Prop 8 and the Sundane Film Fest.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But, the churches (not all of them) cannot sustain themselves if they preach the true Word of God though Jesus' teachings. They have to have the fear factor present. History is full of examples a la the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. Look at Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Never mind that passion plays have been used for centuries to stir up hatred against the Jews and Jews have been killed as a result. Gibson, arguably one who is no friend of the Jew, made a billion dollars off of it because he knew America, for the most part, was running to religion to find some meaning after 9/11. So, again I saw, preach hate and your bank account and church will grow no matter that Christ never did or advocated that.

I don't think you have any idea what Jesus actually taught. He said he came to divide and that you cannot follow him without hating your wife, your father, mother, etc. He said that in his name brother with strike down his brother. He's not the peaceloving hippie you think he is.

Besides The Passion of the Christ is not anti-semitic. If anything, it's anti-Italian. I am Jewish and saw nothing wrong with it. It was bloody and gross, but so was Total Recall?! Again, you have a lot of opinions about church growth. How about citing something factual, like a study, some poll, etc. As of right now, you're just pulling things out of your hiney.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

And, if they are not closet cases, they are cheating on their wives with other chicks, molesting the children, and/or cooking the books to support their opulent lifestyle - all while taking God's name in vain.

Again, there are decent people of God and other religions out there. I am not talking about them.

Sounds more like cops than ministers. Anyway, you are taking a few examples and stretching it into covering an entire religion. You are being as hate-filled as you accuse them of being. You are being very narrow minded and bigoted.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

. . .

I don't have the entire list at my disposal, but I'll offer 25 of the benefits that are only available to married couples....

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

. . . .

Exactly. Some of these can be contracted into if you have the money. But, most cannot and that contract can be contested while the automatic rights cannot. Moreover, why should gay people have to spend thousands of dollars to obtain the handful of rights that are actually obtainable that way when straight people get all the rights automatically, for free, and, once again, based solely on a religious idea.

Once again, the 14th Amendment says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

When the state makes a law that is not applied to all people the same and it does not have a valid (the def. varies) reason for doing so, the law is invalid [U]See/U] Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), which held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Many, but not all, scholars and jurists think that the application of the 14th Amendment in Lawrence coupled with the case of Loving v. Virgina (cited earlier) and the separation of church and state clause in the First Amend. and the related cases, will result in the Supreme Court finding giving rights to one group over the over based solely on a religious idea is anything but equal protection under the law.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I agree that marriage should not be a government issue, but here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

The facts are not on your side that civil unions are not the same.

If you had skipped down to the section about civil unions in the United States, you would have read the following....

"The federal government does not recognize these unions, and under the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA), other U.S. states are not obliged to recognize them."

The article also notes that states which do recognize civil unions, still don't offer all of the same benefits as they do for married couples.

Additionally, civil union couples don't receive 1,100 benefits afforded to married couples through the federal government.

So, between state & federal governments, there are 1,400 benefits that are reserved only for married couples. As I stated earlier.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Exactly. Some of these can be contracte into if you have the money. But, most cannot and that contract can be contested while the automatic rights cannot. Moreover, why should gay people have to spend thousands of dollars to obtain the handful of rights that are actually obtainable that way when straight people get it for free and, once again, based solely on a religious idea.

Once again, the 14th Amendment says:



When the state makes a law that is not applied to all people the same and it does not have a valid (the def. varies) reason for doing so, the law is invalid [U]See/U] Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), which held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Many, but not all, scholars and jurists think that the application of the 14th Amendment in Lawrence coupled with the case of Loving v. Virgina (citred earlier) and the separation of church and state clause in the First Amend. and the related cases, will result in the Supreme Court finding giving rights to one group over the over based solely on a religious idea is anything but equal protection under the law.

You said, "When the state makes a law that is not applied to all people the same and it does not have a valid (the def. varies) reason for doing so, the law is invalid " Exactly my point. Gay marriage is too exclusory because it doesn't apply to everyone. The only real solution is to deregulate marriage, or as in the case of California, have the citizens vote on it in individual states.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I don't think you have any idea what Jesus actually taught. He said he came to divide and that you cannot follow him without hating your wife, your father, mother, etc. He said that in his name brother with strike down his brother. He's not the peaceloving hippie you think he is.

So Jesus said that I don't have to tolerate anyone if they don't agree with me? Hot damn!

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

If you had skipped down to the section about civil unions in the United States, you would have read the following....

"The federal government does not recognize these unions, and under the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA), other U.S. states are not obliged to recognize them."

The article also notes that states which do recognize civil unions, still don't offer all of the same benefits as they do for married couples.

Additionally, civil union couples don't receive 1,100 benefits afforded to married couples through the federal government.

So, between state & federal governments, there are 1,400 benefits that are reserved only for married couples. As I stated earlier.

Why should the federal government recognize gay marriage as the same everywhere when it doesn't even recognize heterosexual marriage as the same everywhere? For example, there are community property laws in some states and not in others. Different rights for different states. There are different laws of survivorship, property inheritance, medical rights, etc for heterosexual couples too. The federal government doesn't officially recognize common-law marriages either. This was never supposed to have been a federal issue.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Gay marriage is too exclusory because it doesn't apply to everyone. The only real solution is to deregulate marriage, or as in the case of California, have the citizens vote on it in individual states.

So gay marriage is too exclusory? Not marriage in general?

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

So Jesus said that I don't have to tolerate anyone if they don't agree with me? Hot damn!

Jesus never said anything about tolerance. Hell, he called the religious leaders bastards. He said he came with a sword to divide and destroy. Try reading the source material sometime. It doesn't say half of what people think it does.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

So gay marriage is too exclusory? Not marriage in general?

Did you read what I said? Gay marriage is too exclusory and the only solution is to deregulate it. Marriage has had a definition for thousands of years. You are wanting to redefine it. If you are going to do that on the grounds that it is too restrictive, then to be logically consistent, you would have to not exclude anyone. Logic 101.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

So Jesus said that I don't have to tolerate anyone if they don't agree with me? Hot damn!

Now THAT is a visual

In anay event, I suppose Christ's Sermon on the Mount, wherein He said:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

—Luke 6:27-31. NIV

means Jesus advocated anything but peace at all costs - it's war war war or bust

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Jesus never said anything about tolerance. Hell, he called the religious leaders bastards. He said he came with a sword to divide and destroy. Try reading the source material sometime. It doesn't say half of what people think it does.

I have. I was raised Catholic. I've read the Bible, I know what it says. I also know that it's been interpreted and re-interpreted hundreds of thousands of times to suit the needs of whomever is citing it.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I suppose Christ's Sermon on the Mount, where in He said:



—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV



—Luke 6:27-31. NIV

mean Jesus advocated anything but peace

What he was advocating, if you study scripture at all and it seems you do on a very surface level, is practicing civil disobedience. If you give someone your cloak and your coat, that means you're walking around naked and are making the other guy look like an ass. In that day, slaves were struck by one hand, rather than the other. to be hit with the opposite hand was to be hit with the hand of an equal. In fact, this was an act of defiance. Lastly, Roman soldiers were allowed to force people to carry their gear for one mile and no more. If you took it an extra mile, the soldier could be in trouble, so by going overboard you were endangering the status of the soldier. Try doing a little research.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I have. I was raised Catholic. I've read the Bible, I know what it says. I also know that it's been interpreted and re-interpreted hundreds of thousands of times to suit the needs of whomever is citing it.

Perfect example. I was raised in a cult and I threw out everything I was ever taught and started over. Catholicism is much the same. There's so much crap thrown onto it that it doesn't even mean anything anymore after that.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

So gay marriage is too exclusory? Not marriage in general?

Exactly - but that notion escapes most. I mean the definition of marriage has been changing since it was invented. As late as 1967 or so, the definition of traditional marriage excluded interracial marriages, as against God. But, that changed, thanks to the Supreme Court. So, to argue that it is an affront to the definition of marriage is preposterous.

Also, I could care a less if polygamy exists, etc. As long as there are consenting adults, I could care a less. I also think that brothers and sisters as well as cloe kin present a problem because the baby could be harmed via genetics. So, there is a valid, non religious reason for excluding that. But, if there is a way around that, I could care a less if brothers and sisters marry.

In the end, marriage should not be in any law book other than the consent issue.