all there is to know (nor am I implying in any way that you would make such claims). Twenty-two years ago, I had an experience which taught me that I never have any business making such claims. It is a story I will post in the next day or two.
That experience remains as one of the true "religious experiences" I have had, and for the purposes of our current and ongoing discussion, it means that I am very interested in what you have to say, for it will be a catalyst for me to examine my faith and beliefs, and I consider that to be a good thing.
Paul's writings, on their face, contain numerous inconsistencies. As I read the Gospels, Jesus was not inconsistent. Paul expressly spoke of certain people not being allowed to do things others are allowed to do (especially regarding the status of women). Jesus did not.
Paul advocated laws very similar to some of the laws from Leviticus that you do not follow. Careful about your charge of relativism, for you seem to be engaging in that. If the Bible is completely without error, how can you justify following some of its laws and rejecting others? Your position that the OT laws referenced favorably in the New Testament should be followed implies that those that are not can be disregarded, and that does not answer the question.
Look at 1 Cor. 7 again. Paul is saying that while marriage is acceptable, it is preferable not to be married. If Paul had his way, eventually no one would ever get married or have sex.
He also states that the End Times are going to happen very soon, and that seems to be the basis for much of what he says in Chapter 7. Indeed, that theme runs throughout Paul's writings, and yet he was wrong. This is just one of Paul's inconsistencies with Jesus. Paul was certain that the End Times would come very soon, yet Jesus clearly said that no one on this earth would know when that would happen.
"Besides, Jesus didn't literally pen any of the Bible, we are dependent on other's recollections of what he said."
Paul was not a witness to what Jesus said or did while He was in human form. Thus, your criticism could just as easily be applied to Paul.
Are you saying that the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are thus suspect as compared to Paul's writings?
...and don't forget about the question I posed at the end of my 2:20 a.m. comment.
Several comments about our discussion...
I want it to continue. Occasionally, we might need to take a break and talk about things on which we clearly agree--like the inherent superiority of the bass trombone. ;-)
It seems to me that the true root of our differing views is a difference in the basis for our personal faith. I'm going to go out on a limb here and opine that your faith is based largely on what you see as the absolute inerrancy of the Bible. My faith is based on something else. I do not believe that Bible is absolutely without error. Still, I belive that Jesus was and is the Christ, and my faith is based largely on seeing and experiencing the truth in Jesus's teachings in my life and in the lives of others. As I have said elsewhere on this blog, even if it was conclusively proved that the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of the Body did not happen, my faith would not be changed. I would still believe that Jesus was and is the Christ and try to follow His teachings.
In light of that, I pose the following question (and propose that we not delve into this subject right now): Is either of our faiths stronger than the other?
I am going to try to figure out how to structure our ongoing discussion. Hey, it's my blog, after all. :-) This might prove impracticable, but I am getting the sense that without such an attempt, both of us are going to become frustrated. Also, some sort of structure might help others to follow along and--gasp!--maybe even join in.
Well, you have come around to agree with me on one thing, my opening statement in my 7:29 post above. It does no good to discuss what the Bible teaches on any subject if we disagree on the authority of the Bible.
"Are you saying that the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are thus suspect as compared to Paul's writings?"
Not at all. I place as much value in Paul's writings as I do in the record of Jesus' words as scribed by the Gospel writers.
I did overlook your question posed at 2:20AM. Actually, I had already stated my position in the previous post at 7:29PM concerning the applicability of OT law today. And you did state it correctly, though not completely. I am a dispensationalist. Meaning God has worked in different ways with different people down through history. OT law was written specifically for the Jews (BTW, my mother claims there may some Jewish blood in her family, I'm not sure though). God chose the Jews as His own people, they were set apart, He had a special plan for them. The OT is a history of how God dealt with his chosen people and what he expected of them. The cross changed that. You and I are not God's chosen people. America has not supplanted Israel. Christians have not taken the place of the Jews. God established the OT laws for very specific reasons, some religious and some just common sense. God commanded the Jews to worship Him. That commandment is still valid today, as the NT reiterates it, John 4:24. In the early church Peter had been preaching that converted Gentiles had to be circumcised and follow Jewish law. Acts 10:5-22 tells the story of Peter's vision teaching him that what had been considered unclean was now acceptable. An illustration of a new dispensation.
I don't see the inconsistencies with Paul's writings you say. Regarding women, at that time women were often sold into slavery or married off at a young age or turned into temple prostitutes. The Greeks and Romans often treated women as second class citizens. Christianity freed them from that type of an existence. Yes, Paul said women should keep silence in the church, meaning it was the men who had the leadership role. I do not support women in the pastorate. Not because I'm a sexist, but I believe God has ordained a certain order. Women played key roles in the spread of the early church, but not as pastors. But, that is a whole nother topic. Let's just say I perceive God as male, not female and the church and its structure is a picture of God and how he deals with mankind.
You are correct that my faith is based on my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. I don't think it's a question of whose faith is stronger, I would never question the strength of your faith or your sincerity. The question may be which is valid?
We very well may end up not agreeing and neither one convincing the other. But, I see discussions as this as important. If nothing else, it makes us think through our positions.
"I don't think it's a question of whose faith is stronger..."
Something else on which we agree. :-)
"The question may be which is valid?"
The answer just might be "both."
"Occasionally, we might need to take a break and talk about things on which we clearly agree--like the inherent superiority of the bass trombone."
And you will grant tenor trombone players the same belief? How about oboe players? Accordianists?
They can believe whatever they want. It will still not change the truth. :-)
However, I might have to make an exception for oboe players since my father used to play oboe.
As for accordianists, they play an instrument that is not of this world, so they have a unique status. BTW, I have a CD by a group called "Those Damn Accordians" which is highly entertaining.
It's been going on 3 weeks since we were discussing this topic. Here is a reference for you to check out relative to Paul's writings, 2 Peter 3: 14-16. Peter equates Paul's writings with the rest of what he calls Scripture lending credence that Paul's words were from God and of equal value. He also admits that Paul's can be difficult to understand.
Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this...
"Here is a reference for you to check out relative to Paul's writings, 2 Peter 3: 14-16. Peter equates Paul's writings with the rest of what he calls Scripture lending credence that Paul's words were from God and of equal value."
Without getting lengthy (yet), here are my initial observations. First, you are assuming that Peter actually wrote 2 Peter. There are many who are of the opinion that he did not. Second, is this passage in 2 Peter referring to everything Paul wrote, or is it addressing only Paul's statements about the coming of the Last Days?
Yes, some scholars believe 2Peter was written by someone other than Peter. It has been suggested there are some stylistic differences, but they could be attributed to different scribes. It has also been suggested there are enough stylistic similarities between 1st and 2nd Peter to determine Peter is truly the author. The subject of this passage is, as you say, the Last Days. The point is the writer of the book, whoever it may be, places great value in Paul's writings. If Paul's writings on the Last Days can be taken as scripture, then so can his other writings. I know, supposition. But, the Bible is all about faith.
Ancient Christian Greeks DID oppose homosexuality, but for more practical reasons than moral reasons - Christians of the day opposed all pagan rituals and activities, especially fertility rituals which often involved sex with virile young men other than one's (impotent) husband in addition to the accompanying pagan ritual. These acts (fertility rituals AND homosexuality) weren't considered immoral at the time, in fact, they were the norm. They were simply NON-Christian. How that made it's way into the Bible we read today is fairly obvious. (And keep in mind, our Bible tells only half the story after Constantine's people wiped out the Unitarians just a few centuries after Jesus's time. Their perspectives were deleted in the interest of political stability and are conspicuously absent today.)
Awesome discussion!!
In the sage words of "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh, "perhaps you are right, perhaps I am wrong. Only God knows for sure."
Post a Comment
<< Home