Oh woops. sorry slim, i didn't see it. maybe I should get my glasses checked.

Wow, I can't believe that this post has not been locked. I love that it hasn't because I truly enjoy reading other people's opinions about politics, religion or other beliefs and what motivates them to these beliefs, whether I agree with them or not.

Ok, here goes, IMO I believe that it is morally wrong. I'm not saying that I advocate violence towards them at all. If they choose this lifestyle, I believe that they will burn in hell, but it's not for me to judge them.

What I do know to be a fact and not an opinion is that it is a choice and they were not "born this way". The reason I know this and how it was explained to me years ago was, if they were born this way they would soon die out as they cannot reproduce. Much like if the world was made up of nothing but men the human race would cease to exist very soon. It is a choice no different than deciding to smoke or not to smoke, to be a vegetarian or to eat red meat.

We have the same "gay marriage ban" in Ohio now as it was voted by something like a 90-10 majority in the 04 election. As it should be, majority rules. That's what democracy is all about.

redsfan said what I meant to say. Like in my Methodist church, my Sunday School teacher said not to judge them, but to invite them to church and show them the way God meant for them to be. They are welcome in my church. I have had 2 personal friends, men, that were gay and I thought the world of them both. One was in my younger days when I lived out in Odessa and the cook at the truck stop I worked at, Penwheel at the 100 mm (I think), was gay and he always went partying with us girls. We just told him hands off 'our men' lol. The other is here and was involved in horses and my daughter and I did trail rides with his jumping club. He was killed on his horse about 3 years ago. Don't know where he went, but again I'm like redsfan and i believe he went to hell, I hope not tho. They were both good men, just confused.

Did your friend believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with all his heart, and confess with his mouth?

Well I was with you up till the last two sentences. Our founding fathers thought democracy was a dirty word. This country was NEVER founded on the principle of democracy, nor is that word found anywhere in our constitution. We ( this country ) operates under "rule of law", and equal protection under the law.

What you are suggesting would be "mob rule". If we operated under mob rule then slavery would still exist today. This is why it was important for Iraq to draft their constitution using rule of law as a basis. IMHO I think this is one reason the middle east in in the chaos it is. They have a mob rule system. The big group bullies the little group to the point of killing them off.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I wanted to get that off my chest.

Carry on!

well, you couldn't have said it any better. thats exactly how i feel.

While, I will agree with you to a certain extent, I would like to clear a few things up. I am not suggesting a "mob rule" nor do I feel that a mob and democracy are the same thing. Our founding fathers never thought democracy was a "dirty word" as a matter of fact there are several references to it, the difference is that they used words like "elect" rather than "democracy". These words have essentially the same definition.

Democracy is defined as: "majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group". Mob is defined as: "a disorderly crowd of people". In no way, shape or form am I suggesting that they mean the same thing. As a matter of fact, they are much closer to being total opposites.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that our country was founded and is operated under a "rule of law" and I believe that this is they way it needs to be, but I disagree on the slavery aspect. In order for slavery to be abolished it required a constitutional amendment, which was ratified in 1865. So, if we went entirely by the "original" rule of law, as I assume you are suggesting, slavery would still exist today not the other way around. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your stance on the issue (which isn't even the original issue of this post...sorry...) and if so I apologize.

I also apologize for hijacking this thread...

I agree with you wholeheartedly that our country was founded and is operated under a "rule of law" and I believe that this is they way it needs to be, but I disagree on the slavery aspect. In order for slavery to be abolished it required a constitutional amendment, which was ratified in 1865. So, if we went entirely by the "original" rule of law, as I assume you are suggesting, slavery would still exist today not the other way around. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your stance on the issue (which isn't even the original issue of this post...sorry...) and if so I apologize.

I also apologize for hijacking this thread...

I think we are BOTH misreading each others posts :lol: . Yes! You just made my point. The Constitution IS the law, the highest law, if you will. Had it ( the issue of slavery ) been put to a vote by the people, it would not have been abolished. Also the part about "mob rule" was a bad choice of phrase on my part, but you got the meaning anyway. I think we are both on the same page. I just don't do a very good job of expressing myself in type.

Now back to the orgional topic............ ( sorry Slim )[/quote]

Not my Thread!!!

But I believe you 2 where on the same page anyway.

No it's mine and you all can hijack it how ever you want to.