based on the constitution

there is no reason for gay marriages to be banned

using religious argument only proves that point more

i would be willing to hear another reason but does not seem

too be any

somethin about pursuit of happiness and no preferred religion

i think that is written somewhere

Sam says:
“”The basis of sexual orintation is from they Gay Rights movement and that they are trying to incorprate they gay marriages in the main stream of life as we know it now and the is going to hurt a lot of churches. If a church does not marry a gay couple then that church can be sued for discrination of their right. In Lev. 18:22 is where God is very disspleased with this type of behavior. To sue a church for that reason is like going in and breaking into a church to steal its money and from God Himself. Their are a lot mre implacation that can be applied here but those are the main two that should stand out the most. May GBU for posting this and GBU and your family. “”

Thank-you for the attempt, Sam. Unfortunately you fail. ADJ pointed out in the post after yours, one of the points that makes your argument fruitless. FACT is; the constitution first recognizes that NO LAW can be made or exercised within the federal code that would reflect the doctrine of any religious organization. To suggest that the ‘marriage law’ reflects a solely Christian view is to make an erroneous assumption.

More importantly, you are admitting that you would withhold all the human rights and freedoms and protections under the law to other people, out of fear that your religious traditions MAY ultimately be in danger. This is not the logic that one should be applying when it comes to upholding, extending and thereby maintaining the very laws that give you the right in the first place for free religious exercise.

Finally, the laws that allow religious organizations to function under their own set of doctrine CAN NOT be changed. If any church wants to refuse anyone entrance into their establishment they can. As mentioned in another post, the Catholics and many other religions ‘refuse’ communion to non-members. Has there ever been an attempt at a lawsuit over this? If there were it wouldn’t get too far, because the law can not restrict a designated religious organization from creating and practicing doctrine, WITHIN the confines of their religious community.

HOWEVER, every time that discrimination is allowed to exist in this country, for every infraction of human rights that is forcefully upheld, for whatever reason, there is that much more chance that YOUR freedoms to practice YOUR religion as you wish, could be in danger.

Keeping peace within a diverse society, requires that every Christian understand that it is the laws of this society that protect their choice. It is only logical the Christians should protect the same rights for everyone else.

Three forums and the best responce for the the biggest reason to keep biotry and discrimination alive and well in the United States, is fear that a church or a privately owned church school might be forced, by the government to hire a homosexual.

OK - for those who don't know, the Act (ENDA)is only an amendment to the current Civil Rights Act. That Act has been in affect for over 30 years. The Act itself provides exceptions for small businesses. The amendment would not, could not interfere with the founding liberty that allows poeple freedom of religious exercise.

On the other hand, those who fear, out of ignorance, are prohibiting millions of poeple the basic human right support themselves through the same Equal Employment Opportunity as every other citizen.

PLEASE TELL ME that all you Christian who oppose this legislature have better cause to do so than to continue to uphold your right to hate.

Red, if they give up and accept the gay population, what will that say about the scriptures (book) they live by. I've watched the gay biblical argument a couple of times now. Possibly four people come to mind who can shoot my statement right out the window with the very same scriptures that can support it. Sadly, those are some pretty nasty odds my friend.

Hi Wench, nice to see ya.

Here is my argument pertaining to your statment.

Per the religious view:
First of all everyone is a sinner, it is our nature, which is why Jesus was sacrificed, to save us from our sins.

"what's a sin?"
Whatever God tells us is wrong to do is a sin

"what other sins are there? Is there a list somewhere?"
There's no actual list of all sins in the Bible, you must read it to find out what they all are?

"So what are some of the sins?"
Of course the 10 commandments.

"Ok- nothing about homosexuals there - what else?"
Lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, divorce, judging others, sex outside of marriage, marrying outside your race(religion)are some others.

"Ok,is there a hierarchy, are some sins worse than others?
No all sin is an offence to God.

"So if everyone sins, and they're all the same in Gods
eyes, why is it that homosexuality is "judged" so harshly?
Because one has to admit they've sinned, be repentant and ask Jesus for forgiveness.

"So the sacrifice of Jesus was not meant for everyone, it
had conditions?"
Yes, you must believe that he can absolve you, but only if you ask and only if you're repentant.

"So to be repentant, one must stop doing what was a sin?"
Yes

"So all divorced Christian, MUST eventually repent and
return to their wife?"
NO ANSWER

"What about those who fantasize while having sex with
their partner - isn't that considered adultery?"

"What about those who marry a non-Christian?"

"What about those who divorce and re-marry?"

"Obviously NONE of these people are repentant, none have
stopped sinning and none are cast of the church. They work
side-by-side with Christians every day. They teach Sunday
school, they are Boy Scout Leaders, they are Company owners.
And they are considered to be no threat at all to
Christianity. In fact not a singe one of their
constitutional rights is taked away. WHY?"

NO ANSWER - NO ANSWER - NO ANSWER !!!!

And every Christian who opposes equality based on a sin, and every Christian who does nothing to correct this inequalty, are they not judging their fellow Christians, their fellow Americans? Is that not a sin they should be repentant for?

IM WAITING FOR ANSWERS.

Red, the bible is full of people doing stuff they are not supposed to and it just depends on which story you're reading whether or not they got busted by God for it.

Regarding homosexuals, I was actually referring to threads about Lot and getting out before God destroyed Sodom, I believe is where he was or Gomorah, I get confused with those two cities.

Joseph and the coat of many colors, his brothers didn't get nailed by God for selling him into slavery and then lying to their father about it. Conversely, Joseph didn't get busted by God for setting his brothers up to look like theives either. No Joseph finally comes clean about who he is, everybody cries, and yippy go on with life.

I believe in the Catholic church if you get divorced unless you get a special waiver from the Pope absolving you basically, really its a term that means you got married, but you didn't consumate it, so the marriage is null and void (actually it may be --- annulling the marriage that's it) it used to be you couldn't attend church without that annullment. You got divorced, you were out. I don't know if that still flies or not.

Now again, if the story of Lilith has any basis, she was banned just for wanting to be on top. Most guys probably wouldn't argue, but jeepers, it apparently confused Adam something fierce and well that was just grounds for getting totally written out of the story. Can't have the first couple of humanity not livin by the rules right off the bat can ya - oh wait, there was that nasty tree, serpent episode, pass the buck who ate what and who told whom to try this hmmmmm.

Your looking for justice for all in the wrong writings. This is the only answer I can honestly give you.

"So all divorced Christian, MUST eventually repent and
return to their wife?"
NO ANSWER

actually there is an answer for this i am not sure of the book it is in but i will look into it

but i think that it goes something like this

if you but away your spouse(leave them) you are to remain to
yourself and never to return

at such time your spouse has relations (sex which is adultry even tho you are not having relations anymore)you are then permitted to find a new mate

so if you are a bible believing person the piece of paper from the govt does not give you permission to seek another

but the adultery even if divorced does

"But I say unto you,
That whosoever shall put away his wife,
saving for the cause of fornication,
causeth her to commit adultery:
and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
Matthew 5:32

"And I say unto you,
Whosoever shall put away his wife,
except it be for fornication,
and shall marry another, committeth adultery:
and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
Matthew 19:9

"For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth;
but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress:
but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law;
so that she is no adulteress,
though she be married to another man."
Romans 7:2-3

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,
Let not the wife depart from her husband:"
But and if she depart,
let her remain unmarried,..................<<<<<<<<<<<<<<------
or be
reconciled to her husband:.................<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<-----
and let not the husband put away his wife."
1 Corinthians 7:10-11

well i got it almost right

Thanks Wench - you made did make me laugh.
A lot of protestant Christians don't even consider Catholics in the same league as other Christians. However, annulment is dissolution of marriage when there has been no physical relations. But I think that's only a Catholic tactic.

Adj - not sure which versus your're talking about. But to be honest, I think it hardley matters. At this point, I believe that some Christians are actually taught to hate and they will find some 'creative' way to make heterosexual sins, hardly worthy of mention when compared to the sin a heart when it leads it's owner to love with a same sex person.

those are the ones i found for this remark

"So all divorced Christian, MUST eventually repent and
return to their wife?"
NO ANSWER

in your question answer post

and the book chapter and verse are listed under each

in the above posts

Thank-you Adj, I was a little blue last night, or maybe tired, didn't feel much fight in me.

The fact that you posted,anyway, has lifted my spirits. Thanks

"annulment is dissolution of marriage when there has been no physical relations. But I think that's only a Catholic tactic. "

Just to follow up on this side track for a moment.... there are several grounds for annulment- in both catholic and protestent churchs non-consumation (no sex) is grounds for the granting of an annulment because the purpose of a christian marriage is the begetting of children. There are other grounds for annulment- basically it's what ever the church wants...

It always bothered me how so many catholics WITH CHILDREN got annulments.... since the marriage now "never happened" according to the catholic church- I never understood how these kids aren't now "bastards" in the eyes of the church?

However, FYI since it came up and it interests me I looked up annulments in general- they can even be secular! (I was unaware). E.g. http://www.expertlaw.com/library/family_law/annulment.html:

How Is Annulment Different From Divorce?
An annulment is a decree that a marriage was invalid from its outset. Whereas a divorce brings a valid marriage to an end, an annulment is a legal decree that effectively undoes the marriage, such that in the eyes of the law the marriage did not ever exist.

When Is Annulment Available?
Annulments are typically available under the following circumstances:

You and your spouse are close biological relatives, and should not have qualified for marriage under the law. For example, you and your spouse are parent and child, parent and stepchild, aunt and nephew, uncle and niece, or grandparent and grandchild. The precise parameters of the relationship which will qualify a couple for annulment will vary between jurisdictions.

One of the spouses did not have the mental capacity to enter into a marriage contract. By way of example, at the time of the ceremony a spouse may be incapacitated due to a mental disability, whether temporary or permanent in nature, or from intoxication.

One of the spouses was below the legal age to consent to marriage. (In some jurisdictions, the availability of annulment may also depend upon whether the proper legal requirements, such as parental and/or judicial consent to the marriage, were followed.)

You or your spouse entered into the marriage as a result of threat, force or duress.

You or your spouse were fraudulently induced into entering the marriage. Fraud may include the concealment of an important fact, such as permanent impotence or sterility, a criminal history, or infection with a sexually transmitted disease.

Your spouse was married to another living person at the time of the marriage. (In some jurisdictions, such a marriage would be considered bigamous and void under the law, and thus it would not be necessary to also seek an annulment.)

Some jurisdictions also permit annulment where one spouse concealed the fact of a divorce, finalized only a short time before the wedding (e.g., less than one month before the marriage).

Important Facts About Annulments
Some people believe that annulments will be available if they have only been married for a short time. The duration of a marriage is not a factor in the determination of whether an annulment is available.

For annulment based upon fraud or deception, it may be necessary for the spouse seeking the annulment to end the relationship as man and wife upon learning of the deception. If cohabitation continues once the innocent spouse knows of the fraud, many jurisdictions will consider that the spouses resolved the issue between themselves and that the fraud was thereby rendered a non-issue.

Most jurisdictions are extremely reluctant to grant annulments once a married couple has had children.

An annulment may limit your ability to share in the marital estate, or to obtain spousal support (alimony) which would otherwise result from divorce.

Also, IMO the whole- "the church will get sued" arguement is just a silly tale that the religious right uses to frighten gullible christians.

No church *has to* marry ANYONE that they don't want to. Now a secular institution, like a courthouse, if the couple fills out the paperwork and pays, they have to marry anyone who requests it. But any church at any time can refuse to marry, bury, or allow in anyone they want. It's not that tough to find numerous examples... including the Mormon church that won't even allow outsiders inside it's doors- much less marry them....

it's just not true.

Redy asked:

" "So all divorced Christian, MUST eventually repent and
return to their wife?"
NO ANSWER

>>> In the case where the "divorcing" person (as opposed to the divorcee) is, or becomes a believer - the posibility of reconciliation is the first action which "should" (as opposed to must) be pursued. However - in the case where there has been a "re-marriage" (which would also consist of merely a sexual relationship) then reconcilliation is usually unlikely.
For the most part - Adj4u has cited the other scriptures - and depending upon the circumstance (abuse, abandonment, adultery) the believer is freed from reconcilliation - and can re-marry whomever they want. This varies greatly within denominations - and is one of those "waves" Spider refers to. <<<

"What about those who fantasize while having sex with
their partner - isn't that considered adultery?"

>>> The bible is not clear on "fantasizing" - unless it is about another person (as opposed to one that is made up). The actual biblical reference is "lusting" after another.

"What about those who marry a non-Christian?"

>>> Not recommended - but not a sin <<<

"What about those who divorce and re-marry?"

>>> Again - denominations differ over the interpretation here. Some do not allow ANY divorced person to remarry, other it would depend on the circumstances surrounding the divorce. A matter of interpretation again. <<<

"Obviously NONE of these people are repentant, none have
stopped sinning and none are cast of the church. They work
side-by-side with Christians every day. They teach Sunday
school, they are Boy Scout Leaders, they are Company owners.
And they are considered to be no threat at all to
Christianity. In fact not a single one of their
constitutional rights is taked away. WHY?"

>>> This is not necessarily true. Though it may be possible, it is not a biblical mandate. Generally - believers who are unrepentant (meaning not that they fall, and get back up - but refuse to recognize sinful behavior as such) are to be approached about the "sinful behavior" by one, then the leadership, then they are to be brought before the congregation, and if they remain unrepentant - they are "disfellowshiped" (removed from "the body". That is the biblical mandate, however - that does not mean it happens this way as a rule of thumb. <<<

NO ANSWER - NO ANSWER - NO ANSWER !!!!

And every Christian who opposes equality based on a sin, *((I'm not sure what this means)) * and every Christian who does nothing to correct this inequalty, are they not judging their fellow Christians, their fellow Americans? Is that not a sin they should be repentant for?

>>> I'm not sure what "equality based on a sin" means - but generally, A Christian understands that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". This does not mean that once you become a Chrsitian - that you no longer sin. Christians sin daily. It just means (generally) that WHEN they sin, the Holy Spirit that indwells them will make them aware of it. But there is the circumstance where even the believer can "grieve" the Holy Spirit - almost in effect of "numbing" themselves to His influence. In doing so - they may continue to sin - without conviction - until the patience of God brings about swift and obvious consequences. But as to equality of sin - or based on sin, sin is not qualitative - merely quantitative. A white lie is as much of a sin as murder. Either one causes one to fall short of the glory of God - and brings death. >>>

IM WAITING FOR ANSWERS.

>>> Ummm - that's my best shot without doing a lengthy study for you.

hey eljay

whenare you going to start posting your reasons(support)

for what you post

i have looked for scriptures to back up your argument but i could not find any

would you find them and post them here with book chapter and verse listed with each of them

if you read my other post i thought adultery freed them to
find a new mate as well but i could not find it

as for the other things nope could not find the permission to
find another mate for them neither
------
but you can leave but you must keep to yourself
------
until such time you back up your arguments with proof
many will not take them serious(me included)

and will take them as your opinion which everyone has

adj - sorta took the word right outta my fingers. I spend enough time trying to figure out what 'EXACTLY' the verses mean, much less have to find them too.

Eljay you said you don't understand what I meant when I said that no other sinners have lost their equality based on sin.

Christians are the reason, the cause for inequity that exists for homosexuals in America today. The only reason that can be peceived is that homosexulity is a sin. Hence my claim, that not only are heterosexuals allowed to sin (on a life style basis) but they have not lost any legal rights for doing so. Why? Whatever punishment "sin" evokes, shouldn't it be equally metered out?

Hi anoasis,
you wrote "Also, IMO the whole- "the church will get sued" arguement is just a silly tale that the religious right uses to frighten gullible christians."

That's the general basis for all the arguments. However, what really concerns me are the millions INCLUDING senators, congressmen, who are voicing these "fear" without substantiation. Obviously, they do so as if 'could it be?' as if they've all succumbed to a hypnotic suggestion. mmmmm??