aggie AXO

Your making many excuses...are you simply a supporter of gay marriages or are you an advocate the answer could explain the real reason for your posts. The old debate about bad straight parents vs so called good homosexual parents(oxymoron IMO) is tired why compare to wrongs that don't benefit the child plus there are measures in place to remove children from homes w/ bad straight parents. By the way did you ask the child if they were o-kay w/ their parent(s) being gay or did you just assume, also when science can produce a child between two men without any female reproductive material and vice-versa let me know.

Wide religious views on homosexuality
 

AXEAM, here are some links to sites that discuss views of homosexuality and gay unions in various faiths:

This page discusses Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish sect in America. (This is my religion, so it's the one I know the most about.) Rabbis are encouraged and permitted to solemnize gay unions. As in all other matters of faith within Judaism, individual rabbis are free to follow their consciences on the question:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_jref.htm

Society of Friends, or Quaker, churches are self-governing; the congregation tries to come to a spiritual consensus. Some congregations do not condone homosexuality; others welcome gay members and formalize gay unions:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_quak.htm

Unitarian Universalists have approved of gay clergy and gay unions for many years; they were the first mainstream religion to do so:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_uua.htm

The United Church of Canada, Canada's second largest church, is a coalition of Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregationalist, and other Protestant churches. It performs gay commitment ceremonies:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...urch-of-Canada

The United Church of Christ (also known as Congregationalist), a protestant denomination, blesses gay unions:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0801/p01s01-ussc.html

So may ministers within the Presbyterian Church:

http://www.tamfs.org/new/gaPJCdecision000524.asp

Like Christian sects, Buddhist groups vary widely, but most temples in America support consensual sexual relationships (my sister is a Buddhist; I have learned a little about this from her):

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_budd.htm

This page discusses Native American and Pagan religious approval of homosexuality:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chur3.htm

you were the one that brought up the parents/children arguement I didn't. Do you ASSume that all chidren who have gay parents are unhappy? How do you know that ALL children with gay parents will be unhappy? Have you polled all of them? What happened with my parents and many of my friend's parents was divorce-that makes for a great childhood! Straight people aren't perfect either.

What about lesbians? They can have children without men. I could have a child without a man. And maybe someday men will be able tohave children-who knows?

@Kimmie1913

Soror, if I ever need a lawyer, I know who to call :)

LADY, your soror's answer was a great legal thesis, but as with most law, it puts itself above all else. Constitutionally, it should be a right for gays to be married. But law is without a conscience, morality, and seeks to satisfy itself. It is legal for schools to have Gay clubs but not a gospel choir. The Town square can have a Santa Claus but not a manger or a depiction of the real reason for the holiday. The law will inconvenience 100 people for the intolerance of 1 as long as that 1 person is not standing for a moral or Christian cause (it will if it is for a minority religion though...jews, jehovah witnesses etc). The goal of the law is to not only supercede moral authority, but to denigrate it. We remove prayer from school , but we provide condoms for children with which to fornicate. We remove the Ten Commandments display, not because they violate the separation clause of the constitution, but because we don't want any moral authority to be co-equal or above legal authority. Moral authority is thus diminished and the only RIGHT and WRONG can be divined not by what is HOLY but what man can derive from his own EMOTIONS and INTELLECT. So whatever is the whim of the day, whatever is fancy for the time, whatever is popular on campus or in the hallowed halls of law schools, is what is right for for right now. Moral standards that have stood for 5000 years can be wisked away by a judicial opinion of 5 out of 9 moral relatavists. People who hold STEADFAST, BEDROCK beliefs (not feelings) are ridiculed, called judgemental, and told that their beliefs are archaic and intolerant. In this secular vacuum, it is the one who tries to maintain some respect for morality that is demonized, that is societies leper and outcast, that is pointed out and isolated and wears the scarlet letter. Yes, the "law" has won.

The whole animal marriage thing is a red herring and AXO needs to stop tripping on that.

Oe more thing LADYGREEK, the correlation between homosexuality and beastiality is made by Moses as relayed to him by God in the Book of Leviticus. It is mentioned as one of the 3 abominations of prohibited sexual activity, (incest, homosexuality, and beastiality) that people who claim Yahweh as their God are not to engage in. This last statement was a point of fact and not a judgement on anyones lifestyle or religious beliefs

@ Doggy,
As I said in my first post in this thread, I am only dealing with this issue from a legal (governmental) standpoint. I will be the first to admit that I am not a student of the Bible and would never attempt to justify or negate a point with a biblical argument.

Now having said that, I was astounded by someone's post (can't remember who) about if the law is changed to allow gay marriages it would lead to marriages (and sex) between man and animal. My point is that an animal is not a consenting adult human being therefore such a "relationship" would not be sanctioned by the law. My intent was not to be judgemental of the poster but rather to express my astonishment at the comparison.

I think this whole conversation speaks to the question you posed in another thread about the difficulties of being a civil libertarian. As my soror pointed out in her great legal thesis, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights was designed to address the issue of government interference in citizens' lives. That is the stance I am taking in this discussion. I am not about to go down the slippery slope of arguring about morals and values which, in my opinion, is each person's right to hold their own whether they be based Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic or even Atheist beliefs.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aggieAXO
you were the one that brought up the parents/children arguement I didn't. Do you ASSume that all chidren who have gay parents are unhappy? How do you know that ALL children with gay parents will be unhappy? Have you polled all of them? What happened with my parents and many of my friend's parents was divorce-that makes for a great childhood! Straight people aren't perfect either.

QUOTEWhat about lesbians? They can have children without men. I could have a child without a man. And maybe someday men will be able tohave children-who knows? [/]


I notice you manage to twist my point... I mean if two men can have a child without any female reproductive materials (eggs what have you) from a female or vice-versa two females having a child without any male reproductive materials(sperm) let me know.
So your saying two lesbians can have sex and concieve a child???

We are in total agreement on the legal issue of gay marriage. Personally, I'm not in favor, but the civil libertarian in me says that it should be legal and acknowledged.

Seperation of church and state - scholarships
 

I was listening to NPR yestersay, when I learned that now scholarships to divinity students were in jepardy, with critics (of course) citing "seperation of church and state".

Here is an except from NPR's website on the story:
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1529032

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday hears arguments in a case testing whether divinity students have a constitutional right to the same taxpayer-funded scholarships as students enrolled in non-religious programs. The high court's decision could have repercussions far beyond state-funded college scholarship programs.


So basically, federal monies (i.e. federal/state sponosred student loans, Pell grants, etc.) should not be given to divinity students, stating that doing so, the gov't is "endorsing" or supporting a religion.

What is everyone's take on this?
:confused:

Just to give some legal background on the scholarship case:

FEDERAL monies are not at issue here. The state of Washington had a scholarship program for students who stayed in-state. The Washington STATE Constitution includes a provision that state monies should not go toward religious instruction. This is a choice made by the local state taxpayers as to what is funded and what is not. The Bush administration is arguing on behalf of the theology student that if the state gives some students a scholarship, it has to give them to everyone, no matter what the voters want.

A student studying theology is absolutely still eligible for Federal Pell grants, subsidized student loans, etc., including a student in Washington State. NPR is discussing the THEORETICAL implications of different rulings the court might hand down when it decides the case next year. No matter what happens in the court, though, a limitation on Pell grants and loans would have to go through Congress, and there is a zero percent chance that Congress would deny funds to theology students.

Ivy, J.D.

Thanks for the background info. Theoretical or not, what are your thoughts on this?

Because, strangely again :confused: I agree with President Bush. Why shouldn't state funds go to theology students.

Bush is arguing not simply that funds ought to go to theology students -- he's arguing that the voters of Washington do not have a right to promote this policy.

The voters of the state wanted to provide scholarships for students studying liberal arts, engineering, etc. Their own Constitution says that public money cannot pay for religious training. (Note: religious SCHOOLS are OK -- you can study history at a Baptist college -- you just can't have training to become a pastor paid for by the state.)

So the question isn't whether the voters ought to support pastor training. The question is, if the voters decide that they want their money to go to liberal arts students, but not pastor training, do they HAVE to pay for both?

What bothers me about this case is, Bush says, they have to pay for both. But that's hypocritical, because his usual arguments are for states' rights! Usually he's up there saying, we need more local control of education, we need the federal government to stop ordering the states around, the taxpayers should have more say about where there money goes etc. Now he turns around and argues the other side when a local government does something he doesn't like. Believe me, if this were a state saying it wanted to use state funds to pay for prescriptions -- unless the prescription is for birth control pills -- Bush would switch back and say it's wrong to force the voters to pay for things they don't support...

IvySpice, my initial intention was not arge the in's and out's or the merit of this case, but moreso discuss the possibility of this type of restriction happening on a large scale, whether or not it is right to do that, and to see what everyone thought.

Looking at it in general terms (using this as an example) at the fact that should these types of clauses (whether it be a state or maybe even the fed. gov't at some future point) be allowed to exist - those that specifically prohibit "public money" to pay for religious training.

Isn't that person apart of the public (paying taxes, etc.).

Re: Re: Re: actually...
 

U ARE FUNNY!!!! i remember you from waaay back when. it is good to 'see you'!! tell the pooch hello and bring back some rum..lol:D

Thanks Soror LadyGreek! I try! ;)

Doggy,

I agree with your take on how moral beliefs and the law interact. My post was not about discounting the soundness, veracity or credibility of anyone's moral belief on the issue, just to express my assessment based on how things do operate within our government and country. I do tend towards a civil libertarian view on much of this only because I have not yet reconciled religious freedom against imposing one set of morals on everyone. There is, for me, a tension between the idea of freedom of religion and codifying any one faith’s beliefs. Just as these beliefs have stood, steadfast for thousands of years, so has the tension between various faiths. Countries have been torn apart; wars have been fought over conflicting religious views. That is my struggle as a legal scholar and a person with her own deeply held moral beliefs. Codification of a moral belief can be tantamount to religious persecution and I think that is the wrong result. In a country that alleges freedom of religion, that tension continues to exist. Each person who believes strongly in their position, believes he or she is right on this issue. At this point, I am of the opinion that the law should allow each individual the freedom to live out their beliefs. (With the limitations I expressed in my previous post)

Does this approach have a down side? Absolutely. As you described, it often requires that the weakest stance be codified and individuals be called upon to choose to live a higher standard. That means those that do are often surrounded by those that don’t. Every act that is a sin is not illegal. Therefore, those that do not cheat on their spouse are surrounded by those that do. Those that do not engage in premarital sex are surrounded by those that do. So on and so forth. Personally, I think for many people, even those that identify themselves as sharing one faith or another, are more fearful of the justice system than the wrath of God. Not killing because you would go to jail rather than because it is wrong does not make you a true follower of the Word.

On the issue of church and state, I do not believe in the way many of the decisions on this matter are carried out. Again, because I believe in personal choice, I believe that separation of church and state does not require the removal of all religion from schools but the inclusion of all. I think that it means that the state may not dictate religion not that it has a duty to suppress it. Obviously, this is not the opinion of the judiciary on this matter.

Like LadyGreek, I do not purport to be a Biblical scholar and would not attempt to engage in a discussion of how the Bible deals with this issue. I do not consider those who feel strongly about this issue to automatically to be judgmental or bigoted. Some people show a particular venom over this topic that earns them those titles. That impression is not based on their objection or religion but their words and actions. I do agree, however, that many automatically bestow those titles to anyone in opposition. (a typical occurrence in any heated argument that prevents significant discussion form taking place)