Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California

Statistics can be made to prove anything. Getting into statistics is only going to prolong this already tedious thread.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again, pedophilia is a "sexual orientation." If you are going to tell us we have to be accepting of all "sexual orientations" then you are implying the same about pedophilia.

The threat is not to marriages, as I tried to clarify, it's to the SOCIETAL UNDERSTANDING OF MARRIAGE, and that affects everybody.

I do apply the same rule to heterosexuals. Marriage is in a bad state first of all because heterosexuals have been trashing it for decades now, and yes, STDs are a heterosexual problem due to promiscuity. There are all kinds of sexual sins in our society these days that are socially sanctioned and I agree we should start with heterosexual sins. We get into homosexuality because it's the one on the table seeking legitimization these days. "Encouraging monogamy" is ridiculous when it comes to homosexuality, however. That's either the mindset of the people involved or it's not, many gays would just as soon see marriage destroyed altogether anyway.I really don't think any of this is going to change. The current mindset is against it. The opinions at EvC are a sign of that. I think society is going to continue to self-destruct when it comes to marriage, promiscuity, single parenting and all the rest of it, and we'll get gay marriage too and that will just be the icing on the cake. Wonderful chaotic mess.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If you don't already see it you aren't going to see it anyway Paul.

No, heterosexuals are the only ones QUALIFIED to be married, so of course I didn't mean I advocate their not being married because of STDs. I also don't mean that homosexuals shouldn't marry for that reason, the reason is that they are not qualified to be married because they are not capable of having children. I mentioned AIDS as the specifically homosexual disease, not related to the marriage issue.

Where did I say "FERTILITY" was the qualification for marriage? I said the potential to have children. Gays do not have that potential. And if you don't see this as intuitively obviously implied in the history of marriage in all cultures there's something wrong with your head.

No, it has nothing to do with menopause because it has nothing to do with fertility. It has to do with the anatomic potential to make babies, which heterosexual couples have irrespective of whether they are fertile or not and homosexuals don't. but of course anything you can do to obscure the point you will do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The supposedly neutral term "SEXUAL ORIENTATION" implies pedophilia. You like neutral terms like "sexual orientation" because they take the onus off homosexuality as a socially undesirable condition, allowing you to call it normal, so I pointed out that there are other "sexual orientations" you might not feel the same way about. There's no need for all the hate talk, YOUR hate talk, I've done no hate talk though you love to say so.

Scripture says we aren't to welcome the Day of the Lord as it will be a horrible time for all, we are to fight evil no matter what, and there is no way to stop the fulfillment of prophecy anyway, although we can hope to put the evils off as long as possible.

In case you haven't noticed, 1) the polygamous practices of the Old Testament were NOT approved by God, and 2) the coming of Christ changed all that, clearly identifying marriage as one husband, one wife. I know you all love to pretend otherwise but it IS a pretense and you are wrong.

Once again, the point about pedophilia was to demonstrate the weasel euphemism "sexual orientation," not equate it with other "sexual orientations."

Right, you of course know a lot better than I do, right? You've studied that part of scripture that says not to welcome the Day of the Lord?

AIDS is overwhelmingly the disease of homosexuality though Political Correctness requires that not be recognized.And homosexuality IS an aberration as clearly the two sexes were designed to fit together. Denying the obvious is necessary to keep up the fiction of homosexuality as a mere sexual preference.

Funny, the impression was certainly given that it is bigotry to oppose a mere, neutral "sexual orientation." Therefore I pointed out that there are some "sexual orientations" that even you all agree aren't so neutral. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.