Leviticus 20:13 Just thought I would share this.

[FANMAN]

... Many more are won through genuine love and concern than through passing judgment and pointing fingers. 

This ^^^

We have a two lesbians in our redneck circle, who are beautiful people, inside. They plan on getting married, and I am happy for them. Where I've changed over the years is acquiring more tolerance and an understanding that it is not my role on this earth to judge anyone. I figure that job is up to a much higher person than myself. I'm a sinner like all, and I need to take care of myself more than others. When I totally reach the level of sin free I will pass judgement on the rest of you to determine who goes where.  I just don't see that happening in the near future.

Jay, you have gained much wisdom over the years,I couldn't agree with you more.
Judge not lest ye be Judged.

[catdaddy]

... Many more are won through genuine love and concern than through passing judgment and pointing fingers. 

This ^^^

We have a two lesbians in our redneck circle, who are beautiful people, inside. They plan on getting married, and I am happy for them. Where I've changed over the years is acquiring more tolerance and an understanding that it is not my role on this earth to judge anyone. I figure that job is up to a much higher person than myself. I'm a sinner like all, and I need to take care of myself more than others. When I totally reach the level of sin free I will pass judgement on the rest of you to determine who goes where.  I just don't see that happening in the near future.

Jay, you have gained much wisdom over the years,I couldn't agree with you more.
Judge not lest ye be Judged.

Judge not??  That is true--however--You shall know a tree by the fruit it bears.   

[longspur]

A man told me today that homosexuality has been the downfall of every great society. I don't know history well enough to make that statement but I do know what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and the only reason given for that and that Alexander The Great was gay and so was Hitler.

[stinkpickle]

A man told me today that homosexuality has been the downfall of every great society. I don't know history well enough to make that statement but I do know what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and the only reason given for that and that Alexander The Great was gay and so was Hitler.

That sounds a little silly, but at least a great society can go down with nice window treatments.   

[Turkey Trot]

I have gay friends.

I celebrate and defend their right to be gay and enjoy love as a human experience, not some political issue defined by Christian conservatives. 

Ron Emanuel and the mayors attempting to use their political platform to deny chick fil a business venues in their districts are clearly in constitutional violation.

The couterpoint is that the constitution does not define marriage as a constitutional right nor as an institution exclusively between a man and a woman and in my opinion, it is wrong to deny homosexuals the same opportunities afforded to heterosexuals, especially when the basis for denial is centralized in religious doctrine.

To each their own.

The constitution does not speak of marriage period, it has always been local in nature.  Similarly, the federal government has never attempted to define marriage, define divorce, set a right or procedure for divorce, alimony, custody, child support or change in the aforementioned.  Moreover, federal law does not set forth laws of devisability and heritability and thereby attempt to determine who the heirs are if one dies intestate.

But the colonies and states have defined marriage since they existed, which obviously includes colonial times.  It is necessary to define marriage, for if one does not, it is impossible to define legitimacy, bastardry, divorce, custody, alimony, child support, marital property rights, division of property, etc., etc.  Many things in the law relate to the definition of marriage.  The colonies that defined marriage between a woman and a man are the same entities that became states that wrote, convened, and ratified the constitution.  They knew fully and well that they had the power to define marriage and restrict it, just as they had the power to proscribe homosexual conduct.  The 10th Amendment to the Constn. expressly states that such power was reserved to the states.  There has been no constnl. amendment that expressly changed the states' power to proscribe homosexual activity or gay marriage, and the fact that they pressed on prohibiting them after the constn was actually amended makes it clear that they never contemplated changing their powers when they ratified any amendments.

SCOTUS engaged in more of its famous legal pangenesis in Lawrence v. Texas when it held that the two could not be arrested and punished for gay sex due to a constnl. right of privacy.  That privacy was ostensibly created by judicial fiat under the auspices of the 9th Amendment.  It was a decision that again completely ignored the 10th amendment and the states' and local govts' longstanding understanding of the powers they had in pre-constnl and post-constnl times and that they never gave up through ratification of any amendment.  The history of law and understanding is deemed important by legal scholars, but SCOTUS can conveniently eschew it when the liberals want to reach a particular result.  There was absolutely no historical foundation in law or fact that gays ever had an expectation of privacy for gay sex in the law, and had rejected the argument less than 20 years before in Bowers v. Hardwick.

The traditional definition of marriage treats all people of a gender the same.  It holds that a man can only marry a woman, and a woman can marry a man.  Thus, everyone of the make gender is treated the same, and everyone of the female gender is treated the same.  Sexual orientation is not a classification that plays into it.  Nor should it in the absence of an express constnl amendment to that effect in light of the clearcut legal prohibition on homosexual conduct and the traditional definition of marriage.  Thus, gay people can get married, but they just can't marry someone of their own gender.  In other words, the law as it stands does not exactly require them to be straight.  One may question that proposition, but if you allow people of the same gender to marry they don't have to be gay to do that, and there will be people that marry one another for reasons other than affinity then too, like insurance benefits or whatever scam. 

The equal protection clause of the constn does NOT require mirror image protection, and there is no special, protected class for sexual orientation.  But gays want a special, preferential treatment based on sexual orientation, which is in no way of saying they want "equal" treatment.  They clearly want special treatment based on orientation.  When the EPC was proposed and then ratified, no state intended to give up its rights to police homosexual conduct or marriage rights.  States clearly have the so-called police power to regulate public health, morals, and welfare, the 10th amendment reserved those rights to them, and they have never expressly given them up.

Not only do gays want preferential rights in the law, they want to take a shortcut to get them.  The US Constn was intentionally difficult to amend.  Just as the libs in this country want to effectively amend the constn and circumscribe gun rights through legislation and weak interpretations from SCOTUS, they want to effectively amend the constn to add new gay rights through sympathetic judges and circumventing the process of a constnl convention on an express amendment.  They know that they cannot win that battle, they even lost it in California, then did an end run through the Ninth Circuit and found their sympathetic lib judges.

What is the point of having a constitution if the words, the history behind the words, and the procedure for amendment have no meaning?   
   

[coyotetrpr]

That was a lot of fancy wording. I think that I agree with some of what you said,but I will need to re-read to make sure. As for me I do not have a problem with gay marriage. I think that they have the right to do what ever they want. As far as the relegious aspect of it, it is not my place to judge only love. They will answer for their choices when the time is right.

[M Sharpe]

I think I'll stick to God's word instead of a judge's word. I know we are to submit to authority............as long as it concurs with God's Law.

http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html

[lmbhngr]

 

[longspur]

as mentioned before marrage itself is a religious union. if gays can get married then, there is no such thing as marrage, no such thing as family. I believe there is some merrit in Michael Savage's definition of a country, borders language and culture. America has no borders to speak of, no language and no culture. Nothing is right and nothing is wrong. yep

[stinkpickle]

[Turkey Trot]

OMFG with a picture of Jesus?

I think you are going to hades for blasphemy. 

[Hognutz]

Religion, politics, and now, I guess, homo's, (R.P.H's.) are bad ju-ju on forums. I would suggest that you all let this one go.. It will not end well. I can guarantee this..Mike

[catdaddy]

Religion, politics, and now, I guess, homo's, (R.P.H's.) are bad ju-ju on forums. I would suggest that you all let this one go.. It will not end well. I can guarantee this..Mike

You are right Mike—but unfortunately so. I never would have imagined there would be any kind of critical mass of "pro-gay" turkey hunters.  I guess times are changing. This reminds me of one of my favorite Hank Williams JR songs—"I'm a Dinosaur" If you haven't heard it—check it out.

[pappy]

Fortunately God is big enough and willing to forgive these sins just like He is the sins of lying, cheating, stealing... etc. As a believer and follower of Christ and the word of God, I am going to say something that may light the fire under someones behind.
An "ABOMINATION"  simply refers to something the Lord "hates" -- something totally out of harmony with His character of purity and love. I agree that the practice of homosexuality burns my spirit, but so does a lot of sins committed every day. Quoting Proverbs 6: 16 - 19:
"These six things doth the LORD hate:
yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies,
and he that soweth discord among  brethren."
We can see that the word abomination covers a jaunder of wrongs in the eyes of the Lord.....are we better or worse then anyone else when it comes to our sins or our abominations? We could argue the fact that we disagree with the practice of homosexuality, till we are blue in the face, will it change things? No,judicial standings are only going to get worse as long as there are men and women in the profession that will encourage legal "rights" of others in order to exploit the monetary status, through lawsuits, and the questioning of right or wrong according to the Constitution, is a matter of opinion any more instead of making God Fearing decisions, we get hung up on making decisions based on the swaying of possible votes for upcoming elections.
What impressed me more then anything about this thread was Wendell's statement.....of which I used to title this post.....right or wrong in our eyes, is one thing, condemnation belongs to the Lord, our job is to pray for the sins of all of mankind, including ourselves, and to share the word and love of Christ amongst the world.