[Vision2020] 07 05 05 Ny Times: United Church of Christ BacksSame-Sex Marriage

[Scott Dredge]

Of course I know the difference.  50 years ago,
society did not allow interracial marriage because it
was against societies mores and thus immoral.  There
are still many groups today who are against
interracial marriages and base their opinion on
Biblical grounds.  You can do a quick internet search
and find sites like:

http://christianparty.net/racemixing.htm

which post things like "Race Mixing An Abomination To
God" followed by postings of numerous Bible versus to
back up this asinine claim.

Society has evolved to the point where different races
are no longer banned by law from being married despite
the fact that some groups regard this as an
abomination to God and some very conservative groups
still ban things like interracial dating (or has Bob
Jones University lifted this ban due to the bad
publicity this reprehensible policy was generating). 
The moral of my point is that the "it's against God's
will" argument makes for some horrifically bad law. 
Especially when applying it in ways to punish
consenting adults who are hurting no one. 
Specifically interracial and/or same-sex couples.  And
who agrees anyway on Biblical interpretation?  This
entire thread was started by an article that the
United Church of Christ supports same-sex marriages. 
We have churches endorsing gay clergy.  We have
churches supporting same-sex marriages.  We have
countries legalizing same-sex marriages.

So, Mr. Toogood, your position is that you're against
legalization of gay marriage because it will open the
door for the legalization of polygamous marriages.  I
remain unmoved by your slippery slope argument.  At
this point, I have no opinion on polygamous marriages
other than I believe that there should be laws on the
books (and there are) to deal with situations of
fraud, such as when one person goes around marrying
multiple spouses for the purpose of bilking them out
of money and property.  As for consenting groups of
people who all want to be married...they can try and
make there case for equal treatment under the law if
they want to go this route.  If they have a legitimate
argument that they aren't receiving equal protection
under the law, it would be interesting to hear that
argument.  I've only heard this issue being brought up
by the anti-gay marriage crowd as an ineffective scare
tactic in an ineffective attempt to quash gay
marriage.

I'll anxiously await your one or two sentence counter
argument along the lines of "It's wrong/crazy to
legalized same-sex marriages" offering up no well
reasoned or logical discussion on the subject and
still claiming that I don't want to have a discussion
about the topic.

-Scott

--- donald toogood <dtoogood at email.com> wrote:

> He does know its different he just does'nt want to
> talk about what's its
> really about.
> 
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: "Pat Kraut"
>   To: "vision2020"
>   Subject: Re: [Vision2020] 07 05 05 Ny Times:
> United Church of Christ
>   BacksSame-Sex Marriage
>   Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 22:53:45 -0700
> 
>   >
>   > You truly cannot see the difference...no wonder
> our kids don't know
>   what
>   > morality is. We are doomed!
>   >
>   >
>   > ----- Original Message -----
>   > From: "Scott Dredge"
>   > To: "donald toogood" ;
>   > Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:40 PM
>   > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] 07 05 05 Ny Times:
> United Church of
>   Christ
>   > BacksSame-Sex Marriage
>   >
>   >
>   > Maybe you didn't understand my comment. At one
> point
>   > in this country not so long ago (around 1950),
> many
>   > states outlawed interracial
> marriages...something like
>   > 38 states banned them. Some had bans within
> their
>   > state constitutions. The reason why I bring this
> up
>   > is that it is a direct parallel to banning same
> sex
>   > marriage.
>   >
>   > Roughly 60 years ago in this country,
> interracial
>   > marriages were banned. A black man marrying a
> white
>   > woman was illegal. A white man marrying a black
> woman
>   > was illegal. You claim this isn't the same thing
> as a
>   > man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman.
> Why?
>   > If at one point, there were laws against
> interracial
>   > marriage and same sex marriage, what's the
> difference?
>   > They were both considered illegal marriages.
>   >
>   > Married can mean between a man and a woman.
> However,
>   > same sex couples in a civil union deserve the
> exact
>   > same rights as married couples.
>   >
>   > -Scott
>   >
>   > --- donald toogood wrote:
>   >
>   > > Black men and white women or white women and
> black
>   > > men marrying isnt' a
>   > > man marrying a man or a woman marrying
> woman.It's
>   > > different. How can you
>   > > say it's like that? Whites marrying blacks was
> still
>   > > marrying a different
>   > > sex, not like they want to do now. It's not
> bashing
>   > > anybody, it's just
>   > > not calling getting together with the same sex
> being
>   > > married. Married
>   > > means between a man and a woman and that's
> all.
>   > >
>   > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > From: "Scott Dredge"
>   > > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>   > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] 07 05 05 Ny Times:
>   > > United Church of Christ
>   > > Backs Same-Sex Marriage
>   > > Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
>   > >
>   > > >
>   > > > Churches will adapt. It wasn't very long ago
>   > > that
>   > > > interracial marriages were banned. It's bad
> PR
>   > > for
>   > > > the churches to continuously bash
> homosexuals
>   > > and it's
>   > > > a losing battle.
>   > > >
>   > > > -Scott
>   > > >
>   > > > --- donald toogood wrote:
>   > > >
>   > > > > That headline says the church did it. But
> if
>   > > you
>   > > > > read on down it was just
>   > > > > most of 800 delegates. The people in the
>   > > churches
>   > > > > didn't have any say in
>   > > > > it. No wonder churches like this are
> losing
>   > > their
>   > > > > members. The big shots
>   > > > > in the churches are making it so they
> don't
>   > > stand
>   > > > > for anything at all.
>   > > > > They'll go ahead and do something they
> know is
>   > > wrong
>   > > > > just so a few people
>   > > > > won't badmouth them. Well maybe it makes
> them
>   > > feel
>   > > > > better, but pretty
>   > > > > soon they'll be preaching to empty
> churches.
>   > > Just
>   > > > > like it says in this
>   > > > > article, some of the churches are probably
>   > > gonna get
>   > > > > out of that religion
>   > > > > if they let this gay marrying thing go.
>   > > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > >
>   >