Founding fathers of the U.S

[Kaily]

Dear people,

I was wondering if someone could give me some information on something. My brother says he is personally against gay marriage but if gays want to marry then thats there business. We tried telling him, its not just their business because it affects all of society, and it goes agains God’s laws. He said God never said in the commandment thou shall not be gay and he said prove it. Than he said our founding fathers of this country intended basically that people should be able to do this if they want.

To you have any info I could give him showing that is NOT what our founding fathers intended. He is very stubborn and thinks he’s right all the time so his heart probably isn’t even open to hearing this, but I was wanting some info on this anyway.

Thanks,
God BLess

 

[Kaily]

He also said the Church shouldn’t have a say so because of Seperation of Church and State?

Please help me to answer him on this.

THank You

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The Founding Fathers were Christians, some with a deist or ‘rationalist’ enlightened perspective, and they were probably far more familar with Christian doctrine than most people are today. No, they would not have intended for practices which went against the “NATURAL LAW”.

As for ‘separation of church and state’–that phrase is found in a private letter of Thomas Jefferson. What the constitution gives us is the establishment clause of the Bill of Rights, viz. to wit: Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of religion. IOW, unlike places like England, where the Anglican church was the “state” church, and the monarch the head of that state church, the U.S. will have no official “state” church but instead allow every person to worship as he or she chooses rather than be compelled to worship at the ‘state’ church. (England, for example, did not permit Catholics to hold office until 1829. . .and no one who is a Catholic may ascend to the British throne to this day).

In fact, by allowing ALL churches ‘equality’, the founding fathers were giving them MORE of a voice than in a state sponsored country.

 

[Della]

The Founding Fathers of the USA were religious men of diverse denominations from Episcopalian, to Puritan to Congregationalist, etc. One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence (as well as the Constitution, as I recall) was a Catholic. None of the Christian communions of the 18th century taught or believed that homosexuality was a “right” let alone “normal.”

As for homosexuality being against God’s law–it was such an abhorrent idea to the Israelites that they never mentioned it except by using a euphemism, such as “one man with another as with a woman,” and that sort of phrase. The whole idea of homosexuality was deeply repugnant to them.

 

[Church_Militant]

He says that there is no commandment that forbids homosexual acts?
Well, let’s see…

Genesis 18:16: Then the men set out from there, and they looked toward Sodom; and Abraham went with them to set them on their way.
17: The LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do,
18: seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by him?
19: No, for I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice; so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.”
20: Then the LORD said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomor’rah is great and their sin is very grave,
21: I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me; and if not, I will know.”
22: So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham still stood before the LORD.
23: Then Abraham drew near, and said, “Wilt thou indeed destroy the righteous with the wicked?
24: Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt thou then destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it?
25: Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
26: And the LORD said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”
27: Abraham answered, “Behold, I have taken upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes.
28: Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? Wilt thou destroy the whole city for lack of five?” And he said, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.”
29: Again he spoke to him, and said, “Suppose forty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of forty I will not do it.”
30: Then he said, “Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak. Suppose thirty are found there.” He answered, “I will not do it, if I find thirty there.”
31: He said, “Behold, I have taken upon myself to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it.”
32: Then he said, “Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.”
33: And the LORD went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

Chapter 19
1: The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth,
2: and said, “My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the street.”
3: But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
4: But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house;
5: and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
6: Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him,
7: and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
8: Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”
9: But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door.
10: But the men put forth their hands and brought Lot into the house to them, and shut the door.
11: And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves groping for the door.
12: Then the men said to Lot, “Have you any one else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or any one you have in the city, bring them out of the place;
13: for we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it.”
14: So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, “Up, get out of this place; for the LORD is about to destroy the city.” But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting.
15: When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city.”
16: But he lingered; so the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the LORD being merciful to him, and they brought him forth and set him outside the city.
17: And when they had brought them forth, they said, “Flee for your life; do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley; flee to the hills, lest you be consumed.”
18: And Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lords;
19: behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me, and I die.
20: Behold, yonder city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there – is it not a little one? – and my life will be saved!”
21: He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.
22: Make haste, escape there; for I can do nothing till you arrive there.” Therefore the name of the city was called Zo’ar.
23: The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zo’ar.
24: Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomor’rah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
25: and he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.
26: But Lot’s wife behind him looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
27: And Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the LORD;
28: and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomor’rah and toward all the land of the valley, and beheld, and lo, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace.
29: So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt.

What does this all tell us was one of the reasons that God nuked these guys?
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

 

[Kaily]

Thank you both, these are helpful,

Referring to the commandment he was specifically speaking of the 10 commandments, we tried to point out to him how Homosexuality was spoken against in the old as well as new testament, he said, I’m talking about the 10commandments. We said it went with thou shall not commit adultery as that goes with all kinds of immorality, fornication etc…, he said prove it.

I think he just likes to argue.

He says saying this is wrong is pushing our Catholicism down peoples throat and they can do what they want. That is a typical attitude these days, let everyone do what they want, don’t “judge”, I thought admonishing sinners and guiding people towards heaven was a responiblity for us Christians and was also the loving thing to do and besides no matter how “small” a sin is it affects the whole world.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The point is, Kaily (which you have grasped if he has not) is that these issues aren’t just “Catholic” things; they aren’t even ‘religious things’. They don’t apply just to one set of people who ‘believe’ in them, and NOT apply if you don’t happen to believe.

If something is wrong, it is wrong for all. To argue otherwise is relativism. If homosexuality, adultery, fornication etc. are wrong, they aren’t wrong ONLY for Catholics/Christians; they are wrong for all.

Relativism is the scourge of modern times. . .

 

[hecd2]

As for homosexuality being against God’s law–it was such an abhorrent idea to the Israelites that they never mentioned it except by using a euphemism, such as “one man with another as with a woman,” and that sort of phrase. The whole idea of homosexuality was deeply repugnant to them.

Hmm - I’m not sure that this is an argument I would want to align with. If we refer to the Israelites for our morality we should reflect on the fact that slavery, deeply repugnant to us, was quite acceptable to them.

I also refer you to Genesis 19: 5 - 8; Judges 19:23 - 29; Numbers 31: 18; Joshua 6:21; Deutoronomy 20. Read those and reflect on the morality that they promote. Ask yourself if you would choose to live in a world like that.

Referring to Judges, what do you think of the euphemism ‘know’, first in reference to the male visitor of the old man, but then, appallingly, tragically, in reference to the old man’s daughter and the visitor’s concubine:
**22] **Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
23] And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
24] Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
25] But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
26] Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her lord was, till it was light.
27] And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.
28] And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ***, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.
29] And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel
Judges 19; 22 - 29

So the gang rape of two women, one a daughter, one a lover, is preferable to the homosexual rape of a visitor. And having had your woman gang raped all night, what you should do is dismember her with a knife. No - don’t get your morality here.

(The utterly absurd filter on this list renders the King James word for a donkey as ***. In the circumstances of the passage that is deeply ironic)

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Kaily]

The point is, Kaily (which you have grasped if he has not) is that these issues aren’t just “Catholic” things; they aren’t even ‘religious things’. They don’t apply just to one set of people who ‘believe’ in them, and NOT apply if you don’t happen to believe.

If something is wrong, it is wrong for all. To argue otherwise is relativism. If homosexuality, adultery, fornication etc. are wrong, they aren’t wrong ONLY for Catholics/Christians; they are wrong for all.

Relativism is the scourge of modern times. . .

yes, I completely agree with you. What I’m really looking are documents or something showing that this is not what our founding fathers intended for this country and can you give me the letter of Thomas Jefferson proving to him that this is what seperation of Church and state mean? he seems to think it means the Church doesn’t have a say so in anything political, including gay marriage.

Thank You
God Bless You

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hi Kaily: This is a copy of the letter which Thomas Jefferson sent to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. The original text of the letter, as you see, is in the Library of Congress.

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.

Note: The bracketed section in the second paragraph had been blocked off for deletion, though it was not actually deleted in his draft of the letter. It is included here for completeness. Reflecting upon Jefferson’s knowledge that his letter was far from a mere personal correspondence, he deleted the block, he says in the margin, to avoid offending members of his party in the eastern states.

This is a transcript of the letter as stored online at the Library of Congress, and reflects Jefferson’s spelling and punctuation.

---

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Note that not only does Jefferson respond with respect to these representatives of the Danbury church, but that he considers them as children of the “common Father and creator of man”.
Note also that he believes that government does not give ‘opinions’; which actually seems to present that, rather than embracing ‘gay marriage’ (something which Jefferson in common with most beings in any society, time and place would find ‘unnatural’), the government both in Jefferson’s time and ours would not be ‘legislating morality’ or redefining marriage, but would instead be taking care to protect ‘natural’ marriage–that union between one man and one woman.

 

[puzzleannie]

Dear people,

I . He said God never said in the commandment thou shall not be gay and he said prove it. Than he said our founding fathers of this country intended basically that people should be able to do this if they want.

I have an MA in American History and although that does not make me an historian I sure have read a lot of it, and I defy anyone to find anything in the founding documents of this country, or the writings of any of the founding fathers that endorses gay marriage or even homosexual activity.

 

[buffalo]

He also said the Church shouldn’t have a say so because of Seperation of Church and State?

Please help me to answer him on this.

THank You

This one is easy. Government is not to influence religion, but religion is allowed to influence government.