In regard to same-sex marriage, if people would dust off their Bibles and look up Leviticus 18:22 [“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination”], they would discover how God feels about homosexuality and punishes sin.
Re April 26 letter by R.A. Lalonde, “True Catholics can’t back same-sex marriage”: Does Lalonde claim to be God? If not, then what gives him the right to tell others they are not true Catholics? The letter is full of rhetoric and judgment, but little fact. I will not get in a debate over whose religious beliefs are “correct” — the fact is, none of us knows for certain whose religion is the “right” one. I would point out one actual fact, though. The Bible, the Catechism, and every other religious work have one thing in common: They were all written by human beings, and translated into many different languages many times over many centuries. Ever play the game telephone? Same principle applies. There is absolutely no way to guarantee what appears in the Bible is exactly the same as when it was first presented. So let’s look at facts, rather than get in a religious debate. According to the very Bible [Lalonde] used to condemn homosexuality, slavery is perfectly fine. Does the writer also agree with that sentiment? Then there’s the matter of Genesis: God created man in his own image. I can state with absolute certainty that gays are human beings, exactly the same anatomically as any straight person. That is indisputable fact. So, what? Did God “screw up” when he made homosexuals? Because I was pretty sure Catholics believe God doesn’t make mistakes — correct me if that’s wrong. I’d like to see one fact — and I mean actual fact, not rhetoric or religious belief — that homosexuals differ in some physical way from heterosexuals. If not, then we must assume they are indeed human and should be guaranteed the same rights as all other humans. It is interesting that Lalonde lumps together same-sex marriage, abortion and birth control: I’m guessing he is opposed to sex in general, then? If “Catholics, Christians or anyone” (Catholics are Christians, by the way) truly want to know the truth, might I suggest that if reading the Bible is the solution, read the entire thing, not just the parts that concur with your judgments. (I believe the Bible also says “judge lest not ye be judged” and “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”)
Re Gerolene Snavely’s April 30 letter on gay marriage: If people like her would dust off their minds, they might realize a couple of things. Not all of us are Christians, and not all of the people who are Christians are literal interpreters of the Bible. I mean, after all, it does say in Proverbs 23:21 “Hear, my son, and be wise, and direct your mind in the way. Be not among winebibbers, or among gluttonous eaters of meat.” According to her logic, I suppose we should close down every beer joint and Golden Corral in the country. But you know what? That’s not going to happen, for the simple fact that the United States is not a Christian nation, regardless of what Sean Hannity may tell you. We never have been. Not before the American Revolution, and officially not since the First Amendment to our Constitution in 1791, which specifically prohibits our government from both establishing a national religion and from offering preferential treatment to one religion over others. So, congratulations. She found a Bible verse that supports her personal beliefs, and then wrote a seven-line response telling Gazette readers to go read the Bible. Put some thought into it next time. While I do respect that she is entitled to her own opinion, let’s keep the Bible out of our lawmaking.
In response to Gerolene Snavely, who quoted from Leviticus that “thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind,” I hope she is attending to all the other rules in Leviticus — and don’t get me started on Deuteronomy [April 30 Gazette]. I hope she is making many burnt offerings, not eating fat, making a sacrifice after every child’s birthday, not eating shellfi sh, observing the rituals for the Feast of Booths and the Day of Atonement and, most importantly, in Leviticus 25:14, “Ye shall therefore not oppress one another.” In Deuteronomy, she cannot wear cotton/polyester or any other blends, or risk stoning. You can’t pick and choose. Follow the whole Bible or do not throw quotes at random.
What’s next? Marriage benefits for bigamists and polygamists?
BY DANIEL T. WEAVER For The Sunday Gazette
I oppose same-sex marriage. If that makes me a bigot, then so be it. I do agree with gays, however, on one point — the current marriage laws do discriminate against them. According to one report I read, our current laws deny more than 2,000 legal benefits to homosexual couples that heterosexual married couples enjoy. I would be hard-pressed to come up with more than a dozen legal benefits; nevertheless, gays are straight on this issue. However, they rarely mention that our laws also deny these same benefits to single people, heterosexual couples who live together but choose not to get married, bigamists and polygamists. BECOMING A MAJORITY Gov. Paterson’s renewed push to get same-sex marriage approved is a cynical ploy to take our focus off of the economy, rebuild his political base and improve his ratings, which have plummeted like a penny from the top of the Empire State Building. If it succeeds, then homosexuals will become what they have always claimed heterosexuals are — part of a majority that discriminates against minorities. They will have joined a coalition that still discriminates against singles, people who choose to live together but not get married, bigamists, polygamists and people in a variety of other nontraditional relationships. As proponents of tolerance, I am surprised that gays have not spoken up for the right of polygamists to marry more than one spouse. (Spare me the argument that homosexuality is biological whereas polygamy is a choice. I don’t buy it). I am surprised that instead of asking only for their own right to get married — most of the benefits of which they express in financial terms — they haven’t shown the way that marriage laws discriminate against millions of single people and heterosexual and homosexual couples who choose to live together but don’t want to get married. SINGLES PAY MORE One of the legal benefits of marriage that I am very aware of is the income tax benefit. Being married saved my wife and me about $2,000 in federal income taxes alone this year. So if gays are allowed to get married, their taxes will be cut. But the income tax laws will still discriminate against millions of people. Why should single people pay more taxes than married people? And if gay people are allowed the legal benefits of marriage, including tax benefits, why shouldn’t people who practice polygamy and people who don’t believe in marriage at all get the same tax benefits? You can argue that there are few polygamists in New York state (even though polygamy in the United States started in Palmyra, N.Y.), so it is not a problem. You can argue that polygamy is illegal. Homosexuality was once illegal also, and there are still anti-sodomy laws on the books in some states. And we don’t know how many polygamists or bigamists are in New York state because they are still locked in the closet. There are, however, an estimated 50,000 polygamists in the United States. In a Oct. 3, 2004, USA Today article, Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington Law School, wrote about the hypocrisy of our polygamy laws. He argued that he personally detested polygamy but believed that we should not single out one hated minority for discrimination. Turley wrote about Utah polygamist Tom Green, the subject of a highly acclaimed British documentary, “One Man, Six Wives and Twenty-Nine Children.” Green was convicted of polygamy under Utah law. He challenged the law but lost in Utah’s Supreme Court. I am opposed to both samesex marriage and polygamy. But if gays can enjoy the benefits of marriage, then why shouldn’t everyone, regardless of what their definition of marriage is, or even what their marital status is? REVOLUTIONARY STEP I believe that our society is moving toward legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. The move will indeed be revolutionary. It will not stop with gays. The logic by which gay marriage is being accepted will eventually be used to approve bigamy, polygamy and other nontraditional forms of marriage. The logic will eventually force us to question why we give benefits, particularly financial ones, to married people but not to single people. If you change the definition of water so that it no longer just means H 0 but now includes 2 Coca-Cola, you can’t just stop there. You have moved from chemistry to alchemy, where anything goes. If Pepsi advocates want to define Pepsi as water, you have to let them. I know this is a slippery slope, domino theory, thin edge of the wedge, foot in the door, camel’s nose in the tent argument, and those arguments don’t always hold water. All of Southeast Asia did not become Communist because Vietnam did, although at least three countries did. However, in the case of marriage, which has only ever had one definition until recently — the legal union of one man and one woman — the camel’s entire body, not just his nose, is going to enter the tent when you change the definition. I don’t see how anyone can stop it. I just hope when the camel does enter the tent, no one asks for her hoof in marriage.
Dan Weaver, nailed it here for all who are not advocates for same sex marriage. Including myself. Dan also has a great blog called "Upstream", that can be accessed by the link below:
No one needs the Bible to know that same sex 'anything' is not the norm. And Dan Weaver's article was Brillant!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
ALBANY -- The Democratic-led Assembly on Tuesday passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage, marking the second time in two years that such a measure has passed in the lower house.
"I'm entitled to the same paper you have," Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell, an openly gay lawmaker who championed the bill said, referring to the marriage certificate he needs in order to wed his longtime partner. He said hes been engaged for 28 years.
"I believe this is wrong," countered Republican Michael Fitzpatrick, of Smithtown, Long Island.
While the bill was expected to pass, supporters will point to the larger margin of victory this year, 89 to 52, compared to the 85-61 vote in 2007, as reason that it may pass in the Senate as well.
I am clearly not in agreement with this decision. I will vote against anyone who voted in favor of this new proposed law. IMHO
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Opponents press case against gay marriage Assembly approves measure legalizing nuptials BY MICHAEL GORMLEY The Associated Press
Opponents of a New York bill to legalize same-sex marriage say that while they’re having trouble getting their nuanced position heard, their concerns are reflected in splits among legislators and New Yorkers. They also say the all-or-nothing effort to pass a marriage equality law is blocking a compromise to guarantee full rights for gay couples through civil unions. But in this best chance yet for proponents to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, there are few rallies and little vitriol from either side. “We want to make sure to keep this to a respectful dialogue, because we don’t question the motivation of people on the other side,” said Dennis Poust of the New York State Catholic Conference. “We’re not going to resort to any kind of homophobia in making our arguments because that is against our teachings and is unjust.” Poust’s group, along with many legislators, says it supports providing every government right to same-sex couples. But they say redefining marriage — with all its cultural and religious aspects — isn’t necessary or even possible in any context other than in a political world. Poust said a law could force Catholic colleges to provide housing for same-sex couples, require Catholic schools to provide spousal benefits to gay couples, and require justices of the peace to perform same-sex marriages despite their religious beliefs. Others cite examples of wedding photographers and other business operators who would be forced to shelve their religious convictions. The Assembly, with a 107-41 Democratic majority, passed the bill Tuesday night. If passed by the Senate, New York would become the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage. “The goal should have been a strong civil union bill with all the equality provisions . . . it’s unfortunate that in the state of New York you have to go to the absolute extreme,” said Assemblyman Greg Ball, a Hudson Valley Republican and a Catholic. The opponents aren’t alone. In 2006, New York’s highest court ruled 4-2 that the state’s marriage law is constitutional. The ruling noted several “rational” reasons for the state to limit marriage to a union between a man and a woman, including child-rearing. Even the Assembly, long dominated by liberal Democrats, was divided in 2007, when it last passed its version of a same-sex marriage bill 86-61. Back then, the chamber had a 108-42 Democratic majority. In the Senate today, where Democrats hold a 32-30 majority, the issue is at least a vote or two short of the 32 needed for approval. Contrary to claims from both sides about their level of public support, independent polls show a divided New York. The most recent is a Siena College poll in April and is the one most noted by supporters of the marriage law. It found 53 percent of New Yorkers supported gay marriage, but the margin of error means it could have been an even split. In New York, the strategy this year was to frame the issue as a civil right. “It’s an issue of justice,” Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said Tuesday. “It’s an issue of civil rights. And I think it’s important that it gets done as quickly as it can get done.” The Empire State Pride Agenda explains that 1,324 rights and responsibilities are denied samesex couples compared to married couples under state and federal law. They include difficulty in drawing up contracts, wills, trusts, powers of attorney, health care proxies and other legal documents. In addition, civil unions in other states don’t guarantee all of the same benefits and rights as marriage, and aren’t universally recognized. ........>>>>>>>>............http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....amp;EntityId=Ar01501
Logged
