Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLetter to the editor:
Marriage a choice, just like religion
Thursday, April 23, 2009 | 2:03 a.m.
I am writing in regard to Rob Gardner’s Wednesday letter to the editor, headlined “Gay unions opposed based on Scripture,” which was a response to Frank Rich’s column on same-sex marriage.
Mr. Gardner says people who support gay marriage are simply missing the point, that point being that Mr. Gardner knows God opposes homosexuality, and he backs up that proclamation with a couple of Bible verses.
Hmm. I guess my point would be whose God? Mr. Gardner’s? And how does he know his Bible is the word of God? Just because?
I will defend to the end Mr. Gardner’s right to base his assumptions on Bronze Age dogma. But the real point here is not what his personal religious beliefs are or whether he can impose those beliefs on others. No, this is a matter of equality and rights for all people no matter how they are oriented.
This country was not created as a nation for Christians or for any other religion. On the contrary, our nation’s principles were based on freedom of (and from) religion as well as a separation of church and state.
Gay people who want the rights of marriage are not looking for the blessing of Mr. Gardner’s God. That’s a matter between Mr. Gardner, his god and his church. Same-sex marriage is a legal matter, a matter of state.
In closing, I was divorced after 22 years of marriage. So to all those gay couples out there looking to walk down the aisle, be warned. Rights of marriage come with the rights of no-fault divorce. Ah yes, a slippery slope. Good luck!
Discussion: 80 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Illness theory gaining ground for gambling addiction
- At CityCenter, it’s not your usual uniforms for workers
- Rebels wake up Sunday with top RPI
- Carl Icahn offers $156 million for Fontainebleau, outbids Penn National
- Ex-ACORN official gets probation for voter registration plan
- Woman dies in house fire in western valley
- Vegas-based Majestic Star Casino seeks bankruptcy
- Report details events leading to officer’s fatal shooting
- Despite economy, swank of lawmaker’s fundraisers not in recession
- 3 arrested in shooting of Metro officer appear in court
Blogs
The Kats Report
Oscar Goodman sounds like a man not running for governor
Robin Leach's Las Vegas Celebrity Watch
And the Season 9 winner of Dancing With the Stars is …
Elsewhere
Sen. Steven Horsford parked in handicap spot for hours (12 Comments)
Now and Then
Rory in disguise ... with glasses
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Angle: I am better than all other Republicans against Harry Reid and here's why (1 Comment)
Robin Leach's Las Vegas Celebrity Watch
Photo Gallery: Donny Osmond within reach of Dancing With the Stars victory
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Doug Hampton's 15 minutes go national: "Nightline" transcript (6 Comments)
Calendar »
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
- 26 Thu
- 27 Fri
- 28 Sat
-
Thanks-Spinning with Z-Trip at Moon
Moon Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Food Drive at Coyote Ugly
Coyote Ugly | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Surfer Blood with ACoSA at Beauty Bar
Beauty Bar | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Ladies night at Feelgoods
Feelgoods
-
Canned food drive at Pure
PURE | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Well said, sir. Very well said.
Mr. Sylvester -- so true, so sad. Could not have said it all better myself.
A few years ago "Politically Incorrect" had Ian McKellen (one of the last great British thespians) on the guest panel. A representative from the Moral Majority was live on the giant screen decrying gay marriage as being against "God's law."
Mr. McKellen quietly asked to the effect of "Doesn't one have to be christian to sin?"
I was once an ordained minister in a religion my family helped found four generations ago. Following more than a decade of marriage I got my walking papers, too. What a path to enlightenment that put me on. Over the years since then I shed religion for philosophy and recently completed my spiritual journey.
To all my fellow citizens seeking The Herd's endorsement of your equality in partner commitments: Libertad!
Bravo. Well said
Killer: Excellent post! I grow weary of people's claim to know exactly what God's word is when there is so many different interpretations of the bible. What about the Indians? Don't their beliefs in the "Great Spirit" count as word? I remember when I read Frederick Douglas:Narrative of a Slave and Frederick made the observation that the most religious slave owners were the most evil to the slaves. The more they held fast to the word of God, the more they beat the slaves, and raped the women. Since I read that novel I always look at people who thump the good book when in suits them differently.
With so many different ways to worship the one above, how can everyone be right, when no one is wrong?
Everything, everywhere is up for interpretation. What we read and see and believe is all based on our own unique interpretations. Our interpretations are based on our life experiences.
Bottom line: There is room in this world for many, different interpretations of religion. No one is right, unless we are all wrong.
People really need to work on themselves and not focus on what other people may or may not be doing wrong.
Marriage is a legal contract. Everyone should have the legal right to marry, regardless of how others view the union. How on earth does it affect anyone in this world if two gay people marry?
1. Will you have a bad hair day, everyday if Jane and Suzy marry tomorrow?
2. Will your cakes all fall if Sam and Ned go to the drive-through chapel and marry tonight at sunrise?
3. Will teens suddenly start cleaning their rooms and asking to take out the trash if the neighbors have an outdoor gay wedding?
4. Will all the bored, self-righteous religious fanatics melt in halls if gay people marry next week?
5. Will people actually have to start including everyone in the reindeer games if gay people are allowed to marry, thus rendering the hate games against gay people not fun anymore?
There is no chance of misinterpeting the biblical scriptures pertaining to homosexuality. Anyone justifying gay marraige or gay sex has created their own god to suit them. There are not many ways to 'worship the one above'. Jesus said He is "the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Me." God is a loving God, but also a just God. Sin is sin. The penalty for sin is eternal death. Jesus paid the sin debt for all who recieve him, but repentance is needed and that means not just to be sorry for your sins, but to sin no more. II Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is inspired by God"
The scriptures also say "The unlearned wrestle with the scriptures to their own destruction." When someone doesn't want to give up their sinful ways, they 'wrestle' with the scriptures to justify their sin, by twisting the interpetation to mean whatever they want them to mean so they can keep sinning in good conscience. The bible says you must come to Him with a contrite heart and broken spirit, not defiant and stubborn.
The Word,
That's great that you can quote the bible. Really. That thing isn't an easy read.
But, it's just a book. You follow it, and I don't want to stop you from following it, but you can't expect others to follow it. A lot of us think the entire book is a crock.
No, chansen, none of those things will happen. But the wingnuts around here have already claimed that gay marriage will lead to priests in jail!
They just don't believe in equal rights for all people. They hide behind their book, and choose to ignore the "judge not, lest ye be judged" part of the Bible.
ksand99, There is legislation currently proposed to make it a hate crime if a preacher quotes from scripture and a person hears it and attacks a homosexual person, the preacher can be prosecuted for a hate crime even though the individual took it upon himself to attack the homosexual.
I'd love to read that legislation. Link, please.
It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I don't believe you.
At what point is the line drawn? There is proposed legislation in several states(including Nevada)regarding this issue.
What if? What if legislation were passed, and then the polygamist say well we want to have civil unions also with all of our wives/husbands. Would that be ok? At what point do you stop?
You would have a point, ecm, if this was a discussion about gay polygamy. It isn't. It's about giving GLBT couples the same rights as straight couples.
How you get to polygamy is beyond me.
Natural progression of social issues. It is human nature to want more.
Still waiting "Mr/Mrs. T Word" for the link.
I don't quote scripture to impress anyone, but to shed some light on the misconception that christians hate gays. There's nothing wrong with two men being best friends, but marriage is between a man and a woman. The anatomy of a man and a woman go naturally together to reproduce. Sex between two men or two women is unnatural. The scripture in Leviticus can be found between incest and beasteality. God calls it an abomination. That gives us some idea how God feels about this sin.
JBond, the link is: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Defau...
"Natural progression of social issues. It is human nature to want more."
Actually, that's a logical fallacy. I'm asking you for how allowing a same-sex couple to marry will lead to legalized polygamy. Give me a cause-effect analysis. Otherwise, your argument is invalid. "Natural progression of social issues" would infer that polygamy would already be legal, as it has been practiced in the past.
The_Word: what current legislation or laws would lead to the imprisonment of clergy?
The current laws in Great Britan and Canada have already resulted in prosecution of clergy for reading scripture from the bible.
The hate crimes legislation that 'The Word' is concerned with has clear protections for free speech and religious liberty. This talk of prosecuting preachers or clergy is an easily dismissed scare tactic.
"The current laws in Great Britan and Canada have already resulted in prosecution of clergy for reading scripture from the bible."
The free speech protections and religious liberties in the U.S. Constitution are far more powerful than any similar protections in the U.K. or Canada.
The hate crimes legislation is also not identical to laws in Canada or the U.K.
You are creating a false analogy.
I'm not interested in 'scare tactics' or debates. My concern is in hope that anyone who has been confused about what direction is right and true, will turn to the God of the bible, The Creator of all creation, and recieve the free gift of salvation. John 3:16 tells us that anyone can be saved (whosoever will), John 3:18 tells us that 'he that believes not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
"I'm not interested in 'scare tactics' or debates."
Oh, really? Who said this?
"ksand99, There is legislation currently proposed to make it a hate crime if a preacher quotes from scripture and a person hears it and attacks a homosexual person, the preacher can be prosecuted for a hate crime even though the individual took it upon himself to attack the homosexual."
That's not true. And it's a scare tactic. The hate crime legislation does not criminalize preaching, nor does it set forth a penalty for preaching.
Did you forget the passages in the Bible about being honest?
no, why don't you quote it for me?
Maybe it'll cause you to at least open a bible and start reading.
What I said is true about the proposed legislation.
I've read the Bible. It's a good read.
"What I said is true about the proposed legislation."
You couldn't even link the legislation, only an article from a website which claimed something that is just not true. I can point you to website articles which argue the opposite. You've proved nothing.
You then back up your argument by pointing to fantasy prosecution in Canada and the U.K., which you also don't give any details about. You know what's funny? Those people were prosecuted under hate-speech laws, NOT hate crimes laws. There's a difference which you are willfully ignoring. The United States DOES NOT HAVE A HATE-SPEECH LAW. The hate crimes legislation IS NOT A HATE-SPEECH LAW.
Furthermore, did you read this important part of the legislation?
"Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution. "
Stop repeating scare tactics and lies.
You seem angry. In closing, I will pray for you, that the Holy Spirit will open your heart to salvation. I didn't say anything to knowingly use 'scare tactics'. I spent very little time to find a quick reference to the proposed legislation. I've read a great deal about it, but I'm not willing to spend a lot of time looking up old research. I'm not iterested in foolish debates. God bless.
The Word,
It's people like you that give religion a bad name. I really do feel sorry for you.
"Blind faith is the crutch of fools."
Frank Pembleton
Truer words were never spoken.
Of course you're going to duck out, because your argument doesn't hold up to any kind of serious scrutiny.
Are you even aware that the Episcopal Church supports the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act? Why would they support an act that would, according to you, put their pastors in jail?
You claim to have "read a great deal about it" but keep posting arguments that are either untrue or leave out pertinent details that would debunk yourself.
A little honesty goes a long way.
Can two men have relations and give birth to an infant? I think my point holds up very well to scrutiny.
There are millions of infertile couples in the United States who cannot "have relations and give birth to an infant." So now you're limiting marriage only to men/women who can give birth?
Does that include older couples and women in menopause?
Which Bible passage are you twisting to limit marriage only to fertile couples?
I never said anything about marriage. My point is it is unnatural for two men or two women to have sexual relations because of their anatomy. However, a man and a woman make perfect sense. God doesn't dissaprove of sex between a man and a woman in marraige whether or not they can have children. You go out of your way to twist my point.
No matter how much diversionary tactics you try to use, two men cannot reproduce an infant. A man and a woman can and have had children since the beginning of their creation. Men with men is unnatural.
"I never said anything about marriage."
Sorry, you were absolutely unclear, since every post you made prior to this one is about marriage, and didn't bother to mention that you weren't talking about marriage any longer because apparently: you're bored with it and can't argue any of my points.
"Men with men is unnatural."
So is using antibiotics, or any number of engineered medicine. Using your threshold, we should not allow antibiotics.
Further, there are plenty of examples of homosexuality in nature. According to your religion, God created those creatures. Or did those animals get "enticed" by the "evil homosexual lifestyle?"
You seem to be confusing religious marriage with civil marriage, anyway. I could care less about religious marriage. Do with it what you want. But to deny civil marriage to GLBT citizens is a violation of their rights to equality.
This country was founded on the religious beliefs of the bible. For all of you who say that religion has nothing to do with this country or with the laws of this country are sadly mistaken. It is unfortunate that religion is slowly slipping away from many Americans, but no matter what you cannot deny that the constitution of this country had God in mind when it was signed!
Thebs,
I wouldn't so easily dismiss this. Universities in America already prohibit such speech. In Europe you can be jailed for speaking out against the same topic. Yes, preachers have been jailed for this, and other things, in Europe.
Disgusting topics or not, free speech is something that be protected or lost, even in America.
The Word -- "There is no chance of misinterpeting [sic] the biblical scriptures pertaining to homosexuality. Anyone justifying gay marraige [sic] or gay sex has created their own god to suit them."
It only has anything to do with your god in your mind. That's what you theists can't seem to get over -- unless the rest of us subscribe to your dogma, it's no sin, and you and it have no power over us.
This debate, if shorn of your dogma and version of morality, all boils down to a few simple facts: 1) the right to marry is just one of the liberties each of us is born with; 2) the right to marry is not yours or anyone else's to bestow, it's already there; 3) homosexuality has always been with us and, depending on the society/culture (ancient Greece and Rome, for example) is accepted; and 4) the bible and its prohibitions against certain sexual practices is irrelevant to this Discussion.
My final word (and I was once an ordained minister): "Religion is ... the opium of the people." - Karl Marx - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_th...
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." - Thomas Jefferson
KillerB, You can say you don't believe in a semi-truck coming down the road, but if you stand in it's path, it will still run you over. The bible is true and trustworthy whether you believe in it or not. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
Ksand99, To compare abominable sex acts between men and life saving antibiotics is a poor comparison.
KillerB, We are born with the right to sin. It doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
"Ksand99, To compare abominable sex acts between men and life saving antibiotics is a poor comparison."
Your threshold was "natural." Both are, at least by your poor definition, "unnatural" even though there are homosexual animals. You chose the threshold.
"I wouldn't so easily dismiss this. Universities in America already prohibit such speech. In Europe you can be jailed for speaking out against the same topic. Yes, preachers have been jailed for this, and other things, in Europe."
I guess you missed the part about those countries having hate-speech laws. The United States does not have a hate-speech law, nor is any proposed legislation targeting hate-speech.
In fact, unlike those countries, the United States has a very robust and nearly impenetrable first amendment guaranteeing the right to free speech, which clearly covers religious freedom of speech.
Can you give any examples of pastors going to jail for hate-speech in the United States? No?
Unless you think we're planning on convening a Constitutional Convention anytime soon, I'd say your fears are merely fear-mongering with a practically zero chance of ever happening.
Yup.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Patrick, but haven't the courts ruled that public universities cannot enact hate speech codes? I believe every example of Universities that have hate speech codes are all private, and thus the students agree to give up their right to free speech on campus when they enroll.
Ksand99, The difference between animals and mankind is the knowlege between good and evil.
The anatomy of a man with man is unnatural. The anatomy of a man with a woman is perfectly natural.
Oh, so "natural" isn't your argument anymore, then?
Now it's "the knowledge between good and evil?"
How many times are you going to change your argument? You just cast any argument aside when you have no rebuttal.
Wait a minute, now "natural" is back again!
I'm drinking Diet Coke. That is unnatural. Am I going to go to hell for drinking Diet Coke? Am I going to hell for the Lipitor I take for cholesterol? Are you randomly picking one particular "law" from the Bible that you want to enforce while overlooking others?
The word, you and others that think like you with your absolutes when intrepreting the bible scare the hell out of me. To me you are no better than the muslim extremist who want only their strict interpratation of the koran to be the only true word. Leave religion out of marriage and everything will be fine. You know no more of what god wants than you know what a rock wants.
The bible doesn't address Lipitor or diet coke, but it does address immoral sex. You keep skirting around the issue.
The Word:
What you said about the proposed legislation is UNTRUE. Perhaps you should read it yourself (instead of some website that has an obvious agenda's interpretation) and then point out where exactly you are getting that clergy can be prosecuted for hate crimes by preaching.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext...
Future RN:
You should actually read the Constitution. There is absolutely nothing about God or God's laws written in it. In fact, the Founding Fathers took great care to ensure that we have a secular government.
I believe in GOD, but I do not attend church. Truthfully, I really haven't read the Bible, so I won't go there... BUT I do believe that there is nothing wrong with two people getting married, be it they are Gay or not. Marriage is a commitment between two people that love each other. Nothing more nothing less. And if two people want to tie the knot so to speak, good for them... If you and I were friends, would you like me less because I wanted to marry my partner? Because I am Gay? What if I am of a different religion then you are? Would you not like me because of that? What if my skin color is different then yours? I am the type of person that if I know you, and are a friend or just a co-worker that I talk to at work... and if your opinions are different then mine, I would not like you less. AS long as we both agree to disagree on a point (s) of view. And dont PUSH your views down my throat. As I don't push mine. The Bible was written long ago and not every book was included and or accepted in the final print (so to speak) And think back in those days... life was tuf, and not every man, women & child knew how to read or could think for themselves w/o being prosecuted. Now, we have these blogs... where different ideas can rattle around. The world has changed, as must we. There is nothing wrong in believing in the Bible, but accept it for what it is... like every book out there, it is the authors point of view & if we don't have the original manuscript, then we do not know if it may have been changed along the way in production...after all its a very old book. And we have no way of confirming with the author. I don't think that GOD will look down on you and prosecute you for being Gay &/or married to your partner, or a different color, or of a different religion etc. We are all GODs children are we not?
This is hilarious. Way to go to everyone sticking it to "The Word" What is extremely hilarious, is the skeletons "The Word" has in their "closet" are probably worse and more disturbing than two men getting it on. That's usually why people hid behind religion and reject common sense and empathy.
ShannonK, There isn't much accept for 'By Their Creator' and 'by Nature's God'in the Declaration of Independance, prayer before legislative sessions, 'In God We Trust' on our money, The oath of office taken with the right hand on the bible, ect...
Also, I've never been against prosecution for any violence to another human accept in the case of self defence. There's no need for the new proposed legislation since there are already laws protecting everyone from violent attacks. The only reason for the new legislation would be to prosecute anyone sharing the scriptures pertaining to homosexuallity being a sin.
Legalizing marraige between two men ventures into how our tax dollars are spent for surviving spouses. I couldn't morally agree to that just like Obama using tax dollars to fund abortions over seas. That should be left to each individual if they want to spend their money on oversea abortions.
I too have sin in my life which is why I need a savior. ' For all haved sinned and fall short of the glory of God'
I don't think any less of a gay man that wants to marry another man. I'm saying I'm against gay marraige. It's wrong according to the scriptures. I'm not shoving it down your throat. I just wouldn't vote for it on moral grounds.
I'm not for gay marriage either. I think marriage is a religous concept, but I don't think religion should stop people from entering a civil union. To each their own.
It's Friday and I'm about to go Sin. Peace Out!
The Word:
If you have done any reading on the Founding Fathers, then you would know that they weren't Christians as we know them today, particularly not fundamentalists, but really more deists, which perfectly explains the particular terms you mentioned from the Declaration of Independence.
There is no "rule" that states a President must use a Bible to take the oath of office. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt didn't use a Bible at all, John Quincy Adams put his hand on a law book, LBJ used a Roman Catholic missal.
It wasn't until around the time of the Civil War that "in God we trust" was put on money.
As for the last part of your post, in other words, you can't find it in the proposed legislation, but you know it must be there. LOL! I get it now.
So...religious nuts out there...why do you so conveniently avoid the passage where Jesus said, "love others as I have loved you". In Jesus' time he embraced Lepers (which were thought to be sinners who were paying for their sins with this disease) and he also welcomed tax collectors among his ranks.
Truth be told, if Jesus was here he would have lots of gay friends. Judge not lest you be judged. What's the big freaking deal? Gay people are not asking to change the law so that ONLY gays can marry, they just want to be included in our heterosexual misery...er I mean tradition. Ha ha. Lighten up. If you want to preach, go to church. If you want to live free shut your trap and let others do as they want to.
According to your beliefs, it's not for you to judge anyway. It's up to God. Blessed are those who suffer in life for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Won't you be mad when Heaven has Gay Pride week. Holla!
Then good for you WORD. I respect you for your opinions on this matter. I don't agree with them, but... that is life. Have a good night & a wonderful weekend.
Contrary to what some think, America was not and is not a theocracy, and never will be. If that's what you're looking for, look elsewhere.
ShannonK, I'm aware of all the things you pointed out concerning references to God in our government. You failed to point out than separation of church and state isn't in the declaration or the constitution. Also, what reason is there for new proposed legislation for hate crimes or hate speech when there are already sufficient laws on the books protecting everyone.
I don't know why annagraham misunderstood me. I love gays, heterosexuals and all people. I know if Jesus were walking the earth, he would associate with them to teach them. That's all. When he taught the pharasees, he didn't hang out with them. There's nothing wrong with being a tax collector. The people that were living in sin were told their sins were forgiven, go and sin no more. God loves the sinner, but hates the sin.
Hey Word, it's underwear night at the Eagle off of Tropicana next Wednesday. Look forward to seeing you. Don't forget to bring your bible, and a clean pair of shorts. You'll be in heaven in a short time....
ratsnest, thanks for your support. God bless you.
"Also, what reason is there for new proposed legislation for hate crimes or hate speech when there are already sufficient laws on the books protecting everyone."
Sufficient laws on the books protecting everyone? Is that why hate crimes against minorities are rising? Does that sound like 'protection' to you?
"Is that why hate crimes against minorities are rising?"
Oh really??????
Says who? Perez Hilton?
The current laws just need to be enforced.
"The current laws just need to be enforced."
They're not working. They're not serving as a deterrent to crime. Crime is increasing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unca...
"The number of violent crimes targeting Michiganders because of their sexual orientation jumped 133 percent last year, according to a new report from the Triangle Foundation."
I don't doubt the violent crimes/sexual orientation increased in Michigan. What makes you think the new legislation would be enforced any better? Michigan has a problem with manpower to enforce the law because of poor economic times. Certainly something has to be done about the increase in crime though.
Possibly some of the stimulus package will increase the presence of law enforcement. My heart goes out to the families of those victims in the links you gave.
The word: You have written many posts today and yet, you have absolutely nothing intelligent or original to say. You thump that book like crazy and then you hide behind the scripture. People like you have done heinious things in the name of the bible and I pity you. Hate is the real sin and you seem to really hate gay people. You are so self-righteous about your studpid belief that gay men being together sexually is "unnatural" and yet 10 % of all animals that mate for life are homosexual. They pair off in same-sex unions and stay together for life. If god condemns homosexuality as you "claim he does" then why would he create animals that follow their natural instincts to find same-sex mates and stay together for life?
The bottom line is that gay people have been here since the beginning of time and they are not going to leave just because of freakish bible thumpers that do not have one original thought in their empty heads.
Deal with it and get a freakin life!
FYI: you do not have a heart, you have your bible and your bible has made your heart as cold as a stone.
The Word -- you have proven exactly what Nietzsche said: "After coming in contact with a religious man I feel I must wash my hands."
Otherwise you've become irrelevant to this Discussion.
Killer, another time we agree. Is this a record?
Congrats.. to all that told word a few things in life. Who told the 'word' that god says they are(gays) are not worthy, I didn't hear it. By the way have you ever thought that God made gay people as another test for mankind?
If you are gay your gay, it's not for me to judge!
getalife -- not a record, it's a benchmark!
uglygirl (c'mon, no one's THAT ugly) -- thanx for giving me cause to rethink my last post we should really thank The Word. He's also proven God and the Bible are both irrelevant to this Discussion.
How bout 'live and let live' - plain and simple. And please stop trying to shove scriptures down peoples throats - didn't this discussion start out on the premise that a persons beliefs are THEIR beliefs and not to be used to try to dictate how others should live their lives? Bible thumpers will persist to the bitter end which is just one reason why they are so annoying.
For over 200 years in the USA, people have been forcing their morality on others and much of it based on their religious beliefs.
What is the big deal about that?
If you stopped that then almost all of laws would disappear from existence.
Our constitution originally prohibited the government from messing around with churches.
In the pass 60 years the judical branch, acting like a legisative body, has expanded the 1st admenment understanding to reduce the level of the governmental religious expressions from that were commonly display for over 200 years by the government.
Nothing in our constitution prohibits the citizens from using their religious beliefs to support candidates or to support laws. Nothing in our constitution prohibits a law makers or a judges or members of the executive branch to use their own religious beliefs to help them make decisions in executing their offical duties.
"Nothing in our constitution prohibits a law makers or a judges or members of the executive branch to use their own religious beliefs to help them make decisions in executing their offical duties."
Again, jfnance32, you are making statements on points on which you provide no foundation and on which you essentially remain clueless but vocal.
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause puts those who practice what you declared on thin ice. In 1947's Everson v. Board of Education the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that "aid one religion" or "prefer one religion over another," but as well those that "aid all religions." Establishment Clause jurisprudence since, whatever its twists and turns, maintains this view.
In your book, prohibiting a person from marrying more than one person at the same....is that unconstitutional?
In your book, prohibiting smoking weed....is that unconstitutional?
In your book, making prostitution illegal...is that unconstitutional?
All those laws are morality laws to some degree or another and they are passed and supported by a public that based that collective morality on their religious beliefs.
Also, banning same-sex marriage does not "aid one religion" nor "prefer one religion over another". But many people, including judges, legislators and executive branch members used their religious understandings along with other factors to come up with a determination in favor or against the such laws.
Jfnance: People use the "great big book of everything to justify many cruel actions all through history. How many women were murdered for no apparent reason during the witch-hunts? I believe the good book was involved in that moral rampage as well.
Look at the Catholic Priests that molest young children and get away with it over and over again just because they stand behind the good book.
The bottom line is that homosexuality does not affect anyone in a negative or positive way.
People are naturally draw to who they are and comparing love between two consenting adults to prostitution and weed is just plain stupid. Aside from that weed and prostitution are legal in some places.
Nance why do you always bring up the people that stand against homosexuality in public? Are you so easily swayed by popular opinion that you can't make an informed thought on your own?
Who cares if Obama does or does not like gay marriage?
The people that use their own sick interpretations of the bible to determine laws are weak and have no moral fiber at all.
Let's focus on issues that actually affect society in any real way, shape or form.
Banning same-sex marriage shows ignorance and lack of intellect on every level. No one ever said that lawmakers were smart, they just bark the loudest and the sheep fall into line.