I always find it amusing when "conservatives" who believe in smaller government, less intrusion of government, free-market capitalism and all of that, suddenly call for an intrusion of government to stop behavior that not only doesn't affect them personally, but is only abhorrent to their own culture. Especially as a member of the Religious Right (tm), I feel somewhat conflicted when this happens. I'm gonna stick to my guns on this one, though, since it is consistent with my principles. Homosexual behaviour is wrong, but it is not the role of government to decide this. The government is there to enforce laws. Those laws are put in place in order to protect the rights of the people. You can't steal because it denies property rights to others. You can't murder because it denies the right to exist to another person. You can't recklessly endanger others. However, you can have friendships, associations and sex with whoever you choose. But don't destroy the rights of other people. I can't see why this is hard to understand.
If you use this issue to assert your majority will, in direct conflict with the Constitution article 9, don't whine when the left forms its majority over something near and dear to your heart and yanks your righteous indignation right out through your ear, okay?
Here's a list of potential issues you might just have to deal with if you set a legal precedent of government intervention:
Parental rights will disappear and be replaced by the discretion of the State.
Derogatory speech which APPEARS to be directed at racial, socioeconomic groups, or other protected groups will be criminal.
Your right to worship as you choose will disappear, and the Bible will be replaced with a more tolerant and even-handed version.
All behavior deemed offensive to any group will be outlawed. These behaviors include spanking, prayer, wearing of religious ornaments, use of opinionated or poignant bumper stickers, uppity black people supporting conservative causes, gun ownership, action movies, nudity (of womyn), heterosexual intercourse (see rape), marriage, motherhood (see white slavery), public opposition of marxism/leninism, consumption of fatty foods, smoking, Atkins, cheesecake, candies, Valentine's day, Father's Day, Christmas, Yom Kippur, Hannukkah, Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, Capitalism, Entrepreneurship (see Capitalism), loud music, Sport-Utility-Vehicles, gasoline, CO2 production, breathing, passing wind, lumberjacking, camping, hunting, fishing, zoos, meat, animal husbandry, eggs, fish, poulty, fur, Roy Rogers, Huckleberry Finn, abstinence education, pastries, clothes with mixed fibers, plastic, glass, and the miniskirt.
I don't want to live in that world. If you do, kindly move to Antarctica and create it there.
Why would you find it "amusing" that conservatives wish to conserve the definition of marriage that has been with this country since its birth?
And why, if you are hell bent on redefining marriage, would you limit it to two members of the same sex who engage in homosexual acts?
The reason to protect marriage is not so that people who are radically committed to the "gay" agenda will like us. Those who hate religious or moral principles and people who espouse them are going to continue to hate, no matter what happens. The hate is in their hearts, it isn't justified. IOW, radical homosexuals or those who hate religious believers and their beliefs are going to continue to hate someone or something, even if conservatives all of a sudden agree with them. The hate will just go somewhere else. IOW, those who hate don't do so because the objects of their hate are hateful.
Look, I know it's hard- it's even in direct opposite from our own human natures- but we have to love those who hate us. We have to bless those who curse us.
If you love someone who is driving off a cliff, you might raise your voice, shoot out his tires, or put a road block up, which might damage his car. He might get mad, not realizing you were trying to save his life. Blessing someone (and I thought blessings come from God, not fallen souls) has nothing to do with approving self and other destructive behavior. In fact, Jesus Christ was blessing the moneylenders when he whipped them. He was showing them the truth, maybe some of them woke up.
But it is a SIN to allow our salvation to make us feel superior than another. It is a festering evil in the soul. It is called PRIDE and it happens whenever one person is given reason to feel superior to another.
Your statements don't really make sense. Pride happens whenever someone "is given reason to feel" superior? What on earth are you saying? Are you saying that no one should make judgements whether behaviors are sinful or virtuous, healthy or non-healthy? "Is given reason"?
Stay in your homes. Go ahead and raise your children in a saccharine world where evil does not exist. Surround them with those who sing only of the praises of God. Then watch them live isolated lives, never even attempting to witness to others.
Are you angry? Are you feeling a little superior to those who express disapproval or intolerance of homosexual "marriage" or behavior? Kind of looks like it to me.
You can't be apart from the world AND affect it in any way.
Are you saying that in order to relate to others the truth of God, a person has to be wallowing in the mire with them? So in order to relate to meth tweakers, we have to go tweak with them so we won't feel superior? Or not tell them that meth kills? I don't get your point.
But they were also consumed with their own piety, emboldened by their religious fervor to point out flaws in others' characters.
So you're equating those who are endeavoring to protect marriage from destruction with the Pharisee who wanted to kill Jesus. I find that rather offensive.
I thought Jesus came to deliver us from that part of us.
Jesus came to save us from our rebellion against God. Comes in many flavors.
You grossly overstate your case. There is no Constitutional right to marry absolutely anyone you wish, government has regarded marriage as a legal contract for centuries and has laid down rules for both entering into and dissolving the contract. Children under a certain age can't marry under the laws of any state, bigamy is a crime in every state, and there are any number of other limitations placed on the right to marry by various states. The state does not recognize marriage contracts entered into without a license, and there are requirements to be met for those authorized to perform marriages. None of the things you say will happen if homosexual "marriage" (I put "marriage in quotes because there is no such thing as same-sex marriage) is refused legal standing have happened because of government's imposition of those other restrictions, and none will happen just because of a Constitutional amendment that simply defines marriage as it has been defined for thousands of years.
Christian principles and morality have taken far too many judicial hits in America in the last few years for Christians to sit idly by while this Satanically inspired attack on the most basic unit of all civilized societies and cultures is perpetrated by the sodomites and their leftist apologists. If homosexual "marriage" becomes the law of the land, as it will be by judicial fiat if the amendment is rejected, it is only a mtter of time until traditional man-woman marriage as instituted by God in the the Garden of Eden will be reduced to just another choice within an entire menu of marriage options.
Marriage license clerk:
"So you want to marry young man? What is your preference in a marriage partner sir, a nice young lady, a successful young man, your daughter perhaps? A six year old girl? A six year old boy? How about a chimp? Perhaps a nice young Holstein heifer? The choice is yours sir, because who are we the people, aka the government, to say who you can or can't marry? Or to say what actually constitutes marriage anyway?"
Does that scenario suit your libertarian ideals?
I do not judge anyone's spiritual condition without knowing a lot more about the person than I know about you, the sum total of which is your opinion on this matter. But to me it is utterly incomprehensible that a truly born again Christian committed to the institutions established for man by God and revealed in His word could support such a vile corruption of one of God's own institutions, i.e., marriage/family, the most basic unit of every human society and culture.
YES, emphatically YES. Read Romans 1:24-32. In that passage of scripture Paul lists homosexual activity by both men and women as especially prominent among the wicked, ugly, self destructive sins of mankind for which Jesus Christ atoned by his own death on the cross. In the passage Paul places homosexual acts in the same class of sinful behavior as murder, deceit, fornication, covenant breaking, hatred of God, etc. I know of no scripture saying that a predilection for homosexuality is a sin, but based on several clear portions of holy scripture there is no question that acting on that predilection is grossly sinful.
His laws are guidance to help us down the road to success and happiness.
Wrong again. God's laws and commands are NOT suggestions or merely guidance to help us achieve success, they are given to be OBEYED. And to fail to obey a single law is to disobey them all and be condemned to eternal punishment and separation from God. UNLESS of course the lawbreaker avails him or her self of the blood atonement for sin accomplished by Jesus Christ on the cross. Of course no human being, save Jesus Christ, has obeyed every law of God. Therefore every human who has ever lived was or is under condemnation until he or she accepts the free gift of salvation by confessing Jesus Christ as Lord and believing in their heart that God has raised him from the dead, Romans 10:9.
You say you are a Christian, so you should be familiar with the scriptural references posted above and in agreement with their message. That is, unless your version of Christianity is similar to that of people like the Episcopal Bishop Sprong(sp?) who has openly declared his disbelief in virtually every fundamental doctrine of the Church. In that case I suppose your dismissal of biblical and/or moral reasons for not allowing the corruption of natural marriage by sanctioning unnatural "marriage" is understandable.
We didn't "suddenly" call for it. Judges overruled the law.
However, you can have friendships, associations and sex with whoever you choose.
Cool. Check and see how many tax dollars go to AIDS funding. Chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, venereal warts, and herpes are rampant in this country. Many of the new versions are resistant to antibiotics, because they're being spread by people with AIDS. These people act like petri dishes, allowing more treatment-resistant strains of the viruses to multiply.
If you use this issue to assert your majority will, in direct conflict with the Constitution article 9, don't whine when the left forms its majority over something near and dear to your heart and yanks your righteous indignation right out through your ear, okay?
I've never read anything in the Constitution that guarantees the right to have governmental endorsement of one guy putting his penis in another guy's anus. As to the "full faith and credit" clause, you think those judges in Massachusetts would rule that it applies to my Texas concealed carry permit?
The left is doing everything it can to destroy Christianity. They're also doing everything they can to move forward on everything on your list. What you're suggesting is that we roll over for everything in the hopes they'll be nice to us once they've got everything they want.
I don't want to live in that world. If you do, kindly move to Antarctica and create it there.
This is a particularly lame ending to a particularly uninformed post. Your posting reads more like a DUer than a Freeper, or one of Limbaugh's seminar callers. You argue for the left while claiming to be on the right. If you're a member of the "Religious Right", I'd like to see something in a post that doesn't read like you're Barry Lind.
Parental rights will disappear and be replaced by the discretion of the State.
Derogatory speech which APPEARS to be directed at racial, socioeconomic groups, or other protected groups will be criminal.
Your right to worship as you choose will disappear, and the Bible will be replaced with a more tolerant and even-handed version.
All behavior deemed offensive to any group will be outlawed. These behaviors include spanking, prayer, wearing of religious ornaments, use of opinionated or poignant bumper stickers, uppity black people supporting conservative causes, gun ownership, action movies, nudity (of womyn), heterosexual intercourse (see rape), marriage, motherhood (see white slavery), public opposition of marxism/leninism, consumption of fatty foods, smoking, Atkins, cheesecake, candies, Valentine's day, Father's Day, Christmas, Yom Kippur, Hannukkah, Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, Capitalism, Entrepreneurship (see Capitalism), loud music, Sport-Utility-Vehicles, gasoline, CO2 production, breathing, passing wind, lumberjacking, camping, hunting, fishing, zoos, meat, animal husbandry, eggs, fish, poulty, fur, Roy Rogers, Huckleberry Finn, abstinence education, pastries, clothes with mixed fibers, plastic, glass, and the miniskirt.
On a second reading of that post I am amazed that you would berate me for setting up a straw man in my reply to that post. Nothing I said in my admittedly exaggerated scenario is nearly as improbable or outlandishly nonsensical as the portion of the post quoted above. I'm sure most of the list was intended as humor, but was it entirely for humor and I missed the joke?
If I understand the gist of the quoted portion, it maintains that if the Constitution is amended by 2/3 of congress and ratified by 38 states, the long laundry list of radical propositions in the quotation will also be enacted into amendments to the Constitution as surely as night follows day.
What poppycock! It has to be a joke. It is far more probable that my little imaginary scenario could at least to some degree become reality than that any one item of the above list could be added to the Constitution.
It is way past bedtime here in the east, so if the thread has deteriorated to this degree of nonsensical argument for argument's sake, I will close up shop for tonight and hope for a more reasonable discussion of the issue at another time.
At present, the government licenses marriage. Marriage licenses are at issue, not private behavior.
The advocates of same sex marriage in NY, Massachusetts, California and other States have shown us their willingness to break the current laws and now they are demanding that we change them by judicial high handedness.
Why should the law be changed?