Well now that the election is over...

[Chris]

You are sending a mixed message when you say this is the land of the free and equal, yet you are legislating morality, and refusing the right of equality for a certain type of american.

Mixed messages? I thought those only came from Kerry! You mean Republicans are guilty of those too? Nooooo! Get outta here!

Land of the free, home of the brave... equal opportunity... equal rights... yup, we'll get there eventually. Hopefully someday we'll be able to see past the differences that divide us as a people, and in this case, as a nation.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Mixed messages? I thought those only came from Kerry! You mean Republicans are guilty of those too? Nooooo! Get outta here!

Land of the free, home of the brave... equal opportunity... equal rights... yup, we'll get there eventually. Hopefully someday we'll be able to see past the differences that divide us as a people, and in this case, as a nation.

LOLOL, it just goes to show you that whether your a Democrat, or a Republican, nobody is perfect.

I hope we get pass this too. I am at odds with many in my church family, at odds with my republican friends, angry that this whole presidential campaign polarized the national so badly, and angry at watching another group of people fall victim to discrimination. After watching the republicans attack affirmative action, and this gay issue in the fashion they have, makes me wonder what their real motivation is. You have some really cool people in that party, but they are tainted by actions of a few. I am confused to why it is so hard for the various races, gays and straights, and christians and non christians to get along with each other. All you do is respect each other differences, and seek some common interests and beliefs. Why is that so hard for so many?

[karl k]

LOLOL, it just goes to show you that whether your a Democrat, or a Republican, nobody is perfect.

I hope we get pass this too. I am at odds with many in my church family, at odds with my republican friends, angry that this whole presidential campaign polarized the national so badly, and angry at watching another group of people fall victim to discrimination. After watching the republicans attack affirmative action, and this gay issue in the fashion they have, makes me wonder what their real motivation is. You have some really cool people in that party, but they are tainted by actions of a few. I am confused to why it is so hard for the various races, gays and straights, and christians and non christians to get along with each other. All you do is respect each other differences, and seek some common interests and beliefs. Why is that so hard for so many?

In a nutshell, I think I can answer that question in 1 word or less...

Fear...

Why are people who are religious prejudice against gays? Fear of God and his wrath.(as Pete pointed out) If being gay constitutes an abomination, and you are to promote the word of God, then you are, by default, not to promote(and therefore acknowledge) the ACT of being gay. Here, Christians are(or appear to be) split where some believe that being gay is not by choice and therefore can acknowledge(but not promote) those who are gay... and those that believe being gay soley is a choice and therefore cannot accept the action under any condition.

Why are nonreligious straights prejudice against gays? My experience... a forced change in environment. That's not to say that they believe that the gays will take over the whole world and "convert" everyone else, no it's more personal than that. It's more a case of they will change "my" outlook on sexual relationships. Sexual relationships are just as much about submission as they are about feeling good and making babies. For a straight guy, being hit on by a gay guy would constitute an act of dominance by the gay guy and therefore a totally new experience that he's unprepared for. You doubt me, ask a known gay basher what he would do if a guy hit on him. Then ask the same guy what he would do if an old fat woman(just as undesireble IMO) were to hit on him. In most cases both would be undesireble(almost equally) and both could be told "no thank you" but the guy would probably get his arse kicked when the woman would be politely(or not so) told "no thanks" Ultimately they will feel threatened(on the most basic, instinctual level) unless they have had early and often exposure to gay people. Most crimes against gay's are considered "hate crimes" and when you think about it, what drives hate more than anything else... FEAR. What is the action that is needed to overcome fear? Understanding and exposure.


"why it is so hard for the various races, gays and straights, and christians and non christians to get along with each other.

As described above, you can substitute sex for religion, color, gender, and any other source of prejudice. Fear of change from the known to the unknown, inferiority, popularity, peace. Yes fear of peace. After all, when you have no disagreements, no conflict, no winners, no losers, no status, nothing to overcome as a society, what will you do next? Some people actually fear this.

All you do is respect each other differences, and seek some common interests and beliefs. Why is that so hard for so many?"

It can be hard when your doctrin states that life be lived in strict fashion and morally should be spread to others(strength in numbers). How do you argue against promotion and not argue against the doctrin as a whole when the doctrin states all or nothing? When I speak of doctrin, I'm not just refering to religion as athiest's also have a doctrin... that of basic instinct and accepted order of things.(that which is natural) Ask a white guy what's wrong with interracial marriage, if he disagrees, he'll say "because it's not natural or right."

"watching the republicans attack affirmative action"

I agree with affirmative action. That said, I also think that as affirmative action succeeds, it should be scaled back to nonexistance. Who determines when and to what degree... dunno.

Ok, so it wasn't one word!

[JSE]

Karl,

Just to make my position clear.....

I have no problems at all with gay people in any way. I do not fear them in any way. And I think they should have every right that a straight person has because they are a human beings just like me and you. I judge people on their actions, not their sexuality. I don't have a problem with a State or Federal law giving a gay union every right that a traditional marriage has. No problem with that at all. I simply have an issue with a gay union being called Marriage. To me, marriage is between a man and women. To me, it's about our cultural past and tradition and to a minor degree, religion. As believe it or not, there are a lot of people just like me. For people to think myself and others like me have these views out of Hate and Intolerence is just stupid and goes to show their closed mindedness (word?) and inability to seperate their preconceived beliefs from reality.

BTW, I get hit on constantly by gay friends "messing" with me. I doubt they are serious but I could care less. If I ever responded in a angry agressive manner back toward them I would probably get MY arse kicked. A couple of them are pretty big guys.

JSE

[karl k]

Karl,

Just to make my position clear.....

I have no problems at all with gay people in any way. I do not fear them in any way. And I think they should have every right that a straight person has because they are a human beings just like me and you. I judge people on their actions, not their sexuality. I don't have a problem with a State or Federal law giving a gay union every right that a traditional marriage has. No problem with that at all. I simply have an issue with a gay union being called Marriage. To me, marriage is between a man and women. To me, it's about our cultural past and tradition and to a minor degree, religion.

BTW, I get hit on constantly by gay friends "messing" with me. I doubt they are serious but I could care less. If I ever responded in a angry agressive manner back toward them I would probably get MY arse kicked. A couple of them are pretty big guys.

JSE

Ok, so I got the acceptance right and the lack of promotion(used for lack of a better term... not saying you promote being gay, just ummm, well, never mind) wrong. My bad. I will correct the reference in the post.

I remember the first time I was hit on by a man... damn terrorfying!(spelled as intended) I was invited to a gay party by a friend at work. I went because he was OK and because he granted me a request that I bring a straight friend and he agreed he would see to it that we wouldn't be considered to be "new meat". Happened the next day at work. What do I do? What do I say? LOL! After that it was no big deal. An experience I think everybody should have to go through at least once in a life. The party to see how they live(them guys threw one hellova party)... the advance an exercise in adaptation.

We are clear... I think.

[karl k]

BTW, I get hit on constantly by gay friends "messing" with me. I doubt they are serious but I could care less. If I ever responded in a angry agressive manner back toward them I would probably get MY arse kicked. A couple of them are pretty big guys.

JSE

of an old Beavis and Butthead episode that you could have some fun with towards your "friends".

Butthead walks into the denist's office and see's a honey waiting on a bench. She's thinkin please don't sit by me... which he does. He turns to her and asks..."Uh huh huh huh Hey baby, got any cavities?" Of course, she knocks the **** out of him!

Ok well, maybe a little risky, but might be worth it. Would maybe catch someone off guard ... just enough!

[piece-it pete]

Yet you cannot read a bible, pray, or hold any religious activities in schools. So much for our christian foundation.

Oh yes you can!

As long as it's not required by the school. THIS is the result of our Christian foundation. Wouldn't happen in Islamic cultures!

What about the more than 1,100+ federal benefits offered to straight married couples? What about recognition? What about equality? Not all benefits can be address through legal devices. And why should gay couples have to pay someone to get these services when straight couples get them by just getting married. So gay couples have to pay attorneys for things that straight couples get for free. Where is the fairness and equality in that?

Having to pay a little is a bad reason to redefine marriage.

And I will repeat that these things don't apply to singles, either. Should we redefine marriage to include them?

As a christian I completely understand that Gods wrath is tempered by grace. In this day of grace, God doesn't punish the masses for the sin of a single person, or group. He deals with the person directly. Each christian has to stand before God and account for HIS life, not the life of the gay couple next door. We don't live in the old testiment, so that kind of fear is ignorance at its best. There is no scripture in the bible that supports forcing Gods word on anyone. But it does say "if they don't receive you, shake the dust from your feet and keep going." Any other words, walk away, and let God deal with them as he so desires. Its says nothing about legislated God's word on everyone, and it certain doesn't say discriminate if they don't believe in me. Who says gays are against God? Where does the word homosexual or gay appear in the bible? As a christian I am at a loss trying to understand where my fellow christians are coming from. What ever happen to love coverth all sin? There is no scripture in the New Testament(which is the dispensation we currently live in, not the Old Testament) which prescribes mass punishment for the sins of a few. This is a false arguement.

So you're saying, that according to the New Testament, Gods' grace would be a good reason to vote FOR condoning sin. This ISN'T walking away. Jesus said, "Go, and sin no more".

God also said "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom".

The ten comandments are from the Old Testament. It starts out by saying, "In the beginning, there was the word, and the word was God". I didn't hear Jesus refute this statement.

Marriage is still a Sacrement, is it not?

God will judge nations, check out Revelations. Even if not, since this is a democracy, the gov't is a reflection of the people. But you're right to a degree, God will judge every individual. Will He say, "Thanks for approving of gay "marriage"? Or will He say, "Didn't I tell you, ' ...if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea'"?

Because the single, most important reason for marriage in the first place was - protecting and raising children. It's bad enough divorce is through the roof, and many kids are raised outside of a family - let's hold up same sex couples as a good example. Let them adopt kids, they'll have a normal, healthy upbringing.

Look at the studies. There is no question. This is a reason that goes beyond religion and applies to everyone.

Of course we live in Grace, else we have no hope.

So we find ourselves at an impasse. You want to be able to legislate religion on those who don't believe in what you do, yet you don't mind squelching their rights and freedoms to live as they please to save your rights. What ever happen to PERSONAL responsibility? Now my christian brothers and sister think it is up to them to change everyone into a christian, and if you don't do it willingly, then we will vote to legislate it, and force it on you. That is not what God has commanded us to do. Why do some of us think that God cannot handle himself, or knows how to deal with this? Why do we think we have to judge and punish for God? The freedom of religion is a personal right, not your freedom to force others to believe as you do.

My freedom of both religion and freedom of speech allows me to vote my concience. If my concience leads me to vote one way or the other, and enough fellow citizens agree, that becomes law.

That is democracy. Anything else is tyranny.

Can't legislate morality? I disagree - your whole argument is that it isn't right, or fair, to deprive gays of their "rights". So it's really my version of morality or yours.

Besides, our entire criminal code is legislated morality.

If I believe that changing the definition of marriage is wrong in the eyes of God, isn't it my personal responsibility to say so, and vote accordingly?

Also, I'm not forcing anyone to become a Christian. Jesus said "You will always be a little flock". How can that be, if everyone's a Christian? How can I justify forcing everyone to become one when God Himself said it's not possible?

He also said "Vengence is mine". It's not up to me! I'm not advocating the execution of gays, I'm drawing the line as I see it. Big difference.


Pete

[Chris]

Having to pay a little is a bad reason to redefine marriage.

And I will repeat that these things don't apply to singles, either. Should we redefine marriage to include them?

Hey Pete, I don't think many here want to redefine marriage. I don't even think that most homosexuals want that - well, some might, only because it would prove to them that their relationships are legitimate in the eyes of their peers. I think they're mainly fighting for their rights as human beings. Straight couples receive certain benefits and rewards that gay couples don't because they're not allowed to marry. Civil Unions that afforded them these benefits and rewards would likely suffice. I think that's all anyone here is arguing. Let's not redefine marriage, let's just create a way for gay couples to receive the same benefits without undermining marriage (in some peoples' eyes). The fact that you've already said you'd tolerate some type of civil union tells us that you're in agreement with us.

We're not comparing gay singles to straight singles. We're comparing married couples to gay couples - a direct comparison of two people who have an intimate relationship and are committed to eachother.

Folks, if you drop the term "marriage" and name it something else, I think everyone can be happy. Unfortunately, the way Mass. and Calif. handled things recently, it enraged everyone who wanted to "protect marriage" and seriously damaged any progress that had been made. We need some middle ground though. It's obvious that this is going to get worse before it gets better.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Oh yes you can!

As long as it's not required by the school. THIS is the result of our Christian foundation. Wouldn't happen in Islamic cultures!

Pete sorry, but you can not. Right here in the bay area a judge in a case disallowed a bunch of school kids from having a voluntary bible study on the school grounds. The school didn't sanction it, and neither did the school district. He said if it is allowed, then muslim, buddhist, hari krishna's and every other religion would have to be allowed to do it. That would turn the school into a religious meeting place, and would violate the seperation between church and state.

Having to pay a little is a bad reason to redefine marriage.

Why should gays have to pay, and straights don't? A little? Have you hired an attorney lately??? That is not equality at all. Redefining marriage without providing equality for gays is discrimination. That is hateful and cruel just like racial discrimination is. Dicrimination is wrong

And I will repeat that these things don't apply to singles, either. Should we redefine marriage to include them?

It is their conscious choice not to be married. This statement defies logic

So you're saying, that according to the New Testament, Gods' grace would be a good reason to vote FOR condoning sin. This ISN'T walking away. Jesus said, "Go, and sin no more".

Where in the word of God does it say that being GAY is a sin? The word GAY or HOMOSEXUAL is not mentioned anywhere in the word. Many sins are mentioned directly in the word. Lying, killing, stealing, conveting, falsely accusing are all directly named. A man loving another man (or woman another woman) is not mention directly, or indirectly as far as I know. The Word does say that God is LOVE. So the very nature of two people loving one another is the very essence of who God is. I think christians need to be very careful when enterpreting (or misinterpreting) the word that we do not colour its meaning with our own prejudices. When Jesus said "go and send no more" he was talking to a prostitute, not a gay man or woman.

The ten comandments are from the Old Testament. It starts out by saying, "In the beginning, there was the word, and the word was God". I didn't hear Jesus refute this statement.

For whoever observes all the law but makes a false step in one point, he has become an offender against them all. This is taken from the book of James. Jesus new we WOULD break the law, so he gave his life so we would be granted grace from the law. The consequences for breaking the law is death. That is why we are not bound by the law anymore, we couldn't follow it, and live a long life at the same time. Jesus came and fullfilled the law(no need to refute it) and his love and grace replaced the law which was outdated and impossible to follow.

God also said "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom".

The word fear is not used in the original text as we use it in the english language. Fear equals respect or honor in this context.

Marriage is still a Sacrement, is it not?

Only if honored by the church. If you are married in city hall, it is not a sacrament. In order for it to be a sacrament, it must be blessed by the church. Marriges between atheist are not sanctioned by the church.

God will judge nations, check out Revelations. Even if not, since this is a democracy, the gov't is a reflection of the people. But you're right to a degree, God will judge every individual. Will He say, "Thanks for approving of gay "marriage"? Or will He say, "Didn't I tell you, ' ...if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea'"?

God will not judge nations collectively. He will judge the individuals which make up a nation. Whether he says thanks, or didn't I tell you, you won't know until he judges. However it must be noted that convenants (the ancient Israelites viewed them as holy unions) between same sex partners were around during the old testament days.(read Ruth 1st chapter) If it was a sin, the people that entered into these type of covenants would have been killed. There is no record of that happening. Since it has not been established that gay unions are sin, there is no need to worry about the large millstone, or drowning in the depth of the sea.

Because the single, most important reason for marriage in the first place was - protecting and raising children. It's bad enough divorce is through the roof, and many kids are raised outside of a family - let's hold up same sex couples as a good example. Let them adopt kids, they'll have a normal, healthy upbringing.

Single women for years have raised and protected children, that is not something exclusive to heterosexual couples. The gay couple to my left raised a son, and a daughter. They are in college doing well, very nice, and love their fathers to no end. Around the corner a lesbian couple is raising two daughters. They have been together for 25 years. Their daughters are just as polite, kind, and cute as the heterosexual couples children that live accross the streets. Love, nuturing, protection, and support are not attributes exclusive to heterosexuals(even though we would like to think that) There are good heterosexual parents, and bad ones. There are good gay parents, and bad. Being a loving, supporting parent is an individual thing, not something exclusive to a group of people. And by the way, gay couples do adopt kids. These are usually kids that heterosexual parents have abandoned.

Look at the studies. There is no question. This is a reason that goes beyond religion and applies to everyone.

Studies also outline that children are worse off after a divorce, but that is not stopping heterosexual couples from getting them. The results of studies can be manipulated to make just about any point. You look at studies, I look at my neighbors.

My freedom of both religion and freedom of speech allows me to vote my concience. If my concience leads me to vote one way or the other, and enough fellow citizens agree, that becomes law.

If your conscience allows you to vote for discriminating against a group of people, then you have misused your freedoms. This country "freedoms" and "conscience" in the past has allowed slavery to exist, and the results were a group of people damaged for generations. Mans conscience can be good, or as evil as the devil himself.

Can't legislate morality? I disagree - your whole argument is that it isn't right, or fair, to deprive gays of their "rights". So it's really my version of morality or yours.

Your morals are design to govern yourself, not others. It is wrong for you to "export" you morals onto others. Jesus teaches us to compel people to follow his teaching, not force them. Athiest don't believe in God at all, why should they follow your morals? Your version of morality is for you, not for me. So if you mind your own business, and stay out of the affairs of others, then it is NOT about your morality of mine.

{quote]Besides, our entire criminal code is legislated morality.[/quote]

The law of the land is designed to impact everyone in the same way(which it does not in reality, ask black and hispanic men that, but that's another post altogether), it in no way was design to negatively impact one group, while positively impacting another(even though it does)

If I believe that changing the definition of marriage is wrong in the eyes of God, isn't it my personal responsibility to say so, and vote accordingly?

The bible states specifically this " as high as the heavens are from the earth, are my thoughts from your(mans) thoughts. In other words what we deem may be wrong, may not be unless strictly defined in the word of God. Homosexuality is not specifically named as a sin. Your beliefs do not always equate to scriptual accuracy. It is not your job to judge your fellow man, that is Gods job. The bible also says;

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye"

In other words, get yourself together first, then you can assist your neighbor. If you are not a PERFECT christian, then you have no business judging anyone else. The beam is still in YOUR EYES.

Also, I'm not forcing anyone to become a Christian. Jesus said "You will always be a little flock". How can that be, if everyone's a Christian? How can I justify forcing everyone to become one when God Himself said it's not possible?

You say this, yet you have no problem forcing your beliefs(through legislation I might add) on other people. That is not what God put us on this earth for. We compel people to christianity though our love, not our judgement, our beliefs that are legislated to discrimination, or our perceived morals(christians occasionally do some of the most unGodly things). God implores us to "go into the world and preach the good news". These are our marching orders. There is nothing in scripture that says we are to legislate our christian morals on everyone. This country was founded on christian morals, but these morals were legislated in such a way as to free people from tyranny, not bring it upon them. There was a reason to seperate church and state. The church doesn't get out of control throwing moral edicts on everyone, and the state cannot tell people how to worship.

He also said "Vengence is mine". It's not up to me! I'm not advocating the execution of gays, I'm drawing the line as I see it. Big difference.

Yes but your definition of marriage in the absence of equality for all is discriminatory against gays. Since gay marriage doesn't square with your beliefs, your legislate discrimination. That IMO is vengance, because someone is suffering because of your "drawing the line as you see it" As you see it, and as somebody else may see it, could be universes apart. What makes your way better than anothers? Who made you god over the exportation of morals? Who says your way is the right way?

[piece-it pete]

Sir TT, it appears we have something in common - we love the debate!

Pete sorry, but you can not. Right here in the bay area a judge in a case disallowed a bunch of school kids from having a voluntary bible study on the school grounds. The school didn't sanction it, and neither did the school district. He said if it is allowed, then muslim, buddhist, hari krishna's and every other religion would have to be allowed to do it. That would turn the school into a religious meeting place, and would violate the seperation between church and state.

I would think you'd be up in arms over this clear, specific violation of our Constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court will strike it down.

Research what is meant by the term, "Seperation of Church and State".

Why should gays have to pay, and straights don't? A little? Have you hired an attorney lately??? That is not equality at all. Redefining marriage without providing equality for gays is discrimination. That is hateful and cruel just like racial discrimination is. Dicrimination is wrong



It is their conscious choice not to be married. This statement defies logic

We can call it what we like, gays will never be married, except in fantasy.

Where in the word of God does it say that being GAY is a sin? The word GAY or HOMOSEXUAL is not mentioned anywhere in the word. Many sins are mentioned directly in the word. Lying, killing, stealing, conveting, falsely accusing are all directly named. A man loving another man (or woman another woman) is not mention directly, or indirectly as far as I know. The Word does say that God is LOVE. So the very nature of two people loving one another is the very essence of who God is. I think christians need to be very careful when enterpreting (or misinterpreting) the word that we do not colour its meaning with our own prejudices. When Jesus said "go and send no more" he was talking to a prostitute, not a gay man or woman.

Being gay isn't a sin - sexual immorality is. God defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

Not believing the Old Testament is an odd position for a Christian to take. Most do believe it. I believe it does still hold true, except for what Jesus specificly said was different.

Because God is love does not make love God. In Revelations He says the blood will flow to the horses' bridles. Vengence WILL be His.

If any non-Christians are reading this I encourage you to read Revelations, it's a good read on its' own. There is no doubt that our God is terrifying.

And Jesus said in heaven we will be like angels and not marry. I wonder what that means.

For whoever observes all the law but makes a false step in one point, he has become an offender against them all. This is taken from the book of James. Jesus new we WOULD break the law, so he gave his life so we would be granted grace from the law. The consequences for breaking the law is death. That is why we are not bound by the law anymore, we couldn't follow it, and live a long life at the same time. Jesus came and fullfilled the law(no need to refute it) and his love and grace replaced the law which was outdated and impossible to follow.

Is freedom license? Are the ten commandments void? Because we're forgiven, we should put our stamp of approval on sin?

THIS is why Christ died? So we can do what we want?

The word fear is not used in the original text as we use it in the english language. Fear equals respect or honor in this context.

Please see Revelations.

Only if honored by the church. If you are married in city hall, it is not a sacrament. In order for it to be a sacrament, it must be blessed by the church. Marriges between atheist are not sanctioned by the church.

So it's OK for us to approve it?

God will not judge nations collectively. He will judge the individuals which make up a nation. Whether he says thanks, or didn't I tell you, you won't know until he judges. However it must be noted that convenants (the ancient Israelites viewed them as holy unions) between same sex partners were around during the old testament days.(read Ruth 1st chapter) If it was a sin, the people that entered into these type of covenants would have been killed. There is no record of that happening. Since it has not been established that gay unions are sin, there is no need to worry about the large millstone, or drowning in the depth of the sea.

God will judge nations. Plenty in the Old Testament. Some quick bits from Revelations:

2:26 He who overcomes, and he who keeps my works to the end, to him I will give authority over the nations.
2:27 He will rule them with a rod of iron, shattering them like clay pots...

19:15 Out of his mouth proceeds a sharp, double-edged sword, that with it he should strike the nations. He will rule them with a rod of iron. He treads the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty.

My take is that, yes, he judges nations, with prosperity or pestilence, but at the time of truth each person will answer for themselves.

Why did Jefferson say, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just"?

After multiple readings of the book of Ruth chapter one I can't find reference to gay covenants. Please clue me in.

Sexual immorality is a sin.

Single women for years have raised and protected children, that is not something exclusive to heterosexual couples. The gay couple to my left raised a son, and a daughter. They are in college doing well, very nice, and love their fathers to no end. Around the corner a lesbian couple is raising two daughters. They have been together for 25 years. Their daughters are just as polite, kind, and cute as the heterosexual couples children that live accross the streets. Love, nuturing, protection, and support are not attributes exclusive to heterosexuals(even though we would like to think that) There are good heterosexual parents, and bad ones. There are good gay parents, and bad. Being a loving, supporting parent is an individual thing, not something exclusive to a group of people. And by the way, gay couples do adopt kids. These are usually kids that heterosexual parents have abandoned.

Better abandoned than killed. The fact that gay couples can't have kids on their own should give us pause. Marriage doesn't exist to make us feel validated as a person.

Do we decide by feelings, or facts? Fact is, kids raised by single women are at a marked disadvantage in every catagory.

Studies also outline that children are worse off after a divorce, but that is not stopping heterosexual couples from getting them. The results of studies can be manipulated to make just about any point. You look at studies, I look at my neighbors.

There are very nice folks of every stripe. To base our argument for or against this massive social experiment on your neighbors is a mistake IMO.

If your conscience allows you to vote for discriminating against a group of people, then you have misused your freedoms. This country "freedoms" and "conscience" in the past has allowed slavery to exist, and the results were a group of people damaged for generations. Mans conscience can be good, or as evil as the devil himself.

Agreed to a point. However, comparing everything to slavery is wrong IMO.

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington

Your morals are design to govern yourself, not others. It is wrong for you to "export" you morals onto others. Jesus teaches us to compel people to follow his teaching, not force them. Athiest don't believe in God at all, why should they follow your morals? Your version of morality is for you, not for me. So if you mind your own business, and stay out of the affairs of others, then it is NOT about your morality of mine.

"Besides, our entire criminal code is legislated morality."

The law of the land is designed to impact everyone in the same way(which it does not in reality, ask black and hispanic men that, but that's another post altogether), it in no way was design to negatively impact one group, while positively impacting another(even though it does)

You are telling me what I can or cannot recognise. You think the definition of marriage is unfair, immoral, like slavery.

And it does not change the fact that our entire criminal code is legislated morality.

The bible states specifically this " as high as the heavens are from the earth, are my thoughts from your(mans) thoughts. In other words what we deem may be wrong, may not be unless strictly defined in the word of God. Homosexuality is not specifically named as a sin. Your beliefs do not always equate to scriptual accuracy. It is not your job to judge your fellow man, that is Gods job. The bible also says;

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye"

In other words, get yourself together first, then you can assist your neighbor. If you are not a PERFECT christian, then you have no business judging anyone else. The beam is still in YOUR EYES.

But you have been calling me intolerant repeatedly. This is not judging?

When you say, "In other words what we deem may be wrong, may not be unless strictly defined in the word of God.", I actually agree! Original sin is "knowledge of good and evil", commonly considered to be when WE decide what is right and wrong, vs what God says.

He says sexual immorality is wrong. Clearly.

If it has to be clearly said, what good are the parables? Why do we need the Holy Spirit to help us understand?

What did Jesus mean when He said He'd make them blind and deaf?

You say this, yet you have no problem forcing your beliefs(through legislation I might add) on other people. That is not what God put us on this earth for. We compel people to christianity though our love, not our judgement, our beliefs that are legislated to discrimination, or our perceived morals(christians occasionally do some of the most unGodly things). God implores us to "go into the world and preach the good news". These are our marching orders. There is nothing in scripture that says we are to legislate our christian morals on everyone. This country was founded on christian morals, but these morals were legislated in such a way as to free people from tyranny, not bring it upon them. There was a reason to seperate church and state. The church doesn't get out of control throwing moral edicts on everyone, and the state cannot tell people how to worship.

Nope, but the people can define marriage!

Yes but your definition of marriage in the absence of equality for all is discriminatory against gays. Since gay marriage doesn't square with your beliefs, your legislate discrimination. That IMO is vengance, because someone is suffering because of your "drawing the line as you see it" As you see it, and as somebody else may see it, could be universes apart. What makes your way better than anothers? Who made you god over the exportation of morals? Who says your way is the right way?

I'm making myself God? Doesn't that go back to the mote in the eye again?

All I'm doing is casting my vote. Am I discriminated against because my arms are slightly longer than others, so long sleeves don't fit?

All I'm doing, and many, many others, Rep and Dem, is affirming what marriage IS.

Here's more of what that paragon of the Democratic party, Jefferson, had to say:

"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted."

"The nation who never admitted a chapter of morality into her political code,... [will] boldly [avow] that whatever power [she] can make hers is hers of right."

Pete

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir TT, it appears we have something in common - we love the debate!

It does appear that way LOLOL

I would think you'd be up in arms over this clear, specific violation of our Constitutional rights.

No I am not, because I think the decision is right and fair. Public school are for learning reading, writing and math. Not religion. Catholic and private school, a different animal. It's not funded by the feds.

The Supreme Court will strike it down.

The one here in California hasn't, so I doubt it.

Research what is meant by the term, "Seperation of Church and State".

Did it in elementary school, high school, and college.

We can call it what we like, gays will never be married, except in fantasy.

I do not think anyone would waste their time on a pretty insignificant word. I think equality is much more important to gays.

Being gay isn't a sin - sexual immorality is. God defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

That may be so. So call it gay union, give it the same benefits, rights of recognition, and call it a day. Not doing so is discrimination based on sexual orientation. That is just one step away from color, and social class. We have a history in this country that discrimination in any form is harmful to society as a whole, and rips this country apart. I just won't believe that it is more important to my fellow christians to see this country ripped in two, just so they can export their beliefs, thereby discriminating against another. I think history has seen how wrong christians can be in this area(slavery)

Sexual immorality is too vague and useless to be helpful here. It defines nothing. God has always been very direct in what he constitutes as sin. Vagarities would serve him no purpose, as it would allow anyone under the sun to decide what that is. That would be wrong to put in fallible, gullible, opinionated human hands.

Not believing the Old Testament is an odd position for a Christian to take. Most do believe it. I believe it does still hold true, except for what Jesus specificly said was different.

I do not believe I said I didn't believe in it. I understand where it fits in my everyday life. The old testament is a series of book on examples, not guidlines. We cannot live by old testament guildlines or you and I would probably be dead already. Remember, you fail one, you fail them all. Failure is death. Jesus understood that completely. The old testament gives us perspective. How they lived and governed in that period, and how the new testament is to govern us today.

Because God is love does not make love God. In Revelations He says the blood will flow to the horses' bridles. Vengence WILL be His.

The fire and brimstone approach has never been helpful in compelling people to Christ. His word says that they will know us(Christians) by our love, and not by our Gods anger. In the book of psalms he also says "his anger last for a moment, but his LOVE a lifetime" Based on that, how can we justify the "scare the crap out of them" message. He says go preach the GOOD news, not the angry news.

If any non-Christians are reading this I encourage you to read Revelations, it's a good read on its' own. There is no doubt that our God is terrifying.

I think this is a irresponsible thing to say. First, revelations is full of symbolism that takes background study to understand. Secondly, this would be the worse introduction to Christ that you could give. How can you love someone you are scared crapless about? If anyone did what you suggest, you would walk away thinking that God was so angry, so destructive, and cared so little about human life, what would be the purpose of serving him? Wrong approach, and has always been.

And Jesus said in heaven we will be like angels and not marry. I wonder what that means.

Marriage serves no purpose in heaven. In heaven we will be praising God 24/7. No time for marriage, no time for hometheater(shucks!!) and no time to eat(double shucks!!).

Is freedom license? Are the ten commandments void? Because we're forgiven, we should put our stamp of approval on sin?

Sin has to be defined. It the word it was, and it was VERY specific. Unfortunately for the haters, and discriminators based on their own personal prejudices, being gay, and wanting to be committed is not listed as one. When you decide to export your morality, and freedoms to discriminate, you need to ask are my freedoms liscense to discriminate against people who do not believe like I do?

THIS is why Christ died? So we can do what we want?

I do not think this is about doing what you want. We are talking something very specific here, not doing what you want. Once again, what YOU think is right, might not be what GOD thinks is right.

Please see Revelations.

Read it at least 20 times. Not relevant to the specifics of this topic.

So it's OK for us to approve it?

It's not your job as a christian to approve, or disapprove anyone behavior or beliefs if you are not walking in perfection. Since nobody is, then it would be best to take your christian knowledge, apply it to yourself, incourage and nuture it in your family, and support your christian brothers and sisters. For every sin you can point out in others, an equal number of different(or same)sins can be pointed right back at you.

God will judge nations. Plenty in the Old Testament. Some quick bits from Revelations:

2:26 He who overcomes, and he who keeps my works to the end, to him I will give authority over the nations.

2:27 He will rule them with a rod of iron, shattering them like clay pots...

19:15 Out of his mouth proceeds a sharp, double-edged sword, that with it he should strike the nations. He will rule them with a rod of iron. He treads the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty.

My take is that, yes, he judges nations, with prosperity or pestilence, but at the time of truth each person will answer for themselves.

First, I am not interested in YOUR TAKE(not intended to insult). Without a greater understanding of the original text(language), your take can be far off the mark. Both Hebrew and Greek are much more descriptive languages than english is. What we take literally in the english language ,contexturally could be symbolism in greek and hebrew. Revelations is full of symbolisms, that when translated to english don't exactly mean the same thing. Nations are not collectively judge as one entity, or the righteous would be swept up with the evil. We he speaks of nations in revalations, he is speaking of people who are like minded in beliefs, not nations as in countries. I know quite of few gay christians who are God believing and respecting people. Why would God judge that respect along with those who don't believe in him at all. They are not like minded at all. Why should the righteous parish along with the unbeliever? That is exactly what would happen if we took the word nations as it is defined in english and apply it in this case. This nation is a prosperous nation, yet we are full of poor folks. The just, and the unjust(as defined by the word, and not by you and me) are not judged with the same result.

Why did Jefferson say, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just"?

I would hardly look to the words of a man that thought of another man as "property". Even a good man can have unjust ways.

After multiple readings of the book of Ruth chapter one I can't find reference to gay covenants. Please clue me in.

Did I say same sex convenant, or gay convenant? Don't think I said gay, because as I have said earlier, the word GAY doesn't exist in the bible anywhere.

[quoteSexual immorality is a sin.[/quote]

The words sexual immorality are meaningless, vague, and in some cases self serving. The word is VERY specific about what it call immoral.

Better abandoned than killed. The fact that gay couples can't have kids on their own should give us pause. Marriage doesn't exist to make us feel validated as a person.

Unfortunately Pete children abandoned to the foster care system are being killed. So neither option is ideal for children.Just because heterosexual couples can have children doesn't make them good parents. That should also give us pause. The children of divorce parents also do poorly, unfortunately nobody is taking a pause on divorce. Gays are not seeking validity, the are seeking equality.

Do we decide by feelings, or facts? Fact is, kids raised by single women are at a marked disadvantage in every catagory.

Children of divorce parents fair no better because unfortunely the have to be raised by a single parent. Children in bad marriages, or just plain bad parents have no advantage either. These are also facts

There are very nice folks of every stripe. To base our argument for or against this massive social experiment on your neighbors is a mistake IMO.

Your opinion is noted, but it is just one of many. There are other who just don't agree with you. My neighbors are like many stable gay couples all over this country. And from what I understand, there are alot more than many of us know about.

Agreed to a point. However, comparing everything to slavery is wrong IMO.

Slavery just happen to be the worst kind of discrimination this country has ever exacted on a group of people. All discrimination is bad. I know of no time that discrimination against somebody based on sexual orientation(or anything else) is a good thing. One thing leads to another. Then it becomes beliefs, and social class. Once you start discriminating, it get's very hard to stop. What has happen against blacks is evidence of that.

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington

Great words. But once again from a person who had pretty schizo morality himself.

You are telling me what I can or cannot recognise. You think the definition of marriage is unfair, immoral, like slavery.

No, I think pursuing the definition of marriage as a relationship between a man and women, giving this union favortism and special benefits over a union of a same sex couples is discriminatory. Just like giving whites special benefits over blacks and hispanics is discriminatory. Discrimination is immoral.

And it does not change the fact that our entire criminal code is legislated morality.

Its the law of the land though, and not designed to be discriminatory. However it is a failure in that respect because it can be misused.

[quote]But you have been calling me intolerant repeatedly. This is not judging?[/quote}

It is no more a judge than you calling what gays do as sexual immorality. You want to point and shoot, be prepared to get shot. That is the peril of judging.

When you say, "In other words what we deem may be wrong, may not be unless strictly defined in the word of God.", I actually agree! Original sin is "knowledge of good and evil", commonly considered to be when WE decide what is right and wrong, vs what God says.

YOU cannot decide this for anyone else though. YOU decide this for yourself.

He says sexual immorality is wrong. Clearly.

That goes for ALL people, not gays specifically. If it went specfically to gay, he would have clearly outlined that this only applied to gays. Sorry Pete, but it does not.

If it has to be clearly said, what good are the parables? Why do we need the Holy Spirit to help us understand?

Parables are to teach us. The holy spirit is to enlighten us, give us comfort, lead and guide us. You need the holy spirit to give you understanding. Unfortunately too many christians are interpreting the word without the holy spirit, but with their prejudices.

What did Jesus mean when He said He'd make them blind and deaf?

You'll have to point this scripture out to me directly, I am blind on this one(LOL)

Nope, but the people can define marriage!

Yes they can. But it is evil to discriminate against a person, or a group of people when achieving this definition. Love thy neighbor as thyself. He said that period, and not with conditions. It is clear we know how judge individuals, marginalize them, discriminate against them, but the love part we seem to fall short.

I'm making myself God? Doesn't that go back to the mote in the eye again?

Precisely!

All I'm doing is casting my vote. Am I discriminated against because my arms are slightly longer than others, so long sleeves don't fit?

What you are doing may seem innocent to you. But if the result of this innocent gesture is the suffering of a group of people, then its not innocent at all. You know what discrimination does to a group of people, and you know what happens when you give a particular people benefits over another. So your gesture is not so innocent at all.
If someone is discriminating against your because of your arms, it is WRONG!!!

All I'm doing, and many, many others, Rep and Dem, is affirming what marriage IS.

That is fine. But affirming what marriage is, and giving this group special benefits over a another committed group, is just plain wrong. When many, many, many other people do it, it is just a bunch of people doing wrong. Just because the masses do something doesn't make it right. Masses of people in the old testament worshiped idols, God thought that was wrong!

Here's more of what that paragon of the Democratic party, Jefferson, had to say:

"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted."

"The nation who never admitted a chapter of morality into her political code,... [will] boldly [avow] that whatever power [she] can make hers is hers of right."

Pete

Yes, nice words, and true. However he said all of this while owning slaves. As a person of color, that is hypocritical. Everyone has a sense of what is moral, and what is not. However in a free country, they may not all agree what that is. Jefferson and Washington were good men, but they had a very schizophrenic sense of morality. How can you treat people as property, and yet say we are all created equal. And just to justify their ownership, they called these people "animals". Sorry Pete, that is a very funny morality to me.

[JeffKnob]

The fire and brimstone approach has never been helpful in compelling people to Christ. His word says that they will know us(Christians) by our love, and not by our Gods anger. In the book of psalms he also says "his anger last for a moment, but his LOVE a lifetime" Based on that, how can we justify the "scare the crap out of them" message. He says go preach the GOOD news, not the angry news.

I agree. The whole fire and brimestone thing is BS. We are taught that God loves us unconditionally but we should fear him. That is just dumb. I am not going to live my life in fear of something that loves me. I am also not going to live my life fearing something (terrorism) because the Republicans tell me I should. I am much more scared of dying in a car accident than a terrorist attack and the stats back that up. We should have a war on car accidents; it would save more lives. Everything has been about fear since 9/11. I don't fear any wrath of God because I feel that homosexuals should have the equal rights that I have. We are all his children and no one is better than any other.

I personally don't have a problem with the word marriage being used for homosexuals but there are people like JSE that do. If the real issue is about the word and the religious meanings that come with that word, then the answer is simple.....Don't use the word marriage. Call it a civil union and give homosexuals the rights under the law that married couple have. Churches should not be forced to agree with it, recognize it, or even perform the ceremonies.

[piece-it pete]

Sir TT, Jeff,

I don't have the time to answer the whole posts before the weekend hits, but am compelled to point out that, to unrepentant sinners, our Lord CAN be a terrible God.

Although Sir TT I understand what you're saying, in our happy/feely time it may not be the best marketing!

Jeff, this is not a matter of interpretation. Yes, there is symbolism in Revelations, particularly in the begining chapters, but it is clear that the description of God's judgement on the world is literal. (Or why would He say, "Don't write down what the 7 thunders said"?)

It starts out early by saying:

1:3
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

It is the only book in the Bible that has this pointed warning:

22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

It is also the book that says, and He shall wipe away every tear from our eye.

Pete

[dean_martin]

Sir TT, Jeff,

I don't have the time to answer the whole posts before the weekend hits, but am compelled to point out that, to unrepentant sinners, our Lord CAN be a terrible God.

Although Sir TT I understand what you're saying, in our happy/feely time it may not be the best marketing!

Jeff, this is not a matter of interpretation. Yes, there is symbolism in Revelations, particularly in the begining chapters, but it is clear that the description of God's judgement on the world is literal. (Or why would He say, "Don't write down what the 7 thunders said"?)

It starts out early by saying:

1:3
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

It is the only book in the Bible that has this pointed warning:

22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

It is also the book that says, and He shall wipe away every tear from our eye.

Pete

Pete, I believe I've found a more succinct statement of your position that sums it up nicely. This is a letter to the editor at mcall.com from your pal Earl. 'Nough said.

I hope the election of George W. Bush is seen as a wake-up call to all the liberal Democrats who oppose God's will.

It is His doing that George W. Bush is still our president. Millions of born-again Christians helped win this election through our prayers and votes. Jesus speaks through the Republicans.

The Democrats will not be able to win elections until they renounce their sinful ways and stop encouraging abortions, gayness, and trying to take away our guns.

Earl Balboa

Washington Township

[piece-it pete]

Pete, I believe I've found a more succinct statement of your position that sums it up nicely. This is a letter to the editor at mcall.com from your pal Earl. 'Nough said.

I hope the election of George W. Bush is seen as a wake-up call to all the liberal Democrats who oppose God's will.

It is His doing that George W. Bush is still our president. Millions of born-again Christians helped win this election through our prayers and votes. Jesus speaks through the Republicans.

The Democrats will not be able to win elections until they renounce their sinful ways and stop encouraging abortions, gayness, and trying to take away our guns.

Earl Balboa

Washington Township

Dean,

THAT'S IT!!!

Perfect!

Just kidding. I kinda regret mentioning the Gods' wrath thing, I was just trying to explain something to non Christians that I have never seen in print.

I know some Christians are Democrat, God loves them anyway .

Pete

[Chris]

Pete, I believe I've found a more succinct statement of your position that sums it up nicely. This is a letter to the editor at mcall.com from your pal Earl. 'Nough said.

I hope the election of George W. Bush is seen as a wake-up call to all the liberal Democrats who oppose God's will.

It is His doing that George W. Bush is still our president. Millions of born-again Christians helped win this election through our prayers and votes. Jesus speaks through the Republicans.

The Democrats will not be able to win elections until they renounce their sinful ways and stop encouraging abortions, gayness, and trying to take away our guns.

Earl Balboa

Washington Township

Great, this is what really scares me about religion... when people start referring to their political party as "God's party". Jihad is only a hop, skip and jump away

[Chris]

Terrence and Pete, great arguments on both sides. I thank you two for going into this debate as deep as you have. Terrence, I think Pete has already mentioned that he agrees with your statements about equal rights (at least to some degree). But I'm enjoying reading your interpretation on Christianity and how it pertains to marriage and discrimination. It's very interesting to read two different interpretations from two people who are obviously very religious. Thanks you two. I plan on having some talks about this with some of my religious family members so I can get some other views on it as well.

[dean_martin]

Dean,

THAT'S IT!!!

Perfect!

Just kidding. I kinda regret mentioning the Gods' wrath thing, I was just trying to explain something to non Christians that I have never seen in print.

I know some Christians are Democrat, God loves them anyway .

Pete

Pete, I should have been a little more obvious that my post was meant to be humorous. I'm glad you took it that way.

We may be treading on new ground for this generation reminiscent of the Great Awakening and other past movements. This does not scare me nor does it bother me. What bothers me is that so many may associate a particular political party with such a movement when I can see so much hypocrisy in that party. You know, the democrats could have just as easily adopted the theme, "At least you know where we stand."

Did you know that of the 10 states with the lowest divorce rate 9 were "blue states"? Did you know that Massachusetts, that bastion of gay marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in America? Did you know that 9 out of the 10 states with the highest divorce rate were "red states"?

Did you know that 8 out of the top 10 states that pay the most into the feds, but receive the least were "blue states"? 9 of the top 10 that receive more than they paid out were "red states".

I didn't know these stats prior to the election. Some of my Northeastern compatriots are pretty angry over the accusation that they've lost touch with the "values" of "real" America. Their tired of the old anti-tax slogan "it's my money" when they pay out more than anyone and in fact their tax dollars are funding highways in "red states". They're making a pretty good argument that should have been made before the election.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir TT, Jeff,

I don't have the time to answer the whole posts before the weekend hits, but am compelled to point out that, to unrepentant sinners, our Lord CAN be a terrible God.

Although Sir TT I understand what you're saying, in our happy/feely time it may not be the best marketing!

Jeff, this is not a matter of interpretation. Yes, there is symbolism in Revelations, particularly in the begining chapters, but it is clear that the description of God's judgement on the world is literal. (Or why would He say, "Don't write down what the 7 thunders said"?)

It starts out early by saying:

1:3
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

It is the only book in the Bible that has this pointed warning:

22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

It is also the book that says, and He shall wipe away every tear from our eye.

Pete

Pete, yes you are right, God is powerful, but the translation of the word fear is not the scared feared. Is honor and respect. Keep in mind that some words translated from the original hebrew doesn't have the same meaning in english. Secondly, you have 66 books in the bible. You have three of four books talking about Jesus loving sacrifice for us, the entire old testament designed to give us perspective on how profound grace is. Several more on how to govern our daily life, and just one that focuses on the end time, and Gods anger. To present God in this fashion based on that is doing him a serious injustice.

Suggesting that non believers read revalations first is much like turning a donkey and cart backwards, and cracking the wip. If you except christ as your personal savior, then revalations is useless to you, you won't be here. If you haven't, or you are not going to(atheist), then you don't give a rat's butt what revalations says.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Terrence and Pete, great arguments on both sides. I thank you two for going into this debate as deep as you have. Terrence, I think Pete has already mentioned that he agrees with your statements about equal rights (at least to some degree). But I'm enjoying reading your interpretation on Christianity and how it pertains to marriage and discrimination. It's very interesting to read two different interpretations from two people who are obviously very religious. Thanks you two. I plan on having some talks about this with some of my religious family members so I can get some other views on it as well.

Chris,
I prefer to be called "spiritual" rather than religious.

Religious people are judgemental, and not so loving.
Relgious people talk about the bible, but own slaves.
Religious people preach that you are evil for doing what you do, and then turn around and sin themselves.
Religious people curse on monday, smoke pot on tuesday, fistfight on wednesday, visit prostitutes on thursday, go to the club and party on friday and saturday, and repent for everything on sunday. And then do it again next week!

Spiritual people work on their own lives. And as they grow people notice the love, kindness, and coolness they exibit, and ask them how they do it. Then we tell them about the love of christ. They either accept it, or reject it. We've done our job. No judgement, no condemnation, no force acceptance, no jamming down ones throat. Spiritual people allow the spirit to do the work.

[piece-it pete]

Great, this is what really scares me about religion... when people start referring to their political party as "God's party". Jihad is only a hop, skip and jump away

Chris,

Just a reminder - not too long ago both parties were "Gods' party" - Christianity gave us the rise of democracy - jihad is the fruit of Islam.

Pete

[piece-it pete]

Pete, I should have been a little more obvious that my post was meant to be humorous. I'm glad you took it that way.

We may be treading on new ground for this generation reminiscent of the Great Awakening and other past movements. This does not scare me nor does it bother me. What bothers me is that so many may associate a particular political party with such a movement when I can see so much hypocrisy in that party. You know, the democrats could have just as easily adopted the theme, "At least you know where we stand."

Did you know that of the 10 states with the lowest divorce rate 9 were "blue states"? Did you know that Massachusetts, that bastion of gay marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in America? Did you know that 9 out of the 10 states with the highest divorce rate were "red states"?

Did you know that 8 out of the top 10 states that pay the most into the feds, but receive the least were "blue states"? 9 of the top 10 that receive more than they paid out were "red states".

I didn't know these stats prior to the election. Some of my Northeastern compatriots are pretty angry over the accusation that they've lost touch with the "values" of "real" America. Their tired of the old anti-tax slogan "it's my money" when they pay out more than anyone and in fact their tax dollars are funding highways in "red states". They're making a pretty good argument that should have been made before the election.

Dean,

Yep no harm no foul. I've realized that with my sometimes very dry humor (or feeble attempts at it, anyway) the reader has no way of knowing!

Your mention of the Great Awakening pulled at very strong emotions in me, I thought about it all weekend. I pray it is so.

I visited my lives-in-the-getto friend friday night, it may interest you to know that they (generally firmly in the Democratic camp) call flip-flopping "kerry", as in, he's kerrying again. He's kerry.

As you can imagine, this cracked me up in a pretty big way!

So, with that candidate anyway, "At least you know where we stand." wouldn't have worked very well. Clinton? Signed NAFTA and welfare "reform", along with many other GOP initiatives.

Not exactly playing to his base? But playing for funds and election.

Not to impune the forthrightness of all Democrats, of course! Just pointing out that both parties play this game. The best we can hope for is to keep them in check.

___

That is a good point! It's not too surprising, though, when you figure those areas have the biggest population.

The marriage statistics are interesting. Do you know if the percentages of marriage to the general population are similar?

I don't think that Dems are exactly out of touch - just out of office lol.

48% isn't very much out of the majority! Of course the GOP is going to play this for all they're worth, the Dems are out of touch, out of time (Hall and Oates?).

That's a discussion I'd love to hear - WHY did the election go to the GOP? What, exactly, did the Reps do, the Dems didn't, or both, that again produced this result (complete control)?

When Clinton won his second term I was unhappy. But I knew it wasn't the end of the world, largely 'cause the Pres can't do as much as the opposition blames him for.

Though I did worry about the Supreme Court. But even this isn't as big an issue as it seems, simply because you don't know WHAT the new justices will do, once they're permanently esconced, untouchable, in that body. Looking at who appointed who and how they turned out can be interesting, I haven't for a while but last time I did I was very surprised, I'm pretty sure the guy who wrote Roe vs Wade (Blackwell? Blackburn? Bootblack ?) was a GOP appointment.

Not to say it doesn't matter at all.

Anyway, now it's yous guys turn to sit on the sidelines. I assure you, it doesn't bother me much!

Pete

[dean_martin]

Your mention of the Great Awakening pulled at very strong emotions in me, I thought about it all weekend. I pray it is so.

I know my reference to a recent movement toward God (or, movement of God) was kind of cryptic, but the reports our church gets from missionaries in the field are that people in third world/developing countries are converting to Christianity in surprising numbers. Not to get too preachy, but along with these high numbers is a reported increase in "miracles" and/or "signs and wonders". The feeling among them is that our complacency and comfort level are a detriment here, but that there will be a "breakthrough" soon. Think about that for a while!

[piece-it pete]

No I am not, because I think the decision is right and fair. Public school are for learning reading, writing and math. Not religion. Catholic and private school, a different animal. It's not funded by the feds.

The one here in California hasn't, so I doubt it.

Because YOU think it's right and fair, you're willing to ignore the Constitution? Isn't that forcing your version of morality?

It goes against both original intent and case history. If it goes all the way, it will be overturned.

Did it in elementary school, high school, and college.

What did they teach you it meant?

I do not think anyone would waste their time on a pretty insignificant word. I think equality is much more important to gays.

That sounds a lot like "seperate but equal".

That may be so. So call it gay union, give it the same benefits, rights of recognition, and call it a day. Not doing so is discrimination based on sexual orientation. That is just one step away from color, and social class. We have a history in this country that discrimination in any form is harmful to society as a whole, and rips this country apart. I just won't believe that it is more important to my fellow christians to see this country ripped in two, just so they can export their beliefs, thereby discriminating against another. I think history has seen how wrong christians can be in this area(slavery)

Calling it a gay union won't make it NOT sexual immorality.

If you are black, white, or green you are still a man or woman. This is not racism.

If the country rips in two one part will be much smaller than the other, the vast majority are opposed to redining marriage.

Sexual immorality is too vague and useless to be helpful here. It defines nothing. God has always been very direct in what he constitutes as sin. Vagarities would serve him no purpose, as it would allow anyone under the sun to decide what that is. That would be wrong to put in fallible, gullible, opinionated human hands.

The New Testament certainly mentions sexual immorality- repeatedly. Why?

1st Corinthians 6:9 Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God.

There you go. Some versions say "effeminate" instead of "homosexual".

Sex outside of marriage is a sin in the eye of God. He defines marriage as a union between a man and woman. I cannot put my approval on what is clearly a sin.

Further, I don't want the society that I am a part of to hold anything else up to my kids as a ligit example, because it is not, and therefore a lie. Satan is the father of all lies.

Can gays go to heaven? If saved, absolutely. If I can go, well, it's wide open, if you are saved.

I do not believe I said I didn't believe in it. I understand where it fits in my everyday life. The old testament is a series of book on examples, not guidlines. We cannot live by old testament guildlines or you and I would probably be dead already. Remember, you fail one, you fail them all. Failure is death. Jesus understood that completely. The old testament gives us perspective. How they lived and governed in that period, and how the new testament is to govern us today.

Agreed that the Old Testament can take some discernment. However, no one argues that the Ten Commandments are void! It is quoted often in the New Testament.

Failure is death, agreed, that is why we die, the wages of sin are....

I looked and you did not say you didn't believe in it. Sorry .

The fire and brimstone approach has never been helpful in compelling people to Christ. His word says that they will know us(Christians) by our love, and not by our Gods anger. In the book of psalms he also says "his anger last for a moment, but his LOVE a lifetime" Based on that, how can we justify the "scare the crap out of them" message. He says go preach the GOOD news, not the angry news.

I think this is a irresponsible thing to say. First, revelations is full of symbolism that takes background study to understand. Secondly, this would be the worse introduction to Christ that you could give. How can you love someone you are scared crapless about? If anyone did what you suggest, you would walk away thinking that God was so angry, so destructive, and cared so little about human life, what would be the purpose of serving him? Wrong approach, and has always been.

I'm not trying to scare anyone. If it seems scary it's because it IS scary - if there is a hell then fearing God is a smart thing to do: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." Proverbs 9:10.

The Good News is we are saved! From what? God's wrath! Hell!

"Someone who is always thinking about happiness is a fool. A wise person thinks about death." Ecclesiastes 4

(BTW, I'm not implying that you are a fool. It's just part of the verse.)

I'm not too concerned about approach, I worry more about the truth. In this age, where so many are lured by mysticism, Revelations has a special place. Just as a secular read, it's very, very good.

It is the fulfillment of our resurrection.

If Jesus is right, that we are a little flock, most will EXPERIENCE Gods' wrath. I think it's nice to warn them, and there it is, in black and white.

Marriage serves no purpose in heaven. In heaven we will be praising God 24/7. No time for marriage, no time for hometheater(shucks!!) and no time to eat(double shucks!!).

Ahp ahp ahp - you're giving me your take!!



I yearn for this - we will finally get the explanations of the mysteries - and I have a feeling we'll experience things much better than we know!

Our purpose will be revealed.

I like choral music - I always thought it must be like angel music - we'll see!

Sin has to be defined. It the word it was, and it was VERY specific. Unfortunately for the haters, and discriminators based on their own personal prejudices, being gay, and wanting to be committed is not listed as one. When you decide to export your morality, and freedoms to discriminate, you need to ask are my freedoms liscense to discriminate against people who do not believe like I do?

I do not think this is about doing what you want. We are talking something very specific here, not doing what you want. Once again, what YOU think is right, might not be what GOD thinks is right.

Very true. But all we can do is what we think God wants. Look at us, both Christians, we disagree. What I believe is reflected in the Bible passages I have quoted.

Read it at least 20 times. Not relevant to the specifics of this topic.

It was in reference to your statement "The word fear is not used in the original text as we use it in the english language. Fear equals respect or honor in this context."

I think there's a lot to fear for the unsaved in Revelations.

It's not your job as a christian to approve, or disapprove anyone behavior or beliefs if you are not walking in perfection. Since nobody is, then it would be best to take your christian knowledge, apply it to yourself, incourage and nuture it in your family, and support your christian brothers and sisters. For every sin you can point out in others, an equal number of different(or same)sins can be pointed right back at you.

I absolutely agree 100%. It's when I'm asked to APPROVE of sin that I have a problem.

First, I am not interested in YOUR TAKE(not intended to insult). Without a greater understanding of the original text(language), your take can be far off the mark. Both Hebrew and Greek are much more descriptive languages than english is. What we take literally in the english language ,contexturally could be symbolism in greek and hebrew. Revelations is full of symbolisms, that when translated to english don't exactly mean the same thing. Nations are not collectively judge as one entity, or the righteous would be swept up with the evil. We he speaks of nations in revalations, he is speaking of people who are like minded in beliefs, not nations as in countries. I know quite of few gay christians who are God believing and respecting people. Why would God judge that respect along with those who don't believe in him at all. They are not like minded at all. Why should the righteous parish along with the unbeliever? That is exactly what would happen if we took the word nations as it is defined in english and apply it in this case. This nation is a prosperous nation, yet we are full of poor folks. The just, and the unjust(as defined by the word, and not by you and me) are not judged with the same result.

We don't have an original copy of the Bible. So if we take this to its' furthest conclusion we would have nothing, effectively no Bible.

Not to say you don't have a point. But only to a point IMO.

Nations are more than like minded people. Christians or Muslims worldwide do not constitute a nation.

I have got to run. Part two tomorrow!

Pete

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Because YOU think it's right and fair, you're willing to ignore the Constitution? Isn't that forcing your version of morality?

The constitution does not allow turning schools into churches. If you turn schools into churches, some atheist is going to be offended, and it will be back in the courts because we are violating their rights. No the judge had enough foresight to see where this was going.

It goes against both original intent and case history. If it goes all the way, it will be overturned.

Unfortunately the judge didn't see it this way. The case is four years old, and no challenge. That says something.

What did they teach you it meant?

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

That sounds a lot like "seperate but equal".

No, just plain equality whomever you choose for a partner

Calling it a gay union won't make it NOT sexual immorality.

Sorry but sexual immorality has been clearly defined in the word of God. Gay unions are not amoung the things he mentions. That is using your own personal biases to filter and define the word of God. A violation of the last scripture in Revelations.

If you are black, white, or green you are still a man or woman. This is not racism.

No, it is discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is equally as bad as racism. So you believe that discrimination is okay if the person doesn't fit your moral code. Well, early americans thought the same thing, and brought slavery to this country. That is okay with you I suppose. Discrimination in any form is wrong PERIOD!

If the country rips in two one part will be much smaller than the other, the vast majority are opposed to redining marriage.

Yes when it comes to defining marriage. But your conclusions dissipate when you mention civil union, and give equal rights. Only the judgemental church people are left at odds with this.

The New Testament certainly mentions sexual immorality- repeatedly. Why?

You know why just as well as I do, come on!!!!

"1st Corinthians 6:9 Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God.

There you go. Some versions say "effeminate" instead of "homosexual".

Sorry, but neither word is found in the original text. There is no Greek or Hebrew equivilant to homosexuality. The word didn't even exist in that day. Effiminate does not have sexual connotation at all. It just means acting femanine, and I know some supposidly straight men that would violate this.(too fuzzy and vague) Also, you have to be VERY careful of all the different translations. Some of them stray VERY far away from the King James version(which has its own problems), and even farther away from the original text. Secondly, the original text does not define the gender of prostitutes at all. Why would they make it wrong for a male prostitute, and let a female prostitute go free. Doesn't make sense at all, and that is why there is a danger in all of these different translations or the bible.

Sex outside of marriage is a sin in the eye of God. He defines marriage as a union between a man and woman. I cannot put my approval on what is clearly a sin.

Who says SEX is the driving force behind same sex unions? Is it the driving force between you and your wife? Perhaps it does say that sex outside marriage is a sin, but makes no mention of sex within a UNION. There is absolutely nothing written about the parimeters of convenants(which are unions). The point that God illustrates is that he doesn't want everyone having sex with multiple partners, and between uncommitted people. What if two men(or women) have a convenant, or union? The bible is mum on that.

Further, I don't want the society that I am a part of to hold anything else up to my kids as a ligit example, because it is not, and therefore a lie. Satan is the father of all lies.

So instead of being a strong bible believing christian, who has prayed for the strength to resist temptation, and be in the world, but not of it, you want to be a weak christian who cannot resist temptation, doesn't know how to teach your OWN how to resist(as my mother and father did), you want to get it out of your sight, so you don't have to resist. That is not scriptural at all. He plainly says resist(sin, temptation etc) and it will flee from you, not legislate all sin into nonexistance so you don't have to be a strong christian. He repeatedly demands we take the strong pathway, not the weak one. My grandmother and mother raised me with understanding that sin was going to be everywhere, but I had to develope the strength to resist it, not work hard to stamp it out. God knows how to deal with sin, so let him, and stop trying to do his job!!

Can gays go to heaven? If saved, absolutely. If I can go, well, it's wide open, if you are saved.

Salvation comes by belief, so it makes no mention that Gays cannot go to heaven. John 6:35-45,65) "If you confess with mouth, believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. Based on this scripture, why can't a gay person(who is living a normal christian life like you and me)can't go to heaven.

Agreed that the Old Testament can take some discernment. However, no one argues that the Ten Commandments are void! It is quoted often in the New Testament.

Failure is death, agreed, that is why we die, the wages of sin are....

First Pete, the ten commandments ARE the law. The law is the very thing that Jesus came to fulfill(take the place of). Since we cannot live by the law(it was impossible at the time), grace fill the place of the law. In other words we are not instantly killed anymore for stealing, or cheating.

Get your interpretation correct, the wages of sin is death(referring to spritual death which is instant) not physical death(as many sinners live long lives)

I looked and you did not say you didn't believe in it. Sorry .

No worries!

I'm not trying to scare anyone. If it seems scary it's because it IS scary - if there is a hell then fearing God is a smart thing to do: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." Proverbs 9:10.

You are still being WAY to literal with this scripture, and that is because you never studied the original hebrew. Fear is NOT correctly translated as scared in that passage. According to Hebrew translation, fear(not really the correct translated word) is HONOR and RESPECT, not be scared crapless. It was the love of Christ that drew me, not because I was scared. You will never get an athiest to fear anything he doesn't believe in, but you can show so much love toward him, that it will compel him to Christ.

The Good News is we are saved! From what? God's wrath! Hell!

Wrong again, we are saved from the perils of sin, we are not bound to it. Once you are saved, his wrath, and hell are no worry to you. The hell fire and damnation approach you take is a utter failure. It has not compelled anyone to come to Christ. Why would you want to serve a angry God? Psalms plainly says, "his anger last just a MOMENT(a small space in time), his love a lifetime"(a huge space of time). To portray him as fierce and angry all the time, based on this scripture, and many hundreds of others is a misportrayal.

"Someone who is always thinking about happiness is a fool. A wise person thinks about death." Ecclesiastes 4

This is a old testament scripture where failure to adhere to the law was death. That is not the grace approach and therefore not representative of this dispensation. You are taking this scripture out of contexted by this type of usage.

(BTW, I'm not implying that you are a fool. It's just part of the verse.)

I'm not too concerned about approach, I worry more about the truth. In this age, where so many are lured by mysticism, Revelations has a special place. Just as a secular read, it's very, very good.

Alot of old style preachers thought like you did, and unfortunately their congregation stayed empty. Approach is everything when you are competing for souls in a sinful environment. Approach is everything when there are 300 times more scripture that speaks of his love, than his anger. Your approach is backwards. Revelation is not a book to approach casually. You can easily misinterpret almost everything(as many have done) without a clear understanding of the writers, their background, and their language which is clearly more descriptive than ours

It is the fulfillment of our resurrection.

And only applicable to us. Not much good to anyone else.

If Jesus is right, that we are a little flock, most will EXPERIENCE Gods' wrath. I think it's nice to warn them, and there it is, in black and white.

Waste of time. A atheist doesn' t care about this, and neither do those who are bound and determind to live life to the fullest down here on earth. They don't think about what's going to happen in Revelations, the could be dead.

Ahp ahp ahp - you're giving me your take!!

Didn't you say you read revelations? Then you would know this isn't my take.

I yearn for this - we will finally get the explanations of the mysteries - and I have a feeling we'll experience things much better than we know!

We'll probably also discover that the judgements we heaped on other are just not true. I think you will be VERY surprised who ends up in heaven. It may not be your pastor!

Very true. But all we can do is what we think God wants. Look at us, both Christians, we disagree. What I believe is reflected in the Bible passages I have quoted.

Unfortutunately your interpretation may not be spot on. This is why God tells us to study to show ourselves approved. Sometimes you have to take the time to read how the interpretation of the word from the original languages to english, has effected the true meaning intended.

I think there's a lot to fear for the unsaved in Revelations.

I don't think they care very much based on their actions

I absolutely agree 100%. It's when I'm asked to APPROVE of sin that I have a problem.

Yes, but you are defining sin based on your own understanding, not Gods. Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean NOT to our own understanding. If your bias against Gays extends beyond the bible, then it is not difficult for you to use the bible to justify discrimination. The bias against blacks way back in time extended well beyond the bible, that is the reason why our forefounders(they are not my fathers) had no problem using it to justify treating people like animals.

We don't have an original copy of the Bible. So if we take this to its' furthest conclusion we would have nothing, effectively no Bible.

Your wrong again, the original manuscripts are around. That is how we know the King James version has some interpretation problems.

Not to say you don't have a point. But only to a point IMO.

Grudging recognition is better than none at all I guess

Nations are more than like minded people. Christians or Muslims worldwide do not constitute a nation.

Yes, that is because they do not believe the same thing. Just look at how they view Jesus, and how we do.




Pete[/QUOTE]