Comments on: Gay Marriage Group Tries New Tactic

Seeks Measure Mandating That Married Couples Have Children Within 3 Years

[pakaal]

Sorry, but personal letters about people's personal faith, and efforts to place Christianity into the context of American culture later on don't strike me as equalling acceptance of "Christianity" as a national religion. I know most of these men practiced some form of religion, some quite devoutly, that's not at issue. That doesn't mean they wanted to foist their beliefs on everyone else, and in fact, they knew they couldn't. Read your history! Massachusetts was pretty much a Puritan theocracy at the time, while Rhode Island maintained complete religious tolerance and separation of church and state from the start. The founding fathers would never have created a Constitution that hinted at, let alone embrace, a specifically "Christian" agenda, let alone a theocratic governance structure.

Maybe you could tell me which version of "Christianity" you think all the founding fathers agreed upon? Also why in our first international treaties we said the US wasn't "in any sense founded on the Christian religion"?

[pakaal]

"The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries."

And yet the Pope signed bulls (still in effect, interestingly enough) saying specifically that the people of Africa and the Americas could be used as slaves by the Christian conquerors. 'Cause the Bible tells him so.

As always, one big problem with organized religions lie with individual opinions of interpretation becoming dogma over the centuries, whether they be right or wrong (much worse of course when they're wrong).

[pakaal]

"I'm voicing my opinions and getting RIPPED apart for them as usual...."

Well, singinrick how does "Homosexuality is wrong. Deal with it." Constitute an opinion? "Deal with it" is usually a response given after one mentions a fact. Homosexuality is not "wrong" just because a compilation of mythologies and moral tales (aka "The Bible") says it's so. You have a bit of a martyr complex if you think you can post "opinions" and don't expect others to call you on them.

By the way, do YOUR research. As I've noted more than once, the writers of the Constitution expressly avoided putting Christianity into their document. They would never have used "Creator" instead of "God" if they had any reason other than to avoid the connotation of a Christian god. In addition to ignoring the First Amendment, ratified in 1791, you also ignore the Treaty of Tripoli six years later in 1797, signed by then-president John Adams which specifically states "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

[fryedbread]

And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have%u2014from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves.
-Leviticus 25:44


You can find support for pretty much anything you want in the bible, but it doesn't get much clearer than this one.

Tell me, which is more of an abomination, homosexuality or shellfish? They're both in the book. Remember, if you are going to legislate the Bible, we can't have you picking and choosing what parts you want. It's all or nothing, otherwise why call it the Word of God?

I still don't see an answer to the question, why should any American, in his or her private life, be denied the equal protection of the laws guaranteed in the constitution?

[evallano]

I can no longer continue this conversation if it is going to continue to go back to the Bible. This is about law everyone. This is about being equal to thy neighbor.

I think I 957 is a great plan. I think that if we are to limit the rights of everyone with regard to marriage then the hetro's should be included in that limitation by demanding that if marriage is only for one man and one woman, as a means to pro-create, then those men and women who marry should produce a child within a certain time as a means to confirm their marriage. And if not, it should be annulled.

All for one, or none for all.

[evallano]

When did you choose to be hetrosexual?

[evallano]

Dear Singingrick,

I am not trying to start an arguement of theology with you. I am merely trying to state that equal marriage rights should be givin to all of us as a basic human right in this country. This is not something that should be mixed with religion. I respect your opinion. And I have heard of that break down of what BIBLE stands for but haven't seen it for myself....where exactly does is state that in the Bible? I've never been able to find it.

Sincerely,
Your fellow human being

[evallano]

Thanks sy2502! I actually saw a show on the discovery channel about that! What a beautiful thing to see nature in it's truest of form. No government or organized religion saying its a sin. Just the work of God in motion. (Pardon the pun). :-)

[evallano]

Get your religion off my civil rights!

What someone does in their own personal life is of no business to you. How will it affect YOUR personal daily life? Details please. How does what I do in my life affect you?

Forget what the Bible says. This is about the law of our country and the freedom for all people. Not the law of your higher power. You CANNOT create or amend laws based off of the teachings of God. Hence my beginning statement, "Get your religion off my civil rights!"

[sy2502]

ninjabob2, god, the bible and religion are NOT logical, informed, and convincing arguments against gay marriages, for the simple reasons that
1) Not everybody in the nation believes, or needs to believe, or must have anything to do with your religion. You may claim superiority of your religion, but that doesn't make it superior.
2) Religious belief and law-making are SEPARATE things. If they weren't we would be living like the Talebans, for whom law and religion are the same thing. I am very glad we don't have that kind of system, even though people like you would probably love to see it that way.

But I am going to humor you anyway and ask you this: if your god hates homosexuality so much, and destroyed entire cities because of it (even if there is no historic proof of it), why is it that homosexuality is so widely spread in nature? There are about 500 species with well documented homosexual behavior. He created them that way, and they don't have free will, so they do what they were created by god to do. Your god sounds very confused! More likely, god is an invention of man, conveniently used to justify hate,intollerance, and ignorance.

[ninjabob2]

I'm sorry if this comment offends anyone but i am going to make this very blunt men and women were created to fit together like puzzle peices, a 2 men or 2 women together is like forcing the peices together, it just doesnt work. if sodomy were ok why would god destroy sodom and gommorah, and why is it he told moses that a man should not aproach another man to lay with him as one would with a woman, this is because it is unnatural and a sin. Now I'm not saying i'm perfect as a 16 year old i struggle with sin just as much as everyone else and i am just as much of an abomination as the homosexuals, the difference is one i dont try justifying my sin by trying to make a joke of a law to anger people to giving in and sayin g its ok, and i am also forgiven of my sin through the savior jesus christ who died on a cross for me so no matter how wretched i am i know i am saved

[huskerarmy]

"...homosexuality isn't normal, or natural. I believe that a society that has gay marriage can't morally survive because it is just a link in a chain of decadence, and therefore ultimately: the society can't survive. Decadence has historically been the cause of many a nation's downfall."

More often, self-righteous conventionalism has been a downfall:
"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality. Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press -- in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of LIBERAL excess during the past years."

-- Adolph Hitler

[fryedbread]

jdweymouth,

You are sorely mistaken; you need to go read the text of the 14th amendment. You will find it is exactly as I quoted it.

Thank you for so boldly underscoring your ignorance in this matter by declaring that my quote from the constitution doesn't exist.

I'm curious though, how is it you can defend the constitutionality of gay marriage bans when you clearly haven't read the constitution?

Or is it like most political Christians and the Bible - you just pick out the parts you like and ignore the rest?

[huskerarmy]

It doesn't get you far to try and reason with bigotry. The recycled arguments they present have been long ago discredited and yet they continue to be regurgitated ad nauseum. They don't really care if their argument makes sense, as long as it protects their bigotry from direct sunlight.

[sy2502]

All the arguments made in this thread against gay marriages boil down to bigotry and intolerance. I have not seen one single logical argument. Let me give some examples:
-"Because sodomites caused the fall of more than 1 nation in the ancient times: the ancient city- states of Sodom (hence the word 'sodomy') and Gomorrah, the ancient kingdoms of Judah and Israel, and a host of others". Sodom and Gomorrah never existed, they are a legend in the Bible. Show me the historic proof that Judah and Israel or any other society ever fell because of gay people.
- "Gay marriage can never become legal because the institution of marriage is sacred and holy". I guess the distinction between church and state got lost somewhere. Plenty of things are legal but go against religious beliefs and vice versa.
- "it takes an individual, usually a religious leader, to unite two people. In that way, it proves how religious the United States is." I guess this person has never heard of civil weddings...
- "A gay couple getting married won't ruin my family specifically: it will, I believe, ruin my country". Care to explain how that is possible?

Bottom line: try pluggin in that brain of yours once in a while!

[jdweymouth]

Fryedbread: In reference to your Supreme Court comment: the court does not set national policy, it has no right to make a simple case ruling the law of the land.

The constitution does not say, "No state in the union shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It says, "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."-Article IV; section 2; clause 1. This clause means that, for example, the citizens of the state of Maine are entitled to the same privileges of citizens of the state of New York, meaning: a state can't keep rights from out-of-staters.

My point was, simply that homosexuality isn't normal, or natural. I believe that a society that has gay marriage can't morally survive because it is just a link in a chain of decadence, and therefore ultimately: the society can't survive. Decadence has historically been the cause of many a nation's downfall.

A gay couple getting married won't ruin my family specifically: it will, I believe, ruin my country: I won't have it!

Don't worry; I won't get one.

[fryedbread]

Furthermore, see precedent in the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, in which bans on interracial marriages were ruled unconstitutional:

Marriage is, according to the ruling, "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

[fryedbread]

Correct, the constitution does not guarantee marriage rights for anyone. It does however explicitly say that no state in the union shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Read: if you can get married, so can I.

As for the rest, your 'slippery slope' argument is a logical fallacy, and more of a scare tactic than support for a case.

You're right, a document isn't a marriage. It takes a commitment between two people. And that commitment is between those two people, not those two people and you. A gay couple getting married isn't going to ruin your family. Relax.

Bottom line, if you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. :)

[jdweymouth]

Fryedbread: The constitution does not guarantee any rights as to marriage under the constitution. Nor does it encourage you to keep you religious beliefs out of the lives of other citizens. If you believe it does either of these things: show me the article section and clause where it does.
Note: the 1st amendment doesn't count because it merely states there shall be no state endorsed religion: it doesn't say anything about evangelizing.

In the end, this debate is about morals and religion because, at the end of the road, people will be asking for multiple spouses, and finally to do away with marriage all together. You may not believe that, but many people have been advocating that. If we allow gay marriage, the debate will shift to more drastic "rights guaranteed them under the constitution."

Documents only certify marriage; it takes an individual, usually a religious leader, to unite two people. In that way, it proves how religious the United States is. Marriage is spiritual, not physical, not biological, and it has been limited between a man and a woman because it is natural and normal. I explained in my previous comment why it's normal.

[fryedbread]

All of you who are talking about the "holiness and sacredness" of marriage being marred by gay couples are failing to recognize that there is nothing sacred or holy about the legal contract/tax document that is a civil marriage in the US.

No one is asking religious institutions to sanction gay marriage, and in fact that idea is a distraction from the actual debate. Put away your straw men and focus on the real issue, which requires a legitimate answer to this question:

Why should any couple be denied the equal treatment under the law that is guaranteed them in the US Constitution?

But then again, it's the same document that urges you to keep your religious beliefs out of the private lives of other citizens...

Again: Civil marriage. This is not about your religious beliefs, and you are unfairly framing the debate as something it's not, to the detriment of yet another oppressed minority.

All my life looking and I have yet to see an answer to the above question. When does it end?