quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
Illogical,

I am not trying to force my religion on anyone. I am only trying to save the lives of children from murder.


Isn't that cute. You mangled my handle. Sheeesh.

You wish to do so by forcing your will onto another human being. You wish to take control of her body and make her a slave to your will. You "fix" one sin with another. That's an "end justifies the means" kinda argument.

I don't believe in abortion. I personally can't see myself doing it, but I do not have the right to force someone else to bear a child they do not want. That is between them and God.

I simply disagree with this.
quote:
I don't believe in abortion. I personally can't see myself doing it, but I do not have the right to force someone else to bear a child they do not want. That is between them and God.


Thats simple.Don't force them to have sex.Sadly the majority of abortions aren't rape cases.I don't want to get into the whole rape/incest argument,but using abortion as birth control for lazy people who can't keep their zipper up or legs together is simply wrong.Your killing a innocent person as a direct result of selfishness.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
Logical,
Gay people can live together just like married people. In the 80's when i lived in Huntsville, in the apartment complex i lived in, there were three gay couples in the two buildings, eight units in each.


Gay people can live together just like unmarried straight people can live together. Your argument is simply not true. There are numerous things that being married confers to a couple that has a definite effect on their lives. Things such as taxes, insurance, business, inheritance, health care, Social Security benefits, child care (sorry to tell you, but gay people actually can and do procreate) are just some of the things.

quote:

Now since gay people can live together just like anyone else, please pray tell me the rationale for them getting married.

Men and women get married to declare their allegiance to each other till death they do part, forsaking all others, then they begin building a life together, which includes in most cases the spawning of children and the establishment of a family environment.


And exactly why would you think a gay couple who wished to be married would be different? Do you think gay people think of marriage differently than straight people do?

quote:

The gay couple i saw in the 80's were neither dedicated to each other for life nor were they monogomous. As i have stated before, the average gay male by the near end of life has had 100's of different lovers. This does not fit the profile of marriage.


You do realize that gay people are not just males, don't you? There are also quite a few gay women too. And they are quite capable of bearing children.

I've known couples, both gay and straight, who were committed and monogamous. I've also know both kinds of couples who weren't. If that were the criteria for marriage, then straight people shouldn't be allowed to get married either. That is not a reason to deny gay folks who are committed and monogamous the right to marry.

It's not your life. Why do wish to make the lives of people you don't even know so much harder?
quote:
Originally posted by Backwoods:
quote:
I think blue laws would definitely qualify

You're right,but I was talking Federal laws.


OK, then how about the DOMA? The primary motivation behind it is a strictly religious argument.
quote:
Face

Posted 21 November 2008 12:38 PM Hide Post

quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
Logical,
Gay people can live together just like married people. In the 80's when i lived in Huntsville, in the apartment complex i lived in, there were three gay couples in the two buildings, eight units in each.



Gay people can live together just like unmarried straight people can live together. Your argument is simply not true. There are numerous things that being married confers to a couple that has a definite effect on their lives. Things such as taxes, insurance, business, inheritance, health care, Social Security benefits, child care (sorry to tell you, but gay people actually can and do procreate) are just some of the things.
Yes like the adoption of children.

quote:

Now since gay people can live together just like anyone else, please pray tell me the rationale for them getting married.

Men and women get married to declare their allegiance to each other till death they do part, forsaking all others, then they begin building a life together, which includes in most cases the spawning of children and the establishment of a family environment.



And exactly why would you think a gay couple who wished to be married would be different? Do you think gay people think of marriage differently than straight people do?
Yes they have to. As i have stated, homosexuals have hundreds of partners, so what again is the purpose of them marrying?

quote:

The gay couple i saw in the 80's were neither dedicated to each other for life nor were they monogomous. As i have stated before, the average gay male by the near end of life has had 100's of different lovers. This does not fit the profile of marriage.


You do realize that gay people are not just males, don't you? There are also quite a few gay women too. And they are quite capable of bearing children. And you make my case for me. They would have to break their marriage vow and go oiutside their relationship to have these children. So by definition this would cause infidelity.

I've known couples, both gay and straight, who were committed and monogamous. I've also know both kinds of couples who weren't. If that were the criteria for marriage, then straight people shouldn't be allowed to get married either. That is not a reason to deny gay folks who are committed and monogamous the right to marry.

It's not your life. Why do wish to make the lives of people you don't even know so much harder?



This is not about making lives harder as it is about putting our nations children as risk of sexual victimization by people who are unstable.

An interesting link for you, i hope you read it.

Link
Extra,

Again, can you cite any source that says the average gay person has 100+ partners?

The only sources you have used so far are:

1) An article that says children are better of being raised by a man and a woman. I don't see what this has to do with 2 chicks filing a joint tax return, but whatever.

2) A link to the NAMBLA website, which again, I don't see a connection.

3) Your own assertion that all gay people have 100+ parnters thus making marriage pointless. This makes no sense either because straight people don't have to divulge the amount of partners they've had in order to get married.

Do you have any meaningful sources or arguements?
Okay....

Less then half have had more than 60 partners, which is FAR short of you claim that they all have over 100.

Beyond that, that article is rather meaningless. It was conducted in Amsterdam - which, in addition to being too small of a sample size, is widely regarded as one of the world's most debaucherous places. Not a good place for that study. Second, those percentages don't compare the sample group to the average population.
I think all these issues can be solved by asking a few simple questions.

Does any of these actions pose a direct threat to physically harm the lives of your loved ones, or yourself? The answer is No.

Agree or disagree with the issues, to be honest those decisions by other people have yet to cause physical harm to my family or myself.

If someone wants to have an abortion, while I don't agree with it, it's their decision to live with. If people of the same sex want to get married, more power to them. Freedom is equality to everyone, not just those who agree with your philosophy on life.
quote:
New Kid on the Block
Posted 21 November 2008 02:58 PM Hide Post

Okay....

Less then half have had more than 60 partners, which is FAR short of you claim that they all have over 100.

Beyond that, that article is rather meaningless. It was conducted in Amsterdam - which, in addition to being too small of a sample size, is widely regarded as one of the world's most debaucherous places. Not a good place for that study. Second, those percentages don't compare the sample group to the average population


Dolomite,
The bulk of that study was done in Chicago, with stats from San Francisco.
quote:
New Kid on the Block
Posted 21 November 2008 03:21 PM Hide Post

I think all these issues can be solved by asking a few simple questions.

Does any of these actions pose a direct threat to physically harm the lives of your loved ones, or yourself? The answer is No.

Agree or disagree with the issues, to be honest those decisions by other people have yet to cause physical harm to my family or myself.

If someone wants to have an abortion, while I don't agree with it, it's their decision to live with. If people of the same sex want to get married, more power to them. Freedom is equality to everyone, not just those who agree with your philosophy on life.



Loki,
You haven't been following the discussion. I have showed that the whole gay marriage issue is a red herring for the gay community to get access to children as a reqruiting tool. This is all smoke and mirrors, homosexuals are not monogomous, therefore marriage has no meaning among them.

As far as not hurting anyone, why don't you march naked down the middle of town. There are laws about public decency and lewdness, those laws reflect the damage done to society by aberrant behavior. Forcing society to accept something that is beyond decency and nature itself, is corrupting public morals.
quote:
Less then half have had more than 60 partners, which is FAR short of you claim that they all have over 100.



Can you not read? That was partners at a given time while having a steady relationship.
The study from Amsterdam concluded that those in a "steady relationship" had 6-10 additional partners. The study from Chicago said nothing about parnters on the side - just how many partners they had in total. Also, that still doesn't address how those numbers compare to the rest of the population.
Reread the post. The context was within a year.
Most homosexuals had up to 28 different partners a year, even while maintaining a steady relationship, that was in Amsterdam. In the Chicago the #s were higher. Over 80% had over 15 different partners ayear. If one lived 20 years in a homosexual lifestyle that would be over 300 different partners in 20 years time.

As i said in my beginning premise, that is totally inconsistent with the concepts of a heterosexual relationship, i. e. marriage.
Extra, your mind is made up to the point that the research you provided isn't enough for you.

It says nothing about carrying on for 20 years. And still, the Chicago study is a DIFFERENT study. It makes no mention of the time period in which these partners were acquired.

You're misusing research (and what appears to be bad research at that) to push your agenda. I don't care what your beliefs are, but stop trying to make it a matter of science.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
Extra, your mind is made up to the point that the research you provided isn't enough for you.

It says nothing about carrying on for 20 years. And still, the Chicago study is a DIFFERENT study. It makes no mention of the time period in which these partners were acquired.

You're misusing research (and what appears to be bad research at that) to push your agenda. I don't care what your beliefs are, but stop trying to make it a matter of science.


Dolomite,
You are just trying to dodge the issue at hand. Lets just say for the moment, that the average homosexual male has 60 partners in their lifetime as per the study; It still does not take away from my argument of the fact that homosexual males are not monogamous, therefore the issue of gay marriage is not a valid one.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
quote:
Originally posted by logical:
And exactly why would you think a gay couple who wished to be married would be different? Do you think gay people think of marriage differently than straight people do?


Yes they have to. As i have stated, homosexuals have hundreds of partners, so what again is the purpose of them marrying?


And I stated that many homosexuals do not have hundreds of partners. Wilt Chamberlain claimed to have slept with 20,000 women. Just because some are promiscuous does not imply everyone is.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by logical:
You do realize that gay people are not just males, don't you? There are also quite a few gay women too. And they are quite capable of bearing children.


And you make my case for me. They would have to break their marriage vow and go oiutside their relationship to have these children. So by definition this would cause infidelity.


So, I guess any straight couple who uses similar reproductive assistance (e.g., donated eggs or sperm) would also be considered unfaithful.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by logical:
It's not your life. Why do wish to make the lives of people you don't even know so much harder?


This is not about making lives harder as it is about putting our nations children as risk of sexual victimization by people who are unstable.


ROTFLMAO!

You have drunk waaaaaay to much of the homophobic kool-aide. You are so willfully ignorant of actual gay people it just boggles the mind. You're just making yourself look silly.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
Dolomite,
You are just trying to dodge the issue at hand. Lets just say for the moment, that the average homosexual male has 60 partners in their lifetime as per the study; It still does not take away from my argument of the fact that homosexual males are not monogamous, therefore the issue of gay marriage is not a valid one.


And you consistently dodge the reality that not all homosexual men are promiscuous. And you completely ignore gay women. They wish to get married as well. What's your rationale for them?
He has no rationale and has probably been brainwashed by the likes of closet-case Donald Wildmon and other lunatics. Good grief, one homophobe leaves the forum only to have another one pop up.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
Dolomite,
You are just trying to dodge the issue at hand. Lets just say for the moment, that the average homosexual male has 60 partners in their lifetime as per the study; It still does not take away from my argument of the fact that homosexual males are not monogamous, therefore the issue of gay marriage is not a valid one.


I'm not dodging anything - just refuting your "facts."

The amount of partners a person has in a lifetime does not disqualify them from marriage. Are you saying that all heterosexuals are married to the only person they ever slept with? If a guy is with 60+ women, and then decides he wants to marry one, would you say he can't?
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
Dolomite,
You are just trying to dodge the issue at hand. Lets just say for the moment, that the average homosexual male has 60 partners in their lifetime as per the study; It still does not take away from my argument of the fact that homosexual males are not monogamous, therefore the issue of gay marriage is not a valid one.


I'm not dodging anything - just refuting your "facts."

The amount of partners a person has in a lifetime does not disqualify them from marriage. Are you saying that all heterosexuals are married to the only person they ever slept with? If a guy is with 60+ women, and then decides he wants to marry one, would you say he can't?



Dolomite,
Once again you get lost in the fantasy of your own argument. The quoted study from Chicago was studying the sexual habits of people in general, it is the #'s on the admitted homosexuals that caused the eye opening. Heterosexuals in the study did not say that over 60% of them had had sex with over 60 partners.
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
He has no rationale and has probably been brainwashed by the likes of closet-case Donald Wildmon and other lunatics. Good grief, one homophobe leaves the forum only to have another one pop up.


David,
Why don't you ad some factual information to the discussion instead of just using the same old tired name calling. If you are homosexual you could certainly use this time to use your own personal experience to refute these claims and studies. OTOH, if you are not homosexual and have an opinion based on nothing but emotion, then you don't have clue what you are talking about and are just muddling the discussion by showing your incompetence.

BTW, The Chicago study was done by The University of Chicago, hardly a bastion of Christian Conservativism, and i didn't seen Don Wildman anywhere in this study.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
Dolomite,
Once again you get lost in the fantasy of your own argument. The quoted study from Chicago was studying the sexual habits of people in general, it is the #'s on the admitted homosexuals that caused the eye opening. Heterosexuals in the study did not say that over 60% of them had had sex with over 60 partners.


The study doesn't say anything about heterosexuals, other than that they were included in the study. There are no numbers.

That doesn't matter though because it has nothing to do with your arguement. You're suggesting that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be married because they have too many partners. I'm asking whether you think a heterosexual person with 60+ partners should be legally allowed to marry.
quote:
asking whether you think a heterosexual person with 60+ partners should be legally allowed to marry.



Where is your scientific study that gives the percentage of partners of heterosexual males?

I have given you established scientific facts for my position, yours is based on fantasy.

This is from the report that you obviously did not read:

The three-year study on the sexual habits of Chicago's citizens will appear in the upcoming book, "The Sexual Organization of The City" (University of Chicago Press), due out this spring.

The researchers interviewed 2,114 people from throughout the city and its suburbs, asking them detailed questions about their sexual behavior and beliefs.

While the research dealt with the behavior of all people -- heterosexuals included -- its findings on homosexual men are sure to raise eyebrows.

"Informants from several institutional spheres noted the common expectation among white gay men of having multiple sex partners," researchers wrote. "Ads for gay bars and clubs convey the message that being gay is about having sexual encounters, not relationships.... The majority of personal ads in city papers under the headline 'men seeking men' identify casual sex rather than long-term relationships as their goal."
Extra,

I don't have a study, and I don't need one. I'm not the one making any claims here. I'm only challenging yours.

You have not given us any real proof in favor of your arguement. You're not even citing the actual study. You're citing a Baptist publication that is using selective pieces of data from a study.

Why should homosexuals not have the same rights as heterosexuals? It's a simple question.

You don't like gay people. That's your opinion. No one is saying you're not entitled to an opinion - just stop trying to use bad research as a means to justify your personal beliefs.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
Extra,

I don't have a study, and I don't need one. I'm not the one making any claims here. I'm only challenging yours.


No you are trying to refute factual evidence with your own fantasy. You have nothing to refute an established study that shows the promiscuity of homosexual males, and shows that marriage among homosexuals is simply a sad joke.

quote:
You have not given us any real proof in favor of your arguement. You're not even citing the actual study. You're citing a Baptist publication that is using selective pieces of data from a study.




The baptist press story is only a reporting of the ACTUAL FINDINGS of a University of Chicago study. If you don't like the facts of this study, i suggest you take it up with them.

quote:
Why should homosexuals not have the same rights as heterosexuals? It's a simple question.


Homosexuals have every right that heterosexuals have. You can live with whom ever you please, engage in whatever behavior you please in your bedroom. Please do not mock an established institution, and insult our intelligence by saying you would be monogomous in your "marriage" relationship.

quote:
You don't like gay people. That's your opinion. No one is saying you're not entitled to an opinion - just stop trying to use bad research as a means to justify your personal beliefs.


Once again, an established study done by the University of Chicago. Even they were suprised by the sexual lifestyle of male homosexuals, and they are not a Christian organization that i know of.

The data speaks for itself:

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area's homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found.


*In light of this information, i can see your desire to suppress it.
You can quote whatever study you want but my partner and I have been together in a monogamous relationship for 21 years. We don't necessarily wish to get married but we would like civil union laws so that we can share benefits - heck, we've lived together more than most straight couples we know. Insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, etc. is not asking for anything extra or "special" as so many people like to say. As far as children go, your theories are a big pile of garbage in that respect. We have no desire to adopt children - we don't even like kids. LOL
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
No you are trying to refute factual evidence with your own fantasy. You have nothing to refute an established study that shows the promiscuity of homosexual males, and shows that marriage among homosexuals is simply a sad joke.


The study you refer to has absolutely nothing to do with marriage and homosexuals. The homosexual individuals in the study were not married and no conclusions as their behavior if they were can be legitimately drawn.

quote:

The baptist press story is only a reporting of the ACTUAL FINDINGS of a University of Chicago study. If you don't like the facts of this study, i suggest you take it up with them.

Homosexuals have every right that heterosexuals have. You can live with whom ever you please, engage in whatever behavior you please in your bedroom. Please do not mock an established institution, and insult our intelligence by saying you would be monogomous in your "marriage" relationship.


More willful ignorance on your part. The argument that homosexuals "have every right the heterosexuals have" is simply false. Using the same logic, black people had the same rights as white people wrt interracial marriage.

Your assumption that simply because a person is a male homosexual that they would want to be married and yet not want to fulfill the marriage vows is simply not credible. There are many, many examples of long term monogamous gay couples.

However, since those couples do not support your desire of showing that homosexuals are not worthy of marriage, you just ignore their existence.

quote:

Once again, an established study done by the University of Chicago. Even they were suprised by the sexual lifestyle of male homosexuals, and they are not a Christian organization that i know of.

The data speaks for itself:

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area's homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found.

*In light of this information, i can see your desire to suppress it.


There is no desire to suppress, just a desire to not draw conclusions which are not actually supported by the data.
quote:
posted by DavidL. Insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, etc. is not asking for anything extra or "special" as so many people like to say.


David,
I am a minister so i am in hospitals often, especially in emergency rooms and units. I have never seen a sign that said no gays allowed to visit. All hospitals post their visitation hours and guidelines, and everyhospital i have been to in this area is actually very lenient in the exercise of those rules. Gays are not being descriminated against when it comes to hospital visitation rights.
As for inheritance. Under the law if you don't have a Legal Will, a judge decides who gets your possessions, unless there is joint ownership, which is allowed in Alabama, i don't know about other states. If you want inheritance rights for your companion, I reccommend a Will.

As for insurance benefits, that is a decision of any insurance company as to what types of policies they want to offer. What you want the government to do is force a private company to offer a product that will be utilized by less than 1% of the population. They will not be able to charge more for that product since it will be seen as descrimination, therefore, the company will be forced to add the additional cost to every policy of heterosexual families and therefore everyone else will be forced to pay for your alternate lifestyle.

All the concerns you give i have logically and honestly addressed. The forcing of governments and private companies to placate your lifestyle over heterosexual lifestyle IS the granting of "special" rights.
quote:
The study you refer to has absolutely nothing to do with marriage and homosexuals. The homosexual individuals in the study were not married and no conclusions as their behavior if they were can be legitimately drawn.



Logical,
From the report:High Rates Of Sexual Promiscuity
Dr. Maria Xiridou published a study in a 2003 edition
of AIDS, which reveals that homosexual couples
in Amsterdam engage in what can be called
consensual infidelity.
Dr. Xiridou was studying the spread of HIV among
homosexuals in The Netherlands and found that
HIV was spread more rapidly among homosexual
couples who considered themselves to be in
“steady” relationships. These couples failed to
engage in “safe sex” and were involved in 6-10
additional sexual encounters outside of the primary
relationship each year.

quote:
More willful ignorance on your part. The argument that homosexuals "have every right the heterosexuals have" is simply false. Using the same logic, black people had the same rights as white people wrt interracial marriage.

Your assumption that simply because a person is a male homosexual that they would want to be married and yet not want to fulfill the marriage vows is simply not credible. There are many, many examples of long term monogamous gay couples.

However, since those couples do not support your desire of showing that homosexuals are not worthy of marriage, you just ignore their existence.


Black people do have every right for marriage if it is One man and one woman. Marriage by definition is between one man and one woman.

According to reliable reports, Homosexuals make up somewhere about 1.3% of the population. According to studies cited here, over 80% have had or have between 30 and 60 different partners. By many studies, those #s about the amount of partners is low. Some studies show 100's of partners for many homosexual males.

So in view of this, you are asking society as a whole, to throw out established principles of marriage to placate the alternate lifestyles of less than 1% of the population. Moreover you want the federal government to force this change on the other 99% of the population, and you say you are not for "special" rights, all the while, over 80% of the people who get these new forced rights, are not the least bit interested in them as they prefer a lifestyle of multiple lovers.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
quote:
New Kid on the Block
Posted 21 November 2008 03:21 PM Hide Post

I think all these issues can be solved by asking a few simple questions.

Does any of these actions pose a direct threat to physically harm the lives of your loved ones, or yourself? The answer is No.

Agree or disagree with the issues, to be honest those decisions by other people have yet to cause physical harm to my family or myself.

If someone wants to have an abortion, while I don't agree with it, it's their decision to live with. If people of the same sex want to get married, more power to them. Freedom is equality to everyone, not just those who agree with your philosophy on life.



Loki,
You haven't been following the discussion. I have showed that the whole gay marriage issue is a red herring for the gay community to get access to children as a reqruiting tool. This is all smoke and mirrors, homosexuals are not monogomous, therefore marriage has no meaning among them.

As far as not hurting anyone, why don't you march naked down the middle of town. There are laws about public decency and lewdness, those laws reflect the damage done to society by aberrant behavior. Forcing society to accept something that is beyond decency and nature itself, is corrupting public morals.


I'm sure that is not the case with every gay marriage. They just want the same benefits as any other marriage. Health care and benefits for spouse in many cases. If they want to have children, personally it's none of your business. And yet again, it causes no physical harm to you. Also using the children argument is just a big "what if".

Comparing gay marriage to walking down the street naked isn't a very intelligent comparison at all. Honestly if someone wanted to walk down the street naked, does it cause you physical harm? No. You may view gay marriage as indecent or not right based solely on your opinions and outlook on life. That is your right, but it is not your right to interfere in the lives of others and tell them what they can and can't do as long as they aren't causing you any physical harm. I fail to see how a gay marriage could affect my life or my families in any way or form. It's their personal business. I can respect that.

Like it or not, the gay community is part of society. Forcing society to accept something that is not freedom for everyone, well now that is beyond decency and nature itself, and I would say is definitely corrupting public morals.
quote:
Like it or not, the gay community is part of society. Forcing society to accept something that is not freedom for everyone, well now that is beyond decency and nature itself, and I would say is definitely corrupting public morals.



Gays are free to exercise their lifestyles to the extent of any other individual in society: as long as that exercise does not violate the law.

What you espouse is the forcing of over 99% of the population being forced by edict of law to redefine time honored understanding that marriage is between one man and one woman. Therefore you want to create an special exclusive right for homosexuals and force that right on society as a whole.

Many years ago in this country we outlawed polygamy. Do you make the case that a man should be able to marry as many women as he pleases, as that this action does not hurt anyone else?
Common sense says pedophilia and child molestation are wrong regardless. Anyone promoting it or engaged in it, should be dealt with accordingly.

And what about a young man and woman maybe a year apart in age, on the cusp, should he or she be charged with a crime? Even if they are married?

An upstanding citizen should receive equal rights regardless of his sexual orientation.

Regarding abortion, I know of no one person who enjoys it. It is a personal decision made by a woman, and a man if she wants to include him.

We should be talking about birth control and sex ed. Addressing the cause, not the symptom.

Getting religion involved in politics isn't good. We see examples all over the world. Where do you stop? And whose beliefs are enforced by law?

Regards
quote:
Originally posted by logical:
And exactly how do you figure that? Freedom from religion merely means that one cannot force their religion onto another.


As wrong as you can possibly be. In typical use, "freedom from religion" means that there is no trace of religion in the public whatsoever. No one may be exposed to the "taint" of religion.

And, of course, it doesn't mean "freedom from religion". It actually means "freedom from Judeo-Christianity", since the adherents of the "freedom from religion" movement certainly don't oppose islamic, humanistic, or naturistic movements. It just turns into an "anything goes" society.

The wall of separation Jefferson spoke of was not as tall and impenetrable as the one we have now is. In his context, the king was also the titular head of the Church of England. In primitive societies, the ruler was often viewed as a god, and his word was divine. The vast majority of our founding fathers were christians. They realized that divine law was, and is, the best basis for a rational, civilized society.

Add Reply

Post

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×