Florida Marriage Amendment

"The problem is, too many evangelical Christians are quoting the Bible by the yard and living it by the inch."

Finder, that quote from the story you linked sums up a lot more than just an attitude about divorce and proposed political solution.

Michael S. Mann

Finder & One,

Another little detail in the story that has been covered before are the divorce stats.  For all of the rhetoric, the most voiced by Christian evangelicals, the biggest has been that same sex marriage would contribute to the ruination  & sanctity of marriage.  They have never said exactly how this would happen, (Gee, I wonder why) nor have they acknowleged that their own ranks, at least according to the figures on the story, have done much more to ruin the sanctity of marriage than gay people have.  I wonder why that is? 

I guess for once, I would have to agree with Mr. Lamb's quote & the implication of gross hypocrisy.  I'm not surprised.  In fact, the only thing I AM surprised at is that this story was finally published at all in this venue.  Similar versions of this story & the accompanying statistics have been published previously, even in the MCS, if any one cares to do the research.  JATFUR.

RichK

Since marriage has been defined for over 2000 years, why is it suddenly now a form of discrimination? I am somewhat surprised to find that so many people simply don't care about one of our most basic tenets of society. I will leave the religious part of this issue behind, because it is a known fact that all mainline protestant churches are declining. This tendency appears not to be just in the US, but world-wide.

I can see that there are some discriminatory practices against same sex families. There is one that I see that is grossly unfair. When a married couple faces the issue of one of the being eligible for medicaid, they can have 80K of assets and the one spouse qualifies. If a same sex couple has one partner that needs medicaid, the partner can only have 2K of assets to qualify. For two people to have built a life together, and count on each others income and merged assets, this is wrong.

As far as the argument on divorce is concerned, divorces have been granted for over 2000 years. Division of property between same sex partners gets just as ugly as a divorce from a marriage. Who gets the dog kind of thing.

I don't care if we enact legislation that gives Civil Unions the same rights and protections as married couples. I don't care if the IRS adds a or Domestic Partnership block on a 1040 form. In fact a household, no matter what mix of sexes it consists of, deserves the same tax advantages as a married household.

I just have an issue with allowing same sex people to get "married." Call it anything you want, just don't call it marriage. Protect everyone, by law, but add a new law, don't tinker with societal values. When we start tinkering around with the social threads and customs of humanity, we get in big trouble. If an institution has been around this long and has successfully guided humanity, why tinker with it. Do we have any answers that mankind didn't have 2000 years ago? I think not.  Will same sex marriage be the downfall of society, probably not.  Do we, however, want to experiment with such a fundamental part of our society, just to please 3% of the population?

I am surprised with how many people take the attitude of let everyone "do their own thing" on something as important as our social idea of the family. If we continue to condone letting everyone do their own thing, we are headed in the wrong direction, not only in American, but on the whole earth.

Islander,

We've touched on this before, but not in any great detail.  It seems that we might be having more discussions as time goes on.

I've only done a bit of research on the subject, posted some on the blog when it came up before & I'll try te recall some of the history.

Until recently, marriage has never really been defined in the manner people are attempting to do now.  It has been ACCEPTED as a natural state for many reasons.  The producing of children is just one reason, but even that had different reasons.  Gene distribution, (No, the ancients did not have the genetic info we have now.  But they did start to put 2+2 together when close relatives had sex & a problem baby arrived.) added protection for the social group, building future alliances with other social groups & the addition of wealth.  Marrying for love as the norm is a recent invention, ie, in the past 200 to 300 years.

Even in the middle ages & beyond, the Catholic church was fairly easy in their ideas of legal, church sanctified marriage, divorce & marrying out of the faith.  The questions we are facing today are just another societal/legal challenge.

By & large I'm with you.  But I don't even care if they have a ceremony & call it marriage.  After all, "A rose by any other name will smell just as sweet." 

Looking ahead, just for speculation,  let's say that society somehow, miraculously, realeases it's death grip on provincial/parochial thinking & allows same sex marriage across the board.  What will happen to the family unit?  What @ the issue of children?  How will it affect the divorce rates?  I don't know.  But here's the real kicker.  NO ONE knows, in spite of the ridiculous, unthinking statements being issed from some segments of society. That is the problem of not thinking before one speaks.  Any person with the properly working speach apparatus can make a claim.  It's darned easy.  But it is a whole 'nother issue to back up the talk when you have no evidence.  I think we all know the old saying about what happens when BS & money are involved.  One talks, the other walks.  Only problem is that there are segments of society that don't bother to ask & readily accept anything they hear.  More's the pity.  More's the problem. 

I don't have a problem with letting others do their own thing.  As long as it is not illegal, physically harmful to others or affects me adversely.  If two people can get married to each other legally, I really don't think they'll do any better or worse than what we have now.  After all, if that happens, they will have to shoulder the same responsibilities, observe the same laws that heterosexual married people do.  Not too much to ask.  JATFUR.

RichK

There has been conflict about marriage vs civil unions before the gay issue became involved in it. 

"Marriage" is a religious sacrament that is performed by Ordained Clergy, I don't know if a JP is consider ordained or not.  Notarys among others can perform a civil ceremony that society accepts as a marriage but some Churches won't.  I was married by a Pastor the first time but since my first Husband was divorced some Churches, or Pastors refused to marry us.  The second time I got married it was by a Notary who happened to be my BFF for the same reason, prior marriages. 

While stationed in New London CT I live next door to and made friends with a lady whose Husband was Catholic and she was Episcopalian. They were married in an Episcopalian Church.  Several years after having been married and having two sons she decided to convert to Catholic and this is where some of my negative feelings towards the Doctrine began. 

The Catholic Church did not recognize their marriage in any shape form or fashion because it did not take place in the Catholic Church.  The real insult was that they considered their two sons to be illegitimate. 

I say I am married, in the eyes of several doctrines though I am not, I have a civil union.  I believe since God was invited to our wedding by way of prayers and a request that our union be blessed that I have a sacrament of marriage. 

I think the term "marriage" and "civil unions"  and the conflict between the two started long ago. The gay issue just grabs more headlines. 

Do we, however, want to experiment with such a fundamental part of our society, just to please 3% of the population?

I find this to be a very iffy statement and a very slippery slope that I certainly don't want to start my toboggan down. At what % do we make laws to 'please' a certain segment of the population?

According to the 2000 US census SC has a 29.5% black population while Vermont has only a .5% black population. Should Vermont not have to comply with the same non-discrimination laws that SC does because they haven't reached the level of population required for inclusion?

The issue I see with this amendment is that there is no other thing in the Florida constitution to use. You are either married, divorced or single. But as I said earlier, one can only hope that they have shot themselves in the foot.

Here is why I say that. If the amendment passes there will be numerous law suits. My guess is that the Florida Supreme court will say it is unconstitutionally discriminatory and direct the state to fix that problem.

If it does not pass then marriage may not be defined as between one man and one woman and may therefore be open to any two people.

Mike Heemer

I have no problems with same sex marriages. If two people love and respect each other, I see no problem with them getting married and enjoying the benefits (legal/civil) of that union.

As far as the divorce rate being higher in Christians as compared to Atheists, this too doesn’t bother me.

The fact that 75% to 90% ( I can’t remember where I read this) of the population believe in some form of faith and divine power would dictate they would have a higher percentage rate in all and any statistical comparison including divorce.

I wouldn’t hold Christians or anyone else to a higher standard then myself. The fact is they are not divine entities. They are people, and I have yet to find a perfect person. All they can do is believe in their faith and try to practice it the best they can.

Unfortunately for the folks wanting same sex marriages, Christians are also voters, and as we all know the majority rules. It don’t make it right , it’s just the way it is. Also the government cannot mandate to the church, to change their religious beliefs.

I would love to see the divorce rate decline, but on the other hand I wouldn’t want anyone staying married living in their own Hellish world, just to make some stats look good.

TRUTHHURTS

Marsha,

Your story sounds typical.  My godess & I were married in '71 in a typical Catholic, Polish manner, church & all.  (Typical except for the horse drawn stagecoach.  You have to remember that this was Chicago in 1971.)  But times have changed, along with attitudes, rules & regulations, so I'm playing catch up here.  Does the church still have the same rules on divorce, marrying another faith etc.?  I haven't had the need to stay with the program.

To my understanding, if a couple go through the steps of a license & civil union, they are in fact married in the eyes of the law & need nothing else.  A church, synagogue or any other type of religious service is of no real concern to the law.  It is seen as an additional ceremony to fulfill the religious wants of the couple.  The law does not care if they are of different religious beliefs, so they don't get into that.  Is my view accurate?

I assume the same thing applies to divorce.  Once again, I'm not up to current rules & laws.

As far as same sex marriage/union goes, my views haven't changed.  I am an advocate of equal justice under law.  The hard part, as always, is getting the law.  Yes, the gay issue is grabbing more headlines, but I don't think it is for the reason of pop culture.  In my opinion, it is grabbing headlines because a group of people have come to the realization that they are not being treated with equality & in fact, are being discriminated against.  The big bug a boo is the spectre of them being the same sex.  Except for that, the same situation happened when women wanted equal rights & the vote & when blacks wanted equality.  Society fought those fights for equality with  tooth & claw.  Look how long it took for them to get equality since, "All men are created equal," was first written.  It took society a hell of a long time to change their attitudes, but it did, at least in law.  As we occasionally see, there are the rabid hold outs.

I have no doubt that this will be a total uphill battle.  I only hope that the better parts of society will win out in the cause of equality & justice.  We shall see.  JATFUR.

RichK

Mike,

Let's put your question of % another way.  At what % should a state allow blacks the right to vote?  At what % should a state allow women to vote?  Considering the problems with overpopulation, at what % should the state allow people to have children?  And how is it a question of, "Pleasing," a segment of the population?Personally, I don't see the attempt for gaining equality under the law an attempt to be pleased.  Just a thought.  JATFUR.

RichK

Doesn’t Florida already have something on the books that “protects” people from the gay population getting married?  How many laws do we need to guarantee our rights will not be trodden upon by the undesirables?  What the heck are they afraid of?  That someone will move into their neighborhood and improve it with landscape design?   

The time and energy for this amendment to be signed by enough hate mongers could have been better used for the betterment of this state – not setting it back 100 years.  It amazes me that people want to invade the lives of others and pass judgment on people who bring no harm to anyone. 

All the money and time spent on this amendment reminds me of our federal government wasting our time and tax dollars on baseball players and whether they lied about drug use.  Who cares?   

My husband and I have been together for 27 years – and have only been legally married for the last two years (by a lady in a storefront chapel in Kingsland GA).  We owned a business together, purchased a house, vehicles, and have always had joint bank accounts.  We have shared everything, but “had” to get married so we could also share his health insurance, enabling me to leave my full-time job and its health insurance plan.  A piece of paper we never needed (no children involved) to have a life together in the pursuit of happiness, but was required to be recognized by employers and insurers.  

This “Marriage Protection Act” is nothing but another potential law which advocates discrimination and hatred.  I take offense to even the idea of it, and hope the voters in this upcoming presidential election will vote a resounding NO.  Unfortunately, it seems that the majority of amendments that reach the ballot are always approved by the voters.  And then, if the powers that be don’t approve, (fast rail for example), they put it back on the ballot, spend tons of money to tell voters why they shouldn’t have voted for it in the first place, and it gets overturned!  Amazing.  

Thanks,
JudyB

That "All men are created equal" thing, totally leaves women out of the picture, but then again that could have been left out because even then they knew women were superior. They just couldn't bring their little testosterone toting selves to admit it. 

It's too beautiful of a day to not laugh, even if you're like me outside doing chores in it. 

RichK;

You are exactly correct. That was my point and you made it a lot clearer in a lot less words. Thanks.

If you discriminate against 1 or 1000 it is discrimination no matter which segment of the population it concerns.

If they ever start discriminating against bastard children I'm screwed.

JudyB;

You too have a way with words and I liked it. 

Mike Heemer

Marsha,

As I sit here, typing with an unknown amount of testosterone coursing through my body, never really knowing if enough is getting to my brain, I am in agreement with your sentiment.  I've said it before on the blog, way, way back when.  But those were the times & even now, we sometimes slip into a verbal faux pas.

But that's why we have you here, to straighten us out & keep us on an even, honest, yet smiling keel.

I'm sure that somewhere, there is a book on the history of marriage.  I've found statements in various books, but nothing detailed.  When I'm finished with the books I'm reading now I just may have to google a bit & find out.

Kids, enjoy this chamber of commerce weather.  I love having the doors & windows open, sun coming in, a gentle breeze.  The only thing that would make it better would be if the CUBS were on TV....& winning. May the force be with you all.  JATFUR.

RichK

PS.  Just an observation & I could be wrong.  Judging by the blogs & replies, it seems that I'm not the only one who should be considered a liberal thinker.  Just a little snack for thought.

RK 

I always thought I was a liberal, but I guess not.  Someone suggested checking out the history of marriage.  It was a great suggestion.  From what I read, many marriages are in fact civil unions.  Maybe not legally, but practically, they are.  If you are not married in a church by a religious authority, you have a civil union.  I do and I said before, that I think all the rights of a marriage should be granted even to same sex relationships under the law if they desire to be so joined.  To deny anyone the rights enjoyed by everyone else in the same situation is wrong.  I also still believe that a traditional marriage is between a man and a woman performed in a church.  A civil union should be just as valid as a marriage in the eyes of the law.  So, I have updated my ideas.  So, if I hang on to the traditional definition of marriage as a man and a woman, I guess I lose my liberal status. Geez, I guess I may have to vote for McCain - not!  Well, maybe, after all he is a closet liberal, so I may consider being a closet liberal myself.  

Why in the world would anyone see this as a positive thing? Getting rid of the ability for people to divorce is sickening. What are the women or men supposed to do if they are in an abusive marriage? What are the couples supposed to do if they fall out of love with each other? This is really toeing the line right here and whoever thought this was a good idea deserves to be dropped onto a bed of nails because it is outrageous. The church is really not making themselves look good at all if they're trying to pull this kind of stunt. The church is really full of itself if they think they can try and deny people the right to divorce. We are not automatons that you can just order around as you please. We are not your property and you certainly have no business trying to decide what is and isn't good for us. Stay out of people's lives and stop trying to deny people their basic rights to choose to live how they desire. Whether, it's abortions, same sex marriages, or yes, even divorce, BUTT OUT. You have no right to try and monopolize everything that quite honestly, is none of your business and isn't hurting you personally. 

Truth;

I see one major flaw in your perspective on majority rule. Though the majority may pass a law in the voting booth it does NOT mean it is written in stone and never to be changed or rejected.

I'll state a very simple example based on your statistics. As Christians are the majority, why can't they pass a law that says that Christianity is the official religion of this country and that all other denominations are to be outlawed? Pretty simple answer right?

The reason is that we have a Supreme Court to determine if a law can stand the test of constitutionality. If we were to stick to your philosophy of the majority rules we would still have a lot of laws that just did not meet that standard.

The only way that these bad (unconstitutional) laws can get changed is by protest and law suits. That to me is one of the reasons for the law of assembly. 

Mike Heemer

Truth:

 I disagree with your statement about "having to live with it" because it's not true. We don't have to live with anything we don't like. We can rise up and fight for what's right instead of sitting around doing absolutely nothing. If everyone just "lived with it" then growth wouldn't happen and wouldn't be possible. We can change things if we make our voices heard. We've done it in the past and we can still do it now. 

You are correct - we don't have to live with anything that is not right (except apparently the current administration).  Our entire history is of rising up against the wrongful doings of government, churches, etc.

I also agree with your statement re: churches (and I add goverment) staying out of people's private lives (if they are doing no harm to others).  Many divorces are simply the result of bad judgement to begin with, or people growing and changing and it's really not the business of churches to become involved (unless it's a positive note), nor is it anyone else's except the families.  Abuse is another matter and the abusers should dealt with by the law. 

Anyone who cares enough about their partner, male, female, trans or bi, to make a commitment to each other, should have the right - the human right - to legalize their relationship so they have equal right under the law just like "one man and one woman".  (Why does that expression annoy me so?). 

Thanks,
JudyB

I don’t think anyone would argue the fact that this country was founded on Christian beliefs. It’s laws, customs, traditions, are all based on Christian beliefs.

We live in a country where we go to the polls and vote to decide the direction we want our country to go in and the laws we want enacted. We live in a country where the majority rules.

Do we have to “like” the outcome of the process? No. Do we have the right to speak out against wrong doing or things we believe to be unfair in a “mature & peaceful “ way? Yes.

This is our system, this is our government, whether we like it or not whether it’s right or it’s wrong, the majority rules. We don’t have to like it, but we do have to live with it.

Oh we can scream, protest, file law suits, call each other names, but at the end of the day it boils down to the rule of law and that person inside the voting booth.

Is the outcome always fair? No, but we still have to live with it. For me anyway, my thoughts are we win some, we loose some. When all is said and done I still love my country and wouldn’t live anywhere else. God Bless America.

Thats just my opinion I could be wrong.

United States, 2001

The entire problem can be resolved with the usage of one book.  Now the first stone should be cast at me, but the reason the divorce rate is high among christians is because the biblical standards in regards to marriage are not being followed.  Christians who have been divorced have committed the same sin as homosexuality according to the bible.  To me any type of marriage should not be controlled by the government, this way anyone who wishes to wed anyone can do so.  I am a single sinner and i am 100% against gay marriage, but while this may not be my lifestyle it is also not my decision to live so, even God dosen't toy with free will.  And while non of this bible talk will change anything for our ignorant society, i'll at least be voting yes for the sanctity of marriage on the ballot.   

Yes simple question with a simple answer the law cannot tell someome they can't practice their religion, it's not constitional.

Supreme Court Justices and Judges are appointed or elected. At some point down the line they did have some form of constituency that placed them there, my guess would be that the majority of that constituency is Christian based. 

Now we all know Judges are suposed to be impartial and make decisions based on the letter of the law. But they are human, and I would guess the majority are practicing Christians.

Now don't everyone jump off the deep end here and think I am saying all the Judges are currupt or biased, I am just pointing out there is still a Christian flavor to it. 

My comments I believe were not intended to have folks not fight the good fight that they believe in, by all means do. If that is what folks are getting from what I said My apologies for my poor self expression. 

I believe you must always fight for what you believe in. The fact is until you stand up and change it, you will live with it.

Just for the record I am not against same sex marriage.

 TRUTHHURTS

Let's get the biblical references straight......God hates divorce. Homosexuality is an abomination.

abomination: The feeling of extreme disgust and hatred; abhorrence; detestation; loathing;

hate: is an emotion of intense revulsion, distaste, or antipathy for a person or thing, generally attributed to a desire to avoid, restrict, remove, or destroy the hated object.

Hum, sounds about equal to me. Just remember, God hates the sin, but loves the sinner. These two definitions sounds about the same to me. I guess God is none to happy with many of us. But should man denigrate something that God has planned (marriage between and man and a woman) for us simply because modern society dictates that something that has been wrong for millinea is suddenly right?  Has man reinterpreted the original word?

I won't go there.

All sins are the same in the eyes of God was the point i was trying to clear.  I apologize fo being stupid but could you clarify your last paragraph, islander.

Foxx:

Reading your post has made a question pop into my mind. Do the religious hate the idea of gay marriage simply because the bible tells them it is wrong? This seems to be the backing for most opinions among the religious as to why anything in the world is wrong or an abomination, simply because the bible says so. I think that it is foolish for people to allow their opinions as well as faith to lay on a book that for all you know is really just a book of stories and nothing more. Why don't these people think outside the box a little to try and find more viable opinions for why they have such disgustingly backwards thinking? Instead of relying on what is told to them, why don't they think for themselves? If they tried then they might see how ridiculous they've been. We weren't meant to be ruled by what's in the bible, if we were then we'd still be in the dark ages. The world is a constantly changing and evolving place. People that are against gay marriage or divorce are the reason why we can't move forward towards a better tomorrow at a smoother and faster pace. 

I won't go into detail, and I understand your feelings, but some of the things you stated were not called for. Thats just my simple opinion.

TRUTHHURTS

Truth:

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not going to sugar coat my opinions on the matter. I'm going to state my feelings exactly as they are and I'm not apologizing for any of it. 

I was raised a Roman Catholic, and I am not against same sex marriage.

I also believe that Christians have the same right to believe, as others have to disbelieve, it's a personal choice we all have. They also have the right to vote for what they believe in.

I would also pose the question, if you took those same remarks and molded them lets say to polk anger at another group say African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, Gays, do you think you would get a large negitive response??? I think you would.

It seems to me like it's ok to blame Christians for whatever these days. It's ok to call them names and put down what they believe in, try doing that with another group and you better duck because there will be a lot of stuff flying.

Thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.

TRUTHHURTS

Your opinion counts bo, you are neither right or wrong.  i have no idea what your faith stands for, but mine relies on a book that if followed would solve many problems at the current stage in humanity, maybe you should read the bible some, you might find that it's more than just an old self help book.  it's not about the bible being right or wrong, it's about faith in believing.

Foxx:

What I believe in is that individuals should have the right to make choices for themselves without having to worry about people questioning their moral fiber and telling them what they should do. And I do not read the bible, because quite frankly,  I don't think it would change my mind on the matter.

You say it would not change your mind on the matter, but yet you want others like yourself to think outside of the box.  The bible would not box a person like yourself into a corner, no offense intended, it would only serve to inhance your current opinions or prove your own points, it's all about what you gather and what you put your faith into.  I don't just read the bible as a primary source information, iam sure to examine all possible information on a certain subject before i formulate an ideaology.  Information suchas the bible is there for you and for help in formulating opinions, if you think reading something that would shed light on your opinions is a waste of time, then you will waste your entire life inside the box.

Truth,

Your comments on Christian beliefs & majority rule leads me to think that you have either not read previous blogs & replies on these subjects or have chosen to reject them regardless of the factual nature contained in the explanation.

RichK

I can't get into your mind to determine what leads you where, nor will I try. I am not here to figure out what makes anyone tick.

I have read all the postings on this thread, and believe my opinions that I have added flow with what is being discussed.

My opinions may be quite different from others, but thats ok. Thats what makes the world go around. I still have the right to voice them, and I still have the right to believe in them.

I also noticed the enuendo of your last remarks, that imply ignorance, and uninformed. Thats ok too, I expected that.

The fact is I am not here to change anyones mind on a topic that I may disagree with, nor am I offended if they don't agree with my opinion.

Just because my opinion is different then yours and I view a topic from the other side of the fence does not make it wrong or inaccurate it just makes it different. After all isn't this a main point in the whole discussion?? the rights of individuals, beliefs, and thoughts. I too expect nothing less then the same rights as any other.

Thats just my opinion I could be wrong.

TRUTHHURTS

Truth,

There is nothing wrong in being different or having an opinion different than others.  The point in both cases is that when an opinion is offered, regardless of the subject, it should be based on something substantial if the person offering that opinion wishes to be taken seriously & given the full weight of respect from others.

In some cases, being ignorant or uninformed is not the kiss of death.  It does, however lead up to the kiss when the means for obtaining the information upon which an opinion is offered exists, but is not used.  We are all ignorant on any # of subjects for a variety of reasons, most ligitimate.  But when one expounds on a subject without at least the appearance of judicious thinking &/or having done some research, one has to be prepared for that opinion to be received with less than total respect. 

There is a vast difference between a person getting respect for their opinion and merely receiving respect for having a right to an opinion. JATFUR.

RichK 

I believe what I offered was substanial and posed some very ligitimate thoughts to ponder. Whether anyone agrees with that or not is totaly subjective and is thier opinion.

Once again your comments are full of enuendo

I am aware of the tactics being used when someone disagrees with your point of view, to redirect, answer questions with a question, attack the credability of the persons inteligence with enuendo. But thats ok too it's just who you are and how you operate, no worries here.

Thanks for your opinions, see at the voting booths.

TRUTHHURTS

Truth,

On opinions, I offered mine without innuendo or bias.  Of course, you have the right to accept it at that or not.  Choice is yours.  If you wish to ascribe any other motives or behavior to me, that is your right also.  If nothing else, by your comments you have lent credence to what I have said & I thank you.

RichK

I believe you like to argue just for the sake of argueing you are way to funny and predictable. I am tired of this silliness..

God Bless you solo I will pray for you.

Thanks for trying, I am not buying.

TRUTHHURTS

This blog sort of segued to a slightly different direction than I had intended but that is OK.

I have read the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 twice and from Matthew 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 a third time. All using 'The New Scofield Reference Bible' so that I could follow the cross references and annotations.

It is a great book with lots of life lessons. I don't espouse to the idea that it is the all encompassing 'Word of God'. Men wrote it and that makes it suspect and open to many interpretations. I do not have a photographic memory nor do I have some great insight into exactly what it all means so I won't even attempt to quote scripture.

I will say however, that this probably at least semi qualifies me as having expanded my box. Actually it may over qualify me. I would venture a small sum of my shekels that the average or above average 'Christian' has yet to read it or even most of it once.

The problem here is that in spite of all the how righteous I am, founded on Christian principles and faith speak, the fact is that most 'Christians' only know what any particular thing or idea the Bible says or relays because someone else told them that this is what it said. And when it said that, this is what it meant.

Many are very good at quoting a particular passage to add weight to their stand based on something someone said sometime when they were awake in church. Very few can actually go to the Bible and research an idea and take it to a logical conclusion unless their particular preacher agrees that this is what they should believe.

What the Bible has to say about marriage specifically really doesn't matter. The fact is that this is a secular decision. If the government is going to offer any special perks to those that meet the church's idea of marriage then it must offer those perks to all citizens.

The church should NOT be able to dictate that we can only offer them to people that meet their definition of marriage.

It has nothing to do with whether someone has or has not read the Bible. Believes or disbelieves in a single God, multiple Gods or no God at all. It has to do with equal treatment for all under the law of man.  

Mike Heemer

Mike

I don't disagree with your comments at all.

The only thing I was trying to point out is the magnitude of the struggle on this issue.

The fact that the large maojority of our population is Christian based voters, is what makes this struggle monumental, in my opinion.

As I have stated more then once, I am not opposed to same sex marriage.

But my observations of this stuggle and the statements regarding the majority of voters being Christian based I believe, does have merit in this dicussion.

I believe if the majority of the voters in this country were Atheists, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. 

Thats just my opinion I could be wrong.

TRUTHHURTS

The only thing I was trying to point out is the magnitude of the struggle on this issue.

Therein lays the problem. This should not be a struggle at all. The church shouldn't be in this one at all.

If they would spend this much time, energy and money on feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and assisting the poor they would really be accomplishing something. Instead, they will spend their parishioner's donations on multi-million dollar buildings and show them off as great accomplishments. I just don't think this is the purpose the tithe was meant for.

If they had been half as diligent about what some of their so called church leaders were up to we would not have had so much abuse going on.

This is an area that they don't need to be in. The problem is that this really isn't about gay marriage. It is about power and domination and who is on which end of that stick.

The truly sad part is that too many people that profess to be Christians can't or won't see that. They consistently listen to the dogma of their particular church or preacher and march to the beat of someone else's drum instead of doing their own research.

Mike Heemer

Mike,

Well said.  I think you should change your user name to "Heemer, The HAMMER."  Way to drive the good point home. 

A few replies back, I tried to recall some of the things I read @ marriage.  It wasn't until your reply just now that my memory was jogged.  The definition of secular is fairly simple in that a god or gods is not a consideration.  But to many people, it has come to mean more having to do with the state.  One of the things I now remember reading is that not only was the church not involved, for the most part, neither was the state, such as it was.  It was primarily a private decision between the two parties.  In many cases, the prospective bride & groom didn't have any say in it, ie., the arranged marriage.  It still goes on to this day in some cultures.  I like the way my godess & I did it better.  JATFUR.

RichK

Mike

It still does not negate that fact that these people are all voters and are going to vote for what they believe in. I am not saying it's right, I am saying thats the way it is. Until the laws are changed thats the way it will be. Should folks fight the good fight for what they believe in, yes.

I am not argueing the point of whether it's right or wrong, I am pointing out what I believe is the reason it is the way it is. Nothing more, nothing less.

TRUTHHURTS

I'll buy that. Things like this put me in a 10 foot hover real quickly.

My issue is not the Christian voters per se. It is the herd mentality that makes my teeth grind. Is this ever going to change? Probably not, but I don't have to like it or stop railing against it.

Just because some preacher stands up before a 5000 member church and says that X is wrong does not make it so. Too many follow like sheep thinking because they listened to the leader that they are doing a good thing. That is, until they figure out that they were the sacrificial lambs.

God gave men and women a mind. I just like to see them use it to make their own informed decisions. But as I said earlier, maybe this time they have shot themselves in the foot. One can only hope.  

Mike Heemer

Mr. Mike 

I don't disagree Mr. Mike, and I too have wondered where we are going and whats the answer. I don't know the answer, I am not that smart, but I am not so ignorant either.

I believe all things will change, it's one of the only true constants we can count on in this world. it's just that in some arenas, change moves slower. 

TRUTHHURTS

I have a sincere doubt that all of the voters vote for certain things because it's what they believe. I think some them just go with the flow because that's what everyone else is doing. Or they vote the way they do because if they vote yes on something controversial, they don't want people to do look down upon them or chastise them for the way they voted. People should vote for what they believe in and not what the majority thinks is right. Vote for what you believe is right and if people disagree then that's their problem, not yours.

Same sex relationships/marriages are disgusting and unnatural.  This isn't a political issue or a religious issue.  These relationship are just flat wrong and absolutly should not be recognized by anyone let alone any government.  Next thing you know, people will want to marry their Pig, Cow or pet Dog or cat just to get a benefit.  We must STOP GAY MARRIAGE NOW. 

Make it a great day!

Steven P Munsey A+, MCP, IASO Orange Park | Green Cove Springs munsey13@comcast.net

Steve;

Where have you been? I figured you for an early contributer. Glad to see you could make it. 

I don't happen to agree with everything you said but then, I seldom do.

It has been a great day. Played 18 this morning and if it doesn't rain too early will do it again tomorrow.

Mike Heemer

Mike,

Latest forecast is that the rain should start in our area in the 1500 to 1600 timeframe.  Good luck.

RichK

Smuncey,

Yea verily, I say unto thee:

Treat your fellow man the way you would want him to treat you.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Those among you who have not sinned, let them cast the first stone.

He made man in his own image.

Some like stripes.  Some like plaid.  Some like solids.

Some say tomato.  Some say tomahto.

Some like instant replay.  Some don't.

Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

Who the heck am I to judge someone else?

Anybody starting to see a pattern here?

Thus endeth the lesson.  Now I'll wait for the obvious replies from other verses accompanied by the very real possibility of condemnation.  Then I'll wait to see how long it will take to sink in that there is an inherent problem with quoting from that particular book.  It's got a lot of good things in it.  It also has a lot of bad things in it.  It's also like what people say @ statistics.  That alone shows it is not definitive.  JATFUR.

RichK

PS.  I'll assume that many out there can probably quote chapter & verse & there's nothing wrong with that.  But how many know how the Bible came to be?  Who wrote it?  When did it begin as a written story?  Later, kids.  You've got work to do.

RK

This is a great thread.  Finally, one not about Clay county and our politics!  I say AMEN!

PS- I believe the Bible to be the word of God as translated by man.  I do NOT believe it to be the literal word of God, if so, why are there so many versions?  The King James while the most accepted version is not, according to scholars the most accurate version.  I know that will sit a lot of people on their ears....but so.....

Marriage is between a man and a woman,  Period.  While I am not against civil unions, domestic partnerships, or whatever you call it, please don't call it marriage.  It denigrates those of us who honor our wives or husbands.  Should we discriminate against those who enter into a non-traditional union, of course not.  Just don't try to rub my nose in your ideas of what a neo-traditional marriage is. 

I believe in freewill, and while most Christians say they believe in it, they really don't.  If someone sins, the sin is between them and their maker, not society.  I will be called personally to answer for my life, not the lives of others.  Therefore, let them do what they shall do.  Mankind's folly.

On the island.....I remain. 

Islander,

If one person honors another, regardless of gender, in a commited relationship by whatever name, exactly how does that denigrate the honor you & your wife have shown each other?

RichK