Believe me, I've studied this at length and for years as well.  I can absolutely say with confidence that we can take Jefferson's writings (one of the least religious founders) and make him out to be quite the bible thumper in comparison to today. 

KFC, I understand your argument and I too voted against gay marriage because I don't agree with it either. But to say that a man can not raise a girl and a woman can not raise a boy is not a very good argument because this is something done all the time. My sister from Puerto Rico is not gay/lesbian yet she has a son that has to live in a house with 4 women (2 sisters, a mother and a grandmother), not to mention his father lives in Chicago and he is doing just fine. Sure, he is not your typical boy who thinks women should be in the kitchen while the boys get to do manly stuff, but he is not very feminine either.

Keep in mind that while in a lesbian relationship there may not be a male figure, there are male people in their lives that could provide the necessary education for a boy to be a man (what ever that is considered in todays world) and the same can be said about a gay couple having women in their lives. My only concern would be that a gay/lesbian couple would want to raise a child in the same manner a father tries to raise a boy or a mother tries to raise a girl.

It's traditional for most men to want their sons to be, well, men. Watch football, Sports illustrated swimsuit edition, construction worker, mechanic, muscle cars and stuff like that. It's also traditional for mother to want their daughters to be more feminine, sexy clothing and accesories, cooking, shopping, WE tv (please, I am not trying to stereotype men and women here, I am simply using the most basic of this to relate them with). For a gay/lesbian couple to attempt to make the child (boy or girl) to be like them when the child may not be gay/lesbian is a bit freightning to me, not that I am saying they all w ill do this, but people already complain about parents who try to keep their children from accepting they may be gay.

It's a very conflicting issue that will simply draw more and more rules to be changed just to satisfy every small difference when one simple rule to stop it all would seem more effective. But that's just my opinion.

No it did not.  Many of our founding fathers were Christians that is true, but many of them were not, some were simply diests and others were athiests.  In fact some of the Christians among them felt that religion was a private matter meant for the home rather than anything involved in government and law.  The 10 commandments were NOT a basis for our society. That said some of those commandments are simply universal I think everyone can agree that killing people is bad, not because god said so but because you are taking the life of another person ie there is a victim.  And even then there is a little gray area where some murder is considered justified.  I think everyone can agree that stealing is wrong, again not because god said so but because there is a victim.

Did you choose who you love?  Did you walk into a room and say "I'm going to love that person and not this person"?  I know I didn't.  I didn't have any choice in the matter I just fell in love.  Why is it a psychological disorder for somone to be in love with someone of the same sex just because it doesn't fit in with what you consider normal?  If you are in a same race relationship is it a psychological disorder for someone to be in an interracial relationship just because it doesn't fit in with what you consider "normal"?

Charles all I'm saying is it's in the best interest of the boy to have a dad.  Wouldn't you agree? 

What's in his best interest?  Is it better for him to be raised by 4 women or a mom and a dad as God and nature intended? 

If I were raised by two dads and had no mother I think I'd be a bit resentful myself everytime I saw my girldfriend shop and snuggle with her mom on the couch.  Every girl wants a mom.  Every boy needs a dad.  Sure they can do without if situations dictate but why are we looking for it?  Why are we setting homes up like this when it's clearly not in the best interest of the children? 

It seems to be a little arrogant, or at least naive, to assume that your opinion stands as the final word in this matter.  I know and have met children raised by gay/lesbian couples.  They seemed happy.  In fact, what bothered them most was that people treated them like they were somehow "deficient" in their development because their family structure was different.

The overwhelming evidence on childhood development of individuals raised by gay/lesbian couples shows no significant difference.  Conclusion:  specific family qualities are more important than the sexual orientation of the parents.

This idea that families that are different are bad is the same logic that demonizes single parents.  Hopefully we can all agree that is somewhat problematic.

That may be true, but you can't expect people to simply throw away their religious beliefs just to agree or disagree with a law. You guys seem to ignore the fact that while some people voted against gay marriage because of their religious beliefs, the law was not passed based on a religious Gov't. It just so happens that the majority who refused to make gay marriage legal are religious people. This does not mean that church became part of state.

It's ludacris to ask people to vote on an issue based on anything but their religious beliefs. You don't have the right to tell people how to think. Some may express they did it for religious reasons but unless you can prove everyone did it for religious reason, you can't say this was religion being mixed with Gov't. and even if you could, people still have the right to vote what they want regardless of their reasons.

The Constitation keeps church and state seperate, but not the peoples beliefs.

Is it any more right a parent to force their kids to be straight?  Forcing someone to be something that they're not is wrong no matter how you look at it.

I have loved both male and female but that doesn't mean I married them all.  Love is a choice.  Marriage is a choice.  Having sex is a choice. 

Interacial relationships are NOT sinful.  I would not put them on the same page as homosexual relationships. 

Remember for me it has nothing to do with what I think but what scriptures tell us.  My belief is not based on emotion or culture (like interracial relationships or slavery).  The culture will change with the wind, not necessarily in a good way.  It's quite clear and has always been clear until recently that homosexuality is a sin until recent days.  We can either accept that as truth or we can go with relative truth which means you make truth fit your criteria. 

We have to ask ourselves what is truth?  Does truth change?  I believe truth never changes and is the same for every person, every culture, every time and every circumstance.  I understand now wee live in a time of relativity.  Truth changes as we deem fit.  I don't buy it. 

Even in times past when homosexuality flourished it was NEVER accepted as ordinary or moral.  It was accepted for what it was...sin.  Just like murder and theft and it was based on moral biblical principles. 

More later on the founding fathers and their Christianity or deism. 

Just because you feel that you would act that way doesn't mean that all people would feel and act that way.  I was raised primarily by a single father and I don't resent my wife for having a mother and father.  While I was dating her I was embraced by her family and welcomed in as one of their own.  Why can't you foster a relationship with your girlfriend's mother rather than resent your girlfriend's relationship?  I would argue that what's in the best interest of the children is to have loving parents.  Why disqualify two people just because of their sexual orientation when they would love the child just as much as a straight couple?

I agree with you El-D.  I believe there's certain things a parent should force their kids to do, like dishes, and homework but being straight is not one of them.  I remember James Dobson said once that if you take a young boy with homosexuality thoughts and put him with a strong male figure (hetersexual) that truly cared about him he would emulate that father figure and learn from his example and not turn out to be homosexual.  Is this right?  Dunno but it does make sense. 

Really?  Did I say my opinion was the final word?  I care very little about opinions actually.  If you knew me you'd know that. We all have em!  I care more about truth and facts. 

Really?  I'm thinking ancient Greece.  Try again.

While I'm sure that would lead to a fascinating discussion, the point is that since we aren't the Founders, we won't really know definitively what they thought.  Moreover, while what they thought is relevant from a historical perspective, as EL-D pointed out, this is no longer the time of the Founders.  There have been amendments to the Constitution since then, and the country as we know it has changed-- we are no longer a colony that just won its indepedence.

Yes, actually.  You said "If I were raised by two dads and had no mother I think I'd be a bit resentful myself everytime I saw my girlfriend shop and snuggle with her mom on the couch.  Every girl wants a mom.  Every boy needs a dad."  Either I grossly misunderstand the meaning of the word "facts" and the meaning of the word "opinions," or you were in fact making sweeping generalizations based on your own perspective.

Love is not a choice.  Marriage and sex are certainly choices but you do not choose who you love, it just happens.  Why deny someone the ability to express that love thru marriage just because you disagree with their love?

According to your bible it's also a sin to eat shellfish or the meat from certain animals or eating meat at all on Fridays.  Why are those sins now ok but homosexuality isn't?  Should any of those sins be added to our laws because your bible claims that they are bad? 

Of course "truth" changes.  It must change as we aquire more information.  The truth was once that the earth was flat, that changed, the truth was that the earth was the center of the universe, that changed.

Look I am not asking that you accept homosexuality.  All I have ever wanted to understand is why homosexuals should be entitled to the same rights and privledges as heterosexuals.

Sorry KFC, while I would agree having a father figure for a boy is always good just like having a mother figure for a girl is, life just isn't perfect. God may have intended things to be this way but God also allowed for single families to exist (I could be wrong but i don't recall anywhere in the bible that prohibits families with single parents) and more often than not we see children being raise by a single mother or father, regardless of child gender. I can understand where you are coming from with your religious beliefs, but you also need to accept that God did not set it up to be perfect either so regardless if it's a gay or straight marriage, a child can be raised in a decent way if the parents care enough to do so.

You are basing your opinion on the experiences you have had thru out your life and your beliefs today. But you can't tell me things would not had been different had you been raised by a gay/lesbian couple. You are who you are not because this was encoded in you from birth, but because of your experiences in life. My father was never really there for me. Sure we lived in the same house most of my childhood and he provided the nececities, but he was so hung on earning the love of his 2 children from a past relationship that he sorta put me on the backburner. Everything I am, everything I have I own it to my mother. She did the best she could to raise me to be a decent person and short of making me an economic guru (I suck with money in case you don't already know that) she did a great job in my opinion.

That is true, but you can't blame a family who never considered the idea of their child being born gay (something many still believe) and only finding out about this once they are older and begin to show signs. Keep in mind that parents don't have 2 plans when a child is born, one if they are gay and one if they are straight. It's one thing to raise a child like one normally wood only to find out they may be gay, it's another to, right off the back, try to instill gay/lesbian ideals to a child who may not be one. There's a big difference between forcing something after the fact and forcing something from day 1, but again, I am not saying this is something gay people do, just an opinion on how would they raise a child with the concept that they like being gay.

You've got love and lust mixed up. Lust in in a hurry, Love is patient. 

 Love is an action word not an emotion.  Love is doing sometimes even when you don't feel like it.  A mother with a cranky baby gets up night after night not because she feels warm and fuzzy but because she chooses to love her baby and get up.  Parents go to work everyday when they don't feel like it to support their families.  I make dinner sometimes when I don't feel like it because I love my husband.  People say they have fallen out of love in their marriages not understanding that love is a commitment.  You can either choose to stay together or you can choose to leave. 

Love just doesn't happen.  Have you seen the movie Fireproof?  If not, it's a must see.  It's all about this subject.  I don't disagree with a homosexual loving another person even of the same sex.  I disagree with their sin.  If I'm an angry person I can say I was born that way.  It doesn't make me less sinful. 

How well do you know the bible?  I notice you're saying "your bible."  If you knew the bible you'd also know that was temporary until the NT when God ok'd the eating of shellfish and those same meats.  You may want to read Acts 10.  Homosexuality was both forbidden in the OT and the NT with some pretty strong admonitions in both. 

Oh and btw you'll not find one bible verse on abstaining from meat on Fridays.  That's a Catholic tradition and has no biblical merit. 

Truth does not change. It never changes.  The earth was not flat ever.  They thought it was flat but it never was.  They just didn't KNOW what the truth was.  The truth didn't change.  The truth was ALWAYS the same.  The world was round.  Always.  They just didn't have the truth.  Big diff.

Like I said truth NEVER changes.  We now know the earth is round.  That's truth. It doesn't change.

It's like saying 1=1=8 and that's the truth until we find out differently.  No..... the truth is 1=1=2 regardless if you know the truth or not.   Before we found out the earth was round we went on opinion because we just didn't know the truth.    It's the same with homosexuality.  It's not the truth but many believe it is because they are caught up in the culture which changes constantly. 

So you in effect are just like those saying the earth was flat.  You're going on your opinion that homosexuality is just fine and dandy.  It's not our rules and opinions that we need to be concerned about.  God sets the standard and you'll have to take your opinion up with him someday. 

I can't accept it because I'm going outside of myself to a higher power who I will be held accountable to one day.  He's the boss.  He's the one who made males for females and said a man with a man and a woman with a woman in his sight is detestable.  They are going outside of the parameters he set up.  Because of that, all sorts of issues and problems arise. 

Now Charles you should know me by now....geesh!   I'm against basing things merely on experience and emotion. That's why I'm NOT a Democrat for one thing.....   I'm basing my beliefs on what I consider, outside of myself, to be the only truth we have today and that's God's truth laid down in his word to all of mankind.  We can either choose to accept or reject.  Obviously I chose to accept this as truth. 

Charles, where are you getting this from?  You may want to go back and read Genesis 1-2 for good measure.  Now is this truth or your opinion?  It's not God who messed stuff up.  It was man. 

Of course things would have been different but had I come to the knowledge of the truth I would have to reject that lifestyle as in error like many many others out there have done.  My parents got a divorce and had an angry marriage.  That was wrong and I believe they were in error in many ways.  It doesn't mean I have to adopt their ways. 

Your relationship with an emotionaly absent father only proves my point Charles. How do you suppose your life would have been different had you seen a loving father and husband modeled for you?  Every boy needs a dad who cares and loves him and helps him to become the man God intended for him to be. 

Peter's dream from Acts does address the food prohibitions. So, how about the witchcraft and sorcery prohibitions in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Galatians, then?  Should we criminalize Paganism?

If you say we shouldn't because that isn't tolerant of religions, what about John where Jesus says "I am the way and the truth and the life?"  Some people have taken that to mean that we shouldn't tolerate other religions and that religous pluralism is anti-Christian.

Leviticus also has other behavioral prohibitions that aren't addressed such as those concerning the removal of mildew from the house.

Although there are a number of places where the New Testament addresses homosexuality, those are letters written by Paul.  Unless you want to argue that Matthew 5:22 is an anti-gay sentiment (a rather weak argument), Jesus doesn't directly discuss homosexuality.  Matthew 19 doesn't work either, as he's not talking about homosexuality but marriage and divorce.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I know the Bible pretty well.  I grew up a pastor's kid.  I attended a private, religious college.  I studied religion.  I've read the Bible.  I think what concerns me most is the way you assume that there is one static interpretation of the Bible whenever you talk about it, like whatever you say is representative of what all Christians believe.  I was raised a Christian and consider myself one today.  I also have no problem with homosexuality or gay marriage and there are others who feel the same, such as the Ecumenical Catholic Church, the United Church of Christ, and church members of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations to name a few.  This doesn't even begin to address other religions, such as Buddhism, that do not consider homosexuality sinful.

can you give me the text you're referring to?  I'm curious about this one. 

Your first thought should be...to whom was it addressed?  Whom was Paul addressing?  Whom was Moses addressing?  Very important. 

Are you familiar with the passage, as one who has read the bible about "casting pearls before swine?"

I don't take it that way.  Although I quite agree that Jesus made an intolorant statement, I believe it to be true so label me intolerant.   People should be free to choose whatever god they want as Joshua said in his book in 24:15.....He told the pagans they could choose which God (of the two he mentioned earlier) but as for him and his house they would SERVE the Lord. 

That's how I believe.  Choose whatever god you wish but I will serve the Lord God, creator of heaven and earth. 

Well if you studied as you are saying then you should be aware of all the scriptures both old and new that says that every word is coming from the mouth of God.  You can start with John 1:1.  You can go to Peter 3:16 and see even Peter put Paul's words as equal to the OT scriptures.  Peter understood they were under the direction of the Holy Spirit's guidance.  Christ also said that the Holy Spirit would bring all things to their remembrance when it came to the things he taught them.  You can go to Galatians 1:17-18 and  see that Paul immediately after his conversion (Acts 9) went to Arabia to be alone with God for three years BEFORE he even met with the Apostles in Jerusalem. 

I'd be interested to know your background.  I can see you are knowledgable about the scriptures but with a slant against it.   It looks like what you're doing is watering down the scriptures so you can go along with the culture.  You've got one foot on either side of the fence. It's very clear that scriptures tell us that the gap will widen between culture and the will of God.  The time is already past when you have to make a decision which side of the gap you will stand. 

Reminds me of Paul writing to Timothy just before he died.  He said this:

"Demas has forsaken me having loved this present world and is departed."

and John who wrote this:

"Love not the world neither the things that are in the world.  If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life is not of the Father but is of the world.  And the world passes away and the lust also, but he that does the will of God abides forever."  1 John 2:15

You can't love both.   

Well then you would know

I agree with all your stuff here KFC, except this.  I may be reading it wrong, but people will be deciding which side of the gap to take (being saved) until the end.  I know you know this so I am probably reading it wrong.

The passage I'm referring to is Leviticus 14: 33-57.

A good question.  You should consider, then, that precisely the same questions and comments can be raised about the passages concerning homosexuality.  For example, the passage from Romans can be seen as a critique of the orgiastic behaviors involved in certain religious rites present in the region, rather than homosexuality.  Why is it that you can choose to selectively apply this contextuality where you want?

I brought up the Paul/ Jesus distinction more as a bit of trivia than anything else.  But some also believe that certain letters thought to be written by Paul, including some of those used to make the case against homosexuality, were likely written by a student of Paul.

So, having a different interpretation of the scripture than you do is equivalent to being slanted against it?  Forgive me if I choose to disagree on this point.  Are Catholics "slanted against" the scripture because they have different beliefs and interpretations than Lutherans, or vice versa?

This, this is precisely what bothers me.  My whole point was simply this:  there are alternative interpretations of the Bible.  There are Christians, like me, who have no problem with homosexuality, who support gay marriage.  And yet, your response is to say, in essence, we're not really Christians.  You are not the judge and jury regarding my faith.  That is between me and God. 

And since there is no way to really resolve a religous debate in any meaningful sense, I'll say this:  our Constitution is intended to make sure the government doesn't make laws that unduly discriminate against or bias in favor of a particular religous belief.  If the only basis for banning gay marriage is a religious one, that's unconstitutional.  So let's try to focus on the other reasons for and against gay marriage.

Maybe I said it wrong.  But what I'm saying is there was a time when you could stand with one leg on either side because our world wasn't so far off when it came to the principles of God.   But as our world moved further away from God we can no longer comfortably straddle both sides of the fence. 

 You may be able to jump over before it gets too late and I think that's what you're referring to.  I agree. 

I actually feel sorry for you.  Love is most certainly an emotion, one that I feel every single day for my wife.  We have been married for almost 7 years now, admitedly a yough marriage but I feel love for her every single day of my life.  The word love may be a verb but that doesn't mean it isn't an emotion.  I do admit that Love and Lust are different emotions, but they are emotions nonetheless.  I still didn't choose who I love and if you have to actively choose to love someone I truly feel sorry for you.

I know it better than some but I am by no means a biblical scholar.  What I do know is that your bible is not the law of this land.  Whether you like it or not our founding fathers put protections in our constitution so that no religion would be imposed on anyone.  That's just the way it is.

That may be considered truth to you, but it isn't truth to me.  It's fine if you want to base your opinions based on your religion, that is your right, but those opinions cannot be used to make laws.  Laws in our country must be secular in nature.

If my god were to dictate that driving cars on Saturday is a sin does that mean I should lobby congress to disallow any driving on Saturday?  If my god were to dictate that drinking alcohol past 9pm was a sin should I lobby congress to force all bars to close by 9pm?  Of course not and that is why religion cannot be the basis of law, just because your god determined that homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean that it should be illegal for them to get married.

What I most want to know is beyond homosexuality being a sin why are you opposed to allowing homosexuals to get married?  Keep in mind the focus of the question here too, I'm not asking about whether homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children or anything like that I am simply wondering why they shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Thank you bcshow.  This has been exactly what I'm trying to get at all along.  Religion cannot be the sole basis for any law in our country, whether you like that or not that is the way it is.  So please present arguments against gay marriage that are not relgious in nature, and as I pointed out in my last post please also refrain from the whole gays as parents argument as well since that could easily be taken as an argument against single parents.

thanks, I'll look it up. 

it's pretty clear and laid out that Paul is saying stay away from such practices because they are an abomination to God.  It has nothing to do with the region.  He's talking to the Roman Christians and saying they are in Christ and are not to partake in such behaviors.  There's more in Corinthians Chap 6 as well.  Both cities were known for some pretty ungodly behavior including homosexuality among other stuff.  So again, as Christians we are NOT to be following the world.   

You can believe what you want.  It doesn't make it true.  I can say Jesus was a homosexual because he never married.  But that doesn't make it true.  You want what you want.  You wish to believe homosexuality is biblical and ok because you are following the culture not the Word of God.  That's your choice.  There's only one interpretation but many applications.  So, for instance, while God says in his word that we should meet together and have fellowship and communion he doesn't dictate how that is to be done.  Some worship styles are formal and some are casual.  That's not an issue. 

First off, there is ONLY one interpretation of the bible but many applications.  God says what he means. 

There are many that "Say" they are Christians.  Christ made it quite clear that only those who 'DO" the will of his father can be considered his followers, Matt 7:21.

I would say if you're calling yourself a Christian but are not following or believing what is written down by God as his revealed word than you should examine your life.  Paul mentions this.  We should always examine our life to make sure we are truly in the faith.   If one tells me he supports homosexuality and considers himself a Christian and yet disregards the Word of God a red flag goes up for me. 

It is between you and God.  That's true.  I can't judge your heart only your words and actions.