not a single gay person I know has chosen to be gay, given the ridicule and etc. that they have to deal with.

If you come across someone who doesn't believe that... ask him the following two questions:

1) "At what point in your life did you make the choice to be heterosexual?"

and

2) "If I were King of the World and could provide every conceivable inducement, what could I offer you that would make you sexually attracted to someone of the same gender?"

Of course, it won't change his opinion that homosexuals are just weak-willed individuals with no sense of morality. After all, it would take someone with his great strength of character to resist all the delightful advantages of a gay lifestyle.

tanstaafl.

-pulled from a Christian website.

The NKJV showed up on the scene in 1979, as a re-interpretation of the KJV by a group of people comprised predominantly of Baptists, and a few conservative Presbyterians. Comparing the NKJV with other versions shows that they've changed and added words which significantly change the meaning of passages, so that they don't quite agree with any other version of the Bible out there. There's no evidence to show (even from a religious standpoint) to suggest that this committee of men was any more divinely inspired by God than any other group of translators that came before them, and, given their religious affiliations, I'd suggest it likely that they produced a version in line with their collective interpretation. Once again, whose translation is correct? I'd be willing to bet that I could pick nearly any other version at random, and it wouldn't be nearly so explicit.

What the hell did I see on television this morning?

There was this slimy biomechanical robot speaking at a podium with the presidential seal on it, using words like "constitutional amendment" and "between a man and a woman" in the same sentence.

It was so horrifying that I couldn't watch enough to figure out what was really going on. Can anyone clarify it for me? (Gently... I'm feeling weirded-out today after that disturbing image...)

Sorry, I'm in the same boat.

-brendan

I just read the report about it at CNN. The man is either truly evil, or truly stupid. Most likely both. In either case, we should start getting used to saying "President Kerry" now.

I wouldn't count my chickens yet, but I sure hope you're right.

I read in a news article that Kerry opposes gay marriage, as well.

Why? I'd say that we're a pretty enlightened bunch here and some of us are against gay marriage. Why do you think the "silent majority" is going to be for it.

Of course, if he "sponsored" an amendment and the vote failed before the election, that'd be pretty damning, but I doubt it could happen that quickly. ERA took ten years to fail.

He's one of those that doesn't oppose civil unions but does oppose marriage. What the functional difference is, I don't know. I imagine it's to avoid pissing off either side too much, while pissing them both off slightly.

I read in a news article that Kerry opposes gay marriage, as well.

Fine. But I can't imagine that a democrat would be evil and/or stupid enough to try to put that into the constitution.

> I read in a news article that Kerry opposes gay marriage, as well.

On the other hand, he opposes a constitutional amendment preventing gay marriage as well. He's treading a fine line, and, considering the alternative, I'm going to allow that to be OK with me for now.

and, considering the alternative

Which is really the problem with politics in general. "Hold your nose and vote..."

we should start getting used to saying "President Kerry" now.

Nah, all this does is widen the chasm between liberals and conservatives. People who espouse Bush's position will rally around this maneuver, people who do not will be strengthened in their position as well. Regardless, there is no, I repeat, no chance this could possibly get 38 out of 50 state votes and end up as an amendment, and Bush and his handlers have to know this.

According to this article, "Bush...[has] left the door open for civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriages.

Fine. But I can't imagine that a democrat would be evil and/or stupid enough to try to put that into the constitution.

Some might argue that Democrats just ignore the document, instead.

and Bush and his handlers have to know this.

They do, I'm certain. I don't think this is about same-sex marriage as much as finding a way to strengthen his religious base without having to actually accomplish anything. Pure politics.

Why? I'd say that we're a pretty enlightened bunch here and some of us are against gay marriage.

That may be, but changes to the Constitution should not be made lightly. It is the foundation of the US' entire system of government, and changing it as an election campaign gimmick or to enforce one's own beliefs before the consensus of the nation has been obtained is an extremely poor idea. You have to wonder what is next... an amendment to permanently ban trade with Cuba?

Yeah, and has been pointed out, it's unlikely to be amended anyway. It's just a power play. One can only hope that the anti-gay contingent sees that it is solely a political move, feel outrage at the absurd idea of amending the constitution (a document that doesn't even mention marriage), and create a backlash.

I'd imagine if it can have two amendments concerning the sale of alcoholic beverages, it's conceivable there could be one about marriage. That said, anyone can see it doesn't have a prayer of passing congress, let alone the state votes.

Well, I was going to point out that the US had tried amending the Constitution to restrict something once before and it failed so miserably that they had to reamend it.