A Defense of Marriage/Gay Rights Amendment

[than205]

Originally posted by shartley

It is a valid point. It's a nice wedge issue and the timing is good.

[than205]

This was forwarded to me today.


On her radio show recently, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet.

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Law and how to follow them.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Virginia


Kinda points out how things change....

[shartley]

Than205- the Laws that change are found to be changed. Some stay the same. Please reference a verse in the New Testament that says Homosexuality is now okay. Just pointing out that SOME things change does not mean EVERYTHING changed.

[jdev]

butter, yes, that is clearer

the post above mine (than205), well written. to the point and comical as i see it. :thumbs up:

[shartley]

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by shartley

Originally posted by shartley

So murder being wrong is similar to gay marriage how?

[shartley]

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata


Originally posted by shartley

So murder being wrong is similar to gay marriage how?

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by impostal22
first thing...is one of the last things you mentioned. civil unions do NOT encompass all the legal marriage rights, and bush is doing nothing about making civil unions equal to marriages in legal terms.

And how do you know that? Since the civil unions would be (so far) completely up to the state. Do you have some kind of magic ball that predicts exactly what rights the state is going to provide? All talk about the unions is that they will be, for the most part, just marriage light, which is fine. Like most laws I'm sure they'll change over years to meet better with the needs of the community, but they will exist. Bush said flat out that he wants an amendment that allows for civil unions, and the author of the amendment made it very clear that the amendment is intended to allow for civil unions (although right now it may need re-writing to accomplish that, as some constitutional scholars are saying it doesn't)


next, as someone stated before, the polygamy argument is an argumental fallacy known as post hoc...you cannot say that one will lead to the other. for one, polygamy isn't legal! homosexuality IS legal! there's a HUGE difference between extending equal rights to two people engaging in a perfectly legal act, and giving rights to two criminals because of their crime.

Um, how do you figure that polygamy isn't legal? It's illegal now to have sex with multiple people? Now, polygamy is just as legal as homosexuality right now, being that outside of marriage both are permissable.

finally, you brought up religion. you brought up vows that YOU had to make to YOUR god when getting married. i'm not about to debate religion because that's an absolutely pointless argument, but i will say one thing. just because your religion makes you promise to have children when getting married does not imply that ALL religions do.

All religions view marriage in basically the same way. And those religions are the basis for the way marriage has worked in this country since day one. Even the native americans had marriage specifically for the purpose of raising children.

not to mention, there are NON-religious marriages. because of this fact alone (and MANY others), religion needs to be kept out. your religion is not THE religion, so whatever beliefs your religion has is really quite irrelevant to the laws of our country. especially considering the first amendment, which is interpreted by virtually everyone as creating an invisible wall between the dealings of the church and the dealings of the government.

Right, those marriage performed by a court justice, or as they're about to be known as, civil unions.

Right, seperation of church and state, which is WHY the government shouldn't be forcnig the church to accept a new kind of their own institution.

making laws against marriage on religious terms leaves those people whose religion disagrees with these terms completely disenfranchised. respecting no religion when making law is not only the law of the country, but it is incredibly dangerous to do otherwise.

The only religion that will sort of be disenfranchised is mormons, who believe in polygamy.

so again, religion needs to stay out of the argument, because there is no right religion, and government dealings, by LAW, have to disregard religion. we are talking about the rights for gays to get married, and marriage is more legal than anything else nowadays.

Wait a minute, there's no right to religion? What constitution did you read? What constitution exactly guartateens the right to sodomy and gay marriage but not religion? Are you kidding me?

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by spantol
This, again, is a type of post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Specifically, it's an example of a joint effect. Where, exactly, is the causal link; why do we need to allow other, unrelated activities if we allow gay marriage?

If the courts allow gay marriage and clearly state the we cannot constitutionally deny marriage to gays then it opens the flood gates. If gay marriage were allowed legislatively then it would not.

It was the same with the Texas sodomy laws. I thought the law was both constitutional and should have been repealed. By declaring it unconstitutional it allowed for a real problem to develope.

Social changes spring from an underlying change in the social current. What's happening here, similar to what happened with women's suffrage and slavery, is that our society is being asked to decide whether the stigma associated with certain activities is justified. Clearly, judging from poll results, society isn't going to accept gay marriage at the moment (or ever, if that's your position). If a polygamy movement were to (somehow) gain momentum and pose the same question, they would certainly meet with the same results, for the same reason--those activities aren't condoned by society. I see no reason why a society that condones gay marriage would necessarily become more likely to support polygamy, and that's what this argument reduces to. The slope simply isn't that slippery.

But if the courts push it throw it's through. By pursueing this active agenda in the courts, and not in the legislature where it belongs, the gay lobby has taken the arguement out of public opinion, they are trying to affect change against societies wishes.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by CaptaiN_JacK
so a teacher today told me the REAL reason bush is doing this:

about 75% of republicans support a constitutional gay marriage ban

only 44% of democrats support a constitutional gay marriage ban.

in other words, by making the ban, he wil be solidifying his base for the next election, but the democrats will be split.

and religion and other stuff also play a smaller part

YOur teacher is an idiot.

How about 70% of americans are against gay marriages (while only 60% support the amendment, which is weird).

Liberals are so blind whenever they say that "for his base" nonsense. The MAJORITY of Americans feel this way, it's not just the conservatives.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CaptaiN_JacK
even though nobody wants to make illegal immigrants legalized, hes still going ahead with that...in other words, hes trying to pick the issue that most republicans go for, and which splits up the democrats.

I doubt he will by the way, the backlash on that one was huge, and he backed off it a lot.

what im trying to say is that hes trying to get votes this upcoming election. hes trying to get his polls back up, and in turn, win a new term for president. hes also trying to get the democrats split up so as to make it harder for them to back 100% behind the democrat presidential runner.

SO basically, what you're saying is, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Ok, gotcha.

so basically, bush is an elitist ignorant ***** whos tearing the country apart with his stupid foreign policy.

You mean like EVERY PRESIDENT EVER. Why do liberals suddenly forget that there were people opposed to President Clinton. Why do they seem to think we were all one big happy family before a Republican president?

his polls are lagging, and he needs some momentum, so why not pull a kkk and segregate a minority because they are inferior and stupid and shouldnt be able to have the same rights as "normal" people

His polls are fine. They're down a little because the anti-bush democrats have had the stage uniterrupted for the past few months. Once their primary wraps up (probably next week) they'll be a more even playing ground.

[CaptaiN_JacK]

YOur teacher is an idiot.

How about 70% of americans are against gay marriages (while only 60% support the amendment, which is weird).

hrmm how about thats what I SAID moron...hes trying to split up the democrats between this issue while solidyfying his own base

yep great foreign policy, take over countrys that have dictators you dont like. while were at it, lets take over north korea, somalia, china, iran, cuba, libya, syria, vietnam, rwanda, suadi arabia, liberia, and much, MUCH more

clinton made over 50 trips to other countries during his administration, so far, cheney has made less than 5.

its sort-of funny, how everybody pretty much agrees that vietnam was a screw up and shouldnt have happened, and now that we have a second vietnam, everybody is blind and deaf.

and yes, you are correct, his polls are fine. BOTH of the democratic front runners have higher poll standings than him. ha!

once everybody wakes up and realizes iraq was a huge mistake, and that banning gay mariages is discriminating, bush will be defeated just like his father was in 1992. like father, like son.

and notice how on the eve of an oil crisis, bush just goes into alaska to dig for more oil, rather than spending that money researching reusable forms of energy?

and i finally realized what his foreign policy is formed after. when he goes down to his expenisve ranch, he cuts down the "bad" trees than are killing the "good" trees. he just cuts, and cuts, and cuts, trying hopelessy to cut down all the bad trees. sounds a lot like his foreign policy, doesnt it?

[Rooster]

LOL! The idealism of the naive. Its cute. Sad that people are raised so poorly these days, but it's still cute.

[CaptaiN_JacK]

you know what else is cute? people that believe everything the government tells them! thats priceless. too bad all the people in our country are so easily influenced by what other people tell them.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Rooster
LOL! The idealism of the naive. Its cute. Sad that people are raised so poorly these days, but it's still cute.

while you've gotten much better recently, you still reflect how poorly you were raised on a daily basis.