Bottom line:

Marriage does not equal your religious beliefs and has little to do with it unless you force it. The government issues very specific rights to couples who are married not the church. Its a contract that comes with civil rights. Rights that all people deserve. This equality issue has absolutely nothing to do with anyone’s church or beliefs it has to do with our laws and freedoms. I could care less about the term marriage but I have to based on our laws. Either all “people” have the same rights or all “people” should not have those rights. We could do away with marriage for all as far as I’m concerned and everyone can have a civil union instead. Does anyone on this board know that we are the ONLY country that allows priest to marry couples. I think we should do away with that as well if we go down that path. Marriage has and always will be from the government, a religious ceremony has nothing to do with the LAW only our beliefs.

Reading all of this back and fourth is really disgusting. It truly undermines the fabric of society in the most divisive of ways. I lived in MA for 12 years the sky did not fall with marriage equality it actually was brighter, people came together out of mutual human respect. I now live in NYC and I am in the same situation I was during that “drama” name calling and justification. Any person who is not on the side of a persons constitutional and civil rights clearly does not understand them and most likely does not even use those rights to there full extent.

What I see is fear or fight, possible we can compromise. What the reality is will put it to rest. At the end of the day there will be marriage equality in America IF our Federal and State constitution are upheld. There is nothing that can change that fact. At this point in time the best solution for heterosexuals is to figure out how they embrace this while not changing their values and for homosexuals: what constructive things can I do to secure my equal rights.

James Madison wrote, “During almost fifteen centuries the legal establishment known as Christianity has been on trial, and what have been the fruits, more or less, in all places? These are the fruits: pride, indolence, ignorance and arrogance and servility in the clergy. Ignorance, arrogance and servility in the laity, and in both the clergy and laity, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

Thomas Paine wrote in his “Age of Reason”: “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.”

“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. ”

“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. ”

“Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.”

“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.

“We do not admit the authority of the church with respect to its pretended infallibility, its manufactured miracles, its setting itself up to forgive sins. It was by propagating that belief and supporting it with fire that she kept up her temporal power.”

John Adams, U.S. President, Founding Father of the United States

“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

“Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?”

“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”

In his, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

“. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?”

-letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
.

My personal favorite who was simply snide and snotty about it, Alexander Hamilton:

Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton’s flippant responses when asked about it:

According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of “foreign aid”; according to another, he simply said “we forgot.” But as Hamilton’s biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.

Ethan Allen, Revolutionary War Hero

“I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not strictly speaking, whether I am one or not.”

Though Abe Lincoln was not a founder, his statement on his own religion was simply this:

“The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession.”

It is more than apparent that the founders were not particularly fond of Christianity, though most of them stated they respected the moral system of Christ, they could not say the same of the religion that rose up in his name.

And as regards to creating laws based on Christian principals, I will revert to Thomas Jefferson again:

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law.”

-letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

The intent was clear. That religious ideas should never be applied to American law.

Sexuality is involuntary. If a homosexual has to CHOOSE to be homosexual, the same would have to be true of heterosexuality. You would have to, upon reaching sexual maturity make the SAME volitional choice. You would have to sit down and say, “on this day, I decide I will find persons of the opposite sex sexually attractive, and not the opposite sex”

Your rationale is totally irrational. If sexuality is based on a personal decision, that decision applies equally to ALL forms of sexuality.

It is rather more than likely that there are many genetic reasons that a person’s sexuality develops in one direction or another. It could simply be that genetically, nature does not want that person to reproduce or pass on some genetic trait into the gene pool.

For all we know it could be totally harmful to the human race in some way to attempt to force people who lean towards homosexuality to reproduce. Since homosexuality occurs in many, many species, odds are that nature intends homosexuality for some purpose that is very very important to the survival of the human race as a species. In places where homosexuality is the NORM, and these places do exist today, and have existed many times in the past, if heterosexuality were the norm, the entire population of that region would starve to death because the areas resources were not sufficient to support a population that increased at normal rates or even rates in which fertility was limited due to these conditions.

There is an island, one of the isolated Paciofic Islands, where today, homosexuality is the “norm” because if the population engaged in heterosexual behavior, the population would completely outstrip the food and water resources of the island, and the entire society and culture would vanish. In these societies there are often sanctions against heterosexual sex beyond that needed to keep the population large enough to provide for the society to a degree that threatens the society’s resources. In the past colonialism in that region completely damaged societies in which this was normal.

In fact studies that indicate that homosexuality has a powerful genetic component were discovered by studying Pacific Islanders who lived on the most remote and small islands, and in fact that the genetic tendency to homosexuality exists in many non-homosexuals and can be triggered over time depending on conditions that the person lives in:

Finally Evolutionary Proof of the Gay Gene
Published Feb 10, 2008

Stud­ies of homosexual men in the re­mote Pa­cif­ic have led sci­en­tists believe that ho­mo­sex­u­ality and oth­er gender-queer be­hav­iors may have an ev­o­lu­tion­ary func­tion World Science has reported.

A sec­ond as­ser­tion to emerge from the work is that psy­chol­o­gists should re­con­sid­er the way they class­ify as a “disorder” trans­sex­u­alism—a strong de­sire to be the op­po­site sex.

The re­search fo­cus­es on a re­mark­a­ble group of men who have sex with men, though they de­fy much con­ven­tion­al wis­dom on what be­ing “gay” is. They form a broadly ac­cept­ed so­cial class in Sa­moa, a south Pa­cif­ic is­land na­t­ion.

The stud­ies are di­rect­ed in part to­ward re­solv­ing a sci­en­tif­ic mys­ter­y: why does ho­mo­sex­u­al­ity pe­r­sist in the world? It seems to make lit­tle evo­lu­tionary sense.

*********************************************************************************************

Homosexuality may not only be genetic, the fact that it has persisted from generation to generation means it is purposeful

You as well.

I hear you. We’ll just have to disagree.

I appreciate the polite debate. I wish you well ………….

I did read the post above, however, one of the sources you cite is the Omega Journal of Death and Dying, which published this in 1994. If you read the footnote, you’ll see they cite Paul Cameron, Ph.D., William L. Playfair, M.D., Stephen Wellum, B.A., The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic. Cameron was dropped from APA membership afer his refusal to work with an investigation into he research after complaints from members. The APA called his research weak. The ASA expelled him and the CPA won’t have anything to do with him.

Sorry if I don’t take the flawed research of a discredited person to heart.

As for the rest of it, again this bolsters the arguement for gay marriage, as marriage promotes stability.

This is from my heart.

I sincerely hope you took the time to read the 4:48 post above. I can only tell you that if my kids or friends were involved in any type of sexual immorality from sex before marriage, to adultery, to homosexuality I would treat them all the same. I would not condone it and would practice “tough love” to the best of my ability.

This may throw you but hear me out. It is always possible that one of Jesus’ disciples was “gay” ….. possible. We know a couple of them were “brawlers”, a couple were thieves, one was a “terrorist” of his day (a “Zealot”) and I guarantee at least one or two were “womanizers”. So again, it’s possible one was gay or had gay desires. However, I believe they ALL gave up their particular sins/former life to follow Jesus.

Just one man’s opinion.

God bless …………….

I feel the same way with your religion, keep it in your home and not in the political arena.