That may be true, but you can't expect people to simply throw away their religious beliefs just to agree or disagree with a law. You guys seem to ignore the fact that while some people voted against gay marriage because of their religious beliefs, the law was not passed based on a religious Gov't. It just so happens that the majority who refused to make gay marriage legal are religious people. This does not mean that church became part of state.

It's ludacris to ask people to vote on an issue based on anything but their religious beliefs. You don't have the right to tell people how to think. Some may express they did it for religious reasons but unless you can prove everyone did it for religious reason, you can't say this was religion being mixed with Gov't. and even if you could, people still have the right to vote what they want regardless of their reasons.

The Constitation keeps church and state seperate, but not the peoples beliefs.

Is it any more right a parent to force their kids to be straight?  Forcing someone to be something that they're not is wrong no matter how you look at it.

I have loved both male and female but that doesn't mean I married them all.  Love is a choice.  Marriage is a choice.  Having sex is a choice. 

Interacial relationships are NOT sinful.  I would not put them on the same page as homosexual relationships. 

Remember for me it has nothing to do with what I think but what scriptures tell us.  My belief is not based on emotion or culture (like interracial relationships or slavery).  The culture will change with the wind, not necessarily in a good way.  It's quite clear and has always been clear until recently that homosexuality is a sin until recent days.  We can either accept that as truth or we can go with relative truth which means you make truth fit your criteria. 

We have to ask ourselves what is truth?  Does truth change?  I believe truth never changes and is the same for every person, every culture, every time and every circumstance.  I understand now wee live in a time of relativity.  Truth changes as we deem fit.  I don't buy it. 

Even in times past when homosexuality flourished it was NEVER accepted as ordinary or moral.  It was accepted for what it was...sin.  Just like murder and theft and it was based on moral biblical principles. 

More later on the founding fathers and their Christianity or deism. 

Just because you feel that you would act that way doesn't mean that all people would feel and act that way.  I was raised primarily by a single father and I don't resent my wife for having a mother and father.  While I was dating her I was embraced by her family and welcomed in as one of their own.  Why can't you foster a relationship with your girlfriend's mother rather than resent your girlfriend's relationship?  I would argue that what's in the best interest of the children is to have loving parents.  Why disqualify two people just because of their sexual orientation when they would love the child just as much as a straight couple?

I agree with you El-D.  I believe there's certain things a parent should force their kids to do, like dishes, and homework but being straight is not one of them.  I remember James Dobson said once that if you take a young boy with homosexuality thoughts and put him with a strong male figure (hetersexual) that truly cared about him he would emulate that father figure and learn from his example and not turn out to be homosexual.  Is this right?  Dunno but it does make sense. 

Really?  Did I say my opinion was the final word?  I care very little about opinions actually.  If you knew me you'd know that. We all have em!  I care more about truth and facts. 

Really?  I'm thinking ancient Greece.  Try again.

While I'm sure that would lead to a fascinating discussion, the point is that since we aren't the Founders, we won't really know definitively what they thought.  Moreover, while what they thought is relevant from a historical perspective, as EL-D pointed out, this is no longer the time of the Founders.  There have been amendments to the Constitution since then, and the country as we know it has changed-- we are no longer a colony that just won its indepedence.

Yes, actually.  You said "If I were raised by two dads and had no mother I think I'd be a bit resentful myself everytime I saw my girlfriend shop and snuggle with her mom on the couch.  Every girl wants a mom.  Every boy needs a dad."  Either I grossly misunderstand the meaning of the word "facts" and the meaning of the word "opinions," or you were in fact making sweeping generalizations based on your own perspective.

Love is not a choice.  Marriage and sex are certainly choices but you do not choose who you love, it just happens.  Why deny someone the ability to express that love thru marriage just because you disagree with their love?

According to your bible it's also a sin to eat shellfish or the meat from certain animals or eating meat at all on Fridays.  Why are those sins now ok but homosexuality isn't?  Should any of those sins be added to our laws because your bible claims that they are bad? 

Of course "truth" changes.  It must change as we aquire more information.  The truth was once that the earth was flat, that changed, the truth was that the earth was the center of the universe, that changed.

Look I am not asking that you accept homosexuality.  All I have ever wanted to understand is why homosexuals should be entitled to the same rights and privledges as heterosexuals.

Sorry KFC, while I would agree having a father figure for a boy is always good just like having a mother figure for a girl is, life just isn't perfect. God may have intended things to be this way but God also allowed for single families to exist (I could be wrong but i don't recall anywhere in the bible that prohibits families with single parents) and more often than not we see children being raise by a single mother or father, regardless of child gender. I can understand where you are coming from with your religious beliefs, but you also need to accept that God did not set it up to be perfect either so regardless if it's a gay or straight marriage, a child can be raised in a decent way if the parents care enough to do so.

You are basing your opinion on the experiences you have had thru out your life and your beliefs today. But you can't tell me things would not had been different had you been raised by a gay/lesbian couple. You are who you are not because this was encoded in you from birth, but because of your experiences in life. My father was never really there for me. Sure we lived in the same house most of my childhood and he provided the nececities, but he was so hung on earning the love of his 2 children from a past relationship that he sorta put me on the backburner. Everything I am, everything I have I own it to my mother. She did the best she could to raise me to be a decent person and short of making me an economic guru (I suck with money in case you don't already know that) she did a great job in my opinion.

That is true, but you can't blame a family who never considered the idea of their child being born gay (something many still believe) and only finding out about this once they are older and begin to show signs. Keep in mind that parents don't have 2 plans when a child is born, one if they are gay and one if they are straight. It's one thing to raise a child like one normally wood only to find out they may be gay, it's another to, right off the back, try to instill gay/lesbian ideals to a child who may not be one. There's a big difference between forcing something after the fact and forcing something from day 1, but again, I am not saying this is something gay people do, just an opinion on how would they raise a child with the concept that they like being gay.

You've got love and lust mixed up. Lust in in a hurry, Love is patient. 

 Love is an action word not an emotion.  Love is doing sometimes even when you don't feel like it.  A mother with a cranky baby gets up night after night not because she feels warm and fuzzy but because she chooses to love her baby and get up.  Parents go to work everyday when they don't feel like it to support their families.  I make dinner sometimes when I don't feel like it because I love my husband.  People say they have fallen out of love in their marriages not understanding that love is a commitment.  You can either choose to stay together or you can choose to leave. 

Love just doesn't happen.  Have you seen the movie Fireproof?  If not, it's a must see.  It's all about this subject.  I don't disagree with a homosexual loving another person even of the same sex.  I disagree with their sin.  If I'm an angry person I can say I was born that way.  It doesn't make me less sinful. 

How well do you know the bible?  I notice you're saying "your bible."  If you knew the bible you'd also know that was temporary until the NT when God ok'd the eating of shellfish and those same meats.  You may want to read Acts 10.  Homosexuality was both forbidden in the OT and the NT with some pretty strong admonitions in both. 

Oh and btw you'll not find one bible verse on abstaining from meat on Fridays.  That's a Catholic tradition and has no biblical merit. 

Truth does not change. It never changes.  The earth was not flat ever.  They thought it was flat but it never was.  They just didn't KNOW what the truth was.  The truth didn't change.  The truth was ALWAYS the same.  The world was round.  Always.  They just didn't have the truth.  Big diff.

Like I said truth NEVER changes.  We now know the earth is round.  That's truth. It doesn't change.

It's like saying 1=1=8 and that's the truth until we find out differently.  No..... the truth is 1=1=2 regardless if you know the truth or not.   Before we found out the earth was round we went on opinion because we just didn't know the truth.    It's the same with homosexuality.  It's not the truth but many believe it is because they are caught up in the culture which changes constantly. 

So you in effect are just like those saying the earth was flat.  You're going on your opinion that homosexuality is just fine and dandy.  It's not our rules and opinions that we need to be concerned about.  God sets the standard and you'll have to take your opinion up with him someday. 

I can't accept it because I'm going outside of myself to a higher power who I will be held accountable to one day.  He's the boss.  He's the one who made males for females and said a man with a man and a woman with a woman in his sight is detestable.  They are going outside of the parameters he set up.  Because of that, all sorts of issues and problems arise. 

Now Charles you should know me by now....geesh!   I'm against basing things merely on experience and emotion. That's why I'm NOT a Democrat for one thing.....   I'm basing my beliefs on what I consider, outside of myself, to be the only truth we have today and that's God's truth laid down in his word to all of mankind.  We can either choose to accept or reject.  Obviously I chose to accept this as truth. 

Charles, where are you getting this from?  You may want to go back and read Genesis 1-2 for good measure.  Now is this truth or your opinion?  It's not God who messed stuff up.  It was man. 

Of course things would have been different but had I come to the knowledge of the truth I would have to reject that lifestyle as in error like many many others out there have done.  My parents got a divorce and had an angry marriage.  That was wrong and I believe they were in error in many ways.  It doesn't mean I have to adopt their ways. 

Your relationship with an emotionaly absent father only proves my point Charles. How do you suppose your life would have been different had you seen a loving father and husband modeled for you?  Every boy needs a dad who cares and loves him and helps him to become the man God intended for him to be. 

Peter's dream from Acts does address the food prohibitions. So, how about the witchcraft and sorcery prohibitions in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Galatians, then?  Should we criminalize Paganism?

If you say we shouldn't because that isn't tolerant of religions, what about John where Jesus says "I am the way and the truth and the life?"  Some people have taken that to mean that we shouldn't tolerate other religions and that religous pluralism is anti-Christian.

Leviticus also has other behavioral prohibitions that aren't addressed such as those concerning the removal of mildew from the house.

Although there are a number of places where the New Testament addresses homosexuality, those are letters written by Paul.  Unless you want to argue that Matthew 5:22 is an anti-gay sentiment (a rather weak argument), Jesus doesn't directly discuss homosexuality.  Matthew 19 doesn't work either, as he's not talking about homosexuality but marriage and divorce.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I know the Bible pretty well.  I grew up a pastor's kid.  I attended a private, religious college.  I studied religion.  I've read the Bible.  I think what concerns me most is the way you assume that there is one static interpretation of the Bible whenever you talk about it, like whatever you say is representative of what all Christians believe.  I was raised a Christian and consider myself one today.  I also have no problem with homosexuality or gay marriage and there are others who feel the same, such as the Ecumenical Catholic Church, the United Church of Christ, and church members of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations to name a few.  This doesn't even begin to address other religions, such as Buddhism, that do not consider homosexuality sinful.

can you give me the text you're referring to?  I'm curious about this one. 

Your first thought should be...to whom was it addressed?  Whom was Paul addressing?  Whom was Moses addressing?  Very important. 

Are you familiar with the passage, as one who has read the bible about "casting pearls before swine?"

I don't take it that way.  Although I quite agree that Jesus made an intolorant statement, I believe it to be true so label me intolerant.   People should be free to choose whatever god they want as Joshua said in his book in 24:15.....He told the pagans they could choose which God (of the two he mentioned earlier) but as for him and his house they would SERVE the Lord. 

That's how I believe.  Choose whatever god you wish but I will serve the Lord God, creator of heaven and earth. 

Well if you studied as you are saying then you should be aware of all the scriptures both old and new that says that every word is coming from the mouth of God.  You can start with John 1:1.  You can go to Peter 3:16 and see even Peter put Paul's words as equal to the OT scriptures.  Peter understood they were under the direction of the Holy Spirit's guidance.  Christ also said that the Holy Spirit would bring all things to their remembrance when it came to the things he taught them.  You can go to Galatians 1:17-18 and  see that Paul immediately after his conversion (Acts 9) went to Arabia to be alone with God for three years BEFORE he even met with the Apostles in Jerusalem. 

I'd be interested to know your background.  I can see you are knowledgable about the scriptures but with a slant against it.   It looks like what you're doing is watering down the scriptures so you can go along with the culture.  You've got one foot on either side of the fence. It's very clear that scriptures tell us that the gap will widen between culture and the will of God.  The time is already past when you have to make a decision which side of the gap you will stand. 

Reminds me of Paul writing to Timothy just before he died.  He said this:

"Demas has forsaken me having loved this present world and is departed."

and John who wrote this:

"Love not the world neither the things that are in the world.  If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life is not of the Father but is of the world.  And the world passes away and the lust also, but he that does the will of God abides forever."  1 John 2:15

You can't love both.   

Well then you would know

I agree with all your stuff here KFC, except this.  I may be reading it wrong, but people will be deciding which side of the gap to take (being saved) until the end.  I know you know this so I am probably reading it wrong.