My email to Kim Davis (that KY county clerk in the news)

[RowdyRebel]

There are those who would love to believe that the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery, and it wasn't...until Lincoln saw that the South might prevail if foreign governments gave assistance (much like France did during the War for Independence from England)...THAT was the reason behind making slavery the issue in order to keep Europe out of it. Facts are facts, and while you are entitled to your own opinions, you cannot change the facts. As hard as the US Government tried to rewrite history to paint the South as "evil" for attempting to break away and do their own thing, they can't change the facts. Sure, it's EASY to teach "Lincoln was the BEST PRESIDENT EVER" and that the war was justified because it "freed the slaves". The whole "freeing the slaves" thing was never Lincoln's intent until he saw he might lose. The public education system in this country is a disgrace, white-washing history...and it is only getting worse. If I had simply pointed out his lack of knowledge in regards to the question he posed and left it at that, you might have had a point. However, I took the opportunity to present the facts. Ignorance is a curable condition...all one has to do is open a few books and learn a little more on the subject. There are subjects on which I'm completely ignorant...anything having to do with a cooking, for example. Then there are subjects I am not. We're all that way. Nobody is an expert on everything. Perhaps I could have been less direct in making my point...more "politically correct", but I've never been one to do that.

[RowdyRebel]

Again, I try to make my points without invoking God. I've pointed out some of the ways society benefits from traditional marriage. I've made note of a few of the burdens same-sex marriage places upon society. Can anyone name even 1 benefit society sees as a result of recognizing a same-sex "marriage"? If not, I don't see why society needs to recognize them. Just as you have the right to wildly swing your fists, that right ends at the tip of my nose. Same sex "marriage" is the same. From a public policy standpoint, they have the right to do whatever they desire, have relations with whomever they choose...until it impinges upon society. If there are benefits to be weighed against the burdens, let's hear them.

[HeavyGunner]

Again, I try to make my points without invoking God. I've pointed out some of the ways society benefits from traditional marriage. I've made note of a few of the burdens same-sex marriage places upon society. Can anyone name even 1 benefit society sees as a result of recognizing a same-sex "marriage"? If not, I don't see why society needs to recognize them. Just as you have the right to wildly swing your fists, that right ends at the tip of my nose. Same sex "marriage" is the same. From a public policy standpoint, they have the right to do whatever they desire, have relations with whomever they choose...until it impinges upon society. If there are benefits to be weighed against the burdens, let's hear them.

Well dirty milkman pointed out that many gay couples adopt unwanted children so that's a benefit.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Sounds like that is another benefit whether you and I agree or endorse gay marraige. Like I said earlier it's a free world but when people start trying to control what others are allowed to do, think, practice it's a problem. If two people want to go get married to pursue THIER American Dream what's wrong with that? It's not affecting you or I other than someone doing something we may like. Just remember you get the right to be religious and pursue things you happy so why not let others? If you think they're going to hell thats your opinion and their choice.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

A lot of us revere native americans for their wisdom and courage. They recognized that gay folks had a unique wisdom that transcended male and female and used these "Two Spirit" people as a resource rather than banishing them. In american history their are countless cases where gay folks took in orphans and the disabled and cared for them. In researching my ancestry I found an A.L. Sherwood in the area of Whitehall, Wisconsin in the late 1800s through early 1900s. AL was a leader in the community and while never having children, cared for and found homes for many orphans as well as caring for a couple developmentally disabled adults. In the historical accounts, I never found any reference to AL's full first or middle name, and began to suspect AL was a woman. Their is refernce to AL living with a woman, but no record of any children from that relationship. Then a couple years back I found the death record of Alice Louise Sherwood from the 1930s in Madison, Wisconsin with a birth daatein the same range as AL's... From that I suspect that AL was a gay or transgender woman who was not only accepted but trusted as a community leader in rural america over a century ago.

With that history, is it no surprise that most adoption agencies did not oppose adoption by gay folks now that it has become common?