I had no idea (caution gay thread)

[Chucktshoes]

When you quoted me as well as Erick, and then used this statement in the response:

Come on guys. Get off the emotion train and read in context.

Was I wrong to assume that it was also directed at me? Notice the use of the plural "guys". Did I read that out of context?

Edited September 3, 2012 by Chucktshoes

[strickj]

Easy there tiger. You know good and well that "Seperation of Church and State" as used in the context you tried to use it is not implied or there. The framers where very clear it was about the FED government not being able to dictate a FED Church. In fact the states COULD establish there own "Church". Not abolition of religion altogether or a negating or it's role or importance. We've had this discussion before.

The Fourteenth Admin applies the Constitution to the states. That includes the First Admin.

Everything you read about the First, the Framers and Jefferson will state that the Establishment Clause and it's intent keeps the government from establishing or showing preference to one religion over another or no religion.

The letter from Jefferson expresses his intent as the "father" of the First Admin.

Only religious insinuations and/or those within them will say differently in order to justify their religious opinions being legislated. And aren't you a Pastor?

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.†This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

http://www.law.corne...lishment_clause

I'm sorry, but I will take the words Jefferson [the Father of the First Admin] spoke, a couple hundred years of law and interpretation and the words of an accredited legal school over the words of a religious institution that benefits from legislating their religious opinion.

[Oh Shoot]

... I pointed out that almost everything Biblically viewed as a sin is illegal and considered morally unacceptable in our Constitution and legal codes.

Only 3 of the ten commandments are universally unlawful behavior and I include "bearing false witness" (slander/libel/perjury). A fourth, adultery, can be expensive, but is never a criminal act. I suppose you could argue that archaic Blue Laws were a partial fifth.

Not to mention the hundreds of other do's and don'ts mentioned in the OT which aren't even followed by the most pious of Jewish sects, let alone find their way into secular law.

Murder and theft have been crimes in all cultures as that is the practical way for people to live together in groups.

- OS

[strickj]

Hef published a well reasoned article in this month's script (yes, I'm one of the 20 folks that still subscribe ).

In 1965 Indiana police arrested Charles Cotner and charged him with an “abominable and detestable crime against nature.†His offense? Consensual anal sex with his wife. He faced 14 years in prison. When I first learned about Cotner’s case—his attorney wrote to PLAYBOY to seek our assistance—I was appalled. His wife, who signed the complaint after the couple had argued, changed her mind and asked to have the charges dropped. But the judge refused, and Cotner served nearly three years in prison before the Playboy Foundation was able to free him.

While working to strike down absurd sex laws like the one that landed Cotner behind bars, I learned a lot about the people who want to control what goes on in American bedrooms. Those who oppose us have always had one thing in common: They are on a crusade to eliminate sex not intended for the purpose of procreation.

You might think this story has nothing to do with you or your life in America in 2012. But sadly you would be wrong. The forces that put Charles Cotner in jail are the same forces at work right now. If you want a perfect example, take a look at the controversy that continues to dog the rights of gay men and women to marry. The fight for gay marriage is, in reality, a fight for all of our rights. Without it, we will turn back the sexual revolution and return to an earlier, puritanical time.

I remember that time. When I wrote The Playboy Philosophy in the early 1960s, both oral and anal sex were illegal in 49 of the 50 states. In 10 of those states, sodomy—which was variously defined but could, in some states, include oral sex—carried a maximum sentence of 20 years. Citizens in Connecticut who engaged in oral sex faced 30 years in prison—60 years for people who lived in North Carolina. In Nevada it could mean life behind bars. It was a time when 37 states outlawed sex between unmarried people and 45 criminalized adultery. Two states even banned heavy petting.

[snip]

Nearly 50 years ago in the pages of this magazine I warned that “when religion rather than reason dictates legislation, do not expect logic with your law.†Today, in every instance of sexual rights falling under attack, you’ll find legislation forced into place by people who practice discrimination disguised as religious freedom. Their goal is to dehumanize everyone’s sexuality and reduce us to using sex for the sole purpose of perpetuating our species. To that end, they will criminalize your entire sex life.

This is a religious nation, but it is also a secular one. For decades the American people have found a way to balance religious beliefs with secular freedoms. We have enjoyed freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. These need not be incompatible. No one should have to subjugate their religious freedom, and no one should have their personal freedoms infringed. This is America and we must protect the rights of all Americans.

http://www.playboy.c.../sexual-freedom

Don't know about you Smith.... but I would be sentenced to the electric chair if getting a BJ was still illegal... and that's just for my school years before girls started drinking

[Smith]

Only 3 of the ten commandments are universally unlawful behavior and I include "bearing false witness" (slander/libel/perjury). A fourth, adultery, can be expensive, but is never a criminal act. I suppose you could argue that archaic Blue Laws were a partial fifth.

Not to mention the hundreds of other do's and don'ts mentioned in the OT which aren't even followed by the most pious of Jewish sects, let alone find their way into secular law.

Murder and theft have been crimes in all cultures as that is the practical way for people to live together in groups.

- OS

So you agree?

As to your illusion of Biblical "laws," hedge laws are what you are referring to and are not considered "laws" in the Biblical sense because the Jews do not acknowledge the Bible. I was referring to the Judeo-Christian ethic as was the framers.

[Smith]

My apologies the the OP for being part of this derailment. I know better and sometimes I get sucked into these vortex's of no-win "discussions!".

[strickj]

So you agree?

As to your illusion of Biblical "laws," hedge laws are what you are referring to and are not considered "laws" in the Biblical sense because the Jews do not acknowledge the Bible. I was referring to the Judeo-Christian ethic as was the framers.

The founders were a mixed bag of religions, no religion and devotion to which. the founding of this country was not seeded in Christianity.

Most of the people that immigrated here came here for it's religious freedoms.

The Founders' religious believes are irrelevant anyway. The first thing they all agreed to do was to ensure our freedoms of and from religion was put in writing

Although the Declaration of Independence mentioned “Nature’s God†and the “Creator,†the Constitution made no reference to a divine being, Christian or otherwise, and the First Amendment explicitly forbid the establishment of any official church or creed. There is also a story, probably apocryphal, that Benjamin Franklin’s proposal to call in a chaplain to offer a prayer when a particularly controversial issue was being debated in the Constitutional Convention prompted Hamilton to observe that he saw no reason to call in foreign aid. If there is a clear legacy bequeathed by the founders, it is the insistence that religion was a private matter in which the state should not interfere.

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/02/the-us-founding-fathers-their-religious-beliefs/

[gregintenn]

OK, let's try this angle - please answer this question: why are you who are opposed to 'gay marriage' opposed to it?

Because marriage is: A RELIGIOUS UNION BETWEEN ONE WOMAN and ONE MAN!!!!! You can't marry a chicken, a tractor, 4 cub scouts, or a can of nightcrawlers. A man also cannot marry a man, nor a woman a woman.Why is this so hard to comprehend?

[Garufa]

Because marriage is: A RELIGIOUS UNION BETWEEN ONE WOMAN and ONE MAN!!!!! You can't marry a chicken, a tractor, 4 cub scouts, or a can of nightcrawlers. A man also cannot marry a man, nor a woman a woman.Why is this so hard to comprehend?

If you are married were you granted a license to do so by the state, granting all the legal benefits previously mentioned, or by the church?

[Caster]

A Civil Union is not religious by nature. Why can't they go that route?

Here's a solution; Abolish the IRS and then Marriages will have no financial benefit. I bet they walk away from it if you take away the monetary privilege.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Caster

[Garufa]

A Civil Union is not religious by nature. Why can't they go that route?

Because some people have a problem understanding vocabulary.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Garufa

[gregintenn]

If you are married were you granted a license to do so by the state, granting all the legal benefits previously mentioned, or by the church?

The one that matters was granted by the church.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What has a straight couple done to 'earn' the benefit of filing their taxes jointly that a gay couple hasn't?

Is that your defense of gay couples? I, personally don't care if there is or isn't a tax benefit, but since you asked, most married couples

have babies and along with that, additional costs of raising a child. Now, if you wish for gays to get that "benefit" get 'em to reproduce.

It won't happen without being on the backs of others, or adopting, which I hear there are a few who tend to play house, and I don't care

one way or the other about that, either.

Fun and games always when someone brings up gays and marriage. You guys really bit this one off when the media and politicians

were out peddling it. Kinda scary what else might have been bit off by the constant drum beating of the ones who want sometthing

that they don't have. Everyone wants something, I guess.

Edited September 3, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[56FordGuy]

Is that your defense of gay couples? I, personally don't care if there is or isn't a tax benefit, but since you asked, most married couples

have babies and along with that, additional costs of raising a child. Now, if you wish for gays to get that "benefit" get 'em to reproduce.

My 'defense' of gay or lesbian couples being able to marry or enter into a civil union is that straight couples are able to. As a result, straight couples who do so receive benefits from the government that homosexual couples can not receive. You're the one that stated gays had to 'earn' those benefits. I simply asked how straight couples 'earn' them. By your example, should straight couples that are medically unable or simply choose not to have children not be allowed to marry?

This is one of those topics where folks on both sides are convinced they're right, so there really is no give. Spinning wheels in the mud, really.

[G27]

OK, let's try this angle - please answer this question: why are you who are opposed to 'gay marriage' opposed to it?

Safe to assume none of the detractors are willing to answer this?

[Smith]

Safe to assume none of the detractors are willing to answer this?

Its been answered numerous times here and in other threads. It wouldn't make a difference in any ones opinion either way. Never does.

[G27]

Its been answered numerous times here and in other threads. It wouldn't make a difference in any ones opinion either way. Never does.

Well, it's pretty simple - I'm just curious where it's based. I guess I read here less than some / most as I've never seen it explained. I've seen quasi-constitutional arguments, 'tradition' arguments, etc, but no one seems to have the balls to say "it's based on our religious beliefs" or ...

So, since no one will answer the very basic question, I guess it's safe to assume it's a religious-based belief (Occam's Razor and all), which makes all of those arguing against it here incredibly hypocritical.

Feel free to enlighten me otherwise. Oh, and for the record, I'm a long-time conservative Christian just trying to figure it all out. Wish I could say I had all the answers, but I can't.

[runco]

I have stayed out of this thread long enough.

Leviticus 18:

²²Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Enough said! If you want to disagree, converse with the Author. He is available 24/7 + eternity.

[Oh Shoot]

....

As to your illusion of Biblical "laws," hedge laws are what you are referring to and are not considered "laws" in the Biblical sense because the Jews do not acknowledge the Bible.

I was referring to The Tanakh, what you Christians usurped as the Old Testament.

- OS

[G27]

I have stayed out of this thread long enough.

Leviticus 18:

²²Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Enough said! If you want to disagree, converse with the Author. He is available 24/7 + eternity.

Since you're quoting Leviticus, it's safe to assume you follow all of the laws therein, is that right?

ETA: Galatians 3:10

"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.""

Edited September 4, 2012 by crimsonaudio

[Oh Shoot]

The one that matters was granted by the church.

The one that matters for inheritance, survivor benefits, insurance matters, tax purposes, etc beau coup, is granted by the state.

- OS

[runco]

I have stayed out of this thread long enough.

Leviticus 18:

²²Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Enough said! If you want to disagree, converse with the Author. He is available 24/7 + eternity.

No, I was born a sinner, and was condemed to spiritual death. But was given the free pardon of sin when I repented. Only 1 man in mankind history was able to follow the laws.

[Mike.357]

I have stayed out of this thread long enough.

Leviticus 18:

²²Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Enough said! If you want to disagree, converse with the Author. He is available 24/7 + eternity.

I have stayed out of this thread long enough.

Leviticus 18:

²²Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Enough said! If you want to disagree, converse with the Author. He is available 24/7 + eternity.

do you just pick and choose what in the bible to follow? Or do you follow it word by word? Lots of contradiction in them pages.

Seems like most people who are against gay marriage are nit picking over the definition to the word marrriage. OS has it right on the head. The only definition of marriage that matters is the one supplied by the .gov. Sooner or later any human will be able to marry any other human being in this country. To suggest animals or car parts or whatever can then marry is lunacy.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Mike.357

[G27]

No, I was born a sinner, and was condemed to spiritual death. But was given the free pardon of sin when I repented. Only 1 man in mankind history was able to follow the laws.

OK, so, in essence, your argument against gay marriage being recognized by the federal government is that the bible says it's sinful, would you agree with that?

[Guest ThePunisher]

Would most heterosexuals agree that homosexual relations are unnatural and sexually deviant? If not, then I guess it would be ok to have sexual relations with animals, and be able to marry animals. God's standards of a man and woman in marriage is absolutely satisfactory with me. If God is against homosexual behavior, then society should adhere to his guidance in this matter, unless of course we're to become a heathen nation.