Dear all,

I was shocked last night to see a debate on the Larry King show, carried by the moronic CNN news channel.

I was shocked in many ways.

Firstly the level of the arguments on both sides was so childish that it was almost unwatchable.

I have never seen people present arguments that you could literally drive a truck through.

The background is that in California, the mayor? has given approval for some 300 same sex couples to be married.

This is important, because this allows same-sex couples the same rights and treatment that opposite sex couples enjoy.

There was the Mayor, a Reverend, a Republican Senator and a Gay person.

The Reverend's argument was that homosexuality is a sin, because it says so in the bible and therefore they should not be allowed to marry.

The Senators agument was that if same-sex couples were allowed to marry why not polygymous unions.

The Gay person didn't even object to being called a sinner on television, but meekly argued that he and his partner of 15 years should recieve the same benefits and right as opposite sex couples.

Nobody stated the bleeding obvious.

All couples, including polygamous unions, should be recognised by the state and attributed equal benefits and rights.

After that, if those couples want to recieve the ceremonial blessings of whatever religeon they subscribe to, then that is a private affair and nothing to do with the state.

Instead, arch-moron Bush is pressing for a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages being recognised.

Now, what the hell is religeon doing in the Constitution, apart from a recognition for the freedom to worship as you will without let or hindrance?

Are Pagan marriages recognised? Hindu? Sikh? What about the Advent Day Hoppists whose greatest tenet was Faith, Hop and Charity (there was a misprint in their version of the bible). What if opposite sex Satanists want to get married? What about Mormons?

Now let's look at some hypocrisy.

Firstly, that ghastly talentless tart Britney Spears (sorry Ferabo) get's married 'for fun', and gets it anulled a few hours later; she was momentarily entitled to the full benefit and rights denied to gay couples in exclusive relationships for decades.

Now let's look at the hypocrisy of the female Republican Senator and the Pastor.

The Pastors sole argument was that it said homosexuality was a sin and therefore same sex marriage it shouldn't be allowed. That was it. Nothing more.

The bible also says that marrying a divorced woman is a sin, and that therefore this should not be allowed.

That if a woman is not a virgin when she is married then that is a sin and should not be allowed (are you listening womankind, most of you are sinners).

Touching a menstruating woman is a sin and this should not be allowed, and she is considered impure for seven days.

Eating hares or a rabbit is a sin and should not be allowed.

And as for the h arpySenator, who' sole argument was to wail 'what about polygamous unions!', it's a sin!

Well, guess what, she was wearing a trouser suit which is, according to the bible, yup, a sin!

There was no real debate, just two people picking and choosing which parts of the bible that they wished to use to condemn gay people. It was nakedly self-serving and had nothing to do with the issue at hand.

The Pastor compared gay people with thieves, whores, adulterers and liars.

And the gay man just sat there, taking it.

Doesn't anyone in US politics have the guts to stand up and say the bible is largely a work of fiction?

Are there any atheist Senators?

A union of any sort should be legally and contractually binding. Marriage as a ceremony should be relegated to the individual churches that honour same sex unions in their own unique ways. Just as a Hindu wedding and obligations are different to Christian weddings and obligations, they are the proclivity of those religeons and should have no bearing on the legal rights of the indidual in secular society.

Here endeth the rant.

yechydda,