Monday, June 27, 2011

Gay New York

New York has approved gay marriage in that state. I don't agree with gay marriage, but they did it the right way. I believe it is a states rights issue and that it should not be decided by mullahs in black robes at the federal level.

My opposition to gay marriage is definitional 

There is no society in the history of mankind where gay marriage ever existed.  This is a post-modern theft of the word.  Advocates counter that gay couplings have been observed in the wild among apes, but simians also throw crap at each other, so I don't think that is a valid example to point to. The term marriage has always had a specific meaning, and it should not be changed. Call a gay relationship whatever you want,  protect gay rights in contract law, but don't call it marriage.

A Victory for Polygamy

Can anyone keep a straight face while telling me Muslim advocacy groups will not bring lawsuits to strike down polygamy bans? Unlike gay marriage, polygamy has a robust history. What makes marrying someone of the same sex more valid than a man marrying two or three or four women? Or a woman marrying multiple men for that matter. We've struck down a standard and now have nothing to take its place, so it's anything goes for the cultural vandals. The next ten years should be exciting.

A Dangerous Blow to Religious Liberty

The New York Legislature, God bless 'em, insisted that churches should not be coerced into doing anything against their beliefs. While I applaud the good intentions, it sets a dangerous precedent, in that the state legislature is granting by law a right to a church that the state has no right to grant.  Freedom of religion is a preexisting right recognized in the First Amendment to the constitution.

According to the Founding Fathers and The Constitution they authored, religious liberties come from God, not a politician. If a legislature can grant rights to a church, it can also take them away, and that is the Trojan Horse. The law should be struck down because it pretends to grant the God-given right of religious liberty that has already been guaranteed by the First Amendment to The US Constitution.

This is another shot over the bow of religious liberty.

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

Marriage in a courthouse is a contract between two parties pledging to take responsibility for one another, form a household together, and provide mutual economic support presumably through thick and thin, whether children become part of the union or not. Marriage in a Christian Church is regarded as a religious sacrament.

Since our Constitution does not allow for the establishment of an official State Church, even though this nation was founded by men nurtured in a fundamentally Christian culture in a long-established long Christian tradition, there ought to be an officially recognized difference between religious and purely civil marriage.

Those who belong to religious organizations that regard the overt expression of homosexual feelings as mortal sin should not be required to marry homosexual couples in the confines of the Church. Period!

However, when two individuals of any persuasion choose to share their lives together responsibly and devotedly in a domestic bond of common interest, and wish to be regarded as legally married, I don't think the State should be able to stop them from receiving whatever economic benefits and privileges may be legally accorded any other couple claiming legally married status.

In other words let the Church handle these contingencies as Canon Law dictates, but by the same token the Church should have no say in the way Civil Law in a representative Republic regards the issue.

If the majority of citizens in a given state vote in favor of establishing a legal precedent which is contrary to Ecclesiastical precepts, the citizens should have that right. On the other hand if the majority of citizens do not support such a measure, the courts should not be able to force it on them.

Harassment and discrimination towards non-conformists who live quietly according to the dictates of their conscience, should be proscribed by law. At the same time people who are "different" should not be permitted to rub other peoples' noses in it by aggressive displays of behavior regarded by the majority as "outré."

For this reason I am more against the wearing of the hijab, the burka, facia tattoos, body piercings, men in drag and public nudity than I am against homosexuals who love each other and want to join hands and fortunes till death do them part.

~ FreeThinke

Jack Camwell said...

There was never anything stopping a church from performing a gay marriage, it just cannot be legally recognized by the government in most states.

I don't think this will pose a problem for religious freedom, because any religious institution can deny the service to a gay couple. If the government were to step in and try to force a religious institution to practice gay marriage, then I can guarantee the people who try to legislate that would not be reelected. Allowing the legal recognition of gay marriage only gives legal weight to institutions that are willing to perform the service.

Also, polygamy is an entirely different story. In our society, I can imagine that a man having multiple wives would create a legal nightmare if he were to die. I bet that there'd be a huge uptick in lawsuits over the property of dead husbands and what not.

Although I think it's gross and NOT my cup of tea, I don't think there's anything morally wrong with homosexuality, and I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with two people committing themselves to an exclusive, life-long relationship with each other.

Who are we to deny the happiness of two consenting adults?

jez said...

"There is no society in the history of mankind where gay marriage ever existed."

So what is this wikipedia article talking about?

"Advocates counter that gay couplings have been observed in the wild among apes..."

Only to counter the common "argument" that homosexuality is "unnatural", whatever that means, and whatever reason there is to care about that. I don't find naturalness compelling: as you correctly say (almost), it might be "natural" to hurl dung at each other, but that's no reason to do it.

"The term marriage has always had a specific meaning"

I'm not aware of any one body owning the term "marriage". We know marriage emerged from different cultures with different histories, and that results in a fair bit of variety. Sometimes they are arranged, sometimes they are with child brides, sometimes they are polygamous, sometimes they are religious. I don't necessarily approve of all these types of marriage, but the point is, I don't think marriage is all that specific.

"polygamy has a robust history."
It certainly does. Under the Old Testament code it was mandatory under certain circumstances, and the penalty for refusing was to be fined one shoe and spat at in the face (deuteronomy 25). Those cultural vandals...

Silverfiddle said...

Jez: This is definitional destruction. That is my only objection.

Marriage takes the fundamental building blocks of society (individuals) and forms the next level of societal hierarchy, the family. Biologically, this breaks down if the partners are the same sex, since procreation must occur for a people to propagate itself. That is the fundamental purpose of marriage in every society.

Yes, non-fecund individuals do get married, but that is a statistical sideshow and detracts not at all from marriage's fundamental purpose.

The wikipedia article you cite is heavy on pederasty, homosexuality, and unions, but quite light on officially-sanctioned homosexual marriage.

This is because these relationships while perhaps benign, are of no benefit to a society looking to propagate itself, and this is reflected in the historical paucity of documented evidence of publicly sanctioned gay marriage.

jez said...

Agree with most of that.

"Yes, non-fecund individuals do get married, but that is a statistical sideshow and detracts not at all from marriage's fundamental purpose."

This is my attitude towards homosexual unions. Most people aren't gay, but I don't see why we should be less kindly towards their unions than we are to barren couples'.

Jack Camwell said...

Your comment about barren couples is a very good point that I had not thought about, Jez.

As for hating on them because they don't seem to care about propogating the human race, I don't see that as being a viable argument.

If biology is the argument against gay marriage, then why are we as humans monogomous? Human men are biologically engineered to impregnant multiple women at nearly any point in their life-span. So biologically, we should be praising polygamists that have billions of kids.

Human beings do things that are contrary to the impulses and design of biology all the time, so i don't see the biological argument as being a good one to condemn gay marriage.

Silverfiddle said...

Jez and Jack: All valid points, and I am not advocating "hating on" anyone.

I am merely pointing out common theories of why marriage is what it is and why there is so much commonality in definition from society to society and age to age. The only really documented variant is number of spouses allowed in a union.

Jersey McJones said...

I can't imagine how this is any threat to religious liberty. You're really stetching logic on that.

Gay "marraige" may be a relatively new concept, but gays having been living in essentially married states for thousands of years. Me thinks you need to brush up on your history.

The polygamy argument is the tricky one. But if the only change in the definition of marraige involves gender, then this law will not be a precedent for polygamy.

JMJ

Jack Camwell said...

My bad Silver. I shouldn't have used the word "hate" because that is adversarial, and that wasn't my intent.

Silverfiddle said...

Jersey: Don't you get tired of stumbling into the middle of an ongoing thread and admonishing people to "brush up on history."

I just explained to you the historical context of this. Did you read the chain?

No one denied homosexuality is as old as mankind itself, so you're arguing with ghosts, as usual.

The polygamy argument is not "tricky." Unlike gay marriage, it has a firm historical basis, extending up to the present.

Finally, if you go back and read the post again, the threat to religious liberty does not require a logical stretch.

If government cannot tell churches how to conduct their internal business, then why does government have to state it in a law?

If government grants churches exemption's via law, then those same exemptions can be removed via the same lawmaking process.

Surely you can understand that?

Anonymous said...

SilverFiddle, my friend, you have really brought up two separate and distinct issues:

1. The desirability or lack thereof of legally-sanctioned homosexual marriage.

2. The usurpation by the courts or the legislature of the unalienable rights with which we've been endowed by our Creator, which the Founders deemed self-evident.

Since we are guaranteed religious freedom, the right to remain alive and the liberty to try to fulfill ourselves according to the dictates of each heart and individual conscience, it seem obvious to my way of thinking that any issues involving the way we choose to live our personal lives should never be subject to the jurisdiction of government at any level, UNLESS we perversely consider a "right " to murder, rape, commit mayhem, theft, vandalism, blackmail, systematic bullying and other forms of harassment essential to our personal happiness.

Let each Congregation tend its flock in its own way. Within the reasonable limitations noted above, allow each individual to lead his own life as he sees fit. If you belong to a Church, by all means follow the Ecclesiastical rules and regulations set down by that Church regarding your personal conduct. At the same time non-believers and those outside the jurisdiction of a particular confession or denomination should never have the will of any particular brand of theology imposed on them by civil legislation.

I'm sure that's what the Founding Fathers meant when they sanctioned the Establishment Clause.

If we believe in and wish to follow our Constitution, this issue should be easily resolved.

No matter what we feel, personally, we have no right to tell anyone whom they may love and whom they may establish a household.

I see government interference from any and all angles as the problem not the preferences of individuals. Our government was not designed to force conformity upon us. If anything it a formed to serve a purpose exactly the opposite.

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; render unto God the things that are God's."

Even the Gospel implies a necessity for separation between religious and civil authority.

~ FreeThinke

PS: The notion that human beings exist primarily to reproduce their kind and have a God-mandated DUTY to do so regardless of their fitness for parenthood, personal inclinations and financial circumstances strikes my libertarian soul as patently absurd. This is not to say that raising families should ever be discouraged, but making it mandatory would certainly be unacceptable in any society that pays even the meagerest lip service to the ideal of individual freedom. - FT

Jersey McJones said...

Silver,

Polygamy may be an old practice, but it has been very controversial over the years, mostly in disrepute throughout the Western World. Personally, I don't know if polygamy should be illegal, to be honest.

It's a very complex subject.

Again, though, I have no idea how religious liberty has anything whatsoever to do with any of this.

JMJ

Most Rev. Gregori said...

Silverfiddle, you said they "did it the right way." That is true, but it would never have passed if four of our Republican legislators, endorsed by the New York State Conservative Party, hadn't decided to stab those who elected them in the back. You are also right that this does set up a Trojan horse, because as soon as a few more states legalize same-sex marriage, the time will come when the homosexual lobby decides to demand the right to be married in a church, then churches, especially Christian churches will face extreme pressure from the government to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or ELSE.

IMHO, the homosexuals did not want marriage out of love for their partners or for the legal benefits that married heterosexuals get, because if that was all it was, they could have had those same things through "same-sex unions", they demanded legalized same-sex marriage for one reason only and that is, because by being granted legalized same-sex marriage, it is the state granting legitimacy and giving its blessings to their unnatural lifestyle.

As to Anonymous: Consenting adults should have the right to do what ever they wish in the privacy of their homes, but when they bring it outside the home, i.e, Gay Pride Parades, special treatment on Gay pride days (of which there are several during the course of a year) and being allowed into our schools to brainwash our children and grandchildren into accepting and tolerating their unnatural life-style is WRONG! And if you doubt what I am saying about the schools, just go to www.massresistence.com. So far, all of the states that have legalized same-sex marriage, have allowed these groups free access into the schools, so it will becoming here to New York state.

Leticia said...

Honestly, I am quite angry with the Republicans for backing down, again, in the face of opposition.

This is a very sad day for America and for traditional marriage.

I have read several great arguments above so I won't add more fuel to the fire, however, as most people know I detest gay marriage and the lifestyle, but NOT the people.

Anonymous said...

Father Gregori,

You may have missed his part of my first statement:

Harassment and discrimination towards non-conformists who live quietly according to the dictates of their conscience, should be proscribed by law. At the same time people who are "different" should not be permitted to rub other peoples' noses in it by aggressive displays of behavior regarded by the majority as "outré."

For this reason I am more against the wearing of the hijab, the burka, facial tattoos, body piercings, men in drag and public nudity than I am against homosexuals who love each other and want to join hands and fortunes till death do them part.

However, I agree with you completely that in most cases the Gay Rights Movement -- and all the other minority "rights" and "liberation" movements -- are examples of the Left exploiting legitimate or quasi-legitimate issues and grievances to further the leftist agenda to take over this once-relatively-free society, and subjugate it to the dictates of an almighty Nanny State dedicated to the proposition that all men and all property belongs inherently to the State to use as dispose of as the State sees fit.

There would be no place for God, for freedom of choice or for individual rights in the society the Left would foist on us by using the pretext of wanting "equal rights for all" as a ploy to give the Marxists enough leverage to gain control.

Even so, I think you use unnecessarily charged language when you assert that homosexuality is "unnatural." You have every right to feel that way, of course, and your church has every right to inveigh against it, but it would be politic to realize and acknowledge that not everyone agrees with this view -- least of all the homosexuals, themselves, to whom there can be no doubt that homosexuality is supremely "natural."

All that aside, I have to say that I have always resented loud, aggressive, blatantly obnoxious displays by disaffected minorities of any kind. The only way any one of us could prove himself worthy of respect and inclusion is to behave honorably and to respect the feelings of others at all times -- however odious and inappropriate they may seem. That, of course, is of necessity a two-way street.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

I detest gay marriage and the lifestyle, but NOT the people.

Leticia, that's too much like saying to Jewish person, "I hate the role Jews have played historically in the development of Western Civilization, and I hate Jewishness, but I really like YOU." - OR - to a black person, "You Negroes sure have a great sense of rhythm and lots of energy. I really love Jazz, and I don't want to hurt your feelings, but sooner of later you've got to face it, you don't really fit in here. Don't you think you'd feel more at home and be better off if you just went away and lived in Africa?"


~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

If we must speak of "unnatural lifestyles," the one I would find most unnatural of all would have to be celibacy.

I realize this does not apply to Father Gregori, but I want to be sure everyone realizes the quip was not aimed at him.

Cheerio!

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

What does this have to do with so called "traditional marriage"?

Your man going to walk out and hook up with a guy, Leticia? Just what does "traditional marriage" lose by allowing same sex marriages?

I'd like to know where silverfiddle studied the sociology of marriage (Hint: he didn't). Just another right winger spouting. So we've evolved to the point that the civil contract called marriage can include gays. Just what did you lose?

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry. I meant to say:

Harassment and discrimination towards non-conformists who live quietly according to the dictates of their conscience, should NOT be proscribed by law.

My meaning should have been obvious from the context, but there's no excuse for carelessness like that. I apologize too for other errors I have made. I've never been a good typist, have poor eyesight, arthritis, and am getting old to boot. But all that is still no excuse.

It's astonishing how you can think you've said something very clearly, and later find out that through careless omission you've said the exact opposite of what you intended.

~ FreeThinke

Jersey McJones said...

Oh, give a rest already. It's like a Southern Baptist social sermon around here.

Really, in real, tangible life, this is no big deal.

You're the ones inventing a big deal of it.

If anything, gay marraige is a good idea.

Marraige encourages family, stability, monogamy, security, good health, etc etc. It's good for society.

If gay people want to get married, good for them and good for us - and good for all our progeny. And yes, gay people have progeny, so don't forget about them.

If you care about innocent children, be happy about what just happened in New York. Their lives just got a little more normal and easier, as it should be.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

Ducky,

You ask a very good question -- one I was just about to ask, myself, as a matter of fact -- but why attach a barb to it aimed at Leticia? All that does is weaken and divert attention from the point you're trying to make.


Jersey,

Live and let live is the most desirable policy always, but homosexuality is not normal. I believe it to be a natural variation found in every society, but it is not "normal." Heterosexuality is the norm. Most people are heterosexual, and are, therefore, ill-equipped to understand homosexuality. Leviticus certainly hasn't helped in that regard, but to say the gay lifestyle, as it is generally practiced in our urban areas, is a desirable thing that ought to be regarded as "normal" is too big a stretch even for a Toryesque old libertarian like me.

To try to put the traditional view of homosexuality in perspective: How would you feel if you woke up one day, and found the wife you'd lived with for 20-odd years had grown a tail during the night -- or was suddenly covered with thick brown fur all over her back?

That's ABOUT how shocking and disturbing it must be for average folk to discover that one of their children -- or a friend they thought they'd known for a long time, but didn't -- turned out to be queer.

Have a little compassion for the majority man.

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

Despite Ducky's comments, my points still stand, including the fact that no society in history has bestowed upon gay marriage the same import as the hetero variety. There may be a few statistical outliers and anecdotal instances, but for obvious reasons I've already stated, we don't find anything more than that.

For a much more concise treatment of this issue, see Frank J's take at IMHO

Finntann said...

Personally, from a Libertarian perspective, I think you are all looking at it backwards.

No one has put forth a valid argument defending why government should be involved in marriage at all. The argument that government needs to incentivize us to reproduce collapses in the face of a 40% unmarried birth rate and a DINK (Dual-Income No Kids) rate approaching 20%. It is even more ridiculous since there is forecast to be seven billion of us come October.

As far as Polygamy goes, it wasn't illegal (on the federal level) until 1862 with the Morril Anti-Bigamy Act, and was targeted specifically at the Morman church. The law not only outlawed bigamy, but also specifically targeted Mormans in the Utah Territory by limiting church ownership in any territory to $50,000. Polygamy was made a federal felony in 1882 by the Edmunds Act with unlawful cohabitation being a misdemeanor (obviating the need to prove a marriage had taken place). This was ammended in 1887 to disincorporate the LDS church. On a side note, for some odd reason all of the sponsors of the bills were from Vermont.

And no, I'm not a Morman, or a polygamist...if you were wondering.

So in summary, just why should government have a role in anything other than civil partnerships?

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

SilverFiddle,

I read Frank J's item ands all the comments that followed many of which were intelligent and well-phrased.

If I had to choose a specific policy regarding this issue (which Im personally, do not think should be an issue), I would support Frank's position as stated here:

"Given that marriage is a religious institution that the government participates in, [a] logical response [would be] ...

Have [marriage] removed from government entirely because of the separation of church and state, and simply allow the government to recognize legal contracts between two or more adults, allowing [those couples involved] to put whatever ceremony on it they want.

There's so much to say, and yet it's really very simple. But people love to make things more difficult than they need to be.

Personally, I'm against trying to mind other people's business from either a liberal or a conservative point of view. Life's hard enough without our constantly digging up ways to make it even harder.

There really are MUCH more important problems to solve and issues to address -- like cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic irascibility and the inability to exercise thrift and other forms of self-discipline.

Intelligent, practical EDUCATION would help a great deal, instead of this inane running battle between flawed, failed and sometimes fatal ideologies.

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

Finn: Well stated. I'm with you, although I only alluded to this aspect with my contract law comment.

Ducky's here said...

Why attach a barb at Leticia?

"This is a very sad day for America and for traditional marriage."

So just how is this going to affect traditional marriage. We hear that same canard constantly. Just some sound bite people get from rabies radio. No reasoning behind it.
Does the right ever try to defend their aphorisms?

Anyone who does not understand that marriage has been a dynamic institution throughout human history simply isn't paying attention.

Ducky's here said...

Civil marriage is a CONTRACT. The government regulates contract as a matter of social order.

Easy.

Jersey McJones said...

FreeThinke,

To heck with the Bible.

In real life, where you and I reside, there are children of gay parents. When I speak of "normal," I mean making life as "normal" for them as possible. Do you have a problem with that?

JMJ

Trestin said...

Jersey you are either delusional or being deceptive. The whole purpose of the gay movement is to attach traditional religion.

Before you counter with your incoherently leftist talking points. Let me assure you have have studied the issue ant length and am full aware of the cultural Marxist roots of the gay movement. Antonio Gramsci would be partying like it's 1999 if here were alive today.

Ducky's here said...

In The Prison Notebooks, Gramsci doesn't have much of anything to say about homosexuals as part of the new class to effectively challenge the ideologies of the educated classes.

You really should rethink your interpretation of Gramsci.

SEIZE THE CULTURE ! True that.

Anonymous said...

If you want to look at a brief summary of how we got where we are, please take a good look at Linda Kimball's excellent summary telling the story of the roots and rise of Cultural Marxism published in 2007 in American Thinker:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html

Gramsci was a brilliant malcontent -- the seminal pervert who inspired The Frankfurt School to devise ways to infiltrate the educational system and pollute the minds of young people with Marxian sophistry that appeals easily to humanity's basest instincts.

Cultural Marxism and the Critical Theory [i.e. the tactic of perpetrating relentless, ruthless, unprincipled attacks on the targeted "host" culture either on trumped up pretexts or completely without rhyme or reason] it spawned have so polluted the American Mind over the past eighty-odd years that we who've been around a long while can no longer recognize the land of our birth.

These unwelcome changes did not occur by accident or by any natural process of "cultural evolution." The movement was dreamed up in the minds of a few evil geniuses and took us unawares in the days of our innocence.

Trestin I agree with you, and made your same point earlier on this thread in these words addressed to Father Gregori:


...the Gay Rights Movement -- and all the other minority "rights" and "liberation" movements -- are examples of the Left exploiting legitimate or quasi-legitimate issues and grievances to further the leftist agenda to take over this once-relatively-free society, and subjugate it to the dictates of an almighty Nanny State dedicated to the proposition that all men and all property belongs inherently to the State to use and dispose of as the State sees fit.

There would be no place for God, for freedom of choice or for individual rights in the society the Left would foist on us by using the pretext of wanting "equal rights for all" as a ploy to give the Marxists enough leverage to gain control.

Those so indoctrinated have been cleverly conditioned -- brainwashed -- to regard truth as falsehood, good as evil, error as righteous, disease as health, insanity as clear-minded thinking, depravity as a healthy expression of individuality, etc. etc. etc.

Leftists don't PRETEND that conservatives and libertarians are wrong, they really BELIEVE it. That's the true horror of it.

That's what nearly a century of intellectual aggression and mass hypnosis by demonically clever fiends can do to a once-decent people.

Read Linda Kimball's article. It's pivotal if not seminal.

~ FreeThinke

MK said...

"Can anyone keep a straight face while telling me Muslim advocacy groups will not bring lawsuits to strike down polygamy bans?"

Off course not, if you allow gay marriage, you have no reason to deny polygamy, you have no reason to deny 10 men from getting married to each other for that matter.

Leftards will weasel around saying it's complex and they're not sure and all that. They're either too stupid to think ahead or know this and don't care.

For leftards there are no limits.

On a side note, expect New York to go the way of California, scratching its ass trying to figure out why it's in the toilet.

MK said...

I happened to catch a program this evening about this with a gay fellow who was surprisingly sour for someone who just got what he wanted. I couldn't believe my ears when i heard that republicans actually passed this.

And some of the rats who voted for it actually stood on a platform of the exact opposite. It's just unbelievable. I know democrats would easily do it, but republicans, i really wonder what they got in return.

I wonder if they were high on pot and thought they'd get the gay vote to win reelection. LOL, good luck with that scumbags. Heck, they didn't even get a thank you from the gay fellow who was whining about marrying his boyfriend.

Guess even they frown upon treachery even if it works in their favor.

Jack Camwell said...

Jesus H. Christ.

For those of you who are Republican and opposing gay marriage, why the heck are you doing so? I thought Republicans believed in freedom of choice? I thought the whole idea of liberty was to live your life the way you choose to live it so long as you're not causing any real harm to anyone else?

How the heck does gay marriage harm you in any way? Does it hurt your feelings, or make you uncomfortable? If so, that doesn't qualify as real harm. And what's the harm in kids not being giant bigots to other human beings because of their sexual orientation? I thought all men are created equal by their creator, yes?

Sure, dude on dude action is not my cup of tea. And although I'm not a big fan of gay pride parades, my question is: what choice have people like you all given them? They've been spit on and treated like second class citizens for years, and now they want to be able to feel like they can be proud of who they are. Had homosexuality been accepted in American society, there wouldn't be any gay pride parades. If homosexuality is accepted, in the sense that homosexuals aren't treated like they are people who should be straight or off themselves, then you'll see gay pride parades go away.

And if you think this is some sort of conspiratorial attack on traditional religion, get over yourself and your religion. Is slavery okay? Is genocide okay? Is it okay to kill the women and children of a people you're conquering to maintain your racial purity and "loyalty" to God? Is God really going to care whether or not your earthly body was circumcised?

Those are all things in Leviticus that we would find abhorent today (with the exception of circumcision). Jesus said "turn the other cheek" to advocate pacifism and non-violence, but he didn't say a damn thing about slavery, and slavery always has been and always will be wrong.

So why are we picking and choosing which standards in the bible we're supposed to enforce? How about we, as liberty loving Repuiblicans, Libertarians, conservatives or whatever, let people live their lives the way they want to and not tell them that they can't enjoy the full rights of every other American citizen?

Ducky's here said...

Muslim advocate groups are going to have a tough time striking down established case law banning polygamy.

It will probably exist on the fringes like that christian cult group in Texas but it just isn't going to be overturned in court.

Anonymous said...

Everyone needs to learn about Cultural Marxism. The scales should drop from your eyes after reading this article, although hard core leftists are lost souls and impervious to truth.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html

Copy the link, paste it into you browser, click and read.

~ FreeThinke

Karen Howes said...

Gay "marriage" is a very serious blow to western civilization. A lethal one, in fact, as Dennis Prager pointed out in a fantastic 1993 article: once you say that two men or women can "marry", then the traditional and healthy bounds that Judeo-Christian mores put on sexuality-- the bounds of heretosexual matrimony-- are GONE.

Remove those boundaries, and there's no reason not to allow polygamy (horrendous to the lives and status of women), pedophilia, beastiality, or anything else.

Anonymous said...

Jack:

Thank you for your thoughtful, impassioned remarks. I think you are mostly correct. Issues such as Gay Marriage are a big red herring that takes us off the track of pursuing the genuinely serious concerns that threaten all US citizens -- gay, straight, religious, atheistic, rich, poor, young, old, black, white, urban, rural, Jewish, anti-Semitic, -- even Muslim -- alike. We will not have a country in which we may safely disagree much longer if we don't focus on essential issues. Gay marriage isn't one of them.

Karen, Leticia and others who feel similarly:

The Constitution -- as it now stands -- allows you and others who believe as you do to live your lives in accordance with your religious beliefs, and to proselytize for those beliefs in any legitimate forum.

However, the Constitution never has -- and never should -- permit you or anyone else to force your religious convictions on the entire population through the legislative process. That would be tyranny, which was abhorrent to the mind of our Founders. Theocratic tyranny is every bit as evil as any other kind of tyranny.

As Shakespeare said in Hamlet, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio."

What some want to regard as vile, others may deem sacred. As has often been said,"One man's meat is another man's poison."

"There's a wideness in God's mercy
Like the wideness of the sea.
There's a kindness in His Justice
that transfigures you and me..."


It would be wise for all to stop dwelling on the "motes" they see in the eyes of others, and think more about removing the "beams" that distort their own vision.

~ FreeThinke

Leticia said...

I think I was quite clear in what I said.

You can hate the sin, but love the sinner to Jesus Christ.

Karen Howes said...

FT,

"However, the Constitution never has -- and never should -- permit you or anyone else to force your religious convictions on the entire population through the legislative process."

Um, we're not the ones doing the forcing of convictions on the entire population through the legislative process. That would be the gay militants.

It's like how Christians are accused of being obsessed with sex... classic projection.

Anonymous said...

Good morning, Karen,

You said, "Um, we're not the ones doing the forcing of convictions on the entire population through the legislative process. That would be the gay militants.

I don't disagree. If you've gotten my drift from things I've consistently said over a long period of time, you know that I am anti-militant, anti-activist, anti-statist, anti-collectivist, and above all pro-liberty and -- like Thomas Jefferson -- "I am hostile to any form of tyranny over the mind of Man."

It's important that we all try to understand one anther better rather than jump to conclusions based on a sentence or two latched onto here and there from a long series of remarks. My saying that Christians have no right under the Constitution to establish a theocracy doesn't mean I support militant gay activism.

I am a lifelong Christian, but I believe Christianity should be spread by each individual "letting his or her light so shine before men that they see their good works, which glorify their Father which is in Heaven." The idea of Authoritarian Christianity is a contradiction in terms and is as abhorrent to me as Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Islamism or any other entity that tries to force its will on people.

Just as so-called liberals would like to make their particular beliefs the law of the land, so would many who consider themselves Christian. It is to the entire concept of Power Grabbing and Dictatorship -- from any and every faction -- that I strenuously object.

It is not up to us to try to ensure the salvation of others. Working out our own is a full time job, and in the end each one of us must achieve salvation on our own. God is our refuge and strength and our only legitimate source of help in matters spiritual.


~ FreeThinke