Religion in Government

Okay. Correction noted.If it is acceptable I will revise it to simply say Married Gay families would be great as adopted parents. I can live with that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I agree. And I don't understand why any homophobes even bring this argument up: it's moot. Homosexuals don't need to adopt, they can have kids 'the good old fashioned way,' or through the wonders of science (e.g. Melissa Etheridge).If anything, homophobes who believe that homosexuality is genetic should encourage gays who want kids to adopt; that way they won't continue to foul the gene pool.

No, thats not what I said.
And yes, the only reason I go and get a marriage license is for legal issues concerning government, and benifits. If I didn't do that, I could still get married by church or in another country to show my Love for my spouse.Gay people want the license so they can enjoy the benifits, not prove Love to each other, that should already be in place.

How is it wrong? If a gay guy is legally married, he can then add his spouse to the policy, where as before he couldn't. Maybe, maybe not. we don't know how many gays will have children.
But you could be right. but all those statistics would be figured out by the insurance company. I was against what gay people do, before I found God. But I am not against the actual people doing it. I think having gay sex is wrong, there is no hate involved at all. I am also not predjudice towards gay people. I have gay relatives and friends who I treat the same as anyone else.
In other words, its the actual sexual acts they commit that I am against, but do not hold it against them.
This is just my feeling, and I know not everyone feels this way.
I'm not sure if it is a Godly feeling or not, I haven't really dwelled on it enough.From personal experiences of people I know who are/were gay, they too in a way feel as though it is wrong. This is not from me.Is this a reason to deny them a right to get married?
I still don't have an answer to that one.
I can tell you that I do not feel as though a gay marraige and a straight marriage is the same thing.I don't think I am wrong for feeling this way either. I know people who make their living stealing, and they feel it is their right, and probably wish they could get away with it. If everyone felt this way the constitution would reflect it.As far as a social legal contract, I would have to say no. Because how we live our lives reflects who and what we are.I've heard gay people say that straight marraiges are wrong, based on the divorce rate. They have a good point, because people should not be getting married and having children then getting divorced and messing up peoples lives, because they weren't capable of making a desicion like that to begin with.
I don't hold that against gay people either.Its all in how you look at stuff. But its my right to feel as though the act of gay sex is wrong, just like other acts of sex are illegal.Wait theres a point! Does anyone know if sodomy is illegal? lol.

You are wrong because the rates for family policies are higher than for single coverage. Again, that is paid for by the insured.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I see God and religion as being 2 different things.
I am not so sure that our founding fathers wanted God out of the country.

Out of Government. Government. Out of Laws.No one is saying get GOD out of the country, to keep people from their beliefs. That is not the issue. The issue is in Government, in Laws.There is no place for religion, any religion, in Government.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

Hmm, many Shiites would disagree with you. So would the Christian Democrats of Germany. So would the Pope. Oddly, Stalinists, Maoists, and Pol Pott would agree with you. Interesting.(For the record, I agree with you though )

I guess I didn't understand the context then.

Yes, I do know. It is not illegal. Here is the recent SCOTUS decision for you:

quote:

---

From November 2003:

​

The Supreme Court Thursday struck down a Texas state law banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex in a decision gay rights groups hailed as historic.

---

ErrorFortunately the government is now out of the bedroom where they never should have been to begin with. Once again an example of religion in government being unconstitutional.

I would agree that God and religion are two different things but can you have God without religion?If the answer to that question is "no" then it begs the following question: If you can't have god without religion how can a government that is not supposed to espouse religion endorse any god?

Unfortunately, it usually takes a number of additional lawsuits before the state governments get the message.

Mr Jack responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But since we already pay this out to mixed-sex couples, how would same-sex couples change anything? If we have two men and two women, how does a boy/boy, girl/girl arrangement cost any more than a boy/girl, boy/girl arrangement?

---

​

Because the union of the three groups is necessarily larger than any single group, and thus will cost more.

---

Incorrect.Suppose you have 40 people, 20 men and 20 women. You wish to pair off the 40 people.Why does it matter if you pair off 10 men with 10 men and 10 women with 10 women rather than pairing 20 men with 20 women?No matter how you do it, you still end up with 20 pairs.So since absolutely nobody is scared that the current crop of gay people would all abandon the idea of same-sex marriage, declare themselves straight, and marry someone of the opposite sex, why are they complaining if those people pair up with people of the same sex?If you have two men and two women, how does a boy/boy, girl/girl pairing cost more than a boy/girl, boy/girl pairing?If you were saying that there are more ways to pair off 20 men with 20 women than 10 men with 10 men and 10 women with 10 women, you'd be correct. But that isn't the question. It isn't about how many ways you can come up with 20 pairings. It's that you always come up with 20 pairings. And since no matter how many ways you can come up with 20 pairings, you always get 20, where is the justification that it would cost more to pay for 20 pairings than to pay for 20 pairings?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you find both males and females sexually desirable but have chosen to have sex only with one sex (for whatever reason), then you are, by definition, bisexual.

---

​

Umm no.

---

Umm, yes.That is the definition of bisexuality: To find both sexes sexually appealing. That doesn't mean you find them equally appealing. It simply means that you are sexually aroused by both.If you are not sexually aroused by one of the sexes, then you cannot make a choice because making a choice necessarily requires a non-zero probability of having each option come up selected.If I give you a standard deck of 52 cards, face up, and ask you to freely choose which one you want, you do not have the choice of the Jokers. Even though the Jokers are sitting in the box right next to me. You are incapable of choosing them, therefore you do not have the choice to select one of them.So since you claim you made a choice, then that necessarily means you are bisexual. Only bisexuals can make a choice between the sexes. Kinsey 0s find no sexual attraction to people of the same sex and thus would never choose a member of the same sex. A similar state exists for the Kinsey 6s who do not find people of the opposite sex attractive.But the people in between, the 1s through the 5s, can make a choice. Do they sleep with one sex, the other, or both?

quote:

---

If the first time sex was presented to as being gay, and you never had to think about it

---

Of course you think about it: Do I want to do this? It is being presented to me, but is it pleasing?Did you choose to like chocolate or did your body let you know that you liked it?

quote:

---

Alot more people will be considering it, the more mainstream it becomes.

---

First, it's "a lot." Two words. "Alot" would be pronounced "aa' - lut." If you wanted to emphasize the fact that there was an extremely large amount, you would say, "a whole lot," and there needs to be a hole for the "whole" to go in.Second, nobody "considers" being gay. It is something that you are. Do you seriously think that you could fall in love with another man? That if god were to come down here and tell you directly that he didn't care, that he merely wants you to be happy and if that happiness comes from a man, so be it, you would honestly consider another man?So you're saying you do find men sexually attractive?Sounds like you're bi.

quote:

---

quote:

---

What do you do as president when the will of the majority directly contradicts the demands of the Constitution? You took an oath as president to defend the Constitution, so where do you get off saying that god is telling you to violate the Constitution?

---

​

Are you thick headed?
I answered that already.

---

By contradicting yourself.Therefore, you didn't answer it.Indulge me:If there were a law presented to you right now seeking to deny equal access to the legal contract of marriage to same-sex couples, would you vote for it or against it, knowing that the Constitution expressly forbids denying equal access?Are you going to vote for the Constitution or for the popular opinion?

quote:

---

quote:

---

The First Amendment directly states that religious justifications are invalid as sources of legislation. For example, you do not get to deny gay people equal access to the legal contract of marriage simply because you think god thinks it's icky. The Constitution doesn't care what god thinks.

---

​

What happens if the constitution makes me go against my religion?

---

The Constitution wins.That said, the Constitution only makes you go against your religion if your religion tells you that it is supposed to be the source of legislation.The Constitution requires equal access to the legal contract of marriage. Thus, the Constitution requires same-sex marriage if there is going to be mixed-sex marriage.The Constitution does not, however, require you to enter into one or perform one.Your whine about taxes is specious. You don't pay taxes for same-sex marriage. You pay taxes for marriage.It sounds like your real argument is the governmental support of marriage.The Pledge of Allegiance ends, "with liberty and justice for all."What part of "for all" don't you understand?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!