A Serious WAY Off Topic Question

The "marriage penalty" primarily comes into play if BOTH spouses work.

When you add 2 incomes together you usually end up in a higher tax bracket.

Chas

A Q13 news report this evening interviewed a female couple about thier thoughts on GWB's call for a constititional ammendment that would ban same sex amrriage.

One had just returned from fighing in Iraq and they wanted to tie the knot after 9 years together. They were able to be 'registered' but not to have a real wedding.

Thier only issue was that they felt that marriage is what builds that next level of 'family' resposnibility that has built communities all over America.

So perhaps in the US, instead of being for tax or benefits maybe it is more of a 'being part of the community' feeling. Maybe it gives them a sense of belonging and acceptance as the type of contributing family that has helped build America.

This is just one opinion from one couple in Seattle but it is another viewpoint to consider.

Actually the correct spelling is "bugger." It is a verb which has a dual meaning. It can mean a human having sexual intercourse with an animal (also referred to as "bestiality") and can also mean a human practising sodomy (back passage) with another human. The term can apply to a male having anal intercourse with a female, but is also the method which homosexual men use to simulate heterosexual intercourse, by using the anus as a substitute for the female vagina.

The word "sodomy" has obviously been derived from the Biblical account of immorality practised in the town of Sodom.

I have no idea why John spelt the term incorrectly, or why he didn't use the more specific term "sodomised."

As OzMedia also said, you may email me for more details of homosexual practices. After Guru's "penis" discussion was deleted by TechRepublic, one now has to be careful not to be too specific when talking about sexual matters.

I doubt that anyone is unaware that a significant proportion of our culture has been introduced by gay men and women. For example, a friend who was a ballet dancer assured me that many male ballet dancers were gay. [Actually the term used was "most," but as this is a generalisation, I chose to take the safer path and say "many.]

I have found that there are two things which most gays focus on: the dramatic arts, and sex. Now whether inborn or chosen, these people have contributed dramatically in all areas of the creative arts.

But would homophobes be willing to delete from our culture all input from gays? I think not, because they would find a gaping hole in most cultural areas.

On this basis, I consider homophobes to be hypocritical because on the one hand they condemn gays for their "unnatural practices," while at the same time enjoying those parts of our culture which have been introduced by gays.

I have another theory about homophobes. I believe that every human has at least a small part of the charactistics of the opposite gender in their psyche. So I postulate that some homophobes are actually aware that they themselves are somtimes sexually attracted to persons of the same sex, but as this creates a conflict in their conscience, they project these uncomfortable and inconvenient feelings and indulge in gay-bashing.

I'm not saying they choose to be gay. I also didn't stipulate their gender!!!

But by being gay (on which they have perhaps no choice), that still leaves other 'lifestyle' choices open to them.

I will cite one example. One of my friends is and (to the best of my knowledge) always has been 'gay'. He was sexually 'active' at the same age as many of us (late teens) and went out with girls like any other (straight) guy. This didn't seem to work for him so he went 'the other route', found it was much more to his liking, and found his 'place' in life. He had two very serious long-term partnerships, and then in his late twenties, decided that he had a calling to be a priest. Being 'gay' didn't stop him becoming a priest. Being sexually active DID. He had to make the choice. He couldn't alter his 'being' but he COULD make changes to his lifestyle. By renouncing his sexual activity, he was able to choose the path he wanted. He is no longer sexually active, that is to say he is celibate, but that doesn't stop him being 'gay'. This is no different from heterosexual males in the Catholic tradition. Straight or gay, it makes no difference. There is a choice.

On the other hand, someones 'tendencies' or 'predilections' may outright exclude them from certain options. I for one had two or three teachers at school who were 'gay'. Not openly so, and their private life was their own, the same as any other heterosexual teacher. Had they have been 'public', or outspoken or even pro-active about their sexuality, their position within the school may have been untenable. For them to follow their chosen career, they had to make certain choices. This of course was twenty years or so ago. Today, with 'outing' of homosexuals and the furore over child abuse and public naming of sex offenders, I doubt they would even get a job in teaching.

Homosexuals have to accept certain facts. Today's society is more tolerant than it was a hundred years ago, but it (I hope) will never become a 'free-for-all' where 'anything goes'. In Britain 200 years ago, homosexuality was a criminal offence with stiff custodial sentences. A hundred years ago it was treated as a medical condition...50 years ago, it was frowned upon, but it wasn't a crime. Ten years ago they lowered the age of consent from 21 to 18. The joke does continue..."I'm leaving the country before they make it compulsory!" , but joking apart, there are certain points where pandering to minorities has GOT TO STOP, and I really believe this is one of them!

.
Why is it that the label, "homophobe", is thrown around with so much frequency? Exactly who is it intended to label? Is it intended to insult and/or demean, or be an accurate description of certain people? Does it describe people who "judge" or people who simply "disagree", or perhaps both? Does it really help the "cause", or does it only serve to alienate?

Whether being gay in inborn or a choice, and we could both cite some reliable sources to support either argument, the end result is that being gay defines one's behavior versus one's physical traits such as race or gender. Therein lies a significant difference between discrimination based on race and simply disapproving of the gay lifestyle. You might say that you know people who were born gay, while I, on the other hand, could definitely say that I know people who made the choice to no longer be gay. So is it definitely one or the other, or perhaps it is a combination of both? If it's both, how can a normal, run-of-the-mill "homophobe" tell the difference, or does it matter?

On the particular subject of same-sex marriage, we all hear from those advocates who want (or demand) such recognition. But how often do we hear from that portion of the gay population who doesn't care about it or doesn't want it? And be assured, they do exist, and it's not a small number. I know a person who claims to be gay, he lives the gay lifestyle, but he wants nothing to do with "marriage" or the same-sex marriage movement. In fact, he resents it. Is he also a "homophobe"? If not, why not?

Whether being gay in inborn or a choice, it's a behavioral trait. When we start legislating based on one's behavior, where is it to stop, and who is to decide which behavioral traits are inborn or a choice? Which behavioral traits are acceptable? Which behavioral traits are conducive to maintaining an ordered society? Which are not?

I find it interesting that none of the same-sex marriage advocates answered my questions about the legal legitimacy of banning polygamy or bigamy. Is that behavioral characteristic inborn or a choice? Who's to know for sure, and who gets to decide? And why isn't that behavior comparable to the gay lifestyle behavior?

But I guess this is just a bunch of nonsense from your regular run-of-the-mill "homophobe". (That last comment was sarcasm, by the way, for those who may not have recognized it.)

...how it must have been far back. When Society was not evolved as the modern ones, when people belonged to clans, tribes or anyother name. I am sure they had indigenous belief systems, having whatever 'Gods'. Somehow, I fail to see 'marriage' as a holy matrimony. I feel it would have started more because of social circumstances than any fear of the trees, fire, lightining, rain, sun, moon or plethora of Gods.

For a while, it must have been 'Free for all' or variations of it. Ofcourse these unions were usually between a Man and a Woman. As society evolved it took religious intonations....

At www.jonahweb.org there is an essay by Rabbi Joel Beasley assuming that everyone should get married, as this is God's command, regardless of the sexual orientation of the eroticism.

Some Catholics think that a sexual invert cannot legitimately marry because the condition makes the total dedication required of spouses impossible, so that if one can prove that one - or one's putative spouse - was sexually inverted at the time of the wedding the marriage should be annulled. I do not know whether the church courts have ever addressed this theory.

.
1. To prevent the State (U.S.) from having a nationally endorsed/dictated religion, avoiding a Church of England scenario.

2. To prevent a religious "litmus test" for those seeking public office.

3. To prevent any form of religious persecution/prosecution for those who wish to worship (or not) in their own way.

Comment/Question to John:

About Protestantism being taught in schools. Correct me if I'm wrong, but government run schools, a.k.a. the public school system, didn't really come about until the early 20th century. Of course, it was probably more prevalent in the larger cities in the beginning, but most of America was considered rural. Didn't local communities pretty much determine the school curriculum and provide all funding? The first "board of education" was probably more similar to today's PTA meetings. The parents and community leaders themselves decided those kinds of things - kinda' like a collective private school fully governed and funded by those very parents and local communities. When did the government, either State or Federal, really get involved in dictating the whats and hows?

.
I answered my own question (and some misconceptions). An interesting link:

http://www.arc.org/erase/timeline.html

http://tinyurl.com/2pvoa

When I have to drive through a "protest" of that nature, I don't stop. You can either jump your heiny out of my way or I will run you over. And if I get out to see if you put a dent in my car, you best hope I REALLY hurt you badly. Otherwise, I'm gonna finish the job with my fist for making me dent my car...

Actually, lemme clarify, by "protest" of that nature, I mean it could be a protest for any cause, but trying to ruin my day because you suck - that's what I'm talking about.

Remember, that's why god invented tazers. To drop stupid people like that on the drop of a hat. They'll clear the path quickly ;p

Mrafrohead

The medicaly probably had nothing to do with the decision ;p

I also think that ALL should be entitled to medicaly regardless of their ability to pay for it.

But I have recently learned that contradictory of what I was told as I was raised. Doctors are NOT in it to help people, they're their to make a buck. Therefore if you don't have a buck, you are out of luck.

But this would be another thread...

Mrafrohead

Thanks for the explanation.

Had it been described as sodomy instead of buggaring, I would have understood. I just never heard buggaring before...

Although after hearing John's answer as to the choice of word, I understand that too.

So, again, thank you for the explanation.

Mrafrohead

I once knew a young woman who had suffered serious injuries in a motor accident. She was confined to a wheel chair; her face was distorted, and it was VERY DIFFICULT to understand her speech. Yet inside that crippled and distorted body was a very sharp mind.

On the back of her wheelchair was the following notice: "I know what my problem is: what's yours?"

Doctors are in it for money. Moreso, pharmaceutical companies are showing of the greatest revenues in US business. The medical industry and medical/enhancement products are an immense source of revenue and one of the largest industries there, thus all the medical enhancement SPAM that originated in the USA.

Many people mock the Canadian "socialist" medical scene, but the higher taxes (not just due to medical) are absorbed by higher wages. Medical coverage is cheap, not fre in most cases. although employers used to ALL cover medical, changes to the plan costs reduce the number of employers including medical coverage, although we do get extended medical, life insurance and dental from our employers now.

If your employer DOESN'T cover medical, the premium is about $35.00 mo. If you are a low income earner(less than $30,000) or unempoyed, your medical is subsidized by the government and costs about $20 or less per month. If you are on welfare, Unemployment Insurance or Pension of some form medical is covered automatically by the government.

Now this may sound unfair, I work and pay full premiums of $34 and change every month. My neighbour may be on welfare and get it free, this doesn't bother me in the least. It's medical, I can afford it he/she can't so what, fix em up we all deserve to be healthy.

So looking at the scene there and trhe scene here, there are no real advantages to either, there I have a private insurance provider and depending on the coverage/premium I choose, medical is covered.

Here, the government is the insurer, however not in a monopolistic fashion as it is still affordable and covers everything.

6 of one half dozen of another.

.
In my previous message, I speculated (not concluded) about whether being gay is inborn or a choice. I could certainly find reliable sources to suggest it's inborn, and there's some good argument to support it. But I could also find some resources that suggest it's a choice. I'm not going to debate that issue with anyone, and I'll further admit that, since it's impossible to get into someone else's mind, I don't know for sure. (Nor do I really care.) The bottom line, however, is that it's either a behavioral trait or a behavioral choice - or both, depending on who you're talking about. Do you think that even one person in the history of mankind made the choice to prefer a sexual partner of the same sex? It would be silly to think otherwise.

------------------------------

Dear Abby,

I have been engaged for two years and I have been planning the wedding the whole time. This weekend, my partner told me that he used to be gay.........

------------------------------

This kind of thing happens all the time. So who's to say when it's inborn and when it's a choice?

Why are some people literally drawn to, and seemingly addicted to pornography, while others aren't?

Why are some people drawn to both genders, while others are not?

And a question that the same-sex marriage advocates (at least the ones who've posted in these threads) don't to want to answer, if we allow same-sex marriages for two people, why should we not also allow bigamy, polygamy, or even communal marriages. (There's a word for a communal marriage, but it escapes me at the moment.) The reason no one will answer the question is because their answer will reinforce the position of those who oppose same-sex marriages. Oh well, I guess, "they're too stuck in their shells of what they think is right and they aren't willing to look at anything out of their world as being acceptable because it may inconvenience them".

now i know that as the messenger, I will probably be flamed for Anti-American sentiment but that's not my aim here at all.

When you say
"This world is so f****ed up by being very discriminatory. If you don't fit the norm, then there is something wrong with you and we don't want you here... But we are ALL the same!!!!!!! There is no difference, yet most people are too ignorant to see it. They're too stuck in their shells of what they think is right and they aren't willing to look at anything out of their world as being acceptable because it may inconvenience them."

I could not agree more and I see how you've come to this decision based on your experiences you described. But again, without ANY predjudice whatsoever, I see this too, except I see it as being rampant in the USA. It is here in Canada, not too much though as the attitude is generally frowned upon and people are more laid back by nature.

One of the biggest things I notice when in England, it doesn't matter who you are, where you came from, what you look like, whaty music you listen to, what clothes you wear etc. If you walk into a pub, someone will walk over, introduce him/herself and offer to buy you a pint.

You could have massive legions on your face and someone will STILL buy you a pint, maybe to find out what's wrong but not with predjudice in mind.

I also see this same descrimination as a cause for much of the violence in schools, why there is descrimination when seeking work or anything else.

Now this could reflect an earlier comment by maecuff that people are great as individuals but a*holes in groups. Is it due to the massive Us population? Is it a comfort zone issue? Is it a lack of social education? I really don't know and don't think it is really relevant but I do see your point and am sorry to say, I see more of it in the US than anywhere else. I'm not saying it is because your country is bad, I really don't know why, it's just an observation.

Well you r post made some sense until your assumtions regarding those that are "Same Sex marriage advocates" drained your credibillity.

You are a man of fact, not assumption and your assumption was quite wrong.

I did actually address the issue myself a few posts back or forwards, I foget.

Same sex marriage is NOT catering to a minority, perhaps in your kneck of the woods it is, perhaps by allowing sae sex marriage you would find MANY more come out of the closet due to thier choices being recognized and accepted, I think there are probably a LOT more gay people around you than you think. How many of your close army buddies are/were gay or How many men are wrongly married to women that would be happier with a man, you don't have to answer, there isn't one.

So first,

"I have been engaged for two years and I have been planning the wedding the whole time. This weekend, my partner told me that he used to be gay........."
This doesn't mean the person CHOSE to be straight or gay at all. This person may have felt closer to men, had more intimate relations with men and was accepted by men more than women all his life. It would then be quite natural to seek a male partner. In our young lives we don't seek marriage, we seek qualified companionship.

Later in life, this person then gound that men didn't all offer what he wanted, he found a new sense of intiomacy in being with a women, perhaps on a perspective of marriage and having a life partner or someone to procreate with.

This doesn't mean the person CHOSE to be gay and then CHOSE not to, just that the person felt diferently as he matured. Much like someone you love in High School but later learn that you have grown apart and need different things to satisfy yourself or stimulate yourself, you don't CHOOSE it, it just happens.

Why are somepeople drawn to both genders and others not, well I have had a bisexual girlfriend who worked with me at a former company, she wanted me to give her the sense of protection and strength in a masculine lover, she turned to a girlfriend for a different form of intimacy that a man can't provide. (No her friend wasn't bisexual too, this isn't Penthouse forum)

So it is easy to see that we get a different set of feelings depending on what we need to fulfill our lives and feel comfortable as humans. Some of these feelings make us need a man, some a woman. It's almost like how most guys NEED male friends for fishing, football games, golf etc. What if you needed more than that from your male friends though? What if something else was lacking that makes men more attractive to you than women? It isn't ALWAYS about sex, just like marriage.

Now, to show that I am not stuck in my shell and avoiding the 'gomy' theory.

SOME gomy's have been proven to lead to deformity, sickness, retardation etc. (we've all seen Jerry Springer and his inbred Jed club).

Others are just not welcomed in society, as in multiple partner marriages. Well these are few and far between, unlike the gay population that is in every state, every country and has millions if not billions of like minded opinions. To say that other 'gomy's' equal these numbers or even come close would be VERY hard to believe unless specific stats were available, not assumed.

Homosexuality is not seen as a minority anymore. at one time it was and probably was due to so many repressed gay people who simply wouldn't admit it. In the early 80's a drug survey in Vancouver schools, showed only 24% of grade ten students had tried smoking pot. The same study a few months ago showed over 56% of grade 10 students have or do smoke pot (the other 44% grow pot:-). I don't think MORE people smoke pot now than in the 80's, in fact I would say the number has dropped drastically. I remember when EVERYONE in school either smoked dope, dropped acid, was into ludes etc. It seems they are more focused on study once again, rightly so, yet the stats show otherwise. I think this is due to people not admitting it before.

So, do you really consider the gay population to be a small minority, as you've implied or is it a massive a growing percentage of the world's population. I think the latter and that's exactly WHY we should allow same sex marriages but NOT the 'gomy's'

Outwardly anyhow, the average American holds onto a "Victorian" view of sexuality.
That is why in the US sexual freedom is far behind Western Europe.

In most communities, a nudist resort would be fought against just as avidly as people are fighting against gay marriage.

Basically, if a persons expression of their sexuality is freer than that of the community, the community rebels against the individual.

The problem that many people have with so called activist judges is that the judges are called upon to interpret the law, not the morality of the action.
People in America confuse Democracy with majority rule.

There are many things that are allowed in todays society that I disagree with on moral and religious grounds. However, in a free society, so long as these actions are not forced upon me, I have no legal right to prevent others from partaking in them. At least where the actions take place between consenting adults.

I wonder if society stopped making such a fuss over gay people if the movie and TV industries would start to ignore gays too?

Yes, there will be some costs to society if we fully recognize gay unions. However, the cost to society of the status quo and of a full ban of gay unions will likely be much greater over time.

Think about all the time and energy that will be consumed at the Federal and State levels debating and voting on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Surly there are any number of more pressing issues that our elected leaders need to work on.

Chas

Just so ya know Maxwell, I did answer the question somewhere in here, but I don't recall where, and I can't seem to find it right now...

Maybe I'm stuck in cross post, I'm not sure. But I'll post it really quick again, in a short short version.

I don't see anything wrong with it, if all parties involved are conscenting adults.

After all, who are we to judge for someone else's activities.

Mrafrohead

Turns out it was right under my nose, literally...

If you read "quick responses" that turned out to be not so quick, that's my post on Polygamy...

Just below this one.

And from reading another post regarding *gamy and birth defects and stuff, I want to make it VERY clear that I am not condoning incest. I am just saying that I don't see the problem with conscenting adults doing whatever it is that they want to do.

Mrafrohead

.
I'm also saying that they can do anything they want. I'm not passing moral judgement. But what I am suggesting is in the context of same sex marriage. If you condone same sex marriage for the reasons you stated, can we assume that you're also condoning bigamy or polygamy for the same reasons?

There are no more or less gays than there were 50, 100 or 200 years ago.

I say that, but I will qualify it:

Homosexuality is now 'acceptable', so more gays are 'coming out of the closet' and declaring their sexuality openly, so it just SEEMS like there are more around. The percentage of the population who are gay, lesbian or bisexual is actually prety much the same.

.
Mary Cheney is not the public figure; her father is.

Remember the lengths the Clintons took, and rightfully so, to protect their daughter, Chelsea, from being a media target? How many "lefties" who were on the "protect Chelsea" bandwagon are now advocates of hounding Mary Cheney? What hypocrites. If a family member wants to be in the public eye, such as Eleanor Roosevelt, Hillary Clinton, Maureen Reagan, and others, that's one thing; then they might be open game. But if a family member wants to keep his or her privacy, then it should be respected.

If one's sexuality doesn't matter, as the gay activists like to claim, why do they want to make it matter? I guess the fact that she doesn't march in gay rights parades and openly protest against the "evil" party, makes her a target. She doesn't want to talk about her SEX LIFE, for God's sake - just like most people.

I still say leave her alone. She didn't run for office; her father did.

Oh I agree 110% Guru. There have ALWAYS been gay people since the dawn of time, it's not something new or learned.

I also concur that even though there SEEMS to me more gay people now, the numbers are probably the same, they may increase slightly as those who have been taught to repress such feelngs are now free to explore thier sexuality but I feel all in all, it's just a matter of more people coming out and being accepted.

As for marriage, I agree, marriage is a sacred and religious union, yet our governments have adopted this religious definition to decide who is eligible for marital benefits and who isn't. So asking to change such a law cannot be seen as asking to change religion, no one is trying to change the bible here, just what the government declares is marriage. If that offends religions, then they should have kept religion out of the government to begin with and this wouldn't be an issue. People would be fighting for "co-existence" or "life partner" rights instead.

The homosexual community didn't make up the terms or the rules, the governments decided to do that and now they must be changed.

This entire issue seems to be focused on the fact that Marriage is defined in the bible as a union between a man and a woman. This is fine and completely acceptable, nobody is trying to change or alter religion here.

The problem I see is that the governments have deided to adopt a religious term to define two people sharing life together also. Now in order for the government to act fairly, they are forced to redefine marriage. So the governments have brought this 'blasphemy' upon themselves.

Had they NOT incorporated a specific religion to define the coexistence or permanent coupling between two people, there would be no issue as the churches wouldn't have anythig to defend.

Maxwell, you seem somewhat miffed tht they are trying to redefine a religious term, which I agree with completely, leave people's religion out of it. This is not the fault of the gay community though, it is the government's decision to adopt religious terminoligy.

Leave religion OUT of the government, unless you want to include ALL religions that reflect all the people in a given country.

Now the issue is resolved, it is NOT an issue and simply a fight for one's rights against the government, not the church.

I know, or have known, many homosexuals of both genders. They have all been adamant that this predilection was inborn.

I have NEVER met a gay person who either chose, or was successfully inverted to heterosexual through counselling.

I say: accept them; love them; and show compassion for the discrimination they have had to suffer from narrow-minded straight people.

.
Again, your incorrect choice of words surprises me. (Or maybe it shouldn't.)

Paranoid? Not at all. As a master of language, you should know the meaning of the word and recognize its misuse. (Of course, you misuse words all the time, intentionally, I suspect.)

Moreover, out of all the messages, thus far, in this thread, I'm the only one who fits the criteria of your premise - I suggested it may be a choice in some cases, and I want to see GWB reelected. Therefore, one could certainly surmise one of two things. Either you directed the message at me or it's understandable why I may have made such an assumption.

Your "tongue-in-cheek" excuses are growing old. Your message appeared to be a mean-spirited attempt to either coerce an unwilling party (Mary Cheney) to support your political agenda or drive a wedge between a father and his daughter. After all, the link you provided in the very title of your message is intended to do just that. Gay activists John Aravosis and Robin Tyler launched the Web site DearMary.com in their attempt to convince Mary Cheney to stand up to her father and publicly oppose the amendment. (And she doesn't want to.) This Web site is yet another example of the mean-spirited left and their bully tactics, and it targets an American who doesn't want to perpetuate the "gay activist" typecast. (By the way, I'm very familiar with Mary Cheney, as she resides in my home state.)

And I haven't flamed anything or anyone. On the contrary, it is you who has been throwing around labels and name-calling, on more than one occasion, I might add. I haven't done any such thing.

So the shame, my friend, is all yours.

there is a very useful way to know when a discussion has run its course; when the topic has been thouroughly discussed other items come in, such as sarcasm/etc.
most discussions that i participate in do not allow sarcasm , which invites flames and then gets disrespecful, to be posted.

REMEMBER: for every freedom there is a responsibility attached; i have taught this to my children, who are now 38 and 32 yrs old. you have the freedom to express your opinion; you have the responsibility to express it in a manner that keeps to the discussion rules and respects others.

we are all entitled to our views and opinions because it educates us all on a given subject but we are not entiled to go beyond a respectful explanation and enter into sarcasm/filth/etc. this is less than expected from intelligent adults who wish to learn about a given issue and discuss it rarther freely on this, or any, forum.

Just wanted to put my fish in the bucket:

Marriage: A Holy institution from God. Established for the expansion of the human race, the stable upbringing of children, and the display of love, authority, and discipline taught by God. Requirements - 1 Man, 1 Woman, 1 lifetime.

Sodom & Gomorrah: Two cities known for their "lifestyles". Two cities completely erradicated (sp) from the face of the earth. Two cities recently excavated. Two cities destroyed for "...turning from what is natural to that which is unnatural..." and "...men seeking men...". Two cities judged by God for their "lifestyles" and destroyed. Another proof of the Bible and its accuracy.

Gay marriage: NO. Because of the sacredness of marriage and God's plan and foundation of it, only when His guidlines are followed (man and woman) can the priveledges, rights, and responsibilities of marriage be bestowed.

I never implied that Christianity was wrong in calling marriage an institution between a man and a woman.

What I have said is that the government is wrong to choose a religious term to define government benefits or acceptance of a uniion between two "individuals" by callnig it marriage.

Religion is fine, it just shouldn't be used to define a government regulation. If it should, then who's religion do they cater to and why?

Now I know that the USA was built on religion, just watch Gods and Generals to see that first hand.

In a modern society filled with many cultures and religions from around the globe, how can you still define a government term by a single religious viewpoint?

The gay 'marriage' stand would have been the gay 'life partner stand' (or something more sensible)without a singled out religion being involved in politics. If this was the case, would you still have such thoughts about how MARRIAGE is defined, NO, it wouldn't be an issue.

Then it would be a case of Christians campaigning to get the Government to adopt the Christian term 'marriage' included as a definition of a 'life partner', which would quickly be turned down as it would show religious preference and descrimination.

What was done a hundred years ago cannot be brought up to date and still stands true today, yet if it wasn't a term used so long ago there's no way we would allow such a change in modern times. So religion snuck it's way in to the constitution and cannot be changed to adhere to modern times. Very clever.

"Gay people are excepted by Christians. What is not excepted the choice of lifestyle condemned by God."

So to dissect this, Christians are followers and believers of God and God's will and ways.
God condemns the gay lifestyle.
Yet you say gay people are accepted by Christians? How so, that wouldn't be following the will of God if he comdemns the gay lifestyle.

What are they supposed to BE gay but act heterosexual? I don't see your point ere at all.

Perhaps you could rephrase that if you are intending to say something different.

...homosexuality? Say, for that religion, believing in whatever Gods, do not mind men-men, then what?

Did Adam and Eve get married?

Why do you see the world just through the glasses called Christianity?

So you are one of those people who can put thoughts into intelligent rebuttals.

I was just so flabbergasted at the whole concept he tried to imply that I was at a loss for words.

Thank you sir,
OM

"For the sake of arguement I want you to respond how you would feel if you were being discriminated on. Let's say the moral majority rule or deem Christianity unworthy of equal rights, that it is a chosen lifestyle, small and insignificant. Now, you and your group go everyday to work contributing to society, remaining lawful, spending your hard earned money stimulating the economy but because your apart of this group you cannot have equal rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution and hated for who you are. Would you protest and lobby to get a fair shake?"

This is and has been the case in many regions of the world. Not only have Christians been "discrimanted" against, they have been executed, tortured, arrested, fired, etc.

This issue is not a right, but a privelege. Tax breaks are a privelege, inheretance is a privilege, co-ownership is a privelege.

Let's look at the common quote:

"...inalienable rights ... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

Life: That no one may end the life of another (excluding justice).
Liberty: To be able to choose your path for your life.
Pursuit of Happiness: The opportunity to chase after your dreams.

All of these are satisfied. I do not support the execution of homosexuals. I do not force the homesexual to choose a certain path in life. I do not prevent the homosexual from attempting to attain that for which they strive.

"The Constitution was written to protect all people of America including visitors that no group could be discriminated on regardless of their size or influence. This is what our fore fathers fight and gave their life for and people like you only want to use it for your own ends, not for the right reasons. This is what makes America great not how well we fight or our success, but a fair law that has no equal. You go through life with your blinders on like a plow horse never making an investment in determining right from wrong, only following others."

Interesting, somewhere along the line I must have struck a personal note with you. I have never attacked, belittled, or ridiculed a gay individual or specificly, you.

Protection, why not protect the sanctity of marriage?

To my own ends?

What made America great was its ethical foundation which has been steadily eroded.

"You go through life with your blinders on like a plow horse never making an investment in determining right from wrong, only following others. BTW its mighty Christian of you to turn your back and discriminate against others..."

I hardly see how having a moral standard qualifies as blinders; and no, I do not try to determine right from wrong as no finite human being is capable of doing so. Rather, I defer to the One which established all things.

Discriminatory, hardly.

BTW its mighty .... Another quote of yours, not mine.

"tell ya what why dont you crack open that book you follow so much and reread do onto others, good Samaritan, and many of the other great moral stories it contains and then ask your self what would Jesus do if he saw this happening? Would he just keep walking or would he attempt to talk sense to people hating eachother because of differences? He sure didnt do it in the past now did he? Have fun with your ego"

Do unto others: Yes, that is exactly what I am doing. I would not want someone rewarding me for choosing wrongly.

Good Samaritan: Actually, doesn't apply to this line of discussion; but, I would help any homosexual person I found in need, and have.

Christ did not come to settle "differences", He came to show The Way, The Truth, The Life - Himself. When He met the Samaritan woman at the well, he pointed out her faults first, then showed that he was the healer of those faults.

Again, if you have read my posts you would understand that there is no animosity toward any homosexual. That is something you have added.

Homosexuality is wrong - God says so.
Marriage is a bond(contract, covenant) between man, woman, & God - God says so.

I do not expect this to be understood by all as "...the things of Christ are foolishness to those who do not believe...". As a Christian, I am called to love every human being as they are "...created in the image of God...". It is also because of love that one shows another errors in their ways. When a child chooses drugs, the parent's love drives them to discipline the child. In your reference to the love, the parent would simply accept this behavior and shrug.

Heterosexual marriage and homosexual pairs are not equal.

So, by everything I am reading:

If a person where to stand next to a stove and say, "I am going to grab this three hundred degree burner.", I am to simply "accept" this and allow this person to make a wrong decision.

Sorry, it is because of my love for this person that I will do all I can to prevent them from doing so. They will inevitably despise me for restraining them from their choice to burn themselves, but I cannot allow them to make such a wrong choice.

I did not make the rules that burn ones flesh, I simply adhere to them; and because of my love and desire for the well being of those around me, I choose to interfere.

"as far as religion being irrefutable, have you NEVER spoken to anyone outside your church?"

I have never stated that religion is irrefutable. Truth, and Jesus Christ are what I stated.

"There is NO proof of Christ's existence, No proof of God's existence, No proof of Adam and Eve, Noah,"

Depends on your requiremnts of proof. Christ's grave, on every tour; His birthplace, well marked. Noah's ark was found; chariots at the bottom of the red sea, yup.

There has been plenty of discoverys supporting the Bible.

As Sherlock Holmes once said:
"If you remove what cannot be true, whatever is left, however improbable, is true." :D

"Christ's grave, on every tour; His birthplace, well marked. Noah's ark was found; chariots at the bottom of the red sea, yup.'

is it proven that Jesus Christ was in the grave? NO. Someone was, it is ASSUMED it was Jesus Christ the son of God, and that he was not just a dude, but not proven a Christ's existence is not proven.
Dinosaurs YES, we call them dinosaurs but they may have been something else in thier time, there is no question that massive animals once roamed the Earth, there is no question that SOMEONE was buried in what is assumed to be Christ's grave, those that believe it make it true, not those that don't.

"There has been plenty of discoverys supporting the Bible."

No there hasn't, there have been many discoveries that prove people existed, that chariots were built that a large ark LIKE vessel was built but not of God or many of the bibles stories, which I admit are very well written stories for thier time but not compelling enough for me to believe as the truth.

So looking at your statement again;

"Depends on your requiremnts of proof. Christ's grave, on every tour; His birthplace, well marked. Noah's ark was found; chariots at the bottom of the red sea, yup."

That's NOT proof, if you were a judge too many innocent people would be confined due to heresay and assumtion based on circumstantial evidence.

Fortunately, some of us do not base our lives on such theories but follow only proven fact.

Yes, chariots are a fact of history, large arks or massive boats (not unlike modern day ferries for moving masses of people) and A grave has been found. How do you then arrive on the fact that this has anything to do with the bible as opposed to the more realistic FACT that they were common to the day and age?

As I've said, I don't want to dent your religion or faith, everyone needs and most people have faith, yet not always in the same belief as you do. Are you implying that those with alternate faith are wrong? If so, why?

I would prefer something a little more solid than "the book says...." How about some real fact and proof as opposed to speculation based on the tome you follow.

How can you equate letting giving someone "freedom of expression" with letting someone burn themselves on a 300 degree stove?!?

I won't even address the rest, there's no logic to it.

"Life: That no one may end the life of another (excluding justice)." It wouldn't make sense withuot the exception would it. Hmmm, perhaps there's something wrong with the death penalty?

"All of these are satisfied. I do not support the execution of homosexuals. I do not force the homesexual to choose a certain path in life. I do not prevent the homosexual from attempting to attain that for which they strive."

You just don't support a homosexual BEING a homosexual though.

"Protection, why not protect the sanctity of marriage?"

Again you are referring to marriage in a biblical sense. "Marriage" is a word used by the government to describe who gains the benefits and who deosn't. At the time the laws were introduced, being gay was not an issue, those that were gay kept it nuder wraps, many of them entering a heterosexual marriage against their personal feelnigs just to SEEM normal. Now all they are doing is asking the government to recognize them and give them the same credit as a family in a society that will contribute to building a better America. This can't be done though, because in order for this to happen one of two things need to be done.
a) Change the wording used to associate a couple with the benefits they will receive,thus dropping the term marriage for something more socially acceptable by people and the church.
b) Consider marriage an bond between two people, not neccessarily a man and a woman.

Either of these solutions will piss of the church though. Now you may feel that Christianity belongs as a guideline for the law. This is truly descrimitaing against non-Christian's and making 'fair law' impossible.

So as I said many posts ago, the government made a major mistake by chosing to use a religious term to define what they see as a contributing COUPLE in society. There are no guidelines whatsoever in law that say these benefits must be only given to a man and a woman who are married in a Christian church, that would be descrimination. The government uses the word 'MARRIAGE' to define a couple that has vowed to share and contribute to society.

Like I said, in order to change this, either the church sways and accepts gay marriage and the term stays or the government drops the term 'marriage' and defines it with a more acceptable term for modern times, in which case the church will literally raise hell as the religious term is no longer a government term.

So this whole mess IMHO, is due to the church's terms and definitions of marriage being used by the government for some 100 + years and it needs to be revised.

"Depends on your requiremnts of proof. Christ's grave, on every tour; His birthplace, well marked. Noah's ark was found; chariots at the bottom of the red sea, yup."

Actually, the comment on the Ark being found is incorrect. They don't know if they have found it or not. They aren't sure. It's ironic that this point be made as it was two weekends ago that I was watching a show on Noah's Ark. And I have read a little more into it since then. They "think" that it may be in the mountains, but have yet to find proof of it other than some shadows that kinda look like the hull of a boat.

And just to be "hypothetical" who's to say those chariots didn't get to the bottom of the sea from a sunken boat?

Mrafrohead

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a007.html

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/sodom.html

http://www.wyattarchaeology.com/sodom.htm

"If you remove the "religion" as you say, marriage ceases to exist."

So you're telling me that my marriage is a hoax because it's not been "condoned" by your god?

I would have to STRONGLY disagree with you.

If you really want to have a "religious" experience, take yourself out into the middle of the woods with nothing but some water and some "mushrooms". From there, take your shrooms and follow yourself. You'll learn more about yourself and life and "everything" than that book will show you. You may even come to the understanding that everything in that book isn't real.

On a side note, where you spoke of the ark, and chariots and the like. There is proof that we were derived from aliens. And that people were "created" as a slave race to mine elements for these aliens, and on top of that were left here to die off. I read a book about this and the book was written in the 70's. It wasn't six months ago, that they found the OLDEST person known to exist. Guess where they found that person, where the book described the mines. Swish that around for a few minutes and see what you think of it.

That time line is far beyond when your god walked teh earth.

So since there's proof of this theory are you going to believe in it too??? It holds just as much weight as your book you refer to.

Mrafrohead

I hope that was a sarcastic post...

Personally, this jacked up planet we're on, may as well be hell... So I guess that means that we're all doomed to come back to this rock again huh???

@oz - lickalotapuss and the other. I probably laughed for half an hour on that one. I hope you don't mind if I borrow those :)

Mrafrohead

When you read an article and remove all the bible passages and references, you see the authors ACTUAL wording.

" but they are proposing that the evidence is strong that the two most important cities of Sodom and Gomorrah have been found."

This does not say there is PROOF of Sodom and Gomorrah at all, it concludes that the evidence leads to a conclusion. Not PROOF.

Proof is finding God. There may have even been a living man inbiblicl times that people believed was the son of God. Even if WE found the remains of this peron, it STLL doesn't prove the existence of God or the tales of the bible.

You know, there are a lot of practicing Christians in this peer group, more so than agnostic or athiest I'm sure as we've had similar conversations before. Your wording is so definite and conclusive that these people have not responded to your claims, they are not willing to assert themselves on an unproven theory. Religion is a belief that gives people faith. NO religion has been proven as you so happily claim.

The most we have seen is reference to cities, tombs and some speculation based upon further findings of the inhabitants of biblical times. So we can prove there was sucha time on Earth and i wouldn't contest what has been proven. To go as far as saying this proves the existence of God, Adam and Eve and makes the other stories in the bible true is just your faith allowing you to believe the unproven as a result of circumstantial evidence.

If we can prove that these people did exist (which they most definitely did) how does thia prove the writngs of the bible?

If you read a Patricia Cornwell novel, she refers to modern phorensic practice, FBI profiling Techniques, and phorensic pathology. She writes about FICTIONAL muders that employ these commonly known modern methods of our time.

The First Nations indians will tell you about the bear and the crow, how the animals of the forest have developed the world around them. This is because they based theory on fact, just like Ms. Cornwell does. But they don't write works of non-fiction.

Michael Slade (and now his daughter) write grizzly sories of mass murderers and how the RCMP find the killer utilizing actual police methods. They use actual buildings and walkways in the Vancouver area to add realism to the story. Often I've been reading a SLADE (As a fan,I'm considered a 'SLADIST') novel while sitting at the courthouse in the story or the park where the murder occurs, yes it is believable, yes it seems real but it is a work of fiction.

Is it SOOOOO hard to believe that these people wrote stories of faith in thier day and utilized thier actual surroundings to add realism to the book?

Nobody denies that these places described in the bible do exist, using a yellow planet full of wombles wouldn't catch on too well. THis is far from PROOF that the stories in the bible are true and even further from proof that God existed and created the world.

If there WAS proof beyond a reasonable doubt, everyone would believe in Christ as the son of God, the war in Iraq woould be over as Allah wouldn't exist and most other wars would not occur as they are generally wars of religion.

Seeing as everyone is still continuing on the same path they have for last 2000 years, I find it hard to believe that YOU would have proof unknown to the rest of the world. If you did have proof or believed you ad proof, you would go out of your way to have people see your proof and become believers. If the information you have presented is this proof, you need to go back to the crawing board, your proof has more holes than swiss cheese.

Sorry to sound harsh, but you are adamantly pressing what YOU believe to be true upon me and you have no proof to suport it.