If you think they don't want it, wait awhile. They now invite openly gay men to come "talk" to students in our high schools here. They have "hug ins" pass out various sexual paraphernalia, and more. Men in there 40s and 50s are doing things that not too long ago would have got them arrested. Once a small door is opened the floodgates follow. All this, without consent from the kids parents. Parents have been arrested for going to these "school meetings" and have been jailed here for trying to keep their kids out of meetings they don't philosophically agree with. Where's the freedom there? I write these things having seen how it escalates beyond what we could even imagine. They want nothing more than a normalization of behavior that was considered abnormal not that long ago. A good friend of mine took his children to see the swan boats on Boston Common not knowing there was a gay pride parade. Imagine the shock when they rounded a corner to see live sex acts in cages right there for everyone to see. I don't think I've ever seen this (at the time about 10 years ago) young couple so shaken. What's happening here in Massachusetts would make the state's founding fathers roll over in their graves. It wasn't passed by a vote. It was a judicial decision that basically said, "Well, if the writers of the Mass. State Constitution didn't explicitly say that it's forbidden then it must be okay. Let's have gay marriage." It's called the tyranny of the minority. Basically, "You have to accept this." I don't imagine the state's founders ever even thinking it would go this far that they had to expressly write about it. What's left out is that these same founders, who the courts claimed thought it was okay, had a strict definition of marriage as one man and one woman here in Mass. They also had laws on the books expressly forbidding these activities. John and Samuel Adams of Revolutionary War fame were some of the authors of Massachusetts' Constitution. They were deeply religious men that understood that sin is a reproach to any nation. They therefore had many laws in their day that lasted into the 21st century that were moral in nature. It's only in the recent decades that there has been an overturning of what was commonly considered proper. Good is called bad (A Christian is a bigot if he dares say that God forbids such relationships), and bad is called good (Previously shunned behaviors become the norm). I've read the Bible cover to cover many times and know what I believe, He has to say about it, I know that societies that have gone down this road in the past have crumbled, and I know it is not normal in any way shape or form.

 

It's freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. That's to say anyone is barred from practicing any religion by the state. The great argument of "seperation of church and state" is not in the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence. It was a line from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a bishop who was concerned that Congregational Christianity would become the "state religion" and would therefore make laws that would hinder Baptists. Jefferson's comment was to assure the Baptist Bishop that he needed fear any one church becoming the "official" federal church.

Again, I encourage people with questions about the intent of the writers of the Constitution, and Bill of Rights, to read the Federalist Papers. Whether it is the 2nd Amendment that guarantees us the right to take up arms when our government becomes tyrannical, or the 1st Amendments guarantees of freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and address of grievances by our government, they made clear why they wrote what they did.

 

I like this thread !!! I mean no offense to anyone here and nothing anyone has to say bothers me..... The funny thing is I can be a right wing nut. Smaller gov., lower taxes, less gov. intrusion in our personal lives . The only reason the gov. cares about marriage is to they can tax us. Its all about $$$.

 

I couldn't agree more on the Catholic church thing about not letting priests marry. Bible never forbids pastors, priests, reverends, etc. from marrying. There's maybe one comment from Paul about if you can remain single your attention isn't so divided between your wife and God. But it's not a mandate or commandment from God to not marry. I also believe it's a root of the problem. Power is another.

 

Honestly I have yet to hear a logical argument as to why it shouldn't be allowed, all that is ever said is based on someone's beliefs or feelings about it. If two people of the same sex are in a relationship, who else is to say that it's not right and they aren't allowed to live "normal" lives with each other.
Also I agree about what you said about morals of kids that are raised by such parents. If anything, they might learn to be more accepting and less judgemental of others, which is a quality that people really should have. It seems that everything is now decided by closed-minded people who can only justify anything based on their beliefs, not on plain facts.
It's good to see that there are other logical people out there

 

This country was founded upon beleifs....

 

Using your argument why isn't pedophilia legal? I mean it's another of those rules based on beliefs and morals. How about beastiality? Why can't a man marry a dog? When you throw off moral constraints (which are the basis of laws saying what is right and what is wrong) there is no reason to have laws. Either there is good and bad or there isn't.

I've worked with many homosexuals. While I disagree with their lifestyle and believe it's a sin based on my beliefs and what was commonly held law. up until recently, I DO NOT hate homosexuals. On the contrary, because of what I believe I try to warn them the same way I would warn someone who didn't know they were driving off a cliff. The loving thing to do is to at least make the effort to say, God calls it sin. What someone does with a warning is up to them. If I hated them I'd just shut my mouth and not warn them. I've also helped them get into their cars that they accidently locked, etc.

It is factual to say that if homosexuality was the "normal" thing that we wouldn't have survived as a society or as a species. We would have died off without reproduction. Physically, it's in no shape or form, normal. To simplify it, Tab A is designed to work with Slot B. We even name electrical and plumbing fixtures male and female to make describing them easier. Morally, God calls it sin. He's offered salvation to all who would repent of sin and turn to Him. I think that's pretty decent of Him to say there's a penalty for sin and to pay the price for that sin so we don't have to if we just accept His offer.

On the judgmental argument we make judgments everyday about behaviors. We judge murderers, rapists, speeders, etc. We even decide who are friends are on a judgmental basis. Are they similar enough that we're going to get along? There is right and wrong. It really doesn't matter what my opinion is. It does matter what God's opinion is. I'm just trying to clarify it.

 

- it's important to add to your statement "by the majority" because I can bet there were conflicting beliefs at that point in time as well...

you can't base or justify what's "normal" based on what animals do-
you can't say being gay is normal because you saw one dog humping another- or because people have done it over the course of time...

I watched a frog eat another frog this weekend-
dogs eat their ****- animals don't depend on each other to survive like "modern" humans do-

I personally don't care what two consenting adults do with each other or how they feel about each other- it realy has no impact on my daily living, my beliefs or my happiness... they found happiness in their life, and we should all be that lucky- live & let live.

I also don't think you can "nurture" a child into being gay. My parents divorced while I was very young- my mother raised us- I can, without a doubt, tell you that no matter how much (if) my mother pushed me into a gay lifestyle- that I would've ended up gay. I started chasing girls in the 2nd grade and no amount of "gay" conditioning whould've changed that.

but- feelings & personal pleasures aside- you can't argue that homosexual sex is normal- it simply isn't. Physiologically & evolutionarily speaking- humans couldn't exsist if it was normal. We're all different on the outside, have different ways of thinking and chosing- but, for humans to thrive and survive, the microbiology of humankind works only one way-the human body mutates naturally over the course of hundreds of thousands of years- so far, that mutation has not changed how humans reproduce. One "area" is responsible for ridding the body of its waste, and the other "area" is responsible for creating life- and the two parts don't mix on any level what so ever.
physiologically speaking, those "parts" of our bodies were designed to do only one thing... to procreate.
If some people chose to use those "parts" in any other way other than natures intended way (procreating)- and given the the mechanics of how humans procreate- then you have to accept the notion that those "parts" are being used in ways not intended by "nature" - and therefor, homosexuality is not normal scientifically speaking.
Just because homosexuals can duplicate the pleasures (rewards) of heterosexual procreation by using their "parts" in other "parts" does not make it normal.

again- what's normal "physiologically" speaking and what's normal "emotionally & morally" speaking are two totally different monsters-

you can debate if homosexuality is emotionally / morally normal 24/7 and you'll never get a difinitive answer because the "right" answer depends on your personal beliefs... but you just can't debate homoseuality normalcy on the merits of evolution and biology- because there wouldn't be anything there to "evolve" if homosexuality was normal- think about it

 

Since BRW isn't here...


So gay and lesbian couples shouldn't be allowed to raise children? Has anyone checked the number of children that were abused in their own homes of heterosexual couples last year? And of those, how many were sexually assaulted by a family member?

In all fairness, shouldn't the scrutiny applied to them having children be placed on those with a heterosexual lifestyle? Is it wrong to give a child a chance at a life free of abuse?

Sure a lot of bad things could happen in a g&l environment, but a lot of bad things are happening right now.




This message was brought to you by the BRW stand in committee.

 

It is really less about "doing away with morals" and more about letting people have basic human rights to marry, live together, raise children etc. even if they are not of the same sexual orientation as others. Laws preventing pedophiles from marrying children, or humans marrying dogs are obviously there for a reason, and morals aren't that out of whack that people could justify that being legalized. However, gay marriage is not even close to that level, and keeping it banned solely because a religion dictates that it is wrong is not something that should be happening in this day and age. It isn't hurting anyone, and same-sex relationships are not illegal unlike that of a pedophile or dog-molester. If you don't believe that is right, nobody is forcing you to live that way, and you can continue to practice your religion, just agree to disagree. What effect would it actually have on YOU specifically?