well technically why should you need a law to allow something

it should be allowed till there is a law outlawing it

and any performance before said law should be

grandfathered in

people are to the point they are so afraid of the govt

they think they need its (i started to put their - then i realized technically we are the govt [at least suposed to be])
permission to do anything

is not that how the ussr was portraid 50 years ago

be careful what you condemn

it may be just around the corner

Spider,

Nevertheless, it was a specious argument in support of your hidden (and faulty, I might add) premise that homosexuals *have* been treated equally under the law. You invoked an absurd consequences move by suggesting with your alleged joke that just as you can't marry whomever you wish, neither should they.

And that's no joke.

-Kerry O.

KerryO,

It was just a joke, not everything that is posted here has to be serious. I felt like my personal beliefs were going to be offending people, so I tried to soften it with a joke. I am terribly sorry that you don't appreciate me sense of humor, but I won't apologize for making a joke. A joke is not an arguement, specious or otherwise. It was an attempt to lighten the mood. So why don't you drop it, because you have taken it all wrong. I won't reply to anything else that is a complaint about a joke, take it to the mods.

Spider, I’ll try again.

There have been many Federal laws written into our code of laws that are specifically related to the word marriage. Over 200 years ago homosexuality was illegal and considered to be an illness or a perversion, or even the forces of evil possession. At that time when the laws of ownership, inheritance and benefactors were created, it was natural to associate or link those laws to marriage. Naturally, homosexuality, being considered what it was, never crossed anyone’s mind when defining the word marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

You are correct that the code also gave the states the ability to regulate and document marriage in any way the state saw fit. Those matters never conflicted with how the Federal code affected married people.

When the states began choosing to allow homosexuals to be married, people were offended. These people also included politicians. The state laws were abolished by the Supreme Court as being illegal according to the definition in Federal code. So the states used their rights, creatively, by allowing an institution of civil union. This does not solve the problem of discrimination at the Federal level; it did seem,however,like one step closer to acceptance. Until Pres. Bush declared that the states could no longer institute civil union policies. The states are currently battling over this issue.

But it doesn’t matter if the states are allowed to enforce civil unions, because the discrimination is being propagated at the Federal level. It’s not even, particularly, that homosexuals can’t marry, according to the accepted definition; it’s that homosexuals are excluded from legal protections and benefits from their unions.

Spider, this is no small matter. In a study requisitionrf by the federal gov. it was indicated that over 1400 laws discriminated against homosexuals. It was clearly stated that this was a minimum as the laws pertaining to marriage were so extraneous that it was nearly impossible, in their research, to find them all.

These laws are basic rights, not affiliated with anything other than the ‘union’ of two people for the purpose of family, companionship, and pursuing like goals for their lives.

Over 1400 laws that discriminate at the Federal level over the definition of a single word. Each reference listed below has a vast number of links where discrimination is allowed to exist.

A partial list:
• Employment
• Housing
• Marriage
• Immigration
• Adoption/Foster Care
• Child Custody
• Insurance and Benefits
• Medical privilege
• Domestic Violence Protection
• Military
• Ageing & Financial burdens

Redefine the word and all those related to marriage will be set right again. How does that harm anyone? It certainly doesn’t harm you, for you can’t be held responsible for the actions of others, Spider. You have admitted that time and time again. God has not made YOU or any other individual responsible for the actions of others. So why would you choose to allow your government to carry on such discriminatory actions? Especially when that action is constitutionally illegal. Have you so little regard or understanding of those rights that the constitution was meant to provide for ALL it's citizens?

I still find the essence of Jesus' teachings whether you choose it to be from God or Man...
All have to agree it was wisdom beyond its time...

forgive debt after seven years (for some bad spenders this is a great Law LOL)
honor your parents, do not suffer the least of you.(family ties, Remeber when your family name meant something..)
Wonderful idea to help the elderly and to sooth the suffering of the weak and downtrodden)

what comes from the heart and spews from the mouth is unsacred.
Bad bad Karma,spirit,ora,zen anyway you cut it keep kind words will get you much farther in life.

Religious beliefs (using the Bible as a reference) are nothing more than good moral behaviors in which we need to practice more on an idividual level... My question is as we fight against the word, in our rebellion do we lose the love and passion that Jesus had left for us.
The Bible is KNOWN as the GOOD BOOK and it has all types of stories reporting history and explainations to world events that have to this day mostly been put under a scientific rue of Theory...
You want want true hot seductive and dirty sex stories ,Try reading the song of solomon, you want to know about perserverance Read about jobe.
Darwin says BIG BANG THEORY...MY Book says tower of babel Which came first it was explained as it happened and theorized thousands of years later...

Matchforme;

I've found that any moral that holds society together in brotherhood, is a good one. It doesn't matter who laid cliam to it first.

i also agree that if gay marriage was to be put to a vote i would vote against it ,But would respect it if it was passed.

Let the majority rule... Isn't that really the way it was established.
put it back to the constitution, Just because some judge decides something is a certain way does not make it law<but as a society we allow these rulings to enacted as policy after a period of unsuccessful attempts to have it removed it does become Law (not officially) but enforced as such... due to One mans decision, If we really want to act upon the laws and rights in a Nation we should start at the lower levels of unconstitutional enactments to be removed...
Seperation of Church and state is what made our school system and the pupils what they are today... in the 50s Gum chewing and passing notes where the issue, 60s brought in demonstrations (sit ins) and the beginning of a free love society... 70s Actually these years went by without much change (except for loud clothing lol) 80s Cigarettes took a large hold on student numbers, more fist fights at school,sex in the bathrooms etc late 80 to now GUNS KNIVES DISEASE Unpunishable (eeewwww timeout ISS,OSS..."Bust those hineys spare no rod" is what i say)Gangsta life being glorified,taking life for what you want not what you earn Glorified Killing and disrespect for females and other males....
I see how the division really has progressed us forward as a society...

i bet a few musslims may argue

over the bible being the good book

and some atheists as well

and maybe even some of the pagans

that were massacred cause they were heathens

in the eyes of those with the good book as there guide

just a thought

but hey what do i know

I've found that any moral that holds society together in brotherhood, is a good one. It doesn't matter who laid cliam to it first.


Thank you, well said...

Sat 10/06/07 03:06 PM
i bet a few musslims may argue

over the bible being the good book

and some atheists as well

and maybe even some of the pagans

that were massacred cause they were heathens

in the eyes of those with the good book as there guide

just a thought

but hey what do i know



LOL we have advanced 2000 more years and still savages LOL
we will end up passing a law to run around naked again...
Not that i would complain the scenerey would improve and i feel confident if i where allowed to walk around and show off my wares i would be more successful in intimacy LMAO...
Ok i should rephraise that maybe i should have said Jesus Brought us the GOOD NEWS LOL

Think About religion...
Even savage (what we would call Them)The North American Indians Before the bible was introduced to them already believed in the great spirit and the spirit had laws to be followed...

Aztec and the gods they worshiped.(we must admit in thier advanced lifestyle ther was a higher power or an alien encounter... They where all Abducted...now the mystery is solved)
Myan also advanced.
Japanese,Chinese and other Asian tribes believed in Buddah
And so on.

Maybe We should just accept thier is a higher power and it demands certian laws that are and have been for centuries reconized by all as a standard set.
Believe what you wish on the power.
Alien,Buddah,Miyha,ala,sun,water,animal,element... Or your next door nieghbors dog... Just understand there are certain alienable rights we should have without question and i do believe in my reference those items are set down within the ten commandments.
I'am sure they are in the kuran,whatever judism reads,buddah, even the dog next door.
treat me right,treat me fair, Love me,don't take from me,aid me, and pet me just a little more on the ear...

To simplify... we all understand the basic principles of rights required from birth to death... And even in knowing these basic right there are still many who will do there absolute best to take them from you... From the Street punk on the corner to the Goverments of nations... so where do you start and where do end to make it as it should be...

MatchformeeYahoo writes:

" i also agree that if gay marriage was to be put to a vote i would vote against it ,But would respect it if it was passed.

Let the majority rule... Isn't that really the way it was established.
put it back to the constitution, ...."

Um, no. From Madison, one of its authors, in The Federalist Papers, No. 51:

"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and opress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and, as in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government to protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful."

You'll find that sentiment over and over again in The Federalist Papers, one of the bedrock _secular_ documents of this republic.


-Kerry O.

"Over 1400 laws that discriminate at the Federal level over the definition of a single word. Each reference listed below has a vast number of links where discrimination is allowed to exist."

I'm going to need a link to see that for myself. I tried to find it, but I couldn't find anything.

Diana, I have to tell you, there is nothing you can say that will get me to change my mind. I'm cool with civil unions for homosexuals, but I am not cool with any law that would require a religion to marry homosexuals. Chruches should not be forced to marry homosexuals. I'm even okay with a chruch deciding that they are going to marry homosexuals. But as a Christian, I have the right and responsiblity to oppose Homosexuality as sinful and homosexual unions as invalid in God's eyes. I know that makes people mad and I'm sorry. I like being liked, but these are God's laws and we (Christians) live by them. (Abra, jump in here and talk about how horrible Christianity is. Don't dare mention that muslims murder Homosexuals...just focus on Christians who oppose gay marriage) I'm not here to stop anybody from sinning, I'm here to help bring awareness of sin and deliver the message of the gospel. That's why I said go for it, get the votes, give your arguments and convince the world to agree with you. You won't convice me, but you will never have to worry about violence from a little ol' fundamentalist Christian such as myself. Heck, I would even go to your wedding if you invited me.

Matchforme



Match – I gotta tell ya, there are a lot of contradictory and confusing statements within your posts. First you say you would vote against a Federal Law that would allow homosexuals to be married and that the majority should rule, because “Isn’t that really the way it was established?”

Yes the majority rule is in effect, however, it is also required and expected that one will vote in accordance with those precedents that the Constitution stands to protect. You begin another train of thought with this:

“Just understand there are certain alienable rights we should have without question…”

Are you talking about unalienable rights, like the ones discussed in the Declaration of Independence? Those rights are summed up this way:

“”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence””

This declaration is not pursuing a government based on the 10 C’s. What I do see is that every man (human) has the right to such things as Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Also is the warning that if any form of government becomes destructive to these unalienable rights, the people have the right and, I say, the obligation to correct the situation, or abolish the government.

You also say: “i do believe in my reference those items are set down within the Ten Commandments.”

Would you care to point out the 10 commandments within the Declaration, as I have found no reference to them?

Perhaps you have confused the Declaration of Independence with something in the Constitution. Perhaps you can document where the 10 commandments are referred to in the Constitution. I’m sorry; I was unable to find them myself.

However, what I did find is that the Constitution guarantees you the right to worship in any manner you’d like. And as long as you’re religious doctrine and beliefs don’t conflict with the laws of the land you have every right to believe them and hold to them that is an ‘individual’ right afforded to ALL people.

Now the Preamble to the Constitution goes like this:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
But I still see no connection with the 10 C’s.

Perhaps you are referring to the 1st Amendment, which begins like this:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

But that just proves what I previously stated, that you have the right to follow your own beliefs and I have that same right.

And if our beliefs come into conflict, is it right to persecute or to adopt laws that will be discriminatory? Doesn’t that go against the basic principal that we are created equal and are due equality in our pursuits?

You go on like this:
“To simplify... we all understand the basic principles of rights required from birth to death... And even in knowing these basic right there are still many who will do there absolute best to take them from you... From the Street punk on the corner to the Governments of nations... so where do you start and where do end to make it as it should be...”

I’m not sure if we are in agreement about the basic principles of rights required from birth to death. You see, I take the responsibility to uphold the foundations that this government has set forth. That all men are created equal, that they are due equal treatment under the law; that they are equally allowed to pursue life, liberty and happiness. If any of those things becomes endangered it is my obligation as a citizen to make sure that the laws are corrected.

You pass off this responsibility as if someone is always trying to take your rights away, but what can one do because in this country the majority rules.

Match – if the rule of the majority does not take into consideration the equality, the happiness and the liberty of all individuals, than you are disrespecting the very treatment you would expect if you were being persecuted.

“…so where do you start and where do end to make it as it should be…”

You start by making a choice to protect the equal rights of all individuals under the law. You start by recognizing that a group of people is being unduly persecuted and discriminated against because of their beliefs. And then you take action to correct the situation. If you don’t, how can you ever be sure, that someday, it won’t be you in the Minority, that it won’t be you being discriminated against?

So the price of freedom, Match, is high. It means that sometimes you have to allow others to act as YOU would not, because their right to believe MUST BE EQUAL to yours or the basic freedoms and rights as outlined and guaranteed within the Constitution can not be guaranteed to anyone.

I wonder what the fine would be if ya got busted for eating meat on friday.

Spider,

First, here is the link you requested.
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

Next: your quote

"but I am not cool with any law that would require a religion to marry homosexuals. Chruches should not be forced to marry homosexuals. I'm even okay with a chruch deciding that they are going to marry homosexuals."

IN NO WAY is anyone requesting that the law require a religion to marry homosexuals. There are two issues with regard to your statment.

First, you must understand that your freedom to believe as you do is equal to the freedom of others to believe differently. So if another church believes that marriage of homosexuals is ok, they have the right preform a marrarige ceremony. There is no question what-so-ever with regard to that.

What is in question is the "legal" definition. To the government marriage is not a religious ceremony. People, heterosexuals, can be married by a judge, a justice of the peace, under maritime law, there is no religious connection to the 'legal' reasons behind the use of marriage as a basis for it's original laws - or any law created on that foundation since.

Your church might have differing traditions about a marriage ceremony than another, but in order to be married in the eyes of the law, it requires a marriage license. The church does not.

What the battle is about is changing the definition of the word as it is legally used, so that it encompasses the right of homosexuals to be leagally joined in order that they too, may benefit, for the same resons and of the same laws that heterosexuals do.

Spider, please also read my responce to Match,it's just above yours.

actually the constution was set up to give everyone

all men are created equal

not just the majority

and if it is against the law of a religion

such as homosexual acts

that does mean that

the govt does not have the right to outlaw it

discrimination will always be around

in one form or another

just as if a moral concept is good for all

such as thou shall not kill

then that one works for a law

it is not rocket science

the problem is the commentary has been so accepted

that no longer does it matter what it is

but rather how it is portrayed

This thread needs crumpets, biscuits and jam, a spot of tea would do nicely too

blackberry plz