Gay Marriage

Scrat wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
...the danger is for those of us who are agnostics and atheists.

We are the ones under assault right now.

Can you give me some specific examples of how?

Actually, I already did.

We agnostics and atheists have to deal with the comment "In God We Trust" on our money.

Why should a secular institution like our government be commiting us to something like that?

I, for one, certainly don't trust the "god" that seems to dominate our society.

The expression has no reason for being there except that the theistic majority of our people seem to think that sucking up to their god is something worthwhile.

I love this country and I certainly want to pledge my allegience to it. Why should the OFFICIAL pledge of allegience to our country contain the expression "...under God?"

Whether or not we are "under" some "god" or not should have NOTHING to do with whether I pledge allegience to this country.

The expression has no reason for being there except that the theistic majority of our people seem to think that sucking up to their god is something worthwhile.

Those are two examples, Scrat.

0 Replies

Are those really attacks? I don't consider them attacks.

Attacks are fire bombing a synagogue, or desecrating a church, or sending a suicide bomber to blow up a bus, or destroying ancient statues. I have yet to see an actual attack against atheists and agnostics, Frank.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Are those really attacks? I don't consider them attacks.

Attacks are fire bombing a synagogue, or desecrating a church, or sending a suicide bomber to blow up a bus, or destroying ancient statues. I have yet to see an actual attack against atheists and agnostics, Frank.

Are you suggesting that the fire bombings of synagogues and church desecrations and suicide bombers and destroying ancient statues...

...are attacks by agnostics and atheists against theists?

I think not!

Theists present a grave danger to agnostics and atheists.

Theists also present a grave danger to other theists.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Theists present a grave danger to agnostics and atheists.

Theists also present a grave danger to other theists.

One look at the middle east is all you need to see that.

0 Replies

Sorry, don't need to go any further than my local Southern Baptists, Assembly of God and Penecostals :sad:

0 Replies

Follow the bible on marriage with a constitutional amendment.
******************
Back to the Bible
The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for the
President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition
of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles.
With any forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray
that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government."

Any religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So
here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed
Constitutional Amendment to codify marriage based on biblical
principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one
man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron
11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin.
If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen
24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry
the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately
does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen.
38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

0 Replies

legislation of bigamy, whores, genecide, bigotry, forced indenture (slavery), and chattel.

0 Replies

But, but, but, that's what the bible says......

0 Replies

The bible also says that women are the property of men................

er, I guess that I'm just repeating myself.

In other words, we are trying to legislate what we destroy Iraq over........ hmmmmmmmmm!

0 Replies

News release: "Gay Marriage Suffers Legal Setback in New York
2 hours, 28 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Mark Egan

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said on Wednesday the state's laws do not permit gay marriage, dealing a harsh blow to the growing nationwide battle for same-sex weddings."

0 Replies

I don't see this as such for the Gay's - it keeps it on the front burner, from a Civil Act and discrimination standpoint, it is a plus......

It becomes a question of if a just, free society can allow discrimination...........

0 Replies

1) How will gay marriages ruin marriages?
2) If a civil union has all the same legal benefits as marriage, then isn't marriage a civil union?
3) How will gay marriages have a negative impact upon you or your children?

Marriage is a discriminatory institution based on sex. It is also an economic institution that gives advantages to the participants, advantages that are denied other pairs of Americans. If every single couple of Americans in this country got married, who would stand to lose?

Four amendments in the Bill of Rights make a ban on gay marriages unconstitutional, the 14th not the least of which.

The naysayers here have no legal leg to stand on, and they know it. They also know that to attack gay marriages is to attack the Constitution itself. A dangerous game, to be sure. They could well end up looking not only anti-American, but anti-Constitutional as well - and I am sure they do not want people getting suspicious...

0 Replies

Umbagog, welcome! Did you read this post, and if you did what are your thoughts? Thanks!

marriage definition

0 Replies

Umba, The majority in this country live in "fear" of most things they/we do not understand. We're not programed to think rationally, so what religion or politicians dictate must be the right thing to do. I doubt things will change any time soon, so I just accept "majority rule." Not much else we can do, but make the best of what we have. BTW, it takes the likes of a GWBush and the christian conservatives to attack gay and lesbian marriage even at the cost of infringing on our Constitution and equal protections. They're a bunch of bigots that fails to understand what discrimination is all about.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
...the danger is for those of us who are agnostics and atheists.

We are the ones under assault right now.

Can you give me some specific examples of how?

We agnostics and atheists have to deal with the comment "In God We Trust" on our money.

That seems to be a stretch of the term "assault", a stretch of titan proportions. With respect, I do not accept the notion that this triviality amounts to an "assault". In fact, I highly doubt it could even be called an inconvenience.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Scrat wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
...the danger is for those of us who are agnostics and atheists.

We are the ones under assault right now.

Can you give me some specific examples of how?

We agnostics and atheists have to deal with the comment "In God We Trust" on our money.

That seems to be a stretch of the term "assault", a stretch of titan proportions. With respect, I do not accept the notion that this triviality amounts to an "assault". In fact, I highly doubt it could even be called an inconvenience.

Then I must agree to disagree with you, Scrat.

It is hardly a triviality to me -- and carried to its logical conclusion, it is of immense danger.

But let's agree to disagree.

0 Replies

Fair enough, but if that's what you call "assault" it makes me question your sense of perspective and proportion. You are not under assault. You might reasonably argue that you are made to feel marginalized by federal recognitions of God, but nothing more.

FWIW, I see no inherent value in having "God" on our money or in the pledge. I'd have no problem removing it from both. I understand your displeasure with them, but I suspect you could not name for me a single example of how you have personally been measurably harmed by either.

0 Replies

Umbagog - The "Constitutionality" of a proposed amendment is a non-issue. By definition we amend the Constitution to do those things which it does not currently allow, or to prevent those things which it currently does. Further, an amendment to cement the existing definition of marriage as a Constitutional principle does not take away anyone's rights anymore than do the Constitutional rules for who can and cannot be President. In both cases the Constitution does/would allow certain people access to a set of rights and privileges and deny them to others.

Of course, as I've stated here before, every non-married adult in this country has the same right to marry as does any other adult.

The more I think about this, the more I come to think that this issue isn't about whether some people have the same rights as others. WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENTER INTO A MARRIAGE AS IT IS AND HAS BEEN DEFINED. There doesn't seem to be any "equal protection" issue there at all. The real issue at hand is that some adults would like to create a NEW RIGHT entitling non-married adults to enter into a new union comprised of two adults of the same gender, and would like to expand the current definition of the word and legal concept of "marriage" to include this new type of union.

I would support the creation, by my state, of such a new union, and the extension of the right to enter into same to all non-married adults without respect to gender. I wonder whether some people might find their positions changed (or strengthened or kept the same) by looking at this question in the way I have outlined here.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Fair enough, but if that's what you call "assault" it makes me question your sense of perspective and proportion. You are not under assault. You might reasonably argue that you are made to feel marginalized by federal recognitions of God, but nothing more.

FWIW, I see no inherent value in having "God" on our money or in the pledge. I'd have no problem removing it from both. I understand your displeasure with them, but I suspect you could not name for me a single example of how you have personally been measurably harmed by either.

As I said, I'll agree to disagree with you on this.

0 Replies

.
Scrat wrote: "I would support the creation, by my state, of such a new union, and the extension of the right to enter into same to all non-married adults without respect to gender."

Good for you.

Of course, this new "union" would carry ALL the same rights as civil "marriage" carries for adults of the opposite gender, right ? ALL RIGHTS, including the hundreds at the state level and the thousands at the federal level. And one state would be required to recognize the "unions" from another state, right ?

Scrat, I'm sure you realize that, if all the conditions I have just given above were met, civil unions would be the EXACT LEGAL EQUIVALENT of (civil) marriage, and, believe me, this would NEVER be acceptable to those currently suppporting the DOMA. People who are against gay rights, for whatever reason, DO NOT WANT a legal equivalent, whatever you may want to call it.

It's not about semantics, it's about prejudice and bigotry and exclusion.

.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know