tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post4464405597029776907..comments2024-03-02T02:26:00.928-05:00Comments on bleakonomy: Because it bears repeatingtetracontadigonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04604381739383227553noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-66235119716362625362009-10-13T17:16:13.704-04:002009-10-13T17:16:13.704-04:00And yay for Owen!!!And yay for Owen!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-40923102623297087922009-10-13T17:15:00.013-04:002009-10-13T17:15:00.013-04:00As I've mentioned before, the irony of remarks...As I've mentioned before, the irony of remarks like Emrich's is that my relationship with God as a Christian is what led to my acceptance of gays as part of His creation. But that is beside the point you're making, Dan--and you are correct.<br /><br />BarbaraAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-55567380364922085862009-10-13T16:09:58.095-04:002009-10-13T16:09:58.095-04:00Gadfly John's point is one of my favorites: ch...Gadfly John's point is one of my favorites: churches make their own marriage rules, but the government has to have something that is the same for everyone and not separate but equal. As long as government recognizes any marriage it must recognize all consenting adult marriage.<br />But Elizabeth's point is also excellent: Founding Fathers had slaves. Founding Fathers believed women should not vote. Founding Fathers did not say a word about marriage, and neither should our government. I don't particularly understand why married couples get rights other people don't.<br />Further back, though, the Biblical stand against homosexuality is not a Christian one (as much is Christian is someone who believes in Jesus as the Son of God). Jesus said nothing about sexuality. He said the codes in Leviticus did not apply to Christians. He said that part of the Old Testament that refers to homosexuality (and is often mistranslated anyway) is moot for his contemporary times. If we ignore, in our legal code, the part of the Bible that says stone to death adulterers; if we ignore in our legal code the part of the Bible that says stone to death anyone who wears clothes with two different cloth fibers in it; if we ignore in our legal code the part of the Bible that says when your husband dies before you have a male heir you have to sleep with all his brothers until you get a boy; then why are we basing law on the one bit in there that says you can't sleep with another man in your wife's bed? btw, I think that's just about propriety not homosexuality---I read it to say, for heaven's sake, find another place for that 'cuz it's not polite to your wife. No wife? No issue.<br />But my biggest problem with the whole post, Dan, is that a Church should not be allowed to collect for a political issue. That should mean their privileged status as an apolitical body should be revoked.<br />Small wonder I left the Catholic Church a long, long time ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-52639832619044164612009-10-13T08:43:40.670-04:002009-10-13T08:43:40.670-04:00Something that occurs to me lately is just how oft...Something that occurs to me lately is just how often gay marriage opponents invoke the founding of the country. Can you please tell me why it is that these guys never seem to remember that the Founding Fathers really were pretty big on the whole separation of church and state thing? If you want to argue for religious laws being enshrined in the nation's laws, go ahead, but invoking the Founding Fathers is rather silly. Can't you just say the Founding Fathers had it wrong, as they did on some other issues (3/5ths compromise, anyone?).Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09953173396955681485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-64346479942033365702009-10-13T08:29:04.009-04:002009-10-13T08:29:04.009-04:00I am all for religious institutions setting whatev...I am all for religious institutions setting whatever standard they want for marriages (or whatever they want to call it). Fine. Sure. Go nuts.<br /><br />On the other hand, I am wholly uninterested in having the beliefs of others impinge on my civil rights.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11213051268392108382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-45650561718632836502009-10-12T19:41:33.317-04:002009-10-12T19:41:33.317-04:00Marriage is a religious invention. Secular govern...Marriage is a religious invention. Secular government should get out of religious marriage. Let people be married according to the rite of their choice; the First Church of Rodney would be happy to marry anyone, for example. But have government only recognize a civil union and leave the marriage bit up to the religious authorities.<br /><br />A good example is religious divorce; divorce on the government's part in the US is a civil issue and isn't complicated in the slightest by religious authorites. Catholics and Orthodox Jews, just to name a couple of religious groups, have different laws for divorce than the government. One can have a civil divorce and be married in the eyes of the religious authorities, and vice versa. Why not have this arrangement on the entrance rite as well?Gadfly Johnnoreply@blogger.com