FW: It's Over The conversation

From: Tim E

It's Over
Now maybe it's time to reach down and show support for our new president just as you asked to show support for Bush. Whether or not you believe anyone listened to you it's your responsibility to heed your own words.

We had an interesting divide in California. On the one hand we overwhelmingly helped elected our first black president showing that one prejudice has been deeply subsided, while on the other hand it looks like we will write another form of discrimination into our states constitution. When we learn to stop hating people for the way they are born and love them for the way they were created we will have truly advanced as a civilization, the race for that is tightening but this fight is not over and will rear it's head again.

AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. Search Now.

From: EJS
Tim, you show your own prejudice in your call to show support.

Obama wins in "landslide" winning 52% of the national vote, yet the VERY SAME 52% of the vote in California to overturn a 4-3 vote by liberal judges in May that instituted "rights" never before held in the history of the state is discrimination?

Typical liberal dogma...

From: Tim E

I don't see how a call for support shows prejudice, and I don't see how popularity is ever an excuse for it.

The Yes on 8 folks won, as they won when it was 22. The difference is the margin, the race is tightening at least that's positive.

Furthermore there was a time when you could be hung in this country for being a Quaker, Exhiled for being an Evangelical, and in some place required to pray as a Puritan. How easily it is to loose control of the popular religion. However you translate the Bill of Rights, no one would want their personal beliefs trampled on that, I believe, is the fundamental purpose behind those rights.

From: Alan M
Tim

While the No on Prop 8 people would have you believe the change was over rights, they were dead wrong and they had purposely tried to obfuscate the purpose of the amendment. Gays in California enjoy every right that every other individual in the state enjoys. They can receive in heritance from a partner, share property, share medical benefits, etc. What right did they loose? Marriage is a union established by the church between and man, a woman and god. While government has gotten in and used marriage as a litmus test for a desire to share property, true marriage is defined by the church.

Prop 8 is a move to preserve that union. Any other union is something else and should not be called marriage. Whether Life Partner, significant other, or otherwise, these relationships are not marriage! To have a judge declare they are, is both wrong and not a separation of church and state.

Gays are not being persecuted as the “No on 8” people would have you believe, the Yes on 8 people are trying to preserve the holy relationship of marriage. There are also other implications of this amendments and I believe they relate to what society considers normal moral behavior. While I do not hate gay people, I do not believe that what they do is normal behavior and do not want to see our laws mandate that it is normal. By defining this as normal behavior in our laws it can limit the rights of those who do believe in marriage between a man and woman. So I guess to a large part my vote was to preserve my rights.

From: Tim E

Those are excellent points and I agree with you on all your religious points. That is exactly my point, Yes on 8 was asking the State to interfere with Religion naming one belief as the only belief.

What about the Unitarians, Platonists and other religions that don't believe the same?

Should they be told that their beliefs are wrong by the Constitution, State, or otherwise?

Shouldn't the burden of Holy Matromony be placed on the couple being married and their own faith by their own God?

The issue is a "rights" issue because I believe that all people should have every right this country holds, and one of those fundamental rights is religion. People think because I am an Aetheist I don't have religion, but the same rights that you have, protects my rights to believe as I do. We all have our reasons for believing them even if they only differ by a couple of opinions of a couple of verses in the same book.

I was a Christian for most of my life, I have asked Jesus into my life twice, and it may surprise you that I have read the bible all the way through several times. I don't think even as a Christian I would be on a different side on this point than I am now. Not once did I see Jesus persecute the people who did not agree with him, not once did he wish validation from the state for his own beliefs.

Tim

Al, I love your replies they are concise meaningfull and argue strong points and we know we won't be changing each other's minds it's OK.

From Alan M.

Tim

I am not sure what you agree with me on.

God instituted the first marriage in the Garden of Eden when he gave Eve to Adam as a wife (Genesis 2:18-25). Later marriages were to follow the pattern of the first is indicated by the concluding divine instruction in Matthew 19:4-6. This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh (Genesis 2:24). A unique unity between Adam and Eve was seen in that the two became “one flesh”. The oneness of marriage separated the couple from others as a distinct family unit.

Because God instituted it, marriage is more than just a ceremony. Biblical passages showing that the marriage relationship is based on a covenant or oath sworn before God are Proverbs 2:17, Ezekiel 16:8, 59-62, Hosea2:16-20, Malachi 2:14, Matthew 19:6. Any violation of that covenant invites God’s judgment.

Marriage is God’s unique gift to provide intimate companionship, a means for procreation, and the channel for sexual expression according to biblical standards.

Homosexuality, on the other hand is a sin that results in judgment. The first mention of homosexuality in the Bible depicts God’s judgment upon it as sin. It was the outstanding transgression of Sodom and Gomorrah. The severity of the judgment, which came because of homosexuality, indicates the seriousness of this sin (Genesis 19:1-11). Both cities were destroyed by fire and brimstone (19:24). Depending upon the translation of the Bible you read in 2 Peter 2:6 NT states that these two cities were turned to ashes as a matter of God’s holy wrath, specifically because their inhabitants had given themselves to sexual immorality and practiced perversions. Genesis 19:5 outlines when the male angels came to rescue Lot and his family, the men of Sodom wanted to have Lot send out the Angels so they could have sex with them, Lot offered his daughters, but the angles took care of the situation themselves.

Bottom line is that homosexuality is an act, a sin; it does not qualify for minority status any more that adulterers, rapist, murders, or any other group of people who commit immoral acts.

While I worship a loving God, unrepentant acts of sin are repudiated by God and will find God’s judgment. It is not for me to judge them, only to pray for them. That said, I can not condone their behavior or have them define it as normal or acceptable in the eyes of the law.

Sorry for all the references, but I feel strongly on this topic as you can easily tell.

Al

From: Tim E

You're making my point.

I agree that the Bible does not allow for gay marriage, it doesn't, it's pretty clear....

The constitution however, especially the states did not define it that way.

That is the point, as much as you want to believe that this country was meant to be a Christian nation our forefather's made freedom from any religion very clear so that religions and beliefs may flourish. It was developed by men of many faiths, many who didn't agree with each other, this fundamental discussion gave freedom to all. In my humble opinion.