|
Parent Article: Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
|
Hidden with code "Policy Violation" |
|
Re: Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
by NRA4Freedom
nra4freedom (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
17 May 2004
|
>"Same sex marriage is not about anyone's "god,"
The God of the Bible says that homosexuality is "abhorrent" to Him. If people want to do things that is "abhorrent" to the God of the Bible, then that's certainly their business. They should have every right to do so.
>"...and is hardly about family."
That's true, because it is obvious to any human being that mankind was made male, and female, and even when we were all still crapping our diapers, we pretty much figured out that the square plastic block would not ever fit in the triangle shaped hole. Same thing for male and female...it's all to obvious for anyone whose viewpoint is not seared by bias as to what is meant to go where.
>"God is not supposed to be the concern of a state institution..."
That's what you say...but did you ever hear of this man in History class? Joseph Story was a Congressman and Harvard Law School Professor. He was appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison(who is refered to as "the Father of our Constitution") and served there for 34 years. He said the following ...and what better way to understand the relationship of the United States and Christianity than to read what the people who lived it thought.
"There never has been a period of history, in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundation. We are
not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment [in the First Amendment] to an indifference to
religion in general, and especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the
Constitution)... Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the Amendment to it now under consideration,
the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. Any attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not
universal indignation."
Are you saying that you personally know more about what the Founders of this Nation believed in and wanted for this Country that they founded than people like this who lived it?
>"...and many gay couples already have families."
If they do, then the families are not a product of their "union", because it is impossible for that to happen. So, while you may want to define the word "family" to include them, it isn't a true indicator of the word "family" in a procreation sense of the word. It all depends on how you define the word really.
>"Marriage isn't needed for that."
Legally speaking, you are correct. People have sex all the time and sometimes they reproduce and become families without being legally married. Might they may be married in the eyes of the "Supreme Being" though...since they "knew" each other?
>"It's about the human rights..."
This is where this becomes really interesting. "Human rights"...ok, so homosexuals "want" to do something, and even though what they are doing is not "natural", it is against their "human rights" to not give it to them or let them do it? How does that work exactly? Like, do you believe it is against their "right to the pursuit of happiness" maybe? Or, do you believe that it is a "right" because you believe that they cannot help being homosexual? Let's run with that a moment and apply it across the board. Take a pedophile for instance...any psychologist will tell you that they cannot help themselves, and that their lust for children is not only something they are unable to deny, but a desire that can almost never be quenched, and that is why they are so dangerous to society. But how are they different from a homosexual really? A homosexual lusts exactly the same way a pedophile does, the only real tangible difference being the "object" of their lust is different. Right now in this Nation, other than the innocent unborn, we try to protect children. But the world was certainly not always this way, and many youg girls have been married off over the years way younger than we can imagine to be appropriate now. So, when our society decides that maybe girls could be married at 14, or 12, or maybe 10 someday, are you willing to go along with that based upon the same criteria you are using for homosexuals now? After all, if it is against the "rights" of the homosexual to not be allowed to do what they want to do, how can it not also be against the "rights" of the pedophile to not be allowed to do what they want to also? And what about the guy that wants to marry the sheep down the road...are you going to stand up against his "human rights" to marry and have sex with the sheep if that's what he wants to do...because after all, the object of his lust is sheep, but he cannot help himself,if he was born that way? Right? If we are going to make morality into a "human rights" issue, then we really must apply those "rights" equally across the board to everyone, and not discriminate against "some" people just because we happen to think that their "lustful desires" are not appropriate at this time...right?
Now, if the above is not your criteria for wanting to grant "human rights" to homosexual behavior, then please outline exactly what you plan to base it upon, and how you plan to not discriminate against those other people you do not want to have the same "rights". And remember this when you decide...just exactly like the fact that YOU don't think it is appropriate for pedophiles to have sex with children, millions of Americans also do not think that homosexuality is appropriate either. So what criteria do you believe exists that makes what YOU want to believe better than what THEY already believe???
>"Cause it's supposed to be "We the people" not "We the hetrosexuals"
It is "we the people", and the way "we the people" are governed is by by going to the polls and electing people to represent us. That vast majority of Americans disagree with you concerning homosexuality and homosexual "rights", so please alos clearly outline what makes YOUR "we the people" better and more important than everyone elses "we the people"...
Thank you. |
