Opinion Talk

By Jason

June 20, 2008 8:01 AM | Link to this

Wow! What a refreshing and inspiring commentary! Finally! I Republican who still remembers what being a conservative is all about! Mr. Garlock places his beliefs in justice and equality above those of his personal and religious beliefs. Even though he may not understand or personally accept my homosexuality he still supports my basic rights and respects me as a United States citizen….Mr. Garlock truly understands what “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” is really all about. Thank you for placing your love of this country and the ideals that it stands for above any personal views or feelings. What an infinitely more wonderful world we would live in if more people thought like you!

By Jason

June 20, 2008 8:01 AM | Link to this

Wow! What a refreshing and inspiring commentary! Finally! I Republican who still remembers what being a conservative is all about! Mr. Garlock places his beliefs in justice and equality above those of his personal and religious beliefs. Even though he may not understand or personally accept my homosexuality he still supports my basic rights and respects me as a United States citizen….Mr. Garlock truly understands what “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” is really all about. Thank you for placing your love of this country and the ideals that it stands for above any personal views or feelings. What an infinitely more wonderful world we would live in if more people thought like you!

By GeoffDawg

June 20, 2008 8:11 AM | Link to this

The long and short of it is that government really has no role in even making the determination regarding what constitutes a marriage. That’s really a religious term and should be left up to interpretation by the individual. Government’s role should simply be the enforcement of social contracts which is what a marriage really is. It’s two adults agreeing to cohabitate and share resources towards a common goal. Seeing gay pda would make me uncomfortable as well but competent adults should be able to enter into contracts with each other as they see fit given that the rights of others aren’t unfairly infringed upon.

By Copyleft

June 20, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this

But I thought conservatism was all about using government to invade people’s private lives and impose your values on them!

Gee, where did I get that idea…?

By Jeff

June 20, 2008 8:30 AM | Link to this

GeoffDawg:

Welcome to the Libertarian philosophy.

It isn’t that Government SHOULD grant gays the right to marry.

It is that Government SHOULDN’T be in the “marraige” business to begin with.

It is a religious action, and if one denomination wants to recognize it and another not, each should be free to do as it pleases.

For example, the Catholic Church TO THIS DAY refuses to acknowledge a marraige between a Catholic and a non-Catholic. (I have friends - ironically enough, my wife’s ex-fiancee and his new fiancee - who are going through this right now. She is a non-practicing Catholic, he is a Baptist.)

It is all about FREEDOM people.

And the Government which garauntees the most freedom is the one which governs LEAST.

By Mike

June 20, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this

That is the point exactly. There are things that lots of people find unpleasant or repulsive but does that give them the right to stop others. In the days of anti-miscegenation laws, many people thought mixed race marriage was disgusting and an abomination. If two consenting adults want to marry, let them and don’t worry about it.

By James

June 20, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this

This is such nonsense. Just realize Mr. Garlock that if this is what you truly believe then NOTHING can be regulated about marriage. NOTHING! I have a right to three wives AND a male friend if that is what I want. God help us.

By James

June 20, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

This is such nonsense. Just realize Mr. Garlock that if this is what you truly believe then NOTHING can be regulated about marriage. NOTHING! I have a right to three wives AND a male friend if that is what I want. God help us.

By Jason

June 20, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

Here we go with that argument…..if we allow this, then what? The sky is going to come crashing down and wommen are going to want to marry donkeys! Or men are going to want to marry kids! Everyone is going to have multiple wives!

That is so absurd! People ask, “Where, then, do you draw the line?” You draw the line at two consenting adults who want to enter a life contract together…both of their own free will and accord. If you want to have 4 wives then you can do that….lots of mormons still do. Now for the tax and other various civil applications to marriage the gov’t may only recognize one LEGAL spouse but from a religion standpoint, you’re free to do anything within legal bounds that your church sanctions.

By gttim

June 20, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

“It is a religious action, and if one denomination wants to recognize it and another not, each should be free to do as it pleases.”

Any same-sex couple can get a church to marry them. They always could. That is not the issue. The issue that is at hand is equality in the legal benefits of marriage- inheritance, tax issues, Social Security issues, survivorship issues. That is what same-sex couple have and are being denied.

The state cannot forbid a church from marrying same-sex couples, it can only deny them legal marriage and the rights associated with it. A legal marriage and religious marriage are two very different things.

By GeoffDawg

June 20, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

Good insight Jeff - I often lean towards libertarian philosophies. I wish it was a more viable third party option.

In response to James - If all the parties are adults and are competent to enter into agreements of their own free will, then I honestly don’t care what they do. It can be a big writhing, free-for-all with a dozen hell’s angels for all I care. As long as they’re not doing it on my front lawn, what do I care? My life isn’t impacted one way or the other.

By James

June 20, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

Hey Jason:

How pompous of you to think that the line should be drawn at two consenting adults for contract and tax purposes or whatever. Who are YOU to decide that? Are you saying you have the right to tell me I can’t enter into a legal contract with two women? And I so, who are you or the government to tell me the three of us can’t file a tax retuarn together? And while you’re at it, let’s have some legislation to allow my two girlfriends (plus my wife) on my medical insurance. It’s my life - butt out and give me my rights !!!

By Jeff

June 20, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

gttim:

You are correct in saying that a legal marraige and a religious marraige are two very different things.

My point is: Who gave government the right to deem one marraige illegal and another legal?

Isn’t God the author of marraiges? When then does the government intrude on issues of religion?

By Jason

June 20, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

Do I think a man ought to be able to legally marry two or three women? Why not? Should a woman be able to be married to two men if that’s what they all want? Sure! Live and let live….who am I to judge? If that’s what makes them happy and they are all consenting adults and no one is being harmed or having their rights infringed on as a result then I don’t see any problem with it.

There are legal and practical reasons why marriage is limited to two people and if people can figure out a way to make them all work out then so be it.

If you’re incapacitated, which wife gets to make financial and household decisions. If you’re in a coma and brain dead, which wife gets to decide whether or not you are on life support. If one wife doesn’t like another, can she deny the other wife access to a hospital room? If you die then how does your insurance get split up? Does it get split evenly or does the wife you were married to the longest get the lion’s share? Should you get additional tax benefits because you want to marry more than one person and I only want to be married to one? Which one gets to decided if you are buried or cremated and who gets to keep the urn with the ashes? If you decide to divorce one of your wives then how is alimony and child support decided…..is it based only on your income or do you include the income of you and all the other wives combined?

Figure out a way around all of these legal and practical issues (and probably many more that I haven’t thought of) and I’ll be the first person in the recieving line on your wedding day wishing you nothing but love, happiness, and prosperity between you and all of your wives.

By thefisherman

June 20, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

…NOT according to Sodom and Gomorrah.

“And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.”

“Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

By Jason

June 20, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

thefisherman:

I think you miss the entire point of this op-ed. The point is that regardles of what the Bible says or the Torah or the Koran, US citizens should not be denied any rights and are entitled to the same equality as everyone else. Despite what the author may believe in his heart he also believes in the “idea” of America…”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men……”

You are entitled to believe WHATEVER you want. You are entitled to DESPISE me and be utterly repulsed by what I do with my life. You are entitled to pray for me that I will repent of my sins and be saved. But you are NOT entitled to infringe on my life and my rights just because those are the religious views you believe in.

By Jason

June 20, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

You can quote bible verses all day long until you’re blue in the face but you can’t use those bible verses to say that I am not your equal and deserving of the same rights as you in a democracy where we separate church and state. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy.

By Jimbo

June 20, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

Jason:

You seem to know your Bible. What will happen when Christ returns and sets up his POLITICAL & Spiritual Kingdom without multiple or homosexual marriages. I can’t prove that right now and I don’t have to ……. but just pretend “what if”. Will you argue with Him?

By Copyleft

June 20, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

I know I will. I’ll argue with anyone that promotes injustice, no matter WHO his daddy is.

By Jason

June 20, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this

Jimbo, I am a born again christian. I was raised in an evengelical church and I still hold most of those beliefs to be true. I believe, without a doubt, that when my judgement day comes I will hear the words “Well done, my good and faithful servant.” Personally, I do not believe that homosexuality is a sin, but even if it is, none of us are without sin and what matters is that we have accepted Jesus as our savior and live a good life and follow Jesus’ most important commandment to love one another. If all sin is equal in the eyes of God then my sin is no worse than the overweight pastor who consistently over-indulges in food(gluttony). I am no worse than the thousands of people who dress in their best every sunday, not to bring glory to God, but to impress fellow churchgoers(pride). I am no worse than christians who chain smoke.(defiling their body which is a temple). I am no worse than Fred Phelps who goes to funerals of people who died from AIDS and yells “God hates f*” and other hateful speach (wrath).

So, to answer your question, no. I will not argue with Christ because I don’t think I will have to.

Besides, once again, this is about leaving religion OUT of this debate because it has no place.

By josh

June 20, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this

if homosexuals want the same rights as straights, that’s perfectly ok per the constitution. just don’t call it “marriage”. marriage is between one man and one woman…come up with your own name for it, like “civil union” or something.

By Roy

June 20, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

When God returns there won’t be any marriages; straight or gay.

Mark 12: 24-35 24 Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

By AH

June 20, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this

Once again a complicated issues with single point responses.

Should two people who love each other be allowed to live together and enjoy all the legal protections that other couples have, yes. Does this mean that ‘gay marriages’ should be legal, not under the same context as they have been through traditional roles.

As far as the government is concerned a civil union should be what they issue to ALL couples. Then if a religious organization whats to ban or allow same sex couples to wed is up to them but the couple will have legal protection under the law and that is the extent to which we need to be legisating marriage.

By Jimbo

June 20, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

This is for no one but Jason:

1) “And Jesus told the woman taken in adultery, neither do I condemn you (to death by stoning) but go and SIN no more.”

2) When God set up the Jewish Theocracy in the O.T., homosexuality was both a political and spiritual sin. The Bible teaches God never changes.

3) I Corinthians 6:

9 Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 11 Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. ( Most Bible scholars believe this is talking about a “lifestyle” of sin as obviously we have all lied, etc.).

and finally:

4) “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

By thefisherman

June 20, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

“suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

I don’t despise or hate you Jason, quite the opposite..

By CJ

June 20, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this

Jason,

God’s not going to ask YOU what about Bob or Fred obeying/not obeying His Word, to stop committing adultery/fornication/sexual sins, He is going to ask You what to do about YOU committing a sin/not obeying Him. To think that someone else’s sin justifies my sin is ludicrous. “Every man will give account of his own deeds in this life”…

By CJ

June 20, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this

Yes, It DOES matter what laws regarding sexual/marital behavior that we allow in this land. The ifrst thing that would happen is that the ACLU would begin trying to enact laws punishing PASTORS who ‘discriminate’ by not allowing these people to wed in their churches, to lead in their churches, etc. It would violate freedom of Religion from the get-go, as marriage is not called ‘holy matrimony’ for nothing: it is a CHURCH thing.

By Jeff

June 20, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this

Jason:

A simple question. Please answer, and I will explain why I asked it in a later post:

Do you use Itunes at all?

By CJ

June 20, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

Yes, It DOES matter what laws regarding sexual/marital behavior that we allow in this land. The ifrst thing that would happen is that the ACLU would begin trying to enact laws punishing PASTORS who ‘discriminate’ by not allowing these people to wed in their churches, to lead in their churches, etc. It would violate freedom of Religion from the get-go, as marriage is not called ‘holy matrimony’ for nothing: it is a CHURCH thing.

By mab

June 20, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

All of these religious arguments assume that there IS a god. ~giggle~

By Jason

June 20, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

Ugh, I’m done! This isn’t a conversation or debate that is about whether or not homosexuality is ok or not in the eyes of God, or Allah, or Buddha, or Jehovah(sp?). It’s the exact opposite! The debate is about whether or not we should make laws and extend rights to individuals based purely on personal religious views. Should the religious views of a group of citizens get in the way of extending certain rights to people that they don’t agree with. That’s what it’s about and that’s all I will debate going forward. I am at peace with who I am and my relationship with God and I will not discuss it or debate it going forward.

If people would like to debate the issue at hand(leaving personal religious views behind when handing out civil rights and who is equal to who), then I am certainly up for that conversation.

By Jason

June 20, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this

Ok, I lied…one last comment about religion and then I’m done. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Who are ANY of you to tell me that I am living a life that is not pleasing to God or living a life of sin and fornication. NONE of you have the right or the authority to do that. Now, I’m done discussing religous views.

By James

June 20, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

For all of you liberal “preachers out there ………..

“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”

II Timothy 4:3

By jimbo THE FIRST

June 20, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

Jimbo, You are not jimbo.. and James, you are no James..

You both bring dishonor upon our name.

God doesn’t rule this country. Neither Sodom nor Gomorrah are American cities.

Neither of them fall under the rule of the Constitution of the United States.

This opinion piece is dead on. If you’re so worried about God’s piece then that’s your place but it shouldn’t be used to oppress the rights of others. “In God we Trust” became out motto in 1956.. “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” Has been with us since the day our founding fathers gathered in Philadelphia to stick it to George III and I think it has served our nation far better in the long run.

Also the bible has polygamists running all through it.

By Roy

June 20, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

God doesn’t change? hmm, He may not change; but, He does change his mind. Just ask Abraham’s son Isaac. The Old Testament also said not to eat shellfish but Jesus proclaims “What God has made clean, you must not call profane”. God does change His mind.

The issue boils down to whether homosexuality is a sin. Whether it is a sin or not, it is between me and my Lord and NOT you.

By CJ

June 20, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

Jason,

You can do what you want to, believe what you want to, but please don’t try and rewrite God’s Holy Word, or force others to accept your views based on RELIGION that you have, which is exactly what is happening. It’s called RELIGIOUS PRESECUTION.

By jimbo THE FIRST

June 20, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

James, Timothy is talking about you.. as much as it’s talking about anyone else.

By JeepersCreepers

June 20, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

By CJ June 20, 2008 12:31…Please understand the Judea-Christain belief before you make any comments on how judgement will be enforced. All the scriptures that the believers read tells about the destruction of cities and countries who defied the laws of God…Our forefathers new this better than most…they never intended the vile and disgusting to prevail in this country. They may let them exist but not to be accepted as an alternate life style with equal standings as a marriage between a man and a woman. Once again if its vile and disgusting liberals are for it…and they want me to accept it…it is not going to happen… Our constitution was made for a Judea-Christain people with tolerance for other religions. Not tolerance for these behaviors. Oh yeah..now there saying the brain is larger on one side or some such stuff that makes them gay. I say they need to treat it. Make it NORMAL!

By Jason

June 20, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

CJ-

The Catholic church does not ordain women as priests. Has anyone sued the Catholic church? Has the government stepped in and threatened to take away their tax-exempt status because of that? Women are protected as minorities and it is illegal to discriminate in the workforce based on gender.

Polygamy is illegal in the United States…..do we lock morman ministers up for performing religious ceremonies where a man marries multiple women? NO!

That argument “Pastors won’t be able to preach their beliefs” is such a load of bull. We live in a society of free speech…..you can say ANYTHING you want ANYWHERE you want and as loud as you want to and the government can’t do anything about it.

By Grandfather

June 20, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this

All gay marriages are racist.

By CJ

June 20, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

Jason,

We didn’t: God’s Word did!

It’s about the ACLU and religious persecution, also.

Jason, do what you want, but please don’t try and twist God’s Word to abuse your rights and persecute my pastor…

By JeepersCreepers

June 20, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Man that is nailing it down. That explains why the vile disgusting liberals want to change everything.
good comment! I heard others liberas point at and talk about divorce rates for normal marriages. If I remember correct it was liberals who made it what it is today…

By Bottom Line

June 20, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

They took a vote, Gay marriage was beat. Why was this overturned? Because some liberal trash wanted to be in the history books. I can care less but when the people decide something, it should be honored. I guess the normal liberal trash like copyleft and others will blame Bush or conservatives on this.

By Jason

June 20, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

I am amazed at how juvenile some adults can be. The constitution was made only for moral and religious people? If that was the case then why where almost all of our founding fathers Agnostic? Why were most of them not involved with any particular religious institution? If it was made only for moral and religious people then why would it include a separation of church and state?

And what’s up with the blanket disgust for “liberals?” I am a PROUD liberal…see quote below from the West Wing…..

“I know you like to use that word, Liberal, as if it were a crime. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did conservatives do? They opposed every single one of those things. Every one. So, when you try to hurl that label at my feet, Liberal, as if it was something to be ashamed of — something dirty — something to run away from — it won’t work, Senator. Because I will pick up that label, and I will wear it as a badge of honor.”

By david c

June 20, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

I agree with the comments below. The definition of Marriage and Civil Union should have been separate questions on the November ballot several years ago. But the religious groups refuse to believe that they are two different things.

if homosexuals want the same rights as straights, that’s perfectly ok per the constitution. just don’t call it “marriage”. marriage is between one man and one woman…come up with your own name for it, like “civil union” or something.

By Jason

June 20, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this

If by “liberal trash”(btw, that’s such a mature adult way to carry on a debate) you are referring to the California Supreme Court justices then I would like to point out something. You guys always say “The people have spoken. The people have decided…..” The judicial branch of government is not in place to enforce the will of the majority. One of their roles is to protect the rights of the MINORITIES that the majority try to trample. That’s one of the things that makes this 3-branch system of government so beautiful. When the majority of americans didn’t want african americans to vote, the court said “no.” When the majority of americans were in favor of “seperate but equal” segregation, the courts said “no.” When the majority of americans were opposed to interracial marriage, the court said “no.” The courts stand up to the majority and say “no, you can’t do that.”

By Jason

June 20, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this

David C:

That sounds an awful lot like “Separate but Equal”……

By Jeff

June 20, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

Jason:

A) You still haven’t answered my very basic question.

B) Point of order: It was REPUBLICANS that got black Americans the right to vote.

By Jason

June 20, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this

Sorry, I missed that post….yes, I use iTunes.

That’s funny….I could have sworn that Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat…(and what did the southern Democrats who voted against it do? They became Republicans!)

By jimbo THE FIRST

June 20, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

Bottom Line, go back to civics class. This isn’t a democracy despite what you hear on the news. This is a constitutional republic and in our country you aren’t supposed to be able to trample the rights of people just because you outnumber them.

The constitution exists to protect your religious beliefs not to allow you to impose them on others. You’re free to your opinions but don’t presume they give you the right to execute those opinions on others.

That’s where this country has really gone astray. Everyone has an opinion and they all think everyone should have that opinion too, so they legislate it.

You don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry a man.

By james

June 20, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

To Jason & Roy and Jimbo First and anyone else with a dog in this fight:

We’ll find out one day won’t we. I wish you well. Until then - adios !

By jimbo THE FIRST

June 20, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

Jeff the democrats and republicans grew out of the same party and if you study history it was the radical republicans who took on the mantle of big government and turned the American republic into the American empire. But hey, your point is technically correct. No republican party since the radical republicans has done more lasting damage to this country than the current administration.

I speak to you as a gun-toting, beer drinking, tax hating, pro-business, balanced budgeting, pro-personal freedom REPUBLICAN. Whatever the hell you people are, you should get your own party.

By Dana

June 20, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this

“Yes, It DOES matter what laws regarding sexual/marital behavior that we allow in this land. The ifrst thing that would happen is that the ACLU would begin trying to enact laws punishing PASTORS who ‘discriminate’ by not allowing these people to wed in their churches, to lead in their churches, etc. It would violate freedom of Religion from the get-go, as marriage is not called ‘holy matrimony’ for nothing: it is a CHURCH thing.”

Number one, the ACLU believes in all First Amendment rights for all groups, so they would never argue that any church didn’t have the right to exercise their own religious beliefs by choosing whether or not to marry gay couples. There are already churches gay couples can turn to to get married in the religious sense, why should they care if there are other churches that won’t religiously marry them? What gay marriage proponents are concerned about is that their marriages, whether accomplished in a Christian church, by a Buddhist monk, or by a magistrate in the courthouse, are recognized on a legal level. Number two, Marriage stopped being just “a CHURCH thing” the day the federal and state governments started awarding secular legal and financial benefits based on whether a couple was legally married or not, whatever religious tradition that marriage was solemnized in or even if there was no religious ceremony at all. Now, if all the heterosexual married couples out there want to give up their automatic inheritance rights, their estate and gift tax exclusions, their rights to each other’s Social Security benefits, etc, etc., etc., then marriage can truly go back to being only a “church” thing. I don’t see that happening.

By Winslo

June 20, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

If the government has no right in our sexual lives/relationships then why does a spouse have the right under every state’s laws to sue for divorce for adultery? Isn’t that the other spouse’s private business? Why does the state get involved? You tell me and then I’ll tell you …………… :o)

By Jeff

June 20, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

I’ve got two podcasts I want you to listen to a few of:

First Baptist Church, Woodstock GA

Touching Lives on OnePlace.com

Just give me the benefit of the doubt on this. One day when you’re bored, download a podcast or two from these two sources and give them a listen. (In fact, the ones on Touching Lives are rarely longer than 30 min. The ones on First Baptist Woodstock are closer to 45.)

The two men preaching are two of the most conservative men I’ve EVER listened to, and I’m a former member of an Independent Baptist church.

Yet this is my challenge to you: Show me where they preach hatred.

You say you’re a Christian, that you were raised as an evangelical. What these men say will probably not be anything you haven’t heard before.

Dr. Merritt (Touching Lives) is a former Southern Baptist Convention President. Dr. Hunt (FBCW) is the newly elected one.

My challenge remains: Listen to these men, and show me where they preach hatred.

I’m not putting any pressure on you to agree with what they say, all I ask is that you listen.

And tell me where they preach hatred.

By jimbo THE FIRST

June 20, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this

Oh James, I bet we will find out..

I’ve got $5 that says we all end up in Sheol.

By Jason

June 20, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this

I’ve never implied that ALL christians preach hatred. The author of the editorial is a perfect example……he doesn’t “approve” of my lifestyle but he doesn’t say anything hateful or demeaning about me. There are LOTS of christians out there like that.

By Jason

June 20, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

Winslo-

The state gets involved to dissolve the legal arrangement that a couple enters into when they get married. The state doesn’t take sides, or encourage or discourage divorce. The role of the state is to dissolve the partnership and make sure that both parties are treated fairly in the termination of that contract.

By Jason

June 20, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this

Well, everyone, this has been really entertaining and eye-opening but it is time for me to leave. I am flying to Vegas tonight and see Elton John at Caesar’s Palace. It is also my intention to ask my partner to MARRY me tomorrow night and if I get the answer I’m looking for then it’s off to San Francisco!

I challenge everyone to take religion out of the question and give me 5 good reasons that my partner and I should not be afforded the same rights and privilages of every other committed, loving, monogamous heterosexual couple.

My curiosity may get the better of me and I may have to check in later to see how the conversation continues. Hope everyone has a great weekend!

By jimbo THE FIRST

June 20, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

Let me be the first to wish you good luck Jason and congratulations as well if all goes your way.

Do me a favor and give life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness a toast if it all works out.

By Jo

June 20, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

All the best Jason.

I appreciate the honesty in this column. The man admits to his discomfort about gay sex, but admits that is no basis for withholding equal civil rights. I squirm at the sight of public kissing whether the couple is straight or gay. Such itimacy doesn’t belong in public. Think of it, we are surrounded with reminders of sex in advertising, generally straight sex. Trust me, some gays at the extreme end of the spectrum are “repulsed” at that picture.

Humans come in all types. There is someone for all of us. Sometimes, not often if we believe the statistics, that someone is the same sex. Love happens.

And for those who say ok, but call it something other than marriage: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and the courts say it’s a duck… Most people will call it a duck even it you want to call it a civil union.

By James

June 20, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this

To Jimbo The First:

You crack me up but it won’t be funny if you go there.

To Jason:

You still didn’t answer the question. Why does one spouse have a right to sue another spouse for divorce just because they had sex with someone else? Don’t even married people have individual rights that even their spouse can violate. Is this not a free country? Is the state trying to impose it’s will on someone who just wanted to have a little fun because he couldn’t with his wife?

I’m waiting ………….

By gadyke

June 20, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

Jason, Good luck and hopefully congratulations!

By Jo

June 20, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

Um, James. The marriage contract isn’t disolved by the state… exactly. It is more a matter of the state officiating the disolution. Otherwise, folks might be married or divorced from day to day and it would be impossible to do business with a married couple. The contract insures for all parties of joint contracts that both partners in a marriage are jointly responsible. (This is one of the basic reasons gays want to marry.) The contract is with the spouse and continues or ends at the choice of the spouses. It is in the end, a civil contract.

Now, if a given religion has something else to say about that side of the “promise in the sight of g-d”, that is another matter entirely.

By CJ

June 20, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this

In the last days, men will no longer endure sound doctrine. Instead they will heap unto themselves teachers, havng itching ears, and turn aside to fables…from such turn away….

By CJ

June 20, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this

Jimbo, You left out the Source of these so-called ‘rights’..”Our Creator”. Remember? He’s the One who wrote the Ten Commandments? The One from whom we got “Thou shalt not steal…, kill…, commit adultery..,” etc.?

By thefisherman

June 20, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this

There is a God

OR

None of this matters, and neither does how you treat yourself and others..

By jimbo THE FIRST

June 20, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

James,

I think that depends on a great number of factors.. but I think we’ll find heaven, if we find it at all, an overdelicate climate full of trying splendors and that we at our very very best are a sort of low grade nickel-plated angel; first and last and all the time a sarcasm.

By James

June 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this

To Jo:

You still didn’t answer the question. No one has. I can’t help but think all of you are ignoring it because you know where I am headed.

P l e a s e ….. read this again carefully.

I understand that the state can regulate the divorce, etc., etc. but WHY (REPEAT WHY) DOES A SPOUSE GET TO SUE FOR A DIVORCE IN THE FIRST PLACE (AND GET ONE)JUST BECAUSE THE OTHER SPOUSE HAS SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE!

I’m waiting - come on folks. Jump in here !!!

By CJ

June 20, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this

Jimbo, the ‘inalienable rights’?

Oops, God is not our Creator, right? Then, who is?

By CJ

June 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this

“…We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”.

If there is a Creator, then how can we be happy without obeying His rules?

Evidentally some people’s pursuit of happiness is negating other people’s right to Life, but oh well: that’s another topic!

By jimbo THE FIRST

June 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this

CJ, Odd, let me quote the only reference to you lord in the US Constitution:

“Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,”

By CJ

June 20, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

“WE hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights…..”

By CJ

June 20, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this

Jimbo,

You won’t make it there unless you completely surrender your heart and life to Christ.

By jimbo THE FIRST

June 20, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this

Well.. in my case my creator could be Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva… It could be Mbombo, the white giant.. or Izanagi and Izanami..

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

I could claim my creator was my mother and father or a particular mixture of amino acids.. I could worship a test tube or an old shoe..

Do you understand that your religious beliefs are irrelevant as far as the rights of others are concerned? It doesn’t matter what you believe or what I believe or what ZARDOZ! believes is right. Your argument is based on the false premise that you have more of a right to have rights than others because you represent the majority.

By CJ

June 20, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this

George Washington, “We stake the Future of our Country(This republic?) on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments…”

By cgb

June 20, 2008 4:47 PM | Link to this

Oh jeez, why are some people so worried what others are doing? I wish Christians would work on something they have in common. We’ve got hungry people, homeless people, 47 million uninsured, orphans, drug addicition, etc…why with all this suffering, some Christians are only focused on same sex couples? I really believe Jesus would be focused on them today if he were here.

By CJ

June 20, 2008 4:48 PM | Link to this

According the George Washington, it was Yahweh, the Creator of the Ten Commandments…

By jimbo THE FIRST

June 20, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this

CJ: you didn’t finish.. It also says “that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

You would prevent the pursuit of these for your fellow man.. that which is endowed upon them apparently by your creator (note: it doesn’t identify that creator as the christian god.)

It also says: “Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

But we learned that wasn’t so in the 1860’s.. didn’t we?

The declaration of independence is a great document, but it isn’t the same as the constitution. That’s like claiming the articles of confederation are still valid as a basis for our government.. they aren’t.

By jimbo THE FIRST

June 20, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this

CJ,

Oh sure quotes: My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.

-Adolf Hitler..

A man’s words aren’t the law. I’ve shown you the law.

By Jason

June 20, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this

I got home just in time to get caught up on the conversation. Thanks to everyone for the well-wishes! We have been in a committed relationship for some time now and already wear rings, so this is really just a formality. Something really went wrong somewhere if he says “no.” LOL

By M. R. Biggins

June 20, 2008 5:15 PM | Link to this

I won’t tell gays, or straights for that matter, how to live their lives IF they don’t tell me how to live mine. I think I am smart enough to make my own decisions without other people subjecting me to their opinions.

By CJ

June 20, 2008 6:01 PM | Link to this

Jason,

When you accepted Christ, was there a point where you admitted that you were a sinner in need of a Saviour?

Just curious, as being ‘born again’ means that you were regenerated by Jesus as a result of repentance.

By CJ

June 20, 2008 6:06 PM | Link to this

cgb,

Yes, we should be.

The question was, however, should gays be allowed to marry according to the Church.

I say no, but I am for civil unions.

I’m not telling anyone how they can live their life, but like you, I have a responsibility to vote for what I think is the best idea, and gay marriage to me is a disastrous law on many levels for this country.

You dislike Bible-believing Christianity, that is your choice.

By Jimbo

June 20, 2008 6:07 PM | Link to this

The funny thing is that the ten commandments doesn’t say a thing about homosexuality. So it still doesn’t apply to the argument at hand.. huh..

By CJ

June 20, 2008 6:09 PM | Link to this

Jason,

What repentance means is that you admit that you are hopelessly sinful without a Saviour.

The LAW, which is the Ten Commandments, points us to Jesus, because without Him, we all would deserve hell, being guilty of breaking the Ten Commandments.

By CJ

June 20, 2008 6:12 PM | Link to this

Have you ‘left all’ to follow Christ, even to the point of losing friends and relationships?

It’s called ‘dying to self’, which is not taught in many churches anymore.

By CJ

June 20, 2008 6:20 PM | Link to this

adultery includes fornication. read Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind”.. These are all of the books of the Pentateuch, which Moses also wrote, and which constitute the Laws of God.