Freedom to Marry Day Protest Planned

[Mugg Mann]

Silly Planogirl, this HAS been discussed. It's because gay people have super powers which grants us the uncanny ability to destroy the sanctity of heterosexual marriage with a single vow. I, for one, can't wait for my superhero cape and tights!

There will be no superhero cape and tights for you; you were, after all, meant to be the costume-less Human Torch solely that you could run around all day vanquishing all evil (and the sanctity of marriage) while yelling "FLAME ON!!!!!"

 

[LuvDuke]

That would be the Westboro Baptist Church headed by the nasty Fred Phelps, who I think is hidden deep in the closet

We actually had a run-in with that sick son of a ***** and his demon spawn. They were here protesting our local high school's decision to have a gay/lesbian club.

But, this being a small area, news travels fast. The Phelps clan was met by the local American Legion posts, the VFW posts, the Viet Nam Brotherhood, and a few hundred other locals.

God bless the Viet Nam brotherhood: They know just how to gun the Harley's so the Phelps were having trouble breathing.

That was about a year ago and that was the last truly interesting thing that happened here.

 

[BuckNaked]

Well BuckNaked read that my DH and I were married by a JP who raises "prize winning noodles".

Don't feel too special - I also read a thread title as "Eating a 2 year old with sour cream won't harm you".


And for RickinNYC's benefit, the breakfast menu at Aunt Bea's diner this morning consisted of:

Fresh baked blueberry muffins
Sliced strawberries and cantaloupe
Cocoa

OK, back to defining marriage, pardon the interruption.

 

[Andy B]

Well, the US was partly founded by people trying to get away from religious persecution back in the "old country" who wanted to practice their brand of Christianity without malice, with their own rules. Some were opportunists who wanted some nice plantations. Much of the really horrible stuff was quite a bit before the Revolution and the US Constitution, but bad blood in Europe showed the Founding Fathers a good example of what not to do when creating a new government. They looked far through history for examples of what to do and what not to do.

It certainly made sense in the 18th century to avoid creating a theocracy, didn't it? Not to mention that around post-Revolutionary time in the colonies there was lots of distaste for monarchs in general. They just didn't want to get into it all over again in a new government. Even something so simple as what to call our leader was a debate during the framing of the Constitution; some thought "president" sounded too ordinary (you could be president of a club, for example), but most wanted to avoid making the leader sound like a king.


Yup. Lots of Americans don't realize exactly why we won the Revolution. England could have destroyed us if it weren't for the fact that the military was occupied elsewhere (thanks to France).

Colonisation was partly to escape religious persecution but this was a long time before the United States was ever thought of.

The founding Fathers were generally British I wonder what would have happened if they had returned to England and fought to change that government for within?

As a titular head of state our monach will do me I shudder with investing as much of the power in a singular person such as a president as the US does.

 

[jimmiej]

I am a follower of Jesus, yes. But I don't believe two people who love one another who happen to be homosexuals are committing a sin. I also don't believe wives belong to their husbands, or eating shellfish is a sin, or women who braid their hair are sinners. Its as simple as that for me, but again, its not a religious argument. Its a is a civil and equal rights issue. The separation of church and state exists to protect everyone, not just heterosexuals.

Just for the record, IA with you that love is a good thing. Sex outside of a man/woman marriage is not.

As I said earlier, I understand the equal rights issue is seperate from any religious issues.

 

[Fitswimmer]

We actually had a run-in with that sick son of a ***** and his demon spawn. They were here protesting our local high school's decision to have a gay/lesbian club.

But, this being a small area, news travels fast. The Phelps clan was met by the local American Legion posts, the VFW posts, the Viet Nam Brotherhood, and a few hundred other locals.

God bless the Viet Nam brotherhood: They know just how to gun the Harley's so the Phelps were having trouble breathing.

That was about a year ago and that was the last truly interesting thing that happened here.

They were going to come to the town I work in because there was a military funeral. The Brotherhood came from all over to protect the family. They were also joined by every off duty firefighter, policeman, veteran and a bunch of just plain folks who made sure that the funeral was well guarded. Shockingly, though, Mr Phelps and his followers chose not to attend after all.

 

[jimmiej]

Which means what, exactly? What would be unnatural? It doesn't say. Christians disagree. As was stated earlier--it's a shaky basis for our laws, even if we didn't have our lovely Constitution stopping Christians from trying to base our laws on the Bible.

The thing is, though, the Bible references are only here to show why some individuals, such as you, would vote no (or have voted no) on gay marriage if on the ballot. The thing is, I don't think this will be resolved by the states' voters. It will be resolved in the same way interracial marriage was resolved: the Supreme Court. And there's simply no way anyone's Bible references, whether for or against gay marriage, are going to hold up before the Justices. It's a matter of inequality in the law--treating one set of citizens differently than another.

I never said I would vote no. I said I was having a difficult time reconciling the issue. I don't know how I would vote.

 

[Andy B]

Lets put this into context the Old Testament was written when the Jews were being harried by the states around them such as Egypt the laws on Marriage and its purpose to procreate were to maximise the birth rate and raise the population so they could form a nation state. Under those circumstances of course it was in their interests to actively prohibit non procreative relationships.

 

[jimmiej]

In my opionion, Mark 10 gives one picture of marriage. But by no means does it say this is the *only* picture of marriage. I believe God accepts other marriages other than those in Mark 10 - do you? Mark 10 leaves no room for gay marriages, or marriage of orphans or others who cannot leave their mother and father. Do you really think Mark 10 tells us that God's view of marriage excludes orphans?

David? Abraham?

Yes, I think that's the only type of marriage God approves of.

Did God instruct David or Abraham to have more than one wife? In Abraham's case, he had sex with his wife's maidservant because he didn't trust God.

 

[lovemygoofy]

We actually had a run-in with that sick son of a ***** and his demon spawn. They were here protesting our local high school's decision to have a gay/lesbian club.

But, this being a small area, news travels fast. The Phelps clan was met by the local American Legion posts, the VFW posts, the Viet Nam Brotherhood, and a few hundred other locals.

God bless the Viet Nam brotherhood: They know just how to gun the Harley's so the Phelps were having trouble breathing.

That was about a year ago and that was the last truly interesting thing that happened here.

I've also had more than my fair share of run ins with oh so Christian family. They like to come to the gates outside Ft Campbell every so often just to remind us that they hate us and everything bad that happens because of the endorsement of homosexuality. I most certainly appreciated the last time I saw them when m husband came home almost 5 months ago and there was a child no more than 10 holding a sign that said "too bad about another dead solider" That's just uplifting and what the Gospel is all about in the Phelps family.

I've also seen them at military funerals before the new laws went into affect and you haven't lived until you see a large group of bagpipers playing as loud as they can to drown out ugly.

 

[iloveboardwalk]

Sex outside of a man/woman marriage is not.

According to who?

I never said I would vote no. I said I was having a difficult time reconciling the issue. I don't know how I would vote.

Which is exactly why our constitution is set up the way it is, to protect individuals from mob rule. It isn't up to you...or the "majority" to decide who should be able to have the same rights you enjoy.

It's really pretty simple, you have every right to believe that any other kind of relationship is not as valid as your relationship, but you do not have the moral or legal right to enforce that belief on other people.

JMHO, of course.

 

[Laura]

Colonisation was partly to escape religious persecution but this was a long time before the United States was ever thought of.

True, which is what I posted. It still was something to draw from, and more recent history than Greeks and Romans, who were references as much as the Reformation, the Marian persecutions, etc. (Not that the Puritans here were any nicer, burning witches and all that.)

The founding Fathers were generally British I wonder what would have happened if they had returned to England and fought to change that government for within?

Well, I suppose they considered themselves Americans, as they were mostly born in America. So there generally wasn't a "return" to England to be considered, and they mostly just wanted to make America not be part of England any longer. Take all the nice plantations for themselves and not pay any taxes to King George III.

As a titular head of state our monach will do me I shudder with investing as much of the power in a singular person such as a president as the US does.

Some of us shudder too, at the thought of what the Patriot Act meant to the power of the executive branch. We don't want Facism any more than a theocracy. A lot of power was taken away after FDR tried to save us all from the Depression, and Congress still makes the laws. Plus, we don't have a state religion--the Founding Fathers made sure of that.

 

[salmoneous]

Yes, I think that's the only type of marriage God approves of.

So if someone is an orphan, and doesn't have a mother and father to leave, God doesn't approve of their marriage???

Did God instruct David or Abraham to have more than one wife? In Abraham's case, he had sex with his wife's maidservant because he didn't trust God.

God didn't tell them to do so, but he didn't say not to either. Here we have two of the biggest "heroes" of the Old Testament having marriage situations other than one-man/one-woman, and God doesn't ever step in and say, "hey - that's a bad idea."

And it's not like God is silent on the issues either. God comes out and tells David that one of his marriages is bad. But not because of the whole polygamy thing - but because he stole the wife from someone else.

Look, I don't think the Bible is promoting polygamy. But I don't see you can take a book where the main characters are involved in marriages that aren't one-man/one-woman and that the book makes crystal clear that God's idea of marriage is one-man/one-wife.

 

[nuke]

Just for the record, IA with you that love is a good thing. Sex outside of a man/woman marriage is not.

But why? How exactly does it hurt you that there are homosexuals in this world?
IF (big IF) you are correct and it is a sin, then it's God thing to deal with not ours.

 

[RickinNYC]

Don't feel too special - I also read a thread title as "Eating a 2 year old with sour cream won't harm you".


And for RickinNYC's benefit, the breakfast menu at Aunt Bea's diner this morning consisted of:

Fresh baked blueberry muffins
Sliced strawberries and cantaloupe
Cocoa

OK, back to defining marriage, pardon the interruption.

Now see, I'm disappointed. I much prefer the artery clogging goodness we spoke of yesterday.

As for the sour cream, I saw that and had thought the EXACT same thing! LOL!

"I love children... they taste just like chicken."

 

[Laura]

I never said I would vote no. I said I was having a difficult time reconciling the issue. I don't know how I would vote.

I know, but the reason you say you have trouble reconciling the issue is because of the Bible. Still, I don't think it would matter how you'd vote eventually.

 

[iloveboardwalk]

Cut it out, I'm trying to be a good girl, on a diet and all, had myself a nice apple for breakfast and here you guys are, making me want to go cook a panful of bacon and cheesy eggs. CUT IT OUT!

 

[crcormier]

Yes, I think that's the only type of marriage God approves of.

Did God instruct David or Abraham to have more than one wife? In Abraham's case, he had sex with his wife's maidservant because he didn't trust God.

Though I disagree with you, I wanted to pop in here and re-iterate what someone else wrote earlier, that you're very articulate, thoughtful and respectful in your arguments. I enjoy reading and considering your thoughts and discourse as a result.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

That would be the Westboro Baptist Church headed by the nasty Fred Phelps, who I think is hidden deep in the closet

Oh Tina, thank you. I needed that.

 

[BuckNaked]

Yes, I think that's the only type of marriage God approves of.

Since I've been where you are when it comes to the religious belief v. the equal rights issue, I'm just going to tell you my thought process. May work for you, may not, but it's how I came to the reconciliation between the two that you seem to be looking for.

One man, one woman may well be the only type of marriage that God approves of. Like so many other things that God "thinks" or does, I just don't know, I can't always know, and even if I do know, even if the answers are revealed to me through grace, I might not understand why. That, to me, is the essence of being a Christian - not knowing the unknowable, but having the faith that everything that God does, whether we like it or not, is right for some reason, even if we don't understand the reason, the method, or the outcome.

But for me, the pull of equality could no longer be ignored or pushed aside, because I don't believe that God wants homosexuals, whom he loves every bit as much as heterosexuals, to be denied the basic right of protecting the one person they love most in the world. I readily confess that I don't understand homosexuality, I don't understand how I could feel the same love and attraction for another woman that I do for my husband. But I don't *have* to understand it for it to exist in others.

And since I don't know for certain God's reasons, then who am I to question them? Who am I to say "Yo God, you made a mistake with these people, but don't worry, we'll fix it down here"? Who am I to tell them that God doesn't want them to "do that", when I believe that He is the one that created them as homosexuals?

The conclusion that I finally came to is that I don't have the right to make that decision. I don't have the right to deny such basic equality to people. Whether I consider a gay marriage to truly be a marriage, which to be perfectly honest is still something I sometimes struggle with, is irrelevent. It isn't up to me to impose my idea of marriage onto others, it isn't up to me decide if it's right or wrong. Free will is a gift from God, and IMO, denying that gift of free will by denying the right of homosexuals to marry is a sin in and of itself.