New Constitutional Amendment

[kis123]

oh jezus, quit about the book of inconsistencies 😛

besides, biologically if we had Adam and Steve there would've been little hope for offspring then eh 😛

The bible is not a book of inconsistencies. It is a book that teaches people how to live if they're willing to let themselves be led by someone other than themselves. I chose not to be my own God, therefore I chose to live by the teachings of the bible. Remember, will and choice are very much alive in sprituality and personal christian relationship, not religion. We get stuck way too many times with religion on this board. No one likes religion, especially me.

The bible and most religions do not approve of homosexuality and consider it a mortal sin. But the same bible you disdain also allows you freedom of choice to accept or reject what's in it. God says you can live any way you want, but you will live with the consequences of that lifestyle. And that goes for the heterosexual as well as the homosexual.

Marriage is sacred and should be kept that way. However, homosexuals are already being married all over the place. Nothing is going to stop that and no law will abolish it. There was a time interracial marriages were illegal. It didn't stop races from intermarrying, did it?

Now back to the spirit of the thread.......

 

[natural tickler]

Meems, I agree with you, but if that is what have to be done to make a point, then so be it, let the chips fall as they may😀

 

[Sadistictickler]

The bible is not a book of inconsistencies.

it's a fact that facts and numbers are often quite different in the different books of the bible, which is very weird to me considering it's supposed to be the true word from god

but well, apart from that I'd say it's not logical for christianity to judge gays

if god made everything, WHY did he make gays if he disapproved them? There's just no sense in that

 

[kis123]

it's a fact that facts and numbers are often quite different in the different books of the bible, which is very weird to me considering it's supposed to be the true word from god

but well, apart from that I'd say it's not logical for christianity to judge gays

if god made everything, WHY did he make gays if he disapproved them? There's just no sense in that

There is a biblical answer for that but if I were to explain that, I'd risk getting blasted from this thread for sure! That's all I can say on your last question.

As far as timelines are concerned, there is no exact science to any timeline (biblical, historical, or scientific)since none of us were around when the events occurred. The pictures in our history books, do we really know that's what people looked like? No, we assume our history to be correct even though none of the people involved are here to say yes or no to it. But it's taught in our schools generation after generation with very little changes made to the books. It's when we get to college when we find out a lot of it was BS!

 

[Sadistictickler]

Speak your mind, this is a free forum and as far as I know you're allowed to say your thoughts on the biblical answer to the gay-question

and well, as far as creationism gets, when I look to Bush's face I'm 100% sure that Mankind's ancester was an ape

 

[kis123]

Speak your mind, this is a free forum and as far as I know you're allowed to say your thoughts on the biblical answer to the gay-question

and well, as far as creationism gets, when I look to Bush's face I'm 100% sure that Mankind's ancester was an ape

Well, since you've invited me........

There are two issues I can address to explain the answers to your questions. Since I'm scripturally rusty, I'll research the chapter and verse quotes, if you want me to.

Firstly, God created Satan as Lucifer, one of His top angels. When Lucifer turned against God and became Satan, God didn't kill him, did he? No. He kicked his butt out of heaven and he fell to earth to live, spiritually speaking.

Secondly, the bible says that we were born in sin and shapen in iniquity. That explains how people are born gay as opposed to choosing that lifestyle, which some also do as well. It also explains the Charles Mansons and the Jeffrey Damers (spelled wrong) of the world as well. Homosexuals aren't the only ones with issues out here. And I'm not comparing homosexuals with crazy social deviants either just for the record. All of us have our issues, including heterosexuals. My bible also tells me that fornication of any kind (including sex outside of marriage) is a sin. So some people shouldn't be on such a high moral platform unless they're willing to walk the whole walk, not just what's convenient for them.

It may sound unfair, but it was unfair for Christ to hang on a cross for a people who reject Him, His Father, and His teachings generation after generation. That's where the power of free will and choice kicks in. We can chose to accept or reject Him and he won't strike us with lightning or anything else like that. He won't give us AIDS either like some of the so-called christian right has screamed in the past. AIDS is everyone's disease, not just homosexuals.

Contrary to what you hear in the media, God loves the homosexual as much as the heterosexual. He hates the lifestyle and He's God so He can separate the two. It's the people that say God hates gays. We should be able to live in a world where we can peacefully coexist, but.......

 

[Sadistictickler]

mmkay, so god doesn't hate gays but he condemns them for them being themselves instead of what society wants them to be?

and then with lucifer/satan: god being almighty and alknowing knew that lucifer would turn on him, why did he not make satan right from the start?

besides, what does an almighty being need angels for?

 

[Neutron]

It seems like each day we hear of more individual rights being tested. Now the Head of the Executive Branch of our government wants to make it official in the constitution as what should rightly make up a marriage and an official U. S. family. This is scary!

What do you think? Should there be a constitutional amendment to this effect to get us all 'back on track'? What do you think the chances are of this happening?

Actually no one in the administration ever said this...

Tron

 

[Knox The Hatter]

We have:
* been awarded a Chief Executive who was given this country to preside over, as a reward for having run into the ground every business that his father ever set him up in...
* deficits spiraling up to the planet Jupiter, and will not see them reverse course within any of our lifetimes, due to the aforementioned...
* awarded tax cuts to people who really don't need them...
* gotten ourselves involved in a war in Iraq that will most likely not end in any of our lifetimes...
* seen Combat Pay cut substantially for Americans in uniform serving in Iraq, as well as benefits slashed for veterans, because of the aforementioned tax cuts for people who don't really need them...
* not appropriated nearly enough wherewithal for Homeland Security to do their jobs effectively, in fact, the truth is it's a hollow shell...
* watched the implementation of the No Child Left Behind mandate; which seems to have been devised by a child in a fourth grade Special Ed class...or maybe the Chief Executive himself...
* an economy that's improving...but not for anyone YOU know...
* this administration's shameful environmental policies...
* the daily deterioration of our civil liberties, in the name of security...
* as well as the concept of the economic well being of the Beef lobby being more important than the health and well being of the American people...

However, the true threat to the stability and welfare of our Great Republic can be attributed to A) the 85% exposure of a tit on television, and B) the pending nuptials of Adam and Steve.

If Clinton was a sitcom, then isn't this a horror movie?

 

[JPie1]

great post knoxie

 

[kis123]

mmkay, so god doesn't hate gays but he condemns them for them being themselves instead of what society wants them to be?

and then with lucifer/satan: god being almighty and alknowing knew that lucifer would turn on him, why did he not make satan right from the start?

besides, what does an almighty being need angels for?

Every being of importance has assistants. Who says God needed angels? Maybe he wanted them around. As far as the Lucifer/Satan issue is concerned that was the last time He gave angels choice. Mankind is the only being that has the freedom of choice according to my bible. He gave Lucifer choice then just like He gives us choice today.

God just doesn't condem a homosexual lifestyle like I said in my last post. He disapproves of any lifestyle that is against His Word, not just gays. Don't listen to the televangelists--they'll make you think that only gays are bad people. That simply isn't true.

If you have any other questions, pm me since this really isn't the thread for it. If not, we're back to the thread as posted!😉

 

[kis123]

Hey Knox...

Liked the post. Amazing how Bush can get on a religious bandwagon, isn't it? He's about as much Christian as I am white, thin, with no kids!🙂

 

[JoBelle]

And then my mind boggles that I'm swinging back to the liberal side! LOL

Gay/Lesbian Marriages.

I'm for it. AS for it as much as I am heterosexual unions.

I have no religious qualms about it. This is a legal issue. I’m sure there are many religious groups who would have us change laws to fit a belief system. Let’s not even think about the fact that some people feel as adamant about dietary restrictions as a part of their faith as some Christian and others feel about homosexuality.

I view legal marriage as a contractual joining of two people committed to spending their lives together and being socially, emotionally and fiscally responsible to one another. That happens everyday. Giving the label of "MARRIAGE" simply makes it public knowledge! LOL They can't just up and scoot out so easily! It gives accountability! Talk to anyone who’s ever been divorced! LOL

Personally, I think there are more obviously apparent things that our government should be recognizing. Uhmmm....war, economy, homeless kids, unemployment, health care, little things like that, eh?

From the religious standpoint, if one defines the boundaries of marriage in a manner that is not open for variances, I think those in favor run the risk of countering the very concept of the bible that I respect. For those of the religious camp, God said that He alone is the final judge and jury. It is God who will decide the outcome. You can make laws, but if you are going to thump the religious texts as your guide, then you should follow all aspects of it. You may think He doesn’t approve, but are you so without sin that you are ready to condemn and judge someone for loving “the wrong person” because you’re uncomfortable with their choice?

It’s very muddled to me. Kinda like those little Jesus fish people stick on their cars then fly 90 through a school zone forgetting that part of the Bible says to obey the law of the land. I digress....sorry.

Now, as far as coupling being a natural or unnatural event, I don’t know. I know that a joining of two people to share affection is natural. To procreate, you need one of each sex, so that is unnatural in that it’s impossible. So we round back to affection and love. Would God rather see a child suffer a love-less life in an abusive home or possibly be the adopted child of two committed loving people who happen to be the same sex? I know that’s a tangent, but it ties directly to the rights of people to become foster or adoptive parents.

If we take away the right to recognize a legal contract between two same-gender people, we are slamming closed the door to anything positive that might come from it. To me that would just be sad and wrong. Much more wrong than any perceived threat that would come from Bob and Tom living a life together in rural Montana. Sheesh...is it really that threatening? Am I missing something?
Jo😕

 

[ShadowTklr]

America is the land of opportunity! (for those who can afford it) Only in America can one strive to be what they want to be! (as long as it doesn't piss anyone off).
All men are created equal! (unless they like other men equally)

Homophobes are people who typically believe in an America that never existed. They relish the ideals of a strong and free America, but have never actually taken a stand for freedom. These are the convenient Americans. In their America, only people who think like them and act like them can be called true Americans. Diversity is the communism of the new millenia. Homophobes are one of many enemies of American ideals, and fundamental fairness for all Americans.

Same-sex marriages do not threaten the sanctity of heterosexual marriages. They do not impose an unwelcome lifestyle upon those of us who do not subscribe. As contributing citizens of this country, homosexuals are entitled to the same consideration and benefits afforded ALL Americans.

While I would not marry another man personally, I would not seek to deny that man the right to marry whomever he desires as a lifelong partner in this world.

 

[Oddjob0226]

I feel (not think, feel) that homosexuality is kind of FA-reaky. It feels kind of wierd, bizzare and unatural to me. But I've met some really nice gay folks, and bad ones, and good straight folks, and bad ones. I figger, if they are trying to make a go of it in a more or less traditional way except for the obvious difference, if they are contributing to society, and are law abiding in every other way I can live with a legal union. I'm not ready to use the word 'marriage' yet, but something that legally recognizes their union in an equal way under the law, hey, I'll cope. Freakin' Ted Bundy and one of the Menendez kids got married in JAIL! Zaa Zaa Gabor and Mickey Rooney already screwed up the sanctity of marriage in the US anyway. Besides, a lot of our traditional roots of what marriage is is more about property ownership and having heirs and the hetro angle is just becuase most people are hetro.

Eventually, will they make single parents marry? Will hetro bachelors have to marry? Will they use a lottery system? There's a few on this board I hope I get paired up with...

 

[Limeoutsider]

I dont think that there should be an amendment about it. Besides, whats this protecting the sancity of the union of marriage BS? Has anyone seen the recent divorce rates over the past 10 or so years?

 

[kis123]

I dont think that there should be an amendment about it. Besides, whats this protecting the sancity of the union of marriage BS? Has anyone seen the recent divorce rates over the past 10 or so years?

Divorce rates don't water down the sanctity of marriage. People who either had no business getting married in the first place, or were irresponsible during the marriage are the blame for the divorce statistics. The act of marriage is still holy and sanctified in my book, whether the people in it stay together or not.

But using the constitution to try to shut down gay marriages is like pouring gasoline on a match. It has the potential to blow up and backfire in the face of a lot of folks. I have my issues with gay marriages and homosexuality in general, but this is not the way to solve the problem and it won't make it go away. It didn't stop prohibition and other issues, and it won't stop this.

 

[asutickler]

Personally, I would like to see a constitutional amendment banning marriage as a legal contract. IMO, it is something that should be between the two persons in question and their religious institution or whatnot.


Until such a thing comes to pass, I think marriage laws should be left as-is.


I am not at all against homosexuals, nor am I against civil unions and the like. What someone does in his or her own home/personal life is his or her own damn business. However, I submit that the original intent of marriage-related laws was to foster stable family environments in order to encourage REPRODUCTION through childbirth... Something which is wholly unnecessary today. Therefore it is my opinion that marriage laws should either be left as-is or scrapped altogether. Additionally, if homosexuals should be allowed to marry because it is a "loving act between consenting adults," then what about polygamists? How about consensual incest? There is a considerable difference between governmental tolerance of deviant sexual practices and outright government sanctioning of the same.


To address the other issue that seems to be cropping up here: I am a Christian, albeit one with a rather non-standard set of personal religious beliefs. While I feel there is nothing wrong with people voting in a certain way because of their religious beliefs, I definitely have a problem with the government being directly influenced by religion or religious groups. No offense to my fellow believers, but I have no desire to live in a country governed even in part by a Christian version of the Taliban. I personally like George Bush, even though I disagree with a significant number of things his administration has done. However, if the only reasons that Mr. Bush and company can come up with for their proposed constitutional amendment are rationales based on religion, then they are out to lunch on this particular issue.


In summation (DAMN did I become long-winded quickly here 😛 ), I would vote:

NO to a constitutional amendment defining marriage.

NO to the legalization of same-sex marriage.

YES to the abolishment of marriage as a legal contract.


The End. 😛

 

[MrMacphisto]

America is the land of opportunity! (for those who can afford it) Only in America can one strive to be what they want to be! (as long as it doesn't piss anyone off).
All men are created equal! (unless they like other men equally)

Homophobes are people who typically believe in an America that never existed. They relish the ideals of a strong and free America, but have never actually taken a stand for freedom. These are the convenient Americans. In their America, only people who think like them and act like them can be called true Americans. Diversity is the communism of the new millenia. Homophobes are one of many enemies of American ideals, and fundamental fairness for all Americans.

Same-sex marriages do not threaten the sanctity of heterosexual marriages. They do not impose an unwelcome lifestyle upon those of us who do not subscribe. As contributing citizens of this country, homosexuals are entitled to the same consideration and benefits afforded ALL Americans.

While I would not marry another man personally, I would not seek to deny that man the right to marry whomever he desires as a lifelong partner in this world.

Well said... especially the part about "convenient Americans." Those people piss me off...

 

[Deleted member 2452]

send the homos to holland

since it';s already leagle there, let our homos go to holand and live there! see, now everyone will be happy!

actually the need for the amendment in question was brought on by the homosexual comunity (or radical members really) defying their state laws. in all states already there are laws against homosexual marriage, but the fruits won't abide by the law, thus bringing the need for the amendment.

yes there are pressing matters for our attention that are more important on the surface. but you have to get all the little stones lined up right, or the whole wall will crumble.

steve

 

[Shem the Penman]

Let's keep the gays and send areenactor to Iran instead. A theocracy where being gay is punished with torture and death -- he'd love it.

And the only reason this amendment is coming up is because George W. Bush is desperate. His approval rating is even lower than his grades at Yale, he has nothing in his record to run on, cultural conservatives are threatening to desert him -- so all he can do is try to fire up his supporters and distract the media from the mess he's made.

Remember when Bush the First's popularity ratings started dropping and he suddenly decided that it was necessary to have a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag-burning (because of those big flag-burning parties you had on every block back in those days)? History's repeating itself.

And by the way, I would think that on this of all boards, the idiotic idea that people "choose" to be gay would be exposed for the sham it is. Whether you admit it to yourself or not, we are most of us practitioners of what the mainstream considers deviant sexual behavior. Did you "choose" to be a ticklephile? I know I didn't.

 

[sushi854]

I normally get quite worked up over "religious freedom v. establishment" issues, but I will remain calm here. I personally believe that a person has little or no control over their sexual orientation, as Shem has stated in his previous post. I did not choose to have my tickling fetish either. I can make assumptions about where it came from, but regardless I can do nothing about the fact that I have it. Someone will undoubtedly try to distinguish fetish behavior and other "deviant sexual behavior" from sexual preference. Ok then, can anyone here say that they consciously made or are faced with a choice concerning their sexual orientation? For people who consider themselves to be "straight," are you regularly faced with the choice or temptation to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex? I know I'm not.

I agree somewhat with asu's idea about a complete reformation of marriage laws in our society. I believe that if you want to define marriage as a religious commitment, it should be left to individual religious institutions (or whatever) to define and should not be a civil issue. I do, however, see the need for "civil unions," regardless of sexual orientation, primarily to define "next-of-kin" status in a legal sense.

When comparing "gay marriage" to other issues such as polygamy and "consensual incest," I think that a certain behavior must carry the potential to have significant implications for others and society in general before it may be banned. One could argue quite persuasively that polygamous relationships carry the potential for undue hardships on the child support and health care systems, and that incestuous relationships, regardless of consent, carry the potential for birth defects and other unsavory genetic issues. In any respect, it could be argued that allowing such practices could unfairly jeopardize offspring and social institutions. I don't think anyone can make such a case concerning gay marriages, since such marriages would only concern the individuals involved. No, it is not the traditional American family, but homosexuals are not likely to start "traditional American families" in the first place. Therefore, I can't see how it is a threat to the millions of straight people who want to get married and have children. It's not like people are suddenly going to be faced with the option of foregoing traditional marriage in favor of same-sex marriage.

Bottom line, I would oppose any attempt to constitutionally define marriage as anything and would consider any attempt to do so as an election-year political maneuver.

 

[Ayla ny]

Shem, you have made your point so thoroughly, eloquently and with such clear, unmuddled insight, that all I can add is...

yeah! what he said! 🙂

 

[Flatfoot]

Leave it up to Bush and his cronies to actually go this far against gay marriage.... There is a much simpler way to deal with this issue. Instead of redefining marriage in the Constitution, why not just redefine tax policies concerning marriage? Taxes are actually a lot of the reason why this is such a big issue. The cover story is, of course, religion.... However, the practical issue involved here is that tax policies are geared toward heterosexual marriages. If we expanded and adjusted these policies to include homosexual marriage, then half of the controversy would disappear. From then on, you'd just have to deal with the religious right throwing a hissy fit, and the best thing you can use against them is the "separation of church and state" clause in our Constitution. It's no big surprise that Republicans have continued to make this a moral issue instead of one based on freedom, privacy, and tax policy.

I may be a little late in the debate, here, but I agree with this guy, that a bigger issue comes from the tax side of it. I'm not against gay marriage, but I see that by permitting it, just about anyone could get married and take advantage of tax breaks for married couples. Of course, it would be absurd to say this doesn't happen now, with BS contract marriages, and such, but homosexual marriages open up a whole new avenue for scam artists. However, how could one approach this problem? Would you make homosexuals fill out questionnaires and take interviews to prove they are gay, just so you know they aren't trying to take advantage of the IRS? That sounds a little out of the question, and since there doesn't seem to be a logical answer to the situation, hiding behind the religious punk card is naturally the "easy" way to deal with a problem you don't feel like thinking about, since the absurdity of heterosexual men posing as homosexuals to take advantage of the IRS is enough to fry one's brain.

 

[intense tickler]

I agree with the earlier post about the President. Hes made things such a mess now that he is a rat backed against the wall. This is just a political boondoggle that will implode on itself. As for gay marriage itself there is somthing about it that makes alot of straight males skin crawl and rather than dealing with their true fears they hide behind archaic religious doctrine. I thing one of the worse fears of many heteros and mostly males is having a son turn out that way. Bush may have done us a favor and opened a can of worms for us to deal with, without even realizing it.