Gay marriage? Why not?

[Grant]

Wish I could help you out, but truth be told, the Bible is vehemently and explicitly anti-homosexual. Sodomy doesn't come from Sodom (Genesis 19:1-26) for nothing. Refer also to Leviticus 18:22-20:13 for laws specifically regarding homosexuality. The neighboring passages are also in regards to various other laws regarding sex.

While I don't have much of an idea as to where they came from, I do know there are some stories/passages that would imply homosexual relationships not being a bad thing. I seem to recall this from a marriage and family living class I took.

Damn...should have taken notes.

I think I'm remembering David and Jonathan:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm

So I'm not totally off my rocker. In fact, most of that site is helpful: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

However, explicitly basing state or federal marriage laws as what's defined in the Bible should clearly be a violation of the First Amendment, as it would amount to a state-endorsed law regarding the establishment of religion.

Exactly...

I think in the days of the times the Bible is about, the concern for populating the planet with their own tribe, or whatever, becoming extinct, and one could not reproduce if engaging in homosexual activity. Also, in those times, people were very ignorant, superstitious, and fearful of things. It would seem that they would want to squash anything that violated their sensebilities.

[Corrected for spelling errors}

[lukpac]

lso, in those times, people were very ignorant, superstitious, and fearful of things. It would seem that they would want to squash anything that violated their sensebilities.

So basically you're saying things really haven't changed...

[Grant]

lso, in those times, people were very ignorant, superstitious, and fearful of things. It would seem that they would want to squash anything that violated their sensebilities.

So basically you're saying things really haven't changed...

Yup!

[Ron]

Grant, where ya been hiding? Haven't seen you here or SH.tv much lately.

[Grant]

Grant, where ya been hiding? Haven't seen you here or SH.tv much lately.

I've been very busy working on three music projects. I'm getting PAID for one of 'em!

I'm also researching building my next computer.

[Xenu]

Gah. Getting <i>paid</i> for music projects. Luke, we should've published that %$#%$ FAQ as a book!;)

[Rspaight]

The Massachusetts court ruling is going to blow this one wide open for next year's election. The right is already all aquiver with excitement over this as a "wedge issue," basically saying, "If you want to protect the sacred insitution of marriage from the evil homos, then vote Republican."

I sure hope they do. Remember in 1992, when Pat Buchanan bashed gays on national TV at the Republican convention, appalling everyone outside the religious right? Big recipe for success. If they want to lose the election next year, a *fantastic* way to do it would be a big dose of gay-bashing. Let George get up there and call for a constitutional amendment to exclude gays from the benefits of marriage. Then, if he (or, unlikely as it is, Braun) has any balls at all, the Democratic nominee will remind us all of the last time the Constitution explicitly defined a group of people as second-class citizens -- a little thing called slavery.

If they're stupid enough to ignite this culture war (and I think they are, based on what I've been reading the last couple of days), it's gonna burn them.

Here's the latest from the Heart of Theocratic Darkness, the ever-terrifying WorldNetDaily:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=35687

Ryan

[Grant]

I hope the clueless, idiot Republicans make this a huge issue. Their reign of terror in this country has got to end!

[Matt]

I hope the clueless, idiot Republicans make this a huge issue. Their reign of terror in this country has got to end!

I honestly think most people, Rebulican or not, don't care. But I also have to wonder if being a Democrat truly implies a pro-gay stance.

[lukpac]

I honestly think most people, Rebulican or not, don't care.

That's probably true. Most people are "against" it, but I'm sure far fewer care enough for it to be an important issue for them. That is unless someone starts a PR campaign to *make* it an issue.

But I also have to wonder if being a Democrat truly implies a pro-gay stance.

Probably not, but at least a bit less anti-gay...

[lukpac]

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

Two things:

1) I'm not exactly sure Saddam "rejected peace" - who was he attacking when we went to war?
2) Clinton didn't lead us into a full scale war over WMD's, no matter what his posturing might have been.