Senate To Vote On Homosexual Marriage Ban In Early March

[invisible trousers]

But the question would be to ask God what he thinks about homosexuality. The Bible (our only true sorce of information as God willed it to be here for us today, for situations like these) is clear, in other word this (homosexuality) has been around for a long time and even has been excepted in societies prior to us.

Nice lie.

This law won't pass, it's only being used to further the non-existant in reality conservative christian persecution complex.

 

[Eathin_Hunt]

Nice lie.

This law won't pass, it's only being used to further the non-existant in reality conservative christian persecution complex.

Please forgive my ignorance. But I have no idea what you are talking about. You quoted my post- that I beleive the Bible is the truth, the word of God preserved for us today.

Is that what you disagree with?

Or do you disagree with homosexuality has been around for a while and societies have excepted this and delt with it before us? Human's have been a round for a long time and I beleive they faced the same problems then as we do today- I mean they didnt have network problems or lack of ability to fix our own cars, but they loved people, were let down by people, made mistakes and so on.

Thank you, sincerely

 

[Torah613]

Joe, what your great aunt went through, while certainly unfair, is not part of the gay marriage issue. It's bad hospital policy. Allowing gay marriage is not the right way to correct that particular wrong.

Actually no. It is a good policy not to allow just anyone to visit someone who is seriously ill. They need their rest to recover. However, without a particular way in which to set aside life partners there is no way of screening who is and who is not allowed in the hospital. Some would say that Civil Unions are teh way to go, but most insurance companies do not honor them and it is not required by law that they do. Even if the law were changed to require it, it would be struck down by the supreme court as unconstitutional because it would violate the principles set forth in "Brown v. Topeka Board of Education" as well as numerous other legal precedents.

There is no way in which to correct this social injustice without allowing gay marriage.

Joe Zollars

 

[Ave Maria]

Well, I for one, will be signing the petition!

 

[Torah613]

and I for one will be doing a petition of my own--petitioning the Most High that the measure fails, and that the lessons of love set forth in the Gospel prevail.

Joe Zollars

 

[Eathin_Hunt]

Joe,

Thank you for an awesome response.

You just laid out a good plan. Gays should argue that.

But they are going after the word "Marrage", at least in the public's eye.

Sounds to me there needs to be 2 things:

1. A word for it- perhaps the biggest pole in history and have Holloywood's biggest producers get together huge teams, get TV involved and come up with a name.

2. Then have lawyers offer it up, include all the downfalls of the marrage/divorce system too. See if it passes.

Thanks and gl

 

[invisible trousers]

Please forgive my ignorance. But I have no idea what you are talking about. You quoted my post- that I beleive the Bible is the truth, the word of God preserved for us today.

Is that what you disagree with?

That the bible is clear about homosexuality being a sin.

 

[Eathin_Hunt]

Invisible,

You are asking if the Bible is clear about sex outside of marrage?

And I did not lie

Thank You,

 

[Torah613]

no you did not lie. You displayed the typical human process of interpreting what we think should be soceital norms back into the scriptures.

Yes the bible says that sexual acts outside marriage are a sin, but it no where says anything about gay marriage. It speaks of temple prostitution, the practice of Eunuchs etc. but nowhere does it actually talk about the issue of homosexuality. (This is what we need tradition for).

In addition to this it is fundamentally against Lockeian and Jeffersonian Political philosophy to legislate a particular religious sects, or even multiple sects, religious views. This is what our American govermental system is based on and nothing more. It is not based on "Christian Values" as so many ignorant of political history claim. It is based on Lockeian and Jeffersonian political philosophy. By approving this measure, we might as well scrap the constitution, bill of rights, etc. and hand the keys to the capital building over to the SBC, the neocon RC's, or any other such sect.

Joe Zollars

 

[Argent]

By approving this measure, we might as well scrap the constitution, bill of rights, etc. and hand the keys to the capital building over to the SBC, the neocon RC's, or any other such sect.

Joe Zollars

You say that like it would be bad thing!

 

[intricatic]

no you did not lie. You displayed the typical human process of interpreting what we think should be soceital norms back into the scriptures.

Yes the bible says that sexual acts outside marriage are a sin, but it no where says anything about gay marriage. It speaks of temple prostitution, the practice of Eunuchs etc. but nowhere does it actually talk about the issue of homosexuality. (This is what we need tradition for).

In addition to this it is fundamentally against Lockeian and Jeffersonian Political philosophy to legislate a particular religious sects, or even multiple sects, religious views. This is what our American govermental system is based on and nothing more. It is not based on "Christian Values" as so many ignorant of political history claim. It is based on Lockeian and Jeffersonian political philosophy. By approving this measure, we might as well scrap the constitution, bill of rights, etc. and hand the keys to the capital building over to the SBC, the neocon RC's, or any other such sect.

Joe Zollars

By having marriage in the public spotlight to begin with, we might as well use the constitution and all of those famous documents as toilet paper. It's a cultural and religious institute that was perverted into a government institute many years ago. Besides, do you really think politicians these days give any concern whatsoever to what's best for people?

The only way to remedy this absurdity of religious tinkering is to remove marriage from government sponsorship.

 

[AngelusSax]

You say that like it would be bad thing!

Well it just might lead to someone like Fred Phelps being the Chancellor of the USA one day...

So yes, yes that would be a bad thing, to turn over the country to any particular religious sect, be they conservative or liberal.

 

[intricatic]

Well it just might lead to someone like Fred Phelps being the Chancellor of the USA one day...

So yes, yes that would be a bad thing, to turn over the country to any particular religious sect, be they conservative or liberal.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you saying individuals who are religious or hold religious views should be banned from government?

Or do you believe it is possible to set aside religion while governing? I always thought that the core fundamental of being religious wasn't a set of human principles, but a relationship with God [at least when speaking of Christian religion]. Wouldn't that make it impossible for any Christian to take part in government?

 

[AngelusSax]

My point is that we can't have total control over the country by any religious movement. Would you like a Satanist to run everything?

Well fair play dictates a goose and gander principle. While religious values are ever-present, our country has many different types of Christians, let alone the non-Christians which diversify our country even more.

The reason I brought up Fred Phelps is this: In the wrong hands-even religious ones, certain groups of people would be killed. With Fred, it'd pretty much be anyone not in his immediate family. With, say, a liberal Christian who might have a killing-streak, it'd be all the non-liberal Christians, or perhaps even liberals who are non-Christians (ya never know).

Now, if certain religious sects finally start learning that commanded called "love your neighbor" instead of "kill your neighbor who disagrees with you and condemn them to hell", this dialogue may begin to turn out differently.

 

[intricatic]

My point is that we can't have total control over the country by any religious movement. Would you like a Satanist to run everything?

Well fair play dictates a goose and gander principle. While religious values are ever-present, our country has many different types of Christians, let alone the non-Christians which diversify our country even more.

The reason I brought up Fred Phelps is this: In the wrong hands-even religious ones, certain groups of people would be killed. With Fred, it'd pretty much be anyone not in his immediate family. With, say, a liberal Christian who might have a killing-streak, it'd be all the non-liberal Christians, or perhaps even liberals who are non-Christians (ya never know).

Now, if certain religious sects finally start learning that commanded called "love your neighbor" instead of "kill your neighbor who disagrees with you and condemn them to hell", this dialogue may begin to turn out differently.

When was the last time this country saw a religious movement that became that violent after gaining political power?

To be honest with you, cultural issues should remain cultural provided that they cause no harm to other people. Whenever politics invade the cultural arena, abuse occurs. Be it by secular politicians or religious ones.

Politicians are all equally corrupt, regardless of what religion they claim to be a proponent of.

 

[Polycarp1]

Well, there are a bunch of issues coming up here.

First, I doubt that anyone here, including Dale, belongs to "a church that encourages homosexual sin." Perhaps the Cathedral of Hope encourages behavior that strikes another member as sinful. But, bluntly, that is a highly judgmental way to attribute it. I notice the member in question belongs to what some people I know would describe as a Baptist "church" -- which in their opinion, having not placed itself under the authority of a bishop ordained in the apostolic succession, has no right to consider itself a church. Bottom line: personal views on morality or ecclesiology do not mandate legal action against them.

Second, about the Constitution. A. There is no provision in the Constitution regarding marriage. B. The Tenth Amendment provides that whatever authority is not delegated to the Federal government resides with the states. So it is up to them to decide what does and does not constitute a valid marriage.

By the way, I find it really offensive that some Christians believe that Rachel bore Joseph and Benjamin out of wedlock. And the assertion that God only accepts the marriage of one man and one woman means that you have just called Jacob's and Rachel's relationship not a marriage and those two patriarchs illegitimate (I think the board's software will censor out the proper technical term).

In my mind, individuals may certainly consider the covenanting of two men or of two women to each other as "not real marriages" -- but I feel that it is not their privilege to legislate that into law. It would be unfortunate if someone decided that marriages presided over by Catholic priests or Methodist ministers were invalid, on the basis of their own beliefs. Applying the Golden Rule, what people are doing here is no more than the same thing -- what X and Y believe to be a commitment to each other in marriage, "really" is not because of their own beliefs.

 

[intricatic]

Well, there are a bunch of issues coming up here.

First, I doubt that anyone here, including Dale, belongs to "a church that encourages homosexual sin." Perhaps the Cathedral of Hope encourages behavior that strikes another member as sinful. But, bluntly, that is a highly judgmental way to attribute it. I notice the member in question belongs to what some people I know would describe as a Baptist "church" -- which in their opinion, having not placed itself under the authority of a bishop ordained in the apostolic succession, has no right to consider itself a church. Bottom line: personal views on morality or ecclesiology do not mandate legal action against them.

Second, about the Constitution. A. There is no provision in the Constitution regarding marriage. B. The Tenth Amendment provides that whatever authority is not delegated to the Federal government resides with the states. So it is up to them to decide what does and does not constitute a valid marriage.

By the way, I find it really offensive that some Christians believe that Rachel bore Joseph and Benjamin out of wedlock. And the assertion that God only accepts the marriage of one man and one woman means that you have just called Jacob's and Rachel's relationship not a marriage and those two patriarchs illegitimate (I think the board's software will censor out the proper technical term).

In my mind, individuals may certainly consider the covenanting of two men or of two women to each other as "not real marriages" -- but I feel that it is not their privilege to legislate that into law. It would be unfortunate if someone decided that marriages presided over by Catholic priests or Methodist ministers were invalid, on the basis of their own beliefs. Applying the Golden Rule, what people are doing here is no more than the same thing -- what X and Y believe to be a commitment to each other in marriage, "really" is not because of their own beliefs.

It's not our privilege to legislate any form of marriage into law. It's a cultural institute, not a political tool.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

By having marriage in the public spotlight to begin with, we might as well use the constitution and all of those famous documents as toilet paper. It's a cultural and religious institute that was perverted into a government institute many years ago. Besides, do you really think politicians these days give any concern whatsoever to what's best for people?

The only way to remedy this absurdity of religious tinkering is to remove marriage from government sponsorship.

On an interesting note, Joseph and Mary would not have been married in the eyes of the Roman government. Government recognition was originally reserved those whose marriages involved large transfers of property.

 

[Torah613]

You say that like it would be bad thing!

perhaps that's because I remember what it was like to have a southern baptist minister as a father. just kidding.

Or perhaps it's just because I like the freedom to attend an Orthodox Church, an Episcopal Church, or an entirely different church if I so choose. How long would such freedoms last in such a theocracy? IMHO the cruel and unusual punishment laws would last longer, and that's saying something.

Joe Zollars

 

[Torah613]

By having marriage in the public spotlight to begin with, we might as well use the constitution and all of those famous documents as toilet paper. It's a cultural and religious institute that was perverted into a government institute many years ago. Besides, do you really think politicians these days give any concern whatsoever to what's best for people?

The only way to remedy this absurdity of religious tinkering is to remove marriage from government sponsorship.

I just have to give you reps for hitting the nail on the head. Personally I believe the best way to solve the problem is to give civil unions to everyone regardless of orientation and leave the word marriage to the religious establishments where it belongs, who rightfully should have more of a say in who marries who in their religious institution.

Joe Zollars