3wheeler

If you ever complained about the National Government being out of control or unaccountable, then you should be a Convention support. It is the only way to keep it accountable.

For more info on the subject click here.

For example, you wrote:

Since you think the US would be better without the influence of Christianity…

What I actually wrote was the following:

I can tell you that I firmly believe that the privileged position given to Christians of your theological persuasion in this country should end, and that the Union would be far better for it.

See the difference? In other words, I am not asking for an end to Christianity or Christians in this country. If I wrote that, please show me where. Give me the exact quotation. I think that this is really just something that you are projecting.

What I am asking for is something that is already in the Constitution: no state endorsement of a particular theology. Now, it is clear to me that you have a difficult time with that. For some reason you seem to think that we will all shrivel up and die without you “good Christians” using state power to tell us what to do. My own suspicion is that what you are really afraid of is the possibility that your religion will start to run aground if you can’t use the state to push it on others.

Another point that you raise is that gay people have sex in public. Well, straight people have sex in public, too, and statistically speaking it is far more likely. I personally have seen that more often than I have seen gay people having sex in public.

It is illegal for both. This is perfectly consistent with the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. If it were legal for gays but not for straights, that would be something that I would object to. If it were legal for straights but not for gays, that would also be something that I object to.

I guess the point of your trying to bring up public sex in a topic about marriage is lost on me, and for good reason: it is a huge stretch. Are you really going to try to convince me that the impulse to have sex in public is something that only gay people have? Or are you trying to convince me that having sex in public is the same thing as marriage? Are you saying that people who have been arrested for having sex in public shouldn’t be allowed to get married? Or are you saying that people who might have sex in public shouldn’t be allowed to marry? How would you figure that out? Or perhaps you are saying that its perfectly fine for straight people to have sex in public, but not gay people? Are you trying to make the argument that if you are allowed to marry you can have sex in public?

Your attempt at using logic here just doesn’t stand up and is actually something that is kind of strange.

If Christianity is the only thing holding this country together, and the only thing that can motivate people to defend the country, then are you suggesting that Jews can’t be Americans? That Hindus and Muslims can’t be Americans? That atheists can’t be Americans? Are you asking that all people who don’t share your particular theological persuasion should be stripped of their citizenship? Or are you suggesting that the first amendment doesn’t apply to everybody — that it really is just a special thing for people who accept your theology? Implicit in your argument here is a “yes” to all of those questions. My answer would be this: if you don’t support something as basic as the First Amendment, then I think that you are the one who is anti-American.

Now, this sounds like a pretty utilitarian view of religion to me. Are you suggesting that Christianity is such a useful myth that our country can’t survive without your particular version of it being forced on others? Is that really why we need it? Sort of like George Washington and the cherry tree — a useful myth to get people to behave certain ways? Wow, what a pessimistic view of your own faith.

As for the military question: sure, I will defend my country as called. What I will not defend is a theocracy. What I will not defend is the possibility that discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin, disability or sexual orientation be written into the Constitution.

I expect that as our society advances bigotry based on superstition will gradually go away. History so far supports me on this, and I believe that it will continue to do so.

I see no reason why the USA would suddenly cease to exist without the influence of Christianity and your book. Absolutely none. But this is a pointless question. I can tell you that I firmly believe that the privileged position given to Christians of your theological persuasion in this country should end, and that the Union would be far better for it.

The question in #483 about continued existence of the US without Christianity is not a pointless question. The question is about whether or not the United States will continue to be worth preserving. Without some unifying belief what is going to bind the US together?
Since you think the US would be better without the influence of Christianity, what belief do you think will unify the citizens of the US?

Said differently, what makes you think that “tolerance” and “diversity” are going to keep the “United” in United States?

Is there something the holds the secularist together? What is it? Are the secularists so in love with this country that they’d do anything to preserve it?

For a bit more illustration consider this fact about sexual behavior in the United States, and this is behavior on the streets of American cities not in the privacy of American bedrooms. There are numerous reports and photographs of men having sex with other men on the streets of American cities. (Google “southern decadence” or “Folsom Street Festival” for information supporting these reports.)

Exactly “what freedom” are these people expressing? In what founding document are the participants granted the right to commit perversion on the streets of the country?

Of course this is none of my business, and I certainly choose not to be involved. However, don’t ask me to accept a behavior by making me accept the most “in your face” demonstrations of this behavior.

I might be favorably inclined to consider the reports of studies suggesting a genetic cause of homosexuality, but I’m not favorably inclined to understand that this public behavior has a genetic cause. For me this behavior is more in line with the scripture in Isaiah that says – paraphrasing, “You parade your sin like Sodom.”

Now allow me to phrase a question in a way that will draw out exactly how accepting you or I might really be of this deviant behavior.

Army drill sergeants use to wear a badge on their shirt pockets that read, “This we’ll preserve.”

Would you serve in the armed forces of the United States to preserve this nation?

Would you serve in the armed forces of the United States and be willing to kill or to die so that two same gender people can marry, so that men can have sex with each other in the streets of American cities, and so that mothers can destroy their unborns?

Are you suggesting that you’ll be able to make me serve against my belief?

Are these behaviors and actions a necessary part of your USA?

You’d think if these behaviors and actions were so important to the founders that they would have explicitly allowed them. Or, do you think these are covered by the fourteenth amendment?

Conservative Christians know that their faith is bigger that the United States and that Christianity will go on regardless of what happens to the United States. Many Christians are already detaching themselves emotionally from any belief in the “goodness” of this county.

The privileged position enjoyed by Christianity is the same privilege position enjoyed by Christianity at the beginning of the nation. That’s what the questions about the influence of Christianity and the Bible were about in #483. The Constitution of the United States was written in the belief that the prevalent belief was and would continue to be Christianity and that a country with this belief was worth preserving.

The Bible endorsed sexual relationship is one man one woman forever.

Who cares? How does what your text say have anything at all to do with me, as a non-Crhistian? Why bother referring to it in a context which people from multiple religions and non are interracting? Why insist on it, when you know that there are obviously many people here who don’t share your theology? Could it possibly be that you simply can’t accept that there are others who have considered your theology carefully and found it wanting? Why is it so apparently hard for you to accept that other people haven’t bought into your theology? Is your purpose simply to drive home the fact that, despite your protestations elsewhere, this matter is all about your theology and your need to impose your theological proscriptions on others?

bitblt wrote:

This is the relationship that is in the best interest of our society.

Wrong. I showed you an example above of a lesbian couple’s 15 year relationship and the daughters that they are raising. Your only counters to that were: 1. to bizarrely claim that I thought lesbian couples were superior to others, and 2. to cite a study by a front group of your theological persuasion making claims against gay parenting that have been disavowed by people who have actually been involved in the science. In other words, your non-theological objections were completely empty, bringing you again to refer to your theology and how much it should be imposed on the rest of us.

bitblt wrote:

It’s also the best relationship for any man and any woman.

This one is so obviously false that it doesn’t take a genious to see how wrong it is. Go ask Dick Cheney if he thinks his daughter really should dump her partner for a man. Ask him how happy that would make his daughter. That you think this might even possibly be true really shows a lack of interraction with reality and the people who populate it to a degree that is truly impressive.

bitblt wrote:

You might want to work with this question for a while: “Would there be a United States without the influence of Christianity and the Bible?”

Well, no not exactly. But there also wouldn’t be a United States as we know it without slavery, and genocide against American Indians. Are you suggesting that we bring those things back? Are you suggesting that those things are good, simply because the USA wouldn’t exist without them?

Interestingly enough, the USA also wouldn’t exist without the Enlightenment and its emphasis on reason and individual conscience, without the Constitutional prohibitions of state-endorsement of particular theologies, and without the Equal Protection clause. Yet, you seem perfectly willing to have these things vanish.

bitblt wrote:

After you’ve satisfied yourself on that question, try this one: “Will there continue to be a United States without the influence of Christianity and the Bible?”

I see no reason why the USA would suddenly cease to exist without the influence of Christianity and your book. Absolutely none. But this is a pointless question. I can tell you that I firmly believe that the privileged position given to Christians of your theological persuasion in this country should end, and that the Union would be far better for it.

Now, I understand from your comments that you prefer converting the USA from its historical origins in secular government into a theocracy (something like Iran, but Christian). But notice here — from the very topic that you are posting on — that it would take a re-writing of the Constitution to do this. In other words, the roots of our country are only partially in the theological principles of what really is a very different version of your theology.

bitblt wrote:

It’s hugely interesting to me that the fundamental questions facing the nation at this point in its history have to do with whether of not God exists and with what is a “proper’ sexual relationship.

I can tell you that if you think that these issues are “the fundamental questions” facing our country right now, you should pay more attention to other people’s lives. Get out more and talk to people who don’t share your dogma. You might discover that people are concerned about civil liberties, health care, the growing income gap, and the war.

I alrealy know that your deity doesn’t exist. I already know that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is really none of my business.

Let’s do this: I won’t force my religion on you by trying to get legislation that bans things that my religion frowns upon unless I can make a compelling secular argument for it. (In other words, unless it is more than a theological position.) You will have to do the same for me. So far, you have only made theological arguments.

Theological arguments might be ver impressive in your church group meetings. They are pointless in a secular democracy like the one that the founders of this country so thoughtfully designed.

Well according to the bible unless you have sex in only the missinary position and for procreation only, then you are a sicko as well.

You absolutely don’t know what you’re talking about.

Unless you have a book, chapter, and verse for this I suggest you stop saying it. You’re mocking the Christian faith by reporting what you believe, or imagined, it says.

If you don’t have a book, chapter, and verse (Where the Bible says what you that it said?), I’ll even take a necessary inference.

The Bible endorsed sexual relationship is one man one woman forever. This is the relationship that is in the best interest of our society. It’s also the best relationship for any man and any woman.

You might want to work with this question for a while: “Would there be a United States without the influence of Christianity and the Bible?”

After you’ve satisfied yourself on that question, try this one: “Will there continue to be a United States without the influence of Christianity and the Bible?”

It’s hugely interesting to me that the fundamental questions facing the nation at this point in its history have to do with whether of not God exists and with what is a “proper’ sexual relationship.

Liberals force our unwilling children to get vaccines for harmless or near harmless illnesses (chickenpox) so that corporations can get rich off pharm. drugs, even though my child being/not being vaccinated does not effect them.

Liberals banned drug use and gave us the war on drugs (them evil corporations, selling products that make others sick!) even though corporations profiting does not affect them. (negativly, at least) If you believe corporations are earning too much, why not just buy stock?

Even today, liberals are trying to force bar owners/resturants to ban smoking, even though it doesn’t affect anyone who doesn’t go there. I keep reading all these quotes “If your against gay marriage, Don’t marry someone of the same sex”. Well, if you’re against smoking, don’t go to a place that allows it.

Liberals legislate their frequently obserd views on global warming on others.

Liberals tell others what wages they can pay others for work, (min. wage).

Liberals force us to pay high taxes for programs we don’t support.

Liberals are correct when they say the religious right is just trying to keep this in the news long enough to win the 08 elections. We have no choice. Prehaps if liberals would practice some of that tolerance for other peoples believes/choices/whatever that they are preaching, there would be no need to try and distract the voters.

oh and don’t call me homophobic- I am not afraid of queers, i just don’t like them. I am not the one with the problem

Um, yeah. You don’t sound freaked out about anything. Even tempered if I’ve ever seen it… well, except for the block caps, the irrational exaltation of hatred, and the obvious paranoia that you have about the queers coming to get you, that is.

Before becoming Germany’s leader and while imprisoned for an attempted coup in 1923, Adolph Hitler wrote Mein Kamp, the book that described his political philosophy and planned conquest of Europe. Those who read it soon after publication thought and stated “He really doesn’t mean what he said in that book”. As history has shown us, he really DID mean it!

In that light, from an issue of The New Republic published in the spring of 2005, I want to share with you a quote by George Grant, former executive director of Coral Ridge Ministries, a key organization within the Christian right. Please pay particular attention to the words chosen. He described the goals of the movement (the Christian right) as follows:

“Christians have … a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ–to have dominion in civil structures. … Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. … Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land–of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.”

We have often been told that for evil to thrive, it is only necessary that good people do nothing. Whether these stated objectives are “evil” or I am one of the “good” is subject to debate. However, being descended from “Old Yankee” stock, I will not “do nothing”!

I believe it is absolutely necessary at every juncture to meet the representatives of hatred & bigotry head on. The reason those like BitBit & his ilk are unable to answer your questions about “where’s the harm”, how does gay marriage affect MY life, etc. is quite simple. They have little capacity for independant thought & must always retreat to the rationale that “the Bible says so, and therefore, because their God, says so, it must be true”!!

We certainly have to permit them to exist in their world as they see it – it is entirely their right within the American society.

They do not, however, have any right to dictate to those who believe in other ways (or who have no belief in an almighty entity at all) how we should live our lives nor what it is allowable for the rest of us to believe.

As an earlier poster phrased it: PUL_LEZE – remove the logs from your own eyes before grasping the tweezers to get the splinter removed from ours!!!

Well, the first sentence doesn’t quite connect to the second. Yes, having entered into the legal arrangement of marriage does provide special rights, but by the 14th Amendment, any two consenting adults should be able to enter into this legally binding contract. In that sense, it is an institution that should be open to all, in the same way that two consenting adults can sign legal documents to buy a house together (which also is discriminatory in the sense that it provides special rights that the non-propertied don’t enjoy).

Some may say that this is a cold, legalistic view of marriage. bitblt wrote in an earlier post, citing his religious texts, that marriage makes a man and woman “one flesh.” I really don’t see how the State can judge such matters. I don’t think that it is up to any state employee to test affection or judge whether or not two particular consenting adults should really get married. When my wife and I got married, we asked for an “endorsement” from nobody except our immediate families.

People on the far right apparently have no problem with the State judging such matters. I prefer to let the actual people involved in the arrangement decide, and let the State remain impartial on such matters and simply administer the legal contract under terms that are in accord with the equal protection clause of our Constitution.

ittakesavillage also wrote: So let’s review: society has a stake in making sure that kids are bonded to their parents. This is why conseratives care so much about marriage.

I would certainly disagree on the second part of this. If you read through bitblt’s posts, his concern is with homosexuality because it goes against his particular religion. He, and many others like him, feel that their beliefs are so clearly superior to everyone else’s that they feel that they should be able to impose those beliefs on others through the power of the State. So, it is a theological matter for them, and one in which the role of children really is that of making sure that kids are raised in theologically-correct households.

bitblt did, however, post the snippets of a “study” (and I use the word very loosely here) that claims that gay couples are terrible for their children. A little history on that. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a professional organization that groups together more than 60,000 doctors, published a study showing that kids raised in same-sex households had no more problems than those raised by man-woman couples. The extreme Christianists were outraged, because this flew in the face of the way that their book insisted reality should be. Science tends to clash with their theology, and this was no exception.

So they founded the American College of Pediatricians, an organization that immediately issued the “study” that bitblt cited above. the American College of Pediatricians had one employee at the time of issuing the “study” that was the sole purpose of its organization. Compare this with the over 60,000 members of the real professional organization of pediatricians, the American Academy of Pediatrics. Of course, actual pediatricians were outraged.

What does this lead me to believe? Well, that the concern is not with children at all. If it were, they would look at the actual study that the American Academy of Pediatrics produced, since they are the impartial organization with tens of thousands of members and more than 75 years of experience in these matters. The American College of Pediatricians, on the other hand, was formed with the sole purpose of showing how evil gay people are — the fake study came later as a way of trying to justify this predetermined, theologically-correct position.

This also leads me to believe that their concern is really not about the family as an institution at all, and this relates to ittakesavillage’s comments about sick family members. In Oklahoma, where I live — a state with more “Christian Conservatives” than you could shake a cross at — most heterosexual marriages end in divorce. The average length of marriage is less than seven years.

What is the number one cause of these marriages breaking up? Well, it is not because these couples have gay neighbors; it is because they are unable to handle their troubled financial situation. And what is the number one cause of financial trouble that families face in this state? It is not gayness; it is the lack of accessible and affordable healthcare.

It seems logical to me, then, that if conservatives were so concerned about creating more stable families, they would be focused like a laser on the issue of healthcare (something that would obviously benefit you and your sister, as well as my own marriage). They are not. In Oklahoma, if you bring up the question of access to healthcare, you are labeled a “communist,” or, what is worse here, “French.”

They are instead worried that two adult men might have sex in the privacy of their own home. They are instead worked up that a lesbian couple with two children might want to have legal guarantees protecting their family.

In other words, it is all about theology and the desire of some to impose their theology on others. A quick read through bitblt’s posts will confirm this. The only arguments that he uses are theologicial, and the only “evidence” that he cites is drawn from a theologically-correct, right-wing theocratic front organization founded for the sole purpose of giving a scientific-sounding spin to a theological position against gays.

If the family is such an important social institution — and I agree that it is — we should be concerned that all families enjoy legal protection. We should be concerned that the number one reason for divorce — financial problems caused by healthcare issues — is addressed.

But clearly the agenda of “conservatives” is all about theological correctness.

People care about marriage because it is important to society. What each of us *does* affect other people. The question is whether individual rights outweigh societal concerns.

The rights and responsibilities of marriage have evolved over time in response to family needs. Marriage not only bond two individuals together, but they also help bond parents to children. And we all care about how children are raised. Some of us may think same-sex marriage helps children…others think it harms more children than it helps. But don’t say that it isn’t a matter of public concern. And statistically, marriage matters. It keeps kids out of prison, away from drugs, and in school.

There’s no right to marriage. Marriage inherently is discriminatory. It gives rights to married people that unmarried people don’t get. The same for responsbilities. By and large, society tolerates this because we think having families and raising children is important. Furthermore, since marriage is inherently discriminatory, you need to be able to clearly say why one group of people should be allowed to marry and everybody else shouldn’t. The fact that babies come from men and women having sex together is pretty powerful stuff. On the other hand, if HR tells me that I can’t insure my sister because she isn’t my lesbian partner (true story, btw), I’m not going to be able to understand why having sex is more important than taking care of family. In fact, I still don’t get it. Sure a lesbian loves her partner. But I love my sister, too. Equal work, equal pay, right? What’s the distinction here?

So let’s review: society has a stake in making sure that kids are bonded to their parents. This is why conseratives care so much about marriage. The definition does exclude some pairs of people: lesbians, gays, mother/daughters, best friends, siblings, etc. But changing the definition to include gays & lesbians doens’t change the fact that marriage still “discriminates” (eg makes a distinction between groups of people). It just makes it harder to justify having a special distinction that bonds kids to their parents and parents to each other in order to form a family.

And whatever you do, check to make sure that I wasn’t asked if my disabled sister was my lesbian partner *before* insisting that gay marriage won’t affect my family.