KoachKrab127
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2009
- Messages
- 4,826
- Likes
- 5,655
...between my friend and me. It's long, but if you don't mind taking about 10 minutes to read it, I'd like to hear other opinions as well.
ME: Fifty years from now people who discriminated against gays will be seen as crazy awful people. Just like people who wanted to keep segregation seem crazy today. To say two adults who love each other cannot be married is just as bad as saying blacks need to sit in the back. Bachmann has implied that gay couple's adopted children are at risk when significant evidence shows that gay couples raise children just as well as straight couples. The arguments against gay marriage are just ludicrous and I could talk all day about that. I'm not trying to persuade you, I'm just saying what I think. I have no problems if you vote for her, but I'm not for many reasons.
HIM: Gay marriage as its stands in the vast majority of US States today is already illegal. Neither Bachmann, nor I are "anti-gay", but are devout Christians with a religious outlook on morality and life. But also as Conservatives we believe in the limited roll of government in our daily lives. As such, neither Bachmann or I have a problem with gay people or their relationships, but legally and historically their relationship is not a marriage. A marriage is a religious ceremony. Religion does not support homosexuality as it is defined as a sin. I believe that a push to legalize gay marriage really is an affront to desensitize Americans to what is and is not moral. The church is under attack every day for supporting long standing moral principals. I believe Communists in this country have been on an orchestrated effort to eliminate the church from peoples lives for decades now. To the point where when anyone expresses their opinion on matters of morality through the teachings of the church that they are labeled crazy and hateful.
ME: I know gay marriage is illegal in most states. That doesn't mean it should be. You say you have a religious outlook on morality and life and gay marriage should be illegal because it is a sin against God. Therefore, it is completely contradictory to say you don't have a problem with gay relationships yet call their lifestyle immoral and sinful. Also, the argument that gay marriage is a sin is weak because lots of ridiculous things in the bible are considered sinful. For example, the bible recognizes shellfish as an abomination, just like homosexuality. Should we make eating/touching/selling shellfish illegal because it's considered an abomination according to the bible? At a wedding I attended this weekend, we ate shrimp during the religious ceremony. Why is shrimp allowed at a religious ceremony, which is considered an abomination in Leviticus 11:9-12? It's the SAME BOOK as the passage that claims homosexuality a sin. The bible calls shrimp an abomination 3 times, yet it is accepted as legal in every state. Churches pick and choose what parts of the scripture to practice, and that is just plain hypocritical. The bible also says slavery is acceptable but our laws do not...the bible also says wearing clothing of wool and linen is an abomination in Deuteronomy, should that be illegal in our country? Laws should not be determined by the bible. That's in the first amendment. Thomas Jefferson said the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment meant "a wall of separation between church and state." Now, here is my main argument. I do NOT think churches should be forced to marry gay people. I'm saying gay marriage should be legal, and if a church wants to marry two men or two women it should be legal. You say you don't want the government interfering with people's lives, yet you want the government to prohibit two men's or two women's pursuit of happiness. That is a textbook definition of the government interfering with people's lives. Once again, that's completely contradictory. I'm not saying the government needs to tell churches how to practice their religion. I'm saying laws should not be created based on religion. The First Amendment guarantees us freedom of religion in this country. Therefore, if gay people want to get married and a church agrees to marry them, it should be allowed. Just because some churches believe homosexuality is a sin does not mean it needs to be a law. That's unconstitutional. Do you see the difference between forcing a church to marry gays and allowing a church to chose? I am ALL FOR allowing the church to choose. I would never want a church to be forced to marry a gay couple because that would be unconstitutional, and I am aaaaalllll about the Constitution. Having gay marriage be illegal is against everything the U.S. stands for, and could even be considered unconstitutional. When you say, "A push to legalize gay marriage really is an affront to desensitize Americans to what is and is not moral," you are contradicting yourself. Having gay marriage be illegal is forcing morality on people. Allowing people and churches to choose who should be allowed to get married is not forcing morality on anybody. Do you see my point? Now some people say this argument is a slippery slope towards marrying animals or children, but that's just silly. Two adults can consent to marriage. Children and animals cannot consent to marriage. That is the difference. Now, if you believe that gay marriage is a sin and would want to protest a gay wedding across the street from a church, I would have no problem with that. That is your 1st amendment right. And like I said, I am all about the Constitution. I have no problem with people who think gay marriage is wrong. I do have a problem with government telling us that gay marriage needs to be illegal. And if people want to "label the teachings of the church crazy and hateful" that is also their 1st Amendment right. They can also peacefully protest outside a church that does not allow gay marriage. The first amendment is by far the best part of the U.S. Just remember, this is my viewpoint: gay marriage should not be forced upon churches nor forbidden in the United States. That's my viewpoint and nothing will change my mind. If you want to protest that, it is your first amendment right, and I also have nothing wrong with that, just as you should not have a problem with people who think gay marriage should be legal.
HIM: Nothing is listed in the constitution about marriage laws being determined by the federal government. These matters, along with drivers licences, and drinking ages among other local matters are by right left to the states. Constitutional it is up to the state to determine who, and at what age people can get married. The problem with gay marriage arises in the long standing agreement between states to recognize agreements made in other states. For instances if you get a drivers licences in Iowa they will let you drives through Texas. Now if you a gay couple gets married in New York, it is forcing the hand of North Carolina to either accept that marriage if that couple moves or forces it to make legislation for the first time invalidating that marriage if they move to the state. As I said I have no problem with their relationship, but there is no reason to legally call it a marriage. Marriage has never in the history of the world been anything other than between a man and a woman. As it stands domestic partnerships receive the exact same tax status as marriage alone with other privileges. I want to follow the tradition of marriage. I do not want laws outlawing the happiness of gay couples. If they want to be together, so be it, but it does not constitute what marriage has always been. There is no difference between their partnership, and a marriage except by name. But to me the name difference is important because there is a difference in who is together.
ME: So now are you arguing that since some states don't want gay marriages it should be illegal in all states? But that takes away the rights of the states that want to call it gay marriage. So in both instances, you are violating states' rights. And if you make gay marriage illegal in all states, isn't that the government controlling your life? And with the state telling gay people they can't do something, I see that as oppression of individuals also. That just seems so backwards to me. You don't like the federal government telling states what is or is not moral or legal. Well, I don't like states telling citizens what is or is not moral. Also, in some states, no unions between same sex couples are recognized. Using your NY and NC argument, should we outlaw all same sex unions? The bottom line is, in the long run, the conservatives are going to lose this battle. It might take 30 years, but eventually, gay marriage is going to be legal and widely accepted. Just look at history. The South wanted "states' rights" with slavery and lost that battle. The South wanted "states' rights" with segregation and lost that battle too. It's only a matter of time before the same thing happens with gay marriage. I'm glad you are for gays receiving the same partnerships, tax status, and other privileges. But earlier you were saying gays are sinful and immoral, so I also see that as conflicting. I agree with the argument you have most recently presented much more than what you were saying earlier about religion and morality, because religious people are often immoral and hypocritical. However, if I had to choose between individuals' rights and a states' rights, I'd choose the individuals' rights every time. To me, arguing for states' rights is like saying, "The government should not tell states they cannot discriminate against people." I'd much rather fight for individuals' rights than states' rights. You don't have to agree with me, but that's my opinion.
HIM: A majority of people in the United States are against gay marriage. By having any one state legally marry gays it voids the opinion of hundreds of millions of people. Gay marriage is being forced upon the states and all people against gay marriage. I agree that we will lose this battle in the end. But slavery, and segregation were immoral because it was based upon a physical characteristic that labeled people inferior. Gay marriage is a whole other issue because it is not rejected because of an unchangeable physical attribute. It is a behavior and laws were meant to regulate behaviors that the majority of people found objectionable. When courts and liberal state legislatures force gay marriage onto opposing states they are forcing the people of that state to accept a behavior that they find objectionable. The constitution has been perversely twisted to force all Americans to accept behaviors that have never been tolerated in history. This was never meant to happen; never in the founders wildest dreams did they think that Christianity would be relegated to the ramblings of an insane cult and that the very document they designed to enforce and protect a just and moral society based upon majority rule would be twisted and wielded as a bludgeoning club to force the citizens of this country to condone behaviors that for thousands of years were punishable by death. Even the civil war amendments from which these gay marriage equal rights arguments are being waged are using technicalities in wording to push their cases along. They were intended to eliminate slavery, and to ensure that blacks were given an equal footing with whites.. This was simple. It came down to race and gender protections came with even later amendments. There is nothing in the constitution that allows gays to get married. The tenth amendment leaves matters to the states that wont interfere with other states. That is why the matter of gay marriage should be a federal matter. This is why there is support for a gay marriage amendment. This has the potential to take away the chance that gay marriage would ever be legal. If the push to force gay marriage on America wasn't as fervent as it is, there would be no amendment and gay marriage could come as an acceptable action later when gay issues are more accepted as the norm. And I don't think its too far off, but right now it is not a majority opinion, and that is why I'm quite upset with this. I don't like the opinions of the many being trumped by the opinions of the few. But that is happening more and more often because of the liberal media, Hollywood, and music industries.
ME: You call homosexuality a behavior, but gay people say it is part of their identity. Homosexuals do not behave gay...they are gay. You cannot choose to be gay no more than you can choose to be black or white. A gay person can suppress gay desires, but this leads to depression and is not healthy. Did you choose to be straight? I sure didn't. I developed that way. I have talked to many people who are gay and none of them say they chose to be gay. There has never been any person who has ever said they chose to be gay. Three percent of men are gay in this country. It's part of their identity, and it's harmless. I also don't like the argument that we should have a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on the federal level. You are saying you want states right, but also want a federal amendment to make all states ban gay marriage? Isn't that contradictory? Furthermore, just because something is popular, does not mean it is right. The majority of people disagree with the Westboro Baptist Church, as do I...I think they are out of their minds, so should we ban their right to worship freely? Our constitution protects unpopular speech, not only popular speech. This is why the Westboro Baptist Church is allowed to behave the way they want to behave, and I believe gay people should be allowed to get married in a similar sense: to protect the rights of unpopular behaviors. You disagree with that, and that's fine. However, I believe that just because something is popular, does not mean it is right. I believe that if 2 gay people love each other, they should be allowed to have any type of religious ceremony they want with the church's approval (not forced upon the church, that would be a 1st amendment violation). I am of the opinion that people can do whatever they want as long as they do not violate the rights of others. I am free to kick my legs wildly all the way down the sidewalk if I want to...until I strike somebody. It doesn't matter if people find my behavior offensive, I have the right to do it unless I harm someone else in the process. Gay marriage does not take away any person's rights who oppose it. They are still allowed to marry members of the opposite sex. Hell, you'd think most straight guys would favor gay marriage...that means more women for them! Saying gay marriage would reduce the sanctity of marriage is ridiculous. Divorce reduces the sanctity of marriage MUCH more than gay marriage, and 48% of marriages nowadays end in divorce. Should we ban divorce because the founding fathers thought it was immoral? Or, for that matter, should we ban divorce because the majority of people do not get divorced? Divorce is a behavior, if we guide behaviors by majority opinion, we should ban divorce. In fact, I think most arguments against gay marriage are bogus. "Homosexuality is unnatural." This isn't true. We see homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Plus, contact lenses are unnatural, should we ban them? "The Bible says homosexuality is a sin." We do not live in a theocracy. Values of religion are not supposed to be imposed on everyone in the country. "The point of marriage is to procreate." So should we prevent infertile people from getting married? "Gay marriage encourages more people to become gay." This is the most ridiculous one. People cannot teach others to become gay no more than people can teach gays to become straight. "Families need a male and female in the home." So should we make single parenting illegal? Things change over time, values change over time. People who were gay 200 years ago were often thought of as demonic or possessed. That's just crazy. I don't think it is relevant what the founding fathers would think of gay marriage today. Many of the founding fathers had slaves, would they be rolling around in their graves if they knew states' rights to slavery was taken away? Just because something was not tolerated in history, like freeing slaves or gay marriage, that does not mean we should accept it as universal. Times change, values change...people have become more tolerant and less crazy. I know conservatives don't like that because they like to hold onto traditional values. People are not forcing conservatives to celebrate gay marriage, just allow it. Many people do not like certain types of speech, but they have to accept it. The founding fathers did not want a Christian nation, they wanted people to have religious freedom and be able to express their opinions freely. I do not believe for a second what you said about the founding fathers and Christianity. Most of the founding fathers were NOT Christian. Most of them were Deists, who believed most of the bible was bogus. Thomas Jefferson rewrote the bible to exclude the idea that Jesus was the son of God, but instead, focused on his teachings. The founding fathers were DECADES...even a CENTURY ahead of their time. They tolerated things most people NEVER would have tolerated. I'm sure if they lived today, they would support the pro-gay marriage argument. I still stick with what I said earlier. You have the right to behave the way you want as long as you do not abuse others. And I still think it's contradictory to say you want the government out of people's lives, yet you want the government to ban a behavior that has no victim. This is the last time I'm going to respond. I believe I have said all of my arguments.
ME: Fifty years from now people who discriminated against gays will be seen as crazy awful people. Just like people who wanted to keep segregation seem crazy today. To say two adults who love each other cannot be married is just as bad as saying blacks need to sit in the back. Bachmann has implied that gay couple's adopted children are at risk when significant evidence shows that gay couples raise children just as well as straight couples. The arguments against gay marriage are just ludicrous and I could talk all day about that. I'm not trying to persuade you, I'm just saying what I think. I have no problems if you vote for her, but I'm not for many reasons.
HIM: Gay marriage as its stands in the vast majority of US States today is already illegal. Neither Bachmann, nor I are "anti-gay", but are devout Christians with a religious outlook on morality and life. But also as Conservatives we believe in the limited roll of government in our daily lives. As such, neither Bachmann or I have a problem with gay people or their relationships, but legally and historically their relationship is not a marriage. A marriage is a religious ceremony. Religion does not support homosexuality as it is defined as a sin. I believe that a push to legalize gay marriage really is an affront to desensitize Americans to what is and is not moral. The church is under attack every day for supporting long standing moral principals. I believe Communists in this country have been on an orchestrated effort to eliminate the church from peoples lives for decades now. To the point where when anyone expresses their opinion on matters of morality through the teachings of the church that they are labeled crazy and hateful.
ME: I know gay marriage is illegal in most states. That doesn't mean it should be. You say you have a religious outlook on morality and life and gay marriage should be illegal because it is a sin against God. Therefore, it is completely contradictory to say you don't have a problem with gay relationships yet call their lifestyle immoral and sinful. Also, the argument that gay marriage is a sin is weak because lots of ridiculous things in the bible are considered sinful. For example, the bible recognizes shellfish as an abomination, just like homosexuality. Should we make eating/touching/selling shellfish illegal because it's considered an abomination according to the bible? At a wedding I attended this weekend, we ate shrimp during the religious ceremony. Why is shrimp allowed at a religious ceremony, which is considered an abomination in Leviticus 11:9-12? It's the SAME BOOK as the passage that claims homosexuality a sin. The bible calls shrimp an abomination 3 times, yet it is accepted as legal in every state. Churches pick and choose what parts of the scripture to practice, and that is just plain hypocritical. The bible also says slavery is acceptable but our laws do not...the bible also says wearing clothing of wool and linen is an abomination in Deuteronomy, should that be illegal in our country? Laws should not be determined by the bible. That's in the first amendment. Thomas Jefferson said the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment meant "a wall of separation between church and state." Now, here is my main argument. I do NOT think churches should be forced to marry gay people. I'm saying gay marriage should be legal, and if a church wants to marry two men or two women it should be legal. You say you don't want the government interfering with people's lives, yet you want the government to prohibit two men's or two women's pursuit of happiness. That is a textbook definition of the government interfering with people's lives. Once again, that's completely contradictory. I'm not saying the government needs to tell churches how to practice their religion. I'm saying laws should not be created based on religion. The First Amendment guarantees us freedom of religion in this country. Therefore, if gay people want to get married and a church agrees to marry them, it should be allowed. Just because some churches believe homosexuality is a sin does not mean it needs to be a law. That's unconstitutional. Do you see the difference between forcing a church to marry gays and allowing a church to chose? I am ALL FOR allowing the church to choose. I would never want a church to be forced to marry a gay couple because that would be unconstitutional, and I am aaaaalllll about the Constitution. Having gay marriage be illegal is against everything the U.S. stands for, and could even be considered unconstitutional. When you say, "A push to legalize gay marriage really is an affront to desensitize Americans to what is and is not moral," you are contradicting yourself. Having gay marriage be illegal is forcing morality on people. Allowing people and churches to choose who should be allowed to get married is not forcing morality on anybody. Do you see my point? Now some people say this argument is a slippery slope towards marrying animals or children, but that's just silly. Two adults can consent to marriage. Children and animals cannot consent to marriage. That is the difference. Now, if you believe that gay marriage is a sin and would want to protest a gay wedding across the street from a church, I would have no problem with that. That is your 1st amendment right. And like I said, I am all about the Constitution. I have no problem with people who think gay marriage is wrong. I do have a problem with government telling us that gay marriage needs to be illegal. And if people want to "label the teachings of the church crazy and hateful" that is also their 1st Amendment right. They can also peacefully protest outside a church that does not allow gay marriage. The first amendment is by far the best part of the U.S. Just remember, this is my viewpoint: gay marriage should not be forced upon churches nor forbidden in the United States. That's my viewpoint and nothing will change my mind. If you want to protest that, it is your first amendment right, and I also have nothing wrong with that, just as you should not have a problem with people who think gay marriage should be legal.
HIM: Nothing is listed in the constitution about marriage laws being determined by the federal government. These matters, along with drivers licences, and drinking ages among other local matters are by right left to the states. Constitutional it is up to the state to determine who, and at what age people can get married. The problem with gay marriage arises in the long standing agreement between states to recognize agreements made in other states. For instances if you get a drivers licences in Iowa they will let you drives through Texas. Now if you a gay couple gets married in New York, it is forcing the hand of North Carolina to either accept that marriage if that couple moves or forces it to make legislation for the first time invalidating that marriage if they move to the state. As I said I have no problem with their relationship, but there is no reason to legally call it a marriage. Marriage has never in the history of the world been anything other than between a man and a woman. As it stands domestic partnerships receive the exact same tax status as marriage alone with other privileges. I want to follow the tradition of marriage. I do not want laws outlawing the happiness of gay couples. If they want to be together, so be it, but it does not constitute what marriage has always been. There is no difference between their partnership, and a marriage except by name. But to me the name difference is important because there is a difference in who is together.
ME: So now are you arguing that since some states don't want gay marriages it should be illegal in all states? But that takes away the rights of the states that want to call it gay marriage. So in both instances, you are violating states' rights. And if you make gay marriage illegal in all states, isn't that the government controlling your life? And with the state telling gay people they can't do something, I see that as oppression of individuals also. That just seems so backwards to me. You don't like the federal government telling states what is or is not moral or legal. Well, I don't like states telling citizens what is or is not moral. Also, in some states, no unions between same sex couples are recognized. Using your NY and NC argument, should we outlaw all same sex unions? The bottom line is, in the long run, the conservatives are going to lose this battle. It might take 30 years, but eventually, gay marriage is going to be legal and widely accepted. Just look at history. The South wanted "states' rights" with slavery and lost that battle. The South wanted "states' rights" with segregation and lost that battle too. It's only a matter of time before the same thing happens with gay marriage. I'm glad you are for gays receiving the same partnerships, tax status, and other privileges. But earlier you were saying gays are sinful and immoral, so I also see that as conflicting. I agree with the argument you have most recently presented much more than what you were saying earlier about religion and morality, because religious people are often immoral and hypocritical. However, if I had to choose between individuals' rights and a states' rights, I'd choose the individuals' rights every time. To me, arguing for states' rights is like saying, "The government should not tell states they cannot discriminate against people." I'd much rather fight for individuals' rights than states' rights. You don't have to agree with me, but that's my opinion.
HIM: A majority of people in the United States are against gay marriage. By having any one state legally marry gays it voids the opinion of hundreds of millions of people. Gay marriage is being forced upon the states and all people against gay marriage. I agree that we will lose this battle in the end. But slavery, and segregation were immoral because it was based upon a physical characteristic that labeled people inferior. Gay marriage is a whole other issue because it is not rejected because of an unchangeable physical attribute. It is a behavior and laws were meant to regulate behaviors that the majority of people found objectionable. When courts and liberal state legislatures force gay marriage onto opposing states they are forcing the people of that state to accept a behavior that they find objectionable. The constitution has been perversely twisted to force all Americans to accept behaviors that have never been tolerated in history. This was never meant to happen; never in the founders wildest dreams did they think that Christianity would be relegated to the ramblings of an insane cult and that the very document they designed to enforce and protect a just and moral society based upon majority rule would be twisted and wielded as a bludgeoning club to force the citizens of this country to condone behaviors that for thousands of years were punishable by death. Even the civil war amendments from which these gay marriage equal rights arguments are being waged are using technicalities in wording to push their cases along. They were intended to eliminate slavery, and to ensure that blacks were given an equal footing with whites.. This was simple. It came down to race and gender protections came with even later amendments. There is nothing in the constitution that allows gays to get married. The tenth amendment leaves matters to the states that wont interfere with other states. That is why the matter of gay marriage should be a federal matter. This is why there is support for a gay marriage amendment. This has the potential to take away the chance that gay marriage would ever be legal. If the push to force gay marriage on America wasn't as fervent as it is, there would be no amendment and gay marriage could come as an acceptable action later when gay issues are more accepted as the norm. And I don't think its too far off, but right now it is not a majority opinion, and that is why I'm quite upset with this. I don't like the opinions of the many being trumped by the opinions of the few. But that is happening more and more often because of the liberal media, Hollywood, and music industries.
ME: You call homosexuality a behavior, but gay people say it is part of their identity. Homosexuals do not behave gay...they are gay. You cannot choose to be gay no more than you can choose to be black or white. A gay person can suppress gay desires, but this leads to depression and is not healthy. Did you choose to be straight? I sure didn't. I developed that way. I have talked to many people who are gay and none of them say they chose to be gay. There has never been any person who has ever said they chose to be gay. Three percent of men are gay in this country. It's part of their identity, and it's harmless. I also don't like the argument that we should have a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on the federal level. You are saying you want states right, but also want a federal amendment to make all states ban gay marriage? Isn't that contradictory? Furthermore, just because something is popular, does not mean it is right. The majority of people disagree with the Westboro Baptist Church, as do I...I think they are out of their minds, so should we ban their right to worship freely? Our constitution protects unpopular speech, not only popular speech. This is why the Westboro Baptist Church is allowed to behave the way they want to behave, and I believe gay people should be allowed to get married in a similar sense: to protect the rights of unpopular behaviors. You disagree with that, and that's fine. However, I believe that just because something is popular, does not mean it is right. I believe that if 2 gay people love each other, they should be allowed to have any type of religious ceremony they want with the church's approval (not forced upon the church, that would be a 1st amendment violation). I am of the opinion that people can do whatever they want as long as they do not violate the rights of others. I am free to kick my legs wildly all the way down the sidewalk if I want to...until I strike somebody. It doesn't matter if people find my behavior offensive, I have the right to do it unless I harm someone else in the process. Gay marriage does not take away any person's rights who oppose it. They are still allowed to marry members of the opposite sex. Hell, you'd think most straight guys would favor gay marriage...that means more women for them! Saying gay marriage would reduce the sanctity of marriage is ridiculous. Divorce reduces the sanctity of marriage MUCH more than gay marriage, and 48% of marriages nowadays end in divorce. Should we ban divorce because the founding fathers thought it was immoral? Or, for that matter, should we ban divorce because the majority of people do not get divorced? Divorce is a behavior, if we guide behaviors by majority opinion, we should ban divorce. In fact, I think most arguments against gay marriage are bogus. "Homosexuality is unnatural." This isn't true. We see homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Plus, contact lenses are unnatural, should we ban them? "The Bible says homosexuality is a sin." We do not live in a theocracy. Values of religion are not supposed to be imposed on everyone in the country. "The point of marriage is to procreate." So should we prevent infertile people from getting married? "Gay marriage encourages more people to become gay." This is the most ridiculous one. People cannot teach others to become gay no more than people can teach gays to become straight. "Families need a male and female in the home." So should we make single parenting illegal? Things change over time, values change over time. People who were gay 200 years ago were often thought of as demonic or possessed. That's just crazy. I don't think it is relevant what the founding fathers would think of gay marriage today. Many of the founding fathers had slaves, would they be rolling around in their graves if they knew states' rights to slavery was taken away? Just because something was not tolerated in history, like freeing slaves or gay marriage, that does not mean we should accept it as universal. Times change, values change...people have become more tolerant and less crazy. I know conservatives don't like that because they like to hold onto traditional values. People are not forcing conservatives to celebrate gay marriage, just allow it. Many people do not like certain types of speech, but they have to accept it. The founding fathers did not want a Christian nation, they wanted people to have religious freedom and be able to express their opinions freely. I do not believe for a second what you said about the founding fathers and Christianity. Most of the founding fathers were NOT Christian. Most of them were Deists, who believed most of the bible was bogus. Thomas Jefferson rewrote the bible to exclude the idea that Jesus was the son of God, but instead, focused on his teachings. The founding fathers were DECADES...even a CENTURY ahead of their time. They tolerated things most people NEVER would have tolerated. I'm sure if they lived today, they would support the pro-gay marriage argument. I still stick with what I said earlier. You have the right to behave the way you want as long as you do not abuse others. And I still think it's contradictory to say you want the government out of people's lives, yet you want the government to ban a behavior that has no victim. This is the last time I'm going to respond. I believe I have said all of my arguments.
