Another glorious win for the homo-phobes?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i am not talking out of both sides of my mouth. the founding fathers wished to protect the rights of the minority-which in this case would be homosexuals.
as for being in favor of slavery, you might want to re-read your history. the only reason why it wasn't abolished back when the articles of confederation and the constution was being ratified is the founders who were against it were more concerned in getting the southern states to become just that, hoping later that slavery would end-which is exactly what happened.

Are you actually claiming that the founding fathers may have been in favor of gay marriage? Do you think if a gay person in that era would have come up to one of the founding fatheres and asked them whether it would be legal for two people of the same sex to get married, that the founding fathers would have said "yes"? If the founding fathers wanted to protect the rights of gay people then why did they throw people in jail for being gay back then? The founing fathers obviously had no interest in protecting the rights of gay people. Quite to the contrary. They would arrest you for being gay back then.

I think it's absurd when people invoke the Constitution on issues where it is clear that the founding fathers had a totally different meaning than what some people claim. Let's take the death penalty for example. Some people say that the death penalty should be illegal. I have no problem with a person believing that the death penalty should be illegal based on that person's belief system. But I do have a problem with people that say the death penalty should be illegal because the Constitution says that it is not ok to use "cruel or unusual punishment". When the founding fathers talked about "cruel or unusual punishment", there is no chance that they would have considered the death penalty as "cruel or unusual". In that era, the death penalty was considered fine. People were put to death all the time. So the founding fathers obviously would not have considered the death penalty as "cruel or unusual punishment". The argument that the death penalty should be illegal on Constitutional grounds is absurd.

[Danzig]

i think that's why the constitution doesn't spell things out specifically. they didn't know exactly what would come up in future, so it doesn't say you have the right to life, libery and pursuit of happiness as long as you fit certain criteria. they were smart enough, or we were lucky enough, that they were pretty general about everyone being equal, and that it is NOT majority rule, so that the rights of the minority can't be trampled on.
like i've said before, the issue isn't with marriage-the issue is that you can't offer rights to some and not others. where this country screwed up is with granting rights to some just because they're married. if marriage is a religious institution, the govt should have stayed out of it. since they didn't, and have offered things to couples, they are obviously not treating everyone as being equal.

[dellinger63]

I can only speak for the catholic religion but as the parish members go so goes the church. It used to be unacceptable to marry a non-catholic girl/guy in the church and now it's commonplace. Long ago masses were in Latin understood by none. You used to have to go in a box to confess sins but now you talk face-to-face and get counseled instead of saying 10 hail Mary's and our fathers.

The church's bottom line IMO is survival and since it solely relies on it's parishioners for monetary support and ultimately survival it is constantly changing to 'play to its audience'. There are very few 'ole school' left and as the views of the people change so goes the church. As the parishoners become more accepting of gay marriage so will the church and we're very close to losing the 'ole schooler's'.

Most religions I think are similar. With the exception of the Muslim religion that apparently leads all to heterosexuality as Sadam Hussein once said there were no homosexuals in all of Iraq.