The video I posted above is humorous and brings up several points.  The Bible says many things no one follows or would even consider to follow now.  Shellfish is considered unclean and should not be eaten, so is pork.  It says you can stone your wife or sell your daughter into slavery, yet no one follows these.  So, how can one quote a book, which is so very definately male oriented and chauvanistic, outdated in so many ways, to back up their prejudices against homosexuality?

Ahhhhhh.....ROTFL.......hahahahhaha........LMAO!!!!!   Deb....that was the greatest thing I've seen in two weeks.   Thank you for that!

Jack Black as Jesus....hah!

dmazment says ...

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-star...

Basically after a half hour or so, it boils down to Carlton Pearson says to stop looking for hell, the devil and focus on seeking goodness, love, expect those and hell goes away.  Simplistic in his viewpoint, difficult to do with all those around who use the idea of Hell to make people do the right thing. 

ok well the cat got on my lap and wanted cuddles, and I lost my train of thought

Nursejenny1310 says ...

frumpster65 says ...

Jenny.

One of my Uncles after being married for 17 years and having 3 children ...decided he was GAY!

He left his wife and left his kids and now lives with a wealthy man ..whom he says he "loves"

So yes it has affected our family...and it hurt his kids and his wife!

Even without religious beliefs I wouldnt support it......There are alot of non religious people that dont support it either...

  

I have a question for you. You said Even without religious beliefs I wouldnt support it  Why exactly is that?  If you don't beleive it to be religously wrong than why DO you think it's wrong? I'd like to know what leg you are standing on here. Fear? Hate? or something else?

Nowhere does the phrase 'separation of church and state' or 'church and state segregation' appear in either the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.  Otherwise a religion could claim that human sacrifice was a necessary part of religion, or marrying a dozen little girls as part of a polygamy sect like David Koresh or a dozen other religious sects. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause

The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1878 (OVER A 100 years ago) that government does have the right to make rules/laws.  This is another left wing propaganda 'separation of church and state', that has long been foist on the American public,  to the point that everyone believes that it is so, and in our constitution, it's NOT.

Still doesn't make the phrase 'separation of church and state' appear in either the Bill of Rights or the Constitution it doesn't.   The fact is and has been government can make laws about marriage as that is what the 1878 Supreme Court Ruling States....it was specifically about MARRIAGE and Religion!

The context of the 'Danbury letter' from Thomas Jefferson to which you refer, was written by Thomas Jefferson to a Connecticut Baptist Church to reassure them that the United States Congress was not going to adopt a National Religion.

Furthermore, in a letter to Benjamin Rush, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.

Additionally, a letter from any president is just that, I mean would you want, someone taking George Bush's letter's written to Church's to be interpreted as Constitutional Law, LOL

Actually, I think you didn't read your references posted, because they state my case.  Your postings actually re-state the position that the terms 'separation of Church and State' does not appear in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. 

Okay....well we will just have to chalk it up to interpretive differences, because it seemed pretty clear to me.  Anyhoo, we'll see what others have to say.

I wonder.....it seems as though you have a desire for government to be religious, specifically Christian.  Would that also accompany a desire for some sort of mandate for everyone in America to practice Christianity? 

I'm a Christian, but I feel it necessary to respect and honor the beliefs of others.  A lot of problems we see in the world today (which are a continuation of hundreds of years of fighting) are a result of religious arrogance.

Again, the founding fathers have clearly expressed in their writings a desire for the seperation.......and disgust with the act of religious persecution and mandates.

Kcs18......THAT WAS A FANTASTIC POINT!!!!!!!  

Where's JUDLEERN at......she was lookin for some more political chat and now she's gone?  LOL!!!!!!

LMAO!  

Kittyrn says ...

It has to do with 'Original Intent'. The original intent was that the government not mandate a national religion such as Catholic or like England did the 'Church of England'.   

There has to be a line in the sand, we can't have a society where everything and anything goes.  We have too many cults that use that as an excuse to marry and molest pre-teen girls.   Some things have to be  legislated to prevent this.  I get sick of people spouting 'Separation of Church and State', when they are too stupid to even know it's true history or meaning.  The meaning of this has been taken and perverted to the point where our Founding Father's are spinning in their graves.

Those that forget HIstory are doomed to repeat it's mistakes.

Wait a sec.

Are you calling me stupid? (or perverted for that matter- and if I act like a poor historian it is my fate to repeat my own mistakes...so be it)

Please correct me if I am wrong...but the way I interpreted that link:

The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Free Exercise Clause reads:

“
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
”

In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the free exercise clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said, "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

No law respecting or prohibiting (neither for or against) meaning it's not a part of...remaining separate....

Furthermore, laws may interfere with religious practices!! There is no constitutional protection over religious beliefs.

[CAUTION: believe @ your own risk]

There is a FREEDOM to chose, follow, and abide by what ever belief system you claim identity to.

But it is not THOSE belief systems that madate laws, that is up to court, legislation, and the voting process.

That is why people pray to God, not to democracy.

And although I was raised Catholic, I still think people of the same sex should have the right to be married if they so desire. If I was attracted to other women I know I would appreciate the right to get married to the one I love, and hope to spend the rest of my life with.

Nurse jenny in response to your ? .....I think its perverse...even without religous views involved...its not hate or fear...its just gross .

Like I have said before...maybe all they need is some hormone therapy...

Its ironic isnt it that when a person goes for a sex change that they give them hormone therapy..

So it would seem to me that if a person is born with a deficient amount of themale hormone or the female hormones that they should do hormone therapy .

I wonder if anyone has ever tried that?

The problem here i think is that society seperates itself into a sort of Us and Them mentality, which makes it easier to ostracize those that don't fit into a certain category.  Everything about america is all about the individual and putting yourself into the box that best describes you.  Everyone is priviledged in some way, and discriminated in another.  The solution to racism/ableism/classism/sexism/heterosexism/religious intolerance is to expand your circle of friends outside of your descriptive box, I'm sure if you make an effort to make friends who have a different identity than yours than you will see that you are not so different after all.

Sorry to be a little romantic sounding...but im an optimist :)

 Deb is right, hormone therapy for a transexual is NOT going to make one sex or the other, the hard wiring is in the brain and it is done before birth, a man that looks at himself in the mirror and sees a female cannot be fixed with testosterone injections it would be nice if that was possible, many less suicides. Scientists are moving at a snails pace in that venue because it is not popular and has less funding, BUT some research IS being done on that front, it is tragic for someone to see themself differently than the rest of the world sees them.

There is evidence that homosexuality occurs as a result of hormonal imbalances that occur while in utero.  Something to the effect that they did not recieve a strong enough dose of testosterone during crucial areas of male fetal development, possibly as a result of the mother having some type of antibody against it. 

Thanks mg1021! Im glad i have a friend on here lol

mg1021 says ...

I just love you kcs18!!!!!   Are you sure you don't have a history in Social Work like I do?  It seems we have a similar mindset. 

 

kcs18 says ...

The problem here i think is that society seperates itself into a sort of Us and Them mentality, which makes it easier to ostracize those that don't fit into a certain category.  Everything about america is all about the individual and putting yourself into the box that best describes you.  Everyone is priviledged in some way, and discriminated in another.  The solution to racism/ableism/classism/sexism/heterosexism/religious intolerance is to expand your circle of friends outside of your descriptive box, I'm sure if you make an effort to make friends who have a different identity than yours than you will see that you are not so different after all.

Sorry to be a little romantic sounding...but im an optimist :)