pajarito

I like the way you put a space in between each one so as to give effect. I think that marriage has a much more fundamental and necessary "public" purpose in society other than just to obtain those benefits that our government has chosen to bestow upon it. I think that they do that in order to promote that institution because it is so important, however.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0080qu ~~~ James Madison, FATHER of the U.S. Constitution: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." ~~~ Thomas Jefferson, 1781: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever" ~~~ George Washington: "You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention." ~~~ George Washington, October 3, 1789: "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge THE Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor." ~~~ Samuel Adams: " Let...statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system." ~~~ Benjamin Franklin: "History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion...and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." ~~~ Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention: "We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." ~~~ Alexander Hamilton's dying words, July 12, 1804: "I have tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty; through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me." ~~~ John Adams, 1756 (our 2nd President) Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only Law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited... What a paradise would this region be!" ~~~ Patrick Henry's Last Will & Testament, November 20, 1798: "This is all the inheritance I give to my dear family. The religion of Christ will give them one which will make them rich indeed."

I didn’t see anything like that in the paper either such as what you described above. I would have also called that absurd. If it was just a private issue, it wouldn’t be regulated like it is and there wouldn’t be quite as much fuss over the matter.

Religion cannot be removed from this subject when so many peoples views have been shaped by religious doctrine. Like our Constitution?... Who would have though that there might be a Christian influence in the structure of our laws even if there are restrictions from the establishment of one religion over another?

Hmm, the government has no business telling people what marriage is. Well the who the hell is going to make that constitutional amendment you wanted? Keep it in context. The government has no business in our private beliefs concerning marriage (i.e. Religion). When it becomes public, that's a different story altogether. Did you read the whole article?

Let's take religion out of it. I'd be very happy with a nationwide vote. Gotta go. Be back later.

I agree. If people “pair up based on human nature”, then they probably will “split up based on human nature.” My marriage had a very rough start and probably would have ended up in divorce if I hadn’t put God at the head of it. Instead of both partners working in favor of their own selfish desires, they should have the common goal of working together with the purpose of doing God’s will. I have religious foundational beliefs concerning marriage and its origins. Many people have other ideas but they are private beliefs and the government has no business there. As for public opinion however, I agree with this quote by Mr. Peter Sprigg. ”I would argue, is that marriage is a public institution because it brings together men and women for the purpose of reproducing the human race and keeping a mother and father together to cooperate in raising to maturity the children they produce.” I took this quote from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PD04B01. So, just throw your principals out the window and let’s have a free-for-all. Eliminate any standards. Make marriage whatever you want it to be. Marry your duck and give it all your assets when you die. (Sarcasm) Do you want to base your standards on the worse case scenario (divorce and the trivialization of marriage on TV and by Brittany Spears) as opposed to the ideal? Marriage as it is defined today establishes an advantage of one religion over another? Are you serious?

Interesting question. That's different. If a US civilian goes to another country, he/she is subject to their laws and punishment. I don't believe the Geneva Convention would apply. Those persons acting on their own behalf and not representing our government could be open to some serious stuff. Right? Correct me if I'm wrong. Case in point: Whe Ross Perot sent his employees over for the EDS hostage rescue. What could have happened to him?

Tried (Court Martial) by the US military under the rules of UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice). If found guilty, they should be sentenced with punishment deemed appropriate by the military. The punishment, as in US civilian court, depends on the severity of the crime. The military tends to be pretty harsh, however, and they probably won't get cut much slack.

Actually, Mayor Newsom (sp?) is standing on somewhat firm legal ground. He's stuck between two laws (the Civil Rights initiative, and prop 22) that directly contradict each other. If he followed one law, he was breaking the other. He simply chose the law he was going to follow, and left it to the courts to sort things out, which, is, after all, their job. I haven’t followed that case very well. I’ve just seen a few highlights on the news. I can’t argue the specifics like you probably can without having read both documents you mentioned. I know you’re ramping up for law school and are probably all over it. However, speaking from a layman’s point of view, I’d say that until a law on the books is officially declared unconstitutional, the laws on the books must be followed. Here’s a summary that I found concerning Prop 22. Do you have a reference to the Civil Rights Initiative? I’d like to read it. Proposition 22 On March 7, 2000, the people of California voted on Proposition 22, a proposal to enact a state "Defense of Marriage Act" as an initiative statute. The text of Prop 22 reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote. Final vote counts revealed that Proposition 22 won in 52 of California's 58 counties, including all of the major metropolitan areas except for San Francisco. The six counties which did not approve Prop. 22 were all in the immediate San Francisco Bay area, including: Alameda county, Marin county, San Francisco county, Santa Cruz county, Sonoma county, and Yolo county.

My statement above was in the context of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and their political agenda. I’m also against it for reasons not relating to religion at all. You’re just using my statement as a springboard to launch your anti-Christian venom.

Yes, this is true. You are correct in that it describes just about everybody I know as well. You are incorrect by saying that “none of us are going to inherit.” Let’s review: Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” John 14:6-7

“Almost unrecognizable” is a stretch. Yes, times have changed. However, the basis, foundation, or principle concerning marriage has remained constant. An institution as important as this one should be defined specifically. Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman.

I like that scenario. It wouldn't matter, though. He could just come back some way illegally and we'll give him the rights and privilages of legal citizens. It doesn't pay to follow the rules.

I really hope that not just a couple of PFC's and a Specialist take the rap for this and that they are, in fact, the scapegoats. I think their immediate supervisors should get more than repremands too. I think there should be harsh punishments for all involved. If the CIA had a hand in telling the soldiers to do what they did, even though they shouldn't have followed the instructions, they should be dealt with harshly as well. I do not think that Donal Rumsfeld should resign for this. I don't think he's responsible in that way. Sure, he's responsible overall for those under him but I believe that he's responsible in the way as to make sure that punishment happens and that it doesn't happen again. Establish policy and make sure that the policy is carried out appropriately.

I didn't read this article. I'm just commenting on what I've seen so far. I think they're full of shit. MP's know the letter of the law concerning Rules of Engagement in theatre and the Geneva Convention better than anyone out there. It's their job to know because they handle prisoners for a living. The bit about them not being briefed is BS too. I've never been deployed to a combat zone without having been being briefed on what I could and could not do concerning ROE or the Geneva Convention. All of that is irrelevant in this case, however, because any reasonable person should know that what they did was illegal. Briefed on the rules of the Geneva Convention or not. Even if they were ordered to do it. It is their duty to not follow those illegal orders and they should be held accountable.

I'm sure that the issue concerning the institution of marriage is vastly more important to the foundations of our society and culture than prohibition was and, therefore, would be rightly considered for an amendment to the Constitution.

I'd say "no" if it was in fact self-inflicted. I don't really know if that's the case. However, the difference between a minor injury and a fatal wound can sometimes be the difference in turning 10 degrees to the left or right. Luck. I haven't read much into the details behind Kerry's purple hearts but on its face I don't assume that they are illegitimate. Personally, however, I've got friends/soldiers who have been severely crippled and killed who received purple hearts and very much deserved them. No question. I'd be embarassed to stand in front of one of them if I received one for a relatively less severe wound. I certainly wouldn't brag about it to further myself in politics. It discredits those brave souls who really earned it.

I can't even come up with a response to that. The idea that an omniscient god would see the world in such a ludicrously over simplified, and frankly incredibly egotistical way just boggles my mind even more than the idea of god full stop. I can't come up with a reasoned argument against that right now besides screaming THATS SO F***ING UNFAIR!!!! Regardless of how unfair it may seem to us, it is very clear that there is but one way to reconcile with God and, therefore, have eternal life when we die and that it has nothing to do with how many check marks we put in the “good works” category for ourselves. Sucks! I know. I’d much rather control my own destiny. I’m a control freak by nature. My wife hates it.

That's cool. That's the way our system is set up. It just needs to be declared unconstitutional by the court before mayors break the law and defy the will of the people by issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. It is my hope (but I personally doubt it will ever happen) that a constitutional amendment gets made declaring that a marriage is defined as only between one man and one woman.

First, I’m not a Theologian. I can’t stand hypocrisy in church and don’t necessarily like all church services. I especially don’t like churches or denominations that put more emphasis on ceremonial service structure (say a particular memorized thing at a certain time in sequence with everybody else in the room or don’t eat the bread until everybody does instead of just doing it when you get it) than true biblical teaching. That sadly turns many away (some from faith altogether which is a tragedy). I think the Bible should be at the core and emphasized the most in any denomination. I think we get caught up in all the weeds of the way we should worship instead of making every effort to live and worship according to God’s will which is described in the Bible. There are different denominations each with its way of doing things. I’d suggest finding one that fits you best as long as its Bible teaching foundation is strong. Also, you’re right and there is a lot of self-denial in the Christian life. It makes it a hard life to live (attempt to be more like Jesus). I don’t even come close. There is self-denial because you’re supposed to try and always think of others first. However, a lot of self-fulfillment also comes with that sacrifice.

I think this needs to be quoted again for clarity: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” Ephesians 2:8-10” I agree. It is beyond my human comprehension also. But it’s true. It is only through Christ which makes any good works you do in life righteous with God. Jesus is the “only” who is sinless and, therefore, qualified to claim righteousness. If one is a true Christian and Jesus is in their hearts, they will be compelled to do good works in life. It’s not that they can do enough good works to make themselves righteous on their own merit. It just doesn’t work that way. However absurd it may seem to us.

I agree that the above traits, particularly intelligence, are correlated with low religiosity. This community probably isn't a representative sample of the general population. There are loads of intelligent religious people, and from what I've read, I would include you in that category. I suspect that your basic religious beliefs were formed before you were old enough to really think about them. This is true for the vast majority of us, including myself. I was raised Catholic, and went to Catholic school. I would have almost guessed that you had Catholic influence growing up. That is another interesting line of thought and would probably make a good thread of its own. It seems to me that there are an awful lot of people that were raised Catholic that later reject faith. Anyway, just a thought. I was not raised in a Christian church-going home and did not form basic religious beliefs at a young age. Nothing, and I mean nothing, was forced down my throat. I didn’t become a Christian until 1997 and I’m 35 now. Looking back, even though I wouldn’t have admitted it at the time, I always had a feeling that there was a God looking out for me. My decision came about 2 years after my Grandfather died. It was traumatic to me, we were very close, and I wanted to make sure he went to a good place and was taken care of. I didn’t make my decision easily and debated openly with others as well as inside for a long time. My brother-in-law talked with me a LOT on the subject. With all of my studying and questioning, though, he stopped me one night after a run and told me, “You know in your heart of hearts already the answer to most of your questions.” He was right. That’s what I mean when I say that God has to make the first move. It would make a good thread on its own. I would agree with you aside from the fact that there were many others who actually saw what happened and recorded what they saw. None of the other sources you mentioned have the specificities that the Bible has or can credibly make those claims of truth. As for ancient works, it is in a class of its own. So you accept information confirmed by various different people until the events that they’re describing as happened exceed your level of understanding? Yes, they are extraordinary claims but they are backed up nicely. I’ve not read the stories of Horus but, whatever his claims; I’ll bet he didn’t have the credible sources or the historical evidence that the Bible has. It definitely works for me. There are differences in denomination/tradition/ceremony but to all Bible teaching Christian groups (excluding groups that claim Christianity but are not like Jehovah’s Witness/Mormons, etc), there is a central theme.

I don't know. Pretty fast. These things really wear me out, though.

They wouldn’t necessarily follow my God’s rules if they didn’t believe in him. Many Christian rules/values, however, coincide with the personal ethics of others (not religious based) so they might anyway. It doesn’t matter that they follow my religions rules, per say. It does matter that they follow the rules established in our laws. I agree with and fully support the 1st Amendment. I didn’t say that. I was just giving examples originally why the Christian protestors were against it and why they would protest. Christianity, however, is the most prevalent and widely accepted religion in the US and always has been. It is obvious, even though our Constitution does not allow for the establishment of one religion over another, that our system would have that influence. It is at our fundamental base. As I’ve stated before, I don’t care if you’re homosexual or not. It doesn’t affect me until it begins to affect our laws. I guess it all depends on if you think that banning same sex marriage is discriminatory and violates our Constitution or not. I don’t. That very thing is being taken away on a much more regular basis these days by Judges legislating from the bench instead of honoring the vote/will of the people.