Then let me deny once again. I don’t believe God is a cancer, because there is no God. Cancer can be proven to exist. God is an opinion that cannot be proven.

Then faith in God is a cancer on our society? Or are you going to deny the existence of faith or organized religion, too.

I have never advocated the complete removal of God from the nation’s public life. I only advocate the removal of government endorsement of religion or the use of taxpayer dollars (some of which come from non-religious people) to endorse religion.

And how much does it cost to keep a Ten Commandments Paper on a wall?

Agreed, which is why I’m so glad to hear you support an immediate US withdrawal from Iraq,

Because we know cutting and running will lead to an unprecedented blood bath as we cleverly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

But stability could be accomplished with two dedicated married monogamous gay partners, could it not (it could, and does).

Monogamy among gays is rare. As was observed by Mr. Savage, Marriage does not mean monogamy. Boy George has said, “The homosexual is not a monogamous creature.”

Funny how those Biblical societies rife with polygamy used to be so stable, huh? Funny how anthropologists can show us culture after culture, many of which were “stable” for centuries longer than America has existed, where there is no such concept of monogamous matrimony for life.

Polygamy was never really encouraged in the Bible. It was more a result of stuff going around the dominant culture. The Bible’s stories of polygamy don’t argue for it for the maintenance of a strong society.

King David has multiple wives, and can’t control his appetite for women, inter-family relations result in his family and a civil war follows that takes away some of the best years of his reign.

Solomon had numerous wives and concubines and following his death, his idiot son splits his kingdom of apart and the great Israel empire was on the road to ruin. What the Bible tells us happened and what it countenaces are two different things.

Second, where are the cultures that deny the basic sanctity of marriage? Indeed, maybe you like the Utah NOW see polygamy as a great bonus to women. Yet, if you really care about women, you won’t support polygamy because polygamous societies have time and time again shown not to be societies that are good for women.

Finally, Russ, you misunderstand greatly. The issue before us is not what my marriage will mean to me, it is what my marriage will mean to our society and our culture. Its not my marriage I worry about, but the future of marriage for generations to come. The transformation that the left wants to bring about on marriage will destroy our society’s cultural foundations at their core. Being married will mean nothing. The marriage you want practiced in our culture against our will is a marriage that’s only about gratification for the rights of individuals whether those relationships are bad for our society or good.

Then let me deny once again. I don’t believe God is a cancer, because there is no God. Cancer can be proven to exist. God is an opinion that cannot be proven.

I have never advocated the complete removal of God from the nation’s public life. I only advocate the removal of government endorsement of religion or the use of taxpayer dollars (some of which come from non-religious people) to endorse religion.

Most of the things, the left has achieved have been through an unconstitutional abuse of power in the federal courts.

How? What unconstitutional thing have we done? Let’s see… Congress made laws, the president signed them, the people challenged them, the courts decided them… looks pretty constitutional to me!

What demonstatable harm can you show from DISPLAYING the Ten Commandments.

Simple. Displaying Biblical Scripture in a court of law implies endorsement by our government of one religion over others in violation of the First Amendment. It’s the same harm you’d get from displaying the Mormon Articles of Faith, the Five Pillars of Islam, or Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. It’s the harm that tells the atheist or Muslim or Hindi or Wiccan walking into that courtroom that his religion (or lack of) is in opposition to the religion of the authority that is about to sit in judgement of him.

And our legal system is NOT grounded in the Ten Commandments, especially considering 70% of the commandments aren’t even laws! The only “grounding” the Constitution has with the Ten Commandments is the fact they are both sets of laws, and the latter predates the former. English Common Law, the Magna Charta, and the Code of Hammurabi do, too.

As for the pledge of allegiance? Same harm. You demand acknowledgement of the correctness of your unprovable opinion (the existence of your God) in order to pledge allegiance to your country. You seek to indoctrinate the young in religious thought through the exercise of patriotic oaths and the imprimatur of state power.

There are people in this country who won’t stand for the national anthem. They won’t celebrate the 4th of July.

We call them Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists, and I’m sure they’re as patriotic as atheists like me.

Or are women who regret and have problems after their abortion not citizens?

Sure they are. Citizens with the free right to choose what to do with their bodies and free to regret the choices they make. Just because some people regret their choices does not mean we eliminate the freedom of all people to choose.

In addition, the destruction of human life puts a callous on our soul.

Agreed, which is why I’m so glad to hear you support an immediate US withdrawal from Iraq, a moratorium on the death penalty, the implementation of McCain’s anti-torture amendment, expanded access to birth control and family planning (so fewer of those fetuses will end up aborted), and the repeal of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law that values property over human life.

You seem to have this idea that we’re cheapening human life, when human life has always been negotiable to begin with. We kill death row inmates because we value their lives less than revenge and the cost of life imprisonment. We kill Iraqis because we value their lives less than cheap gasoline and lucrative rebuilding contracts. We let homeless people die in the cold because we value their lives less than tax cuts for the rich. We let men on the Titanic die because we value the lives of the women and children more. If my wife and I are on a doomed plane and have only one parachute, I’d giver her the chute and let myself die, because I value her life more.

Furthermore, human life is pretty cheap to begin with. Most males and females can reproduce and the worldwide birthrate is still on the positive side. My wife’s mom had fifteen kids without even trying, and my wife’s dad didn’t have to pay even once to create the life. (OK, maybe a nice dinner and a movie…)

So, then, what is a fetus’s life worth? Some on your side believe it is worth more than even the life of the mother. Some believe it isn’t worth that much, but it is certainly worth more than a woman’s distress from raising her rapist’s or father’s/brother’s/uncle’s baby. Some don’t think it should come to that, either, but do think it’s worth more than nine months of drastically altering a woman’s body against her wishes. So even your pro-life side sees some negotiating room in the value of a fetal life, all we’re arguing about is to what extent.

The purpose of the state recognizing hetrosexual marriage is because hetrosexuals living together are going to have sex and sex may produce babies. Babies need healthy, stable homes which isn’t accomplished by mom shacking up with a new man every few months.

But stability could be accomplished with two dedicated married monogamous gay partners, could it not (it could, and does).

Now, not every hetrosexual couple produces babies, but hetrosexual marriage ideally also produces monogamy which is very important to the stability of society.

Funny how those Biblical societies rife with polygamy used to be so stable, huh? Funny how anthropologists can show us culture after culture, many of which were “stable” for centuries longer than America has existed, where there is no such concept of monogamous matrimony for life.

You believe government recognition of marriage is about equality and letting any group of consenting adults enter into any relationship they want.

Not exactly. I believe government has set up the right of a person to marry another person, but is unfairly denying that right to some people based on their unpopular choice of a partner.

You say that “when marriage can mean anything, it means nothing.” Really? So, when Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, it made you and Andrea’s marriage just a little less special? When Canada, Spain, South Africa, and other countries legalize gay marriage, do you feel a little less committed? If we someday legalize short-term, polyamorous, child-free, no-fault, interspecies, communal marriage, then you and Andrea will be just another couple getting a tax deduction? I don’t get it.