Defining Marriage In The Constitution

[roid]

they might just look like the same gender? That is profoundly idiotic. You're really reaching. ... in the cases you speak of, if they exist

It would be worth your time to do some research on the topic. Genetic conditions that lead to confused gender are well documented in the medical and scientific literature. It's not a matter of opinion. It's not a matter of debate. It's a documented, indisputable fact...

Questioning whether conditions such as hermaphrodism and AIS exist seriously undermines your position.

dude, you're attempting to argue with a YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST. What else do you expect
Peer reviewed Science is a conspiracy of Satan!

[Sergeant Thorne]

Unless you are just saying that these unusual cases ARE anomalies, and don't relate directly to how we deal with homosexuality in the common population.

That's essentially what I'm saying, yes. I'm suggesting that if these things have an unnatural cause, they have no bearing on standards or the norm.

Again, I agree with you that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior. And in the majority of cases, it's pretty clear what is homosexual behavior and what is not. But we do NOT help things by pretending that it never gets complicated. Rather we encourage the other side to dismiss our arguments entirely, since they can tell that one part of our argument is patently false.

I agree with you there. And while I try not to let my argument be directed by a drive toward "winning", I do believe it is valid to recognize and avoid methods of argument that are not reasonable. It's a little bit difficult for me (us?). I argue from a position of strong feeling and conviction (and sometimes shocked disbelief), but I do recognize that I need to be careful that my arguments themselves are completely honest, while I believe my goal is the truth.

So point taken, Kilarin. However, for me it's not a matter of just wanting to say that this doesn't exist because I don't like it. Although I don't, I'm not the kind of person to persist in denying reality. It's merely the secular interpretation of the facts that I distrust, and so I am very suspicious of the claims in regard to this AIS, etc.

"If it exists" was actually just dumb/cryptic communication. My thought was, if it exists as you claim, or as you present it.

What annoys me, is that Roid attempts to use these issues as a tool to effectively block my ability to judge in regard to homosexuality. So never mind my stand on the issue, I can't be against it, because I can't be sure. My reaction is, just to be on the safe side, screw your little exceptions. Why don't *YOU* go find out how to prove which gender they're supposed to be, Roid, instead of trying to side-line my convictions with your bull**** scenarios.

Are you willing to address the AIS case I brought up? *I'M NOT*. I admit that I don't have any idea what the proper Biblical answer is for someone who was born with XY chromosomes and female genitalia. ESPECIALLY considering that they might never have known of their condition in any previous age.

The only immediate answer that I have is the fall of humanity and people's separation from the life of God. Personally, I would look through the family tree for a more specific answer first.

<edit>
I want to add a <link> here. Just to make the issue concrete.
Is Katie Baratz male or female? Read the brief interview. Gender issues can be complicated.

I think it's obvious that she's female. Now someone could grow up like that, at some point become a male-role lesbian, and then be able to claim that they were really a male all along. But in that instance it wouldn't be true.

Miss Baratz herself claims that "Intersex ... is a medical condition. ... and has very little correlation with sexual orientation."

Reading that article gives me a very different idea that the replies in this topic have.

[Sergeant Thorne]

dude, you're attempting to argue with a YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST. What else do you expect
Peer reviewed Science is a conspiracy of Satan!

Peer reviewed Science is very good. But when all involved assume a world without a creator, they're operating--interpreting and inferring--from a biased view-point that is guaranteed to run contrary to the world-view that I hold, no matter the nature of the facts. The whole premise to secular science is to fit the facts to a naturalistic system. After all science is science, and religion is religion... right? I think that's a very important truth, and one that no-one seems to understand. I know I didn't. I used to think science=fact, so it bothered me when people said that science disproved the Bible. I knew it wasn't true, but I didn't know why, so my tendency was to disregard science. Naturalistic science is destined to clash with the Bible. The facts, on the other hand, are strongly in support of the Bible, and opposed to a naturalistic explanation of origin and everything since.

[roid]

i don't consider predudice to be on the \"safe side\". Safe for you maybe, but how do you think it effects all the people you are talking ★■◆● about. If you were the target of this predudice you would not consider it \"ok\".

You are being actively aggressive against these people - you are essentially shooting first just to be on the safe side.
How would you feel if you were on the other side? What if YOU were born with an intersex condition and you wern't sure of your own gender in the eyes of God - and had to deal with people telling you what a disgusting person you are.

It's all good and well for you to write these people off - accuse them of being so sick and depraved. But these are REAL PEOPLE man, they are real people just like you. It's no fun to have to live in the gaps between people's intolerances.

What's the golden rule man? What did Jesus say was the greatest commandment? \"The greatest of these is love\".



Intersex conditions do actually have a lot to do with sexual orientation (AIS perhaps less) - just in howto define it. Baratz is very lucky because she \"passes female\" her whole life mentally and physically, she never really had to question this - it was always obvious to her, she always just knew she was a girl. But not all intersex conditions are so easy. It has a lot to do with sexual orientation because afterall - if you can't tell if you are a boy or a girl, how can you choose a heterosexually appropriate sexual/marriage partner?

I know one person on another forum, who grew up as a kid thinking he was a normal male but always felt a slight unease about it. But he was just a kid, and probabaly just thought it was normal. He was always a very male kid, very boysterous and physical. Then puberty hit. Holy ★■◆● wtf is going on. He grew breasts, his hips widened. Wtf? Turns out he had an intersex condition in his genes the whole time but it didn't manifest fully until puberty. When he thinks about it though - it kindof WAS manifest his whole childhood. His pre-puberty unease about his gender caused him to overcompensate and act even more masculine - afterall we all know what happens to sissy feminine boys. \"filthy queers, they make me sick\" right Thorne?
(Compare to tomboy girls - who are accepted quite well in our society)

She's now in her 30s, and her gender identity switches around a bit - she primarily identifies as a tomboy female - but says that her feminine and masculine mental traits/feelings come and go (for instance, atm she's rather feminine). She jokes about her tits a lot . She's always been heavily into cars, and is a racecar driver. See her in the street and you'd think she was a large girl - her voice is kinda inbetween too and can go either way (her local friends/family like to point out when it changes - sometimes in mid conversation).

Btw, she's bi - honestly can you blame her.

These are real people man. Facinating, friendly people who have had no choice but to \"make do with what God gave them\". And you're talking ★■◆● about them as if you can judge them - \"just to be safe\". You don't even know them.
You are talking ★■◆● about my friends.

It could be your daughter

[WillyP]

You are being actively aggressive against these people - you are essentially shooting first just to be on the safe side.
How would you feel if you were on the other side? What if YOU were born with an intersex condition and you wern't sure of your own gender in the eyes of God - and had to deal with people telling you what a disgusting person you are.

Who says he's not? All this rage against homosexuals and anyone who does fit his own stereotypical norms has to kinda make you wonder...

[Flabby Chick]

Homosexuality and abortion. It's the only thing that pisses you Americans off. Step out the friggin' box guys!

[Testiculese]

Christian Anericans, Flabby, don't lump me in with those nutballs!

[Kilarin]

The only immediate answer that I have is the fall of humanity and people's separation from the life of God. Personally, I would look through the family tree for a more specific answer first.

You still seem very intent on finding someone to blame. "who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" Like you said, it goes back to Adam and Eve and we live in a world where bad things happen to good people. The WHY is only important in an attempt to prevent the problem from occurring again.

I think it's obvious that she's female. Now someone could grow up like that, at some point become a male-role lesbian, and then be able to claim that they were really a male all along. But in that instance it wouldn't be true.

Ah, now then, you've made the decision that Miss Baratz is female. We need to determine on what basis you made that decision:

Social Identity: She is female because she was raised female
Hormonal Identity: She is female because her body responds primarily to female hormones
What's in the Panties Identity: She is female because she has female genitalia
Appearance Identity: She is female because her external appearance seems female.

And, of course, you have rejected:
Genetic Identity: She is male because she has XY chromosomes.
(By the way, do you feel that a Christian who said Miss Baratz was male because she had XY chromosomes would be violating any Biblical principles?)

Your answer to WHY Miss Baratz is female is VERY important. You see, through a long and circuitous route, we have arrived right back on topic. Because if you pass the "Defense of Marriage" act, people like Miss Baratz and roid's friend are going to want to know if they can get married, and if so, to whom?. And the government will HAVE to have a very rigid definition of male and female in order to determine who does and who does not qualify for marriage under the new law.

Now, obviously, you want Miss Baratz to qualify so that she could marry a male. But by whatever ruling you determine she is female, you open a loophole that will almost certainly include people you didn't want to include. For example, if you go with the "What's in the Panties" approach, you will inevitably get people who have been through sex change surgery claiming the right to get married to someone who matches their chromosomes. Similar problems with the "Hormonal" approach. etc. etc. And so forth.

The problem is, that the government is no good at making these kinds of decisions. And by adding a "Defense of Marriage" act attempting to rigidly define marriage, the likely end result will be yet ANOTHER lowering of the standards around marriage. And this time that lowering will be written solidly into law.

The SAFEST choice for EVERYONE is to leave the government OUT of these kinds of decisions entirely. EVERYONE gets a simple contractual civil union that deals with property right etc. The things the government understands. And beyond that, the definition of marriage is up to churches, social clubs, or individuals.

Homosexuality and abortion. It's the only thing that pisses you Americans off.

Christian Anericans, Flabby, don't lump me in with those nutballs!

I'm a Christian American, and I'll have you know, I get ticked off by LOTS more things than that!

[Foil]

Your answer to WHY Miss Baratz is female is VERY important. You see, through a long and circuitous route, we have arrived right back on topic. Because if you pass the "Defense of Marriage" act... the government will HAVE to have a very rigid definition of male and female in order to determine who does and who does not qualify for marriage under the new law.

The problem is, that the government is no good at making these kinds of decisions. And by adding a "Defense of Marriage" act attempting to rigidly define marriage, the likely end result will be yet ANOTHER lowering of the standards around marriage.

Ah, finally back on topic!

Kilarin is completely right. By passing that law, we would be putting the government in charge of an ethical position... and that's a scary thought.

[WillyP]

So, if government gets out of the marrige biz, who marries people? The church? If so, who decides what constitutes a church? And what about those who refrain from church membership?

[Testiculese]

Then it goes back to what it should be. Religion marries people. The religion constitutes the church. If that religion supports marriage, then there you go.

For those that don't belong to a church/religion, you don't marry, you just live together. You make a personal, private commitment to your spouse, and that's all that really matters.

[WillyP]

So could I make a church of, say, Homosexualists and marry gays? If you say 'it has to be a real religon', then I say, who determines what is allowed to be a religon?

[Spidey]

CONGRATULATIONS:

You guys have managed to successfully obfuscate this discussion, and without even making one single point for your side of the argument.

As a matter of fact just the opposite, I was originally on the fence with regards to defining marriage, but now I am convinced that it might not be a bad idea after all. And we might as well define Male & Female while we are at it, just to avoid any confusion.

Nice job.

Marriage & The State ( I was going to start a new thread with this but I’ll just drop it in here instead)

A few questions for those who advocate taking control & sanctioning of marriage from the state*.

1. How would a non religious couple get married?
2. How would this affect the legal status of marriage?
3. How does this help gays get married?
4. Would all religions recognize each others marriages?
5. What would happen to a persons marriage if they got married by a religion that the state doesn’t recognize?

Among others…but I’ll limit it to these.

JFTR Religions never owned marriage in the first place.

[Foil]

So could I make a church of, say, Homosexualists and marry gays? If you say 'it has to be a real religon', then I say, who determines what is allowed to be a religon?

The government should be out of the business of marriage, and it should also be out of the business of trying to determine what is a "real religion".

The extent of the government's involvement should be determining legal status for couples.

[Foil]

A few questions for those who advocate taking control & sanctioning of marriage from the state*.

1. How would a non religious couple get married?
2. How would this affect the legal status of marriage?
3. How does this help gays get married?
4. Would all religions recognize each others marriages?
5. What would happen to a persons marriage if they got married by a religion that the state doesn’t recognize?

You misunderstand, Spidey.

We're not talking about taking the legal administration of "marriage" away from the government, or giving religious organizations the power to manage "marriage" status. As you implied, that would be ridiculous.

This is about making sure the legal status of marriage (which should be handled by the government) are kept separate from the ethical implications (which falls under the arena of religious belief systems). This "Defense of Marriage" proposal actually pulls moral authority away from the church, where it belongs.

[Spidey]

Well I’m not sure all of you guys agree on that.

[Spidey]

Let me see if I understand this…

1. The church has the moral authority.
2. The State has the legal authority.

And there is no overlap?

So the state has no right to base laws on morality?

EDIT:

Quite frankly. I don’t see the church having any authority over anything, that includes marriage, morality or anything else for that matter.

The church has moral authority…over who…me? I don’t think so.

If you ask me it’s the government that has all the authority, moral or otherwise.

But that’s just my opinion.

[WillyP]

So could I make a church of, say, Homosexualists and marry gays? If you say 'it has to be a real religon', then I say, who determines what is allowed to be a religon?

The government should be out of the business of marriage, and it should also be out of the business of trying to determine what is a "real religion".

The extent of the government's involvement should be determining legal status for couples.

So... any crackpot could claim to have a church and marry up some hos?

[TIGERassault]

I see no reason to separate marriage into a state form and a religious form. Because, well, the church DOESN'T control marriage at all at the moment (I'd count this whole gay marriage debate as public opinion), and I can't see where people here keep getting the impression that they do. Sure, in practice, they should because it was religions that started marriage before politics, but in reality they don't have any control over it now.

[Testiculese]

Most everyone's claim here is that the government IS taking too much control of religion, Tiger. But actually, the church has almost full control of it still. The Christian church has overstepped it's authority via church members in politics. They don't understand that they have no right to regulate marriage outside their own religious sphere, so they're trying to put their religious definition into law. Government should not have laws that have bias for *any* religious sphere, it should exist outside of them all.

Quite frankly. I don’t see the church having any authority over anything, that includes marriage, morality or anything else for that matter.

The church has moral authority…over who…me? I don’t think so.

Except for above, the church only has authority over the people that sign up for it...or if it has an army!

So... any crackpot could claim to have a church and marry up some hos?

Scientology exists, right? You can claim whatever you want!

golden plates
stone tablets
sacred cow
magical horse
Xenu

[Spidey]

Here is a quote from a website…I would put the link in here but why waste my time, nobody clicks on links anyway. (prolly because it might shatter their preconceptions)

\"Some people call me a hypocrite for being married at all, they seem to have swallowed the Church's propaganda that marriage is the invention of God. This idea is nonsense. Marriage was common if not universal throughout Europe, North Africa and the Middle East centuries before the Hebrews or Christians made any impression on the world stage. The Egyptians, Greeks and Roman classical civilizations all had notions of marriage and weddings long before they had any dealings with the ancient Hebrews, who were of course very much into polygamous marriages, courtesans and masters taking sexual advantage of their female slaves so hardly the greatest advertisements for Yahweh's monopoly on morality, monogamy and concerns with sexual abstinence and propriety.\"

[Ford Prefect]

Let me see if I understand this…

1. The church has the moral authority.
2. The State has the legal authority.

And there is no overlap?

So the state has no right to base laws on morality?

You have most of that right but the last line is a bit messed up. The State can base laws on whatever it pleases. The discussion here asks if The State should regulate marriage to exclude homosexuals. Some people think (I agree) that The State should not regulate marriage at all but restrict it's role to defining the legal status of a relationship (Who gets the house when you break up, who is eligible to collect survival benefits on the pension, etc.)
So it may be immoral to live together as a couple without being married but it is not illegal. The State can never make it moral, they can only make it a recognized legal relationship.
If you define marriage in moral terms you should, in my view, take the responsibility for it away from The State. So if you want to get married you go to a church. Any church, Christian, Buddhist, nutjob or whatever it's up to you. If you want to register your relationship legally you go to The State.

[Spidey]

You just can’t get over that “Religion owns marriage” thing. Way to much of your reasoning is based on a false assumption.

[Kilarin]

So, if government gets out of the marrige biz, who marries people? The church? If so, who decides what constitutes a church? And what about those who refrain from church membership?

Foil summed it up well. The only thing the government should be interested in is a CONTRACT about property rights, rights of inheritance, etc, and the terms under which that contract can be broken. They can call it a civil union, or whatever they want. Anyone who wishes can enter into such a contract.

The government would no longer be interested in whether you were married in a church or not. If two guys want to get a civil union, the justice of the peace will be happy to notarize and sign the paperwork. But the Baptist church isn't going to recognize it as a marriage. The Episcopalian church almost certainly would.

It leaves the government in charge of property rights, which they can only barely handle, and leaves the government completely out of the ethical and moral questions that they can't even BEGIN to handle.

So... any crackpot could claim to have a church and marry up some hos?

They don't even need to claim to be a church. Just go to a justice of the peace and get a civil union contract.

Well I'm not sure all of you guys agree on that.

I seriously doubt if we all do, but several of us agree that separating the legal from the moral aspect would be the best.

You just can't get over that Religion owns marriage thing. Way to much of your reasoning is based on a false assumption.

It's really NOT about religion owning marriage, Ford Prefect summed it up very nicely. It's about stopping the state from trying to force religious decisions upon other people. Should marriages be polygamous or monogamous. Should gays get married? Can a divorced woman get remarried? These are NOT questions for the state!!!

The state should deal with morality only on the most basic level. Don't hurt anyone else. Going beyond that harms everyone. Or, to quote one of the founding fathers:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. - Thomas Jefferson

Quite frankly. I don't see the church having any authority over anything, that includes marriage, morality or anything else for that matter.

And this is exactly the reason we need the government to stay out of the religious side of marriage. The Catholic church recognizes church authority in one way, protestant churches in other ways, and many don't recognize it at all. So just don't have the government mess with those decisions. Property rights. Contracts. They have enough trouble handling those simple concepts. Every time they try to stretch beyond that it causes harm.

[Spidey]

Well I still think people are using 2 basic misconceptions to base their reasoning on.

1. The separation of church and state…nowhere in the constitution does it state that the government can’t base laws on morality derived from religious beliefs…the laws against prostitution prove this.

2. The assumption that marriage is somehow the sole Province of religion.

[Ford Prefect]

Spidey: Look at my post.

The State can base laws on whatever it pleases.

That takes care of #1.

Marriage vs legally joined. Do you want to make a difference? Perhaps to you we are splitting hairs or arguing semantics but for better or worse you are arguing against those of us that feel there is a difference between the two and that as I said:

... it may be immoral to live together as a couple without being married but it is not illegal. The State can never make it moral, they can only make it a recognized legal relationship.

In our society it is fairly common for people to enter into a personal/sexual relationship while co-habiting. It is not \"marriage\". It is by the judgement of most Christian churches immoral. The State however recognizes it legally as a \"common law\" relationship.
Do you want the state to make such relationships illegal? Probably not. Do you think The State should recognize these relationships as creating legal encumbrances upon the participants? That's what we are talking about.
So that takes care of #2

[Spidey]

Ok fine…

Lets forget about the government, marriage and gay rights for a minute, and let me ask one simple question.

Does a society have a right to set its social norms, values and morals?

Like in court, a simple yes or no will do.

[Ford Prefect]

The answer would have to be yes.

I also understand where you are coming from on the \"religion does not have a corner on marriage\" thing.
There have been expected social norms throughout human social history. There was no church that ensured native American Indians were married but they formed recognized and sanctioned permanent couples none the less.
But then if there was a village that had an Alpha Hunter, Alpha warrior, Alpha farmer, Alpha Leader (might be the warrior) and a Shaman. Who would declare a couple \"married\"? Probably the Shaman right? It is just the way humans work. Children were the most important commodity of early human social groups. A woman always knows and protects her children but you need a mechanism for males to recognize their children for maximum protective instincts to be brought out.
We should be moving past that now. That is why I feel we need to get past the need to have the Shaman shake his rattle over the bride to ensure she births many children.

[TIGERassault]

And I still don't friggin' know where people keep getting the impression that there's some sort of religious moral side to marriage. There's not! Getting married doesn't require a religion, a ceremony, or even the couple being in love: it's just commonly recognised as a strong bond between two people that the state uses as a convenient way to class individuals as a family with less paperwork.

[Spidey]

That’s a crude way of putting it, but I basically agree

[Sergeant Thorne]

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. - Thomas Jefferson

That's a good point, and a good statement. I have two reasons that marriage should be officially recognized as a union between a man and a women, in light of that.

1) It does damage to the life of an otherwise ordinary child to see homosexuality presented as acceptable, and even encouraged. That child, if he pursues that "choice", will be condemned to an unproductive, unhappy, unfulfilling life. Never mind the diseases that have come about through homosexual activity. They will die without having any children of their own. No family. When compared with the alternative, that is injury, and it injures more than just the individual, it injures their family.

2) Judgment.

as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;

If you think that's preposterous, there have been archaeological discoveries evidencing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as described in the Bible.

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm
http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/sodomfound.htm

[roid]

hahaha no

[Ford Prefect]

Whoa!! LOL Sorry Sgt. Thorne but you just Jumped the Shark and exposed your real agenda. You want to impose your personal view of morality, a view dictated to you by your personal religious faith, on the rest of the nation you live in.
Good luck with that but remember once the president is set a time may come when the majority may disagree with you and you will be forced to kowtow to them.

[Spidey]

And that’s the beauty of a democracy.

[Ford Prefect]

Yes, it's the beauty and one of the problems.
J.S. Mill has an excellent essay on the \"tyranny of the majority\" and it's negative effect on liberty.
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm

Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism. — On Liberty J.S. Mill

[Spidey]

O God forbid I should click on that link…it might contain information that contradicts my personal opinion.

You make a good argument, but I still think you should get married for a greater cause than personal happiness. But that’s just my opinion.

So let gays get married for their own selfish reasons…and let them end up divorced like everyone else who does.

BTW there is always the other side of the story…

http://joeclarke.net/2005/09/minority-r ... otect.html

(The views expressed on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of the poster)

Caveat: Posted only to show that there is always another side to every problem.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Whoa!! LOL Sorry Sgt. Thorne but you just Jumped the Shark and exposed your real agenda. You want to impose your personal view of morality, a view dictated to you by your personal religious faith, on the rest of the nation you live in.

Did you tell your chemistry teacher that he just wanted to impose his personal view of morality on you when he told you that it was dangerous to touch Sulfuric Acid? Don't be such an idiot. I will argue for these morals, in hopes that other people will see the reason/logic and benefit of them and accept them. I just "exposed" a few of my reasons for being against the official sanctioning of homosexuality. The reasons are, in short, that it's unnatural and harmful. I don't want to "impose" Christianity on anyone, but I stand firmly on my convictions. I'm not a budding religious dictator, I'm a patriot. This lack of basic morality will lead to this country's downfall, and will harm many people in the process, I'm sure of it. The fact that intimate association is to be between a man and a women is not my personal view of morality, it is the morality that common sense (gone byebye) agrees with, that history agrees with, that biology agrees with, that life itself agrees with! It's a fact that even homosexual couples bear witness to, in that there is a masculine and a feminine partner. The evidence against homosexuality is absolutely staggering. The acceptance of homosexuality does harm to the lives of young people, who are impressionable and inexperienced; to the acceptor's faculties of reason; to the integrity of educational institutions; and finally to the morality of our country as a whole. I would venture to state that the morality of our country is directly linked to the survival of our country, which is another view supported by history. And just as Benjamin Franklin so eloquently stated that "it is inconceivable that a nation could rise without His aid", speaking of God, I would say that it is unfounded that a nation can survive long that casts morality aside. It is my personal opinion that our country could be lost through stupidity alone, aside from the judgment of God, if it sees fit to accept such twisted views.

I do want everyone to agree with this. I also want everyone to be a Christian. But there is the little matter of free will. Something I would no more violate than God does. You can't force a person to believe something, and you shouldn't try.

You folks that try to portray me as taking my cues from a book without thought or consideration are either very stupid, purposefully ignorant, or new to this board.

and you will be forced to kowtow to them.

Kowtow? Suffice to say, you don't know me at all.

[Ford Prefect]

Suffice it to say that I understand your position and disagree almost completely.

And that's okay, I disagree almost completely with my brother-in-law who is a vice-president of Focus On The Family. We still enjoy playing board games at family gettogethers and we admire each others children.
There is room for all opinions and even most world views. He raises his family down in Colorado I raise mine here in Canada and it all works out just fine.


BTW not all same sex couples play Mommy/Daddy, butch/fem. or mistress/submissive. There are more variations than it will do you good to think of.
Edit: Added the \"do\" to the last sentence. I need a proof reader.

[Kilarin]

It does damage to the life of an otherwise ordinary child to see homosexuality presented as acceptable, and even encouraged.

I don't disagree with you. But lets go down this road a bit further. Unfortunately, this next statement is going to offend some folks here. I do not MEAN to offend them, but I think I need to say this to make this vitally important point. I'm also a conservative Christian, and therefore, I think it is far MORE damaging for a child to be raised in a home that is actively antagonistic to Christianity as a whole, then to be raised in a home by parents who are homosexuals, but are also trying to be Christians.

If it is ok for the government to "protect" children from the damage of being taught that homosexuality is not harmful, certainly it would be even BETTER for the government to prevent any home that is not solidly Christian from having children, right?

You can't enforce the one rule without it sliding into the next. And, let me be absolutely clear here, I think that any attempt to enforce Christianity by government like this is not only un-American, but un-Christian. It damages the cause of freedom, AND it damages the cause of Christianity.

2) Judgment. ...
<Sodom and Gomorrah references>...
If you think that's preposterous, there have been archaeological discoveries evidencing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as described in the Bible.

I absolutely believe that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God. But are you saying what I think you are saying here? That Biblical judgment upon an act is sufficient reason to have our government take actions in line with that judgment? Well, actually, the argument seems to be that teaching children anything that the Bible condemns is harmful to those children, and therefore should be prevented by law.
IF that's what you are saying, then your stance seems to be that you want the USA to abandon all concept of religious freedom and become a theocracy. I hope I'm misunderstanding here, (and I misunderstand a LOT, so it's not unlikely) please correct me if I'm wrong. Because that seems to be in direct contradiction with your later statement of:

You can't force a person to believe something, and you shouldn't try.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Here's the key to understanding what I'm saying, Kilarin:

I steadfastly maintain that pro-homosexuality is not a matter of personal liberty. People can call what's abnormal normal, and what's wrong right within the confines of their own home and lives, but when they take it public and try to push their twisted ideas on me and on my country, I will not pull any punches by playing according to the rules they've set. Being a homo is a matter of personal liberty, but try to make me or my kids believe that it's O.K., and you've stepped into the arena. They are in the arena. The amendment for the defining of marriage as between a man and a woman is a response to that, not an attack on personal liberty. It's not a license to force homos to change their behavior in their personal lives, it's yanking the definition back out of their devious hands and setting it up for all to see.

But you, Kilarin, Foil, and whoever else, not recognizing the situation, and accepting the lie of \"individual freedom\", are handing the issue over without a fight. You fail to see that it's not a victory for freedom, it's just a loss for your side. You've been suckered.

Please understand that I'm more for the concept of publicly defining marriage than necessarily doing it specifically via a constitutional amendment.