Bush calls for gay marriage ban

[mrdevious]

Seperation of Church and State wasnt meant to keep the Church our of the State, it was meant to keep the State out of the Church. But Liberals see it as a weapon against all things Christian...

Really, because I was under the impression that the control of the Pope and catholic church over government policy became a non-too-popular concept with the people of Europe. Democracies of today are not designed to have religious authorities overriding government policy and law, in case you haven't noticed.

Ah but what do I know, I'm just a filthy "liberal".

[dezalb]

Marriage was to be between a Man and women...

.. no Adam & Steve

[mrdevious]

Marriage was to be between a Man and women...

.. no Adam & Steve

If 2 people getting married aren't christians, why should they be bound by christian morals?

[Psycho4Bud]

LOL....now this is why politics are debated!!! This was my initial response:

The only thing that marriage has to do with government is benifits from social security, etc........if the church doesn't recognize it, why should the fed?

Actually, after living together for 7 years aren't you considered legally married anyways?

After reading this I have to change my vote on the issue!

For many, many people marraige is a legal issue and not a religious issue. Just ask the IRS, INS, or dozens of other government organizations. I wasn't married by the Church. I was married by the City of Shanghai China. Our government, however, recognizes my marraige as valid. We are considered to be maried. Not to have a civil union or whatever they call it now.

When I was engaged to my wife a lot of people asked my why I wanted to marry a Chinese girl. I told them "I don't want to marry a Chinese girl, I want to marry the woman I fell in love with". I imagine ots the same thing with gays. they just want to marrybthe person they fell in love with. Who are we to tell them no?

I'm not anti-gay what so ever but the implications on the systems that you mentioned is what concerned me. I forgot about that one factor though...the Justice of the Peace (State) also performs marriages....non church related! Seperation of church and state still holds true!

Thanks Fengzi.....GREAT post!!!!

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

[Shelbay]

I've mentioned this before but I'll say it again.

Forty or so years ago my marraige would have been illegal in some (Southern) States. You see, I'm White and my wife is Chinese. It wasn't until 1967 that the Supreme Court declared laws against mixed-race marraiges unconstitutional. Those in favor of the laws used many of the same arguments that those against gay marraiges use today: "Against God's plan", "Against Nature", etc etc.

Personally, I'm not religious and don't believe in God, so I don't really give a rat's ass if someone's marraige is "against God's plan" . I would be seriously pissed if some Bible thumping fucknut told me I couldn't get married because God didn't mean for Whites and Asians to mix.

For many, many people marraige is a legal issue and not a religious issue. Just ask the IRS, INS, or dozens of other government organizations. I wasn't married by the Church. I was married by the City of Shanghai China. Our government, however, recognizes my marraige as valid. We are considered to be maried. Not to have a civil union or whatever they call it now.

So, any religious arguments against gay marraige are simply bull shit. If a church doesn't want to perform a gay marraige, or kick out gay congregation members-fine. But that shouldn't stop the government from recognizing and performing gay marraiges.

When I was engaged to my wife a lot of people asked my why I wanted to marry a Chinese girl. I told them "I don't want to marry a Chinese girl, I want to marry the woman I fell in love with". I imagine ots the same thing with gays. they just want to marrybthe person they fell in love with. Who are we to tell them no?

Nice post Fengzi..just one thing..some of us do give more than a rats ass about OUR beliefs..its ironic that believers are shunned and labeled because of our beliefs but when we stand our ground on our principles we are labeled..well you and others do the same damn thing when we don't agree with issues such as this...I don't really matter into the grand scheme of laws and politics but I am an individual that has certain beliefs and should not be told that my beliefs are bs anymore than I should tell you your beliefs on homosexual rights is bs..because if thats the way of things..then I do say it ..its morally wrong imo and I get sick of being told I have to agree with homosexuality or I am full of hate! Thats one of the major things wrong with this world now..whatever anyone desires they have a right to it..yeah..at what cost? Also I get sick of hearing about the damn South on this issue..lets post some of the most stupid in effect laws that the NE still has on their books for a change..they are there. You call us bible thumping fucknuts..don't sterotype and expect others to show consideration toward you and yours when you don't dish it out. Your post made a convincing point up unto when you made it a personal issue about religion for ALL...I believe in God,Jesus Heaven & Hell but am far from being a fucknut..I could throw some degrading names out about non believers and sexually challenged folks but I don't make it personal..would be nice if hypocrites learned to do the same.

[Fengzi]

Hi Shelbay, I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else who is strongly religious and/or beleives in God. My comment about "bible thumping fucknuts" was merely an expression of how I would feel about someone who commented negatively on my marraige based on their religious beliefs.

You state that "its ironic that believers are shunned and labeled because of our beliefs". It is even more ironic that someone who makes this statement would be so quick to shun and label someone else (gays).

I do agree 100% with your comment of "I am an individual that has certain beliefs and should not be told that my beliefs are bs" . I should not impose my beliefs on you or anyone else. It is not my business to do so. The fact that you point this out, however, makes it all the more ironic that you wish to impose your beliefs on others. Is there really any difference from me allowing you to have your own beliefs and you (collectively speaking)allowing gay marraiges to happen? Your beliefs are none of my business and it is none of yours if some gay couple wants to marry. If you disagree with this, it is you who are the hypocrite, not me.

[graymatter]

Hasn't religion always influenced government, usually to support the traditions and institutions of the time...?

Where does christianity (in all it's sectarian difference) stand on the following?

slavery

civil rights for women

racial segregation

civil rights for minorities

gay marraige

[braddog10]

Hasn't religion always influenced government, usually to support the traditions and institutions of the time...?

Where does christianity (in all it's sectarian difference) stand on the following?

slavery

civil rights for women

racial segregation

civil rights for minorities

gay marraige

Awsome Gray,..........I'll give this some thought taday.

Just Chillin.

[jamstigator]

One interesting thing about Christianity, as an aside: there are very, very, very few actual Christians. The vast majority of those who say they are Christian aren't, except in terms of giving lip service to the teachings of Jesus. Christians are those who believe, AND PRACTICE, what Jesus Christ taught, and the main gist of what he taught is absolute pacifism under all circumstances. If you'd vote for a war, any war, for any cause, regardless of how just it might be in your mind, you aren't a Christian. If your mother is being raped, and the only way to prevent it is via some form of violence, and you would do so, you aren't a Christian. If someone was beating you, and intended to kill you, and the only way to prevent your death was to commit violence on the person intending to kill you, and you would do so to save your life, you aren't a Christian. Clearly, there are very few people who believe and practice what Jesus taught. In part, this may because such people often eliminate themselves from the gene pool, by being killed while practicing absolute pacifism. Absolute pacifism is just not a survival trait.

Those who say they are Christian, but who don't actually practice what Christ taught, are nothing more than hypocrites. I admire the concepts of peace and pacifism, and if I ever meet an actual Christian I will tell him or her so. But I will not hold my breath waiting for that to happen; in almost 42 years I have come across a grand total of 0 such people.

[birdgirl73]

I'd say I've come across two or three people in my life who would qualify as Christians by your definition up there, Jamstigator. Two of these people were practicing Quakers, who do the best job I know of of modeling absolute pacifism. The third is a colleague of mine who is the most serene, secure-in-her-faith person I've ever known. She is completely motivated by kindness and peace in her interactions with others. And I think she qualifies, too.

I want to give this some more thought, but my initial reaction is that I'm not at all certain I agree that an act of self-defense against rape or murder would truly disqualify someone as a Christian.

I think it's important to keep in mind that Christians don't have to be perfect in order to be true Christians. Sure, there are plenty of talk-the-talking hypocrites who can't get anything right and don't even try.

People will never fail to be disappointed if they look to Christ's followers as the models for Christian behavior. The only real model is Christ himself. Thankfully, there's grace for the rest of us!