Saturday, July 22, 2006

What is a Marriage?

I have been having a conversation between myself and "John" on my site here. Below is some of that dialog regarding the human condition of homosexual behavior and what marriage means.

John, you said:
"If you look throughout history you can find homosexuality in every country throughout time. It does not need to be proven as genetic to be a part of the human condition."
Definition of the human condition:
The human condition encompasses the totality of the experience of being human and living human lives. As mortal entities, there are a series of biologically determined events which are common to most human lives, and some which are inevitable for all. The ongoing way in which humans react to or cope with these events is the human condition. However, understanding the precise nature and scope of what is meant by the human condition is itself a philosophical problem.
If you want to live you’re chosen lifestyle in a philosophical bubble that is up to you. I, on the other hand, am going to live a lifestyle that works because it is what is MEANT to be not what I can philosophically argue for.
John, you said:
"That's the thing though. You are not a part of my marriage, its private between Ray and I."
If marriage were truly a private affair, which it is not, then same-sex marriages would have little impact on anyone's family. But marriage is just as much about the community as it is about the individuals, perhaps even more so. That's why marriages are public ceremonies, whether in churches or before civil authorities, and are regulated by laws. Marriage is a societal agreement.
No marriage is an island. Every marriage touches the community as a universally human community norm - a rule embraced by society for who we conduct ourselves sexually and domestically, and what we provide for children to meet their developmental needs. And every society must have a norm for what it expects and what it will NOT allow. Marriage is that social norm for the family. As humans, we are all connected and our decisions and actions - both public and private - DO affect other people, even if it is indirect and not always evident. There are no truly private marriages.

17 Comments:

Anonymous Gregg said...

Scia, you are absolutely correct in your coherent and logical rebuttals to John's specious assertions. Great analysis.

There are so many ways in which redefining marriage as a non-exclusive legal union can and does affect society. To claim that society and culture would not change in any way due to the redefining of the oldest social and family institution in history is disingenuous and immensely myopic. Our society has already changed in many ways here in Mass now that the activist MSJC (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court) has unilaterally usurped the legislative authority of "we the people" via our elected reps. Now that homosexual "marriage" has been deemed "legal" by the MSJC, there has been a concerted effort to radically alter the curriculum in many public schools starting in pre-K. One need only consider Dr. Parker's situation in Lexington to see some of the inchoate cultural ramifications of homosexual "marriage."

I have no problem with whatever "life-style" two "consenting adults" choose (although I don't take part in the pc glamorization of homosexuality since I consider it to be aberrant, immoral, and self-destructive behavior) However, determining the legal definition of marriage is purely a legislative issue that must be decided via "we the people." End of story. That is how our constitutional republican form of govt works. If the majority in mass decides that they want to redefine marriage, then so be it. I will accept the vote of the people. What I will not accept as a tax-paying citizen of the Commonwealth is 4 unbelted judges imposing their personal preferences upon me and legislating from the bench. And nobody who supports our constitutional form of govt with specific enumerated powers for each branch of gvot should either regardless of their sexual proclivities.

9:25 AM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous John Hosty said...

Thomas Jefferson, in his 1st inaugural address in 1801 said, “Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable. The minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression".

There are some things we should not have the power to vote on. No one has the right to make into law their morality. Feel free to live as you like and pursue your own happiness, so long it is not at my expense.

The gay community is not going to go back in the closet. The days of us being afraid of public strutiny and violence is over, and they are not coming back. Get used to the fact that we have found our voice.

Whether you can temporarily deny our rights or not, our influence remains. This is what I have been trying to tell you. You think that ending gay marriage is going to curtail our influence, but it won't.

I find it ironic that in fighting the gay communities rights our opponents have brought more attention to our plight than we could have ever done on our own.

I also find it ironic that our opposition can be so insensitive to the level of discrimination and abuse the gay community survives, and then ask us to think of their needs.

9:29 AM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous Gregg said...

John,

You stated:

Thomas Jefferson, in his 1st inaugural address in 1801 said, "Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable. The minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression".

I doubt he was talking about homosexual marriage. In fact, I would argue that as a defender of federalsim, Jefferson would have been an emphatic opponent of the judiciary redefining marriage w/out the consent of the people.

You said:

"There are some things we should not have the power to vote on. No one has the right to make into law their morality. Feel free to live as you like and pursue your own happiness, so long it is not at my expense."

No, actually our common law is essentially a reflection of the collective morality of the citizenry. That is what the law is. Every law that is enacted is essentially a reflection of somebody's collective morality/ethics. Actually, your asertion denies the very foundation of our common law which is that "we the people" via the legislative process have the unequivocal "right" to impose our collective morality via the law. When we outlaw polygamy, for example, we the people are imposing our "morality" and enshrining it into law.

You said;

"The gay community is not going to go back in the closet. The days of us being afraid of public strutiny and violence is over, and they are not coming back. Get used to the fact that we have found our voice."

That's great. Have a "voice." Just don't seek to radically redefine the legal definition of marriage via judicial fiat. All we ask is that you be "tolerant" of the constitutionally proscirbed legislative process.

You said:

"Whether you can temporarily deny our rights or not, our influence remains. This is what I have been trying to tell you. You think that ending gay marriage is going to curtail our influence, but it won't."

Marriage is not a universal "right." It is a legally proscrbed and specifically enumerated legal privaledge which the state can and does limit and enforce. You have the "right" to marry. You just can't arbitrarily redefine the legal definition of marriage via judicail fiat. You, in actuality, have no "right" to subvert the legally proscribed constitutional process. Court don't make law. We the people via our elected reps do. Period.

You said:

"I find it ironic that in fighting the gay communities rights our opponents have brought more attention to our plight than we could have ever done on our own."

What "plight" are you referring. Gays are more educated and earn more and live a higher std of living than any where else in the world. You want to talk about "plight?" Try being a homosexual in an Islamic country. They be-head you.

You said:

"I also find it ironic that our opposition can be so insensitive to the level of discrimination and abuse the gay community survives, and then ask us to think of their needs."

What "discrimination" are you talking about. Opposing the unilateral redefining of marriage is no more "discrimination" than opposing any other effort to redefine any other law from the bench ( i.e. Kelo or Roe which "discriminated" against property owners and babies in hte womb respectively). All laws "discriminate" in one way or another. Laws are enacted by societies that reflect the moral preferences of the citizenry that coincide with natural law. Practices such as incest, bigamy, polygamy, and pedophilia are all sexual "relationships" which society has deemed to be immoral and without legal justification and protections and therefore discriminated against.

The analogy between banning homosexual marriage and laws which banned interracial marriage is not an accurate comparison. Anti-miscegenation laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia) because they frustrated the core purpose of marriage in order to sustain a racist legal order. In Loving v. Virginia the institution of marriage was not redefined. The court concluded that using race to deny a couple the right to legally marry was discriminatory. Yet it did not change the legal definition that marriage be confined to an exclusive union of one man and one woman. While advocates of homosexual "marriage" claim to be the victims of discrimination, they have no legal precedent to reinforce their central position. Thus it is fallacious reasoning to draw a parallel between racial discrimination and illegality of the so-called "same-sex marriage." Marriage laws were not invented to persecute or deny specific rights to homosexuals. Marriage laws in our country reinforce an institution that over thousands of years in thousands of cultures provided the foundation for stable societies.

9:31 AM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous John Hosty said...

Thomas Jefferson was speaking about a principle. People deserve their freedom of religion. To oppress a group simply because you do not agree with their beliefs is not an American way.

"No, actually our common law is essentially a reflection of the collective morality of the citizenry."

This is the type of comment I mean when I say you use opinions as facts. There is no collective morality in such a diverse culture as our own. Laws were made to make sure we don't step on each others toes when it comes to this subject. There is no might makes right in our Constitution.

I pray that some day you can find hapiness and peace, just not at my expense and I'll resiprocate the respect. That is the American way, "good walls make good neighbors." ~Robert Frost

I enjoyed reading your post. It reminds me of SCIA and how he posts and comments... :)

9:32 AM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous Gregg said...

John

You did not respond to one of my coherent and cogent arguments/rebuttals to your rediculous claims. I will assume you concurs with my assessment!

Aside from that you claim:

"This is the type of comment I mean when I say you use opinions as facts. There is no collective morality in such a diverse culture as our own. Laws were made to make sure we don't step on each others toes when it comes to this subject. There is no might makes right in our Constitution."

Yes John there is a 'collective morality' called majority rule which governs our legislative process. That is not an "opinion" John. And our laws reflect the collective majority. You may want to read the constitution- specifically article 1 to find out more how laws are made. Laws are made to govern how we as a society act. Yes certain laws are enacted to protect minorities, but all laws are enacted by the constitutionally legally proscribed manner - via legislative bodies not unelected judges. If you want to change the law and redefine marriage, then convice enough voters that homosexual marriage is good for society . Until such a time, please respect the rule of law and our constitutionally proscribed legal process. It is obvious John that you probably have never read the U.S. constitution. Now may be a good time for that.

9:35 AM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous John Hosty said...

How smug you sound assumimg I have not read the constitution. Let us review:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I exercise my right to freedom of religion, and my beliefs are that God loves me just the way I am, and so should you. I respect all people's rights to believe and follow what they wish, and so should you.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I bring this up because I am not to be mass tried in court with the rest of the gay community because I am my own man. I demand due process to hear why I personally should not marry. Stating globally that all gay people are the same and should not be trusted with marriage is insane.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Deprive liberty...what would you call preventing a whole group of people from marrying?

Amendment XV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I bring this up because the spirit of this amendment speaks of fairness and equality. Our Founders were smart enough to realize that our country would change and grow in different directions, that's why it is vague.

Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

I cite this amendment because again its spirit is not to deny a group of citizens a right. If you are old enough to die for this country, you are old enough to vote in my opinion.


Yes I have read the Constitution, and I know that in its spirit it does not suggest that we should stand in the way of each other's hapiness.

The next generation is about to take over, and they approve of gay marriage by 70%. This is about to be game over, would you care to discuss how we can live together in harmony like you said?

9:37 AM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous Gregg said...

John,

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You said:

"I exercise my right to freedom of religion, and my beliefs are that God loves me just the way I am, and so should you. I respect all people's rights to believe and follow what they wish, and so should you."

What does this have to do with homosexual marriage and redefining the legal definition of marraige via judicail fiat? Your argument makes zero sense. Your religious beliefs have nothing to do with whether you should be able to redefine marriage via activist courts. Waht are you talking about? If my mom wants to "marry" my sister do I have to "respect" and condone their marrying one another? Does the 1st amendment guarantee them that "right?" Do you even know who the primary author of the 1st Amendment was? Do you know why the 1st Amendment was ratified? Your comment makes me think that this is the first time you have ever read it b/c you are woefully inept in your analysis. When you begin from a standpoint of fallacious logic, everything tha tyou extrapolate from that point forward becomes total inadiapherous error. Your comment perfectly illustrates that axiomatic fact.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You said:

"I bring this up because I am not to be mass tried in court with the rest of the gay community because I am my own man. I demand due process to hear why I personally should not marry. Stating globally that all gay people are the same and should not be trusted with marriage is insane."

Huh? Those who seek to legally vote on marriage via the proscribed consittuionally mandated process is not "insane" It's what free people do in a free society John. Nobody ever said Homosexuals can't marry. They just can't redefine marriage and marry people of the same sex, or multiple people, or their sitster, or dog for that matter. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? You are your own "man?" What. Your obvious lack of understanding of the "due process" clause of hte Bill of Rights really trivializes its vital significance with regard to personal liberty and equality under the law. If anybody deserves "due process" its developing babies in the womb at 6 months who are murdered by aboritionists. They deserve "due process" and "equal protection." You enjoy "due process" under the law. I challenge you to cite one example of how you are being denied your "due process." Do you even know what the origins of this amendment are? Do you know who authored it or why? It is obvious you don't have a clue.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Deprive liberty...what would you call preventing a whole group of people from marrying? Again, you are not barred from marriage? You just can't unilaterally change the law via juciial fiat. If you want to redefine marriage laws, you have to do so via the legislative process. That's how constitutions are amended John and (laws changed). If any group deserves due process of the law its teh groups who seek to amend the consittution in the legally proscribed manner. Liberty is not equivalent to judicial activism.

Amendment XV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

You said:

"I bring this up because the spirit of this amendment speaks of fairness and equality. Our Founders were smart enough to realize that our country would change and grow in different directions, that's why it is vague."

Uh. no. you may want to educate yourself on why the 15th amendment was ratified. It had to do with ending voter discrimination based on skin color and race. I would ask you to provide one legal scholar who has ever cited the 15th amendment to support homosexuals being able to redefine marrige. You have proven with that inane statement that you have no fundamental or even remote understanding of the Consitution.

Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

You said:
"I cite this amendment because again its spirit is not to deny a group of citizens a right. If you are old enough to die for this country, you are old enough to vote in my opinion."

And what the hell does this have to do with homosexual "marriage?" This is as preposterous as it is risible. You are not serious with this statement are you?" its spirit is not to deny a group of citizens a right. " No, the 26th amendment was ratified to establish the voting age at 18 nation wide. What the hell does the voting age have to do with homosexual marriage? I feel like I'm debating with a 5 year old. Sorry but that is the truth.

You said:

"Yes, I have read the Constitution, and I know that in its spirit it does not suggest that we should stand in the way of each other's hapiness."

And which constitutional hisorians support that view? I think you may want to take a refresher course. The Constitution provides the enumerated powers of govt and the unalianable rights of the citizenry. But you have in no way provided any type of cogent and well reasoned substantiated consitutional srgument in support of homosexual "marraige." Lot's of flowery slogans about "happineness" and "the spirit of this amendment..." but nothing remotely resembling a coherent argument that in any way butresses the central premise of your argument . (If you even have one)

You said:

"The next generation is about to take over, and they approve of gay marriage by 70%."

Would you care to cite the poll showing that 70% of the "next gegneration" (I dont't quite know what age gorup you are referring to but am sure you will provide the specific poll/polls you refer to)


You said:

"This is about to be game over, would you care to discuss how we can live together in harmony like you said?"

Game over. The "game" has not even begun for homosexual "marriage". Every state that has voted on it has rejected it by significant margins including Oregon who (not a very conservative state) rejected same-sex marriage by almost 60%. One way we can "live in harmony" is if you would respect the rule of law and constitutionally proscrtibed legislative process in which the people decide moral issues such as these.Another way John way we can "live in harmony" is if you quit ramming "gay marriage" down our throats and respect the vast majority of Americans who want to maintain traditional marriage the way it has always been for thousands of years which has been the cornerstone for all of Civilization (male-female) period!

9:38 AM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous John Hosty said...

You don't have the right to take a vote on my rights when the people collecting the signatures where paid to collect them by any means necessary. Your side in this argument is living a lie, and the criminal investigation that is going on about this lie will reveal the level of duplicity that was involved. Moral pillars of the community have bold faced lied about their knowledge in this, all for not as it will come out in the wash. This petition would have never passed were it not for Arno Political Consultants greasing the palms of their criminal signature collectors, so cite to me activist judges all you want, but they didn't break the law. They are not part of a criminal investigation.

You can continue to make speculations of my understanding of things, which I am sure is only to provoke, but is does not change my questions or my opinions. You do not understand the next generation and what they want. 70% are for gay marriage, and at the end of the day they will be the ones to decide their own future, and ours.

I guess we are not going to try to find a common ground then huh?

9:39 AM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous John Hosty said...

My source for 70% is PollingPoint.com

9:40 AM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous Scia said...

John,

You said:

"Your side in this argument is living a lie, and the criminal investigation that is going on about this lie will reveal the level of duplicity that was involved."

Have you read the news lately? The whole petition collection process was deemed constitutional and legal by the Supreme Court before the Constitutional Convention on July 11th. Check out my post on the topic: "Supreme Judicial Court Rules Ballot Initiative is Constitutional."

Is this what you are talking about because if it is your comments are invalid.

In regards to your polling source: I think polling point is right up there with the polls taken by USA Today. Do you know what age group, gender, ethnicity, religion took part in this poll? What group of people were targeted? Have the poll results been continuously replicated to validate them? Come on John, your logic has been better than this.

There has not been ONE poll conducted outside of the State House concerning how the people want to vote on same-sex marriages that is more valid than for the 170,000 who signed the petition of which 123,356 were certified by the state of MA and determined to be legal by the courts.

9:42 AM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous John Hosty said...

We can argue symantics all day. How are we getting any closer to our origional goal?

9:43 AM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous John Hosty said...

We can argue symantics all day. How are we getting any closer to our origional goal?

9:44 AM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous Scia said...

John,

Don't make it look like I am going off track. You are the one providing me with your fallacious comments in which you have not been able to defend with fact or some sort of irrefutable comebacks.

I have tried to refute your claims, and have done so numerous times even though you disagree with my rebuttles, but you apparently have not been able to logically refute mine.

If you would like to move on, something that I had recommended many posted comments ago, I am all for it.

Next topic of debate, or continue beating a dead horse?

9:45 AM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous Gregg said...

John,

For the record, you failed to rebut one of my rebuttals to your incongruous and nonsensical "arguments." I will assume therefore that you don't have the vaguest clue about what you are talking about and just threw a bunch of fecal matter against the wall so see what would stick not figuring that you might run into somebody who was going to expose your idiotic assertions for what they were-ignorant ramblings of somebody who is not well versed in rhetoric or Constitutional jurisprudence. In the future, don't bring a plastic spoon to a gun fight. My intention was not to 'provoke" it was to disprove the rediculous assertions you have posited. And I accomplished that. That is obvious to anybody witnessing our "exchange."

As for the "poll" you cited "Pollingpoint.com" don't make me laugh. Are you serious? That is an internet polling company that has no credibility in the polling community.

Can you cite the specific poll?
When was the poll conducted?
Who was asked?
What question were they asked?
Was there a margin of error?

How can they reconcile being at antipodal odds with every reputable polling organization (Gallup, Rasmussen, Opinion Dynamics, ipsos-Reid, etc...) that shows about 70 to 90% of Americans opposed to homosexual "marriage?" Can you answer that question John?

Here are a few reputable polling companies with a consistent established track record of success (i.e. high predictive value) of you may want to consider that show the opposite. Americans overwhelmingly oppose homosexual marriage and this sentiment cuts accross racial, class, socio-economic, and political boundaries.Sorry John. But those are the FACTS as opposed to your internet poll you cite.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050401-114205-2153r.htm

"Public opposition to "marriages" between homosexuals is at an all-time high, according to a poll released yesterday.

When asked whether they thought same-sex "marriages" should be recognized by the law as valid and come with the same rights as traditional marriages, 68 percent of the respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said they should not.
Twenty-eight percent said same-sex "marriages" should be valid and 4 percent had no opinion. The survey of 443 adults was conducted March 18 to 20.

A similar poll by Gallup last year found that 55 percent thought homosexual "marriages" should not be valid, while 42 percent said they should be recognized.

In addition, 466 adults were asked in the same time period what marital arrangements they thought should be recognized for homosexual couples.

The poll found that 20 percent favored same-sex "marriage," 27 percent said civil unions, and 45 percent said "neither."

When asked whether they favored a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as "between a man and a woman," 57 percent said yes, while 37 percent were opposed.

Last year, 48 percent favored the amendment and 46 percent opposed it.

Currently, 43 states have laws that bar recognition of same-sex "marriages," according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Twenty-six states have only statutes defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, and 17 have constitutional language.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103756,00.html

According to a FOX News poll conducted in the days following the Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Massachusetts, 66 percent of Americans oppose and 25 percent favor same-sex marriage. These new results are similar to those from August 2003, as well as results from 1996, when 65 percent of the public said they opposed allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Opinion Dynamics Corporation ( search ) conducted the national poll Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, November 18 and 19.

The ruling said it was illegal under the Massachusetts Constitution to block gay couples from the "protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex."

Fully 80 percent of Republicans oppose same-sex marriage, as do 66 percent of independents and 55 percent of Democrats. More men than women oppose allowing gays to marry (72 percent and 62 percent respectively), and seniors are more likely than young adults to oppose same-sex marriage (80 percent versus 54 percent).

Again John, instead of making ridiculous statements you can't back up, try educating yourself so that you won't embarass yourself in the future.We can find "common ground" but you have to be willing to be intellectually honest and acknowledge that you really have no clue what you are talking about as the previous 10 posts have demonstarted.

9:47 AM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous John Hosty said...

Well Gregg, If I squint I think I can still see your dignity under all those insults. It is easy to name call. Try discussing our arguing points. By the way, "jurisprudence" is two words.

You can say I didn't answer your comments, but all somone has to do is scroll up and see for themselves. You can call me a loaf of bread if you want too, it isn't going to make it true.

I can check the numbers and be back to discuss them further and can throw numbers at each other all day, but it does not help us resolve our issues. You think that gay marriage is wrong, and I don't. You want to use your majority to force your will on me. I don't. It is a simple matter of the pursuit of happiness vs. old world morality. The real question is can you get away with it?

More and more people are understanding every day that there is nothing to fear from the gay community, and as that happens you lose your control, and your sense of belonging. This is not supposed to be your government forever, and your ways are not going to be upheld. I live right next to the college, I know what the students are saying, and they have seen the light.

I am sorry you are getting so upset, but that's the way it is. If this even goes to a vote in 2008 my side will win. I was here to discuss how we can get to know each other, and better understand what we expect of each other. Is that not worth discussing?

9:48 AM, July 28, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

To Gregg and John,

I am sorry that this post was down and out for a day or so. I recieved notice from blogger that the post was in "error". I asked what had occured and I guess that the links under your names were not correct in that they were connected to other sites that are unrelated to your name or blogspot or website or whatever you represent.

It was suggested that maybe the links were "invaded" by cookies from these other sites and somehow attached themselves to your comments.

Needless to say, everything is alright now and things are back to normal. My name, Scia, is linked to my site and every other comment on my blog with a link is correct.

Again, my appologize.

Scia

3:20 PM, July 28, 2006  
Anonymous Gregg said...

Scia,

Thanks for taking care of the problem. I was wondering why my name was linked to that Boston radio station website. The funny thing was, the host of the show, Pundit Reform or Review or something like that, had the name of Greg as well. It is almost like an episode out of the Twilight Zone. LOL.

Anyway, I usually do not link my name to anything considering that I do not have a blog or website of my own. Maybe now that I am popular in Boston, I should!!!

John, I rest my case. You could not answer one question I posed including the "study" you cited that demonstrated "70% support for homosexual marriage." I knew that you couldn't and proved my main point, which is that you can't buttress your main arguments and can only perpetually change the topics in an attempt to obfuscate your utter lack of reasoning abilities. I never insulted you John. Don't mistake your being made to look foolish because you can't engage in a civilized discourse/debate by answering direct question directly and succinctly.

Also, don't imply that I "fear" the "gay community." What I fear most is not your sexual proclivities. In fact, I could care less whom you have sex with. What I do "fear" however is your ignorance with regard to the Constitution and the rule of law in general. Your comments throughout the thread demonstrate even a rudimentary comprehension of Constitutional Law, which I have no problem with except that you cited it to purportedly under gird the central premise of your argument.

So if you choose to delude yourself into believing quixotically about the "next generation" "seeing the light" (whatever that means) you go right ahead and live in your own little dream world. That is your prerogative. I only hope that some day you see the "light" and understand that God (The God of the Bible) does love you but abhors sinful behavior and certainly does not condone homosexual marriage and in fact only condemns homosexual behavior throughout the Bible. And that sinful behavior will always separate you from having a direct and loving relationship with your Heavenly Father. The "good news" is that you can repent of your sin immediately and ask God to reveal Himself to you. When Jesus comes into your life, it will be changed forever. That is the "good news." Jesus died for your sins past, present, and future. I know b/c He changed my life in ways I never thought possible. You will be in my prayers John.

Take care my friend,

Gregg

7:46 PM, July 28, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com