Anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendments?

[Tracer]

He's only representing the majority of the United States. It's not just him. Occasionally, throughout history, people have been hatefull and oppressive as a whole to certian people. Popular opinion isn't fail-safe. Sometimes popular opinion is dead wrong. It was popular opinion to treat women like cattle, popular opinion to keep slaves and so on. When a group of people is denied of rights because of some affiliation or another - be it for something they can or cannot change (hey buddy, you don't have to be a Jew) - then it is discrimiation and an injustice. Those who support this are unjust. That happens to be the majority. Not just Bush.

Uhhhh... I dont think so Mike. So far he seems to be a tool of the old Bush administration. Your right though, we dont know for sure. He is either very smart, or very st00pid!

No way. He's the son of George Bush biologically, but ideologically he's Ronald Reagan's son.

[AaronChance]

If God hates gays... why did he create them in the first place? People don't chose to be gay, they're born that way. To quote Chris Rock:

"He didn't turn gay, he was gay then. He just didn't have anyone to be gay with."

[Damian79]

If God hates gays... why did he create them in the first place? People don't chose to be gay, they're born that way. To quote Chris Rock:

"He didn't turn gay, he was gay then. He just didn't have anyone to be gay with."

God hates the act, not the person. ie. God doesn't hate gays.

[Frogacuda]

As the government is ruled by the people through their votes in their elected officials, the majority rules. Because the majority rules, it is their decision that awards or denys rights to any given group.

In other words: The majorities give the minorities their rights.

The men who wrote the constitution weren't elected, and neither are the judges who interpret it.

If God hates gays... why did he create them in the first place?

To test our faith, of course Same as the dinousaurs and homo erectus fossils. God's is such tricky fella

(for a real answer, read veggie's post on the last page)

No, actually, I never made a comment on "what kind of government I want,"

Just what kind you will vote for. Which I assume is the same thing.

It's pretty inescapable. If you say that you want to elect people that will base their legislation on Christian morals then you want an incidentally Christian government. Period.

My obligation, under any given circumstance, is to Jesus Christ. I am confident in my God and His words, and I'm certain that He knows how to run society much better than we ever could. As such, to glorify Him, and to honor His instruction, I will do as He says. This means voting against homosexual marriages.

No one will be saved and no sin avoided by this amendment. But it will take away the rights of many, and be the first step to unravelling the rights and freedoms that all of us in this country enjoy. It does nothing to please God, only to hurt people.

Again, Veggie, I ask you, if there was a constitutional amendment to force everyone to go to church on Sunday, would you support it? If so, how can you say you don't want a religious government, and if not, how exactly is it different?

[Calliander]

This simply is not true. Historically, the minorities have rights because the majority gives them the rights.

The minorities owe the majorities for their rights and privledges.

In other words: The majorities give the minorities their rights.

Hey man. I have no quarrel with you. You know your stuff and you argue your points well, which is more than I can say for myself half of the time. However, those are some very scary things you said, above. I doubt you realized it at the time of writing, and they make sense in the context of your arguments, but this has always been a big issue for me - having been picked on in school and excluded from groups because (through being a nerd or having other undesirable traits) I wasn't liked.

We (human beings) are not animals. We no longer live by "only the strong survive". The 'majority' gave those rights to the 'minority' because they realized that the majority should not rule the fates of all. Majority rule leads to bad things. I can't cite examples that make sense in the context of the argument, but you've already shown that despite your aversion to gay marriages, you will accept it if things pan out that way. And that's cool.

What did you think of my idea, by the way? I think that benefits all, but what do I know? Heh.

My obligation, under any given circumstance, is to Jesus Christ. I am confident in my God and His words, and I'm certain that He knows how to run society much better than we ever could. As such, to glorify Him, and to honor His instruction, I will do as He says. This means voting against homosexual marriages.

This is scary, because I used to have an online diary where I wrote something strikingly similar:

My paramount obligation, above any personal concerns, is to humanity. I believe in people and their decisions, and I'm confident that they are able to run a benevolent society. To protect them, and to nuture their growth, I will do what I feel benefits mankind.

This means voting for homosexual marriages.

[Captain Vegetable]

The men who wrote the constitution weren't elected, and neither are the judges who interpret it.

And this point affects my point in no way. They still were there to represent the people. Judges and Framers alike.

Just what kind you will vote for. Which I assume is the same thing.

It's pretty inescapable. If you say that you want to elect people that will base their legislation on Christian morals then you want an incidentally Christian government. Period.

But I'm not saying I want to elect people that will base their legislation on Christian morals. I'm saying that I want to cast my vote based on my Christian morals.

There is a significant difference there. It's very subtle, but very significant.

I find myself having much in common with certain beliefs that some atheists hold to. They do not have "Christian morals." However, the fact remains that we agree, all be it for different reasons and based on different motivations.

I am not voting for them because they display some type pf Christian ideology, but because we just so happen to agree concerning certain subjects.

No one will be saved and no sin avoided by this amendment. But it will take away the rights of many, and be the first step to unravelling the rights and freedoms that all of us in this country enjoy. It does nothing to please God, only to hurt people.

I am held accountable to God for all of my actions, including the manner in which I vote. Pleasing Him is more important to me than pleasing the public. I will avoid a personal sin by voting in a manner which will be pleasing to God.

I already told you once that this is a singularly internal affair. Am I going to have to continue to repeat this in every subsequent post?

Again, Veggie, I ask you, if there was a constitutional amendment to force everyone to go to church on Sunday, would you support it? If so, how can you say you don't want a religious government, and if not, how exactly is it different?

No, I would not support it. I am a concervative, and it is not the governent's place to decide such matters.

I agree it is also not the government's place to decide on such matters as marriage.

Hmmm. It would seem you've talked me into a bit of a trap, here. I'll say no more concerning this until I've given it thought enough.

This is scary, because I used to have an online diary where I wrote something strikingly similar:

My paramount obligation, above any personal concerns, is to humanity. I believe in people and their decisions, and I'm confident that they are able to run a benevolent society. To protect them, and to nuture their growth, I will do what I feel benefits mankind.

This means voting for homosexual marriages.

And I have no problem with that.

[Tommy Tallarico]

I am held accountable to God for all of my actions, including the manner in which I vote. Pleasing Him is more important to me than pleasing the public. I will avoid a personal sin by voting in a manner which will be pleasing to God.

It must be a horrible feeling to abandon all autonomy.

[Gohron]

If God hates gays... why did he create them in the first place? People don't chose to be gay, they're born that way. To quote Chris Rock:

"He didn't turn gay, he was gay then. He just didn't have anyone to be gay with."

Like Damien said, God doesn't hate gays, in fact He doesn't hate anyone. He created us and if He hated us don't you think He would just destroy us? Through Jesus gays can go to heaven as well, so it's not like they're condemned to burn in hell. Because I do my best to respect God's creation I will not treat a gay person differently then a straight person, I may try to help them with their problem but that's it.

And as for them being born gay, this hasn't been proven and I still think it untrue.

[bbobb]

And as for them being born gay, this hasn't been proven and I still think it untrue.

Why do you think it untrue? Did you make a decision in puberty to be attracted to girls?

[burgundy]

It must be a horrible feeling to abandon all autonomy.

While making no comment on Veggie personally, I think for many, that's exactly the draw.

Because I do my best to respect God's creation I will not treat a gay person differently then a straight person

So then you shouldn't have a problem with them getting married.