[speechlesstx]

Yes, please.

For starters, it's a marriage between a man and a woman.

[Capuchin]

For starters, it's a marriage between a man and a woman.

Isn't the denial of God a sin, just like homosexuality is a sin?

[Synnen]

Okay, wait a minute.

In MY interpretation of the Bible, multiple partners/polygamy (Just look at how much trouble would have been saved if Sarah hadn't given her handmaiden to Abraham, or if Jacob hadn't married sisters!) and incest (it's always amazing to me that Sodom and Gamorrah are brought up AGAINST homosexuality, but that Lot's daughters weren't REALLY punished for their incest [and technically, really, fornication--they weren't married to their father]) seem to be okay.

Really, what it comes down to for a whole bunch of people is that the Bible was written by a bunch of men, and put together in the order it is in, with the specific books that are in it, for political reasons. There are gospels that have been found that tell the story of Jesus completely differently, and other books of the Bible (especially the New Testament) that have been left out completely because they don't jive with the rest of the Bible.

The OTHER side of it, for me, anyway, is that to me your god isn't a valid rule maker. I don't believe in Him, therefore I don't have to live by His rules---especially when the government and Constitution make the rules for this country, not any ONE religion.

It doesn't really matter how people feel on this, though. At some point, it's going to be ruled un-Constitutional to have one set of rules for one sort of people (civil unions ONLY) and a different (and maybe considered better?) set of rules for other sorts of people (marriage). It will come down to what I've already said in order to pacify everyone: EVERY couple has the right to have a civil union, and that will be the ONLY form of "marriage" the government can recognize for tax breaks, legal issues, etc. And EVERY church will have the right to decide who they can religiously marry, though a religious "marriage" will be recognized by only the church without the accompanying civil union to make it "civilly" legal.

[NeedKarma]

Why do they protest Mormons and not blacks or latinos?

Because mormons are the biggest funders of the campaign,

"The site attributes $15 million in donations to Mormons, or nearly half the Yes on 8 war chest in a state where Mormons make up 2% of the population."

source

[speechlesstx]

Isn't the denial of God a sin, just like homosexuality is a sin?

Sure, but I have yet to mention the word sin, I’ve only spoken of marriage the way God intended. And I believe God’s plan is what God intended for everyone, believer or not and regardless of the subject.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

I think our founders had it right when they determined what God intended, "... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... "

That's just what I believe. If you're interested in STRICT interpretations, I don't know how you, as a patriotic AMERICAN, could believe it says anything other than what it does.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

I think our founders had it right when they determined what God intended, ".... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..... "

That's just what I believe. If you're interested in STRICT interpretations, I dunno how you, as a patriotic AMERICAN, could believe it says anything other than what it does.

I never said anything about strict interpretations did I? Do you honestly think the founders would have ever considered gay marriage to be a right?

[excon]

Do you honestly think the founders would have ever considered gay marriage to be a right?

Hello again, Steve:

Let's see if we can elevate this argument to its core issues. You, like any good right winger, keep on throwing up red herrings.

As you and I have discussed many times on these pages, the Constitution doesn't list rights. I've told you why dozens of times. You have the right to own a fork too, but you won't find that right, LISTED either. So, you have to look at the words, and what they actually mean...

What I know about the founders is they spoke of the lofty principals the country was founded upon. We have not yet reached them. We may never. In truth, the founders DIDN'T mean ALL men when they used those words... But, when we realized that women were, indeed, part and parcel of the words "all men", we fixed that mistake. We did the same thing when we realized that black people were really part of all. So we fixed that too.

I don't know who the founders meant when they said ALL men. I know what it MEANS. It means that EVERY one of us has the same rights EVERY other one of us has. It matters not, that you're gay, black or some other member of the subculture that I'm sure you'll find...

THAT'S the America I live in. It's the America that makes me proud. It's the America I went to war to fight for. It's the America that I'll die for again, if need be.

But, I'm not proud of an America that denies rights to certain segments of society based upon religious beliefs. I didn't fight for a country that separates its people into those worthy of rights, and those who're not. I'm not proud of people who want to LIST rights for the specific purpose of denying them to others.

The Constitution says ALL men. I happen to believe it.

That's ALL I have to say on the subject... Until next time.

excon

[jillianleab]

I never said anything about strict interpretations did I? Do you honestly think the founders would have ever considered gay marriage to be a right?

Not gay marriage, just marriage. Marrige is a right. For everyone. Well, it should be.

[speechlesstx]

And we have repeatedly offered to compromise. Isn't that also part of what makes America great?

[jillianleab]

And we have repeatedly offered to compromise. Isn't that also part of what makes America great?

Ok, YOU call your marriage a "civil union" and let the gays call theirs "marriages". That's compromise too.

[speechlesstx]

Ok, YOU call your marriage a "civil union" and let the gays call theirs "marriages". That's compromise too.

How is it compromise to completely abandon your principles?

[jillianleab]

How is it compromise to completely abandon your principles?

How is it a compromise to forbid someone from the same right you are afforded, even if in name only?

[Synnen]

How is it compromise to completely abandon your principles?

EXACTLY!!

You are asking those of us who believe that ALL MEN are created equal to give up THAT principle for YOUR principle.

The difference is that OUR principle is based on the laws of this country. YOUR principle is based on a SPECIFIC religion.

Religion can not dictate law in this country. That's the thing right there! You're asking us, like slave owners asked the abolitionists, to believe that SOME men are not created "equal".

Marriage has been a state institution for centuries. Maybe it's religious too, but its primary purpose is to LEGALIZE a relationship. I remember hearing about times in history where the church was allowed to make all the laws. They came out with witch burnings, the Spanish Inquisition, and torturing heretics. There were serious civil wars over whether the King of England was the ruler of the church and could make church law, or whether it was the Pope. Sounds to me like religion HAD its chance to rule, and the founders of our country decided they were going to keep religion AWAY from law making.

If you're saying that gays aren't part of ALL MEN, well... sounds to me like you're a bigot, not morally right.

[speechlesstx]

EXACTLY!!

You are asking those of us who believe that ALL MEN are created equal to give up THAT principle for YOUR principle.

The difference is that OUR principle is based on the laws of this country. YOUR principle is based on a SPECIFIC religion.

Where have the laws and constitution of this land historically granted equal rights to relationships?

Religion can not dictate law in this country. That's the thing right there! You're asking us, like slave owners asked the abolitionists, to believe that SOME men are not created "equal".

Marriage has been a state institution for centuries. Maybe it's religious too, but its primary purpose is to LEGALIZE a relationship. I remember hearing about times in history where the church was allowed to make all the laws. They came out with witch burnings, the Spanish Inquisition, and torturing heretics. There were serious civil wars over whether the King of England was the ruler of the church and could make church law, or whether it was the Pope. Sounds to me like religion HAD its chance to rule, and the founders of our country decided they were going to keep religion AWAY from law making.

If you're saying that gays aren't part of ALL MEN, well... sounds to me like you're a bigot, not morally right.

It had to happen, the discussion has digressed into name calling. That's another reason we'll never agree, you guys can't seem to restrain yourselves from accusations or suggestions of bigotry, comparisons to slavery, torture, witch burnings and implying we seek a theocracy. That's old, it's ridiculous, it's not constructive - it's bullsh** plain and simple.

[tomder55]

I figured given enough time the conversation would degenerate. This is not a new conversation ;I've had it before and see where it leads. Given the choice I will drift towards a hard line position since everyone else seems to be . For now my powder is dry .

[excon]

Where have the laws and constitution of this land historically granted equal rights to relationships?

Hello again, Steve:

You're trying your best to spin it... But, I ain't going to let you. It's not difficult. I KNOW you get it. I don't know WHY your religious half blinds you...

"Relationships" don't have rights. If you look, you won't find relationships LISTED. However, I must remind you again, the Constitution DOESN'T list rights.

INDIVIDUALS have rights. If YOU have a right that the state bestowed upon YOU because you are married, I, and EVERYBODY else, has that SAME right.

It says so, very plainly in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, where it says, ".... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Again, I ask you to explain why this DOESN'T pertain to the discussion at hand?

excon

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

I think we can wrap this up... I'm going to answer for you...

You're going to say that a homosexual DOES have the same right you do, to marry a person of the opposite sex...

And, of course, you'll have missed the whole thing...

excon

[Synnen]

Um... hello? Did you READ what I wrote?

I wrote that a country RULING by religion DOES, historically speaking, degenerate to torture, witch burnings, etc.

If you are trying to impose your religious beliefs on LAW, then you ARE seeking a form of theocracy. If your reason for not allowing someone EQUAL rights under law because of their sexual orientation, then you ARE prejudiced.

Historically, the people opposed to giving equal rights to a group of people have justified it by using God and the Bible. Blacks could be slaves because it was their punishment because Ham looked at Noah naked and drunk and laughed at him. Witches could be burned because women shouldn't have that much power--and because the Bible SAID so.

I use these examples as comparisons because they have HAPPENED. They are situations where someone HAS used religion/God to justify doing something that isn't really a very nice thing to do.

What I would like to know is this: How would it hurt YOU to allow to people who love each other to get married?

[inthebox]

Because mormons are the biggest funders of the campaign, source

But who actually voted for the measure:

70% of blacks voted for the measure - probably 90% of whom voted for Obama-
So where is the indignation by these gay protesters or by EX?

I think the radical gay groups
1] know Mormons, unlike Catholics, are not used to being targeted by gay radicals
2] it is politically correct to target Mormons but not blacks and latinos.