Morality Takes A Hit Again

[trying2win]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage;_ylt=AmqhT_6kodcVybihJ0yNzUNMEP0E


Heard it on the TV news earlier today. California court approves gay marriage in that state.

Canada was the first part of North America to allow gay marriage a few years ago, because of some court edict. I think if one took a poll in Canada, most Canadians oppose that decision. Then the wimpy federal politicians caved in... in essence saying 'there was not much they could do about it.

Even before that Canadian court decision came out, I had already left the United Chuch of Canada as a member, because they wanted to allow gay ministers. I took a stand and said 'no' it's morally wrong. After the Canadian court decsion allowing gay marriage in Canada, I wrote a 'letter to the editor' of one of our local newspapers stating my opposition. I got blasted verbally by a bunch of gays and lesbians, and some of their supporters. I was called a 'bigot', 'insensitive', 'prejudiced' and many more things. I don't care. I believe in taking a stand on what is 'morally right', not what is 'politically correct' to appease a minority who lead a questionable lifestyle or their supporters. My moral authority is God and what he says in the Bible, not some judge in a court or politician. God makes it very clear in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong. No court, politician, gay and lesbian group, or their supporters are going to persuade me that I 'must accept the concept of gay marriage in our society as being okay or just fine' or some other similar description.

So let's see now. Canada becomes the first part of North America to become a laughing stock to allow gay marriage. Then Massechusetts was next, and now California. Wasn't some building in the USA a few years ago, ordered to remove the Ten Commandments from an office foyer? How come?...complaints from some foreignor, or was it because some politician figured it was the 'politically correct' thing to do, because it might offend someone of a different religion? Same question for some U.S. school or schools that were ordered to not recite the Lord's Prayer in school a few yeas ago, if I remember correctly?

Both our great countries...i.e. The United States of America and Canada were founded on Christian principles, only to have these principles being eroded over time by complaints in various ways, by special interest groups, courts, and politicians.

Now when watching TV, I have to have my remote control clicker ready to switch channels, because some gay and lesbian theme show or host will appear on my TV, or some entertainment celebrity will come on TV to announce they are 'coming out-of-the-closet'. I sure miss the old days on TV in the 50s and 60s when we had good, clean comedies etc. on TV.

There. I've got that off my chest. Now I suppose there will be a mixture of responses on this topic. Some compliments for me taking a stand on the issue...some who will criticize and condemn me. Some who don't care. Whatever, you have the right to exercise your freedom of speech.


Thank you,

T2W

[46zilzal]

Never understood how a union between two consenting adults somehow ATTACKS marriage. Nuts

[Greyfox]

So for legal purposes call it a "Union" of consenting adults.
Keep the term "Marriage" sacred for a consenting man and woman, as it has been traditionally.

[Marshall Bennett]

So for legal purposes call it a "Union" of consenting adults.
Keep the term "Marriage" sacred for a consenting man and woman, as it has been traditionally.
Since when do liberals consider anything sacred or traditional ? :lol:

[Indulto]

… I was called a 'bigot', 'insensitive', 'prejudiced' and many more things. I don't care. I believe in taking a stand on what is 'morally right', not what is 'politically correct' to appease a minority who lead a questionable lifestyle or their supporters. My moral authority is God and what he says in the Bible, not some judge in a court or politician. God makes it very clear in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong.

… Now I suppose there will be a mixture of responses on this topic. Some compliments for me taking a stand on the issue...some who will criticize and condemn me. …Allow me to compliment you on your self-congratulatory sermon. Seldom has someone so full of himself reached his full potential for appearing full of something else.

Are you running for Rev. Falwell’s old job or just running off at the mouth? While you’re up there on the pulpit, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what the bible has to say about gambling.

[singletax]

The government should get out of the marriage business. If two people want
to be married under a religious authority or have a prenuptial or a civil union or whatever it is their affair not mine to sanction it.

[trying2win]

Keep the term "Marriage" sacred for a consenting man and woman, as it has been traditionally.

Greyfox:

I agree with what you say in your sentence here.

T2W

[riskman]

Allow me to compliment you on your self-congratulatory sermon. Seldom has someone so full of himself reached his full potential for appearing full of something else.

Are you running for Rev. Falwell’s old job or just running off at the mouth? While you’re up there on the pulpit, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what the bible has to say about gambling.

Jesus Himself makes it very clear that (unless spending the money to commit a sin) a man can use his own money to do with as he pleases. Matthew 20:15 says clearly:

"Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things?..."

If Jesus says that a man can do with his own money what he wants, then why do many Christians today want to trump Jesus’ wisdom?

[JustRalph]

The government should get out of the marriage business. If two people want
to be married under a religious authority or have a prenuptial or a civil union or whatever it is their affair not mine to sanction it.

2.3 million couples wed every year in the US. That breaks down to nearly 6,200 weddings a day

Let's say a marriage license cost $20 bucks..............

do the math...........no way they get out of it............

[bigmack]

Here in CA, we've been asked this question in the voting booth. It was squished. Now it's back up because a few judges say so? It ain't goin' nowhere without voter backing.

You want us to vote again? OK. Can you say "squished" again?

[chickenhead]

causing me to be reviled by both ends of the spectrum probably....this issue ranks near the bottom on my give-a-damn-o-meter.

[JustRalph]

causing me to be reviled by both ends of the spectrum probably....this issue ranks near the bottom on my give-a-damn-o-meter.


Me too, but the fact that it was ruled unconstitutional is an interesting point. We are now taking what were once just moral and Religious questions and applying a Legal framework to them. This can become very sticky when it comes to Religious tolerance etc. This means that Religious edicts from foreign lands can be either ignored or enforced based on Legal and Constitutional grounds once that person becomes a U.S. Citizen and even if they aren't a U.S. Citizen. Edicts and rules that were once only Religious in nature can now come under scrutiny by the courts and weighed against the Constitution. If a ruling like this stands.

Whether they are foreign or not is confusing enough. There have been battles already over the Constitutionality of requiring Muslim Women to remove the veils covering their faces for "Official Photos" etc. What about Fingerprints? These kinds of questions can be very legally argumentative and bothersome to the courts.

The obvious remedy in this example was taking the issue to the people. It won't get voted on again. There is no legal apparatus in place for that. They would have to re-write the ballot measure and pass a new one. The next stop will be a higher court who will have to decide not only the Constitutionality of gay marriage but the issue as to whether the ballot measure from the states can be weighted with more importance than the Constitution? I seriously doubt that. But I am sure it will be an issue. Many State legislators have been over-ruled by the courts when they tried to circumvent a ballot initiative, but this falls into a different category all together. Judges will ultimately decide. Which ones will get the final say is the real question.

[ljb]

causing me to be reviled by both ends of the spectrum probably....this issue ranks near the bottom on my give-a-damn-o-meter.
I am in total agreement with you on this. I would even use the give-a-mack-o-meter if it wasn't so close to Preakness. ;)

[Tom]

So, each state must recognize laws from other states, so if a gay marriage couple moves from California to a state that has a law against that sort of thing, which state law trumps the other? :confused:

[Marshall Bennett]

Or if they get married in California and move to another state and one dies . Is the estate settled back in Cal where the marriage is recognized ?

[banacek]

But then if we eliminate the s on things, it reads:

"Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own thing?..."


Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[jcrabboy]

causing me to be reviled by both ends of the spectrum probably....this issue ranks near the bottom on my give-a-damn-o-meter.

Here! Here! If they want to walk up the aisle with butt plugs and wearing chaps I could give a rats ass. The sanctity of marriage hit the toilet when divorce became as simple as breaking wind.

Single issue voters will leap on this and ignore the real immorality going on around them. Corporations running our country, people starving in the world's wealthiest country, etc., etc.

Watch these guys once again vote against their own self interest as they get caught up in buzzwords and spin. Their wages may be stagnant or going down like the Titanic, they may not be able to put their kids through school, they may be working two jobs because they can't afford gas, but By God no Fags are gonna get married on their watch.

Get real. The politicos and corporations that own them love this s***.

Jimmie

[ljb]

Here! Here! If they want to walk up the aisle with butt plugs and wearing chaps I could give a rats ass. The sanctity of marriage hit the toilet when divorce became as simple as breaking wind.

Single issue voters will leap on this and ignore the real immorality going on around them. Corporations running our country, people starving in the world's wealthiest country, etc., etc.

Watch these guys once again vote against their own self interest as they get caught up in buzzwords and spin. Their wages may be stagnant or going down like the Titanic, they may not be able to put their kids through school, they may be working two jobs because they can't afford gas, but By God no Fags are gonna get married on their watch.

Get real. The politicos and corporations that own them love this s***.

Jimmie
Excellent post. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[delayjf]

From a moral perspective, I am against Gay Marriage. I could live with it as law if the State had voted to sanction gay marriages – but they overwhelmingly voted it down. I think in issues of morality should ultimately be decided by the People, not the Courts.

Never understood how a union between two consenting adults somehow ATTACKS marriage. Nuts
First of all, not only is marriage historically a religious ceremony, but for most religions it is also a sacrament. The issue is not about what two consenting adults do in private, G & L’s can do whatever they want.

Our laws reflect our societies morals – who gets to determine what that morality is? I believe the people within the community / state should decide the issues of morality. In this case, nobody is telling two gay couples that their relationship is illegal and must stop or go to jail. This case is about a court tell the citizens of that they have to respect and condone a lifestyle they have already voiced and opinion against.

From a legal perspective, if People of CA are not fit to define a Marriage between one man and one woman – how can the courts deny the same government sanctions to those who choose a polygamist lifestyle or any life style for that matter?

[JustRalph]

From a legal perspective, if People of CA are not fit to define a Marriage between one man and one woman – how can the courts deny the same government sanctions to those who choose a polygamist lifestyle or any life style for that matter?

Therein lies the problem with allowing courts to decide moral or religious questions. As I said in my earlier post, They have a applied a legal constitutional definition to something that was never a legal matter.

[jcrabboy]

Excellent post. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

ljb-Check out my post on the Die 'merkin thread. It doesn't have to be serious all the time. Riffing on Dick Cheney (Cheney fans forgive me) is just too easy. If you know what a merkin is you have a head start.

Jimmie

[delayjf]

Single issue voters will leap on this and ignore the real immorality going on around them. Corporations running our country, people starving in the world's wealthiest country, etc., etc.
I believe Americans can tackle more than one issue at a time.

[toetoe]

How about "union" as the term for a strictly legal affair. "Marriage" can be for a ceremony blessed by a church.

After all, "marriage" has a generic definition, just "combination" or "blend."

Hell, I guess we could change "matrimony" to "neutrimony" or even "patrimony," but do we care enough to be consistent and diligent, beyond political wrangling ? Uh, no.

[ddog]

From a moral perspective, I am against Gay Marriage. I could live with it as law if the State had voted to sanction gay marriages – but they overwhelmingly voted it down. I think in issues of morality should ultimately be decided by the People, not the Courts.


First of all, not only is marriage historically a religious ceremony, but for most religions it is also a sacrament. The issue is not about what two consenting adults do in private, G & L’s can do whatever they want.

Our laws reflect our societies morals – who gets to determine what that morality is? I believe the people within the community / state should decide the issues of morality. In this case, nobody is telling two gay couples that their relationship is illegal and must stop or go to jail. This case is about a court tell the citizens of that they have to respect and condone a lifestyle they have already voiced and opinion against.

From a legal perspective, if People of CA are not fit to define a Marriage between one man and one woman – how can the courts deny the same government sanctions to those who choose a polygamist lifestyle or any life style for that matter?

i am sorry, but if the constituition is worth anything at all anymore and this country has any kind of live and let live attitude left anywhere as long as you don't harm me, then the "protections" are exactly to protect you/me/them from the majority.

It should be about personal freedom first as far as possible not this idiotic notion of democracy that is bandied about.

So, if I setup a "religion" that says gay marriage is ok, then that wipes out the religous argument?

Then you are into beliefs and faith on a personal level.
You should take pains to not want to decide how others live their life.
Most have enough on their plate living one at a time.

Yes, that goes for the poly's as well, if they wish to press their rights in court, i say go for it.
it wouldn't hold for sexual abuse of underage since they can't give informed free consent.

[ddog]

i am sorry, but if the constituition is worth anything at all anymore and this country has any kind of live and let live attitude left anywhere as long as you don't harm me, then the "protections" are exactly to protect you/me/them from the majority.

It should be about personal freedom first as far as possible not this idiotic notion of democracy that is bandied about.

So, if I setup a "religion" that says gay marriage is ok, then that wipes out the religous argument?

Then you are into beliefs and faith on a personal level.
You should take pains to not want to decide how others live their life.
Most have enough on their plate living one at a time.

Yes, that goes for the poly's as well, if they wish to press their rights in court, i say go for it.
it wouldn't hold for sexual abuse of underage since they can't give informed free consent.


...continued rant below

you are not being forced to condone and repect or consent to that lifestyle in any way.

You don't have to consort with them, speak to them.
You are free to tell them when you see them that they are sinners and evil doers.
I don't get the false respect them, against my will deal.


Also, if you think/suspect or can't prove that "it" may not be biology and the "choice" flows from that then you are denying their nature I would think.

Doesn't your skin crawl at the thought of "it"?

I never recall being taught it was not "right", it just induced the yuk factor from whenever.

i don't know and I am not going to come down on them.

It would not be fair to tell them since they are gay that they must abstain , so if marriage will cut down on certain behaviours, who knows,although the straight marriage experience would not give one much hope here, then it may do some good.

as to the states being the final decider on these things, i am sure some states would still have on the books no race mixing either.
You know who you are.

another stupid deal that courts had to overturn , since some of the state populations didn't have the common decency to do it on their own.
the little people clinging and all that.

[ljb]

I believe Americans can tackle more than one issue at a time.
You would think so, however based on previous election results it appears not.

[jcrabboy]

You would think so, however based on previous election results it appears not.

That would be correct .

How often do you hear the sheep bleating, "I'm not voting for him/her he's pro-choice or anti-abortion or...", just before they are herded into the shearing pen.
That is a classic one issue voter.

Digging deeper than a sound bite is very difficult for today's voter. Hence the Clusterf*** we are currently faced with as a nation.

Jimmie

[ljb]

And the best I have heard lately "I'm not voting for him because he doesn't wear a flag lapel pin." Deep thinkers, these repugs.

[Tom]

Almost as bad as the millons who will vote for soley because he is black, huh lbj?

[Indulto]

Almost as bad as the millons who will vote for soley because he is black, huh lbj?Tom,
I would guess there are fewer people who will vote for Obama primarily because he is black than there are those will NOT vote for him simply because he is black.

The vast majority of Obama supporters view him primarily as an a competent individual capable of solving problems and willing to change the dynamics in Iraq. Undoubtedly some of those prefer him to Clinton because he is black and/or a man.

Clinton supporters see their candidate in a similar light, but obviously some prefer her to Obama because she is a women and/or white.

I suspect there are more Republicans who are single issue voters than Democrats, and hopefully those Democrats and independents that were single issue voters in the Democrat Primary will support either candidate in the general election.

[Tom]

I don't agree. I think if Colin Powel had run, he would have demolished McCain.
All the conservative I know are far more concerned with restoring conservative value than keeping a black man out the white house. Obama kool aid is very obvious.

[wonatthewire1]

Tom,
I would guess there are fewer people who will vote for Obama primarily because he is black than there are those will NOT vote for him simply because he is black.

I'm voting for McCan't because he's an old guy like me

;)

[Marshall Bennett]

I'm voting for him because he's old and white !! :lol:

[Indulto]

I don't agree. I think if Colin Powel had run, he would have demolished McCain.
All the conservative I know are far more concerned with restoring conservative value than keeping a black man out the white house. Obama kool aid is very obvious.That sounds reasonable for upper New York State.

After the Iraqi invasion, I can't imagine Powell getting enough support from either party to get its nomination.

[Suff]

First of all, not only is marriage historically a religious ceremony, but for most religions it is also a sacrament. The issue is not about what two consenting adults do in private, G & L’s can do whatever they want.
?

Not so, Marraige was decidedly unreligous in early colonial times. As matter of fact it was illegal for anyone but a Civil Officer to perform a wedding ceremony. A judge, a governer etc... A Parson ( protestant for priest) was forbidden from marrying anyone. All weddings were held in small private ceremonies at the family home on Saturday afternoons. Church on Sunday was simply the occasion for coming out as a couple.

Marriage has nothing to do with morality, or religion, or America, or any other made up nonsesnse. Many early marraiges in America involved men kipnapping women and forcing matrimony upon them. There really is not much to the arguments people make about marriage. People just make shit up to back up their own logic. (or lack of)

[bigmack]

Mildly interesting topic for the internet. In the real world, voting will side traditionally for quite a spell. "Traditional" means what you might expect as a reader of this, not life on Pluto or the year 1759.

Would deeming them "domestic partners" and getting some tax cred's make a difference? If so - let's do it and move on.

A semblance of order is a good thing.

[ljb]

Almost as bad as the millons who will vote for soley because he is black, huh lbj?
how does this compare with those who will vote against him soley because he is black, huh tom?

[JustRalph]

Not so, Marraige was decidedly unreligous in early colonial times. As matter of fact it was illegal for anyone but a Civil Officer to perform a wedding ceremony. A judge, a governer etc... A Parson ( protestant for priest) was forbidden from marrying anyone. All weddings were held in small private ceremonies at the family home on Saturday afternoons. Church on Sunday was simply the occasion for coming out as a couple.

Marriage has nothing to do with morality, or religion, or America, or any other made up nonsesnse. Many early marraiges in America involved men kipnapping women and forcing matrimony upon them. There really is not much to the arguments people make about marriage. People just make shit up to back up their own logic. (or lack of)

you're right, but only after early settlers found that they did not have access to "officers of the church of England" They were the only ones who could perform marriage ceremonies and "officers of the church of england" did not accompany those fleeing England to the U.S. That is why it became illegal for Churches and such to get involved in marriages. They weren't the church of England. Eventually marriage became the domain of both. The State and the Church depending upon your belief system. There are marriage records back to the 1600's in England and they were maintained by the church. The Royals were married in Churches in the 1500's.

Just like everything else........once the State got its hands on Marriage it became a taxable commodity...........so they keep it through license issue. No different than a fishing license, a drivers license or a "registration" for your car. They are nothing more than a tax that was sold to early generations. They never go away............

[Tom]

That sounds reasonable for upper New York State.

After the Iraqi invasion, I can't imagine Powell getting enough support from either party to get its nomination.

And tell me what you know about "upper New york State?"
Or is that code.

[HUSKER55]

Gays should not be allowed in the church because they fall outside the "body of christ", meaning God forbids it

Marriage is before God and man and therefore is done in a church. Anyone that goes against that will not be resurected. It is in the Bible. Basically, it says, have all the fun you want but in the end my words remain.

That seems pretty clear to me and I think gays should respect that and stay out of church.

The real isssue is the legal issue caused by government sticking their noses into everyone's business. What gays want are access to "spousal health care" insurance benefis, property rights and etc that the law does not allow for.

If gays want to make a mockery of the church then they deserve what they get. Forceing insurance companies to recognize "unions" is another matter.

Personally, I think the more gays the better.

Why? Because for every gay couple leaves two more women for me.

:D

[JustRalph]

And tell me what you know about "upper New york State?"
Or is that code.


Tom, you're not supposed to catch on!!! :lol:

[trying2win]

Bryan Fischer has got it right in this article:

http://www.idahovaluesalliance.com/news.asp?id=795

He doesn't mince his words on what he thinks of the members of the California Supreme Court who voted for the overturning of the ban on gay and lesbian marriage in California. Looks like he's not impressed with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's weak stance afterwards either.

God bless Bryan Fischer for taking a stand for good, moral conservative values. Of course, lefty liberals will probably disagree with Mr. Fischer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
~"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life".

--Winston Churchill (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/winstonchu135210.html)

[trying2win]

HUSKER:

Good points you listed about some Biblical truths. Thank you.

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

~"Those who stand for nothing, fall for anything.

--Alexander Hamilton (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alexanderh100913.html)

[wonatthewire1]

Marriage is before God and man and therefore is done in a church. Anyone that goes against that will not be resurected. It is in the Bible. Basically, it says, have all the fun you want but in the end my words remain.

That seems pretty clear to me and I think gays should respect that and stay out of church.


Okay which church are you referring to? There are gay Episcopal ministers and who knows what else out there...

If you want to have a lot of fun throughout life without looking over your shoulder for "god", become a Roman Catholic and make sure that you get completely absolved on your deathbed - nothing like having all of your sins removed - just in case there is a heaven!

[wonatthewire1]

Would deeming them "domestic partners" and getting some tax cred's make a difference? If so - let's do it and move on. A semblance of order is a good thing.

Good point Mack and yes, rational people would accept the "domestic partner" designation without thinking twice about it.

However, the people who are involved in the "controversy" of gay marriage are dead serious and are determined to use the word "marriage" not some (in their minds) contrived designation that does not fully describe their union.

We had a bit of it here in NJ last summer - and it was very clear that the word "marriage" had to be attached to anything allowing gay unions - the advocates wanted nothing less.

So be it - but that is what creates the storm of controversy - perhaps even on purpose...

:rolleyes:

[ddog]

I don't agree. I think if Colin Powel had run, he would have demolished McCain.
All the conservative I know are far more concerned with restoring conservative value than keeping a black man out the white house. Obama kool aid is very obvious.


as i said long ago, Jeb Bush, yes Bush would have demolished Mccain.

You don't REALLY win anything if you do so by running away from your core differences with the other side.

[ddog]

Good point Mack and yes, rational people would accept the "domestic partner" designation without thinking twice about it.

However, the people who are involved in the "controversy" of gay marriage are dead serious and are determined to use the word "marriage" not some (in their minds) contrived designation that does not fully describe their union.

We had a bit of it here in NJ last summer - and it was very clear that the word "marriage" had to be attached to anything allowing gay unions - the advocates wanted nothing less.

So be it - but that is what creates the storm of controversy - perhaps even on purpose...

:rolleyes:

I thought Cal did allow most of the civil union type benefits or was that just in certain city/country gvt?

[ddog]

HUSKER:

Good points you listed about some Biblical truths. Thank you.

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

~"Those who stand for nothing, fall for anything.

--Alexander Hamilton (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alexanderh100913.html)

yes, they are your and Huskers truths.
Live up to those and all the other truth maybe not so easy for you and you should do well.

doesn't count for a hill of beans with others truths though.
and , lucky for YOU and them , you don't decide for them.

Cheney daughter and many members of the "morals" party would certainly disagree with some of your truths and that's their and her fathers right, all day every day no matter how bad it seems to you.

Oh ,Husker, I don't know about where you live , but not only males can be gay.
Maybe it means two less for you.

by the way , "have all the fun you want" , i don't think is exactly the core message of most mainsteam religions, is it?

[Indulto]

… God bless Bryan Fischer for taking a stand for good, moral conservative values. Of course, lefty liberals will probably disagree with Mr. Fischer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
~"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life".

--Winston Churchill… Good points you listed about some Biblical truths. Thank you.

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

~"Those who stand for nothing, fall for anything.

--Alexander HamiltonSo now you’re in the trailer business, tainting statesmen with your self-association. I doubt either of those gentlemen put church before state on any issue. You would have been truer to your ideals had you quoted that would-be statesman, Pat Robertson.

There are many valid arguments against same-sex marriages. Some of them have already been presented here. Yet you cling to words written 2000 years ago by humans who lived in homogeneous groups that suppressed individual differences as a matter of survival. And for what -- to justify homophobia in today’s world? Since you don’t want to share what the bible says about gambling, perhaps you could tell us what it says about slavery?

[Indulto]

And tell me what you know about "upper New york State?"
Or is that code.:lol: Tom, you're not supposed to catch on!!! Code? You mean like BLT? ;)

I love it when right-wing paranoia can’t be concealed. :D

I lived and worked in both upstate NY and the City before moving West. Upstate Reps at that time were Rockefeller Reps who got along with everybody. The fact that they haven’t gone after Paterson yet gives credence to your original statement.

Maybe you ought to go back to parking your trailer near food -- bananas, cheese, whatever. :lol:

[jcrabboy]

Gays should not be allowed in the church because they fall outside the "body of christ", meaning God forbids it

Marriage is before God and man and therefore is done in a church. Anyone that goes against that will not be resurected. It is in the Bible. Basically, it says, have all the fun you want but in the end my words remain.

That seems pretty clear to me and I think gays should respect that and stay out of church.

The real isssue is the legal issue caused by government sticking their noses into everyone's business. What gays want are access to "spousal health care" insurance benefis, property rights and etc that the law does not allow for.

If gays want to make a mockery of the church then they deserve what they get. Forceing insurance companies to recognize "unions" is another matter.

Personally, I think the more gays the better.

Why? Because for every gay couple leaves two more women for me.

:D

I've got an idea. Lets make divorce illegal. If you really are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage wouldn't that make more sense than worrying about two cats who prefer fudge to fish wanting to make an honest commitment.

In horse racing once the race is run you don't get to take back your wager. Why should it be any different with marriage?

Here's an idea for all you Pro Lifers as well. Ban abortion, but set up a lottery for all Organized Religions in the United States. Every member of these religions gets a number.

Let's call it the Unwanted Newborn Lottery. Each time an unwanted baby is born, a number is drawn and the lucky family that has the number gets a welcome addition to the Household. No consideration given as to health, race etc.

I would predict an exodus from Organized Religion unlike anything ever seen before.

It is the greatest failing of our Nation that we feel compelled to impose our world view (narrow for the most part) on others. It is this intolerance that has us getting ass smacked in the Middle East while trying to exercise some sort of perverse colonialism on Iraq (see Great Britains attempt to colonize India for an example of why we are destined to fail in Iraq). If you still believe that Iraq was about WMD then...

Watching cute little Wicans dancing nude around a tree.

Jimmie

[JustRalph]

I've got an idea. Lets make divorce illegal. If you really are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage wouldn't that make more sense than worrying about two cats who prefer fudge to fish wanting to make an honest commitment.

In horse racing once the race is run you don't get to take back your wager. Why should it be any different with marriage?

Here's an idea for all you Pro Lifers as well. Ban abortion, but set up a lottery for all Organized Religions in the United States. Every member of these religions gets a number.

Let's call it the Unwanted Newborn Lottery. Each time an unwanted baby is born, a number is drawn and the lucky family that has the number gets a welcome addition to the Household. No consideration given as to health, race etc.

I would predict an exodus from Organized Religion unlike anything ever seen before.

It is the greatest failing of our Nation that we feel compelled to impose our world view (narrow for the most part) on others. It is this intolerance that has us getting ass smacked in the Middle East while trying to exercise some sort of perverse colonialism on Iraq (see Great Britains attempt to colonize India for an example of why we are destined to fail in Iraq). If you still believe that Iraq was about WMD then...

Watching cute little Wicans dancing nude around a tree.

Jimmie

Oh, there is so much wrong with this post that it isn't even worth responding to. Crass with a capital C

[Living Flame]

Well I guess some of the Dinosaurs here are just gonna have to learn to live with it or else move to Iran. Gay marriage is here to stay and soon it will be legal everywhere.


But you have to remember that more an more people (straight and gay) are opting to NOT marry - EVER, and more and more are delaying it until late in life. This trend will continue, until marriage - at long last - dies off and is seen as a laughable old tradition practiced by the unenlightened back in ancient times.:lol:

Remember, slavery was traditional, too!

Now, you P-whipped losers should just go home and get ordered around by your old ladies!:blush: Yes, dear!!!!!

Oh yeah, one last thing: When doing your will, don't forget to give your wife everything, since that is the only reason women marry men in the first place!:lol:

[jcrabboy]

Oh, there is so much wrong with this post that it isn't even worth responding to. Crass with a capital C

JustRalph:
Crass maybe, but I don't think wrong. It seems to me we exercise an irresponsible kind of morality today. We seem to have lost the ability to live and let live, rather we make a concious choice to impose our views and lifestyles on others. Can't quite find the Christian or Muslim or whatever in that.

I often cross the line of perceived good taste, but if you look at the underlying points I try to make, I don't really think I am too far off base. I welcome reasoned dialogue, but I am too old to hang out with Miss Manners.

Jimmie

[Tom]

Code? You mean like BLT? ;)

I love it when right-wing paranoia can’t be concealed. :D

I lived and worked in both upstate NY and the City before moving West. Upstate Reps at that time were Rockefeller Reps who got along with everybody. The fact that they haven’t gone after Paterson yet gives credence to your original statement.

Maybe you ought to go back to parking your trailer near food -- bananas, cheese, whatever. :lol:


Call it paranoia, but it is damn well true and you know it.
Paterson is only a matter of time - he is low life and a lib.....say no more. He is already up to no good - see my post in another thread about he and UpChuckie Schummer. The only worse than an elected dem is an unelected one. Paterson is no good.

[wonatthewire1]

I thought Cal did allow most of the civil union type benefits or was that just in certain city/country gvt?


Could be ddog, but the word "marriage" is the major component. Civil unions, as a term, is not good enough - marriage is the only thing that matters - the "title".

Do you say, "I now pronounce you woman and wife"?

:bang:

All kidding aside, it really makes no difference to me at all - an interesting topic to have people get all worked up over. One point, most of the people who are having fits over it will never meet a gay couple in their life. Not running with the same crowd...

[Indulto]

Call it paranoia, but it is damn well true and you know it.
Paterson is only a matter of time - he is low life and a lib.....say no more. He is already up to no good - see my post in another thread about he and UpChuckie Schummer. The only worse than an elected dem is an unelected one. Paterson is no good.Did you really intend that comparison sequence?

You must be hungry. :lol:

[HUSKER55]

If gays expect people to respect their "rights" then why shouldn't gays respect the church of those that don't believe in homosexuality. I really do not understand how that is asking too much.

What gays do in the bedroom is none of my business AND you are not going to make it my business. I thought I made myself clear.

But assaulting the church is.

[Tom]

Did you really intend that comparison sequence?

You must be hungry. :lol:

Yeah, right.
You run out of intelloigent dicussion topics rather quickly.
Maybe you should save some up and then last a whole day.:rolleyes:
Buh-bye.

[Indulto]

Yeah, right.
You run out of intelloigent dicussion topics rather quickly.
Maybe you should save some up and then last a whole day.:rolleyes:
Buh-bye.Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Or perhaps I should say buh-beige in this thread.;)

[bigmack]

Well I guess some of the Dinosaurs here are just gonna have to learn to live with it or else move to Iran. Gay marriage is here to stay and soon it will be legal everywhere.
According to who, a living flame?

Is voting and the will of the people out of the question or don't you trust the people to vote in the corner of your favor?

Give me an idea of where gay marriage is here to stay so I can have a better idea of the duration of "stay".

[PaceAdvantage]

It is this intolerance that has us getting ass smacked in the Middle East....Is that what they call marching into the capital at will, taking down the gov't and holding free and open elections? That kind of ass smack?

Or is it the 4,000 dead over a 5+ year period....less than 1,000 per year....that kind of ass smack?

[jcrabboy]

Is that what they call marching into the capital at will, taking down the gov't and holding free and open elections? That kind of ass smack?

Or is it the 4,000 dead over a 5+ year period....less than 1,000 per year....that kind of ass smack?

PaceAdvantage:

One dead soldier in Iraq is too many considering how we got there.

Way more than 4000 dead when you factor in non combatants, police etc. Remember, when the WMDs turned out to be smoke and mirrors, the new spin was a free Iraq, so logically you have to include Iraquis in your stats.

It is an ass smack when we are embroiled in something with no end in sight, that is draining our coffers and stretching the military wire thin.

It is an ass smack when we don't finish the job in Afghanistan and the mastermind of 9/11 is still free and delivering videotaped missives for all the Arab World to see. The administration saying he no longer matters is ludicrous.

Instead of knobbing off to Iraq we should have finished what we started in Afghanistan.

To date George Bush has proved to be a consummate politician, but that is where it stops. He rarely finishes anything he starts. This mess will have to be cleaned up by future administrations and I do mean administrations, whether they be Republican or Democrat.

Somehow we have to redevelop Diplomatic credibility in the Middle East. George Bush lecturing Arabs about how to run their countries doesn't cut it.

I just don't think things are that damned rosy in the Middle East.

In the end it is just my opinion and I understand that many will find fault with it. That's OK. I like the back and forth.

Jimmie

[prospector]

PaceAdvantage:


Way more than 4000 dead when you factor in non combatants, police etc. Remember, when the WMDs turned out to be smoke and mirrors, the new spin was a free Iraq, so logically you have to include Iraquis in your stats.

Jimmie

smoke and mirrors?
here's some smoke http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE

[jcrabboy]

smoke and mirrors?
here's some smoke http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE

prospector:
I tried to get the video to play with no luck, but based on the fact that it is 2 years old I am going to guess it is not very revelatory.

If it has to do with discovering WMD don't you think George Bush and Dick Cheney would be High Fiving each other in the Rose Garden and saying, "I told you so."? They aren't doing that and, I'm guessing, they won't be doing that.

Generally speaking when a poster (Left or Right) on this site wants to make a political point he will use links and stats from a pet source or sources that are already biased.

Moveon.org would be one example, Fox News another. As for providing government stats; regardless of the administration, that data will have been massaged and molded to a point where it is no longer recognizable as the original data.

I read the Fort Worth Star Telegram everyday (It could be any newspaper. They are all owned by corporate entities and will promote agendas germane to their interests- financial or political). National or International stories that interest me are then checked against an international source online (if I can find one carrying the story) to see how they diverge from each other.

This can be very revelatory.

I doubt I could sway your opinion with a diatribe from moveon.org or any other liberal think tank and I wouldn't insult you by doing so. I try to use my head rather than my heart when formulating opinions, but I am a Contrarian. I think you get stronger if you swim against the current.

The Twain quote is spot on.

Jimmie

[Cangamble]

According to who, a living flame?

Is voting and the will of the people out of the question or don't you trust the people to vote in the corner of your favor?

Give me an idea of where gay marriage is here to stay so I can have a better idea of the duration of "stay".
This is an issue that never should have been law in the first place (that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married)
I'm sure you could hold votes in certain parts of America where segregation would be voted for and separate schools for whites as well. At least that was the case 40 years ago in many places. Does that mean the will of the people should overrule the idea of taking away someone's individual rights?
You can have votes on all sorts of nonsense where the will of the people would be unconstititutional.
If they had a vote in Dearborn that stated that only marriages between Muslims would be considered legal, would that be OK? It is the will of the people in that situation.

[Cangamble]

The first known marriages were in ancient Egypt. Keeping bloodlines blue were a big thing back then. Royalty married their daughters. Royal siblings got married to each other as well.
So tradition does change.
Once marriage became more widespread in different cultures, it was about BUYING a bride from her family most of the time.
That "tradition" still occurs in many places on this planet.

[delayjf]

of taking away someone's individual rights?
Getting married is not a right. This is not about what they do in the privacy of their home. Would you support Polygamy? After all the same "consenting adults" argument would apply here as well.

[Cangamble]

Getting married is not a right. This is not about what they do in the privacy of their home. Would you support Polygamy? After all the same "consenting adults" argument would apply here as well.
I would have to see the pros and cons. Polygamy usually involves brainwashing. If it is something that soaks the system when it doesn't include brainwashing then I can see it being struck down.
Polygamy is very biblical in nature, so anyone who supports the bible should also support polygamy.
Secondly, isn't it a right for two consenting adults to get married?

[chickenhead]

Secondly, isn't it a right for two consenting adults to get married?

Depends on what we mean by marriage, doesn't it?

Does marriage mean anything outside of the governments recognition of it? Or is that all there is to it?

I would argue yes, it has meaning outside of govt, which also of course means that plenty of gay people are married. They're paired up, for all intents and purposes. They've said their vows in front of their peoples and to each other.

Isn't that marriage?

That's never been illegal.

So the question then really is: Is it a right that all marriages must be treated and recognized as equal by the government?

[Cangamble]

Depends on what we mean by marriage, doesn't it?

Does marriage mean anything outside of the governments recognition of it? Or is that all there is to it?

I would argue yes, it has meaning outside of govt, which also of course means that plenty of gay people are married. They're paired up, for all intents and purposes. They've said their vows in front of their peoples and to each other.

Isn't that marriage?

That's never been illegal.
I'm Canadian as you know. But wouldn't gays have a first ammendment right to get married. In other words, doesn't preventing gays from getting legally married take away from their rights as individuals?

[JustRalph]

I'm Canadian as you know. But wouldn't gays have a first ammendment right to get married. In other words, doesn't preventing gays from getting legally married take away from their rights as individuals?

Fascinating thread. To violate the first amendment you have to take an action that prohibits an utterance or action that is normally construed as a message, whether tacit or overt. What would be the message? What message would gay marriage be communicating? Be careful, this can be a leading question................ :lol:

[chickenhead]

I'm Canadian as you know. But wouldn't gays have a first ammendment right to get married. In other words, doesn't preventing gays from getting legally married take away from their rights as individuals?

I don't know, does it? They're not prevented from getting married, they just don't get some perks from the gov't in recognition. If the government decided to not give out those perks at all, would everyones rights be violated?

[Tom]

All California hads to do was pass a law allowing gay marriage. The courst had no business gettinginvolved.
Now that they have, they have it wrong. Theyover-stepped thier authotiy to engineer social change, not what they are supposed to do. That is the duty of the legislature, where the memebers are elected and at lest somewhat accountable to the poeple. The courts need to be slapped down.
But they failed by not allowing poligamy. No arguments for gay marriage can be denied to poligamy.

But it is not the business of the federal government at all - they have no right ot allow or disallow any marriagas. That is states rights.

Now, the qustion arises, a state that allows GM and one that forbids it - which one trumps?

As usual, the California courts have messed up big time.

[Cangamble]

Fascinating thread. To violate the first amendment you have to take an action that prohibits an utterance or action that is normally construed as a message, whether tacit or overt. What would be the message? What message would gay marriage be communicating? Be careful, this can be a leading question................ :lol:
I found this. I might have my amendments mixed up:)
'Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right. Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the remaining ten percent constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent? As Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it.'
There is a lot of interesting argument here. Some of it includes the First Amendment as well:
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

[Cangamble]

But they failed by not allowing poligamy. No arguments for gay marriage can be denied to poligamy.


Actually there is one biggie. Bigamy is a crime so is pedophelia for that matter.

[Tom]

That makes as much sense as saying driving without a license is a crime and so is arson. Bigamy is having more than one spouse. Why is that different than having a same sex partner?

[Cangamble]

That makes as much sense as saying driving without a license is a crime and so is arson. Bigamy is having more than one spouse. Why is that different than having a same sex partner?
I'm not saying that the law is necessarily right or wrong, but bigamy is illegal in all 50 states.
Yes, the bigamy laws were brought on by religious influence. It dates back to a reaction to Mormonism around 160 years ago. But biblically the OT never shunned the practice. So I'm sure you can make secular and religious arguments for and against bigamy.
But the reality is that it is not illegal to have a same sex partner.

[Tom]

That is the point - you can make all the same arguments that it should be as leagal as same sex marriages.

[Cangamble]

That is the point - you can make all the same arguments that it should be as leagal as same sex marriages.
You can't make all the same arguments to make polygamy legal. You can make similar arguments on some points, but bigamy remains illegal.
The California ruling doesn't open the door to make a criminal offense (bigamy) legal because gays can get married.
And again, I'd like to hear the secular argument against bigamy. I'm not too up on the ramifications to the welfare system, bigamy being legal would have.

90%+ of the human population in the US have the right to get married to one spouse, by allowing gays to get married, that 90%+ changes to 100%

[Tom]

Same sex marriage is also illegal in some states. The point I am making is the arguments to make it legal. Why same sex sex but not multiple? Is it not the personal preferences of the people involved?

[chickenhead]

90%+ of the human population in the US have the right to get married to one spouse, by allowing gays to get married, that 90%+ changes to 100%

devils advocate in me can't resist...

That's a bit of a false statement. 100% have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. 0% have the right to marry someone of the same sex.

[Cangamble]

Same sex marriage is also illegal in some states. The point I am making is the arguments to make it legal. Why same sex sex but not multiple? Is it not the personal preferences of the people involved?
I think a valid argument against polygamy is that is usually involves brain washing and cult behavior.
It is not illegal for two men or two women to live together or sleep in the same bed together, and everyone other than gays in states where gay marriage isn't allowed has the right to marry ONE person.
Like I said, marrying two people may have implications which would wreck havoc on the tax system and social assistance system.

More from Bidstrup:
Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.

If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.

[chickenhead]

And again, I'd like to hear the secular argument against bigamy.

It does I think boil down to the same argument, "that's the way it is", marriage is between one man and one woman. The potential for abuse, the (seeming) historical linkage with pedophelia, I don't think those really stand on their own.

I met some guys that had multiple wives in Africa, every one seemed pretty groovy with it.

[Cangamble]

devils advocate in me can't resist...

That's a bit of a false statement. 100% have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. 0% have the right to marry someone of the same sex.
OK, let me change the statement:

90%+ of the human population in the US have the right to get married to a spouse of their prefered (by attraction) sex, by allowing gays to get married, that 90%+ changes to 100%

[chickenhead]

that particular argument does work equally well with polygamy

90%+ of the human population in the US have the right to get married to their preferred number of spouses, by allowing polygamy, that 90%+ changes to 100%

[Cangamble]

that particular argument does work equally well with polygamy

90%+ of the human population in the US have the right to get married to their preferred number of spouses, by allowing polygamy, that 90%+ changes to 100%
OK, you sold me. Give me reasons why polygamy should be illegal. If there aren't any, then it should be legalized.

But I can't think of any reasons why gay marriage should be illegal.

[ddog]

I don't know, does it? They're not prevented from getting married, they just don't get some perks from the gov't in recognition. If the government decided to not give out those perks at all, would everyones rights be violated?

No, and that's where the gvt should be.
no special rights or priviledges because you marry.
if they do give them , then they bring/force civil actions which bring in the courts.
so unless you wish to bar suits in the area, then to have your gvt give , you must suffer the takes as well.

??

[chickenhead]

as do any of the naturalistic arguments:

gay people don't choose to be gay, its just how they're wired....men don't choose to have urges to spread their seed with multiple women, women don't choose to have urges to rather be with the successful males rather than lesser males, it's how most people are wired. Polygamy is the most common arrangement in the natural world.

[chickenhead]

OK, you sold me. Give me reasons why polygamy should be illegal. If there aren't any, then it should be legalized.

But I can't think of any reasons why gay marriage should be illegal.

Legalize it, mon! Like I said, I could care less what they do.

[ddog]

OK, you sold me. Give me reasons why polygamy should be illegal. If there aren't any, then it should be legalized.

But I can't think of any reasons why gay marriage should be illegal.


would polygamy not be better(if it would help?) than sleeping around outside of the marriage on the QT.

http://www.polygamy.com/articles/templates/?a=374&z=11

[delayjf]

gay people don't choose to be gay, its just how they're wired....men don't choose to have urges to spread their seed with multiple women, women don't choose to have urges to rather be with the successful males rather than lesser males, it's how most people are wired. Polygamy is the most common arrangement in the natural world.

Outstanding analogy :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Cangamble]

Outstanding analogy :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
It is a great analogy. Now show me why it should be illegal (if the adults are consenting). Show me why gay marriages should be illegal.


would polygamy not be better(if it would help?) than sleeping around outside of the marriage on the QT.
It depends on what the consenting adults involved in this type of situation think is better.

[delayjf]

Now show me why it should be illegal (if the adults are consenting). Show me why gay marriages should be illegal
Nobody is saying Gay Marriage should be illegal in a sense that it’s a punishable offense. It should not be sanctioned by the Government, because it was put to a vote and the people rejected Gay Marriage as an institution. Individual freedoms have to pass through the filter of Society's values, just like prostitution, drug use, and moon shining etc.

[Cangamble]

Nobody is saying Gay Marriage should be illegal in a sense that it’s a punishable offense. It should not be sanctioned by the Government, because it was put to a vote and the people rejected Gay Marriage as an institution. Individual freedoms have to pass through the filter of Society's values, just like prostitution, drug use, and moon shining etc.
If something isn't illegal, it is legal.
There is no rational argument against gay marriage that I know.
What if in places down south had a vote on letting blacks go to schools with whites or even ride the public transit system with whites 40 years ago?
And lets say the vote was NO.
Are you saying that a black's individual freedom should be up for vote?

[Indulto]

Suppose a gay person becomes a natural parent preceding, during, or following a same-sex marriage. What parental rights and rights of the child would be affected by that marriage, both if it were legal and if it remained unsanctioned by law?

[Marshall Bennett]

Suppose a gay person becomes a natural parent preceding, during, or following a same-sex marriage. What parental rights and rights of the child would be affected by that marriage, both if it were legal and if it remained unsanctioned by law?
This is a major issue . Everything that follows becomes an afterthought , left for the court system to untangle . The children's rights seems to be a non-issue , the gay's rights are all anyone seems to be addressing .

[delayjf]

Are you saying that a black's individual freedom should be up for vote?
I believe you are comparing Apples to Oranges here. Gay’s are not segregated, nor did we fight a war over the Gay life style. Discrimination based on the color of ones skin is morally wrong. Discrimination based on immoral behavior (as determine by Society) is common in any society.

Historically the only reason the State has sanctioned marriage as an institution is to promote the concept of the family which has been determined to be in the best interests of this nations children. The State has an interest and obligation to promote the welfare of its citizens. Now that Gay Marriages is legal – the state will be passing laws and regulations that will deny a child either a father or a mother. There are rules and regulations that prevent a lot of people from adopting children for a lot of different reason other than being gay.

[Tom]

And hasn't the destruction of the family unit always been one of the main objectives of the democrats?

They want all of us on the Federal teet, forever dependent.

>Break up the family unit
>Lower educational standards
>Create dependency
>Crush indiviualism

Intelligent, moivated, creative people are the bane of democrats.
Social zombies do what they are told.

[Cangamble]

I believe you are comparing Apples to Oranges here. Gay’s are not segregated, nor did we fight a war over the Gay life style. Discrimination based on the color of ones skin is morally wrong. Discrimination based on immoral behavior (as determine by Society) is common in any society.

Historically the only reason the State has sanctioned marriage as an institution is to promote the concept of the family which has been determined to be in the best interests of this nations children. The State has an interest and obligation to promote the welfare of its citizens. Now that Gay Marriages is legal – the state will be passing laws and regulations that will deny a child either a father or a mother. There are rules and regulations that prevent a lot of people from adopting children for a lot of different reason other than being gay.
Who are you to define immoral behavior? Again, the bible (whichever bible) and the state need to be separated for freedom of religion to work. I'm not comparing apples to oranges but apples to apples.
If you want to get all biblical, how many wives did David or Abraham have?
Immoral behavior is where state laws come in to make something legal or illegal. To be gay isn't something that is illegal.

Of course, you probably believe that gays choose to be gay. It might be true for a small percentage, but it makes as much sense (especially with the scientific research that backs it up), as people choosing to be black or choosing their own sex.

How many people in America grow up in single parent homes? LOTS.
Is there any evidence that a child, who either was born naturally to a gay parent or adopted by gay parents, grows up to be nuts?

What I think is worse is a gay parent getting married and staying in a marriage with a heterosexual partner because of fear of being gay, or just to have kids.
Rev. Haggard's kids could very well be pretty screwed up by the time they reach adulthood.

[Cangamble]

And hasn't the destruction of the family unit always been one of the main objectives of the democrats?

They want all of us on the Federal teet, forever dependent.

>Break up the family unit
>Lower educational standards
>Create dependency
>Crush indiviualism

Intelligent, moivated, creative people are the bane of democrats.
Social zombies do what they are told.
If I was an American, I'd be voting McCain. But it has nothing to do with the family unit.
Baptists lead all religions in divorce rate btw. Maybe we can argue that Baptists are leaders in breaking up the family unit because they make divorce so easy.

[Marshall Bennett]

I've really never had a problem with gays or their lifestyle . I do feel however that children of gay couples have an uphill struggle from day one . How many uncomfortable situations will they encounter at a very early age . Situations they never bargained for , yet will have to deal with for a very long time . Think back for a moment and put yourself in that situation , at school , in church , ect. You may suggest we're of a different generation but seriously , have things really changes that much ?

[chickenhead]

How many people in America grow up in single parent homes? LOTS.
Is there any evidence that a child, who either was born naturally to a gay parent or adopted by gay parents, grows up to be nuts?

I think his point is that the government only cares about marriage in so far as it has an interest in getting people to get married when they have kids. They don't restrict it to couples who have kids together, or are going to have kids, but that is arguably the certain purpose for caring about it in the first place.

We incentivize that behavior, because it is the traditional view that having their mother and father together is better for the kid than having only one or the other. All insititutionalized marriage does is make it harder to break up, basically.

It's less an issue (I think) of "Why we shouldn't allow gay people to get married" than it is an issue of "Who cares if gay people get married?" "Why would we care if they don't stay together?"

And essentially if no one does care, if it's not seen as something society cares about re-enforcing, it's not going to be institutionalized.

[Cangamble]

I've really never had a problem with gays or their lifestyle . I do feel however that children of gay couples have an uphill struggle from day one . How many uncomfortable situations will they encounter at a very early age . Situations they never bargained for , yet will have to deal with for a very long time . Think back for a moment and put yourself in that situation , at school , in church , ect. You may suggest we're of a different generation but seriously , have things really changes that much ?
You make an excellent point. And I'm sure this situation would lead to many uncomfortable times. But many situations may be of smaller magnitude but still exist just the same:

Kids of one parent homes probably feel awkward at times. Father-son picnics when the father took off a long time ago, for example. Or just explaining that you have one parent you live with, or that you have a new parent and a half brother or sister now.

And as Kyle said on South Park "It's hard to be a Jew during Christmas"

I have to admit, I probably would have been sarcastically abusive to a kid who had gay parents when I was in public school. But back then, nobody was gay (we just had fags back then). I went to public school in the 60's and that was just after Liberace sued an English tabloid that called him gay, and won the suit.
If Liberace wasn't gay, nobody was. He was just a fag.

[delayjf]

Who are you to define immoral behavior?
Exactly, I am not defining immoral behavior – Society is. Do you believe that morality should be left up to the individual??
Immoral behavior is where state laws come in to make something legal or illegal.
Not necessarily, infidelity is considered immoral, but its not illegal.
Of course, you probably believe that gays choose to be gay.
One could probably blame genetics on a whole host of bad behavior, that doesn’t mean Society should accept an normalize bad behavior because we don’t want to be judgmental or it makes us feel better about whatever vices we as individuals might engage in. Like the analogy previously mentioned – if man is simply a victim of his own personal wiring – can we blame or judge pedophiles for what they are?
How many people in America grow up in single parent homes? LOTS
Unfortunately too many, and yes there is plenty of evidence that being raised in a single family home is detrimental to children. I’m not aware of any study that looks at children growing up in a gay environment, but there are plenty of studies that document the effects of growing up in a violent home, single parent home, without a mother or father, so it’s certainly reasonable to assume that growing up in a gay environment would not be in the best interests of Children either.
What I think is worse is a gay parent getting married and staying in a marriage with a heterosexual partner because of fear of being gay, or just to have kids.
Perhaps for that parent, but it would depend on the environment they create for that child.

[wonatthewire1]

Suppose a gay person becomes a natural parent preceding, during, or following a same-sex marriage. What parental rights and rights of the child would be affected by that marriage, both if it were legal and if it remained unsanctioned by law?


Please contact the former governor of NJ - Jim "makeup" McGreevy for some insights

[wonatthewire1]

I've really never had a problem with gays or their lifestyle . I do feel however that children of gay couples have an uphill struggle from day one . How many uncomfortable situations will they encounter at a very early age . Situations they never bargained for , yet will have to deal with for a very long time . Think back for a moment and put yourself in that situation , at school , in church , ect. You may suggest we're of a different generation but seriously , have things really changes that much ?

Who says they are struggling with uncomfortable situations?

Seems to be a lot of blankets on this one - but few actually in the situation to comment upon...interesting to see how one's "imagination" can think up all kinds of things...

[Cangamble]

Delay, yes, society defines immoral behavior, and that is where laws come from.
Societies change over time on what is and isn't immoral behavior, though it is illegal to murder and steal in most cultures on this planet.

There has been a shift regarding homosexuality. The government and probably the majority of individuals in the West do not regard it as immoral behavior anymore.

Most people are OK with gay unions for example.

[Marshall Bennett]

Who says they are struggling with uncomfortable situations?

Seems to be a lot of blankets on this one - but few actually in the situation to comment upon...interesting to see how one's "imagination" can think up all kinds of things...
Yeah well , I can't speak for others but I didn't have to use my imagination on this issue . It may seem perfectly comfortable for you but then you're not a nine year old child .

[Cangamble]

Yeah well , I can't speak for others but I didn't have to use my imagination on this issue . It may seem perfectly comfortable for you but then you're not a nine year old child .
I'm sure that a 9 year old whose parents are biracial also would feel uncomfortable at times.
Where do you draw the line before the KKK takes over?

[delayjf]

Most people are OK with gay unions for example.
Well, Californians voted on this very issue and overwhelmingly voted NOT to recognize gay unions. To my knowledge no state has voted to approve Gay Marriages, even in Mass it was court ordered.

I believe most people are apathetic about Gay Marriage. They don't approve or think its moral but they don't feel Gays should be persecuted either. I've never heard any parent proclaim that they hope their son or daughter turns out to be gay. The Gay rights movement today is not about tolerance (which they have), it’s about acceptance (which they don't have) and if they can destroy family values as they are defined now in this country, Gay feel they will achieve acceptance.

And I often hear those in favor of Gay Rights denounce the “slippery sloop” affect it would have on the morale fabric of this country. Many say the same thing about the use of Pot – yet here in California, they are now busting drug rings in elementary schools, and I’m not just talking about pot. Look at organization like NAMLBA (North American Man Love Boy Association) this gay group advocates the lowering of the legal age of consent. How long will it take for the Polygamists to take their case to the courts?

[ddog]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/18/iceland

maybe not directly on point, but are all societies really the same as to the success of their people, even mainly white/well to do ones?

is it not more the individual than the society as to how one acts that sets the societies morals.

what should be the main purpose of "society"?

so the non-school POT busts which were Federal Busts aginst state law as I recall were ok since they contribute to the moral fabric , which over rode the states rights in that case?


I recall from the 60's-70's drugs of all kinds being available in schools. We didn't realize we were on a slippery "anything".

I suspect there is more harm in the "legal" drugs being pushed at kids to keep them "calm" than all the sensational reporting on the other side.

[ddog]

a bad home as a result of a bad marriage has to be worse than a less-conflicted single parent home.

I have never seen evidence to the contrary?
so there is no gvt need to support marriage for the child's sake that I can see.

society/gvt can not mandate a person to fullfill their obligations to a child they created.
so, yes no matter what "they" say, it's you that has to decide.
If not so then a pure socialized child care system would be the perfect solution.

not true.

[Cangamble]

Well, Californians voted on this very issue and overwhelmingly voted NOT to recognize gay unions. To my knowledge no state has voted to approve Gay Marriages, even in Mass it was court ordered.

I believe most people are apathetic about Gay Marriage. They don't approve or think its moral but they don't feel Gays should be persecuted either. I've never heard any parent proclaim that they hope their son or daughter turns out to be gay. The Gay rights movement today is not about tolerance (which they have), it’s about acceptance (which they don't have) and if they can destroy family values as they are defined now in this country, Gay feel they will achieve acceptance.

And I often hear those in favor of Gay Rights denounce the “slippery sloop” affect it would have on the morale fabric of this country. Many say the same thing about the use of Pot – yet here in California, they are now busting drug rings in elementary schools, and I’m not just talking about pot. Look at organization like NAMLBA (North American Man Love Boy Association) this gay group advocates the lowering of the legal age of consent. How long will it take for the Polygamists to take their case to the courts?
It isn't an overwhelming majority. According to a recent poll
29% strongly approve of gay marriage, 12% somewhat approve, 10% somewhat disapprove, and 42% strongly disapprove.

As far as the last vote:
Californians were split on his stance, with 45% agreeing and 46% disagreeing.

Regarding morality:
More than half of Californians said gay relationships were not morally wrong, that they would not degrade heterosexual marriages and that all that mattered was that a relationship be loving and committed, regardless of gender.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-poll23-2008may23,0,76009.story


Again, if you take religion out of the picture, I'm sure that gay marriage would strongly voted for. But the point is that it should never even be something that should have been banned in the first place.

[delayjf]

In my High School drugs was not prevalent, I know some guys were smoking Pot, but they didn’t do it at school. And there certainly wasn't a drug problem in Elementary school. Now in elementary schools in Newport Beach, you got guy dealing meth in the parking lot.

In College, nobody smoked pot or did anything other than alcohol inside my Fraternity, if they did, they took it off campus. Recently they busted a drug ring being operated out of a fraternity at San Diego State, they were getting their product from the Mexican Mafia – we’ve come a long way baby.

[delayjf]

As far as the last vote:
Californians were split on his stance, with 45% agreeing and 46% disagreeing.

Believe your polls if you want. Californians VOTED by a 61% margin to ban Gay Marriages - AND THIS IS A VERY LIBERAL STATE. But, we will see, this issue will probably end up on a Constitutional ballot measure sometime soon. We'll see what that poll says.

Again, to my knowledge, everytime a gay rights initative has been put on the ballot anywhere in this country, it has been defeated. If I'm wrong please point it out.

Again, if you take religion out of the picture, I'm sure that gay marriage would strongly voted for. But the point is that it should never even be something that should have been banned in the first place.
Agreed, if the US were Europe, you probably would be right. But we're not; Christianity is the prevailing morale philosophy that guides a huge majority of US citizens. Until that changes, I believe it should prevail.

[OTM Al]

Look at organization like NAMLBA (North American Man Love Boy Association) this gay group advocates the lowering of the legal age of consent. How long will it take for the Polygamists to take their case to the courts?

Calling NAMBLA a "Gay Group" is a misnomer. And a pretty bad one. They may wish to have relations with individuals of the same sex, but that does not make them gay. They are preditors and child abusers. I've known quite a few gay people here in NYC and they hate NAMBLA just as much as the rest of us should and maybe more because of the abuse they get being accused of being like those people.

I have no problem with gays wanting to have the same rights when it comes to partnerships. I always joke with those that want marriage that they don't know what they're getting into, which always gets a laugh. Domestic partnerships are one thing that does give certain rights, but still does not confer all the rights the state has attached to marriage. Marriage as far as the state goes is not a religious matter. To be officially married I am required to fill out the proper forms. Just having a religious service doesn't count anymore, so this is no longer a religious matter. It is a matter of obtaining equal rights under the law with regard to personal assets, insurance, taxes and other financial matters.

Religious justifcation for the immorality of homosexuality is no different than the religious justification for slavery and the subjugation of women and so many other things that have been done through time. If those who really believe your religion guides you, here is a fine bit from Matthew

34Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,

36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?

38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?

39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Seems pretty simple to me.

[delayjf]

Calling NAMBLA a "Gay Group" is a misnomer. And a pretty bad one. They may wish to have relations with individuals of the same sex, but that does not make them gay. They are preditors and child abusers.

I believe having sex with the same gender defines homosexuality, does it not?
The fact that they like young teenage boys or men puts them in the same class as men who like having sex with young teenage girls.


I think you assume that I as a christian hate gay people - That is not the case. I've always taken the "hate the sin, not the sinner" approach. I've had friends that are gay, and will even be attending a gay marriage within the next month (as a favor to my wife) . I don't judge a Gay person anymore than I judge someone who is having an affair. IMHO, both are immoral acts.

Religious justifcation for the immorality of homosexuality is no different than the religious justification for slavery and the subjugation of women
Again I don't feel these comparison are valid. And yes, Christ offers forgiveness for ANY sin, but that doesn't mean he condones the act.

[wonatthewire1]

The Gay rights movement today is not about tolerance (which they have), it’s about acceptance (which they don't have) and if they can destroy family values as they are defined now in this country, Gay feel they will achieve acceptance.

Interesting comment - they don't have acceptance?

Destroy family values as defined now in this country?

Then they will feel that they have achieved acceptance?

Somewhere - the logic in your statement is falling apart. And is this statement about all gays, radical gays, or gays that haven't come out yet?

[wonatthewire1]

Now in elementary schools in Newport Beach, you got guy dealing meth in the parking lot.

Where are the cops and the school admins?

Cops probably sleeping in some parking lot somewhere else

Caught one today in our lot at work; dude was out there for over 2 hrs; must have been comp time or something

:faint:

[OTM Al]

I believe having sex with the same gender defines homosexuality, does it not?

No, it does not. Some homosexuals have never engaged in sex with their own gender. Many homosexuals have engaged in sex with women. Sex is a physical act. We are talking about individual orientation here.

The fact that they like young teenage boys or men puts them in the same class as men who like having sex with young teenage girls.

Yes it does. As preditors and pedophiles. Clearly if such a person is in the same class as a man that rapes young girls, then by your previous definition he cannot be a homosexual.

I think you assume that I as a christian hate gay people - That is not the case. I've always taken the "hate the sin, not the sinner" approach. I've had friends that are gay, and will even be attending a gay marriage within the next month (as a favor to my wife) . I don't judge a Gay person anymore than I judge someone who is having an affair. IMHO, both are immoral acts.

I assume nothing about people I've never met. I let their words speak for them. Change the work "gay" in this little rant with the word "black" and you hear something I've heard a few too many times in my life. And please show me where Jesus called homosexuality a sin. I'm sorry, but that hate the sinner line has been used one too many times as an excuse for institutionalized bigotry. I really hope you go to that wedding (as a favor to your wife) and take it as an opportunity to realize that you are simply among other human beings and I hope you wish the couple success and joy in their life together because there's a damn sight too little of that these days among people, gay or straight.

Again I don't feel these comparison are valid. And yes, Christ offers forgiveness for ANY sin, but that doesn't mean he condones the act.

The comparisons are precisely valid because they come from Old Testament sources which way too many hunt and peck Christians like to use to choose whatever fits their agendas and toss the rest. Jesus came to bring new laws. He said so himself and I do not dispute him.

[delayjf]

No, it does not. Some homosexuals have never engaged in sex with their own gender. Many homosexuals have engaged in sex with women. Sex is a physical act. We are talking about individual orientation here.
I’ll take your word for it.
Yes it does. As preditors and pedophiles. Clearly if such a person is in the same class as a man that rapes young girls, then by your previous definition he cannot be a homosexual.
Disagree, the definition of pedophile is one who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children, 13-14 year olds are not in that category.
Change the work "gay" in this little rant with the word "black" and you hear something I've heard a few too many times in my life. And please show me where Jesus called homosexuality a sin. I'm sorry, but that hate the sinner line has been used one too many times as an excuse for institutionalized bigotry.
Again, it is not immoral to be black. And why not change the word to polygamist would you consider laws banning the practice of polygamy "institutional bigotry" if not, then why not?
IMHO, gays are not discriminated against because they have exactly the same “rights” to marry that I or anybody in this nation have. But like other freedoms we enjoy, there are restrictions; you can’t marry your relatives, or someone under-aged, nor can you marry more than one person. This is not the same as being denied the rights (to vote, own property, etc) whereby a segment of the population enjoys those rights exclusively.
The comparisons are precisely valid because they come from Old Testament sources which way too many hunt and peck Christians like to use to choose whatever fits their agendas and toss the rest. Jesus came to bring new laws. He said so himself and I do not dispute him.
Not all came from the Old testament. Jesus claimed he did not come to judge the world. If you want to interpret that to mean “anything goes” so be it. While Jesus did not specifically condemn homosexuality (among other things), Jesus did specifically endorsed Moses’s law, which condemned homosexuality.

[JustRalph]

one way to get out of performing same sex marriages

Some counties apparently have decided to get out of the marriage business in California

http://www.avpress.com/n/14/0614_s2.hts



I read today that Queen Latifah is going to marry her "partner" I didn't know she was a Lesbian. Then I read further into the article and found out that she has had a five year relationship with another women. That really didn't shock me. What really did shock me was that the other woman is a personal Trainer?????

http://www.examiner.com/x-276-Internet-Buzz-Examiner~y2008m6d10-Queen-Latifah-to-Marry-Longtime-Girlfriend

[singunner]

Did you know the state also approves of gays going to Heaven? That's right, your government isn't keeping gays out of Heaven. Know why? IT'S YOUR CHURCH'S JOB! This isn't a state issue, it's a church issue. Remember how the two weren't supposed to mix?

If you're angry that gays are getting married, talk to your minister, not your mayor.

"Marriage" is just a word anyways. If you want to "preserve the sanctity of the word", are you going to get pissed when I tell you the marriage of peanut butter and chocolate is Man's greatest creation? If you really want to preserve the sanctity of the word, keep it from being used in this sentence: "The marriage of church and state has forced a ruling on gay unions."

[JustRalph]

This isn't a state issue, it's a church issue. Remember how the two weren't supposed to mix?

Just adding to the thread......... I don't care who gets married. The results of the impetus for the thread is what I added............


Btw, I defy you to find a section of the constitution that points to a separation of church and state..............??

[HUSKER55]

If you read some of the books by the founding fathers and others including Blackstone you will find that they believed that God and Man could not be seperated and therfore governments and man and god were the same because governments couldn't operate without men of good conscience and moral fiber.

Also while the bible does not say "homosexuality" it does say that god does not want man to lie with a man as he does with his woman.



Look it up.

husker55

:)

[Tom]

Btw, I defy you to find a section of the constitution that points to a separation of church and state..............??

You could make a better argument that if anything, the constitution prohibits most the brain-dead communist decisions the Klown Kourt had made over the years. But then, consider that the KK has had a far higher percentage of certifiable mentally ill members than general society and it makes sense. Metal defictives and the Kourt go together hand in hand. Even more despciable than the House, the Kourt needs to be abolished and re-defined. With limiterd terms. No fool as old as many of these rice-krispy heads can be given that much power, when in fact, what they need is fiber.

[hcap]

...... the Kourt needs to be abolished and re-defined. With limiterd terms. No fool as old as many of these rice-krispy heads can be given that much power, when in fact, what they need is fiber.Did you mean "With limiturd terms"..??

:ThmbUp:

[jballscalls]

I'll never figure out why anyone would care if gays can marry or not?? i just dont get it. Its not like marriage has much sanctity left anyways, ask Britney Spears.

I talked to my sister the other day, she's in her final year of law school down in so. cal, i figure for her it will just mean more business. She's going into family law.

[riskman]

Btw, I defy you to find a section of the constitution that points to a separation of church and state..............??

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage." Ron Paul.

[boxcar]

Allow me to compliment you on your self-congratulatory sermon. Seldom has someone so full of himself reached his full potential for appearing full of something else.

Are you running for Rev. Falwell’s old job or just running off at the mouth? While you’re up there on the pulpit, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what the bible has to say about gambling.

Permit me to jump in here, oh, wanna-be wise, one. Why don't you ask what the bible has to say about sexual immorality, generally, and homosexual practices, even more specifically? Why do you want to change the subject to something that is entirely unrelated? Because you think (an in your case this could well be an oxymoron) that this gentlemen is a practicing hypocrite because he likes to play the ponies while at the same time condemning homosexual acts, as the bible also does? Obviously, you do, otherwise why would you raise such a red herring? Therefore, sir, may I suggest that the onus is clearly on you to enlighten us as to what you "think" the bible teaches about gambling?

May the force of your racing gods be with you in your ardent search for all those anti-gambling proof texts.

Boxcar

[toetoe]

jballs,

I'm with you. Moreover, why would homosexuals themSELVES worry whether they might be allowed to marry ? It's like official approval or something. Why not just keep it low-key and flamboyance-retarded ?

Queen Lateefer Quifer, nee Dana Owens, is the husband in this arrangement, PLEASE tell me. I refuse to believe her incessant positioning as a BBW, but now is she supposed to be the feminine half of this distaff duo ? Oh, the whorer ... the whorer. :eek:

[jballscalls]

jballs,

I'm with you. Moreover, why would homosexuals themSELVES worry whether they might be allowed to marry ? It's like official approval or something. Why not just keep it low-key and flamboyance-retarded ?

Queen Lateefer Quifer, nee Dana Owens, is the husband in this arrangement, PLEASE tell me. I refuse to believe her incessant positioning as a BBW, but now is she supposed to be the feminine half of this distaff duo ? Oh, the whorer ... the whorer. :eek:

i'm sure some of it is about approval, some of it is getting the same financial benefits married straight couples get.

As far as queen latifah, i dont know, nor care to know what happens with her in her bedroom.

[delayjf]

I'll never figure out why anyone would care if gays can marry or not??
It’s not some much that I care what Gays do in the privacy of their homes any more than I care about what swingers do in the privacy of theirs. Both are in my opinion, morally wrong, and should not be raised to the level of respectability that monogamous heterosexual marriage now enjoys. Our laws should reflect the morality of our society – our society has rejected the Gay lifestyle as an institution.

[jballscalls]

It’s not some much that I care what Gays do in the privacy of their homes any more than I care about what swingers do in the privacy of theirs. Both are in my opinion, morally wrong, and should not be raised to the level of respectability that monogamous heterosexual marriage now enjoys. Our laws should reflect the morality of our society – our society has rejected the Gay lifestyle as an institution.

Are u under the delusion that straight married couples dont swing????

[ddog]

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage." Ron Paul.

You mean by this posting to equate God=Christian and thus read them both as one and the same???

Were any of the founders/drafters not practicing Christians?