Home › News › Local news
Marriage amendment (man and woman) prompts rally in Collier, south Lee
Church groups propose changing Florida’s Constitution to prohibit gay marriage
KELLY FARRELL / Staff
Andrew McGuire, 42, Janet Knudson, 61 and Riley McGuire, 11, from San Marco Catholic Church on Marco Island seek support for Amendment 2 to make same sex marriages unconstitutional in Florida. A group of about 12 supporters for the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment weathered the heat Saturday at the corner of Bald Eagle Drive and North Collier Boulevard to draw awareness to the amendment which will be on Florida ballots this fall.
RELATED STORIES
- Some ministers to preach for, some against gay marriage proposal
- Naples rally held to urge ‘no’ vote on man-woman marriage amendment
- Diocese of Venice posts billboards asking 'What have you done for your marriage today?'
More Local news
- Naples tennis club’s lawsuit against county moves forward
- Collier County Police Beat: Dec. 2, 2008
- Bullying goes digital, and parents vow to fight back
Tell us about it
- What would you add to this story? Tell us what we missed.
- Do you have photos from this event? Documents we need to see? Share with us.
- Upload photos & videos
- More ways to get your stuff online and in the paper.
STORY TOOLS
Share and Enjoy [?]
The presidential race isn’t the only political issue concerning voters as they prepare for November’s election.
Dozens of political activists concerned about the sanctity of marriage were out Saturday at major intersections throughout Collier County, spreading the word about Amendment 2.
Southwest Florida residents holding signs reading “yes 2 marriage; yes on 2” were as far south as Marco Island and as far north as Bonita Beach Road, hoping to garner honks of approval by passersby.
Similar events were scheduled throughout the state to inform people about Amendment 2.
The proposed amendment, also known as the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, states that “marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife.”
It also states “no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
Florida law now makes gay or same-sex marriages illegal.
Some organizations, including Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), oppose the amendment because it will take away rights from domestic partners, both gay and straight, said Gabrielle Gilmore, the organization’s Naples-area president.
That argument didn’t deter the sign-wielders throughout Southwest Florida.
“We’re not trying to change anything. We’re just trying to nail it down by adding it to our constitution so a judge can’t change it,” explained Andrew McGuire, 42, of Marco Island’s San Marco Catholic Church as he hammered a sign reading “Yes on 2” into the grass.
McGuire was joined by 10 other members of his church who handed out pamphlets to passersby at the intersection of Bald Eagle Drive and Collier Boulevard, urging them to amend the Florida Constitution.
McGuire came with four of his children, ages 2 to 11, along with church members as old as 83 sweltering in the midday sun near a sign reading “Honk if you are for marriage.”
“Only mad dogs, Englishmen and concerned Christians go out in the noon-day sun,” said Islander Patricia D’Ambrosio, 79, supporting the new amendment.
Joe Kilroy, 83, and Marie Kilroy, 82, said they heard about the efforts from San Marco Catholic Church. The couple, married 52 years, stood on the hot pavement to show that they “very much support marriage.”
Janet Knudson, 61, encouraged voters to inform themselves on the issue and expressed her support for Amendment 2.
“I’m against gay marriage and the direction of the gay community... I think it’s sad we even need an amendment about a state of being in life that has been held sacred for people through the centuries,” Knudson said.
Adrian Michell, 58, stood near the intersection of Goodlette-Frank and Pine Ridge roads, braving the sun with Joe Hennessy, 75, where each held up a banner that said “Yes on 2” and “honk if you support marriage.”
Florida’s existing law that marriage is between a man and a woman needs to be protected in the Florida Constitution, Michell said.
The fear is that the existing Florida law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman will get shot down by a judge, similar to what happened in California and Massachusetts.
“We want it enshrined in the constitution,” Michell said. “I think it is getting a lot of support. It basically stands up to the human psyche that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
Lou DePrisco, 77, a member of St. William Catholic Church with Michell, held up the American flag at the small rally.
“I like to do that,” he said of holding up the flag.
He’s confident the amendment will pass once people realize its intent.
“It is so basic to our culture,” he said. “That’s not to say other people should not have rights but marriage is between a man and a woman.”
Saturday’s activists represented several Collier County churches, including St. Peter the Apostle Catholic Church in East Naples, First Baptist Church in North Naples, St. Agnes Mission Catholic Church in North Naples and St. Ann Catholic Parish in Naples.
Voters may expect to hear more about Amendment 2 before they hit the polls in November.
“This is a very dangerous amendment. Domestic partnerships will be done away with across the state affecting people’s benefits,” said Doug Ball, co-chair of Southwest Florida Fairness for All Families.
Ball said he interprets the language differently and suggests voters should vote “no” on their ballots.
“If you really want to protect marriage, eliminate divorce,” said Ruth Dorfman, PFLAG vice president, adding that the government “does not belong in relationships among consenting adults.”
Amendment 2 needs approval from 60 percent of Florida voters to pass.

Comments
This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below. Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. Break our rules, and we will ban you. No exceptions, no second chances. Read our privacy policy & user agreement.
Why do these "activists" care what other adults do with their private lives? Are they so insecure in their own sexuality that they seek to punish those with a different orientation? I suspect that the silly white-hairs I saw holding signs on Pine Ridge Road today have more in common with closet-gay bible-thumpers like Larry Craig than they will ever admit. Why don't they just mind their own business and pray that God relieve them of their desire to peep in their neighbors' windows?
#1 Posted by Zoey on September 6, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW- first babtist church goers wern't embarassed enough when the pastor compared gay marriage to slavery, incest and animals marrying dogs? Now they want to sit with signs and embarass themselves more. WOW. I can't believe that in 2008 there are protesters willing to make asses out of themselves to exclude same sex marriages between 2 people who love each other. The greatest cities in the us are the ones with the most organized gay communities. Just because you say yes to amendment 2, this does not make you straight! Naples would be a better place to live if this extreme Babtist church would live and let live. Relax, supporting a monogomous marriage between the same sex is christian and standing like an idiot on the side of the road is not christian. Its hurtful to people who don't deserve it. Don't be robots with your religious organization. Stand for what you believe in, don't just be a follower behind these unchristian christians. Are all of the churches mentioned think exactly the same way, all of the members?? Lets hear from you!
#2 Posted by amyashby on September 6, 2008 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Our Government should not have anything to do with marriage between anybody period - Marriage should between family, friends or church. This is a waste of tax money in the first place. We should not have to go to Uncle Sam to ask permission to be with the one you love. What a bunch of brainwashed pu$$ies we have in this country.
The only thing US Government uses marriage for is to get more $$ out of us "we the people".
#3 Posted by camelopardalis on September 6, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What would Jesus do? Do you think he would use religion as a wedge to divide or do you think he may live by the golden rule. Treat others as you would treat yourself.
Living in an area of large service industry, we do have our share of gay people living here. It is likely that each of us knows or really knows someone who is gay.
“I’m against gay marriage and the direction of the gay community... I think it’s sad we even need an amendment about a state of being in life that has been held sacred for people through the centuries,” Knudson said.
It is even more sad that someone who is 61 years old is so compassionless and claims to be religious but is no more than an intolerable ignoramus
.
#4 Posted by kneejerk on September 6, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
John McCain does not believe in marriage, see he cheated on his wife, after she was in a horrific car accident, dumped her. Rudy Giuliani, another patron of marriage he does it a lot, cheats on his wife, and gets remarried, he has been married three times. Fred Thompson twice.
Now we hear that Sarah Pain had an affair with her husbands business partner.
We should let these religious folks define marriage?
#5 Posted by kneejerk on September 6, 2008 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry one more thing, placing a gay marriage initiative on a ballot is an unvarnished tool to get the religious fanatics out to vote, it is a KKKarl Rove tactic, you see if you get the lunatic religious fringe out to vote against the rights of gay people you can always hope that they will vote for another looney tune like Sarah Pain.
#6 Posted by kneejerk on September 6, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I to am against gay marriages and also gay couples to be able to adopt children. God did not intend for marriages to be between same sex couples, that's why he created Adam and Eve. If it was intended for something other than that it would of been something more like Adam and Steve. Regarding insurance benefits allowed for gay couples is completely absurd. Some insurance companies will allow same sex couples to get insured through an employer but not straight couples who are dating, that's completely ridiculous. Florida doesn't allow common law marriages so what makes anyone think we want gay marriages in Florida. This is something that shouldn't even have to be discussed, it's not right!!
#7 Posted by naplesresident08 on September 6, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree that this is another "culture wars" issue to deflect voters' attention.
The Roman Catholic Bishops just published a joint statement with orthodox rabbis
http://www.usccb.org/stories/jewish_c...
"We recognize that all persons share equally in the dignity of human nature and are entitled to have that human dignity protected, but this does not justify the creation of a new definition for a term whose traditional meaning is of critical importance to the furtherance of a fundamental societal interest." They've also started a support marriage website.
That said, I think that passing Amendment 2 would do a lot more harm than good in further confusing secular tax, insurance, and property issues and the sacrament of matrimony. We also have a lot of hate groups down here and this will just fuel those fires.
#8 Posted by chrysf56 on September 6, 2008 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
HA! I LOVE kneejerks #6 post! I couldn't agree more! Maybe these people should define "affair" for us as well and place that on the ballot...
#9 Posted by artrules on September 6, 2008 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
McCain is actually a social progressive. He almost was not successful in his bid for the nomination because of his history of liberal social views (compared to fundamentalists). kneejerk, you are just a trash talker and you know it.
I am Republican, will vote for McCain/Palin and would vote TO ALLOW gay marriage/civil union/ whatever floats their boats!
What the ultra left misses is the fact that many Republicans are NOT fundamentalists or ultra conservative or (love this put down) neo-cons BUT love their country and abhor the socialist agendas and bolshevick tactics of the lunatic fringe left. Also the total unprepairedness and dubious , possibly racist, formative influences on Barak Obama. No, don't think he is a terrorist or anything so sinister BUT do have suspicions that he "never heard" Rev. Wrights hateful rhetoric or that he dissavowed it before his handlers told him it would be a "deal killer".
No one is perfect, certainly John McCain has flaws but I will take him and his Patriotism and demonstrated heroism and willingness to stand up for his principals , coupled with his wife's admirable humanitarian record over Barak's subterfuge and Michelle's "never been proud of my country" ANYDAY.
#10 Posted by stepetroni on September 6, 2008 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It amazes me that some special interests cannot just leave certain situations alone.
I am and always have been a regular church attending person and believe in most traditional beliefs but I also have always believed in live and let live. If I don't personally care how one lives their private life.
It is not our place to judge anyone. If what a person does is truly wrong then they will face judgment from a much higher power than any of us.
This issue has been placed on ballots in several other states over the past few years. As kneejerk stated the big reason for this issue to be on the ballot is to bring out a heavy right wing vote. It's an old tactic that has been used with some success.
What really amazes me is that the very people that push this amendment are some of the worst examples of following traditional standards.
#11 Posted by swfl_ff on September 6, 2008 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL, swfl_ff, can relate to that about not being our place to judge anyone else. I also see the irony in one of my favorite sayings, "The main problem with Christianity is the Christians."
However, the slanderous lies being spread, including doctored photos and vicious attacks on her daughter by suppossed "liberals" also makes my temper flare. They will ensure her election with their scurrellous lies and persecution. Americans , outside the psuedo intellectual circles will send a message in November. IF they don't we all need to start praying more frequently, IMHO.
#12 Posted by stepetroni on September 6, 2008 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why should homos have it easy? Let them get married, be miserable and trapped like the rest of "normal" society! Hey they get the privelage of being taxed at a higher rate too!
#13 Posted by LethaLintent on September 6, 2008 at 8:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
VOTE NO ON 2.
This so called Marriage Protection Act is not going to save anyone's marriage. It is a ruse used to deny benefits to Domestic Partnerships - straight or gay. Most of the state institutions offer these benefits and their employees will lose these benefits if this amendment passes. This country already has 45 Million people without health insurance, why add more?
#14 Posted by schmendrick on September 6, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
swfl_ff, I agree with you. If the religious right wants to disallow marriages of same sex couples in their churches, great...but that is where the line should be drawn. If we believe in the Constitution of the USA, then all should have the same rights.
My wife and I are voting NO! on this ridiculous attempt to impose a religious perspective on individual rights. What's next: a "Christian" version of burkas?
stepetroni: good points in your post #12. We are following the same path.
#15 Posted by BlueTonguedVole on September 6, 2008 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Adam & Eve NOT Adam & Steve.....
#16 Posted by Hendry on September 6, 2008 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I also agree with live and let live. Life and love is hard enough without undue strain placed on people. So their relationship isnt conventional, that doesnt mean that their feelings arent as deep and real.
The ages of these activists speaks volumes. They come from a different time and thinking. Although their ideas/values/morales of marriage are valid, it just doesnt fit with the 21st century.
#17 Posted by SandnSurf on September 6, 2008 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
the Muslims try to force their Sharia religious law...the Baptists are now trying to force their own brand of Sharia law...
we are a nation of secular laws only...that's what makes us America
#18 Posted by prometheus on September 6, 2008 at 11:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Homosexuality is a SIN not a crime. I compare it to gluttony. Should we keep fat people out of restaurants?
#19 Posted by thunderlightening on September 6, 2008 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Every homosexual person I have ever talked to has told me that the only reason they want to get married is for financial reasons. I dont care if they get married as long as they dont force their agenda on me or my family.
#20 Posted by jeb14 on September 6, 2008 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey brainwashed people - Marriage Licenses was created in the 1920's to keep blacks and whites from getting married - before that it was a private matter. We shouldn't have to vote on this. Or maybe we should vote on privatizing Marriage back the way it was all together.
I just feel this is sooo wrong that we sink to this level on voting here in the US - it's like a jerry springer show mentality.
#21 Posted by camelopardalis on September 6, 2008 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hear Obama was a pillow biter in college.
What does the Rev Wright think of Gay marriage ? Obama's great pastor ? he's against it. So why is the flipper back in his Church ?
Sen. Obama said, "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial." LOL unreal Nation of Islam and your great community organiser, for its time to wake America and get back to values.
#22 Posted by Johnywalker on September 7, 2008 at 1:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Retired politicians from the 70's have been quoted as saying that the worst thing that ever happened was the "no-fault divorce".
Lawyers have made millions of of this off-based idea. We might be able to expand their market.
Why do we try and ban same-sex marriages? Regular marriage is in turmoil, why do we think that others have no clue?
3 Weeks ago, I met a woman at a bar. She was quite clear about being married, yet open. Husband was living in NY. She liked the FL home.
Yeah, the straights are more moral than the gays.
No happy ending.
#23 Posted by volochine on September 7, 2008 at 1:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ironic. Never seen so much anger expressed by someone who says they dont care.
Personally, I dont feel that homosexuality should be legitimized by marrage, but that's me.
#24 Posted by Robert_L on September 7, 2008 at 5:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VOTE NO on #2
First of all STOP THE HATE Hendry, sharon, and Johny Walker. I'm with swfl ff and kneejerk's #5 post. Jesus would NOT preach hate and discrimination. If you are out with a sign that says vote yes for #2 you are being HATEFUL even if it is out of ignorance. Ignorance is no excuse for hatred. Just wait until your sibling, child, or grandchild comes home saying he/she is gay. However, if you preach hatred, this gay individual in your life is likely to stay in the closet b/c of fear, commit suicide, or get as far away from you as possible. Is that how you want your loved one's to feel? Like they can't be themselves around you? Being gay is NOT A CHOICE because there are plenty of gay people I know that would choose to be straight if that were the case. That's right, read that sentence again if you need to. It is easier in this country to be straight.
I am Republican. I am a churchgoing Christian. I very much support marriage. My spouse and I are voting NO on #2. I am currently leaning toward Obama to get my vote and I think intelligent and educated people like stepetroni should stop being so afraid of Obama. Don't be afraid of Michelle either. We are a country of checks and balances people! Obama can not be a dictator and have unlimited power - no president can. Let's give him a chance; he is a principled person.
You shouldn't vote for Palin just because she is a woman. I'm all for a woman pres or VP, but give me one that is not ultra right wing because I'm not ultra right wing. Obama is not far left not will turn that way when elected president. Our country has a lot to proud of, but we have a lot to work on (and be ashamed of too). The current state of health insurance in our country is atrocious. Public schools are for everyone regardless of income - that is right in our country. Yet, medicaid is only a right for poor children. Health care is not a right in this country and I think it should be. I'm not talking about socialized medicine, but all people should have some form of insurance - that should be a basic requirement.
Vote no on #2
#25 Posted by keepthepeace on September 7, 2008 at 7:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Although I see the importance of an issue like gay marriage or civil unions, I cannot understand why we are focusing our attention on the behaviors and activities of two consenting adults.
Especially when we still have American troops dying daily, an economic crisis, high gas prices, an increasing foreclosure percentage, and a soaring unemployment rate.
I think that we have some bigger issues at hand than whether or not a same sex couple wants to get married.
#26 Posted by aheadofthecurve on September 7, 2008 at 7:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VOTE NO on Amendment 2
STOP THE HATE-MONGERING!
Non-gay marriage has a divorce rate of about 50%. Who are we to preach about the sanctity of marriage? I'd rather see two gays that truly love each other get married than two heterosexual teens forced into it because of a pregnancy.
Gays getting married or united doesn't threaten my marriage or anybody else’s. I've been with the same beautiful lady for 29 years and happily married for 21 of them. Yes, we waited eight years because we were young and knew we were too immature for marriage. We wanted to see if we could still love each after living together before getting married. Neither one of us came from homes with divorced parents and we didn't want divorce to happen to us. I would recommend that for anybody considering getting married. Live together first!
We have to stop discriminating against the gay lifestyle. It's none of our business what others do, if they aren't breaking the law of our land.
I wonder how many of these people voting YES on 2 have been divorced.
VOTE NO on Amendment 2
#27 Posted by Ironside on September 7, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
#8
Some insurance companies will allow same sex couples to get insured through an employer but not straight couples who are dating, that's completely ridiculous. Florida doesn't allow common law marriages so what makes anyone think we want gay marriages in Florida. This is something that shouldn't even have to be discussed, it's not right!!
-------------------------------------------
You can get married, us homosexuals cannot. Why shouldn't we be allowed to have our significant others on our insurance policy, you are not paying for it.
I am completely appauled at the ignorance I have read on this article. Most of which are in the retired age, we are people too, we fall in love, we make mistakes and the sad part is that heterosexuals will NEVER be in the position that they cannot marry someone they love. Im sure some of the people in that articles grand children are gay! Some people get married for the wrong reasons, but you seem to be pulling your facts from your "straight" statistics and facts... where else would you be getting these?
I don't force my homosexuality on anyone, I believe in god and know I am going to heaven. There are far worse things going on in the world to focus on, rather than trying to control someone else's happiness.
#28 Posted by firefightermedic27 on September 7, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Im starting my own rally....
No on Amendment 2,
Who wants to come with me....
#29 Posted by firefightermedic27 on September 7, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
THe church should not have anything to do with marriage! We are talking about state marriage! If your church dosent think that same sex should marry. ( THEN DONT MARRY THEM! ) HELLO! Quit beating people up with your bible :(
#30 Posted by Disney on September 7, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post #32:
firefightermedic, as long as it is't going to interfere with the Dolphin's game, I'll gladly to be there.
#31 Posted by Ironside on September 7, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
how bout all those nice catholic priests that touch little boys? sodomites and sexual perverts? where did that come from? automatically gays are sexual perverts? some people on here need to pull their heads out of their a##! gays deserve to be happy worry about your own crap and quit worrying about what everybody else is doing!
#32 Posted by nealr on September 7, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What I find ironic about the protesters that I saw on the side of the road is that THEY were shoving their LIFESTYLE down my throat. You don't see gays on the side of the road promoting homosexuality.
What a bunch of hypocrites. I would love to belong to a local church. I just can't stomach standing shoulder to shoulder to people like that. When I got married, the most difficult part for me was finding someone that shared the same values that I did. I did not want a preacher or priest to marry me in front of God knowing that that person would condemn some of my friends to hell. The God that I have faith in loves all of his children and doesn’t take kindly to us judging our fellow man for him.
But that’s just me, and I will be voting NO!
#33 Posted by emmylopez on September 7, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sixwhitehorses, I was told you always made good points. I have debated rightwingers here that have made think.
I honestly hate personal attacks, but I just can't hold back any longer.....
You and johnywalker are about the most ignorant posters on these blogs. You're a frickin' MORON! Maybe you just like to troll.
You have lost all credibility and please don't expect me to debate you anymore. I don't like to have discussions with immature adults. I embarrassed for you, but I do pity you, you poor fool!
#34 Posted by Ironside on September 7, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The church(s) are upset about these issues because it threatens their loosening strangle hold on America. Passage would further weaken the amount of support they have at the polls and this forces the public to think, rather than follow their preachings like lost sheep. I for one feel that all religious entities should pay taxes (property and business) and be banned from politics. Fair is Fair. You cant have it both ways. The churches want special treatment but others cant have what their members enjoy, like marriage? All rights for all people, with no exceptions for any religion. They are all the same,they breed hatred and bigotry and spew self ritous garbage. Want proof? Read any responses to this blog from so called good "religious" people.. You are either for THEIR religion or against it. They insist you choose. You cant believe what you want, I choose to remove their protected status and treat them on equal footing as any other "business", Gay or otherwise.
#35 Posted by yourfault2 on September 7, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you don't support gay marriage don't marry a gay person!!!
#36 Posted by dooley on September 7, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
CORRECTION to Post #38:
sixwhitehorses, I was once told you normally make good points when debating. I beg to differ. I have debated rightwingers here that have made me think and consider their point of view. You are not one of them. You are simple-minded at best.
I honestly hate personal attacks, but I just can't hold back any longer.....
You and johnywalker are about the most ignorant and asinine posters on these blogs. You're a frickin' MORON! Maybe you just like to troll, and that's childish.
You have lost all credibility with me and please don't expect me to debate you anymore. I won't have discussions with immature adults such as yourself. I embarrassed for you, but I do pity you, you poor fool! Grow up!
#37 Posted by Ironside on September 7, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Christians... see to your own houses!
Matthew, Ch 5 (the Sermon on the Mount… “Blessed are the… “etc):
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matthew, Ch. 19:
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Mark, Ch. 10:
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
And, lastly, from Proverbs 11:
29 He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.
... see to your own houses
#38 Posted by AARGGHHH on September 7, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
emmylopez - Post #37:
Well said!
#39 Posted by Ironside on September 7, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have a question for those people that say Obama is connected to his church and because of what his priest says he's anti-american.
Any of you heard of your pastor/priest being a pedophile? If you have does that make you a pedophile also, by association? If you know another family that has been going to the same church for years but one beautiful day the priest decided to abuse a child, does that make the people that attended pedophiles also?
What I find funny is that Christians consider everyone a sinner. They say we were born in sin.. so why should we get a morality lesson from a sinner?
#40 Posted by Elle on September 7, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is the usual wedge issue to get the fruitcakes all lathered up to go and vote for the same Republicans who will steal the store like they always do.
If it weren't for the fact that I live here too I would say they deserve to be looted and made fools of!
I could never see why gays would want to take part in the failed institution of marraige, perhaps because they've been locked out of it,
but this isn't about gays, it is probably more about keeping them in the closet with the rest of the bible thumpers and Republican politicians.
As for McCain, how does dropping bombs on peasants from 20,000 feet in an illegal war and then collaborating with his captors make him a hero?
If Obama had done that the Republicans would be trying to lynch him.
#41 Posted by greathornedlizard on September 7, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
let and let live but we cannot allow a marriage that is not only immoral in the churchs eyes but also a evoutionary mistake. if one accepts the belief of evolution one must accept homosexuality a evolutionary flaw.man and man or women and women cannot have children this is a fact i don't think people have as much against gay marriage as they do gay acceptence.
#42 Posted by napleslocal1968 on September 7, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Didn't the Bible say to love the sinner, but hate the sin?
You can disagree with someone's point of view and/or lifestyle, without hating the person, no?
If you think this comment was directed at your post, it probably was.
#43 Posted by lizzyb on September 7, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And you're pathetic sixmuddyhorses. What a frickin' kook, you are! Pith off moron.
Or better yet, grow up!
#44 Posted by Ironside on September 7, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sixmuddyhorses, to suggest that homosexuality is about:
“Mark my word: all they will want next is the right to sodomize little boys,"
.....is the same as to to say, all heterosexuals will next want to sodomize little girls.
Homosexuality is about two consenting adults of the same gender having a loving relationship.
You're a hate-monger.
In fact, you're moronic beyond belief. How ignorant can you get? Don't bother answering that question, I think we all know, you've just maxed that out.
You're a bad joke.
#45 Posted by Ironside on September 7, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Vote YES on Amendment 2
#46 Posted by miamigal on September 7, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OK The Catholic Chemist has spoken: he has the last word and knows all so we might as well give up and agree with him. He will post more links than all the frankfurters in the world. I would bet he thinks there are no same sex liaisons in the Catholic Church either now or in the long sordid history of this and other religions. Blindness is not always a physical manifestation of the loss of eyesight.
At least this fellow is consistent in irrational thoughts.
Use your head for more than a hatrack and vote NO on this unconstitutional (per US constitution) proposed Florida constitutional amendment. Keep religious beliefs out of our laws. If any church or religion does not want to marry any persons for any reason...fine, but it is a religious matter and has nothing to do with our secular laws.
#47 Posted by BlueTonguedVole on September 7, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The church(s) are upset about these issues because it threatens to loosen their strangle hold on America. Passage would further weaken the amount of support they have at the polls and this issue forces the public to think, rather than follow their preachings like sheep. I for one feel that all religious entities should pay taxes (property and business) and be banned from politics. Fair is Fair. You cant have it both ways. The churches want special treatment but also want to prohibit others from having what they enjoy, like marriage benefits and tax exemption? All rights for all people, with no exceptions for any religion or special interest group. Religions are all the same, they breed hatred and bigotry and spew self-righteous scripture garbage when confronted. Reading the responses to people on this blog from so called good "religious" people says it all.. You are either for THEIR religion or against it. They insist you choose. You cant believe what you want, I choose to remove their protected status and treat them on equal footing as any other "business", Gay or otherwise.
#48 Posted by yourfault2 on September 7, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sixwhitehorses....I feel badly about your ignorance on sodomy being just a homosexual thing.
THAT type of sex is also performed by some heterosexual couples. Sodomizing little boys is usually done by a pervert, not a homosexual. There is a difference.
Lesbians are gay, but don't get into sodomy....shouldn't they be excluded from you list?
#49 Posted by eaglebeak on September 7, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BTV, well said.
I don't always agree with your point of view, but you always articulate them in a rational and respectful manner. I admire your posts, whether I agree with them or not.
I certainly agree with you on this issue.
Keep up the good work.
_________________________
Good point Ryu, I'm through with him.
He can have the last word. ;]
#50 Posted by Ironside on September 7, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oh sixwhitehorses.....what religious belief condone any of your post #56?
Just because someone is gay, doesn't make them murders, thieves,liars,stealers,rapists,sodomites, and pediphiles.
You sound to me, (my opinion) that you are afraid someone will look at your butt and make a pass!
You are a homophobic! Why else would you care about what someone does in their bed room?
Or...( Mine again) you're upset because no one came onto you!
Get your own life in order and stop worrying about the lives of others. Anal-hole!
#51 Posted by eaglebeak on September 7, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sh4r...(whatever else follows).....
1st of all, you're not a woman.....
2nd of all, you're not gay.
If you were truly gay, you'd KNOW that it was not a CHOICE!!!!!
You'll 'stick to chicks' yet you claim chicks privates stink. So maybe you ARE truly gay.....
GROW UP YOU IGNORANT POS!
#52 Posted by eaglebeak on September 7, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Marriage between a man and woman is the most fundamental of institutions because it is the core of the family which is the core of societal order. It predates government, organized religious institutions, or any other institution and is necessary to assure the procreation of mankind and stability of human society. As marriage between a man and woman becomes less and less relevant to society, so goes the deterioration of society. This deterioration includes the gay marriage issue but also divorce, cohabitation and other threats to the institution. This has been evidenced throughout history.
#53 Posted by speakwithfacts on September 7, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sh..it4..( brains?)....whatever....
Ok, I concede. You didn't say it was you, it was " a friend".
aH, ok. let's start over Ok?
# 1....I didn't call you names. You called me an 'idiot'. I said you were ignorant...big difference!
#2..you called me 'dumb' and a 'slob'.
#3...grow up.
#5...I think thou doth ( sp? help) protest too much.
#6....we love you any way.
#7....I am not gay, but the mother of gay children, and I will fight to my death to protect them and their rights as American Citizens and Equal Rights!
#54 Posted by eaglebeak on September 7, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sixwhitehorses, if you really believe the things you say, I can't believe you're allowed to walk the streets with normal people.
#55 Posted by Zoey on September 7, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"She'll be coming 'round the mountain when she comes.....
She'll be driving "sixwhitehorses" when she comes.......what is SHE is a female?
#56 Posted by eaglebeak on September 7, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sh4r...thank you for being reasonable about this!
Nature or nurture? I honestly say nature.
I have 2 children. A boy ( gay) and a girl (gay).
I am also left-handed, which once was considered evil! Thank goodness society found out that being left-handed wasn't against GOD!
So, who is it question God on whether or not being gay is right or wrong? Years ago, people thought only 'white' was right. We now know differently.
I can say for myself....I love and support my children and will protect their rights as HUMANS as much as I am able.
#57 Posted by eaglebeak on September 7, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It truly amazes me how cruel some people can be toward their fellow human beings. This blog is a fine example of that.
Personally I do not appreciate the gay lifestyle but who am I to judge them? What goes one between two legal consenting adults is their personal business.
I am tired of all the so called righteous moral people who wish to push their agenda on the whole country. Truth be know many of these people are not all that righteous or moral to begin with.
To my follow bloggers my best advice to you in regards to our friend sixwhitehorses (aka, attilla, YeOldeNaples) is just ignore him/her. His whole plan is to bait others so he can try to prove his point and to try to prove just how intelligent he thinks he is. Let him have his say then just ignore him.
#58 Posted by swfl_ff on September 7, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Blog turned into a bar brawl: too bad.
First, thanks Ironside. There are a number of perspectives in the world. In fact all thinking people should have one of their own. We view the world differently based on our experiences, lives and associations. We can disagree civilly and that is a great thing. I also appreciate your comments and enjoy exchanges with you and the others who believe in discussion. I also understand your frustration our chemist. I believe a more fitting screen name would be FourHorsesoftheApocolypse or something like that.
+++++++++++++
Now to the "moral police" who want to change the way humans have behaved for centuries by battering them with an absurd amendment to the Florida Constitution:
One of the tenet of our country is the freedom to practice religion as we believe: or not practice it if we don't. Marriage is both a religious sacrament to those who believe certain things and a legal issue. To those who have differing religious beliefs, I believe it is a legal issue. The courts really do not care if your marriage was by a notary or by a priest/preacher/or rabbi, etc. They only need to see that it meets the legal definition. We have no business putting religious idiom into legal partnerships. Should the churches govern business partnerships which are quite intimate and entangled? Oh, forgot that it is your bible which defines it all...So what if I have a bible that demands business partnerships need to be sanctioned in MY church...and these partnerships ban people over 5'7", are gay, or have green eyes??? Let's just make it part of our state's Constitution, in obvious conflict to the US Constitution in regards to the separation of church and state and the basic tenet that we all have certain inalienable rights.
Ban gays from your church, if you choose to do so, but don't mess with our state Constitution. I am with Emmy completely. We find most churches to be the epitome of hypocrisy!
++++++++++++++++++
Eaglebeak, don't let someone who has little credibility push your buttons. I know you saw red, but someone who appears to have such a limited vocabulary that they resort to the lowest common denominator are not reasonable people. I hope most Floridians are reasonable and understand the US Constitution.
#59 Posted by BlueTonguedVole on September 7, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
swfl_ff: yep attilla/YeOldeNaples. I knew the comments had a familiar ring to them. Perhaps these names were banned from posting?
Great call.
#60 Posted by BlueTonguedVole on September 7, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What church did Jesus go to?
#61 Posted by kneejerk on September 7, 2008 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm with you. Let's keep it civil and ignore the comments that would not be said out loud in public for fear of being completely ostracized.
Hey six white horses, you have the devil in you. Have you ever verbalized your views in public? Shame on you for writing them, but not having the guts to come right out and say them b/c people will start staying really FAR AWAY FROM YOU if you did.
#62 Posted by keepthepeace on September 7, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He went to temple but then started his own church with his disciples
#63 Posted by keepthepeace on September 7, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am going to end with on last thing to sixhorses....
If God created Adam and Eve....who did Eve have sex with to further the population? If you can't answer that, then you can't answer where ALL of the GAYS came from.
Buh bye
#64 Posted by eaglebeak on September 7, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
People who believe in God and the Bible do not have to be labeled "Bible thumpers" and extremists. We believe what the Bible says. We know there is sin in the world and we are taught not to hide from it but to face it dead on. It is our job to be "light" and "salt" to the world and the people in it as best we can every day.
#65 Posted by anchor on September 7, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
anchor, great...go for it, just leave others who do not share your beliefs alone. I know other religions have outreach programs too, so...h'mmm well wars have been fought over the differences.
I am thinking of joining this group officially. They have a lot of teachings which make sense. Especially in an area with so much pasta.
Pastafarians are good people too. Please visit the wonderful website and consider joining with us. We may have to ban something too someday, like those who would eat noodles!
http://www.venganza.org/
#66 Posted by BlueTonguedVole on September 7, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jesus and John were gay...so go figure,...actually Jesus was bi...Jesus never spoke one word against homosexualism..go figure
the anti-gay thing was the vicious old testament that called for the killing of anyone of a different religion (along with hundreds of other silly reasons; e.g. wrong perfume) and new testament Paul who prefered men not even get married but stay celibate...
if ya want to find some nutty instructions, just open the so called bible.."deadly snakes and deadly drink won't harm believers" of course most the southern states (except W. Virginia)finally outlawed snake handling because of the scores of believers killed by deadly snakes
so go figure
#67 Posted by prometheus on September 7, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
While we're on the subject of religion.....
And they trashed Obama's church?
http://www.politicalplace.com/phpBB3/...
#68 Posted by Ironside on September 7, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Vote YES on Amendment 2
The problem with gay marriage is that it redefines marriage.
Next thing you know, people will want to marry their golden retrievers, and gold fish. They will claim “well we love each other, and we all came from the same ameba”.
Then everyone will try to deduct their pets as dependents.
#69 Posted by NaplesOutlaw on September 7, 2008 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Please, see definitions 2, 4 and 5.....
Marriage
Sponsored Links Couples on the Brink
Intensive Couples Counseling Offices in Plantation & Delray
www.CouplesOnTheBrink.com
How to Save Your Marriage
Even if you've lost all hope and you're the only one who will try.
http://www.SavingMyMarriageNow.com
Six dictionary results for: marriage
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This
mar·riage /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.
http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...
#70 Posted by Ironside on September 7, 2008 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear red,
Thank you for visiting the sacred website of the Church of the Spaghetti Monster. After knowing that you will want to consider joining with me, I am going to take the final steps and purchase their Holy Grail (apologies to Monty Python), and perhaps even some t-shirts for the family and definitely an emblem for the cars.
Gee, we think of our pets as second set of children. I think the IRS owes us some cash.
May the spirit of the the great noodliness be upon you.
Oh, and be sure and visit the very informative website about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide! Be sure you enjoy the "press section" as well.
http://www.dhmo.org/
#71 Posted by BlueTonguedVole on September 7, 2008 at 8:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tolerance - these so called christians have no clue what christ preached. Anyone should be allowed to get a marriage license and have a secular marriage. Religions can decide who of their members they wish to marry. These religious extremists keep pushing their phony beliefs on all of us.
Ben Franklin founded our country based on tolerance for all. No state religion.
#72 Posted by JohhnyB on September 8, 2008 at 12:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ironsides....nice posts.....I wish you well.
#73 Posted by volochine on September 8, 2008 at 1:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Vote YES on Amendment 2
The problem with gay marriage is that it redefines marriage.
Next thing you know, people will want to marry their golden retrievers, and gold fish. They will claim “well we love each other, and we all came from the same ameba”."
Agreed, and it's already begun.
A couple years back, a woman tried legally marrying her pet dolphin.
#74 Posted by Robert_L on September 8, 2008 at 3:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post #123. "Ben Franklin founded our country based on tolerance for all. No state religion." Well put JohnnyB. This would be a much better country if we kept religion OUT of government. Was'nt the reason people left England in the first place to escape religious persecution?
#75 Posted by ravenhawk on September 8, 2008 at 6:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Was'nt the reason people left England in the first place to escape religious persecution?"
Acctually, That was PA. The goal of having America settled was to make more money for king and country and to stop French expansion.
#76 Posted by Robert_L on September 8, 2008 at 7:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Would Jesus Discriminate?
go to www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com
This program is sponsored locally by Celebration MCC @ MCCNaples.com
#77 Posted by bigsnook on September 8, 2008 at 7:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh Holy Whitehorse/attila/yeoldnaples (the Catholic Chemist): I have joined the Church of the Great Spaghetti Monster and feel your babbling should be unconstitutional. I am going to initiate a petition at our first meeting to ban both you and dihydrogen monoxide from earth.
I believe in dry humor. We all will have a better humor when you are banned.
I have no intention of answering to you or what you think your religious sect says. I have little respect for your comments and I don't care if you like what I post or not. Go your own way. Quote who you want as you want. I don't give a Flying Monty Python's Circus!
Arrr! said the Pirate, I am a Pastafarian now. As far as I can tell our church doesn't get involved in sectarian matters, just lunch or dinner.
#78 Posted by BlueTonguedVole on September 8, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
redrover, have you seen Spamalot in person? We did and nearly fell out of our seats laughing so hard. Sure bring it all. I think we have one of the sets of the TV broadcasts.
Ever read any Douglas Adams' work?
#79 Posted by BlueTonguedVole on September 8, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I can't believe this issue is still running...coming from the province that was the first to "allow" gay marriage in North America we have gone the complete controversy
as a practicing Catholic I do not believe in gay marriage but at the same time know that this is the 21st century and we all evolve....so I was not vocal against it becoming law
however, we did have a problem after the fact....the origional wording was "civil union" and the churches were exempted from performing these unions...then the extreme gays sued to have the word marriage inserted into the law......and they got their wish.....then they said the fact churches were exempt was against the discriminary laws and wanted to force the various churches to perform these ceremonies against their will....so far they have not been successful but they are still banging at the door
and this is what I think a lot of people from the other side are concerned with
so it's not all about pensions etc as these were enshrined in our laws before gay marriage
#80 Posted by Canuck on September 8, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
oops...should read.... we have gone "through" the.....
sorry
#81 Posted by Canuck on September 8, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I really am going to buy a t-shirt...nope, a flag. I am going fly the flag of the Church of the Great Spaghetti Monster!
You made the right choice in Vegas. Coconuts R US.
#82 Posted by BlueTonguedVole on September 8, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So Canuck, a question. My wife and I got married in the great state of Florida. We did not get a "civil union" license, we got a marriage license when the notary at the clerk of the courts married us. I believe marriage can very well have a religious significance to those who have a clergyperson sign their license, but by getting married (that word again) in "City Hall" we are just as married as those who married in a tax exempt building via a religious leader.
So, why argue over this word? If you have no objections to civil unions with all the risks and benefits (legally, etc.) of a "traditional" marriage such as mine, then why get into semantics if the marriage is secular and performed outside of any church, etc. which does not recognize it?
I am still amazed at some of the annulled marriages (in the Catholic church) which have produced children and required divorces in our courts!
Let the marriages begin. Divorces will follow. Annulments...LOL no way, that kind of dissolution is a religious one and NOT recognized by our legal system. Secular marriage and church sanctioned marriage can be different. Don't compromise the US Constitution, however by confusing the two: Vote against this proposed amendment.
#83 Posted by BlueTonguedVole on September 8, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BTV...I did not argue anything....merely stated the facts..I do not care what they call it.....I only pointed out the series of events..without comment pro or con....
you can be amazed all you want about Catholic annulled marriages...but the fact is it is within the tenets of the church to have a marriage annulled....with reason..
so no need to attack me or my church!!
#84 Posted by Canuck on September 8, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BTV...sorry missed that "tax exempt" dig....would you rather have your tax dollars pay for all charitable work all churches/synagogues/temples etc do in your community or would you rather see those "losers"...oops I mean poor people go without????
typical to respond to an informative message by attacking!!!
#85 Posted by Canuck on September 8, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"That's because you have zero understanding of the difference between a civil marriage and a sacramental marriage. They are entirely distinct. One can exist without the other."
Yes, I know they can...and that is exactly my point. Keep the State Constitution out of this matter.
Thanks six/attila/yeoldenaples for underscoring my point.
Canuck, I hardly attacked the Catholic church. Six made my point in his post #136 perfectly. Your church laws are not the laws of the State nor should they be. Your church or any other religious organization can have their own set of rules. But they should not be put into our Constitution. Frankly I am against amending our State Constitution the way it has been amended so abusively in the past.
So that is that. Six, I want to thank you for making my point. (Remember about the word ASSUME, if you think know my background when it comes to my experiences with religions.)
Take just 3 minutes each day..."Encourage one another. (1 Thessalonians 5:11)
Protect, bless, encourage and inspire all who want to do non-traditional work, Abba"
#86 Posted by BlueTonguedVole on September 8, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Canuck, you are far too defensive. I did say "tax exempt" but that refers to any and all "tax exempt" entities which can legally perform marriages. Why take that personally? I didn't say that I thought the "tax exempt" status was odious or inappropriate, I just didn't want to miss any "house of worship" whether it is called a church, synagogue, mosque, reading room, temple, or whatever.
#87 Posted by BlueTonguedVole on September 8, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
PS., Canuck, for a person who seems to support Christian charity, you are pretty judgmental about the "poor" your charities serve. "losers"??? Wow. And...this is not "your community", too??? why I thought that those of deep faith thought the world was their community.
Ok, done with this.
My final comment on this subject (not directed at either you Canuck or Mr. Six.)
+++++
I have been fortunate enough to know a few people with deep faith who live the words. You should note of these folks, I know of none who feel this subject should be an issue. They also contend the Church(es), etc., have the right to enforce their own laws/rules within their own faith. They will not ostracize or condemn the secular world for legal issues. I respect those people. Two examples: One is a retired priest I have known for years, one is a very religious Jew. Perhaps in their "old age" they have gained a gentler perspective. They don't judge as they once did. They have moved beyond pettiness and obstruction.
I do have faith that this amendment will not gain the percentage it would need to pass, as I believe many others have gained some wisdom from the past too.
#88 Posted by BlueTonguedVole on September 8, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sodomy has always been against the law, now it's not, now you want to allow same sex marriages....what next...bestiality? What if a man wants to marry his dog...or what if a man wants to marry two women, do we also allow this to happen and make it legal? Come on, marriage is between a man and a woman. Let's leave it that way. Don't fix what is not broken.
#89 Posted by Hendry on September 8, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BVT.....my use of the word "losers" was meant for those right wing posters who have used that word to describe the poor..or those who need help through no fault of their own...it is not my word....if you do not associate yourself with that description then I apologize for using it in my post ...but quite frankly your terminology has been used to attack my faith
#90 Posted by Canuck on September 8, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
#88 JYD-Then the gator came along and "evened" things up.
Sorry couldn't resist.
Those that contribute all that is "good" with this world to the Judea-Christian religions need to back up the time line by a few thousand years.
Records found in the remains of the earliest recorded civilization, Sumer I think, already incorporated most of the events and people (usually by different names but with the same meaning) in the Bible. And they had more than one God.
They even went so far as to codify education and punishments for doctors guilty of malpractice. Not to mention that certain amount of money to be set aside to help the needy and widows could not be foreclosed on especially if they had children.
I am concerned with people who equate same sex marriages with bestiality. It seems to me that you are equating Gays and Lesbians with animals.
If churches do not want to acknowledge same sex marriages as Holy Matrimony that is all well and good. However a secular marriage is entirely different.
If you vote yes to 2 then don't complain when a cop, paramedic, or firefighter refuses to come help you because your beliefs are different than theirs.
Our government is supposed to assure that ALL people have the same rights.
On the flip side people against 2 shouldn't complain when the first father/ child, mother/ child, sibling/ sibling marriages come about.
After all what goes on between consenting adults is their business.
#91 Posted by Neal on September 8, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
#141 Hendry-
"Come on, marriage is between a man and a woman. Let's leave it that way. Don't fix what is not broken."
I think it's safe to say that marriage is very much broken in this country. The 50%+ divorce rate proves that.
#92 Posted by marcoislandgal on September 8, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm thinking that six white horses is having a problem with these temptations in his own life.
Two consenting adults is what we are talking about. Is the dog that you are insisting on having sex with a consenting adult?
#93 Posted by Tony on September 8, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Common sense has obviously left the human population.
Sixwhitehorses says…"So, when someone says, "Keep religious beliefs out of our laws," what he is really saying is to keep everyone else’s religious beliefs out of our laws except his own. For to truly believe that we should “Keep religious beliefs out of our laws” requires one to accept wanton murder, theft, lying, stealing, rape, sodomy, and pedophilia….”Should a man be allowed to marry and copulate with his daughter? Should a man be allowed to marry and copulate with his dog? Should a man be allowed to have sex with a 5-year-old boy?”
So basically what you're saying is that people who aren't religious are immoral people? That makes sense. As I see it, this topic boils down to very simple facts:
1. The religious people of the world and their churches should not be forced to perform marriages on the gay population if they think it’s wrong.
2. The gay couples of the world shouldn't be forced to lead a less equal life as any other couple just because the religious people of the world feel it’s wrong.
Do not tell me how to live my life if I am not asking for you to peer into my bedroom door. Just as I will not tell you not to go to church because I disagree with some things the church does or teaches. It is not up to you or your church leaders to decide the lives of others. You should only set the rules for your church members, not society as a whole. Its absurd to me that you would even have the guts to compare fellow mans love for each other to bestiality and pedophiles. It’s just sick, and disheartening to say the least. I believe in the depths of my heart that someday we will look back on the discrimination that the gay community has endured as a horrendous time. Science will finally prove that it is a genetic trait. SOMEDAY those that follow the bible so closely will stop picking and choosing what to decide to believe.
#94 Posted by emmylopez on September 8, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is a sample of other things the bible teaches:
Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10)
If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)
If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)
If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16)
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)
Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)
If a priest's daughter is a woman of allegedly ill repute, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)
People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
When will common sense come back to the world?!?! The bible is an interpretation of history!! It has some really great guidelines to leading a moral life. I agree with a lot in the bible. But it’s just so hypocritical to condemn people on what the bible says when there is so much that even the modern day church disregards. I don't get the picking and choosing.
I am not bashing people with faith. I believe in God, but my God doesn't discriminate. I don't judge others for my God. I live my life morally and ethically. I know that if there is a heaven I'm going there, and I believe that all my gay friends will be there too.
The difference in my opionion between myself and gay bashers..I have common sense.
#95 Posted by emmylopez on September 8, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So we should only follow what the New Testament says? The Old Testament is obsolete in modern day churches?
#96 Posted by emmylopez on September 8, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
so what does the new testament have to say about homosexuality?
#97 Posted by emmylopez on September 8, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ryu, we're having one of the few civil discussion on any NDN blogs..don't leave it alone. I really want to know, because if I'm misinformed with something I'd like to know your opinion.
Thats all.
#98 Posted by emmylopez on September 8, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just for arguments sake, lets remove the "they shall be killed" after all the quotes in my #151 post. Why isn't the church calling for a constitutional amendment banning divorce (or adultery). Because if you're going to deny that divorce isn't what is really killing the sanctity of marriage, then you're living on mars.
#99 Posted by emmylopez on September 8, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hummmmmm
Gluttony is a sin not a crime.
Greed is a sin not a crime.
Gossip is a sin not a crime.
Adultry is a sin not a crime.
Homosexuality is a sin not a crime.
Should we keep fat people out of restaurants?
Should we keep greedy people out of banks?
Should we dunk gossipers in ponds?
Should we keep adulterers out of marriage?
Should we keep homsexuals out of marriage?
Search you soul for the answer.
#100 Posted by thunderlightening on September 8, 2008 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
emmylopez, if you and I were the same age and unmarried, I would ask for your hand today. Bright mind, sharp wit and a sense of humor wow hard to find so many good things in one person. Wait, that is why I married my wife!
Yes, I came back to see what this battle royal was doing. No, I am not making other comments...Just that you rock, emmy, and I hope your Mr. Lopez appreciates you as much as I appreciate Mrs. Vole! Hi CTL, JYD see you on more sane blogs.