Comments on: Gay Marriage Group Tries New Tactic

Seeks Measure Mandating That Married Couples Have Children Within 3 Years

[jdweymouth]

Anti-gay marriage activists have long said that it isn't normal because you can't procreate. Not because procreation is the sole reason for marriage, but because procreation can't be accomplished by two members of the same ***. For six thousand years men and women have married, while sodomites have been shunned. Why? 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, believe me-I could go on forever. I'm not going to have the U.S. join that list of nations that has fallen victim to that evil traditionally known as SODOMY. Gay marriage can never become legal because the institution of marriage is sacred and holy, and gay marriage would put a hole in its holiness and sacredness.

SusanHelit--For your information, the founding fathers, when referring religion, were worried about the Anglican church vs. the Catholic church, and the many different branches of the protestant church: they would never have allowed gay marriage, abortion, gun control, or have sit idly by while Moslems attempt to convert the U.S.-everyone here knows it. I would agree with you though that it's bad for the religion when religion and politics meet, but we shouldn't shut out religion at the expense of our culture.

[pakaal]

SusanHelit, I'd go a step further - there wouldn't be a United States of America if the founding fathers hadn't specifically made sure religion would have no part in government. The competing ideologies in the original colonies (Quakers, Church of England, Mennenites, Deists (who had no specific dogma), even Agnostics, forced the members of the Continental Congress to create a document that would satisfy all needs, while avoiding religious exclusivity. If the US had been founded on Christian ideals, there would have been at least one reference to Jesus in the Constitution, but in the end all we get on the subject of religion is a single generic reference to a "Creator", and of course the First Amendment.

And don't forget the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 (just six years after the First Amendment was ratified): "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...."

[susanhelit]

It's interesting though - Washington's courts only found one basis to deny gay marriage on. And it's pretty shaky, since it's obvious that marriages between straight people are not only about procreation. So either marriage is just about children, and if you aren't going to have any or can't, you shouldn't be able to get married; or it's about more than that, and there's no remaining reason for the court to deny gay marriage.

[susanhelit]

Nice try singinrick, but our laws are not in any way based on the ten commandments. Whatever little speeches you can find don't change the facts - our laws bear no resemblance to the ten commandments. Find me a law against worshiping a false idol. I can find you a law against requiring that you have 'no god other than me' - ooops - that's the opposite of the commandment!

Murder and theft - that's all you've got - and they're illegal everywhere!


Our founding fathers had experience with what happens when religion becomes part of government, and America was founded to avoid that. They wanted nothing more strongly than that. They didn't want their own religious beliefs enshrined into law - they could have done that right then, and they did the opposite - they forbade religious beliefs from being law. They knew how toxic it is, to a society, to the minority, and to the religion itself, when government and religion interact.

[getcentered]

Questionnews:

As long as it does not impede on the liberty of others than having multiple party marrige should be the right of the individuals involved.

Who is anyone to say what love is?

[questionnews]

Interesting but scattered commentary. Almost like the old yahoo boards.
New angle. Is being able to marry someone of the same *** comparable to being able to marry multiple people? If not, why?

[getcentered]

-It isn't about "religion" it's about a relationship with Jesus Christ.

Exactly why would I want to have a relationship with a dead guy who has taught YOU how it is OK to limit the rights of those with whom you do not agree?

[getcentered]

"America was founded on Christianity, not some hyphenated combination of religions. Our laws are rooted in the Ten Commandments."

What?

"[A] man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them. ...He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights."
James Madison 1792 exposition on "Property."

[getcentered]

"I think it's hilarious that getcentered prattles on about how "intolerant" all religions are, while at the same time preaching how important tolerance is."

I never said "all" religions.
There are "radicals" of many religions I'm sure.
Are you saying tolerance is not important?

People!
The world is not BLACK and WHITE.
There are infinite viewpoints and opinions.

Question:
Does religion create more tolerance or more intolerance?

In my opinion the more "religious" people are the more intolerant. No matter how "Secular" you think this discussion is religion is the driving force behind much of the debate.

[global_chick]

I think it's hilarious that getcentered prattles on about how "intolerant" all religions are, while at the same time preaching how important tolerance is. Huh?

[getcentered]

Gay Marriage Group Tries New Tactic
Seeks Measure Mandating That Married Couples Have Children Within 3 Years

"All we want is to get this on the ballot and cause people to talk about it."

WOW!

I think it's working!

[getcentered]

.....or that religion was "inadvertently" breeding intolerance within various societies of the world.

[global_chick]

So say I'm intolerant. So what? Why is it your job to change me? If I am a jerk who makes racist jokes or treats people badly, I'll probably lose my job anyway, or at least be ostracized. I don't need the moral relativism police to help re-educate me.

[getcentered]

....and how unfortunate that so many parents corrupted their children%u2019s minds with religions that preach intolerance.

[susanhelit]

So, singinrick, homosexual *** is no more of a sin, than let's say, lying?

[susanhelit]

Hate the color green, dogs, winter - but tolerate them. Simple enough, really.

[getcentered]

"He who is without sin, cast the first stone"-Gandi

[susanhelit]

No, I'm not suggesting a tolerance test. I'm saying the classes are only needed because people are intolerant. Toleration is such a simple thing, but oddly hard to accomplish. Once it was about race (OK, it's still sometimes about race), and managers had to learn how unfunny those hysterical jokes about a black person eating watermelon were, and that they couldn't just promote the white guy because he was obviously the better choice (just look at him!). Believe me, you want toleration - you never know when you find yourself, to one degree or another, in a minority.

[getcentered]

Maybe we really do need tolerance training.

How unfortunate so many parents have failed to teach tolerance to their children.

[global_chick]

Susan,

Just in case you need more evidence on how students and teachers cannot opt out of "tolerance training," here you go:

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=8541&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/nov/04111711.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43526

http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.cfm?id=356