equal rights?

TY Froggie. I have found that too many christians have no clue abouttheir own faith.

When I was a practicing pagan, I used to laugh that I had to educate many christians about their own faith while they were bashing mine.

I am glad someone else here knows that Sodom was about the hospitality shown, rather than sexual acts.

No problem, I read a GREAT book on the subject about 10 years ago and it so impressed me I hand out copies to those who need an education on the subject matter..."What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D.

And good morning Sol!
 
I can't answer for Sol but most people in favor of Sodomite Marraige are opposed to your solution because of this statement in your post: "conservative Christians get what they want." We can't have that, can we?

I have to confess this is the first time I've heard the term "sodomite marriage"

I guess I'm curious, what about heterosexual sodomy? Should couples practicing this - and there's plenty of it - be denied a marriage license?
 
Exactly, and that has been my point all along, this isn't about gay people gaining rights or benefits, it's about slapping religion in the face and making a mockery of a fundamental religious institution. If they wanted to "solve the problem" it could be easily done, through comprehensive civil unions legislation, and most Americans would go along with that, Christians included. It's not about "solving the problem" at all, they want the problem, they want the issue, because they see it as a way to attack fundamental religious beliefs in this country.

Absolutely wrong. You WANT it to be about everyone attacking christians. But its about not allowing fundamentalist christians to have their cake and eat it too.

They want all their rights protected, but they don't want to allow a separation of church & state.

They want the government to be unable to tax a church, but they want the church to be a powerful political force.

They want the government to leave the church alone, but they want they church to be able to dictate laws based SOLELY on THEIR beliefs.
 
No problem, I read a GREAT book on the subject about 10 years ago and it so impressed me I hand out copies to those who need an education on the subject matter..."What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D.

And good morning Sol!

My oldest son has that book and recommended it to me. I might just have to take him up on the offer.

And good morning to you too, froggie. (although its after noon here)
 
I have to confess this is the first time I've heard the term "sodomite marriage"

I guess I'm curious, what about heterosexual sodomy? Should couples practicing this - and there's plenty of it - be denied a marriage license?

Can you imagine if all the marriage licence applications were denied because the couple (male & female) had had sodomite relations? LMAO!!

I am guessing that would change the laws rather quickly.
 
My oldest son has that book and recommended it to me. I might just have to take him up on the offer.

And good morning to you too, froggie. (although its after noon here)

What is the weather? We are in the 20's with no snow!!!! After such a rainy summer, we have no snow! I need some on the ground, my allergies are killing me!
 
Exactly, and that has been my point all along, this isn't about gay people gaining rights or benefits, it's about slapping religion in the face and making a mockery of a fundamental religious institution. If they wanted to "solve the problem" it could be easily done, through comprehensive civil unions legislation, and most Americans would go along with that, Christians included. It's not about "solving the problem" at all, they want the problem, they want the issue, because they see it as a way to attack fundamental religious beliefs in this country.
The marriage licence granted by the state is NOT a religious document. All kinds of non religious people have them. I have had two and god didn't marry me once. I don't expect that the Baptists or the methodists or the holy rollin pentacostels will EVER marry a queer couple. And that is all good. Because the Unitarian Universalists and others of their bend will. Marriage will still be the same whether there are same sex couples or mixed couples involved in them. This is the problem with conservatives. They have throughout history screamed that the world was going to end because of X. If we let Blacks and whites go to school together the world is going to end. God separated us by races for a reason. If women get the vote the world is going to end, God put women on the earth as a helpmate not a voter. Conservatives have been wrong about the end of the world so many times you would think they would stop already. But they won't. It has to be their way or the highway. And as soon as a majority of people actually do vote to legalize gay marriage, the same conservatives that decry courts overruling the will of the people will run their collective ass off to the courts to get the law changed.
 
The marriage licence granted by the state is NOT a religious document. All kinds of non religious people have them. I have had two and god didn't marry me once. I don't expect that the Baptists or the methodists or the holy rollin pentacostels will EVER marry a queer couple. And that is all good. Because the Unitarian Universalists and others of their bend will. Marriage will still be the same whether there are same sex couples or mixed couples involved in them. This is the problem with conservatives. They have throughout history screamed that the world was going to end because of X. If we let Blacks and whites go to school together the world is going to end. God separated us by races for a reason. If women get the vote the world is going to end, God put women on the earth as a helpmate not a voter. Conservatives have been wrong about the end of the world so many times you would think they would stop already. But they won't. It has to be their way or the highway. And as soon as a majority of people actually do vote to legalize gay marriage, the same conservatives that decry courts overruling the will of the people will run their collective ass off to the courts to get the law changed.

God married me, but it would not be legal if I didn't have the license!
The state does not require that I be married in the church for my union to be legal, but I do have to have a license from the state! the churches should butt out! Otherwise, I am going to have to start making appearances and butting into their business! I have always dreamed of doing that! They would have me arrested. Funny, huh! they can speak their tenets where ever they wish, but I would not be allowed the same privilege in their houses of worship! Such tolerance! Such open minds!
 
I am opposed to having the christians get their way when it comes to laws, because that is blatantly unconstitutional.

You would have probably been opposed to the 1st Amendment too!

I still cannot believe that you talk about how bad it would be to alter the institution of marriage, when that has been done many times before.

Not in the past 500 years or so. Since Martin Luther brought the concept to the church, it has pretty much been a man/woman union ordained by the church for the fundamental purpose of procreating a family.

Women used to be property, then they became equals. That altered the institution.

Nope... still has been the same thing.... man/woman union... no change.

And when half of marriages end in divorce, infidelity is the norm, and the most common cause of hospitalization for women is being beaten by their spouse or significant other, I think its TIME to change the institution of marriage.

So you are reverting back to the same old tired arguments of pointing to bad behavior to justify destroying something. People get murdered everyday, maybe we should "redefine" murder so as to not include killing someone who pisses you off? Children are molested everyday, maybe we should change the definition of 'molestation' to make that less of a problem? Do you see the absurdity of your argument here?

But the sad part is that you are willing to go to such lengths to stop something that will not effect straight marriages.

Oh, but it will effect every fundamentally-based religious marriage, by making a complete mockery of them and destroying the institution entirely. What is SAD is, I have proposed a perfectly viable and legitimate answer and solution to the problems you've laid out, and you are too anti-religious to accept it... you want to attack religious sanctity and freedom, that's what you are about! You've exposed yourself now, and you can't hide it anymore.
 
You would have probably been opposed to the 1st Amendment too!



Not in the past 500 years or so. Since Martin Luther brought the concept to the church, it has pretty much been a man/woman union ordained by the church for the fundamental purpose of procreating a family.



Nope... still has been the same thing.... man/woman union... no change.



So you are reverting back to the same old tired arguments of pointing to bad behavior to justify destroying something. People get murdered everyday, maybe we should "redefine" murder so as to not include killing someone who pisses you off? Children are molested everyday, maybe we should change the definition of 'molestation' to make that less of a problem? Do you see the absurdity of your argument here?



Oh, but it will effect every fundamentally-based religious marriage, by making a complete mockery of them and destroying the institution entirely. What is SAD is, I have proposed a perfectly viable and legitimate answer and solution to the problems you've laid out, and you are too anti-religious to accept it... you want to attack religious sanctity and freedom, that's what you are about! You've exposed yourself now, and you can't hide it anymore.
I want you to explain in detail, how it is that two women being married will make a hetero marriage a mockery?
 
I want you to explain in detail, how it is that two women being married will make a hetero marriage a mockery?

Have you ever had anyone answer this? On my other board, they never do!
My brother is at a loss for words, also! except for quoting the Bible!
 
I want you to explain in detail, how it is that two women being married will make a hetero marriage a mockery?

I want to hear how I am opposed to the 1st amendment?

I am not opposed to ANYONE's religious beliefs or their right to prctice it.

I am opposed to ANY group using THEIR religious group to pass laws based soley on their religious beliefs. That is blatantly unconstitutional. I am not restricting anyone's rights to their freedom to exercise their religious practices. I just demand that they not FORCE me to live by their beliefs by creating laws based solely on those beliefs.



But tell me, Dixie, where did you stand on the issue of Judge Roy Moore and his placement of the monument in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court?
 
What is the weather? We are in the 20's with no snow!!!! After such a rainy summer, we have no snow! I need some on the ground, my allergies are killing me!

Chiily this morning but warming up. It was 29 when I went out to load my suitcase in the truck, but its probably in the low 50s now.

It has been a particularly beautiful autumn this year. The trees looks incredible. I went deer hunting yesterday, and while I am being teased for not taking a shot, getting out in the woods is reward enough.
 
Chiily this morning but warming up. It was 29 when I went out to load my suitcase in the truck, but its probably in the low 50s now.

It has been a particularly beautiful autumn this year. The trees looks incredible. I went deer hunting yesterday, and while I am being teased for not taking a shot, getting out in the woods is reward enough.

Leaving?
 

I leave every monday morning.

I live in hotels during the week (either at the corp office or on the road at one of our jobs). I go home friday night and spend the weekend with my family, then start it all over again about 4am on monday.
 
I leave every monday morning.

I live in hotels during the week (either at the corp office or on the road at one of our jobs). I go home friday night and spend the weekend with my family, then start it all over again about 4am on monday.
That sounds like a rough way to make a living.
 
That sounds like a rough way to make a living.

It has its good points and bad points.

My wife and I almost never fight.

I don't get bored at work.

The scenery at work changes all the time.

I feel like I am doing a service as well as having a career.

My schedule is built to be flexible, so I can get away for any good reason.

My wife gets to travel with me for 6 months of the year. (we have shared custody of her 12 year old daughter)





But it sucks that I am on the road so much when my wife can't join me.

I have more windshield time than many truckers.

I eat more fast food than I would like.

I have to go to Pittsburgh PA occasionally (and had to go to Maryland too)
 
I want you to explain in detail, how it is that two women being married will make a hetero marriage a mockery?

Because "marriage" is not defined as the union of same sex. It is a traditional religious custom, ordained by the church as a union between man and woman for the purpose of procreation and family. It is consequently sanctioned by the state, but it is a fundamental tradition and religious custom, and a fundamental part of religious faith in this country.

Let me attempt another absurd analogy here, since you love those so much... and let me first say, it is difficult to come up with any analogy to illustrate the point, because nothing else in our society can relate to this... but... imagine if you will, a movement became widespread to abolish operating motor vehicles on Sundays. Global Warming, Cost of Gas... whatever the reason, Sunday is targeted because it is the least 'productive' day of the week for most Americans. It is estimated we can save billions each week and help the environment to abolish driving on Sundays... well, Sunday is the traditional day for most all religious worship services. No exception is going to be allowed for the churchgoers, they will just have to walk to church or something... tough shit. Is that right? What if churches banned together and bought electric shuttle buses to transport their parishioners to and from services, and the 'ban Sunday driving' advocates included electric vehicles in their initiative, citing it wouldn't be fair to allow any type of vehicle on the road on Sunday... In fact, you can't even come out of your house on Sunday! Is that okay? You see, it is a direct assault on the religious practice of Sunday worship, even though good reasons and excuses can be found for doing it. Or what if there was a movement to make all people work on Sunday, prohibiting them from being able to attend church services? What if we redefined "prayer" to include paying homage to homosexuals, and made this mandatory on Sunday? Could this be a fair thing for government to do, one that is mandated to protect the freedom of religion? I think not!

The issue here is, the religious institution of marriage and what it means to those who are devoutly faithful to their religious beliefs. As a society that protects religious freedoms, we should be sensitive to those beliefs, we shouldn't pass laws which destroy those beliefs or attack the religious traditions. That is what is being done with 'gay marriage' exactly. As you have demonstrated, it's not about your love of gay people, it's about your hate of religious people. That is why I am opposed to Gay Marriage, and always will be! The problem can be solved without encroaching on the religious sanctity of marriage, and that is what SHOULD be done in this case.
 
I want to hear how I am opposed to the 1st amendment?

I am not opposed to ANYONE's religious beliefs or their right to prctice it.

I am opposed to ANY group using THEIR religious group to pass laws based soley on their religious beliefs. That is blatantly unconstitutional. I am not restricting anyone's rights to their freedom to exercise their religious practices. I just demand that they not FORCE me to live by their beliefs by creating laws based solely on those beliefs.

But tell me, Dixie, where did you stand on the issue of Judge Roy Moore and his placement of the monument in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court?

The 1st is supposed to protect our religious freedom and expression. Marriage is a vital and fundamental part of that. Our laws should protect that custom and not destroy it or make a mockery of it, and Gay Marriage would do just that. The proverbial "wall of separation" should work both ways, you know?

As I articulated in my 'plan' for a solution, government would not 'redefine' marriage, they would abandon licensing of marriage altogether, and replace it with a generic and universal 'civil union' license. This removes the 'religious' aspect to unions as well as any 'sexual' aspect.

I had no problem with Roy Moore's placement of the 10 Commandments monument in the courthouse, as the 10 Commandments are carved into the marble of the Supreme Court itself. They are one of several documents which are the basis for western law. I do not believe the 1st Amendment advocates a government devoid of anything related to religion in any way, because I believe in our founding principles of government, that we are endowed our rights by our Creator, and that all men are Created equal. I'm sorry, but that is a wholly 'religious' concept and belief, and we can't divorce our government from it, unless we want to destroy the founding principles of being endowed by our Creator, and agree to be enslaved by 9 judges in black robes.
 
Because "marriage" is not defined as the union of same sex. It is a traditional religious custom, ordained by the church as a union between man and woman for the purpose of procreation and family. It is consequently sanctioned by the state, but it is a fundamental tradition and religious custom, and a fundamental part of religious faith in this country.

Let me attempt another absurd analogy here, since you love those so much... and let me first say, it is difficult to come up with any analogy to illustrate the point, because nothing else in our society can relate to this... but... imagine if you will, a movement became widespread to abolish operating motor vehicles on Sundays. Global Warming, Cost of Gas... whatever the reason, Sunday is targeted because it is the least 'productive' day of the week for most Americans. It is estimated we can save billions each week and help the environment to abolish driving on Sundays... well, Sunday is the traditional day for most all religious worship services. No exception is going to be allowed for the churchgoers, they will just have to walk to church or something... tough shit. Is that right? What if churches banned together and bought electric shuttle buses to transport their parishioners to and from services, and the 'ban Sunday driving' advocates included electric vehicles in their initiative, citing it wouldn't be fair to allow any type of vehicle on the road on Sunday... In fact, you can't even come out of your house on Sunday! Is that okay? You see, it is a direct assault on the religious practice of Sunday worship, even though good reasons and excuses can be found for doing it. Or what if there was a movement to make all people work on Sunday, prohibiting them from being able to attend church services? What if we redefined "prayer" to include paying homage to homosexuals, and made this mandatory on Sunday? Could this be a fair thing for government to do, one that is mandated to protect the freedom of religion? I think not!

The issue here is, the religious institution of marriage and what it means to those who are devoutly faithful to their religious beliefs. As a society that protects religious freedoms, we should be sensitive to those beliefs, we shouldn't pass laws which destroy those beliefs or attack the religious traditions. That is what is being done with 'gay marriage' exactly. As you have demonstrated, it's not about your love of gay people, it's about your hate of religious people. That is why I am opposed to Gay Marriage, and always will be! The problem can be solved without encroaching on the religious sanctity of marriage, and that is what SHOULD be done in this case.

And the issue of the religious institution of marriage and what it means to those who are devoutly faithful to their religious beliefs would be completely unchanged. It would have no effect whatsoever.

When I married the 2nd time, I was a pagan and my wife was an athiest. Did that effect you at all?

Another example, and this one is much simpler than the mailbox/shit-in-ice-cream analogies you have offered.

My ex-wife and her partner have been together for 14 years. They live together, helped raise our kids together, and have a family together.

If they are allowed to marry, nothing changes for the rest of the world. Their life would change in some ways that would not be readily apparent, but to all outward signs nothing would change.

They have been living together as a married couple for 14 years. There is no need to create an entire separate ceremony just to keep the religious bigots happy. My ex and her partner would not attend any churches that they do not already attend. My marriage and everyone else's marriage would be based on the SAME THING it is based on now.

No change.
 
Back
Top