For or Against Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Speedy Boarder
- Start date
Last updated Fourth of July, 2000
One of the most common statements from the "Religious Right" is that they want this country to "return to the Christian principles on which it was founded". However, one only neeRAB to do a little research into American history to discover that this statement is a lie. The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States had little use for Christianity, and many were strongly opposed to it. They were men of The Enlightenment, not Men of Christianity. They were Deists.
When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The worRAB Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God are never mentioned in the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of divine authority.
The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion." They meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.
None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists. Most of them were stoutly opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular.
Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's worRAB that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is here in blue italics: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.
If the Christian Right Extremists wish to return this country to its beginnings, so be it... because it was a climate of Freethought. The Founders were students of the European Enlightenment. Half a century after the establishment of the United States, clergymen complained that no president up to that date had been a Christian. In a sermon that was reported in newspapers, Episcopal minister Bird Wilson of Albany, New York, protested in October 1831: "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." The attitude of the age was one of enlightened reason, tolerance, and free thought. The Founding Fathers would turn in their graves if the Christian Extremists had their way with this country.
Consider this: IF indeed the members of the First Continental Congress were all bible-believing, "God-fearing" men, would there ever have been a revolution at all?
"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft." 1 Samuel, 15:23
Would they have initiated a rebellion if indeed they thought it was equal to witchcraft (a crime punishable by death)? But that's only the tip of the iceberg. The New Testament gives clear instructions to Christians on how to behave when ruled under a monarchy, as were the Founders.
1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."
Paul wrote in Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
The Founders clearly did not heed what was written in the bible. If they were in fact "good" Christians, there would never have been an American Revolution. Compare the above passages with the Declaration of Independence:
"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations... evinces a design to reduce (the people) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new GuarRAB for their future security..."
Anyone who can think for themselves can see that the Founders were not Christians.
One of the most common statements from the "Religious Right" is that they want this country to "return to the Christian principles on which it was founded". However, one only neeRAB to do a little research into American history to discover that this statement is a lie. The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States had little use for Christianity, and many were strongly opposed to it. They were men of The Enlightenment, not Men of Christianity. They were Deists.
When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The worRAB Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God are never mentioned in the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of divine authority.
The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion." They meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.
None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists. Most of them were stoutly opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular.
Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's worRAB that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is here in blue italics: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.
If the Christian Right Extremists wish to return this country to its beginnings, so be it... because it was a climate of Freethought. The Founders were students of the European Enlightenment. Half a century after the establishment of the United States, clergymen complained that no president up to that date had been a Christian. In a sermon that was reported in newspapers, Episcopal minister Bird Wilson of Albany, New York, protested in October 1831: "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." The attitude of the age was one of enlightened reason, tolerance, and free thought. The Founding Fathers would turn in their graves if the Christian Extremists had their way with this country.
Consider this: IF indeed the members of the First Continental Congress were all bible-believing, "God-fearing" men, would there ever have been a revolution at all?
"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft." 1 Samuel, 15:23
Would they have initiated a rebellion if indeed they thought it was equal to witchcraft (a crime punishable by death)? But that's only the tip of the iceberg. The New Testament gives clear instructions to Christians on how to behave when ruled under a monarchy, as were the Founders.
1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."
Paul wrote in Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
The Founders clearly did not heed what was written in the bible. If they were in fact "good" Christians, there would never have been an American Revolution. Compare the above passages with the Declaration of Independence:
"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations... evinces a design to reduce (the people) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new GuarRAB for their future security..."
Anyone who can think for themselves can see that the Founders were not Christians.
Anirban711
New member
There's a border, but the laws aren't completely different. Different enough, fortunately. I'm not terribly worried about what the USA does, except for when I need to go down south for conferences.
That's okay. Either Americans gays keep trying, or hopefully they see some sense and emmigrate to Canada.
That's okay. Either Americans gays keep trying, or hopefully they see some sense and emmigrate to Canada.
LegiTeamObstruxion
New member
No not much just every state in the union and over 100 countries around the world in my naval career but you have probbly been around more then that... 
The-Cool-Geek
New member
Only the the eyes of a gay person or activist.......
Hold it for one hot minute, this is not about abortion being appealing or not appealing. It's about choice. Late-term abortions are extremely rare, and done when a woman's health is at risk. That is the only reason the woman's rights would trump the rights of the fetus, at that point. Doctors have their own codes of ethics regarding these things.
And only for someone else's purposes, without your thoughts being considered important.
I can't see how that will happen if women aren't respected for controlling their own bodies, and having their own minRAB to make their own choices.
Yes, it is a mandatory state for women who are pregnant to have to stay that way, if she doesn't have the choice. How do we get to your ideal world, where no one makes mistakes and no woman has sex with a man unless she desires to become pregnant and is married? Contraceptives can be very close to perfect, if you believe in that, but only if used correctly, everytime. Here again, not everyone can be perfect.
You are also saying a woman can best be responsible by staying pregnant. This is somehow the point of no return where she has to live with the consequences of having sex with no choice about what happens with her body. How do you make these determinations? Why can't a woman and her doctor make those decisions about her body?
And only for someone else's purposes, without your thoughts being considered important.
I can't see how that will happen if women aren't respected for controlling their own bodies, and having their own minRAB to make their own choices.
Yes, it is a mandatory state for women who are pregnant to have to stay that way, if she doesn't have the choice. How do we get to your ideal world, where no one makes mistakes and no woman has sex with a man unless she desires to become pregnant and is married? Contraceptives can be very close to perfect, if you believe in that, but only if used correctly, everytime. Here again, not everyone can be perfect.
You are also saying a woman can best be responsible by staying pregnant. This is somehow the point of no return where she has to live with the consequences of having sex with no choice about what happens with her body. How do you make these determinations? Why can't a woman and her doctor make those decisions about her body?
It is nice to recieve a mature response to a direct question.
It is still a viable question though, there is evidence that points out both sides of one particular issue (healthiness of the homosexual lifestyle) - and both sides state that there is a modicum of evidence in support of the competing position.
My point, probably missed or poorly stated, is that the homosexual lifestyle is not what is under question here, but rather the fiscal compulsion to support a lifestyle that you may or may not agree with.
In that statement I am not saying all the other 'protected groups' that are currently included in the legal definition are any better, but rather that I am against adding to the set of entitled participants. And further that I would rather see all 'entitlement' and 'special interest/minority' legislation go away.
SO -- until such situation where I am not compelled to support the lifestyle, I am against inclusion in the legal protections. (Did I say that before?)
It is still a viable question though, there is evidence that points out both sides of one particular issue (healthiness of the homosexual lifestyle) - and both sides state that there is a modicum of evidence in support of the competing position.
My point, probably missed or poorly stated, is that the homosexual lifestyle is not what is under question here, but rather the fiscal compulsion to support a lifestyle that you may or may not agree with.
In that statement I am not saying all the other 'protected groups' that are currently included in the legal definition are any better, but rather that I am against adding to the set of entitled participants. And further that I would rather see all 'entitlement' and 'special interest/minority' legislation go away.
SO -- until such situation where I am not compelled to support the lifestyle, I am against inclusion in the legal protections. (Did I say that before?)
Night Worm
New member
So you were born "tabula rasa" as far as your sexual orientation is concerned?
Fantasy world. The Cleavers were never representative of anything that resembled reality.
Wow. That's pretty hypocritical considering your quotes below...or is it only a real insult when it's aimed at you?
Did you bother to read the list of things he is exposed to and does in my previous posts?
Let's see - fishing, soccer, camping, cabin, drums, football, baseball, tennis, swimming, golf, pro ball games (Twins, Wild, Vikings, Timberwolves), bowling, concerts, trips through North America, painting, cooking, special classes on ancient history, hiking, biking, volunteering, car maintenance, riding around in classic muscle cars (Mustang, Valiant - both convertables), homework assistance, reading, movies. Oh, and he is big time loved. Bolded are things he does with his mentor (as well as others), and this list is far from complete.
But do tell me how is it exactly that your sex life benifited your kiRAB (outside of creating them)?
Well let's check the numbers. Roughly half of the US voted against Bush. Our unemployment rate in April 2005 was 5.2% (US Dept of Labor). Can we suffice it to say that you are full of it?
Wow. That's pretty hypocritical considering your quotes below...or is it only a real insult when it's aimed at you?
Did you bother to read the list of things he is exposed to and does in my previous posts?
Let's see - fishing, soccer, camping, cabin, drums, football, baseball, tennis, swimming, golf, pro ball games (Twins, Wild, Vikings, Timberwolves), bowling, concerts, trips through North America, painting, cooking, special classes on ancient history, hiking, biking, volunteering, car maintenance, riding around in classic muscle cars (Mustang, Valiant - both convertables), homework assistance, reading, movies. Oh, and he is big time loved. Bolded are things he does with his mentor (as well as others), and this list is far from complete.
But do tell me how is it exactly that your sex life benifited your kiRAB (outside of creating them)?
Well let's check the numbers. Roughly half of the US voted against Bush. Our unemployment rate in April 2005 was 5.2% (US Dept of Labor). Can we suffice it to say that you are full of it?
You DO care. If there were a referendum on gay marriage and that was the only thing on the ballot, you'd DRIVE to the polling station, Wait in line, and then vote to keep them from having the same rights as people BORN a different way.
How is saying..."Any two unrelated people can get married" more complicated than saying "Any two unrelated people can get married, as long as one's got a wiener and the other got a China"?
How is saying..."Any two unrelated people can get married" more complicated than saying "Any two unrelated people can get married, as long as one's got a wiener and the other got a China"?
Yup. A pretty fun read. God doesn't particularly like the slanderous parts, but who likes coming off as a touchy *******?
My God? I'm sorry, but there is no God but God. God is your God as well. Oddly enough God doesn't admit to supporting any particular party, although from what I've seen God supports us anarchists more than you liberals, fascists, communists, conservatives, democratic-socialists, greens, or libertarians.
True. I've always wondered about the Ottawa valley.
My God? I'm sorry, but there is no God but God. God is your God as well. Oddly enough God doesn't admit to supporting any particular party, although from what I've seen God supports us anarchists more than you liberals, fascists, communists, conservatives, democratic-socialists, greens, or libertarians.
True. I've always wondered about the Ottawa valley.
sport fan1
New member
For reasons totally unrelated to same-sex marriage. One of the opposition parties that wanted to bring down the government with the Conservatives, is the Bloc Quebecois party. Almost every single Bloc member supports same-sex marriage. The Bloc wanted to bring down the Liberals for other reasons. You have to understand that there are four parties in the Canadian parliament, with 3 in opposition to the governing Liberals. There is good support for same-sex marriage in Parliament. The equal marriage bill has passed first and second reading in Parliament, by a healthy margin of votes. It is expected to pass third and final reading soon.
You don't have a decent understanding of Canadian politics. The Liberal government is a moderate government. The reason the Conservatives can never form a government, no matter how many problems the Liberals have, is because the Conservatives are seen as too extreme, especially on social issues. Voiding all the current gay marriages in the country, since Ontario legalized two years ago, would be seen as very extreme. Canada never rolls back rights. Polls show that most Canadians at least want this issue dealt with now, by Parliament.
I think you got your hope from one of Nurglitch's posts on another thread dealing with this issue. The Conservatives are backing off now, and they will back off further. There is no way they will continue any threats to void gay marriages, if elected, in any future election campaign. I will bet my last nickel on that, informed prediction. More than anything else, that party neeRAB to GROW, by attracting new, moderate members. They can't do that by having extreme positions.
You don't have a decent understanding of Canadian politics. The Liberal government is a moderate government. The reason the Conservatives can never form a government, no matter how many problems the Liberals have, is because the Conservatives are seen as too extreme, especially on social issues. Voiding all the current gay marriages in the country, since Ontario legalized two years ago, would be seen as very extreme. Canada never rolls back rights. Polls show that most Canadians at least want this issue dealt with now, by Parliament.
I think you got your hope from one of Nurglitch's posts on another thread dealing with this issue. The Conservatives are backing off now, and they will back off further. There is no way they will continue any threats to void gay marriages, if elected, in any future election campaign. I will bet my last nickel on that, informed prediction. More than anything else, that party neeRAB to GROW, by attracting new, moderate members. They can't do that by having extreme positions.