America Just Keeps Getting Kinder And Kinder

[Green P1]

having to sit in a trial during a gay divorce as a juror.

Seriously? This is one of your reasons?

Every major religion treats it as a sin, why would I want it to be openly part of my company?That is pushing others beliefs on me, then the government would be imposing something that I find morally and naturally disgusting on me as right and law.

I consider myself a christian. I'm not gay. That being said... does basing an argument against gay marriage on religious views in a country that was supposedly founded on the ideal of freedom of religion/separation of church and state not seem just a little bit crazy?

So basically we as a nation believe in freedom of religion...... just as long as people are not doing stuff the most prevalent religions happen not to agree with.

Edited February 19, 2009 by Green P1

[KingDL1]

Seriously? This is one of your reasons?

I consider myself a christian. I'm not gay. That being said... does basing an argument against gay marriage on religious views in a country that was supposedly founded on the ideal of freedom of religion/separation of church and state not seem just a little bit crazy?

So basically we as a nation believe in freedom of religion...... just as long as people are not doing stuff the most prevalent religions happen not to agree with.

You may need a reality check, next time you feel up to it all you have to do is go as far as you money and read what it says on it. "In God We Trust"

The facts have been tarnished in the last forty years and contrary to popular belief this country was founded in Christianity, if anyone denies that they are just fooling themselves period. The only separation intended was that there would not be a set denomination of Christianity in the government, a "State Church". Which was in reference to the Church of England.

[oldguystudent]

Seriously? This is one of your reasons?

I consider myself a christian. I'm not gay. That being said... does basing an argument against gay marriage on religious views in a country that was supposedly founded on the ideal of freedom of religion/separation of church and state not seem just a little bit crazy?

So basically we as a nation believe in freedom of religion...... just as long as people are not doing stuff the most prevalent religions happen not to agree with.

It's a free country so long as you only do the things I believe in.

Seriously. I couldn't give an albino squirrel's left nut who crosses swords with whom. I don't fear that a gay man will touch my daughter. I don't fear that my daughter's going to come home from college with a butch haircut and a pair of comfortable shoes.

It both saddens and frightens me that politicians on both sides of the aisle so frequently prioritize matters of government involvement in morality over issues such as economy, infrastructure, and defense. I hate that the democrats try to govern my diet, my health (and my health care), and my speech. I hate that the republicans try to govern my morality, the parameters of my religion (Texas blue laws are still very, very strange to me), and my patriotism.

I don't have my copy of the constitution sitting in front of me, but I don't believe government powers of morality legislation were mentioned. As you see by my posts in the stimulus thread, I am still entirely undecided on the role government should play in the economy, but I have no illusions as to what role it should play in daily life -- nothing! In fact, I think marriage should be done away with entirely in the eyes of the government. Marriage is a religious union. For civil matters, allow any two people of majority age to enter into a mutual contract of financial and emotional support -- essentially a contract of mutual super power of attorney. For marriage, leave it up to the individual churches to apply whatever labels to whomever they choose. There. Problem solved.

As for personal experience, I'm straight as an arrow. I love women. Mmmm....wooommmeeenn. But I come from an industry run by gay men. Those gay men were, well, pretty much just like anybody else. Some were really, really cool. Some had kids that they raised with love and respect. Some were back stabbing, cut throat businessmen who'd not hesitate to take a dump on their grandmother's grave if it meant getting an extra bonus or up another notch on the corporate ladder. In other words, except for the fact that they choose to cross the streams rather than insert tab A into slot B, they're exactly like any other random sample of the population. In conclusion, sexual orientation gets a big, fat "MEH!" from me.

[Green P1]

You may need a reality check, next time you feel up to it all you have to do is go as far as you money and read what it says on it. "In God We Trust"

The facts have been tarnished in the last forty years and contrary to popular belief this country was founded in Christianity, if anyone denies that they are just fooling themselves period. The only separation intended was that there would not be a set denomination of Christianity in the government, a "State Church". Which was in reference to the Church of England.

Can you tell me if the currency initially produced by our founding fathers include the quote "in God we trust?"

I fully understand what you're saying. For what its worth I don't think your beliefs and mine are that far apart. Based on our beliefs God is against homosexuality.

My thing is... I don't pretend to argue that my interpretation of religion and "God" is universally correct. You've got to understand that it is entirely possible for many to hold fast to the ideals of "In God we trust" while at the same time being a homosexual. Your (and many's) argument (in my opinion) is the complete antithesis of freedom of religion.

Edited February 19, 2009 by Green P1

[oldguystudent]

The facts have been tarnished in the last forty years and contrary to popular belief this country was founded in Christianity, if anyone denies that they are just fooling themselves period. The only separation intended was that there would not be a set denomination of Christianity in the government, a "State Church". Which was in reference to the Church of England.

Might I be able to infer from that statement that Jews, to a lesser extent Mormons, and depending on interpretation, even Catholics wouldn't be included in that equation? I'm pretty sure that the founding fathers defined a voting citizen as a white male land owner. They must have had a crappy transcriber. The guy missed the requirement of, "in God he must trust."

I've always wondered. How exactly does one build a city on a hill in a state as flat as an IHOP breakfast special?

[UNTflyer]

Many of the Founders were Deists. The belief of America being founded as a "Christian Nation" is debatable. The Founders were certainly Christian, but their flavor of Christianity (Deism) was quite tolerant of other faiths, and embraced reason and logic as the paths to knowledge & enlightenment. The term "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence was very popular among Deists.

As for the Separation of Church and State, one of the most misquoted and misused of Jefferson's personal writings, the concept is that government would not establish or regulate religion. One should take Jefferson's letter to the Danburys in context with his help in writing the Virginia Statute of religious freedom that states:

"no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

To me, this means that the intention of the Founders was to prevent the State from aiding religious organizations. Time and again, the Founders' writings show their intention was to keep government out of religion, but not necessarily the other way around. For how can you ask men to lay down their religious and philosophical beliefs when it comes to the act of governing? In fact, the very bedrock of self-determination, liberty, self-evident nature, and freedom were, as seen by the Deist Founders, "Christian" virtues.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Many of the Founders were Deists. The belief of America being founded as a "Christian Nation" is debatable. The Founders were certainly Christian, but their flavor of Christianity (Deism) was quite tolerant of other faiths, and embraced reason and logic as the paths to knowledge & enlightenment. The term "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence was very popular among Deists.

As for the Separation of Church and State, one of the most misquoted and misused of Jefferson's personal writings, the concept is that government would not establish or regulate religion. One should take Jefferson's letter to the Danburys in context with his help in writing the Virginia Statute of religious freedom that states:

"no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

To me, this means that the intention of the Founders was to prevent the State from aiding religious organizations. Time and again, the Founders' writings show their intention was to keep government out of religion, but not necessarily the other way around. For how can you ask men to lay down their religious and philosophical beliefs when it comes to the act of governing? In fact, the very bedrock of self-determination, liberty, self-evident nature, and freedom were, as seen by the Deist Founders, "Christian" virtues.

Deism is not remotely Christian. Deism basically believes that God created the universe, walked away, and has had nothing to do with His creation since. Christianity believes that God is actively concerned for the redemption of man, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. How can you call one a "flavor" of the other when they are so opposite in belief?

The alleged deism of the founding fathers is confined to few, and even they were probably not full-fledged deists. During the framing of the Constitution, no other work was referred to more often than the Bible. One would expect John Quincy Adams to know a little something about the founding fathers, and he said, "From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American Union and of its constituent States, were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians, in a state of nature; but not of Anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct."

Were they tolerant of other faiths? Depends how broad you want to use the term "faiths." They certainly expected all to try to live by the moral code of the Gospel, although they might differ on their theology. Jefferson owned a Quran, so he could learn more about the Muslims as he was concerned about them. If you want to call homosexuality a faith, they were certainly not tolerant. George Washington issued the following orders when he learned of a homosexual in the Continental Army: "At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th Article 18th Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose."

[Censored by Laurie]

Deism is not remotely Christian. Deism basically believes that God created the universe, walked away, and has had nothing to do with His creation since. Christianity believes that God is actively concerned for the redemption of man, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. How can you call one a "flavor" of the other when they are so opposite in belief?

The alleged deism of the founding fathers is confined to few, and even they were probably not full-fledged deists. During the framing of the Constitution, no other work was referred to more often than the Bible. One would expect John Quincy Adams to know a little something about the founding fathers, and he said, "From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American Union and of its constituent States, were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians, in a state of nature; but not of Anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct."

Were they tolerant of other faiths? Depends how broad you want to use the term "faiths." They certainly expected all to try to live by the moral code of the Gospel, although they might differ on their theology. Jefferson owned a Quran, so he could learn more about the Muslims as he was concerned about them. If you want to call homosexuality a faith, they were certainly not tolerant. George Washington issued the following orders when he learned of a homosexual in the Continental Army: "At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th Article 18th Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose."

So do you also base you treatment of blacks and women on a 231 year old precident?

I love how the bible is used to defend bigotry...I always thought Jesus had a keen sense of irony.

[Eagle1855]

I love how the bible is used to defend bigotry...

That's just "the way it was", back then.

Why am I "talking with finger quotes?" I should be "trying to find a job." Not "sitting" on the computer "reading" this "board". It was a "great Chris Farley sketch", however.

[CaribbeanGreen]

I'm not gay.

Prove it.

[Eagle1855]

Prove it.

McCarthyist.

[Mean Green 93-98]

So do you also base you treatment of blacks and women on a 231 year old precident?

I love how the bible is used to defend bigotry...I always thought Jesus had a keen sense of irony.

I think you need to read again the post to which I was responding.

Define bigotry.

[oldguystudent]

I sometimes wonder if the notion that the United States was founded as a Christian nation is confused with the City on a Hill ideas of society from John Winthrop. Of course, that society was into trying people for witchcraft on a whim. A good quote from Mr. Winthrop:

If we should change from a mixed aristocracy to mere democracy, first we should have no warrant in scripture for it: for there was no such government in Israel ... A democracy is, amongst civil nations, accounted the meanest and worst of all forms of government. [To allow it would be]a manifest breach of the 5th Commandment.

As for the history of racism, here's one of my favorite little gems from Benjamin Franklin

Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Compexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

The founding fathers lived in a very different time with very different societal mores. Several aspects of that society such as slavery, the requirement of property ownership for voting, and the disenfranchisement and property status of women have been shown over time to be wrong, and have thus been slowly overturned. Sexual activity outside marriage has been deemed a matter of constitutional privacy, and no decision has ever shown the right to freedom of religion to be confined within various sects of Christianity.

It is very easy to cherry pick quotations from the founding fathers and their predecessors to sway one's argument of the intention of the original government one way or another. I simply have a difficult time interpreting the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as anything else than live and let live.

Under the banner of live and let live, I am never offended if you say, "Merry Christmas," if you put a diorama of the baby Jesus on your front lawn, or if you attend a mega church with 10,000 seats and a giant espresso machine. I am, however, offended if you come knocking on my door Sunday afternoon asking me why you never see me leaving the house in a suit on Sunday morning. I would be equally offended if you asked me what proclivities I have in the bedroom and felt compelled to critique and advise on such. These things are private matters, guaranteed by the constitution, and are not the right of any other person to dictate.

[Mean Green 93-98]

I would be equally offended if you asked me what proclivities I have in the bedroom and felt compelled to critique and advise on such. These things are private matters, guaranteed by the constitution, and are not the right of any other person to dictate.

Where in the Constitution are any and all proclivities in the bedroom guaranteed? Regardless, homosexual marriage does not only pertain to what happens in the bedroom, but is a fundamental reorganization of society.

And regarding your reference to "the notion that the United States was founded as a Christian nation"; it is a recent notion that the founders never thought of the US as a Christian nation, or at least built upon basic Christian principles. Even Benjamin Franklin, one of the few founding fathers who did not ardently profess Christianity, said during the framing of the Constitution:

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights [James 1:17], to illuminate our understanding? In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or, do we imagine we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs [Acts 1:3] I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men [Daniel 4:17]. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice [Matthew 10:29], is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it” [Psalm 127:1]. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel [Genesis 11]: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages [Psalm 44:13-14; Jeremiah 24:9]. I therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

[Green P1]

Prove it.

Give me the time and place. I'll prove it twice.

[UNTLifer]

Give in to what? "Those people" have been forming long term relationships long before either of us were born. Let them have the same legal relationship that all of us have. Every gay person in America can get married tomorrow and it will not change (morally) one thing that I do, that my wife does, or my son and daughter-in-law does on a daily basis.

My disagreement with Pitts statement was regarding his claim that religious leaders have been preaching hatred towards homosexuals. In my experience with the religious leaders who's churches I've attended or attend, they all state that we should love homosexuals but also point out their sin, which would be the case with everyone that sins whether it be homosexuality, adultery, etc...

Should a polygamist be able to have a legal relationship with all of his wives?

[SilverEagle]

My disagreement with Pitts statement was regarding his claim that religious leaders have been preaching hatred towards homosexuals. In my experience with the religious leaders who's churches I've attended or attend, they all state that we should love homosexuals but also point out their sin, which would be the case with everyone that sins whether it be homosexuality, adultery, etc...

Should a polygamist be able to have a legal relationship with all of his wives?

If gay couples were allowed to marry, then that would certainly open up that legal issue again. I wouldn't have a problem with it if the polygamist marriage was between consenting adults.

My view of Polygamy today (and probably originally) is that it's just an excuse for older men to gain sexual access to underage girls.

[oldguystudent]

My view of Polygamy today (and probably originally) is that it's just an excuse for older men to gain sexual access to underage girls.

As long as everyone involved is of age, it's perfectly legal to make a love train of whomever and how ever many people you like*. I have no interest in whether the components of that train wish to create legal connections with each other.

*Isn't DFW one of the top areas in the country for swinger clubs both official and underground?

Edited February 19, 2009 by oldguystudent

[oldguystudent]

How's this for the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman?