MaryLee, have you *READ* the Constitution?  The parts about "equal protection of the laws"?

.

I look forward to the voters' rejection of this hate amendment, which will mean that same-sex marriage has been approved by the State Legislature, State Court System, Governor and the voters.

By the way, assuming the voters *DO* shoot down the amendment, look for MaryLee's tribe to whine that they should be given one more shot to write prejudice into the California Constitution. 

Random not the voters   only those in higher places that were elected to represent us      and have failed   voters even in Calif  feel screwed

Marriage is only between a Man and Women       &n bsp;    

Just how does rejecting gay marriage protect the family anyway?

Are we fearful that if gay marriage is allowed, suddenly traditional families will fall apart and our children will start picking out swatches to redecorate the living room in rainbow colors? Geez.

Personally, I don't think my family dynamics are going to change much.

Even putting the constitution aside, if the people DO vote to allow gay marriage, what will your stance on it be then Marilee?

Marriage is between two consenting adults not closely related or already married, and civil marriage is not to be defined along religious lines.  I am hopeful the people will be smart enough to keep it that way.

Random: Gays and lesbians already enjoy "equal protection under the law" and defining marriage as between one man and one woman doesn't deny homosexuals the basic rights we all enjoy, including the right to marry. None of us, however, has the unrestricted right to marry whomever we like - a father can't marry his daughter, a brother can't marry his sister and none of us can marry the husbands or wives of others. 

What I don't understand is why this particular people group - gays and lesbians - is the one that gets to change the definition for all. Why not polygamists, for example? Why not siblings (they can adopt and use sperm banks, too, right?)?

Anti: "A few hundred years ago, in his exhaustive study of human history, Giovanni Battista Vico, Professor of Rhetoric at the University of Naples, concluded that marriage between a man and a woman is an essential element of civilization and, as such, is the "seedbed" of society. He warned that chaos would ensue in the absence of strong soial normes that encourage faithfulness and the loving care of children born in marriage (from a Family Research Council study)."

Perhaps this is one reason Sen. Obama last week called upon absentee fathers to accept responsiblity for raising the children they sire. Every study out there shows that children are more apt to thrive or simply do better with a mom and a dad. Yes, I realize current divorce rates are a poor testament to heterosexual marriage, but we have not yet seen the outcome of the social experiment that is gays raising children.

In California they do, since the Supreme Court issued its opinion.  What you're advocating is "separate but equal" and the specific argument you're advancing was shot down in the Loving v. Virginia SCOTUS decision which legalized interracial marriage.  Not surprising, because *ALL* the arguments against interracial unions have been recycled to try to block same-sex marriage.

Why not polygamous marriages?  Because the marriage contract (considered as a civil document) gives one individual the right to speak for another one.  Having more than two parties to that contract complicates the legal question to the point where the contract may be invalid.  Consider the situation with a person in the ICU.  The spouse speaks for him/her when he/she is unable to.  If there are two spouses, which has final say?  Do they have to agree?  Is it majority rule if there are three spouses?  Is A responsible to B, while C is responsible for D? 

"A few hundred years" ago there were well-reasoned arguments why slavery was an essential element of civilization.  The rest of us are living in the 21st century.  Join us here--the weather's crazy, but the water's fine.

.

The definition of marriage has been changed many times in the course of history.  Why should heterosexuals get to say "we've got ours, too bad about you"?

.

No, every study does *NOT* show that kids are more apt to do better with a mother and a father.  Many studies have shown no deficit at all from being raised in a same-sex household.  Now, single-parent families have the deck stacked economically against them, no question.  But there's no reason not to allow same-sex couples to raise children.  In fact, you can't *STOP* them.  All you can do is discriminate against them by not giving them the same privileges that opposite-sex couples have.

And, at base, that is what the anti-same-sex-marriage argument boils down to:  discrimination to the detriment of society.

Ms. Shrider, are you serious when you admit you can't think of a state interest that would be served by barring polygamous and incestuous marriages?

I'm gay and I can think of SEVERAL immediately that have nothing (as your column  implies) to do with marriage rights for same-sex couple. I can't believe the Californian is actually paying you to think. They're not getting their money's worth.

Here's what I wrote on my first blog on this site:

Gays say "No" to polygamous, incestuous marriage

It's an issues that is always raised by those opposed to marriage rights for gays and lesbians and it is invariably raised in the form of a question and with a virtual absence of effort to articulate an answer by the person who raises it.  

Why?  

Because those who raise the issue apparently can't seem to think of a reason why, if gay and lesbians are given the civil right to marry, polygamous and incestuous marriage should be forbidden.

On the other hand, countless gays and lesbians along with countless straight people can give you plenty of solid reasoning why polygamous and incestuous unions should never be permitted and the reasons they give have nothing to do with marriage rights for homosexuals.

The question is repeated ad nauseam on the internet and a typical form of it is:

"If gays can marry, what next: polygamous or incestuous marriage? Will people then be able to marry their dog?"

 In 1996 Jonathan Rauch addressed the issue of polygamous and incestuous marriage from the gay and lesbian perspective in an essay published in Andrew Sullivan's book "Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con. A Reader". Many will note that Rauch's essay is modestly dated due to the fact that two of the 50 states now grant marriage rights to same-sex couples.   Here are excerpts from Rauch's essay.

"The hidden assumption behind the argument which brackets gay marriage with polygamous or incestuous marriage is that homosexuals want the right to marry *anybody* they fall for, but heterosexuals are currently denied that right.  They cannot marry their immediate family or all of their sex partners. What homosexuals are asking for is the right to marry, not *anybody*, but *somebody* they love, which is not at all the same thing.

Heterosexuals can now marry any of millions of people; even if they can't marry their parents or siblings, they have plenty of choice.  Homosexuals want the same freedom, subject to the same restrictions.  Currently, however, they have zero marital choices (unless, of course, they try to fool heterosexuals into marrying them - a bad idea for a lot of reason, as both the homosexual and heterosexual in such marriages have discovered.  To ask for a comparably, but not infinitely, broad choice of partners is not unreasonable.

Do homosexuals actually exist? The largest Christian organization in the world - the Catholic Church - thinks so and so do I. The Vatican accepts that some people are constitutively attracted only to members of the same sex. By contrast, no serious person claims there are people constitutively attracted only to relatives or only to groups rather than individuals.  Anyone who can love two women can also love one of them.  People who insist on marrying their mother or several lovers want an additional (and weird) marital option.  Homosexuals currently have no marital option at all.  A demand for polygamous or incestuous marriage is thus frivolous in a way that the demand for gay marriage is not.

Suppose, though, that someone insists that he can't be happy without several husbands, and that this is a basic constitutive need for him. Or suppose he says he can't be happy unless he marries a close relative. For argument's sake, let's say we believe him. Shouldn't at least this person be allowed to marry two wives or his father?

No. The reason is that, from society's point of view, the main purpose of marriage is not, and never has been, to sanctify love.  If the point of marriage were to let everybody seek his ultimate amorous fulfillment, then adultery would be a standard part of the marital package.  In fact, society doesn't much care whether spouses love each other, as long as they meet their marital obligations. The purpose of secular marriage, rather, is to bond as many people as possible into committed, stable relationships. Such little societies-within-society not only provide the best environment for raising children, they also domesticate men and ensure that most people have someone whose "job" is to look after them.

Polygamy radically undermines this goal, because if one man has two wives, it follows that some other man has no wife.  The result is that many low-status males end up unable to wed and dangerously restless.  Over time, a society can sanction polygamy only if it is prepared to use harsh measures to repress a menacing underclass of spouseless men.  In that respect, the one-partner-each rule stands at the very core of a liberal society, by making marriage a goal that everyone can aspire to.  Gay marriage, note, is fully in keeping with liberalism's inclusive aspirations.  Polygamy absolutely is not.

Incest, of course may produce impaired children. But incestuous marriage is a horrible idea for a much bigger reason than that, a reason that holds even for sterile (or homosexual) couples.  Imagine a society where parents and children viewed each other as potential mates. Just for a start, every child would grow up wondering whether his parents had sexual designs on him, or were "grooming" him as a future spouse. [That same potential also exists between siblings]. Holding open the prospect of incestuous marriage would devastate family life by, effectively, legitimizing sexual predation within it.

Faced with such arguments, those who pose these arguments retreat to a last stand. OK, they say, "you still can't give any principled reason why adult *homosexuals* shouldn't be allowed to form legal unions of three or more.  Once gay marriage is legal, how are you going to prevent that?"

But no homosexuals want the right to marry two or more same-sex partners, and society has no earthly reason to sanction such a frivolous right anyway.  This is like arguing, "Once gay marriage is legal, how can you stop people from marrying their dog?"  To such an argument, the appropriate response is Don't be ridiculous.

The rather peculiar idea underlying the "If gay marriage, then polygamy" argument is that, at bottom, there really is no very good reason to be against polygamy - you have to be blindly against it, and ditto for gay marriage.  But there are ample grounds to oppose polygamous and incestuous marriage, grounds that have nothing to do with whether gay people will be allowed to partake of society's most stabilizing, civilizing institution.  Gays don't ask to break the rules we all depend on. They ask to be allowed to follow them."

Now that you know there is ample reason to bar polygamous and incestuous marriage, I look forward to your next column in which you retract your assertion.

I expect, however, I'll be looking forward for the remainder if my life since you don't seem to have within your vocabulary those three simple words that mark regret: "I was wrong."  So I'll just look forward to your continued practice of misinforming, misleading and not having an imagination. You do a disservice to your community.

Christ said: "In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you." [emphasis mine]

If you do not want to be mislead, do not mislead.

If you want to have just and fair laws, give others just and fair laws.

You lose nothing. Your reward is in heaven, for following the commandment of Christ.

But if the whole purpose of preserving the traditional meaning of marriage is limited entirely to keeping gays out, and you want the law to enforce such a distinction, then it is simply a fact that discrimination is your true policy. You think it's good discrimination, but it's still discrimination unrelated to any civil marital responsibility a gay couple is prepared to fulfill.

The thing about the "incestuous/polygamous/bestial-ous" argument is that there is absolutely nothing that prevents opposite-sex marriages from encouraging those, provided different sexes are selected for the potential mates.  There is nothing inherently in same-sex marriage which makes those "alternatives" any less likely.

Which, of course, isn't the point.  They simply want to use the slippery-slope fallacy instead of stating their real objection to same-sex marriage:  bigotry.

Marylee,

When you speak of marriage, how are you definining "traditional?" I'm not sure if you are fully aware of the actual history of marriage.

For example, did you know that ancient Romans actually accepted homosexual marriage?

Did you know that prior to the mid 16th century, there was no legal process for marriage in Europe?  Did you know that up until that point, a couple need not even have a ceremony in which an official, priest or witness presided over?  All they needed was a spoken agreement between the two of them to be married. In fact, it was the Council of Trent in 1545 in which the Catholic Church required Clergy to be present for a marital union to take place. Calvinists were the first to require the State registration of marriages!

So.. when you say traditional marriage, do you mean marriage as defined by the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformations?  Can that really be considered "traditional?" What about the thousands of years prior to these laws? What about in the time of Solomon, who had 700 wives?  Can that not be considered traditional?

I have a feeling that when you speak of traditional marriage, you should be saying "traditional post-reformation marriage," which is more accurate.

Ill be glad when all this is over..No we do not want our state be thought of as a gay sanctuary..No it is not a norm in any form of the word for same sex partners to force us to publicly view their unnatural acts around our "NORMAL" family circles..holding hands walking around shopping with their arms around each other??

VOTE ...NO  on PDA ...!!

You took over one of California's most beautiful cities (San Fransicko) ..it needs to stop there..

I had my son with me the other day and he went into the store..he came back out freaked because some gay weirdo tried to hit  on him..Your going to tell me that when the numbers increase around town if  gay  activists get their way ..some gays wont eventually feel more comfortable about trying to hit on young hetros they think they can convert into experimenting with the gay lifestyle..or at the least  just wanna see what kind of reaction they will get due to feeling bolder because they feel their acceptance is gaining ground because of increased numbers of gays in our community??

Everyone I know plan on voting this down..what the courts did was wrong  everything about this is wrong in my MHO... which I have a right too also..

Ms Shrider wrote: "Perhaps this is one reason Sen. Obama last week called upon absentee fathers to accept responsiblity for raising the children they sire."

[emphasis mine]

Ms. Shrider, what is constitutively different between a homosexual embracing marriage for the purpose of embracing "responsibility" and calling upon "absentee" father to do so?

You don't seem to know.

You seem to miss you own well-illustrated point point.  Same-sex couples, in the age of AIDS, are committing to the EXACT responsibility Senator Obama (and, apparently, you) demand of absentee fathers.  Marriage is not just a "tradition", it's a PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE.  Look at the state statistics on sexually transmitted diseases. Your eyes will bug out when you see the impact marriage has on the level of AIDS, syphillis, gonnahreha, herpes, and pappiloma virus.

Marriage means obligating yourself to take care of someone. It has a SIGNIFICANT public health impact. So your argument against same-sex marriage is the equal to saying you WANT sexually transmitted diseases to continue to plague our citizens.

What kind society do you want? A stable one with healthy people or one in which uphold a tradition trumps all even at the expense of people lives?

So HM and RF you claim to speak for and make agreements for all homosexuals?  As many have pointed out the danger of permissiveness is that we open the door to all manner of individual expression.  That includes adultery among normal and homosexual couples.  In the future can a person file for divorce if there partner committed sexual indiscretions or is that just harmless "expression of there love."  How about bestiality?  I think PETA might have a lot to say about that.  How about the recent felon's suing for the right to be able to own fire arms based on the Supreme Court decision?  Now felons want to legally posses weapons and marry their cell mates.  Yes it is indeed a slippery slope.  How about HM demand that the US census change it's methods of recording the census based on the questionable decisions of a few states, that may not stand?  How about Sadio/masochism, isn't that an insult to all those who fought to end slavery?  How about cannibalism.  There was a case in Germany were a man met another man on the Internet.  As part of there expression of love and with adult consent; one man killed the other one and ate part of him.  The poor German government could only charge the offender with man slaughter.  As nobody thought it was necessary to put a law in the books saying cannibalism is a bad thing.  What it really comes down to is that we are a interconnected society.  What one does affects all.  That includes the damage of drug abuse or promiscuous sex.  Look at the cost that has to our criminal justice systems, medical cost, abortions, children in foster homes, to speak of a few implications.  Who nations are being depopulated in Africa because of AIDS.  Yet a few can feel self righteous by cluelessly sitting in front of their PC's and argue ideas that have real life consequences for everyone.  

HM so far the research has shown that marriage or civil unions does not cut down on the promiscuous behavior of homosexuals.http://members.aol.com/gaym... 

Siouxcityranch wrote: "I had my son with me the other day and he went into the store..he came back out freaked because some gay weirdo tried to hit  on him.."

I hope your also teach your son not to hit on females. How do your daughters react to being hit on and what do you tell them to do when some bozo makes a pass at them?

See. Females have enduring being hit on since the dawn of time. We teach our daughters to do the SIMPLEST THING: Slap their face, or embarrass them in public by shouting, "I'm not interested in have sex with YOU, JERK!"

Can't you son handle why virtually every woman ever born does on a routine basis?  It amazes me.  Men a cavalier about making some crack at a female, but when the tables are turned and they, themselves, are sexually objectified as an object of desire, the FREAK OUT while expecting females to keep their cool.  What the hell is wrong with you, Sir? I hope your son isn't one of those people to turn to bashing some gay guys head in with a baseball for the idiotic reason that "he came on to me".  

It's just plain common sense.

That argument doesn't fly either HM.  It is not Ok for a homosexual to molest boys anymore than it is Ok for hetreosexuals to molest girls.  Two wrongs do not make a right. 

Normally my eyesite is perfect, but did I miss something, WF? Where did HM say that it was ok for anyone to molest anyone?

HM...Ya I guess he shoulda punched him in the face and jumped up and down screamin...

NO I DONT WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU!!!!

 thanks for the thought .. Ill make SURE he does that next  time  ;-)

Three post up Florida.  HM used the old "well they do it " defense. 

Sioux - or your son could just politely ignore the man.  There's nothing new about homosexuality - it's been around since the begining of humanity.  Instead of freaking out about it, why can't people just accept it and move on?

WF - where does hitting on someone equate to molesting?

Way, you've gone around the bend. Obviously I don't speak for ALL "Anyone" much less all homosexuals. I could charge you with speaking for ALL Christians, but I'm not a stupid as you. You don't speak for ALL "ANYTHING ' either.

How many times do I have to respond to such an ABSURD question about "marrying your dog".  Can't you understand that NO animal is capable to CONSENTING to such an absurd and sick thing as sex with a human?  I'm the one who posted the response to that, and now you're saying that I''m advocating it?

Sir. You slander me. Let's look at the issue, first. To prevent people from having sex with animals, you have to find a state that has a beastiality law.  Texas, for instance, REVOKED their beasitlity law under Gov. George Bush in the same year they IMPLEMENTED the Sodomy Law that criminalized PRIVATE consensul sex between adult homosexual. Explain the logic in that (notice I didn't say the "regligious reason").

So, call PETA! You have my complete support.  If an animal is incapable of consent to sex or marriage, that could only mean they are capable of fulfilling the LEGAL OBLIGATIONS of marriage.  Informed consent is a fundamental of not just marriage law, but ALL laws. Adults can give informed consent. Children and animals CAN'T.  Don't you know that? Your dog can't sign a medical document allowing the doctor to perform life-saving surgery. So if your dog is you wife, you're DEAD.  A tail wag is NOT CONSENT.

And YES, there are going to be plenty of gays divorcing over infidelity, just exactly like those 50% of first-marriages that end in divorce. You imply that same-sex couple are somehow held to a higher standard; that if they had loose relationships in the past, when they get married that will continue.

That's what a lot of STRAIGHT guy think, too. Until their wife sue them for infidelity and walks off with half of their assets. That's what's so WONDERFUL about marriage right for gays.  Gay men will use the same LEGAL weaponry to enforce fidelity that straight people use now.  We teach our children almost from birth that they must accept responsility. But gay people? Hell, their families don't even recognize their relationship and could care less if the act responsibly.

So now, when gays strive to embrace responsibility, you want to prevent them from doing so.  What is wrong with you? You imply they won't and if you help pass Propostion 8, you'll insure that you'll never find out what gay people would actually do.

FSG..NOPE NEVER!!! and he did walk on..BUT he wont next time..hes got my full permission to nail the next gay that acts out towards him..I was even just given permission from a life long gay to do so...

How  the hell do you feel this gay  jerk has a right to make advances towards him and it not bother him..Its not even like a male and female situation.. It gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomache he and to experience that and people like you feel its just okie dokie and hes the freak because he doesnt morally accept that life style..

WHERES HIS RIGHTS???

Three post up Florida.  HM used the old "well they do it " defense. 

Copy and paste what you mean, Sir. Again, you slander me. I'm a PARENT for God's sake. Molest children? NO ONE is exempt from the law in the case of sexually abusing a child.

How DARE YOU, suggest such a thing of me. I put my REAL name on this web site. Your charge is FALSE. You publically charge me of advocating sexual abuse of a child is SLANDER.

Sioux -

So, my question to you then is what do you think is acceptable behaviour when a man makes the same sort of gesture to a woman?  What about a woman to a man?  Do you get the same sick feeling in the pit of your stomach when any of these situations take place?

Also, what exactly did this man do or say that has you so upset?  Is it something that isn't normally seen in public?

If I punched every numbn**s that had inappropriately"hit on me,I 'd still be in jail ...you learn witty come backs,you learn not to look men in the eye because that indicates "interest",you learn polite refusal and you learn to move on.If you resort to physical violence you learn what the inside of the jail looks like.

You might want to check your language HM.  Calling someone stupid or crazy constitutes a personal attack and is against  the rules of this site.  Actually my example of infidelity was addressed more to normal couples.  The rates of promiscuity and divorce among normal couples is terrible.  If we allow the use of "emotional monogamy" over "true monogamy" that homosexuals use to justify cheating on their partners in the courtroom then it closes one of the few good reasons to get a divorce.  That the partner was unfaithful.  So if we follow the homosexual example we are also condoning adultery.  And no I do not think we should hold homosexual couples to stricter standards.  I think we all should strive to fulfill the standards already given to us. 

Siouxcity:  Your son has a legal right to no be sexually harrassed. But he doesn't have a right to intentionally inflict physical harm on someone unless he's defending himself. So, while our daughters are generally smaller than men, and face-slapping is appropriate response to ward off a guy, it's a felony to harm someone because something they said.  If the idiot gay guy come one, your son would do best by just goinng to the store manager and complaining that he's being bothered by another customer.

That's also an option. Regardless of whether a person is "disgusted" by being the object of desire of a person of the same sex, you're not entitled to murder such a jerk on the foundation of being insulted. If your son physically attack such a person, the law then switches to the attacked persons side, regardless of what was said that insulted your son.

So, the sensible thing is to embarrass the hell out of that person. ANY business in California that does not immediately deal with a complaint of sexual harassment by a patron is liable for a law suit. So, tell your son to get the manager and throw that jerk out of the store.

It *IS* a slippery slope and one need only look at what passes for a "street fair" in San Francisco to decide what kind of lifestyle is acceptable to the public. 

No HM it is not slander.  It is demonstrating the ridiculousness of your argument. 

A picture is worth a thousand words driln. 

So is that picture. 

There are many cases where couples are able to mend a marriage after the uncovering of adultery, and therefore have no need for divorce.  In order for any marriage to work, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, both parties must be willing to treat the marriage as their #1 priority and job.  That being said, no human being is perfect, and there are times when a spouse can be unfaithful.  However, that doesn't mean that the marriage is doomed - it means that there are some unresolved issues which need to be solved.  If both parties are willing to put forth the effort, it is possible to not only mend the relationship, but in many cases strengthen it.

Neither side of the homosexual marriage debate should be using the idea of faithfulness or lack thereof to prove their point, because it has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with mentality.

You think "stupid" and "crazy" are worse than "You're advocating sexual abuse"?

You should apologize and say you didn't mean that.

I didn't use the word "crazy" on this page. I did use "stupid" but in a context in which I admitted a level of stupidity in myself.

As for your citations on gay male promiscuity, I hope you don't expect me to deny that gay males are generally promisuous. But understand something. Dave McWhirter and Andy Mattison, two of the researchers you are bannering right now, were my NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS in Rancho Mirage. They were Domestic Partners.  We talked ENDLESSLY about their research. I'm VERY familiar with it and what I know form those conversation that you don't know is the actual circumstances of the people who participated in their study, called "The Male Couple".  They're both dead now, but the entire interpretation you are citing as the authoritative word is badly flawed.  Dave and Andy's work was been peer-reviewed around the globe. It has, and they admitted, some major problems. It's just that they were virtually the first people to examine the whole spectrum of gay relationship UNDER co-habitation, not under legal marriage.

drop it HM ur maki n it worse...

thanks driln..one example of how the gay community can destroy our values if they are allowed to proceed..its not all about we just wanna live like the hetros do..just too many sicko freaks involved in their movement..its not just i wanna marry bobby cause we are in love..the majority of the gays are just freaks ontop of their same sex issues I dont agree with..

So you are not going to deny that homosexuals are in general promiscuous so that would be you concede the point.  Well good night all. I am going to go think about  pleasant things now and prepare to give thanks to the Lord for all He has given me.  

Do we need to post picture of heterosexuals engaging in every vile act imaginable to counter the claims that selling sex toys on the public sidewalk is as ABHORENT to most gay people?

Wayfarer actually has an essay in his stockpile that explains who ridiculous it is for someone to dig and find ONE "mistake of Christianity and use it as if it's an example of how ALL Christians think."

It goes the same with with gay people. A picture of some jerk selling sex toys in no way represents the moral character of the majority of the gay community. So stop characterizing us that way.

 Makes me wonder why anyone would really care?   I mean if we are truly serious about "saving" marriage as some "Christians" would have you to believe, then what should we do with all the professing "Christians" that are filling our courts up all over the country with their nasty little divorces?    I read a study recently, that said we were at a 58% divorce rate in America, out of that percentage a full 98% of the couples professed to be CHRISTIANS!!!!   I know, what incredible hipocrites!!   So to be serious... if we are truly serious about saving marriage... shouldn't we ban the  Christians from it?   Because for years they've done nothing but make a mockery of it.     And shouldn't christians be outragged when the government tries to tell our churches what they should do?   Because let's face it, there are many mainline churches in this country that would gladly marry same-sex couples, I think it is about time to stand up and say no more.     Who are you or I to tell a loving consenting couple they shouldn't have the right to marriage?   We're talking a LOVING couple.    Love is so rare, why would any decent person want to deny someone such??  And why would you care??   And if you truly care... what are you going to do about all the hetrosexual couples filing for divorces at alarming rates???  That is, if you're truly serious about "saving" marriage as you claim.   Which is funny... save marriage like it is??????????   Sadly 58% of all marriages FAIL in this country... and again by people professing to be CHRISTIANS... so exactly, what is so good about this you're trying to save????

SiouxCity wrote: :"one example of how the gay community can destroy our values if they are allowed to proceed"

Sir, should I use an example of a heterosexual Christian to counter your misguided conclusion?

I will.

There weeks ago an apparently very religious father living in Turlock California was discovered, "beating, kicking and stomping" his infant child to death, apparently for the religious purpose of, "getting the devils out of him."  That's what Sergio Aguiar, a 27 year old man with no criminal history, yelled to police as the police held him at gun point demanding he release the child.  Aguilar wouldn't comply and police shot him to death.

Is that an example of modern Christiaity? Beating one's helpless infant child to death to rid him of devils?

No.

Nor is selling sex toys on a public street an example of the moral character of gay people.

You know, most of those against same-sex marriage are most likey the offspring of those EVIL christians that marched all over the country, carrying their bibles professing the world would be doomed if black men were allowed to marry white women.  

And you can you imagine... that not too long back in our history we use to deny loving couples (male/female) of different races the right of marriage.    Shocking to believe... but it was the Christians that claimed the bible was against all that would support such and they're doing it again.  

It's funny they should call two loving adults a sinful relationship but FAIL to mention the other 50,000 sins in their bible.

And who are we kidding... some of the most dishonest people in this country are those that profess to be Christians.   Thankfully, my God will take care of these EVIL people in time.  Because seriously, do you think you can go around professing such hatred in the name of God and then not have to pay for your actions one day?

I am sad to see this come up again with all of its unnecessary negativity and superheated hostility, but here are my two cents, and not a penny more:

The Christian belief system begins with an event in which the very first people were free to obey God or not.  "God did not want robots; He wanted people to choose to obey Him."  They didn't, and we have the biblical Fall.

How can it possibly please the God of Christianity if the only reason people "obey" is because the option not to obey has been taken away?

  Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other
specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can
you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don.t agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room
here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn.t we just burn them to
death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident
you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging.

 I am a lesbian and the marriage issue isn't important to me. It will eventually be allowed in all states and people will come around and find something else to complain about.  In the meantime, I will ignore the hostile remarks and innuendos that come with being a homesexual.  I will  promise all of you that I, nor any other homosexual I know, will not molest any children or try to convert anyone.  I will be a law-abiding citizen, polite, friendly and KNOW THAT GOD LOVES ME.  For those of you "christians" and those of you that assume all homosexuals are sex freaks and child molesters, I will pray for you.  I will pray that you will not be so hostile and judgmental.  I pray that you will take your own personal inventories and make yourself a better person rather than judge me and my kind.  We are all flawed no matter what our sexual orientation is.

Wayfarer wrote:  No HM it is not slander. [to implicate another person as advocating sexual abuse of children]

Put this to the test Wayfare.  Make a sign to put in your front yard and point it at your neighbor John's house. On the sign, paint in big letters:

JOHN IS STUPID

Leave it there for a week then see what his reaction is and write it down.

Now, change the sign to:

JOHN ADVOCATES SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

Now. after one week, See what John's reaction is.

I can tell you because I know of a woman who did this very thing. She put up a sign that said, "WARNING. HOMOSEXUALS LIVE ON THIS BLOCK. WATCH YOUR CHILDREN" and she put the address of two gay men who lived on that block on the sign.

Outcome:  Those two gay guys now own the home that woman lived in.

Slander.  You should apologize.

Outcome:  Those two gay guys now own the home that woman lived in.

And rightfully so.

To: Ninekk88

Yeah, I just read your post.   Yeah, isn't it funny that some of these  people actually believe that about Gay people.  Study after study after study after study has clearly showed that most child molesters are MARRIED HETROSEXUAL men with CHILDREN of their own and it's a fact, that it is VERY RARE for a child molester to be homosexual.   VERY RARE!    And I actually read the other day that homosexuals tend to be more HONEST in their day to day dealings.

So you are not going to deny that homosexuals are in general promiscuous so that would be you concede the point.

Why would I lie about something that is so widely known. Yes. I concede. Gays have a tradition while living in common-law circumstances of being generally promiscuous. But "living together" isn't "marriage". You're comparing the dynamic and demographics of marriage with a situation that in no way approximates the legal responsibilities, dynamics and demographics of marriage. Apples and oranges are the same shape, but that where the similarity ends. Apples and oranges is one of your most common methods of arguing.

The "typical" child molester is in a sexual relationship with the victim's mother.

    It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill”.  For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21).  God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there.  He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).  He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen shee