gadgetlady

In your opinion and judgment. Certainly not in hers, or she wouldn't have been party to the wedding ceremony!

Thanks for answering, Carlene. I don't attend Mass every Sunday anymore as I am no longer Catholic, but I sure don't remember hearing the entire Bible about every three years! At the Catholic university where I got my degree, I didn't hear it there either. I'm glad to know things have changed. As to the Song of Solomon, depending on the translation you read (I never liked any translation until I read the NIV, primarily because I hated Shakespearean English and didn't understand what I was reading -- and I think there are a lot of problems with a lot of translations not being true to the original text), it can be a very steamy book. I've kept my kids away from it until they're older because of the questions that might arise!

In my experience, the surgeons are MUCH more accurate at hitting it blind than any PA or nurse. After strike one with a PA, I now always insist on a surgeon.

I don't think it's absurd or obnoxious at all. A woman just did it, and it recently made headlines. Tell HER, not ME, that it's absurd and obnoxious. Oh, wait. Then it would appear that you are judging her, and of course NO ONE ON THIS BOARD EVER DOES THAT! We are all completely neutral and never arbitrary. BTW, believing that human beings evolved from other species and therefore all species are interrelated, why is it NOT ok for one species of animal to marry another species of animal?

Couldn't agree with you more on that one. I wouldn't understand it, either. I've never met someone with that particular ideology, and it does fly in the face of logic.

I wasn't asking to trade bible verses. You made a big point of commenting that you were a lector at church, and I was very curious about something, so I asked if you had ever been asked to read two particular verses -- if yes, what you did, and if no, what you would do. I asked because I honestly wanted to know how you responded or would respond, and how you would resolve your personal convictions about those matters with a request from your church to quote Bible verses that contradict your personal convictions.For the record, I'm still curious.

Re: the woman marrying the dolphin -- Please be clear, I am NOT comparing homosexuality to people marrying animals, and I do NOT believe one leads to the other. I am NOT saying the two are morally equal. The FACT is that someone did it. And my QUESTION is SHOULD IT BE LEGAL? And the POINT of all of this is illustration; for those of you who think it should be illegal, that WE ALL DRAW LINES SOMEWHERE. Some of you seem to draw your lines at polygamy, some at beastiality, some at homosexuality, some at not allowing civil marriage altogether. But you ALL draw lines. And you attack others for where they choose to draw theirs.

Sorry about that. I wasn't intending to denigrate it with the "blah blah blah"; I just didn't want to retype the whole thing. Sorry it seemed like it was disrespectful.

Always blind. Never a problem except for one incompetent guy who I refused to see ever again and is no longer with the office.

Thank you for your prayers. I'm not quite sure what you're praying for me about, but if you'd like some prayer requests I am ill right now and could use prayer for healing, and I'd also like to see my oldest daughter have a little more sensitivity for her sister. I don't want to throw anything in your face. My point is that everyone draws lines somewhere, and I'm trying to determine where you draw yours. I would also ask that you not judge me for where I draw mine.

Because we live in a democracy. So your answer to my question, that you would approve of the legal marrying of brothers and sisters, of polygamy, and of people marrying animals, is yes? I'm just trying to get a yes or no. So far no one has given me a straight yes on that answer.

So to directly answer the question, you believe that the legal right to marry should be extended to human beings partnered with animals? I'm not asking if you JUDGE them. I'm asking if you would bestow on them the legal right to marry.

Wikipedia is not known as an arbiter of truth, especially since the general public and add and alter the definitions it contains! This time I will do a cut and paste from http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html: The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more. Religious Affiliation of U.S. Founding Fathers by # of Founding Fathers and % of Founding Fathers Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7% Presbyterian 30 18.6% Congregationalist 27 16.8% Quaker 7 4.3% Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7% Lutheran 5 3.1% Catholic 3 1.9% Huguenot 3 1.9% Unitarian 3 1.9% Methodist 2 1.2% Calvinist 1 0.6% TOTAL 204 I have a degree in Political Science and could pick apart the Wikipedia "information" ad infinitum. But I choose to focus only on this: "Most were worldly, well-eductated men - they were lawyers, businessmen, soldiers, diplomats, and even scientists." How obnoxious!!!!! Like being a Christian or a religious person and being well-educated, a lawyer, a businessman, a solder, a diplomat or [gasp] even a SCIENTIST are mutually exclusive? What a crock. This sentence alone should tell you something about the agenda of the writer(s).

So you're OK with legal polygamy, allowing sisters and brothers to marry each other, and legally recognizing as a married couple the woman and dolphin?

Right back at 'ya: http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/ch_state.html

Sorry! I saw that you said I (or whoever you were talking to) didn't have to answer, but I didn't think that meant you didn't WANT an answer. I just thought it meant someone didn't need to feel compelled to answer if they were uncomfortable with the question. I guess if you had said "Please don't answer; I don't care" instead of "You don't have to answer that you know", I would have gotten the message.

There is a very good argument to be made for the government to sanction NO marriage at all, and for marriage only to exist as a religious institution. If the government wants, or wanted, to encourage "heterosexual couples committed to live together, have children, and raise families together" then that's a, for want of a better term, business decision that the government made and decided to codify and reward as they saw fit. There is no right to marry, that I'm aware of, in the constitution. That's a common misconception. The words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the constitution, but they've been thrown about so much that people believe they do. The First Amendment states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". In other words, we are to have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Congress was prevented from establishing a national religion; they wanted to make sure that no single religious institution had authority over the state. They did NOT want to ensure that an un-Biblical, anti-Biblical, or athiest state be established. I wouldn't feel a need to define it, but if pressed, I would say it sounds like you're in a committed relationship that doesn't include marriage. [shrugs] It's not really my business and I don't really care. The only thing that matters is how you feel about it.

Carlene, have you ever had to read Leviticus 18:22 at a Mass? Or Psalm 139:12-24? I'm just wondering if/how you would get those words out in front of the congregation if you don't believe them. If you haven't had to, how would you handle it if asked (or assigned) to do it? I'm not being snide here; I'm really curious.

I'm well aware of the law. However, there is a difference between decriminalizing sodomy and legalizing gay marriage. Decriminalizing sodomy affirms personal autonomy, which I believe is the correct interpretation of the founding fathers' intent (as vs. privacy, a made-up "right" that isn't anywhere in the intent or verbiage of the founding fathers).

Is it your place to ALLOW them to enter a CIVIL (not religious) union (. . . blah blah blah)? What I'm saying is that we all draw the line somewhere, and at some point a decision has to be made about where to draw that line. I have my opinion, you have yours, and the job of the government is to codify where that arbitrary line falls. There is no "inalienable right to marry". Would you ALLOW a redefinition of CIVIL unions to include polygamy? Or the woman who marries a dolphin? I'm not being ridiculous here (see http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html or various others through a web search). I'm not saying she shouldn't be able to have a ceremony where she says some nice words and commits her life to a dolphin. I'm asking if you would include that ceremony in a definition of legal marriage for the purpose of protecting each of them in terms of things like medical insurance? There is such a thing as pet insurance, so it is a legitimate question.

I agree. I'd love to see the libertarian party surge in the polls!

Again, you're missing the point. Being against expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples does not equate to legislating against homosexuality or not being able to stand to catch a glimpse of gay men in the supermarket! No one said it was acceptable or advisable to make homosexuality illegal! Would you approve of allowing a brother and sister to marry? What about first cousins? How about lowering the age of consent (to marry) to 12 -- or 10? What about a marriage between two men and a woman? What about one man and 12 wives? What about that well-publicized story a month or so ago about a woman who "married" a dolphin? The point is we all draw lines (as to what the legal definition of marriage should include) somewhere and you are arbitrarily objecting to the place where I draw my line based on your beliefs.

I think it's their choice to do so. It is not my place to judge them.

leatha_g, your transparancy is incredible. Thank you for your powerful words.

There is a huge difference between believing that gay marriage shouldn't be legalized and believing that gay people should not be allowed to have whatever physical relationships they want. Just because someone doesn't believe in gay marriage doesn't mean they believe that homosexuality itself should be illegal.