Several times over the weekend I heard an advertisement on WDAF 106.5 that outraged me. The 'gist' of the ad was God Bless President Bush for all he has done, but too bad he can't get the Constitution ammended to say marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The ad went on to say 'But for all you Brokeback Mountainers out there, this song is for you' and they played 'Gay' from Stephen Lynch's A Little Bit Special album. Clip here http://tinyurl.com/h587c song 21. I don't agree with this at all, Bush hasn't done anything for the 'Average Joe' American, unless you count soaring gasoline prices and war. And secondly I believe that people who love each other should have the same right to marry as every other 'normal' American out there. Wake up, people! What a 'civilized' country we are when we think we are empowered to take certain rights from certain people just because of who they are. This is exactly like segregation in the south. Yes they are gay, but at the same time, they are people too. I'm sure none of you would compare yourselves to racists, but then why is it OK to be 'racist' against gays? We all need to realize that it is the same thing.

On 2006-06-05 11:55:30, Lewis Oldham said:

Several times over the weekend I heard an advertisement on WDAF 106.5 that outraged me. The 'gist' of the ad was God Bless President Bush for all he has done, but too bad he can't get the Constitution ammended to say marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The ad went on to say 'But for all you Brokeback Mountainers out there, this song is for you' and they played 'Gay' from Stephen Lynch's A Little Bit Special album. Clip here http://tinyurl.com/h587c song 21. I don't agree with this at all, Bush hasn't done anything for the 'Average Joe' American, unless you count soaring gasoline prices and war. And secondly I believe that people who love each other should have the same right to marry as every other 'normal' American out there. Wake up, people! What a 'civilized' country we are when we think we are empowered to take certain rights from certain people just because of who they are. This is exactly like segregation in the south. Yes they are gay, but at the same time, they are people too. I'm sure none of you would compare yourselves to racists, but then why is it OK to be 'racist' against gays? We all need to realize that it is the same thing.

Well he did add more money to your IRS refund check with his tax breaks.

I agree with equality and being humane. Racist are pretty much selfish. But what is next? People love their pets. Should they be able to marry them? People love food. People love money. Why not marry a man a woman and another woman and a dog? It will continue forever. You can't please everyone all of the time, correct? I think people have really lost touch with the whole meaning of marriage anyway. Marriage is supposed to be a union of man and wife with God. I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure our ancestors were not just women and/or men, to procreate they had to be male and female. Not to many gay dinosaurs. If gay is the way our humanity will go extinct. Maybe that is what happened to the dinosaurs after-all.

Primely yours, HUMAN

i agree with HUMAN.

it ultimately comes down to who decides right and wrong. If you believe it's up to any individual human to decide right and wrong, then you can't even say that Osama Bin Ladin, Hitler, or anyone else is "wrong". What a mess this world would be if right and wrong were all relative.

If however, you believe that God determines right and wrong, then it's not up to any of us. I choose to believe Him and His standards as spelled out in the Bible. If he says sex between unmarried or same-sex people is perversion, then so be it. He knows much better than any of us how this world ought to be run. Instead of seeking acceptance for their sin, they should seek deliverance. Just like alcoholics or pornography addicts should. Deliverance is there for those who seek after God's way.

And God bless President Bush for having the guts to say such unpopular things... because right is not always popular.

What ever happened to separation of church and state? It isn't a suggestion, it's a cornerstone of our country's founding. Religion does not determine law, and law does not determine religion.

Marriage by the state and marriage by the church are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, and should be treated as such. Some people may not believe that married gays make it to Heaven, or whatever, but that still doesn't change the fact that they're two consenting adults who have made a conscious choice to stay together, cohabitate, share expenses and legal duties, and the state should treat them as such.

As for "agreed", how did sex come into play here? Nobody mentioned anything about it, except for "procreation", which was brought up to mention that gays have a MUCH tougher time doing so. Christianity, perhaps surprisingly enough to you, is not the only religion in the world. In fact, it isn't even the majority rule, and is only twice the size of the agnostic/atheist believers. So, why should Christian ideals run a country? Newsflash, they shouldn't!

Take a quick look around. Search for definitions of 'marriage'. In my experiment, a few Google searches showed the definition to include things like:
* the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"
* two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"
* the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
* a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"

Further searching shows a few quotes which begin to talk about man and woman, all using qualifiers such as 'typically' or 'usually'. I encourage you to do this search. Don't go find a single site that has a definition to your liking. Do a generic search, and find out what the public at large feels. However, do note that I am only discussing marriages at a legal level. Several definitions which will appear talk about marriage under God, between a man and woman only. This is fine, and a personal belief that one must marry the opposite sex to be accepted by God.

However, to force the beliefs of the some onto the lives of the many isn't fair. In fact, it isn't even governing. It's dictatorship. The government is to provide safety and laws for the good of the public, which includes more than Christians and their hetersexual-marriage comfort bubble.

In reply to insta,

Again, I come back to the same question that you didn’t answer at all before: who decides what’s right and what’s wrong?

You wrote: “What ever happened to separation of church and state? It isn't a suggestion, it's a cornerstone of our country's founding.”

As for our country’s founding, there’s no chance at all that marriage between homosexuals was part of our founding fathers’ plan. “Separation of church and state” was never part of their plan either. “The phrase ‘separation of church and state’ does not appear in the Constitution…” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state). The closest thing to it is The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

But even if it were, who’s to say their opinion is any better than mine? They’re just mortal men just like you and me. You seem to have zero tolerance for those who believe that God’s ways should govern, but you give no basis for why your opinion should hold any more weight than anyone else’s.

You wrote: “In fact, [Christianity] isn't even the majority rule, and is only twice the size of the agnostic/atheist believers. So, why should Christian ideals run a country? Newsflash, they shouldn't!”

Now you appeal to which side has more people to back it up. Again, a weak argument. There are many more Christians than atheists, but do numbers make something right or wrong? If they do, then that means that genocide or any other “evil” thing is okay as long as enough people think so. A pretty shaky foundation for building morals.

You appeal to the dictionary for a definition of marriage. Should a dictionary definition determine right from wrong? It was only written by people, you know.

Ultimately, without God, you have no basis for declaring anything objectively right or wrong. Every single thing you say about how the government should be run or about who lives or dies or about whether there is any meaning to life at all… just a matter of one man’s opinion.

Do you disagree? If so, please explain.

What is the problem with using the dictionary as a source?

"You appeal to the dictionary for a definition of marriage. Should a dictionary definition determine right from wrong? It was only written by people, you know."

What's that other book that is consulted as 'law'? Oh that's right, the Bible. That too was written by man. You should keep that in mind while you are being 'holier than thou'.

On 2006-06-27 08:49:20, Jeffrey Owens said:

What is the problem with using the dictionary as a source?

"You appeal to the dictionary for a definition of marriage. Should a dictionary definition determine right from wrong? It was only written by people, you know."

What's that other book that is consulted as 'law'? Oh that's right, the Bible. That too was written by man. You should keep that in mind while you are being 'holier than thou'.

There is of course nothing wrong with a dictionary. I'm just saying it is not an authoritative source for determining moral values. It was never intended by anyone to be such. The difference lies in the claim. You may disagree, but i believe the Bible to be inspired by God. I don't expect you to agree with that because you likely don't believe God exists.

But... I didn't bring up the Bible. That's another subject altogether.

The question i asked (three times now) is still unanswered: According to those who say there is no God (or who want to push that agenda on government), who determines what's right and what's wrong?

"Now you appeal to which side has more people to back it up. Again, a weak argument. There are many more Christians than atheists, but do numbers make something right or wrong? If they do, then that means that genocide or any other “evil” thing is okay as long as enough people think so. A pretty shaky foundation for building morals."

But the difference is that enough people don't think it isn't correct. And, the cross section of those people is more than just Christianity. There are always people who agree and disagree about nearly anything. Take vegetarianism for instance. You probably believe that man, being somewhat of 'king' of the Earth, has dominance over the animals. Most people on the globe believe this as well, which is why they eat meat. A few people don't believe people should eat meat. Lobbies have been lobbed, and speeches speeched, to ban the consumption of meat. However, none of this comes to fruition because the "greater good" is not for one group, it's for the public as a whole, which excludes minority rule.

Another example is slavery, dating back thousands of years BC. While commonplace then, the idea is barbaric to the public now. Times change, people change, and an act spoken of in the Bible like it's nothing, is now banned by law because the majority rule think it's unacceptable. Take a look at some of the things said at http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm , especially the Topics Covered section at the bottom.

So far, I have provided two examples of where the general public shuns the ideas of a "radical" few, or outgrowing past ideals because they now know better. With that in mind, lets move on to the topic of gay marriages. As I have said before, I expect the state to recognize marriage as the union between two consenting adults. The couple's church is welcome to sort out the rest of the moral and ethical issues. Man and man, woman and woman, or man and woman should make no difference to the state. They consume (roughly) the same amount of public resources, both have the same abilities to pay taxes and uphold the law. Procreation is none of the state's business, and the thought of "but gay couples can't procreate" should not even grace the hairs on the top of anyone's head as a thought. Plenty of heterosexual couples choose to not have children, or adopt out of necessity ... and nothing prevents gays from doing this as well.

All I'm asking for is the state to recognize marriage in the loosest definition. Some religions might, although none necessarily do, see marriage as a coupling between homogonous races. Is it the state's business to suddenly prevent blacks and whites from marrying, due to the ideals of one group of people? I see the issue of homosexual marriages as the same thing. All I want, and I'm sure most of the supporters of gay marriages would want as well, is for there to be no legal distinction between "two people joining together". The majority of the public wants the same as well, as you'll find on Wikipedia. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States ). This appears to be another issue of the majority rule wanting something done, and the people in power are being affected by their own beliefs and morals, rather than what the public wants.



"The question i asked (three times now) is still unanswered: According to those who say there is no God (or who want to push that agenda on government), who determines what's right and what's wrong?"

As for your question: The public. Officials are in power to listen to what the people want, not to be influenced by their own beliefs.

I think we're arguing two different points. What I asked was who determines what is right and what is wrong, not who should be empowered to set Governmental policy. I agree that the government should be ruled by the people. Even according to the Wikipedia article you referred to "...only about 4 in 10 Americans think gay and lesbian people should be allowed to marry, there is larger support for permitting civil unions." However, the question I'd like you to answer is "does that mean it's right?"

Does popular opinion make something right? You mentioned slavery (and made the false claim that it is "spoken of in the Bible like it's nothing"), which was a very popular idea for a long time. If we go with what you've said so far, it WAS right as long as it was popular. Now that "times change," it's no longer right. This probably is very frustrating to you to hear me say that, but it is entirely consistent with what you've said so far. I asked who determines right from wrong, and you said "The public." So if the public believes in something (be it love, joy, and peace or Nazism, racism, and genocide), then it is right. Following that answer to its logical conclusion: wherever there is a majority opinion, what they believe is right.

By the way, the "gay couples can't procreate" point is a terrible argument. I would never use that argument because it's completely ridiculous, and it's an embarrassment when it's used by others (though it's rarely brought up). That has nothing to do with the issue at all.

If you disagree with the statement I made before about the logical conclusion drawn by your answer (and I imagine you will because I think you were speaking more in political terms than in moral terms), then please answer the question again: "According to those who say there is no God, who determines what is right and what is wrong?"