Same-Sex Marriage

[Twizzle Dizzle Red]

Evidence points that it is more than likely it is prenatal and genetic than anything.

Show me the evidence please.  

[Twizzle Dizzle Red]

Lord Bitememan

Quote:

Our nation was founded on christian values and morals the bible teaches.

It was not. Our Constitution was designed based on the principles of an English economist who postulated on how a society ought to best be structured in the context of social contract theory. Social contract theory, in the understanding of the colonies, was a mish-mash of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, both of whom wrote about the purposes for which man forms society and the tradeoffs that occur to sustain it. Both made mention of God in their writing, but Biblical principle was tangential to anything they actually discussed. The high and mighty rhetoric of "no taxation without representation" drew from the influence of English journalist John Wilkes and his long career campaigning for voting representation in the immediate runup to the Revolution. The founding fathers generally omitted religious references in the founding documents, making mention in the Constitution only in outlining the oath of office. The Constitution then went on to directly stiplulate that Congress would establish no official religion of the United States. See, the Founding Fathers believed in religious freedom above all, as many diverse groups had come to the US seeking the same. Puritans, Anglicans, Catholics, and even Jews had all come to the US in significant number and rather than establish a theological underpinning for the country, the founders chose an Enlightenment path.

Ok some of our founding fathers were not of the christian faith, I think there were like two. But the rest of them were. Which is why on every coin you saw the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" Up until these last coins were minted they all said that. And what does the constitution say the government can do with money? They have the power to quoin money. Not make a federal reserve and take over the country with it. The founders were very much of the christian faith. Maybe your not and maybe you don't like to believe that but they were. Much of what you know about the United States is probably wrong. You probably know, or think you know, that the declaration of independence was signed on the Fourth of July, 1776. Although we annually celebrate the birth of our country on that date, the Declaration was only approved by the continental congress on the fourth of july. The text was sent to the printer on the fourth for duplication in typeface. Approximately 200 copies were made and distributed among the colonies. Later, a calligraphy version was created and signed for the first time on August 2. That is the copy currently on display in the National Archive. This may be a mere technicality, to that I will concede. However, I'll bet that you don't even know the name of the first president of the Unted States. If your answer is George Washington, you - like so many other Americans- have an in- complete grasp of our nations history. We agree that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, even if the actual date of the signing is in dispute. However history records that George Washington didn't begin his first term as president until 1789, shortly after the constitution was ratified by the state conventions. That leaves the first 13 years of our country's leadership unaccounted for. Did the colonies flounder aimlessly through the revolution with no one acting as the head of state? That would be very unlikely. Perhaps a document known as the Articles of Confederation will ressurect a distant memory from your casual brush with American History. The Articles of Confederation were the first "constitution" to define the scope of American government. During that time the united states (sic) chose a different president each year. The first president of the united states was a man named Samuel Huntington. nine others were elected to the position before George Washington assumed the office. In other words, George Washington is the first president of the united states under the Constitution, but he was the eleventh president of the united states. So if you said George Washington, your information wasn't completely wrong, but it wasn't completely right either. How many of our founding fathers signed the declaration of independence? ALL of them. and they fought a bloody and brutal battle, to make sure that each and every single one of us, remained free under the constitution. They also fought among themselves, with actual fist fights and long very long arduous hours to get the constitution just exactly right so that no man could ever take our freedoms and our liberties. And don't give me that bs about the constitution being old. You just witness the inauguration Obama and the oathe of office where he swore to defend and uphold the constitution. There is a reason for that action which i can explain to you if you like. The declaration of Independence states "They are endowed by THEIR CREATOR (Now who do you suppose that would be? and if they did not believe in God, well then suppose you tell me who put that in the declaration of independence) with certain unalienable rights. The American Revolution was ultimately about the right to own property. John Adams, the twelfth president of the united states (right after George washington) wrote, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God (there it is again) and that there is not a force of law and public justice to to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.

Regardless of your religous views, God is mentioned many many times throughout history. So yes I think the founders did believe in God. I think they liked him too.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

Which is why on every coin you saw the words "IN GOD WE TRUST"

Actually that wasn't inserted onto the money until the 1950s, and it was done then as a statement against communism. Prior to that the term was omitted from money. The term "In God We Trust" wasn't the national motto until Francis Scott Key wrote it in the Star Spangled Banner, itself a product of the War of 1812, some 20 or 30 years after the Constitution was drafted.

Quote:

Ok some of our founding fathers were not of the christian faith

That's incorrect, they all were Christians. However, most were of differing denominations of Christian faith, and had a firm historical grounding in prior religious-based events in Europe, like the devastating 30 years war. Rather than have refights of that conflict, or of England's various religious themed wars, the colonists were firm in removing state sponsorship from religion.

Quote:

Maybe your not

What, because I disagree with you about the historical underpinnings of the founding of the US somehow that negates my religion? You know nothing of my religious persuasion and it has nothing to do with this discussion. Nice ad hominem, though.

Quote:

Much of what you know about the United States is probably wrong.

Well, my degrees were in history and political science, and my concentrations were on the American Revolution and American Political Thought respectively, but I'm sure that's meaningless to you.

Quote:

. . .declaration of independence was signed. . .

Entire rant off topic. If you want to go blow for blow on historical trivia I assure you I'm more than capable. You were probably, for example, blissfully unaware that the first country to give a national salute to the American flag was the Netherlands. You are probably also unaware that the Netherlands used St. Eustatius as a supply point for the Revolution, and as a result of their continued tacit help in the conflict the British and Dutch fought the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War and the Netherlands lost that colony. Now, back onto the subject.

Quote:

How many of our founding fathers signed the declaration of independence? ALL of them.

Actually, that's factually incorrect. Several members of the 2nd Continental Congress did not sign the document, most prominent of them being John Dickinson:
http://www.history.army.mil/books/revwar/ss/dickinson.htm
If you're going to insist on launching into self-righteous tirades on what you think other people don't know about history you could at least be correct in your facts.

Quote:

The declaration of Independence states "They are endowed by THEIR CREATOR (Now who do you suppose that would be? and if they did not believe in God, well then suppose you tell me who put that in the declaration of independence) with certain unalienable rights.

As usual, you're advancing a strawman. Nobody is saying they weren't personally Christians. What I am saying is that they did not advance the nation on Christian principles, they advanced it on Enlightenment principles. That you cannot understand this argument evinces a need to turn off Glen Beck and open a history book. Pay particular attention to the writings of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and any authoritative work on James Madison.

But let's address the strawman for a second. Why did they use the term "their creator" and not "God?" The term God was in use at the time, I assure you, and writers of theological texts certainly used it. Our founding fathers were not folks given to rhetorical fickleness. These are people who debated whether the term inalienable or unalienable was correct. They had a very keen mind when it came to the use of language, and had they intended to say "God," believe me, the term would have been God. Instead this suggests that the founding fathers were keenly aware of the religious plurality of their nation, and rather than exclusivize the American project they were undertaking, they sought unity of purpose amongst all the inhabitants of the nation irrespective of religion.

Quote:

The American Revolution was ultimately about the right to own property.

Actually it was about defining the locus of authority in the colonies. It was about a long standing failure to resolve whether Parliament, the Crown, or the colonial authorities could determine policy for the colonies.

Quote:

John Adams, the twelfth president of the united states (right after George washington) wrote, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God (there it is again) and that there is not a force of law and public justice to to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.

[sarcasm]*gasp* You mean a prominent historical figure actually reflected on a hierarchy of his values once? Surely this means this one document is the sole underpinning of American society and no other historical thought was ever considered.[/sarcasm]

You seem hopelessly unable to extricate two concepts from one another, the first being the individual predispositions of the founding fathers, the second being the principles upon which our government is founded. Simply demonstrating that the founding fathers were Christians does not establish that they founded the nation on Christian principles. You would actually have to demonstrate that Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were writing based on Christian principles.

Quote:

Regardless of your religous views, God is mentioned many many times throughout history.

You're conflating my religious views with the historical argument here. One is not influencing the other. It's a backhanded way of saying that for casting doubt on whether or not America was founded on Christian principles I am shedding my faith. No portion of the Bible says that one of my duties as a Christian is to argue that America was founded on Christian principles. I would argue instead that your substituting attacks on a person's faith as a proxy for a better argument for your position diminishes the sanctity of your faith.

Quote:

So yes I think the founders did believe in God.

Nobody argued they didn't. You seem incapable of accepting that Christians are capable of founding something that is spiritually neutral. Christian groups founded the banking systems of Europe, and, by extension, our own banking systems. Does that mean global banking is founded on Christian principles? Because I do seem to remember portions of Christian doctrine that forbade a Christian from loaning money to another Christian at interest. That's a central tenant of banking.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Lily Starr

Evidence points that it is more than likely it is prenatal and genetic than anything.

Show me the evidence please.

It is unclear. However, evidence in Anatomy of the Brain highly suggests that it is during infant development and genetic predisposition.[1][2][3] Even the responses to different situations have differences.[4] Although the reason is unclear whether or not it is from chemicals in the womb, or in genetics.[5][6] Less evidence points to nurture due to homosexual parents having mostly heterosexual children, and heteroseuxal parents having mostly heterosexual children.[1] Having a missing parent does not result in increased homosexuality (which goes against the major theory of homosexuality that has been used for decades.)[7]


This information goes in order of use!

Quote:

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Quote:

Scientists at the Karolinska Institute studied brain scans of 90 gay and straight men and women, and found that the size of the two symmetrical halves of the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did straight men. In heterosexual women, the two halves of the brain are more or less the same size. In heterosexual men, the right hemisphere is slightly larger. Scans of the brains of gay men in the study, however, showed that their hemispheres were relatively symmetrical, like those of straight women, while the brains of homosexual women were asymmetrical like those of straight men. The number of nerves connecting the two sides of the brains of gay men were also more like the number in heterosexual women than in straight men.

Quote:

Gay men and heterosexual women had halves of a similar size, while the right side was bigger in lesbian women and heterosexual men. A UK scientist said this was evidence sexual orientation was set in the womb.

Quote:

In the Swedish study, when sniffing a chemical from testosterone, the male hormone, portions of the brains involved in sexual activity were activated in gay men and straight women, but not in straight men, the researchers found.
When they sniffed smells like cedar or lavender, all of the subjects brains reacted only in the olfactory regions that handles smells.
The result clearly shows a biological involvement in sexual orientation, said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.

Quote:

Researchers were unable to determine whether the differences in brain shape are genetic or due to exposure to environmental hormones, such as testosterone, while in the womb. The study also was unable to conclude whether the differences are responsible for sexual orientation.

Quote:

Scientists in Canada have discovered that the probability of a man being gay rises significantly according to the number of elder brothers he has, when these brothers are born of the same mother.
While the link between having older brothers and homosexuality has long been established, the new findings indicate that it is conditions within the womb before birth, and not the subsequent family environment, which are responsible for the effect.
This suggests that in at least a proportion of gay men, sexual orientation is heavily influenced by factors experienced in the womb, and not by the way they are brought up.
"These results support pre-natal origin to sexual orientation development in men," said Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in Ontario, Canada, who conducted the research.

...it reflects the way a mother’s immune system reacts to carrying male foetuses.

Quote:

Do children of lesbian and gay parents have more problems with sexual identity than do children of heterosexual parents? For instance, do these children develop problems in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior? The answer from research is clear: sexual and gender identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same way among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents.

[ 1 ]
[ 2 ]
[ 3 ]
[ 4 ]
[ 5 ]
[ 6 ]
[ 7 ]  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Lily Starr

Ok some of our founding fathers were not of the christian faith, I think there were like two. But the rest of them were. Which is why on every coin you saw the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" Up until these last coins were minted they all said that. And what does the constitution say the government can do with money?

Just because they believed that, and printed that, does not mean they believed that the government should run off of Christian morals. Each of these men belonged to different denominations (which was rare at the time, England (and many other nations) only allowed one, and persecuted those who were not part of it.) That, and the fact that In God we Trust wasn't added until decades later!

Quote:

The founders were very much of the christian faith.

My past evidence again shows why homosexuality has nothing to do with the issue of religion. Religion is not ethics, population is. If population and science coincide and say it's not, then ethically speaking it's not, therefore the governments "Freedom of Religion" gives people the right to say that we do not have to choose what people believe, and can gather together in our belief to give what we think is just what it deserves.

Quote:

Maybe your not and maybe you don't like to believe that but they were. Much of what you know about the United States is probably wrong.

Knowledge is relative. If majority believes 2+2=4 then it equals four. If Conservative-Christians want to say 2+2=5 then it can be to them, despite the fact it's wrong. Full Consensus Effect! This argument is a logical fallacy!

Quote:

You probably know, or think you know, that the declaration of independence was signed on the Fourth of July, 1776. Although we annually celebrate the birth of our country on that date, the Declaration was only approved by the continental congress on the fourth of july. The text was sent to the printer on the fourth for duplication in typeface. Approximately 200 copies were made and distributed among the colonies. Later, a calligraphy version was created and signed for the first time on August 2. That is the copy currently on display in the National Archive. This may be a mere technicality, to that I will concede. However, I'll bet that you don't even know the name of the first president of the Unted States. If your answer is George Washington, you - like so many other Americans- have an in- complete grasp of our nations history. We agree that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, even if the actual date of the signing is in dispute. However history records that George Washington didn't begin his first term as president until 1789, shortly after the constitution was ratified by the state conventions. That leaves the first 13 years of our country's leadership unaccounted for.

Red Herring. This has nothing to deal with the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage! However, those thirteen years were still run by the Continental Congress(?) (or the latter one which I forget the name of,) until a proper way to elect could be find. They did not have mass media to instantly distribute ballots. Nor did they want to, they needed to restructure their State Constitutions which didn't happen overnight!

Quote:

Did the colonies flounder aimlessly through the revolution with no one acting as the head of state? That would be very unlikely. Perhaps a document known as the Articles of Confederation will ressurect a distant memory from your casual brush with American History. The Articles of Confederation were the first "constitution" to define the scope of American government. During that time the united states (sic) chose a different president each year. The first president of the united states was a man named Samuel Huntington. nine others were elected to the position before George Washington assumed the office. In other words, George Washington is the first president of the united states under the Constitution, but he was the eleventh president of the united states. So if you said George Washington, your information wasn't completely wrong, but it wasn't completely right either. How many of our founding fathers signed the declaration of independence? ALL of them. and they fought a bloody and brutal battle, to make sure that each and every single one of us, remained free under the constitution. They also fought among themselves, with actual fist fights and long very long arduous hours to get the constitution just exactly right so that no man could ever take our freedoms and our liberties. And don't give me that bs about the constitution being old.

More Red Herring! Again, you are wrong. We were not officially the United States until the Constitution went into effect, you're "Samuel Adams" was just a president pro-tempore per se!

Quote:

You just witness the inauguration Obama and the oathe of office where he swore to defend and uphold the constitution. There is a reason for that action which i can explain to you if you like. The declaration of Independence states "They are endowed by THEIR CREATOR (Now who do you suppose that would be? and if they did not believe in God, well then suppose you tell me who put that in the declaration of independence) with certain unalienable rights.

Let us not forget that if you were not Christian back then you were persecuted. Also, let us not forget that less than a century earlier the Puritans were hanging witches. This was just a way of showing what they believed. However, they could not believe anything else. Evolution and Big Bang did not come into popularity at this point, let alone exist!

Quote:

The American Revolution was ultimately about the right to own property. John Adams, the twelfth president of the united states (right after George washington) wrote, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God (there it is again) and that there is not a force of law and public justice to to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.

What I said above. Also, The American Revolution was about "No Taxation without Representation" does the Boston Tea Party ring a bell. People were sick of being taxed by the king, and not having power in the English Parliamentary (which was also corrupted by the King.) Do a little European History and American Historical Sociology and I'm sure you might gain a higher aspect on this knowledge, it's much to complicated to explain in one post.

Quote:

Regardless of your religous views, God is mentioned many many times throughout history. So yes I think the founders did believe in God. I think they liked him too.

Again, their belief in God has nothing to deal with now. It is history. It is the past. I love God, God is my creator. However, my government has people that don't believe in God. Their oppression shouldn't rely on the same people who allowed slavery and blacks to be only worth 2/3rds of a person. Should we also reinstate slavery, because many of our founding father's were okay with that, I guess that makes it right. This is an Appeal to Authority. Again, logical fallacy!  

[Twizzle Dizzle Red]

MR. BITEMAN ! I see you say you have "degrees". I though take my learning from people like yourself, who interpret their way of thinking on history as most people do.

One difference is, most of this stuff, not all of it, but most of it, was taken from a book called "It's good to be King" written by Mr. Michael Badnarik who is a CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERT and with whom I have talked with on the phone. He has been studying the constitution for about 30 years now. He is a "father" of the constituion, and he teaches it all over the country. Now. If you think you have your facts correct I will glady let him set you straight. I have his web address and his home phone number. Maybe you then will get your own fire of liberty lit.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Lily Starr

MR. BITEMAN ! I see you say you have "degrees". I though take my learning from people like yourself, who interpret their way of thinking on history as most people do.

One difference is, most of this stuff, not all of it, but most of it, was taken from a book called "It's good to be King" written by Mr. Michael Badnarik who is a CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERT and with whom I have talked with on the phone. He has been studying the constitution for about 30 years now. He is a "father" of the constituion, and he teaches it all over the country. Now. If you think you have your facts correct I will glady let him set you straight. I have his web address and his home phone number. Maybe you then will get your own fire of liberty lit.

Mr. Badnarik, you mean the same guy that believes only the rich should get education

Quote:

Education: Badnarik supports the elimination of the federal Department of Education, claiming that it is both unconstitutional and ineffective. Badnarik has called for the privatization of education, which he believes would result in both more effective and affordable alternatives due to free market competition.

You're also talking about the same guy that is saying that GAY MARRIAGE -- the topic of this conversation which you keep going off track with --

Quote:

Gay marriage and Civil Unions: Badnarik believes that marriage, as a contract between two individuals, should not be a government concern and supports the right of individuals to associate in whatever ways they see fit.

What you're saying opposes his belief. He says government and religion have nothing to do with eachother, yet you are saying he is stating all these facts about the Christian Foundation.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

One difference is, most of this stuff, not all of it, but most of it, was taken from a book called "It's good to be King" written by Mr. Michael Badnarik who is a CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERT and with whom I have talked with on the phone.

You might think I'm wowed by star power but I'm really not. You hobnobbed over the phone with the Libertarians sacrificial lamb for 2004. Lovely. I'm neither impressed nor intimidated. If I can go toe to toe with Michael E. Rosman of the Center for Individual Rights and walk away scoring a rhetorical point (not going to say I won, the man is a brilliant attorney) then you can throw Badnarik at me all you want. He's not as physically large as Sergei Federov, not as prestigious as Robert Bork, and his voice isn't as sweet as George Benson's. If I can be amongst them without getting dwarfed, Badnarik doesn't back me down. Nor, for that matter, does the fact that you talk to him. I don't know why you talk to him. There could be any number of reasons. You seem to be tacitly invoking that you are some sort of hand-picked apprentice who is key to some inner truth. For all I know the guy might talk to you because he met you once and thinks you have a nice a**. That you have his phone number impresses me not. If I dig through my paperwork I can get you the number of Ted Olson the former solicitor general of the US, and the number for Dr. Ray Klebesadel who discovered gamma ray bursts. Again, all sorts of reasons you end up with a famous person's number. Having their numbers doesn't make me an expert on law or cosmological phenomena, nor does having Badnarik's number make you an expert on the US Constitution.

Aside from which, as Mouse said, Banarik, as a Libertarian, FAVORS gay marriage! He's also pro-choice! You couldn't have picked a worse guy to highlight your point. Maybe next time you should hit up Michael Peroutka for his number.  

[The Hallowed Mouse]

Rainbowfied Mouse

Just because they believed that, and printed that, does not mean they believed that the government should run off of Christian morals. Each of these men belonged to different denominations (which was rare at the time, England (and many other nations) only allowed one, and persecuted those who were not part of it.) That, and the fact that In God we Trust wasn't added until decades later!

Going by what you said in the past, majority rules right? So if majority says it's a sin, then it is! Majority rules, right?

Quote:

My past evidence again shows why homosexuality has nothing to do with the issue of religion. Religion is not ethics, population is. If population and science coincide and say it's not, then ethically speaking it's not, therefore the governments "Freedom of Religion" gives people the right to say that we do not have to choose what people believe, and can gather together in our belief to give what we think is just what it deserves.

But if a majority is Christian, and a majority believes it's wrong, than it would be anti-democratic for us to just leave out something that we stand for.

Quote:

Knowledge is relative. If majority believes 2+2=4 then it equals four. If Conservative-Christians want to say 2+2=5 then it can be to them, despite the fact it's wrong. Full Consensus Effect! This argument is a logical fallacy!

And majority says it's wrong right now!

Quote:

Let us not forget that if you were not Christian back then you were persecuted. Also, let us not forget that less than a century earlier the Puritans were hanging witches. This was just a way of showing what they believed. However, they could not believe anything else. Evolution and Big Bang did not come into popularity at this point, let alone exist!

Let us also not forget then that the party that supports gay marriage [democrats] once upon a time supported slavery! Our past says nothing to the present!

Quote:

Again, their belief in God has nothing to deal with now. It is history. It is the past. I love God, God is my creator. However, my government has people that don't believe in God. Their oppression shouldn't rely on the same people who allowed slavery and blacks to be only worth 2/3rds of a person. Should we also reinstate slavery, because many of our founding father's were okay with that, I guess that makes it right. This is an Appeal to Authority. Again, logical fallacy!

Again, if a majority believe in Christianity, and knowledge is relative to majority, as you previously claimed, then it's not wrong to say it should be illegal!  

[Lord Bitememan]

Ah, the other rodent graces us with his presence. Nice jogging suit. I trust these past few months have been good to you?

Quote:

Going by what you said in the past, majority rules right? So if majority says it's a sin, then it is! Majority rules, right?

Sin is immaterial in a policy debate. We do not live in a theocracy. That which is sinful is not, by extension, illegal. Otherwise, we would have laws against adultery and half our politicians and even preachers would be locked up.

Quote:

But if a majority is Christian, and a majority believes it's wrong, than it would be anti-democratic for us to just leave out something that we stand for.

Which speaks to the heart of several matters. First, is it proper to legislate religious morality? The idea was that we would keep politics and the pulpit separate. I, for one, don't care to hear my priest lecture me on the immorality of the IDF's actions against Palestinians. I certainly, by extension, don't care to hear policymakers tell me I need to be a better Catholic. Aside from which, compulsion into moral lifestyles does one no spiritual service. One does not choose the moral lifestyle, he does it at the end of a sword point. God measures choices, not outcomes.

Secondly, where is our spirit of fair play? Certainly heterosexuals have no claim to a sanctity of marriage when our nation boasts a 50% divorce rate. Where is the sanctity in "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" or in a 90 year old billionaire who marries a stripper? It's simply petty and mean-spirited to exclude others from marriage on the same grounds that heterosexuals have long since trashed with impunity. As Jesus said, let's remove the plank from our own eyes first. Let's clean up heterosexual marriage. And, should we happen to allow same sex marriages, perhaps we serve a greater purpose providing a model for moral marriage that same sex couples can aspire to attain rather than the comfort of stamping it out and ignoring the problem.

Lastly, I will not dismiss the issue of popular consent. Too often I feel that proponents of same sex unions ignore the need for social consent. The courts are the wrong avenue to force social change. Change should come from society, not oligarchs. In as much, I feel that proponents of same sex marriage should devote more efforts to winning hearts and minds and changing the opinions of society. These same proponents point to court decisions like Brown v. Board while ignoring an important additional fact, segregation persisted for 10 years after that decision. It took the civil rights marches of Dr. King and broad changes in society's attitudes before segregation was eventually pushed out.

Quote:

Let us also not forget then that the party that supports gay marriage [democrats] once upon a time supported slavery! Our past says nothing to the present!

Wouldn't that negate the idea that thousands of years of marital "tradition" has no bearing on the wisdom of current policy?

Quote:

Again, if a majority believe in Christianity, and knowledge is relative to majority, as you previously claimed, then it's not wrong to say it should be illegal!

Much like a 90% tax on the top 10% of earners would be fine and dandy, since I'm certain the lower 90% of earners would have no objection to that. Right?  

[TammiGirl]

All marriage is wrong. Why give up all the fun? But if you absolutely must, yeah, let the gays in on it too.  

[The Healthy Cigarette]

This is a christian based nation. We need to keep our laws christian based.  

[Lord Bitememan]

The Healthy Cigarette

This is a christian based nation. We need to keep our laws christian based.

Quote:

Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 4:49 pm
Quote:
Our nation was founded on christian values and morals the bible teaches.


It was not. Our Constitution was designed based on the principles of an English economist who postulated on how a society ought to best be structured in the context of social contract theory. Social contract theory, in the understanding of the colonies, was a mish-mash of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, both of whom wrote about the purposes for which man forms society and the tradeoffs that occur to sustain it.

 

[The Healthy Cigarette]

Lord Bitememan

The Healthy Cigarette

This is a christian based nation. We need to keep our laws christian based.

Quote:

Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 4:49 pm
Quote:
Our nation was founded on christian values and morals the bible teaches.


It was not. Our Constitution was designed based on the principles of an English economist who postulated on how a society ought to best be structured in the context of social contract theory. Social contract theory, in the understanding of the colonies, was a mish-mash of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, both of whom wrote about the purposes for which man forms society and the tradeoffs that occur to sustain it.

Righty ho!  

[Pumona]

I completly think gays should not be allowd to marry in a church or outside. The bible says between a man and a women not the same sex. Like someone else said if we allow this then there will be other issues that come up (incest and animals). You can say all you want about that not happening but, it will. I also do not believe kids should be brought into this situation. I do not have an issue if a same sex couple want to be together as long as there are no kids, they do not have the same rights as married couples and I do not want to see them together.