The same can be applied to you as well.  You choose to believe in your interpretation of the bible, that doesn't make it true, "it's just like, your opinion man."

As I said I'm not biblical scholar but it seems to me that there are MANY interpretations of the bible: Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Prentacostals, Unitarians, Baptists, the list goes on and on.  Each denomination of Christianity has their own interpretation of the bible.  Some believe in a literal interpretation, others don't.  Some believe that the earth was created in 6 days, others see that a figurative and claim it was more like 6000 years, others believe it was completely figurative and believe that science got it right.  The bottom line is that there are a number of interpretations whether you choose to acknowledge them or not is your opinion.

The same can be applied to you as well.  You choose to believe in your interpretation of the bible, that doesn't make it true, "it's just like, your opinion man."

As I said I'm not biblical scholar but it seems to me that there are MANY interpretations of the bible: Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Prentacostals, Unitarians, Baptists, the list goes on and on.  Each denomination of Christianity has their own interpretation of the bible.  Some believe in a literal interpretation, others don't.  Some believe that the earth was created in 6 days, others see that a figurative and claim it was more like 6000 years, others believe it was completely figurative and believe that science got it right.  The bottom line is that there are a number of interpretations whether you choose to acknowledge them or not is your opinion.

Sorry for the double post it didn't look like my original had posted and now I can't remove the post.

First of all I'm looking at this totally opposite of you.  You're looking at this as we're attacking homosexuality and I'm looking at this as an attack on marriage. 

Marriage as intended is good for everyone, men, woman, children, society, the nation and the world.  Research consistently shows that heterosexual marriage is better in virtually every measure of emotional and physical health than people who are divorced or never married. Marriage is the way our culture promotes monogamy and well being for our children.

What the activists want is a new national policy saying that having a mom and a dad is no better than having two or more moms or two or more dads.  Parenthood could consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for a child.

When we depart from it we invite disaster.  I understand to warn against the dangers of homosexuality is to be labeled an alarmist, a bigot or a homophobe.  It's anything but true. 

A British medical journal back along reported that male homosexual relationships last on average about 18 months and that gay men have an average of 8 partners a year outside of their "committed" relationships.  How is this healthy and how does it help our society? 

In 1999 sociologists Dr. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and Dr. David Popenoe released the results of a study that confirmed that the family as we have known it is passing from the scene.  This should have made headlines, but the very liberal media didn't touch it. 

In 2001 the U.S. Census Bureau released its report and confirmed the conclusions from Whitehead and Poponoe.  The data revealed that the tradional family is dying. 

James Dobson of Focus on the Family met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill about family issues for more than 20 years and never was refused until the issue of homosexual marriage came on the scene.  He writes about how these leaders all of a sudden are refusing to meet with him.  The politicians are scared to death of this issue and do not want to be seen with a Christian. 

Liberal columnist Michael Kinsley wrote a op-ed piece in July 2003 in the Washington Post titled "Abolish Marriage: Let's Realy Get the Government Out of Our Bedrooms."  Here's an excerpt:

"The solution is to end the institution of marriage or rather, the solution is to end the institution of goverment monopoly on marriage.  And yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let em.  If you and your goverment aren't implicated, what do you care?  If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriages would become irrelevant." 

He goes onto say "otherwise it's going to get ugly." 

Judith Levine wrote in the Village Voice about Gay marriage not being radical enough.  She said:

"Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals on the ark.  But it doesn't have to be that way.  In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.  Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders." 

The homosexual agenda is NOT about marriage for gays.  It is marriage for no one.  Legalizing it will change everything especially for the institution of the family. Like I said marriage is under attack.   It's just a stepping stone before the downward slope. 

Did you see the ugliness that came out of the California vote?  Did you watch the news this morning.  The homosexual activists are angry and displaying their hate and anger.   I didn't see that happening from the Reublican side when Obama won.  But what would have happened had McCain won?  We were promised or warned riots would ensue.  Pretty interesting.

Anyway this all moot because as soon as Obama gets in he will wipe away all the states rights and homosexual marriage will most like become the law of the land from a Federal standpoint. 

You wait and see. 

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."  2 Peter 1:20

I was born a Catholic.  I was an Episcopalian, a Mormon, A JW, A 7th Day Adventist.  I attended church in a Congregational setting, an Independant Baptist and even a Pentecostal.

Believe me I know about interpretations.  The bible has ONLY one interpretation and that is itself.  That's the most important thing I learned by studying with all these groups. 

There's a saying that goes something like this....in essentials, unity, non-essentials, liberty, and in all things love. 

Christians, no matter the denomination HAVE to be united when it comes to the essentials. 

I'm going to write a separate piece on this.  Stay tuned.  There was very much a Christian consenus among the Founding Fathers.  You need to read history books that are at least 60 years old to get the real truth.  Did you know that? 

You didn't choose whom to love?  Of course you did.  Who chose for you? 

If you are basing your relationship with your wife on emotion then I feel sorry for you.  Talk to me in 15 years when the warm fuzzies might dissapate some.  I've been married 27 years.  Believe me there were days......but my love has grown deeper for my husband with each passing year and it's not based on emotion.  It's not about warm fuzzy feelings.  It's based on commitment, service and sacrifice on each of our parts.  If the warm fuzzy's are there, even better. 

Besides you're even admitting to a tough marriage.  Could it be that warm fuzzy emotions aren't quite enough?  Go see Fireproof! 

Gotchya.  Just checkin in case you had some sort of Floridian conversion or sompin. 

Nope.  I'm not looking at this as an attack on anything I am merely asking if there is a reason, beyond religion, for disallowing homosexuals to marry.  In all that you have said I still can't find one.  You say that allowing homosexuals to marry is attacking the family, how?  You have already said that the census among other sources indicate that the notion of the family is changing, women are working rather than staying at home to raise children, there are more single parents than ever.  All of these things happened long before homosexuals got onto the scene so how exactly is gay marriage going to do any more damage to your notion of a family than what has already been done?

You cite some rather shocking statistics about gay men but I would have to inquire about the bias of the research group because I have heard numerous reports of gays and lesbians being together (and faithful to one another) for decades.

I may not be familiar with the inner workings of the groups trying to legalize gay marriage but I find it hard to believe that this is what they are trying to accomplish.  What is so wrong with allowing two consenting adults to express their love for each by making the ultimate commitment to one another by getting married?  They aren't asking for your approval of the marriage simply the legal ability to do so.  As I have said before no one is asking the law be made that all people who can perform weddings must perform them for anyone with a marriage license.  As it is today if a Rabbai is approached to do a wedding for a couple who aren't jewish he has every right to refuse, and the same would be true if he were approached by a gay couple wanting to get married.  All the gay couples want, as far as I'm aware, is legal status to make filing taxes easier, to make dealing with estates after death easier, to allow one another to be present in hospital rooms when one of the partners is ill or dieing.

From a legal standpoint marriage is nothing but a legal contract between two people and as such it should not be influenced by religion which is what it seems people are doing when they argue against gay marriage.

I keep asking for a reason that is NOT based in religion for why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed and I have yet to read one.  You point to the structure of the family but those arguments could easily be made against single family homes as well as gay couples, are you saying that single parents shouldn't be allowed to raise their children?  Of course not so that argument against gay marriage is null and void. 

Please provide one that doesn't involve religion or an argument that can just as easily be applied to single parents.

I don't deny that the founding fathers were predominantly Christians, I don't think anyone would deny that, however what can't be denied is that we have the constitutionally protected right to follow whatever religion (or lack of religion) that we want and the government canNOT imose any religious sentiments on us.  So it doesn't matter how many of the founding fathers were Christians or not what matters is what our constitution allows for our government.

There was no choice made.  I fell in love, plain and simple.  I didn't ask for it, at the time I wasn't even looking for it, it just happened.

When did I say anything about a tough marriage?

I thought I gave plenty of reasons why homosexual marriage is devastating for society.  So let me be very clear then with a few thoughts. 

1.  Children will suffer the most.

2.  Legalization of homosexual marriage will destroy the traditional family.

3. Government schools in every state will  be required to teach that homosexuality is equivalent to traditional marriage.  So if you're a Christian teacher, guess what?  Your rights are being violated.  What did you say about the consitution not imposing any certain religion on another?  Secular humanism is a religion.  All your isms are religious in nature. 

4.  Adoption laws will be changed.

5.  Foster care programs will be impacted.

6.  Health-care will be affected and may collapse.

7.  Religious freedom will be jeopardized.

8.  The world will be over as promised in scripture (which is not necessarily a bad thing in my book). 

1. I just don't see how children will "suffer" at all.

2. No one is saying that the "traditional" family should go away.  If gay marriage is legalized it doesn't mean that heterosexual marriage is abolished.

3. Marriage isn't taught in schools so why would a teacher have to say that gay marriage = tradition marriage? 

4. Why?

5. So what?

6. This one really confuses me.  How in the hell would the health-care system be negatively impacted and/or collapse?

7. I don't see how.  If gay marriage is legalized it doesn't mean that all ministers/priests/rabbais/etc would have to perform the marriages.  So I don't see how this is possible.

8. This is a religious based impact and has no application to the law.

EL-D covered things pretty well, so I'll just add a few comments.

1. Agree with EL-D.  Recent research in the field of psychology and sociology shows no difference between children raised by gay/lesbian couples and children raised by heterosexual couples.

2.  By your own admission, statistics are that the "traditional family" structure has already eroded in modern society.  And that happened with no legalization of gay marriage.  The causal relationship simply doesn't hold.

4.  No impact.  See previous comments-- no evidence "children will suffer."

6.  Health care already collapsing.  Again, gay marriage not causing it.  No causal relationship.

1.  The implications for children growing up in this mess are profound.  Homosexuals are rarely monogamous, often having as many as three hundred or more partners in a lifetime.  Children in those situations are caught in the middle of all this coming and going.  There has been some lawsuits starting to hit the books now of gay couples divorcing and what to do with the non-biological parent.  It's a mess already. 

More than 10 thousand studies have concluded that kids do best when they are raised by loving moms and dads.  They are less likely to be doping, drinking, flunking out of school, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be in poverty, less likely to become juvenile delinquents and for the girls are less likely to become teen mothers.  Kids coming from traditional healthy families are healthier both emotionally and physically years later than those without traditional parents. 

We've been warned by the experts in their consistent reportings about the impact of fractured families and the stress of a homosexual lifestyle makes it that much harder for these families to stay together.  l would also add the health aspects of unbridled homosexual and hetersexual behavior is very bad with HIV and Aids on the increase with such liaisons becoming the norm.

2.  I've already given you evidence from Scandinavian countries that show that the homosexual marriage does destroy traditional marriages.  These two cannot coexist because they represent opposite ends of the spectrum.  There's lots of reasons behind this destruction of traditional marriages. 

3.  Are you kidding?  With the legalization of homosexual marriage the government schools will be required that marriage is no longer between a man and a women.  Textbooks will have to be changed (some have already been changed) and they will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships into these schoolbooks.  Equal space and status will have to be met and kids in kindergaten will be reading stories about having two mommies or two daddys. 

4.  Traditional marriages have always been favored when it comes to placing a child into a home.  Children will be put in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis.  Even polyamourous couples won't be excluded.  There will be no thought about fatherless or motherless children anymore. 

5.  Well then foster parents, most of whom I've met are strong Christians, will be required to undergo "sensitivity training" to rid themselves of bias in favor of heterosexuality.  We would have to affirm homosexuality to the children and teens as ok.  Moral training when it comes to scriptures will be forbidden.  This is already the current law in CA.

6.  When millions of new dependents become eligible for coverage.  Every HIV-positive patient needs only to find a partner to receive the same coverage as offered to an employee.  Some are saying this will drastically increase our premiums and it may not be profitable for companies to stay in business.  How about the American businesses who provide such insurance to their employees?  Under Obama it will be mandatory to provide this or they could be fined daily.  The entire health care system could actually collapse under the weight of it all. 

7.  It's already happened in Canada.  There are dozens of examples showing that religious freedom is on the way out and soon.  On 4/28/04 the Parliament passed Bill C-250 which criminalized speech or writings that criticize homosexuality.  Anything thought to be homophobic is punishable by six months in prison or other severe penalties.   Pastors have been jailed for preaching Romans 1.  A man who owned a printing press in Canada was fined over $40,000 for refusing to print stationery for homosexual activist organization.  In our country I already blogged on the story about the Christian photographer who was fined heavily by the courts (in our own country) because she said she refused the job to shoot a gay wedding.  She just said no thank you and got hauled into court.

I have a friend in Maine who is a conservative op-ed columnist.  On occasion he lets it known he's not buying into the homosexual agenda with one of his columns.  Do you know how many times he's been hauled into court on trumped up charges by local homosexuals  after his articles come out?  

Every single time the cases were thrown out.  But see they don't care because they are mostly just trying to break him financially.  They take turns and he has to pay out of pocket for a lawyer everytime while they take turns trying to shut him up.  It's really bad.  They've got the bucks. 

My mom worked for a small private newspaper and when the Christian owner refused to run a homosexual ad they put her out of business.  My mom lost her job. 

Focus on the Family radio programs were considered homophobic and censored.  One station that carried one program that was deemed homophobic was censured for airing the program.  THey have not been able to address this issue since.  This is coming our way and in some sense is here already. 

One homosexual marriage is legalized nationwide many changes will be made.  Nonprofit organizations that refuse to hire homosexuals on religious grounds will lose their tax exemptions and some Christian collegs are already worrying about this.

8.  I believe our founding fathers to this country are roaring and rolling over in their graves right now. 

1.  Divorce rates for heterosexual couples are also high.  Wouldn't it be better to offer gay couples the option of being able to marry, so that there is at least some legal framework in the case of a divorce?

I'm not sure which "10 thousand studies" you're referencing, because all of the most recent data I've read shows no support for your claims.  If you really believe what you say, though, logically you should support criminalizing single parenthood as a form of child abuse.

You make a lot of assertions about "unbridled homosexual activity" that are based on limited or possibly biased evidence, as El-D points out.

2.  You've mentioned Scandanavia, yes.  But my point is that these same trends have been present IN THE US and yet, gay marriage has not been nationally legalized.  Therefore, there must be an alternative explanation.

3.  I remember my parents, my family, and my peers talking about marriage.  I don't remember Marriage 101 in school.

4.  That assumes, again, that adoption should only be available for traditional families.  I do not believe there is any evidence to support this claim.

5.  I think this is a bit of a jump, as are the other "slippery slope" arguments you make.  It is just as logically sound for me to claim that, by banning gay marriage, you will lead us to criminalize homosexuality with anti-sodomy laws and the like.

6.  Really?  Evidence actually indicates that, while men who have sex with men have higher incidence rates of HIV/AIDS, it's not that much higher.  Other at-risk groups include female minorities and the poor, who are disproportionately affected.  Plus, other measures Obama supports should also hypothetically lower the cost of premiums.  Moot point.

7.  Fortunately, we're not Canada.  In any case, harassment occurs on both sides of the issue.  Losing your job or getting hauled into court is bad, but so is being murdered, beaten, and humiliated.

8.  (Shrug)

1.  To me that would akin to legalizing sin. 

I'm not criminlizing single parenting.  I'm saying that having a mom and dad is most beneficial for a child regardless if we're talking homosexual or hetersexual single parenting. 

The studies?  Would you like me to list them?  Of course I'm not about to list 10,000 but I can give you maybe 10 or 20 to start and you can branch out?   If you're really open minded and really interested.  Otherwise I'd be just wasting my time. 

2.  Yes, we are starting to see a shift in trend here but not nearly as bad as it will be when we start legalizing homosexual marriage.  You have seen nothing yet. 

3.  You don't remember reading about Dick and Jane and their mom and dad and their dog Spot?  You don't remember reading about families and things related to families in school?    I do.

4.  I know in the past there have been very strict regulations concerning adoption.  Single parent adoptions were not even considered or were very rare.  There are many rules/regs concerning adoptions.  I've known a few families that have adopted and it was quite a grueling process for them. 

5.  You mean like there once was on the books?  Why were those put there to begin with? 

6.  The whole thing maybe a moot point, I agree, when the universal health care becomes available.   But with the whole acceptance of the lifestyle I would expect that we would continue to see a rise in HIV-Aids that will clog up the system.  I never even heard of aids when I was a kid.  It was not even on the radar back when I was growing up.  Why all of a sudden? 

7.  You don't have to be gay to be murdered, beaten or humiliated.  It's been happening to Christians for centuries.  And I expect that will be on the rise once again. 

8.  I will be back with more on that subject when I get some time.

when you said this in post #48 unless you mean youthful marriage?  I read it as "tough" marriage. 

"We have been married for almost 7 years now, admitedly a yough marriage "

BCSHOW:

I read that passage in Lev 14. 

Did you know that has to do with leprosy and that plague of leprosy in v34 may have been a kind of mold or rot? 

Without going into deeper study I believe there is some deeper meaning here.  It seems that this has both a physical and spiritual meaning to it. 

Sin is liken to leprosy on our soul.  Sin has a way of burying deep and spreading just like leprosy.  We need to go to God for a cleansing that only he can give to rid us of this rot and mildew.  Remember Naaman dipping in the river seven times to rid himself of leprosy.  It wasn't the water that cleansed him.  It was obedience to God's word in a time when it didn't make much sense.   Remember Jesus mentioned if we have an eye or an arm that offends we should cut it off (leprosy causes pieces of body parts to fall off)?  Seems drastic but what he's saying is it would be better to get to heaven a bit maimed than to go wholly into hell. 

Sorry that was a typo I meant "young" which is why I mentioned the amount of time we have been married.

I will respond to your other posts soon, I am short on time at the moment.

This statement is NOT based on fact it is based on hate speech plain and simple.  Much like the literature that claims that homosexuals drink their own urine or are unable to control their sexual urges.  Those statements are NOT based on any kind of fact and are purely fearmongering.  If you actually believe this stuff I think we may have found our major stumbling block.

As I've said before this same argument can be made against single parents as much as it can against homosexual parents so unless you are going to start saying that single parents should give up their kids please stop using these studies are arguments against gay marriage since they are irrelevant.

You have stated that couples divorced because gay marriage was legalized this indicates that the heterosexual marriages that these people were in were a sham to begin with.  How strong in the marriage if it is based on lies?  this doesn't speak to the "danger" of gay marriage but to how people were getting married for weak reasons to begin with.

Look I doubt anything like this will happen but even if it does it is merely teaching about tolerance for all members of society.  You are perfectly welcome to teach your kids that homosexuality is a sin in it's proper place your home and your church.  If anyone attempts to stop you from doing so they are violating your constitutional rights (as long as you aren't advocating violence which you don't strike me as the type to do that).

Again I say so what?  What a child needs is love more than anything and you can't tell me that a gay couple is going to love the child any less than a straight couple.

I really can't speak too much to this because I am not familiar enough with the fostering programs around the various states.  My guess is that homosexuality would have to be treated in much the same way as race is treated, with tolerance.  If you don't want to go along with that program then don't become a foster parent.

This argument is irrelevant.  If an HIV patient wants coverage today all they need to do if find someone to take sympathy on them and marry them to get them covered.  So what?  A person with HIV is on a truncated lifetime and would therefore arguably cost an insurance company less than a person being covered with various health problems but likely to live a long life.  There are some companies that offer coverage to same-sex couples today and they aren't noticing any higher premiums as a result that I'm aware of.  I work for one such company and while health care costs have certainly increased they have gone up in line with just about every other insurance program out there today.

This is not Canada.  Religious freedom will not be going away in this country, we have a constitutionally protected right to it.  I'm not familiar enough with Canada's government but I believe they had other "tolerance" related legislation that goes a bit too far which is more at the heart of this issue than anything that would happen in this country.  In your example of the photographer, I assume the case was thrown out eventually because she has the right to take whatever jobs she wants.

I'm not sure if this would really happen.  Again if these groups are religious in nature I would think that they would still qualify for the tax exempt status because they have a protect to practice their religion.  But then I'm not familiar with the legal standings of tax exempt orgainizations.

I agree.  I think our founding fathers are definitely rolling in their graves (if that were possible) based on the things that have been carried out in their names, but for different reasons than you.

"Legalizing sin" again this is a religious argument and doesn't apply to our government or laws.  We have freedom of speech in this country which means that I can "take the lord's name in vane" which is a sin.  So already have legalized sins in this country.

You may not be "criminalizing single parenting" but the arguments that you present against gay parents can just as easily be applied to single parents and are therefore irrelevant.  If a single parent is worthy enough to raise a child than a gay parent is equally as worthy.

You are proving bcshow's point with this statment.  The point is that gay marriage isn't the cause of the "problem" and therefore that argument is irrelevant.

Criminalizing homosexuality was done so on a religious basis which is why those laws were overturned and rightly so.

Because it wasn't understood for quite a long time, and then when it did start cropping up it was seen as the "gay disease" and was trivialized and now we are paying the price.  HIV-AIDS is transmitted through a number of different ways none are exclusive to homosexuals.  You ask why it took so long to get noticed just look back 20-30 years when it first started and ask why more research wasn't put into it, why PSAs were put out to educate the public sooner?

So is it a rite of passage or something?  A group of people need to be mistreated by the populace for X number of years before they are accepted members of society?  If so what is that magic number I'm just curious as to when I can expect this crap to stop.

this is true what you said, but why start out with a negative from the get go?   At least when a man and a woman marries, if they stay married as intended it's the best of best for the kids that will come.  It's only when they stray from their marriage do these negatives come into play.  They are not irreleant and when all these kids start growing up from these homosexual homes we will see the backlash.  Give it another 10-20 years. 

I just watched a Dr. Phil show loaded with very unhappy bitter young adults because they were left by their parents as babies.  They were adopted into happy homes but still they are paying a price for the decisions their parents made after birthing them. I can only imagine those girls raised with no mother and those boys raised with no dad and how this will all play out. 

I'm tight on time for the moment as well....but let me tell you this.....it's not hate speech.  It is based on fact.  Just in my own family for example I saw this to be true.  My uncle, for instance, was homosexual and I remember him telling stories about his gay partners......lots of them.  He laughed it off as no biggie.  He probably got more sex than the married people do.  He died premature.  I have no idea how many partners he had...but I know it was many. 

gotta go.  Back later. 

As bcshow has pointed out there are studies out there that show that children who grow up with homosexual parents are no worse off than children who grow up with straight parents.  The main thing that kids need is love, having two loving parents no matter their sexual orientation is beneficial to the children.

This is not necessarily true.  I have seen parents who stayed together when they should have gotten divorced and it damaged the kids just as much, if not more, than it would have if they had gotten divorced.  So it is not always best for the kids.

What relevance does this have to the discussion?  It sounds as though this kids had been given up for adoption and were angry with their biological parents not their adoptive parents so what relevance does this have to a discussion on gay marriage?

Basing it off of one case does NOT make it fact.  There are plenty of straight people out there with multiple partners too.  So how does this prove that "most" homosexuals have multiple partners, it doesn't.  Take a look at some of the more famous gay people out there for evidence of monogamy: Rosie O'Donnel, George Takei, Ellen Degeneris, etc.  They are all in monogamous relationships, does this prove that all gays are in monogamous relationships, no but it does show evidence against your statement that "most" are not monogamous.