Kaytee

keep th debate on topic please

__________________

If you can't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them!
http://www.spcnicholasidalski.com

Lissa

When I was probably 10 or 11 is when I started having attractions to girls. When I reached my teen years and started dating is when I decided to follow God's word and be straight. That does not by any means mean that I am no longer attracted to women. I am very much still attracted to them. My husband is very well aware of this. Am I happy as a heterosexual? Absolutely. I have a beautiful family. I couldn't ask for more.

__________________

Ari2

One thing that will stop polygamists with regard to this case is that the case has nothing to do with polygamy.

Have you read the court's opinion? The court clearly defines the question before it and refuses to go beyond this. It starts by stating that it is not deciding the issue frequently debated by other states:

In considering this question, we note at the outset that the constitutional issue before us differs in a significant respect from the constitutional issue that has been addressed by a number of other state supreme courts and intermediate appellate courts that recently have had occasion, in interpreting the applicable provisions of their respective state constitutions, to determine the validity of statutory provisions or common law rules limiting marriage to a union of a man and a woman.

The court then defines the issue before it:

Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a “domestic partnership.” The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.

That is a narrow, very specific question that has nothing to do with any other issue, including polygamous marriage. A group of 10 people or 3 would have no more right to get married after this decision than before. It doesn't apply to their situation.

Here's a link to the decision (it is halfway down the page: In re Marriage Cases): link.

Kaytee

I do not see how you could be happy with someone you are not physically or emotionally attracted too. That doesn't make sense to me. Sure you could love someone you were not attracted to, but it would be like having sex with a brother.

__________________

If you can't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them!
http://www.spcnicholasidalski.com

jtee

I have a cousin who became aware he was homosexual at 13-14 and sought refuge from homosexuality in God/religion at 15-16, and to this day is a very active member in his Christian church (church leader of some kind) and has a strong faith in God. He got married in his 20s to his college/Christian girlfriend and now has two well adjusted teenage daughters. He currently holds a high level job in the public school system.

His story takes a turn when when in his early 30s he met a gay man and feel in love for the first time in his life. After a year, he left his wife (who knew he was gay) and stopped trying to live a heterosexual life that was less satisfying/fulfilling to him as a homosexual. Privately he has said it wasn't until he accepted his inherent sexuality 100%, that he understood what it was like to be a happy man.

I do think homosexuals who reject their sexuality can have productive lives, and be partially happy, but I tend to believe deep down, they are living a life of quite desperation.

hwnorth

Lissa .. thank you for your explanation. All I will say on that topic is that I hope it continues to work for you and you get from it what you need in order to be Happy ... I cant imagine.

jtee - I havent seen it, but does Brokeback mountain follow a slightly similar scenario ?

The bottom line .. for me is this...

There will always be people who allow religion to control their lives in some form or way, some more than others and some as far as judging others... thats up to them to do until such time they violate others rights.

This isnt a topic of religion.. this is a topic of equal rights. Living in a free country offers us the freedom of equal rights.... and therefore judge no fellow man.

Adam and Eve .. Adam and Steve ... I could give a rats ass ... be productive members of society. Contribute to a better world is more important than gender judgment

jtee

It does have a simular theme in that movie. One of the main characters gets married, has children, but his marriage fails because he can't be faithful to his wife. It's a pretty dark movie I think.

yulia

yulia

musicmom

It's the complete opposite, putting a body part where there isn't one .
Yea me!