A Danger to the Constitution (moral, Earth, birth control, minority)

[Feathers in Hair]

Great point, sankazhria16, and well put.

And as for 'not hating anyone, just sinful acts', why hate anything? Hate cannot change the world one iota for the better, and merely causes more grief. If nothing else for the person doing the hating, since they're being the conduit of such negativity.

Love (among other things, but this is the only thing applicable to this situation) is the thing that can change the world for the better. Yes, I've heard the reply 'I love the sinner, but not the sinful act' a dozen times, but that tiresomely always leads back to the 'hate' factor. Is anyone asking you to love the 'sinful act'? Since (in the Christian theology) everyone is a sinner, this would mean everyone hating everyone else for their sinful acts.

And I don't think that was what Jesus had in mind. I think he was rather more keen on the 'love' idea.

[Melody]

<<Wrong again. God has not, nor ever will be proven to exist>>

Really? And you offer what proof that God "will never" be proven to exist? The most that can be said is that God does or doesn't exist and you choose to believe the latter. There is no more proof of God's existence than there is of His lack of existence.

Melody

[Melody]

>>Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; >>

If you think homosexuality is wrong, ask yourself "why." The overwhelming number of people who object to gay marriage cite the Bible as their evidence for why it should be condemned. That makes your objections "religious" objections...and has no place in our constitution.

Christians should think past their knee jerk reaction of trying to legalize their beliefs, because it could just as easily go the other way in the future since Christians are in the minority. For example, do you really want someone to make it a law banning the Bible because it promotes intolerance (in their view)? I don't.

In Pres. Bush's speech on making an amendment banning gay marriage, he says, "America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities."

It absolutely is a contradiction. Nowhere in the constitution does it define what marriage is. To create an amendment that would so obviously define marriage based on religious beliefs goes against the "separation of church and state."

Melody

[true blood]

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. If gays want to have some type of special union, between themselves, they are going about it all wrong. They need to create some other type of union besides "marriage". As I see it, this amendment to the constitution, will "preserve" the traditional marriage that is for a union between a man and a woman.

[Melody]

<<Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.>>

I'm sorry, I must've missed it. Where exactly is this definition to be found? Traditionally, this may be so, but there was a time when it was traditional to sacrifice children on an altar, to own slaves, etc. Nowhere do I find a legal definition of marriage. Please educate me.

Melody

[painted wolf]

in my tradition (native american) it was common for gays to marry... so long as you could provide for one another you could get married.

for any tradition you can come up with I can find an opposite that is also very traditional.

My tradition is just as 'American' (if not more so) than any other and just as valid, the law provides it so that I have the right to live my traditions just as you can yours.

That is the definition of a free country.

wa:do

[Melody]

<<in my tradition (native american) it was common for gays to marry... so long as you could provide for one another you could get married.>>

While it was common for gays to marry, was it common for two "warriors" to marry or did one partner take the female role...having to dress like the female, etc. Pardon my ignorance, but I thought I saw or read this somewhere but didn't know if it was fact or someone's interpretation.

Thanks.

Melody

[painted wolf]

that depended on the tribe and thier particular tradition.

yes in some tribes one partner was more the 'man' role and the other more the 'woman' role for simple logistics... Someone had to take care of the lodge and its posessions.

as far as having to dress like a woman, I think that may have been the tradition of at least one tribe but certenly not all. There is a lot of variation of culture and tradition among the 300+ tribes here in the US/Canada.

hope this helps

wa:do

[true blood]

Originally Posted by Melody

<<Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.>>

I'm sorry, I must've missed it. Where exactly is this definition to be found? Traditionally, this may be so, but there was a time when it was traditional to sacrifice children on an altar, to own slaves, etc. Nowhere do I find a legal definition of marriage. Please educate me.

Melody

Some "legal" definitions I've found. A legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. a King and a Queen of the same suit. See common marriage, royal marriage. The union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life A set of cultural rules for bringing men and women together to create a family unit and for defining their behavior toward one another, their children, and society a civil contract between a man and woman. A man and woman legally living together as husband and wife. etc..

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by true blood

Some "legal" definitions I've found. A legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. a King and a Queen of the same suit. See common marriage, royal marriage. The union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life A set of cultural rules for bringing men and women together to create a family unit and for defining their behavior toward one another, their children, and society a civil contract between a man and woman. A man and woman legally living together as husband and wife. etc..

The motive behind many of the types of marriages was to protect the male interest in property and family conrol. Most royal marriages of a male to the Queen did not confer the title king to the male so the crown passed to her eldest son. Homosexual; marriages, recognized by the Church, were more of a "blessing" and surprisedly much the same as heterosexual marriages (i.e., no sacrement involved). We know that biblical tradition did not entirely support the exclusivity you would like to include in your modern definition. Nor does the modern family comprise a clear majority (about 50%, I believe) of one man, one woman. There are many single parent families, homosexual families, families headed by relatives (the older sibling, the grandparent, the aunt or uncle) and even families created around the commune concept.

You have a long way to go to define traditional families that meets all these structures.

-pah-