[Flat Water 1867]

Originally Posted by burgerflipper

By "Red State" do you mean Logical?

Well, I meant that I kinda caught myself offguard because normally I find myself more left-leaning than right-leaning on political/social issues, so I might be more readily categorized as having blue-state sensibilities even though I live in red-state Nebraska. But when it comes to Hollywood culture and our celebrity-worship obsession, I am truly nauseated. To me, the simple fact that someone like Paris Hilton can be famous could be a sign of the apocalypse. Remeber kids: Fame doesn't equal talent.

[DTO Luv]

Originally Posted by nmnita

you know what? I can't quote the actual location but wish I could: it does say, Marriage is between one man and one woman..I am sure I can find the passage if I try hard enough.

I can't stress this enough, I am not a right wing, conservative, holier than thou person, nor am I a bigot or prejudice, I believe in legal rights for all, but I draw the line when it comes to marriage...

Nita

I call BS.

If someone from another country with pre-arranged marriages moved to the US their marriage would be acknowledged here. If some couple from the rain forest with some goofy marriage views and traditions moved to the US their marriages which have no basis on christianity or anything widely accepted in the US would be acknowledged here.

So the precedent is already set that this country does honor not just marriages as the bible would have it be. If "Gay" was a nationality and a "Gay" married couple moved here would we void their marriage? Swap out the word gay for any sort of immigrant and you see what I mean. America already doesn't discriminate against non judeo/christian marriages so why is it ok to discriminate against same sex marriages?

[DTO Luv]

Originally Posted by burgerflipper

Wow, great points DTO and Flat Water. In fact, with all these years of debate about gay marriage across this country I have never heard anyone explain and validate it that good.

I'm guessing any rebuttal will take some time to drum up. = -)

Thanks. I've been sitting here patting myself on the back for that one too.

So far the only rebuttal has been "I just don't like it."

[Stacy From Cali]

Originally Posted by nmnita

you know what, you have every right to believe the way you want and no one is forcing you to accept Christianity, Judium or any other religion, but we have every right to our views and every right to state them. This is what makes America the greatest country on earth.....

Nita

Of course people have a right to state their opinions...but it should not always impact policy...especially when the issue at hand is essentially one of the separation of secular and religious society.

I'll ask again...I don't believe in god. I am married. Does that invalidate my marriage in the eyes of Christians?

Ok. Next step.

Does the scorn and disbelief of those Christians have any legal impact on my marriage?

No.

Therefore holding up religious objection as a legal reason to deny civil rights doesn't fly. Why? Because we have a separation of Church and State in our great county.

Because of this y'all can have all the opinions you want but I really fail to see why it should matter in a legal sense. If the only objections are religious there should be no objection.

'Cmon people I've already said this like 5 times and nobody has addressed it! Can we kill the talk about the Bible now please and get to the actual issue at hand?

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Stacy From Cali

Of course people have a right to state their opinions...but it should not always impact policy...especially when the issue at hand is essentially one of the separation of secular and religious society.

I'll ask again...I don't believe in god. I am married. Does that invalidate my marriage in the eyes of Christians?

Ok. Next step.

Does the scorn and disbelief of those Christians have any legal impact on my marriage?

No.

Therefore holding up religious objection as a legal reason to deny civil rights doesn't fly. Why? Because we have a separation of Church and State in our great county.

Because of this y'all can have all the opinions you want but I really fail to see why it should matter in a legal sense. If the only objections are religious there should be no objection.

'Cmon people I've already said this like 5 times and nobody has addressed it! Can we kill the talk about the Bible now please and get to the actual issue at hand?

Stacy, as I have mentioned before, I respect your views and believe you approach them with understanding, but I don't agree with you politically. Of course this isn't really a political issue as I see it.

I don't think some of us are talking about civil rigths, if you have read what I have been saying, I believe everyone has the right to sharing legally in every part of thier lives, but I will always oppose gay marriage.

Nita

[Todd4]

Originally Posted by nmnita

Stacy, as I have mentioned before, I respect your views and believe you approach them with understanding, but I don't agree with you politically. Of course this isn't really a political issue as I see it.

I don't think some of us are talking about civil rigths, if you have read what I have been saying, I believe everyone has the right to sharing legally in every part of thier lives, but I will always oppose gay marriage.

Nita

Nita and kdbrich,

Stacy's point is so simple and direct:

1.Is there anything about gay marriage that you find unacceptable outside of your religous beliefs ? (such as tax issues, inheritance issues etc...)

2. If not, then your view is based entirely on your religious belief

3. In the United States, we have a separation of church and state

4. Religious doctrine should not dictate national law

That's it.

[Go Ne]

Originally Posted by Stacy From Cali

Because we have a separation of Church and State in our great county.

However, that means that the State can't interfere in religion, not vice versa, or at least thats how Benjamin Franklin intended it.

[Todd4]

Originally Posted by Go Ne

However, that means that the State can't interfere in religion, not vice versa, or at least thats how Benjamin Franklin intended it.

You are completely wrong about that.

Benjamin Franklin was an atheist and here are two quotes:

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies."

"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."

-Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor

He specifically meant that it would go both ways.

[Go Ne]

Originally Posted by Todd4

You are completely wrong about that.

Benjamin Franklin was an atheist and here are two quotes:

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies."

"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."

-Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor

He specifically meant that it would go both ways.

Right, it was Thomas Jefferson, I always get those two confused. But are you sure Franklin Was an atheist? According to wikipedia he isn't and it cites biographies.

[Todd4]

Originally Posted by Go Ne

Right, it was Thomas Jefferson, I always get those two confused. But are you sure Franklin Was an atheist? According to wikipedia he isn't and it cites biographies.

Well,

I would say from his quotes yes.

I pretty sure he wasn't a muslim or a buddist either. ha!

Here is an interesting site:

Famous Atheists,