Heya, folks. I'd like you all to go look at this:

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/millionformarriage/advocacy/jbare-140644

and

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/millionformarriage/fundraising/jbare-140644 (though I cannot for the life of me get the text there to edit, dang it)

Yep, that's me. Everyone here has meant a great deal to me in the last year (dear heavens, it's really been that long). Whether you decide to take political action or not, you've done amazing things by taking me in and supporting me even though my idea of a marriage has one MAJOR (and a few minor) differences from almost everyone else who's here.

Please, extend that to your friends, your family, your colleagues, and anyone else whose idea of marriage differs from yours in this one major way. We need your help, or we'll just keep having godawful things happen to us when those who can't see our marriages for what they really are try to destroy them.

Well at the risk of alienating my sisters and brothers in Christ, I sent the letters. I have always believed that the Lord made gays and lesbians the way they are. I do not believe it is a choice. This is where I differ from most Christians.

Here is a verse for you:

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).

I filled it out and it is in and I pasted it on to friends. Good Luck <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Just J:

I may be the only one to disagree with you but here are some articles that I read this week that I did tend to agree with.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37328

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37331

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37290

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/defenseofmarriage.html

<small>[ February 27, 2004, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: 4give ]</small>

Just J-

You've got my full support! I am sending the letters as well.

I'm with Believer on this one!

-- alegna

Just J

You have my full support, without knowing you I have always believed that any loving peron can be a wonderful parent, and two people in love deserve the full support of society.

As a fellow rabblerouser I want to commend you on your bravery.

Stay strong and keep fighting for what you believe in!

There are more that support you than don't!

I wonder how confused our children will be when they grow up? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

Brother, you are misusing this Scripture. The Bible must be accepted in it's totality. We, as believers, can't pick and choose which Scriptures to keep and which ones to throw out. The Bible is VERY clear that homosexuality is a choice, it is evil behavior, and that those who practice such behavior WILL NOT inherit the kingdom of God. Sorry to be so blunt with you and if you have a problem with the Scriptures, as a whole, I suggest you have a talk with the Divine Author.

Eduard - you are very correct. Is it any wonder that we may well be near the end of the age? A sign of the times, huh?

God bless you all!

John 16:33.

Hey! I'd cheerfully support you in your good fight but I do not live in your country...best of luck <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" /> ...awed

Hmmm. I had a few thoughts here about the Biblical interpretation of homosexuality, but in the end, I've decided to delete them.

The Bible is, in my view, an ancient and venerable text written by fallible human beings about extraordinary (and probably in some cases Divine) events.

As a source of ancient legal structures, it's interesting, but generally irrelevant to my views of the world.

But I will put this part in: God and I had a chat recently, in which He took a huge weight from my shoulders and reassured me about some things that were troubling me immensely. There was humor and good will and a tremendous power there, and love for me unlike any other.

And you know what? He didn't care that my partner is a woman.

I'll take that over all the Biblical references in the world.

And no. I'm not kidding.

<small>[ February 27, 2004, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Just J ]</small>

To everyone else,

Thank you very much for your support. The HRC web site is set up to send me an e-mail every time someone sends their support on to Congress, and I keep getting e-mails with names I don't know. I suspect that's all you folks... thank you thank you thank you!

Something passed along to me by a friend. This is from the UU newsletter.

================================
An Open Letter to President Bush

February 24, 2004

Dear Mr. President,

This morning you felt compelled to introduce an amendment to the Constitution of the United States defining marriage as existing only between one man and one woman.

You say that this will create "clarity." I would like you to share this clarity with my first grade daughter on her school playground, when the children, imitating their role models as they always do, will take up the issue. Because I dread those conversations with every fiber of my being.

Challenged by another child, my daughter will declare forthrightly that of course her two moms are married. After all, we have wedding photos in our home, as any couple does. They show her two moms, fifteen years ago, in front of our Unitarian Universalist Congregation. Smiling, with many of our friends and family members around us.

You see, we have not yet discussed with this seven year old, precocious as she is, the distinction between civil and religious marriage. She knows only that we are her parents, the only ones she's known. She knows that we got married in our church, as her aunts and uncles did, and that our neighborhood and church, her school and social circle, involves a significant number of kids with two moms and a few with two dads. She knows that we provide the only stability, the only bedrock, that she has ever known.

Of course she knows that there are people who say that two men or two women cannot be married. She knows that, not very long ago, some people said that no one could marry someone of a different race, but now of course we no longer believe that. But I haven't yet been able to break it to her that some people want to change our Constitution to say that our family isn't part of "We the people". I just haven't found a way to fit it in between soccer and karate and church.

Tonight I will sit her down, after we've done her homework, and have the conversation that I hoped I could avoid. I will tell her that you, the President of the United States, have decided that only a man and a woman can be married, and that you want to make that part of our Constitution. Yes, the document she adores from watching Liberty's Kids and reading Magic Treehouse books. I will tell her that I don't believe this change in the Constitution will happen, not enough people will vote for it. But it does mean that people may say very mean things to her at school about our family. She will be afraid. I will project confidence and good humor, but I will be afraid, too.

I do not want to teach my daughter that the President of the United States does not include our family in the people he serves and protects. I do not want to say to her that the very flag she loves will be waved by people who believe that it does not belong to our family.

Please, Mr. Bush, tell me how I should conduct myself "without bitterness or anger" at this time, as you instructed me today. Come over to my house tonight: you look at my daughter's eyes as they absorb the fact that you, the first President she has ever known, thinks she can no longer be included in the very Constitution of this land. You tell me how to "conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country." Because I am at a loss.

Sincerely,
The Rev. Meg A. Riley
Unitarian Universalist Association
Washington, DC

================================

I cannot support your weak attempts to legitimize homosexuality into an acceptable lifestyle choice. If you were using secular means I would say it's your business, but when you try to use Scripture to support it I see red.

Ok - try justifying New Testament references such as Romans 1:18-28, I Corinthians 6:9, Matthew 19: 4-6, I Timothy 1:8-11. These passages lend modern church credence to the Old Testament law as it pertains to homosexuality and perversion.

I warn you in the Spirit of Jesus that you are playing with fire when you deliberately distort and twist the Scripture to support this type of perversion. Please accept the love of Jesus and allow Him complete Lordship over your life, including your sexual side. I'm not saying this because I dislike you personally, but because of your methods.

hPK, I removed my references to the scripture even before I saw your note; in the end the Bible means very little to me as guidance. My relationship with the Divine has evolved out of entirely separate sources and much internal searching. Jesus and I haven't talked lately, though God and I have started an interesting conversation lately.

I must say, though, that accusing me of deliberately distorting and twisting Scripture is, at a very minimum, a disrespectful judgement.

It also happens to be false. The sum total of my suggestion was that you might want to speak to a knowledgeable rabbinical school regarding the true depths of the Bible. Please don't make more of my words than is there.

Just J,

You and I have been on here awhile. And you know, that I love to hear from you. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

I have to also let you know that I do not support this Constitutional amendment. But not for the reasons you might think. I am first and foremost a "States rights" guy, and believe that the federal government has overstepped its bounds in almost every area over the lat 100+ years. But, I wont go on with that political debate. Another time, another place.

Anyway, I believe that the US government has no right to be involved in things expressly reserved to the States. That is why I do not back the amendment.

But I do back changes in state laws, and state constitutions, making marriage an institution of one man, one woman, for life.

Just J, you know I love you. And I hear your argument. And we could go on and on here about whether I really know God, or whether your talk with God was really a talk with God, and not someone else. I think that conversation can happen if you would like, either on here...or by email.

But Promise Keeper is correct. And what he left out is so important here. You see, I say "The Word says, history has shown, etc." You say "I believe."

Now you are entitled to your opinion. Jesus has also allowed you to have free will and you are entitled to any opinion you want about Him, homosexuality, marriage, family, etc.

But you see, when we make up rules based on personal preferences and ideals, then we really have nothing but controlled anarchy. Where is your authority for your views? Where is the evidence of what you speak?

Polygamists believe they are called by God, thru the Mormon faith (the old faith) to live that way. Do we extend marriage rights to them? What is marriage? A man and a woman? Just two people, no matter what sex? 3, 4, 5+ people together? What is it? Who decides?

If we are to decide on our own understanding, then no one is wrong. You are not wrong, the Polygamist isnt wrong, the Christian isnt wrong. We are all right...and we have anarchy. Adultery isnt wrong. It is a lifestyle.

Dont you see? Those that take this point-of-view want life to be made in their image, in their understanding. Shoot, I want that. But for those Christians out there (and non-believers that care to check), our faith says in Ephesians Chapter 2 that we try to make the world in our image and ideas...and then we wonder why it is all a mess.

We dont hold fathers accountable nd we have sons raised in fatherless homes...on drugs, unemployed, no school. We brought in the free sex 60's, and now we have so many new STDs...many deadly. And at the same time, adultery is up, divorces are up...and we wonder what happened.

The NFL makes a contract for the Super Bowl halftime with MTV!!! And then we are SURPRISED by what happened! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> when we try to make it up as we go along, we only create a huge mess.

You are free to make your decisions about the Bible, about Christ. No one can take that away from you. I believe God gave us all freewill, to reject or accept Him and what he wants for our lives.

Do I believe that homosexuals have inside them a pull towards that lifestyle? Sure. You know what, my flesh has many pulls. It may not be that, but it does pull me towards many things that have gotten me in trouble in my life.

But that is the way I was born. I have these pulls, these tendencies toward certain sins (womanizing, pornography, etc). But I am human, and I have freewill. I can chose to act on those tendencies, or I cannot. If I cant chose, then I am no better than an animal...or an addict.

Look, my natural reaction to a naked female body is arousal. That is the natural reaction. It isnt a sin to be tempted. But, I am a married man. And if that naked woman is not my wife, then it would be wrong of me to act upon that pull, on that natural urge.

Can you see what I am talking about? Society is based on rules and morals. Where did they come from? If they just came from humans, then nothing is wrong or right. Then laws allowing slavery arent wrong. Or abortion. Or homosexual marriage.

So, if you are saying that homosexuality is natural, I would say "sure, it is the flesh...jsut like I have my own flesh I was born with." But if you say that you or anybody else hs no choice but to act on this, then what about my vices, what about my urges? What about the polygamist? why should we have to control what is ingrained in us?

So, we go back to the fact that unless these is an original author of these rules, these morals, then we have anarchy...and no right or wrong.

Now, if your argument is that you believe in a god that syas homosexuality is okay, then you believe that the morals and rules result from his/her teachings and commands. Fair enough.

But I have just one question if that is true. Just J, if I could prove to you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Bible is the unerroring Word of God, that Jesus Christ is theMessiah and Son of God...would you then accept what the Word says nd believe and move away from your flesh?

If your answer is no, then this isnt you cant. This is all about your will. But if you say yes, then I greatly look forward to a discourse, either here or via email, where we can share our views and I can lay out the facts as I know them.

I believe in the Word of God as inspired by Him, and thus without errors. I believe He shows me in His word that there are many things that my flesh wants to do, that was there from the beginning of my life, that He finds as sin. I believe that. I believe I am no better than the homosexual, or the adulterer, or even the murderer. God does not distringuish between sins. They all have the same penalties...death.

But this movie has shown what He did to atone for those sins...because the sins of all of us MUST be paid for. I chose to accept Jesus' gift, to let Him take on my sins, even though He didnt deserve it. Others will chose not to accept his gift. And then will claim as unfair when they reach Heaven, because they must be judged for their sins and carry the penalty for them. Christ took my penalty and He paid it. All I can do is say thanks.

So Just J, I am open and available to discourse with you, if yoru eyes are open. If you cannot answer the question I posed above with a yes, then there is really no point to any further discussion on this point.

I am not hateful, and I think I have proven this to you and others here. I look forward to your response.

In His arms.

Mortarman - You expressed very accurately what I felt but didn't have time to adequately express. Your insights are right on. Thank you.....thank you very much...............

Well said, Mortarman, I whole heartily agree. You have a gift in your ability to convey your thoughts so well.

Mortarman, I’m glad you don’t support this Constitutional amendment. It’s a travesty in all kinds of ways and I, too, tend to a “States rights” view of most things. As you say, though, this is neither the time nor place for that part of the debate.

The heart of the issue, for me, is whether the Institution of Marriage would be harmed by broadening its definition.

Would it, in fact, help our society to decide that people who are already taking certain actions WITHOUT the rule of law or societal mores must take those actions within the bounds that society sets for them, and be limited in the same way as the rest of the world is?

That's the issue, for me. And my answer is a resounding YES. Our society would be helped if we put more appropriate boundaries on certain behaviors, in order to allow for a more healthy and productive expression of them.

But Promise Keeper is correct. And what he left out is so important here. You see, I say "The Word says, history has shown, etc." You say "I believe."

When I speak about my faith, I say “I believe,” yes. That belief is between me and the Divine, though I occasionally share it with others. And when I speak an opinion, whether based in religious doctrine, scientific studies, or my own personal experience, I also say that “I believe” something. (And come to think of it, I haven’t used “I believe” at all in this posting, except right here.)

My opinions and thoughts regarding marriage come from the Harley texts, from works like _The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce_, from a relatively unflinching study of modern marital law (as applied to my own personal situation), and from the other modern works that inform marital scholarship. My study is far from complete, but that's what I work from. Modern science and ancient texts both have their place in defining marriage and its healthy structures.

I’m not a Christian, though. So when I speak about societal structures, I don’t use Christian religious contexts at all. I think in terms of socio-political, anthropological, and psychological ones, instead.

Now you are entitled to your opinion. Jesus has also allowed you to have free will

Uhm, wasn’t that Adam and Eve who did the free will thing? Truly, I’m not a Christian, but I did think that was an Adam and Eve story.

and you are entitled to any opinion you want about Him, homosexuality, marriage, family, etc.

Thanks.

But you see, when we make up rules based on personal preferences and ideals, then we really have nothing but controlled anarchy. Where is your authority for your views? Where is the evidence of what you speak?

My authority for the good of marriage comes from the texts I mentioned above.

I also believe that personal preferences come into all expressions of ethics and morality, yours as much as mine. You prefer Christianity, for example, over Judaism or Hinduism or communism or any other ethical structure. That’s fine with me – it’s a personal preference for a specific structure and if it works for you, great!

Mine is different, and it works for me. There's enough basic overlap between them that it works for society, so we're good to go.

Polygamists believe they are called by God, thru the Mormon faith (the old faith) to live that way. Do we extend marriage rights to them?

I see no ethical problem with polygamy. (I’m tempted to mention the polygamous relationships in the Bible, but I’m afraid of being attacked for that, too.)

Under what circumstances would I support a polygamous marriage? Under the same ones as I support any marriage: Figure out how to protect one another and the children. Figure out how to meet one another’s needs. Follow a strong Policy of Joint Agreement. Nurture the children and ensure that they thrive. In other words, live an ethical life within the confines of your marriage.

Do I think that polygamy really works? Not very often, but yes, it can. It was popular historically and in other societies is still practiced, and even here and now I know three or four families that have worked it out and live in more-than-two-adults marriages. They work at it very, very hard. People have a hard enough time with POJA with ONE spouse. Can you imagine the debates with multiple ones??? Makes my head hurt, personally.

What is marriage? A man and a woman? Just two people, no matter what sex? 3, 4, 5+ people together? What is it? Who decides?

Hmmm. I just finished writing a definition of marriage with Penny Tupy. If she approves it, I’ll post it here. But I will say that society decides what a marriage is. And societies all over the world differ on exactly what it means.

If we are to decide on our own understanding, then no one is wrong. You are not wrong, the Polygamist isnt wrong, the Christian isnt wrong. We are all right...and we have anarchy. Adultery isnt wrong. It is a lifestyle.

We have both polygamists and Christians in the United States today, but it doesn’t look like there’s much anarchy from my office window.

Society has a vested interest in its structures remaining constant over time. They lend stability and security to an otherwise dangerous and threatening world. So we are all benefited by agreeing to certain basic structures for interaction. Please, thank you, and marriage are all societal constructs that work surprisingly well.

But does society have it RIGHT all the time? Does one particular segment of society have a Divine Lock on what’s right? Again, no; history shows quite clearly that that’s not the case.

We’ve heaped hate and oppression upon all kinds of groups – blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, Irish, Germans, French (American Fries?!?), Iraqis, Muslims, Arabs, Jews.

Society screws things up with tremendous regularity, in fact. And much of the time it does so in the name of Jesus or other deities and prophets.

For me "wrong" is defined not by God, but by whether something is healthy for an individual and for society at large. So... polygamy and same-sex-marriage? Show me where they're dangerous for society or the individual. Adultery, I think we both know where the dangers are, there, for individuals and for society.

Dont you see? Those that take this point-of-view want life to be made in their image, in their understanding. Shoot, I want that. But for those Christians out there (and non-believers that care to check), our faith says in Ephesians Chapter 2 that we try to make the world in our image and ideas...and then we wonder why it is all a mess.

Personally, I’ve tried making life in my image more than anyone else I know. I’ve done things that I’ll regret for the rest of my life, and much of my pain over the last two years is of my own making. I’m fully aware of that, and I honor it as an experience that’s taught me more than most people have the chance to learn. I also fervently hope to never repeat the mistakes I've made.

All of it has given me the opportunity to really look, in a way that most people never can, at the rules I’ve broken, the lines I’ve crossed, the realities I’ve challenged and shattered. And what I see is that it’s not about who or what color or how many or any of those other rules that define people by arbitrary boundaries and then tell ‘em to stay on opposite sides of the line from one another.

It’s about the basic ethical rules that apply to everyone. Respect for one another. Treating each other well and gently. Being courteous. Being radically honest.

Those things are SOLID, all the way to their core. If you can follow them, then the “don’t step on this line because it’s a line and you’ll go straight to hell if you do” rules fade into the background.

The trouble is, the two kinds of rules are hard to separate. People make rules of “you’re different from us so we’re going to put you on the ‘bad’ side of the line” in addition to the rules of ethical behavior. People make rules for all kinds of reasons, and separating them out isn’t something most people do very well.

We dont hold fathers accountable nd we have sons raised in fatherless homes...on drugs, unemployed, no school. We brought in the free sex 60's, and now we have so many new STDs...many deadly. And at the same time, adultery is up, divorces are up...and we wonder what happened.

So you're saying that ethical behavior has dropped off. I agree with you. At the same time as all this stuff, we also began to end the oppression of women and African Americans and gays and lesbians, as well as many other flaws in our social system.

Now we have to rebuild the good parts of that system, while avoiding the parts that oppress segments of society for no healthy reason except that the guys on top wanted to oppress people.

Difficult to do, and I do't imagine that it'll be done any time soon.

The NFL makes a contract for the Super Bowl halftime with MTV!!! And then we are SURPRISED by what happened! when we try to make it up as we go along, we only create a huge mess.

Uhm, I have a sense that the Super Bowl halftime was quite well planned... all the way down to the last rip of the last stitch. Personally, I think the whole thing is stupid -- Super Bowl AND showing of breasts on American TV.

And really, how does this relate to a group of people who are currently living outside of a major societal structure and who are asking to be governed by it, exactly? It seems to me that in fact gays and lesbians are just about the only solid group of people in the country who are standing up and saying, en masse, "Hey!! Marriage is a good thing, dang it!"

You might want to support them on that one.

You are free to make your decisions about the Bible, about Christ. No one can take that away from you. I believe God gave us all freewill, to reject or accept Him and what he wants for our lives.

I’ve taken full use of that free will, thanks, and continue to.

Do I believe that homosexuals have inside them a pull towards that lifestyle? Sure. You know what, my flesh has many pulls. It may not be that, but it does pull me towards many things that have gotten me in trouble in my life.

In other words, "just because it’s natural doesn’t make it right." That's true, to an extent. It’s important to express the inner self, whoever that is, in ways that are healthy for the individual and the society.

But that is the way I was born. I have these pulls, these tendencies toward certain sins (womanizing, pornography, etc). But I am human, and I have freewill. I can chose to act on those tendencies, or I cannot. If I cant chose, then I am no better than an animal...or an addict.

We agree, here. Though I don’t consider pornography ITSELF sinful – its use to divert sexual energy from a marriage, on the other hand, is unethical, as are many of the practices used to create pornography. Still, a husband and wife who enjoy viewing a naughty magazine together are not sinning. You can choose to harness and use your energy for healthy expressions of your self, or you can choose unhealthy expressions of your self.

The Divine that I'm coming to understand asks for the healthy expressions of self.

Look, my natural reaction to a naked female body is arousal. That is the natural reaction. It isnt a sin to be tempted. But, I am a married man. And if that naked woman is not my wife, then it would be wrong of me to act upon that pull, on that natural urge.

Sure, that’s my natural reaction, too. And yes, acting on that arousal in a manner that hurts me or others is unethical and dangerous. However, I don’t define acting on that arousal within the confines of a union between two people as wrong. It doesn’t hurt me, it doesn’t hurt the other person (assuming she’s a consenting adult), and it doesn’t hurt society.

Can you see what I am talking about? Society is based on rules and morals. Where did they come from? If they just came from humans, then nothing is wrong or right. Then laws allowing slavery arent wrong. Or abortion. Or homosexual marriage.

Society is based on rules and morals, yes – what I’ve been calling ethical behavior. Ethical behavior is defined by humans, not by Divine Right, by imperfect humans who often make mistakes. These are human social structures, nothing more.

So, if you are saying that homosexuality is natural, I would say "sure, it is the flesh...jsut like I have my own flesh I was born with."

Good, we agree here.

But if you say that you or anybody else hs no choice but to act on this, then what about my vices, what about my urges? What about the polygamist? why should we have to control what is ingrained in us?

Has no choice but to act on this? Of course there’s a choice. The question in my mind is, what are healthy expressions of these natural urges? What allows the individual and the society to thrive?

So, we go back to the fact that unless these is an original author of these rules, these morals, then we have anarchy...and no right or wrong.

Sorry, I disagree here. Humans have been working under democratic principles for a long while, and under evolutionary ones for a whole lot longer. A Divine Hand is not necessary for there to be basic ethical structures in place for the functioning of human society. A human society that grows, changes, and learns.

Now, if your argument is that you believe in a god that syas homosexuality is okay, then you believe that the morals and rules result from his/her teachings and commands. Fair enough.

Homosexuality is, as you say, a natural urge. There is no right or wrong there. Ethical expression of that urge is where right and wrong come into play.

And there is no harm that comes to anyone from a gay or lesbian union that supports the individuals, children, and society to the same extent as a straight one.

I could dig out the research that points to adults and children coming out whole and healthy, and possibly moreso than in straight unions, but I don't have time at the moment. I think I ran across a recent reference to it at www.familyscholars.org, though -- in the blog section, which is absolutely fascinating to read.

Anyway, that leaves society, and personally I think society would be well advised to treat them the same as everyone else's marriages -- either regulate and tax them, or stay out of it altogether and for everyone.

But I have just one question if that is true. Just J, if I could prove to you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Bible is the unerroring Word of God, that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and Son of God...would you then accept what the Word says nd believe and move away from your flesh?

I’m sorry MM, but in all honesty, you’ve tied two things together that don’t go together for me. If you could prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible were the unerring Word of God, I would read it carefully and think a lot.

Would I move away from my flesh? Depends on what you mean here. If you mean giving up on my marriage to WP? Nope. I'm in Plan B, thanks, and I'll stay there. For me, for my WP, for my daughter.

Would I continue to work to understand healthy, ethical expression of who I am? Yes. I’m going to do that anyway, barring complete loss of my faculties.

If your answer is no, then this isnt you cant. This is all about your will. But if you say yes, then I greatly look forward to a discourse, either here or via email, where we can share our views and I can lay out the facts as I know them.

I don’t know what answer I gave you, MM. You and I work in very different frames of reference, so I’m not sure what you’ll take from what I have to say.

I believe in the Word of God as inspired by Him, and thus without errors. I believe He shows me in His word that there are many things that my flesh wants to do, that was there from the beginning of my life, that He finds as sin. I believe that. I believe I am no better than the homosexual, or the adulterer, or even the murderer. God does not distringuish between sins. They all have the same penalties...death.

Hm. I’m no better than you, MM, that's true. If you define us both as sinners, that’s fine. However, no, I do not equate homosexuality with sin. As you’ve said, it is a natural urge. And there are healthy ways to express those urges in our society.

But this movie has shown what He did to atone for those sins...because the sins of all of us MUST be paid for. I chose to accept Jesus' gift, to let Him take on my sins, even though He didnt deserve it. Others will chose not to accept his gift. And then will claim as unfair when they reach Heaven, because they must be judged for their sins and carry the penalty for them. Christ took my penalty and He paid it. All I can do is say thanks.[b]

Uhm, what movie? I assume that this is taken from your words about the Passion of the Christ. Which I won’t be seeing – not because the subject matter isn’t important, but because I choose not to expose myself to extreme violence in any form. I wish I were going to be able to see it, but I know what happens to me when I watch that stuff and I don’t need to be in that state right now.

But I'm not sure how it applies to what we're talking about here.

[b]So Just J, I am open and available to discourse with you, if yoru eyes are open. If you cannot answer the question I posed above with a yes, then there is really no point to any further discussion on this point.

Did I say yes or no? I honestly don’t know.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Just J:
<strong> Something passed along to me by a friend. This is from the UU newsletter.

================================
An Open Letter to President Bush

February 24, 2004

Dear Mr. President,

This morning you felt compelled to introduce an amendment to the Constitution of the United States defining marriage as existing only between one man and one woman.

You say that this will create "clarity." I would like you to share this clarity with my first grade daughter on her school playground, when the children, imitating their role models as they always do, will take up the issue. Because I dread those conversations with every fiber of my being.

Challenged by another child, my daughter will declare forthrightly that of course her two moms are married. After all, we have wedding photos in our home, as any couple does. They show her two moms, fifteen years ago, in front of our Unitarian Universalist Congregation. Smiling, with many of our friends and family members around us.

You see, we have not yet discussed with this seven year old, precocious as she is, the distinction between civil and religious marriage. She knows only that we are her parents, the only ones she's known. She knows that we got married in our church, as her aunts and uncles did, and that our neighborhood and church, her school and social circle, involves a significant number of kids with two moms and a few with two dads. She knows that we provide the only stability, the only bedrock, that she has ever known.

Of course she knows that there are people who say that two men or two women cannot be married. She knows that, not very long ago, some people said that no one could marry someone of a different race, but now of course we no longer believe that. But I haven't yet been able to break it to her that some people want to change our Constitution to say that our family isn't part of "We the people". I just haven't found a way to fit it in between soccer and karate and church.

Tonight I will sit her down, after we've done her homework, and have the conversation that I hoped I could avoid. I will tell her that you, the President of the United States, have decided that only a man and a woman can be married, and that you want to make that part of our Constitution. Yes, the document she adores from watching Liberty's Kids and reading Magic Treehouse books. I will tell her that I don't believe this change in the Constitution will happen, not enough people will vote for it. But it does mean that people may say very mean things to her at school about our family. She will be afraid. I will project confidence and good humor, but I will be afraid, too.

I do not want to teach my daughter that the President of the United States does not include our family in the people he serves and protects. I do not want to say to her that the very flag she loves will be waved by people who believe that it does not belong to our family.

Please, Mr. Bush, tell me how I should conduct myself "without bitterness or anger" at this time, as you instructed me today. Come over to my house tonight: you look at my daughter's eyes as they absorb the fact that you, the first President she has ever known, thinks she can no longer be included in the very Constitution of this land. You tell me how to "conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country." Because I am at a loss.

Sincerely,
The Rev. Meg A. Riley
Unitarian Universalist Association
Washington, DC

================================ </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Interesting, but she does not have two moms. Assuming even one is her biological mother she has 1 mom, and a sort of live in caretaker (I assume she is not other category of actual kin), call her an "aunt"....lots of people have non-bio adult caretakers/mentors...not a bad thing at all per se...but not a "mom" or a "dad". And all the rhetoric in the world doesn't change those facts. If neither is a bio mom, and if she is adopted, same same. If she is simply in the care of two adults with no legal standing, then neither is a mom... One aspect of parenting is role modeling, mentoring, as well as protecting and promoting the child's interest...it matters little the "title" of the person doing so, the bonds will be the same, and they will be very different than the bonds one has by virtue of genetics with a bio parent. If we want to dilute the label of parent to include any caretaker, then I suppose we can do so...but it really doesn't change anything at all.....one cannot label their way into bio-bonding.

sufdb, can you please provide the scientific references to support your assertion?