Society can’t sanction “immoral behavior” if society can’t arrive at a consensus of what “immoral behavior” truly is or is not.

Until that time arrives, society should stay out of people’s personal lives.

It’s an odd time in our nation when a liberal Democrat is screaming for less government involvement.

Happy voting, everyone.

My logic is this — that the government should not sanction immoral behavior. Unlike the existing law, this is being decided by the people and the legislature, not the legislature alone. As such, the state is not imposing its morality on the people; the people are imposing their morality on the state. As I implied in my response to the Rev. Davidson, churches should be allowed to perform any marriage ceremony they want, just don’t require that the government of the people condone them all.

As for your arguing with me, I doubt you ever thought you could convince me, nor I you. However, I suspect there are still some undecided voters who read your blog. Will you allow my arguments to go unchallenged (many of them do, I notice), or will you simply ban me?

BS, your litany of good works will not save your soul. We are not saved by our works, but by God’s grace alone. Even if this amendment does not pass, homosexual marriage will still be illegal in VA. There is no reason for me to leave just yet.

If you are truly worried about the rights of others, you will support George Bush and George Allen against the Islamists, who do not just keep homosexuals from having their relationships recognized by the state, but execute them for it.

I’m a veteran. I’m a good citizen. I support my community and I pay my taxes. I tithe, donate my share to charities, and try to help those less fortunate. I don’t bother anyone. I’m honest and am a gentle and compassionate soul. I don’t lie or steal. I’m considerate and care for my fellow man. make a good, loyal, and trusting friend. I do onto others as I’d have them do onto me. I am truly sorry that I don’t measure up to your ideals..

I respect my fellow man up to the point where he feels that he is somehow justified to take away the rights of me or others. Yes, I will proudly be voting NO on the amendment this coming Tuesday- and in effect cancelling out your vote. I feel it the only humane thing to do…

As for me leaving and going somewhere else – it ain’t gonna happen! I’m here! I’m queer! Get over it! If you don’t like it – please feel free to exercise your right to go anywhere else where you feel more comfortable. I wish you peace and happiness on your journey!

I noted that you failed to take on the Rev. Todd Davidson for his logic in why he – a man of faith – is against the amendment.

Lined up in support of the amendment are the morality police – who are unwilling to see any repercussions beyond defining marriage.

Lined up against is everybody else.

I will not argue further with you, Jack, and I am urging everyone who posts here on this issue to do the same. There is nothing that can be said to those who think their morality superior to ours that is going to make them change their minds.

Done, now.

Now, what “basic right” am I attacking?

Seriously, one of democracy’s biggest problems is people like you. Not particularly well informed, strongly held beliefs, and no real interest in forging consensus or learning to live and let live. It’s hard to want to let someone play the game when all they want to do is wreck it.

Fear tactics like this: “…this is the first step in a series of rights being taken away from the citizens of Virginia.”

Or this: “…the amendment will be used by opposing factions in families seeking to deny unmarried partners of loved ones the right to hospital visitation, to decide about organ donation or burial, or to determine guardianship of children.”

As for different countries and states, that is why we have different coutries and states, because we have different cultures and values. This is not a communist country — if you do not like the culture in your state, you are free to move to another. If you do not like the culture of this nation, you are free to go elsewhere. (Canada is nice, but the violent crime rate is outrageous.)

Political scientists so far are concluding that 20 states have adopted definition of marriage amendments largely due to the Republican strategy of using fear of activist judges to mobilize authoritatively controlled evangelicals to the polls. It is inconsistent to argue that 20 states have passed such an amendment and not mention that The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, South Africa, Canada and Massachusetts do allow gay marriage — and many other counties and states allow civil unions.

I am reminded of the words of Spanish prime minister Luis Zapatero, hailing the inclusion of homosexual couples in his (predominately Catholic) country’s marital laws.

“We are not legislating, honorable members, for people far away and not known by us. We are enlarging the opportunity for happiness to our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends and, our families: at the same time we are making a more decent society, because a decent society is one that does not humiliate its members… Today, the Spanish society answers to a group of people who, during many years have, been humiliated, whose rights have been ignored, whose dignity has been offended, their identity denied, and their liberty oppressed. Today the Spanish society grants them the respect they deserve, recognizes their rights, restores their dignity, affirms their identity, and restores their liberty. It is true that they are only a minority, but their triumph is everyone’s triumph. It is also the triumph of those who oppose this law, even though they do not know this yet: because it is the triumph of Liberty. Their victory makes all of us (even those who oppose the law) better people, it makes our society better. Honorable members, There is no damage to marriage or to the concept of family in allowing two people of the same sex to get married. To the contrary, what happens is this class of Spanish citizens get the potential to organize their lives with the rights and privileges of marriage and family. There is no danger to the institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this law enhances and respects marriage.”

In any event, I never said that BEING homosexual is immoral. Homosexual ACTS are immoral. It does not matter whether homosexuality is a choice or not — we choose our behavior.

The Bible tells us that “fornication” is immoral. That includes both heterosexual and homosexual acts. No exceptions were made for those who could not find a person of the opposite sex whom they wanted to marry, or who were not inclined to do so. Homosexual relationships were never accepted in the Bible, despite silly attempts to claim that David and Jonathan were lovers.

A thought to leave you with:

If homosexuality is not a choice, why are there so many homosexuals in prison? If homosexuality is genetic, why are there not more homosexual Greeks, since homosexuality was widely practiced there in the past?

definition: immoral – conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles

Perhaps decades ago in America homosexuality might have been considered immoral, but today science, medicine, and enlightened countries, states, religions, and individuals agree that being gay or lesbian is a state of being and not a moral choice.

I see science as the uncovering of God’s law and I see my ability to independently think and reason as a purposeful gift given by God. To not use my reason in context with facts is to me, to live a life based in superstition. And to discriminate against a group of individuals based on ignorance or pre existing bias, is to me a sin against God.

I can only speak for myself; I cannot say why others are voting for the amendment, but I will tell you why I will vote for it:

Simply put, I believe homosexual relationships are immoral, and should not be santioned by the government.

As for the second paragraph, I believe sexual relations outside of marriage are also immoral, and should not be sanctioned by the government. If heterosexual couples want the benefits that go with marriage, they can get married.

Vivian’s “Reason to Vote No” countdown is amusing, but so far wholly unconvincing.

I am a citizen of Virginia – why do I have to jump through hoops to get something that you, as a heterosexual, get as a right of birth? If I can, according to you find some legal way to get all these things, why does it make reasonable sense for the state to make it an expensive, onerous task? Is this punishment for my being gay?

If you will excuse me, I’m researching the law on guardianship now.

Any person may designate in a signed and notarized writing, which has been accepted in writing by the person so designated, an individual who shall make arrangements for his burial or the disposition of his remains, including cremation, upon his death.

Consider an unmarried couple, gay or straight, that decides in Virginia that they want to approximate the rights and benefits of marriage and who go to an attorney and pay untold amounts of money to have wills, contracts, visitation rights, declarations concerning life sustaining procedures, child custody, etc. etc. drawn up.

“This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage”

Legal experts are already having opposing views on whether or not these documents are prima facie evidence of a violation of the marriage amendment. When there is anything at stake: property, children, emotions, etc, you can be sure there will be endless litigation.

All it takes is for someone to charge that such a designation confers one of the “rights, benefits, obligations, qualities or effects of marriage” and it’s out the window.