muddysmind.com

I do not think it is odd that tax paying citizens request the same rights as other tax paying citizens, as is the case with marriage as a civil institution. Many laws that exist, now and in the past, have been unjust.

It used to be against the law for women and blacks to vote.
Jim Crow laws made it illegal for blacks to do many things that other white citizens were legally able to do.
Laws used to protect the rights of slave owners.
Laws used to facilitate the extermination of Native Americans.
Laws in other countries facilitated the extermination of other peoples as well.
Laws in some countries allow women to be stoned to death.
Laws in this land still make sodomy a crime.

Perhaps if you were born in any of these times or places you would demonstrate your manhood and have the “balls” to put a stop to all these people who had disrespect for the law. Perhaps you would have had the balls to tell that uppity nigger woman to get to the back of the bus as the law demanded.

It's a good think that someone back in the day had the balls to make that uppity Jew come to his senses.

I am at a loss. This issue, I admit, has been burning a hole in my mind for some time. Since 9/11 I have become sensitive to discrimination and abuse of power. Divisive issues and discrimination are used to facilitate the powerful elite. What we have is an issue that either increases liberties for the individuals or decreases them. I felt certain that a discussion of division and discrimination on sexual and gender identity would demonstrate the universality of such methods as a means of public control.

Women and gays, as history shows us – not absolutely, but consistently – have been discriminated against. There is no skin color, nationality, or religion which can be used to justify such discrimination. I felt certain that once this was discussed we may realize that humans all around the world have more in common than some want us to believe. These common attributes span economic and social classifications, but can also encompass sexual and gender classifications. But so long as people continue to hate each other and declare authority over others' rights to be happy, then the world will know nothing more than what it has had so far – war and hatred are consistent in the top five.

It seems clear that certain institutions and beliefs are perpetuated because people really do choose to support them, despite the destructive nature of such beliefs.

Please correct me if I am wrong, Skywalker, perhaps you may be better qualified to help me out. Isn't one of the founding principles of our Gov't the ability and encouragement of state and local Governments to exercise some form of autonomy.

Doesn't such a principle encourage a democracy's ability to resist totalitarian like control?

Cwilli, would you be prepared to Coronate G.W. Bush? You say you want smaller Gov't but how small is a Gov't when it's authority reaches into the bedrooms and private lives of so many individuals. Please address this inconsistency.

Sodomy is not a crime in Georgia.

All those things you mention about laws, none of those things were just ignored. They are either still practiced, or they were changed.

When laws are just ignored, what you get is anarchy - and I don't care who you are, that's not a good thing.

Oh and if you're sensitive to descriminatin why do you support affirmative action, that's just staturoy descrimination.

Oh and one last thing, homosexuals do have the same rights as everyone else. The have 100% identical rights.

The purpose for marriage is to produce and raise children, homosexuals can't do that.

"You say you want smaller Gov't but how small is a Gov't when it's authority reaches into the bedrooms and private lives of so many individuals. Please address this inconsistency."

I dont believe that the Government should be involved in any persons bedroom or personal lives. I am all for freedom to do whatever you want behind closed doors as long as no animals or children are involved. It is also not illegal to be gay. That is not what this is about. This is about homosexuals wanting the law to recongnize their 'union'. Gay people can live togeather and announce to the world that they are gay. The law just does not recongnize their 'union' as legal. So getting married does not have anything to do with "reaches into the bedrooms and private lives of so many individuals" because Gay people can do the exact same things as married people. They can live, sleep and eat togeather, have sex and raise kids. They have been doing this for years. The law just does not recongnize it as legal.

So now that I have addressed your question please address mine. Why do they want the law to recognize it as 'legal' when they have no respect for things that ARE legal? Besides isnt marriage really beween two people anyhow? They can get married all they want. They just want the goverment to recongnize it. Thats the part that I dont understand. Why? Why do they want it to be legal when they themselves do not respect the law when they dont agree?

I don't think I made any refernce to absolute disregard of laws. My intention, if it was not clear, was to suggest that not all laws are just. And in the case with this issues, laws are being passed to decrease the rights of individuals rather than increase them.

I am not an authority on affirmative action, however, it seems to be the best solution, so far to be implemented, to correct the wrongs of slavery and racial segragation. There were mandatory laws AGAINST blacks for over 400 years and against women for thousands. I don't think we should feel threatened by affirmative action which has been around only a fraction of that time. Though there may be better solutions to correct past wrongs, affirmative action is at least in the right direction.

Skywalker, there is a contradiction in your statement. You said homosexuals have 100% rights, but then make reference to laws defining the function of marriage.

I just got done watching a film called The Silence, by Ingmar Bergman. It's interesting because it demonstrates a relationship between two women...sisters actually, who care for a young boy and battle with the inablity to communicate. Apparently the father won't come to see him. Though biologically it takes a sperm and an egg to make a baby, everything else after that is highly socially influenced.

I think now would be a good time for us to discern if we consider marriage a religious or civil institution. When each of us uses the word marriage, having an understanding of each others' intended meaning, may help us to agree more often than not.

I will use the definition as I think it is being presented. Simply, if the Gov't is mandated the definitions of it in any way, then I consider marriage within this debate a CIVIL institution. As such as our society is, in either the religious or civil context, laws and rules are written and arranged to protect those who write them. In this debate about a civil institution you have a group of citizens figthing for civil equality under laws written by other people than themselves. If marriage is primarily a function of reproduction and child-bearing, then why do people allow the rules to be written by a Gov't, or religious institution, monopolized by men?

Cwilli, all tax payers deserve equal rights. As pertaining to laws, specifically civil laws, ragarding marriage, then equal rights should be provided. It seems clear that equal rights are not being provided in this case. They are disrespecting what seems to be an unjust rule since they pay taxes just as others do who get to enjoy the civil benefits of marriage.

Why should anyone respect an unjust law?

Rosa Parks disrespected an unjust law.
Thomas Jefferson disrespected unjust laws.
Dred Scott disrepected unjust laws.
Jesus disrespected unjust laws.

I just got done watching Winter Light by Ingmar Bergman. Skywalker, it mentions Bethenamy (spelling?) You should check it out, it's a very good film. It brings back many memories of attending mass with my grandmother.

"Why should anyone respect an unjust law?"

Good question. But if you dont respect unjust laws then why would you care if what you were doing is recongnized as legal? Especially if you are not going to respect laws you feel are unjust.

You still didnt answer my question. In other words if you are only going to respect laws that you find are 'just' then why would gay couples care if everyone views their union as legal?

Also 'just' can vary from person to person. What I find 'just' isnt always what you see as 'just'. That being said lets just ignore all laws we see dont see as 'just'.

What if I had a group of people who felt that robbery laws were unjust. What if we TRULEY believed that we should be allowed to take what we want as long as we can get away with it. So we should be allowed to rob everyone we want, right?

Well, I imagine if lived in a world where robbery was considered just many things would be different. But who knows, maybe we already do.

Boeing, Halliburton, MCI, Tyco, Adelphia, Parmalot..etc.

What if we lived in a democracy where the peoples' vote mattered?
What if we lived in a world were invasions on false pretenses were considered unjust?

CWilli, as far as marriages. Everyone pays taxes and should be afforded equal rights. I think it is quite that simple. I am not sure I understand why you have a problem with that.

"CWilli, as far as marriages. Everyone pays taxes and should be afforded equal rights. I think it is quite that simple. I am not sure I understand why you have a problem with that."

I dont have a problem with equal rights. What I dont understand is what I have asked from the start (that you still have not answered):

Why do they want the law to recognize their union as 'legal' when they have no respect for things that ARE legal?

Thats all I asked and I was very carefull not to cast any descrimination in either direction. I truly do not understand! I understand why people want equal rights. I just dont understand why they would disrepect the same law that they want to eventually protect them. Its like throwing the baby out the with bathwater. I also understand them feeling like this law is unjust to them. I just dont understand why they went about it THIS way. Why would they care if their union is legal or not when they dont follow laws they feel are unjust?

Enlighten me.

There is no contradiction in my statement, a Gay man is free to marry a woman just as a straight man is. They have the same rights.

Marriage as a CIVIL institution should not be governed by religious dogma. The rules that define marriage as a union only between a man and a woman are religiously based. This is wrong in a secular democratic nation.

Just as uppity niggers disregarded the laws that discriminated against them, these uppity homos are doing the same. There is a law in place that does not pertain equally as it should. This cwilli, is why they disregard the law as it is.

Skywalker, I agree, gay men are free to marry women just as straight men are. This happens often. Now I hope we have all agreed that we are discussing marriage as a civil institution. If so, then there remains contradiction in your understanding of equal rights in this matter.

Conservatism is about holding on to old ideas and the good 'ol days. Conservatism - independent of politics - is the idea that things should stay as they are and allow very little change. Often change is resisted because the way things happen to be conveniently coincides and conforms with the interests with those who have it pretty good relative to others. This is why most conservatives are white men.

Conservatism would have made the following arguments throughout history.

The earth is flat, what is all this talk about it being round.

We are the center of the universe.

Women shouldn't vote, things are just fine the way it is now. Why do these women want equal rights under the voting laws if they don't respect the voting laws as they are?

Blacks should stay on plantations where they belong.

Why do blacks want to eat in the same diner as myself. Why do they want equal rights under the law when they don't respect the law as it is?

The same thing is happening with this issue. The law as it is now limits the number of individuals that share a right under a particular law. The idea of a free society is to increase this number rather than decrease it.

So, cwilli, certain people are breaking the law right now by getting married, I imagine, to demonstrate that the law is unjust. I think Jesus broke a few unjust laws himself, or at least someone thought he did, because he got killed for something.

Can we move onto abortion?

Whoa whoa whoa! You just made some blatantly false statements. You might want to go re read that post and retract alot of them.

Bamboozled, So in other words you can't answer the question. Dont feel bad I can't either but at least I am admit to it. Also you have some serious issues. You need to talk to a professional.

"but at least I am admit to it."

Is that kinda like "All your bases are belong to us"? =P

lol Shutternutz

Yea, something like that.... :>)

"Why do they want the law to recognize their union as 'legal' when they have no respect for things that ARE legal?"

There's a point I missed here. In what ways do gay people who seek to be able to marry their beloved have no respect for things that are legal ?

Do you imply that all (or most) gays are criminals ?

What are the laws that these people disrespect ?
Do they commit adultery ? (sleep with married men ?)

And if someof you care about it, in France a law has been passed 3 years ago. It allows for a civil union, not labelled marriage, and this "civil union" gives the same tax advantage as marriage ... (though it has to last 3 years to do so, and there are some problems with testimonies and the division of the investments made in common when people part ... but anyway)

Now if you want my definition of marriage : it's about deciding to share with the society a decision to live together for a long time.

"The purpose for marriage is to produce and raise children, homosexuals can't do that"
I think we now have 30% of children in France born out of marriage, with parents leaving together. I guess it is clear for all here that marriage is not necessary to produce and raise children... people can do without.
And also about 50 % of marriage end with a divorce with 30% of divorce (around 15% of marriage I guess) occuring before the first 3 years of marriage. These figures hold for the USA I guess... So the fact is more and more people raise kids out of marriage too...

It could make a good poll in here :
Why did you marry your husband-wife ? Or for those unmarried yet, why would you ?

It's not sure producing kids will be the first reason.

Strange ... I can't see my post.
Anyway I wanted to mention that now that Bush has said he would propose an amendment to the constitution against gay marriage, you could change the main post.

"In what ways do gay people who seek to be able to marry their beloved have no respect for things that are legal "

Because legally marriage is defined as 'between a man and a women'. This means that it is illegal to marry someone of the same sex, an animal, a child (unless your in Kentucky) or multiple people.

The mayer of California didnt have the authority when told his workers to go ahead and issue marriage license to homosexuals. Therefore homosexuals who get married in California are breaking the law. People who are breaking the law cant possibly have respect for the law. Therefore I dont understand why they would care if their 'union' was recognized by the law.

Also I already know where you are going with this. If the mayer told someone it was ok to kill a man would it then be legal?

If they are allowed to ignore the law then what kind society are we living in? If we change the law to allow for homosexuals then when will it end? Will the law eventually allow for someone to marry his pet? or multiple people?

Love is love. I dont have a problem with homosexuals getting married. Whatever. I dont care. I just dont understand why they would break the very law that they hope will protect them in the future. So far nobody has been able to explain this to me.

How about you, DF?

I'll let you guys do the arguing on this one, at least for right now.

I just can't wait for the South Park episode.

You know, cwilli has a good point when he stated:

"The mayer of California didnt have the authority when told his workers to go ahead and issue marriage license to homosexuals. Therefore homosexuals who get married in California are breaking the law."

This is true. Therefore the Mayor is obviously breaking the law himself. It will be interresting to see what will happen to him over this. I think he should be jailed or put on probation, fined, asked to step down....all of the above...some of the above, but he should be made to do pay in some way for breaking the law that being mayor he is suppossed to be enforcing.

Just my thought.

I've done some digging and I came up with some very interesting information. I did some searching on what connection there is between God and marriage. What I found surprised me.

Marriage: was instituted in Paradise when man was in innocence ( Gen 2:18-24). Here we have its original charter, which was confirmed by our Lord, as the basis on which all regulations are to be framed ( Mat 19:4,5). It is evident that monogamy was the original law of marriage ( Mat 19:5; 1Cr 6:16). This law was violated in after times, when corrupt usages began to be introduced ( Gen 4:19; 6:2). We meet with the prevalence of polygamy and concubinage in the patriarchal age ( Gen 16:1-4; 22:21-24; 28:8,9; 29:23-30, etc.). Polygamy was acknowledged in the Mosaic law and made the basis of legislation, and continued to be practiced all down through the period of Jewish history to the Captivity, after which there is no instance of it on record.

It seems to have been the practice from the beginning for fathers to select wives for their sons ( Gen 24:3; 38:6). Sometimes also proposals were initiated by the father of the maiden ( Exd 2:21). The brothers of the maiden were also sometimes consulted ( Gen 24:51; 34:11), but her own consent was not required. The young man was bound to give a price to the father of the maiden ( 31:15; 34:12; Exd 22:16,17; 1Sa 18:23,25; Rth 4:10; Hsa 3:2) On these patriarchal customs the Mosaic law made no change.

In the pre-Mosaic times, when the proposals were accepted and the marriage price given, the bridegroom could come at once and take away his bride to his own house ( Gen 24:63-67). But in general the marriage was celebrated by a feast in the house of the bride's parents, to which all friends were invited ( 29:22,27); and on the day of the marriage the bride, concealed under a thick veil, was conducted to her future husband's home.

Our Lord corrected many false notions then existing on the subject of marriage ( Mat 22:23-30), and placed it as a divine institution on the highest grounds. The apostles state clearly and enforce the nuptial duties of husband and wife ( Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18,19; 1Pe 3:1-7). Marriage is said to be "honourable" ( Hbr 13:4), and the prohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of degenerate times ( 1Ti 4:3).

The marriage relation is used to represent the union between God and his people ( Isa 54:5; Jer 3:1-14; Hsa 2:9,20). In the New Testament the same figure is employed in representing the love of Christ to his saints ( Eph 5:25-27). The Church of the redeemed is the "Bride, the Lamb's wife" ( Rev 19:7-9).

This was found @ http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/choice/1077737605-2392.html

If you think about marriage from the prospective of God and that being that Jesus is the Groom and we (or those who have accepted him as our savior) are his Bride then two men being married or two women or a man and a chicken or whatever is not valid. It is in fact, one of the many reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Something to think about kids.

I find it halarious that the leading democratic candidate is against same-sex marriages, but the so-called "gay rights" groups say "We're going to give him pass on it."

OK cwili
that one is easy
You are saying that homosexuals who seek marriage
are breaking "the very law that they hope will protect them in the future."
(...)
"Because legally marriage is defined as 'between a man and a women'. This means that it is illegal to marry someone of the same sex, an animal, a child (unless your in Kentucky) or multiple people."

But there's one step you miss there. These people want to be protected by another law.

Of course
"The mayer of California didnt have the authority when told his workers to go ahead and issue marriage license to homosexuals. Therefore homosexuals who get married in California are breaking the law. "
He was making a bet perhaps that the judges would understand that marriage's definition was outdated or just raising an issue. (just as people who had no right to strike and did it at first, or as slaves who had no right to move out of slavery, these people seek a new right)

People who are breaking the law cant possibly have respect for the law.

LOL
They are breaking a law. Not the Law.

Therefore I dont understand why they would care if their 'union' was recognized by the law.

Also I already know where you are going with this. If the mayer told someone it was ok to kill
a man would it then be legal?

Of course not. Can't you make the difference ?

If they are allowed to ignore the law then what kind society are we living in? If we change the law to allow for homosexuals then when will it end? Will the law eventually allow for someone to marry his pet? or multiple people?

This is a democracy. laws are made by the people. so if the majority of the people want to marry their pet or their robot, they will.
Stand for your values.

I hope I made it clear.

People want to change a law. It's just like legalising alkohol or cannabis or driving without seat belts.

"They are breaking a law. Not the Law."

DF, That doesn't make any sence. I don't know how things work in *your* country but over here, if your breaking *a* law....your breaking *THEE* law....the law and order. You'll be charged for only the law(s) you break BUT your still breaking THEE law.

"This is a democracy."

Your country or ours? *I* Thought the United States was a *republic*....at least that's what my "pledge of Allegence" says.....I could always be wrong though.

"People want to change a law"

Fine, change a law. Write your congressman, your senator, speak with a city council member, start a petition. Whatever you do....do it according to the law that exists already.

DF: This is a republic, not a democracy. Laws are made officials who we elected to represent us.

Breaking a law by definition, IS breaking the law. That was one of the most idiotic comments I think I have ever heard.

Mrs. muddy is right. There are ways to change a law you feel is unjust.

Also, I'm sorry, but if it is okay for a mayor to tell his denizens to break one law (marriage law), I don't see the difference if her tells them to break another law (homocide.) It's breaking a law either way.

I've already explained that I do not agree with your definition of republic and democracy. What you call republic I call representative democracy.
There's a difference between breaking marriage law and breaking the law that says you shall not kill... It's very simple the number of years in jail required for the breach is not the same.

In order to change a law you have to break it... I don't think there's been a case of a change in law without people having the courage to break it and be sentenced to jail for that.

When you think of it that might even be the message of jesus. If you're against the Law, be ready to die for your beliefs.
(special smile at Mrs Muddy)
So basically that's what that mayor did, he said bring on the police, send me to jail, I'm not afraid. I believe. I know that I'm right in doing what I do and I'm ready to be punished by the earthly present laws because I know that what I'm doing is right, I obey my soul.

"There's a difference between breaking marriage law and breaking the law that says you shall not kill..."

DF...I understand what your trying to say but a law is still a law...you break one you break the *body* of the law of that society.....ok let me throw this at you.

If I come up to you and punch you in the nose and break it and then the police who witnesses my actions asks me:

"Why did you punch this man's body"
Would it make sense for me to say: "I didn't punch his body....I just punched him in the nose"?

No. That wouldn't make any sense because the last time I checked, the nose *is* apart of the body. If I hurt *one* part of your body and not touch anything else on you....I'm still bringing harm to you *entire* body.

"It's very simple the number of years in jail required for the breach is not the same."

What your talking about here, though, has to do more with the *punishment* you *recieve* from breaking a law. In a society....we have to measure the punishment each law as we see fit - obviously. Even though, breaking the speed limit would not merit the death penalty (whether you believe in it or not is irrelevant....just bear with me) however, murdering someone in cold blood *would*. All in all, though, each law *is* apart of the body of the laws of that land they represent.

The diff. between Jesus and this mayor is that Jesus came to *fulfill* the law, He did not come to *break* the law. Nor was in He put in position to *enfore* the law. This mayor (and now there are more yahoo mayors following sute) and EVERY mayor is put in a position TO *enfore* the law. They don't have to *like* the law or even *agree* with the law....but they DO have to *enforce* it until they can change it through proper means.

If the *leaders* of a land do not make sure the law(s) (in this case - the law voted on BY the people) are followed and *they* themselves are responsible for leading the "rebellion" then it IS indeed anarchy....and the "leader" (and I use this term very loosly in this case) needs to be removed because if he cannot follow the law, he obviously cannot preside properly over the people.

I guess we'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this :-)

There's no doubt for me nor I believe for the mayor that the people should replace that mayor if they disagree with what he did.

Now about the analogy you made with the body. Imagine that out of my past, my body loves sugar, it is addicted to it, I've become so fat that I hardly can move and am depressed out of it and watch TV all time. Now, here I comes surgery, taking lots of fat out of me, it hurts, diet, it hurts and pills...
All this might be needed to allow me to change and grow. Change implies that I break some rules that have ruled my past. Loving sugar was good may be in the past, but now it has become inadequate (at least for me in that case).

So the question is not wether the Law has been broken and Oh my god this will lead us to anarchy. The question is truly wether you want that change to happen, which mean have married homosexuals, carrying alliances, inviting friends and families ... If you want that change to happen then this act of the mayor is just a step forward into a change for the rule you expect, if you don't want it to happen, then it is just a breach of the rule you have now.

AS far as jesus he was indeed not into a position of enforcing the law, but he did break the law of the jews in the jewish perspective of course. That's why they asked for him to be put to death. He did so, and did so knowing what he was doing, because he knew he was right, because he believed ...

DF:

"Imagine that out of my past, my body loves sugar, it is addicted to it, I've become so fat that I hardly can move and am depressed out of it and watch TV all time. Now, here I comes surgery, taking lots of fat out of me, it hurts, diet, it hurts and pills...
All this might be needed to allow me to change and grow."

Agreed.....however, those things you mentiond; surgery, diet, pills and so on.....*would* indeed be proper steps to take to loose weight. Just as changing a law through proper channels such as petioning, contacting your congressman and senator would be proper steps to take to make a change in the system of the law.

You wouldn't be fat one day then wake up completely weight free the next....that *would* be breaking the "rules" so to speak (not to mention absolutely incredible and mind blowing :-P ) as is what is going on in San Fransisco also breaking the laws.

But hey.....it's all in the point of view I guess as always, huh? :-)

"but he did break the law of the jews in the jewish perspective of course. That's why they asked for him to be put to death."

Yes, it *was* in the "jewish perspective" well, at least the religious leaders anyway because Jesus scared the crap out of them so they hated Him and therefore they *had* to come up with something (no matter how completely bogus it was) to get rid of Him.

I DO indeed see what your saying but I do not agree with the tactics, so we're going to have to agree to disagree on this :-)

Then what is a republic DF, since my definition is wrong (Accoording to you?)

I've done some google search. It appears your definition of republic seems close to the one of Kant, when he opposes democracy (a theoric regime) to the republic, where the one who enforce the law are not the one who make it, which guarantees that the laws apply to all, including those who make it. (which is the condition for liberty)

In France the concepts are used to differenciate real regimes.
The republic implies that there is no king, so this rules out UK or spain, who are democracies and not republic.
The republic implies that those make the law care for the common good outside of private interests, namely lobbies, there you could rule out the USA, but almost all the countries nowadays...
The separation of church and state seems to be included in the definition of the republic.

Democracy is about free speech, vote, many parties, separation of powers rule of the majority.

You please note that a democracy can be a republic, but not all are. The republic needs to be a democracy (but for instance ENgland is more a democracy than France if you think of the rights given to the opposition, and of the power of its parliament)

THe french republic is :
indivisible (no right to secession, the law applies to all parts the same)
laic (some democracies have an official religion)(I wonder how you translate Laic in english)
democratic
social

okay, you definition of a republic assumes psychological basis ont he people elected. Which means that the difference between us being a democracy and a republic is simply who wins elections. That's about idiotic. It is litterally impossible for someone to not consider private interests. Your country proves that.

Democracy: majority rule
Republic: rule by representatives.

That simple.

Its actually very funny that someone from France doesnt understand the difference.....

you oversimplify. I'll do so also.
Democracy = rule of majority + rights for the opposition + separation of powers (implies representatives)

Republic = Democracy + separation of church and state + No king

Direct democracy : a group of people who decide by consensus (rule of majority implies in order to be enforced that some representatives be elected to do the job on enforcing the decision of the majority...)

Constitutional state : a republic or a democracy where the constitutionnality of laws can be challenged in front of some court of some kind so that laws have to respect some basic principles guaranteed in the constitution.
(it is not the case in all democracies neither in all republics)

Now about the psychological basis, I disagree, caring for the common good is sth that is created by the institutions. If all the institutions around teach you and want you to look most of all after your self ... That's what you end up doing. If the institutions around teach you and reward taking care of your community... you end up doing that.
It they reward looking for what is good under reason, under the common good of the country... THis is the republic.
That is why the republic goes along free school system, tests to access to public services and several other institutions that are designed to limit egoist behaviour.

So what you are telling me is that Rome was never a republic or a democracy? I mean, since Rome, a nation that basically defined 2 forms of government (democracy and republicanism) had no seperation of powers or seperation of church and state (wtf is rights for the opposition?)

You've basically told me that the type of government we have depends basically on the politics of the people we elect.

Seperation of powers? Seperation of powers is the idea that one group controls one aspect of government, another group controls another and while they can't do the same thing as each other, they can stop each other from performing their functions.

Constitutional state is a definition I would agree with.

Direct democracy is a misnomer. By definition democracy is direct.

A republic is when people are elected represent a larger group in the government. Hence forth, a democracy is a rule by majority. A republic is an oligarchy, or rule by a few.

We have government school systems (they are NOT free) because in the early part of the 20th century people were fascinated with Karl Marx. It has nothing to do with the government's need to look out for the common good.

Sorry, but saying that how government officials thinks, defines your system of government is a) oxymoronic and b) just plain moronic. Statements such as that one reach into new levels of idiocy that I did not know existed. In a republic, each representatives sole purpose is to represent the best interests of the people in his constituency. This is why our representatives and senators tend to get angry when someone tries to close a base in their district, or cancel a defense contract to a business in their district. The only collective they are to look out for is the collective they represent.

Skywalker wrote:

"So what you are telling me is that Rome was never a republic or a democracy?"

Rome was never a democracy. It became a republic, of very rudimentary sorts, in its later years.

"I mean, since Rome, a nation that basically defined 2 forms of government (democracy and republicanism) had no seperation of powers or seperation of church and state..."

Democracy is mostly the Greeks' fault rather than the Romans.

It's true that Rome, in its later years, became a republic in that they moved from Caesar ruling by absolute fiat to creating the Senate. So, in theory there was some seperation of powers in the later Roman period, but in reality, Caesar and the Roman Senate clashed frequently with violent results, and sometimes assasinations as well.

There was never any such thing as the separation of church and state under the Romans. In earlier times, Romans worshipped a pantheon of gods that was derived from the Greek gods. In general, conquered peoples were permitted to carry on their own religious traditions, unless and until they became percieved by the Romans as a threat. Christians, you'll remember, were given special treatment by the Romans; they were herded into the Colusseum where the Romans watched them ripped to shreds by starved lions, just for sport.

Enter Constantine, who decided that the Christians were right after all and declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, giving birth to the Roman Catholic Church. This was the precursor to centuries upon centuries of Crusades against the Muslims to re-conquer the Holy Land for Jesus(someone must have skipped over the "Love thy neighbor" and "Do unto others" parts in the Bible, huh?), and later, wars and persecution of Protestant Christians for being "heretics".

No, the separation of church and state took its first real roots in the United States Constitution, and most of Europe followed suit later, I believe, as they began to throw off absolute monarchy in favor of parliamentary forms of government.

" (wtf is rights for the opposition?)"

I'm guessing that DF is speaking of protection against "Tyranny of the Majority". Constitutionally speaking, "Equal Protection Under The Law".

"You've basically told me that the type of government we have depends basically on the politics of the people we elect."

It shouldn't, but in many cases it does. That's Representative Democracy. We'd like it to be the case that a given representative will act only in the best interests of his/her constituency, but we all know full well that this isn't the case much of the time.

"Direct democracy is a misnomer. By definition democracy is direct."

Unless it's a Representative Democracy, like the United States.

"A republic is an oligarchy, or rule by a few."

No, an Oligarchy is an Oligarchy, or rule by a few.

"We have government school systems (they are NOT free) because in the early part of the 20th century people were fascinated with Karl Marx. It has nothing to do with the government's need to look out for the common good."

Public school systems administered by local governments in the U.S. existed long before Karl Marx. And, if you happen to not be a landowner in the U.S. then they *are* free to you, as most local school systems in the U.S. are funded by residential property taxes. They fit very well into the constitutional responsibility of government to provide for the general welfare(That's found in the Preamble to the United States Consitution).

Lurker:

"No, the separation of church and state took its first real roots in the United States Constitution,"

Ok....just out of curiousity....where? Write the line of the U.S Constituion that plainly *says* "separation of church and state".

I'll agree that democracy is the greeks fault (in fact so is republicanism) but rome was at one point a democracy (in its waning days, for a very short time), a republic (this is more how it started out, what do you think the senate was?) and a dictatorship (Hail Caesar!)

Either or, the same statements would apply to the greeks.

Public schools by local governments yes, public schools by national government, no. BTW, I don't think there is a single government school in this country which does not get federal funds, which comes from income taxes. Not to mention our schools get money from a SPLOST (Special Local Option Sales Tax) so anyone who comes through my city and buys a coke is paying for our schools. This is not uncommon these days, at least here int he south. So, essentially, unless you don't pay taxes - and I've been paying since I was 15, and I even had to pay out of pocket one year, though what I pay is miniscule compared to what some people I know pay (I know people who make $300k a year and their tax bill, including payroll taxes, is $150k+) - so unless your life being subsidized by the government (anyone making less than about $20k with 2 kids, no spouse - not uncommon) you are paying for these schools. Not to mention, that someone has to pay for these other kids to go to school.

Oligarchy means rule by few. It doesn't define how those few are chosen, so I'd say that a republic still falls under that definition.

The only thing about our system of government that is democratic, is how we choose our representatives.

Equal protection under the law makes alot more sense, though, I still don't see how you can define democracy as requiring that.

Mrs muddy: seperation of church and state is in the first line of the 1st amendment "Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion...." Which essentially states that they can not make a national religion. There is no actual statement seperation of church and state, that's just the term used for the concept. That is to say, seperation of church and state means that the government has no official religion.

Skywalker:

Yes, I know what the 1st amendment says. It's what I have always use to prove *my* point. Simply because it doesn't actually *SAY* ..."separation of church and state" - which you also pointed out.

Really! Do you mind? I was in a mood at that time and was being a "typical woman" by trying to be technical and petty :-) Sorry - Carry on.

It is self evident that if the gowernment provides free schooling it gets the funds out of taxes ... Paid by some people. The idea is however 1 that taxes help redistribute, reduce income inequalities ... Which stem out of inequalities at birth market power and so on...
2 that education is a good of a special kind that has to be subsidized because at "market price" people would "underinvest"... More properly said, citizens must be raised as citizens ... Or they will act in an unproperly manner (if you raise slaves you get slave behavior).

Equal protection under the law is not a concept we use overhere. I m referring to free speech, free press, rights for the minority in the parliament to investigate, right to associate and for new parties, this includes in France for instance rules designed to provide equal coverage of the parties by the media ... Any stuff that prevents the majority in parliament and the government that stems out of it (in most counties, not in the US though) or is allied with it, to design special rules or adopt certain behavior that will hinder the election process (like redesigning constituencies, controlling the press, sending opponents in jail). I would not call it "equal protection under the law" because the law can apply to all and still be designed to avantage a few. I would call it may be : constitutional guarantees of the due process of the democratic elections.
Democracy requires this because if you don't have it any majority group within the larger group can seize power and then make sure no other coalition becomes possible... ANd your democracy turns into oligarchy. For example republicans get the majority in congress and white house, they issue new voting methods expell people from the list, create dead voters, give contracts to big communication companies in exchange for positive coverage of their campaign, have some opponents die in car accidents, declare the communists are terrorist and sent them all in jail in a faraway island ... Or if you want a more direct democracy case, if a group has to decide which restaurant to go to, the majority wants chinese food, well that majority can expell of the group the most brilliant advocate of french food (let's say), forbid to mention the words cream and pastry, and make a special arrangement with the chinese owner. The idea is that a one time win, turns into a once and for all seize of power, and people can not change their mind anymore.

The elected official tend to represent the interests of those who voted for them, their constituencies ... But this a FLAW. (at least in the rousseauist definition of democracy and in the french ideal of what the republic ought to be).
This is why it is explicitly stated that the deputees can carry no mandatory mandate, that they are free to vote as they think. This is why children get tought philosphy in school and civic courses, so they get to know the principles at stake and the workings of the democratic system.
The regime is not shaped by the psychology of the rules, the regime shapes the psychology of all (rulers and ruled alike). This is why regime change is a difficult business. People are shaped by the institutions that rule the society, they act in a world who follows certain rules carried on by institutions.

The schooling is not free. We pay for it. I personally pay for other people as I have never attended a public school.

You don't have equal protection under the law? So basically, in your country, you can pass a law that ONLY applies to people of a specific race?

How is it a flaw that people look at for the best interests of their constituency? In our country, they can vote as they wish, but if they want to get reelect, it would behoove them to vote in such a way as to ensure at least what they believe is the best interest of their constiuency.

Mrs. Muddy wrote:

"Yes, I know what the 1st amendment says. It's what I have always use to prove *my* point. Simply because it doesn't actually *SAY* ..."separation of church and state" - which you also pointed out."

When discussing Constitutional Law, there are two very important concepts that must be kept in mind. These are "Express Powers and Rights" and "Implied Powers and Rights"

Express Powers and Rights are those that are explicitly(or "Expressly") spelled out in the text of the Constitution.

A good example of Express Powers would be the 16th amendment, which authorized the federal income tax:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

The text of this amendment expressly gives Congress the power to levy income tax, with no further interpretation or judicial review being neccessary.

"Implied Powers and Rights" are those that are not "Expressly" spelled out in the text of the constitution, but can be REASONABLY and LOGICALLY implied from the existing text, and which can be interpreted as being consistent with the spirit of the Constitution at the time it was written.

The justification for Implied Powers and Rights can be found in the text of Amendments 9 and 10, which respectively read:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, how does this relate to separation of church and state? Well, Skywalker's explanation was generally correct. Let's go back to the 1st sentence of the 1st amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......."

We can see that there is no phrase here that reads "Church and State shall remain separate". But, we can REASONABLY and LOGICALLY conclude that this is exactly what this phrase means, and that this conclusion is consistent with the spirit of the relevant phrase in the Constitution.

For example, were Congress to pass a law stating that Americans were required to pray publicly to Jesus at least once a day, it would amount to A)An endorsement and/or establishment of Christianity as the "National Religion" and B)A prohibition of the free exercise of religion, since this clause gives individuals not only the right to exercise the faith of their choice, but also the right to excercise no faith at all.

So in a nutshell, THAT is separation of church and state. It's a "litmus test", so to speak, consisting of two questions:

1)Can a given law or act be construed as endorsing or establishing a particular religion as "Official"? And,

2)Can a given law or act be construed as prohibiting the right of individuals to follow the faith of their choice, or to choose to follow no faith at all?

If the answer to either of those questions is "Yes", then the law or act is unconstitutional, and any similar State law becomes unconstitutional as well.

Hopefully that makes things a bit clearer.

Incidentally, http://www.usconstitution.net is a wonderful site if anyone is interested in further research. It also includes the text of both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation.

lurker :

I understand what your saying. *I* also stated that I was in a mood and a bit petty at the time (actually, I was a little pissy as well.)

My pet peeve about the whole 1st amendment thing is that some people and groups like the ACLU have a huge and notorious habit of claiming that the constitution actually *says* "separation....." in the 1st amendment...which it does not. They Never clarify (at least *I've* never hear them ) that even though the constitution does seem to imply "separation..." that it does not actually *state* it in the wording of the 1st amendment.

My problem with that is simply that people who do not know for themselves what the first amendment actually does say, tend to preach that it does indeed have the actual *wording* in there. Therefore, they are misled. Yes, though (as I stated above)....based on interpretation, your right....the 1st amendment does seem to *imply* what your saying.

Like I said....It's a pet-peeve of mine and I know it may be petty but it's agrivating to me just the same :-/ But hey, some women get agrivated when their men leave the toilet seat up....at least *I'm* getting agrivated about something (of what *I* consider to be ) important :-)

"You don't have equal protection under the law? So basically, in your country, you can pass a law that ONLY applies to people of a specific race?"
The concept of race is not congruent with France, it applies better to the USA, where you have a minority of blacks stemming out of slavery. In france blacks do not feel as such, they relate to their homeland (be it the french islands or Ivory coast or niger Togo ... they have different languages ...
That's just to make things clear.
A law that would apply only to people of a specific color, or origin would be seen as unconstitutional. Because law as to apply to all residents of the country.
YET. and that was my point :
the electing system can be changed, some press can be subsidized and some not.
I have an even better example of why equal protection under the law is no guarantee of a real democracy.
We have a law for instance which forbids any promotion of illegal drugs. This law had been used to prevent people who want to legalise these drugs to develop their ideas and convince voters... They have no free speech. In so doing one vote passed long ago, now prevents any change in the public mind.
THis the kind of example I was aiming at, the law applies to all, it intends to give equal protection (against illegal drugs) but it prevents the free democratic process.

The schooling is free because you do not pay for it specifically, you pay your taxes. Being so, you end up for instance in your case paying for it even though you do not use it. That's precisely the idea, since you pay your taxes anyway, you have strong incentives to use the services provided for free by the state.
IT does make a difference if you pay for something, or if you are taxed for something. It's the same with all you can eat restaurant. You have paid anyway, so eat as much as you can (like). (except that you choose to enter in an all you can eat, whereas you do not choose to be born somewhere).

It's a flaw to defend ones constituency because it creates all the NIMBY effects. Californians end up with no electricity because no single constituency allows for a plant to be built within it.

A deputy ought to care about the common good of the federation, or of France, the country, not the constituency.

THe actual world is somewhere in between what people ought to do, and what they are lured to do.

I hated to tell you, but california has no electricity because of a) federal clean air standards that were past for "the food of the country" and because the government of the state of california said it will notallow anyone to b
build a nuclear power plant. The federal government doesn't build power plants, so that's irrelevant.

You're wrong about the race issue in your country, though a better word would be ethnicity, as your country seems to have an issue with anti-semitism and with Islam. (I say that being the current rise in crimes against jewish people, and a rise of anti-semitic groups.)

Government is not free, we pay for it. Calling it taxes, user fees, or whatever. Either way, we pay for it. If government schools were free, there's be no taxes.

"If government schools were free, there's be no taxes."

?????

Was that a typo or am I just reading that wrong? Did you mean that 'If government schools were free, there'd be no *school* taxes.'???

That was the inference.

Ah - sorry. My apologies.

Good point then.

You are desesperatly trying to not understand...
Of course you pay for the schools. Teachers have to get paid. But you pay wether you use it or not and there fore you have incentives to use it.

Race is not religion. And not ethnicity.

There's a problem in the world because israel illegaly occupies palestinian territory and this has gone on for about 40 years now though several resolutions from the UNO, voted by the assembly.
In the context of the american invasion-liberation of Irak, many people are upset that Irak compliance was such an utmost necessity when Israel has been disrespectif the UNO for so long.

Some people have trouble making a difference between the state of israel and the people of jewish religion.
All this has led to more anti semitic acts.

ALl in all the main problem remains racism. With racism against arabs and black being as prevalent as racism against jewish people ... And the all of it being strongly reinforced by the bad outlook of french economy and world economy as a rule since 1975.

We have a major problem with racism in France. But we have no race issues. (or better phrased we have no race issues yet, though people start to import it from the USA)

Racism can only be reinforced by race specific legislation, which we have not yet in France.
That said, there are more and more black people in France who were born french, and arab type people who were born french. These people start losing their homeland link ... And they might begin to feel as a race. (which is how they tend to be perceived by unaware french racist white people)

For the time being though. They tend to feel more as immigrant stemming from a country and having a specific cultural background. Something blacks in america can not, which make them feel as a race.

Sorry but, racism originated in Europe. We imported it to the United States.

You are correct, race is not religion or ethnicity, though the problem is the same problem.

I understand that I pay for schools whether I want to or not, but that incentive is long gone when the schools are as horrid as ours are. I know of no one who can afford even a cheap private school who has their children in a public school. Thge point is that they are not free, somewhere along the line we have to pay for them.

Blacks in the United States have an issue of blaming the white people of today for the crimes against their ancestors. Quite frankly, very few people today will disagree with the statement that slavery was morally wrong. Mix that with the fact that no one in the United States who is living today was a slave in this country, and you have an issue. In this country, most of the things that are "Race problems" are made so by people such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

From the anti-semitic crimes I keep hearing about in France, I'd say you have problems, albeit small ones. But if you guys don't do something about it now, it's going to be a big problem. The best solution to is all? Education. Let people understand the real differences between us is simply skin color, religion and country of origin. Education is what teaches people racism, education is the only thing that is going to stop it. Taking the US approach of late which is "hate crimes" (aka thought legislation) isn't anymore of a deterent to race related crimes than the death penalty would be for a drug user.

"Sorry but, racism originated in Europe"

I'm not sure that I'd give Europe *all* the credit.

You're right. Not *all* the credit. But a well sized share most certainly. I'd definitely not blame it 100% on the US. Of course, bigotry and racism has existed for thousands of years. Go to Asia, where people of one country hate people of another country, just because they are from that country. Boils down to the same thing really.

It looks like baboozled's post was removed. However I would like to respond to it anyhow because it shows a narrow-minded person calling someone else narrow minded.

Without reposting the entire thing let me just sum it up that he posted a BUNCH of known republicans and how many times they had been divorced. He claimed it was an email that he received. Then he ended it with this line;

"Don't let homosexuals destroy the institution of marriage?!?! The Christian Republicans are doing a fine job without anyone's help!!"

Don’t you see how hypocritical that line is? As if Christian Republicans are single handedly destroying marriage and how dare anyone say that homosexuals are because by golly there surely isn’t a list that Bamboozled can find ANYWHERE on the internet that shows a bunch of homosexuals who has split up. So that OBVIOUSLY means that it does not happen.

Not only that but it shows that Bamboozled is also being sucked in by his liberal news sources. You obviously don’t think that he did the research himself and who else would research how many times republicans have been divorced. Let me show you:

http://sandiego.craigslist.org/pol/25678495.html (this one is word for word)
http://www.queermarriage.com/index.php?content=quote
http://www.unknownnews.net/040310d-up.html

All 3 are known liberal news sources.

Do you want to know why you can’t find a list of known homosexuals who have split up? Because NOBODY CARES TO RESEARCH IT! and only liberals care how many republicans have divorced. It funny how someone who 'doesnt like labels' can get sucked right into this.

I get the point of the email but I think it is every bit as hateful to list every Christian Republican who has divorced and blame them for destroying marriage as it is to say homosexuals are doing it. So basically you are just feeding hate machine. Good job sharing that Bamboozled.

I do agree however the homosexuals are not destroying marriage. No, it’s our 5-second lifestyle. Our ‘if its broken, replace it’ and instant everything mentality. For the most part Americans are impatient and lazy. If it’s too hard then it’s not worth it. That is what is destroying marriage. Not homosexuality. Not Republicans. I still disagree with homosexuality because ‘my God’ say’s you will not get into heaven if your homosexual. Not to mention that fact that it’s impossible to procreate with same sex unions. (Which is where the theory that homosexuals are destroying marriage came from in the first place, if you care to do some ACTUAL research)

It’s as simple as that.

I have homosexual friends. I bet someone in my family is homosexual. I don’t hate them. In fact ‘my God’ tells me to treat them as I would like to be treated. So I do.

Just because I don’t agree does not make me a gay basher either. The liberals would like you think it does and whenever they run out of argument that is the only thing the have left to use; ‘You must be a gay basher”. (If you watch for that you will see it) I also like how they are using the homosexuals as pawns for their agenda. But that’s another story for another day.

That’s all I have right now. Oh I wanted to tell you about the new kids book I bought for my 5 year old.

Its called ‘Why does Jane have two mommies?” It’s a pop-up book!

I might as well start them early…

"...it’s our 5-second lifestyle. Our ‘if its broken, replace it’ and instant everything mentality. For the most part Americans are impatient and lazy. If it’s too hard then it’s not worth it. That is what is destroying marriage."

**applause,applause!!**

How true, how true, how ta-ruue!!!! Preach it brotha! :-)

"Just because I don’t agree does not make me a gay basher either. The liberals would like you think it does and whenever they run out of argument that is the only thing the have left to use; ‘You must be a gay basher”."

Yeah! That or the pathetic "homophobic" response. Personally, I think someone came up with the "homophobic" word because they were pouting because someone did not agree with the way they wanted that person to think. If *that's* not childish, petty and closed minded....I don't know *what* is! The day I start hating homosexuals and wishing they were all dead (which I do NOT think that way) then I would *indeed* warrent those names.

"Its called ‘Why does Jane have two mommies?” It’s a pop-up book!"

LOL!!! I'll be "good" and not touch that one :-D

Okay. My views. If you are gay, more power to ya! But, I don't believe that same-sex marriage should be legal...here's why:

1. The very basis of our Constitution is Christianity. (thus, by allowing same-sex marriage, it totally contradicts itself)

2. Marriage IS defined as a legal union between a MAN and a WOMAN, whether or not you like it.

3. When you get married, you are in a church, right? Meaning that you are forming your union under some form of god. I can't name many churches/gods that support homosexuality. Especially NOT the Catholics (but, that's a whole other topic).

4. Plus, one of the main reasons marriage exists is for reproduction. How can you naturally reproduce if you are sleeping with the same sex as yourself? (adoption is awesome...I know gays that do that....poor kids need a family...again, different subject).

"1. The very basis of our Constitution is Christianity."

That's debatable.

"2. Marriage IS defined as a legal union between a MAN and a WOMAN, whether or not you like it."

True

"3. When you get married, you are in a church, right?"

Not always...some people get married at the court house. (not trying to be petty, btw)

"4. Plus, one of the main reasons marriage exists is for reproduction."

True

"How can you naturally reproduce if you are sleeping with the same sex as yourself?"

haha...You'd have to be one gifted person....or at least a mutant.

marriage was created by god.
homosexuals were not created by god.
therefore, god never intended homosexuals to be married.
the end.

i'd like to edit in saying

*homosexuality was not created by God

and that the lifestyle lived by homosexuals was not one intended for them by God.

its plain and simple its againsts Gods will!

Leviticus also says getting a haircut or eating shellfish is against gods will, should we pass a constitutional amendment banning haircuts and shrimp?

If homosexuality was not made by God then explain why over 150 species of mammals are conclusively known to have homosexuals (Contrary to Ohio Secretary of Sate Ken Blackwell's assertion that that 'Barnyard logic' says homosexuality does not exist).

This is about discrimination and enforcing one religions belief on Americans of all religions. It is plain wrong.

Not to mention the fact that there is a global AIDS epidemic and encouraging people (especially homosexuals/bisexuals) to marry is one of the best ways to stem the rampant spread of AIDS and other STD.

Marriage is an industry that contributes hundreds of millions to the economy every year, why should we restrict up to 10% of Americans from contributiing to the marriage economy just because one religion says they shouldn't?

Most laws are passed to protect victims, who gets hurt if a gay couple marries?

Believe it or not, a good portion of homosexuals are quite religious (Christian). They do not like living in sin (unmarried) but by the new Ohio law they are given no choice if they want to live with their freely chosen partner, their hearts true love. This is an infringement of their religious belief that they should be married to their partner.

It would be one thing if procreation was a problem, but the fact is there are too many people already and not enough resources to care for everyone. Besides, it is not as if all heterosexual marriages are physically capable of reproducing, many married people choose not to have kids or to adopt instead. Also surrogates and in-vetro fertilization make the whole 'procreation' argument completely irrelevant.

As a child of divorce i know that something shoud be done to strengthen marriage and reduce divorce. I think cwilli was on the right track when he said:

"...it’s our 5-second lifestyle. Our ‘if its broken, replace it’ and instant everything mentality. For the most part Americans are impatient and lazy. If it’s too hard then it’s not worth it. That is what is destroying marriage."

That, along with the over-sexualization of our media culture are some of the main causes for the erosion of marriage in America. Amending the constitution to discriminate against gays does not help the situation in any way.

By banning gay marriage we are at once increasing the danger of AIDS for Americans of all sexualities and undermining the basic religious and personal 'freedoms' that are so cherished by real Americans.

"Leviticus also says getting a haircut or eating shellfish is against gods will,"

I'll be honest, I'm not sure about the "haircut" thing. I *do* know that *Samson's* long hair was connected to his strength and that *his* hair was not to be cut....but that's the only incident *I* remember from the Bible (and I don't think his story wasn't in Leviticus). Eating Shellfish or other "unclean" (versus "clean") animals had nothing to do with whether it was sinfull or not (at least not from what *I* remember in studying). It had to do with purposes of the health of their bodies. I mean, for pete sakes, a woman who was menstruating back then was considerd "unclean". Not because she was commiting a sin but because of health reasons. The same with people who had Leprosy.

"This is about discrimination and enforcing one religions belief on Americans of all religions."

I could be wrong - and I'll be willing to look further into it (*someday* when I have the time), but I don't think *any* religion is accepting towards homosexuality.

"Not to mention the fact that there is a global AIDS epidemic and encouraging people (especially homosexuals/bisexuals) to marry is one of the best ways to stem the rampant spread of AIDS and other STD."

With all due respect...I understand what you're *trying* to say, but the argument is flimsy at best. Why? The way *I* see it is if you are in a commited relationship with a person (same sex or not) and are *truely* faithful to them...married or not...you're *going* to stay faithful to them and *not* stray. There are TONS of married couples who commit adultry on their spouses everyday. Who's to say that they don't they won't find themselves in the same bed as someone with an STD and then take it home to their spouse.

Besides, throughout the decades, gay, bisexual and straight people alike have ALL been educated on safe sex. It's true that NO protection is 100% reliable, but most people (who actually study sex education and take responsibility for their own bodies and actions) will tend to act more responsibly when it comes to safe sex.

"Believe it or not, a good portion of homosexuals are quite religious (Christian). They do not like living in sin (unmarried)..."

The words of a preach, pastor, priest, rabbi, or whomever you have, do NOT make people married. It IS what is in their hearts and what (I believe Now, anyway) what they confess to others. The Bible even talks about "wedding Feasts" where the couple is in front of winnesses and confess their commitment to one another. Then they go off and consumate their marriage and are considered "married". Again, I could be wrong, but I don't believe a pastor, priest, or whomever, was involved in the ceremonies. As far as what we do today where you have to be married "according to the law" - I beleive that's probably more to do with legal issuse.

The only references I can find to hair in Leviticus are telling lepers to shave their heads.

The only thing I remember about people not cutting their hair int he Bible ins Samson and that it because he was a Nazarene.

There's a reason the Bible says not to eat shellfish. Turns out that shellfish can purify toxins from water. So, if those toxins get removed from the water, I wonder where they go?

That was also under the old Jewish law, which was later revised in the New Testament by Jesus himself. In the New Testament however, homosexuality is specifically mentioned in both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10.

I'm personally not advocating making homosexuality illegal. If someone wants to be gay then by all means that's their right and I'll defend it with my life.

"... homosexuality is specifically mentioned in both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10."

Don't forget about Romans 1 - specifically verses 26 + 27...

"I'm personally not advocating making homosexuality illegal."

Nobody is trying to make homosexuality itself illegal - people can live how they want. Did you mean homosexual "marriages"?

No, I didn't. I will not go on the record about that.

Benny suggested we should make haircuts and eating shrimp illegal since the bible "says it" (though it doesn't speak against haircuts as far as I am concerned.) So I was heading him off at the pass so to speak.

What benny seems to do far to often is take the Bible out of context and forget one major aspect God gave us: free will.

"What benny seems to do far to often..."

true

"So I was heading him off at the pass so to speak."

Sorry...I had a "slow" moment.:-/

Hi, I do think those are pretty crappy laws, I may not be homosexual myself, but I have plenty of friends who are. However it is my firm belief that you will get yours, as long as you continue to make sure it happens, sitting back and hoping that you will one day get your rights accomplishes nothing. Aslong as no one is unwilling or underage, or an animal you have the rights ti have consensual relationships. As to marriage, well as my friend so eloquently stated, You also have thje right to be unhappily married just like everyone else. ;) The purpose of marriage is not to just produce kids, I know of several couples who are childless by choice. Others not quite by choice. But what would the nation say if they banned people who have fertility problems from getting married? By the Gods there would be a national uproar. You have to make this happen, it will be a long hard vicious fight, and one you might not even see in your day and age. But even if you don't you may have the knowledge of knowing that because of your efforts people will see glbt people as people.

"However it is my firm belief that you will get yours, as long as you continue to make sure it happens, sitting back and hoping that you will one day get your rights accomplishes nothing."

True...but people need to go through legal channels to obtain their goal(s).

"But even if you don't you may have the knowledge of knowing that because of your efforts people will see glbt people as people."

I don't think the majority of the population sees glbt people as anything less than true and whole human beings...it's just the majority agreed to not allow same sex marriages (as well as civil unions in our state) be recognized by the state.

Whether people like it or not, and almost 70% of the Spanish population is in favour, marriage between homosexual men will be legal in Spain next year, making it the third country in the world to accept gay marriage. This will be marriage in the full sense of the word. Well done Spain for having the courage to look to the future and giving people the right to choose what they want for themselves! May other countries follow. Personally I think it is appalling that my own country, Britain, great though it is, is lagging behind in this area.

i have a gay sister and a gay brother and i do love them both very much. however i can not understand why they would need a marriage certificate if they decided to live with and have a relatioship with someone of the same sex? they both have done that already in the past and the result was tragic as my sister was married to fine man and it ruined their marriage of 18 years together and it ruined her lover's marriage too as her female partner's husband divorced her lover too...so two good marriages were destroyed because of my sister's relationship with another woman while they were both married to their husbands...also my brother was marride for 1-2 years before his wife found out about his sexual activies with other men...another marriage destroyed because of his cheating on his wife but with another man...wow what a mess they have caused for all patrners involved...according to GOD'S LAW ON MARRIAGE...MARRIAGE IS SANTIFIED BY GOD AS A MARRIAGE BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN PERIOD! GOD DOES NOT CONDON OR RECOGNIZE A MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO WOMEN OR TWO MEN...THIS IS GODS WORDS NOT MINE! GOD EVEN GOES FUTHER IN STATING THAT THE SEXUALLY IMMORAL (LESIBIANS AND HOMOSEXUALS) SHALL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN! ALSO GOD FINDS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR BETWEEN TWO WOMEN OR TWO MEN DETASTABLE... AGAIN THESE ARE WORDS SPOKEN BY GOD ACCORDING TO HIS WORD THE BIBLE! I KNOW YOU WILL DISAGREE WITH WHAT I AM SAYING HERE BUT ITS NOT ME WHO YOU ARE DISAGREEING WITH IT IS GOD WHO YOU ARE DISAGREEING WITH...GOD IS THE ONLY ONE WHO MADE MARRIAGE POSSIBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE BY CREATING ADAM AND EVE...WITHOUT HIS CREATION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN ... NONE OF US WOULD BE HERE TODAY! MEN AND JUDGES NEED TO STOP BREAKING GODS LAWS AND COMMANDMENTS BY MAKING AND PASSING LAWS THAT OFFEND GOD ALMIGHTY. IF A LAW IS EVER PASSED ALLOWING GAYS TO MARRY THE WRATH OF GOD WILL BE UPON US LIKE YOU HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN...KATRINA AND RITA WILL BE SMALL COMPARED TO WHAT GOD HAS PLANNED FOR THE USA IN THE FUTURE...HEAVEN HELP US ALL FOR GODS WRATH WILL BE UPON US WITH A VENGENCE. THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD NOT BE DECIEVED INTO THINKING THAT GAY MARRIAGES SHOULD BE ALLOWED WITHOUT ANY RESPECT TO GOD'S PLAN ON MARRIAGE WHICH IS...BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN! ASK GOD... SHOULD GAY MARRIAGES BE ALLOWED AND HE WILL SIMPLY LAUGH AT YOU FOR BEING SO FOOLISH...AND POLITELY RESPOND..."NO."

Dean:

First off - Wow! Please Stop yelling. I already have a headache. It's been a long day.

secondly - As far marriage certificates go....well, they don't make you married. They only make you married according to the state. No one had marriage certificates in Biblical days.

Thirdly - "KATRINA AND RITA WILL BE SMALL COMPARED TO WHAT GOD HAS PLANNED FOR THE USA IN THE FUTURE"

Wow! Ok...well, you have a right to your opinion but I do NOT see natural disasters (that have been happening since the begining of time) as "punishments" from God. God is NOT sitting up there wiht a big fly swatter waiting for us to "screw up" just so He can "let us have it". Quite frankly, we don't live under the law anymore (we have commandments) because Jesus came and fulfilled the law by adding - Grace. He gave us Free will and because of that - *I* don't even believe (or at least it's very dabatable) that God *does* "punish" anymore. Why would God give us Free will just to say "Well, no...that wasn't the right choice for you now...here's your punishment!". That is living under the law. Personally, I believe we screw ourselves up so much that we end up punishing ourselves so much with the rope we hang ourselves by that God really doesn't have to step into the "punishment" department.

Oh and btw: Since we are saved by grace through faith alone...couldn't a homosexual be saved? I believe so. I mean, jsut because you become saved doesn't mean you stop sinning. It just means your now forgiven. I mean they would have to realy on Jesus to deliever them from their lifestyle BUT I have to rely on Jesus everyday to be delieverd from my sins too (no, I'm not gay but sin is sin) and sinning doesn't take away the fact that I'm still covered by His blood.

Thanks for the great work Muddy!