On Apr 10, 7:18*pm, suzireb > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 5:17*pm, "Gregory Morrow"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > blake murphy wrote:
> > > On 09 Apr 2009 15:13:58 GMT, Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>
> > > > Lynn from Fargo Ografmorffig >
> > > :
> > > > in rec.food.cooking
>
> > > >> *I think you're right, Michael. *I remember Casey vs ?? (US Supreme
> > > >> Court case further restricting Roe v. Wade) in the late 80s. *The
> > > >> court left standing the first section of Missouri's law which
> > > >> basically granted "personhood" and citizenship to embryos.
> > > >> Lynn in Fargo
>
> > > > I vaguely remember the hoopla surrounding it. *Missouri is just barely a
> > > > step above Arkansas on the state level. Kentucky is as bad as Arkansas.
> > > > It'll require some type of Federal legislation to bring some of the
> > > > states in line with the others. *Who really knows though? *Some of the
> > > > states have yet to realize the US is a republic, and not a theocracy.
>
> > > > Michael
>
> > > what were the various state laws at *the time of loving v. virginia (when
> > > laws banning interracial marriage were struck down)? *i could see a
> > similar
> > > path (if it were not for some mossbacks on the court like scalia, thomas,
> > > and alito, damn their black, flabby hearts).
>
> > There was an Op-Ed in yesterday's _New York Times_ by a bi-racial guy, his
> > mother was white and his father was black, both from Nebraska. *They had to
> > go to Iowa to get married in 1958, Nebraska had a miscenegation law on the
> > books until 1963...Iowa apparently never had any such law.
>
> > --
> > Best
> > Greg
>
> > "The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
> > people's money."~~~~Margaret Thatcher
>
> I think it is not equalizing marriage, but redefining marriage. *A
> marriage between a black and a white is still man + woman. *Now it is
> "*** marriage" which I guess is the term we'll use to define a
> marriage that is not between a man + woman. *Anyway I am sooo glad
> that it's the states that decide. *These are issues that need to be
> addressed state level. *I love people and I especially love happy
> people. *I do have views, and I am thoughtful and considerate of
> others and have served in the military along with some in my family
> who have died serving. *I may not agree with you, but I have
> sacrificed for you to have the freedom to express your view, and hope
> that there are others that see the need or calling to protect your
> future ability as well.

How come it was OK for Abraham (and a bunch of the others who were
God's favorites) to have multiple wives, but now it's one man, one
woman? I assume you're of an Abrahamic faith, right? Most anti-***
marriage folks self identify as Christian.

Now, I'm not a big fan of the Mormons, or other polygamous cultures,
but this is factually as well as I could have put it myself:
"We believe that the idea of multiple sexual partners is in no way
prohibited by the teachings of the Hebrew or Christian scriptures.

The ancient Hebrews, as portrayed in the Old Testament, clearly
believed in multiple partnerships and this practice is nowhere
condemned by God.

When the New Testament scriptures are viewed as a whole, taking
into account the cultural context in which they were written, it is
clear that neither Jesus nor the writers of the New Testament
condemned such practice, although it appears that polygamy had, for
non-religious reasons, substantially declined within Jewish culture by
the time of Christ."
source-- http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR324.htm

Can you show me where in the Bible it forbids plural marriage? You
can't. Yet you probably find the idea abhorrent, right? The Bible--
and indeed Christ himself--condemns no-fault divorce, which is a far
greater threat to my and your traditional marriage than is giving
equal legal status to same sex couples. Why not prioritize that? Are
you just going for low hanging fruit? Why gays?

I honor your military service, but you should realize that many LGBTs
have also served with honor.

The Bible also endorses slavery:
http://bible.cc/colossians/3-22.htm

Will you advocate for slavery?

Should a brother be directed to have intercourse with his dead
brother's widow, as it says in Gen 38? Where in the New Testament was
that revoked?

As rfc's self proclaimed Biblical scholar, I challenge you to debate
me in a very civil argument. I will not personally attack you, but
show me how your beliefs and knowledge of Scripture qualify you to
pronounce *** unions more un-Christian than the above practices.

I would not try to undermine your belief in Christ as your personal
savior. Many folks who I love and respect are sincere God loving
Christians, and I have had to overcome my own prejudices, and indeed,
bigotries. Like Saul of Tarsus, I myself was pretty nasty toward
Christians--and folks on this NG know how nasty I can be--but I now
embrace people of faith who have also come to accept that history has
moved beyond strict Biblical fundamentalism, and who have allied
themselves with other faith and non-faith believers in social justice.

A few weeks ago, I saw that our local Humanist fellowship gave its
service award to a Christian organization that serves the *least of
these*, and I was emotionally moved. If you do love people, and want
them to be happy, please realize that folks who are attracted to same
sex partners only want the happiness that I have in my own marriage,
and perhaps yours, though you didn't say whether you are married.

Think about what I wrote, and if you can't refute my positions, maybe
you will just close your mind, or maybe you will show me the errors in
my reasoning. More than likely you will not engage me. I'm humble
enough to give you a chance to prove me wrong. Are you similarly
humble?

I await your response.

--Bryan