Same sex marriage

[RoadKill]

Cause the names fudgie dont make me gay either.   

No, Brian, but it does cause some of us to wonder.    

   Sorry, Fudgie, I thought I might owe you that one for the "my dear" P.M.    

just look at the guy...like he's hiding anything !  

You.... have been on a roll lately!   

Unlike Carl, I probably did NOT owe you that for any reason...but I'm sure you'll get even sometime  

[ValhallaIamComing]

The Constitution does not define marriage as being between one man and one woman because the framers never dreamed it would require a definition.  The framers also never dreamt that the Constitution and the rights it confers would ever be construed as extending to women, blacks and anyone who did not own real property.  The Constitutional framers never anticipated a need for government to dictate or legislate morality.  They left that to the Church and the ancient doctrine of civilized mores and folkways (a common understanding among a society of what is right and what is wrong,) which during their time shared equal potency with civil law in the eyes of most Americans.

One cannot look to the Constitution to decide if gay marriage is right or wrong... it is simply not a Constitutional argument!  Niether was women's rights or minority rights.  These issues must be addressed in accordance with the times we live in.  What creates much of the friction between proponents of both sides of political arguments is each side's desire to enact some law that will make their ideology irrefutable and unrepealable... even if the mores and folkways of future society cycle back to those of older generations or progress to something altogether new.

We live in a time in which we expect the government to tell us what to do and how to do it with just about everything.  It is ashame that we are reverting to lemmings!

[RoadKill]

The Constitution does not define marriage as being between one man and one woman because the framers never dreamed it would require a definition.  The framers also never dreamt that the Constitution and the rights it confers would ever be construed as extending to women, blacks and anyone who did not own real property.  The Constitutional framers never anticipated a need for government to dictate or legislate morality.  They left that to the Church and the ancient doctrine of civilized mores and folkways (a common understanding among a society of what is right and what is wrong,) which during their time shared equal potency with civil law in the eyes of most Americans.

One cannot look to the Constitution to decide if gay marriage is right or wrong... it is simply not a Constitutional argument!  Niether was women's rights or minority rights.  These issues must be addressed in accordance with the times we live in.  What creates much of the friction between proponents of both sides of political arguments is each side's desire to enact some law that will make their ideology irrefutable and unrepealable... even if the mores and folkways of future society cycle back to those of older generations or progress to something altogether new.

We live in a time in which we expect the government to tell us what to do and how to do it with just about everything.  It is ashame that we are reverting to lemmings!

Well said 

The problem with society IS SOCIETY   

[The Anvil]

The Constitution does not define marriage as being between one man and one woman because the framers never dreamed it would require a definition.  The framers also never dreamt that the Constitution and the rights it confers would ever be construed as extending to women, blacks and anyone who did not own real property.  The Constitutional framers never anticipated a need for government to dictate or legislate morality.  They left that to the Church and the ancient doctrine of civilized mores and folkways (a common understanding among a society of what is right and what is wrong,) which during their time shared equal potency with civil law in the eyes of most Americans.

One cannot look to the Constitution to decide if gay marriage is right or wrong... it is simply not a Constitutional argument!  Niether was women's rights or minority rights.  These issues must be addressed in accordance with the times we live in.  What creates much of the friction between proponents of both sides of political arguments is each side's desire to enact some law that will make their ideology irrefutable and unrepealable... even if the mores and folkways of future society cycle back to those of older generations or progress to something altogether new.

We live in a time in which we expect the government to tell us what to do and how to do it with just about everything.  It is ashame that we are reverting to lemmings!

While very well thought out, I must disagree. The Constitution and BoR are ALWAYS relevant to arguments regarding personal freedoms. For example we have amendments specifically granting rights to minorities and women. But a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage (and amendment specifically denying a freedom) would be an altogether new animal. Think about that and it's precedent implications.

[ValhallaIamComing]

By the way... not a damn thing in this thread will ever cross your mind while in 5th gear! 

[BigAl]

Fudgie, You are not Gay. But if you were I would like you anyway.

I have Gay friends, But I am not Gay.

If I were,, I would deal with it.

The lifestyle according to the Surgeon General, does lend itself to the spreading of AIds. In Men.

So does another life style choice, drug use, esp. intravenous drug use.

Both considered sinful.

Roman Empire the last I checked went the way of the DODO Bird.

And of course you knew that.

Big AL

[97ValkSteve]

I'm not gay but I'm ok with gay people getting married if they want to. 

The bible says lots of things.  Lots of people say the bible says lots of things. 

Some people weren't cool with women voting or black folks voting or having equal rights. 

The times they are a changing.  Just don't be a hating.  That won't get you nowhere. 

Peace out.  See ya on the road. 

[Stormrider65]

Well, we are not suppose to judge least we be judged.  The way I see it they will have to answer to God in the end.  He will be the final word on the subject.    Good thing I work around hazardous chemicals all the time, I do have a Nomex suit.  Fire away ya'll

Walt

[RoadKill]

Fudgie, You are not Gay. But if you were I would like you anyway.

I have Gay friends, But I am not Gay.

If I were,, I would deal with it.

The lifestyle according to the FDA, does lend itself to the spreading of AIds. In Men.

So does another life style choice, drug use, esp. intravenous drug use.

Both considered sinful.

Roman Empire the last I checked went the way of the DODO Bird.

And of course you knew that.

Big AL

Drug use...Sin ,  Did I miss that somewhere ? Please enlighten me. I see alcohol , nicotine, coffee as a drug. Is it the Mormon faith that forbids those ?  

Al, I really did not want this thread to go here but I am interested greatly in your outlook,Big Guy !

[ValhallaIamComing]

What you seem to imply Anvil, is that it is okay to codify in an Amendment the extension of Constitutional Rights but it is not okay to codify a limitation or exclusion.  Actually, what I think has and will continue to happen is that the Federal lawmakers will dodge the issue altogether... that is why it is left up to the individual states.

The Defense of Marriage Act was passed... so no state that wishes to only recognize conventional marriage will have to recognize gay marriage.  However, any state may recognize gay marriage.  Eventually, this may wind up polarizing what states homosexuals choose to live in.  Just like many people choose to live in states that have laws that suit them.

[The Anvil]

Roman Empire the last I checked went the way of the DODO Bird.

Yeah because the mens were too busy buggering each other instead of buggering women. That's totally what did it.

[Stormrider65]

Valhalla, I agree with the 5th gear comment.  Lets Ride

Walt

[ValhallaIamComing]

Actually, buggering a woman won't lead to procreation either! 

[Moonshot_1]

I guess I’ll post my take on the subject.

As it stands now, marriage is considered to be between one man and one woman.
This is how most states currently view it.
Married couples have specific benefits that come from being married which are and not limited to:
Tax credits, legal contracts such as medical insurance, home insurance, estate matters etc.
Now the effort is to change the laws to allow “same sex marriage” so that gay couples can enjoy the benefits of being married.

The problem I have with this is the very changing the definition of marriage.
One man and one woman to one man and one man or one woman and one woman.
Why should we stop changing the definition of marriage there?
Why not One man and three women, two men and five women? Brothers, Sisters, Aunt and a Niece, Uncle and Nephew?
Why not one woman and her four cats? While many would consider that notion absurd, there are folks who wouldn’t find it absurd at all. How can you justify discriminating against them? If we are willing to change the definition of marriage for others, why not them?
Where does one stop changing the definition? Do we get to a point where marriage is simply pointless?
After a few generations, I’d think it’s very possible that the institution would simply denigrate into just that.
And that would be a shame.

[The Anvil]

What you seem to imply Anvil, is that it is okay to codify in an Amendment the extension of Constitutional Rights but it is not okay to codify a limitation or exclusion. ./quote]

Well I'm not specifically advocating one or the other. I'm simply stating that an amendment limiting a freedom is something quite different from extending rights that should have been respected all along. I'm not advocating ANY Constitutional amendments either for or against gay marriage. I'm okay with it being a State's rights issue.

You know, in the same way that I don't get why some people are so bent out of shape about gays wanting to call it marriage, I'm not so sure I get why gay people have such a hard-on for the legal term for it. Personally I'd be more concerned with the nuts and bolts of the law of civil unions and the actual rights they afford versus what it's called on paper. But then I haven't spent my life as a second class citizen so I can't relate completely to the desire for acceptance.

[RoadKill]

I guess I’ll post my take on the subject.

As it stands now, marriage is considered to be between one man and one woman.
This is how most states currently view it.
Married couples have specific benefits that come from being married which are and not limited to:
Tax credits, legal contracts such as medical insurance, home insurance, estate matters etc.
Now the effort is to change the laws to allow “same sex marriage” so that gay couples can enjoy the benefits of being married.

The problem I have with this is the very changing the definition of marriage.
One man and one woman to one man and one man or one woman and one woman.
Why should we stop changing the definition of marriage there?
Why not One man and three women, two men and five women? Brothers, Sisters, Aunt and a Niece, Uncle and Nephew?
Why not one woman and her four cats? While many would consider that notion absurd, there are folks who wouldn’t find it absurd at all. How can you justify discriminating against them? If we are willing to change the definition of marriage for others, why not them?
Where does one stop changing the definition? Do we get to a point where marriage is simply pointless?
After a few generations, I’d think it’s very possible that the institution would simply denigrate into just that.
And that would be a shame.

I strongly believe in getting rid of all the Gov't benefits and detriments for marriage. They should stay the hell out of my marriage and every one elses too.

[97ValkSteve]

I guess I’ll post my take on the subject.

As it stands now, marriage is considered to be between one man and one woman.
This is how most states currently view it.
Married couples have specific benefits that come from being married which are and not limited to:
Tax credits, legal contracts such as medical insurance, home insurance, estate matters etc.
Now the effort is to change the laws to allow “same sex marriage” so that gay couples can enjoy the benefits of being married.

The problem I have with this is the very changing the definition of marriage.
One man and one woman to one man and one man or one woman and one woman.
Why should we stop changing the definition of marriage there?
Why not One man and three women, two men and five women? Brothers, Sisters, Aunt and a Niece, Uncle and Nephew?
Why not one woman and her four cats? While many would consider that notion absurd, there are folks who wouldn’t find it absurd at all. How can you justify discriminating against them? If we are willing to change the definition of marriage for others, why not them?
Where does one stop changing the definition? Do we get to a point where marriage is simply pointless?
After a few generations, I’d think it’s very possible that the institution would simply denigrate into just that.
And that would be a shame.

Well, now you are being absurd.  The law and any marriage is about two PEOPLE being married.  I'm sorry if you don't get the part about two PEOPLE.  I didn't see anything about a goat and a fern.

[The Anvil]

What you seem to imply Anvil, is that it is okay to codify in an Amendment the extension of Constitutional Rights but it is not okay to codify a limitation or exclusion.

Well I'm not specifically advocating one or the other. I'm simply stating that an amendment limiting a freedom is something quite different from extending rights that should have been respected all along. I'm not advocating ANY Constitutional amendments either for or against gay marriage. I'm okay with it being a State's rights issue.

You know, in the same way that I don't get why some people are so bent out of shape about gays wanting to call it marriage, I'm not so sure I get why gay people have such a hard-on for the legal term for it. Personally I'd be more concerned with the nuts and bolts of the law of civil unions and the actual rights they afford versus what it's called on paper. But then I haven't spent my life as a second class citizen so I can't relate completely to the desire for acceptance.

[ValhallaIamComing]

Moonshot, well done!  You have stated the legitimate legal argument against same sex marriage.  This is why some states have "civil unions" - to provide the benefits extended to married couples to couples engaged in a similar, but different, union.

The legitimate opposing legal argument that the gay rights groups advocate for is adding homosexuals to the list of protected classes along with race, gender, religion, ethnicity or national origin.  

[The Anvil]

I didn't see anything about a goat and a fern.

Hm, goat and fern. Interesting.

[RoadKill]

I didn't see anything about a goat and a fern.

Hm, goat and fern. Interesting.

 


how many tax dollars will be spent debating that one ?  Are there enough fern lovers to bring the green party back into power so we can have presidential debates about 'Fern marriage' ?  Ralph Nader needs to start raising Goats  

[ValhallaIamComing]

My Aunt Fern married an old goat!

[RoadKill]

I guess I’ll post my take on the subject.

As it stands now, marriage is considered to be between one man and one woman.
This is how most states currently view it.
Married couples have specific benefits that come from being married which are and not limited to:
Tax credits, legal contracts such as medical insurance, home insurance, estate matters etc.
Now the effort is to change the laws to allow “same sex marriage” so that gay couples can enjoy the benefits of being married.

The problem I have with this is the very changing the definition of marriage.
One man and one woman to one man and one man or one woman and one woman.
Why should we stop changing the definition of marriage there?
Why not One man and three women, two men and five women? Brothers, Sisters, Aunt and a Niece, Uncle and Nephew?
Why not one woman and her four cats? While many would consider that notion absurd, there are folks who wouldn’t find it absurd at all. How can you justify discriminating against them? If we are willing to change the definition of marriage for others, why not them?
Where does one stop changing the definition? Do we get to a point where marriage is simply pointless?
After a few generations, I’d think it’s very possible that the institution would simply denigrate into just that.
And that would be a shame.

Well, now you are being absurd.  The law and any marriage is about two PEOPLE being married.  I'm sorry if you don't get the part about two PEOPLE.  I didn't see anything about a goat and a fern.

Changing the LEGAL definition would for sure be a very slippery slope. Eliminating the LEGAL definition would not !  Make it a moral or spiritual definition and keep my freakin tax dollars out of it all !

[Warlock]

I guess I’ll post my take on the subject.

As it stands now, marriage is considered to be between one man and one woman.
This is how most states currently view it.
Married couples have specific benefits that come from being married which are and not limited to:
Tax credits, legal contracts such as medical insurance, home insurance, estate matters etc.
Now the effort is to change the laws to allow “same sex marriage” so that gay couples can enjoy the benefits of being married.

The problem I have with this is the very changing the definition of marriage.
One man and one woman to one man and one man or one woman and one woman.
Why should we stop changing the definition of marriage there?
Why not One man and three women, two men and five women? Brothers, Sisters, Aunt and a Niece, Uncle and Nephew?
Why not one woman and her four cats? While many would consider that notion absurd, there are folks who wouldn’t find it absurd at all. How can you justify discriminating against them? If we are willing to change the definition of marriage for others, why not them?
Where does one stop changing the definition? Do we get to a point where marriage is simply pointless?
After a few generations, I’d think it’s very possible that the institution would simply denigrate into just that.
And that would be a shame.

I kinda like that point. My brother was handicap and I guess I could have married him and he could of had better health insurance. He has since passed away and miss him.
David

[RoadKill]

I guess I’ll post my take on the subject.

As it stands now, marriage is considered to be between one man and one woman.
This is how most states currently view it.
Married couples have specific benefits that come from being married which are and not limited to:
Tax credits, legal contracts such as medical insurance, home insurance, estate matters etc.
Now the effort is to change the laws to allow “same sex marriage” so that gay couples can enjoy the benefits of being married.

The problem I have with this is the very changing the definition of marriage.
One man and one woman to one man and one man or one woman and one woman.
Why should we stop changing the definition of marriage there?
Why not One man and three women, two men and five women? Brothers, Sisters, Aunt and a Niece, Uncle and Nephew?
Why not one woman and her four cats? While many would consider that notion absurd, there are folks who wouldn’t find it absurd at all. How can you justify discriminating against them? If we are willing to change the definition of marriage for others, why not them?
Where does one stop changing the definition? Do we get to a point where marriage is simply pointless?
After a few generations, I’d think it’s very possible that the institution would simply denigrate into just that.
And that would be a shame.

I kinda like that point. My brother was handicap and I guess I could have married him and he could of had better health insurance. He has since passed away and miss him.
David

That is why I like the term "Significant Other" . It has nothing to do with sex. If my wife passed tomorrow (please Lord,NOOOOOO! ) but looking at tht just as I would insurance or my living will,I know I would turn to my friends and my "emergency contact" person would be a male. if that makes me gay, then I'm a queer as a 3 dollar bill !

[RoadKill]

My Aunt Fern married an old goat!

 

[3fan4life]

Government was never meant to be the sanctioning body for marriage.

If Government had never gotten involved in sanctioning marriage in the first place then this would be a non-issue.

I don't believe in "Gay Marriage" in my mind homosexuality is just plain "wrong".

Am I going to stand on the street corner with protest signs?  NO, I am not.

While I don't agree with homosexuality, I do agree that what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their business (I just wish that they would leave it in the bedroom and not parade it in the streets).

What bothers me the most about Official Gay Marriage is that it essentially says that the government has sanctioned homosexuality as being acceptable.

The Bible does say in many places that homosexuality is wrong.

When I think of our Government officially sanctioning homosexuality I think about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah:

But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before Jehovah, exceedingly so.  (Gen 13:13)

And there came two angels to Sodom at evening. And Lot sat in the gate of Sodom. And Lot rose up to meet them when he saw them. And he bowed himself with his face toward the ground, and said, Behold now, my lords, please turn into your servant's house and stay all night, and wash your feet, and you shall rise up early and go your way. And they said, No, but we will stay in the street.
But he urgently pressed on them, and they turned in to him and entered into his house. And he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both old and young, all the people from every quarter. And they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men which came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.  And Lot went out to the door to them, and shut the door after him.  And he said, I pray you, brothers, do not act evilly. (Gen 19:1-7 )

And when the dawn rose up, then the angels hurried Lot, saying, Rise up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the iniquity of the city. (Gen 19:15)  

Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire, from Jehovah out of the heavens.  And He overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. (Gen 19:24-25)

What I worry about is, what if God decides that our country has become as wicked as Sodom and Gomorrah?

I have to agree with Big Al, I think that rampant homosexuality is what resulted in the demise of the Roman Empire.  I think that God did become displeased with them and allowed their fall.

Someone coined the phrase, "Hate the sin LOVE the sinner" (no it's not in the bible).

That is where I stand on homosexuals and homosexuality, I detest the sin but I don't hate the sinners.

I have friends and co-workers that are homosexual.

They know that I like them and treat them no differently than any of my heterosexual friends, but they also know that I don't approve of their "lifestyle" and they respect that.  

The Gay marriage thing isn't anything that I'm going to lose sleep over, ("Que Sera Sera").

But I do think that somewhere, someday, somehow there will be eternal repercussions because of it.


For those of you that think the Christian View of Homosexuality is archaic and outdated just compare it to Islam's view.

 

[Robert]

In years past homosexuality was considered a physiological disorder, deviant behavior. Then when a the head of the APA in San Fransisco took it off the list of disorders over 2/3 of the association left and disagreed with the decision. This decision led the way to accept this behavior and make it socially acceptable and allowable. The facts are not good for the lifestyle and in most of us there is something that finds it repulsive. Now let me say I have friends who are homosexual and I really like them. But what is the problem with civil unions with most all the rights that married people have the only one I would want not to have is the ability to adopt. But this is not good enough, only marriage is acceptable. In our society with so loose standards I am not surprised that they could get this passed over the objections of the majority of the population. The homosexual agenda is well organized and has taken the time to place people in very strategic places in government to get their agenda passed. My hats off to them for this feat. I dont like homosexuality but I do like the people, I dont like the laws allowing it but will have to learn to live with it. I will also continue to enjoy my friends company. I will never accept it as normal behavior.

[The Anvil]

But what is the problem with civil unions with most all the rights that married people have the only one I would want not to have is the ability to adopt.

I just don't get this either. So children should languish in orphanages and institutions/foster care instead of being with a gay couple, right?

I got news for you; gay couples are not getting the pick of the litter when it comes to adoption. They're usually getting the problem children that other people don't want to adopt. There's a lesbian couple in our church that adopted a severely disabled child and gave her a loving home. But you'd deny her a family because it's a gay family?

You know what? I just realized why they wanna be able to call it marriage. Thank you for that.

[abcdleines]

There is only One, that a person has to answer to and it's not me or you. You say your a Christian? "Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged" and "Let Him Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone". Just my thoughts.

[Oss]

Sodom and Gemmorah were destroyed because not even 10 righteous could be found

Abraham argues with God what if there were 50 then 40 then lower until 10 is the part of the story that was left out above  Who argues with God and gets him to change his mind. Chutzpah !!

So it doesnt really matter

What really matters is how YOU live, how YOU behave to others, do YOU help others, do YOU feed the hungry, you dont have to wash the feet of your guests or offer your daughter to a mob just be a mensch.


IMHO We dont have to worry here about damnation coming to america like Phelps warns, we have way more than 10 righteous people in this family.  And if you get the opportunity go on a PGR mission but watch out for those gnats

[Robert]

The Bible is very clear on Homosexuality that is not a Christians judgement but Gods. Do I personally think Homosexuals will make it into heaven That is Gods call but I would have to say yes. Homosexuality has not been a consistent reliable lifestyle there are some in good long term relationships but generally they are not and most are plagued with problems.
  In our society like any society it is the loss of relationship with God hence the rise of  immorality that dooms the society homosexuality being accepted is only a symptom of a much deeper problem.

[oxfordhog]

I have 2 degrees in theogy and I have learned in my years of pursuing those degrees that it is best to veer away from arguments pertaining to religion    Now when it comes to bikes, sex, good food, and rock and roll 

[Bonzo]

I am Very Proud to be a New Yorker! Folk be Folk.  No matter who you are you should have the same rights as the next person.  Why should anyone be denied the right to marry, get a STATE Marriage License because of their gender preference? If a Temple, Church or Mosque do not want to marry them that is their right and prerogative.
My Wife and I could not get married in a Temple because Patty is not Jewish, so 33 years ago we got married by a Judge. 14 years ago I asked her if she wanted to get Married in her RC Church, and the great Pope John Paul II gave us dispensation. Our good friend Father Horrigan, gave us Cana(sp)and performed the ceremony. I wanted something so I played by their (the Churches) rules.
Am I upset I didn't stand under a Hupa and break a glass? A little.
My point? Religious intolerance is a strange thing and a constitutional right, but keep it in the Temple.
It was not that long ago that A white person could not marry a black person in some states!

My Wife, Myself, 4 children, 6 grandchildren look very much forward to the wedding of two very good friends getting Married after being together, devoted and committed for the last 11 years

[Stanley Steamer]

I have 2 degrees in theogy and I have learned in my years of pursuing those degrees that it is best to veer away from arguments pertaining to religion    Now when it comes to bikes, sex, good food, and rock and roll 

Old Sammy says it best......

Politics, Religion, and Her	powered by Aeva

[fudgie]

But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before Jehovah, exceedingly so.  (Gen 13:13)

And there came two angels to Sodom at evening. And Lot sat in the gate of Sodom. And Lot rose up to meet them when he saw them. And he bowed himself with his face toward the ground, and said, Behold now, my lords, please turn into your servant's house and stay all night, and wash your feet, and you shall rise up early and go your way. And they said, No, but we will stay in the street.
But he urgently pressed on them, and they turned in to him and entered into his house. And he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both old and young, all the people from every quarter. And they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men which came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.  And Lot went out to the door to them, and shut the door after him.  And he said, I pray you, brothers, do not act evilly. (Gen 19:1-7 )

And when the dawn rose up, then the angels hurried Lot, saying, Rise up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the iniquity of the city. (Gen 19:15)  

Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire, from Jehovah out of the heavens.  And He overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. (Gen 19:24-25)

I read that twice and I still dont see where homosexuality was bad. I can never understand that when someone past bible verses the chapters and versus are always skiped in order to make their point. I'm sure I can pick out small chapters and make a point that homosexuality is acceptable using that method.

[MP]

lol!  I guess once one has solidly made up his mind he can see whatever he wants to see and ignore what he wants to ignore.

That's true for me and it's certainly true for you.    

Please point out where the constitution (the basis of our slice of civilization) prohibits or in any way discourages marriage between members of the same sex. You can't because it doesn't. Therefore, certain people are trying to amend the ne plus ultra of American legal documents to prevent what they find morally objectionable. That's fact, NOT opinion.

*Boy I had no idea this was gonna turn into a Westboro Baptist Church rally when I joined this forum!  

*This is a joke. Please relax.

The constitution also does not, in your words, "prohibit or in any way discourage" marraige between 3 guys and 2 gals, nor between a guy and a gorilla.  So, by YOUR OWN LOGIC, these are OK too.

I also agree with Willow that we find it ironic that it OK to pass a law forcing some to accept gay marraige is OK, but passing a law to deny that is not OK.  What hyprocisy.

MP

[3fan4life]

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both old and young, all the people from every quarter. And they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men which came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.  (Gen 19:4-5)

The part, "that we may know them", is in reference to a homosexual act. Some translations add the word carnally others say, "that we may have sex with them".

Now, if you wanted to argue that homosexuality was not the only sin among the people of Sodom and thus was only a part of why God chose to destroy them, I would not disagree with you.  

Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire, from Jehovah out of the heavens.  And He overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. (Gen 19:24-25)

God destoyed the wicked cities and ALL who lived in them.

I would say that he clearly didn't like what was going on there.

I read that twice and I still dont see where homosexuality was bad. I can never understand that when someone past bible verses the chapters and versus are always skiped in order to make their point.

The entire story is a very long one. I condensed it, to avoid making a post that was two pages long.

The omitted verses do not change the meaning or the outcome of the story.

I'm sure I can pick out small chapters and make a point that homosexuality is acceptable using that method.

That is one thing that I do not believe that you can do.

The Bible is very clear that homosexuality is a sin, and wrong before the eyes of God.

It isn't the only sin, and it is no worse an offense than any other sin, but it is a sin.

 

[Bobbo]

What I worry about is, what if God decides that our country has become as wicked as Sodom and Gomorrah?

I have to agree with Big Al, I think that rampant homosexuality is what resulted in the demise of the Roman Empire.  I think that God did become displeased with them and allowed their fall.


But I do think that somewhere, someday, somehow there will be eternal repercussions because of it.

Willow, please note that The Anvil's attempt at raw humor at the group may not be that far off...

These sentiments reflect exactly the sentiments of Westboro Baptist, except he expressed them here instead of at a funeral.

[3fan4life]

What I worry about is, what if God decides that our country has become as wicked as Sodom and Gomorrah?

I have to agree with Big Al, I think that rampant homosexuality is what resulted in the demise of the Roman Empire.  I think that God did become displeased with them and allowed their fall.


But I do think that somewhere, someday, somehow there will be eternal repercussions because of it.

Willow, please note that The Anvil's attempt at raw humor at the group may not be that far off...

These sentiments reflect exactly the sentiments of Westboro Baptist, except he expressed them here instead of at a funeral.

Bobbo,

This is NOTHING LIKE THE IDIOTS AT WBC, 

If YOU CAN'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE THEN I HAVE BEEN VERY WRONG IN GIVING YOU CREDIT FOR BEING AN INTELLIGENT PERSON.

AND IF YOU WANT TO CALL ME OUT THEN BE A MAN ABOUT IT AND DO SO PERSONALLY AND DON'T HIDE BEHIND ADMIN.