Home - List All Discussions

Gov. Arnold says 'marriage' can be terminated

Registered Domestic Partnerships are in

by: GodsLaw2Live

For the good of children; shouldn't a legallly binding union and commitment to the family be formed at coitus between a man and woman?
Governor Arnold says the California Constitution does not refer to marriage or the term marry. Rights (what about obligations?) are obtained by completing the proper paperwork, by forming a 'Registered Domestic Partnership'. The terms "marriage' and 'marry' can be terminated as obsolete relics of the past.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57339
Can registering domestic partnerships cut down on behavior such as the following: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294852,00.html

reply from: Wrench

This has,exactly, WHAT to do with abortion? Yeesh, you'd think gay men were the ones scrapping children from their uteri considering the way some pro-lifers treat them...

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Sexual expression has everything to do with children and families. If you think lewd, perverted and free reigning sex can be promoted without the ideal of serious obligations to children and family suffering, you would be mistaken.
Free sex and multiple marriage relationships (be they two men and three women as one partnership, for example) will lead to a disavowing of responsibilities and the failure of God's citizens to carry out their obligations.
After one man, one woman, we'll have partnerships composed of any twosome. After that, the partnership (just like in the business world) will come to allow multiple parties (more than two). Eventually, what's the point, it's the Hillary Clinton's vision (we're a village); the tribal village will collectively come together to care for the kids.
Someone has to start speaking up before the family structure is destroyed. People are sheep, they follow the crowd. If the idea of family is tossed into the trash can, kids will suffer, and preborn babies will be killed.

reply from: Wrench

Care to back that up with some proof? Any evidence at all? Or are you just making religiously-based stereotypical assumptions based on your own biases? Yeah... I'm guessing it's the second thing.
Y'know, I've worked with adoptions a lot. My first job was with an adoption facilitator. Horror of horrors we actually did adoptions for gay couples. And y'know what? Some of them were way better-off than a lot of married heterosexual couples who got turned down. If it comes down to a child living in abject poverty, the likes of which you cannot even imagine, or living with a committed, married gay couple in the US, where at least they'll have a chance at a normal, healthy life, I'm gonna opt for the latter 10 times out of 10.

reply from: AshMarie88

Amen. There are many gay parents out there who make the best parents! Despite what a lot of people believe.
At work I've seen a lot of gay people. I even got a gay couple (I assumed they were a couple) who had a little girl who looked to be about one year old, they were happy.
People shouldn't have their happiness taken away from them.

reply from: galen

godslaw...
The Gov'nr is right... th way that the constitution in his tate reads the legal description of marrige is a that of a contract... not a vow... that is saved for the various religious orginizations...separation of church and state and all that.
Mary

reply from: Wrench

One thing I miss terribly about California... having a governor who sees it as his job to enforce the law, rather than use it for his own political gain. You don't find too many up-standing characters like that in American politics nowadays.

reply from: coco

I agree with all the girls, everyone has the pursut of happiness, and yes that includes the gays!! after all they are people too! I think you are trying to get to the slippery slope theory? Well why not go back to the old days were natives were killed for thier land??
I could picture what fman is going to say : "BUTT PIRATES HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE MARRIED THEY SHOULD JUST TAKE THE PENIS OUT OF THIER BUTT AND LIVE THE WAY WERE MADE TO LIVE JUST MAN AND VAGINA!"

reply from: faithman

Well said, and absolutely correct. Homo sexuals are a disgusting drug adicted lot, who act out in public bath rooms. The flowery picture you paint is not the norm, and is probly a totaly fabrication. Monogamy is not the norm in the pervert world. Most fags have muliple "partners" in their sick disgusting "life style". You can put all the purfume on a corpse you want, but it still stinks. You can tell all the little fairy tales [pun intended] you want about the peter puffers, but the fact is they are a sick, violent, drug and alcohol adicted lot, who's whole identity is based on perverted sexual acts. That is absolutely no place for a child to be.

reply from: coco

FMAN YOU ARE HIGHLARIOUS!!!

reply from: AshMarie88

FMAN hates gays, Jesus doesn't.
Remember that.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Well said, and absolutely correct. Homo sexuals are a disgusting drug adicted lot, who act out in public bath rooms. The flowery picture you paint is not the norm, and is probly a totaly fabrication. Monogamy is not the norm in the pervert world. Most fags have muliple "partners" in their sick disgusting "life style". You can put all the purfume on a corpse you want, but it still stinks. You can tell all the little fairy tales [pun intended] you want about the peter puffers, but the fact is they are a sick, violent, drug and alcohol adicted lot, who's whole identity is based on perverted sexual acts. That is absolutely no place for a child to be.
You are correct Faithman.
Those who engage in homosexual acts are out for a cheap high, like a drug addict, all at the expense of their own body, health and to the damage of others and detriment of society.
The Bible says such people "have no future". Therefore, I am commanded to lift up my voice like a trumpet and show God's people their sins. I believe Proverbs 24:11-12 refers to our needed help for the evildoers (those deceived into thinking sodomy is okay, destroying their waste elimination system and health, spreading disease, etc) , rather than to the aborted babies; "Deliver those who are being taken away to death, and those who are staggering to slaughter: Oh hold them back! If you say, "See, we did not know this," does he not consider the hearts? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?"
The sexual revolution has everything to do with baby killing. Sodomy, besides being the evidence of great mind perversion, is outlawed by the Creator. Job 1 is obeying God.
Paul says in Romans 2:13, "It is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified." Romans 1:27,32 "...the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men commiting indecent acts and receiving in their own person the due penalty of their error....and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."
It seems many young women gave approval to sodomy in this post. To be blunt, you seem like naive silly young doves. You don't see the danger.
Anything away from God's commands is rebellion. Men and women complement each other. They are a part of a family that fulfils their obligations to their offspring. The traditional family is a God inspired institution, the greatest building block of society. The traditional family should be fiercely defended.
Perversion should be outlawed.

reply from: faithman

Psa 5:4 For thou [art] not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.
Psa 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Psa 5:4 For thou [art] not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.
Psa 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
The Lord hates the wicked, just as we should. Therefore, we should love our neighbor, do good to the evildoers, that they may see our good works and praise our Father in heaven. For the Father brings sunshine and crops to both the good and the evil. Perhaps, the evildoer will be won over and amend his ways.

reply from: Wrench

Fman and Godslaw: Personal experience? Or just judging based on your own religious stereotypes?

reply from: abc123

Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord; period. The life span of a homosexual is about 30 years less than a heterosexual. Why do you think that is? Christians are called by God to be a watchmen. (Ezekiel 33:6-9) Our culture is now calling something that is evil in the sight of the Lord good. Isaiah 5:20a says Wod to those who call evil good and good evil. A man lying with a man is an abomination to the Lord. (Leviticus 18:22) Leviticus 18:21 says You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God; I am the Lord and Leviticus 18:23 says And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to with it: it is perversion.
These 3 verses all in a row are very telling as to where we are going in our nation. Child sacrifice is now something that our culture has basically made exceptable by saying it is OK to rip a child apart by means of abortion.
Second homosexuality is now called pranced around on our streets with gay pride events and parades all over our nation. Our society is basically scared to be 'politically incorrect' and don't want to upset the homosexual community and basically let this go on. Our Christians are locked up in the walls of their church buildings instead of confronting the culture in their sin to bring them to the Savior.
Third is beastiality.......is this going to be the next accepted practice just as abortion and homosexuality have been in our society? Gods judgement will continue upon our land until we repent of these sins. If we do repent and turn from our wicked ways He will heal our land. (2 Chronicles 7:14) Is our culture to far gone that this is never going to happen.
So I challenge all Christians on this forum to follow the Word of God in all things, not just the one's you want to follow. Get out from the four walls of the chruch building and go out and love your neighbor as yourself by telling them the good news. This includes calling homosexuality what it is, (Proverbs 27:5-Better is open rebuke than hidden love.)is it better which is an abomination and sin just as most of you correctly call abortion murder.
To all of the non-Christians who think that Jesus isn't real or whatever you believe, I urge you to find out the truth, as the truth will set you free. God does not want any man to perish; but God is pro-choice as he does give you free will to choose your final destination. In Philippians 2:9-11 it says this: Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Jesus said in John 14:6 this: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Pretty clear to me, that Jesus is the only answer!

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

I'm sure people have an idea of what sodomy, drug use or first degree murder may involve, even if one hasn't engaged in such activity themselves. There is much information available. And, of course, sodomites are in your face at nearly any public restroom you go to. I use to write this off to goofballs thinking they are being funny or pulling pranks. But these perverted individuals are dead serious. It is unthinkable, unimaginable, to the depths of the gutter they sink into at these public waysides. They are insane!
Fortunately, workers are continually painting over their depraved meeting messages and drawings/pictures on the stall doors and walls. The feces strewn about and the penetrating stares of sodomite cruisers trying to score some action (like a drug user) makes public restrooms a sickening place to visit. They stick their heads out the vehicle window and watch all the way as you go back and forth between your car to the restroom. They are looking for signals as to how you will respond to their indecent proposals written on the wall. In the past, I've put tens of thousands of miles on per year and drank lots of coffee. I feared to stop at restrooms unless there was no one there or many vehicles were present. Men's public waysides/restrooms are not a safe place.
You don't have to have a Bible to tell you that digging around in each other's lower digestive tract is not kosher. Sodomy greatly reduces life expectancy and spreads disease; no different than drug use. I've read, "Is the Homosexual my Neighbor?" I've read it twice. The two women who wrote it, one a lesbian, admit and cite statistics showing that the majority of males who engage in sodomy "cruise" and have multiple partners. Still, they argue for loving committed monogomous relations between those who engage in homosexual acts. They cite scripture. They say asking one who engages in sodomy to give up his practice is the same as trying to earn one's salvation by works, not a good thing they say, remember grace (or was that, license to sin).
Homosexaul acts are a choice. One decides to wear dresses, have a sex "reassignmemt" operation, walk or talk like a woman, substitute the lower digestive tract for the vagina, to do some, all or none of the above. The one who engages in homosexual acts is a person, just as I am. The same rules apply to us all. They aren't like an alcoholic or drug user with a gene that made them do it (ie, gay gene, alcoholic's gene, druggies' gene). I can have close personal male friends in which I confide, fish with, hunt with, etc. But, horror of horror, sticking it up his rear? Are you insane?!? Is your mind gone? Are we freaks or human beings?

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

I like your post abc123. You are right. Faithman is also correct!

reply from: AshMarie88

Because I'm sure every gay person is a bad perverted druggie who just wanna molest and rape children, they're all not good people whatsoever... not one of them...

reply from: nykaren

Ashley, You are right that some, maybe even many, are decent people. Chances are the ones who say otherwise are around friends and coworkers who are gay and never know it. Not all of them go around acting weird and being druggies. And Jesus DOES love them, he loved them enough to die for them, same as he did the rest of us. He hates the sin of homosexuality, not the individual. But having said that, the Bible speaks very strongly against homosexuality as has already been pointed out here. A true marriage by the Bible definition is one man and one woman, and Christians have the responsibility to fight to preserve that definition of marriage in this country. That's a fight that is every bit as important as the abortion one, if this country is going to survive. And they certainly should not be adopting children. Having a child grow up believing that is a healthy and normal lifestyle only adds to the cycle of sin.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

People engage in a wide spectrum of behaviors. Some of those behaviors are good, some are bad. One good behavior is to diligently remove and get rid of the bad behaviors in one's life. It's what we are called to do; to be the best we can be.

reply from: Wrench

Y'know, I would bet that faithman and Godslaw have met dozens of homosexuals and not even known it. I met they wouldn't be able to pick out most gay people from a crowd. It's like I've been saying all along: any group is defined by the most radical and insane faction. People look at cross-dressers and, without knowing them, without talking to them, assume that they represent all homosexuals. Instead of actually having any medical, scientific or psychological basis for it, they just make blanket statements about people as THEY see them, rather than as those people see themselves.
But if abortion-choicers do the same, WATCH OUT!
Seriously, I'm dusting my feet off from this one. You're both insane - and I don't mean that as an insult, I mean there's clearly some kind of emotional, mental or psychological damage in your brains.

reply from: faithman

Gay Activists Assault Ex-Gay, Trash Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays Booth at Fair
Activist struck PFOX ex-gay over testimony about leaving homosexual lifestyle
By Peter J. Smith
ARLINGTON, Virginia, August. 28, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Angry homosexual activists harassed and assaulted ex-homosexuals at the Arlington County Fair last week, according to an ex-gay educational and support group.
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX) reports its volunteers were distributing education materials on same-sex attraction and awareness of ex-homosexuals at their fair booth. Homosexual activists approached them and created a disturbance, spewing obscenities and dashing materials from the exhibit table.
The group demanded that PFOX leave the fairgrounds, recognize "same-sex spouses" and rejected arguments that homosexuals could change their sexual orientation although they admitted they knew heterosexuals who had done the same.
The confrontation escalated after one activist struck a PFOX ex-gay volunteer after becoming infuriated over the man's testimony about leaving the homosexual lifestyle. A police officer then ejected the activist from the fairgrounds, although the ex-homosexual volunteer declined to press charges citing the example of Jesus Christ.
The incident, while not uncommon in PFOX experience, continues to highlight homosexual activists' rejection of tolerance and equal access ideas opposing and competing with the homosexual agenda.

reply from: coco

FYI STRAIGH people have "butt sex", do drugs, murder, molest, and all those other things!!! And as for ALL gays choosing their status, I think some do but the MAJORITY have been BORN like that!! WHY THE HELL WOULD SOMEONE WANT TO BE AN OUTCAST OF SOCIETY??

reply from: abc123

Coco,
We are all born with sin nature. Just because they were supposedly "born that way" doesn't give them the excuse to act on it. Some people were born as a thief or a murderer or whatever, right? Just because someone was born that way doesn't make it a right. The homosexuals are trying to make their community into a special category in our society by trying to get a hate crime law passed for anyone who would love them enough to tell them that they are going straight to hell with the lie they are believing; thanks to the many pastors that are telling them they are saved while they continue to live in defiance to God by continuing in their homosexual relationships and not turning away from it.
Proverbs 3:5 says: Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.
Go to a gay pride event or parade to see how perverse this culture is. They expose themselves in front of children. It is amazing that this goes on in our nation. Most of America has bought into the lie calling homosexuality good when it is in fact pure evil.

reply from: Wrench

... Are you really that dense? Straight people do ALL those things you've listed. The only reason you point it out when homosexuals do it is because it suits your pre-existing agenda. If any of you can give me a NON-RELIGIOUS argument against gay marriage, I'll immediately change my position on it. Go ahead; I dare ya.

reply from: whydeath

"act on it"? what is that supposed to mean? You think it is better for someone to live unhappy and "hidden" from who they really are so they can fit the "Christian" mold?
You say some people are born thief's or murders? how do you figure?
The bolded is yours and other "Christian" opinion. Why do these Christians feel they need to tell other people how to live their life's? Why should you (not personally) tell others who they can and can not have relations with? Age? sex? religion? race? Why the heck would you tell someone they are going to hell based on a book (Bible) that only some people believe is true?
Would there even be an issue here if religion was took out? I would love to see it. I agree with Wrench I would love to see a "NON-RELIGIOUS argument against gay marriage".
Been there done that no different then the crazy heterosexual people during a beer fest or the crazy a$$ college guys screwing anything that walks. Go to a nudist community you will see everyone "exposing" themselves, the children have not been raised to think nudity is "wrong" society makes it "bad".

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

If you look at two of my earlier posts in this thread you will see that I said people's behavior falls over a wide spectrum. I said engaging in acts such as the following are choices: walking and talking in a feminine manner, cross dressing, sex "reassignment" surgery, sodomy, doing all, some or none of the above. If you read my posts you will understand that I believe there are many men who walk, talk and act manly while secretly engaging in sodomy. I imagine it is only the most insecure and extreme cases that try to turn themselves into women by walking, talking, or dressing the part. Some may even resort to surgery. But it doesn't matter if they do not practice these flamboyant womanish ways as a testament to their "gayness". Men who engage in sodomy secretly are no different than rich high class drug users trying to conceal their true nature. People who engage in sodomy or drug use are doing so to the destruction of their own body and to the detriment of society.
In some Communist (atheist by definition) countries they do consider anyone involved in Christianity insane and in need of psychological counseling. Also, anyone renouncing his faith in Islam in certain countries is sent for psychological counseling. The penalty for renouncing Islam is death in some Muslim countries and the government figures anyone renouncing Islam must be insane. What's wrong with you man, get out your Jihad sword?!? (To avoid the blanket statement accusation again, I realize most Muslims do not want to take up the sword; but the nature of Islam's founder is clear, he did take up the sword in 70 raids.)

reply from: Wrench

Do you even know what the difference is between homosexuality and transexualism? They're two COMPLETELY different conditions. Transexualism is a documented psychological disorder - people with it literally have a different brain pattern from their genetic counterparts. They've done autopsies on male transexuals and found female brain structures, while homosexuals have brains normal to their genetic sex. But, of course, all the research in the world doesn't matter, 'cause you've got GOD on your side (and we all know God doesn't create people differently from you).
And talk about foreign countries all you want; this is America, where freedom of religion does not equal freedom from religion. There is no right to not be offended anywhere in the Constitution. Get over yourself already. Read a book on concepts you clearly don't understand before you start mouthing off because your pastor once said so-and-so.

reply from: whydeath

I would love to see if anyone could have a conversation about sexuality without having to mention religion.

reply from: Wrench

Agreed.... or at least judge people by the standards they have adopted for themselves, rather than expecting non-Christians to live, act and love by Christian standards of morality. How would those Christians feel if they were the minority, while Atheists ran the show? Christians only feel the need - and, frankly, the right - to force their behavioral choices onto others because we're the majority and Americans have been brainwashed since the 40s to think that America is a democracy (majority rule) rather than a Constitutional republic (Constitutional rule).
There are plenty of things I find distasteful, but I don't have the right not be offended; no one has that right, whether it's based on their religious biases or not. Punishing perpetrators of victimless crimes is at the absolute bottom of my list of priorities, right next to expressing my mother's dog's anal glands and teaching homeless crack addicts how to waltz for fun and profit.

reply from: Teresa18

Marriage is by definition an union between a man and a woman. While current dictionaries may attempt to change it in order to be PC, it's not possible. It's like me looking at an orange and calling it an apple because it wants to be called an apple. I can call it an apple, but it will still be an orange.
Marriage was instituted by God among man. God said the following:
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his
wife: and they shall be one flesh. - Genesis 2:24.
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh; so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. - Mark 10:6-8.
Marriage has proceeded the state, and the family is the building block of this country. The family unit provides morality, responsibility, and freedom. There are two ways that the state can destroy marriage. They can do this by taking away the institution of marriage. Anyone would then be able to enter in a contract with another person for various reasons. People could still get married religiously, but there would no longer be state incentives for getting married. Therefore, people can move from relationship to relationship in a much simpler manner. All they will have to do is terminate the basic contract. This will lead to all sorts of living arrangements, and it is not ideal for raising children. The second way is to redefine marriage to suit any group. The homosexuals are the first group asking for marriage. It will be redefined for two people. I don't see how they can then exclude two, related individuals who would like to get married (see Genetic Attraction Disorder). Polygamists in states such as Utah believe they should be able to get married as well. If we have redefined marriage for homosexuals and related individuals, why not redefine it to please the polygamists? This could get quite messy. What if 4 or 5 people are bisexuals and in love? Why can't they get married if other groups can? If marriage comes to mean everything, it will mean nothing. This leads to a society with an "anything goes" mentality which is certainly not conducive to raising children. Breaking down the family breaks down morale, responsibility, and freedom. The state in turn steps into fill this void in a Hillary "It Takes a Village" fashion.
Homosexual marriage and PC has in fact affected many Christians. Christians in countries where this is legal, and even in some parts of this country, are being silenced just for expressing their disagreement with this lifestyle. They are forcing people to accept this behavior. Another way they are doing this is by teaching it in depth to children in schools. Some parents haven't even been able to pull their children out of classes that teach behavior they believe to be morally wrong as acceptable. If you don't believe me, I have pages and pages of links that I am willing to provide to back up these sentiments.
By allowing "marriage" for homosexuals, it is legitamizing their lifestyle, referring to it as a morally acceptable lifestyle alternative, and saying that it is a healthy equivalent to heterosexuality. It is immoral according to the Bible and the God this country was founded under. I believe it is wrong to deliberately adopt children into immoral relationships. It is unhealthy to teach it is perfectly acceptable lifestyle to children in schools. The digestive tract is not meant for sex. Repeatedly having sex there destroys it. This is not to mention the high rate of STDS and AIDS in the homosexual community.
Do I hate homosexuals? Absolutely not! The Lord says to love all people. Loving people doesn't necessarily mean telling them everything is ok. It also means telling them something is wrong. I think they deserve equal rights when it comes to food, clothing, housing, and employment. I am opposed to marriage and adoption. Obviously they are free to do what they please behind closed doors, but the state should not be recognizing it.

reply from: Wrench

Teresa, I certainly respect and appreciate your civil and rational tone and commentary. Please don't misunderstand me: I am not saying that those whose religious beliefs consider homosexuality immoral hate homosexuals, or that they do not consider homosexuals people. I certainly understand that someone can both oppose homosexuality and still love homosexuals, either in a personal or general sense.
My point, however, is that the religious beliefs of a single people in the US should not hold sway over the law. I've said it numerous times: If there were no nonreligious argument against abortion, I would be abortion-choice. The fact that science, logic, biology and the Constitution uphold the right to life as inalienable are what make me pro-life, not my religious beliefs. Whether you're a Christian or an Atheist, abortion is universally wrong; it is the oppression and aggression of one party over a weaker party, for no reason other than that the second is weaker. I don't need to be a Christian to see that, and many Atheists, Wiccans, Buddhists, and Sikhs feel the same way.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, is 100% a matter of one religious group being offended at the presence of a group of people they disagree with. At its core level, that's all it is. You may not think that the government should recognize homosexual unions as valid; I do not think that the government should hold the complaints of one religious majority over the will of a nonreligious minority. That is democracy at its worst, the oppression of the stronger party over the weaker simply because the majority rules. As Ben Franklin put it, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep arguing over what's for dinner."
So, again I'll put forth my challenge: Show me a nonreligious argument against gay marriage - just one argument grounded in reason, logic, and fact - and I'll change my position.

reply from: coco

wrench I have been trying to say that but could not find the words to do so but you did!!! BRAVO

reply from: Teresa18

Constitutional rights are God-given. The government doesn't own these rights. They only protect and secure them. Killing an unborn child in the womb of his/her mother is wrong. This is interpreted by some to be a belief that is relative to each individual. This belief is not relative. It is a morally absolute that this is wrong whether people choose to believe this or not. Why? The Lord says we shall not kill. I agree that people of different religious beliefs can believe that abortion is wrong without believing in God. After all, all people were made by God in his image. Most people have some goodness, and all goodness comes from God.
There is no Constitutional right to marriage. Marriage exists as an union between one man and one woman. Any man can marry a woman, and any woman can marry a man. Marriage is open to all. What homosexuals and liberals want is to redefine marriage. If you think the government should recognize marriage for each group, then surely you must be in favor of marriage between relatives, polygamists, and group marriage. Destroying by marriage by making it mean everything, it will in turn mean nothing. If you destroy the family, you destroy the building block of society, the promoter of morality, responsibility, and freedom. In turn, the sate has to come in, and fill the familial void.
Nonreligious arguments include the health risks of accepting this lifestyle, preserving the family, and the imposition of it upon children and people who disagree with it. As I said, I have a lot of links on this.

reply from: Wrench

The reason that abortion is antithetical to freedom has nothing to do with a belief in God, god or gods, but with the fact that forbidding a child its right to life is 1) asserting that rights are not inalienable and can, in fact, be alienated from us for reasons of age, size, and location; and 2) by forbidding a child life in the name of "religious freedom," the freedom of the fetus to choose its own religious beliefs are made null. It's got nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with simple logic and rationality.
I support the idea of marriage as a religious institution - whatever the religious practices of those getting married may be. What goes on between two (three, four, five) consenting adults is none of my business and does not infringe upon my rights one iota. The sanctity of my marriage is not dependent upon whether or not two guys put rings on each other's fingers, or two women exchange vows.
If a person disagrees with biracial relationships, should their view be respected? What if they assert (and rightly so) that children of biracial couples will suffer a lifetime of confusion, pain, torment of their peers, and an inability to relate to the world around them? Should that be taken into account to criminalize biracial marriage?
Of course not. Why? Because people recognized that the only way to prevent such children from suffering those torments was to make biracial marriage more, not less, common. So the argument that "detriment to the children" is a case against gay marriage is out.
As for health reasons, actually, the group of individuals with the highest rate of HIV/AIDS is heterosexual African American women. So that's out, too. Regardless, any individual who has multiple sex partners is going to increase their risk of contracting STDs, whether they're homosexual or heterosexual; perhaps if the Catholic Church didn't act like they had the monopoly on chastity and morality, those of other faiths (or lack of faith) would be more open to the possibility of adopting more chaste lifestyles.

reply from: Teresa18

Correct. Rights are inalienable. Where did we get these inalienable rights the government must secure? We got them from God. Therefore, abortion denies one of the God given inalienable right to life.
First of all, the recognition of homosexual relationships in some countries is hurting Christians. I have compiled many news stories on this topic. Secondly, redefining the family so it comes to mean everything and thus nothing will destroy society. Without the building block of this society to promote morality, responsibility, and freedom, we have a situation similar to anarchy. The government will then step in and play "family" to the children. This leads to more government control. What people choose to do behind closed doors is their business, but the state does not have to recognize it.
Biracial relationships are not morally wrong. A man and woman are married, regardless of how dark their skin is. The children still have the opportunity to recieve a mother and a father.
As far as the U.S.,
http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm

This is from Catholic Education on male homosexual sex:
This remark about the Catholic Church makes little sense. The Catholic Church is the one, true Church. The other faith communities broke off of it. It is merely following the Bible. Most evangelical/fundamental Christians believe the same thing. I don't know what you want the Church to do. They shouldn't have to bend to Christian denominations that do not follow the Bible and certainly not other faiths. All they can continue to do is preach the truth.

reply from: yoda

Well I'll have to disagree with you that the issue of gay marriage is entirely and wholly a religious issue. Personally I oppose the use of the term "marriage" for gay unions, simply because of it's historical meaning in our society. Call them civil unions, social partnerships, or whatever, but the term marriage has way too much history of the male-female-children tradition to be used for such a new institution. It (the gay civil union)is a new institution, give it a new name. "Marriage" is already taken.

reply from: Wrench

1) Since when do, or should, we exclude people from marriage (our idea of marriage or theirs) based on their health status?
2) Since when is "Catholic Education" unbiased? I can't read their sources on a web forum.
3) All the information you posted is on gay men, and none on lesbian women. Why? Because lesbians have the lowest knowable rate of HIV-AIDS in the country.
History of the Church notwithstanding (Following the Bible "as they see and interpret it" might be more the correct phraseology), the comment had nothing to do with changing Church doctrine and everything to do with the church acting as though it has the monopoly on moral behavior, and that in order to be chaste or pure one must be a Catholic. For instance, there was one instance a few years back when I was volunteering at a women's home for unwed mothers. One of the women there was a young Wiccan girl who had been kicked out of her home by her parents. The program required the girls to go to church; when this girl refused to compromise her religious beliefs, she was kicked out of the home. The reason? "We have nothing to offer those who refuse Christ."
Now, you may say that they're right and God helps those who help themselves and only by the grace of God, blah blah blah. But the church consistently acts as though the only way to be "good" is by following their rules - completely ignoring those whose religious beliefs might be different, but whose behavioral beliefs may very well be one and the same. It is fully possible to be chaste and not a Catholic or even a Christian, but while the church acts like it's not, those who do not subscribe to the religion find themselves under no compunction to act in a chaste way. After all, "That's for Catholics who wouldn't know a good time if it sat on them." Looking from the outside in, as a former Catholic, most just don't see how damaging that mentality is to the world outside their rose-colored stained-glass windows.

reply from: Wrench

We can certainly agree to disagree on the actual issue at hand... but isn't that just more proof that it should be left up to the individual and not a religious faction that can't even agree with itself? Plenty of Christians, like myself, believe that personal religious beliefs should not influence government policy. 73% of Americans have Libertarian tendencies. And I think that we can all agree that the Christian foundation of this nation was intended to secure greater freedom for all, not restrict it according to religious will. When people are forced to be virtuous, virtue loses its meaning. This is precisely why countries which try to legislate morality fail; God is not morality, God is the Creator who can only beckon you to choose Him; He cannot force, and neither can we. We cannot expect those who have not willingly chosen the strength and boundaries of the Holy Spirit to act as though they have.
I'm not asking anyone to change their religious views or to accept my opinion as their own. Everyone has the right - and the obligation - to think for himself and reach his own conclusions based on the evidence before him and his own ability to rationalize, and should make his own decisions accordingly. But to use that right to infringe upon the same right in others is wrong. Thomas Jefferson once said that the foundation of American principle is "The maxim of individual liberty consistent with order." In other words, as long as it doesn't infringe upon others' rights, liberty takes precedent. Two men calling themselves married infringes upon no one's rights. Whether they have the right to marry or not is not the question; the question is, do we have the right to tell them not to? No, we don't. The only thing we have the right to is our own freedom of religion, just as they have the right to freely believe in their own.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Correct. Rights are inalienable. Where did we get these inalienable rights the government must secure? We got them from God. Therefore, abortion denies one of the God given inalienable right to life.
First of all, the recognition of homosexual relationships in some countries is hurting Christians. I have compiled many news stories on this topic. Secondly, redefining the family so it comes to mean everything and thus nothing will destroy society. Without the building block of this society to promote morality, responsibility, and freedom, we have a situation similar to anarchy. The government will then step in and play "family" to the children. This leads to more government control. What people choose to do behind closed doors is their business, but the state does not have to recognize it.
Biracial relationships are not morally wrong. A man and woman are married, regardless of how dark their skin is. The children still have the opportunity to recieve a mother and a father.
As far as the U.S.,
http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
"><br ">http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
<br ">http://...vert....sastatg.htm
This is from Catholic Education on male homosexual sex:
This remark about the Catholic Church makes little sense. The Catholic Church is the one, true Church. The other faith communities broke off of it. It is merely following the Bible. Most evangelical/fundamental Christians believe the same thing. I don't know what you want the Church to do. They shouldn't have to bend to Christian denominations that do not follow the Bible and certainly not other faiths. All they can continue to do is preach the truth.
Wrench keeps on saying, "Give me one nonreligious argument against gay marriage and I'll change my mind.
Teresa18 does a good job of listing many of the health reasons for not acting out in a gay manner (performing homosexual acts). The health risks and shorter lifespans are a know documented risk that those wanting to engage in the gay lifestyle should be aware of.
Can I see 20-20 vision because of my efforts? Did I create my hands and feet to use as tools? Wrench should consider that we were designed and made. There is a purpose, there is a plan. We need to be in tune with our purpose.
As a side note. It seems Senator Larry Craig is ready to quit. The Idaho Governor is ready with a replacement. I listened to the police interview. Mr. Craig was telling one lie after another to the officer; their stories disagreed. Mr. Craig did admit to touching the officer's leg with his and reaching his hand under the officer's stall. These types of homosexual predators are bold and aggressive. I've put up with their antics for years at restrooms and wish they were locked up. The White House and other Republican leaders are eager to see Mr. Craig out the door; a good and decent position.
Larry Craig reminds me of another bold pervert and liar. Bill Clinton use to drop his pants for many women; Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, etc. He was a bald faced liar who said he did not engage in sexual acts with Monica; but later he had to admit he was a liar when his sperm was found on her dress. Yes, being immoral is bad; sleeping around is not okay. He was all for killing the babies and vetoed the laws passed by Congress against partial-birth abortion. Several of his Arkansas cronies who knew too much died under mysterious circumstances; a list that is longer than his attorney Vince Foster.

reply from: Wrench

I'm certainly not saying that Teresa hasn't done her homework; she's obviously a very intelligent and rational woman. That, however, is beside the point. Health risks are no reason to forbid two consenting adults from doing what they want to do. We don't forbid people from marrying on the basis that they are engaging in unhealthy lifestyle choices. We don't have laws against porn stars marrying. We don't have laws against infertile people marrying. We don't even have laws against married people from engaging in sexually promiscuous activities.
An argument against homosexuality is not, in itself, an argument against gay marriage, and that's the point. I did not ask for "proof" of homosexual risks or statistics (though, as I said, statistics regarding lesbian women are suspiciously absent from everything Teresa posted), but a nonreligious argument against gay marriage itself. So far, I'm still waiting.

reply from: yoda

Then I assume you didn't see my post.

reply from: Wrench

Then I assume you didn't see my post.
I did; I think your point was more an issue of semantics than an actual argument against homosexual unions equivalent to the marriage union between heterosexual couples. I could be mistake, but that's the impression I got.

reply from: yoda

Everything we say is "semantics", is it not? The statement that you keep making is that you're "waiting for a non-religious argument against gay marriage itself", and I made one.
If what you're asking for is a non-religious argument against any legal recognition of homosexual unions, that's quite a horse of a different color. As long as the word "marriage" is not used, and it is not simply "marriage by a different name", I have no argument against it. Such unions ought to be considered on their own merits, and not simply made copies of laws on marriage.

reply from: Wrench

Everything we say is "semantics", is it not? The statement that you keep making is that you're "waiting for a non-religious argument against gay marriage itself", and I made one.
4
If what you're asking for is a non-religious argument against any legal recognition of homosexual unions, that's quite a horse of a different color. As long as the word "marriage" is not used, and it is not simply "marriage by a different name", I have no argument against it. Such unions ought to be considered on their own merits, and not simply made copies of laws on marriage.
Unfortunately, the prevailing mentality says that such unions have no merit of their own, and therein lies the dilemma. Regardless, I see no reason why legally a homosexual couple ought not get legal recognition of their committed relationship, even if it means getting married only by the standards of their church or other house of worship.
It seems that, whenever people go on voting statistics of states that have put it up to vote, the majority of people oppose gay marriage. Yet many states include "civil unions" and other intentionally temporary relationship structures in such votes. For instance, when it was on the ballot in Virginia, the wording of the law made it so that gay marriage, civil unions, and live-in relationships were all one and the same. Of course people are going to vote against tax breaks for people who are merely shacking up for the Hell of it. A legally-binding relationship like marriage is a whole 'nother deal. If you don't want to call it marriage for the sake of argument, fine; but in spirit, it ought to be an equivalent commitment, legally and socially.

reply from: AshMarie88

I just got back from work a little bit ago. On my last break I was reading the local paper and I saw that a judge in Iowa had rejected a bill to ban gay marriage in that state, so now gay couples can wed. Yay!! I'm so happy about that. Nothing better than happiness.

reply from: Wrench

I just read your bulletin - I'm all giddy now

reply from: AshMarie88

I just read your bulletin - I'm all giddy now

reply from: AshMarie88

Well nevermind :/ http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/31/iowa.samesex.ap/index.html

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

The Letter of the Apostle Paul to the Romans 1:24,26-27, 28, 32, NASB (New American Standard Bible) "...God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them....God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natual function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error....God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper...and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."

reply from: yoda

It's more than "the sake of argument" to me.
I don't see any need for an absolute legal equivalence between marriage and other civil unions, however. And "social equivalence" is a mythical creation that cannot be legislated or enforced. The exact nature of such civil contracts should be determined by each state legislature, just as marriage laws are now.

reply from: Wrench

It's more than "the sake of argument" to me.
I don't see any need for an absolute legal equivalence between marriage and other civil unions, however. And "social equivalence" is a mythical creation that cannot be legislated or enforced. The exact nature of such civil contracts should be determined by each state legislature, just as marriage laws are now.
That doesn't really answer the "why." You think that marriage is defined as a man and a woman; fine. But there are obviously others who disagree. So the real question is, should those who disagree with you have the freedom to act as they desire, or should they be beholden to your will?

reply from: Teresa18

This is not health status. The human body is not designed to have sex with the same sex. That is not "our idea". That is the truth. It's physically obvious, as reproduction (the main purpose of sex) occurs only in heterosexual relationships. I posted all of the health information on that above and some below. Marriage is between a man and a woman. You have admitted you think it is ok for more than two people to get married. Marriage has a purpose, as it maintains the traditional family as the building block of society. The government has no reason to be handing out contracts to two people participating in deviant forms of sex or groups of 3+ that wish to shack up together.
This was a clipping of a large article that was thoroughly sourced.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#03


I didn't post the lesbian section, but I now will. I've included the mental health information as well.

The Church believes it is the one, true Church. Of course they are not going to bend to the beliefs of other faiths. If people of other faiths feel they are not as moral because they aren't Catholic, then they should become a Catholic. I can't see why a person in a religion that they believe to be the full truth would be threatened.
They should have found her a secular program. If not, they should have allowed her to stay.
Marriage always has been defined as between a man and a woman. In fact, states such as Utah were unable to enter the union until they outlawed polygamy. You have basically said an individual can define marriage however they wish. This completely destroys marriage, as the state will have to figure out ways to recognize all sorts of relationships. When marriage comes to mean everything, it will in turn come to mean nothing! Secondly, the Bible is clear on homosexual behavior. Some Christian factions treat the Bible as though it is a cafeteria line, meaning they pick and choose what they would like to follow. Some Catholics do this with the Church's teachings as well. Marriage is more than a Christian construct. I don't know where you got the libertarian statistic, but a tendency on some issues does not make one a libertarian. The Republican and Democratic Parties are our nation's largest.
This early nation had strict moral guidelines against fornication, sodomy, pornography, and divorce. There was never any question as to the definition of marriage, and states like Utah could not even become a state until they outlawed polygamy!
We can and do legislate morality. All laws are based on morality, much of it set forth in the Ten Commandments. The laws against theft, rape, murder, etc. are all based on morality. Obviously some people disagree with this morality, but they then have to pay the consequences in our justice system. A country must have laws based on morality to keep order.
I also want to continue to point out that this has affected many Christians. Schools in more liberal countries and states are forcing children to learn about this behavior, some contrary to the parent's wishes. They are taught this is an acceptable, moral lifestyle choice that is no different from heterosexuality except the sex of the partner which isn't true. In Germany, children were taken from their parents for being homeschooled in the Christian value system. The government did not want the children learning "negatives" like "homophobia" from their parents. Mennonites have to move to another province in Canada because they don't wish to teach homosexuality or evolution at their schools. There are varying examples of parents being unable to opt out children or oppose to the curriculum in more liberal states. They want this behavior accepted, and Christian view points have been silenced and some Christians arrested under "hate crimes" for their opposition. This has occured in and out of the U.S. In Sweden, parts of the Bible are declared hate speech. In some countries and states, Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close because they wouldn't adopt out to homosexual couples. I have links to back this up and many examples.

reply from: yoda

That's not a valid question. This is an opinion forum, and I've expressed my opinion; I have not demanded anyone's obedience. Further, you repeatedly asked for someone to express a non-religious objection to gay marriage, and now you seem to be objecting to my complying with your request.
We have legislatures for the formulation of laws and regulations on such things, there should never be a question about whether anyone has to be "beholden to anyone's will", when no demands have been made for such obedience.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

This is not health status. The human body is not designed to have sex with the same sex. That is not "our idea". That is the truth. It's physically obvious, as reproduction (the main purpose of sex) occurs only in heterosexual relationships. I posted all of the health information on that above and some below. Marriage is between a man and a woman. You have admitted you think it is ok for more than two people to get married. Marriage has a purpose, as it maintains the traditional family as the building block of society. The government has no reason to be handing out contracts to two people participating in deviant forms of sex or groups of 3+ that wish to shack up together.
This was a clipping of a large article that was thoroughly sourced.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#03
">http://catholiceducation.org/a.../ho0075.html#03

I didn't post the lesbian section, but I now will. I've included the mental health information as well.

The Church believes it is the one, true Church. Of course they are not going to bend to the beliefs of other faiths. If people of other faiths feel they are not as moral because they aren't Catholic, then they should become a Catholic. I can't see why a person in a religion that they believe to be the full truth would be threatened.
They should have found her a secular program. If not, they should have allowed her to stay.
Marriage always has been defined as between a man and a woman. In fact, states such as Utah were unable to enter the union until they outlawed polygamy. You have basically said an individual can define marriage however they wish. This completely destroys marriage, as the state will have to figure out ways to recognize all sorts of relationships. When marriage comes to mean everything, it will in turn come to mean nothing! Secondly, the Bible is clear on homosexual behavior. Some Christian factions treat the Bible as though it is a cafeteria line, meaning they pick and choose what they would like to follow. Some Catholics do this with the Church's teachings as well. Marriage is more than a Christian construct. I don't know where you got the libertarian statistic, but a tendency on some issues does not make one a libertarian. The Republican and Democratic Parties are our nation's largest.
This early nation had strict moral guidelines against fornication, sodomy, pornography, and divorce. There was never any question as to the definition of marriage, and states like Utah could not even become a state until they outlawed polygamy!
We can and do legislate morality. All laws are based on morality, much of it set forth in the Ten Commandments. The laws against theft, rape, murder, etc. are all based on morality. Obviously some people disagree with this morality, but they then have to pay the consequences in our justice system. A country must have laws based on morality to keep order.
I also want to continue to point out that this has affected many Christians. Schools in more liberal countries and states are forcing children to learn about this behavior, some contrary to the parent's wishes. They are taught this is an acceptable, moral lifestyle choice that is no different from heterosexuality except the sex of the partner which isn't true. In Germany, children were taken from their parents for being homeschooled in the Christian value system. The government did not want the children learning "negatives" like "homophobia" from their parents. Mennonites have to move to another province in Canada because they don't wish to teach homosexuality or evolution at their schools. There are varying examples of parents being unable to opt out children or oppose to the curriculum in more liberal states. They want this behavior accepted, and Christian view points have been silenced and some Christians arrested under "hate crimes" for their opposition. This has occured in and out of the U.S. In Sweden, parts of the Bible are declared hate speech. In some countries and states, Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close because they wouldn't adopt out to homosexual couples. I have links to back this up and many examples.
This is all very good information.
Wrench just waves a lot of it away. On risks to health, she says "gay marriage" should not be prohibited because of risks to one's health. Maybe Wrench is to young to have been in the hospital and see all the pain and suffering a seriously ill person goes through.
I've known people who have a condition that affects their intestines. Ruptures can occur in the intestine that spills gastro-intestinal contents into the abdominal cavity. This is a condition that can lead to infection and death. I've seen these patients lose much weight and be in such pain they want to die. A surgeon removes the bad piece of intestine. The patient uses a bag for waste elimination, and, if fortunate, may have his intestines sewed back together after healing.
We are talking about simliar damage being done to the lower intestines of male homosexuals. The vagina was designed with a thick wall to perform it's job. The lower intestine has a thin wall that absorbs liquids and can easily pass foreign agents into the blood stream or tear. A person counts on the lower intestine and anus for life. It is foolish, yes, deadly, to engage in sodomy.

reply from: Wrench

I do not "wave it away;" it's simply beside the point. Our laws are not based on morality; if they were, whose morality? Clearly not Muslims, or else eating pork would be punishable by death, and I likely wouldn't be able to even be on this web forum to begin with. Not the Jews, or else the discussion would be moot: Homosexuals would be stoned to death. As for Christians, the majority-rules sentiment is one held most dear by the majority of us because we want the majority to rule. After all, we're the majority!
But that is not the point and everyone knows it. Our laws are based, not on morality (which is specific to an individual religion), but on ethics, those things which are universal to all people of all faiths, and rule of law set down in the Constitution. Clearly, murder must be illegal in order to protect the right to life, liberty, property, and all other rights. Laws against rape protect against loss of the right to property (being that an individual's most basic property is himself). Laws against theft also protect against loss of property, and so forth. To have laws based, not on universal ethics, but on religiously-specific morality, would be to strip away the rights of others without actually doing any benefit to those whose morality is being upheld as the standard. Whether you oppose gay marriage or not, its legality does not violate your rights whatsoever. Until it can be proven that it does, there is no rational reason to oppose a choice between consenting adults.
And people keep bringing up, "Well what about state recognition and this and that." Yes, we live in a flawed system. The government, unfortunately, does give preferential treatment. This, also, is not an argument against gay marriage, but in favor of governmental neutrality, income tax reform (if not complete abolition in favor of H.R. 25), fair taxation, and addressing governmental corruption.
As for education? Certainly parents should have the choice on what, and where, their children learn. I've always been an advocate for home schooling and I always will be. Again, this is no argument against gay marriage - merely an argument for MORE freedom, which is what I've been arguing for all along.
You think it's wrong? Fine! Go out there and volunteer your time to making the government more fair, so that tax benefits are no longer an enticement. Talk to homosexual men and women about why you believe homosexuality is wrong. But don't use the government to do your dirty work. All keeping gay marriage illegal does is restrict the freedom of others, while giving you none.

reply from: yoda

The "group morality", meaning the morality of the majority of legislators present and voting when a particular criminal statute is considered. Those legislators in turn supposedly represent the moral opinion of the majority of their electorate.
"Morality" has never been defined as "religion-specific", that is your invention:
morality
. noun (pl. moralities) 1 principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. 2 moral behaviour. 3 the extent to which an action is right or wrong. 4 a system of values and moral principles.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/morality?view=uk [/a]
The government has always been the agent which does our "dirty work" of setting out behavioral restrictions, there is nothing new about that. Historically, laws have been used to restrict everything from spitting on the floor to buying a beer on Sunday. That's the "American way", that's how this society has historically chosen to regulate itself.
And quite frankly I don't think this issue has anything to do with "freedom" in the first place. The institution of marriage has never been viewed as an "entitlement", it is a matter of civil law in every state in the union. So the legislature is the proper place to settle this issue, whether you favor or oppose gay "marriage".

reply from: Wrench

You don't think it's an issue of freedom at all when one group of people says to another, "You may believe as you so choose, but you may not act as we do," even when the latter groups' actions in no way restrict or reduce the access of the first group to its Constitutional rights? At its core, that is what this issue comes down to.
Contrary to popular belief, we are not a Democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic. The majority does not, in fact, rule, unless its ruling is supported by the rights enumerated in the Constitution - and even then, the majority only rules incidentally, rather than implicitly, as it would in an actual Democracy. If an action does not infringe upon your rights, while criminalizing that action does infringe upon the rights of others to believe as they so choose and to act on those beliefs as they so choose (in other words, whether you believe it is right or wrong is irrelevant to what they believe about it), the law should always favor the latter, and thus liberty.

reply from: MC3

First, if we applied the loopy logic expressed by WRENCH, we would have no laws of any kind. There has never been a law passed that someone, somewhere, did not disagree with and find to be an infringement on their liberty. Second, her muddled interpretation of American civics implies that our founding fathers believed that laws should be made free of moral considerations. To put it mildly, that is preposterous.
Have you ever noticed how this, "you can't legislate morality" rhetoric is the inevitable fall-back position for people who want society to permit something which they know any decent society is going to find morally repugnant? Of course, the biggest problem with their position is that its fundamental premise is a lie. If these people were arguing that we can't pass laws to make an immoral person moral, they would be correct. But for them to suggest that we don't legislate morality is nonsense. We do it every day and always have. Every law we ever passed was someone's idea of right and wrong.
For example, people who are opposed to rape certainly think it is appropriate for society to impose its morality on people who might personally think it's okay to rape. By enacting laws against rape, they say to the rapist, "We don't care why you rape, or what your own moral and religious views are about rape. We don't care whether you think women are really persons or not. We don't even care that you might see laws against rape as unconstitutional infringements on you right to sexual liberty. It is our belief that rape is morally indefensible and we are going to impose that moral belief on you regardless of what you think."
That philosophy does not just apply to laws against rape, it is at play anytime a law is passed. When we outlawed "Whites Only" water fountains, we did not do so because black people were being denied water. In almost every case there was a "Colored" fountain nearby. We outlawed this disgusting practice because we finally acknowledged that it was morally indefensible.
The point is, the law is nothing more or less than society's collective moral values. Contrary to what the "you-can't-legislate-morality" crowd would have us believe, laws are passed solely for the purpose of prohibiting someone from choosing to do something that the society - through its legislative process - has deemed so immoral that it cannot be tolerated. In fact, if this were not the case, our culture would eventually collapse into a state of bedlam and anarchy.
The bottom line is quite simple. If our laws are not going to be based on morality, there is no legitimate foundation upon which they can be based.

reply from: Wrench

The law is intended to protect the rights of those whom certain actions would violate. Rape obviously violates the rights of the person being raped. Abortion violates the rights of the unborn child.
Whose rights are violated by two men getting married?

reply from: yoda

If that were the case with the question of gay "marriage", then I would probably agree with you. As it is, that is not the case.
Gays may indeed do "as they choose", but in order for them to "act as we do", they would have to marry gays of the opposite gender. In the states where marriage laws specify one partner of each gender, the laws clearly state that a "man and a woman" may marry each other. They do not state that "two men" or "two women" may marry each other. That is a simple matter of civil law, it has nothing to do with "freedoms" or "rights". It's not in the constitution, nor in the DOI. It's clearly a legislative matter, not a matter of civil rights.
You've got it backwards. "Gay marriage" has not been "criminalized", it has simply not been authorized, in most states. There's a big difference. Marital laws apply on to those who meet the criteria set out for that legal institution. Gays can not enter into that institution unless they first meet the legal criteria set by the state in which they seek to be married.
It's really not that complicated. The laws of each apply, period.

reply from: Wrench

Again, I must ask: Whose rights are infringed upon by homosexuals getting married? Or, as you would say, "calling themselves married"?
If it doesn't infringe upon anyones' rights, there is no reason for them not to legally be able to do so.

reply from: yoda

The lack of a clear violation of someone's rights is not now, nor has it ever been the sole criteria for lawmakers to craft legal legislation.
And, as I've said repeatedly, the act of marriage is not a matter of "rights", since it's neither constitutional nor a part of any civil rights legislation. There is no recognized "right to get married". It's a "privilege", and it's governed by state laws, kind of like driving a motor vehicle, or hunting and fishing. You need a state issued license for all those activities, in most states. IF it was a right, no "license" would be required.

reply from: Wrench

The lack of a clear violation of someone's rights is not now, nor has it ever been the sole criteria for lawmakers to craft legal legislation.
And, as I've said repeatedly, the act of marriage is not a matter of "rights", since it's neither constitutional nor a part of any civil rights legislation. There is no recognized "right to get married". It's a "privilege", and it's governed by state laws, kind of like driving a motor vehicle, or hunting and fishing. You need a state issued license for all those activities, in most states. IF it was a right, no "license" would be required.
Gun ownership is a right, yet you need a license. And whether or not violation of rights is or is not criteria for law has no standing on whether or not it should be. The spirit of the law is protection of rights. No one's rights are protected by keeping gay marriage illegal. Am I hearing an echo?
Unless and until someone can prove to me that their rights are violated by gay marriage, I will always support its legality.

reply from: MC3

WRENCH,
As for the "who's-rights-are-violated" question regarding homosexual marriage, the answer is people who believe that the law has an obligation to protect certain moral standards of behavior. If we are going to say that the government has a right to protect its citizens against harmful industrial pollution, are we going to say that it has no right to protect its citizens against behaviors that many, if not the vast majority, of those citizens consider to be harmful moral pollution?
In any event, I notice that you mysteriously skipped over the water fountain issue. Let me restate it.
Let's say that a city installs two public water fountains within three feet of each other and designates one for "Whites Only" and the other for "Minorities Only." Let's also say that both fountains are supplied by the same water system so that the water coming out of both fountains is identical in every way. Given that public water fountains are intended to provide fresh drinking water to the public, and given that under this arrangement no member of the public is denied fresh drinking water, according to your "who's-rights-are-violated" standard, shouldn't this be legal?
And by the way, if we are going to insist that the law be insulated from the issue of morality, there are literally thousands of other examples just like this one.

reply from: Wrench

I'll say this one more time, just for clarity: There is no Constitutional right against being offended. Using the law to enforce your idea of morality is not your right. In "majority rules" cases, as I've said, in a REPUBLIC, the majority may only rule incidentally, and only if the majority's ruling is consistent with the Constitutionality of the issue. Since the Constitution does not address marriage, and since the 10th amendment delineates all issues not enumerated in the Constitution to the states, a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage would be inconsistent with the spirit of liberty.
So again, no one's RIGHTS are violated by legalized gay marriage, unless two guys exchanging rings somehow deprives you of life, liberty, or property.
Your "water fountain" argument is moot, since all 50 states' Constitutions, as well as the Constitution of the United States, have equal access laws. In fact, that was the basis for a city in Iowa recently (if briefly) legalizing gay marriage. Again, the government should not play favorites. Preferential treatment is little more than a vote-buying ploy. Equality is inherent to liberty for all.

reply from: Wrench

Okay, I'm officially done. Talk amongst yourselves, because clearly, none of you actually understands even what your rights are, much less the value of freedom. As long as the state agrees with you, you're happy.
Sorry, but I don't take that view. I don't need to accept that homosexuality is good, or right, to understand that my beliefs are no basis for restricting the rights of others to live and believe as they so choose, provided they do not infringe upon the same right held by others. Where I come from, that's just a basic principle of American liberty. But apparently, since the MAJORITY says otherwise, I must automatically be wrong - whether I am or not. After all, we live in a Democracy. That's the way things work, sheep be damned.

reply from: faithman

Where in our constitution does it say we must accept a man sucking another man's penis, or ramming his penis up another man's rectum? We do not live in a democracy. We live in a democratic republic. Huge difference. Nothing good comes from the peter puffing crowd. They are a sick, perverted lot , that need to get back into their closet.

reply from: Wrench

It's actually a Constitutional Republic... obviously you don't get sarcasm. Or reading. Or actually doing anything other than spouting your own brand of church-sanctioned hatred.
You don't need to accept anything you don't want to accept. You just don't have the right to force others to think as you think (and I thank the true God of the Bible for that).

reply from: yoda

Gun ownership is a constitutional right, yes. Marriage is not.
What "should be" is a matter of opinion
How can you protect a right that doesn't exist?
Well, now you are changing the criteria of your "challenge". I have no problem with anyone's support of gay marriage, but I do think that we should make our arguments logically and accurately. And it is not correct to say that marriage is a "right" that anyone should be able to exercise with anyone else they wish to. It is not now, nor has it ever been a "right" in most states. If it were, then we would be free to marry brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, animals, trees, etc.
If it were a "right", then a simple act by a state legislature (or the lack of an act) could not deny it.

reply from: faithman

The DEFENCE OF MARRIAGE ACT [DOMA] signed into federal law by President Clinton, makes it illegal for the federal government to recognize perverted hook ups as legitimate marriage. We are a democratic republic, governed by the rule of law. Our legislature legislated, and Our then president signed. Their is no right to gay marriage in this country, on the contrary. It is illegal for the federal government to recognize "gay marriage".

reply from: galen

darn there go all my great white hopes of marrying my kids off to vampires...
Mary

reply from: rockthecazba

Well said, and absolutely correct. Homo sexuals are a disgusting drug adicted lot, who act out in public bath rooms. The flowery picture you paint is not the norm, and is probly a totaly fabrication. Monogamy is not the norm in the pervert world. Most fags have muliple "partners" in their sick disgusting "life style". You can put all the purfume on a corpse you want, but it still stinks. You can tell all the little fairy tales [pun intended] you want about the peter puffers, but the fact is they are a sick, violent, drug and alcohol adicted lot, who's whole identity is based on perverted sexual acts. That is absolutely no place for a child to be.
Faithman do these comments come from personal experience? You sound is if you are quite familiar with "fags" a the likes of fags. . .takes one to know one doesn't it?

reply from: GratiaPlena

Sorry, but are you seriously claiming that faithman is gay? He's right about homosexuality, no matter how much you sugarcoat the issue the fact is that a lot of homosexuals are not in monogamous relationships.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Sorry, but are you seriously claiming that faithman is gay? He's right about homosexuality, no matter how much you sugarcoat the issue the fact is that a lot of homosexuals are not in monogamous relationships.
Take a read through Letha Dawson Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott's book: "Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? A Positive Christian Response". In this book they propose a "Homosexual Christian Ethic". They say God's ideal for the sexual expression of love includes the uniting of a man and woman in marriage and, for a homosexual couple, a committed relationship between two men or two women who are united in a loving covenantal union.
On page 124 of the 1994 edition they say, "Kinsey Institute researchers Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg found in their extensive 1970 study of diverse homosexual life-styles that only 17 percent of lesbian women reported purposely searching for a casual sex partner, as compared with 85 percent of gay men." Did you catch the part about 85% of gay men "purposely searching for a casual sex partner"? The authors refer to this as "cruising".
The authors report that gay men are driven to do their activities in public restrooms due to society's non-acceptance.
The author's report that "God loves and accepts us just as we are." (page 8) (The fact is, God requires us to come to complete maturity, that is why he commands, "Be perfect". This command has not been abrogated. One MUST love God and Neighbor to receive eternal life.)
After referring to their great hero Martin Luther, the author's say we need to be "moving beyond thoughtless adherence to general laws and rules."* ( page 20) (Satan couldn't have said it any better himself; "Hey, why don't we disobey God?")
After talking about theologian John Calvin, the author's refer to those who are offended by our "Christian liberty"* regarding abortion or condom distribution as "weaker brothers and sisters"; at least, according to Calvin they reason. (page 26)
Did you know you are a "weaker brother or sister" because you are offended by abortion? At least, according to these authors.
Is this book on homosexuality Satanically inspired as is the Quran? Free sex and abortion for all it declares! Well, as long as it is limited to a committed twosome, not three or four, etc. On the Quran, Osama Bin Laden says we have two options; Convert to Islam, or we Muslims are commanded to serve Allah by warring against you. Kill the infidels! The infidels are those who don't bow the knee to Allah (a.k.a. Satan).
* Footnote: Martin Luther was correct that the Catholic Church had it's own laws and rules that were invalid and unrelated to salvation. However, engaging in sodomy is outlawed by God himself and those who practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom, and, by etension, eternal life.
* Footnote on Christian Liberty: Again, the ritual sacrificial laws were replaced. We no longer need to have the blood of a sacificed animal to pay the price of our sins. This was just a temporary institution that looked forward to Christ's sacrifice. The animal sacrifices had to be offered continually. But with Christ, we have faith in his "once for all" sacrifice. We trust that the sheding of his blood the one time on the cross is sufficient; we trust that God is faithful to honor his committment. The setting aside of Judiasm and sacrificial rules does not set aside God's commands that we Must love one another and Him. We can not go out and cut someone's throat from ear to ear and expect to get an invite to the Kingdom (and eternal life). Death is simply the abscence of life: no conciousness. In death, you are not alive, not in a burning fiery existence.

reply from: galen

Gee listen to this blather... its like reading an old newletter on why black people should be sterilized... or yeah and why Jews shouldn't be allowed into society!... Get a grip people.... learn to BE like Christ... he accepted everyone and would be ashamed of anyone who disparaged thier fellow humans the way certain people on this topic are want to do...
BTW the original subject was about the laws that govern marrige... not weather someone will succome to sepsis because of thier life style choice..
personally I think Yoda hit it on te mark.
Mary
( have you hugged your gay friend today?)

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Sorry, but are you seriously claiming that faithman is gay? He's right about homosexuality, no matter how much you sugarcoat the issue the fact is that a lot of homosexuals are not in monogamous relationships.
Take a read through Letha Dawson Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott's book: "Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? A Positive Christian Response". In this book they propose a "Homosexual Christian Ethic". They say God's ideal for the sexual expression of love includes the uniting of a man and woman in marriage and, for a homosexual couple, a committed relationship between two men or two women who are united in a loving covenantal union.
On page 124 of the 1994 edition they say, "Kinsey Institute researchers Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg found in their extensive 1970 study of diverse homosexual life-styles that only 17 percent of lesbian women reported purposely searching for a casual sex partner, as compared with 85 percent of gay men." Did you catch the part about 85% of gay men "purposely searching for a casual sex partner"? The authors refer to this as "cruising".
The authors report that gay men are driven to do their activities in public restrooms due to society's non-acceptance.
The author's report that "God loves and accepts us just as we are." (page 8) (The fact is, God requires us to come to complete maturity, that is why he commands, "Be perfect". This command has not been abrogated. One MUST love God and Neighbor to receive eternal life.)
After referring to their great hero Martin Luther, the author's say we need to be "moving beyond thoughtless adherence to general laws and rules."* ( page 20) (Satan couldn't have said it any better himself; "Hey, why don't we disobey God?")
After talking about theologian John Calvin, the author's refer to those who are offended by our "Christian liberty"* regarding abortion or condom distribution as "weaker brothers and sisters"; at least, according to Calvin they reason. (page 26)
Did you know you are a "weaker brother or sister" because you are offended by abortion? At least, according to these authors.
Is this book on homosexuality Satanically inspired as is the Quran? Free sex and abortion for all it declares! Well, as long as it is limited to a committed twosome, not three or four, etc. On the Quran, Osama Bin Laden says we have two options; Convert to Islam, or we Muslims are commanded to serve Allah by warring against you. Kill the infidels! The infidels are those who don't bow the knee to Allah (a.k.a. Satan).
* Footnote: Martin Luther was correct that the Catholic Church had it's own laws and rules that were invalid and unrelated to salvation. However, engaging in sodomy is outlawed by God himself and those who practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom, and, by etension, eternal life.
* Footnote on Christian Liberty: Again, the ritual sacrificial laws were replaced. We no longer need to have the blood of a sacificed animal to pay the price of our sins. This was just a temporary institution that looked forward to Christ's sacrifice. The animal sacrifices had to be offered continually. But with Christ, we have faith in his "once for all" sacrifice. We trust that the sheding of his blood the one time on the cross is sufficient; we trust that God is faithful to honor his committment. The setting aside of Judiasm and sacrificial rules does not set aside God's commands that we Must love one another and Him. We can not go out and cut someone's throat from ear to ear and expect to get an invite to the Kingdom (and eternal life). Death is simply the abscence of life: no conciousness. In death, you are not alive, not in a burning fiery existence.
I thought I should add this. I did give Martin Luther credit for helping us break-away from many of the worthless rules, regulations and rituals of the Catholic Church. (Most in the Catholic Church are well-intentioned.) But I should also point out that Martin Luther wrote in one of his letters that we can continue to murder a thousand times a day and as long as our faith in Christ in stronger we will be saved. What worthless BS. Martin Luther is a Minister of Satan the Devil; he was a slave to sin.
Am I here to make friends, or what? Unfortunately, people don't like to hear the truth, especially regarding a favorite area of theirs.
But Dude, why do you say Protestant Ministers and Islamic Imams are working for Satan? Any Minister that says you can kick around your neighbor, take advantage of him, misuse and/or kill him, stay just as you are and still be assured of a one way ticket to heaven holds a position contrary to: You must love your neighbor as yourself (this is a command, not a suggestion). I've heard many Imams encourage violence against the nonbelievers; again, not in accordance with the: You shall love your enemies, and do good to those who despitefully use you.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the Sons of God. The meek shall inherit the earth.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics