The Numbers

religion is not evidence. it is not proof, and it is not, cannot be the basis for law in this country.

"you actually do have the right to tell her how you feel just as she would have the right to leave me should she choose to."

We're not talking about leaving you. She wants to stay with you but get funky with me, too. We're committed adults and, as you have said, that's all that's needed.

" I also see no issue with plural marriage, if three or more people should desire to commit to each other, why should they not be allowed?"

Ahhh, cuz it's Morally wrong. We understand that you people don't get it.

^^religion is not evidence. it is not proof, and it is not, cannot be the basis for law in this country.^^

That's the PR, anyway.

"How does a same sex marriage damage your marriage? how does it harm yoru family? how is it somehow inherently inferior? "

It harms this society, this culture, this country. I'm a citizen of this society, this culture, this country.

Specifics faisal, specifics! Saying something is harmful is not the same thing as it actually being harmful.

How does a same sex marriage damage your marriage? How does it harm your family? Why is it somehow inherently inferior?

Faisal, you seem to confuse Love with sex. they are two separate and distict things. Now, the sexual issue you bring up is known as swinging, and if consenting adults wish to indulge in such an activity, I don't see where I get to tell them they can't.

We don't pass laws for morality. we pass laws for public safety. Show me the public safety issue regarding plural marriage. For that matter, since you brought it up, where is the immorality of plural marriage between consenting, non-related adults?

^^It doesn't matter when someone recognizes they they are homosexual.^^

Except to those who claim to be homosexual who say that they were created homosexual. I'ts up to them to prove that they were created homosexual. All I'm asking is "when?"

^^ Did you know at birth that you would be attracted to a particular type of person?^^

We're not discussing "knowing." I asked those who say they are homosexual when they were created homosexual. THEY say they were created homosexual. It's a simple question.

^^I didn't figure out what kind of women I liked until I was in my teens.^^

You're skewing the issue.

^^trying to make homosexuality some kind of birth defect is laughable.^^

It's choice, and THAT's laughable.

^^ I've never bought into the 'gay' gene theory.^^

A choice. Thanks for agreeing.

^^ Sexual attraction is as individual a thing as can be, I'd find it very difficult to believe there was a specific genetic trigger for it. ^^

Except that God joined a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife.

Mr. I you don't get to require that I legally subscribe to your religion anymore than I can require you subscribe to mine. Your religion and the role of the state regarding marriage must be two separate issues. The state cannot say these people cannot be married because Mr. I's religion says so. and that is really the only argument there is against allowing same sex marriage, or plural marriage for that matter. This decision is CA. is not a liberal judge, it is one that has understands that there is no public safety component to a ban on same sex marriage. that there is no other relevant or applicable argument beyond the religious.

^^We don't pass laws for morality.^^

Legislative members vote for laws that conform to their sense of Moral right and wrong.

^^ we pass laws for public safety.^^

"Marriage" being for a man and a woman being one of them.

^^ Show me the public safety issue regarding plural marriage. For that matter, since you brought it up, where is the immorality of plural marriage between consenting, non-related adults?^^

God joined a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife.

^^you don't get to require that I legally subscribe to your religion anymore than I can require you subscribe to mine.^^

Nobody is requiring you to do anything that you want not to do.

^^ Your religion and the role of the state regarding marriage must be two separate issues.^^

There you go requiring me to follow YOUR religion.

^^ The state cannot say these people cannot be married because Mr. I's religion says so.^^

However, those who vote for laws may do so based on their sense of Morality.

"Specifics faisal, specifics! Saying something is harmful is not the same thing as it actually being harmful."

I WAS specific. You don't accept it. So what?

"How does a same sex marriage damage your marriage? How does it harm your family? Why is it somehow inherently inferior?"

It harms this society, this culture, this country and family.

faisal, there is plenty of love without sex out there and plenty of sex without love, it is sad that you do not believe you can have one without the other. Sex can be an expression of love and there is certainly a component of attraction there, but you can be attracted to and have sex with someone and not love them. You can be in love with someone and not have a sexual attraction.

so we are at an impasse. Mr I cannot separate church and state.

Faisal thinks saying something is harmful without actually saying how it is harmful is somehow meaningful.

Mr. I did hit the nail on the head though - the constitution is probably the closest thing I would refer to as my bible. I hope he takes the time to read it some time.

Faisal - homosexuality is not going to be the downfall to the family, this society or this country. Those that are intolerant of others will be. Those that say, you are wrong because I say so and expect that such a statement should be enough for condemnation.

"there is plenty of love without sex out there and plenty of sex without love..."

I don't doubt it, and immorality is rampant in the world. We understand that that's the kind of world you want, and you got it.

" Sex can be an expression of love and there is certainly a component of attraction there, but you can be attracted to and have sex with someone and not love them."

German shepherds do that, too. That's what the world has become.

" You can be in love with someone and not have a sexual attraction."

Being friends with somebody of the same sex is not homosexuality.

Homosexuality is something more than friends, and it involves -- as repulsive as it is -- a sexual arousal.

^^Mr I cannot separate church and state.^^

Sure I can.

^^...the constitution is probably the closest thing I would refer to as my bible.^^

You mean the one that mentions God in Covenant Name?

"homosexuality is not going to be the downfall to the family, this society or this country."

That's the PR, anyway.

" Those that are intolerant of others will be."

When you gonna start to be tolerant of us?

They're chokin' on that, Paula.

faisal, so the issue is that you find homosexual desire repugnant. and that is the basis of passing laws against them being able to marry. Are you under the impression that you would be required to watch? I remember being told once that becasue I was attracted to women of another race that it was somehow disgusting.

Are you under the impression that there was no premarital sex in the world before christian marriage? You do understand that marriage had nothing to do with emotional commitment or even physical attraction when it was instituted and continued under christianity.

the worlkd has not become. the world has always been. You sound like a good candidate for fundamental muslim faith. Under that dogma you can beat a woman with impunity for being in the company of a man that she is not related or married to. You can stone her to death for sex outside marriage and homosexuality also carries a death penalty. yes Christianity can trace its beginnings all the way back to the beginnings of Islam.

They understand that Jefferson said that the Right to life starts when we are created, and that means conception.

That conflicts with the pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice crowd who say that the Right to life begins at birth. Clearly, though, something was created before that, and Jefferson knew that.

So which is it?

one is created homosexual at the same point one is created hetorsexual, if such a point exists. Since both orientations clearly exist there must be a time in human development either pre or post birth that would determine it.

As far as being tolerant, while I disagree with your points of view, I have not required that you change them, only pointed out that you cannot impose them on others.

"you find homosexual desire repugnant."

That would be one word for it, yes. There isn't enough room here for all the other terms.

"... and that is the basis of passing laws against them being able to marry."

They ARE allowed to marry. They have no less "Right" to marry than anoybody else.

" I remember being told once that becasue I was attracted to women of another race that it was somehow disgusting."

So?

"Are you under the impression that there was no premarital sex in the world before christian marriage?"

The world is chock full of immorality, isn't it.

" You do understand that marriage had nothing to do with emotional commitment or even physical attraction when it was instituted and continued under christianity. "

Your point?

"the worlkd has not become. the world has always been."

No, it hasn't. It fell. Willingly.

" You sound like a good candidate for fundamental muslim faith."

Muslims feel that they can perform their way to Heaven. Christians know that they cannot.

" Under that dogma you can beat a woman with impunity for being in the company of a man that she is not related or married to."

Oh, so, now, you make up an argument and argue with that. We understand.

" You can stone her to death for sex outside marriage and homosexuality also carries a death penalty."

That's up to God, as Leviticus says.

"yes Christianity can trace its beginnings all the way back to the beginnings of Islam."

No, it cannot.

Islam traces back to Ishmael. he was not the promised child. Isaac was, and he was the line to Christ.