[Fr_Chuck]

yes, The main issue they had was that there should not be one controlling denomination. Like the Church of England, In fact they did not allow freedom of religion during the war, it was not dangerous to be a member of the Church of England, because of the ties to the King. This was the reason for the forming of the a separate Anglican church group in the US.

The early government leaders had issues against some groups like the Mormons.

So we can see that the early government did not believe that there was a completely free expression of religious freedom. But we also see from things like the 10 commandments in the Supreme Court Building, from the wording of "in God we trust" on all our money, from the starting of Congress with prayer, from most Presidents being sworn in with the bible, from them setting up paid Chaplain positions for our military and in most prisons. And the list goes on. To attempt to deny the major part that christianity played in the forming of our nation, would be impossible, unless one wanted to try and re-write US history. ( which some groups try and do)

[Synnen]

I'm not saying that it didn't have a part in forming our country. It had a MAJOR part in forming our country, and in the way our country is STILL being formed.

It is NOT, however, our national religion.

There is absolutely no reason that ONE religion's beliefs should be forced upon the rest of the country via law, especially when the only person anyone has brought up as being hurt by homosexual relationships is God.

I recognize that Christians should not be forced to allow homosexual marriage in their churches. That's against your canon, and I completely agree that no church wedding should be forced.

However--a STATE marriage, one that allows homosexual couples ALL of the legal privileges of heterosexual marriages--SHOULD be allowed, as it is NOT infringing upon any religion.

Again, I believe this to be about discrimination more than about ethics, and I think that putting everyone on the same level is great--even if that means that hetersexual marriages no longer have any of those privileges.

I am willing to bet, though, that most Americans would rather see homosexual marriages get the same privileges than to lose their own--especially that great privilege called "tax cuts".

[Fr_Chuck]

Of course it is the entire issue of homosexual behavior that I am against,

Since that is now allowed in the US, ** and that is the battle the church lost, the marriage it self is not the real issue, in fact I wish them all the pain and suffering of divorce courts, property settlements, having to pay child support, alimony and all the fun that goes with marriage.
And yes they need the legal support for things like hospital vistis, to have inheritance rights which if this was posted in the legal section, I would support, but this is under religion, and as such, I have to oppose the actual function and activity of the relationship, which is what I object to.

But the real fear, is what we see happening in other places, such as Canada where the state appears to be going in the direction of forcing the churches to do this or risk losing their rights to do marriages there.
They do not have the rights as churches, but churches have a lot of hoops to jump though to be reconsied in Canada.

I would perhaps in fact think that like they do in England have marriage be a state function, and then the people can go and have a service to be blessed in the church.

[JoeCanada76]

Interesting Fr.Chuck.

[talaniman]

Just to set the record straight, one of the foundations of this great land was the freedom of religion, which means even though Christian tenets may have been behind the moral focus of the fathers, no one can argue that those tenants can be found in many religions, in many forms, and they are not exclusive to just Christianity.

As far as whether homosexuality is right or wrong, under the law it is not. Now your religion may limit you, and your thinking, under the law of the land it is beyond punishment. That simple.

As far as marriage among same sex couples, that's up to the state to sanction, and California is moving in that direction, and over time no doubt others will follow the lead of Massachusetts, and allow, and recognize this union.

[Fr_Chuck]

I will challegne that California is "moving" they were forced by the court, against the will of the people, If this is how law is suppose to work, perhaps it is time for the people to take their county back, since this would have never been allowed by our founding fathers.
And hopefully California residents will at the next vote, take back the will of the people over the will of a few judges.

But the law of the land is never beyond punishment our nation was founded on the idea that if and when the law is wrong and unjust, it is the right of the people to take over their government. We would not have a US, if the people did not rebell against the law of the land.

If Christians would just get off their rear and actually live their faith, which means to vote by their beleifs, the country would have no choice but to follow their demands. And they have the right to vote their beliefs, just not force a person to have those, but if only pro life political people, if only pro family people could get elected,

[inthebox]

Why California's gay-marriage decision could be overturned by voters in November. - By Emily Bazelon - Slate Magazine

California voters can overturn the decision with a single vote. There is already an initiative on the November ballot that would amend the state constitution and scrap today's ruling: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," it declares.

[talaniman]

If Christians would just get off their rear and actually live their faith, which means to vote by their beleifs, the country would have no choice but to follow thier demands.

I don't think that will stop people from seeking to be free.

[De Maria]

Without using religion,

Hmmm? Isn't this the "Religious Discussions" forum? Why did you post the question here if you don't want to have a religious discussion?

citing scripture, or bringing god into the equation, please explain why you believe that homosexuality is wrong,

Besides the reasons you discounted above because looking at our very bodies it is obvious that men were made for women and women for men. Same sex activity is obviously unnatural.

why gays should not have the right to marry,

I define marriage as a union between man and wife in holy matrimony for the procreation of children. Matrimony means "office of motherhood".

Obviously, same sex unions can't have children.

and what kind of impact you feel homosexuality has on society.

It would tend to weaken society because their sexual unions, according to what I've heard
tend to bring diseases such as aids.

But again, since this is not a religious question, why not have the mods move it to a more appropriate section of the forum. It is misplaced here.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Credendovidis]

Hmmm? Isn't this the "Religious Discussions" forum? Why did you post the question here if you don't want to have a religious discussion?

If you would quote her entire question the answer to that would be clear. The question was :

"Without using religion, citing scripture, or bringing god into the equation, please explain why you believe that homosexuality is wrong, why gays should not have the right to marry, and what kind of impact you feel homosexuality has on society."

There clearly is asked why you BELIEVE the way you do. And with belief being the one and only basis for religion...

:D :D :D :D :D

[WVHiflyer]

It would tend to weaken society because their sexual unions, according to what I've heard tend to bring diseases such as aids.

I suppose you would still call AIDS by its old religiously-bigoted term GIRD (or was it GRID?). No type of sexual union "brings" AIDS. It is a communicable disease that can be transmitted to another through sex (but not only sex) - the sharing of bodily fluids, no matter who is doing the sharing.

[Synnen]

And again, the children argument comes up.

So... those couples who are married but NOT trying for children should NOT be having sex, right?

Seriously--if you really feel that marriage is for children, then all couples who do not WANT children should be denied marriage, and all those who HAVE children should be forced to marry, right?

And birth control should be thrown out the window, since sex is ONLY for children, and if you're not trying to have a child, you shouldn't be having sex--married or not.

And sex should then stop as soon as either half of the couple's sex organs no longer work, making that little blue pill worthless, since most men who need it are with women past childbearing age anyway. And menopause would be the beginning of the end for all couples. Should one couple lose their capacity for having children (emergency hysterectomy, or something like that), then the couple no longer should have sex, and should make SURE of that by sleeping in separate bedrooms, since marriage is ONLY for children, and well... if you can't have kids, you shouldn't be married.

[excon]

It would tend to weaken society because their sexual unions, according to what I've heard tend to bring diseases such as aids.

Hello again, De Maria:

OMG! Who can possibly argue with ignorance of this magnitude??

excon

[JudyKayTee]

Hello again, De Maria:

OMG! Who can possibly argue with ignorance of this magnitude????

excon

I guess you missed the last round or you wouldn't be surprised. "People like me" don't believe in marriage - other people in that class are Attorneys. Attorneys don't believe in marriage either.

That's why I've never been married. Oh, no, wait, I'm wrong. I have.

Also beware - the poster is an expert at posting, waiting for your response, changing the original post - so you're talking to a ghost.

[Tuscany]

Besides the reasons you discounted above because looking at our very bodies it is obvious that men were made for women and women for men. Same sex activity is obviously unnatural.



I define marriage as a union between man and wife in holy matrimony for the procreation of children. Matrimony means "office of motherhood".

Obviously, same sex unions can't have children.

Wow you are one strong willed woman to only have sex when you wish to procreate. No sex for the pure of enjoyment of sex for you. I am glad that I did not marry my husband for the pure reason of having children. I am glad that I married my husband because he is my best friend, when children come into the picture it will be because our relationship is strong and whole. NOT because we got married. I could have easily had a baby before we were married...

You are wrong- same sex unions can have children. My aunt does...

It would tend to weaken society because their sexual unions, according to what I've heard
tend to bring diseases such as aids.

Oh good lord you have to be kidding me. Can you honestly believe this? Have you done any research on AIDS and HIV? That myth was dispelled DECADES ago!

[sassyT]

Actually, we DIDN'T say the Founding Fathers weren't Christian.

Just that not ALL of them were.

And the MAIN argument was that this country was NOT founded on Christian principles.

And the reason we are this far off topic at this point is that one of the arguments used against homosexuality and allowing gay marriages in this country is that the founding fathers were CHRISTIAN, and that this country was created based on Christian principles.

So...as Tuscany says--it's really not the relevant. I'm just pointing out the reasoning for the side topic to begin with.

The country was founded on Christian principles and morals. One nation under God. Freedom of religion is a Christian principle.

[NeedKarma]

Freedom of religion is a Christian principle.

Please don't feed the troll.

[excon]

The country was founded on Christian principles and morals. One nation under God. Freedom of religion is a Christian principle.

Hello again, sassy:

Well, ACTUALLY, if the principals ARE religions, they're JEWISH - NOT Christian. We had those principals LOOOOONG before you called 'em YOURS.

So, we are a Jewish Nation based upon Jewish principals. Please pass the lox.

excon

[WVHiflyer]

The country was founded on Christian principles and morals. One nation under God. Freedom of religion is a Christian principle.

"Under God" was added to the Pledge in the late 50s for purely religious reasons. It was not there originally and does not belong. T Jefferson acknowledged that even atheists had a right to not believe and were to be accepted as full members of the US. To add that phrase to the pledge is a slap at those who do not believe in God - and to those who believe in more than one.

And freedom of religion is not a 'Christian' principle. Christians have been among those who most abuse folks for not believing as they. (Just ask Jews, witches, wiccans, pagans, atheists, the victims of the Inquisition... )

[sassyT]

I think it is unfair for a poor helpless child to be adopted by a couple of Gays. The child doesn't have the choice to grow up in a normal family with a mother and a father. He/she will be forced to have 2 dads and not have the opportunity of experiencing a mother. I just think it's unfair for children to be forced into such abnormal situations..