Friday, March 6, 2009

These are two opinions of people who emailed me their opinions:  (I kept them anonymous to prevent bias)

"I thought you would find this link helpful.  BTW, homosexuality is very harmful to a society- just look at Sodom and Gomorrah.  And it might be good to go back and read Romans 1:18-32.  God's judgement  is that people are given over to the degredation of their bodies.  It's a scary place to sit back and do nothing to stand for righteousness when others are under such a serious judgement from a loving Lord.  It's harmful to all of us when we are worshipping created things rather than our Creator.  Some people would want to worship freedom or happiness as the ultimate cause but again, that would be a created thing that becomes perverted when it becomes our goal.   
http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm"

and

"Just an FYI
No where in the constitution does it state "separation of church and state"  this statement was made in a private letter sent from T. Jefferson and has been widely used out of context thanks to our liberal media.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is not in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.

The argument that being in a homosexual relationship is not hurting anyone but the people involved is a farce.  If they  truly understood the homosexual community, their roots and their agenda they would understand that there is much more to this than homosexuals being allowed to join in marriage.  I do not recommend researching this yourself as it is a very dark and disgusting world."



I hope you find this helpful.

mikey

3 comments:

smurferboy said...

Why is it a farce? Your post says that it is, and claims to "truly understand the homosexual community". Ok, what are we missing? What is it about? Granted, homosexuality is a sin. But does the Constitution give us grounds to deny homosexuals the right to marriage? I feel like I am still being misinterpreted. I am all for doing everything that can be done to show homosexuals the error of their ways. But outlawing homosexual marriage seems to be unconstitutional. Can anyone show me anything to the contrary?

Ashley Elisabeth said...

Okay, here's what I think the problem is here.

We are operating from different bases. You are arguing from a view that is filtered through purely religious views. Not everyone believes in a God and therefore, not everyone is going to be motivated by the whole "God will smite us if we allow homosexual marriage" thing.

Okay here's a source for you to check out: http://media.www.mainecampus.com/media/storage/paper322/news/2008/03/27/SoapBox/Gay-Marriage.Is.Required.By.The.Bible.And.The.Constitution-3286055.shtml

Here are some of the main important points:

"The primary argument against gay marriage is that it's seen as an abomination under Christian doctrine. Indeed, there are several passages in the Bible that make this point, the most prominent being Leviticus 18:22 which states:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

It's kind of hard to avoid the clarity of such a statement. Reinforcing this view are passages from Genesis, Romans and Deuteronomy, but can these passages establish a legal precedent in the United States? The answer is no. Homosexuals have a constitutional right to marriage"

The author goes on to explain Jefferson, the 1st amendment and the separation of church and state.

"in justifying the legality of gay marriage, one must first define marriage as a state function and not a religious one. It can be argued that marriage is a state function because it has the power to modify other state functions such as Social Security and tax filing status. Because marriage affects state functions, constitutionally, it too must be a state function for it to legally do so. If not, the government is violating Article Six and is actively discriminating against unmarried citizens. If marriage is a state function, then it's protected under various civil rights laws."

The church doesn't have to recognize the legality of it, much less endorse it, but it will exist nevertheless.

According to Matthew 22:21 [Jesus] said:

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

Jesus himself advocated keeping religion out of the law.

"Romans 13:1, says:

'Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. If the law of the land is that everyone must pay war taxes then that is what we must do. It is the law!'

The legality of gay marriage is incontrovertible when these passages and precedents are taken into account. Romans 13:1 goes on to say that those who believe a law is wrong should work within the system to change it. Simply denying homosexuals the right to marry on the basis of religion is illegal. According to Christ, it is also against Christian pathology."

So there you go...

this is a much more eloquent and better reinforced rendition of what I meant.

Murf said...

Aaron: Your approach to the constitution if one takes it to its logical end, implies that, whatever is acceptable at the moment, if not specifically prohibited by the Constituion, is therefore constitutional. This is opening up a veritable Pandora's box of difficulties. If society decides that beastiality is okay, is it therefore constitutional? Incest? The constitution does not prevent any of these practices.