my bad....I missed that point.

Yes.  Banning homo marriage is legislating morality.  
What is wrong with having morals?  
Why is it okay for the government to legislate anything having to do with marriage?  Do they think they can do a better job than a church?  Politicians should stay the hell away from marriage before they ruin it too.

Norman 74:

Do you believe that pedophile's should receive these benefits too? Or, better yet, how about incestuous partners (ie: mother/son, father/daughter, brother/sister?) No? Why not?

With every new person that is shamed,convinced, or otherwised taught to accept and "embrace" alternate lifestyles, such as homosexuality, moves us that much closer for the next deviant group to muscle in for their chance. I do not believe Judges have the right to legislate moral issues for the states. (Texas sodomy law).

My personal opinion is that by taking small baby steps, they have accomplished tons, which will be this country's undoing. My firm belief, after quite a bit of personal research, is that homosexuality is a disorder. Specifically, a gender identity disorder. Should they be given equal marriage rights as heterosexuals for being sexually disordered? No? Why?

I believe evil exists and comes in many forms. Even in the form of seemingly moral, kind, thoughtful, successful people, such as the homosexual couples that are shown "getting married", or those who are guests on the O'Reilly Factor.

There will be no end to this. I heard last year that transgendered individuals want Health Insurance carriers to allow sex change operations.  I believe San Francisco now pays for sex changes out of taxpayer money. Just as there will be no end to those trying to remove gun owners right's to own guns, this will snowball. You have to nip these issues in the arse......

By the way......most homosexual's tend to be liberal.....just like those trying to remove our guns. GLSEN/PFLAG, etc. are huge liberal movements, especially in our Universities. They use immoral tactics to fight their causes and have a huge push on to infiltrate and influence their message that "homosexuality is normal and natural, and how do you know you're not GAY unless you've tried it." GLSEN's literature is geared for newcomers and those contemplating a cross-over, especially teens. I find this morally reprehensible.

My vote......NO to legislation from the bench on morality/social issues. You will see a huge fight to stop this Massachusetts law.

Quoted: Just live and let live. It isn't hurting anyone to allow them to be legally married. Sometimes the intolerance here is truly shocking.

It's shocking how the 'majority' on this board think that their way is the only way.  This in not the Christian States of America.  Keep in mind that the "majority of the country" also thinks banning guns is a good idea.  Should they be allowed to impose that idea on the minority (you, me, us)?  

The 'general' consensus here is that there is only one (moral) way to cohabitate; the problem is that the .gov grants different status to that one way versus any other.  You all assume you are right here, but if you are 'wrong' in the majority's eyes, the next thing to get banned will be "all churches but the .gov church"  You only agree with the governments religious position because it matches yours (on this one point).  

How will you feel when the .gov position differs from yours? (you have to pray on Saturday for instance, or face east)  I'm not saying that your choice is wrong, but I am saying that you SHOULD NOT want the .gov making that choice UNDER ANY CONDITIONS because eventually ANY or ALL of us will be on the short side of the .gov's position.  

If you allow the government to legislate ANY intolerance, eventually it will get around to being intolerant of something about you.

If you want the .gov to leave YOU alone, it has to leave EVERYONE alone.


[editied becuz I can't spl]

But in this case, it's not that those who support Gay unions are insisting thatGay unions must be recognized by the citizenry.
No.
They're insisting that the Government recognize gay unions.
Get it?
The government cannot intrude upon itself.

Whatever happened to Homosexuals referring to themselves as "terminal bachelors"?
Oh yeah...
They they insisted that the GOVERNMENT change the nature of something known as marriage.

Marriage is a concept and an institution that certainly predates our nation and our government, don't you think?
It is not merely a legal term.
Gay activists are suing to change the "legal definition" of "marriage", in the hope that it will magically change the "meaning" of marriage.

Why can't I marry a minor?
Or my grandfather?
Or my truck?
If all marriage is, is a legal definition, that can be amended and changed with the stroke of a pen, then indeed, why not?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Same sex marriages will NEVER be marriages in the eyes of the church, so why be upset about it. Some churches do. as a matter of fact JT and I are getting married in the church we go to on May 1 2004 I guess I should have been more clear on what I was thinking. The people who think it matters what the government recognizes, tend to belong to churches that will not recognize gay or lesbian marriages.

StonerStudent is NOT being married in a church of God. He is being married in a church that condones a sinful lifestyle, and doesn't believe
in what the Bible says.

As far as the whole gay marriage thing, Let them all move to one state, and break off from the US.

This country was founded by MORAL men, and on Christian principles.

I don't think that our forefathers would have had much tolerance of deviant behavior.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Same sex marriages will NEVER be marriages in the eyes of the church, so why be upset about it. Some churches do. as a matter of fact JT and I are getting married in the church we go to on May 1 2004 I guess I should have been more clear on what I was thinking. The people who think it matters what the government recognizes, tend to belong to churches that will not recognize gay or lesbian marriages. StonerStudent is NOT being married in a church of God. He is being married in a church that condones a sinful lifestyle, and doesn't believe in what the Bible says. As far as the whole gay marriage thing, Let them all move to one state, and break off from the US. This country was founded by MORAL men, and on Christian principles. I don't think that our forefathers would have had much tolerance of deviant behavior.

Sorry old chum...But last I looked CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH in Dayton Oh is a church of God.But feel free to disagree as I am sure you will.

It's also a slippery slope issue.

If you allow legal protections and equal standing for same sex marriages, then what happens when a group of bigamists decide to sue for protection for their way of life?  Then homosexuals who want to "marry" inside the bonds of consanguinity (incest)(since children aren't an issue, the biological/genetic reasons for restricting incest aren't a factor, so why not???)

Yes that all seems rather ridiculous, but it isn't, not when you pull the moral stake out of the ground and allow morality to float around.

Here's a basic fact, for the ENTIRE recorded history of humanity, in pretty much all cultures at all times, even in cultures where homosexuality was commonplace and even expected, marriage has always been between a man and a woman and the family unit has always been restricted to a man, a woman, their children and their immediate blood relatives. Homosexual lovers were always considered outside of that, even in Sparta and the Hellenistic world.

If you choose to live a alternative lifestyle, even if  you do so with honor and decency, you are still living an alternative lifestyle and should not expect to receive the same benefits as the mainstream.  You limit your own options through your own choices.

Jim Bill Joe Bob wants to marry his sheep and now that he's legally married, he wants a dependent tax deduction.  That means you guys pay the difference.  BTW, when Jim Bill Joe Bob passes away the sheep gets to draw from his social security program.  Guess who pays for that too. Whoops, the sheep wants a divorce so off to the court our taxes pays for. I for one would rather see that office space and judges time putting away bad guys.  BTW, when ole Jim Bill passed away without a will, it got half the farm.  The kids and ex are now on welfare.

It's just one more liberal cause that will impact your pocket while redefining what's right and wrong.

No matter how you look at it, supporting gay marriage is a liberal agenda and you pseudo Republicans need to change parties.

In answer to your question, hell yes the government should have a say in how they spend their money, our money. The fact it is on a moral high ground just makes it that much more right. Is it legislating morals? No, It's legislating my tax money.

What they do in the privacy of their home is their business but what the government does with my tax dollars is my business.  This is not something I want to pay for.

Tj  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Same sex marriages will NEVER be marriages in the eyes of the church, so why be upset about it. Some churches do. as a matter of fact JT and I are getting married in the church we go to on May 1 2004 I guess I should have been more clear on what I was thinking. The people who think it matters what the government recognizes, tend to belong to churches that will not recognize gay or lesbian marriages. StonerStudent is NOT being married in a church of God. He is being married in a church that condones a sinful lifestyle, and doesn't believe in what the Bible says. As far as the whole gay marriage thing, Let them all move to one state, and break off from the US. This country was founded by MORAL men, and on Christian principles. I don't think that our forefathers would have had much tolerance of deviant behavior. Sorry old chum...But last I looked CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH in Dayton Oh is a church of God.But feel free to disagree as I am sure you will.

There are plenty of people and 'churches' proclaiming to be 'of God', but if that person or 'church' condones sinful behaviour, then how can it be 'of God' ?

Sorry, SS, but your 'church' is wrong in the eyes of God, and the people, minister, and 'church' suffer because of it.

I'm not of the "kill'em all' mindset in regards to gays, but your 'church' obviously has a problem.

Quoted: Some churches do. as a matter of fact JT and I are getting married in the church we go to on May 1 2004

Isn't that sweet

Sorry old chum...But last I looked CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH in Dayton Oh is a church of God.But feel free to disagree as I am sure you will.

As will I. Your religion is a sham. Your church is a den of iniquity.
Besides, what the hell happens when next year the man of the house decides he likes his great dane better and decides to leave you? Hmm?

I have a problem with churches marrying homos.  The law is a different story. I think they should be treated equally under the law.

Right now, married people get certain legal privilages that two fags that have lived together monogamously for 40 years.

I say, take those legal privilages that heteros get away from them, then fags have no reason to legally marry and the religious is satisfied.



-HS

Quoted: Quoted: Some churches do. as a matter of fact JT and I are getting married in the church we go to on May 1 2004 Isn't that sweet Sorry old chum...But last I looked CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH in Dayton Oh is a church of God.But feel free to disagree as I am sure you will. As will I. Your religion is a sham. Your church is a den of iniquity. Besides, what the hell happens when next year the man of the house decides he likes his great dane better and decides to leave you? Hmm?

of course that would be your opinion....And that would be the problem with the whole "church thing" the which church is right.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some churches do. as a matter of fact JT and I are getting married in the church we go to on May 1 2004 Isn't that sweet Sorry old chum...But last I looked CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH in Dayton Oh is a church of God.But feel free to disagree as I am sure you will. As will I. Your religion is a sham. Your church is a den of iniquity. Besides, what the hell happens when next year the man of the house decides he likes his great dane better and decides to leave you? Hmm? of course that would be your opinion....And that would be the problem with the whole "church thing" the which church is right.

None would be my answer. I find church to be place for hypocrites to hang out. Perfect example here. In any event, I do not attend church for this and other reasons. If I did, this would be enough to make me leave.

I hope all 3 of you are happy but I hope they don't allow you to adopt. Woof!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some churches do. as a matter of fact JT and I are getting married in the church we go to on May 1 2004 Isn't that sweet Sorry old chum...But last I looked CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH in Dayton Oh is a church of God.But feel free to disagree as I am sure you will. As will I. Your religion is a sham. Your church is a den of iniquity. Besides, what the hell happens when next year the man of the house decides he likes his great dane better and decides to leave you? Hmm? of course that would be your opinion....And that would be the problem with the whole "church thing" the which church is right. None would be my answer. I find church to be place for hypocrites to hang out. Perfect example here. In any event, I do not attend church for this and other reasons. If I did, this would be enough to make me leave. I hope all 3 of you are happy but I hope they don't allow you to adopt. Woof!

Well Doc....just for your info gay men have  cats, and lesbians have dogs..soooo if JT left me for pussy, that would be a good thing right?

Quoted: -snip- of course that would be your opinion....And that would be the problem with the whole "church thing" the which church is right.

The RIGHT church is the one that believes and FOLLOWS what God says in the Bible, which YOUR church doesn't do, nor do most of the other churches.

Just like in politics, just because they allow something doesn't make it right.

I cant believe these sickos are even are allowed to roam the streets. They should be locked up with the rest of the mentally ill. Not trying to get married to each other.

Slippery slope.  Maybe someday plural marriages.  Morality?  Sure, some deeply religious that are dogma driven will cry the end of the world here but the vast majority simply think man/woman marriage with family best reflects what makes this and other societies stable.  I'm not offended by gays hooking up and becoming monogamous, just let'em find another word for it than marriage.  Marriage has religious overtones even if you are not religious, most people accept the historicity.

I would think "gays' would want a big deal new name for their unions.  Have a national referendum.

It's like saying there's no such thing as race, so you can call yourself whatever and no one can challenge you cause the law had decided it's the fair thing to do.  Hey, I kinda like that idea.

Quoted: Quoted: -snip- of course that would be your opinion....And that would be the problem with the whole "church thing" the which church is right. The RIGHT church is the one that believes and FOLLOWS what God says in the Bible, which YOUR church doesn't do, nor do most of the other churches. Just like in politics, just because they allow something doesn't make it right.

and you of course are an expert on the bible,And the Rev.John Paddock [my preist]is just making things up as he goes along. See I really don't care if your [or anybody else]church doesn't like queers.That is their right, but sorry  I am not going to let your church run my life.

You are exactly right... all laws are an attempt to legislate morality. That does not, however make them good laws. Prohibition!
Also, I think that this movement to same sex marriage may have gained momentum because of the WTC disaster. Well meaning folks, who might have otherwise objected, felt sorry for some of the gay couples who were split up by the attack, and looked for ways for those victims to receive benefits.
As an attorney, when I first heard of the Mass. decision, I have to admit my first thought was kind of humorous... to me at least: I mean divorces are weird enough. Can you imagine two flagrant, flaming homosexuals in a bitter divorce?

Quoted: You are exactly right... all laws are an attempt to legislate morality. That does not, however make them good laws. Prohibition! As an attorney, when I first heard of the Mass. decision, I have to admit my first thought was kind of humorous... to me at least: I mean divorces are weird enough. Can you imagine two flagrant, flaming homosexuals in a bitter divorce?

Actually it would be a hoot to watch....

Quoted: Quoted: I hope all 3 of you are happy but I hope they don't allow you to adopt. Woof! Well Doc....just for your info gay men have  cats, and lesbians have dogs..soooo if JT left me for pussy, that would be a good thing right?

LMAO. That's a pretty good one SS.

I think alot of you guys are confusing a civil marriage with a spiritual marriage.  Although associated by the fact churches have the power to sign the civil marriage certificate, they are distinctly different. You don't purchase the license from the church but the state.

If a couple of gays want to have a spiritual marriage say on top of a mountain in the spring with a pastor/minister/priest, so be it. Invite us for the party.

The civil marriage is another thing entirely.  That's the legal agreement that has governmental issues and ramifications that involve taxes and all kinds of other issues.  This is what the government is regulating not their religion or their morals.

I wonder just how many of you guys so willing to increase our tax burden, actually feel the tax pain.  I assure you with that tax coming out of your check you hardly notice compared to signing that damn check every April.  

Tj  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: -snip- of course that would be your opinion....And that would be the problem with the whole "church thing" the which church is right. The RIGHT church is the one that believes and FOLLOWS what God says in the Bible, which YOUR church doesn't do, nor do most of the other churches. Just like in politics, just because they allow something doesn't make it right. and you of course are an expert on the bible nope..just what I have read and been taught by my teachers and nuns (not priests) at a catholic school ,And the Rev.John Paddock [my preist]is just making things up as he goes along. You got that part right. Show me in the Bible where it says a marriage between 2 same sex partners is a holy union!!!. Your 'Reverend' is in for a shock because it doesn't state that anywhere in the Bible. But it does say that a union between man and woman is holy. Your 'Revrend' needs to go back to Sunday School and relearn the basics. See I really don't care if your [or anybody else]church doesn't like queers.That is their right, but sorry  I am not going to let your church run my life.

I don't belong to a 'church', I belong to a faith. And I don't expect you to allow a 'Church' to run your life. We have free will, and each of us will atone for our sins in front of God, not a 'Church'.

You seem to think that I hate you of other gays. I don't.
I hate your flaunting of an immoral lifestyle, and your demanding of equal treatment for your immoral lifestyle.

I think "same-sex marriage" is bullshit...

What a bunch of fucking disgusting freaks.
How do I explain to my 3yr old daughter why two faggots are holdings hands or kissing in the mall ?

I shouldn't have to look at this crap, and niether should my little girls.

It's bad enough that it's legal to be queer, why should they be allowed to be recognized as a married couple ?

Fucking Queers, Fags, and Dikes getting married...

WTF is this country doing to itself ???

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: -snip- of course that would be your opinion....And that would be the problem with the whole "church thing" the which church is right. The RIGHT church is the one that believes and FOLLOWS what God says in the Bible, which YOUR church doesn't do, nor do most of the other churches. Just like in politics, just because they allow something doesn't make it right. and you of course are an expert on the bible nope..just what I have read and been taught by my teachers and nuns (not priests) at a catholic school ,And the Rev.John Paddock [my preist]is just making things up as he goes along. You got that part right. Show me in the Bible where it says a marriage between 2 same sex partners is a holy union!!!. Your 'Reverend' is in for a shock because it doesn't state that anywhere in the Bible. But it does say that a union between man and woman is holy. Your 'Revrend' needs to go back to Sunday School and relearn the basics. See I really don't care if your [or anybody else]church doesn't like queers.That is their right, but sorry  I am not going to let your church run my life. I don't belong to a 'church', I belong to a faith. And I don't expect you to allow a 'Church' to run your life. We have free will, and each of us will atone for our sins in front of God, not a 'Church'. You seem to think that I hate you of other gays. I don't. I hate your flaunting of an immoral lifestyle, and your demanding of equal treatment for your immoral lifestyle.

Well you can take that up with Rev Paddock,I am welcome in that church and that works for me. Also I don't care if you or anybody hates me, my lifestyle or whatever. and the flaunting thing is just not sitting back and not responding to the anti gay BS from some of you around here.

Since I brought up Bible teachings earlier, I don't feel I'm interrupting...

I want to preface this by saying this is not a personal attack on ANYONE.  I'm only stating my opinion that God does not promote same sex relations, including marriage.
And that I guess God has a different "opinion" than your church, Stoner.

Please read the follwing:

This is God speaking to Moses in Leviticus 18:22 - "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

1 Thess 4:3 - "For this is the will of God, your santification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality"  

Continue reading through 1 Thess 4:8
My Ryrie Study Bible has a footnote for 4:3, stating:  "Immorality: The Greek word means all kinds of illicit or unnatural sexual indulgence."

There are more references if you feel the need.

Hmmm...Backstop quoting Scripture.  Definately a new avenue.  

What you do in your own home is your business.  But changing the moral fabric of our society by changing laws will destroy us...
Note to self:  can anyone figure out another way to say that?  We've just about worn it out.

Quoted: Since I brought up Bible teachings earlier, I don't feel I'm interrupting... I want to preface this by saying this is not a personal attack on ANYONE.  I'm only stating my opinion that God does not promote same sex relations, including marriage. And that I guess God has a different "opinion" than your church, Stoner. Please read the follwing: This is God speaking to Moses in Leviticus 18:22 - "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." 1 Thess 4:3 - "For this is the will of God, your santification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality"   Continue reading through 1 Thess 4:8 My Ryrie Study Bible has a footnote for 4:3, stating:  "Immorality: The Greek word means all kinds of illicit or unnatural sexual indulgence." There are more references if you feel the need. Hmmm...Backstop quoting Scripture.  Definately a new avenue.   What you do in your own home is your business.  But changing the moral fabric of our society by changing laws will destroy us... Note to self:  can anyone figure out another way to say that?  We've just about worn it out.

I guess my god is just a nicer god than yours...and I can eat shellfish too, also a abomination.

Ok if your church isn't forced to marry gay people and lets call it a civil union, would it be ok then?....No? oooh that's right gay civil unions are going to destroy the moral fabric of our society. jeez I just can't catch a break.

oh well these topics are doing wonders for my post count anyway.

SS,
Ya know, I wasn't gonna reply like this, but decided WTF.  You seem like a decent enough fella, although we disagree on a few topics.

I just can't figure out how, when confronted with the facts (Scripture), people still will say:

I guess my god is just a nicer god than yours

There is only one God, and the Bible is his teachings.  When he says "don't do it", that's what he means.

Edit: FU'd the board code

Quoted: Quoted: Since I brought up Bible teachings earlier, I don't feel I'm interrupting... I want to preface this by saying this is not a personal attack on ANYONE.  I'm only stating my opinion that God does not promote same sex relations, including marriage. And that I guess God has a different "opinion" than your church, Stoner. Please read the follwing: This is God speaking to Moses in Leviticus 18:22 - "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." 1 Thess 4:3 - "For this is the will of God, your santification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality"   Continue reading through 1 Thess 4:8 My Ryrie Study Bible has a footnote for 4:3, stating:  "Immorality: The Greek word means all kinds of illicit or unnatural sexual indulgence." There are more references if you feel the need. Hmmm...Backstop quoting Scripture.  Definately a new avenue.   What you do in your own home is your business.  But changing the moral fabric of our society by changing laws will destroy us... Note to self:  can anyone figure out another way to say that?  We've just about worn it out. I guess my god is just a nicer god than yours...and I can eat shellfish too, also a abomination. Ok if your church isn't forced to marry gay people and lets call it a civil union, would it be ok then?....No? oooh that's right gay civil unions are going to destroy the moral fabric of our society. jeez I just can't catch a break. oh well these topics are doing wonders for my post count anyway.

The forcing of gay 'rights' upon the rest of America is definatly having an impact on the children.
I shouldn't have to explain to my daughter why 2 guys are kissing, or why a girl has 2 mommies.

Quoted: I think "same-sex marriage" is bullshit... What a bunch of fucking disgusting freaks. How do I explain to my 3yr old daughter why two faggots are holdings hands or kissing in the mall ? I shouldn't have to look at this crap, and niether should my little girls. It's bad enough that it's legal to be queer, why should they be allowed to be recognized as a married couple ? Fucking Queers, Fags, and Dikes getting married... WTF is this country doing to itself ???

Destroying itself, Art, destroying itself.
I guess we've had it to good for too long.

And people wonder why I say the nation can't be straightened out through the political process. Even when we conservatives can get a victory, the courts, which the liberals have stacked for 4 decades, simply overrule us. They are sowing the seeds of revolt IMO.
It is a damn shame when we have states like MA, CA, NY legislating for the entire country. Talk about taxation without representation...

Seems that peoples go through cycles:

1] hardship and bondage

2] spirituality and hardwork

3] strength and success

4] selfishness, excess, loss of morals

5] Back to #1

Guess where we are at?
Either that or it is time for a good old-fashioned purge. Old Testament style.

This discussion brings a few quotes to mind:

"The worst thing about living in the declining era of a great civilization, is knowing that you are."
- Robert A. Heinlein

"The failure to condemn an activity is indeed, an offer of tacit approval.
All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
- Plato (427-347 B.C.)

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the rights of the people by the gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
- James Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)

Wish I'd said that...

Well StonerStudent, just a comment if I may.  I know, that you know, that I do not "hate" you.  But I do object to calling "sin" a "lifestyle".

You said:

and you of course are an expert on the bible,

While this wasn't directed to me, I do read my Bible.  And I know what it says.

And the Rev.John Paddock [my preist]is just making things up as he goes along.

While you meant this to be sarcasm, it is actually the truth.  That is exactly what he is doing.  And God has placed a curse on him for changing the clear meaning of scripture.  I'll send you the references if you doubt my word.

See I really don't care if your [or anybody else]church doesn't like queers.That is their right, but sorry I am not going to let your church run my life.

You have every right not to care what my church says.  But you better care about what God says about the issue.  He condemns it.  He says it is sin.  He says to repent and sin no more.

Well you can take that up with Rev Paddock,

That will be unnecessary.  God will "take it up" with him.  And "Pastor" ain't going to enjoy it.

I am welcome in that church and that works for me.

Hers's a news flash for you, my friend.  It isn't about you.  It's about obeying God.  We live a short 70 or so years on this earth, and then we will stand before an Eternal God.  He doesn't change.  And He has told you to repent and quit sinning.

Any "church" that teaches otherwise, just to please your itching ears, is sending you to hell.  Leave it and find a Bible-teaching church.  You will find it full of sinners, just like yourself, that have been changed.  And they will love you, if they really know Jesus.

Also I don't care if you or anybody hates me, my lifestyle or whatever...

I don't believe that.  I don't hate you, but some here do.  But that won't matter 70 years from now.  

All that will matter is what you did with God's free gift of salvation through Jesus.  And your acceptance of Jesus will be reflected in your obediance to God's Word.

Quoted: I understand how laws against murder are in the interest of the public good, same as stealing, drinking & driving, etc.  I can even understand how abortion could be considered murder if you believe that the unborn child is a life.  I understand how the .gov needs to regulate interstate trade. But how is banning same-sex marriage something that protects the public good?  I don't agree with homosexuality, but what difference does it make to John Q. Public if two women or two men want to live together in a committed relationship and enjoy the same insurance & legal benefits as a man and a woman?  I can understand thinking that it's morally wrong, or that they're going to hell, or that they're dirty-birds for doing what they're doing, but isn't the banning of same-sex marriage nothing more than an attempt to legislate morality?  Should the .gov really be in the business of legislating morality?  Does it ever work when they try?

Legislating morality, - sure it works.  What do you think ALL laws are?  I think the question you're asking is, "Where do we draw the line?"  That's what the various state and federal legislatures are for.  I'm sure they're just holding their breath waiting to hear from you.

Old painless: I'm not accusing you or anybody else of hating me directly. I am sure some do,but that is just the way it goes. And my commemt about taking it up with Rev Paddock comes from this....He knows alot more about what the bible says and doesn't [I'm sure you do too]then me.And I try not to make myself sound anymore stupid then trying to play the "what does Jesus say game" with pros.

Who cares?

I don't understand why people find this so threatening.  This chicken little stuff makes it sound as if our entire society is so weak that it will crumble if a few hundred gay and lesbian people are married.  I just don't see it happening.  

The time where you can deny people basic human rights because of their sexual orientation is quickly passing by.  Whine some more or get used to it I guess...

Basic Human Rights?

Freedom to associate, love and cohabitate, yes.

But is being granted a GOVERNMENT marraige license a Basic Human Right?
What other GOVERNMENT supplied licenses do you think should be considered "basic human rights"?

This is simple for me:

There should be some mechanism for transfers of estate and recognition of familial rights.
Im With Cato556 here in theory. As you state, little more complicated.  Nice handle BTW.

For those to whom it applies: Why do you feel you need to be legally protected against Gay PDA? You've no right not to be offended. Some would say "Why should I explain to my children why you have a CSA battle flag displayed", or a "..cross on the public square", or a "..rifle on my shoulder while I walk to the range." In every case, there is no harm but offense of sensibilities. We cant protect against hurt feelings - they exist internally and there is no objective means to control the actions which evoke them. Teach your children, inculcate them with your values - its your responsibility, not the State's.

The question I have if the State has no power to regulate same sex unions, as MassSC has indicated, then how do they regulate monogamous, committed, multi-partner relationships. Barring some judicial sophistry, I cant see that they can. Minors and animals have special status under the law so they can always be protected - but amongst consenting adults, the 3rd wife and the children are being denied a privileged status (medical benefits) on the basis of class.

Which leads me to my next issue: If you want to legislate from the Holy Book, which do you choose? Tough in America where ALL religions are equal, but some are more equal than others. Im game for the Koran if it extends the argument above.

As ETH points out Gov't does legislate morality and every law has social consequences. Anyone have an issue with the Mortgage Interest Deduction? It subsidizes, thus encouraging, home ownership. If you want to encourage families, do what Japan does and bonus for births - we do this already with various child deductions. The State has the power and repsonsibilty to legislate morality. But they must be consistent as well. Thats where this thing gets mucked up.

This in no way endorses homosexuality. I have personal reservations about gay "marriage" but Phased summed it up. I'll not let my personal preference get in the way of rationality. In the end, societal pressures will synthesize a solution to this issue. Its effects will be up to history to decide. The sole result I am sure of, there will be plenty of unintended consequences.

Luck
Alac

Quoted: I agree, as a self-professed anarchist.

Will we be seeing you down in Miami today?

Quoted: Basic Human Rights? Freedom to associate, love and cohabitate, yes. But is being granted a GOVERNMENT marraige license a Basic Human Right? What other GOVERNMENT supplied licenses do you think should be considered "basic human rights"?

Another good handle; but look at it this way Cincinnatus. Lets say your business is childcare, and you must be licensed by the State to do business. You are denied license on the basis of gun ownership - have to protect the children you see.

Id first question the right of the Govt to license for commerce, but would they be able to deny you license? Isnt gunownership constitutionally protected? Im not sure the same applies to sexual orientation, but to deny individuals access to advantages based on some characteristic, while others enjoy that protection, isnt right.

Gays CANT have contractual access to many of the things married couples do - as Norman74 points out. So the courts are merely extending benefits through the institution of marriage. The grantors (employers, insurance carriers, etc) of the benefits mentioned above by Norman74 would only grant them if there is evidence of special legal status. Dont overlook the economic incentive. Do I agree with the courts methodology? No. In principle, yes.

Luck
Alac

Quoted: There should be some mechanism for transfers of estate and recognition of familial rights.

Those exist:

Will
living will
power of attorney for healthcare, etc.

FWIW, I could care less however, but these mechanisms are in place.

For those to whom it applies: Why do you feel you need to be legally protected against Gay PDA? You've no right not to be offended.

Up to a point I would agree. Where would you draw the line here. I think that it is necessary for ANY society to have reasonable bounds and laws concerning them. Without this the very fabric of a society unravels. Seems most people just cannot learn from history but must repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
Further while you can argue that I do not have a right NOT to be offended, I would argue that I DO have a right to be offended. Further, I will voice my disgust under other God given rights bestowed upon me and I will fight against such behavior now and in the future.

Some would say "Why should I explain to my children why you have a CSA battle flag displayed", or a "..cross on the public square", or a "..rifle on my shoulder while I walk to the range." In every case, there is no harm but offense of sensibilities.

You compare religious expression and the 2nd amendment to homosexuality, bestiality, and ostensibly to child molestation??
This really is the root of the problem: moral equivalence, ie if I wnat my rights I have to give in to every sicko and his expression of what he believes his/her right to be. Bullshit.

We cant protect against hurt feelings - they exist internally and there is no objective means to control the actions which evoke them. Teach your children, inculcate them with your values - its your responsibility, not the State's.

I agree with that part, FWIW.

As ETH points out Gov't does legislate morality and every law has social consequences. Anyone have an issue with the Mortgage Interest Deduction? It subsidizes, thus encouraging, home ownership. If you want to encourage families, do what Japan does and bonus for births - we do this already with various child deductions. The State has the power and repsonsibilty to legislate morality. But they must be consistent as well. Thats where this thing gets mucked up.

Actually, I favor a mildly progressive flat tax without deductions, exemptions, write offs etc. The reason for this would make a good topic but suffice it to say that they are applied without equitability IMO. So even though I benefit from the mortgage interest deduct I am against it. I am also against earned income tax credit though I have benefited from it in the past.
Once again comparing these things to the subject at hand is ludicrous.

This in no way endorses homosexuality. I have personal reservations about gay "marriage" but Phased summed it up. I'll not let my personal preference get in the way of rationality.

Nor will I let your personal feelings get in the way of rationality. Propagating a society where homosexuals lip lock and grope one another in front of myself or my children is irrational. Allowing them to have positions where my children see them as role models is irrational.

The sole result I am sure of, there will be plenty of unintended consequences.

No doubt. Some of have a keen enough foresight  to recognize where this is heading. Many do not. Of course were it not for a tiny segment of the human population which has ever existed we would still live in caves and you may have already been eaten by a big cat.

Having read none of the replys to the title question at all.  I will simply answer the simple question.  Yes, banning same sex marriage is legislating morality.  Simple question, simple answer.

Quoted: I like pizza.

My Favorite is Canadian Bacon and Pinapple Pizza!

Look at the people who want to be the moral legislators on this and many other topics:  
Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, Hilliary Clinton.  

They have morals to aspire to??

If they support it, it's probably sick and perverted.

Quoted: Those exist: Will living will power of attorney for healthcare, etc. FWIW, I could care less however, but these mechanisms are in place.

They do exist, but they do not have the same weight as spousal rights. For instance, my estate can pass to my wife, exempt from federal and in my state of residency, estate issues (hopefully soon this will apply to everyone). This isnt the case outside spousal relationships. There are other examples, but this should suffice.

Dont misunderstand me, personally, couldnt give less of a shit either. But, as currently applied, the courts do not have much discretion without resorting to gymnastics.

Up to a point I would agree. Where would you draw the line here. I think that it is necessary for ANY society to have reasonable bounds and laws concerning them. Without this the very fabric of a society unravels. Seems most people just cannot learn from history but must repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Further while you can argue that I do not have a right NOT to be offended, I would argue that I DO have a right to be offended. Further, I will voice my disgust under other God given rights bestowed upon me and I will fight against such behavior now and in the future.

You misunderstand, I dont disagree. You can be offended all you want, just do not expect the force of law to shield you from it. Voice and fight, you're preaching to the choir here mate. But the legal issue is clearly defined. Same issue that many states have ruled regarding shirts - if your not arrestng men, dont arrest women for going topless. I draw the line at criminality, applied consistently.

You compare religious expression and the 2nd amendment to homosexuality, bestiality, and ostensibly to child molestation?? This really is the root of the problem: moral equivalence, ie if I wnat my rights I have to give in to every sicko and his expression of what he believes his/her right to be. Bullshit.

Bestiality and child molestation are criminal acts. I mentioned them not at all. Lets not put words in my mouth. It is not that you must give into whatever perverted whim someone may exhibit, but you cannot restrict priveledge to certain classes. If homosexuality is not criminal, then you cant arrest them for PDA, you cant restrict where they live, you cant deny them rights granted to other citizens - ie marriage. I am not concerned here with what any of us would wish for, but only what is.

As ETH points out Gov't does legislate morality and every law has social consequences. Anyone have an issue with the Mortgage Interest Deduction? It subsidizes, thus encouraging, home ownership. If you want to encourage families, do what Japan does and bonus for births - we do this already with various child deductions. The State has the power and reasons to legislate morality. But they must be consistent as well. Thats where this thing gets mucked up.

Actually, I favor a mildly progressive flat tax without deductions, exemptions, write offs etc. The reason for this would make a good topic but suffice it to say that they are applied without equitability IMO. So even though I benefit from the mortgage interest deduct I am against it. I am also against earned income tax credit though I have benefited from it in the past. Once again comparing these things to the subject at hand is ludicrous.

It is not. My point being only that the State does and will continue to reward certain behaviors and punish others. I was not justifying same sex marriages by comparison, only this fact. To answer the original question plainly; Yes the govt does and should legislate morality - . Could even be construed as support against this ruling eh? Except for the issue of inequal application.

Nor will I let your personal feelings get in the way of rationality. Propagating a society where homosexuals lip lock and grope one another in front of myself or my children is irrational. Allowing them to have positions where my children see them as role models is irrational.

Fortunately you can hold this position, and Id not want my children exposed this behavior regardless of the sex of those involved. The answer here is to criminalize groping. But that probably wouldnt pass muster either. These arent my personal feelings; its the law. Homosexuality is not criminal; that is a fact. Our personal feelings are immaterial, as there is no mechanism to enforce them. To think otherwise is irrational.

The sole result I am sure of, there will be plenty of unintended consequences

No doubt. Some of have a keen enough foresight  to recognize where this is heading. Many do not. Of course were it not for a tiny segment of the human population which has ever existed we would still live in caves and you may have already been eaten by a big cat.

There may be something profound here but I dont quite get it. Ive got no dog in this fight, except that the law must be applied evenly. BTW I am, right now, looking at the last cat that tried to eat me, so I am, more than likely, reasonably safe from that fate. I am keen enough to know I am unable to see the results

I am assuming you're a MD or DO, least for some reason I have it in my mind that you've alluded to that elsewhere. If so, would you deny treatment for a homosexual that came under your care? If you are not, for the sake of argument, give it a shot, I am curious. If you are, you are bound by an oath. Your personal feelings aside, you've got legal and ethical obligations to perform. This is my position.

Govt can and does legislate morality, but it does so under the confines of the The Constitution of the United States of America or that of the respective State. We can try and wiggle around it, but denying homosexuals equality under law is clearly an issue that wont pass Constitutional muster for long. Its been pointed out above, but as a society, we really do have bigger fish to fry.

Luck
Alac

Quoted: Quoted: Those exist: Will living will power of attorney for healthcare, etc. FWIW, I could care less however, but these mechanisms are in place. They do exist, but they do not have the same weight as spousal rights. For instance, my estate can pass to my wife, exempt from federal and in my state of residency, estate issues (hopefully soon this will apply to everyone). This isnt the case outside spousal relationships. There are other examples, but this should suffice. Dont misunderstand me, personally, couldnt give less of a shit either. But, as currently applied, the courts do not have much discretion without resorting to gymnastics.

That would be my answer as well. Too bad.
I'll preface my further remarks by saying that I did not intend a flame war. Just making my points

You compare religious expression and the 2nd amendment to homosexuality, bestiality, and ostensibly to child molestation?? This really is the root of the problem: moral equivalence, ie if I wnat my rights I have to give in to every sicko and his expression of what he believes his/her right to be. Bullshit. Bestiality and child molestation are criminal acts.

So was homosexuality until a few months ago. A slippery slope indeed.

I am assuming you're a MD or DO, least for some reason I have it in my mind that you've alluded to that elsewhere. If so, would you deny treatment for a homosexual that came under your care? If you are not, for the sake of argument, give it a shot, I am curious. If you are, you are bound by an oath. Your personal feelings aside, you've got legal and ethical obligations to perform. This is my position.

Absolutely. And I adhere to my responsibility and ethical obligations. Not the high point of my day though.

Govt can and does legislate morality, but it does so under the confines of the The Constitution of the United States of America or that of the respective State. We can try and wiggle around it, but denying homosexuals equality under law is clearly an issue that wont pass Constitutional muster for long. Its been pointed out above, but as a society, we really do have bigger fish to fry. Luck Alac

I'm really not sure that we do have bigger fish to fry as you say. This is going to have far reaching ramifications, which only some of us apparently are aware of.

Quoted: Quoted: Same sex marriages will NEVER be marriages in the eyes of the church, so why be upset about it. Some churches do. as a matter of fact JT and I are getting married in the church we go to on May 1 2004

There is a BIG difference between such activities being tolerated by a specific minister or congregation and those same activities being officially recognized by The Episcopal Church of America and the Anglican community as a whole.

I once knew an Episcopal priest who performed "marriages" for homosexual couples all the time. She never did them in her home parish and they were never done with any fanfare or announcement.  She once told me that had she made a public thing of it she would likely have been removed from her office by the Bishop.  Eventually her radicalism did catch up with her and she was removed from her position and reprimanded.

Furthermore, the Episcopal Church is FAR from unanimous in its tolerance for open homosexuality.  A schism is brewing in the Episcopal Church of America over the election of an openly homosexual, activist bishop.  

The growing liberalism in the Episcopal church is going to fracture it.

By all means, have a spiritual commitment ceremony with your partner and make a life-long commitment to one another. While I cannot condone or understand your lifestyle choice, I support your right to make that choice and your right to be happy in it. Additionally, one of the primary reasons for the explosion of HIV in this country is the libertine sexual practices of the homosexual community in the 70's and 80's.  Their unwillingness to make commitments and live in monogamous relationships ensured the rapid spread of the disease.  Homosexuals entering into exclusive, monogamous, long-term relationships helps control the epidemic.  However, You may be commited one to another, you MAY make that commitment last a lifetime, but you ain't married.

DRJ:

Had no indication you intended to flame, finding the discussion here QUITE reasonable based on the topic. No DU hysterical, incomprehensible rants, though a few posts are tipping that way. Says something about the quality of people here that it hasnt degraded to such.

On this one though we'll have to agree to disagree.


Luck
Alac

Quoted: This is simple for me: ...This in no way endorses homosexuality. I have personal reservations about gay "marriage" but Phased summed it up. I'll not let my personal preference get in the way of rationality. In the end, societal pressures will synthesize a solution to this issue. Its effects will be up to history to decide. The sole result I am sure of, there will be plenty of unintended consequences.

Thanks for the reference Alac.  

The one other way I would argue this point (and I admit I 'borrowed' this technique from another board) is to replace the word 'homosexuals' with the word 'Jews' and see if the statements make any sense.  This had the added benefit of citing a specific religion which really shows the religious aspect of the arguments.  Try it with 'English' or 'First generation immigrants' or 'gun owners'.  

Without going into my personal position on homosexuality, the thrust is to seperate the government's 'desired' action or inaction from any particular 'class' or minority that is supposed to be the subject of that action.  We are all a minority of one and the constitution is all about protecting the rights of the minority.

To use your line - and it's a really good line

Teach your children, inculcate them with your values - its your responsibility, not the State's.

This thought strikes me when I see people demaning that a school teach (or not teach) something to their children.  Are they so worried that the values they teach their children are so flimsy that the school (or a movie or the outside world) will overwhelm the values the parents teach?  It is the responsibility of parents to teach their children to think and be able to absorb that they see and fit it into their own world view; to dismiss or ignore foolish or bad behavior, to emulate good behavior, to understand the difference.  Are their values really so fragile that something their child sees could destroy them?  You cannot legislate a world that is 'idea free' except for your ideas, else I would outlaw death...


Edited for Alac's second quote

Quoted: Thanks for the reference Alac.   The one other way I would argue this point (and I admit I 'borrowed' this technique from another board) is to replace the word 'homosexuals' with the word 'Jews'

Sorry, but the word switching doesn't hold water in this discussion.

Being a Jew is a religious stance (Some would even say racial because it's deep roots in a geographic region) where as homosexuality is an action.

That would be like using the arguement that people who run fast cannot get married.
And that just isn't the case.

If people chose to act as homosexual, we, as a society, have the right to say that the actions do not carry the same benifits of hetrosexual relationships due to the increased risks that homosexual behavior creates and the costs to the morals of society.