Well, I would like to remind you of a few other people from recent history who were just living and letting live: Bernie Madoff, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy, and the list goes on. Well, they were born that way too, weren’t they? They were just living and letting live too, weren’t they? Oh wait, they hurt people. But here’s the problem I mentioned previously with moral relativism: it changes. It changes based upon who or what political party is in power, how many people say so, etc. These examples are extreme, but look at the history of Nazi Germany. You had an entire culture OK with mass execution. With Bernie Madoff, the government does the same thing except with police authority and we have not recourse. If you tell people a lie enough times, it becomes the truth with moral relativism.

I would say the ‘live and let live so long as it doesn’t hurt me’ philosopy is flawed. Especially because there are people with other beliefs who homosexuality does negatively affect. What about those folks? I guess they’re just bigots and homophobes-at least until congress outlaws homosexuality or people in that school of thought in the minority, right?

If you go back and read my thread you will see very clearly that I argue the use of the term marriage violates the establishment clause particularly the “infringe on the free practice of” portion. Christianity is an easy example the Apostle Paul writes “It is good for man to be married” in the same book he declares homosexual desires to be a perversion and sin, acting on these desires is not a good state for the Christian. If gay marriage is allowed “It is good to be married” has a completely new definition incongurent with the intent of the author. At that point the church absolutely must come up with a new word for it and make it clear which is an almost impossible task.

If you go back to the 19th Century Rulings on Marriage the majority opinion clearly states it is a religious institution that happens to encourage pro-creation, and is in the best interest of society for stability and family systems. The institution should exist as defined by the state only in so much as it encourages stability for the next generation of society. Keep in mind this was the ruling that said polygamy is out. Marriage is an institution to provide stability to children… Frankly I find the polygamy question more challenging than the gay question, I still dont support it.

Let’s just suspend the idea of rights for a moment. There are really no such things as rights. The powers that be may allow this or that. If God was in charge we would all have the right to live as He/She/It has designed us. Now I think I have lost you in the pronouns.

Keep up the good fight. When this life is over we’ll all be the same. I hope you find utopia, and there are no gay marriages to ruin your experience. How amazing; Right!

While we are all able to still draw breath (a privilege not guaranteed to anyone), can’t we at least be decent to our fellow travelers?

Your last post, with regard to single’s rights, is a solution in search of a problem. I have never heard of a ballot initiative seeking to limit the rights of singles. Hugh Hefner would certainly be a “player”. See singles are one group of people that answers to no-one. Have you ever heard a single person complain about his/her wife/husband?

Unfortunately, I have heard of ballot initiatives on a state level seeking to curtail the rights of your neighbors. Yes!, Your neighbors are dangerous with there non-conforming partnerships and they must be stopped at all costs.

While we are able to still draw breath, even if we stumble and fall always searching for the meaning of this life… We can support each other…!

That’s what Phil is saying…Live and let live…Before it’s too late.

My first and only love passed away this year in April. I miss her greatly. But not even a tiny bit more than others that have loved and lost. See, I’m not so special. Love is a universal feeling and it is present in everybody. Enjoy it and don’t deny it to other consenting adults. Please, Act more like Jesus.

Everyone hang on to your beliefs! But at the same time believe in the goodness of people. If you find love in this planet you are lucky. I’m so lucky!

Gur math a thèid leibh,
M F

Estate Planning Benefits
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to a designated person, including QTIP trusts,
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for the single person to a designated person — that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your behalf.
Employment Benefits (Possibly)

Taking family leave to care a single person by a designated person during an illness.
Medical Benefits
A designated person is allowed to visit in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions by a designated person if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
Suing a third person for wrongful death of a single person
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

Marriage is not wholly a religious institution, else my marriage wouldn’t be considered valid. It is a contractual agreement that has evolved as society dictates.

While there has historically been religious affiliation with marriage, it is not solely a religious institution.

By the way, you can also feel free to hit me up on twitter at @sistersadist

To redefine it is to change important texts for example “It is good for man to be married . . .” The Apostle Paul clearly did not intend that to include gay marriage. To redefine is to limit the free practice of…

I only support changing the current use if you expand the rights of singles… You dont expand the rights of singles you are being far more discriminatory.

I will accept Civil Unions for all marriages for none with a second dilination for single people to gain rights such as next of kin, Conservatorship selection, and estate privileges. I wont favor it or say its good but I would good conscious be forced to accept it as a law I couldn’t vote down.

So you are pro-marriage equality then, yes? Or are you pro-dissolution of all government recognized marriage with no government benefits to partnerships?

We can either see marriage through the eyes of religious doctrine, which means there can be no constitutional interference whatsoever, or we can see it as a legally binding contract between two individuals for the purpose of sharing property, benefits, and life choices.

You get one or the other, but they must be equal to all citizens of legal age no matter their religious, sexuality, or ethnicity.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

I’m sorry – but that pretty much says that they will make no law respecting an establishment of religion (any religion above any other religion or lack of religion) or prohibiting the free exercise of (or lack of).

Current marriage laws are based upon established religious doctrine. Therefore unconstitutional based upon the first amendment.

Argue all you want for what the founding fathers believed, but also remember that they lived in a time when women and non-white folks were still property, and that they also engineered the constitution to be an evolving document. If they hadn’t, I wouldn’t be typing this right now because I would be too busy not having any rights.

Both Washington and Jefferson recommended that government funds be used to support ministries to American Indian tribes, a clear indication that these Founding Fathers recognized no “separation of church and state.”

A few Supreme Court justices, including Chief Justice William Rehnquist, have recognized that the Court wrongly applied Jefferson’s metaphor to the Establishment Clause and unconstitutionally decided that government and religion should remain separate.

The Founding Fathers clearly intended a society of fervent faith, freely encouraged by government for the benefit of all. They firmly asserted that religion was a general and public concern, the very key to liberty’s survival and America’s prosperity.

As far as federal versus states rights issue, I think we’re splitting hairs. The tenth amendmend would seem to make this a states’ rights issue which is why Phil’s friend Dan had to travel to DC.

Also, there is no constitutional law in regards to adultery. While there are many states that consider it illegal, there is no constitutional amendment in regards to adultery. After all, we are discussing federal law – not state law.

Mike: As state before – homosexuality is something that is still new to the realm of research. As a secular person – I can tell you there is minimal bias towards homosexuality compared to religious philosophy.

Let me share with you a story about genetics: I have a brother, a cousin, and a sister-in-law that are all gay and will tell you quite matter-of-factly that they were born that way. All three grew up in well adjusted homes. Hell – my brother had a considerably more well adjusted childhood than I did: Two very present and involved parents, a church upbringing, boyscouts(that my parents were troop leaders for), the same school district for his entire life, the same friends, neighborhood, etc. Not to mention a complete lack of any emotional, sexual, or physical trauma. Unlike his very hetero-normative sister.

Trauma – while it can be seen as an indicator for sexual “abnormality” – is not always an indicator for “abnormality”.

Survival of a species is not only dependent upon breeding, but also upon social construct. The species that can evolve not only physically but intellectually is the species that survives.

Also- if you believe that marriage and unions are a good thing, shall we just do away with marriage and allow everyone a civil union? Especially, if they are all allowed the same civil rights? After all, according to our constitution we are not to make any laws respecting one religion more than another.

I didn’t make the race argument, though I do find it particularly valid in terms of the 1967 supreme court decision in regards to interracial marriage, which was also not considered “normal”.

That said a 35% normally indicates other factors, which lends to a possible pre disposition compounded with environmental factors (same as alcoholism, and eating disorders) which is not in fact a genetic tie expressly. To an extent this study proves homosexuality is a choice… 35% could also indicate abuse to both individuals but lets ignore that as a possibility as we dont really need it.

Since I get to speak to it without being blasted as having no sympathy: Bi-polar is strongly debated as a choice (in a form) amongst doctors and it has an 85% genetic correlation… 85%… most psychologists will say a a patient allowed themselves to remain depressed for an extended period of time (longer than 2 weeks) without reprieve trigging the disorder. The solution is to purposefully break depression with force, get out of bed and have fun with others, not get out of bed and clean or do stuff to be awake…

What I suspect is there could be a pre-disposition triggered by trama resulting in a altered state, eg homosexuality. Societal mass acceptance and encouragement of homosexuality is akin to giving someone predisposed to alcoholism mass quantities of alcohol and saying its good to be drunk. If thats ok with you I guess thats fine, but, I come from an irish heritage and lets just say history hasn’t been kind to that rational.

Homosexuality violates secular and religious rational for survival of the species. To encourage something like that as something to be valued is just odd. Its not mean to say its not a good direction any more than it is mean to say eating disorders or bi-polar are not good directions. Sure you can thrive, live a good life, not hurting others, but it isn’t really good when applied in bulk…(as we are learning with obestiy which is also hugely genetic yet most people wont say that is good)

I believe marriage (and unions) should be a good thing, a state to be encouraged.. Im not sure I am there yet with gay unions but I couldn’t vote against it any more than I could vote for prohibition, controlling what people eat, or porn. So long as you drop the word marriage and stop trying to force the world to prematurely accept it as a normal state. FYI 35% genetic correlation suggests it isn’t a normal state, consisting of 2% of the population also suggest it isn’t a normal state.

Finally comparing this to Racism, black people are black and there is literally no choice in the matter, or sexism , women are women, just isn’t fair. Alcoholics are alcoholics but since it manifests itself in an action something can be done about it. This notion that we have no control over love is rather troubling…Women abused should certainly practice control over who they love and choose not to love at all if they must.

Im not much for hiding… feel free to hit me up on twitter its on my blog (anyone else for that matter). I like that you call a spade a spade on both sides.

That’s exactly my point-we are not China, Nazi Germany or anywhere else BECAUSE we were founded as a christian nation just as the framers said “endowed by their creator”. As we travel down this slippery slope of whatever feels right at the time, we denigrate what the founders stood for. Believe it or not, many of them being christians themselves when drafting the constitution, declaration of independence, etc actually challeneged each other on where in the bible it allowed such a law. So you’re right, the bible isn’t our constitution, but the constitution was born out of the bible.

Since you brought up sex, let’s use that as an example. The bible (and every major religion) teaches sex within marriage; society teaches to be carefree and experiment with as many partners as necessary. Laws in the bible are not to punish humans, they are to protect them. In the instance of sex, consider the possible consequences of sex outsides of marriage:unexpected pregnancy, single parents (both of which studies show lead to other socio-economic issues), STDs, etc. But sex with only one marrital partner will not. The law wasn’t to limit our fun, it was to enhance our enjoyment.

Not to nitpick since you were only making an example, but adultery is illegal. Google it.

And finally as I mentioned earlier, there’s that condescending judgment with faux-sympathy. I’ve made no proclaimation of what my marriage is or is not or if I even have one, yet you thrust assumptions. And as far as what the bible says about marriage, while it says wives submit to your husbands (Mike’s point stands about hermeneutics that one must understand what submit means within that context, we have bastardized that term to where it demeans) the often not stated verse that follows is ‘husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church’. That means in the most literal sense, stepping in front of a bullet to save her, if necessary. In everyday life, it means wise choices and respectful living. So again, please understand what you attack before you make blanket accusations and broad generalizations.

Phil,
Congrats on the # of posts. You’re viral, man.

You do realize we are not communist China, nor are we Hitler’s Germany. We live in the USA – that is supposedly a country founded on religious liberty and personal freedom.

Sure the bible says that Homosexuality is a sin, it says quite a few things are sins, but for this comparison let’s use just one:

Adultery – as it’s probably the closest sin we can compare homosexuality to.

It’s not illegal, adulterers can get married, and remarried, and married again…you know why?

Because the bible is NOT our constitution.

Let’s be real, the reason why so many folks are anti-gay marriage isn’t because they are afraid that it will somehow cheapen their holy union, it’s because the thought of gay sex freaks them out and if we make gay marriage legal that means we have to publicly recognize that gay sex happens and OMG WHAT WILL I TELL MY CHILDREN?

The sad part is – that the whole argument about who has the right to be married vs. who doesn’t essentially comes down to what kind of sex they are having. When we categorize whose marriage is more valid based only on what happens between the sheets – it cheapens our own marriages.

I don’t know about you guys, but my marriage is more than sex. It is companionship, support, encouragement, SO MUCH LOVE, it is knowing that someone can take care of me when I can’t take care of myself – without having to deal with legal red tape.

But if you think marriage is just about what it says in religious text and what happens in the bedroom – I have the utmost sympathy for you.

Close-Minded
Wrong
Selfish
You should evolve
Bigots
Garbage Response
Still a child
Embarrasment
Poor Baby
Hateful
Prejudiced
Intolerant
Archaic

I ask you, who is being intolerant? Call the Bible fictional, call it fantasy or whatever you want, but if you actually read the entire book as Mike suggests, you will realize it is a historical account by hundreds of individuals who lived at the same time as Jesus and it tracks with historical evidence that continues to be discovered. If it is what it says it is, it reflects absolute truth.

What then is the alternative that allows for gay marriage? Feelings? What? There is a slippery slope. I mentioned China’s one child policy in a previous post. There have been widely documented cases of forced abortions thrust upon violators of this law. Is it right? Is it wrong? Apparently it’s OK in China. But what gives them the right-whatever the people there choose at the time? Do we as a society really want moral relativism? Do we really want times reminiscent of Nero (burned, tortured and fed people to animals, etc), Hitler, etc. etc? Let me be clear, I am not saying homosexual marriage will lead to dictatorships. I am saying that that fallacious logic presented to open our minds and do it because it’s the right thing can be dangerous. If absolute truth does not exist, then it’s whatever the majority of people say it is at any given time.

As a happily married non-religious woman, I can tell you with 110% certainty – that allowing gay people to get married will have ZERO adverse affects on your life. The only thing that will happen is they will be able to partake in the long list of government benefits that heterosexual couples have.

As for the “gay gene” Mike, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628205430.htm They’ve not been researching it nearly as long as things like substance abuse or mental illness…give it time, as of right now, there are quite a few studies that show that it is primarily genetic.

Phil, thanks again for speaking out. It’s one of the final hurdles in complete civil rights equality that our country faces.

I see what you’re getting at. It would seem to me though that much of this thread in support of the column disregards the vital middle portion of that quote or flat-out deny it. You see, the founding fathers did believe that we were designed by a creator-it says so in the Declaration of Independence where you quote. So, I agree that we all have certain rights, but that quote presupposes that we are granted those rights by a creator, not man. Much of the support in this column is drawn from moral relativism gained from present and ever-changing (progressivism) attitudes of governments and people. Moral relativism and absolute truth (Jesus is part of the Christian Trinity and thus IS Truth) are mutually exclusive. So while I believe that quote is correct, I believe it’s incorrect within the context of this article.

Now, with respect to your comments about hateful, mean-spirited christians you make a valid point. Christians are quick to judge others to a standard not placed on non-christians. That is a poor understanding of Christianity and Jesus Christ. What I would say is that christians believe nobody can ever live to Jesus’ standards, because he is the only perfect one. You see, God’s law was a tangible way for humanity to understand the intangible. But, people got so caught up in the laws of the old testiment that Jesus came to show how to live, not just to tell us how to live. They convinced themselved they could earn their way to heaven by getting all the checks in the boxes. Reformed Christianity teaches that christians are not saved by being good, christians want to be good because of the joy that comes from being saved.

Finally, in the interest of fairness, I’m curious. When challenged by the author about studies demonstrating that children of gay couples fare worse than children of straight couples, he completely disregarded Mike’s comments calling them ‘garbage’ and I obliged by posting a reputable study showing a correlation. Can you please sight studies showing that ‘homosexuality is a genetic abnormality’.