Friday, March 02, 2007

'Hate Crime' Bill HR 254 Expected to Pass

As reported by Jim Brown from OneNewsNow.com HR 254, the Hate Crime bill now going through congress, and in which I reported on in an earlier post, is expected to pass and be put on President Bush's desk for approval.
Click on the One News Now icon above to read the full story.
I only have one question concerning this issue: Why do we need to have special protections for a sub-group of people, such as homosexuals? Why can't we provide special protections via legislation for overweight people or for black people or for kids in school or people at a place of employment who get picked on because they are considered "nerds"?
Like I asked in my earlier post regarding HR 254, why can't the tolerance/diversity training/special protections agenda be under an umbrella involving a plethora of 'different' people such as mentioned above? This would be fair and balanced and would not result in trying to accomplish an agenda, such as the homosexual community is trying to do with their attempts to eviscerate marriage and family.

31 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

“…such as the homosexual community is trying to do with their attempts to eviscerate marriage and family.”

They are not trying to eviscerate marriage or family or anything else for that matter, they’re trying to partake in those things. They wish to have marriages and their families treated with the same respect as anyone else’s. That does not destroy marriage; it expands it and makes it grow. Growth may hurt at times but strength comes from growth!

Ken Weaver

9:36 PM, March 02, 2007  
Anonymous omd said...

Understand... the radical homosexual "AGENDA" is using the vast majority of homosexuals as pawns for the greater cause of convincing the United States government to give their sexual behavior legal status.

Should our government give the "Goodhouse Keeping Stamp of Approval" to this behavior we can begin to dismantle all the laws regarding sodomy and other convoluted sexual behaviors.

I DO believe that the radical side of homosexuality DOES want to eviscerate marriage and family.

We were all created with free will. Every decision we make, every action we take is OUR decison, not God's, not satan's.

Homosexuality is not what God intended. As usual mankind has perverted God's intentions. We have believed satan's lies instead of God's truth.

If someone is engaging in homosexual sexual behavior, that's their choice. It, however, is not a behavior the majority of people want preached as being acceptable or a valid "alternative."

If homosexual sexual behavior is governmentally approved it WILL NOT stop at MARRIAGE. It will just be the beginning.

This is not growth nor is it strengthening for our society.

6:49 AM, March 03, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Understand... the radical homosexual "AGENDA" is using the vast majority of homosexuals as pawns for the greater cause of convincing the United States government to give their sexual behavior legal status.”

Well you’re a pawn too omd. You’re a pawn to the Republican Party! Abortion is the “call to arms” for many conservatives since 1980. And what has been accomplished on that single issue since that time? Pretty much nothing. And yet when a Republican candidate proclaims his wish to outlaw abortion evangelicals run to the polls to vote for him. Karl Rove has proven that.

“Should our government give the "Goodhouse Keeping Stamp of Approval" to this behavior we can begin to dismantle all the laws regarding sodomy and other convoluted sexual behaviors.”

It already has to a point. Homosexuality is no longer illegal, and where it is, it is no longer enforced.

“I DO believe that the radical side of homosexuality DOES want to eviscerate marriage and family.”

What’s your evidence? What brought you to that opinion?

“We were all created with free will. Every decision we make, every action we take is OUR decison, not God's, not satan's.”

So who are you to take away another person’s free will? Are you arrogant enough to believe that god needs your help? If god doesn’t like gay marriage let him be the one to exact justice.

“Homosexuality is not what God intended. As usual mankind has perverted God's intentions. We have believed satan's lies instead of God's truth.”

Prove god exists and then you can decide the issue of marriage equality. Until then let god sort it out. Isn’t he powerful enough to tackle this issue himself?

“If someone is engaging in homosexual sexual behavior, that's their choice. It, however, is not a behavior the majority of people want preached as being acceptable or a valid "alternative."”

How is homosexuality being “preached?”

“If homosexual sexual behavior is governmentally approved it WILL NOT stop at MARRIAGE. It will just be the beginning.”

The beginning of what? Equal rights to homosexuals? I can deal with that.

Ken Weaver

8:05 PM, March 03, 2007  
Anonymous omd said...

anonymous wrote:
Well you’re a pawn too omd. You’re a pawn to the Republican Party!

Ken, I am a registered independent. I don't always vote for Democrats or Republicans. I voted for Ross Perot years ago.

The really interesting thing here is how people that "oppose" homosexual marriage or abortion are ALL labeled Republican & Christian. That's like saying anyone who "favors" homosexual marriage and abortion must be Democrat and non-Christian. Do you see how your statement to me makes no sense?

What does abortion have to do with this discussion of homosexual marriage? BUT because you brought it up... Just because people "choose" to have an abortion or "choose" to engage in homosexual behavior doesn't make it right. Just as making homosexual marriage legal doesn't make the sexual behavior right, does it?

Homosexual marriage was made legal in Massachusetts because the State Supreme Court overstepped its authority and made law where was no law. This is a violation of the separation of powers our system of government was founded on. On top of that the Legislature ignored their responsiblity to sanction
the State Supreme Court for
their actions.

It is ONLY the Legislature that is commissioned to make laws NOT the Executive Branch nor the Judicial Branch.

I wrote:
“I DO believe that the radical side of homosexuality DOES want to eviscerate marriage and family.”

Anonymous responded:
What’s your evidence? What brought you to that opinion?

Eviscerate - To take away a vital or essential part of

Simply put, homosexual sexual behavior has been reviled by the majority since history has been recorded. Even homosexuals know, insticntively, that their sexual behavior is illicit. God's code or laws have been written into the fabric of our being, He knew us before we were formed in the womb. Every hair on our head was counted before we were conceived.

Look around you and witness the splendors of this planet and the complexity of all that exists and honestly tell me God doesn't exist. Even in a one cell lifeform there is such complexity that it baffles scientists to this day. Just to get 1 protein requires 100 amino acids to line up in an exact sequence, on their own. Can you see how complex this is... JUST at that level?

Take all the letters in a printing press, mix them up then throw them in the air and keep doing it until you get all the letters to spontaneously align into the words in this letter so we can read it. There is no way this happens without intervention, Ken. Our intervention is God.

He exists. We can witness it everyday. I think the onus is on those that say there is no God to prove He is not. God works through His people, Ken.

Marriage has always been between one man united to one woman. This is what the vital and/or the essential part of marriage is ~ The Union of One Man and One Woman. Add Steve & Steve or Jane & Jane to the mix and marriage has been eviscerated because its essence has been removed. Here is an analogy... Take a glass of drinkable water, would you drink a nice cold refreshing glass of water? Now, take that same glass of water and drop blood or urine or vinegar or spit into it. Would you drink the water again? Probably not. Why? Because the water is no longer pure water. The same holds true with marriage. Change it and you take the purity of it away. It's intended essence and vitality has been removed. It may taste sweet as honey but will sour in the belly.

The most common denominator reason I hear from the rank and file homosexual community, via print, is, "We want to be able to marry so we get the "same" rights as heterosexual married couples".

So, this really has come down to a perceived rights matter. The fact of the matter is, all professing homosexuals can marry and have the same rights as heterosexual married couples as long as they marry someone of the opposite gender. Now, I don't say this as a mockery. It is fact and I say it only to make a point, which is ~ In this country the laws are made and passed by majority vote. Sometimes even 2/3's vote. The homosexual marriage law, in Massachusetts, was created by less than 5 people, who overstepped their authority. They created law where there was no law, agreed? They DID NOT and DO NOT represent the people and the people have not been given the right to decide on this issue, have they?

You asked:
How is homosexuality being “preached?”

Come on! The majority of the safe schools initiative launch several years ago was about homosexuality. I know this because I sat on our school district's health council when it was introduced. The whole thing was to subject people, i.e. young students, to the indoctrination of homosexuality and it's inherent sexual behaviors as being a viable and normal option. It was presented that 30% of all teen suicide was among homosexual students. WOW! everyone on the council was so shocked they all wanted to take up the plight of homosexual students UNTIL I interjected that 30% is surley significant but we were now overlooking the big picture. If 30% of teen suicide was amongst homosexual students that meant that the remaining 70% was outside the realm of homosexuality!!! I said we should be discussing WHY ALL our suicidal students lacked hope and felt the need to kill themselves.

See what I mean about being preached to? It's an agenda. It has one purpose and one purpose only ~ The acceptance of homosexual sexual behavior as normal. It is not!! But then again, normal is only a setting on your dryer, right?

A river without banks is nothing more than a swamp. A society without laws and boundries is doomed. Make homosexuality legitimate? Then what's next?

God bless you Ken, I hope I have communicated to you in a respectful manner. Remember, we all choose EVERYTHING we do. One choice we have is regarding God. We can turn to Him or turn away from Him. We can ask Him to forgive our sins or we can shake our fists at Him. It's OUR choice and OUR choice only, Just as everything else is. There will be 2 guest lists at the doors to heaven. Which one will you RSVP?

A christian sojourner and "One More Disciple"© of the Christ, Jesus

OMD

12:16 PM, March 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“That's like saying anyone who "favors" homosexual marriage and abortion must be Democrat and non-Christian. Do you see how your statement to me makes no sense?”

Yes I do, and I apologize for stereotyping you. See what happens when we attempt to clump all the individuals from a certain aspect together?

“Just because people "choose" to have an abortion or "choose" to engage in homosexual behavior doesn't make it right. Just as making homosexual marriage legal doesn't make the sexual behavior right, does it?”

Right and wrong in abortion as well as homosexuality can different for different people. If my neighbor is gay it causes me no harm, and does me no benefit, so why should I care? Why should you? Why do you get to choose what’s wrong and right for others who don’t identify themselves as Christians? I applaud your efforts to lead a righteous life, but there are other religions and other beliefs that don’t coincide with Christianity.

“Homosexual marriage was made legal in Massachusetts because the State Supreme Court overstepped its authority and made law where was no law.”

You are claiming the mythical creature known as “activist judges” made a new law; I disagree. I believe it was the judges’ interpretation of the law that brought that judgment. I believe an “activist” judge doesn’t really exist. You might think an “activist” judge is someone who interprets the law differently than you.

“Simply put, homosexual sexual behavior has been reviled by the majority since history has been recorded.”

So, since the opinions of those from thousands of years ago saw homosexuality as “evil” we must conform to that ideal? When did the population start seeing women as equals? Now we see those ideals regarding the differences we have as male and female as antiquated and harmful to our society. Men and women may be different, but overall they are treated equally under the law in our society. That aspect of our society would have been just as alien in their understandings of life in their time as homosexuality is today.

“Even homosexuals know, insticntively, that their sexual behavior is illicit.”

When I was raising my son, I tried to show him the uses of his conscience. How you can get a queasy feeling inside you when you know in your heart you are about to step over the line between right and wrong. However sex is different. When a young man becomes erect by no doing of his own, he will automatically get that same feeling.

“Look around you and witness the splendors of this planet and the complexity of all that exists and honestly tell me God doesn't exist.”

If these things in nature wouldn’t have happened in the manner that they occurred we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I consider myself an Agnostic because I haven’t made up my mind totally one way or the other. However if I do decide that god does exist, I doubt I would see that god the same way you see yours.

“Take all the letters in a printing press, mix them up then throw them in the air and keep doing it until you get all the letters to spontaneously align into the words in this letter so we can read it. There is no way this happens without intervention, Ken. Our intervention is God.”

Make your computer screen completely white, and then put a 1 in every space available. Do that same thing to all the computers all over the world. Count all those ones and add them together. Now multiply that number by 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Now for every 1 you have put one monkey in front of a computer and have it type. Is it not possible that one of those monkeys could spell out encyclopedia Britannica?

“I think the onus is on those that say there is no God to prove He is not.”

I disagree. I’m not telling you to live your life by a certain code.

“…Because the water is no longer pure water. The same holds true with marriage. Change it and you take the purity of it away. It's intended essence and vitality has been removed. It may taste sweet as honey but will sour in the belly.”

If I add something to my glass of water it messes up my water; yours can still be pure.

“The fact of the matter is, all professing homosexuals can marry and have the same rights as heterosexual married couples as long as they marry someone of the opposite gender.”

Could you ever have sexual relations with a man? I didn’t think so. So if homosexuals were to marry someone they didn’t find attractive and found no common ground on which to communicate that would be a cause for divorce. That’s the real danger to marriage.

“In this country the laws are made and passed by majority vote.”

Laws passed by a majority don’t always promote a healthy society. We used to have laws making blacks 2/3 of a white man. We didn’t get to vote for their equal rights either.

“The whole thing was to subject people, i.e. young students, to the indoctrination of homosexuality and it's inherent sexual behaviors as being a viable and normal option.”

Indoctrinate: to teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically, especially with the goal of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions.

“It has one purpose and one purpose only ~ The acceptance of homosexual sexual behavior as normal. It is not!! But then again, normal is only a setting on your dryer, right?”

Pretty much yes. Do you have a “normal” family? What makes it normal? Is mine abnormal?

“A society without laws and boundries is doomed.”

I agree, just as a society without equality is doomed.

“One choice we have is regarding God.”

You are correct. You will make your choice, and I wish to have mine. Making laws because of their biblical nature removes my choice, and I then become an automaton who is worthy of no heaven.

“I hope I have communicated to you in a respectful manner.”

You have, and I hope I have communicated to you likewise.

Ken Weaver

6:50 PM, March 05, 2007  
Anonymous omd said...

Anonymous, You wrote: Right and wrong in abortion as well as homosexuality can different for different people...

My reply - I love it when people try and make stuff grey. I am not attempting to take away anyones right to choose how they live... BUT I don't want my taxes going to subsidize infanticide. Isn't it ironic when a pregnant woman is murdered or assaulted the media reports that mother AND BABY were victims and when it comes to abortion all of a sudden the baby is referred to as a glob of tissue or wasn't viable. MURDER is MURDER!(caps for emphasis) Please don't play the 'what's right for me may not be right for you' game. You are much more intelligent than that.

Then we turn to homosexual sexual behavior. Note: I am not talking about orientation. I DON'T care if someone has choosen homosexuality. It is a fringe sexual behavior and I would prefer that it not be thrown in my face with the "Oh ya? AND what are you gonna do about it" The radical element is engaged in the continual pontificating of their chosen lifestyle. You can read it the homosexual publication Bay Windows. WHat's the next thing... Hi I'm Steve and I'm Homosexual-American???? Are you now suggesting the government should give sexual behavior civil rights status just as they did with a disease?? Why will you not admit that the homosexual community wants the government Good Housekeeping Stamp of Approval on their chosen sexual behavior??? You keep on debating orientation issues and I have continually said I am talking about the physical sexual behavior of man on man and woman on woman sex. THAT is what is wrong and society from ancient times through today have considered the homosexual sexual act preverted & amoral. It is AND will Always be. The vast majority of issues can be legislated so homosexuals can visit each other in the hospital and inherit etc. [I'm not going into the myriad of issues. You know what I am saying]. Don't ask, Don't tell. Act with discretion. Don't throw it in my face AND don't get the government to force feed or teach my children that homosexuality is a valid option because it is not. This is what the Safe Schools curriculum is all about ~ acceptance of homosexual behavior as valid.

Look at history - We went to war over slavery. Many of the abolitionists came from right here in Massachusetts and Essex County. Stop this equality thing about blacks and women, please. We are talking about SEXUAL Behavior. You see I believe that ALL people deserve to be treated with courtesy, respect & dignity. I believe there is room for discussion about inequities. The homosexual agenda is about their sexual behavior being given the green light.

Now let's talk about judges. There was no law on the books defining marriage in Massachusetts UNTIL the state Supreme Court imposed THEIR will on the people.

Less than 5 people MADE A LAW where there was NO law. I do not call them activist, I call them what they are Renegade!!... [A disloyal person who betrays or deserts his cause or religion or political party or friend etc.] These judges overstepped their authority and the Legislature did nothing about it, thus violating THEIR oath of office. I will say it again... A law was created by the Judiciary where there was no law. Please tell me the law they interpreted.

In this country laws are passed by a majority. AND ALL the people can have their say at the ballot box. Seems you may be suggesting they don't have that right.

Moving into the Number 1 ;~) Let's get real here, Ken. You really stretched with that one about monkeys, man. You either missed the point or just refuse to accept that the evoluntionary theories are being proven false. Life does not occur spontaneously.

You also avoided the subject about how changing the definition of marriage will remove the essence and vitality of marriage.

I'm tired and I still have work to do. One more thing.

OMD wrote:
“One choice we have is regarding God.”

Anonymous wrote:
You are correct. You will make your choice, and I wish to have mine. Making laws because of their biblical nature removes my choice, and I then become an automaton who is worthy of no heaven.

Reply: Absolutely Nothing removes your choice. People will do what they want to do irregardless of laws. That is as obvious as the nose on your face because it already happens.

No one will force you to accept God's unique Son, the Christ, Jesus.

I bring a message of CHOICE. I base my message on God's word.

You can choose to accept it or deny it. That's between you and God. His word goes out and does not come back void.

However, there is a move afoot to stifle the message of Jesus. Those that don't believe want to stifle free speech and free debate. The gospel IS offensive to those that don't believe. BUT it does not take away the non-believers right to choose or speak their opinion in the public arena.

God cannot force you to believe and satan cannot force you not to believe.

It is solely your choice. I bring a message. Accept it or reject it. It's Your Choice. You were born with free will. I will leave you with this.

John 1:1-14

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 He was with God in the beginning.

3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John.

7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.

8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

In Jesus name, God Bless you

OMD

10:58 PM, March 10, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“BUT I don't want my taxes going to subsidize infanticide.”

I don’t want my taxes to subsidize faith based initiatives, but I have no choice; why should you?

“Please don't play the 'what's right for me may not be right for you' game. You are much more intelligent than that.”

Apparently you are overestimating my intelligence as I fail to see how I’m wrong. Don’t you and I have different values? With those differing values isn’t likely that while you may abstain from certain activities because you see them as immoral I may embrace those same activities and see nothing wrong with them? What makes you right and me wrong?

“I DON'T care if someone has choosen homosexuality. It is a fringe sexual behavior and I would prefer that it not be thrown in my face with the "Oh ya? AND what are you gonna do about it"”

What are you talking about? Please be specific.

“Are you now suggesting the government should give sexual behavior civil rights status just as they did with a disease??”

Nice move, but who is engaging in most homosexual activities; HOMOSEXUALS!! Why would a group of people have relations with someone of the same gender? Because they’re homosexuals. It seems you are attempting to show how you love the sinner but hate the sin. That may work with some people, but you’ll find it doesn’t work with me. I am not a Christian so those values carry no weight with me.

“Why will you not admit that the homosexual community wants the government Good Housekeeping Stamp of Approval on their chosen sexual behavior???”

There is no need to. The government has already removed most laws against homosexual behavior, and those laws that are still on the books are no longer enforced. However what I will admit is that homosexuals want the right to choose a person they feel a connection with and marry them; is that so bad? Are you married? Did you do the one thing they wish to partake in? Will you admit that your disagreement with homosexual marriage stems from your belief in the bible? If so doesn’t that take away everyone’s freedom of religion?

“You keep on debating orientation issues and I have continually said I am talking about the physical sexual behavior of man on man and woman on woman sex. THAT is what is wrong and society from ancient times through today have considered the homosexual sexual act preverted & amoral.”

You’re not quite correct, but so what if you are? Most societies from ancient times until fairly recently would have seen religious freedom as impossible. They would see our belief in innocent until proven guilty as incredible. I would say that our beliefs and morals trump theirs on any day of the week.

“Don't throw it in my face AND don't get the government to force feed or teach my children that homosexuality is a valid option because it is not.”

Why not? Christians have been throwing their beliefs in my face. I doubt you’re going to find many homosexuals that say it was their option. Heterosexuality wasn’t an option for me; it was the only path possible for me to take.

“This is what the Safe Schools curriculum is all about ~ acceptance of homosexual behavior as valid.”

If you don’t like what’s being taught at the public schools, you have 2 options; home schooling or private schools. Christianity has had its way for far too long when it comes to the public schools. Now they’re angry because they’ve lost their ability to “indoctrinate” the school children so easily. The public schools job is to teach children not just math and history, but how to relate to others. Homosexuals are part of that category.

“Look at history - We went to war over slavery.”

We went to war not over slavery, but of the South’s desire to separate from the union.

“Stop this equality thing about blacks and women, please.”

Sorry but I believe that is impossible. I see these issues as part of the whole issue of equality.

“We are talking about SEXUAL Behavior.”

You can’t separate homosexuality from homosexuals. You can’t have one without the other. If you could we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

“The homosexual agenda is about their sexual behavior being given the green light.”

It already has. Now the rest of it is about being treated with equality, not just civility.

“Now let's talk about judges. There was no law on the books defining marriage in Massachusetts UNTIL the state Supreme Court imposed THEIR will on the people.”

As far as I know there still is no definition of marriage. The courts could see no other way but to allow homosexual marriage because there was no law saying they couldn’t. That’s not making law; that’s saying there isn’t one.

“In this country laws are passed by a majority. AND ALL the people can have their say at the ballot box. Seems you may be suggesting they don't have that right.”

I’m not suggesting it; I’m saying it. The majority has no right to vote on the rights of others.

“You either missed the point or just refuse to accept that the evoluntionary theories are being proven false.”

They are? How so? Has Christianity come any closer to proving intelligent design?

“You also avoided the subject about how changing the definition of marriage will remove the essence and vitality of marriage.”

No I didn’t, I simply stated according to your analogy that if I mess up my glass of water yours is still the same.

“Absolutely Nothing removes your choice. People will do what they want to do irregardless of laws. That is as obvious as the nose on your face because it already happens.”

You are correct, but the difference is that I should not be forced into hiding because of my disbelief in the Christian value system. The 1st amendment demands I have the right to choose religion or no religion. When you legislate Christian beliefs you take away that right, because I am forced to follow those beliefs or become a “renegade” to my own country.

“No one will force you to accept God's unique Son, the Christ, Jesus.”

Are you sure about that? People have tried.

“Those that don't believe want to stifle free speech and free debate.”

Not true. I am willing to let you preach your religion to any and all that wish to hear. I am listening to you now am I not? Is this not free debate?

“The gospel IS offensive to those that don't believe.”

I don’t find the gospel offensive; I find those that wish to base our laws on religion offensive.


Ken Weaver

10:23 AM, March 11, 2007  
Anonymous OMD said...

Ken, Ken, Ken. Sometimes I think we are close to common ground only to find out we are still very far apart.

My perception is that you believe anyone espousing my beliefs have to be basing their ideas on Christianity. I submit to you that there are many non-believers that are against abortion. There are many non-believers that are not in favor of homosexuality and its associated behaviors. There are many non-believers that indicate they are not in favor of homosexual marriage. I will admit to you that MY beliefs, now, ARE based on Biblical precepts. It was not always like that, though. Like many , I relied on my feelings about an issue. It was not until I engaged in intellectual reasoning that I realized how very wrong I was about most everything.

May I recommend a book, using the research method employing investigative and evidentiary law techniques. The Book is called The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. Strobel is a former atheist and holds a Master of Studies in Law from Yale Law School. He was also the award winning legal editor of the Chicago Tribune. He attained these 2 designations while he was still a professing atheist.

OMD Wrote:
“I DON'T care if someone has choosen homosexuality. It is a fringe sexual behavior and I would prefer that it not be thrown in my face with the "Oh ya? AND what are you gonna do about it"”

Ken Wrote:
What are you talking about? Please be specific.

Ok, in my conversations and reading or watching/listening to the news stations, professing homosexuals have indicated that "we are here to stay and there is nothing you can do about it". Of course, that is a correct statement AND it is an "in your face statement." Another example. The homosexual publication Bay Windows also throws their sexual identity around, publicly, for the express purpose of being in the face of those that do not agree with their professed sexuality. It is "in your face" and deliberate. That's what I mean. Look at the homosexual parades. These are simply to provide shock value at mainstream values. These parades have been parades to highlight their sexual behavior not their plight for equal rights. If homosexual marriage remains legal in Massachusetts, whatever the next prong of attack is will be launched and our children will be the target. By the way my children are grown and on their own.

You wrote:
I doubt you’re going to find many homosexuals that say it was their option.

Reply:
There are people that have chosen homosexuality just as there are some that have turned from that lifestyle. I don't have the answer about the "gay gene" you allude to, thus giving them no choice, as I'm not a scientist. That theory has yet to be proven by science and with all the recent knowledge gathered from the Genome Project there has yet to be found evidence of a "gay gene". So we will just have to agree to disagree on this factor until science can validate a gay gene rendering one without choice.

You wrote:
Nice move, but who is engaging in most homosexual activities...

Reply:
The KEY word here is MOST, which acknowledges the entrance of choice, doesn't it?

You wrote:
We went to war not over slavery, but of the South’s desire to separate from the union.

Reply: excerpt from MSN ENCARTA;
The chief and immediate cause of the war was slavery. Southern states, including the 11 states that formed the Confederacy, depended on slavery to support their economy. Southerners used slave labor to produce crops, especially cotton. Although slavery was illegal in the Northern states, only a small proportion of Northerners actively opposed it. The main debate between the North and the South on the eve of the war was whether slavery should be permitted in the Western territories recently acquired during the Mexican War (1846-1848), including New Mexico, part of California, and Utah.

Now, we can agree that this was not the only cause of the Civil War BUT is was, at least, one of the prime causations.

Back & Forth between you & I beginning with me:

“Stop this equality thing about blacks and women, please.”

You:
Sorry but I believe that is impossible. I see these issues as part of the whole issue of equality.

Me:
“We are talking about SEXUAL Behavior.”

You:
You can’t separate homosexuality from homosexuals. You can’t have one without the other. If you could we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

My Reply:

Let me try. I understand the point you are making and let's break it down even further.

You will agree that all action starts with a thought, correct? So, first comes the thought then from that thought can come an action, right? Now, we do have the ability to chose whether or not to put a thought into physical action, agreed?

You would agree that we are of a higher order than animals and can differentiate between right and wrong as well as controlling our desires [let's not split hairs on this]. So, by taking an action we have decided to make a choice, correct?

Now, to imply that we cannot separate a homosexual from their associated behavior or a murderer from their associated behavior [the act of murder] or a thief from their associated behavior [the act of stealing] and on and on... would be saying that they had no choice, thus indicating they HAD to take action and participate in the associated behavior.

Regarding sexual behavior ~ it is a base desire and important to the propagation of our species. This is the primary reason for sexual activity, isn't it?.

BUT, can we as humans choose to NOT take a specific action? The answer is, OF COURSE!

This means that people who enter into celibacy can choose to control their sexual behavior or even deny it because they choose to. It means that people CAN choose to keep their virginity intact until they marry. We ARE able to control our urges. THUS, a homosexual CAN refrain from sexual activity if they CHOOSE to, The same is true with we that are heterosexual.

SO, I guess my answer IS ~ yes we can separate the action from the orientation... If we choose to.

You wrote:
As far as I know there still is no definition of marriage. The courts could see no other way but to allow homosexual marriage because there was no law saying they couldn’t. That’s not making law; that’s saying there isn’t one.

Reply:
If there is no definition of marriage on the books and as you say there is NO LAW saying they couldn't. Then, by your admissions above, the Judiciary MADE a LAW where there was NO LAW. This is a violation of the separation of powers. Only the legislature is authorized to propose and enact laws through the people.

I Wrote:
“In this country laws are passed by a majority AND ALL the people can have their say at the ballot box. Seems you may be suggesting they don't have that right.

”You Wrote:
I’m not suggesting it; I’m saying it. The majority has no right to vote on the rights of others.

My Reply:
You are now advocating for a totalitarian form of government. Our system is a representative system. It is a majority rule form of government. We must not forget that. Right now the majority of the electorate is saying, nationwide, No homosexual marriage. Let's legislate the areas of concern. BUT we cannot tear away the fabric of our country and our moral system by allowing an amoral behavior. You allow one amoral behavior, you then open the door for all the others.

I Wrote:
“You either missed the point or just refuse to accept that the evolutionary theories are being proven false.”

You Wrote:
They are? How so? Has Christianity come any closer to proving intelligent design?

Reply:
The preponderance of evidence points to intelligent design. Science is disproving evolutionary theories continually. Even Darwin cast doubt on his own theories. They are falling by the wayside. It is necessary for those discounting a supreme creator to prove otherwise.

I have to close. Our blog entries are getting to be lengthy discourses. I hope others are reading our discussion. I know scia is.

The long and short of this is ~ A society is made up of rules, regulations and laws. Without them we have no compass. Without them we would have anarchy. An old-time attorney told me, one time, "If both parties walk away from the negotiation table feeling like they gave up to much then it was a fair negotiation". I have faith that the United States will come to grips with this homosexual marriage issue BUT both sides will feel like they each got the short end of the stick and therein lies our solution.

Humankind will find a way to do as they please irregardless of laws. There is ALWAYS that faction that wants to live with no accountability and in a lawless fashion.

It is the majority that will always rule in a FREE society. If they do not then that society will perish.

As I stated in my previous post, I believe in choice, [not the abortion kind of choice because that is murder]. God made us with the ability to chose. With the ability to govern ourselves. With the ability to discern right from wrong. With the ability to choose God or reject God. We are held to accountability within our laws now. What would make ANYONE think we will not be held accountable by God?

1Timothy 2: 4-6
...God our Savior,
4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men...

OMD

2:49 PM, March 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well OMD you’re quite correct that our discussions have become pretty long. I would be willing to share with you my email address so we can continue this discussion at length so as not to take up too much of Scia’s site. I do enjoy our discussions as I hope you do as well.

In the interest of time I will refrain from responding to your entire post unless you agree to communicate through email.

In you posts there is an underlying theme that resonates with a belief that homosexual behavior is immoral. So, I ask you why? Why is the act of homosexual sex wrong? There are a couple of rules to follow in your response if you don’t mind. I think we can agree that we do not share a religious belief; so religion and its writings should not be part of your answer. Even though sodomy is unhealthy, I think we can agree that just because something is unhealthy it does not mean it is wrong. We can also agree (I hope) that homosexual sex is a natural compunction for some beings, whether they be man or animal, so the excuse of “…it’s not natural” should also be avoided. I hope that’s not too much to ask for.

So the question is why is homosexual sex wrong? I can understand that killing is wrong because it takes away another person’s right to life. I can understand why stealing is wrong because it takes away a person’s right to choose how they deal with their belongings. I can understand what’s wrong with infidelity, child molestation, rape and just about every other crime out there, yet why homosexuality is seen as immoral escapes me. It causes no harm; it’s just two people enjoying each other in a way they feel comfortable with. Why is that wrong?


Ken Weaver

9:40 AM, March 12, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken and OMD,

I do not think in any way, shape or form that you both are taking up my or my readers time or space.

PLEASE continue with your discussion here as I am getting some interesting feedback from friends who are reading this thread but wish not to comment, but would like to see this conversation continue.

Sincerely,
Scia

7:41 PM, March 12, 2007  
Anonymous omd said...

Those limitations could be too restrictive. Scia makes a valid observation. There are others that read this blog and apparently are following our discussion. I would ceratinly invite them to participate. How about you?

We'd have to learn to be more concise and to the point. ;~)

Without going into a lengthy reason. Homosexual sexual behavior falls short of the standards set up by society. Flaunting that behavior threatens/weakens the core of our society.

So, if Steve & Steve choose to sodomize each other or perform oral on each other, that's their choice BUT that choice falls short of the standards the majority of society has determined are necessary for the survival of this village we call Earth.

It also falls short of the standards God has set up for us.

Ken, homosexuality is a sin. Adultry is a sin. Fornication is a sin. Theft is a sin. Idolitry is a sin. Desiring your neighbors possessions or husband or wife is a sin. Murdering is a sin. Stealing is a sin and on and on and on.

What bothers me most is people that carry signs that God hates fags or Queers will go to Hell. others state that God says homosexuality is an abomination. AS IF THEIR OWN SIN ISN'T!!

All sin is an abomination to a Holy God. For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That means ME and that means YOU.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to live without any accountiblity? Sure would make live easier to live or so it would seem. Problem is... we do have an accountibility for the GREATER good of mankind and homosexual sexual behavior does not make our society stronger.

9:03 PM, March 12, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well as long as it’s cool with Scia I’ll feel free to continue here. Thanks Scia, and I would appreciate you as well as any of your readers to Jump right in and say what they think. Just please try not to get angry. Too many people on both sides of this issue attempt to prove their point just by getting angry when people just can’t seem to understand.

So on to Omd’s post that I didn’t respond to fully the last time:

“It was not until I engaged in intellectual reasoning that I realized how very wrong I was about most everything.”

Intellectual reasoning brought you to a belief in religion? I find that fascinating as it was partly reasoning why I’m an agnostic.

“The Book is called The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. Strobel is a former atheist and holds a Master of Studies in Law from Yale Law School.”

Absolutely, I love to read. It may take me a while to receive and go over it though.

“Ok, in my conversations and reading or watching/listening to the news stations, professing homosexuals have indicated that "we are here to stay and there is nothing you can do about it". Of course, that is a correct statement AND it is an "in your face statement."”

You might be right there, I never thought about it quite like that. One thing you need to understand is that while they may be “out there” in their dress and actions that’s part of what they’re going through. I think we can both agree that for millennia the homosexual populous has been in the shadows of society, fearing for their lives if someone were to find out about their orientation. Right now could be seen as their “coming out” party. It may seem outrageous, unnecessary, and downright disrespectful to some, but to me it looks just like a party; a celebration of life.

“The KEY word here is MOST, which acknowledges the entrance of choice, doesn't it?”

The only reason I said “most” was because some people just like to play around. I remember there was a saying when I was a teenager: “I’ll try anything once… twice if I like it”

“Now, we can agree that this was not the only cause of the Civil War BUT is was, at least, one of the prime causations.”

I agree, but if you look at what President Lincoln wrote in those days you’ll find a man that had no wish to free slaves.

“Now, to imply that we cannot separate a homosexual from their associated behavior or a murderer from their associated behavior [the act of murder] or a thief from their associated behavior [the act of stealing] and on and on... would be saying that they had no choice, thus indicating they HAD to take action and participate in the associated behavior.”

The crimes of murder and theft have consequences for victims of those crimes; where are the victims of homosexuality?

“Regarding sexual behavior ~ it is a base desire and important to the propagation of our species. This is the primary reason for sexual activity, isn't it?.”

For animals; yes, for humans; I don’t think so. I believe the primary reason for sexual activity is for the pure enjoyment of it. You could argue that we get the enjoyment because nature (or god if you wish) instilled that drive in us for the propagation of the species. However you also stated “You would agree that we are of a higher order than animals and can differentiate between right and wrong as well as controlling our desires [let's not split hairs on this].” So in that view we have a choice regarding sexual behavior; but the drive is always there. With the recent publicity regarding children getting molested by priests (this is not a cheap shot at Christianity or a shot at religion in general) I am saddened because I believe it came to be because young men choosing for their whole lives to abstain from sex realized that it’s impossible. That primal desire for sex will always be with us and they attempt to deny themselves that activity. So for years it festers inside them with no outlet until over a period of time it turns them from moral people to those we look at with disgust. I believe many of them were likely homosexual from the beginning and they knew this, and knowing in their hearts that their religion sees this act as an abomination. So they conclude that the only way to live is to abstain from it totally. The priesthood could seem as a way to ensure that morality and goodliness would be a way to remind them to stay away from sexual thoughts. So over time after refusing to acknowledge their sexual selves they start to rationalize having sex; but it must be without others knowing that it happened. So children become a logical target, because they are easier to control than an adult.

“SO, I guess my answer IS ~ yes we can separate the action from the orientation... If we choose to.”

Without a belief in religion; what would be a reason to abstain from sexual activity regardless of orientation? You are basing your entire argument on morality. I don’t share your value system, and with the freedom of religion; I shouldn’t have to.

“If there is no definition of marriage on the books and as you say there is NO LAW saying they couldn't. Then, by your admissions above, the Judiciary MADE a LAW where there was NO LAW.”

I think you are misunderstanding the point. Since there was no definition of marriage in the law books as being between solely one man and one woman, there was no law against homosexual marriage. That’s not making law. That’s saying there is no legal basis for denying those marriages. Take online gambling for instance. Whether or not you agree that a person should have a right to gamble or whether you approve of it or not is not relevant. With the advent of the internet it gave a new meaning with the way people interact. Businesses that sprang from the birth of the internet boomed for a time. Online gambling was one of those businesses. Attorneys for the government couldn’t find a way to prosecute those who were taking part in that activity; there was no law against it. So they made a law to confront that issue. It wasn’t the courts that did that; it was our representatives in Washington that did. Until those representatives acted on that issue, there was no way to stop online gaming. So now online gambling is illegal, and to stop it they had to make a law, it wasn’t a law that allowed, it was the lack of a law that allowed it. I believe it’s the same thing for marriage in Massachusetts.

“You are now advocating for a totalitarian form of government. Our system is a representative system. It is a majority rule form of government. We must not forget that. Right now the majority of the electorate is saying, nationwide, No homosexual marriage.”

I disagree. The rights of individuals to live their lives as they see fit should never be up for a vote. The rights of individuals to marry should never go for a vote. The right to bear arms should not go up for a vote. The freedom of religion should not be up for a vote. It is our freedoms that separate our society from others. Not what the majority can decide for others with a vote.

“It is necessary for those discounting a supreme creator to prove otherwise.”

Why is it up to Agnostics and Atheists to prove there is no god? We’re not telling you or anyone else to live by a moral code. We are not coming to you, knocking on your door to show you that a godless way will lead you to happiness in the hereafter; we aren’t passing around a plate or asking for your 10% to build a new place of non-worship.

“I have faith that the United States will come to grips with this homosexual marriage issue BUT both sides will feel like they each got the short end of the stick and therein lies our solution.”

I doubt it. There is no middle ground for homosexual marriage. Either you allow them or you don’t. My fear is that your side will win and take us toward what too many people died trying to get away from; a Theocracy.

“Humankind will find a way to do as they please irregardless of laws.”

You are correct, but from my perception there is no basis to turn some people who have a different view in what they find attractive in a mate into renegades.

“It is the majority that will always rule in a FREE society.”

Ask the Pagans who came to live under the rule of Rome if they felt free.

“So, if Steve & Steve choose to sodomize each other or perform oral on each other, that's their choice BUT that choice falls short of the standards the majority of society has determined are necessary for the survival of this village we call Earth.”

Either you misunderstood or you sidestepped my question. Why does society feel the need to control sexual behavior between consenting adults? What makes homosexuality immoral? Why is it wrong?

“Problem is... we do have an accountibility for the GREATER good of mankind and homosexual sexual behavior does not make our society stronger.”

Does it make it weaker?


Ken Weaver

1:19 AM, March 13, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891

He's a Baptist preacher wjo seems to thinl homosexuality is inborn.

8:08 PM, March 14, 2007  
Anonymous omd said...

I haven't been ignoring this thread. Have just been very busy and haven't had time. I will replying soon

Omd

Question - What is relevant about him being a Baptist preacher?

Does that add credence or validity to homosexuality?

There are many "preachers" that oppose biblical preaching and lead their flocks astray with their apostate teachings.

I will read the site. Thank you for sharing it. We do need to be willing to understand the other sides reasonings.

8:41 PM, March 15, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought it was funny, that’s all. He’s not one of those preachers that believe homosexuality isn’t a sin, but he thinks that maybe a mother should wear a possible “hetero” patch for her “would be” gay child. What do you guys think?

Ken Weaver

No worries, I'll be away most of Saturday.

11:08 PM, March 15, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"Attorneys for the government couldn’t find a way to prosecute those who were taking part in that activity (gambling); there was no law against it. So they made a law to confront that issue. It wasn’t the courts that did that; it was our representatives in Washington that did."

You continued with:

"Until those representatives acted on that issue, there was no way to stop online gambling. So now online gambling is illegal, and to stop it they had to make a law, it wasn’t a law that allowed, it was the lack of a law that allowed it. I believe it’s the same thing for marriage in Massachusetts.

Ken, you are comparing apples and oranges again. How can you compare how our representatives in Washington made a law,which is there role in government, making online gambling illegal to four UNELECTED officials of the Supreme Court MAKING "law",not there role in government?

If our representatives made same-sex "marriages" legal in 2004, then so be it. But they did not. the judicial system interpreted a lack of a law making it illegal for homosexuals to marry into a law where homosexuals can marry. How does that make sense?

You said:

"The rights of individuals to live their lives as they see fit should never be up for a vote."

You have the same rights as I do as well as the some odd 300 million people that live in this country. We both have a right to marry, but we both can not marry anyone of the same-sex. That is not discrimination or unfair, it is all fair game across the boards for everyone.

You said:

"My fear is that your side will win and take us toward what too many people died trying to get away from; a Theocracy."

A litte extreme, but our government is run via Judaeo-Christian values, which is explained in the U.S. Constitution. (Covered in my next post)

You asked:

"Why does society feel the need to control sexual behavior between consenting adults? What makes homosexuality immoral? Why is it wrong?"

We are not trying to control sexual behaviors between consenting adults. We are trying to prevent dangerous behaviors from being protected by law. Do whatever you want behind closed doors Ken, but don't manipulate an institution, traditional marriage, so it can fit your needs for benefits from work and herald your sexual desires, because these desires are not in the interest of our state government.

In regards to why homosexuality is immoral:

1. There is not one single place in the Bible where homosexuality is mentioned in anything other than negative terms or where homosexual relationships were given any approval.

2. There are certain relationships which society “judges” to be immoral and has subsequently made “illegal” (marrying one’s sibling, marrying more than one person, marrying an animal, marrying a child, etc…) We as a society have made certain specific judgments on which types of relationships that we will condone and those that we consider to be immoral and will not condone. We are not “judging” any specific individuals by placing certain restrictions on specific relationships. We are merely placing boundaries in between behavior that we deem moral and those we deem immoral. In doing so we are making judgments based on our natural ability to do so in order to maintain a requisite degree of societal order. Thus, by maintaining the position that marriage is solely between one man and one woman, we are making a moral judgment in consideration of thousands of years of tradition that predated America,our law or any type of religion.

When homosexual marriage is legalized and given the same moral standing as heterosexual marriage, what will stop television programmers from airing shows on public airwaves that show homosexuals hugging and kissing and having sex? What about the “rights” of the 90% of Americans who claim to be Christian who believe that homosexuality is sinful behavior who don’t want their children being exposed to homosexuality on T.V.? Or do the “rights” of a very small minority of radicals transcend hundreds of millions of citizens in this country to not have the homosexual agenda imposed on them?

3. Homosexuals die much earlier than heterosexuals and have significantly higher rates of suicide, rectal cancer, liver cancer, HIV, and other infectious diseases than heterosexuals.

4. The median death age for homosexual males is 42 years old. The median death age for homosexual women is 49 years old. Less than 2 percent of homosexual males live until age 65. Source: Cameron, Playfair, Wellum, “The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the Aids Epidemic,” Omega Journal of Death and Dying,” 1994.

I could go on and on with these stats regarding the dangers of homosexuality. It is an immoral act scripturely and statistically. With 54% of the country making SS"M" illegal, it proves my point that it is a dangerous behavior due to the consequenses that is predisposes onto society.

You asked:

"Does (homosexual behavior) make society weaker?

Yes. Read my June 5, 2006 post titled: "Question: How does same-sex marriage harm our understanding of humanity?" for a full explanation.

10:46 AM, March 22, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“If our representatives made same-sex "marriages" legal in 2004, then so be it. But they did not. the judicial system interpreted a lack of a law making it illegal for homosexuals to marry into a law where homosexuals can marry. How does that make sense?”

How am I getting misunderstood once again? The SJC basically said that because there is no law against same sex marriages, there was no legal way to deny them. They didn’t change the law regarding homosexual marriage; they looked at the definition of marriage in their law books and saw that there was no part in it that said one man with one woman.

“You have the same rights as I do as well as the some odd 300 million people that live in this country. We both have a right to marry, but we both can not marry anyone of the same-sex.”

If you live in Massachusetts you can.

“That is not discrimination or unfair, it is all fair game across the boards for everyone.”

Well I’m going to compare apples and oranges here so bear with me. My wife won’t eat red meat on Fridays during lent (at least I think it’s lent) she will only eat fish. Now I have a serious aversion to seafood of any kind, I can’t handle the smell of it in my house it makes me sick. Not sick as in going to the doctor sick but I am just disgusted with seafood. If there was a law stating that during lent everyone would have to eat seafood or be penalized I’d go for the punishment every time. Would it be discrimination to penalize me for refusing to eat fish during lent? I say yes. The law is the same for everyone but just as I could never find a man attractive neither could I enjoy a plate of catfish or any other fish for that matter. I hope you can see the correlation.

“A litte extreme, but our government is run via Judaeo-Christian values, which is explained in the U.S. Constitution. (Covered in my next post)”

It is? I can’t wait to see that next post.

“We are not trying to control sexual behaviors between consenting adults.”

At this point in time no, you’re not, but that would not have been the case a few years ago.

“1. There is not one single place in the Bible where homosexuality is mentioned in anything other than negative terms or where homosexual relationships were given any approval.”

So? Not everyone follows the bible as their chosen way to live life.

Who cares if homosexuality isn’t healthy? I’m allowed to smoke, drink, and eat a big mac with greasy French fries and we all know those aren’t healthy.

Once again someone says that homosexuality is “immoral”, yet neglects to tell me why it’s immoral. Come on! Why is that so hard? We can all agree why murder theft and lying is immoral because of how it affects others, but why homosexuality? Don’t tell me “… because the bible tells me so”. Give me a reason. Tell me who the victim is, show me how it hurts him/her.

Ken Weaver

8:28 PM, March 22, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"The SJC basically said that because there is no law against same sex marriages, there was no legal way to deny them. They didn’t change the law regarding homosexual marriage; they looked at the definition of marriage in their law books and saw that there was no part in it that said one man with one woman."

You have your facts wrong Ken. The law in Massachusetts did not have a definition of marriage in their law books prior to the Goodridge "decision". That is why Massachusetts is fighting for an amendment that clearly defines marriage in its law books. So, to inadvertently put a law into place without legislative approval is not the role the judicial system can take.

I do see your correlation with the fish law, but, as you agreed with, you would be punished for your actions if you decided to break such a hypothetical law. If you wish to face the consequences, then that is your choice. If folks in the 37 states that have a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), in which many judicial systems and legislative officials are not enforcing, break that law, then they, if the law was enforced, would be punished.

How were we trying to control sexual behaviors between consenting adults a few years ago? As far as I am concerned the Marriage Protection Amendment in MA is installing a definition of marriage not a law that peaks in on what people are doing behind closed doors.

You said:

"Once again someone says that homosexuality is “immoral”, yet neglects to tell me why it’s immoral....Tell me who the victim is, show me how it hurts him/her."

The claim that a homosexual’s “marriage” doesn’t “hurt” anybody else is based on false logic. One could make the same assertion about other modes of behavior such as pedaphelia, child pornography, bigamy, incest, or sex with animals. One could claim that as long as there is mutual consent that none of these behaviors are unlawful and should enjoy all the same legal protections that traditional marriage enjoys. After all, how does a threesome or person wanting to marry his animal affect the married couple across town the cynic might ask. Anytime that we as a society condone specific modes of behavior we tacitly acknowledge it as acceptable. Just because we may never come into direct contact with a pedaphile doesn’t mean that we must by that measure alone condone such behavior by granting it legal approval. Citizens can oppose and restrict certain legal relationships based upon the perceived morality of that behavior. I need not live next door to a polyamorous couple to oppose the legality of this type of family configuration. Thus, the assertion that a homosexual couple’s marriage does no harm to a heterosexual’s marriage is a false choice based on false assumptions and presuppositions.

While Joe and Mary might not feel the direct effects of Bill and Bob’s “marriage” they will certainly experience the lasting impact of a radically different society and culture. Joe and Mary’s children will be taught in school that their Christian notion that homosexual behavior is sinful that that type of thinking is “hate speech and hate thought” and not “tolerant”. Joe and Mary will have to cede their sacred religious beliefs at the altar of secular humanism that teaches that homosexual behavior is normal and should be encouraged and experimented with. If homosexual marriage is legalized, it is only a matter of time when other non-traditional “marriage” unions are allowed. Thus, when four men and four women move in next door to Jim and Alice in a “legal” polyamour “marriage” and each of the polyamours have children together (with different partners) although their arrangement won’t directly effect the quality of Joe and Mary’s marriage, it could strongly effect the well being of Joe and Mary’s children who now live next door to the polyamours.

What will be the effects on children when they are told that the octet next door is just another type of “family” and that there are a great many diverse families in our country and that each person must decide what is “right” for them and that exclusive marriage between one man and one woman is outdated, intolerant, and homophobic?

What about when Mary who is herself a third grade teacher is told by her teacher’s union that she must teach that homosexuality is normal even though her biblical beliefs tell her otherwise?

Did you read my June 5, 2006 post titled: "Question: How does same-sex marriage harm our understanding of humanity?"

4:01 PM, March 23, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“The law in Massachusetts did not have a definition of marriage in their law books prior to the Goodridge "decision".”

That’s my point.

“That is why Massachusetts is fighting for an amendment that clearly defines marriage in its law books.”

Once again you are correct. Massachusetts is trying to make law to deny marriages based on gender.

“So, to inadvertently put a law into place without legislative approval is not the role the judicial system can take.”

Here’s where we get screwed up. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote “the state had no "constitutionally adequate reason" for denying marriage to same-sex couples.” Basically saying Massachusetts must amend the constitution to stop same sex marriages.

“I do see your correlation with the fish law, but, as you agreed with, you would be punished for your actions if you decided to break such a hypothetical law. If you wish to face the consequences, then that is your choice. If folks in the 37 states that have a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), in which many judicial systems and legislative officials are not enforcing, break that law, then they, if the law was enforced, would be punished.”

Wouldn’t I be discriminated against because of my distaste for seafood? If when I smell fish I feel as if I’m about to vomit wouldn’t that be the only real difference between me and the majority? Wouldn’t that in a sense create a minority that would be 2nd class citizens? Certainly in a society such as ours equality is one of our greatest assets; or maybe not.

“How were we trying to control sexual behaviors between consenting adults a few years ago?”

Sexual behavior has been on religions hit list for years. I believe inter-faith marriages were strictly forbidden in the Old Testament to the point of death. We moved past that kind of thinking so a new enemy came along: inter-racial marriages. Debated long and hard but society moved along. Pornography could only be seen in seedy theatres some years ago to the dismay of many, yet once again society has moved past those beliefs and pornography is a booming business. Homosexuals came out of the closet and ended up being at the forefront of many a battle regarding religion. Odd since we are supposed to be a society that embraces diversity including religious diversity.

“As far as I am concerned the Marriage Protection Amendment in MA is installing a definition of marriage not a law that peaks in on what people are doing behind closed doors.”

Hmmmm, interesting, I’ll have to think about that.

“The claim that a homosexual’s “marriage” doesn’t “hurt” anybody else is based on false logic. One could make the same assertion about other modes of behavior such as pedaphelia, child pornography, bigamy, incest, or sex with animals.”

No way!! A child is not capable of making those kinds of sexual decisions. An adult is coercing that child in your examples which leads to a victimization of the child itself. An animal can’t consent any more than the child can. On incest there is a difference. If a man wishes to marry his sister or vice versa they are capable of finding another attractive mate that the state will consent to the marriage, but homosexuals unable to be attracted to a person of the opposite sex are incapable of finding another person the state will endorse as a marriage partner. On bigamy, sorry but I don’t have a serious problem with it. In fact some of the greatest personages in the bible were bigamists. If two women wish to marry a man, or two men to marry a woman, who cares as long as each person is capable of understanding what they are getting into.

“Citizens can oppose and restrict certain legal relationships based upon the perceived morality of that behavior.”

Perceived being the operative word. It would seem that societies’ perception has changed. Not totally, but for the most part.

“Joe and Mary will have to cede their sacred religious beliefs at the altar of secular humanism that teaches that homosexual behavior is normal and should be encouraged and experimented with.”

Not at the altar, but maybe at their front door. They will still have the right to teach their children what they wish if they don’t approve of what the schools teach, they do have other options.

“Thus, when four men and four women move in next door to Jim and Alice in a “legal” polyamour “marriage” and each of the polyamours have children together (with different partners) although their arrangement won’t directly effect the quality of Joe and Mary’s marriage, it could strongly effect the well being of Joe and Mary’s children who now live next door to the polyamours.”

How so?

“What about when Mary who is herself a third grade teacher is told by her teacher’s union that she must teach that homosexuality is normal even though her biblical beliefs tell her otherwise?”

Maybe she might think about instead of being a third grade teacher becoming a kindergarten teacher. If she doesn’t approve of what she is told to teach she has options.

“What will be the effects on children when they are told that the octet next door is just another type of “family” and that there are a great many diverse families in our country and that each person must decide what is “right” for them and that exclusive marriage between one man and one woman is outdated, intolerant, and homophobic?”

The effects will be that the child will decide what is right for them and move on. Seems simple doesn’t it?

“Did you read my June 5, 2006 post titled: "Question: How does same-sex marriage harm our understanding of humanity?"”

Yes, sorry I don’t believe it for a second.

Ken Weaver

9:10 PM, March 23, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was watching TV a little today and it made me think about this statement you made.

“That is not discrimination or unfair, it is all fair game across the boards for everyone.”

That statement has been used before. Years ago some states had voting laws that required a person be able to read and complete a test to be able to vote. It was aimed at African Americans because many of the time were not educated enough to be able to fulfill those requirements. When some called it discriminatory, they said it wasn’t because everyone had to pass those same tests. In a way both you and those who instilled those rules into law are trying to exclude a minority from taking part in the American dream. Then it was the right to vote; now it’s the right of marriage. Excluding others because they don’t follow your views in what life is about. Your basis for exclusion may not be based on the color of a man’s skin or from where a person came from but it is exclusion based on what you believe about our society. I’ve heard many people complain about the comparisons of homosexuality and race. Those comparisons likely would not be coming to light if the tactics and phrases used against those for marriage equality, were not so similar to the tactics and phrases used against those in the fight for racial equality.

Ken Weaver

10:48 PM, March 24, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"Massachusetts is trying to make law to deny marriages based on gender."

Based on 'gender'? So, a man can not marry and a women can not marry? Don't you mean based on sexual orientation? If so, yes because society has deemed homosexuality immoral.

In regards to this hypothetical fish law: There is a major "apples" and "oranges" comparison with hypothetical laws and dangerous behaviors being protected by law. It was funny for awhile, but really.

You said:

"...yet once again society has moved past those beliefs and pornography is a booming business."

So, now that SOCIETY... has made pornography a 'booming business' we ALL except it as moral?

You said:

"Odd since we are supposed to be a society that embraces diversity including religious diversity."

Again, society is supposed to embrace dangerous behaviors SUCH AS homosexuality for the sake of being diverse? Where is this stated???

You said:

"If a man wishes to marry his sister or vice versa they are capable of finding another attractive mate that the state will consent to the marriage, but homosexuals unable to be attracted to a person of the opposite sex are incapable of finding another person the state will endorse as a marriage partner."

A person's sexual desires are not in the better interest of the state. Endorsing moral behaviors and protecting them under law is. The state will legally endorse a "rehabilitated" person who left an incest ridden relationship,sexual desire, and marry them to an opposite sex partner outside of his family members. Just like the state will not legally endorse sexual desires within the immoral and dangerous realm of same-sex partners.

You, me, or anyone else can marry anyone as long as it does not involve a same-sex partner. I have said this before. We all are equal in this case. No favoritism is given to anyone.

You said:

"It would seem that societies’ perception has changed. Not totally, but for the most part."

How so?

You said:

"Not at the altar, but maybe at their front door. They will still have the right to teach their children what they wish if they don’t approve of what the schools teach, they do have other options."

"...but maybe at their front door"?So what happens when Joe and Marry's children go to school and make a comment that homosexuality is wrong and get in trouble for this statement that their parents have taught them?

You seem to contradict yourself in the same paragraph when ending with "they do have other options." What are these options if the children get in trouble for speaking their beliefs "at the front door" of lets say their school? "Religous diversity" remember??

You ask 'how so' to my previous comments of:

"“Thus, when four men and four women move in next door to Jim and Alice in a “legal” polyamour “marriage” and each of the polyamours have children together (with different partners) although their arrangement won’t directly effect the quality of Joe and Mary’s marriage, it could strongly effect the well being of Joe and Mary’s children who now live next door to the polyamours.”

My response to that question is the children will think that exclusive marriage between one man and one woman is outdated, intolerant, and homophobic?

This is a problem not a solution that you suggest by saying:

"The effects will be that the child will decide what is right for them and move on. Seems simple doesn’t it?"

Not when it contradicts their belief structure it doesen't.

You said:

"Maybe she (Marry) might think about instead of being a third grade teacher becoming a kindergarten teacher. If she doesn’t approve of what she is told to teach she has options."

Oh, so just because one has a certain religious belief they need to alter it so it fits in with a sub-group of people, homosexuals in this case?

Again, this statement totally contradicts your opening statement of:

"Odd since we are supposed to be a society that embraces diversity including religious diversity."

3:42 PM, March 29, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"When some called it (read and complete a test to be able to vote) discriminatory, they (officials of test I guess) said it wasn’t because everyone had to pass those same tests. In a way both you and those who instilled those rules into law are trying to exclude a minority from taking part in the American dream.

Ah...these regulations still implie today for anyone tring to become legalized American citizens. Is it still discriminatory???????

You said in closing:

"I’ve heard many people complain about the comparisons of homosexuality and race. Those comparisons likely would not be coming to light if the tactics and phrases used against those for marriage equality, were not so similar to the tactics and phrases used against those in the fight for racial equality."

African Americans in large numbers oppose same-sex "marriage", indicating they don't align themselves with the homosexual movement. (Ta-Nehisi Coates, "Queer Eye for the Black Guy," The Village Voice, September 30, 2003).

Many African Americans are deeply offended at the comparison of gay "rights" with civil rights when used by homosexual activists. (Alvin Williams, "Blacks Resent Comparison of Gay Rights to Civil Right," The Charlotte Observer, April 23, 2004, p. 9A).

Just for clarification, are you asking me that banning gay "marriage" is just like banning interracial marriage?

4:01 PM, March 29, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Ah...these regulations still implie today for anyone tring to become legalized American citizens. Is it still discriminatory???????”

As they are not yet citizens they are not yet protected by all the rights we as citizens have. I would have to say no because if these immigrants wish to be a part of our society, the programs to educate are available to them. And those education programs are available to all.

“African Americans in large numbers oppose same-sex "marriage", indicating they don't align themselves with the homosexual movement. (Ta-Nehisi Coates, "Queer Eye for the Black Guy," The Village Voice, September 30, 2003).”

To be honest, I don’t care.

“Just for clarification, are you asking me that banning gay "marriage" is just like banning interracial marriage?”

No, there are differences, but there are also similarities.

Ken Weaver

8:25 PM, March 29, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“If so, yes because society has deemed homosexuality immoral.”

Why? What’s their basis for that condemnation?

“So, now that SOCIETY... has made pornography a 'booming business' we ALL except it as moral?”

Not all no, but the majority has.

“Again, society is supposed to embrace dangerous behaviors SUCH AS homosexuality for the sake of being diverse? Where is this stated???”

No one is demanding that you embrace anything. What is demanded is equality in all the facets of life (including marriage).

“You, me, or anyone else can marry anyone as long as it does not involve a same-sex partner. I have said this before. We all are equal in this case. No favoritism is given to anyone.”

Would you marry someone you were not physically attracted to?

I said: "It would seem that societies’ perception has changed. Not totally, but for the most part."

You said: How so?

Tolerance of homosexuals has increased.

“You seem to contradict yourself in the same paragraph when ending with "they do have other options." What are these options if the children get in trouble for speaking their beliefs "at the front door" of lets say their school? "Religous diversity" remember??”

Religion should not be taught at school, so the child wouldn’t really have an avenue for that discussion.

“My response to that question is the children will think that exclusive marriage between one man and one woman is outdated, intolerant, and homophobic?”

And that’s a problem?

I said: The effects will be that the child will decide what is right for them and move on. Seems simple doesn’t it?

You said: Not when it contradicts their belief structure it doesen't.

If their belief structure is such that they don’t believe multiple partner marriages are acceptable, they won’t choose them will they?

“Oh, so just because one has a certain religious belief they need to alter it so it fits in with a sub-group of people, homosexuals in this case?”

If I don’t like cigarette smoke, I won’t go to work at a smoke shop. If she doesn’t approve of what her job entails, she can do something else.

“Again, this statement totally contradicts your opening statement of:

"Odd since we are supposed to be a society that embraces diversity including religious diversity."”

No it doesn’t, the supposed teacher has a duty to teach what the district has deemed appropriate. If she is distraught at what that entails she must decide for herself what to do at that point. Religious diversity does not belong at the school. Religion should be far away from it.

Ken Weaver

9:00 PM, March 29, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"As they are not yet citizens (immigrants) they are not yet protected by all the rights we as citizens have."

They are protected by the Bill of Rights once they have stepped foot onto American soil.

As far as the education programs to prep. someone before they could vote back in the day: Are you sure they were not provided for 'everyone'? What are your sources??

I asked:

“Just for clarification, are you asking me that banning gay "marriage" is just like banning interracial marriage?”

You responded:

"No, there are differences, but there are also similarities."

How so Ken???

11:11 AM, March 30, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“What are your sources??”

http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html

Differences:

Basing marriage availability on gender instead of race.
No biblical references that condemn interracial couples.
The federal government denied the majority the right to vote on the issue.


Similarities:

Religious zealots proclaiming that the marriages are against the will of god.
The majority of citizens wanted to deny the right of marriage to both groups.
Seen as a sign of disenfranchisement to homosexuals and blacks.


There are more differences and similarities but I’m sure you’re intelligent enough to find them on your own.

Ken Weaver

6:43 PM, March 30, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

These voting regulations, literary tests, also excluded many whites from voting. Sounds pretty "balanced", for a better use of terms, to me.

As far as your "differences" and "similarities": I get your point.

I thought you were going to STRICTLY claim banning gay "marriage" is just like banning interracial marriage. This has been debunked by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in 1971 when they ruled that race and homosexuality are NOT similar.

The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which refused to hear it, citing "appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question" (Baker V. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972). The highest court in our land apparently did not view the race-homosexuality comparison as a serious constitutional question.

9:13 PM, March 30, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You asked:

"Why? What’s their basis for that condemnation?"

The Bible, which is the basis of our government. (This post is coming by the begining of next week, hopefully as early as Sunday!!!)

I said:

“So, now that SOCIETY... has made pornography a 'booming business' we ALL except it as moral?”

You responded:

"Not all no, but the majority has."

Do you think I am going to let you get away with this statement without documenting your sources???

You asked:

"Would you marry someone you were not physically attracted to?"

You are comparing HETEROsexual attractions and HOMOsexual attractions here. What is your point? Physical attractions are not in the better interest of the state.

Gregory Koukl of TownHall.com put it best when he stated this in a recent article of his:

"The marriage licensing law applies to each citizen in the same way; everyone is treated exactly alike. Homosexuals want the right to do something no one, straight or gay, has the right to do: wed someone of the same sex. Denying them that right is not a violation of the equal protection clause.

...It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals – non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers – share those benefits, either. Why should they?

If homosexual couples face “unequal protection” in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?"

Sorry, I just could not of phrased it any better.

You said:

"Tolerance of homosexuals has increased."

This is a result of two homosexual activists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen's six-point strategy to radically change America's perception of homosexual behavior. Their six points were:

1. Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible.

2. Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers.

3. Give homosexual protectors a "just" cause.

4. Make gays look good.

5. Make the victimizers look bad.

6. Get corporate America and major foundations to financially support the homosexual cause. (Homosexual Agenda, Sears & Osten, pgs. 17-18).

You said:

"Religion should not be taught at school, so the child wouldn’t really have an avenue for that discussion."

Your not understanding or are simply evading my question. If the child goes to public school and then goes home to his Christian based home, learns that homosexuality is wrong, says this the next day at school and gets in trouble for it. Where is the religious diversity for that child's belief structure?

You said:

"If their belief structure is such that they don’t believe multiple partner marriages are acceptable, they won’t choose them will they?"

No, they will not. I get what your asking now.

You said:

"If I don’t like cigarette smoke, I won’t go to work at a smoke shop. If she doesn’t approve of what her job entails, she can do something else."

So, Marry will have to change jobs just because she hold a religious belief that homosexuality is wrong, but yet has to teach her students that it is not? You "go(ing)to work at a smoke shop" is different than someone, Marry, having a teaching position for many years and then having to give it up because it goes against her religious beliefs. And the religious diversity is where now Ken??

You said in closing:

"No it doesn’t, the supposed teacher has a duty to teach what the district has deemed appropriate. If she is distraught at what that entails she must decide for herself what to do at that point. Religious diversity does not belong at the school. Religion should be far away from it."

That surely goes against what John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration and a President of Princeton in 1768 as well as huge advocate for religious freedom wrote:

"God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."

Witherspoon's comments reflect that religion would be an integral part of our society and the basis for our government and laws. He talks about maintaining a symbiotic relationship to emphasize the mutual relationship and that a society could not have one without the other

10:01 PM, March 30, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“The Bible, which is the basis of our government.”

I can hardly wait. I’ll hold my response until then.

You might want to check out this website: http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html

If you look there you will find that not only does pornography outdo the combined incomes of ABC, NBC and CBS but that 53% of men who have joined the group called “Promise Keepers” admit to looking at porn. It’s not too much of a leap to conclude that the majority of Americans are consumers of pornography.

“Physical attractions are not in the better interest of the state.”

Maybe those attractions should be considered. After all with divorce rates above 50%, sexual compatibility might help curb that divorce rate. I wouldn’t still be married to my wife if she started complaining that she doesn’t find me sexually attractive anymore; would you?

Wow, you’re bringing in Sears and Osten? Where did they get their copy of the homosexual agenda? Did a homosexual leave it at a bus stop? I don’t even have a copy of the homosexual agenda nor have I been invited to any of the secret meetings. Woe is me.

“Where is the religious diversity for that child's belief structure?”

The school system wasn’t designed so people could proselytize their faith.

“So, Marry will have to change jobs just because she hold a religious belief that homosexuality is wrong, but yet has to teach her students that it is not?”

If she wishes to either proselytize or not teach what the district is instructing her to do; yes.

“And the religious diversity is where now Ken??”

Where it was always supposed to be; in a public place; not at work and not in school.

As far as John Witherspoon I think you are misinterpreting his quote. He felt (as many did) that god granted us our rights (civil liberties), that so it should be no man to take away those rights. I seriously doubt that he would have gone against the producers of the Constitution and advocated a mixture of religion and law.

Barry Goldwater 1964: “I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” ”B,” “C,” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?”

“Totalitarianism is easy to administer. Democracy is difficult… Under totalitarianism it would be a simple matter to regulate and control the morals of the populace; in a democracy morality is best taught in home and from the pulpit. – Editorial, San Juan (Puerto Rico) Star, Oct 21 1960.

Ken Weaver

5:13 PM, March 31, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"After all with divorce rates above 50%, sexual compatibility (with same-sex partners)might help curb that divorce rate."

Just because there is a high divorce rate does not mean that we need to change the standard by which marriage is measured. It only means that we need to focus more attention on the problem of why such a high percentage of marriages fail and focus on changing behavior. Some of the reasons behind the high divorce rate have been “no fault” divorce laws, the rise of radical feminism, increasing cohabitation rates, promiscuity, pornography, adultery, and out of wed lock births. Yet to say that because some marriages fail that we should change the definition of marriage is ludicrous. Just because a high percentage of students fail a test is not prima face evidence that the test is flawed. Marriage between one man and one woman has been the cornerstone of civilization for the last 5,000 years. Traditional marriage is a sacred institution in spite of those who advocate the homosexual agenda who claim that it is outdated and has become a dismal failure.

You said:

"Wow, you’re bringing in Sears and Osten? Where did they get their copy of the homosexual agenda?"

No Ken, two homosexual activists made up this agenda which has been advocated for time and time again. It did not originate from Sears and Osten. I will get you the names of the two activists. They are quite popular!!

You said:

"The school system wasn’t designed so people could proselytize their faith."

Completely and utterly wrong. My post about Judaeo-Christianity in the Constitution will clear this up. My deadline is to have this post up by this upcoming Sunday night 4-22-07.

Do you believe that totalitarianism should be in place instead of a democracy in America or elsewhere?

10:13 AM, April 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Some of the reasons behind the high divorce rate have been “no fault” divorce laws, the rise of radical feminism, increasing cohabitation rates, promiscuity, pornography, adultery, and out of wed lock births.”

No Fault divorce laws: If people are taking advantage of those laws, it’s likely they had compatibility problems and shouldn’t have gotten married in the first place. But people make mistakes and society is better off if people can start anew, although it does sicken me when I see a celebrity pulling off a few hour marriage and then getting an annulment. But the sacredness of a marriage is not what society sees, but what it doesn’t see.

Radical feminism: What exactly makes feminism “radical?”

Increasing cohabitation rates: How can that increase divorce if they’re not getting married?

Promiscuity: Not always!!

Pornography: Only if the person viewing porn is hiding it from their partner. But then the problem isn’t really pornography is it?

Adultery: What’s the difference between adultery and promiscuity?

Out of wedlock births: See my comment on increasing cohabitation rates.

“Just because there is a high divorce rate does not mean that we need to change the standard by which marriage is measured.”

Are you really saying that a marriage is measured by the genitalia of the partners?

“Just because a high percentage of students fail a test is not prima face evidence that the test is flawed.”

You are correct, but if this divorce rate continues to increase I’d say that something is wrong, and it wouldn’t be because homosexuals want marriage.

“Traditional marriage is a sacred institution in spite of those who advocate the homosexual agenda who claim that it is outdated and has become a dismal failure.”

What makes a marriage sacred? Is your marriage sacred because you married someone of the opposite sex? Mine certainly isn’t. My marriage is sacred because I make it sacred. It is one of the most important things in my life. But my marriage does not trump my wife’s feelings. My wife is so important to me that if she would be happier elsewhere I would let her go. My wife sees that and feels the same about me. A marriage can still be sacred without society’s approval stamp.

“I will get you the names of the two activists. They are quite popular!!”

Please do.

“My deadline is to have this post up by this upcoming Sunday night 4-22-07.”

I’m waiting on pins and needles.

“Do you believe that totalitarianism should be in place instead of a democracy in America or elsewhere?”

I must not be reading my quotes well enough. Omd asked me the same thing. The answer is no. What I was alluding to is that if you want all of society to follow a prescribed moral code beyond general courtesy you would have to enforce totalitarianism. In a Democracy morals are generally the opinions of the individuals within that society. I believe Democracy is the moral superior to totalitarianism.

Ken Weaver

11:00 PM, April 19, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

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