mj412

Mark sounds rather gloomy , yet it is written in the scripture that is what will happen , to those who deny the one true God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the mean time while still holding a breath I will vote and I will inform those with ears to hear that in ths Country we call America it is the people who have the power to say what we will and will not tolerate . It is a truth we are willing to send thousands of young men to die for , It is the freedom that allows me to pray to see justice for all. It is my land my country and my responibility as a christianand an American to keep these truths in the foremost mind of evey man and woman for as long as we must. I do not doubt Gods Power to lead His people to a land without sin , nor do I lose faith in those who worship Him to do what they must to love one another each day as Jesus Christ Commands us to do. I am not a coward I will stand untill the day of victory, that is indeed a promise for all who Love Him. [This message was edited by mj412 on February 16, 2004 at 8:56.] [This message was edited by mj412 on February 16, 2004 at 9:15.]

do not ask do not tell is policy . the Commander in Chief ( our president)of our Services listens to his people . that is what matters and that is the difference. maybe you do not believe it maybe many Americans do not believe it Yet many still do believe in America for the people and of the people. I do not hate homosexuals I just do not pity them .

my point exactly they are not allowed to be homosexual in the armed forces. I think everyone wants someone to protect us all from terrists and it is our services that do it in which homosexuals are not welcomed. If found out punishment is warranted. for reasons . it is primarily BEHAVIOURS . soldiers do not want to be in battle along side homosexuals . They can love their country , they can vote as well, as a minority , but no Trefor we do not want them to protect or SERVE our citizens. My son can still be drafted to make sure you have the right to have sex with who ever you please , but an American homosexual does have the honor of dying for its people or yours. Funny how you switch the line from being the loudest VICTIMS to the point you will never be our HEROS. which way is it? I do not read in history of a time homosexuals had such a power base and johnny may not so off base in alluding to where it may come from , it does not matter , what matters is our constitution and how we vote here Trefor. What we as a people believe to be right and wrong. We are the most powerful nation I believe for a reason and that is the people , that believe in the freedom that brought us together united as one under God. Other countries do allow gays in their army we do not hmmm speaks about America doesnt it? YES it does and as same sex marriage we will indeed speak again LOUD and clear for all the world to watch . As long gone stated we are involved now and we will decide . And we will stand together as a people who love our country and decide what is best. The American Spirit will never die unless as individuals allow it, and we will not . [This message was edited by mj412 on February 15, 2004 at 21:51.] [This message was edited by mj412 on February 15, 2004 at 21:54.]

jonny Lingo he wanted to stop anyone from reading MY post against his ideals . yes flood with your emotionalism and writings Trefor but bottom Line is homosexuals are a minority in America , and not one that is abused for darn sure. Majority rules iN AMERICA for a reason and Im still waiting for the two guys that feel we should understand how much you love one another to join in the SERVICE of our Country and die with the MEN willing and able to fight for what we cherish as TRUTH in our Country. To protect their families which God himself honors. oops my bad they better keep their mouth shut about that LOVE huh man hmmm? do not ask do not tell. I do not hate homosexuals but I sure do love America and the men willing to die for us to live as we see fit, and to liberate other countries and keep ENGLAND safe from their own 9/11 and other terroists. and homosexuals are not ALLOWED in that MAJORITY either! Thank God . [This message was edited by mj412 on February 15, 2004 at 17:02.]

Excuse me really excuse ME!~ comparing slavery to homosexual marriage? I do not think so. In the battle GETTYSBURG 53,000 men died. WHITE MEN mostly as few slaves were free and even fewer allowed to fight this was a battle of man standing on what is wrong and right for ALL men . 53,000 died for a cause in ONE BATTLE and the war raged on for two more years after that. This same sex marriage ideal is not a battle of freedom this is a battle of behaviours and money and if our NATION is built on the premise of IN GOD WE TRUST (why did we come to this new country? anyone remember? here?) THIS will not break our founding Fathers vision of a country that will fight for the GOOD of ALL MEN, not just a select few as that is exactly where we came from! that is why we left the kings rule. geez I know I get emotional I do but so few recognize this baby countrys history and strength and ride these emotional thoughts of reasoning , without considering what it means to our great UNION ! We must not allow it to break down , it is our country our land our voice . In God we do trust I still believe it . do you?

yeah ok Roy real = bank counterfeit = lake of fire ok fine, the problem comes in on who thinks the real or the counterfeit may or may not be. I think many are called but few are chosen and many will be in for a surprize surprize!

another problem is the peoples resposibility to educate themselves about who thinks what in political circles and to vote as a personal responsibility instead of party . it can be done ya know. But as far as thinking I believe the American people may be the most informed about the choices our nation face if we chose to be educated . I see the process as an individual citizen responsibility now but did not always recognize this as what will be our contribution to making it happen. uh oh sorry johnny if this is derailing your thread..

I do not look into what other states have applied , NY is large enough for me to try to keep track of really, and it sounds like it is a needed thing to take care of the children . If allowed to marry it would be universal and an automatic thing . I think Trefor is right tho, we do discriminate against same sex unions, bottom line Long Gone the REASON Homosexuals want to be married is not as much about religion as it is for the benefits married people recieve in this country which are numerous and they can not . I think if it was just about What God thinks or religous freedom, Homosexual would do as every other group does and make their own church or sect and worship as they see fit and get married in it and carry on . Because 20 states have modified adoption laws to fit same sex unions does not lessen the FACT we do discriminate against Gay parents and unions, we do. They do not have equal rights or laws applied to them as a married couple does . The question is really is it against the constiution of our Country to do this isnt it? In my opinion it is not . but we as a nation do discriminate by saying they can not legaly marry and with that discrimination we withhold the priviledges and entitlements being married has for us by LAW. Trefor It is difficult for someone from another country to understand the "spirit" of freedom America allows its people. Looking in it may appear we pick and chose who is right and wrong in a manner that is hurtful to the minority, but I regard my country as one of the largest giving Nations of this earth. America is powerful because of its people which is who choses how we live. Our process allows the people to speak ( and then some if you ask me) and we have a system that works for the people. Problems? yes and they will never end in the constant debate of the New Country Called America because we are making a country of and for the people it must constantly change ideas and laws and such because we as a people grow and change. I love America and its govt. and its people who make it so.

Massachusetts Marriage Debate Dead Ends by Gary Schneeberger, editor SUMMARY: Lawmakers end two-day, 18-hour session with more work to do on preserving the traditional definition of marriage. BOSTON -- The Massachusetts Legislature ended more than 18 hours of debate over two days early this morning without arriving at a decision on allowing their constituents to have a say in how marriage is defined in the Bay State. Lawmakers adjourned the constitutional convention that began Wednesday, during which time they were to consider the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment, just after midnight without actually ever discussing that measure. In fact, liberals ensured the session ended in gridlock by launching a filibuster for the last hour of Thursday's debate. The convention is scheduled to reconvene March 11 to continue consideration of how best to answer last November's Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruling that denying homosexual couples marriage licenses violates the state constitution. Speaker of the House Thomas Finneran, considered an ally of pro-family activists on this issue, said it's not surprising a final resolution has yet to be reached. "No one should expect that decisions of this magnitude would be made casually or quickly," he said. "Our efforts will continue." But Ron Crews, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute and chief spokesman of the Coalition for Marriage, said he was "very disappointed" that lawmakers have at least temporarily ignored the thousands of people who have made it clear they want to vote to protect the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. "A lot of citizens are going to wake up (today) very upset because their legislators haven't done what they were elected to do," Crews told CitizenLink. "This was very clearly an attempt by the (Legislature's) leadership to prevent members of this body from voting on the 'Ma & Pa.' " Not only was the 'Ma & Pa' -- the colloquial name for the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment -- not voted on, it wasn't even discussed. Instead, debate over the course of the convention's two days centered on four alternative proposals, three of which were voted down by slim majorities of the joint session of the House and Senate. Passage of amendment language would be the first step to a statewide ballot question in 2006. Each of the alternative measures mentioned in some fashion civil unions -- either explicitly creating them as the equivalent of traditional marriage in the constitution or noting that the Legislature could, at a later date, choose to enact them separately. Such efforts were designed to appease pro-gay pressure groups and lawmakers who support special rights for homosexuals, who contended that the Ma & Pa, by simply restricting marriage to the union of a man and a woman, would forever outlaw any legal recognition of same-sex unions by any other name. Two civil-unions proposals -- one from Finneran (which said the Legislature would consider such arrangements at a later date) and one from Senate President Robert Travaglini (which would have created civil unions in the constitution), were defeated Wednesday; a third, from Rep. Philip Travis, the sponsor of the 'Ma & Pa,' was defeated 103-96 on Thursday. Ironically enough, homosexual activist groups opposed all three proposals, arguing that anything less than full marital rights left them as victims of discrimination. Travis, whose compromise proposal simply would have said that nothing in the bill would "require or prohibit civil unions in Massachusetts," grew increasingly frustrated as Thursday wore on and it became clear his colleagues were moving toward adjournment without agreeing to put any measure before the voters. "I will not you get off the hook on the question of marriage," he vowed in a speech from the floor of the House chamber. "You will not escape the wrath of the general public. You will not be able to face them when you go back home." The only constituents lawmakers had to face inside the State House, in the immediate wake of their vote to adjourn, was a throng of nearly 200 homosexual activists who spent the majority of the day Thursday clogging the main hallway outside the House chamber while chanting slogans like "No Discrimination" and singing such songs as "The Star-Spangled Banner" and "This Land is Your Land." Pro-family activists, who gathered in impressive numbers Wednesday, were in short supply Thursday -- their absence explained by one protest organization as a function of their only being able to take one day off of work to monitor the proceedings. A handful prayed quietly in the State House basement. Had they been paying attention to the chaos upstairs, much of what they would have heard would have surely upset them. Lawmakers favoring full marriage rights for homosexuals chewed up the lion's share of Thursday's debate time, equating the denial of such rights to everything from the enslavement of blacks to the policies of Nazi Germany to the moral milieu of the novel "The Scarlet Letter." An openly lesbian representative philosophized on how marriage, historically, has been an "evolutionary creation." And another gay-marriage supporter questioned the wisdom of letting the people vote on such an emotionally charged issue, noting that when Pontius Pilate tried that approach the people demanded he free Barabbas instead of Jesus. One of the sole bright spots for those with a traditional view of marriage and family was Rep. Marie Parente, D-Milford, one of the senior members of the House, who chided fellow lawmakers for saying that it was improper to debate the issue from a religious perspective. In fact, stories about racism and sexism and all sorts of other -isms, she said, only underscore the need for God. "Men fail -- that's why we need to talk about God once in awhile," she explained. "When I was a child, there was a guy who went to school with me every day, and He never failed me. But I'm not even supposed to say His name to you in here." When Parente and her colleagues reconvene the constitutional convention next month, the matter before them will be a fourth civil-unions compromise measure, one that establishes such arrangements as providing "entirely the same benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities that are afforded to couples married under Massachusetts law." That's language the Coalition for Marriage cannot support, Crews said, although he added he has some hope Travis' original amendment might still be heard. "We now have a recorded vote on this matter, so we know a little better now who is with us and who we need to talk to," he said. "We have some work to do over the next month, but I believe that this will be a wake-up call to some people out there who are concerned about the family." TAKE ACTION: It is more important than ever that the members of the Massachusetts Legislature here from Bay State residents about the importance of preserving the traditional definition of marriage. 1) Call and e-mail Massachusetts state lawmakers and tell them to let the people vote on the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment. If you live in Massachusetts, you can compose an e-mail that will be sent to your members of the Legislature at: http://capwiz.com/fof/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=4194006 All Americans, though, have a stake in this issue, because if the court's decision stands, homosexual couples from any state who receive marriage licenses in Massachusetts could demand that their home states recognize those so-called marriages. So, no matter where you live, if you want to send e-mail to Massachusetts lawmakers. You can do that at: http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/A0028893.cfm You will be taken to a list of e-mail addresses you can copy and paste into an e-mail, allowing you to reach every legislator with one e-mail. Additionally, Massachusetts residents and all Americans should also call the state's lawmakers. To reach a lawmaker's Capitol office, call the Capitol switchboard at 617-722-2000 and ask for the senator or representative by name. You can find district office phone numbers at: http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/A0028892.cfm 2) You also can contact your U.S. congressman and senators and urge them to support a marriage-protection amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For complete information about the Federal Marriage Amendment, including sample e-mails you can send to your elected officials in light of last Tuesday's court ruling in Massachusetts, please see the Stop Judicial Tyranny Action Center: http://www.family.org/cforum/judicial_tyra...tion.cfm?pt=fma =================== Gary Schneeberger Editor Pete Winn Associate Editor Trish Amason Editorial Coordinator Peter Brandt Director, Issues Response Tom Minnery Vice President, Public Policy Don Hodel President and CEO, Focus on the Family Dr. James C. Dobson Founder and Chairman, Focus on the Family --------------------------------- Copyright © 2004, Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. CitizenLink is a policy and culture information service of Focus on the Family, a ministry sustained by the contributions and prayers of supporters. This e-mail may not be used for commercial or political purposes. Subscribers are encouraged to send this e-mail to others and/or print it in its entirety, without any changes, for noncommercial and nonpolitical use only. Because of the time-sensitive nature of the material published in this e-mail newsletter, subscribers are permitted to reprint individual articles in their entirety, without any changes, for noncommercial and nonpolitical use only. Individual articles must be accompanied by the author's byline, as well as the following copyright information: "Copyright © 2004, Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. This article appeared in CitizenLink Daily Update published (date), a policy and culture information service of Focus on the Family. For more information, see www.citizenlink.org." For all other reprint requests, please send your request in writing to family-permission@custhelp.com or by fax at 719-531-3391. CitizenLink does not regularly print letters to the editor, but if you would like to submit a comment or question, send it to citizenlink@family.org. PLEASE NOTE: Due to the volume of e-mails we receive, it is possible that we may not be able to respond to your e-mail. If you would like further information on Family News in Focus stories, call (800) 782-8227..0 this is to help people hear what is the issue and to speak directly with those who will decide . [This message was edited by mj412 on February 17, 2004 at 10:05.]

Long gone your last paragraph is all I bothered to read as your the one who is confused in my opinion. If allowed to marry homosexuals would have those same rightand LAWS concerning the family unit which are quite serious and often needed to maintain the welfare of the children and spouse in a lawful and fair manner. Marriage of homosexuals would allow these same entitlements and laws to them as any other marriage is entitled. this is a reason they want to be legaly married . mary and john adopt a child together . john and tom can not . John dies mary gets some nice social security check for herself and the children of that marriage. John dies Tom recieves zero social security benefits for himself or the child they raised together. John leaves mary for another mary nails him for child support and half the property . John leaves Tom tom has the child an no child support and a lose of a major financial contribution to the family income. Mary leaves John and takes the kid and in the divorce a plan is made to allow the child both parent equal time for the parent to fullfill their resposiblity and love for the child . John leaves Tom and takes the child and no vistation orders are ordered by law and the child is now without his right to the other half of his family unit. Tom has major medical insurance at his job but because it was John sperm they used in the surrogate parenting Tom is not the parent and is not married to John so benefits are denied to the family. no this is not the same as a step family as a step child has another parent. these are the parents of the child and the parents must go through additional court hearing and requsts to be given the same rights and laws any other parent would have in life. these are just a few examples of the unfairness homosexual families must face. if allowed to marry homosexuals would have the same laws and rights and entitlements married people have today . [This message was edited by mj412 on February 13, 2004 at 21:27.]

Right! But a step child may have benefits from his dead parent or child support from the other parent. and vistation granted to keep the relationship intact! that is right see what iM saying now? It leaves the children from these gay or lesbian families is a much more difficult place. they do split and children are involved and it does get ugly as all break ups can . vistation from the only other parent and in some cases the primary care giver is not a law, grand parents aunts etc. child support and standard of living may decrease beyond a reasonable measure without child support enforcement. and medical benefits cannot be granted etc. these are the only parents the child knows and it is their only family . They have in some cases no rights by law to see brothers or sisters they grew up with or the only other parent or family in their life! In a legal marriage these are considered rights by law and dealt with in a split. Children without these laws can not get the same rights our other children have and are left to the mercy of the fighting couple, and I feel this is a very serious issue . I know many step parents fill the role of an absent parent but the other real parent still must by law uphold financial support and does have rights to the child. In homosexual relationships none of these laws are assumed and YET this is the ONLY other parent the child has a relationship with. [This message was edited by mj412 on February 13, 2004 at 13:50.] [This message was edited by mj412 on February 13, 2004 at 13:52.]

what law enforces child support from a same sex partner? social securtiy does not go to the same sex partner or a child as far as I know where do you guys think this? again additional court orders would have to be held it isnt a LAW! or a benefit. where ? if a mom dies dad gets social security if a dad dies mom gets social security and the case of who has the children is not a question in same sex it is far more complex as only one parent has adopted or has the genes that make them a parent the other is left out in the cold. What company do you know of that allows for medical benefits for a same sex partner? some do but very very few . many times the children have to be "legal" and in same sex marriages only ONE adopts or has common genes what if that isnt the one who has the job for the insurance? a man and wife get it because it is a family policy and it is assumed by either the man or the woman as a "family' policy. you guys say that but it isnt true . It is not in the law that these children recieve the same benefits a hetrosexual family would get.

Zixar the insurance is often one that is paid for by the state . esp if born with Aids , the US govt benefits are the only one who cover the outrageous long term expense of Aids . 'regular insurance runs out very quickly and often the person is not able to work and collect the social security money they get for having the diagnoses. this allows them to be eleigble for gvt insurance from the state that has zero limits. Hiv infection is when you start collecting the money and the treatments to keep you out of the Aids stage and death . we can treat HIV it is very expensive as the medicines and test. are almost in constant flux and change to keep up with the virus. I have a friend who has been positive since 84 and never been in the hospital and his daughter who is 15 has never even been ill from a aids related illness. pretty good medicine here where I live tho we have a major university . both collect social security both have all meds paid for by the state dad works under the table to maintain their benefits.

what about the fact of enforcing child support and vistation when the union ends? Or social security if a parent dies? or family health benefits? marriage would allow these matters to addressed fairly and within the laws we have already . I am not for same sex marriage yet these issues concern me and need to be addressed. yes it is about money and if these resposibiliies can not be meant how many more will be entitled to medicade and welfare benefits ?

crack is cheaper than cocain . and many other reasons is right Mr. Mosh .

yes I understand and I agree . the problem is some may go so far as to say certain leaders may be speaking to them from the dead. Like vpw is still alive because no one has seen his body or elvis. it can be twisted. I think the key is the Holy part sirguessalot and to make a difference between the two which folks have struggled with so far and has been the root of much confusion.

in twi the "students" in these quotes was refeered to as "gift ministrys" the gifts would be working and the flesh of that person would vanish is that what your saying? certainly not in a literal sense did they vanish in the air as Jesus actualy did. and keep living today. the gifts or "students" (as the quote calls them) Jesus gave are eternal and will be "alive " forever. even after the person dies. interesting

in is in( ) because it is referring to the statement of being in the air of Jesus and his students tho. I understand it is using the previous sentence to valiidate that conclusion .

then what is the point of the statement?

+ "The point a soul leaves the nurturing care of the holy spirit is when he can make his body vanish into thin air, like Jesus and his students did. Beings of light. Fully born and mature, having been born from death (which means your soul really has to die before you are born again - no figure of speech)." CW What students of jesus vanished into thin air? _?????????????_

God is Spirit. What does Spirit look like ?

yes trefor I do consider the world I live in and i agree with every bit of your post as far as "fairness" or equal choices given to homosexuals. and some companies do offer same sex medical leave and benefits . I think as long gone stated before other avenues can be made for the welfare and concern for the children of these relationships. and that needs to be done by those who feel the passion to do it. as I stated before I do not think they should be allowed children but they have them and the issues need to be addressed . but in the end Trefor I read from the bible that marriage is for a man and a woman only.. and I would vote as such . civil business is as it is as Jesus says we must give unto it as it is but not to tangle into the lifestyle and choices that may be far removed from the christian wisdom we trust in. God is quite clear about what marriage means to Him. and I am going down with His ship. by making marriage legal for homosexuals America is saying it is a foundation and value we uphold as right, and I personly do not agree and would vote with my conviction. I am different than some who believe the agenda to make marriage legal for homosexuals is part of our moral decay and ruining the wholesome family values America was built on , homosexuals have no more or less to do with it than the number of folks who claim to have christian beliefs yet compromise on what the bible may say as truth in many many areas in our society. It may be about simple civil freedom for some but for me it is also about being a person who claims to put God will first in my life. We as a people need to decide what is best for our country , and it often comes into a conflict with what we may believe in our spiritual life . The majority rules here Trefor. I do not live as two seperate beings one who votes and one who prays Trefor, nor do I believe a homosexual should live a double life one of appearing straight and accepted and the other homosexual and fighting a battle within our laws. we all should be true to what we believe is truth , and in America we have the right to do just that. I am not looking for brownie points with God , nor am I capable of fixing all of the world ills and problems and struggles. Jesus Christ rescues our souls. In the same voice I would never ask you to stop being what you feel you need to be as a homosexual how can you ask me to stop being what I need to be as a christian? Being a christian is a struggle , it always has been we fight an unending tide of civil groups who claim injustice in a very unGodly world. christians do not run America America decides what is right and wrong about its laws, Jesus says to give to it what we must , but it is a temporary life outside of our eternal glory in the kingdom with Him. We all stand approved before God not men.

yes another book by CES the divine dposit or somethingI cant remember the title but I have to say it is very close to what twi taught about this subject as most of what CES is.

marriage in theory does stabilize by providing assets and merits by law. People living together do not get the same respect as a married couple does . We honor marriage in America as an instution. we reward married people in general beyond single people . we all think of thae "old maid" or that guy who still lives with his mom at forty as you know a little not right or strange or pitiful . we like the idea of stable communities built by strong family units with ma pa buddy and sis . before living together and babys daddy was popular the thought of sex before marriage was bad and shunned by the majority but it didnt stop it from happening , it may have forced some to think about what people would think and played a role in the decision to wait or not. the same may be true of same sex marriages if we allow it to become common and legal some may be more the eager to entertain the idea is is acceptable by everyone as a good and ok situation. In a sense it gives people a type of approval for something we as christians know is against Gods will, but so is living together and fornication and adultry yet our culture is taking ahold of these ideas regardless of what the majority or the christian people think. I guess I could hope if I didnt allow same sex marriage to happen that it would stop homosexuality in some sense by not giving legal consent or approval. but a reality check proves it isnt in our hopes that people live. people feel the same way about abortions yet if they wanted a abortion before they were legal they got them it was just more dangerous. it is the same way with homosexuals getting married a legal marriage may encourage some to consider getting married to the same sex but i do not believe it will cause or encourage them to become homosexual . and yes it will give the impression we as Americans think it is an ok thing when many do not. but is that not true of much of America for many issues? If it came to my vote i would vote NO , but not because I think a sixteen year boy will end up married to a forty year old guy as johnny fears but because I think homosexuality is wrong . I would fight the tide. I would not approve of sin . but I do not condem siners as I also am one, a sinner not a homosexual. I also think fornication and living together is wrong as well as adultry. stealing lying etc. some good it does to impact how people are willing to live today. but I would try by voting NO to same sex marriages. I think of the people having to live in this life style , but it a choice as is living with someone and not getting married or having a baby out of wedlock is and it does carry heavy burdens. I am going to freak some out here but I do not think they should have children but they will and do and I will do anything i can to support them in their efforts to supply a stable family unit. for the children. many are wonderful parents, as a christian I think it is an unnatural thing but so is the divorce rate we have with married people leaving a trail of broken homes and hearts with the children. it isnt the day to live in a perfect world as God would have us live without such concerns and problems is it? we can fight the tide of an ever corrupt world and I think we should yet I also think we need to be concerned and continue to put LOVING one another as our commandment from the Lord as He loved us. the men at the last supper with Jesus Christ also wanted to know who was the better one and He said it was indeed the servant of the rest . [This message was edited by mj412 on February 11, 2004 at 22:13.]

Ex10th you have metioned you fellowship in some manner with CES, they wrote a book called ONE God and ONE Lord that covers this area of study . their is a link to their site on the thingy above the threads.