<p align="center"><img border="0" src="http://somd.com/news/kingscorner/images/king-head.GIF" alt="King's Corner" width="336" height="143"></p>
Well, this summer is almost over and kids are heading back to school (thank God). Maybe that extra day off every other week will be one with a little more solitude without all the kids rampaging around the neighborhood.

Personally this summer has had it highs and lows. For the highest of my highs I experienced one of those joys only a father knows when one of his children gets married (luckily it was the step-son, so no major expenses like what the father of a daughter enjoys). For my lowest low I suffered significant pain when I lost a long time friend to years of alcohol abuse. He was a great guy with some of the worst luck anyone could imagine. I’m sure we all have a person we know like him. He would do anything for anyone, one of those guys that would literally give the shirt off his back to someone that needed it. But it seemed that he never caught a break, he was the epitome of Murphy’s Law. If something could go wrong for him it would. But there is no need to dwell on that though, we’ve said our good-byes and I truly believe that he is in a better place. May he rest in peace, he will be missed.

And I’m not going to discuss anything about the recent furor of the forums either. Though, it has been looking like a soap opera lately. We have had some interesting activity and there are certainly some new and exciting participants. For the most part I would like to say welcome and I hope you enjoy your stay. It is nice to get some new thinking, but I don’t think we have stagnated as much as some of you think or conformed to any one way of thought as has been mentioned. We just have more water under our shared bridges and interact based on that experience. Some of us (like me) are very “vocal” and some, for lack of a better word, are ornery (okay, I admit that’s me too). You’ll figure us out and while we might never agree on anything discussed here, that relationship will develop. If you are new here just hang in there and think of it as being the new kid in the neighborhood. Also this is just some friendly advice, do with it as you want.

Now on to what grasped my attention for the meat of this article. I probably should thank Brian Werring for his survey question, after all that is what gave me the inspiration for this column. His question, “Do you believe there should be a law that marriage should be between a man and a women?”, is timely for discussion and thought.

I’ve made the assumption that his question is in regard to creating a Federal law defining what should or should not be a marriage. This assumption was based on the fact that in Maryland we already have a law that specifically states that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Right or wrong, that is how the elected representatives of Maryland have determined how it will be in our state.

Immediately my thoughts are, do we need the Federal Government intervening in what has always been a matter handled by the states? States have their rules concerning marriage and this is where I feel the appropriate level of control should remain. The Federal governments concern should extend only to ensuring that a legal marriage established in any state is honored by all of the states. That is unless the Congress determines that sexual-orientation becomes protected in the same manner that it has with sex, race, age, and the other protected categories. Then instead of crafting a law they should draft an amendment to the Constitution stating such and afford the states the opportunity to ratify that premise.

As one of our regular posters has recently been pointing out (a little recognition to 2nd Amendment for this effort, way to go Big John) is that the powers of the Federal government, defined by the Constitution, are constructed in such a fashion as to limit the government’s reach into our personal lives. However, in recent years I feel that the tendency has been for the government to increase that reach. If they continue on this path they will be overriding what I believe was the intent and vision of the Founding Fathers when they crafted our form of government, the Constitution, and the interaction the government will have with the states.

Our Federal government, in my mind, has more pressing problems to deal with then to have to reach deeper into our personal lives like they would by taking up this matter. We have issues with the economy, taxes, immigration, national security and such that could use all of their attention. I would much rather see them concentrate their efforts on those matters than to spend time dealing with what has been historically an issue for the states.

How do you feel or think about this?

*sigh*...Okay 2A, don't hurt me:biggrin:

As most of you know, I've clearly stated my feelings on this subject. My feelings remain the same even though some of my fellow posters have brought up great points arguing my opinions.

Anyhow, Ken mentioned that the Federal govt. has more important issues to be concerned with, which is obvious, given our current world situation, etc. I believe that the same goes for most state governments. Why should state governments be concerned with personal affairs such as this? Isn't this an invasion of humanity and not to mention, privacy?

Don't get me wrong, I am not promoting law breaking.....but, where will the govt. draw the line?

I've heard some say that same-sex marriage is morally and ethically wrong, but whose standards, rights and beliefs do we compare this to? We are individuals, and as individuals we have a right to individuality...am I wrong? Don't you think the world would be a boring place if we were all exactly the same?

I'm going off on tangents now. Would like more input from other posters before I keep on typing....

I've already spewed about this in several different threads. What I keep coming back to is: I don't see how you can deny rights to tax-paying citizens.

And don't ya'll start in about children and sheep and blahblahblah. Those aren't tax-paying citizens nor are they capable of making consentual decisions for themselves.

...probably happen:

A federal law of some sort of a civil union and/or contract will come into being to legitimize "gay marriage" in terms of property rights, benefits et al recognizing legal commitment.

The argument will be based on the commerce clause of the US Constitution..."Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce between the states...ya da yah..." in order to enact understanding similar to the state to state recognition of drivers licenses, insurance etc, etc, etc.

Religions will retain the power to either do gay marriages or not as they see fit.

All of this will be followed shortly by "gay divorce" and a lifestyle wide reflection along the lines of "did we really want this???". Juicy tabloid hyped separations by rich and famous gay people won't be far behind.

Then, we will find something else that is totally unfair and in need of federal remedy.

In the mean time, the NRA will suggest that if gay union should be recognized from one state to any other then the unabriged rights of gun ownership in Vermont should convey nationwide as well. Thus, there will be a "civil union" of convenience between the interest groups to get a deal done.

Howard Dean will have something to say about it and everybody else will get a headache and go to bed early.

Personally I don't care if they have same sex unions or not. It is up to the concenting adults if they wish to formalize thier union then so be it. What I do have a problem with is the slippery slope arguments that, in most cases have already come up. If you legitimize same sex unions by recognizing them formally with federal legislation, how do you deny same sex couples adopting, being foster parents and other family issues? Like I said before, I do not care what consenting adults do in private, nor do I care that they avail themselves to the divorce courts and the same messy situations that occur in heterosexual families but I don't like the idea of a minority counter culture adopting.

Originally posted by dpete2q
I don't like the idea of a minority counter culture adopting. Let's see...who makes a better adoptive parent: Rosie O'Donnell (lesbian) or Hedda Nussbaum (hetero)? Melissa Ethridge (lesbian) or Joan Crawford (hetero)?

Just a thought...

Originally posted by ememdee19
Why should state governments be concerned with personal affairs such as this? Isn't this an invasion of humanity and not to mention, privacy?
Right now this is a state matter. I feel that it should remain one and that any authorization for the same-sex union should be handled by the individual states unless the Fed steps in and affords those of differing sexual-orientation protections as they have for other defined groups.

I don't see it as an invasion of humanity nor privacy but as the appropriate place for the arguement to rest.

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...probably happen:

A federal law of some sort of a civil union and/or contract will come into being to legitimize "gay marriage" in terms of property rights, benefits et al recognizing legal commitment.

The argument will be based on the commerce clause of the US Constitution..."Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce between the states...ya da yah..." in order to enact understanding similar to the state to state recognition of drivers licenses, insurance etc, etc, etc.

Religions will retain the power to either do gay marriages or not as they see fit.

All of this will be followed shortly by "gay divorce" and a lifestyle wide reflection along the lines of "did we really want this???". Juicy tabloid hyped separations by rich and famous gay people won't be far behind.

Then, we will find something else that is totally unfair and in need of federal remedy.

In the mean time, the NRA will suggest that if gay union should be recognized from one state to any other then the unabriged rights of gun ownership in Vermont should convey nationwide as well. Thus, there will be a "civil union" of convenience between the interest groups to get a deal done.

Howard Dean will have something to say about it and everybody else will get a headache and go to bed early.
How about Article IV, section 2, "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." Isn't that why we already recognize marriages across state lines now?

Originally posted by *archimedes*
I heterosexual funnier than me once said "I think they should be forced to marry - why should we be the only ones to suffer?" I concur. :yeahthat: :lmao: pretty damn funny....

...so what is it?


State:

I don't see it as an invasion of humanity nor privacy but as the appropriate place for the arguement to rest.

...or fed?

How about Article IV, section 2, "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." Isn't that why we already recognize marriages across state lines now?

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...so what is it?


State:



...or fed?
What it is, is as stated, my thinking is that we do not need a Federal law as state laws (defining privileges and immunities) should already be covered, correct? Have you been to Canada lately?

...law per se BUT don't we need a nationwide understanding or acknowledgement that, per your constitutional reference, makes good throughout the land recognition of some form of state initiated civil union? And conversely, federal (existing in the article referenced, IMHO) protection from a given state PROHIBITING recognition of a civil union/marriage under some other states law as proscribed in Article 4?

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...law per se BUT don't we need a nationwide understanding or acknowledgement that, per your constitutional reference, makes good throughout the land recognition of some form of state initiated civil union? And conversely, federal (existing in the article referenced, IMHO) protection from a given state PROHIBITING recognition of a civil union/marriage under some other states law as proscribed in Article 4?
My reference to Article IV was in regard to your reference to the "commerce clause".

My thoughts are that short of an amendment providing for protections given to differing classes (like what was done with voting for age, sex, and race) each state should be left to determine if they will recognize civil same-sex unions. If any state recognizes these unions then “the several states” should also be required to recognize these unions established in that state. Much like in Maryland where there are no provisions for “common law marriages” but common law marriages established in other states are recognized by Maryland.

...we are on the same page.

Now we have set the legal stage as to how this will play out.

So, if Maryland (or any other state) recognizes marriage and/or civil union as ONLY between a man and a woman...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...we are on the same page.

Now we have set the legal stage as to how this will play out.

So, if Maryland (or any other state) recognizes marriage and/or civil union as ONLY between a man and a woman...
And New Hampshire says the union between same-sex is okay...

...the right to keep and bear arms which Maryland does not.

Now what?

It's a can'o'verms boys. What if you were legally part of a same-sex union in VT. Going to Key West on vacation, got in a wreck on I-95 in MD. Would the partner (legal in VT) be allowed the same rights at the hospital in MD, power of attorney, etc?

Guns, well just don't take them across state lines right, kind of like motercycle helmet laws varying from state to state?

What about OR & CA making reefer legal and the feds fighting it?

Originally posted by jlabsher
What about OR & CA making reefer legal and the feds fighting it? That's easy - just don't toke up outside of those states.

But you make a great point about married couples. Wherever Larry and I go, we are recognized as a married couple. I am his next of kin and he is mine. Married gays shouldn't be confined to a particular state.

And if it's the terminology "married" that's getting everyone in a twist, fine. Call it something else. But the rights should be the same.

I agree about the CA & OR thing I was just posting it as an example of what happens when the feds try to overrule "state's rights".

I think the marriage terminology is getting everyone in a tizzy, funny 'bout that since nearly half the hetero marriages end in d-i-v-o-r-c-e. Marriage isn't really that sacred in reality anymore, maybe just ideologically.

Originally posted by jlabsher
Marriage isn't really that sacred in reality anymore, maybe just ideologically. Not even that. What about that Episcopalian bishop that ditched his wife to get a boyfriend?

...stand point it is not a can of worms.

IF the Constitution is the law of the land and is also the basis for equal protection and the basis for federal authority in terms of regulating interstate commerce (recognition of contracts like marriage and drivers liscenses) THEN the Constitution (and the federal government) MUST serve as the arbiter of state to state disputes.

Such as: the right to keep and bear arms. If the Second Amendment can be nulled and voided by Maryland then why can't they (we) void the commerce clause and/or the 14th or any other amendment? Or a new civil contract?

States get around this only by degrees of ignoring the law and public apathy balanced nationaly and locally, basically, 'what fight is a big deal?' at any given time. Ignoring an amendment that guarantees you a civil right, say the right to keep and bear is no different Constitutionally than ignoring any other civil right including slavery which is where removal of the right of self defense takes you, slavery.

So, when New Hampshire says "we recognize a civil same sex union" and Texas says "we don't" for reasons such as stated, then, like slavery, at some point the feds MUST arbitrate. The feds must say, based on the 14th (equal protection) and the commerce clause (regulating commerce, in this case a liscense) that some sort of same sex union is legal and must be recognized nationwide for the purposes of equal protection and regulating commerce.

Or we go on ignoring things like we do about the right to protect yourself without which, to me, makes every thing else irrelevent.

What good is a good or agreement or right if you have no ability to protect it yourself? You are a ward of the state, a dependent, yes?

Even if you poo poo the importance of the right to personal protection you can't poo poo the logic. For 4 score and a few years we ignored, poo poo'ed, slavery until the consistency of the Declaration of Independence was re-affirmed with the 14th amendment. Oh, and a civil war to boot because everybody felt so strongly about the proper role of the federal government.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by vraiblonde
..But you make a great point about married couples. Wherever Larry and I go, we are recognized as a married couple. I am his next of kin and he is mine. Married gays shouldn't be confined to a particular state.




:killingme :killingme :killingme

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Not even that. What about that Episcopalian bishop that ditched his wife to get a boyfriend? One might also ask, what about the Episcopalian bishops who ditched their wives to get other wives? :biggrin:

Originally posted by Bertha Venation
One might also ask, what about the Episcopalian bishops who ditched their wives to get other wives? That too. Or ministers who cheat on their spouse. Or or or. Don't get me started - Larry had to listen to me rant about higher expectations all morning. :lol:

Originally posted by vraiblonde
That too. Or ministers who cheat on their spouse. Or or or. Don't get me started - Larry had to listen to me rant about higher expectations all morning. :lol:
Poor Larry, and you could have been putting the kids books in their bookbag instead of ranting. :killingme

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Or or or. Don't get me started - Larry had to listen to me rant about higher expectations all morning. :lol: :lol:

I'm the same way--don't get me started. Especially since, as half of a same-sex marriage, I have a bit of a different perspective. http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/otn/angels/tdo9.gif

Originally posted by Ken King
Poor Larry, and you could have been putting the kids books in their bookbag instead of ranting. :killingme :roflmao:

Originally posted by Bertha Venation
Especially since, as half of a same-sex marriage, I have a bit of a different perspective. Then spill it. I've already had my fairness rant but what do I know? It's already legal for me to get married.

You should be in here talking about this. It affects you more than it does me.

Originally posted by Ken King
Poor Larry, and you could have been putting the kids books in their bookbag instead of ranting. :razz: :moon:

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Then spill it. I've already had my fairness rant but what do I know? It's already legal for me to get married.

You should be in here talking about this. It affects you more than it does me. You're absolutely right. It affects me in many ways--and the debate affects my blood pressure, which is why I don't discuss it much.

Kathy and I have spent a great deal of money on legal documents, trying to secure a few of our most basic needs, things we'd need desperately in times of crisis and things we would be completely powerless without. Those documents, if we ever need them, should help to ensure that
she is allowed at my hospital bedside
she is allowed to make the medical decisions if I'm incapacitated
she is the one who makes the body disposition decisions
she has inheritance rights (our house is jointly owned so that's not a problem; other things are)
In my circles, we all have horror stories of friends whose in-laws kicked them out of jointly-leased apartments after the death of one spouse, or of insensitive hospital staff who would not allow one spouse into the room with the other. . . .

A friend's mate died suddenly last year; he told of being with his mate's daughter--whom he helped to raise but could not adopt--both of them in tears as she signed the paperwork because he was not his mate's legal spouse. She told him, "I'm so sorry, Dad. You should be doing this." Unfortunately not all families are this willing to accept the relationship for what it is.

After the Defense (:duh:) of Marriage Act passed a few years ago, the GAO compiled a list of rights, responsibilities, benefits, entitlements, etc., that come with a marriage license in the U.S. There are 1,049. One thousand forty-nine. Granted, not all married couples need these. But it's a huge list of rights that the U.S. currently denies a portion of its citizens.

The rights Kathy and I have attempted to secure with our legal documents are a tiny fraction of that 1,049. And we have no guarantee that our documents will be honored. "Blood is thicker;" if they were so inclined, upon my death any of my family members could come out here and scoop up everything that's "mine" or that they claim is "mine" and take it away from Kathy and they'd be completely within their rights. That includes her car, which is in my name. That includes anything in this house, including our pets.

"Blood is thicker" applies to the marriage relationship too. A legal marriage establishes one's spouse as one's next-of-kin--in fact, it is the only way. We could spend millions on legal documents and still have no guarantees on each other's protection. Kathy is my next-of-kin, and it's time that the state/fed recognized that.

The only true way to guarantee that our marriage will be treated by the law for exactly what it is--a marriage--is for the state to issue us a marriage license, and then for the federal government to ensure our license's portability.

And "civil unions" as a compromise? :nono: "Separate but equal," as we already know, doesn't work and is unconstitutional.

(okay... 148/81, not bad...) Any questions? I'm here to share, and thanks for the prod.

"Separate but equal," as we already know, doesn't work and is unconstitutional. Good point. I guess where I was going with that is it seems the major sticking point is the word "marriage". Or maybe that's just the excuse.

I think of marriage as more of a legal contract between two people. It takes another legal act to dissolve it. So, to me, what they call it is inconsequential. But I understand what you're saying.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Good point. I guess where I was going with that is it seems the major sticking point is the word "marriage". Or maybe that's just the excuse. A lot of people seem to be seeing it that way. I hear "the sanctity of marriage" so much I want to vomit. Mine is just as "sanct" as anyone else's--but then the folks crying "sanctity" get hung up on those six bible verses and reason goes out the window. (And I wonder why my BP rises.)
Originally posted by vraiblonde
I think of marriage as more of a legal contract between two people. It takes another legal act to dissolve it. So, to me, what they call it is inconsequential. But I understand what you're saying. That's precisely what it is: a legal contract. When our marriages are recognized, we'll have to get divorces like everyone else. (The lawyers should all be behind our right to marry!)

There are so darn many angles to consider: history, tradition, religion, constitutionality, homophobia, etc., etc. It's a terribly complex issue with a very simple solution.

I dont see why they need to "DEFINE" what marriage is. Its been defined since the beginning of mankind.
Its meant to be between a man and a woman. There is logic behind that, because it takes a man and a woman to create a new life. Not man and man , woman and woman. People are trying to keep the sanctity of marriage. Gays should respect the way marriage has already been defined, not try to undermine it.

Originally posted by Cmecu
I dont see why they need to "DEFINE" what marriage is. Its been defined since the beginning of mankind.
Its meant to be between a man and a woman. There is logic behind that, because it takes a man and a woman to create a new life. Not man and man , woman and woman. People are trying to keep the sanctity of marriage. Gays should respect the way marriage has already been defined, not try to undermine it.

Takes a man and a woman to make a child? Well, kinda. People in science are actually doing pretty interesting research on that, but that is a whole different thread.

Marriage isn't about making babies. It is about a union between two people.
I'm married, but don't have kids. Does this mean my marriage really isn't valid until she pops one out?

Originally posted by Cmecu
I dont see why they need to "DEFINE" what marriage is. Its been defined since the beginning of mankind.
Its meant to be between a man and a woman. There is logic behind that, because it takes a man and a woman to create a new life. Not man and man , woman and woman. People are trying to keep the sanctity of marriage. Gays should respect the way marriage has already been defined, not try to undermine it.
:cool: With few reservations, mostly my concern for other peoples' feelings in this debate, I have to agree.

The statements saying - "It's meant to be between a man and a woman.......There is logic behind that, because it takes a man and a woman to create new life." - is really what it all boils down to.

Critics can/will argue that science can make it possible for same sex couples to have children, but now we're having to resort to artificiality.

We're having to resort to "making amendments" to that, which in it's purest form, cannot be accomplished in the natural sense.

We would(heck, we already are) be taking an abberation and trying to make it workable, alongside of that which has existed from the dawn of mankind.

The two are incongrous(sp?) they don't equate, by my traditional thinking.

I cannot, in my heart, reconcile that. I can't call it a "marriage".

Originally posted by penncam


We're having to resort to "making amendments" to that, which in it's purest form, cannot be accomplished in the natural sense.

We would(heck, we already are) be taking an abberation and trying to make it workable, alongside of that which has existed from the dawn of mankind.



Oh please Penn. We all enjoy the "artificial" life that we have created. We were given two legs for mobility, doesn't keep our big a$$es from getting in a car to go everywhere we want to go. We have been given natural heat and natural cold, natural sunshine, natural rain. Yet we enjoy our artificial AC in the summer, and artifical heat in the winter. We are given natural light (from the sun, not the beer), but we couldn't function without artifical light in our homes and places of work. Many of the foods we eat are no longer "natural". Neither are many of the clothes we wear. You think sending zeros and ones over a copper wire is how we were intended to communicate?
Our hair grows naturally, doesn't stop us from cutting it, shaving it, coloring it, add curls, take away curls. Our nails grow naturally, doesn't stop us from cutting them, biting them, painting them (ladies mostly)
Our bodies have natural defenses against disease, doesn't stop us from popping pills when we get sick, or seeing a doctor.

Sorry. I have heard several good arguments about why same sex marriages should not be allowed, but the act being "unnatural" definately doesn't fall in that category.

Originally posted by SmallTown
Sorry. I have heard several good arguments about why same sex marriages should not be allowed, but the act being "unnatural" definately doesn't fall in that category.
Okay ST, there's logic in your wisdom. So, what are we debating here, semantics?

Besides, I tried to qualify my thoughts by stating "in it's purest form".

I also noted in your previous your post that your family does not have children; that is your(and the wife's, I assume) decision.
It's none of my concern.

Noone said, that I know of, that you must produce offspring, however, all things being equal, you and your wife do not have to resort to outside help, science, fertility goddesses, or anything else for that matter.

You can create life all by yourselves.

That was the point I was attempting to make, in my agreement with Cmecu.

Is there a flaw in that logic?

Maybe I'm sitting out here in left field all by myself but.... I don't think that marriage or this debate has anything to do with producing offspring. ( I hate the way that sounds anyway)

The debate is a moral one. Are we supporting moral behavior?

Personally, I don't believe that God intended for us to have sexual relations with or marry the same sex. Sodom, Gomorah and all that.

However, some will argue that the desire is primal. Homosexuality was rampant even in Biblical times. It's not a new age phenomenon.

Over the past few years I have changed my opinion drastically. In a world full of hatred, murder, rape, pedophilia and War, How bad is it that two people regardless of sex love each other?

Originally posted by penncam
Okay ST, there's logic in your wisdom. So, what are we debating here, semantics?



Just the fact that being "natural" or not is irrelevant, as I have shown we all enjoy things that are not natural because we either personally agree with them, or feel we can't live without them. It is the latter that I feel pertains to the argument at hand. When you find that special someone, things change in you. The way you feel about the person can bring out feeling from you that you thought were not possible. You look forward to waking up next to them in the morning, and falling asleep in their arms. You feel your life is complete when you are with them, that you can't live without them . I am sure gays have the same types of feelings.

So what about couple who can't have children? Before couples get married, should they have to go to the doctor to see if they are "able" to have kids or not, and if not they are not able to get married? The knee-jerk reaction to this is "Well, that is different". But is it really? Based on your argument, there is no difference

Originally posted by SmallTown
" The way you feel about the person can bring out feeling from you that you thought were not possible. You look forward to waking up next to them in the morning, and falling asleep in their arms. You feel your life is complete when you are with them, that you can't live without them . I am sure gays have the same types of feelings.

So what about couple who can't have children? Before couples get married, should they have to go to the doctor to see if they are "able" to have kids or not, and if not they are not able to get married? The knee-jerk reaction to this is "Well, that is different". But is it really? Based on your argument, there is no difference "

:cool: I do not feel a marriage should be based on whether you are capable of having children, as a husband and wife, (although centuries ago, I would wager it would have), it is simply the basic foundation of creating life, traditionally, historically, ethically, which ever way you wish to view it.

Bibically, it was the method by which God chose to keep a man(and woman) from sinning in that fashion. It gave sex an honorable name, I guess, one way to put it.

Any other method, fashion or mode was an abomination; an abberation from the norm.

Originally posted by cariblue
I've been thinking about this and if circumstances were different, I'd marry my female best friend to make sure that she were my beneficiary should I die.
I've been thinking of coming out of the closet too but after Barabra's bomb-shell and it's wild after math I've decided against it. :roflmao:

Originally posted by cariblue
I'm not talking about a sexual relationship at all. I'm talking about where I want my money to go and who I want to finish the job of raising my child. I would not want my wishes challenged by greedy, narrow relatives.
That's what I meant too.....:biggrin:

Originally posted by penncam
:cool: I do not feel a marriage should be based on whether you are capable of having children, as a husband and wife, (although centuries ago, I would wager it would have), it is simply the basic foundation of creating life, traditionally, historically, ethically, which ever way you wish to view it.



Originally posted by penncam

Noone said, that I know of, that you must produce offspring, however, all things being equal, you and your wife do not have to resort to outside help, science, fertility goddesses, or anything else for that matter.

You can create life all by yourselves.

That was the point I was attempting to make, in my agreement with Cmecu.

Is there a flaw in that logic?


Originally posted by penncam

The statements saying - "It's meant to be between a man and a woman.......There is logic behind that, because it takes a man and a woman [who are able to reproduce] to create new life." - is really what it all boils down to.

Critics can/will argue that science can make it possible for same sex couples [and couples who can not have children] to have children, but now we're having to resort to artificiality [which is fine in the case of people who simply can not have children].


Interesting course of thought. I fixed some of your earlier quotes to make it more closely aligned with your argument

Not to say that all gays have aids but if gay people were allowed to get married wouldnt it be reasonable to say that the aids rate in the U.S. would go down?

Originally posted by BuddyLee
Not to say that all gays have aids but if gay people were allowed to get married wouldnt it be reasonable to say that the aids rate in the U.S. would go down?

Only if they don't sleep around.
50% of "normal" marriages fail, and many times it is cause by someone not keeping their panties or boxers on.
So even though I support their right to marry, I surely wouldn't put them on a pedestal either and say their marriages would be any "better"

Originally posted by SmallTown
Only if they don't sleep around.
50% of "normal" marriages fail, and many times it is cause by someone not keeping their panties are boxers on.
So even though I support their right to marry, I surely wouldn't put them on a pedestal either and say their marriages would be any "better"

Of couse, this is indeed a question of what if's

:rolleyes: St, please refrain from doctoring my quotes, ie., putting something in them which I did not.

It's pretty low even for you to "doctor" what someone said to help embellish their meaning.

But wait, aren't you a low-life, liberal demoncrap, and as such it is perfectly alright for you to "spin" just like the big boys (your wannabes) do on TV at night?

You know d@mn well what I'm getting at, so there's no need to play games with my quotes, okay?

Originally posted by penncam
:rolleyes: St, please refrain from doctoring my quotes, ie., putting something in them which I did not.

It's pretty low even for you to "doctor" what someone said to help embellish their meaning.

But wait, aren't you a low-life, liberal demoncrap, and as such it is perfectly alright for you to "spin" just like the big boys (your wannabes) do on TV at night?

You know d@mn well what I'm getting at, so there's no need to play games with my quotes, okay?



What a shot! :boxing:

Originally posted by cariblue
I think I'll just go back to ignoring you. :rolleyes:
:biggrin: Ah, that's BS, and you know it. There's too much fun when we mess with each others' heads.

You want to only butt heads with Ken King, is that It?
:cheers:

Originally posted by penncam
:rolleyes: St, please refrain from doctoring my quotes, ie., putting something in them which I did not.

They were clearly marked with [] (The way you add words not in the actual quote)

It's pretty low even for you to "doctor" what someone said to help embellish their meaning.

It just made them more closely related to your argument

But wait, aren't you a low-life,
Nope

liberal demoncrap,
Nope

and as such it is perfectly alright for you to "spin" just like the big boys (your wannabes) do on TV at night?
Nope

You know d@mn well what I'm getting at,
Nope

so there's no need to play games with my quotes, okay?
Ok

:biggrin: Darn, you do that so well ST; before I'm dead, I want to be just like you.

So, you're an Independent, is that correct?

You just had me confused for a moment.

ST, I suppose why I feel the way I do, comes from believing in the Bible, and what it says in the Book of Leviticus, plus a half-dozen other references in the New Testament.

Marriage has always meant to me to be a man and a woman.

That's just the way I feel - no spin, no other qualifying rationales.

And my gut tells me it's not right...or natural...or something.
Forgive the lack of proper terminology, but I just can't condone it because my heart of hearts won't let me. Maybe not the best argument for argument's sake, but good enough for me...

I say let them get married! Who is it going to hurt besides the religous freaks?

Originally posted by BuddyLee
I say let them get married! Who is it going to hurt besides the religous freaks?


Not a bad point, really. I have female friends who have been partners for many years and I honor their relationship. But...if they were to tell me they were "married", I'd just feel like..."yeah...okay...whatever". It just wouldn't be the same, though.

Originally posted by cariblue
It wouldn't even hurt the religious freaks. They just want to control people and get bent when they can't.

Tis true. Even in the Roman days the pope controlled and dictated almost everything and how? BY FEAR. They still do it today by referring to the devil, or believing in pantheism, or for those really religous freaks APPLYING EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE ARGUMENT THERE IS TO THE BIBLE.

Originally posted by justin anemone
Not a bad point, really. I have female friends who have been partners for many years and I honor their relationship. But...if they were to tell me they were "married", I'd just feel like..."yeah...okay...whatever". It just wouldn't be the same, though.

Yes I do not get what the big deal is. Me and my mother got into the this the other night and I was suprised that she was against this being a woman and all. I mean come on though WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL. Do we really have sanctity in marriage anymore with the # of divorce rates going up and the time actually spent with each other going down in our fast paced society? I say if it makes them happy then do it. Plus I believe there are many more benefits for same sex marriage than to not be married at all.

Originally posted by cariblue
You know, you're not as stupid as I thought you were.

Thanks:cheers:

Originally posted by BuddyLee
Yes I do not get what the big deal is. Me and my mother got into the this the other night and I was suprised that she was against this being a woman and all. I mean come on though WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL. Do we really have sanctity in marriage anymore with the # of divorce rates going up and the time actually spent with each other going down in our fast paced society? I say if it makes them happy then do it. Plus I believe there are many more benefits for same sex marriage than to not be married at all.
BuddyLee, a lot of folks like to quote statistics about divorce vs. the number of marriages, like one is supposed to justify the other.

Is it just possible, in any stretch of the imagination, that our morals, our ethics in society have declined through the ages?

That people are getting married for all the wrong reasons?

We don't, as society, hold anything "close to the heart" anymore; anything is possible - there's no more taboos out there - no boundaries you shouldn't push.

Britany Spears comes to mind, the most recent example - they got drunk, were in Las Vegas, and it seemed like a good idea at the time?

And consider this: When you can get divorced as fast or faster than you got married, what does that tell you about how people today feel about the sanctity of marriage?

Now you want to throw in the Gay angle and let them in on the action, so is that going to be a fix to all their problems?

Or are we going to be able to show some further statistics vis-a-vis marriage and divorce?

Originally posted by penncam
BuddyLee, a lot of folks like to quote statistics about divorce vs. the number of marriages, like one is supposed to justify the other.

Is it just possible, in any stretch of the imagination, that our morals, our ethics in society have declined through the ages?

That people are getting married for all the wrong reasons?

We don't, as society, hold anything "close to the heart" anymore; anything is possible - there's no more taboos out there - no boundaries you shouldn't push.

Britany Spears comes to mind, the most recent example - they got drunk, were in Las Vegas, and it seemed like a good idea at the time?

And consider this: When you can get divorced as fast or faster than you got married, what does that tell you about how people today feel about the sanctity of marriage?

Now you want to throw in the Gay angle and let them in on the action, so is that going to be a fix to all their problems?

Or are we going to be able to show some further statistics vis-a-vis marriage and divorce?

Obviously your against gay marriage but I will not hold that against you because what would we have to debate?

Yes our society has declined to expect anything and everything so why not gay marriage?

Yes people get married for all the wrong reasons all the time!

Good point about people getting divorced faster than getting married and the sactity in it all!

This is not a total solution to the problem for gay persons but it is a hell of a start. A good example comes to mind when I think about African Americans and their struggle for equality. At one point in time they were not able to eat in the same restaurant or the same school as whites. Of course I believe African Americans had it far worse than the gay people of today but where does it say in our constitution that this is morally wrong???

Originally posted by cariblue
Buddy, people have been getting married for the wrong reasons since the beginning of time. Arranged marriages come to mind. They were forced to marry for wealth. What's worse, there was no way out of these arranged marriages because women were property. So, people married to maintain or boost their standing in society, then they had affairs on the side because divorce was either frowned upon or simply not allowed (by the church). People also married for appearances. It was expected by society for everyone to be married. So, gays would marry to maintain an appearance, thus keeping their preference in the closet, only to have their affairs with their lovers behind closed doors. This was so much more moral than what's happening today. :rolleyes:

I know I know Cari, A history lesson is not what I need:lol:

You should be driving this home to Penn:wink:

Originally posted by cariblue
Buddy, people have been getting married for the wrong reasons since the beginning of time. Arranged marriages come to mind. They were forced to marry for wealth. What's worse, there was no way out of these arranged marriages because women were property.
:rolleyes: So I suppose we are to believe that this phenomona
was a predominantly an American happening. BS!

If history serves, it is mostly a middle eastern cultural happening, ie., India, Pakistan, that whole area comes to mind. Women are still treated like property there.

More trash from the original queen of mean!:cheers:

Originally posted by justin anemone
But...if they were to tell me they were "married", I'd just feel like..."yeah...okay...whatever". It just wouldn't be the same, though.

That is the thing... it IS the same to them, regardless if you or anyone else "accepts" it or not. They aren't asking for you to accept it, just to let them do what they feel in their hearts is right.

Originally posted by SmallTown
That is the thing... it IS the same to them, regardless if you or anyone else "accepts" it or not. They aren't asking for you to accept it, just to let them do what they feel in their hearts is right.
Sorry ST ... but that scares me. I will not support an action that simply makes an entity or group feel accepted. I think that sucks!

I will however, support any action that supports this nation or it's inhabitants.

Still deciding on my verdict. Homosexuality so far, seems to spread nothing more than fear and hatred at least on the surface.

If you peek just underneath the covers... There is a lesson that we all must learn. Love each other. No matter how different no matter how foreign.

Some of us are Homophobes.... That may be, because we fight the urges to act in a homosexual fashion. I worry that these are the most dangerous people on the planet.

JMHO! :smile:

Originally posted by Kain99
Sorry ST ... but that scares me. I will not support an action that simply makes an entity or group feel accepted. I think that sucks!



That is what I was saying. They don't want to feel accepted by you.

Originally posted by SmallTown
That is what I was saying. They don't want to feel accepted by you.
Ahhh! I see said the blind, blonde homophobic witch! :wink:

Originally posted by SmallTown
Takes a man and a woman to make a child? Well, kinda. People in science are actually doing pretty interesting research on that, but that is a whole different thread.

Marriage isn't about making babies. It is about a union between two people.
I'm married, but don't have kids. Does this mean my marriage really isn't valid until she pops one out?

It has nothing to when a baby is born, it is what it takes to make a baby be born and that is a man and woman. And even if you want to get into science, it still takes a mans sperm and females eggs to make a baby.

And though you dont have kids, if its a man and woman then there is the possiblity to have them , unless you or spouse cant have them for some reason.

I just dont see why gays NEED to be married. What difference does it make if you are vs. if you aint ? ALl that next of kin stuff, and partners making decisions for each other if one is non responsive ?
And what about the children who would grow up in a gay family. Example if 2 gay guys or gay women adopt a child.. WHat kind of life would this be for him to grow up in ? The kid NEEDS a mother, and father figure. Your cant get that in a gay marriage. A woman can never take a mans place, and a man can never take a womans place.
I dont care if gays get some union so they can do their next of kin thing or need to make decisions, but leave the sanctity of marriage to male and female to whom is was intended in the first place.

Originally posted by BuddyLee
Not to say that all gays have aids but if gay people were allowed to get married wouldnt it be reasonable to say that the aids rate in the U.S. would go down?

Nah. Im heterosexual 100 % and i have HIV, got it from a ex girlfriend who never told me she had it. So.. ha di never found out i would have spred it to other girls, and them girls woudl had spred it to other guys. ect ect . you see how fast it can spread. Its just when aids for came out, it was thought to be the gay disease becuase it was mostly gay men that seemed to be contracting it. which woudl be easy if your putting your penis into a rectum and its tearing the walls a bit inside, blood and fluid transfer was very easy to do. Of course after time they seen anyone could catch it and spread it.. So gays marrying wouldnt reduce anything. ALot fo them, especially in the big cities go to town on each other all the time , and the enjoy it, and im sure they dont want to get married and just want to sleep around.

Originally posted by Cmecu
It has nothing to when a baby is born, it is what it takes to make a baby be born and that is a man and woman. And even if you want to get into science, it still takes a mans sperm and females eggs to make a baby.

And though you dont have kids, if its a man and woman then there is the possiblity to have them , unless you or spouse cant have them for some reason.

I just dont see why gays NEED to be married. What difference does it make if you are vs. if you aint ? ALl that next of kin stuff, and partners making decisions for each other if one is non responsive ?
And what about the children who would grow up in a gay family. Example if 2 gay guys or gay women adopt a child.. WHat kind of life would this be for him to grow up in ? The kid NEEDS a mother, and father figure. Your cant get that in a gay marriage. A woman can never take a mans place, and a man can never take a womans place.
I dont care if gays get some union so they can do their next of kin thing or need to make decisions, but leave the sanctity of marriage to male and female to whom is was intended in the first place.

Why do you NEED to get married? Why does anyone for that matter? These are not an alien people we are dealing with they are human beings. As I have said before what will it actually hurt if they do get married?

Oh yeah the kid thing is another issue that has little to do with being married. When they start wanting children then we can debate that.

Originally posted by Cmecu
Nah. Im heterosexual 100 % and i have HIV, got it from a ex girlfriend who never told me she had it. So.. ha di never found out i would have spred it to other girls, and them girls woudl had spred it to other guys. ect ect . you see how fast it can spread. Its just when aids for came out, it was thought to be the gay disease becuase it was mostly gay men that seemed to be contracting it. which woudl be easy if your putting your penis into a rectum and its tearing the walls a bit inside, blood and fluid transfer was very easy to do. Of course after time they seen anyone could catch it and spread it.. So gays marrying wouldnt reduce anything. ALot fo them, especially in the big cities go to town on each other all the time , and the enjoy it, and im sure they dont want to get married and just want to sleep around.

Your making some big assumptions here. Im not sure what your getting to exactly because some of your wording is like Tiggers. From what I gather you say gays dont want to get married and that they just want to sleep around? WTF! I think if they are considering getting married that the person they are getting married to really means something to them. I know that anyone can contract AIDS but it is dominately among the gays that sleep around and go into the gay bars and are ignorant and not the gays that are the sophisticated "queer eye for the straight guy type". I think that marriage between gay people would be a much better thing for many reasons than to have no marriage at all.

Getting to a valid point. Marriage was defined in the bible. God set its values, and reasons why. Its your choice wether you believe in the bible or not, but for the ones who do, that is mainly the reason why we stand by marriage between male and female.
I still would like to know why gays NEED to be married ?

What do we find when we examine what the Bible says is God's ideal in marriage?

Marriage is for the comfort, pleasure, and happiness of the Creator's people. In Proverbs 13:22 the inspired record states that the man who finds a wife finds a good thing. She is good for him because she was created that way.

Marriage is for the comfort, training, and security of children. In the home children are to be trained "in the chastening and admonition of the Lord" (Eph. 6:4).

Marriage is to fulfill the sexual desires of men and women. It is honored around the world in every civilized society as an undefiled institution (Heb. 13:4).

Marriage is to perpetuate the human race. The idea of surrogate mothers would destroy the home if carried to its logical implications.

God's ideal home and marriage involve one man and one woman. The creation of only one of each sex implies this. This teaches against the marriage of two women, two men, one woman to two or more men, one man to two or more women, group marriages, and communal marriages. When God made Adam a "helpmeet" as one preacher put it, "He made Eve, not Steve." Homosexuality and lesbianism are abominations to God (Lev. 18:22). This is a nauseating sin. For it God severely reprimanded the Gentiles (Rom. 1:27). It is among the sins of which the unredeemed are guilty, but of which they must repent to inherit the kingdom of God (I Cor. 6:9).

God's ideal for marriage is one "helpmeet" for life. This word helpmeet means "an exact design for the needs of man." God designed woman for man. This also means he is designed for her. Together they fit the needs of each other. Other considerations regarding marriage matches involve personalities and personal traits. Two people go through a dating period to discover the presence or absence of matching characteristics. When we find the one who best fills those needs and more nearly matches (is compatible with) our own personality, we marry. In that union we become "one flesh." It is the "coolest" union of a physical nature that humans know. Although it has nothing to do with marriage, Ruth 1:16, 17 describes the kind of union involved in scriptural marriages. It has to do with staying close to the one with whom we are united until he or she dies (Rom. 7:1-2). Death is the only honorable means of ending a marriage. This will be the case in every marriage if we follow God's ideal.

When God created woman, he did not take her from man's head that she should rule over him; or from his foot that he should walk over her; but he took her from man's side, to be a companion, from under his arm, to be protected, and from near his heart to be loved.

God's ideal for marriage is one head. I Corinthians 11:1-3 explains the man is the head of the woman. No matter how many women's liberation movements we have, that is God's law. Women who acknowledge it are happy and well-adjusted.

It is much easier for the wife to be dutifully obedient and submissive when the husband follows the instructions of Ephesians 5:23-24 to love his wife as himself.

Paul says in I Timothy 2:12-14 that the woman may not usurp authority over a man and that this is not simply a church ordinance but is so because from the first God made it so.

In the marriage bond there must be a unity of values and goals. This is God's ideal. Marriages will suffer if the significant goals and values are different. Of these goals, none is more important than going to heaven. Although there will be no marriage in heaven, it is a valid idea for couples to seek to go to heaven together where the relationships will be superior to marriage.

When we get back to God's ideal in marriage, we will restore the home as God would have it, and the world's problem of broken homes and lost souls because of them will disappear. May God hasten the day.

Dont bring the bible into this! I ask the same question back to you, why do you NEED to get married? Why does anyone for that matter? As I have said before the only people that will be hurt by this action will be the religous tards such as yourself:wink:

thats the whole point. Thats where Marriage was defined, man and woman. Not same sex. I stand firm that gays should not have the right to get married. This is america it was founded on and created on biblical standards. The more we move away fromthat the worse youll see the usa become, as it has more and more the past years.
As for why people NEED to be married. I would say to have that commitment to your spouse. To be a family, and produce children, if you can. Woman was designed for man, and man for woman. God set the rules, whats the big deal about not abiding by them.
Maybe because you dont want to feel accountable to anything when your go out and do whatever you want.. who knows.
I will try to preserve the dignity of a marriage between man and woman any chance I get to stand for it.

Originally posted by Cmecu
thats the whole point. Thats where Marriage was defined, man and woman. Not same sex. I stand firm that gays should not have the right to get married. This is america it was founded on and created on biblical standards. The more we move away fromthat the worse youll see the usa become, as it has more and more the past years.
As for why people NEED to be married. I would say to have that commitment to your spouse. To be a family, and produce children, if you can. Woman was designed for man, and man for woman. God set the rules, whats the big deal about not abiding by them.
Maybe because you dont want to feel accountable to anything when your go out and do whatever you want.. who knows.
I will try to preserve the dignity of a marriage between man and woman any chance I get to stand for it.

Can you point out specific examples where the constitution is based on any biblical standards?

As time goes on I believe we are phasing out of religion in government. The 10 commandments were recently called out of a Judges court for example. Another example would be the "no prayer in school". The argument that you bring up is centered upon religion. The only two groups that have a problem with gay marriage are "racist" and "religous tards". Now try bringing your argument out of the religous perspective and then come and debate with me:wink:

Originally posted by Kain99
Some of us are Homophobes.... That may be, because we fight the urges to act in a homosexual fashion. I worry that these are the most dangerous people on the planet.

What? Are you saying that everyone has homosexual urges? Pardon my French, but that's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard.

Originally posted by Cmecu
I still would like to know why gays NEED to be married ?

That would mainly be for legal reasons such as custody of kids, health care, etc.

My question is that are the religious folks/those against gay marriages against any form of marriage, legal or religious, or are they mainly against the religious aspect?

Originally posted by Tonio
What? Are you saying that everyone has homosexual urges? Pardon my French, but that's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Defensive. Interesting.




:killingme

Originally posted by Cmecu
Getting to a valid point. Marriage was defined in the bible. God set its values, and reasons why. Its your choice wether you believe in the bible or not, but for the ones who do, that is mainly the reason why we stand by marriage between male and female.
I still would like to know why gays NEED to be married ?

That's good stuff.
I still say that there is no such thing as being GAY. It's only what you think. It's a perverted mind of some type.
God only made Man & Woman, where did the Gay come from?

Originally posted by SuperGrover
That would mainly be for legal reasons such as custody of kids, health care, etc.

My question is that are the religious folks/those against gay marriages against any form of marriage, legal or religious, or are they mainly against the religious aspect?

I'm against them being recognized as married by the United States. The term married (marriage) should be reserved for a Man & a Woman only. This county was founded on Godly principles and morals and it should stay that way. If we continue to get away from these principles, society will become more corrupt.

Originally posted by BuddyLee
Can you point out specific examples where the constitution is based on any biblical standards?

As time goes on I believe we are phasing out of religion in government. The 10 commandments were recently called out of a Judges court for example. Another example would be the "no prayer in school". The argument that you bring up is centered upon religion. The only two groups that have a problem with gay marriage are "racist" and "religous tards". Now try bringing your argument out of the religous perspective and then come and debate with me:wink:

Buddy,
This is who I give my money to.

The Importance of Morality and Religion in Government



John Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

John Quincy Adams

Sixth President of the United States

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.

(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams, to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), p. 61.)

There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.

(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), pp. 22-23.)

Samuel Adams

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.

(Source: William V. Wells, The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1865), Vol. I, p. 22, quoting from a political essay by Samuel Adams published in The Public Advertiser, 1749.)

Fisher Ames

Framer of the First Amendment

Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.

(Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.

(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)

Benjamin Franklin

Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence

[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

Source: Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787.

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one of more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

(Source: James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)

* For more details on this quote, click here.

Thomas Jefferson

Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States

Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for your to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all you virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. 5, pp. 82-83, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 19, 1785.)

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.)

I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)

Richard Henry Lee

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people.

(Source: Richard Henry Lee, The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, James Curtis Ballagh, editor (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1914), Vol. II, p. 411. In a letter to Colonel Mortin Pickett on March 5, 1786.)

(cont'd)

James McHenry

Signer of the Constitution

[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.

Source: Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.

Jedediah Morse

Patriot and "Father of American Geography"

To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.

(Source: Jedediah Morse, Election Sermon given at Charleston, MA, on April 25, 1799.)

William Penn

Founder of Pennsylvania

[I]t is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper, where men render not unto God, that which is God's, as well as to Caesar, that which is Caesar's.

(Source: Fundamental Constitutions of Pennsylvania, 1682. Written by William Penn, founder of the colony of Pennsylvania.)

Pennsylvania Supreme Court

No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.

(Source: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1824. Updegraph v. Cmmonwealth; 11 Serg. & R. 393, 406 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1824).)

Benjamin Rush

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)

We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), pp. 93-94.)

By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.)

Remember that national crimes require national punishments, and without declaring what punishment awaits this evil, you may venture to assure them that it cannot pass with impunity, unless God shall cease to be just or merciful.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America Upon Slave-Keeping (Boston: John Boyles, 1773), p. 30.)

George Washington

"Father of Our Country"

While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.

(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)

[T]he [federal] government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, and oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.

(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1939), Vol. XXIX, p. 410. In a letter to Marquis De Lafayette, February 7, 1788.)

* For the full text of Geo. Washington's Farewell Address, click here.

Daniel Webster

Early American Jurist and Senator

[I]f we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity.

(Source: Daniel Webster, The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1903), Vol. XIII, p. 492. From "The Dignity and Importance of History," February 23, 1852.)

Noah Webster

Founding Educator

The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their foundation. . . . All the evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. . . . For instruction then in social, religious and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best precepts.

(Source: Noah Webster, History of the United States, "Advice to the Young" (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 338-340, par. 51, 53, 56.)

James Wilson

Signer of the Constitution

Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.

(Source: James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), Vol. I, p. 106.)

Robert Winthrop

Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives

Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.

(Source: Robert Winthrop, Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1852), p. 172 from his "Either by the Bible or the Bayonet.")

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Defensive. Interesting.




:killingme

:lmao: I realized when I typed that that it might sound defensive. I honestly didn't mean it that way. I have no fear of having homosexual urges myself.

My point is, where would someone get the idea that all humans have those urges? That implies a low opinion of humanity in general. It makes it sound like our sex drive is completely nondiscriminating.

Originally posted by Tonio
:lmao: I realized when I typed that that it might sound defensive. I honestly didn't mean it that way. I have no fear of having homosexual urges myself.

My point is, where would someone get the idea that all humans have those urges? That implies a low opinion of humanity in general. It makes it sound like our sex drive is completely nondiscriminating.

yeah... I'm having trouble remembering the last time I felt one of those urges come over me... :biggrin:

Originally posted by ceo_pte
yeah... I'm having trouble remembering the last time I felt one of those urges come over me... :biggrin:
:yeahthat: ......if ever!
Maybe that philosophy is at the root of why many of us don't support Gay Marriages; in our own heart of hearts, we find the idea of even entertaining an affair with a person of our own gender repulsive.

Is that unrelated to the subject, or not?

Whaddya think?

Originally posted by penncam
:yeahthat: ......if ever!
Maybe that philosophy is at the root of why many of us don't support Gay Marriages; in our own heart of hearts, we find the idea of even entertaining an affair with a person of our own gender repulsive.

Whaddya think?

Just because some people find it repulsive doesn't mean it should be illegal. As I said, I think there's merit in making all marriages private, or limiting government's role to the civil contract involved. I still don't believe that gay unions threaten heterosexuality or marriage. To argue otherwise suggests that marriage is only legalized sex. It's much much more than that--it's about two people making a lifelong commitment out of love.

Originally posted by Tonio
Just because some people find it repulsive doesn't mean it should be illegal. As I said, I think there's merit in making all marriages private, or limiting government's role to the civil contract involved. I still don't believe that gay unions threaten heterosexuality or marriage. To argue otherwise suggests that marriage is only legalized sex. It's much much more than that--it's about two people making a lifelong commitment out of love.

No it's the fact that our country recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman. If our country recognizes a union between(m/m)(f/f) as a marriage, then that says that we condone what they are doing. We shouldn't do that. It's the beginning of the corruption.

Originally posted by ceo_pte
No it's the fact that our country recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman. If our country recognizes a union between(m/m)(f/f) as a marriage, then that says that we condone what they are doing. We shouldn't do that. It's the beginning of the corruption.

Even if they're not married, or even if they remain celibate, they're still going to have romantic and sexual impulses toward members of their own gender. That won't change, no matter what straights think or how many laws are passed. Government has no business enforcing someone's concept of morality, and many Americans don't believe that homosexuality is immoral.

Originally posted by Tonio
Even if they're not married, or even if they remain celibate, they're still going to have romantic and sexual impulses toward members of their own gender. That won't change, no matter what straights think or how many laws are passed. Government has no business enforcing someone's concept of morality, and many Americans don't believe that homosexuality is immoral.

Sorry, we will continue to disagree here. That's where many people in the world go wrong. It's not our concept of morality that matters. It's Gods and when you use his standards as the basis, you have a solid foundation.

It's just like "Thou Shall Not KILL." But peope do it everyday through Abortions. Then they try to debate that it's right, b/c it's women's rights. C'mon.....

Originally posted by ceo_pte
Sorry, we will continue to disagree here. That's where many people in the world go wrong. It's not our concept of morality that matters. It's Gods and when you use his standards as the basis, you have a solid foundation.

I can respect that you disagree with me about homosexuality itself. Still, what you seem to be saying is that governmental law should be the same as Christian doctrine. As a patriotic American, I say that idea is unAmerican. It's the government of, by and for ALL the people, not just Christians. God is not an American.

It's just like "Thou Shall Not KILL." But peope do it everyday through Abortions. Then they try to debate that it's right, b/c it's women's rights. C'mon.....

You have a point about abortion, but I don't think it's accurate to compare sexual and romantic relations to murder.

Originally posted by Tonio
I can respect that you disagree with me about homosexuality itself. Still, what you seem to be saying is that governmental law should be the same as Christian doctrine. As a patriotic American, I say that idea is unAmerican. It's the government of, by and for ALL the people, not just Christians. God is not an American.



You have a point about abortion, but I don't think it's accurate to compare sexual and romantic relations to murder.

America was founded on GODLY principles.... Not so much a Christian doctrine, just sound moral/ethical principles... See the previous page with the information that I posted.

Originally posted by ceo_pte
No it's the fact that our country recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman. If our country recognizes a union between(m/m)(f/f) as a marriage, then that says that we condone what they are doing. We shouldn't do that. It's the beginning of the corruption.

Beginning of WHAT corruption?? What will actually happen?? In an age where the corruption is already overflowing whats a little love going to hurt?

Originally posted by ceo_pte
Sorry, we will continue to disagree here. That's where many people in the world go wrong. It's not our concept of morality that matters. It's Gods and when you use his standards as the basis, you have a solid foundation.

It's just like "Thou Shall Not KILL." But peope do it everyday through Abortions. Then they try to debate that it's right, b/c it's women's rights. C'mon.....

As I have said before!!!!! The only two persons that will have a problem with this issue are people who absolutely hate gays or religous tards!! Dont bring religion into this conversation I mean come on! If you can bring out some logical reasoning then come and debate to me but otherwise let the people do what they want. You will still go to heavan and they to hell so (in your mind) so whats the difference. Religious people can debate issues forever bring ANYTHING they damn well please to think that we are doing something morally right or wrong.

Originally posted by ceo_pte
America was founded on GODLY principles.... Not so much a Christian doctrine, just sound moral/ethical principles... See the previous page with the information that I posted.

These can be godly principles I suppose but only because they are in the freaking bible! Almost every civilization has basic rules and laws such as these that you point out. You should not kill a person, you should not steal from a person COME ON these rules are common sense to have any type of society thrive on.

Originally posted by BuddyLee
These can be godly principles I suppose but only because they are in the freaking bible! Almost every civilization has basic rules and laws such as these that you point out. You should not kill a person, you should not steal from a person COME ON these rules are common sense to have any type of society thrive on.
BuddyLee, a while back in this thread, you made the comment to"Stop bringing religion into this thread!".

A post or so later, you asked to see specific examples where religion is based in the Constitution.

However, maybe you have not seen the 2 dozen or so, references ceo_pte listed just a few pages ago. If you have read them and their authors, what do you have to say?

It is real: our country was founded on religious freedom, much of the FEAR you mentioned earlier was what they were escaping from in Mother England.

Our forefathers recognised that men had to have a respect for God to ensure morality, ethicism, and honor.

Originally posted by ceo_pte
America was founded on GODLY principles.... Not so much a Christian doctrine, just sound moral/ethical principles... See the previous page with the information that I posted.
Like the Godly principle you outlined earlier, "Thou shall not kill". And what was the first thing we did after declaring independence? Killed a bunch of British. We had already been killing the local indigenous people, continued to do it some more. Killed the Mexicans when we wanted that land too.

Religion only suits our interests when we can twist its meaning into our agenda. This is about equal protection under the law and state's rights, isn't it?

Originally posted by penncam
BuddyLee, a while back in this thread, you made the comment to"Stop bringing religion into this thread!".

A post or so later, you asked to see specific examples where religion is based in the Constitution.

However, maybe you have not seen the 2 dozen or so, references ceo_pte listed just a few pages ago. If you have read them and their authors, what do you have to say?

It is real: our country was founded on religious freedom, much of the FEAR you mentioned earlier was what they were escaping from in Mother England.

Our forefathers recognised that men had to have a respect for God to ensure morality, ethicism, and honor.

They were merely basing their government on the basic morals that any civilization would with one key exception "freedom of religion". Let me ask you this, if gays and started their own religion and in that religion it stated that they could be married where would we be then? As I have said many many times before where does all the trouble come besides from the religous freaks that say we will all be condemned?

Originally posted by Ken King
Like the Godly principle you outlined earlier, "Thou shall not kill". And what was the first thing we did after declaring independence? Killed a bunch of British. We had already been killing the local indigenous people, continued to do it some more. Killed the Mexicans when we wanted that land too.

Religion only suits our interests when we can twist its meaning into our agenda. This is about equal protection under the law and state's rights, isn't it?

THANK YOU!!!!!

Originally posted by BuddyLee
As I have said before!!!!! The only two persons that will have a problem with this issue are people who absolutely hate gays or religous tards!! Dont bring religion into this conversation I mean come on! If you can bring out some logical reasoning then come and debate to me but otherwise let the people do what they want. You will still go to heavan and they to hell so (in your mind) so whats the difference. Religious people can debate issues forever bring ANYTHING they damn well please to think that we are doing something morally right or wrong.

dude... you don't have a clue. The biggest problem you have right now is trying to find a date. You have no idea where this country came from and definitely no vision of where we need to go. If you did, I am sure the President would be calling you up. You can't even solve your families problems... Take a break, get some help for your brother and use your brain for a change..

Originally posted by Ken King
Like the Godly principle you outlined earlier, "Thou shall not kill". And what was the first thing we did after declaring independence? Killed a bunch of British. We had already been killing the local indigenous people, continued to do it some more. Killed the Mexicans when we wanted that land too.

Religion only suits our interests when we can twist its meaning into our agenda. This is about equal protection under the law and state's rights, isn't it?

Umm... it was probably kill or be killed? If you want to debate about Godly principle, why not base your debate on the posts that I made. They all had references, but yet you chose to ignore them and throw-up some other statements. Just another way of side stepping the discussion.

Originally posted by ceo_pte
dude... you don't have a clue. The biggest problem you have right now is trying to find a date. You have no idea where this country came from and definitely no vision of where we need to go. If you did, I am sure the President would be calling you up. You can't even solve your families problems... Take a break, get some help for your brother and use your brain for a change..

Thanks for criticising myself, my knowledge, and my family I now know that I have won this debate in your showing that you have nothing else to say of the matter except for the obvious criticsm.

Originally posted by cariblue
You mean like you're doing? :confused:


yes cari... Do you want to be a part of the conversation or just stand on the side, make comments, then deny the facts when they are presented..

Originally posted by BuddyLee
Thanks for criticising myself, my knowledge, and my family I now know that I have won this debate in your showing that you have nothing else to say of the matter except for the obvious criticsm.

Thanks...

Originally posted by Ken King
This is about equal protection under the law and state's rights, isn't it?

I thought it was, Ken.

Here's another point to consider--some posters claim that homosexuality and gay marriage should be illegal because straight marriage "is what's best for society."

First, who determines what is in society's best interest? Second, that sounds a lot like the social engineering that conservatives criticize, and correctly so. The welfare system has probably damaged the family a lot more than gay marriage ever could. If government really wants to help the family, it should just get the hell out of the way and let the institution be.

Originally posted by ceo_pte
Take a break, get some help for your brother and use your brain for a change.. That's very good - when someone challenges your beliefs, send them a personal attack.

Real mature.

Ever hear of something called "Separation of Church and State"? Just because YOUR religion frowns on it doesn't mean it should be outlawed. This country is not run by the Bible and I challenge you to find me somewhere in our CONSTITUTION that says tax-paying law-abiding citizens can be denied their legal rights simply because it's against someone's religion.

Originally posted by Ken King
This is about equal protection under the law and state's rights, isn't it?
Ok Ken, it seems to me and many Americans that determining the legality of Gay Marriages should be the individual states' affairs?

Fine idea, however when you have activist judges, as in Massachsettes, where the state constitution is being liberally (mis)interpreted, how can the state do it's job?

Didn't New Hampshire literally do the same thing?

How about California where the state constitution expressly describes marriage as being between a man and a woman?

So what are the states - the PEOPLE - to do?

The last poll I saw on the news said that approximately 65% of Americans DO NOT approve of Gay Marriages, yet their courts and legislatures seem hamstring in their ability to do anything about it.

Originally posted by Tonio
I thought it was, Ken.

Here's another point to consider--some posters claim that homosexuality and gay marriage should be illegal because straight marriage "is what's best for society."

First, who determines what is in society's best interest? Second, that sounds a lot like the social engineering that conservatives criticize, and correctly so. The welfare system has probably damaged the family a lot more than gay marriage ever could. If government really wants to help the family, it should just get the hell out of the way and let the institution be.

I agree that welfare has hurt alot of families. The (so-called)gays don't want the government to stay out of it though. They want to change the laws, which requires the government to now recognize them. They want all the exemptions that a married couple has, medical benefits, etc...

Originally posted by penncam
So what are the states - the PEOPLE - to do? Mind their own damn business.

The last poll I saw on the news said that approximately 65% of Americans DO NOT approve of Gay Marriages, yet their courts and legislatures seem hamstring in their ability to do anything about it. This is why we have a Representative government - so 4 lions and 1 sheep aren't voting to decide what's for dinner.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
That's very good - when someone challenges your beliefs, send them a personal attack.

Real mature.

Ever hear of something called "Separation of Church and State"? Just because YOUR religion frowns on it doesn't mean it should be outlawed. This country is not run by the Bible and I challenge you to find me somewhere in our CONSTITUTION that says tax-paying law-abiding citizens can be denied their legal rights simply because it's against someone's religion.


You sound like a libereal now.. mouthing off about separation of church and state. Do you even know where the phrase came from. I'll give you a hint, it's not in the 1st amendment..

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Ever hear of something called "Separation of Church and State"? Just because YOUR religion frowns on it doesn't mean it should be outlawed. This country is not run by the Bible and I challenge you to find me somewhere in our CONSTITUTION that says tax-paying law-abiding citizens can be denied their legal rights simply because it's against someone's religion.

Preach, sister! :clap:

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Mind their own damn business.

This is why we have a Representative government - so 4 lions and 1 sheep aren't voting to decide what's for dinner.

The problem is, that the courts ruling today is being used to essentially make Laws. They are not just enforcing them anymore and w/o the Fed stepping in the same will happen again.

That's ok.. The good guys at the ACLJ will take care of it..

Originally posted by Tonio
Preach, sister! :clap:

Another know nothing... A mind is a terrible thing to waste..

You see, there are very few people in the U.S. today that actually know what the Constituion really says.

Originally posted by ceo_pte
I'll give you a hint, it's not in the 1st amendment.. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

What that means to me is that Congress cannot make laws that deny citizens their rights based on YOUR religious beliefs.

Originally posted by ceo_pte
Another know nothing... A mind is a terrible thing to waste..

You see, there are very few people in the U.S. today that actually know what the Constituion really says.

Either ceo_pte is a complete know-it-all that has memorized the constitution and can clearly dictate what it actually means when sometimes the Sumpreme Court cant even determine what it means.
OR
He is merely backed into a corner with his only defense being that of insults to whomever opposes him.

Originally posted by BuddyLee
Either ceo_pte is a complete know-it-all that has memorized the constitution and can clearly dictate what it actually means when sometimes the Sumpreme Court cant even determine what it means.
OR
He is merely backed into a corner with his only defense being that of insults to whomever opposes him.

thanks buddy... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by ceo_pte
thanks buddy... :rolleyes:

No thank you for giving me the chance to make you look like more of a fool:wink:

I think you are my new favorite poster BL.

Originally posted by Ehesef
I think you are my new favorite poster BL.

thanks:diva:

I just feel strongly that this issue SHOULDNT be an issue :shrug:

Originally posted by vraiblonde
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

What that means to me is that Congress cannot make laws that deny citizens their rights based on YOUR religious beliefs.

The phrase actually came out of a letter drafted by Thomas Jefferson and sent to the Danbury Baptist. They were afraid that the government, as England had done, would set-up a State supported religion. The letter.

Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.

It says "can make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"....

It's speaking of religion here... OK... Careful how you use phrases...

I'm with you BL. It shouldn't be an issue. If you're a bible-thumping religious zealot, you'll teach your kids to be like that too. Therefore, I don't see where, as long as you are an attentive parent, you kid will be that corrupted. Nobody ever stopped them from making a committment to someone they love, so who are they to stop someone else?

Originally posted by ceo_pte
The phrase actually came out of a letter drafted by Thomas Jefferson and sent to the Danbury Baptist. They were afraid that the government, as England had done, would set-up a State supported religion. The letter.

Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.


It's speaking of religion here... OK... Careful how you use phrases...

When you speak of this isnt it clearly stating freedom of religion and nothing more?

It says "can make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"....

Originally posted by BuddyLee
No thank you for giving me the chance to make you look like more of a fool:wink:

Let's get your input, Buddy. I'm sure you have got the inside track on this topic... You can criticize my posts, but fail to add anything substantial to the conversation. Just as our wonderful friend Cari does..

Originally posted by ceo_pte
Umm... it was probably kill or be killed? If you want to debate about Godly principle, why not base your debate on the posts that I made. They all had references, but yet you chose to ignore them and throw-up some other statements. Just another way of side stepping the discussion.
I didn't ignore them; I simply chose to respond to one concise statement you made. BTW, I have read those historical thoughts over time before and not a single one referred to this specific issue – same-sex marriages. Marriage has always been an issue for the states. Today that concept is being challenged.

The Constitution states that those rights not enumerated are those retained by the State or the people, to change that you would need an amendment. But what the current Constitution already states is that the citizens have equal protection under the law. It doesn’t say only heterosexuals have equal protections but all people have them.

So why should the partners of a same-sex relationship not be allowed to unite into a marriage type relationship? Why should they be exempt from the marriage penalties of our tax system? Why should they be denied the right to be beside their loved one making medical decisions when the need exists? More importantly, what business is it of the Governments, the States, yours, or mine on how these people want to live their lives, regardless of how repulsive we think the sexual activities they partake are?

I thought that it was already decided that consenting adults could do pretty much as they see fit with each other in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Marrige or civil unions sought by these folk shouldn't be a concern for anyone not diectly involved with them, just as the marriage I chose to enter in to.

Originally posted by Ehesef
I'm with you BL. It shouldn't be an issue. If you're a bible-thumping religious zealot, you'll teach your kids to be like that too. Therefore, I don't see where, as long as you are an attentive parent, you kid will be that corrupted. Nobody ever stopped them from making a committment to someone they love, so who are they to stop someone else?

They are not trying to stop them.. They can still make that committment if they want :rolleyes:, but they do not get recognized as 'Married'. No one can ever stop you from thinkin you are gay, living with some guy, etc.. As much as I don't understand it, I would agree that that would be wrong. If the gov. was trying to say 'you can't love another guy if you want to.' That would be wrong.

Originally posted by ceo_pte
Let's get your input, Buddy. I'm sure you have got the inside track on this topic... You can criticize my posts, but fail to add anything substantial to the conversation. Just as our wonderful friend Cari does..

You are more than welcome to read my input that I put in the previous thread pages. What you fail to see is my point. That point being that the only two groups that have a problem with this are the people who hate gays and religious tards AND what problems will arise (besides us all going to hell :lol:)

Originally posted by ceo_pte
They are not trying to stop them.. They can still make that committment if they want :rolleyes:, but they do not get recognized as 'Married'. No one can ever stop you from thinkin you are gay, living with some guy, etc.. As much as I don't understand it, I would agree that that would be wrong. If the gov. was trying to say 'you can't love another guy if you want to.' That would be wrong.

THATS THE POINT! I mean come on!!! What if you were different? I think you would be highly upset if certain people such as yourself wouldnt let you marry or be recognized as being married. I think its much easier for people such as yourself that CAN get married to point the finger but if you were in their shoes you would think much differently.:wink:

Originally posted by ceo_pte
They are not trying to stop them.. They can still make that committment if they want :rolleyes:, but they do not get recognized as 'Married'.
And who are you or any of your cohorts to decide this? How is it hurting you? It isn't. You don't like, so it must be wrong. It must be stopped.

Originally posted by Ehesef
And who are you or any of your cohorts to decide this? How is it hurting you? It isn't. You don't like, so it must be wrong. It must be stopped.

:clap:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ken King
[B]I didn't ignore them; I simply chose to respond to one concise statement you made. BTW, I have read those historical thoughts over time before and not a single one referred to this specific issue – same-sex marriages. Marriage has always been an issue for the states. Today that concept is being challenged.

Ummm... this is the statement you challenged... My statement was America was founded on Godly principles... Those historical quotes, prove that the founding fathers believed morality/ethics/God was important to them. If it was so important to them and they framed a Country that has done nothing but dominate the world for several centuries, why try to change it.

As for the states... this will effect the federal government in many aspects, so they have to be involved.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ceo_pte
America was founded on GODLY principles.... Not so much a Christian doctrine, just sound moral/ethical principles... See the previous page with the information that I posted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Like the Godly principle you outlined earlier, "Thou shall not kill". And what was the first thing we did after declaring independence? Killed a bunch of British. We had already been killing the local indigenous people, continued to do it some more. Killed the Mexicans when we wanted that land too.

Religion only suits our interests when we can twist its meaning into our agenda. This is about equal protection under the law and state's rights, isn't it?

Originally posted by BuddyLee
You are more than welcome to read my input that I put in the previous thread pages. What you fail to see is my point. That point being that the only two groups that have a problem with this are the people who hate gays and religious tards AND what problems will arise (besides us all going to hell :lol:)


Well us Religious tards, as you call it...

Have you ever looked at the statistics of what has happened since prayer was taken out of shcools? With reference to crime, etc....

I consider the U.S. a great place to live. If you think crime is bad in this area now, continue down this same path, with deteriorating morals and ethical standards and it will get worse.

Originally posted by ceo_pte
Well us Religious tards, as you call it...

Have you ever looked at the statistics of what has happened since prayer was taken out of shcools? With reference to crime, etc....

I consider the U.S. a great place to live. If you think crime is bad in this area now, continue down this same path, with deteriorating morals and ethical standards and it will get worse.

You cannot connect crime to religion that is exactly what the Post Hoc theory states. There must be other reasons why the crime rate would climb if indeed you are speaking truth without no reference.

Originally posted by Ehesef
And who are you or any of your cohorts to decide this? How is it hurting you? It isn't. You don't like, so it must be wrong. It must be stopped.

Just sit back and watch... You say it's not hurting you, so don't worry about it. What if we said that about Hitler... Oh, he's over there in Europe, why do we need to worry about it. It's not any of our business.

Because this is my country too. We are all (most are) citizens and b/c I know that it's not right, I don't want our government recognizing them. They can get aids, have sex, and do whatever they want. I really don't care what they do, just that the government (as a whole) does not recognize their union as a marriage.

Originally posted by ceo_pte
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ken King
[B]I didn't ignore them; I simply chose to respond to one concise statement you made. BTW, I have read those historical thoughts over time before and not a single one referred to this specific issue – same-sex marriages. Marriage has always been an issue for the states. Today that concept is being challenged.

Ummm... this is the statement you challenged... My statement was America was founded on Godly principles... Those historical quotes, prove that the founding fathers believed morality/ethics/God was important to them. If it was so important to them and they framed a Country that has done nothing but dominate the world for several centuries, why try to change it.

As for the states... this will effect the federal government in many aspects, so they have to be involved.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ceo_pte
America was founded on GODLY principles.... Not so much a Christian doctrine, just sound moral/ethical principles... See the previous page with the information that I posted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Like the Godly principle you outlined earlier, "Thou shall not kill". And what was the first thing we did after declaring independence? Killed a bunch of British. We had already been killing the local indigenous people, continued to do it some more. Killed the Mexicans when we wanted that land too.

Religion only suits our interests when we can twist its meaning into our agenda. This is about equal protection under the law and state's rights, isn't it?

I said this way back when you probably werent paying attention. They based it on these so-called godly principles because thats what a rational civilization would do! They are not going to do the exact opposite.

"These can be godly principles I suppose but only because they are in the freaking bible! Almost every civilization has basic rules and laws such as these that you point out. You should not kill a person, you should not steal from a person COME ON these rules are common sense to have any type of society thrive on."

Originally posted by BuddyLee
You cannot connect crime to religion that is exactly what the Post Hoc theory states. There must be other reasons why the crime rate would climb if indeed you are speaking truth without no reference.

I have seen the numbers before... I'll try to find them, but here is an article..

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0124_When_America_stopped.html

Originally posted by ceo_pte
Just sit back and watch... You say it's not hurting you, so don't worry about it. What if we said that about Hitler... Oh, he's over there in Europe, why do we need to worry about it. It's not any of our business.

Because this is my country too. We are all (most are) citizens and b/c I know that it's not right, I don't want our government recognizing them. They can get aids, have sex, and do whatever they want. I really don't care what they do, just that the government (as a whole) does not recognize their union as a marriage.

Are you now trying to relate Hitler to gay marriage? A World War isnt going to start over this and I ask the simple question of what will happen if gay people marry? What is so bad about gays being given the right to marry? Are you scared that a little happiness in this corrupt world might turn it upside down?

Originally posted by ceo_pte
Ummm... this is the statement you challenged... My statement was America was founded on Godly principles... Those historical quotes, prove that the founding fathers believed morality/ethics/God was important to them. If it was so important to them and they framed a Country that has done nothing but dominate the world for several centuries, why try to change it.

As for the states... this will effect the federal government in many aspects, so they have to be involved.
Slavery was important to them too, just as women staying out of the man's world, and you know what - these all changed with time. Those same founders knew that for this government to exist it had to change with the times and they made allocation for that in the Constitution. And we have found that as we evolve our values changed; slavery was bad, women could participate in this man’s world, but at the heart of the matter it is all about freedom and being equal, isn’t it? Isn’t that the principle that our founders were pushing for?

Answer this question if you can, what is the compelling government interest for denying the right to establishing a union for same-sex couples?

Originally posted by BuddyLee
I said this way back when you probably werent paying attention. They based it on these so-called godly principles because thats what a rational civilization would do! They are not going to do the exact opposite.

"These can be godly principles I suppose but only because they are in the freaking bible! Almost every civilization has basic rules and laws such as these that you point out. You should not kill a person, you should not steal from a person COME ON these rules are common sense to have any type of society thrive on."

I don't think so.. Your definition of a rational civilization is only from your experiences.. I really don't have a clue what you are referring to as a civilizaton, but I am assuming you are referring to forms of government. I guess you have never hear of communism.

The Bible is not the only place these principles are found. You really should study more before you insult the Bible and it's principles.

Originally posted by Ken King
Slavery was important to them too, just as women staying out of the man's world, and you know what - these all changed with time. Those same founders knew that for this government to exist it had to change with the times and they made allocation for that in the Constitution. And we have found that as we evolve our values changed; slavery was bad, women could participate in this man’s world, but at the heart of the matter it is all about freedom and being equal, isn’t it? Isn’t that the principle that our founders were pushing for?

Answer this question if you can, what is the compelling government interest for denying the right to establishing a union for same-sex couples?

I think they can union now. right. The gov. isn't trying to stop the unions, just the Marriage certificates. i've got to go...

Originally posted by ceo_pte
Have you ever looked at the statistics of what has happened since prayer was taken out of shcools? With reference to crime, etc....

That can never be proven one way or the other. That assumes that prayer is some magic cure-all for what ails society. There's an old joke in college statistics classes--"Since crime goes up in the summer, and ice cream sales also go up in the summer, does ice cream cause crime?"

Ceo, you seem convinced that everyone should be a Christian. Faith is a very personal thing. I believe that there is no "one true faith." Vrai is right--America is not, and shouldn't be, a religious theocracy.

Would society be a better place if all of us had a sense of spirituality? I think it would. But in American democracy, spiritual values belong to the individual and to religious institutions, not to governmental institutions.

And that's EXACTLY why we have no teacher-led prayer in public schools. It's not so much a "separation of church and state," to use Jefferson's phrase, but a hands-off approach. When government gets involved in religious matters, it does much more harm than good.

Originally posted by ceo_pte
What if we said that about Hitler...

That last-minute marriage to Eva Braun was really a cover. He really had a long, torrid love affair for Himmler. :lol:

Originally posted by ceo_pte
I think they can union now. right. The gov. isn't trying to stop the unions, just the Marriage certificates. i've got to go...
Is this all a matter of symantics for you? If it is called a union and they have equal protections as married folk would you still have a problem?

As far as I know Vermont, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts and New Jersey are currently the only states that extend any form of legal recognition to same-sex couples.

Originally posted by ceo_pte
I have seen the numbers before... I'll try to find them, but here is an article..

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0124_When_America_stopped.html
Has anybody stopped and clicked on the URL ceo_pte listed?

It lists several issues where a tremendous increase in behavior - none of it good - has occured in school kids after prayer was banned from schools in 1962.

Is it a coincidence?

Originally posted by Ken King
Answer this question if you can, what is the compelling government interest for denying the right to establishing a union for same-sex couples?

There is none.

Originally posted by ceo_pte
That's good stuff.
I still say that there is no such thing as being GAY. It's only what you think. It's a perverted mind of some type.
God only made Man & Woman, where did the Gay come from?

I agree.. Being gay is a choice. They choose to be with the same sex. I have heard too many testamonies of ex gays who turned away from the immoral lifestyle, to get married to an opposite sex partner, and they are loving their life just as well being hetero, as to them before being homo.

Here HERE ceo_pte good posts about our founding fathers and their firm belief in god and government. Thats why it worked so well back then in them days, thats why society was always more civilized and in order.. but now its these people who want to take god out of our very foundation and put their immoral ideals into it. Thats why you see such a wicked society today, and its only getting worse. ANd people wonder why ?

Originally posted by Tonio
I can respect that you disagree with me about homosexuality itself. Still, what you seem to be saying is that governmental law should be the same as Christian doctrine. As a patriotic American, I say that idea is unAmerican. It's the government of, by and for ALL the people, not just Christians. God is not an American.


True god is not american, but he does have his standards. Our founding fathers respected that, and found this country on them standards. They knew it would make a near perfect society, and it was fine, until the constition has been butchered so badly to everyones liking, instead of people conforming their lives to gods liking.
SO it boils down, is it all about you and what makes you happy ? or about our entire society and what makes god happy. one will lead to peace and happiness, the other to anarchy and destruction. you choose,

Originally posted by BuddyLee
Beginning of WHAT corruption?? What will actually happen?? In an age where the corruption is already overflowing whats a little love going to hurt?

You noticed society going down hill to huh ? IM sure it takes no rocket scientist to see why. What has changed in society so much thats making it so bad ?
Its gods principles being taken away from our lives, and instead we toss in our own desires and sinful ways, with no feelings of guilt. That is what society is turning into.

Originally posted by BuddyLee
As I have said before!!!!! The only two persons that will have a problem with this issue are people who absolutely hate gays or religous tards!! Dont bring religion into this conversation I mean come on! If you can bring out some logical reasoning then come and debate to me but otherwise let the people do what they want. You will still go to heavan and they to hell so (in your mind) so whats the difference. Religious people can debate issues forever bring ANYTHING they damn well please to think that we are doing something morally right or wrong.

how can we not bring religion into it, when that the whole point of our foundation of what we believe. Thats like asking where does our day time light come from with out bringing the sun into it. You cant have this debate with out religion. SO be ready for it.

Originally posted by BuddyLee
These can be godly principles I suppose but only because they are in the freaking bible! Almost every civilization has basic rules and laws such as these that you point out. You should not kill a person, you should not steal from a person COME ON these rules are common sense to have any type of society thrive on.
thats right every society has them, but they all deviated from 1 religion back since our beginning. Its different cultures over time that add to it, and change it around to their liking, and before you knwo it, its a whole new and different religion. IN fact most other religions in some form or another, have the same basic history, of a great catastophe, a beginning of when man was created or where they came from.. ect ect ..

lastly you say about not killing a person, or not steal, and this should be common sense, but let me ask you this..
If no one ever set these standards, how would we know today at presnt that killing is bad, and stealing is bad.. when it really could be a good thing. Someone knew right and wrong, and that was god who set these standards , and what we live by today.

Originally posted by Ken King
Like the Godly principle you outlined earlier, "Thou shall not kill". And what was the first thing we did after declaring independence? Killed a bunch of British. We had already been killing the local indigenous people, continued to do it some more. Killed the Mexicans when we wanted that land too.

Religion only suits our interests when we can twist its meaning into our agenda. This is about equal protection under the law and state's rights, isn't it?


Originally posted by BuddyLee
THANK YOU!!!!!

I would like to point something out. I agree that killing like that is wrong, but rememeber, just because someone says thier a christian, and then goes and does such bad things like killing, doesnt mean they are one. Example. the holy crusades.. there was nothign christian about them at all. The just said they did it in the name of god, but it doesnt mean in one bit that they were christians. You have to judge people by their actions, and not their words. Rememeber that.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
That's very good - when someone challenges your beliefs, send them a personal attack.

Real mature.

Ever hear of something called "Separation of Church and State"? .

Not really becuase it doesnt exist. No where in the constitution or any law says there is seperation of church and state.
I heard about that so many times from the ACLJ (american centers for law and justice) they were just talking about that the other day on the radio.

Originally posted by Cmecu
Example. the holy crusades.. there was nothign christian about them at all. The just said they did it in the name of god, but it doesnt mean in one bit that they were christians. You have to judge people by their actions, and not their words. Rememeber that.

Love how people will turn on their own when things aren't looking good. Christians are just perfect little angels, and anyone who doesn't follow those strict rules are no longer christians... If that were the case, your little christian ass would be HIGHLY outnumbered

Cmecu kinda sounds like someone that used to post here in the not to distant past... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by BuddyLee
When you speak of this isnt it clearly stating freedom of religion and nothing more?

It says "can make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"....

But also remember that it was Thomas Jefferson just writing a letter, in no way had it been included into our constitution in any way. You will not find seperation of church and state anywhere in our constitution. You should go to aclj website and read more about the truth and our consitution, instead of being brainwashed by these corrupt politicians you want to believe .

Originally posted by SmallTown
Love how people will turn on their own when things aren't looking good. Christians are just perfect little angels, and anyone who doesn't follow those strict rules are no longer christians... If that were the case, your little christian ass would be HIGHLY outnumbered

Um , you lost me. HOw did i turn on my own ? Becuase i said the holy crusaders werent true christians ? well if they were killing in the name of ethnic cleansing, does that sound like something that is christian like ? As i said, judge by a persons actions they were doing wrong. Hitler was killing in the name of god, was he a christian ? was it right what he was doing ? I dont see how i can turn on my own, when the so called holy crusades were nothing in part of a christian crusade. They labeled themselves with a name, and did what they wanted to do. Their actions gave them a label of what they truly were, and that was not christian. You have to learn to know the differnce between self proclaiming, and authentic christians.

Originally posted by RoseRed
Cmecu kinda sounds like someone that used to post here in the not to distant past... :rolleyes:
no acutally im new. When i seen the news of same sex marriage on TV and in the news, i looked on the internet, typed in same sex marriage forums, and this happenend to be the site i found. I assure you im no one else.

Originally posted by Cmecu
no acutally im new. When i seen the news of same sex marriage on TV and in the news, i looked on the internet, typed in same sex marriage forums, and this happenend to be the site i found. I assure you im no one else. Are you in SoMD?

Originally posted by Cmecu
You have to learn to know the differnce between self proclaiming, and authentic christians.

How about catholic priests who pork little boys? Are they authentic catholics?

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by SmallTown
How about catholic priests who pork little boys? Are they authentic catholics?

:rolleyes:
:high5: :razz:

Originally posted by cariblue
How far removed are the original writers of the bible from the zealots that tried to blow us up a few years ago?
Powerful question!

Originally posted by Tonio

Ceo, you seem convinced that everyone should be a Christian. Faith is a very personal thing. I believe that there is no "one true faith." Vrai is right--America is not, and shouldn't be, a religious theocracy.

Would society be a better place if all of us had a sense of spirituality? I think it would. But in American democracy, spiritual values belong to the individual and to religious institutions, not to governmental institutions.

And that's EXACTLY why we have no teacher-led prayer in public schools. It's not so much a "separation of church and state," to use Jefferson's phrase, but a hands-off approach. When government gets involved in religious matters, it does much more harm than good.

First you forget that our founding fathers were not only christians that based our constitution, but they knew it would work if it was built on this foundation. DO you not think these men, the whole lot of them, didnt sit down day and night thinking of how to make such a well run society and government. SO its hard for you to say that we shouldnt be a religious theocracy, when it was founded like this.
You know the saying, " if it isnt broke, dont fix it,"

Second Religion , Its part of this world, its part of our life. Religion will be in anything you run across. There is no reason why it should be kept out of schools or wherever.
You know how much christians are being scrutinized ? when a school allows other religions, ie muslim, wickan, hindu ect ect, to have group meetings at their facility, but when a christian group asks they are denied. Other religions can post their stuff on a community board in school or givt facilites, but when christians do it, it gets taken down. I hear cases about this all the time from the ACLJ. I never have once heard any of you talking down about other religions, just pick on the chrsitians, becuase they seek to find a perfect society of peace love and friendship and want to live by good morals.

Originally posted by RoseRed
Are you in SoMD?
no i live in the eastern part of west virginia . Proabably why this website came up when i looked up samessex forums on my browser

Originally posted by Cmecu
no i live in the eastern part of west virginia . Proabably why this website came up when i looked up samessex forums on my browser
Well Hells Bells! :biggrin:

Originally posted by Cmecu
no i live in the eastern part of west virginia . Proabably why this website came up when i looked up samessex forums on my browser Sure you weren't searching for pictures?

Originally posted by Kain99
Well Hells Bells! :biggrin: He ssslurring woorrrrrds :shrug:

Originally posted by SmallTown
How about catholic priests who pork little boys? Are they authentic catholics?

:rolleyes:

thier actions.. maloested little kids, when Jesus loved kids so much and gave warning to those who would harm them. So i would say no . He was in a Position of priest, but obviously he didnt abide by what he preached. Yes hes human, and sinned, and did wrong, but how could you say you were a christian and do such horrfic things as raping alter boys. There was nothing about this priest that made him authentic. He was an example of a talker, and not a walker

Originally posted by Cmecu
maloested little kids, when Jesus loved kids so much and gave warning to those who would harm them. So said Michael Jackson

Originally posted by RoseRed
Sure you weren't searching for pictures?

Originally posted by RoseRed
He ssslurring woorrrrrds :shrug:

Oh , trying to knock me down a few levels by making fun of me. Wont work, you havent contributed anything to this debate, by flaming me. Its just showing how much you dont really know.

As i said in a previous post. I searched for same sex marriage forums after i heard news of what was going on to read about it more. SO i can enter a debate, about the pro's or cons about it. I didnt come here to waste my time on someone who isnt posting any rational thinking of this whole matter, instead just more intersted in flaming me about looking for pictures, or slurring words becuase of improper spacing. Add some real debate to this, and dont bother flaming anymore. its doing you no good.

Originally posted by Cmecu
Oh , trying to knock me down a few levels by making fun of me. Wont work, you havent contributed anything to this debate, by flaming me. Its just showing how much you dont really know.

As i said in a previous post. I searched for same sex marriage forums after i heard news of what was going on to read about it more. SO i can enter a debate, about the pro's or cons about it. I didnt come here to waste my time on someone who isnt posting any rational thinking of this whole matter, instead just more intersted in flaming me about looking for pictures, or slurring words becuase of improper spacing. Add some real debate to this, and dont bother flaming anymore. its doing you no good. I don't think that anyone has ever referred to me as rational, so no matter to me. My cousin was once married for many years and has a beautiful daughter. She has since changed "the side of the fence" and I think no less of her. She is an upstanding citizen and happens to be a school teacher in a Lutheran school. I guess her soul is lost to the devil.

I'd like someone to answer a question for me, please:

How does same-sex marriage affect you at all? Forget religion - it's not your place to judge. Why does it hurt you, personally?

Serious question.

Originally posted by RoseRed
I don't think that anyone has ever referred to me as rational, so no matter to me. My cousin was once married for many years and has a beautiful daughter. She has since changed "the side of the fence" and I think no less of her. She is an upstanding citizen and happens to be a school teacher in a Lutheran school. I guess her soul is lost to the devil.

In none of my posts have i said i hate gays either. I do, however, dislike the sin. It may not be sin to you , but to god it is. I believe in what he says, and i stand by it . I know there is no way to make you believe any different in what you believe now, just as much as you wont change the way i believe. I know some gay people, i talk to them. With me having HIV i talk to them quite a bit when i goto the aids network to receive gift card so i can go buy food ( nice program they have for PWA'S) but when im there around them, we talk to each other like any other person . Or when i see them at world aids day we get along just fine. so im not a person hater at all, just hate the immoral lifestyle.
Oh and yes I was immoral myself at one time having sex with many girls, but you see what the consequences of my actions are. IM paying the price now, but a lesson learned from immoral behavior. And im very sorry for my past life style, and im glad god showed me how bad i was. The best part is asking for forgiveness, and knowing he did it.

Originally posted by RoseRed
So said Michael Jackson

thats a mixed feeling combo.. its so hard to tell what he has done and hasnt. Media is bombarding him like crazy to find out what hes all about. Well have to see what the police find out from the investigations. It does seem a little odd that a 45 year old man is sleeping in the same bed as children. but another example, if hes a self proclaiming christian, and is molesting children.. well you know hes a talker and not a walker either

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I'd like someone to answer a question for me, please:

How does same-sex marriage affect you at all? Forget religion - it's not your place to judge. Why does it hurt you, personally?

Serious question.

you must not have seen the post i wrote a bit ago. you can not keep religion out of this. Because america was founded on religion, was built by , we lived by it, and now society is changing, turning from what it was founded on, and you see society getting more and more wicked all the time.
Its not rocket science to put 2 and 2 together.
We look at it from a biblical view, how can we see it any other way ? we could see it your way, but then we are turning frmo what the bible teaches. i dunno. thats about as serious as i can get to your question

Originally posted by cariblue
You people keep throwing this god stuff out there and it just doesn't fly with those of us who don't believe in a deity.

Outside of your belief, you don't have a leg to stand on and you can't defend your idea. :yeahthat:

I for one believe in making my own destiny and do not pray that someone, or something, helps me along my journey through life. I have to do that for myself.

Originally posted by Cmecu
I would like to point something out. I agree that killing like that is wrong, but rememeber, just because someone says thier a christian, and then goes and does such bad things like killing, doesnt mean they are one. Example. the holy crusades.. there was nothign christian about them at all. The just said they did it in the name of god, but it doesnt mean in one bit that they were christians. You have to judge people by their actions, and not their words. Rememeber that.
There has been nothing Christian about any war or battle if you believe that "Thou shall not kill" is a requirement for Christianity. I however believe that many that serve in wars and take lives can be and are Christians. I took the argument because someone used it as theirs. If Christian beliefs (or maybe a better term would be God's) on this matter were that this is as major an abomination as is being made by the religious opinions of claimed Christians that it would have been included in the Ten Commandments.

You do notice that in the big Ten they talk about adultery, yet we, as a society crafted from religion, have blown that off, now haven’t we? Do you keep the Sabbath day holy? How many of us honor Moms and Pops? I’ve seen some that don’t give a crap about their parents only what they get when they pass on. They aren’t denied any right as long as they lay down with someone of the opposite sex, heck we won’t even make them get married. What do your religious beliefs say about that?

Do I need to go on to debunk that type of argument as we have readily accepted deviations from scripture as we create societal law and live our lives?

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I'd like someone to answer a question for me, please:

How does same-sex marriage affect you at all? Forget religion - it's not your place to judge. Why does it hurt you, personally?

Serious question.


Thank you Vrai! Ive been asking this question all day and have not gotten a response other than "its just wrong"

Originally posted by cariblue
You people keep throwing this god stuff out there and it just doesn't fly with those of us who don't believe in a deity.

Outside of your belief, you don't have a leg to stand on and you can't defend your idea.

I dont have to defend the bible, it hold its own water.

Originally posted by cariblue
Not rocket science, eh? So, America was founded on a religion that was created by ragheads. This is what you're tellin' me, right? It's all becoming very clear to me now.

Ragheads ? you talking about mid eastern people with that lewd comment ?

Originally posted by Ken King
There has been nothing Christian about any war or battle if you believe that "Thou shall not kill" is a requirement for Christianity. I however believe that many that serve in wars and take lives can be and are Christians.
:cool: Ken, we hear people say that the Bible is not to be taken literally in many, many instances, and especially on these forums.

Might it be that the commandment that says "Thou shalt not kill" refers to: "You shall not take a life indescriminately, or without just cause or purpose"?

If the Old Testament is accurate, as the Jewish nation believes, God Himself took many lives to free His people, and ensure the conquering of foreign nations in an effort to secure those lands for His chosen people.

He killed many thousands of Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babalonians that His people might have a secure place to flourish.

He even went further to instruct the Israelites to kill every man, woman and child in those enemy encampments, so they would not be able to corrupt them in later years as they lived there in the occupied land they claimed.

Thus, the instruction "Thou shalt not kill" has liitle meaning by itself without a qualifier, as I look at it, but seeing it from a different perspective makes a little more sense.

Originally posted by BuddyLee
Thank you Vrai! Ive been asking this question all day and have not gotten a response other than "its just wrong" Bet ya I don't get a response either.

Originally posted by Cmecu
Ragheads ? you talking about mid eastern people with that lewd comment ? Don't bother telling her she's going to hell - we've tried that and she doesn't care.

Originally posted by Ken King
There has been nothing Christian about any war or battle if you believe that "Thou shall not kill" is a requirement for Christianity. I however believe that many that serve in wars and take lives can be and are Christians. I took the argument because someone used it as theirs. If Christian beliefs (or maybe a better term would be God's) on this matter were that this is as major an abomination as is being made by the religious opinions of claimed Christians that it would have been included in the Ten Commandments.

You do notice that in the big Ten they talk about adultery, yet we, as a society crafted from religion, have blown that off, now haven’t we? Do you keep the Sabbath day holy? How many of us honor Moms and Pops? I’ve seen some that don’t give a crap about their parents only what they get when they pass on. They aren’t denied any right as long as they lay down with someone of the opposite sex, heck we won’t even make them get married. What do your religious beliefs say about that?

Do I need to go on to debunk that type of argument as we have readily accepted deviations from scripture as we create societal law and live our lives?

Actually is Thou shalt not Murder from hebrew translation, but to kill in defense is justified. Murdering someonein cold blood is not.

I agree with the BIG ten as you call it. ALot of society has wandered away from them, and as you can see which way society is going. more and more down the tubes.
As for not getting married if you break commandments, that makes it sound like your not pertaining to homosexuality, which in essence be a commandment in itself. A rule , guidelines, which is what our basic 10 commandments come from any way. Its all commandments, its all rules. God says its immoral, i believe god, i believe what he says. Now, i would almost be a puppet, just to believe what he says goes. However there are reasons why he made all these rules that seem silly to us. He knows what will become of society if we all live in immoral lifestyles, just not homosexuality, but any other sin we decide to live in day after day. I admit there are some things that make me scratch my head of what was said in the bible, but i realize that there is a higher , alot higher intelligence than mine, and knows whats best for his own creation (people)

Originally posted by penncam
:cool: Ken, we hear people say that the Bible is not to be taken literally in many, many instances, and especially on these forums.

Might it be that the commandment that says "Thou shalt not kill" refers to: "You shall not take a life indescriminately, or without just cause or purpose"?

If the Old Testament is accurate, as the Jewish nation believes, God Himself took many lives to free His people, and ensure the conquering of foreign nations in an effort to secure those lands for His chosen people.

He killed many thousands of Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babalonians that His people might have a secure place to flourish.

He even went further to instruct the Israelites to kill every man, woman and child in those enemy encampments, so they would not be able to corrupt them in later years as they lived there in the occupied land they claimed.

Thus, the instruction "Thou shalt not kill" has liitle meaning by itself without a qualifier, as I look at it, but seeing it from a different perspective makes a little more sense.
And the Sabbath means nothing and adultery means nothing and all sorts of Biblical beliefs mean nothing, so why is this one a sticking point? No pun intended.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Don't bother telling her she's going to hell - we've tried that and she doesn't care. She already took her Pearly Whites to bed anyway. I think I'll take mine to bed soon too. :lol:

Originally posted by BuddyLee
Thank you Vrai! Ive been asking this question all day and have not gotten a response other than "its just wrong"

i dont knwo any other ways how to say it.. God deems it wrong.. we believe what god says, and are sure he has his reasons why its wrong. And there are reasons im sure that can be listed by many people , not only from a christian persepctive, but also from a scientific perspective i.e. doctor, psychologists of the cons of homosexuality.

Originally posted by Cmecu
you must not have seen the post i wrote a bit ago. you can not keep religion out of this. Because america was founded on religion, was built by , we lived by it, and now society is changing, turning from what it was founded on, and you see society getting more and more wicked all the time.
Its not rocket science to put 2 and 2 together.
We look at it from a biblical view, how can we see it any other way ? we could see it your way, but then we are turning frmo what the bible teaches. i dunno. thats about as serious as i can get to your question

IDIOT! America was not founded on religion. The only place in the constitution where religion is mentioned is in the first amendment which is freedom of religion. Our forefathers came over from England to start a new way of life and to practice the religion they could not in Europe. But wait when the first settlers came over this was in the 1600s ATLEAST 100 years before the constitution was made. By the time the constitution was dreamed up we had alot more people and alot more religions. At this particular point in time we merely wanted equality and rights. Ken King said this earlier! Isnt this what our constitution (our American way) is based on, citizens rights? NOT RELIGION!

Now onto your assumption that because we do not pray in school or in other places enough that is the cause of all of Americas so-called "evil". This is major BS. Let me think of some examples that do not involve gay marriage or gay persons at all. Hows about Bill Clintons fiasco, Janet Jacksons boob, midgets marrying on tv, or the more than 5,000 Catholic preist that are being charged with child molestation. The last one is the kicker because it makes all your nonsense clear as day. If your saying that we do not pray or have any godly morals today and this is why America is so evil then you are wrong. Do the Catholic priest pray and have godly morals, I think yes.

Now answer the simple question that has been asked by many persons on this thread. How does gay marriage affect you or anyone in society?

Originally posted by BuddyLee
IDIOT! America was not founded on religion. The only place in the constitution where religion is mentioned is in the first amendment which is freedom of religion. Our forefathers came over from England to start a new way of life and to practice the religion they could not in Europe. But wait when the first settlers came over this was in the 1600s ATLEAST 100 years before the constitution was made. By the time the constitution was dreamed up we had alot more people and alot more religions. At this particular point in time we merely wanted equality and rights. Ken King said this earlier! Isnt this what our constitution (our American way) is based on, citizens rights? NOT RELIGION!

Now onto your assumption that because we do not pray in school or in other places enough that is the cause of all of Americas so-called "evil". This is major BS. Let me think of some examples that do not involve gay marriage or gay persons at all. Hows about Bill Clintons fiasco, Janet Jacksons boob, midgets marrying on tv, or the more than 5,000 Catholic preist that are being charged with child molestation. The last one is the kicker because it makes all your nonsense clear as day. If your saying that we do not pray or have any godly morals today and this is why America is so evil then you are wrong. Do the Catholic priest pray and have godly morals, I think yes.

Now answer the simple question that has been asked by many persons on this thread. How does gay marriage affect you or anyone in society?

We in society are more evil only because we have alot more people with alot more differing minds and a greater source of technology that cannot be ignored!

Originally posted by Ken King
And the Sabbath means nothing and adultery means nothing and all sorts of Biblical beliefs mean nothing, so why is this one a sticking point? No pun intended.
:biggrin: Aw, c'mon now, it took me a long time to reason that commandment out, all in one night.

Do you really expect me to be able to rationalize the rest of them that quickly?

What do you think I should call them? "The Commandments according to Ed"?

I recently got a PM from dems4me that brang out yet another good point!

"good post
I like your posts buddy lee -- keep up the good work. As for the sanctity in marriage - I agree with you 100% that it has gone out of the window. Alot of these hypocrities do however watch and support "who wants to marry a millionaire show" "The Bachelor" "The Bachelorette", etc... how is that holding marriage sacred - its a game and most people watch it as a game -- not a holy thing before the Lord. Feel free to mention my point in your posts -- Marriage has become a game to the straight people and such a serious issues with gay people."

Originally posted by Cmecu
God deems it wrong.. we believe what god says, and are sure he has his reasons why its wrong. And there are reasons im sure that can be listed by many people , not only from a christian persepctive, but also from a scientific perspective i.e. doctor, psychologists of the cons of homosexuality. But you realize that we, as a nation, are not beholden to Christian doctrine, right? Otherwise what are you going to do about the Jews, the Muslims, the Busshists, whatever, that believe something different than Christianity?

We, as a society, embrace marriage for the stability it provides. We like the idea of kids growing up with a Mom and Dad, vs. Mom and her revolving door of boyfriends. Even when there are no kids involved, we like monogamous partnerships.

From that perspective, gay marriage is MUCH more preferable than gay singles running around. Wouldn't you agree?

Originally posted by BuddyLee
I recently got a PM from dems4me that brang out yet another good point! Why doesn't she just post it for herself? Tell her don't worry - I have her on ignore and won't even see it, let alone respond to it.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Why doesn't she just post it for herself? Tell her don't worry - I have her on ignore and won't even see it, let alone respond to it.

:lol:

Originally posted by BuddyLee
IDIOT! America was not founded on religion. The only place in the constitution where religion is mentioned is in the first amendment which is freedom of religion.

Our forefathers came over from England to start a new way of life and to practice the religion they could not in Europe.
BuddyLee, what the hell does that mean? Furthermore, what kinds of history books did you study in elementary, Jr/Sr High School?

If a of sect people came to this country to escape religious persecution, founded it on religious freedom, then incorporated it into their Declaration of Independence, and furthermore mentioned it in their Constitution, how in the hell can you sit at your keyboard and not see this country was founded with religion in mind, as one of it's cornerstones?

Are you daft, young man?

Originally posted by penncam
If a of sect people came to this country to escape religious persecution, founded it on religious freedom, then incorporated it into their Declaration of Independence, and furthermore mentioned it in their Constitution, how in the hell can you sit at your keyboard and not see this country was founded with religion in mind, as one of it's cornerstones? It was founded with FREEDOM of religion in mind, not the Christian religion. So I would say that our counrty is founded on FREEDOM, not religion.

Originally posted by penncam
BuddyLee, what the hell does that mean? Furthermore, what kinds of history books did you study in elementary, Jr/Sr High School?

If a of sect people came to this country to escape religious persecution, founded it on religious freedom, then incorporated it into their Declaration of Independence, and furthermore mentioned it in their Constitution, how in the hell can you sit at your keyboard and not see this country was founded with religion in mind, as one of it's cornerstones?

Are you daft, young man?

Im sorry that you misinterpreted my statement but what I meant to say was that our country was founded on citizens rights and freedom not solely religion! You and a few others make it seem that this country was BUILT and centered on religion and religion only when it was that and many other things.

Originally posted by cariblue
What's so lewd about it? Would you prefer towel head? I was referring to middle eastern people. Raghead and towelhead are 2 of the more polite versions...:biggrin:

Originally posted by Cmecu
im glad god showed me how bad i was.
This is by far the saddest thing I have ever read. I am hoping you're a crack pot MPD just out to shock the forumites. If not and you really see God in this light, I feel very sorry for you. :frown:

Originally posted by SmallTown
How about catholic priests who pork little boys? Are they authentic catholics?

:rolleyes:

Perverted minds. I don't know? Why do people rob? Why do people steal? I don't see it as a down fall of religion or God. It's a lack of discipline. Why do people get drunk and drive?

Originally posted by cariblue
Why did the europeans adopt a middle eastern religion?

Why did they bring it with them when they came here to get away from it?

How far removed are the original writers of the bible from the zealots that tried to blow us up a few years ago?

HUH???

Originally posted by RoseRed
I don't think that anyone has ever referred to me as rational, so no matter to me. My cousin was once married for many years and has a beautiful daughter. She has since changed "the side of the fence" and I think no less of her. She is an upstanding citizen and happens to be a school teacher in a Lutheran school. I guess her soul is lost to the devil.

I may seem judgemental, but I honestly try to stay away from it. I really just try to stick to the truth. If your cousin has chosen this lifestyle, that's her choice. It's not one I would recommend, but I would not judge her and say that her soul is lost to the devil. I am sure she will change.

Originally posted by cariblue
Who's to say if Jesus was any different from Jim Jones, David Koresh, Roc Tremain or any other whacko that wants to control people?

Um... Jesus gave people choices. That's why your salvation is your choice. He set the example and lived a sinful life. The people you speak of stood for death. The Bible is all about LIBERTY and FREEDOM... If someone is trying to scare/impose fear on you then it's not of God.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I'd like someone to answer a question for me, please:

How does same-sex marriage affect you at all? Forget religion - it's not your place to judge. Why does it hurt you, personally?

Serious question.

Speaking of individuals it doesn't hurt anyone, except the person performing the act.

As a society, it degrades our morals. I don't want my kids being raised in a society that teaches/condones homosexuality. This would be just the beginning, b/c the next step would be to have it placed in the public schools curriculum... It will never stop, if we don't stop it here...

Originally posted by cariblue
You people keep throwing this god stuff out there and it just doesn't fly with those of us who don't believe in a deity.

Outside of your belief, you don't have a leg to stand on and you can't defend your idea.

Outside or inside your belief, you have no leg to stand on...

You have no basis for making decisions. The only foundation you have for basing your decisions are the morals that you have picked-up from watching cable TV.. That's pretty sad. Your decisions are based strictly on your opinion, which if you conform to society will change over time. Right and wrong never changes....

Originally posted by cariblue
Not rocket science, eh? So, America was founded on a religion that was created by ragheads. This is what you're tellin' me, right? It's all becoming very clear to me now.


Founded on Godly principles.. No man created or established them..

Originally posted by Ken King
There has been nothing Christian about any war or battle if you believe that "Thou shall not kill" is a requirement for Christianity. I however believe that many that serve in wars and take lives can be and are Christians. I took the argument because someone used it as theirs. If Christian beliefs (or maybe a better term would be God's) on this matter were that this is as major an abomination as is being made by the religious opinions of claimed Christians that it would have been included in the Ten Commandments.

You do notice that in the big Ten they talk about adultery, yet we, as a society crafted from religion, have blown that off, now haven’t we? Do you keep the Sabbath day holy? How many of us honor Moms and Pops? I’ve seen some that don’t give a crap about their parents only what they get when they pass on. They aren’t denied any right as long as they lay down with someone of the opposite sex, heck we won’t even make them get married. What do your religious beliefs say about that?

Do I need to go on to debunk that type of argument as we have readily accepted deviations from scripture as we create societal law and live our lives?

You are right, adultery is being blown off as something common these days and that not right either. Man is not perfect and never will be, hence your questions about 'Do you do this' are irrelevant. But I do try. I never said that I don't fail sometimes, just that I know the difference b'twn right and wrong. As for Christians in War. It's a daily battle. If you read the Bible you will read tons of stories of Christians in Battle/War.

Originally posted by BuddyLee
IDIOT! America was not founded on religion. The only place in the constitution where religion is mentioned is in the first amendment which is freedom of religion. Our forefathers came over from England to start a new way of life and to practice the religion they could not in Europe. But wait when the first settlers came over this was in the 1600s ATLEAST 100 years before the constitution was made. By the time the constitution was dreamed up we had alot more people and alot more religions. At this particular point in time we merely wanted equality and rights. Ken King said this earlier! Isnt this what our constitution (our American way) is based on, citizens rights? NOT RELIGION!

Now onto your assumption that because we do not pray in school or in other places enough that is the cause of all of Americas so-called "evil". This is major BS. Let me think of some examples that do not involve gay marriage or gay persons at all. Hows about Bill Clintons fiasco, Janet Jacksons boob, midgets marrying on tv, or the more than 5,000 Catholic preist that are being charged with child molestation. The last one is the kicker because it makes all your nonsense clear as day. If your saying that we do not pray or have any godly morals today and this is why America is so evil then you are wrong. Do the Catholic priest pray and have godly morals, I think yes.

Now answer the simple question that has been asked by many persons on this thread. How does gay marriage affect you or anyone in society?

Your lack of knowledge shows everytime you post... America was founded on Godly principles and if you say otherwise, you are wrong. It's simple. I never said it was founded on Religion. I know plenty of people who are stuck on one religion or another and religion(in and of itself) will send you to hell. All of our forefathers were from England? The Catholic priest may have prayed, but they obviously lacked something. When did you read about molesting little boys being accepted as a Godly principle? I don't think you did? So that's the end of that.

Your questions have no meaning? You are relating degrading morals and janet jacksons boobs. They have direct correlation.. :confused:

Question: Since you all Christians have fake priests molesting little boys, and fake ministers bilking their flock out of money - and since you all didn't know these Men of God were fakes in the first place - how do you know the Bible isn't a fake?

How do you know you're not stealing people's rights in the name of a fake religion?

Originally posted by vraiblonde
It was founded with FREEDOM of religion in mind, not the Christian religion. So I would say that our counrty is founded on FREEDOM, not religion.

Godly principles and Freedom. NOT RELIGION>..

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Question: Since you all Christians have fake priests molesting little boys, and fake ministers bilking their flock out of money - and since you all didn't know these Men of God were fakes in the first place - how do you know the Bible isn't a fake?

How do you know you're not stealing people's rights in the name of a fake religion?

Alot of questions, but no answers.

I wouldn't say they are fake. All people sin, even priests, pastors, bishops, etc... Even you and I. If the Bible is fake where did you and I come from? Did you see the post I made about the evidence of the Bible being real. If not, you should read 'Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. It's all in there. How can I steal peoples rights. Every human being, deep in their soul, was born with a discernment b'twn right/wrong. That's how I know what's right. It's God Given. Some may deny it or think more perverted b/c of various reasons, but it's still there.

Originally posted by ceo_pte
Godly principles and Freedom. NOT RELIGION>.. So quit foisting your religion off on other people. You're like those freakin' Jehovah's Witnesses.

You're awfully high minded for someone who was involved in an embarrassing situation not too long ago. Would you like to admit that you don't practice what you preach and that you're a hypocrite? Or are you content to know that we're all thinking it?

Originally posted by vraiblonde
So quit foisting your religion off on other people. You're like those freakin' Jehovah's Witnesses.

You're awfully high minded for someone who was involved in an embarrassing situation not too long ago. Would you like to admit that you don't practice what you preach and that you're a hypocrite? Or are you content to know that we're all thinking it?

You are very judgemental. That's awfully nice of you to offer to help me clean-up around my door steps. I assure you I have alot of growing, learning, and changing to do. I would surely hope that I had not arrived at the climax of my life at such a young age. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by vraiblonde
[B]So quit foisting your religion off on other people. You're like those freakin' Jehovah's Witnesses.


I don't think I ever foisted my religion on someone... I believe (at least I tried) I consistently referred to this topic as "Godly Principles", not religion... There is a difference...

Originally posted by ceo_pte
I may seem judgemental, but I honestly try to stay away from it. I really just try to stick to the truth.

I suppose you enjoy swimming in a sea of uncertainty

Originally posted by ceo_pte
You are very judgemental. Oh, I'm judgemental! I'm judgemental! You want to deny legal rights to someone because of YOUR religion, and I'm judgemental?

That's rich. Really.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Oh, I'm judgemental! I'm judgemental! You want to deny legal rights to someone because of YOUR religion, and I'm judgemental?

That's rich. Really.

:biggrin: :killingme :love:

If you weren't a smoker, I would kiss you :biggrin:

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Oh, I'm judgemental! I'm judgemental! You want to deny legal rights to someone because of YOUR religion, and I'm judgemental?

That's rich. Really.

It's not just my religion. Which religion (in their charter and orginal form) do you know that condones or supports homosexuality?

None that are based on God. If someone refuses to admit that our country was founded on Godly principles and that by lowering these standards (as a country) we would be lowering the morality of our country, then what is left to say?

Originally posted by cariblue
How is there a difference when all religion is based on so called "godly principles"?


All religion is based on Godly principles?

Originally posted by cariblue
How is there a difference when all religion is based on so called "godly principles"?

Not all religions have a monothestic God.

Originally posted by Tonio
Not all religions have a monothestic God.

Some worship Idols and the such, right. I don't know all of them, but I think I remember the numbers being in the thousands. Maybe like 1400 different religions...

Originally posted by cariblue
I know a great deal of gays go to church, so somebody's religion must be condoning it.

You seem to be ignoring one important point. Not everybody believes in a deity.


And that's there choice... but you seem to be ignoring one important point... UH, once again... Our Country (the one you are living in now) was founded on Godly principles..

It may do them some good if they go to church...

"so somebody's religion must be condoning it." Great, that was my question, do you wanna answer it?

{How is there a difference when all religion is based on so called "godly principles"?} << Question... from CARI!

"All religions are Based on GOD?" << my response...

Originally posted by cariblue
The religion that's being shoved down our collective throats here on the forums, yes. << Cari's response...


I am confused... The answer to your question is, there is a difference b/c all religions are not based on the same thing. Religions can be corrupted, but the Word of God cannot. Yes, it is open to interpretation.

Originally posted by cariblue
The religion that's being shoved down our collective throats here on the forums, yes.

To prevent it from being shoved down your 'collective throats', I would suggest you close your mouth. You know, God did give you the ablility to do that. :shrug:

Originally posted by cariblue
You know what? I see no reason to argue the point with a pecker pic sending hypocrite. You're no better than the rest of the confused zealots running around in the world.

And you expect us to believe any argument you might throw at us. I'm done with you, too. Maybe you can join the justinenemy, penncildeek stroking club.

buh-byeeee.

Run... when confronted with Facts and Truth, either embrace it or run. Thanks for being apart of the debate... :biggrin:

Originally posted by cariblue
No he didn't. He doesn't exist. You're living in a fantasy land of people control.

That's great... That's what this country is about the Freedom to choose. No people control here. Thats just your way of trying to justify your decision not to believe. For your sake, I hope you will do some research...

Originally posted by ceo_pte
That's great... That's what this country is about the Freedom to choose. No people control here.

Unless you're gay?

Originally posted by cariblue
Oh, and don't try and convince anyone that it wasn't your pecker. Why on earth would an upstanding, god fearing person such as yourself be sending pics of anybody's pecker?

To impress people like you... Anybody's would be better than mine... I'm not trying to convince you, but it's nice to see you get upset when you realize the truth. Send the pic to anyone you want Cari, doesn't bother me... If I could find it again I would send it to you. I am at work now though and can't get to those sites... Have a great day... :biggrin:

Originally posted by SmallTown
Unless you're gay?

Please.. I promise I won't stop you from being gay... That's not what the topic is about...

whoa whoa whoa

ceo_pte sent out pics of the mini-ceo??? bahahaha

Originally posted by ceo_pte
Please.. I promise I won't stop you from being gay... That's not what the topic is about...

Thanks for clarifying :rolleyes:

Originally posted by SmallTown
whoa whoa whoa

ceo_pte sent out pics of the mini-ceo??? bahahaha
I'm confused.... I think he sent a pic of a porn stars mini and tried to pass it off as his own. Unless, he has his own website....:wink:

Originally posted by ceo_pte
Please.. I promise I won't stop you from being gay... That's not what the topic is about...
You'll just stop someone from being married to the man/woman they love because.......?

Oh that's right, because you don't like it.

Well guess what? You don't have to.

Originally posted by Kain99
I'm confused.... I think he sent a pic of a porn stars mini and tried to pass it off as his own. Unless, he has his own website....:wink:
But either way, he was checking out porn sites. What a fine, morally sound, Christian way to spend your day. Watching fornication.

Originally posted by cariblue
How nice of you to share with us that you check out those sites. Such a fine, upstanding, christian citizen. Please don't send me a pic of your pecker. I'm really not interested. I have one at home.

Could I have a pic of your teeth...

Originally posted by cariblue
Yes! This is what god fearing citizens do. Must be one of the commandments I missed.

Thou shalt send pecker pics to complete strangers.

You are such a great person.. Glad you continue to change the topic of the thread. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Ehesef
You'll just stop someone from being married to the man/woman they love because.......?

Oh that's right, because you don't like it.

Well guess what? You don't have to.

Thanks for your input... I'll be sure to take note of all the valuable insight that you provided.

Originally posted by cariblue
O M G! You guys would just die if you could read the pm I just got!

ceo_pte, you are the biggest hypocrite to ever walk the face of the earth!

well don't be such a tease.

It's nice to see all the band-wagoneers come out. You can criticize, complain, and insult people b/c you lack the self image that you need to lift people up.

Originally posted by cariblue
I'm not a christian. I don't spread rumors.




It's so funny, though!



:roflmao: :killingme

Share it ya wench. :burning: :cussing: :lmao:

Originally posted by cariblue
I'm not a christian. I don't spread rumors.




It's so funny, though!



:roflmao: :killingme


please share it with everyone.. They have nothing else exciting happening in their life. Please do. Tell me and I promise to tell everyone.

Originally posted by Ehesef
But either way, he was checking out porn sites. What a fine, morally sound, Christian way to spend your day. Watching fornication.

Actually it was a Yahoo personal that I found it on. I don't need porn, b/c I have a wife that would, w/o a doubt make all the girls on the forum look like dogs.... But if it makes you feel better to think I cruise the web for porn, please use it..

Originally posted by cariblue
:killingme

OMG, that's hilarious! I'm in tears!


me too... :biggrin:

It makes me feel even better about myself, knowing there are people in the world that really don't like themselves or their lives. I'm a blessed man... :biggrin:

Originally posted by cariblue
The buck stops here. I'm sure it'll get back to you eventually.


:killingme

c'mon... it wouldn't be a rumor if you told me. You would just be sharing information b/c you were concerned..

Originally posted by ceo_pte
Actually it was a Yahoo personal that I found it on. I don't need porn, b/c I have a wife that would, w/o a doubt make all the girls on the forum look like dogs....
Now that hurt! :roflmao:

Originally posted by cariblue
You sure are! :killingme

Thank you...

I'm sorry, but since the topic is dead I have more important people to spend my time with. I'm sure you do as well. :rolleyes:

I never realized how many attention deprived females there were in SOMD... OMG! You poor little girls, I feel bad for you. :bubble:

Have a great DAY>>> Smile :biggrin:

Wait... that wasn't meant for you Cari...

Originally posted by ceo_pte
I have a wife that would, w/o a doubt make all the girls on the forum look like dogs.. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by mainman
:rolleyes: Hey MM, I'm waiting for the pictures of HER to appear next.

Originally posted by justhangn
Hey MM, I'm waiting for the pictures of HER to appear next.
Ahhhh Shuddup! :roflmao:

Originally posted by ceo_pte
I never realized how many attention deprived females there were in SOMD... OMG! You poor little girls, I feel bad for you. :bubble:

Have a great DAY>>> Smile :biggrin:

Wait... that wasn't meant for you Cari...
Who's attention deprived? We're not the ones emailing nekkid pics around...

Originally posted by justhangn
Hey MM, I'm waiting for the pictures of HER to appear next. He's talking out of the side of his neck...

I think we hurt Ceo_pete's feelings.

Originally posted by Ehesef
Who's attention deprived? We're not the ones emailing nekkid pics around...

Oh Ehesef don't even try to lie. If you don't email nekkid pics around; what was that you sent me for my bday yesterday?? huh?:blushing: