I apologize, I didn't mean you in paticular on those things.

I do believe there is a difference here in regards to states passing laws that require non-participating states to return slaves: No one is being arrested, handcuffed and returned to the farm for a whipping, beating (or worse).

You are right, the gay issue is important to many and I also think a compromise is best.
A few threads back azwildbill2 refered to a hospital situation. It is wrong for things like that to happen and needs to be addressed.

 

Intolerance is intolerance ... hate is hate ... and separate but equal is still separate but equal.

And don't kid yourselves, this is a religious issue.

What in the world are you guys so afraid of?

 

Hi AZMerf:

___It is one thing to allow gays and lesbians equal rights under the constitution as I believe that is a good thing for those of that persuasion. With that, I do not believe that the Church of whatever denomination should be marrying gay and lesbian couples. Remember, a Church is the house of our lord and that distinctly makes it a religious “thing”.

___And no, there really is nothing to be afraid of at all as long as the church is not sought after for marriage by those practicing the gay and lesbian lifestyle imho. Communion and or whatever other religious practices should not be held back if a gay or lesbian church member wants to participate however. Again, this is just my opinion.

___On a similar note but tangentially related, Catholic priests causing problems over the last 50 + years (actually hundreds) by pursuing an open now or hidden in the past Gay lifestyle should be banished from the priesthood imho. As for priests that have molested children, criminal charges to the full extent of the law should be brought immediately. It infuriates me that the Vatican and/or the various Archdioceses’ simply moved the criminals around like a shell game to protect both the church’s name and the criminals themselves. This really does sicken me to know end in this day and age.

___Flame Suit Mode On …

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

 

[quote]Originally posted by xcel@Jun 14th 2004 @ 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZMerf,Jun 13th 2004 @ 10:26 PM

With that, I do not believe that the Church of whatever denomination should be marrying gay and lesbian couples. Remember, a Church is the house of our lord and that distinctly makes it a religious “thing”.

Wayne:

That's the trouble with this argument. Nobody is asking the church to marry or to even get involved. The government, which is supposed to have no religous affliation, is being asked to peform civil unions. This is no different than what is happening now. The government has always issued civil unions and left it up to the church to marry two people under G-d. However, given our current administration, those two separate concepts have been intermingled.

 

[quote]Originally posted by xcel@Jun 14th 2004 @ 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZMerf,Jun 13th 2004 @ 10:26 PM

As for priests that have molested children, criminal charges to the full extent of the law should be brought immediately. It infuriates me that the Vatican and/or the various Archdioceses’ simply moved the criminals around like a shell game to protect both the church’s name and the criminals themselves. This really does sicken me to know end in this day and age.

This goes without saying. It's pretty sick and even sicker that it does not seem to bother the very people that are supposed to set an example.

 

Merf,
By calling the union marrage is asking the Church. Marrage is a Christian (ok...i forgot the word) and should be ruled by the Church. And on the note of the Roman Catholics...(puts on flame suit and prepares to sheild self) they are Roman Catholic...nuff said. NE way, as it stands in my opinion, marrage, as a Christian institution (<thats the word) should be ruled by the Holy Catholic Church (extremely diff from the Roman Catholics, this includes all denominations that believe in Christ as Lord) should control the institution. As homosexuality goes against Biblical law (yes...it does) gay MARRAGE should not be allowed. Now, if they want to call it a civil union and be "hitched" not in a church...thats fine with me, just dont degrade the Church.
Cheers,
Steven

 

I mentioned in my earlier post the parallel with illegal aliens and drivers licenses.

Then why did they choose to parallel slavery?
Could it be that slavery paints a much darker, bleaker picture of exploitation, violence played upon innocent victims etc etc rather than the driving issue?

Please let me run another parallel, this time with activists like PITA who make claims and say Hitler with his killing machines, who murdered over 6 million innocent people dosen't hold a candle to the modern poultry processing plant or the fishing industry.

I don't subscribe to that notion and I don't hate animals!
To some it seems that if you don't subscribe to their cause you are hateful.
It's a powerful word.

This is the kind of things I object to:
I have 3 kids 5, 7 and 11 years old.
A few months ago we rented a movie from Block Busters. Seemingly a family comedy we all sat down to watch. Not 10 minutes into the move 2 male "friends" without warning fully embraced into a highly ("Envolved" is a censored term) lip-lock. These guys were all over themselves. I couldn't push the stop button fast enough before my 3 young kids go "Oooooooh! Yuk!"
This was up front, in your face and not appreciated.

It is instances like this and activist "officials" of some states who have created this marriage license issue and not places like Virginia.

As Steveo have pointed out, if gay marriage becomes law of the land what about the churches of which this is against? Shall we also pass laws requiring them to accept? If they refuse what shall be done to them? Forced to disband under a "hate" law?
Where will it end? What is too much? Will you be forced to let anything go or be labeled hateful?

 

Steve,

I think you're pretty incorrect, here. But, civil disagreement is fine.

My parallel to slavery has nothing to do with hate, violence, etc. If you read my post in context you'd notice this. It has to do with juristiction and state rights.

Unless I'm wrong, there is no federal motion picture censorship committee. I could be incorrect, but as far as I know the movie rating system is more of community censorship than federal. Radio is different: FCC.

Gay marriage cannot become the law of the land. That's like saying heterosexual marriage is the law of the land. It just isn't determined like that. The Constitution defines rights and priviledges. It tells the government what they're not allowed to interfere with. It does not tell citizens what they're forbidden to do. That's a common misinterpretation.

 

I guess I will put my own .02˘ into the discussion.

Jason is, I believe, correct to draw the parallel he did. In essence this is exactly what the Jim Crow laws of the south were designed to do: strip African-Americans of the rights given to them first, by their home states and secondly, by the federal government. These laws were gradually struck down by the federal court system and by various civil rights acts passed by congress.

However, to my knowledge, none of those civil rights acts or court decisions specifically enumerates sexual orientation. Gender and race are explicitly listed factors that cannot be used to prevent a person exercising rights granted in one state (or at the federal level) in another state. I think from a legal perspective, it is still theoretically possible to deny rights based on sexual orientation. I may be wrong about this. If states elect to deny such rights, I would find that shameful.

I would agree with the statement that separate but equal is separate but equal no matter what nice phrases are used to disguise it. After all, amongst the reasons given to support the Jim Crow laws was to protect white women and children from blacks. There is a parallel reasoning invoked to support legislation that discriminates based on sexual orientation: to protect the children from the homosexual lifestyle.

I think that perhaps a solution would be to completely divorce (okay, bad word choice) the secular institution of marriage from the religious institution of marriage. In other words, when a couple gets a license from the state to formalize their relationship, I see no reason for the state to even call it a marriage. Why not simply have legal unions which preserve the legal, property and medical rights of the couple?

Churches of the varying faiths could then have sole claim to the institution of marriage and could define it according to their faith’s beliefs without any government input at all. The government should have no authority over what Steve's, Wayne’s or my church believes or professes. As a matter of fact, the only circumstance where I see government interference with church doings being acceptable is when criminal laws are broken (i.e. when children are molested). Churches and faiths that choose not to accept homosexuality should not be forced to do so.

Marriage is not a solely Christian institution. In fact, Christians inherited the practice of marriage from Judaism. However, independent of any of the Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) marriage has existed as an integral part of almost all world religions.

I am proud to be a part of a church and a faith that recognizes and performs marriage ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples. I find it wonderful and beautiful to be able to honor the loving relationships of all humans. In a world filled with so much violence, I am constantly amazed that anyone would want to diminish any relationship based on love.

Thanks for letting me have my say on this. I wish all of you this (mostly) traditional Irish blessing:
May the road rise to meet you,
May the wind be always at your (hybrid’s) back
May the sun shine upon your face
The rains fall soft upon your fields
And, until we meet again,
May (your) God hold you in the palm of (Her/His) hand

now, back to waiting for my Prius . . .

 

Hi AndyT:

___Great post …

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net