DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: PlaysLikeMyung on May 08, 2012, 08:18:54 PM
-
https://www.cnn.com/2012/05/08/politics/north-carolina-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
What the flying fuck does that statement mean?
The part of the Constitution will now be played by the Bible
-
Pro-marriage? Fine, make divorce illegal. No cherry picking allowed if you're going to be that vigilant about it.
-
It means they don't hate gay people, but they don't want them to have the same rights they do either because the bible said so or they think marriage is some unchanging concept when it never has been.
Congratulations NC. You managed to strip rights away from both homosexuals and heterosexuals, all in the name of forcing religious beliefs down the throats of others. Constitutions should preserve, protect, and grant rights to individuals, not take them away. I'm so disappointed and angry at my state and 60% of the people in it.
-
The last time North Carolina amended their constitution on marriage it was to ban interracial marriage.
:facepalm:
-
Pro-marriage? Fine, make divorce illegal. No cherry picking allowed if you're going to be that vigilant about it.
Ya know, that's actually a damn good point. None of these "sanctity of marriage!" assholes really seems to care at all about divorce.
-
I've lived in North Carolina for six or seven years. I've never seen so many people talking about the same thing at once. Seems like most people in the Research Triangle are pissed. I'm pissed.
-
A refreshing glimmer of sanity in the darkening abyss of the ever-more secularized and increasingly relativist United States of America.
-
A refreshing glimmer of sanity in the darkening abyss of the ever-more secularized and increasingly relativist United States of America.
The law is supposed to be secularized.
This isn't sanity. It's fucking bigotry. Plain and simple.
-
A refreshing glimmer of sanity in the darkening abyss of the ever-more secularized and increasingly relativist United States of America.
Because gay marriage is totally dominating the rest of the country.
Also your mindset is exactly why I hate religious conservatives
-
Pro-marriage? Fine, make divorce illegal. No cherry picking allowed if you're going to be that vigilant about it.
Ya know, that's actually a damn good point. None of these "sanctity of marriage!" assholes really seems to care at all about divorce.
Before this thread turns into 9 pages about cartoonaphobes or whatever, let me just say that I actually support the idea of divorce becoming a difficult thing to get. The whole "irreconcilable differences" thing is just horrible. Obviously if a marriage is abusive, or harmful or something, then yea. But when people can get divorced for any reason what soever it actually makes the concept of marriage (till death do us part) pretty null and void.
-
Well, this is silly.
-
Pro-marriage? Fine, make divorce illegal. No cherry picking allowed if you're going to be that vigilant about it.
Ya know, that's actually a damn good point. None of these "sanctity of marriage!" assholes really seems to care at all about divorce.
Before this thread turns into 9 pages about cartoonaphobes or whatever, let me just say that I actually support the idea of divorce becoming a difficult thing to get. The whole "irreconcilable differences" thing is just horrible. Obviously if a marriage is abusive, or harmful or something, then yea. But when people can get divorced for any reason what soever it actually makes the concept of marriage (till death do us part) pretty null and void.
in the last month I've had four friends divorce. very disturbing indeed
-
The institution of marriage isn't some petty, meaningless, nonchalant "right"; it is an enormous act of privilege and responsibility tasked with the most important of goals: the procreation and raising of new, productive members of society. Marriage doesn't exist merely so that Bob and Steve can play House together in their forties. And if you think otherwise, then you've either misunderstood the gravity, pertinence and seriousness of the institution of marriage or are willfully and disingenuously insisting on a baseless "redefinition" of "marriage."
-
You can procreate and raise productive members of society without being married.
-
Grand speech, Omega. Rings kinda hollow in the light of the high divorce rate. So, pick a number in the line of religious preachers whose own people fail at those teachings.
rumborak
-
The institution of marriage isn't some petty, meaningless, nonchalant "right"; it is an enormous act of privilege and responsibility tasked with the most important of goals: the procreation and raising of new, productive members of society. Marriage doesn't exist merely so that Bob and Steve can play House together in their forties. And if you think otherwise, then you've either misunderstood the gravity, pertinence and seriousness of the institution of marriage or are willfully and disingenuously insisting on a baseless "redefinition" of "marriage."
My devoutly Christian grandfather got remarried in his 80s after my grandmother died. I'll tell him that he doesn't understand the purpose of the institution.
-
So what if a gay couple raises an adopted child that was abandoned by a straight married couple to be a productive member of society?
-
You can procreate and raise productive members of society without being married.
And how are we, then, to oversee the obligations attendent upon procreation from a socio-economic view if the necessity of marriage is annulled?
-
Inb4 the "WOW OMEGA, wut about divorce?! Poof! Just destroyd all your comments!"
-
The institution of marriage isn't some petty, meaningless, nonchalant "right"; it is an enormous act of privilege and responsibility tasked with the most important of goals: the procreation and raising of new, productive members of society. Marriage doesn't exist merely so that Bob and Steve can play House together in their forties. And if you think otherwise, then you've either misunderstood the gravity, pertinence and seriousness of the institution of marriage or are willfully and disingenuously insisting on a baseless "redefinition" of "marriage."
Because straight people always treat marriage with respect and seriousness, and apparently gay people are incapable of that.
Seriously though, banning gay marriage is a bigoted position. End of discussion. You can try to justify your stance all you want, but it's discrimination, and it's absolutely disgusting.
-
You can procreate and raise productive members of society without being married.
And how are we, then, to oversee the obligations attendent upon procreation from a socio-economic view if the necessity of marriage is annulled?
You can't. Simple.
-
Grand speech, Omega. Rings kinda hollow in the light of the high divorce rate. So, pick a number in the line of religious preachers whose own people fail at those teachings.
rumborak
P1. Marriage is an institution tasked with overseeing the obligations attendant upon procreation from a socio-economic view
P2. Divorce
C: Therefore, screw marriage.
-
Because straight people always treat marriage with respect and seriousness, and apparently gay people are incapable of that.
Seriously though, banning gay marriage is a bigoted position. End of discussion. You can try to justify your stance all you want, but it's discrimination, and it's absolutely disgusting.
"Discrimination!" "Bigot!" "End of discussion!"
Yes, I'm a backwards, bigoted hillbilly, apparently.
-
Because straight people always treat marriage with respect and seriousness, and apparently gay people are incapable of that.
Seriously though, banning gay marriage is a bigoted position. End of discussion. You can try to justify your stance all you want, but it's discrimination, and it's absolutely disgusting.
"Discrimination!" "Bigot!" "End of discussion!"
Yes, I'm a backwards, bigoted hillbilly, apparently.
You're in favor of denying rights to a group of people based on a trait they don't control. What would you care to call it?
-
@Omega: Shouldn't your divinely ordained morals provide at least some benefit in this matter?
rumborak
-
and it's absolutely disgusting.
I've said this many times to myself in my scripture class where the teacher calls gay marriage disgusting. I think the hate towards it and homosexuals themselves from 'loving and accepting' Christians is more disgusting.
Why is it that us Christians (supposedly I'm not Christian because I don't believe in banning gay marriage) just can't let other people be and mind our own business. If it's one thing I have found, too many Christians are focused on others and their sins and not paying enough attention to their own hate and their own sins. Essentially, too concerned outwardly and not concerned inwardly.
-
You're in favor of denying rights to a group of people based on a trait they don't control. What would you care to call it?
As I've written extensively on, one cannot deny the "right" for same-sex people to "marry" because "marriage" between two people of the same sex is a logical absurdity. One cannot pass a law to repeal gravity any more than one can pass a law to "allow" same-sex "marriages."
-
@Omega: Shouldn't your divinely ordained morals provide at least some benefit in this matter?
rumborak
How so?
-
You're in favor of denying rights to a group of people based on a trait they don't control. What would you care to call it?
As I've written extensively on, one cannot deny the "right" for same-sex people to "marry" because "marriage" between to people of the same sex is a logical absurdity.
I'm sorry... what???? Logical absurdity....? How so?
-
Grand speech, Omega. Rings kinda hollow in the light of the high divorce rate. So, pick a number in the line of religious preachers whose own people fail at those teachings.
rumborak
And who later get caught in airport bathrooms having "encounters."
Inb4 the "WOW OMEGA, wut about divorce?! Poof! Just destroyd all your comments!"
Actually I think you'll find your post was in after several such responses.
-
You're in favor of denying rights to a group of people based on a trait they don't control. What would you care to call it?
As I've written extensively on, one cannot deny the "right" for same-sex people to "marry" because "marriage" between to people of the same sex is a logical absurdity.
I'm sorry... what???? Logical absurdity....? How so?
Check the recently-elected-to-be-closed homosexuality thread. I'm not in the mood for writing essays tonight.
-
You're in favor of denying rights to a group of people based on a trait they don't control. What would you care to call it?
As I've written extensively on, one cannot deny the "right" for same-sex people to "marry" because "marriage" between two people of the same sex is a logical absurdity. One cannot pass a law to repeal gravity any more than one can pass a law to "allow" same-sex "marriages."
The only "logical absurdities" are the ones occurring in your posts.
-
You're in favor of denying rights to a group of people based on a trait they don't control. What would you care to call it?
As I've written extensively on, one cannot deny the "right" for same-sex people to "marry" because "marriage" between to people of the same sex is a logical absurdity. One cannot pass a law to repeal gravity any more than one can pass a law to "allow" same-sex "marriages."
So if two straight people get married, but decide to never have children, and follow through with that decision for their entire lives, is that a 'logical absurdity'?
Also, most western governments provide spousal benefits, and as such, marriage, even just in the legal sense, is about more than regulating procreation.
-
The only "logical absurdities" are the ones occurring in your posts.
:blush :'(
-
It's true. :)
-
This whole thing reminds me of my scripture class. A girl said that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because gays aren't suitable parents as a stable child needs both a mom and a dad to grow up properly....
-
You're in favor of denying rights to a group of people based on a trait they don't control. What would you care to call it?
As I've written extensively on, one cannot deny the "right" for same-sex people to "marry" because "marriage" between two people of the same sex is a logical absurdity. One cannot pass a law to repeal gravity any more than one can pass a law to "allow" same-sex "marriages."
I can't even wrap my head around this. Marriage is some man-made concept that has no actually root in the universe aside from some arbitrary rules governed by archaic principles.
-
and it's absolutely disgusting.
Why is it that us Christians (supposedly I'm not Christian because I don't believe in banning gay marriage) just can't let other people be and mind our own business. If it's one thing I have found, too many Christians are focused on others and their sins and not paying enough attention to their own hate and their own sins. Essentially, too concerned outwardly and not concerned inwardly.
Paul made a clear distinction in our responsibility towards those who are believers and those who are not. He noted that we would have to go out of the world, otherwise (I Corinthians 5). From this standpoint, I think your point is well taken. Especially the second half of your statement. Jesus warned of seeing the speck in your brothers eye but ignoring the log in your own.
Jesus later in the text (Matt 7) highlights that there is room for believers making judgment, but it must begin with this standpoint of humility
-
This whole thing reminds me of my scripture class. A girl said that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because gays aren't suitable parents as a stable child needs both a mom and a dad to grow up properly....
Welcome to Omega's argument:
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=32006.0
-
So if two straight people get married, but decide to never have children, and follow through with that decision for their entire lives, is that a 'logical absurdity'?
Of course not. Feel free to read all about my "In principle!" speech over at the closed homosexuality thread.
Also, most western governments provide spousal benefits, and as such, marriage, even just in the legal sense, is about more than regulating procreation.
That kinda fits in into the "overseeing the obligations attendant upon procreation from a socio-economic view," doesn't it?
-
This whole thing reminds me of my scripture class. A girl said that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because gays aren't suitable parents as a stable child needs both a mom and a dad to grow up properly....
Welcome to Omega's argument:
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=32006.0
:yarr
-
Well either way it's pretty obvious that NC is more likely to abuse their own constitution than face the ugly reality of their own society. If you can deflect your own failure onto someone else, the hope is it'll make you forget how much you failed yourself.
rumborak
-
I also think there should be a lot more trials before getting married. In Judaism you have to go through a hell of a lot of work to convert. I think marriage should be similar. I think people should have to prove to the authorities that they want to get married. Simply saying "Yea...I guess I'll marry that person" shouldn't be enough. As of now, marriage is a concept that has virtually no meaning what soever. And I say this as a person who hopes to marry some day.
-
Well either way it's pretty obvious that NC is more likely to abuse their own constitution than face the ugly reality of their own society. If you can deflect your own failure onto someone else, the hope is it'll make you forget how much you failed yourself.
rumborak
What?
@Omega: Shouldn't your divinely ordained morals provide at least some benefit in this matter?
rumborak
And how so (redux)?
-
@Omega;
I went to the linked thread, and stopped reading when you equated gay marriage to some dude wanting to marry a cartoon character.
If your warped little mind actually thinks that's anything remotely near a reasonable argument, you're beyond hope on this issue. I'm done here.
-
but it must begin with this standpoint of humility
I agree with what you said, but I suppose I don't see it with humility much anymore. At least not from the generation of Christians I am growing up with and going to school with. I see more outright hate and disgust for other people's beliefs, ways of life, and cultures. I don't see much humility in it anymore and it makes me scared for the future of Christianity. I long for humility to be back, but with the way gay marriage is taught in some private schools and churches, it's being taught with hate and intolerance. So much so that it's breeding hate for all life that is off the path of Christianity.
My Script teacher, for instance, basically implies that all secularist people are horrible people and have no redeeming qualities. Its views like this, and with all due respect, Omega's viewpoint that scares me.
Jesus taught to love all people equally and to treat others as you want to be treated. With the way some Christians handle gay marriage and gays themselves, is this ideal really being upheld?
-
@Omega;
I went to the linked thread, and stopped reading when you equated gay marriage to some dude wanting to marry a cartoon character.
If your warped little mind actually thinks that's anything remotely near a reasonable argument, you're beyond hope on this issue. I'm done here.
That is literally just scratching the surface, but, hey, uh ya.
-
@Omega;
I went to the linked thread, and stopped reading when you equated gay marriage to some dude wanting to marry a cartoon character.
If your warped little mind actually thinks that's anything remotely near a reasonable argument, you're beyond hope on this issue. I'm done here.
knock if the insults TL. this is your warning
-
On another note, good for MA and other liberal states. We get a good amount of "brain drain" fugitives here.
rumborak
-
My Script teacher, for instance, basically implies that all secularist people are horrible people and have no redeeming qualities. Its views like this, and with all due respect, Omega's viewpoint that scares me.
Uh...when did I say that secularists are horrible people who have no redeeming qualities?
-
Views on gay marriage. Sorry, should have separated the two
-
My Script teacher, for instance, basically implies that all secularist people are horrible people and have no redeeming qualities. Its views like this, and with all due respect, Omega's viewpoint that scares me.
Uh...when did I say that secularists are horrible people who have no redeeming qualities?
Pretty much here:
A refreshing glimmer of sanity in the darkening abyss of the ever-more secularized and increasingly relativist United States of America.
-
Guys, please don't feed Omega again. He's not going to budge on his very strange position on what marriage is or isn't or how long its been around (fact: its a manmade institution governed by old traditions), and no amount of rational argument is going to change that. The last thread was a shitshow and frankly I'm too pissed off at 61% of my state to give a damn about what he thinks. I can only hope it gets taken to court and is repealed as fast as possible. I will admit its pretty damn hard to resist Internet-screaming at him about why he's wrong, though.
I'd also like to add this amendment doesn't just screw over gay people, it screws over any two consenting adults who want to be legally recognized as being "together" without marriage. Civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. are gone, and so are all the benefits of such relationships. According to polls, it seems that a significant of supporters weren't clear on what they were voting for. They just saw the change to define marriage and leaped at it. Doesn't help that gay marriage was already illegal in the state.
-
but it must begin with this standpoint of humility
I agree with what you said, but I suppose I don't see it with humility much anymore. At least not from the generation of Christians I am growing up with and going to school with. I see more outright hate and disgust for other people's beliefs, ways of life, and cultures. I don't see much humility in it anymore and it makes me scared for the future of Christianity. I long for humility to be back, but with the way gay marriage is taught in some private schools and churches, it's being taught with hate and intolerance. So much so that it's breeding hate for all life that is off the path of Christianity.
My Script teacher, for instance, basically implies that all secularist people are horrible people and have no redeeming qualities. Its views like this, and with all due respect, Omega's viewpoint that scares me.
Jesus taught to love all people equally and to treat others as you want to be treated. With the way some Christians handle gay marriage and gays themselves, is this ideal really being upheld?
I have always been fascinated with the fact that Jesus was a man of deep conviction and the highest standards regarding morals and truth. He spoke the truth boldly and courageously and held to his convictions even to death....but, amazingly, the "sinners" loved hanging out with him. I think it was his humility in the midst of his convictions. I don't think humility is saying that "sin is ok," but it does invite people to listen when they know that you genuinely care.
-
Guys, please don't feed Omega again. He's not going to budge on his very strange position on what marriage is or isn't or how long its been around (fact: its a manmade institution governed by old traditions), and no amount of rational argument is going to change that. The last thread was a shitshow and frankly I'm too pissed off at 61% of my state to give a damn about what he thinks. I can only hope it gets taken to court and is repealed as fast as possible. I will admit its pretty damn hard to resist Internet-screaming at him about why he's wrong, though.
I'd also like to add this amendment doesn't just screw over gay people, it screws over any two consenting adults who want to be legally recognized as being "together" without marriage. Civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. are gone, and so are all the benefits of such relationships. According to polls, it seems that a significant of supporters weren't clear on what they were voting for. They just saw the change to define marriage and leaped at it. Doesn't help that gay marriage was already illegal in the state.
So how about we all agree to stay on topic (meaning the bill itself), and if Omega or one of the rest of us derails the thread it gets locked? Good?
-
This isn't a law, not much to go to court about Matt. And sadly I assume this will now require 60% of the vote to change, which likely won't happen for quite awhile.
-
You know, after not being able to discriminate against the "coloreds" anymore, people needed a new minority to oppress.
Just remember, some 40% of N. Carolina are decent human beings. They ain't all bad.
-
The last time North Carolina amended their constitution on marriage it was to ban interracial marriage.
This of all posts summed it up IMHO.
rumborak
-
Pro-marriage? Fine, make divorce illegal. No cherry picking allowed if you're going to be that vigilant about it.
Ya know, that's actually a damn good point. None of these "sanctity of marriage!" assholes really seems to care at all about divorce.
Before this thread turns into 9 pages about cartoonaphobes or whatever, let me just say that I actually support the idea of divorce becoming a difficult thing to get. The whole "irreconcilable differences" thing is just horrible. Obviously if a marriage is abusive, or harmful or something, then yea. But when people can get divorced for any reason what soever it actually makes the concept of marriage (till death do us part) pretty null and void.
Believe it or not, I actually agree completely with this.
-
I don't think there are a lot disagreeing with it. Reality is, as usual, that marriage has the meaning you imbue it with. Nobody, not even a deity, can make something meaningful unless you do yourself.
rumborak
-
I don't think there are a lot disagreeing with it. Reality is, as usual, that marriage has the meaning you imbue it with. Nobody, not even a deity, can make something meaningful unless you do yourself.
rumborak
Which is why I think marriage should stay between heterosexual couples as that is how it has come to be understood. On the flip side I believe that civil unions with the same legal benefits as marriage should be allowed. I'd love nothing more than to see the divorce rates of marriage one day doubling that of civil union couples.
-
Marriage doesn't exist merely so that Bob and Steve can play House together in their forties.
:tdwn
-
I don't think there are a lot disagreeing with it. Reality is, as usual, that marriage has the meaning you imbue it with. Nobody, not even a deity, can make something meaningful unless you do yourself.
rumborak
Which is why I think marriage should stay between same-sex couples as that is how it has come to be understood. On the flip side I believe that civil unions with the same legal benefits as marriage should be allowed. I'd love nothing more than to see the divorce rates of marriage one day doubling that of civil union couples.
I know that's a typo you made there, but it's finally a typo I agree with.
-
Adami making some great points up in this otherwise shitty thread.
-J
-
One problem I have with Omega's stance on what marriage is for is that he says the primary point of marriage is the procreation and nurturing of children. I don't think that is the historical main point at all, but rather a side effect. After all, people can certainly procreate and raise children without documentation or rings on their fingers, and have been doing so for hundreds of thousands of years.
Rather, the historical point of marriage was financial, i.e. property ownership. Women were the property of the men, and one of their jobs was to raise the children. See also dowery and bride price.
So, since that aspect of marriage has certainly changed in the civilized world over the last thousand years or so, why can't other aspects change as well?
-
Some people are absolutely terrified of change, and have some inate need to have certain things stay static and set in concrete forever. Thats fine, until they start making their own insecurities a matter of law. Sad.
-
This is probably a suggestion that's been made millions of times by millions of people - I don't really follow these debates, so I don't know. But, right. If the opposition to marriage is broadly based on religious lines, can we not make "marriage" an exclusively faith-based thing? So it's up to the church. Atheists, agnostics, and other non-believers of any gender combination can get civil partnerships, and make it legally binding, with perks to match. Christians can unite in the eyes of God.
So Christian "marriages" take place in a church, under the eyes of God, and the church decides who's allowed to marry based on their interpretation of their religious text. Secular "weddings" have nothing to do with God nor the bible, but are still a legally binding declaration of companionship, partnership, which broadly take the same structure as other ceremonies of union with aisles and guests of honour and kissing the bride and so on and so forth.
Because as an atheist, (or agnostic, depending on which day of the week it is, but today is an atheist day,) I would be totally fine with the church not recognising my wedding to my wife as long as my friends, my family, the state and the government recognised it. So the party's different, and you're not claiming to be together in the eyes of God, and we might not use the word "marriage," but the law treats you the same.
Probably loads of loopholes I've missed... but would that satisfy you, Omega? And other agnostics, and Christians, and particularly any gay readers?
-
Pro-marriage? Fine, make divorce illegal. No cherry picking allowed if you're going to be that vigilant about it.
Ya know, that's actually a damn good point. None of these "sanctity of marriage!" assholes really seems to care at all about divorce.
Because we really need to preserve the "sanctity" of an institution whose ceremony you can have performed by an Elvis impersonator at a drive-through in Las Vegas. :\
-
To tackle some things here, let me begin with Omega:
What you are is doing is defining marriage and pushing your own definition as law. Partly you say it's about reproduction... but what about a heterosexual couple who gets married but they have no intentions to have children - is that OK? Why is your opinion on what the purpose of marriage should be more sacred?
And to rob:
Because as an atheist, (or agnostic, depending on which day of the week it is, but today is an atheist day,) I would be totally fine with the church not recognising my wedding to my wife as long as my friends, my family, the state and the government recognised it. So the party's different, and you're not claiming to be together in the eyes of God, and we might not use the word "marriage," but the law treats you the same.
The state shouldn't recognize it either. IMO there should be no governmental involvement in ANY way. Let churches and private contractors marry whom they want in any way they want without licensure requirements. To settle disputes that could happen over custody etc, there should be written contracts. There's actually such a thing as marriage contracts in some cultures. If there should be any state involvement, it should be to uphold such contracts.
-
And the market will take care of everything.
-
You're in favor of denying rights to a group of people based on a trait they don't control. What would you care to call it?
As I've written extensively on, one cannot deny the "right" for same-sex people to "marry" because "marriage" between two people of the same sex is a logical absurdity. One cannot pass a law to repeal gravity any more than one can pass a law to "allow" same-sex "marriages."
And yet, 10's of thousands of loving homosexual couples are legally married here in the state of MA. Where I come from, we call that an "unmitigated fact." Weird, ain't it? :eek
-
To tackle some things here, let me begin with Omega:
What you are is doing is defining marriage and pushing your own definition as law. Partly you say it's about reproduction... but what about a heterosexual couple who gets married but they have no intentions to have children - is that OK? Why is your opinion on what the purpose of marriage should be more sacred?
What about a couple that CANT have children? The woman had a hysterectomy, and the man had his testicles removed due to cancer.
The fact is that Omegas definition of marriage, or what he says is the real historical and traditional definition of marriage, is just plain factually incorrect. That puts his entire argument out the window before it is even started.
-
The institution of marriage isn't some petty, meaningless, nonchalant "right"; it is an enormous act of privilege and responsibility tasked with the most important of goals: the procreation and raising of new, productive members of society.
The only parenting problem typically encountered by same sex couples is their children being bullied by homophobes.
-
The only parenting problem typically encountered by same sex couples is their children being bullied by homophobes.
The parenting problems seen by same sex couples are the same parenting problems seen by all parents. All parents have their strengths and weaknesses in parenting. The biggest issue I see with same sex parents is that it does kids a world of good to have close relationships with people of both sexes. This can be easily accomplished by being close to grandparents or an aunt or uncle, but I think it's important for same sex couple to consciously foster these relationships. Boys in particular really need a good male influence in their life.
-
So they don't turn gay.
-
So they don't turn gay.
No.
-
(so ignoring all historical facts of what the institution of marriage actually was)
Omega: how can you possibly call for the Aristotelian definition of "good" and then NOT find two people choosing not to procreate not good? As per your explanation, a couple choosing not to have children would not be natural (again, as per your definition of natural) since they have the parts and physiological compulsions to do so, would be illogical, not-good, and "absurd"
Also, how is polygamy not good as per your definition? Nature exhibits cases of communal care (primates), couple care (penguins), single care (Tigers) and no care (salmon, after eggs hatch). Why then is a a marriage between a single male and a single female the only good?
-
The parenting problems seen by same sex couples are the same parenting problems seen by all parents. All parents have their strengths and weaknesses in parenting. The biggest issue I see with same sex parents is that it does kids a world of good to have close relationships with people of both sexes. This can be easily accomplished by being close to grandparents or an aunt or uncle, but I think it's important for same sex couple to consciously foster these relationships. Boys in particular really need a good male influence in their life.
I agree for the most part, but keep in mind that single parents also face this problem. As I see it, homophobia is the only issue exclusive to same sex parents.
-
The parenting problems seen by same sex couples are the same parenting problems seen by all parents. All parents have their strengths and weaknesses in parenting. The biggest issue I see with same sex parents is that it does kids a world of good to have close relationships with people of both sexes. This can be easily accomplished by being close to grandparents or an aunt or uncle, but I think it's important for same sex couple to consciously foster these relationships. Boys in particular really need a good male influence in their life.
I agree for the most part, but keep in mind that single parents also face this problem. As I see it, homophobia is the only issue exclusive to same sex parents.
Oh yeah, I agree. I wasn't arguing that same sex parents shouldn't be allowed.
-
(https://a.yfrog.com/img44/5899/1j5w.jpg)
I'm bi, and don't particularly desire marriage to either a man or a woman, ever. I fully support equal rights for any couple that does want to enter marriage though - just that personally I don't give a damn about arbitrary social institutions and public ceremonies that 'prove' a coupling - if I want a lifelong monogamous partner to know I love and trust them, then my private word to them would be a million times more sincere than any bullshit ceremony.
-
You're in favor of denying rights to a group of people based on a trait they don't control. What would you care to call it?
As I've written extensively on, one cannot deny the "right" for same-sex people to "marry" because "marriage" between two people of the same sex is a logical absurdity. One cannot pass a law to repeal gravity any more than one can pass a law to "allow" same-sex "marriages."
And yet, 10's of thousands of loving homosexual couples are legally married here in the state of MA. Where I come from, we call that an "unmitigated fact." Weird, ain't it? :eek
Yeah, that analogy is utterly bizarre. It's absolutely incredible that someone would make it, in fact. It is so contrary to observed facts that it sounds like satire.
-
You're in favor of denying rights to a group of people based on a trait they don't control. What would you care to call it?
As I've written extensively on, one cannot deny the "right" for same-sex people to "marry" because "marriage" between two people of the same sex is a logical absurdity. One cannot pass a law to repeal gravity any more than one can pass a law to "allow" same-sex "marriages."
And yet, 10's of thousands of loving homosexual couples are legally married here in the state of MA. Where I come from, we call that an "unmitigated fact." Weird, ain't it? :eek
Yeah, that analogy is utterly bizarre. It's absolutely incredible that someone would make it, in fact. It is so contrary to observed facts that it sounds like satire.
The exact point I made in the other marriage thread.
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=32006.msg1273473#msg1273473
-
They must be doing something right up in MA. Those liberal heathens up there have the lowest divorce rates in the nation.
-
As I've written extensively on, one cannot deny the "right" for same-sex people to "marry" because "marriage" between two people of the same sex is a logical absurdity. One cannot pass a law to repeal gravity any more than one can pass a law to "allow" same-sex "marriages."
On the contrary, they repealed Newton's Law of Gravity and replaced it with a more up to date version in 1916.
On topic, the OP quote is right up there with "I'm not racist, but..." in terms of hypocritical statements.
-
I'm going to hate myself by the time I'm done with this post.
A refreshing glimmer of sanity in the darkening abyss of the ever-more secularized and increasingly relativist United States of America.
This is very common rhetoric of the religious right, and I'm still flummoxed by it. I don't understand the disdain for non-religious matters implied by using "secular" as a sneering description of non-Christian things and beliefs.
Also, while reality is absolute (running into a brick wall will kill you no matter how much you believe otherwise), the way we perceive it is entirely relative. Your beliefs are relativism. You think they make the most sense relative to the other beliefs you have been exposed to. They are not absolutely true.
The institution of marriage isn't some petty, meaningless, nonchalant "right"; it is an enormous act of privilege and responsibility tasked with the most important of goals: the procreation and raising of new, productive members of society. Marriage doesn't exist merely so that Bob and Steve can play House together in their forties. And if you think otherwise, then you've either misunderstood the gravity, pertinence and seriousness of the institution of marriage or are willfully and disingenuously insisting on a baseless "redefinition" of "marriage."
Marriage is about more than having and raising children. It's also about two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. Are you married? Do you love your wife? If Bob and Steve love each other, then why are you completely unaffected by that?
It's ironic to me that, as grandiosely as you treat your beliefs, that the idea of marriage as merely a means to have and raise babies is extremely prosaic. Wouldn't you think that something created by God would have more of a spiritual side to it than that?
You can procreate and raise productive members of society without being married.
And how are we, then, to oversee the obligations attendent upon procreation from a socio-economic view if the necessity of marriage is annulled?
I don't understand how this reply does anything to diminish King in Crimson's comment.
You're in favor of denying rights to a group of people based on a trait they don't control. What would you care to call it?
As I've written extensively on, one cannot deny the "right" for same-sex people to "marry" because "marriage" between two people of the same sex is a logical absurdity. One cannot pass a law to repeal gravity any more than one can pass a law to "allow" same-sex "marriages."
If you're speaking from a Biblical definition of marriage, then yes, you are right.
But human society, more and more, has decided to change the definition of marriage. No matter how much you argue against it, you cannot stop it. Marriage already is basically a secular institution. If two people can go and get married at a courthouse by a judge, it's not really a religious institution anymore.
-
@ Reap: Omega has mentioned before that he's not married, and as he says, too young to consider it.
-
@ Reap: Omega has mentioned before that he's not married, and as he says, too young to consider it.
Two thoughts come into my mind:
- My mind is partially blown. If you're too young to even consider marriage, then why does this bother you? Why do you think you understand it?
- My mind is not at all blown. Based on your post, I'm guessing Omega is like 17-19? I'm still an idiot at 23, which means I was unfathomably dumb at that age. At that point, basic concepts like human empathy still aren't fully formed in your mind.
-
@ Reap: Omega has mentioned before that he's not married, and as he says, too young to consider it.
- My mind is partially blown. If you're too young to even consider marriage, then why does this bother you? Why do you think you understand it?
He sees the idealized & romanticized versions of marriage which only existed in the past two centuries or so as crucial for maintaining (and creating) human civilization. The very existence of our species is at stake!
-
I'm fine with having Civil Unions. But If they want to have a big Church wedding then the church has rules to abide by and Gay Marriage is one, until time passes. Most people see it as unnatural, as in theirs no duality. Some see it as an upbringing while others have many other reasons for not understanding homosexuals. If they want to get married I'd say let them, as love is love and doesn't bother me nor anyone.
One thing to consider is no,one knows how things we're back when Jesus walked. Was he accepting of it? did it exist then?
But yeah, Marriage under the church is man and woman. Civil Unions, legal rights are between whomever.
-
Why are only Christian aspects of marriage considered? Weddings are half-pagan in nature.
rumborak
-
Please watch this video (especially you, Omega) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR9gyloyOjM
It just disgusts me how certain people can act (not referring to anyone on here). I cannot honestly understand how someone can practically disown their own child.
-
Why are only Christian aspects of marriage considered? Weddings are half-pagan in nature.
rumborak
That's how I feel about a lot of life issues and things of that nature.
-
Please watch this video (especially you, Omega) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR9gyloyOjM
It just disgusts me how certain people can act (not referring to anyone on here). I cannot honestly understand how someone can practically disown their own child.
You can't understand how someone can disown their child? Really? No matter what? Your child could do *absolutely anything at all* and you would *never ever ever ever* disown them? Not for ANYTHING?
If there is something...no matter how extreme...then we're just down to a matter of where it is that *you* draw your line in the sand vs. where someone else chooses to draw their line in the sand.
-
I'm sure Shadow meant that he can't understand how someone would practically disown their child over an issue such as this. Of all the things that I might disown a child for, "having a sexual orientation" is not one of them, of course.
The video was a bummer but I don't think it's going to make a difference in the discussion here. It wouldn't change anybody's mind about gay marriage. This issue is unfortunately one where people just get entrenched in their original views.
-
Why are only Christian aspects of marriage considered? Weddings are half-pagan in nature.
rumborak
That's how I feel about a lot of life issues and things of that nature.
Those are of course not exactly considerations that are in the public mind in the land of mega churches. How many people do you think pick up a book on the history of marriage?
rumborak
-
A refreshing glimmer of sanity in the darkening abyss of the ever-more secularized and increasingly relativist United States of America.
Why don't you put youir money where your mouth is and demand the death penalty for homesexuality?
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Just sayin'
-
How many people do you think pick up a book on the history of marriage?
rumborak
I know one who hasn't. :biggrin:
-
I'm sure Shadow meant that he can't understand how someone would practically disown their child over an issue such as this. Of all the things that I might disown a child for, "having a sexual orientation" is not one of them, of course.
I figured...but to me that's a very important distinction. And the more controversial the issue, the more important it becomes to make these things clear.
The more controversial the topic, the more that "blanket statements" will tend to polarize the conversation.
-
^ Well, I have to be honest, I am not a father (I am only 20), but I just can't imagine disowning my child for anything. I'm sure I could, but it would have to something that extremely made by angry and appalled.
However, to not get off topic, I do not think (unfortunately) that that video will have any major impact, as many similar ones (different circumstances, of course) have been posted over the history of YouTube, but I am hoping it can make a personal impact on certain detractors to gay marriage and/or rights.
-
@ Reap: Omega has mentioned before that he's not married, and as he says, too young to consider it.
Two thoughts come into my mind:
- My mind is partially blown. If you're too young to even consider marriage, then why does this bother you? Why do you think you understand it?
- My mind is not at all blown. Based on your post, I'm guessing Omega is like 17-19? I'm still an idiot at 23, which means I was unfathomably dumb at that age. At that point, basic concepts like human empathy still aren't fully formed in your mind.
As someone with a child who is considerably older than you, I would say, based on the posts I have seen here from you (even some that I do not always agree with) that you are FAR from "an idiot" (although I know what you meant). You demonstrate wisdom considerably past your years, sir. My hat is off to you.
-
Obama says he supports gay marriage now. About time he just came out and said it. I think it's been obvious for a while that he was for it, but didn't want to hurt his political career by comeing right out and saying it.
https://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/09/obama-same-sex-couples-should-have-right-to-marry/?hpt=hp_t1
-
That calls for a large, multicolored dancing pickle
(https://www.kirksnosehair.com/Portals/0/images/smilies/pickle.gif)
-
A refreshing glimmer of sanity in the darkening abyss of the ever-more secularized and increasingly relativist United States of America.
Why don't you put youir money where your mouth is and demand the death penalty for homesexuality?
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Just sayin'
Nothing like cherry picking a verse to serve a purpose. Levitical law is Old covenant, and Christ followers shouldnt be too concerned with a set of laws theyve been redeemed from. If you can find me a verse where Jesus (New Covenant)tells me I need to kill all gays then id be impressed. But I suspect your google search won't reveal that for you.
-
I thought he was always for gay marriage, he just personally didn't like it for faith reasons.
EDIT: Jesus also didn't say anything about homosexuality, IIRC.
-
Regarding Obama's position on Gay Marriage:
I don't think it's any coincidence that he's coming out in favor of it now given the fact that Mitt Romney recently came out in favor of marriage being "between one man and one woman"
The facts are, recent polling shows that about half of Americans (https://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11603182-half-of-americans-support-gay-marriage-in-new-gallup-poll?lite) favor gay marriage.
So, this is a pretty safe move for Obama that will likely fire up the Democratic base and generate a pretty good amount of enthusiasm about voting.
-
I'm surprised he hadn't already said he supported it. What did he say in the past when asked what his opinion on gay marriage was?
-
He's always supported "civil unions" and said his position on Gay Marriage was "evolving"
You have to give him credit for being open-minded here, I think.
-
That calls for a large, multicolored dancing pickle
(https://www.kirksnosehair.com/Portals/0/images/smilies/pickle.gif)
Barry, now's not the time for pillow talk ;)
-
He's always supported "civil unions" and said his position on Gay Marriage was "evolving"
You have to give him credit for being open-minded here, I think.
Who, Obama? Is there really any chance he wasn't just keeping it on the DL to avoid hurting his political image among conservatives? I sincerely doubt that he's actually taken the last few years to formulate an opinion about gay marriage.
-
So I first got wind on this through Fox News through Google News update. I read it. Slightly right leaning; expected and really no big deal.
But then I got to the comments:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/09/obama-expected-to-discuss-gay-marriage-position/#comment
My lord, if there is anything to De-legitimize a newspaper, it is to let its readers talk.
-
So I first got wind on this through Fox News through Google News update. I read it. Slightly right leaning; expected and really no big deal.
But then I got to the comments:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/09/obama-expected-to-discuss-gay-marriage-position/#comment
My lord, if there is anything to De-legitimize a newspaper is to let its readers talk.
As if anything with a 'NBC' in its description is any different, only aimed at the right?
-
Grand speech, Omega. Rings kinda hollow in the light of the high divorce rate. So, pick a number in the line of religious preachers whose own people fail at those teachings.
rumborak
P1. Marriage is an institution tasked with overseeing the obligations attendant upon procreation from a socio-economic view
P2. Divorce
C: Therefore, screw marriage.
I guess my wife and I should divorce after almost 18 years of marriage because we couldn't concieve children.
-
What Obama would've said, in my imagination: "I'm not pro-gay marriage, I'm anti-bigotry".
-
So I first got wind on this through Fox News through Google News update. I read it. Slightly right leaning; expected and really no big deal.
But then I got to the comments:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/09/obama-expected-to-discuss-gay-marriage-position/#comment (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/09/obama-expected-to-discuss-gay-marriage-position/#comment)
My lord, if there is anything to De-legitimize a newspaper is to let its readers talk.
As if anything with a 'NBC' in its description is any different, only aimed at the right?
Maybe I read soundgarden's post wrong or something, but I don't think he was implying that it only happens on right-leaning sites, and last time I checked two wrongs don't make a right so.....
-
^ Well, I have to be honest, I am not a father (I am only 20), but I just can't imagine disowning my child for anything. I'm sure I could, but it would have to something that extremely made by angry and appalled.
However, to not get off topic, I do not think (unfortunately) that that video will have any major impact, as many similar ones (different circumstances, of course) have been posted over the history of YouTube, but I am hoping it can make a personal impact on certain detractors to gay marriage and/or rights.
I'm assuming you meant "it would have to be something that made me extremely angry and appalled." And that's just it. I understand that *you* wouldn't be angry and appalled...and I personally (as a practicing Christian) wouldn't be angry or appalled... But I can understand why someone would be. And I'm sympathetic to parents who get angry and/or appalled...but I usually disagree with the way they deal with those emotions.
Lashing out is not Christian...cruelty is not Christian... But distancing yourself from those who have chosen to lead (what God has declared as) an immoral lifestyle is also Christian.
If I were in a situation where something like this happened (and I have known those who have) I would simply tell the child that I will always love them, but that they have chosen to go down a path that I cannot follow. I would cease to have the most important part of my life in common with them. My relationship with my heavenly father is a very personal relationship that guides every aspect of my life. I show love and kindness to *all* people without exception...but who I go out of my way to spend my personal time with is a different story. I condemn NO ONE. It is not my place. If I were to condemn or judge anyone, I would be setting myself up in the judgment seat of God. I would never ever do that. But I'm also obligated to keep certain moral elements at arms length. Too many times...people aren't balanced about this. Too many people feel like if you don't accept it, you are automatically a hateful bigot. But the old adage of "hate the sin, love the sinner" should be followed to the letter. Show love for the person...but keep a distance from people who insist on following a certain course of action.
The Bible principle on how to treat PRACTICING homosexuals, would be *exactly* the same as the principle on how to treat PRACTICING alcoholics. "I love you...I understand that you were born this way. But at the end of all things, the sentence for *MAKING A PRACTICE* of such actions will be death. I will always love you, and I will always be here for you if you decide to make a change, but I will not condone your actions. God has given us a gift (whether that be the use of alcohol, or sexual activity) that must be practiced ONLY within the boundaries he has set (that is, alcohol ONLY in moderation...sexual activity ONLY between a married man and woman)...God has already decreed that the penalty for *MAKING A PRACTICE* of using these gifts outside of HIS boundaries will be death...forever. I hold out hope that you will change your course in life...because I love you very very much. But until you change your actions, we really have nothing more to say to each other."
-
So I first got wind on this through Fox News through Google News update. I read it. Slightly right leaning; expected and really no big deal.
But then I got to the comments:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/09/obama-expected-to-discuss-gay-marriage-position/#comment
My lord, if there is anything to De-legitimize a newspaper is to let its readers talk.
As if anything with a 'NBC' in its description is any different, only aimed at the right?
https://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/09/11621156-obama-i-think-same-sex-couples-should-be-able-to-get-married#comments
You can be the judge. There are a couple attacks ("Take that NC", "Aren't there more pressing issues?", "Flip flop", "bending to pressure", etc.), and then there are a couple detractors of gay marriage who for some reason meandered to the liberal side of the fence, but absolutely nothing here is as mind-bendingly ignorant as the comments on the Fox article. Examples for fun and profit:
"There has been no charity to raise as much money as AIDS. There has been billions raised for AIDS awareness and treatment, yet gay men are still contracting that disease. How much intelligence does it take to recognize that boo-fooing is a filthy practice that causes that deadly disease???"
"He's finally out of the closet. Seeing his wife I should of guessed it!!!"
"People who practice homosexuality are extremely sick and self absorbed individuals."
"Obowma the MOOSLEM backing GAY marriage??????????????????
Mooslems will lie to infidels if it helps their cause.
NOBAMA 2012"
-
So I first got wind on this through Fox News through Google News update. I read it. Slightly right leaning; expected and really no big deal.
But then I got to the comments:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/09/obama-expected-to-discuss-gay-marriage-position/#comment (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/09/obama-expected-to-discuss-gay-marriage-position/#comment)
My lord, if there is anything to De-legitimize a newspaper is to let its readers talk.
As if anything with a 'NBC' in its description is any different, only aimed at the right?
Maybe I read soundgarden's post wrong or something, but I don't think he was implying that it only happens on right-leaning sites, and last time I checked two wrongs don't make a right so.....
I agree Barry, maybe I took it wrong. The one guarantee is that if you want to find the most repulsive, ignorant, low life degenerate pieces of poo mankind has to offer...just go to ANY comment section on online news sites. Disgusting people there hiding in thier anonymity.
-
The one guarantee is that if you want to find the most repulsive, ignorant, low life degenerate pieces of poo mankind has to offer...just go to ANY comment section on online news sites. Disgusting people there hiding in thier anonymity.
I have never agreed more with anything else you have ever said.
-
^ Well, I have to be honest, I am not a father (I am only 20), but I just can't imagine disowning my child for anything. I'm sure I could, but it would have to something that extremely made by angry and appalled.
However, to not get off topic, I do not think (unfortunately) that that video will have any major impact, as many similar ones (different circumstances, of course) have been posted over the history of YouTube, but I am hoping it can make a personal impact on certain detractors to gay marriage and/or rights.
*snip*
I shouldn't have to point out that homosexuality and alcoholism are not analogous. Although your genetics may make you predisposed to addictive tendencies, you become an alcoholic by drinking enough alcohol to develop a dependency on it. One is not "born alcoholic".
EDIT: Unrelated to the rest of the post but I found more awesome comments on the Fox article.
"Obama is a self-inconpoop."
"I sure am glad that my grand mother is not alive to see this.
The first blk president of the US, stopping at nothing to be reelected.
next week he will have Mrs. Obama walking the streets of DC selling her assets for a vote. you have to wonder where it will end.
"
-
^ Well, I have to be honest, I am not a father (I am only 20), but I just can't imagine disowning my child for anything. I'm sure I could, but it would have to something that extremely made by angry and appalled.
However, to not get off topic, I do not think (unfortunately) that that video will have any major impact, as many similar ones (different circumstances, of course) have been posted over the history of YouTube, but I am hoping it can make a personal impact on certain detractors to gay marriage and/or rights.
*snip*
I shouldn't have to point out that homosexuality and alcoholism are not analogous. Although your genetics may make you predisposed to addictive tendencies, you become an alcoholic by drinking enough alcohol to develop a dependency on it. One is not "born alcoholic".
There are MANY MANY people who would disagree with you. At least, that one is born with the *predisposition* for being alcoholic.
But we may simply have to agree to disagree.
I would compare a "born" alcoholic who's never been exposed to alcohol to a "born" homosexual who's never been exposed to homosexuality.
Seriously...even though you may think that one is born and the other is not....the debate for alcoholics being "born that way" and homosexuals being "born that way" is exactly the same. And each has its supporters and its deniers. It essentially comes down to which side you choose to believe.
-
First off, an alcoholic never exposed to alcohol isn't an alcoholic. A homosexual who never has gay sex is still a homosexual as it is based on desire and love and not intercourse. Secondly, an addiction and a capacity to love are not in the slightest bit comparable, under any circumstance. Alcoholics and homosexuals are not comparable. Thirdly, you said that an alcoholic who is never exposed to alcohol is the same as a homosexual who is never exposed to homosexuality. Not true. A homosexual doesn't even need to know that it exists to realize what they are, they just need to be exposed to human beings. If they are exposed to men BAM, they know. If they are exposed to women, they at least know something isn't normal. They don't even need to know what homosexuality is. Alcoholics on the other hand, if never beginning to drink, never become alcoholics, they stay people who have a predisposition to become addicted.
-
You can be born with a predisposition to alcoholism. But you are not born alcoholic. You're an alcoholic if your dependency on alcohol is interfering with your life; obviously, under the correct definition, alcoholism and predisposition to alcoholism are not at all similar. An example: I was likely born with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. My father and paternal grandfather were very serious alcoholics. My ethnic background is primarily Mexican and Irish. However, I've never had a drop of alcohol. So I am obviously not an alcoholic, and I wasn't born an alcoholic.
But there's no such thing as a predisposition to homosexuality that comes out once you're "exposed to homosexuality", because that doesn't make any sense. If you're a homosexual, you're going to feel a sexual attraction to members of the same sex when puberty hits and you start having sexual feelings.
In short, if you know people who are saying that alcoholism and homosexuality are analogous, they are incorrect.
-
Fair and Balanced
(https://www.kirksnosehair.com/pics/faux.jpg)
-
False. We all know that only Congress has the power to declare war on marriage.
-
You can be born with a predisposition to alcoholism. But you are not born alcoholic. You're an alcoholic if your dependency on alcohol is interfering with your life; obviously, under the correct definition, alcoholism and predisposition to alcoholism are not at all similar. An example: I was likely born with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. My father and paternal grandfather were very serious alcoholics. My ethnic background is primarily Mexican and Irish. However, I've never had a drop of alcohol. So I am obviously not an alcoholic, and I wasn't born an alcoholic.
But there's no such thing as a predisposition to homosexuality that comes out once you're "exposed to homosexuality", because that doesn't make any sense. If you're a homosexual, you're going to feel a sexual attraction to members of the same sex when puberty hits and you start having sexual feelings.
In short, if you know people who are saying that alcoholism and homosexuality are analogous, they are incorrect.
The analogy of homosexuality to alcoholism is nothing but an attack on homosexuality as some kind of social/medical/psychiatric defect.
-
False. We all know that only Congress has the power to declare war on marriage.
Doesn't he have about 40 days or something to do as he pleases as commanding officer before having to tell congress what he is doing. Or is that only in state of emergency?
@gmiller: yea, thats what I meant.
-
First off, an alcoholic never exposed to alcohol isn't an alcoholic. A homosexual who never has gay sex is still a homosexual as it is based on desire and love and not intercourse. Secondly, an addiction and a capacity to love are not in the slightest bit comparable, under any circumstance. Alcoholics and homosexuals are not comparable. Thirdly, you said that an alcoholic who is never exposed to alcohol is the same as a homosexual who is never exposed to homosexuality. Not true. A homosexual doesn't even need to know that it exists to realize what they are, they just need to be exposed to human beings. If they are exposed to men BAM, they know. If they are exposed to women, they at least know something isn't normal. They don't even need to know what homosexuality is. Alcoholics on the other hand, if never beginning to drink, never become alcoholics, they stay people who have a predisposition to become addicted.
I have known MANY...MANY alcoholics who absolutely disagree with this. They were "born alcoholics"....period.
People are getting the idea that I am on one side of this issue or the other....I'm not. I'm not a scientist...I don't actually know if alcoholics are born, or if homosexuals are born. But I've been around enough to know that the debate looks EXACTLY the same to me. I have seen "scientific evidence" that homosexuals ARE NOT born...but that it's a lifestyle choice. I've seen "scientific evidence" that alcoholics ARE born and that there is NO choice in the matter. Who's right? I have no freakin idea. But if you don't think the debates mirror each other...you're mistaken.
-
YAY this is all we will hear about till November now.
Economy? Afghanistan? Job market? Social Security? Education? Abortion? PFFT! Such irrelevant issues!
-
Is that Fox headline for real? Amazing, I love the US.
-
@jd: Alcoholics who claim to be born alcoholics are either A) speaking figuratively (a very real possibility; what they mean is that they were predisposed to alcoholism and quickly became alcoholics when they first had alcohol) or B) ignorant of the actual medical definition of alcoholism (also a possibility). Rest assured that it makes no sense whatsoever under the definition of alcoholism that one could be born alcoholic.
There is scientific evidence that people are born with genetic predispositions to alcoholism. Homosexuality, under its proper definition, is not a lifestyle choice.
But if you don't think the debates mirror each other...you're mistaken.
There is no debate.
People are getting the idea that I am on one side of this issue or the other....I'm not.
Surely you understand why we might think you're on one side of the issue, given that you juxtaposed homosexuality and alcoholism, the latter of which is a harmful addiction.
-
First off, an alcoholic never exposed to alcohol isn't an alcoholic. A homosexual who never has gay sex is still a homosexual as it is based on desire and love and not intercourse. Secondly, an addiction and a capacity to love are not in the slightest bit comparable, under any circumstance. Alcoholics and homosexuals are not comparable. Thirdly, you said that an alcoholic who is never exposed to alcohol is the same as a homosexual who is never exposed to homosexuality. Not true. A homosexual doesn't even need to know that it exists to realize what they are, they just need to be exposed to human beings. If they are exposed to men BAM, they know. If they are exposed to women, they at least know something isn't normal. They don't even need to know what homosexuality is. Alcoholics on the other hand, if never beginning to drink, never become alcoholics, they stay people who have a predisposition to become addicted.
I have known MANY...MANY alcoholics who absolutely disagree with this. They were "born alcoholics"....period.
People are getting the idea that I am on one side of this issue or the other....I'm not. I'm not a scientist...I don't actually know if alcoholics are born, or if homosexuals are born. But I've been around enough to know that the debate looks EXACTLY the same to me. I have seen "scientific evidence" that homosexuals ARE NOT born...but that it's a lifestyle choice. I've seen "scientific evidence" that alcoholics ARE born and that there is NO choice in the matter. Who's right? I have no freakin idea. But if you don't think the debates mirror each other...you're mistaken.
You missed his main point; an alcoholic might never become one if NEVER introduced to it; and would feel fine. Its only when he gets his first sip then his predisposition kicks in. The human body would not "crave" it if it never experienced it. However, a homosexual male would know something is amiss if he is completely surrounded by females and has no attraction to them.
-
@jd: Alcoholics who claim to be born alcoholics are either A) speaking figuratively (a very real possibility; what they mean is that they were predisposed to alcoholism and quickly became alcoholics when they first had alcohol) or B) ignorant of the actual medical definition of alcoholism (also a possibility). Rest assured that it makes no sense whatsoever under the definition of alcoholism that one could be born alcoholic.
There is scientific evidence that people are born with genetic predispositions to alcoholism. Homosexuality, under its proper definition, is not a lifestyle choice.
But if you don't think the debates mirror each other...you're mistaken.
There is no debate.
People are getting the idea that I am on one side of this issue or the other....I'm not.
Surely you understand why we might think you're on one side of the issue, given that you juxtaposed homosexuality and alcoholism, the latter of which is a harmful addiction.
Right on the money.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/298098_279088225449803_100000458829025_1019547_845628827_n.jpg)
-
You can be born with a predisposition to alcoholism. But you are not born alcoholic. You're an alcoholic if your dependency on alcohol is interfering with your life; obviously, under the correct definition, alcoholism and predisposition to alcoholism are not at all similar. An example: I was likely born with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. My father and paternal grandfather were very serious alcoholics. My ethnic background is primarily Mexican and Irish. However, I've never had a drop of alcohol. So I am obviously not an alcoholic, and I wasn't born an alcoholic.
But there's no such thing as a predisposition to homosexuality that comes out once you're "exposed to homosexuality", because that doesn't make any sense. If you're a homosexual, you're going to feel a sexual attraction to members of the same sex when puberty hits and you start having sexual feelings.
In short, if you know people who are saying that alcoholism and homosexuality are analogous, they are incorrect.
The analogy of homosexuality to alcoholism is nothing but an attack on homosexuality as some kind of social/medical/psychiatric defect.
The only difference between "defect" and "condition" is whether you believe the "problem" is "wrong" or not. I do not believe it is my place to call *ANYTHING* right or wrong. "Right" and "wrong" can only be outlined by God. Not by any man.
-
A refreshing glimmer of sanity in the darkening abyss of the ever-more secularized and increasingly relativist United States of America.
Why don't you put youir money where your mouth is and demand the death penalty for homesexuality?
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Just sayin'
Nothing like cherry picking a verse to serve a purpose. Levitical law is Old covenant, and Christ followers shouldnt be too concerned with a set of laws theyve been redeemed from. If you can find me a verse where Jesus (New Covenant)tells me I need to kill all gays then id be impressed. But I suspect your google search won't reveal that for you.
Indeed, but you're overlooking the fact that Jesus was a Jew teaching the Jewish Law to his fellow Jews and, as such, Leviticus, being part of the Torah. would be very much a part of that Law.
Judaism was the religion of Jesus. Christianity is largely the religion of Paul, who told Jews to forget the Jewish Law.
Jesus told the Jewish crowds that in order to enter the kingdom, they needed to do what God had commanded in the Jewish law. Specifically they needed to carry out the two greatest commandments of the law: love god with all their heart, soul and strength (quoting Deuteronomy 6:4-6) and love their neighbours as themselves (quoting Leviticus 19:18)
"On these two commandments", urged Jesus, "hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:40)
However.... Paul said, "You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace" (Galatians 5:4)
-
You can be born with a predisposition to alcoholism. But you are not born alcoholic. You're an alcoholic if your dependency on alcohol is interfering with your life; obviously, under the correct definition, alcoholism and predisposition to alcoholism are not at all similar. An example: I was likely born with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. My father and paternal grandfather were very serious alcoholics. My ethnic background is primarily Mexican and Irish. However, I've never had a drop of alcohol. So I am obviously not an alcoholic, and I wasn't born an alcoholic.
But there's no such thing as a predisposition to homosexuality that comes out once you're "exposed to homosexuality", because that doesn't make any sense. If you're a homosexual, you're going to feel a sexual attraction to members of the same sex when puberty hits and you start having sexual feelings.
In short, if you know people who are saying that alcoholism and homosexuality are analogous, they are incorrect.
The analogy of homosexuality to alcoholism is nothing but an attack on homosexuality as some kind of social/medical/psychiatric defect.
The only difference between "defect" and "condition" is whether you believe the "problem" is "wrong" or not. I do not believe it is my place to call *ANYTHING* right or wrong. "Right" and "wrong" can only be outlined by God. Not by any man.
Homosexuality is neither a defect nor a condition nor a problem. It's just a trait, and one that is deeply connected to the self.
-
-snip of stupid pic that doesn't further the conversation of gay marriage in any way shape or form-
hyperbole
:rollin
-
A refreshing glimmer of sanity in the darkening abyss of the ever-more secularized and increasingly relativist United States of America.
Why don't you put youir money where your mouth is and demand the death penalty for homesexuality?
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Just sayin'
Nothing like cherry picking a verse to serve a purpose. Levitical law is Old covenant, and Christ followers shouldnt be too concerned with a set of laws theyve been redeemed from. If you can find me a verse where Jesus (New Covenant)tells me I need to kill all gays then id be impressed. But I suspect your google search won't reveal that for you.
Indeed, but you're overlooking the fact that Jesus was a Jew teaching the Jewish Law to his fellow Jews and, as such, Leviticus, being part of the Torah. would be very much a part of that Law.
Judaism was the religion of Jesus. Christianity is largely the religion of Paul, who told Jews to forget the Jewish Law.
Jesus told the Jewish crowds that in order to enter the kingdom, they needed to do what God had commanded in the Jewish law. Specifically they needed to carry out the two greatest commandments of the law: love god with all their heart, soul and strength (quoting Deuteronomy 6:4-6) and love their neighbours as themselves (quoting Leviticus 19:18)
"On these two commandments", urged Jesus, "hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:40)
However.... Paul said, "You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace" (Galatians 5:4)
I've overlooked nothing and am aware of who Christ was and is, and what he taught his Jewish bretheren through scripture (from the Torah) and what he teaches those who care to hear. My point was/is Christ didn't/doesn't endorse killing Homosexuals....
-
That's why I put problem in quotes. Because even if you substitute "trait"...it doesn't change the point of my comment in any way.
The only difference between a "defect" and a "trait" is whether or not you think something is "right" or "wrong"...and I believe that no man has the right to declare what is "right" and "wrong"...only God does.
And for the record, there's not a single person on earth who is not "defective"...not me...not you...not anyone. That is also why I feel I have no right to judge anyone. I'm defective.
-
And which god would that be!?
TOPIC DERAILMENT!!! (sorry just ignore me and this post)
-
And which god would that be!?
TOPIC DERAILMENT!!! (sorry just ignore me and this post)
:corn
::)
-
-snip of stupid pic that doesn't further the conversation of gay marriage in any way shape or form-
hyperbole
:rollin
How is that hyperbole? There are genetic consequences for producing children with your first cousin.
-
Is that Fox headline for real? Amazing, I love the US.
Yes, it's real, but it's a FOX Nation article, and isn't actually part of FOX News. It's more their editorial department. To be clear, FOX News isn't shy about writing bullshit headlines, but they're not generally as blatantly bogus as the FOX Nation department. Those guys are just insane.
-
-snip of stupid pic that doesn't further the conversation of gay marriage in any way shape or form-
hyperbole
:rollin
How is that hyperbole? There are genetic consequences for producing children with your first cousin.
Because ignorant people think "WELL I CAN MARRY AND FUCK MY COUSIN, SO DUDES SHOULD BE ABLE TO MARRY" when it should be a separate discussion. It's beyond stupid. In fact, it is FUCKING stupid.
so maybe it's logical fallacy. Either way, it's counterproductive to a discussion of gay marriage.
-
To tackle some things here, let me begin with Omega:
What you are is doing is defining marriage and pushing your own definition as law. Partly you say it's about reproduction... but what about a heterosexual couple who gets married but they have no intentions to have children - is that OK? Why is your opinion on what the purpose of marriage should be more sacred?
Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is meaningless and irrelevant. ("In principle" means "relating to the definition of" as in "not relating to particular circumstances." So if an orange happens to have a bug residing in its insides, the bug is not part of the definition of an orange; it doesn't change what the orange is in principle.) Human beings reason and make laws by means of concepts and definitions. And if one doesn't know how to operate with respect to those concepts and definitions, that individual cannot make laws. Examples of individuals who are impotent or who are infertile or past the childbearing age do not change the definition of marriage in principle because between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible. It is this very possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law and government. But as when procreation is impossible, as with two males or two females, it isn't that this is incidentally impossible; it is impossible in principle! Yet if you say that this is a "marriage," you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.
-
Please watch this video (especially you, Omega) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR9gyloyOjM
It just disgusts me how certain people can act (not referring to anyone on here). I cannot honestly understand how someone can practically disown their own child.
Yes, it is especially relevant to me, since, you know, I advocate violence and abuse towards homosexuals. I've seen the video before, thanks. Heartbreaking, right? I don't see how pulling at my heart strings will convince me of even considering of condoning or allowing an impossibility such as same-sex "marriage".
-
A refreshing glimmer of sanity in the darkening abyss of the ever-more secularized and increasingly relativist United States of America.
Why don't you put youir money where your mouth is and demand the death penalty for homesexuality?
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Just sayin'
I unfortunately don't have any Youir money. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Youir the currency some Arabic countries use? Either way, I'd love to, again, and thanks for the invitation, but I don't posses any Youir money.
PS: I'm rather pleased that you decided to change that Dawkins avatar.
-
Fair and Balanced
(https://www.kirksnosehair.com/pics/faux.jpg)
Wait, is that photoshopped? That can't be real.
rumborak
-
It is completely real.
https://nation.foxnews.com/
-
Wow. What a shit site.
-
(https://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3ru8eKiEl1qce8jx.png)
Also, how about that underwear bomb plot?
-
Fair and Balanced
(https://www.kirksnosehair.com/pics/faux.jpg)
Wait, is that photoshopped? That can't be real.
rumborak
It's been changed to "Obama Flipflops on Gay Marriage" now.
I wonder if they received complaints about their blatantly inflammatory headline, and decided to go with something a bit more politic.
-
-snip of stupid pic that doesn't further the conversation of gay marriage in any way shape or form-
hyperbole
:rollin
How is that hyperbole? There are genetic consequences for producing children with your first cousin.
Its not that big of a problem to be honest.
-
Fair and Balanced
(https://www.kirksnosehair.com/pics/faux.jpg)
Wait, is that photoshopped? That can't be real.
rumborak
Nope, it's 100% real. I got it right from the Fox site, before their handlers got them to take it down. Groovy, ain't it?
-
"FAIR AND BALANCED"
-
"FAIR AND BALANCED"
It is bro. Conservatives get their time and liberals get theirs. Just a matter of which views they make look better. :azn:
-
Once again, we probably shouldn't be bashing FOX on the basis of FOX Nation. That'd be like slamming MSNBC because of something that aired on Dateline NBC. Same ownership, different outlet. From what I can tell, FOX Nation appears to be an editorial outlet, and they're allowed to be full of shit on that front. Actually, I'd probably label them as analogous to Huffington Post.
Besides, FOX News proper does more than enough questionable things to keep us all bashing them for years to come.
-
jammindude's posts about homosexuality and alcoholism are literally HORRIBLE. Utterly illogical and irrational 'arguments' thinly veiling homophobia.
The only thing 'immoral' is 'distancing yourself' from practicing homosexuals because YOU deem them to be 'immoral'. How is 'distancing yourself' any different to 'cruelty'? Really? Family members/friends who you 'distance yourself' from based solely on their sexual orientation WILL feel hurt by your actions. I guarantee you that no homosexual/bisexual person is acting on their orientation to hurt anyone else - they've almost certainly gone through a whole lot of pain for years coming to terms with it themselves before they even work up the courage and the inevitable shitty reactions from people around them. I came to terms with the fact I was bi when I was about 15/16 - it was only when I was 23 that I felt comfortable enough to both act on it and tell people my orientation. You should feel privileged that they've trusted in your goodness enough to be honest with you, and not abuse that trust to then apply skewed religious dogma to insinuate they are 'bad'.
Why the hell would anyone CHOOSE to be a homosexual? A life of having to be cautious around EVERYONE because of a constant awareness there are judgmental people who will react negatively to the fact you're homosexual, and even a fear of actual physical/verbal attacks? Why would anyone CHOOSE that? When I'm out in public with the guy I'm dating, there are very few situations/places we feel comfortable enough to even hug or hold hands, let alone kiss - this isn't because we think we're doing anything 'wrong' or 'immoral' but because we are aware there are plenty of 'immoral' and judgmental people in the world who would do their best to make us feel pariahs.
Alcoholics are born with a predisposition to addictive personality traits, or circumstances in their life has made them shit at coping with reality, and alcohol becomes a tool to block out that reality, or just becomes something they become addicted to AFTER trying it. Alcoholics who say they were 'born' to be alcoholics know full well that if they'd never tried alcohol, then their life wouldn't be the same. They're also probably aware that if they'd tried various other drugs then they'd be addicted to those instead. Unless a human has been locked away in a room alone all their life, then they WILL be exposed to men and women, and it becomes plain to them who/what they're attracted to. People don't become gay because they see that other people are gay and think "oh man, they're cool, I wanna be gay too" - they REALISE they're gay when they see members of their sex that they feel attracted too - exactly like straight people see people of the opposite sex and realise they're attracted to them.
This post has been VERY restrained. jammindude's self-righteous posts literally sickened me with their entirely un-Christian attitudes. I'm not Christian (or any religion whatsoever), but I nevertheless think that Jesus was a good character - any 'Christian' who distances themselves from homosexuals and deems them 'immoral' is certainly very un-Christ-like. With the coming and teachings of Jesus came a new covenant - the old one is obsolete, and not just there to be picked from at random to suit personal prejudices. If you truly beleive in a god, then you should realise that it's up to that god to judge the individual's actions as moral/immoral - not you. If you wanna follow the Old Testament (I'm not gonna even gonna get started on how anyone who doesn't think that history and humans have altered the 'original' message of the text is very short-sighted and totally blind to even the most basic lessons of history), then you damn well better follow every single irrational rule in it (amongst myriad others; don't sit anywhere where a female friend on their period has sat, lest you become unclean!!!) to the letter to avoid being a ridiculous hypocrite.
edit: the saddest thing is, according to the link in jammindude's sig, he's actually a middle-aged man, and not an impressionable teenager as I first presumed.
-
Rick...
I'm honestly really sorry if my post came across as anything "veiled". It was never my intention to hide anything you're perceiving. I am sorry if I gave any impression that I in any way feel any malice towards anyone. And I offer my sincere apologies if it came across that way.
I honestly feel that you're reading something in that's not there. But I can't say that I blame you. As I said in a previous post...this subject has polarized so many people so much, that everyone perceives you as belong to the side that accepts, or the side that hates. No one seems to have any room for balance.
I can assure you that I have received JUST as much proverbial "hate mail" from conservatives for my defense of treating all people with kindness, and condemning those who mistreat *ANY* human being for any reason whatsoever. Nothing raises my ire more than those who claim to be "Christian" condemning homosexuality as if it was a contagious form of leprosy. And I have gone on record several times as condemning all such actions.
It is the very core of everything I believe that human beings were NEVER meant to decide for themselves what is "right" and "wrong"...it is a very centralized and fundamental foundation to everything else I believe. As such, I do take exception to the idea that *I* have deemed something (or anything for that matter) as immoral. The very idea stabs at the heart of everything I believe and hold dear. As a matter of fact, my entire form of worship is based on the idea that Adam broke away from God *BY CHOOSING HIS OWN STANDARD* of what is "good" and "bad"...what is "right" and what is "wrong". We simply were not created with the capacity to make that choice independently of God. We must look to God for what is "right" and "wrong"...I don't make the call.
There is NO vitriol hiding under the surface...there is no fear...no hatred... I'm no better than anyone else. I'm just as flawed and broken as everyone else on planet earth, and there's not a single one of us that is better than another. If I stand in judgment of ANYONE...I stand condemned.
If I gave any impression other than that...even if it just seemed like I was hiding something (I'm not) than I again owe you my sincere apologies. I am sorry.
-
To tackle some things here, let me begin with Omega:
What you are is doing is defining marriage and pushing your own definition as law. Partly you say it's about reproduction... but what about a heterosexual couple who gets married but they have no intentions to have children - is that OK? Why is your opinion on what the purpose of marriage should be more sacred?
Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is meaningless and irrelevant. ("In principle" means "relating to the definition of" as in "not relating to particular circumstances." So if an orange happens to have a bug residing in its insides, the bug is not part of the definition of an orange; it doesn't change what the orange is in principle.) Human beings reason and make laws by means of concepts and definitions. And if one doesn't know how to operate with respect to those concepts and definitions, that individual cannot make laws. Examples of individuals who are impotent or who are infertile or past the childbearing age do not change the definition of marriage in principle because between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible. It is this very possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law and government. But as when procreation is impossible, as with two males or two females, it isn't that this is incidentally impossible; it is impossible in principle! Yet if you say that this is a "marriage," you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.
As others have said in all of the threads you've posted this rant in (which you continually ignore whenever it's brought up), this is historically not the reason that marriage has existed. Marriage, up until the relatively recent past, has been an exchange of property, the wife being the property. Historically and factually, marriage has not served the purpose you claim it to serve. Children have been inconsequential as far as marriage is concerned; the romantic concept of getting married to a woman who loves you, buying a house, and having some kids is really very recent, and exists only in developed countries.
Even today, I don't see how marriage "regulates the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation". The government doesn't do any "regulation" of any kind when it comes to procreation. If you have a baby, the government expects you to feed it and not to beat it, but these same rules apply whether you're married or not. There is no "regulation" that applies specifically to married people.
-
Rick...
I'm honestly really sorry if my post came across as anything "veiled". It was never my intention to hide anything you're perceiving. I am sorry if I gave any impression that I in any way feel any malice towards anyone. And I offer my sincere apologies if it came across that way.
What was 'veiled' was your homophobia - you think it is something immoral - therefore universally 'wrong' and 'bad'. You beleive this to be the right thing to think because it is part of your belief system. I respect that people can beleive whatever the hell they want to beleive, but just because someone believes something doesn't give them any sort of right whatsoever to name what is objectively right and wrong. Your belief is a choice - biblical 'knowledge' does not come a priori.
I honestly feel that you're reading something in that's not there. But I can't say that I blame you. As I said in a previous post...this subject has polarized so many people so much, that everyone perceives you as belong to the side that accepts, or the side that hates. No one seems to have any room for balance.
There is little 'balance' in your previous posts.
I can assure you that I have received JUST as much proverbial "hate mail" from conservatives for my defense of treating all people with kindness, and condemning those who mistreat *ANY* human being for any reason whatsoever. Nothing raises my ire more than those who claim to be "Christian" condemning homosexuality as if it was a contagious form of leprosy. And I have gone on record several times as condemning all such actions.
If you want to treat people with 'kindness', then you wouldn't choose to distance yourself from practicing homosexuals - you would tell them one time that you have a belief system based around the reading of a single book that you have interpreted to show that there are concepts of right and wrong, and 'sin', and that in your reading of that book practicing homosexuality is one of those 'sins' - however, as a Christian you understand that it's none of your business and you still love them just as you love any other human being, and then you carry on as normal - to choose to treat them in any other way is to judge them.
It is the very core of everything I believe that human beings were NEVER meant to decide for themselves what is "right" and "wrong"...it is a very centralized and fundamental foundation to everything else I believe. As such, I do take exception to the idea that *I* have deemed something (or anything for that matter) as immoral. The very idea stabs at the heart of everything I believe and hold dear. As a matter of fact, my entire form of worship is based on the idea that Adam broke away from God *BY CHOOSING HIS OWN STANDARD* of what is "good" and "bad"...what is "right" and what is "wrong". We simply were not created with the capacity to make that choice independently of God. We must look to God for what is "right" and "wrong"...I don't make the call.
You have chosen to beleive things. Just as you choose not to believe other things in your life. You have chosen to beleive that your interpretation of a text is 'right', just as you have chosen to beleive that that text is objectively 'right' to even begin with. Basic understanding of anything to do with linguistic, literary, or historical theory should lead one to understand that anything you read is interpreted. Deconstruction highlights the dangers of logocentrism; basic understandings of even just Derrida, Barthes and Wittgenstein would be illuminating.
The Testimony of Truth
It is written in the Law concerning this, when God gave a command to Adam, "From every tree you may eat, but from the tree which is in the midst of Paradise do not eat, for on the day that you eat from it, you will surely die." But the serpent was wiser than all the animals that were in Paradise, and he persuaded Eve, saying, "On the day when you eat from the tree which is in the midst of Paradise, the eyes of your mind will be opened." And Eve obeyed, and she stretched forth her hand; she took from the tree and ate; she also gave to her husband with her. And immediately they knew that they were naked, and they took some fig-leaves (and) put them on as girdles.
But God came at the time of evening, walking in the midst of Paradise. When Adam saw him, he hid himself. And he said, "Adam, where are you?" He answered (and) said, "I have come under the fig tree." And at that very moment, God knew that he had eaten from the tree of which he had commanded him, "Do not eat of it." And he said to him, "Who is it who has instructed you?" And Adam answered, "The woman whom you have given me." And the woman said, "It is the serpent who instructed me." And he (God) cursed the serpent, and called him "devil." And he said, "Behold, Adam has become like one of us, knowing evil and good." Then he said, "Let us cast him out of paradise, lest he take from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever."
But what sort is this God? First he maliciously refused Adam from eating of the tree of knowledge, and, secondly, he said "Adam, where are you?" God does not have foreknowledge? Would he not know from the beginning? And afterwards, he said, "Let us cast him out of this place, lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever." Surely, he has shown himself to be a malicious grudger! And what kind of God is this? For great is the blindness of those who read, and they did not know him. And he said, "I am the jealous God; I will bring the sins of the fathers upon the children until three (and) four generations." And he said, "I will make their heart thick, and I will cause their mind to become blind, that they might not know nor comprehend the things that are said." But these things he has said to those who believe in him and serve him!
-
But what sort is this God? First he maliciously refused Adam from eating of the tree of knowledge, and, secondly, he said "Adam, where are you?" God does not have foreknowledge? Would he not know from the beginning? And afterwards, he said, "Let us cast him out of this place, lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever." Surely, he has shown himself to be a malicious grudger! And what kind of God is this? For great is the blindness of those who read, and they did not know him. And he said, "I am the jealous God; I will bring the sins of the fathers upon the children until three (and) four generations." And he said, "I will make their heart thick, and I will cause their mind to become blind, that they might not know nor comprehend the things that are said." But these things he has said to those who believe in him and serve him!
Wow!
sounds like the serpent's words all over again
-
Rick...I wouldn't mind discussing more of this with you at length...but I'm getting the impression you have already made up your mind about me.
We can seek a better understanding of one other, but I don't wish to derail the thread. PM me if you wish to have open minded dialog.
May you have peace, my friend.
-
Oh my god. Dude, Omega. Please. Reconsider everything about your world view and your view of yourself right now. The way you're going, you're going to be unhappy forever. Or, you're going to have a moment when you get older when you're forced to realize that everything you thought was wrong. And you're going to then spiral to other intellectually and emotionally vacuous places to fill that hole in your identity.
Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is meaningless and irrelevant. ("In principle" means "relating to the definition of" as in "not relating to particular circumstances." So if an orange happens to have a bug residing in its insides, the bug is not part of the definition of an orange; it doesn't change what the orange is in principle.)
Why is your definition of marriage correct? From what source do you derive its veracity? Why is your definition correct and the definition of other people in this thread wrong?
Human beings reason and make laws by means of concepts and definitions. And if one doesn't know how to operate with respect to those concepts and definitions, that individual cannot make laws.
This is stupid. A person's ability to make laws is based off the power they have or do not have. Let's say I'm the dictator of a small African nation. I make a law that says every citizen of my country must offer me a package of Yogurt as tribute to my greatness within the next week. This is stupid and nonsensical. But none of that matters, because I have a death squad to punish everyone who doesn't comply. I have the power to make laws. Whether or not those laws are logical is meaningless.
Examples of individuals who are impotent or who are infertile or past the childbearing age do not change the definition of marriage in principle because between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible.
I think what you're trying to say is that since, in theory, a man and a woman can procreate, it doesn't matter if they actually can. Therefore, any man and any woman can marry.
Because of this, are you okay with incestuous marriages? Marraiges between fathers/daughters or sons/mothers? They can procreate.
It is this very possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law and government.
Let's say this is true (because really, I have no idea), why can't the purpose of something change over time?
But as when procreation is impossible, as with two males or two females, it isn't that this is incidentally impossible; it is impossible in principle!
What's with your obsession over definitions?
Yet if you say that this is a "marriage," you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation.
Right, that's exactly what everyone else is saying. Marriage isn't just about making babies. We are attempting to change its definition. This does not take away from the necessity of stable two-parent families to the proper care of children. Do you have a problem with a gay couple raising kids?
So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.
Right, exactly. You're defining marriage based on your whims. I'm defining it based on mine.
-
Rick...I wouldn't mind discussing more of this with you at length...but I'm getting the impression you have already made up your mind about me.
We can seek a better understanding of one other, but I don't wish to derail the thread. PM me if you wish to have open minded dialog.
May you have peace, my friend.
I do not see this as 'derailing' the thread whatsoever - the thread is about homosexuality and people's attitudes towards such things, and that is what is being discussed. If the dialogue is to continue, then I'd rather be on a public forum. I have not 'made up my mind' about you to the point I am closed whatsoever; but I must say that thus far you have said nothing in response to my previous 2 posts that makes me reconsider anything I've said.
-
The amendment is fucking insane, and a real shame for the state of North Carolina. A whole lot of ignorant, self-righteous, morons decided it was time to take matters into their own hands, and 'protect' marriage. I get it though, over the years it has become obvious that gays are assaulting the institution of marriage, and that it needs protection.
Marriage, as an institution, is sacred and necessary to protect human procreation [Omega Opinion].
Gay marriage, because of it's inability to procreate, is inherently more dangerous than a heterosexual marriage between two lunatics who can't possibly raise a kid effectively to contribute to society [Omega Opinion]
My moral beliefs, largely founded in my religious beliefs, are the only correct beliefs, and should be accepted as fact [Omega Opinion]
All humans who truly understand God's will, as expressed in the Bible, will agree with me (rightfully so) [Omega Opinion]
It is my right to forbid the communion between two consensual people, based solely on my opinions [Omega Opinion]
I hold onto a strict, antediluvian, moral code, and it should be accepted as fact [Omega Opinion]
I fully comprehend the preachings of an ancient manuscript written in a time that I cannot begin to understand, for reasons I may never fully
understand [Omega Opinion]
I support discrimination against a minority, based on their sexual orientation, and find it incredulous that anyone should disagree with me [Omega Opinion]
Your arguments are nothing but... OPINIONS
-
jammindude,
You seem not to understand the implications of the posts you've made.
First of all, you juxtaposed alcoholism and homosexuality. The latter is a normal sexual orientation; the former is an addiction which has destroyed many lives. Surely you understand what may be construed as offensive about that.
Your other post called homosexuality a "trait", "condition", and "problem". The words were in quotation marks, but that doesn't change the words themselves.
In short, I think you're trying to be fair and agreeable, but you're just really, really bad at voicing unbiased opinions.
Also, I'm not going to necessarily judge your view on how Christians should treat homosexuals. However, your ultimate goal is to become Christlike, right? You should ask yourself whether Christ would distance himself from sinners as you described in great detail.
-
Well, your quote of The Testimony of Truth gets into a completely different discussion. We start to go away from the topic of homosexuality, and into to the topic of "the origin of sin"...and deeper into a theological discussion.
What have I said that was homophobic?
More importantly, when did I ever decide that anything was immoral? I very firm in my stance that *it is not my call or decision* to decide that anything is immoral. I am too broken, flawed and imperfect to ever make a call of that nature. It's completely out of my depth. I was not created with the ability to decide what is moral or immoral. The only decision I made was that I made a decision that human beings (all of them...including me...especially me) didn't know what the heck we were doing, and couldn't make those decisions for ourselves. So I humbly bow to God's superior wisdom above my own.
I believe that the Bible is the word of God, and that the men involved wrote God's thoughts. But here is where I feel we'll probably end up branching off into a discussion about whether or not the Bible is from God...whether or not it should be followed...what it really says...whether or not it's been changed through the ages...etc...etc...etc... And that is where we would end up derailing the thread.
I believe that everyone *is free* to choose for themselves what they wish to do....I have chosen to follow God and not myself.
-
Well, your quote of The Testimony of Truth gets into a completely different discussion. We start to go away from the topic of homosexuality, and into to the topic of "the origin of sin"...and deeper into a theological discussion.
I posted that not because I beleive it's 'correct' (I don't beleive in anything to do with gods, etc) - just to highlight the dangers of black/white interpretations - interpretations can equally show that God arbitrarily chose his own standards, etc.
What have I said that was homophobic?
'Homophobia' isn't limited to fear/hate - it's an umbrella term that also encompasses any prejudice or aversion - thus it's perfectly valid to use in this context for you have claimed it's sinful behaviour, likened it to alcoholism, and stated you then avoid such people - if someone I considered friend/family acted like this towards me if I informed them of my sexuality then I have no qualms whatsoever in condemning their behaviour as 'immoral' (in a Kantian sense, of course).
More importantly, when did I ever decide that anything was immoral? I very firm in my stance that *it is not my call or decision* to decide that anything is immoral. I am too broken, flawed and imperfect to ever make a call of that nature. It's completely out of my depth. I was not created with the ability to decide what is moral or immoral. The only decision I made was that I made a decision that human beings (all of them...including me...especially me) didn't know what the heck we were doing, and couldn't make those decisions for ourselves. So I humbly bow to God's superior wisdom above my own.
I believe that the Bible is the word of God, and that the men involved wrote God's thoughts. But here is where I feel we'll probably end up branching off into a discussion about whether or not the Bible is from God...whether or not it should be followed...what it really says...whether or not it's been changed through the ages...etc...etc...etc... And that is where we would end up derailing the thread.
I believe that everyone *is free* to choose for themselves what they wish to do....I have chosen to follow God and not myself.
You seem like you're probably a decent guy, trying to do his best on what he thinks is right, but your methods are very flawed. If I thought you were an intentionally malicious person, I wouldn't even bother engaging with you and wasting my time. I don't want any discussion whatsoever about whether the Bible is the word of god or not - I don't beleive in a god to begin with to even bother entertaining the notion that there's a book written based on his direct words. I'm merely pointing out that if indeed you do beleive in such a god, and do beleive that those are his words, then as I've already stated in previous posts - you very seriously need to reconsider your utter blind faith in your own human interpretations of those words: follow your interpretation, and you follow yourself - however much you try and convince yourself otherwise.
-
jammindude,
You seem not to understand the implications of the posts you've made.
First of all, you juxtaposed alcoholism and homosexuality. The latter is a normal sexual orientation; the former is an addiction which has destroyed many lives. Surely you understand what may be construed as offensive about that.
Your other post called homosexuality a "trait", "condition", and "problem". The words were in quotation marks, but that doesn't change the words themselves.
In short, I think you're trying to be fair and agreeable, but you're just really, really bad at voicing unbiased opinions.
Also, I'm not going to necessarily judge your view on how Christians should treat homosexuals. However, your ultimate goal is to become Christlike, right? You should ask yourself whether Christ would distance himself from sinners as you described in great detail.
With Christ...the situation pretty much took care of itself. Because he taught what God's standards were without being apologetic....and he did it everywhere he went. Anyone who didn't want to listen to him, just avoided him. In my own way, I attempt to do the same thing. I teach God's standards, and I generally find that those who don't with to conform to God's standards tend to stay away. But I always attempt (in my own imperfect way) to teach with kindness and love. Christ was always kind....but he *NEVER* compromised.
Some people here have claimed that the rest of the Bible (namely Paul's letters) are to be dismissed as being against what Christ taught. I disagree completely. I believe that Paul's letter's are God's thoughts on the matter. But again...this is where we start to diverge off topic. This forum is about homosexuality. I believe that what the Bible teaches is very clear on homosexuality. That we are to be kind and loving to all of human kind, but avoid ungodly actions to the best of our ability. We must do the best we can to try to teach people what God's standards are...what they choose to do with that information (if anything) is a choice of free will. God can, and is willing to forgive anyone of any ungodly thing they've ever done...no matter whether it's something as simple and tiny as a lie, or something as heinous as rape and murder...but forgiveness requires repentance...repentance requires turning your back on your former course of life. And Jesus said that no matter how precious something is to us...even if we love it as much as an eye or a foot...if it's making us do something that God condemns, we need to cut it out of our lives.
He also said that because of conforming to God's standards, everyone would hate us...sometimes even members of our own family. But that we must put God's standards above our own, and remain loyal to him alone...even over our own families.
-
jammindude,
You seem not to understand the implications of the posts you've made.
First of all, you juxtaposed alcoholism and homosexuality. The latter is a normal sexual orientation; the former is an addiction which has destroyed many lives. Surely you understand what may be construed as offensive about that.
Your other post called homosexuality a "trait", "condition", and "problem". The words were in quotation marks, but that doesn't change the words themselves.
In short, I think you're trying to be fair and agreeable, but you're just really, really bad at voicing unbiased opinions.
Also, I'm not going to necessarily judge your view on how Christians should treat homosexuals. However, your ultimate goal is to become Christlike, right? You should ask yourself whether Christ would distance himself from sinners as you described in great detail.
With Christ...the situation pretty much took care of itself. Because he taught what God's standards were without being apologetic....and he did it everywhere he went. Anyone who didn't want to listen to him, just avoided him.
Completely, unequivocally incorrect. My advice to you is to spend a while thinking about this issue.
Mark 2:
"16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” "
-
I'm happy that I'm not gay or religious. Nobody cares to talk about an old, fat dude. I'm not a hip subject. :lol
Really though, I've been married for almost 18 years and not once have I thought about stopping a gay couple that wants to marry. To me it doesn't affect me or my life one bit.
-
@jammindude;
A person's sexual orientation isn't a choice.
Also, and I say this to help you, brevity is your friend. When you reply to everything with a somewhat rambling wall of text, it's unclear sometimes exactly what you're trying to say. Keep it concise, and we can avoid misunderstandings.
-
More importantly, when did I ever decide that anything was immoral? I very firm in my stance that *it is not my call or decision* to decide that anything is immoral. I am too broken, flawed and imperfect to ever make a call of that nature. It's completely out of my depth. I was not created with the ability to decide what is moral or immoral. The only decision I made was that I made a decision that human beings (all of them...including me...especially me) didn't know what the heck we were doing, and couldn't make those decisions for ourselves. So I humbly bow to God's superior wisdom above my own.
I believe that the Bible is the word of God, and that the men involved wrote God's thoughts. But here is where I feel we'll probably end up branching off into a discussion about whether or not the Bible is from God...whether or not it should be followed...what it really says...whether or not it's been changed through the ages...etc...etc...etc... And that is where we would end up derailing the thread.
I believe that everyone *is free* to choose for themselves what they wish to do....I have chosen to follow God and not myself.
You seem like you're probably a decent guy, trying to do his best on what he thinks is right, but your methods are very flawed. If I thought you were an intentionally malicious person, I wouldn't even bother engaging with you and wasting my time. I don't want any discussion whatsoever about whether the Bible is the word of god or not - I don't beleive in a god to begin with to even bother entertaining the notion that there's a book written based on his direct words. I'm merely pointing out that if indeed you do beleive in such a god, and do beleive that those are his words, then as I've already stated in previous posts - you very seriously need to reconsider your utter blind faith in your own human interpretations of those words: follow your interpretation, and you follow yourself - however much you try and convince yourself otherwise.
Another thing I really have an aversion to is "blind faith"...
As a matter of fact, I found one old saying to be very true in the case of my conversion...."The Truth will set you free....but it will really piss you off first."
My conversion came after months of research, study and soul searching. And when it all started to point in one direction, my first reaction was I was REALLY REALLY upset. It made me mad. I believe the first words out of my mouth upon my revelation was..."OH GOD NO!! ANYTHING BUT THAT!!!!" Then I ran away. I was so frustrated because I didn't want what I had found. So I looked into other things...other viewpoints...and then I realized that those viewpoints were telling me what *I* wanted to hear, and not what the actual facts were pointing to. So I got mad again.
Finally, I just caved. The proverbial "prodigal son" came home. This was absolutely NOT what I wanted...but I found that when I put it into practice, I was happier...as God had promised all along. Every time I've done things *MY* way, my life has gone to crap...every time I've done things God's way, my life has been wonderful. That continues to be the case. I still make mistakes...but I'm convinced that that pattern will continue. God has been trustworthy, and he's been my best friend, and every piece of advice he's given me has always turned out for the best. Every time I've ignored him and done things my way...it was nothing but a mess. I trust him...not myself.
-
@jammindude;
A person's sexual orientation isn't a choice.
Also, and I say this to help you, brevity is your friend. When you reply to everything with a somewhat rambling wall of text, it's unclear sometimes exactly what you're trying to say. Keep it concise, and we can avoid misunderstandings.
I guess I do tend to get verbose sometimes. I apologize. But in one of my posts, I acknowledged that I agree with you. It's not a choice. But ACTIONS are ALWAYS a choice. We all are born with some kind of defect. No one is exempt. But do we decide for ourselves whether it's OK to act on those things? Or do we let God make the choice for us? I have chosen the latter.
I suppose I'm going to get jumped on for using "defect" again...but again, let me remind you that this is ALL INCLUSIVE. There isn't a human being alive that ISN'T defective. WE'RE ALL defective. I may have more defects than any homosexual alive. (I probably do) But if I take an action that is against God's law...the penalty will be death. Can I be forgiven? Yes...provided I repent and reject my former course of conduct.
-
Dude. Defective? It doesn't matter if you think it's universal, but you just called every gay person broken.
-
I suppose I'm going to get jumped on for using "defect" again...but again, let me remind you that this is ALL INCLUSIVE. There isn't a human being alive that ISN'T defective. WE'RE ALL defective.
Just to be clear on what defects you're talking about here, do you have any other examples of defects that you view in the same way you view homosexuality?
-
It made me mad. I believe the first words out of my mouth upon my revelation was..."OH GOD NO!! ANYTHING BUT THAT!!!!" Then I ran away.
Hey, I was exactly like that when I realised as a teenager that I really was bi, after years of repressing it! Less like alcoholism, more like divine revelations, I guess ;)
I guess I do tend to get verbose sometimes. I apologize. But in one of my posts, I acknowledged that I agree with you. It's not a choice. But ACTIONS are ALWAYS a choice. We all are born with some kind of defect. No one is exempt. But do we decide for ourselves whether it's OK to act on those things? Or do we let God make the choice for us? I have chosen the latter.
So your god chooses to tell you to act in a way so as to actively avoid gay people so as to make them and their behaviour seem judged and rejected by their fellow man, and generally make them feel like shit because of (presumably, in your mind) something in their nature that your god instilled in them from birth. That sounds like a pretty unfair and irrational god to be following.
Also, I'm pretty sure it's against forum rules to insist on repeatedly referring to my sexuality as 'defective'. Just sayin'.
-
Oh my god. Dude, Omega. Please. Reconsider everything about your world view and your view of yourself right now. The way you're going, you're going to be unhappy forever. Or, you're going to have a moment when you get older when you're forced to realize that everything you thought was wrong. And you're going to then spiral to other intellectually and emotionally vacuous places to fill that hole in your identity.
Oh my god. Dude, ReaPsTA. Please. Reconsider everything about your world view and your view of yourself right now. The way you're going, you're going to be unhappy forever. Or, you're going to have a moment when you get older when you're forced to realize that everything you thought was wrong. And you're going to then spiral to other intellectually and emotionally vacuous places to fill that hole in your identity.
-
Your arguments are nothing but...OPINIONS
Now, now, senecadawg2...
Is it merely your opinion that my arguments are mere opinions? Or is it your opinion of the opinion of my argument's opinion that the opinions that have been reached are nothing but opinions?
-
Oh my god. Dude, Omega. Please. Reconsider everything about your world view and your view of yourself right now. The way you're going, you're going to be unhappy forever. Or, you're going to have a moment when you get older when you're forced to realize that everything you thought was wrong. And you're going to then spiral to other intellectually and emotionally vacuous places to fill that hole in your identity.
Oh my god. Dude, ReaPsTA. Please. Reconsider everything about your world view and your view of yourself right now. The way you're going, you're going to be unhappy forever. Or, you're going to have a moment when you get older when you're forced to realize that everything you thought was wrong. And you're going to then spiral to other intellectually and emotionally vacuous places to fill that hole in your identity.
One group is clearly on the wrong side of history.
-
Excellent responses Omega. Well thought out rebuttals.
-
Oh my god. Dude, Omega. Please. Reconsider everything about your world view and your view of yourself right now. The way you're going, you're going to be unhappy forever. Or, you're going to have a moment when you get older when you're forced to realize that everything you thought was wrong. And you're going to then spiral to other intellectually and emotionally vacuous places to fill that hole in your identity.
Oh my god. Dude, ReaPsTA. Please. Reconsider everything about your world view and your view of yourself right now. The way you're going, you're going to be unhappy forever. Or, you're going to have a moment when you get older when you're forced to realize that everything you thought was wrong. And you're going to then spiral to other intellectually and emotionally vacuous places to fill that hole in your identity.
Your arguments are nothing but...OPINIONS
Now, now, senecadawg2...
Is it merely your opinion that my arguments are mere opinions? Or is it your opinion of the opinion of my argument's opinion that the opinions that have been reached are nothing but opinions?
Your unearned cockiness is incredible.
-
Omega, just so you know, posts like that don't come off as profound or intellectual as you may think.
-
I've given answers to many of these questions in the past homosexuality thread. You're free to stop by that thread whenever you'd like. Besides, why should I even think that any of you are interested in anything resembling a rational discourse? The last time I bought into that oh-so-innocent idea many of you guys "voted" to lock the thread and resorted to writing "rebuttals" that resembled that of an emotionally distraught 12 year old. So pardon me if I'm not too motivated to take many of you so seriously as a result.
-
Would you like to actually link to this thread you keep referencing, since some of us may not know what thread you're referring to?
-
Omega, just so you know, posts like that don't come off as profound or intellectual as you may think.
How do you suggest I respond to a type of comment that basically states "well, like, it's just all your opinion, dude! Like we all have opinions and we're all sharing them, dude, but your opinion is like not true, man! Like deal with it, ya know? I mean, if the majority of people on an internet site think that your opinions is, like, wrong, it's wrong, bro. Just accept it, ok?"? I'm neither inclined to take such a comment any more seriously than need be, nor am I too inclined to even attempt any sort of further rational discourse with such a poster.
-
Your arguments are nothing but...OPINIONS
Now, now, senecadawg2...
Is it merely your opinion that my arguments are mere opinions? Or is it your opinion of the opinion of my argument's opinion that the opinions that have been reached are nothing but opinions?
It is very simple...
I am of the opinion that you are wrong.
You are of the opinion that you are right.
For some reason, you are attempting to argue your opinions as if they were facts.
I am in no way denying the existence of my own biased opinions. Only trying to enlighten you to the nature of your own biased opinions; which you seem to be in denial of.
And let's not begin talking about 'rational discourse'. The rationale behind your arguments is anything but rational, in my opinion.
-
Omega, just so you know, posts like that don't come off as profound or intellectual as you may think.
How do you suggest I respond to a type of comment that basically states "well, like, it's just all your opinion, dude! Like we all have opinions and were all sharing them, dude, but your opinion is like not true, man! Like deal with it, ya know"? I'm neither inclined to take such a comment any more seriously than need be, nor am I too inclined to even attempt any sort of further rational discourse with such a poster.
Multiple times you're tried passing off opinion as fact. It's not unreasonable for someone to ask you to actually back up something that you're claiming to be fact.
One problem here is that you've already decided that your opinion is 'rational' and that anyone who disagrees with you is being 'irrational'.
-
Omega, just so you know, posts like that don't come off as profound or intellectual as you may think.
How do you suggest I respond to a type of comment that basically states "well, like, it's just all your opinion, dude!"? I'm neither inclined to take such a comment any more seriously than need be, nor am I too inclined to even attempt any sort of further rational discourse with such a poster.
You could realize that when you post things you claim to be unarguable objective facts, which are actually just your opinions, you come off as cocky. You could realize that these ideas aren't actually unarguable objective facts and are merely just your opinions. Simply realizing and admitting this will go a long way to creating a more polite and productive conversation. You have a lot of knowledge and very interesting ideas that would get recognized more if you didn't state them as facts. Hope this helps.
-
Adami is correct.
-
I feel similarly to Adami.
-
Omega, you periodically manage to turn a thread about a subject into a thread about you.
I end up having to warn you and others to get back to the topic.
Either find a new way to discuss the subject without derailing into a subject about you or enjoy a vacation.
This is your final warning!
-
Omega, just so you know, posts like that don't come off as profound or intellectual as you may think.
How do you suggest I respond to a type of comment that basically states "well, like, it's just all your opinion, dude!"? I'm neither inclined to take such a comment any more seriously than need be, nor am I too inclined to even attempt any sort of further rational discourse with such a poster.
You could realize that when you post things you claim to be unarguable objective facts, which are actually just your opinions, you come off as cocky. You could realize that these ideas aren't actually unarguable objective facts and are merely just your opinions. Simply realizing and admitting this will go a long way to creating a more polite and productive conversation. You have a lot of knowledge and very interesting ideas that would get recognized more if you didn't state them as facts. Hope this helps.
As the ancient Jewish proverb says: The force is strong with this one.
-
that sounds more like star wars, silly
-
that sounds more like star wars, silly
He meant the Schwartz.
-
The amendment is fucking insane, and a real shame for the state of North Carolina. A whole lot of ignorant, self-righteous, morons decided it was time to take matters into their own hands, and 'protect' marriage. I get it though, over the years it has become obvious that gays are assaulting the institution of marriage, and that it needs protection.
I'm posting from my phone so sorry that I didnt get the user in the quote.
@who posted this - just because you disagree doesn't mean those people are self righteous, ignorant morons. You can kick and scream at me all you want about it, but just because someone doesn't agree with you make them any less right. It's clear you believe something different, which is fine. Just don't say they're ignorant morons. If anything, it makes you look like an ignorant moron. You don't know every single voter who voted. Etc.
-
I think that anyone who purposefully infringes upon the rights of others deserves at the very least to be called a moron, if not labelled with a more malicious label.
-
The amendment is fucking insane, and a real shame for the state of North Carolina. A whole lot of ignorant, self-righteous, morons decided it was time to take matters into their own hands, and 'protect' marriage. I get it though, over the years it has become obvious that gays are assaulting the institution of marriage, and that it needs protection.
I'm posting from my phone so sorry that I didnt get the user in the quote.
@who posted this - just because you disagree doesn't mean those people are self righteous, ignorant morons. You can kick and scream at me all you want about it, but just because someone doesn't agree with you make them any less right. It's clear you believe something different, which is fine. Just don't say they're ignorant morons. If anything, it makes you look like an ignorant moron. You don't know every single voter who voted. Etc.
Maybe "ignorant morons" wasnt the correct term, but "self-righteous" fits pretty well for someone who wants to push their own specific religious based beliefs on to all residents of their state. The judges would also have accepted "Fucking Asshats" and "Lord and Lady Douchbag".
-
Man...all I did was go to eat dinner...and I fall so far behind.
A couple of things before I go to take a shower (and fall two more pages behind). A "defect" is anything...anything at all...that gives us a predisposition to do anything that is against God's standards. That's a pretty broad blanket that NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON EARTH is immune from. Ever had the urge to lie? That's a defect. My personal list of defections is a half mile long...but I digress.
Also...God DID NOT create us this way. God created Adam flawless...but Adam rebelled and thus "defected" himself. So he was incapable of passing down anything but defective children. That is why we are defective from birth...every last person who was ever born of man. (save Jesus, who was protected from inheriting imperfection by his father...but again...that's getting into another topic).
-
Omega, you periodically manage to turn a thread about a subject into a thread about you.
I end up having to warn you and others to get back to the topic.
Either find a new way to discuss the subject without derailing into a subject about you or enjoy a vacation.
This is your final warning!
Just so I know where the line is, just how many Final Warnings do we get?
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=32006.msg1274136#msg1274136
-
Omega, you periodically manage to turn a thread about a subject into a thread about you.
I end up having to warn you and others to get back to the topic.
Either find a new way to discuss the subject without derailing into a subject about you or enjoy a vacation.
This is your final warning!
Just so I know where the line is, just how many Final Warnings do we get?
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=32006.msg1274136#msg1274136
:lol
my short memory should serve as a testimony on why not to frequently use cannibas.
that was a final warning (which I admit I did forget :biggrin:) for speaking against another member
this final warning is for derailing threads
I will count on your memory, though, to keep me in check
-
The amendment is fucking insane, and a real shame for the state of North Carolina. A whole lot of ignorant, self-righteous, morons decided it was time to take matters into their own hands, and 'protect' marriage. I get it though, over the years it has become obvious that gays are assaulting the institution of marriage, and that it needs protection.
I'm posting from my phone so sorry that I didnt get the user in the quote.
@who posted this - just because you disagree doesn't mean those people are self righteous, ignorant morons. You can kick and scream at me all you want about it, but just because someone doesn't agree with you make them any less right. It's clear you believe something different, which is fine. Just don't say they're ignorant morons. If anything, it makes you look like an ignorant moron. You don't know every single voter who voted. Etc.
Maybe "ignorant morons" wasnt the correct term, but "self-righteous" fits pretty well for someone who wants to push their own specific religious based beliefs on to all residents of their state. The judges would also have accepted "Fucking Asshats" and "Lord and Lady Douchbag".
Sorry Snapple, I suppose I misspoke a bit. 'Ignorant morons' might not be appropriate, and I was very frustrated when I posted that. I acknowledge that this is just my opinion, and you are entitled to your own.
However, as some others have said, I completely stand by my accusation of self-righteousness.
-
my short memory should serve as a testimony on why not to frequently use cannibas.
:hat
-
Eric...I'd also like to point out that if you have an issue or a question about a mod or mod decision in the future, you do so privately by pm, or through the report function. This thread and others are not the places to question a mods decision or actions, or to second guess another members status.
-
Eric...I'd also like to point out that if you have an issue or a question about a mod or mod decision in the future, you do so privately by pm, or through the report function. This thread and others are not the places to question a mods decision or actions, or to second guess another members status.
It was just a joke. Yesh took it in the spirit it was intended. I dont want to see anybody banned.
-
^ cool beans...dude. :)
-
.....................
-
Man...all I did was go to eat dinner...and I fall so far behind.
A couple of things before I go to take a shower (and fall two more pages behind). A "defect" is anything...anything at all...that gives us a predisposition to do anything that is against God's standards. That's a pretty broad blanket that NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON EARTH is immune from. Ever had the urge to lie? That's a defect. My personal list of defections is a half mile long...but I digress.
Also...God DID NOT create us this way. God created Adam flawless...but Adam rebelled and thus "defected" himself. So he was incapable of passing down anything but defective children. That is why we are defective from birth...every last person who was ever born of man. (save Jesus, who was protected from inheriting imperfection by his father...but again...that's getting into another topic).
You have no idea how genuinely sad reading your posts makes me. I find your thinking incredibly dangerous; I hope that one day you will re-read and reflect upon the posts I've made in response to you, and not view them as something you must immediately defend yourself against. At no point have I suggested you should renounce your faith - I merely think you should re-think how you approach it as at present it seems remarkably skewed and misguided.
-
my short memory should serve as a testimony on why not to frequently use cannibas.
I will count on your memory, though, to keep me in check
[/quote]
Well, doesn't the latter neutralize the former?
-
just because you disagree doesn't mean those people are self righteous, ignorant morons. You can kick and scream at me all you want about it, but just because someone doesn't agree with you make them any less right. It's clear you believe something different, which is fine. Just don't say they're ignorant morons. If anything, it makes you look like an ignorant moron. You don't know every single voter who voted. Etc.
Yeah, but the people who voted for this amendment are self righteous, ignorant morons.
This amendment didn't accomplish anything positive; it only accomplished negative things. It made the only valid, legally recognized union in the state of North Carolina a marriage between one man and one woman. It was supported by religious fundamentalists who are against gay marriage. But gay marriage was already not legal here in North Carolina. This new amendment will also basically void any other civil unions already in place, whether between gays or straights. It will also put in jeopardy many rights and privileges currently enjoyed by children of non-married couples. It is a poorly written law that went largely unexamined by the majority of people who supported it, largely because they were just voting for it because it was "anti-gay marriage" - which, as I said, was already illegal in North Carolina.
-
I disagree. On a spiritual level, those points you brought up must have been considered an unfortunate side effect. I'm pretty sure the straight civil unions will be fixed up somehow. Hef, you made incredibly valid reasons for why the ban may not be a good thing. However, you can't assume that people are on the same thinking wave lengths as you. I could see it as something in the same vein as using aborted fetuses in stem cell research. While there is nothing wrong with part of the issue, the fact that aborted fetuses would be used is something some peoPle won't get over. I hope that makes sense.
I'm sure y'all have seen my views on the subject before. And I know I'm playing devils advocate right now. However, I'm sitting here and thinking , despite me not caring of homosexuals marry, I can't honestly say I wouldn't have voted in support of the ban. If I voted against it, I feel like I would be being dishonest with what I believe. If I voted for it, I'd be in alignment with what I believe personally. Howerver, I'd be unfairly punishing others for something that really isnt my business. However, I could always skip the ballot item.
>but your civic duties!
-
That's oversimplifying things just a little bit, don't ya think, "it will be fixed up somehow." Not saying I have an answer myself, but that definitely isn't one.
Also, I think Hef's point wasn't so much his personal disagreement with the bill as the fact that since gay marriage already is illegal in NC, and as such it was redundant at best, and has horrendous negative side effects at worst.
-
That's oversimplifying things just a little bit, don't ya think, "it will be fixed up somehow." Not saying I have an answer myself, but that definitely isn't one.
Also, I think Hef's point wasn't so much his personal disagreement with the bill as the fact that since gay marriage already is illegal in NC, and as such it was redundant at best, and has horrendous negative side effects at worst.
I understand that. However, there are people who will let their beliefs supersede. It's not wrong for them to do so. I can't sit here and tell people that they're wrong for believing what they do. I can think/believe they're wrong, but I can't tell them. I believe God places different things on people's hearts. So, who am I to tell people they are wrong?
-
So instead you'll vote for a law that tells people they're wrong.
-
So instead you'll vote for a law that tells people they're wrong.
There is a line. When I look at the ballot (granted I haven't seen the prop that was on the ballot) I take it as what do I, Christian Y., personally believe on the issue. That's why I posted that I am conflicted on the issue. I'd probably end up skipping the prop.
-
You just said you would've voted for it.
-
I said I can't say I wouldn't. There is a difference.
-
In an effort to lighten things up just a tiny bit:
(https://i.imgur.com/CZHeU.jpg)
-
It is a poorly written law that went largely unexamined by the majority of people who supported it, largely because they were just voting for it because it was "anti-gay marriage" - which, as I said, was already illegal in North Carolina.
-
(https://www.kirksnosehair.com/pics/gayrush.jpg)
:lol
-
::) ::)
-
BTW, as long as we are wanting our laws on marriage to conform to what the Bible has to say about marriage, here is a gem from Deuteronomy:
21:10 When you go out to do battle with your enemies and the Lord your God allows you to prevail and you take prisoners, 21:11 if you should see among them an attractive woman whom you wish to take as a wife, 21:12 you may bring her back to your house. She must shave her head, trim her nails, 21:13 discard the clothing she was wearing when captured, and stay in your house, lamenting for her father and mother for a full month. After that you may have sexual relations with her and become her husband and she your wife. 21:14 If you are not pleased with her, then you must let her go where she pleases. You cannot in any case sell her; you must not take advantage of her, since you have already humiliated her.
And this is obviously how the laws should be amended to deal with rotten children. Also from Deuteronomy:
21:18 If a person has a stubborn, rebellious son who pays no attention to his father or mother, and they discipline him to no avail, 21:19 his father and mother must seize him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his city. 21:20 They must declare to the elders of his city, “Our son is stubborn and rebellious and pays no attention to what we say – he is a glutton and drunkard.” 21:21 Then all the men of his city must stone him to death. In this way you will purge out wickedness from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid.
And don't give me any of that "Christians aren't bound by Old Testament laws" crap, because the Christians passing these laws are damn sure taking their definition of marriage from the Old Testament. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
-
Omega: In addition to what Adami said; the other thing is your very clear disregard for historical facts. You are making grand claims based on a argument that may be internally coherent, but has no basis in history.
That is what, I think, is driving people a little bonkers.
-
BTW, as long as we are wanting our laws on marriage to conform to what the Bible has to say about marriage, here is a gem from Deuteronomy:
[...]
And this is obviously how the laws should be amended to deal with rotten children. Also from Deuteronomy:
[...]
And don't give me any of that "Christians aren't bound by Old Testament laws" crap, because the Christians passing these laws are damn sure taking their definition of marriage from the Old Testament. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
(https://a.yfrog.com/img44/5899/1j5w.jpg)
;)
-
BTW, as long as we are wanting our laws on marriage to conform to what the Bible has to say about marriage, here is a gem from Deuteronomy:
21:10 When you go out to do battle with your enemies and the Lord your God allows you to prevail and you take prisoners, 21:11 if you should see among them an attractive woman whom you wish to take as a wife, 21:12 you may bring her back to your house. She must shave her head, trim her nails, 21:13 discard the clothing she was wearing when captured, and stay in your house, lamenting for her father and mother for a full month. After that you may have sexual relations with her and become her husband and she your wife. 21:14 If you are not pleased with her, then you must let her go where she pleases. You cannot in any case sell her; you must not take advantage of her, since you have already humiliated her.
And this is obviously how the laws should be amended to deal with rotten children. Also from Deuteronomy:
21:18 If a person has a stubborn, rebellious son who pays no attention to his father or mother, and they discipline him to no avail, 21:19 his father and mother must seize him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his city. 21:20 They must declare to the elders of his city, “Our son is stubborn and rebellious and pays no attention to what we say – he is a glutton and drunkard.” 21:21 Then all the men of his city must stone him to death. In this way you will purge out wickedness from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid.
And don't give me any of that "Christians aren't bound by Old Testament laws" crap, because the Christians passing these laws are damn sure taking their definition of marriage from the Old Testament. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
But this is not necessarily with Christianity only; all religions exhibit similar beliefs, at some point, when it comes to marriage. This only furthers the notion that "god's laws" is merely an extrapolation of pre-history human relations which were, understandably, very ignorant of the world.
-
How were they ignorant?
-
How were they ignorant?
wut
How would we count the ways that Bronze Age peoples were ignorant? They were ignorant of pretty much everything.
-
If I voted for it, I'd be in alignment with what I believe personally. However, I'd be unfairly punishing others for something that really isnt my business.
Matthew 7:12 - So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
I'm sure this would fall under the things that you believe personally. You would not like if someone denied you the opportunity to marry Courtney. You love her and want to celebrate it in marriage, which is awesome. Gay people just want the same thing. For any Christian to say that denying gay people that opportunity coincides with your beliefs as a Christian comes into direct opposition to the verse above. A verse that is so well known, it has been termed the "golden rule".
For the record, my intention wasn't to single you out, because in the same breath you said that you'd be punishing people for something that isn't your business, which is the preferable way to look at things. I wish more people looked at it that way. It isn't the business of anybody else.
-
How were they ignorant?
You know that world in which people thought the world was flat, that personality was determined by the existence of fluids called "humors," and horrendous diseases could be cured by prayer and/or leeches? This is at least 2000 years before that.
Anyway, what I actually came here to post: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/us/politics/obamas-watershed-move-on-gay-marriage.html?_r=1&hp&gwh=B3CEF19A21B459432B49CBC4D2CB3A15
-
I'm waiting to see how that stuff has anything to do with what Hef posted. That is what was called ignorant.
Also, I am a firm believer in the power of prayer and that God can do anything. So, I believe that prayer can heal.
Furthermore, I understand history and when which ages occurred. I understand your point, but they certainly didn't understand the same concepts we do today. Mostly vdcause of the technology. To call them ignorant is short sighted and narrow.
-
Prayer doesn't exactly have the best track record. Basing societal standards on the hope that prayers will fix it is, well....
rumborak
-
Actually, ignorant is exactly the term that should be used. If you have negative association with the word, that is a you problem. The term is completely appropriate.
Definition of IGNORANT
1a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
-
I'm waiting to see how that stuff has anything to do with what Hef posted. That is what was called ignorant.
Also, I am a firm believer in the power of prayer and that God can do anything. So, I believe that prayer can heal.
Furthermore, I understand history and when which ages occurred. I understand your point, but they certainly didn't understand the same concepts we do today. Mostly vdcause of the technology. To call them ignorant is short sighted and narrow.
1) As Rumborak said, prayer does not work. It gives you hope and hope is inherently optimistic and non realistic. By your view, the Westboro Baptist folks were successful in their prayer for soldiers to die.
2) They are ignorant to the discoveries of later sciences. (Being ignorant is not an insult by the way). Left-handedness was a defect. Homosexuality is a choice. Women are inherently inferior. All of these were built into cultures, and all of these were proven terribly wrong.
-
I'm waiting to see how that stuff has anything to do with what Hef posted. That is what was called ignorant.
Also, I am a firm believer in the power of prayer and that God can do anything. So, I believe that prayer can heal.
Furthermore, I understand history and when which ages occurred. I understand your point, but they certainly didn't understand the same concepts we do today. Mostly vdcause of the technology. To call them ignorant is short sighted and narrow.
1) As Rumborak said, prayer does not work. It gives you hope and hope is inherently optimistic and non realistic.
2) They are ignorant to the discoveries of later sciences. (Being ignorant is not an insult by the way). Left-handedness was a defect. Homosexuality is a choice. Women are inherently inferior. All of these were built into cultures, and all of these were proven terribly wrong.
1) IMO, prayer gives a person a way to feel as if they are doing something about a particular thing they truly have no control over. For example, praying for a soldiers safe return, or a child recovering from a terminal illness.
2) Yes, all proven terribly wrong exept the part about Left-handedness. Evil, insidious Lefty's.
-
I'm waiting to see how that stuff has anything to do with what Hef posted. That is what was called ignorant.
Also, I am a firm believer in the power of prayer and that God can do anything. So, I believe that prayer can heal.
Furthermore, I understand history and when which ages occurred. I understand your point, but they certainly didn't understand the same concepts we do today. Mostly vdcause of the technology. To call them ignorant is short sighted and narrow.
1) As Rumborak said, prayer does not work. It gives you hope and hope is inherently optimistic and non realistic. By your view, the Westboro Baptist folks were successful in their prayer for soldiers to die.
2) They are ignorant to the discoveries of later sciences. (Being ignorant is not an insult by the way). Left-handedness was a defect. Homosexuality is a choice. Women are inherently inferior. All of these were built into cultures, and all of these were proven terribly wrong.
I misread Westboro as Westeros. :lol
-
2) Yes, all proven terribly wrong exept the part about Left-handedness. Evil, insidious Lefty's.
True true, not without reason are they called "sinister" in Latin.
1) As Rumborak said, prayer does not work. It gives you hope and hope is inherently optimistic and non realistic.
Not only that, but it's also incredibly calloused to essentially say "no, I don't grant you the same right that I have. But hey, I prayed for you. I hope it's all good."
rumborak
-
Yeah, I just dont get the rational for the ban.
It is like if the Jewish population was the majority in a state, and they voted to make it illegal for anyone to eat pork or shellfish.
mmmmmmm....bacon wrapped scallops.
-
I won't go so far as to say prayer doesn't work.
But if I'm hurt or sick, I will ask someone to pray for me while I'm on the way to the doctor's office or hospital.
-
I won't go so far as to say prayer doesn't work.
But if I'm hurt or sick, I will ask someone to pray for me while I'm on the way to the doctor's office or hospital.
Sure, its a show of compassion and hope for you to get better. If someone says she would pray for me I would be very grateful. But it would be very naive of me to think that it could somehow compel a supernatural being to intervene.
-
I've overlooked nothing and am aware of who Christ was and is, and what he taught his Jewish bretheren through scripture (from the Torah) and what he teaches those who care to hear.
Ok so far...
My point was/is Christ didn't/doesn't endorse killing Homosexuals....
How could he teach the Jewish Law, including Leviticus, without endorsing that part of the Law?
I agree that the gospels say nothing directly about homosexuality, but I'm interested to establish where you get your information as to which parts of the Jewish Law Jesus included and which he left out. I'm unaware of any of this being specified in his teachings.
-
In an effort to lighten things up just a tiny bit:
(https://i.imgur.com/CZHeU.jpg)
That is great!! :lol :tup
-
I won't go so far as to say prayer doesn't work.
But if I'm hurt or sick, I will ask someone to pray for me while I'm on the way to the doctor's office or hospital.
You may want to reconsider that. (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060403133554.htm) ;)
-
I've overlooked nothing and am aware of who Christ was and is, and what he taught his Jewish bretheren through scripture (from the Torah) and what he teaches those who care to hear.
Ok so far...
My point was/is Christ didn't/doesn't endorse killing Homosexuals....
How could he teach the Jewish Law, including Leviticus, without endorsing that part of the Law?
I agree that the gospels say nothing directly about homosexuality, but I'm interested to establish where you get your information as to which parts of the Jewish Law Jesus included and which he left out. I'm unaware of any of this being specified in his teachings.
my first thought would be John 8 (apart from the question of its inspiration). the religious leaders brought a woman caught in adultery in order to trap him. his response was to scatter the accusers by exposing their hypocrisy, then turning to the woman and declaring forgiveness while also urging her to refrain from the act.
Jesus broke the jewish law on a number of occasions (the sabbath, the eating of shewbread, etc) in order to demonstrate that "I desire mercy, not sacrifice"
when Jesus declared "give to Caesar that which is Caesar and to God what is God's" he was pointing to the same principle that I think Christians today should recognize: the government of this world is not the government of the Kingdom of Christ. While in some countries we are wise in taking advantage of our rights to vote, we must not lose sight of the fact that "My Kingdom is not of this world"
-
my first thought would be John 8 (apart from the question of its inspiration). the religious leaders brought a woman caught in adultery in order to trap him. his response was to scatter the accusers by exposing their hypocrisy, then turning to the woman and declaring forgiveness while also urging her to refrain from the act.
Jesus broke the jewish law on a number of occasions (the sabbath, the eating of shewbread, etc) in order to demonstrate that "I desire mercy, not sacrifice"
when Jesus declared "give to Caesar that which is Caesar and to God what is God's" he was pointing to the same principle that I think Christians today should recognize: the government of this world is not the government of the Kingdom of Christ. While in some countries we are wise in taking advantage of our rights to vote, we must not lose sight of the fact that "My Kingdom is not of this world"
It's a little vague, though, especially when you consider the odd passage or two in Romans, 1 Corinthians and um.... 1 Timothy (I think... can't remember!). Homosexuality doesn't seem to be a particularly big deal in the New Testament as far as I can make out. Mind you, if we consider Roman and Greek influence that was more prevalent during this time than that of the OT times, maybe that is not that surprising....
-
Hey, I didn't come in here to say what I say goes. Not at all. I am trying to be respectful of others. When I say I believe in the power of prayer, I mean just that. I don't expect anyone to agree with me. If it's clear that the words "I, me, myself" are being used, it's a fucking opinion. You may not believe prayer works, and I believe it does. It's called respect and a couple of you have managed to lose mine.
-
The hiding behind "it's my belief, deal with it" is poor consolation for the people whose rights have been curtailed. Frankly it's yet another instance where people use the protection religious beliefs get in order to exert force on others.
rumborak
-
The hiding behind "it's my belief, deal with it" is poor consolation for the people whose rights have been curtailed. Frankly it's yet another instance where people use the protection religious beliefs get in order to exert force on others.
rumborak
Frankly, it shows you didn't read my posts at all pertaining to prayer. I left it at a short "I believe in the power of prayer" like sentence and the meat of my posts was addressing the other points.
-
Snapple, if you saw a ballot that wanted to ban Blacks from getting jobs or whatever, would you still be so defensive of the people who vote for it? What if it's a law that bans christians from holding office. Would it still be fine for the majority to vote for it if they believe in it?
-
The hiding behind "it's my belief, deal with it" is poor consolation for the people whose rights have been curtailed. Frankly it's yet another instance where people use the protection religious beliefs get in order to exert force on others.
rumborak
Frankly, it shows you didn't read my posts at all pertaining to prayer. I left it at a short "I believe in the power of prayer" like sentence and the meat of my posts was addressing the other points.
I think he was referring to your other posts.
-
Which other posts? I didn't highlight prayer until that post.
Adami - That's a silly question. It's not as black and white as you're assuming it is.
-
Adami - That's a silly question. It's not as black and white as you're assuming it is.
Many in the opposition would have said the same thing during the civil rights era.
-
I'm out.
-
I think what you're not understanding, snapple, is the fact that you're defending people who voted to strip civil rights from a group of fellow citizens and you're defending them with the rationalization that they are entitled to vote that way "because of their beliefs." A lot of people see that rationale as a cop out. I know you don't like it, but I think Adami's question is rather spot on in the context of your position.
How far do we allow rights to be stripped from one group of citizens because another group of citizens has a different set of beliefs? That's not fair, particularly when granting those rights hurts no one.
-
How far do we allow rights to be stripped from one group of citizens because another group of citizens has a different set of beliefs? That's not fair, particularly when granting those rights hurts no one.
but. but. but... I thought that the institution of marriage was a corporeal entity that needed to be protected from gays. If we don't protect it, it most certainly would be hurt. Right?
-
If I believed in ritual sacrifice, would the government respect that? No.
Why is bigotry different?
-
In defense of snapple, he did write that he's conflicted on this issue.
-
Which other posts? I didn't highlight prayer until that post.
Adami - That's a silly question. It's not as black and white as you're assuming it is.
Why not? And please don't be condescending to me, I was asking an honest question. If you don't want to answer, that's cool, but don't call it silly just because you don't have an answer.
-
I think what you're not understanding, snapple, is the fact that you're defending people who voted to strip civil rights from a group of fellow citizens
With all due respect Barry (and I believe you are aware of the fact that I do have a tremendous amount of personal respect for you notwithstanding drastically different religious and political views), by using that sort of rhetoric, you are shutting down any possibility whatsoever of having any sort of discussion on the issue at hand. I know that is not your intention, but by creating a de facto label and pigeonholing anyone who is against gay marriage as "anti civil rights," you are in effect demonizing and marginalizing anyone who might disagree with you. And whether your position is correct or not, that is not what this forum is for. In my years of running this forum, I have seen a number of people take some pretty offensive views on a variety of topics, and those views have occurred on both sides of the political and/or religious spectrums (spectra?). But provided the person presents those views without violating forum rules, they are permitted to express them without being directly or indirectly attacked for holding those views. I don't mean to single you out, but (1) unlike some others who have posted in the thread, you posted your post in such a way that I could form an articulate, meaningful response to it without just getting pissed off and getting into a further argument about the issue, and (2) I know from my interactions with you that you are mature enough to understand and respect where I am coming from even if you disagree.
But for others in the thread, I am going to offer a general warning: Namecalling, posts that are only sarcastic indirect personal attacks, throwing the term "bigot" around when someone disagrees with you, or other personal attacks and rule violations will not fly. It saddens me that I have come back from vacation to find so much of it here in just a few threads. I temporarily shut down P/R once before to send the message that if this sort of behavior continues, we will go back to the old days where we no longer have a P/R subforum and political and religious discussion are banned. That is not my preference. However, if the general attitude that seems to prevail here of "the forum rules don't apply in P/R and I can troll, spam, and personally attack anyone who disagrees with me" continues, that's what I'm going to do. I am tired of the religious attacking the nonreligious, the nonreligious attacking the religious, the right attacking the left, the left attacking the right, and so on. That's not the forum I want to run. So I hope it stops because I am getting tired of it.
-
To tackle some things here, let me begin with Omega:
What you are is doing is defining marriage and pushing your own definition as law. Partly you say it's about reproduction... but what about a heterosexual couple who gets married but they have no intentions to have children - is that OK? Why is your opinion on what the purpose of marriage should be more sacred?
Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is meaningless and irrelevant. ("In principle" means "relating to the definition of" as in "not relating to particular circumstances." So if an orange happens to have a bug residing in its insides, the bug is not part of the definition of an orange; it doesn't change what the orange is in principle.) Human beings reason and make laws by means of concepts and definitions. And if one doesn't know how to operate with respect to those concepts and definitions, that individual cannot make laws. Examples of individuals who are impotent or who are infertile or past the childbearing age do not change the definition of marriage in principle because between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible. It is this very possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law and government. But as when procreation is impossible, as with two males or two females, it isn't that this is incidentally impossible; it is impossible in principle! Yet if you say that this is a "marriage," you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.
Ok, you're arguing from that standpoint. I can see that, I have no actual objections about it - since I don't seek to (for the sake of this thread) determine what the purpose of marriage is. That answer still doesn't get to the core of my argument: I don't see why the state should determine the telos of a mere agreement (or contract) two or more individuals make with each other.
-
Commonly overlooked in the US is that it's the government's responsibility to protect the rights of all Americans, not just those who agree with the majority.
-
I thought kirk's point was accurate and exact (and non-insulting). The issue is exactly that; the denial of civil rights (whatever the reasons may be)
-
How far do we allow rights to be stripped from one group of citizens because another group of citizens has a different set of beliefs? That's not fair, particularly when granting those rights hurts no one.
It may not 'hurt anyone' but the fact of the matter is that 'the people have spoken' whether you or anyone likes it or not. It's ridiculous that when a vote doesn't go 'your' way that suddenly those who voted to pass whatever law are 'idiots' or whatever deragotory term you'd like to place there. Quite frankly I find it ironic that a LARGE portion of liberal minded people are going off on the voters who overwhelmingly passed the law when liberals pride themselves on being so tolerant and open minded. Likewise I find it disheartening when those who claim to be Christian fail to demonstrate the compassion and understanding that Christ teaches.
It's the states and the voters in that states right to vote for and pass whatever laws they want. That's that, and for me that's the way it should stay, a State decision...no matter the outcome. If the support for gay marriage was as large and as popular as it is portrayed or wants to believe it is, then these states would be passing the laws. The last 32 votes nationwide concerning gay marriage have been voted against. That should give an indication on where our country stands on the issue. Polls schmolls, the proof is in the vote and gay marriage is consistently voted against. That's a fact.
The gay/lesbian "community" is a very small percentage of the population....and frankly my ONLY problem with the entire movement is the fact that a small percentage of the population is trying to tell the Majority percentage what to do....and when it doesn't go thier way they throw a "tantrum" about it and say how evil everyone is. Heck, even California consistently votes not to allow gay marriage...it takes a judge who thinks his beliefs supersede the 'majorities' to annul that vote time and time again....which it won't be long before that happens in NC.
With further education the support may come...but to want to snap your fingers and demand that 'poof'.....we get our way when society isn't there just yet.....sorry. I think that the gay and lesbian movement should realize that despite the large amount of media and Hollywood support that there is still a long way to go for them. That's just the truth of the matter.
-
It's not such a small percentage of people actually. I don't have exact numbers, but the alternative sexualities are not just some fringe group imposing an obscure and unpopular belief on the majority.
-
What frustrates a lot of us goes back to my last comment:
Commonly overlooked in the US is that it's the government's responsibility to protect the rights of all Americans, not just those who agree with the majority.
It should not matter that the majority of people vote against gay marriage. It shouldn't matter what the majority think on issues of civil rights. The purpose of the government is to protect the rights of the minorities too. It frustrates me that a majority of Americans in these cases seem to think that they're opinion is more important than the rights of other Americans.
-
How far do we allow rights to be stripped from one group of citizens because another group of citizens has a different set of beliefs? That's not fair, particularly when granting those rights hurts no one.
The gay/lesbian "community" is a very small percentage of the population....and frankly my ONLY problem with the entire movement is the fact that a small percentage of the population is trying to tell the Majority percentage what to do....a
This is so maddenly frustrating to see this argument used over and over. They only thing they are "demanding" are the rights they are suppose to have under the very constitution that the right embraces so fervently. They are not telling anyone do to ANYTHING, just asking to be treated as equal citizens.
Why is this so hard to see?
Likewise I find it disheartening when those who claim to be Christian fail to demonstrate the compassion and understanding that Christ teaches.
WAIT, seriously? You are saying that NOT accepting a certain people is being Christlike? That NOT treating others as you would like to be treated is Christlike?
-
I propose that we prevent redheads from marrying. Having that many freckles is just unnatural, and allowing them to marry promotes increasing numbers of fleck-faced people in our society.
-
How far do we allow rights to be stripped from one group of citizens because another group of citizens has a different set of beliefs? That's not fair, particularly when granting those rights hurts no one.
It may not 'hurt anyone' but the fact of the matter is that 'the people have spoken' whether you or anyone likes it or not. It's ridiculous that when a vote doesn't go 'your' way that suddenly those who voted to pass whatever law are 'idiots' or whatever deragotory term you'd like to place there. Quite frankly I find it ironic that a LARGE portion of liberal minded people are going off on the voters who overwhelmingly passed the law when liberals pride themselves on being so tolerant and open minded. Likewise I find it disheartening when those who claim to be Christian fail to demonstrate the compassion and understanding that Christ teaches.
It's the states and the voters in that states right to vote for and pass whatever laws they want. That's that, and for me that's the way it should stay, a State decision...no matter the outcome. If the support for gay marriage was as large and as popular as it is portrayed or wants to believe it is, then these states would be passing the laws. The last 32 votes nationwide concerning gay marriage have been voted against. That should give an indication on where our country stands on the issue. Polls schmolls, the proof is in the vote and gay marriage is consistently voted against. That's a fact.
The gay/lesbian "community" is a very small percentage of the population....and frankly my ONLY problem with the entire movement is the fact that a small percentage of the population is trying to tell the Majority percentage what to do....and when it doesn't go thier way they throw a "tantrum" about it and say how evil everyone is. Heck, even California consistently votes not to allow gay marriage...it takes a judge who thinks his beliefs supersede the 'majorities' to annul that vote time and time again....which it won't be long before that happens in NC.
With further education the support may come...but to want to snap your fingers and demand that 'poof'.....we get our way when society isn't there just yet.....sorry. I think that the gay and lesbian movement should realize that despite the large amount of media and Hollywood support that there is still a long way to go for them. That's just the truth of the matter.
I am a P/R lurker, and I do not particularly side with either of the opposing camps in this thread. But this is the post of the year, and I'm not even kidding.
-
It's not such a small percentage of people actually. I don't have exact numbers, but the alternative sexualities are not just some fringe group imposing an obscure and unpopular belief on the majority.
And if you factor into this group heterosexual people who support gay rights, the numbers become much, much larger.
-
I propose that we prevent redheads from marrying. Having that many freckles is just unnatural, and allowing them to marry promotes increasing numbers of fleck-faced people in our society.
Thanks for disregarding my warning above. Specific warning has been issued to you. And given your behavior and the insistence of others on continuing to insist on labeling those who are against gay rights as civil rights violators after my warning above, this thread is done.
-
Thread is re-opened by request. But PLEASE heed my warnings above about personal attacks if it is to remain so and to remain ban-free going forward. It might be a good idea to read this post of mine before continuing: https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=327.msg1284902#msg1284902
Thanks.
EDIT: Oops. I guess it would help if I actually unlock the thread, right? :lol
-
"We are not anti-gay, we are pro-marriage," she said. "And the point -- the whole point -- is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults."
Looking at the full quote, what it means is the person quoted has a worldview based on a belief in a God that’s original intent was not a homosexual coupling for marriage.
The Constitution of the U.S. is not the Bible, but in general the Bible is still valued in American life and used to consecrate oaths on many occasions, from court room to President (not always anymore).
He swore in a second time without ceremony or Bible (misspoken oath), but here’s an example when the 44th President was sworn in by The Chief of the highest court in the land and before the Nation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hde4s-xBhqE
This video expresses that American authority values God enough to invoke His name and, in this case, the God of the Bible. In general, it’s not surprising to see a states citizens vote for a biblical worldview in the case of defending biblical marriage. The Bible is used as an authority in their way of life and has influenced that way of life along with the Constitution. The Bible is tolerated less and nominally interpreted more often, but for only half a century has the Bible been outlawed from being taught in U.S. schools. However; as long as it’s still legal to value the Bible and vote there will always be people who believe that sexual immorality brings death and without a sense of malice towards other Americans, vote their values. They’ll do this for the sake of Yeshua the Messiah, who was sacrificed for every person’s sin. Also, the protection of their families and even the protection of those who hold the opposing view. Rights are nice, but death isn’t. When you value the Bible and believe sin leads to death, you’ll tend to vote for laws that support that worldview.
-
Wow. For that post alone, I'm glad I reopened the thread. Very well said, comment. I think that captures my views pretty closely anyway. I wish I had your gift for words. I also wish those on the other side of the issue would take a step back and ponder the fact that, while there are plenty out there who have screwed up motives, some truly "believe that sexual immorality brings death and without a sense of malice towards other [people], vote their values."
-
I really find it funny, especially about what the title says but the subject is compelety different. We all love gays but sorry you have no rights here. (We really need a troll face smile here) And I also find it funny how politic matter turns into a religious matter. Politic decision is one thing, good or bad but using people's beliefs in this is completely another thing that can't be acceptable.
To me, no religion on the world gives answers about what we need in this era. So, why the hell we try to put it on the table all the time?. I'm writing this because when I look some article about this matter on the internet I saw some responds and I don't know if I find it funny or clueless.
"North Caroline fears God, We don't like Hurricane here"
I hoped it somehow sarcastic respond but unfortunetly it's not, considering the discussion seemed pretty serious.
-
And I also find it funny how politic matter turns into a religious matter. Politic decision is one thing, good or bad but using people's beliefs in this is completely another thing that can't be acceptable.
I think comment did a very good job two posts above yours of explaining why religious beliefs cross over into the political realm.
-
"We are not anti-gay, we are pro-marriage," she said. "And the point -- the whole point -- is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults."
Looking at the full quote, what it means is the person quoted has a worldview based on a belief in a God that’s original intent was not a homosexual coupling for marriage.
The Constitution of the U.S. is not the Bible, but in general the Bible is still valued in American life and used to consecrate oaths on many occasions, from court room to President (not always anymore).
He swore in a second time without ceremony or Bible (misspoken oath), but here’s an example when the 44th President was sworn in by The Chief of the highest court in the land and before the Nation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hde4s-xBhqE
This video expresses that American authority values God enough to invoke His name and, in this case, the God of the Bible. In general, it’s not surprising to see a states citizens vote for a biblical worldview in the case of defending biblical marriage. The Bible is used as an authority in their way of life and has influenced that way of life along with the Constitution. The Bible is tolerated less and nominally interpreted more often, but for only half a century has the Bible been outlawed from being taught in U.S. schools. However; as long as it’s still legal to value the Bible and vote there will always be people who believe that sexual immorality brings death and without a sense of malice towards other Americans, vote their values. They’ll do this for the sake of Yeshua the Messiah, who was sacrificed for every person’s sin. Also, the protection of their families and even the protection of those who hold the opposing view. Rights are nice, but death isn’t. When you value the Bible and believe sin leads to death, you’ll tend to vote for laws that support that worldview.
I'm not Christian, but I wouldn't vote for Christianity to be suppressed by the state.
This isn't about having your own beliefs - everyone is entitled to that. This is about stripping away the basic civil rights of others (or more accurately, it's prolonged denial), which rather based on one's religious beliefs or not, I find wholly unacceptable.
-
"We are not anti-gay, we are pro-marriage," she said. "And the point -- the whole point -- is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults."
Looking at the full quote, what it means is the person quoted has a worldview based on a belief in a God that’s original intent was not a homosexual coupling for marriage.
This is the 3rd time I've posted this in this thread - can you please tell me exactly what one is meant to follow if they follow God's intent for marriage as expressed in the Bible?:
(https://a.yfrog.com/img44/5899/1j5w.jpg)
However; as long as it’s still legal to value the Bible and vote there will always be people who believe that sexual immorality brings death and without a sense of malice towards other Americans, vote their values. They’ll do this for the sake of Yeshua the Messiah, who was sacrificed for every person’s sin. Also, the protection of their families and even the protection of those who hold the opposing view. Rights are nice, but death isn’t. When you value the Bible and believe sin leads to death, you’ll tend to vote for laws that support that worldview.
Objectively, do you really think it's fair that laws are based upon what people beleive to 'bring death' without actually having any empirical proof that this is definitely the case, and that these laws then result in some of their fellow humans being classed as unequal citizens (or, as it feels to them: unequal human beings, since they're not gonna feel classed as fellow 'citizens' at all) which most definitely DOES cause harm to those people whilst they are still alive here on earth? I respect your right to beleive what you want - but I challenge the idea that those beliefs ought to be enshrined in law when it's proven that they definitely do cause harm; whereas the inverse situation would in no way empirically cause anyone else harm at all.
-
I've got a better way to articulate my position. I believe that global warming denialists and so-called "skeptics" are condemning this planet to incredible turmoil, both climatically, economically, and also at a huge humanitarian cost. The unwillingness for people to make radical changes to our existing society in an attempt to reduce anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will result in the deaths of tens of millions of people. I believe that it will lead to incredible human pain and suffering. I think it is the most important issue mankind is facing, and it is almost wholly being ignored by the world's governments.
And yet I would never vote for those people to be stripped of their rights, or put in prison, or forcibly silenced.
If you don't believe that gay marriage is morally right, that's fine. Just don't force your opinions on others (even if they are a minority), and don't vote for people's rights to be denied.
-
RE: that post looking at the Old Testament regulations regarding marriage.
I know that not everyone will see it this way...but to me it's pretty clear. The literal words are true...but I personally see *the principle* of the statement beyond just the literal.
Matt 19:3-8
And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?” In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.” They said to him: “Why, then, did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” He said to them: “Moses, out of regard for YOUR hardheartedness, made the concession to YOU of divorcing YOUR wives, but such has not been the case from [the] beginning.
One thing *IS* clear. God used the Law of Moses to *regulate* practices that he DID NOT necessarily agree with. So the regulation of certain practices by the Israelites was not necessarily condoning it. He just knew they were FAR too stubborn to put away the practice of "divorcing their wives"...or polygamy for that matter. In other Scriptures, Jesus states very clearly that God always intended marriage to be between ONE man and ONE woman....and that he *tolerated* polygamy for a time. He also *tolerated* divorce for a time...though he regulated both practices through the Law of Moses.
Once Jesus came to earth, he made things clear. God tolerated this stuff for a time...but no more. His *original purpose* was for ONE man and ONE woman to be married til death, and never divorce. (the only acceptable grounds being fornication...that is, cheating)
-
Also, I'm gonna post up here 2 paragraphs of a bigger discussion that I had via PM with jammindude yesterday, as it's relevant for the overall public discussion:
---------
Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is so ridiculously based on interpretation it's unbelievable. People like to cite the old testament to back-up their prejudices, yet fail to acknowledge that Jesus made a new covenant. They also like to cite Paul (who in Romans basically stated that homosexual acts are the _punishment_ for unbelief in themselves - not a sin), yet happily gloss over the other things Paul said that they don't agree with (total authority of state, anti-semitism, veiling of women...?). Any faith is the faith in your own interpretation, and faith in your own unerring sense of right in this matter. The Bible condemns the harming of other people - I'm very certain that there is a lot harmful about telling people they are 'sinners' for engaging in consensual acts of love and expression that do not harm another, whereas the supposed 'sinful' act doesn't harm anyone. If you apply the Categorical Imperative to the issue, then you realise it's clear that what you are doing is willing into your universe some incredibly aggressive and harmful laws.
Socrates was the wisest of men and he clearly said "I know that I know nothing". I know nothing, and everyone on this planet 'knows' nothing. Basic lessons in phenomenology teach us the absolute arrogance it is to presume to have transcended the subject-object barrier; to claim to know the noumenal or the Absolute is sheer folly, just as it's sheer folly to claim you 'know' a universal notion of what is RIGHT and WRONG - other people can read the exact same bit of biblical text and draw entirely opposing conclusions - funnily enough those conclusions mirror their own values and attitudes before they had even read the text because, y'know, that's the power of interpretation. Roland Barthes wrote of the 'Death of the Author' - to claim to have external objective clarity about a text is dangerously totalitarian, and however much one wants to beleive that biblical text is indeed 'the word of god' then you actively choose ignorance to not look back through history and see how humans have shaped the texts and interpretations at all points throughout history to suit their own ideas.
RE: that post looking at the Old Testament regulations regarding marriage.
I know that not everyone will see it this way...but to me it's pretty clear. The literal words are true...but I personally see *the principle* of the statement beyond just the literal.
Ey-up, it's personal interpretation again ;)
Once Jesus came to earth, he made things clear. God tolerated this stuff for a time...but no more. His *original purpose* was for ONE man and ONE woman to be married til death, and never divorce. (the only acceptable grounds being fornication...that is, cheating)
Isn't God all-powerful? Why would he 'tolerate' things?
-
This isn't about having your own beliefs - everyone is entitled to that. This is about stripping away the basic civil rights of others, which rather based on one's religious beliefs or not, I find wholly unacceptable.
Here's where I disagree with it being an issue of stripping away civil rights:
First, I do not believe the rights of anyone in this scenario are any different than anyone else's. People in this country have always had the right to marry only a certain subset of people (excluding the period in this nation's history where people of certain races could not marry people of other races, which, thankfully, is gone, so let's not throw that red herring on the table, please). Regardless of my sexual orientation, I have ALWAYS been permitted to marry only adult women who are (1) over the age of consent and (2) are not presently married to someone else. No matter how much I might desire otherwise, I have never been permitted to marry a man, a person who is underaged, or a person who is married to someone else. This is true regardless of my sexual orientation, and those rights would be no different no matter what my sexual orientation. Consequently, there is no difference in rights. And it logically flows that a right that has never existed cannot in fact be stripped away.
Second, the concept of "rights" is always limited by other competing concerns. Rights are never completely unlimited. For example, rights are limited by our concepts of what is or is not moral conduct. In this case, engaging in homosexuality (as opposed to one's sexual orientation) is immoral, as defined by the Bible. You may disagree with that moral standard. I think comment, in his post, articulated very well why some hold that moral standard and allow that standard to dictate their lives. I don't mean to disregard others' beliefs on whether or not they think that is a proper moral standard, but for the sake of this particular point, whether one agrees that that is the correct moral standard or not is immaterial. The point is simply that a lot of people hold that moral standard and believe it is an absolute, objective (not subjective) moral standard because it is from God. Consequently, I believe that the government should not affirmatively endorse immoral conduct by giving it a recognized special status (i.e., recognizing it as marriage). I am not saying the government should take action in outlawing homosexual conduct. But I am saying the government should not take action in granting special relationship status either.
That is, in a nutshell, why I believe it is not an issue of stripping away civil rights. I do not like the way I have worded it, because it sounds cold and unfeeling in a way that does not completely represent how I feel on the subject. I wish I had comment's (and jammindude's) gift for articulating my viewpoint in a way that conveys both the viewpoint I feel is correct as well as the compassion I feel behind that view. I simply do not possess that ability, but I've explained it the best I can, and hopefully it is at least understandable.
-
And I also find it funny how politic matter turns into a religious matter. Politic decision is one thing, good or bad but using people's beliefs in this is completely another thing that can't be acceptable.
I think comment did a very good job two posts above yours of explaining why religious beliefs cross over into the political realm.
Do other persons sins mean you personally die?
Second, the concept of "rights" is always limited by other competing concerns. Rights are never completely unlimited.
The competing concern isn't a moral one, as you make it out to be, but a physical one. A lot of our rights protect someone even when we agree they've acted immorraly. Illegally obtained evidence is thrown out, even though due to the fact that it's evidecne and being thrown out, it's proof of immoral action.
-
Likewise I find it disheartening when those who claim to be Christian fail to demonstrate the compassion and understanding that Christ teaches.
WAIT, seriously? You are saying that NOT accepting a certain people is being Christlike? That NOT treating others as you would like to be treated is Christlike?
[/quote author=soundgarden link=topic=32240.msg1284800#msg1284800 date=1336685447]
Not saying that at all, the opposite in fact. I thought it was pretty clear. Liberals who SAY they are open minded and enlightened but then turn around and use thier 'enlightenment' to bash all who oppose thier 'evolved' view of the world are just as guilty as those who CLAIM to be Christian but then turn around and fail to demonstrate any example of the compassion and understanding that Christ teaches his followers to do. BOTH are hippocrites and BOTH ARE the problem.......
-
Rule thread:
5. Keep your language reasonable. Repeated and inappropriate usage of explicit language is forbidden. Violators will be warned before any serious action is taken. No racially offensive posts. No posts that are derogatory toward gender or sexual preference. No posts that use slang terms for any race, sexual preference, or religious background. Includes signatures.
By the way, can some clarify for me how it's within the rules for people to post that the behaviour I'm going to be engaging in all of next week when I'm staying at my boyfriend's is 'sinful', 'immoral', and 'causes death'? It's most definitely really offensive.
-
However; as long as it’s still legal to value the Bible and vote there will always be people who believe that sexual immorality brings death and without a sense of malice towards other Americans, vote their values.
A couple of questions here:
1) Am I understanding it correctly that Christians believe sin leads to death? So a less sinful person will live longer than a more sinful person? Or am I wrong?
2) If what I said above is correct, do Christians also believe that one's own sin can lead to others' death?
-
Consequently, there is no difference in rights. And it logically flows that a right that has never existed cannot in fact be stripped away.
I get your position, and while I disagree with your moral basis for it, won't argue with your opinion on the matter. I will point out a flaw in your reasoning, though. While gay folk might not have ever had a right which has been stripped away, they've been denied rights that are afforded to others. Rights denied are the same as rights taken away.
-
Rule thread:
5. Keep your language reasonable. Repeated and inappropriate usage of explicit language is forbidden. Violators will be warned before any serious action is taken. No racially offensive posts. No posts that are derogatory toward gender or sexual preference. No posts that use slang terms for any race, sexual preference, or religious background. Includes signatures.
By the way, can some clarify for me how it's within the rules for people to post that the behaviour I'm going to be engaging in all of next week when I'm staying at my boyfriend's is 'sinful', 'immoral', and 'causes death'? It's most definitely really offensive.
1. Depends on context, much like how it is an insult to mislabel someone a bigot if done in an inflammatory way, but not nearly as much when someone takes the time to tactfully explain their personal feelings that some things are bigoted, as you took the time to do in the chat thread earlier. Gay bashing, slurs, and things that are intended to be insults are obviously off limits. Carefully-worded posts that are created to be non-offensive and are not personal attacks are not off-limits simply because some people reading them may take offense. Otherwise, I would have closed a lot more threads for religion/Christian-bashing. After all, it could definitely be said that a lot of people in this thread have insulted religious folk for their views, right? Anyhow, all I'm saying is that context matters, intent matters (to a degree), and no rule set is perfect.
2. "Preference" and "behavior" are not the same thing.
-
I will point out a flaw in your reasoning, though. While gay folk might not have ever had a right which has been stripped away, they've been denied rights that are afforded to others. Rights denied are the same as rights taken away.
I understand what you are saying, but I do not believe it is a denial of a right, which is the first step in my reasoning above: That my gay friend has precisely the same rights I do, and can marry exactly the same subset of people I can.
-
1) Am I understanding it correctly that Christians believe sin leads to death? So a less sinful person will live longer than a more sinful person? Or am I wrong?
I am by no means a Christian scholar...I've been a "Christian" for 9 years and have 'studied' the Bible fairly regularly...keep in mind that one of the things I find fascinating and that solidifies the Bible's divine nature to me is the fact that each individual can understand and interpret verses as it pertains to them...on thier spiritual walk. That also can lead to a lot of confusion as well and can be considered a 'down' side.
But my fairly simple answer to your question is that the 'death' that the New Testament speaks about is not the physical death that we suffer. It is speaking towards a spiritual death...teaching how sin will impede one's spiritual progress and set up a barrier between you and God. A lot of the 'sin' in the world is self serving, selfish type behavior....not lending one's self into 'giving' your life over to your savior and understanding that relationship....Sin gets in the way. So the way I understand it is like I said, the 'death' being alluded to is not when your heart stops beating...it's what comes after, what fate or death will your spirit hold?
Again, I am by far an 'expert' so take my opinion for what it's worth....just one guys opinion. I don't
-
You cannot "extend" the "right" for two members of the same-sex to "marry" because marriage is inherently procreative and thus inherently heterosexual. To ask that "marriage" be "extended" for homosexuals would be analogous to asking to repeal the Pythagorean theorem and would be a joke at best and a straightforward assault on the foundations of morality at worst. As stated by the website that helped propel the passage of the bill, defenders of same-sex "marriage" here are committed blindly to the irrational position that marriage is simply about "loving couples making a public commitment of their love." Marriage certainly provides an opportunity for a couple in love to declare their commitment to each other, but the government doesn’t regulate marriage to provide a forum for public commitment simply because two people love each other. Marriage is unique because it is the social institution we recognize to channel the biological drive of men and women with its inherent capacity to produce children into the ideal family units. Marriage provides the best opportunity of ensuring that any children produced by that sexual union are known by and cared for by their biological parents, and that benefits us all. It is because of children that government regulates and licenses marriage.
-
You cannot "extend" the "right" for two members of the same-sex to "marry" because marriage is inherently procreative and thus inherently heterosexual.
No, it isn't. And while you are entitled to believe that, you've been asked to stay out of the debate because your posts on the subject have violated forum rules. And I can tell you for certain that if you derail the discussion again, you will be shown the door, so I would advise you to stay out of this one.
-
How far do we allow rights to be stripped from one group of citizens because another group of citizens has a different set of beliefs? That's not fair, particularly when granting those rights hurts no one.
It may not 'hurt anyone' but the fact of the matter is that 'the people have spoken' whether you or anyone likes it or not. It's ridiculous that when a vote doesn't go 'your' way that suddenly those who voted to pass whatever law are 'idiots' or whatever deragotory term you'd like to place there. Quite frankly I find it ironic that a LARGE portion of liberal minded people are going off on the voters who overwhelmingly passed the law when liberals pride themselves on being so tolerant and open minded. Likewise I find it disheartening when those who claim to be Christian fail to demonstrate the compassion and understanding that Christ teaches.
It's the states and the voters in that states right to vote for and pass whatever laws they want. That's that, and for me that's the way it should stay, a State decision...no matter the outcome. If the support for gay marriage was as large and as popular as it is portrayed or wants to believe it is, then these states would be passing the laws. The last 32 votes nationwide concerning gay marriage have been voted against. That should give an indication on where our country stands on the issue. Polls schmolls, the proof is in the vote and gay marriage is consistently voted against. That's a fact.
The gay/lesbian "community" is a very small percentage of the population....and frankly my ONLY problem with the entire movement is the fact that a small percentage of the population is trying to tell the Majority percentage what to do....and when it doesn't go thier way they throw a "tantrum" about it and say how evil everyone is. Heck, even California consistently votes not to allow gay marriage...it takes a judge who thinks his beliefs supersede the 'majorities' to annul that vote time and time again....which it won't be long before that happens in NC.
With further education the support may come...but to want to snap your fingers and demand that 'poof'.....we get our way when society isn't there just yet.....sorry. I think that the gay and lesbian movement should realize that despite the large amount of media and Hollywood support that there is still a long way to go for them. That's just the truth of the matter.
I've got a couple of problems with this. For one thing, the will of the people is only part of the equation. That will also has to be lawful, both to the Constitution and to existing federal law. While it's easy to say that if 51% of the people want something, then it's right, there are other processes that have to occur and that's the same for both sides. Judicial review is one of those processes, and both sides of the debate have equal access to it and use it extensively. Your side is no different in this respect.
Also, you say that this is a small percentage of the population trying to impose it's will on the larger part, and I think you're mistaken. I don't think the homos are trying to impose their will on anybody. I think they're trying to gain the same privileges and benefits that are afforded to others. It's more likely the case that the majority is trying to impose it's will on the minority, and while that can sometimes be considered the basis for democracy, it has also been the cause of a great deal of suffering throughout history. Part of the reason for the aforementioned judicial review is to prevent that very thing from occurring. It's a very important concept, and I can think of several examples where legitimate judicial review would have saved millions of lives.
-
Rule thread:
5. Keep your language reasonable. Repeated and inappropriate usage of explicit language is forbidden. Violators will be warned before any serious action is taken. No racially offensive posts. No posts that are derogatory toward gender or sexual preference. No posts that use slang terms for any race, sexual preference, or religious background. Includes signatures.
By the way, can some clarify for me how it's within the rules for people to post that the behaviour I'm going to be engaging in all of next week when I'm staying at my boyfriend's is 'sinful', 'immoral', and 'causes death'? It's most definitely really offensive.
1. Depends on context, much like how it is an insult to mislabel someone a bigot if done in an inflammatory way, but not nearly as much when someone takes the time to tactfully explain their personal feelings that some things are bigoted, as you took the time to do in the chat thread earlier. Gay bashing, slurs, and things that are intended to be insults are obviously off limits. Carefully-worded posts that are created to be non-offensive and are not personal attacks are not off-limits simply because some people reading them may take offense. Otherwise, I would have closed a lot more threads for religion-bashing.
2. "Preference" and "behavior" are not the same thing.
I would like to politely add to that....that from what I have read. Most people have been saying that THE BIBLE regards homosexuality as sinful and immoral. That's as much a fact as saying "Birth of a Nation has racist overtones." I don't recall anyone leveling a personal attack upon anyone.
I don't recall anyone saying it "causes death" in any way. I think the Christian thinking is that it ultimately risks your *eternal* life...but I don't recall anyone insinuating that "the act of homosexuality will cause you to be immediately stricken down"...
-
Rule thread:
5. Keep your language reasonable. Repeated and inappropriate usage of explicit language is forbidden. Violators will be warned before any serious action is taken. No racially offensive posts. No posts that are derogatory toward gender or sexual preference. No posts that use slang terms for any race, sexual preference, or religious background. Includes signatures.
By the way, can some clarify for me how it's within the rules for people to post that the behaviour I'm going to be engaging in all of next week when I'm staying at my boyfriend's is 'sinful', 'immoral', and 'causes death'? It's most definitely really offensive.
1. Depends on context, much like how it is an insult to mislabel someone a bigot if done in an inflammatory way, but not nearly as much when someone takes the time to tactfully explain their personal feelings that some things are bigoted, as you took the time to do in the chat thread earlier. Gay bashing, slurs, and things that are intended to be insults are obviously off limits. Carefully-worded posts that are created to be non-offensive and are not personal attacks are not off-limits simply because some people reading them may take offense. Otherwise, I would have closed a lot more threads for religion-bashing.
2. "Preference" and "behavior" are not the same thing.
1. To call a person a 'bigot' is to express a personal opinion. To classify something immoral and sinful is to invoke ideas of universal laws which make it incredibly difficult to engage in rational debate with that person thereafter. One can articulate logically and rationally their thought process leading them to deem why they think what the other said is bigoted, whereas if the only response one can get out of someone who claims homosexuality is sinful/immoral is that "I think that God thinks it is", then that is just an argument that says "I think it is" and doesn't offer any actual reasoning - the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and an appeal to authority doesn't actually go any way at all towards explaining why. Honestly - every time I see such things written - it's painful.
2. Preference for a type of behaviour...?
You cannot "extend" the "right" for two members of the same-sex to "marry" because marriage is inherently procreative and thus inherently heterosexual. To ask that "marriage" be "extended" for homosexuals would be analogous to asking to repeal the Pythagorean theorem and would be a joke at best and a straightforward assault on the foundations of morality. As stated by the website that helped propel the passage of the bill, defenders of same-sex "marriage" here are committed blindly to the irrational position that marriage is simply about "loving couples making a public commitment of their love." Marriage certainly provides an opportunity for a couple in love to declare their commitment to each other, but the government doesn’t regulate marriage to provide a forum for public commitment simply because two people love each other. Marriage is unique because it is the social institution we recognize to channel the biological drive of men and women with its inherent capacity to produce children into the ideal family units. Marriage provides the best opportunity of ensuring that any children produced by that sexual union are known by and cared for by their biological parents, and that benefits us all. It is because of children that government regulates and licenses marriage.
I am not even joking: as I read this post, I literally felt more physically nauseated the further through it I got. I'm not gonna add any more.
-
I will point out a flaw in your reasoning, though. While gay folk might not have ever had a right which has been stripped away, they've been denied rights that are afforded to others. Rights denied are the same as rights taken away.
I understand what you are saying, but I do not believe it is a denial of a right, which is the first step in my reasoning above: That my gay friend has precisely the same rights I do, and can marry exactly the same subset of people I can.
Do due process issues make your head hurt as much as mine? :lol
I definitely understand your point. The problem is that at a practical level your gay friend can't by his very nature marry the same subset of people*. If the government were to institute a practice whereas anybody willing to watch a 30 minute video on good citizenship were entitled to a tax break on their next return, you wouldn't be denying a blind man any specific right, but you'd be instituting a benefit to which he was not eligible on a practical level because of his handicap. (sorry, I kind of suck at coming up with good examples and metaphors)
*Interestingly, if your gay friend were to marry against his own nature to gain those benefits, he'd be committing a much greater affront to your ideal concept of marriage than had he married another gay person out of love.
-
How far do we allow rights to be stripped from one group of citizens because another group of citizens has a different set of beliefs? That's not fair, particularly when granting those rights hurts no one.
It may not 'hurt anyone' but the fact of the matter is that 'the people have spoken' whether you or anyone likes it or not. It's ridiculous that when a vote doesn't go 'your' way that suddenly those who voted to pass whatever law are 'idiots' or whatever deragotory term you'd like to place there. Quite frankly I find it ironic that a LARGE portion of liberal minded people are going off on the voters who overwhelmingly passed the law when liberals pride themselves on being so tolerant and open minded. Likewise I find it disheartening when those who claim to be Christian fail to demonstrate the compassion and understanding that Christ teaches.
It's the states and the voters in that states right to vote for and pass whatever laws they want. That's that, and for me that's the way it should stay, a State decision...no matter the outcome. If the support for gay marriage was as large and as popular as it is portrayed or wants to believe it is, then these states would be passing the laws. The last 32 votes nationwide concerning gay marriage have been voted against. That should give an indication on where our country stands on the issue. Polls schmolls, the proof is in the vote and gay marriage is consistently voted against. That's a fact.
The gay/lesbian "community" is a very small percentage of the population....and frankly my ONLY problem with the entire movement is the fact that a small percentage of the population is trying to tell the Majority percentage what to do....and when it doesn't go thier way they throw a "tantrum" about it and say how evil everyone is. Heck, even California consistently votes not to allow gay marriage...it takes a judge who thinks his beliefs supersede the 'majorities' to annul that vote time and time again....which it won't be long before that happens in NC.
With further education the support may come...but to want to snap your fingers and demand that 'poof'.....we get our way when society isn't there just yet.....sorry. I think that the gay and lesbian movement should realize that despite the large amount of media and Hollywood support that there is still a long way to go for them. That's just the truth of the matter.
I've got a couple of problems with this. For one thing, the will of the people is only part of the equation. That will also has to be lawful, both to the Constitution and to existing federal law. While it's easy to say that if 51% of the people want something, then it's right, there are other processes that have to occur and that's the same for both sides. Judicial review is one of those processes, and both sides of the debate have equal access to it and use it extensively. Your side is no different in this respect.
Also, you say that this is a small percentage of the population trying to impose it's will on the larger part, and I think you're mistaken. I don't think the homos are trying to impose their will on anybody. I think they're trying to gain the same privileges and benefits that are afforded to others. It's more likely the case that the majority is trying to impose it's will on the minority, and while that can sometimes be considered the basis for democracy, it has also been the cause of a great deal of suffering throughout history. Part of the reason for the aforementioned judicial review is to prevent that very thing from occurring. It's a very important concept, and I can think of several examples where legitimate judicial review would have saved millions of lives.
Whether or not the 'majorities' stance is right or wrong is not the issue. The way our system is set up it boils down to majority rules, and it's the majorities will that is imposed. That's it. I understand that the last few generations are used to getting a trophy for coming in last place so it's easy to understand how pouting about something not going your way has become an avenue of protest, but ulitmately it's up to the minority to educate, gain support, build thier stance up in a way where the majority is 'overtaken'. "Legitimate" judicial review is one thing...saving lives as you say, but to me if a state votes not to have gay marriage then that should be that. No judge should be able to come in and say, "that isn't fair". For me the burden is on the gays and lesbians to 'educate' the American public.....my issue is that when something doesn't go 'thier' way, instead of re-grouping and trying to figure out a better way to go about it they essentially whine and cry about it. It's offputting.
Let me just clarify something real quick....I've made no secret about the fact I'm Christian. That being said, my view and opinion on gay marriage has 'evolved' over the past few years. I wouldn't have even listened to the idea in the past. Now, I do think that gays and lesbians who are committed to a monogomous relationship should gain the same priveledges as 'married' couples, and in the states that allow gay marriage....it should be a no brainer, they get to be married and the rights that come with it. States with no gay marrage, I still thing there should be the dreaded 'civil union' option to give them rights.
But if the state doesn't allow gay marriage and consistently votes it down then guess what....no gay marriage in that state. There's where the burden lies on the gays/lesbians to try and make thier case and get whichever state to 'change'. But when a state votes it down or against it....ACCEPT it and figure out a way to change it....
-
To classify something immoral and sinful is to invoke ideas of universal laws which make it incredibly difficult to engage in rational debate with that person thereafter. One can articulate logically and rationally their thought process leading them to deem why they think what the other said is bigoted, whereas if the only response one can get out of someone who claims homosexuality is sinful/immoral is that "I think that God thinks it is", then that is just an argument that says "I think it is" and doesn't offer any actual reasoning - the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and an appeal to authority doesn't actually go any way at all towards explaining why.
No, I do not think it shuts down debate at all. My foundational premise that I am arguing from is that there is immutable, universal law. You may not have articulated it, but you also have a foundational premise you are arguing from, which is essentially (and forgive me if this isn't entirely accurate, but I am merely paraphrasing where I believe you are arguing from for the sake of this illustration) something along the lines of either (1) there is no universal law, so people should be free to do what they like as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, or (2) the only universal law is that people should be free to do what they like as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. And that's fine. That creates a paradigm that shapes your argument. My paradigm is different, and shapes my argument. I cannot change your foundational premise, and I am not attempting to. You cannot change mine. The goal is not (and perhaps should not) be to change each other's foundational world view. But we can still have discussion about how that worldview shapes our arguments, and see how the conclusions we come to may be similar in some areas and different in others. And, perhaps in doing so, even though our foundational worldviews may still differ, that discussion and debate may still change our arguments and conclusions such that we end up closer together than when we started. Perhaps not. Either way, productive discussion can be had. And if it appears we canNOT have productive discussion on an issue after a quick foray into discussion shows that our worldviews simply clash too much, that's okay too. Rather than discuss this particular issue with one another, you can I (the hypothetical "you and I," not necessarily bosk1 and Rick) can simply choose to cease our discussion with one another and instead discuss with others where we find the discussion more productive, and in the process, not belittle each other simply because we failed to come to common ground. It's called "agreeing to disagree."
-
Do due process issues make your head hurt as much as mine? :lol
Yes! And perhaps even more so. :lol
*Interestingly, if your gay friend were to marry against his own nature to gain those benefits, he'd be committing a much greater affront to your ideal concept of marriage than had he married another gay person out of love.
How so? I am not following you.
-
How far do we allow rights to be stripped from one group of citizens because another group of citizens has a different set of beliefs? That's not fair, particularly when granting those rights hurts no one.
It may not 'hurt anyone' but the fact of the matter is that 'the people have spoken' whether you or anyone likes it or not. It's ridiculous that when a vote doesn't go 'your' way that suddenly those who voted to pass whatever law are 'idiots' or whatever deragotory term you'd like to place there. Quite frankly I find it ironic that a LARGE portion of liberal minded people are going off on the voters who overwhelmingly passed the law when liberals pride themselves on being so tolerant and open minded. Likewise I find it disheartening when those who claim to be Christian fail to demonstrate the compassion and understanding that Christ teaches.
It's the states and the voters in that states right to vote for and pass whatever laws they want. That's that, and for me that's the way it should stay, a State decision...no matter the outcome. If the support for gay marriage was as large and as popular as it is portrayed or wants to believe it is, then these states would be passing the laws. The last 32 votes nationwide concerning gay marriage have been voted against. That should give an indication on where our country stands on the issue. Polls schmolls, the proof is in the vote and gay marriage is consistently voted against. That's a fact.
The gay/lesbian "community" is a very small percentage of the population....and frankly my ONLY problem with the entire movement is the fact that a small percentage of the population is trying to tell the Majority percentage what to do....and when it doesn't go thier way they throw a "tantrum" about it and say how evil everyone is. Heck, even California consistently votes not to allow gay marriage...it takes a judge who thinks his beliefs supersede the 'majorities' to annul that vote time and time again....which it won't be long before that happens in NC.
With further education the support may come...but to want to snap your fingers and demand that 'poof'.....we get our way when society isn't there just yet.....sorry. I think that the gay and lesbian movement should realize that despite the large amount of media and Hollywood support that there is still a long way to go for them. That's just the truth of the matter.
I've got a couple of problems with this. For one thing, the will of the people is only part of the equation. That will also has to be lawful, both to the Constitution and to existing federal law. While it's easy to say that if 51% of the people want something, then it's right, there are other processes that have to occur and that's the same for both sides. Judicial review is one of those processes, and both sides of the debate have equal access to it and use it extensively. Your side is no different in this respect.
Also, you say that this is a small percentage of the population trying to impose it's will on the larger part, and I think you're mistaken. I don't think the homos are trying to impose their will on anybody. I think they're trying to gain the same privileges and benefits that are afforded to others. It's more likely the case that the majority is trying to impose it's will on the minority, and while that can sometimes be considered the basis for democracy, it has also been the cause of a great deal of suffering throughout history. Part of the reason for the aforementioned judicial review is to prevent that very thing from occurring. It's a very important concept, and I can think of several examples where legitimate judicial review would have saved millions of lives.
Whether or not the 'majorities' stance is right or wrong is not the issue. The way our system is set up it boils down to majority rules, and it's the majorities will that is imposed. That's it. I understand that the last few generations are used to getting a trophy for coming in last place so it's easy to understand how pouting about something not going your way has become an avenue of protest, but ulitmately it's up to the minority to educate, gain support, build thier stance up in a way where the majority is 'overtaken'. "Legitimate" judicial review is one thing...saving lives as you say, but to me if a state votes not to have gay marriage then that should be that. No judge should be able to come in and say, "that isn't fair". For me the burden is on the gays and lesbians to 'educate' the American public.....my issue is that when something doesn't go 'thier' way, instead of re-grouping and trying to figure out a better way to go about it they essentially whine and cry about it. It's offputting.
Let me just clarify something real quick....I've made no secret about the fact I'm Christian. That being said, my view and opinion on gay marriage has 'evolved' over the past few years. I wouldn't have even listened to the idea in the past. Now, I do think that gays and lesbians who are committed to a monogomous relationship should gain the same priveledges as 'married' couples, and in the states that allow gay marriage....it should be a no brainer, they get to be married and the rights that come with it. States with no gay marrage, I still thing there should be the dreaded 'civil union' option to give them rights.
But if the state doesn't allow gay marriage and consistently votes it down then guess what....no gay marriage in that state. There's where the burden lies on the gays/lesbians to try and make thier case and get whichever state to 'change'. But when a state votes it down or against it....ACCEPT it and figure out a way to change it....
While it's obviously an extreme example, the importance is still the same. If those fine, God-fearing people of Alabama enact a law that says it's OK to hang coloreds from cherry trees on the third Thursday of each month, would the majority opinion validate the law? You use the expression "'legitimate' judicial review." I say that's an invalid stance. It is what it is, which is a review against existing law, and it's legitimacy mustn't be judged on the decision they reach. A state cannot pass a law that doesn't coexist with constitutional or enacted federal law, no matter how many people wish it to, and the opportunity to establish that coexistence has already been legitimized.
You say that the gay people should work on education to meet their end. I say that their opposition should work on amending the US Constitution to meet theirs (assuming it's actually found to be in conflict, which it probably isn't).
-
How far do we allow rights to be stripped from one group of citizens because another group of citizens has a different set of beliefs? That's not fair, particularly when granting those rights hurts no one.
It may not 'hurt anyone' but the fact of the matter is that 'the people have spoken' whether you or anyone likes it or not. It's ridiculous that when a vote doesn't go 'your' way that suddenly those who voted to pass whatever law are 'idiots' or whatever deragotory term you'd like to place there. Quite frankly I find it ironic that a LARGE portion of liberal minded people are going off on the voters who overwhelmingly passed the law when liberals pride themselves on being so tolerant and open minded. Likewise I find it disheartening when those who claim to be Christian fail to demonstrate the compassion and understanding that Christ teaches.
It's the states and the voters in that states right to vote for and pass whatever laws they want. That's that, and for me that's the way it should stay, a State decision...no matter the outcome. If the support for gay marriage was as large and as popular as it is portrayed or wants to believe it is, then these states would be passing the laws. The last 32 votes nationwide concerning gay marriage have been voted against. That should give an indication on where our country stands on the issue. Polls schmolls, the proof is in the vote and gay marriage is consistently voted against. That's a fact.
The gay/lesbian "community" is a very small percentage of the population....and frankly my ONLY problem with the entire movement is the fact that a small percentage of the population is trying to tell the Majority percentage what to do....and when it doesn't go thier way they throw a "tantrum" about it and say how evil everyone is. Heck, even California consistently votes not to allow gay marriage...it takes a judge who thinks his beliefs supersede the 'majorities' to annul that vote time and time again....which it won't be long before that happens in NC.
With further education the support may come...but to want to snap your fingers and demand that 'poof'.....we get our way when society isn't there just yet.....sorry. I think that the gay and lesbian movement should realize that despite the large amount of media and Hollywood support that there is still a long way to go for them. That's just the truth of the matter.
I've got a couple of problems with this. For one thing, the will of the people is only part of the equation. That will also has to be lawful, both to the Constitution and to existing federal law. While it's easy to say that if 51% of the people want something, then it's right, there are other processes that have to occur and that's the same for both sides. Judicial review is one of those processes, and both sides of the debate have equal access to it and use it extensively. Your side is no different in this respect.
Also, you say that this is a small percentage of the population trying to impose it's will on the larger part, and I think you're mistaken. I don't think the homos are trying to impose their will on anybody. I think they're trying to gain the same privileges and benefits that are afforded to others. It's more likely the case that the majority is trying to impose it's will on the minority, and while that can sometimes be considered the basis for democracy, it has also been the cause of a great deal of suffering throughout history. Part of the reason for the aforementioned judicial review is to prevent that very thing from occurring. It's a very important concept, and I can think of several examples where legitimate judicial review would have saved millions of lives.
Whether or not the 'majorities' stance is right or wrong is not the issue. The way our system is set up it boils down to majority rules, and it's the majorities will that is imposed. That's it.
Well, not really, because there exists a constitution, which guarantees certain rights, and protects the views and beliefs of minorities.
For example, if in 1995 1% more of the population of Québéc voted for secession, that wouldn't matter. There exists a constitution in Canada, and regardless of what the majority would've ruled, unilateral secession would've been unconstitutional.
-
Do due process issues make your head hurt as much as mine? :lol
Yes! And perhaps even more so. :lol
*Interestingly, if your gay friend were to marry against his own nature to gain those benefits, he'd be committing a much greater affront to your ideal concept of marriage than had he married another gay person out of love.
How so? I am not following you.
I figured years of being forced to understand it might have blunted you to it's annoyance. Fortunately, in my case it's merely an aspect of an interest.
My point about your gay friend was that I would consider a loveless sham marriage to be a bigger blight on the institution than a loving marriage between two men.
-
You may not have articulated it, but you also have a foundational premise you are arguing from, which is essentially (and forgive me if this isn't entirely accurate, but I am merely paraphrasing where I believe you are arguing from for the sake of this illustration) something along the lines of either (1) there is no universal law, so people should be free to do what they like as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, or (2) the only universal law is that people should be free to do what they like as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. And that's fine. That creates a paradigm that shapes your argument.
No - I am arguing from neither of those foundational premises at all.
"This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing [anything]. On the other hand, I – equally ignorant – do not believe [that I know anything]"
I know nothing. Absolutely nothing. Socrates. All I have are my skills of rationality and logic to show how I have reached conclusions, and the entire process is entirely transparent and open to Popper's falsification. In terms of my own conduct, I generally try to follow Kant's "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" as I find the CI to be a lot less logically limiting than Jesus' Golden Rule of "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise". It's also flawed too, but in most cases wherein one is to make an ethical decision, it serves well to avoid causing harm. The issue I have in the instance we are talking about is that to label homosexual acts as universally immoral and sinful is hurtful and offensive, whereas when I engage in sch acts with a consensual partner it hurts absolutely no-one - I'm not telling anyone they're 'wrong' in what they think - I'm telling them that they're malicious in their expression. Anyone claiming something is sinful/immoral is claiming to KNOW something universally 'true'.
-
My point about your gay friend was that I would consider a loveless sham marriage to be a bigger blight on the institution than a loving marriage between two men.
Oh, I see. My short answer is that it depends. That is certainly possible. HOWEVER (short version), this is another issue where the English language I think is deficient in its use of the word "love." There are three different Greek words in the Bible that are translated "love" in English. One is the type of self-sacrificing love where one says, "I am committed to this person's best interests no matter how I emotionally feel about them at any given moment in time, and I will give myself to doing my best for them no matter what." It is the kind of love that I believe generates the phrase "love is a decision." It is where we have decided to give ourselves to someone whether it feels good or emotionally hurts. The second type of love is best described as "affection." The third is erotic, or sexual love.
The type of love that is described in the Bible most often in connection with marriage is the first. It is what leads to long-lasting commitment, and it can exist in the absence of the other two kinds of love. The other two are good and beneficial, but not necessary at all times. So, with that in mind, in the hypothetical situation above, a marriage between a gay man and a woman could be VERY loving, even if he is not initially turned on by her because of his sexual preference.
-
You may not have articulated it, but you also have a foundational premise you are arguing from, which is essentially (and forgive me if this isn't entirely accurate, but I am merely paraphrasing where I believe you are arguing from for the sake of this illustration) something along the lines of either (1) there is no universal law, so people should be free to do what they like as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, or (2) the only universal law is that people should be free to do what they like as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. And that's fine. That creates a paradigm that shapes your argument.
No - I am arguing from neither of those foundational premises at all.
"This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing [anything]. On the other hand, I – equally ignorant – do not believe [that I know anything]"
I know nothing. Absolutely nothing. Socrates. All I have are my skills of rationality and logic to show how I have reached conclusions, and the entire process is entirely transparent and open to Popper's falsification. In terms of my own conduct, I generally try to follow Kant's "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" as I find the CI to be a lot less logically limiting than Jesus' Golden Rule of "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise". It's also flawed too, but in most cases wherein one is to make an ethical decision, it serves well to avoid causing harm. The issue I have in the instance we are talking about is that to label homosexual acts as universally immoral and sinful is hurtful and offensive, whereas when I engage in sch acts with a consensual partner it hurts absolutely no-one - I'm not telling anyone they're 'wrong' in what they think - I'm telling them that they're malicious in their expression. Anyone claiming something is sinful/immoral is claiming to KNOW something universally 'true'.
I see. But despite my being mistaken about your foundational world view (as I call it for the sake of this discussion), my point is still the same that we can still either choose to try to have productive discussion despite our drastically different foundational world view and still perhaps find some common ground in our conclusions, or we can choose not to and still not have it be the end of the world. :)
-
You may not have articulated it, but you also have a foundational premise you are arguing from, which is essentially (and forgive me if this isn't entirely accurate, but I am merely paraphrasing where I believe you are arguing from for the sake of this illustration) something along the lines of either (1) there is no universal law, so people should be free to do what they like as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, or (2) the only universal law is that people should be free to do what they like as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. And that's fine. That creates a paradigm that shapes your argument.
No - I am arguing from neither of those foundational premises at all.
"This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing [anything]. On the other hand, I – equally ignorant – do not believe [that I know anything]"
I know nothing. Absolutely nothing. Socrates. All I have are my skills of rationality and logic to show how I have reached conclusions, and the entire process is entirely transparent and open to Popper's falsification. In terms of my own conduct, I generally try to follow Kant's "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" as I find the CI to be a lot less logically limiting than Jesus' Golden Rule of "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise". It's also flawed too, but in most cases wherein one is to make an ethical decision, it serves well to avoid causing harm. The issue I have in the instance we are talking about is that to label homosexual acts as universally immoral and sinful is hurtful and offensive, whereas when I engage in sch acts with a consensual partner it hurts absolutely no-one - I'm not telling anyone they're 'wrong' in what they think - I'm telling them that they're malicious in their expression. Anyone claiming something is sinful/immoral is claiming to KNOW something universally 'true'.
I see. But despite my being mistaken about your foundational world view (as I call it for the sake of this discussion), my point is still the same that we can still either choose to try to have productive discussion despite our drastically different foundational world view and still perhaps find some common ground in our conclusions, or we can choose not to and still not have it be the end of the world. :)
You've moved the goalposts there somewhat, bosk. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever in engaging in potentially productive discussions with people with an entirely opposing worldview. My issue is it's seen as 'OK' for people to say "homosexual acts ARE immoral/sinful" as it is entirely disrespectful and offensive.
(see also my post here: https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=32240.msg1284935#msg1284935 (https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=32240.msg1284935#msg1284935))
-
My point about your gay friend was that I would consider a loveless sham marriage to be a bigger blight on the institution than a loving marriage between two men.
Oh, I see. My short answer is that it depends. That is certainly possible. HOWEVER (short version), this is another issue where the English language I think is deficient in its use of the word "love." There are three different Greek words in the Bible that are translated "love" in English. One is the type of self-sacrificing love where one says, "I am committed to this person's best interests no matter how I emotionally feel about them at any given moment in time, and I will give myself to doing my best for them no matter what." It is the kind of love that I believe generates the phrase "love is a decision." It is where we have decided to give ourselves to someone whether it feels good or emotionally hurts. The second type of love is best described as "affection." The third is erotic, or sexual love.
The type of love that is described in the Bible most often in connection with marriage is the first. It is what leads to long-lasting commitment, and it can exist in the absence of the other two kinds of love. The other two are good and beneficial, but not necessary at all times. So, with that in mind, in the hypothetical situation above, a marriage between a gay man and a woman could be VERY loving, even if he is not initially turned on by her because of his sexual preference.
I would like to add that, the type of commitment love that bosk is talking about is "Agape"...which the Bible portrays as the greatest of all love. I draw that conclusion from the fact that it is that word "Agape" that is used in connection with Jesus sacrifice.
-
Addendum to my post above ^
If an atheist were to write a post addressing a Christian stating: "The Bible IS 100% fictional, and there IS no god and if you beleive in it then you ARE wrong" - it would logically be following the same rules as a Christian who states "homosexual acts ARE sinful/immoral because the Bible says so" - both cases are personal opinions based upon their own empirical observations of both the world around them and the Bible. Interpretations expressed poorly: They are also both offensive.
Again, see the link to the post I posted in the previous post.
-
First, I do not believe the rights of anyone in this scenario are any different than anyone else's. People in this country have always had the right to marry only a certain subset of people (excluding the period in this nation's history where people of certain races could not marry people of other races, which, thankfully, is gone, so let's not throw that red herring on the table, please). Regardless of my sexual orientation, I have ALWAYS been permitted to marry only adult women who are (1) over the age of consent and (2) are not presently married to someone else. No matter how much I might desire otherwise, I have never been permitted to marry a man, a person who is underaged, or a person who is married to someone else. This is true regardless of my sexual orientation, and those rights would be no different no matter what my sexual orientation. Consequently, there is no difference in rights. And it logically flows that a right that has never existed cannot in fact be stripped away.
I don't understand, bosk, why interracial marriage isn't comparable, or how it would be a "red herring". One could very well argue for the prohibition of interracial marriage using this exact logic.
The question is whether the law is just simply because it's always been that way; lord knows that isn't the case. A whole mess of extremely unfair laws have been overturned in the last couple hundred years, and proponents of gay marriage simply see this issue as the next law in that vein.
@Rick: I don't think you're being entirely fair right now (and this is coming from someone that is completely, unabashedly, 100% on your side). Most people in this thread (Omega excepted) have been saying that "The Bible teaches X" matter-of-factly. Maybe you take offense to what The Bible teaches, which is fine, but nobody here has been acting offensively.
-
Addendum to my post above ^
If an atheist were to write a post addressing a Christian stating: "The Bible IS 100% fictional, and there IS no god and if you beleive in it then you ARE wrong" - it would logically be following the same rules as a Christian who states "homosexual acts ARE sinful/immoral because the Bible says so" - both cases are personal opinions based upon their own empirical observations of both the world around them and the Bible. Interpretations expressed poorly: They are also both offensive.
I've actually said worse about Christianity around here than that. As was said, it's about context.
More importantly, why do you care if bible thumpers find your behavior immoral and sinful? This is the opinion of people who's values you don't believe anyway. If another gay person said that, then I could understand the offense. Frankly, I take great satisfaction that some of the people who find you immoral likely find me completely depraved. :lol
-
I overlook your depravity barto because you hooked me up with fourth row at TA show :lol
-
There's a pretty key problem with the religious argument on this issue;
Not every citizen of the United States is Christian (and even within some sects of Christianity, there are many people who support gay marriage). It's a multi-cultural nation. It's the duty of the government to protect all of its nation's citizens. Imposing a specific religious moral on everyone runs counter to the very meaning of what it's supposed to mean to be American.
It works both ways. The government, for example, can't force any religious organization to recognize gay marriage. If a church refused to perform a gay marriage, they would be within their rights to do so. However, we're talking about marriage in the sense of the state recognized, legal aspect. There are many spousal benefits that loving, committed homosexual couples are currently being denied. In free society, the government allows religions to practice their beliefs, but at the same time, needs to ensure that no religion is imposing their beliefs on others against their will.
Strictly from a legal standpoint, it is a rights issue, and rights issues should never be decided by majority rule. Civilized society is supposed to ensure that minority groups are protected.
-
I overlook your depravity barto because you hooked me up with fourth row at TA show :lol
Didn't you learn from the last time? You make a joke like that and next thing you know Omega will be bringing up how you play favorites in every thread. :p
-
Should women and men be granted equal rights? Are there specific rights that are afforded to women and not men? And vice-versa? Perhaps there is a different angle to view this....not as a sexual orientation equal rights issue, but of a gender equal rights issue. A man has the right to marry a woman, why cant a woman have that same right? And vice-versa?
-
I will point out a flaw in your reasoning, though. While gay folk might not have ever had a right which has been stripped away, they've been denied rights that are afforded to others. Rights denied are the same as rights taken away.
I understand what you are saying, but I do not believe it is a denial of a right, which is the first step in my reasoning above: That my gay friend has precisely the same rights I do, and can marry exactly the same subset of people I can.
So in the few cases where this has occurred, where do you stand? Like in California, where gay marriage was made legal, gay men were allowed to marry, and then Prop 8 (?) made it illegal again. I believe the courts have ruled that this is unconstitutional, since it's taking away rights that were given. I think the same applies for the Defense of Marriage Act? but I can't remember.
-
Addendum to my post above ^
If an atheist were to write a post addressing a Christian stating: "The Bible IS 100% fictional, and there IS no god and if you beleive in it then you ARE wrong" - it would logically be following the same rules as a Christian who states "homosexual acts ARE sinful/immoral because the Bible says so" - both cases are personal opinions based upon their own empirical observations of both the world around them and the Bible. Interpretations expressed poorly: They are also both offensive.
I've actually said worse about Christianity around here than that. As was said, it's about context.
More importantly, why do you care if bible thumpers find your behavior immoral and sinful? This is the opinion of people who's values you don't believe anyway. If another gay person said that, then I could understand the offense. Frankly, I take great satisfaction that some of the people who find you immoral likely find me completely depraved. :lol
I care because I don't think any human has the right to label anything as 'immoral' or 'sinful'. It's about cultivating a decent level of reciprocal respect between all those participating in any form of discourse. I care because each and every time these things are said and left unchallenged, the more ingrained they are as being 'acceptable' when they are actually really dangerous ideas that perpetuate a lot of harm toward quite a substantial amount of the population. It's about utilitarianism, and not about any modicum of offense I take personally at an individual's negative reactions toward my actions.
-
There's a pretty key problem with the religious argument on this issue;
Every citizen of the United States is not a Christian (and even within some sects of Christianity, there are many people who support gay marriage). It's a multi-cultural nation. It's the duty of the government to protect all of its nation's citizens. Imposing a specific religious moral on everyone runs counter to the very meaning of what it's supposed to mean to be American.
It works both ways. The government, for example, can't force any religious organization to recognize gay marriage. If a church refused to perform a gay marriage, they would be within their rights to do so. However, we're talking about marriage in the sense of the state recognized, legal aspect. There are many spousal benefits that loving, committed homosexual couples are currently being denied. In free society, the government allows religions to practice their beliefs, but at the same time, needs to ensure that no religion is imposing their beliefs on others against their will.
Strictly from a legal standpoint, it is a rights issue, and rights issues should never be decided by majority rule. Civilized society is supposed to ensure that minority groups are protected.
The unfortunate truth is we're a multi-cultural people living under a dominant Christian culture, majority or not. Also a government based on religious and cultural tolerance but also on Western Christian values...so yeah.
-
First, I do not believe the rights of anyone in this scenario are any different than anyone else's. People in this country have always had the right to marry only a certain subset of people (excluding the period in this nation's history where people of certain races could not marry people of other races, which, thankfully, is gone, so let's not throw that red herring on the table, please). Regardless of my sexual orientation, I have ALWAYS been permitted to marry only adult women who are (1) over the age of consent and (2) are not presently married to someone else. No matter how much I might desire otherwise, I have never been permitted to marry a man, a person who is underaged, or a person who is married to someone else. This is true regardless of my sexual orientation, and those rights would be no different no matter what my sexual orientation. Consequently, there is no difference in rights. And it logically flows that a right that has never existed cannot in fact be stripped away.
I don't understand, bosk, why interracial marriage isn't comparable, or how it would be a "red herring". One could very well argue for the prohibition of interracial marriage using this exact logic.
The question is whether the law is just simply because it's always been that way; lord knows that isn't the case. A whole mess of extremely unfair laws have been overturned in the last couple hundred years, and proponents of gay marriage simply see this issue as the next law in that vein.
While I disagree with the practical ramifications of his view, I get his point and it's reasonable. And for others questioning the discriminatory nature of this, here's the equal rights aspect of this.
At a statutory level, we're all allowed to marry, and not allowed to marry the same people. That is a member of the opposite sex who's of legal age, and nobody else. That applies to whites, blacks and gays. Think of it this way: straight people aren't allowed to marry members of the same sex, either. That's what prevents this from being a legal example of discrimination. The argument regarding interracial marriage would run afoul of it because only one class would be effected by it, whereas in the current model, all classes are prohibited from same sex marriage. Dig?
I overlook your depravity barto because you hooked me up with fourth row at TA show :lol
As you should, ya bastard! That was a better seat than the one I wound up with. :lol
-
The unfortunate truth is we're a multi-cultural people living under a dominant Christian culture, majority or not. Also a government based on religious and cultural tolerance but also on Western Christian values...so yeah.
The dominance of Christian culture in the United States makes even more important the government's role of protecting less dominant groups. While obviously not how it always happens in practice, the government is supposed to be neutral, and protect all groups of people. This would include not allowing a religious view that negatively impacts homosexuals to be imposed on them in a strictly legal matter.
-
Barto: it does discriminate against a class of people. Homosexuals.
That reasoning could indeed be used to defend banning interacial marriages. Interracial marriages are not allowed. By anyone, regardless of race. White or Black. See? No discrimination.
But it is discriminating against interracial couples that want to get married, just like it is discrimination against homosexuals that want to get married.
-
First, I do not believe the rights of anyone in this scenario are any different than anyone else's. People in this country have always had the right to marry only a certain subset of people (excluding the period in this nation's history where people of certain races could not marry people of other races, which, thankfully, is gone, so let's not throw that red herring on the table, please). Regardless of my sexual orientation, I have ALWAYS been permitted to marry only adult women who are (1) over the age of consent and (2) are not presently married to someone else. No matter how much I might desire otherwise, I have never been permitted to marry a man, a person who is underaged, or a person who is married to someone else. This is true regardless of my sexual orientation, and those rights would be no different no matter what my sexual orientation. Consequently, there is no difference in rights. And it logically flows that a right that has never existed cannot in fact be stripped away.
I don't understand, bosk, why interracial marriage isn't comparable, or how it would be a "red herring". One could very well argue for the prohibition of interracial marriage using this exact logic.
The question is whether the law is just simply because it's always been that way; lord knows that isn't the case. A whole mess of extremely unfair laws have been overturned in the last couple hundred years, and proponents of gay marriage simply see this issue as the next law in that vein.
While I disagree with the practical ramifications of his view, I get his point and it's reasonable. And for others questioning the discriminatory nature of this, here's the equal rights aspect of this.
At a statutory level, we're all allowed to marry, and not allowed to marry the same people. That is a member of the opposite sex who's of legal age, and nobody else. That applies to whites, blacks and gays. Think of it this way: straight people aren't allowed to marry members of the same sex, either. That's what prevents this from being a legal example of discrimination. The argument regarding interracial marriage would run afoul of it because only one class would be effected by it, whereas in the current model, all classes are prohibited from same sex marriage. Dig?
It's exactly the same situation. Whites and blacks are both allowed to marry, but nobody's allowed to marry people of a different race. All races are allowed to marry, but they're also all prohibited from interracial marriage.
This is actually very close to the actual defense used to uphold the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws in the 1860's. Both blacks and whites were equally punished for engaging in interracial marriage, they decided, so there was nothing unfair about it. We all know this logic is inherently flawed now, so why are we still using it?
-
It's exactly the same situation. Whites and blacks are both allowed to marry, but nobody's allowed to marry people of the same race. All races are allowed to marry, but they're also all prohibited from interracial marriage.
You're right.
After re-reading Bosk's position, I suspect that the distinction was that the law codified the specific races that weren't allowed to marry. Technically speaking, a law that didn't allow interracial marriage at all would be be distinctly different than a law that barred white women from marrying black men, which is probably what the law would have said.
@Eric: it doesn't discriminate against a class of individuals based on their race. I agree with you that the practical effect might accomplish that anyway, which is why I disagree with that particular interpretation, but it's not discriminatory as law.
-
I don't see how this amendment does anything other than strip away rights both heterosexual and homosexual couples previously had and continues to deny rights homosexuals haven't had in this state (like its been said before, unnecessary because there was already a ban on same-sex marriage). Granting those rights to people doesn't harm anyone, it isn't some kind of movement looking to take over the world, its about a group of citizens who want to marry a consenting adult that they love, or at least enter into some kind of domestic union with them (again, either homo- or heterosexual). theseoaf's post about the similarities between this situation and former bans on interracial marriage (the last time NC amended their constitution on the marriage issue) is spot on.
Constitutional amendments can be repealed and I hope that happens to this one.
-
The NC Attorney General was against this amendment because he thought it was a poorly written law and because it will be challenged at great expense to the state. His opinion on this had nothing to do with "legalizing" gay marriage, because AGAIN, that wasn't an option here. There is already a statute here against gay marriage.
The supporters wanted it to be an amendment so that it couldn't be so easily overturned by an activist judge who wanted to do so. It will be a pain in the ass to get this thing to go away.
And again, although I am personally in favor of gay marriage, that had nothing to do with my disdain for this amendment, because the possibility of gay marriage was not on the table here in North Carolina.
-
Ah! Glad to see this reopened! Not been posting much - not my specialist subject, I'm not really the right person to argue this corner - but been reading intently.
Just to clarify a point though. When the Bible says homosexuality "causes death." I'm not going to quibble (yet!), but only 'cos you could say the same of anything if you wait long enough. Is there anything less... feathery than that to go on? Because that seems like a fairly important statement to unpack.
And, Rick - I think it's important to remember that the people who are making life difficult... not everyone who votes, not by a long chalk, 'cos I'm sure there was more bigotry in those ballot boxes than at a BNP rally; but to take the Bible as gospel, many of those voters genuinely believe they're saving their neighbours from death. Which I think is still misguided, but I'd argue it's important to make the distinction that they're not necessarily coming from a position of bigotry, nor instinctive hatred, but often from a position where they're making these votes simply because their God says that it's the right thing; and who are we to question the word of a higher power?
I'm not sanctioning the point of view... just, empathising. Never happier to live in the UK, though. The CoE seems quite a few miles ahead of the general curve.
-
This isn't about having your own beliefs - everyone is entitled to that. This is about stripping away the basic civil rights of others, which rather based on one's religious beliefs or not, I find wholly unacceptable.
Here's where I disagree with it being an issue of stripping away civil rights:
First, I do not believe the rights of anyone in this scenario are any different than anyone else's. People in this country have always had the right to marry only a certain subset of people (excluding the period in this nation's history where people of certain races could not marry people of other races, which, thankfully, is gone, so let's not throw that red herring on the table, please). Regardless of my sexual orientation, I have ALWAYS been permitted to marry only adult women who are (1) over the age of consent and (2) are not presently married to someone else. No matter how much I might desire otherwise, I have never been permitted to marry a man, a person who is underaged, or a person who is married to someone else. This is true regardless of my sexual orientation, and those rights would be no different no matter what my sexual orientation. Consequently, there is no difference in rights. And it logically flows that a right that has never existed cannot in fact be stripped away.
But its not an argument of stripping away rights. Its an argument of never having the right in the first place. Blacks weren't initially "stripped" of the rights to marry whites. Civil rights weren't "stripped" away from there; they were denied only to be eventually extended. This is all that homosexuals are asking; that the rights afforded to them under the constitution be extended.
Of course there are always subsets of people you can't marry; but that changed so many times over history. Why can't it change again?
-
And, Rick - I think it's important to remember that the people who are making life difficult... not everyone who votes, not by a long chalk, 'cos I'm sure there was more bigotry in those ballot boxes than at a BNP rally; but to take the Bible as gospel, many of those voters genuinely believe they're saving their neighbours from death. Which I think is still misguided, but I'd argue it's important to make the distinction that they're not necessarily coming from a position of bigotry, nor instinctive hatred, but often from a position where they're making these votes simply because their God says that it's the right thing; and who are we to question the word of a higher power?
I'm not sanctioning the point of view... just, empathising. Never happier to live in the UK, though. The CoE seems quite a few miles ahead of the general curve.
I know. I'm glad I'm in the UK too. I'm also aware that I'm a strange representative of LGBT as I'm actually predominantly heterosexual anyway. I am, however, very much in favour of deconstructing all notions of kyriarchy in society, and gaining full openness and equality. As I've said in this thread - the issue isn't about *me* - I don't live in the USA, I don't wish to marry a man or a woman, ever, as I think marriage is ludicrous ASIDE from offering legal benefits. However, under current laws, civil partnerships don't offer equal benefits, therefore committed gay couples are being denied rights that are incredibly easy for heterosexual couples to obtain. There is no 'sanctity of marriage' to defend as no-one can actually give a definitive explanation of what the 'purpose' of marriage is, aside from being an archaic custom rooted in patriarchy that has evolved over the centuries to become some... thing that couples who are allowed to marry like to deny to couples of a different sexuality to them because they are aware that they're a majority and are in a position of privilege. I want equal marriage laws for those who *do* want to marry, just as I would defend the rights of people to do a lot of things that I don't personally want to do (including, for example, the free practice of religious faith...) that don't infringe upon the freedoms of others. I don't particularly see any need for churches to have to rescind their policy on same-sex couples having religious ceremonies in churches - I think it's valid that they can say that it is disagreeable to their faith - but it is definitely ridiculous that they be allowed to prevent same-sex couples being married in secular ceremonies and attaining the exact same legal rights as heteronormative couples.
As I've stated across many posts in this thread - I don't see these people as being intentionally malicious and bubbling with bilious hate; I understand that it is their 'belief' that it is right/wrong, however what I want them to understand is that all faith is their own personal interpretation of a text document (with a very suspicious history of editing, and that's even before you get into any areas of epistemology and ontology, etc), and to deny people the same rights as you is harmful - especially when it's claiming to have external objective clarity about a text; which is dangerously totalitarian. I don't want people to renounce their faith nor their opinions - one course of action actively causes proven harm, the other doesn't - I want people to consider the certainty of their interpretations before they go out into the world and deny other people a right to full equality as fellow human beings. I fully understand the rationale behind religious people's choices in this matter; but in no way whatsoever as as human being can I sit back and feel comfortable as their opinions (borne from swathes of faulty inductive reasoning and poor logic) become enshrined in law.
I've posted a lot in this thread, and any subsequent posts I make will probably just be quotations of things I've already posted, as I've literally covered most things now across almost 20 posts.
-
Robust argument, good points, great post! Grand stuff all round.
I agree, I'll never approve of the views from a personal perspective, but I think they're entitled to hold them - just not to impose them upon society. I understand that for a religious lawmaker, you can't divorce the two, but I don't know to what extent we can change that. I'm basically happy for a Christian church to refuse to bless any union it wants - as long as everyone's accepted and equal as soon as they leave those walls.
I've said this before, but I'd like to see heterosexual atheists getting civil partnerships. Completely secularise the process of union, and make marriage the exclusive preserve of the church. If every heterosexual atheist couple got the exact same document and rights as every homosexual couple, I think you'd draw even more attention to how mad it is to base civil rights (sorry, bosk!) on lines drawn by religious doctrines. And if it also encourages the churches to re-evaluate their own outlook, all the better.
-
The issue I have in the instance we are talking about is that to label homosexual acts as universally immoral and sinful is hurtful and offensive
Understandable, which is why I and some others have taken great pains to explain ourselves and fully and as compassionately as possible (and why those who merely casually throw out labels have been asked to excuse themselves from the discussion). At some point, I would hope that you take the time to realize that there is in fact nothing malicious in stating that certain actions are sinful when it is done in a caring way. And if your kneejerk reaction is still, "whether you are trying to be kind and inoffensive or not, I am still going to find it offensive," then we both just have to realize that some things in life just aren't going to sit well with us sometimes, and that's just the way it is. I cannot change God's truth, so if me speaking it in a kind, malicious way is offensive when I try everything within my power to be inoffensive about it, then in essence, I have to let go and accept the fact that some will simply be offended by things I cannot change, just as some may be offended by my skin color, my race, my marital status, or what have you. Hopefully, at the end of the day, we accept our differences despite those misgivings, and move on.
I'm not telling anyone they're 'wrong' in what they think - I'm telling them that they're malicious in their expression.
When you (not necessarily "you" personally) shut down discussion and not permit one side of a debate to express their opinions or beliefs, whether by directly telling them they don't have a right to those beliefs or by namecalling and unfairly attaching labels, you are still indirectly telling them they are wrong in what they think and attempting to bully them into not speaking what they have every right to speak (again, provided they do their best to speak it in a respectful way).
I care because each and every time these things are said and left unchallenged, the more ingrained they are as being 'acceptable' when they are actually really dangerous ideas that perpetuate a lot of harm toward quite a substantial amount of the population. \
I completely agree, which is why I defend your right to be able to speak your opinion. And from my side of the debate, the same holds true. I understand that certain practices are sinful, and to not speak out and attempt to discuss the issue civilly would, in my opinion, be an injustice, so I cannot in good conscience leave those ideas unchallenged.
-
I've said this before, but I'd like to see heterosexual atheists getting civil partnerships. Completely secularise the process of union, and make marriage the exclusive preserve of the church. If every heterosexual atheist couple got the exact same document and rights as every homosexual couple, I think you'd draw even more attention to how mad it is to base civil rights (sorry, bosk!) on lines drawn by religious doctrines. And if it also encourages the churches to re-evaluate their own outlook, all the better.
;) No worries. And I get where you (and others who have said similar things) are coming from. Coming off the bigger topic of "gay marriage" for a moment, and going back to the NC Amendment, it somewhat speaks to that issue, I think. I will take Hef's word for it that it is a completely screwed up amendment. I haven't looked at it myself, and probably won't. I'm not necessarily applauding or condemning it because I don't know enough specifics to really speak intelligently about it, other than in the broad context of the arguments I have made. But one thing that is intriguing about it is that, as mentioned, it apparently also does not grant a set of those special privileges that are attendant to marriage to heterosexual domestic partnerships either. Broadly speaking, while I know this position doesn't fly amongst the general populace, I think they got that part right since heterosexual sex outside of marriage is also sinful. Hence, I do not believe the government should put its stamp of approval and grant special privileges to individuals in that sort of relationship. Anyway, I digress a bit, but your post just got me thinking in that direction.
-
We shouldnt be discussing "sinful" and "government approval" in the same sentence.
-
Then the discussion shifts to whether the government has the obligation to govern through morals of a certain group.
edit...eric beat me to it
-
Say what you will about North Carolina, this was in my local paper this morning...
(https://www.nickeh.com/images/LVGay.jpg)
-
I cannot change God's truth
I find this interesting, because I think that it's part of the problem a lot of people are having. To you and many other religious people, "God's truth" is an absolute. This is how it is, this is what I believe, and that's that. Understandable, people are very passionate about their beliefs. But not everybody believes that.
I assume that if there was another religion whose deity's "truth" was that heterosexuallity was sinful, and enough of them managed to push that "truth" into some kind of law, resulting in heterosexuals not being afforded the benefits of marriage, it clearly wouldn't be welcomed by hetero Christians who believe differently. So with all due respect, when I see Christians say things like this, while I understand that this is truly what they believe, it always makes me feel like the rest of the world is expected to get behind it as well, whether or not that is their belief system.
-
We shouldnt be discussing "sinful" and "government approval" in the same sentence.
Okay, then don't. Nobody said you have to.
Then the discussion shifts to whether the government has the obligation to govern through morals of a certain group.
Well, somewhat, I suppose. But I think comment did a good job of addressing that in his post.
-
I cannot change God's truth
I understand that certain practices are sinful
;)
claiming to have external objective clarity about a text; which is dangerously totalitarian.
Barthes' Death of the Author - https://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/barthes06.htm
-
Barthes'
(https://i.imgur.com/aLl7Z.jpg)
-
I think what you're not understanding, snapple, is the fact that you're defending people who voted to strip civil rights from a group of fellow citizens
With all due respect Barry (and I believe you are aware of the fact that I do have a tremendous amount of personal respect for you notwithstanding drastically different religious and political views), by using that sort of rhetoric, you are shutting down any possibility whatsoever of having any sort of discussion on the issue at hand. I know that is not your intention, but by creating a de facto label and pigeonholing anyone who is against gay marriage as "anti civil rights," you are in effect demonizing and marginalizing anyone who might disagree with you. And whether your position is correct or not, that is not what this forum is for. In my years of running this forum, I have seen a number of people take some pretty offensive views on a variety of topics, and those views have occurred on both sides of the political and/or religious spectrums (spectra?). But provided the person presents those views without violating forum rules, they are permitted to express them without being directly or indirectly attacked for holding those views. I don't mean to single you out, but (1) unlike some others who have posted in the thread, you posted your post in such a way that I could form an articulate, meaningful response to it without just getting pissed off and getting into a further argument about the issue, and (2) I know from my interactions with you that you are mature enough to understand and respect where I am coming from even if you disagree.
I've been trying for 45 minutes to formulate a response to this post. "Demonized" ??? "Marginalized" ??? "attacking" ??? That's what you got out of what I wrote? Wow, man.
-
I think what you're not understanding, snapple, is the fact that you're defending people who voted to strip civil rights from a group of fellow citizens
With all due respect Barry [...]
I've been trying for 45 minutes to formulate a response to this post. "Demonized" ??? "Marginalized" ??? "attacking" ??? That's what you got out of what I wrote? Wow, man.
For the record, I'm in full support of kirksnosehair here, despite the fact his username is silly and missing an apostrophe. This is all about majorities with privileged positions. A belief that something is 'right' doesn't give one the right to impose that belief on a subset of the population at your will when it limits their freedoms and only causes harm, and no actual benefit is generated.
Consider:
"As a [person with X belief], I know that straight/christian/black [delete as applicable] people should not be allowed to live in houses, as it is objectively immoral in the grand designs of the universe".
-
The gay/lesbian "community" is a very small percentage of the population....and frankly my ONLY problem with the entire movement is the fact that a small percentage of the population is trying to tell the Majority percentage what to do....and when it doesn't go thier way they throw a "tantrum" about it and say how evil everyone is. Heck, even California consistently votes not to allow gay marriage...it takes a judge who thinks his beliefs supersede the 'majorities' to annul that vote time and time again....which it won't be long before that happens in NC.
With further education the support may come...but to want to snap your fingers and demand that 'poof'.....we get our way when society isn't there just yet.....sorry. I think that the gay and lesbian movement should realize that despite the large amount of media and Hollywood support that there is still a long way to go for them. That's just the truth of the matter.
As a gay, there are some points I agree with you but mostly not. I mean, I examine LGBT comunities and their works. I think they need to renew themselves. But you sound like a small group in the majority just must be quiet and do whatever majority wants. Oh well, it doesn't work that way, you know. Just because majority wants that way it would be unfair for others.
Aside from the LGBT persons, a country has many small groups with different beliefs, different choices, different lives who want their rights, who have life to live. So when they rise up for something, do they actually need to be elimaneted for the majority sake?
-
I've said this before, but I'd like to see heterosexual atheists getting civil partnerships. Completely secularise the process of union, and make marriage the exclusive preserve of the church. If every heterosexual atheist couple got the exact same document and rights as every homosexual couple, I think you'd draw even more attention to how mad it is to base civil rights (sorry, bosk!) on lines drawn by religious doctrines. And if it also encourages the churches to re-evaluate their own outlook, all the better.
;) No worries. And I get where you (and others who have said similar things) are coming from. Coming off the bigger topic of "gay marriage" for a moment, and going back to the NC Amendment, it somewhat speaks to that issue, I think. I will take Hef's word for it that it is a completely screwed up amendment. I haven't looked at it myself, and probably won't. I'm not necessarily applauding or condemning it because I don't know enough specifics to really speak intelligently about it, other than in the broad context of the arguments I have made. But one thing that is intriguing about it is that, as mentioned, it apparently also does not grant a set of those special privileges that are attendant to marriage to heterosexual domestic partnerships either. Broadly speaking, while I know this position doesn't fly amongst the general populace, I think they got that part right since heterosexual sex outside of marriage is also sinful. Hence, I do not believe the government should put its stamp of approval and grant special privileges to individuals in that sort of relationship. Anyway, I digress a bit, but your post just got me thinking in that direction.
It doesn't just not grant them, it takes them away. People who were in civil unions/domestic partnerships no longer have those benefits and aren't recognized as being together in any way. That's part of what makes the amendment so sickening, especially when the ballot only said "Marriage between a man and a woman is the only recognized domestic union in this state," and most of the supporters either didn't pick up on that or believed, as you do, that its sinful for those kinds of unions to exist and that the law shouldn't be giving them special privileges.
The problem with both issues is (and stop me if you've heard this one :P) the whole separation between church and state thing getting ignored. We were never a country founded on religion, and we shouldn't use religion to make policy decisions. So many people have been hurt because of the privileges stripped away from them, at least in part because of religion (though a senator's wife also said that the amendment was necessary in order for the caucasaian race to survive but let's not go there :P). Overall it just annoys me that 61% of the people in my state chose bigotry instead of tolerance, and did incredible harm to the state's unmarried families, elderly, women, and economy.
-
I've said this before, but I'd like to see heterosexual atheists getting civil partnerships. Completely secularise the process of union, and make marriage the exclusive preserve of the church. If every heterosexual atheist couple got the exact same document and rights as every homosexual couple, I think you'd draw even more attention to how mad it is to base civil rights (sorry, bosk!) on lines drawn by religious doctrines. And if it also encourages the churches to re-evaluate their own outlook, all the better.
;) No worries. And I get where you (and others who have said similar things) are coming from. Coming off the bigger topic of "gay marriage" for a moment, and going back to the NC Amendment, it somewhat speaks to that issue, I think. I will take Hef's word for it that it is a completely screwed up amendment. I haven't looked at it myself, and probably won't. I'm not necessarily applauding or condemning it because I don't know enough specifics to really speak intelligently about it, other than in the broad context of the arguments I have made. But one thing that is intriguing about it is that, as mentioned, it apparently also does not grant a set of those special privileges that are attendant to marriage to heterosexual domestic partnerships either. Broadly speaking, while I know this position doesn't fly amongst the general populace, I think they got that part right since heterosexual sex outside of marriage is also sinful. Hence, I do not believe the government should put its stamp of approval and grant special privileges to individuals in that sort of relationship. Anyway, I digress a bit, but your post just got me thinking in that direction.
It doesn't just not grant them, it takes them away. People who were in civil unions/domestic partnerships no longer have those benefits and aren't recognized as being together in any way. That's part of what makes the amendment so sickening, especially when the ballot only said "Marriage between a man and a woman is the only recognized domestic union in this state," and most of the supporters either didn't pick up on that or believed, as you do, that its sinful for those kinds of unions to exist and that the law shouldn't be giving them special privileges.
The problem with both issues is (and stop me if you've heard this one :P) the whole separation between church and state thing getting ignored. We were never a country founded on religion, and we shouldn't use religion to make policy decisions. So many people have been hurt because of the privileges stripped away from them, at least in part because of religion (though a senator's wife also said that the amendment was necessary in order for the caucasaian race to survive but let's not go there :P). Overall it just annoys me that 61% of the people in my state chose bigotry instead of tolerance, and did incredible harm to the state's unmarried families, elderly, women, and economy.
So much I'm skipping just to make a minor point, but separation of church and state is a phrase found nowhere in the constitution. The first amendment prohibits the establishment of a religion and was put in there to avoid state run churches like the ones in Europe people were escaping from. While we might not agree where people are getting their beliefs from, it is totally reasonable for people to make a policy decision based on their religion as that is where they get their sense of right/wrong from.
I very much disagree with people making decisions based on the bible or faith, but it's not like we can expect people to throw out everything they believe when they make a decision.
-
I'm aware the phrase is not in the constitution, but it is an important concept that every US history student learns about. I understand that someone can consult with their bible or faith or magical power ring when making a decision to help them do what they think is morally right, but I think laws that are put in place BECAUSE of religion isn't in the spirit of the first amendment. Amendment one is such a thing.
-
I've been trying for 45 minutes to formulate a response to this post. "Demonized" ??? "Marginalized" ??? "attacking" ??? That's what you got out of what I wrote? Wow, man.
Barry, don't worry too much about it. As I tried to say in my post, and perhaps not very effectively, is that you were not by any stretch the problem in that thread, but you had such a nice, concise statement of one of the issues others had been taking to the extreme that your post jumped out as an easy example to make my point. I think the bigger issue is understood now, as things seem to be a bit more under control in the thread, so I think it's fine. Sorry for appearing to react so strongly to your specific post. Feel free to respond or PM me if you want to further discuss.
It doesn't just not grant them, it takes them away. People who were in civil unions/domestic partnerships no longer have those benefits and aren't recognized as being together in any way.
No, I get it. That is indeed a HUGE problem. And I'm not trying to say that specifically what this amendment did or how it did it was right. I'm just saying, it's interesting that it tackled the issue much more broadly. Again, I'm not necessarily defending the amendment.
The problem with both issues is (and stop me if you've heard this one :P) the whole separation between church and state thing getting ignored.
Yes, and I do not believe that "separation of church and state" is an accurate (or beneficial) way of describing the balance between the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Nor do I believe complete separation of church and state is desireable. But, again, I think comment did a great job in his post of explaining how "church" and "state" do intersect in very real and practical ways.
though a senator's wife also said that the amendment was necessary in order for the caucasaian race to survive but let's not go there :P
Wow. Okay, yeah, I see issues. That's just stupid. :facepalm: So much for progress.
Overall it just annoys me that 61% of the people in my state chose bigotry instead of tolerance
Okay, but now this is where you are crossing the line that I set out above earlier in the thread. It is simply NOT okay to lump all people who may have voted for the amendment into one group and label them "bigoted." Many may have been, and that example of the senator's wife is a good example. But don't just casually throw that label around just because you disagree with the voters.
-
I very much disagree with people making decisions based on the bible or faith, but it's not like we can expect people to throw out everything they believe when they make a decision for themselves.
-
I very much disagree with people making decisions based on the bible or faith, but it's not like we can expect people to throw out everything they believe when they make a decision for themselves.
I get what you're saying, but what democracy is is basically the sum of people's personal beliefs into public law, and if most people are of a certain faith, then naturally the public policies will reflect that, however much I personally dislike that it's not like it doesn't make sense.
-
Overall it just annoys me that 61% of the people in my state chose bigotry instead of tolerance
Okay, but now this is where you are crossing the line that I set out above earlier in the thread. It is simply NOT okay to lump all people who may have voted for the amendment into one group and label them "bigoted." Many may have been, and that example of the senator's wife is a good example. But don't just casually throw that label around just because you disagree with the voters.
Bigotry is the state of mind of a "bigot", a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group.
In interests of fairness, I present opposing views on this for delectation.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/11/gay-marriage-debate-bigot_n_1509246.html (vote in the poll to see the arguments)
Technically, I don't actually see 'bigotry' as such a bad term to use. Yes, it's strong language, but this is a polarising issue where one expects such rhetoric to be used anyway; it's nowhere near as strong and offense as stating that gay acts are sinful; because that invokes universal notions of right/wrong that close off debate, whereas to say 'bigotry' won out doesn't necessarily denote that the speaker is calling all the people 'bigots' as individuals - but merely the 'bigoted' idea won out. skydivingninja definitely did not call everyone who voted in that fashion 'bigots'; a less knee-jerk reading of his post shows that clearly. If clinging to a personal interpretation of the universe through a single book* to base your opinion on in regard to ensure that your own privileged position is maintained at the cost of keeping others as unequal 'citizens' and doling them harm (when to vote in the opposite way would not cause any proven harm) isn't bigoted behaviour, then what IS bigotry?
* = obviously not everyone who voted in this way did so for Christian religious reasons - those who did it just because they think homosexuals deserve to be unequal second-class citizens are obviously distinct, but the behaviour may be no less 'bigoted'.
What religion (or lack thereof) are you affiliated with? : Agnostic.
What is your stance on:
- Gay Marriage: I am opposed to gay marriage.
Nick - saw this in the roll-call thread. Care to explain your personal secular opposition to gay marriage?
-
It doesn't just not grant them, it takes them away. People who were in civil unions/domestic partnerships no longer have those benefits and aren't recognized as being together in any way.
No, I get it. That is indeed a HUGE problem. And I'm not trying to say that specifically what this amendment did or how it did it was right. I'm just saying, it's interesting that it tackled the issue much more broadly. Again, I'm not necessarily defending the amendment.
Yeah I know you weren't explicitly defending it, I was just letting you know the implications of the amendment since you admitted that you didn't know much about it.
Overall it just annoys me that 61% of the people in my state chose bigotry instead of tolerance
Okay, but now this is where you are crossing the line that I set out above earlier in the thread. It is simply NOT okay to lump all people who may have voted for the amendment into one group and label them "bigoted." Many may have been, and that example of the senator's wife is a good example. But don't just casually throw that label around just because you disagree with the voters.
[/quote]
Believe me after someone got banned for referring to another member as a bigot, I don't throw it around casually, and I thought for a bit about my post before I hit that button. But Rick's definition kinda hits the nail on the head. There's intolerance and definite animosity towards homosexuals and those views to me can best be summed up as bigotry. Its a strong word, yes, but it fits. I can see that I made a blanket statement though, and that's my mistake. In case you haven't noticed, I have strong feelings on this issue and I'm not usually one to make blanket statements like that. Sorry. After all, there were a lot of supporters of this amendment who just plain didn't understand what the amendment actually did besides solidify the same-sex marriage ban, and maybe they weren't trying to be malicious, but there is enough hate towards homosexuals in the state to the point where I felt the term was justified in describing the views of a majority of people who supported amendment one.
Also, here's a good video/rant about same sex marriage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD-INsIbVcw&feature=youtu.be
-
Wow, I was just going to link to that video. Nerdfighters!
And I wanted to comment on Bosk's logic that all people have the same rights to marriage. You say that we all have the same right: the right to marry one consenting woman. The debate over whether that statement is valid or not comes from the different understandings of marriage. Many people who disagree with you would say that marriage is about marrying the person you love, regardless of sex. In that case, people are being denied rights.
-
Since it seems to have been glossed over;
Having a vote on minority rights and deciding minority rights by majority rule is never a good idea.
Yes, obviously if a politician practices a certain religion, it will enter into their decision making process. However, it's critical that even if a plurality or majority of people in a country follow a particular religious belief, that their religious views not be forced on the minority. At a certain point, the government needs to maintain a certain neutrality, and defend the rights of all of its citizens, not just the rights of the majority.
The government can't force a religion to recognize or perform gay marriage, but no religion should be able to effect the legal government definition either.
-
Bosk:
I was thinking today; that EVEN in societies where the religion was homogenized there were still civil liberties that weren't spread equally. People found ways to deny liberties from within scripture itself (ie, people were not "catholic enough" in medieval Spain, women not "hidden enough" in Saudi Arabia). Frankly, thats the reason why denominations of Christianity emerged.
I'm beating a horse here, but CLEARLY a theocracy NEVER works. Its one thing, as Nick stated, to expect that people would have their religious morals seep into their legal policies; its another thing to actively push for it. The only government that can possibly work, EVEN in a religiously homogenous society is one that absolutely keeps religion out.
It is in fact for YOUR best interest to fight against ANY religion to influence the government.
-
i don't know who the hell posted this under my account, but not cool at all.
-
Remember that scene from "Crocodile Dundee" where he says, "That's not a knife, this is a knife" ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nMANMIe0ZZI
What...the...what? ???
-
For a person that's undecided on the legalization of gay marriage, there's a lot of good stuff in this thread.
-
As a NC resident that lives in the Triangle and is a student of a school that is against Amendment One, and has done activism work against it, it is really heartbreaking to see this amendment passed. I'm completely for legalizing gay marriage and totally against the amendment. It's really a stupid desicion to have passed it, but at least my county was 79% against!
-
:tup
-
As a NC resident that lives in the Triangle and is a student of a school that is against Amendment One, and has done activism work against it, it is really heartbreaking to see this amendment passed. I'm completely for legalizing gay marriage and totally against the amendment. It's really a stupid desicion to have passed it, but at least my county was 79% against!
I think Wake county's was something like 57% against it. So go us!
-
I'll just leave this here. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/nebraska-woman-homophobia-rant-video_n_1509580.html
-
what
-
Remember that scene from "Crocodile Dundee" where he says, "That's not a knife, this is a knife" ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nMANMIe0ZZI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nMANMIe0ZZI)
What...the...what? ???
Yeah, that's what I said. Please check the logs, bosk, I am sure you will see that shit was not posted from any computer I own. I have changed my password. Also, check your PM please.
-
A refreshing glimmer of sanity in the darkening abyss of the ever-more secularized and increasingly relativist United States of America.
The law is supposed to be secularized.
This isn't sanity. It's fucking bigotry. Plain and simple.
Strawman arguments get you no where.
it's nice to see how many people online cannot give a single fucking toss that democracy was practiced in the state of NC. All they see is bigotry, hatred, rights stripped away, and such. Do I have a right to steal when I'm poor and starving? What exactly does rights mean? Who's rights? What rights? When does the idea of rights even come into play? From what I see in history it is simply what is owed to people. It is a form of justice. If I perform a service for you I am owed something. I have a right to compensation. That is justice. Rights are primarily focused on justice and deal more with civilization and less about the individual. The point being blacks had a right to be human and to be treated as equals because that was what they are, equals. They are humans and nothing within that person should keep them from having the same rights as a white should have. The only thing that separated them was the color of their skin. It was an injustice to treat them differently because their difference was based solely on skin color.
People want to relate the problems in 1963 between the racial attacks against blacks with homosexuality. But here there is a difference and that difference is getting overlooked and assumptions are being made. I think someone here wanted to point out that marriage hasn't been the same which is true to a point. Polygamy is certainly a different form of marriage which I think is still practiced but there is still a fundamental difference between polygomy and homosexuality, polygomy still fulfills the marital act between a man and a woman, it still creates a family unit and it one with a child being born within this family and raised by this family, its own biological unit. Homosexuality is not this at all. Sure we have a unitive structure between two people who are in love augmented by a sexual attraction to each other, but this pairing can never fulfill the marital act of procreation. That is not unless you change that part of marriage and just say, it's about two people in love. This was "never" the idea of marriage in our past. So to argue that marriage was never always like it is now or that homosexuality has the same rights as a couple who actually produce a single biological family is changing the very idea of the form of justice on what a married couple is. Now justice is being asked to support not just a family unit of a man and woman, but a pairing of a man and man or woman and woman with no chance of both biological parents being there to raise the child. Now we have a problem. Now we are talking about children being raised by parent 1 and parent 2, possibly one of them being the mother or father but the other biological parent not in the picture. Some would argue we have single moms and dads but that's another logical fallacy.
Nature, like all animals, has developed our nurturing needs as has culture and tradition. But nature has the biggest part. Certain animals are born into situations where the father isn't there for natural reasons (he might kill, eat, maim, destroy the child). For human, both parents are present and furthermore both parents mate for life or are monogamous. Homosexuality will ultimate bring about a sharp change to this in that it will remove one paternal parent willingly. That is, it is the choice of the parents that least one biological parent be not present at all. Yes, adoption exists, but this exists like it does in any animal species, the child is still raised in the natural order of the species. Here we are changing that. Which brings an interesting question. Is it right to force a child to be raised under a situation that is not natural for his upbringing or is right for "me" to marry of the same sex because I have rights too. Thus a very common form of justice, whose rights are more important, because in the end, in order to give rights to one who have to remove that right for another. When in justice is it right to take justice away from one in order to give it to another. Imagine during the 20's rights were given to women but it's effect was that rights were taking away from men? Who has a greater right? Is there such a thing as a greater right?
I'm against homosexuality not because two people love each other, but because that act is inferior to the heterosexual act which is the natural human action. It is inferior and unnecessary yet it has somehow turned into a lifestyle and identity which is a contradiction within itself and a rejection of the human nature in the person. I'm against homosexual marriage because I feel marriage between a man and women produces the justice necessary for a child to be raised which takes into consideration the child's justice, a justice people are too ready to forget. If homosexuals believe that they have a greater right to marry because of they "believe" their identity is homosexual (there is no physical or scientific proof or conclusions accepted by the scientific community as a whole that support homosexuality as racial or genetic), thus a race and thus entitle to a justice all its own then by this act they are taking away the justice of a child, that is physical, that has fundamental rights.
Instead, words like bigot, prejudice, assholes and whatnot get thrown around. That's not an argument. That's amateur hour.
-
I'll be sure to tell my dad who raised me on his own, sacrificing well paying positions so that he could be home when he needed to be home for me, and lost contact with almost all of his friends and gave up the chance of meeting any other women so that he could spend the little free time he had with me that he was "taking away the justice" I deserved by not sticking with the kind of woman that'd threaten to jump out of a moving car while her own kid was watching in the back seat. What right did he have forcing me out of the chance of experiencing a natural upbringing?
-
Ehra, out of curiousity, are you gay? (Yes, it's a serious question.)
-
Is it inconceivable that a non-gay person would argue in favor of gay rights?
-
No, I'm not.
-
Is it inconceivable that a non-gay person would argue in favor of gay rights?
Obviously not. As we all know, many atheists who are heterosexual (although their worldview permits them to be open the occasional homosexual encounter once in a while ie. Christopher Hitchens) are ardent supporters of same-sex "marriage". Their passionate demands for "justice," "equal rights," for the "right thing to be done" and their unabashed condemnation of war or similar atrocities as "morally abhorrent," "wrong," or "evil" and such ring hollow (sorry, rumborak) when you realize that most atheists and liberals tend to be moral relativists.
-
might as well lock this thread now.. lol :lol amazing
-
So was there actually a point to your question, or what?
-
Probably just a way to break back into the thread so he could tell us gay marriage is bad and war is cool.
Also, instead of locking the thread omega should just be kicked out of P&R because he was told not to post in this thread (at least, I think it was this one).
-
As I said, it was out of curiosity (that avatar of yours can be misleading). I merely responded to Super Dude's question as accurately as I could. I didn't mean to "derail" the thread or any such other nonsense. Everyone just relax. Ooof!
-
Is it inconceivable that a non-gay person would argue in favor of gay rights?
Obviously not. As we all know, many atheists who are heterosexual (although their worldview permits them to be open the occasional homosexual encounter once in a while ie. Christopher Hitchens) are ardent supporters of same-sex "marriage". Their passionate demands for "justice," "equal rights," for the "right thing to be done" and their unabashed condemnation of war or similar atrocities as "morally abhorrent," "wrong," or "evil" and such ring hollow (sorry, rumborak) when you realize that most atheists and liberals tend to be moral relativists.
Oh "nice" transition from "substantive arguments" to ignorant ad hominem "attacks."
I like "quotation" "marks."
-
These are not ad hominems and these are certainly no attacks. I merely stated a legitimate observation to a question I was asked.
Shall we stop picking on me and discuss the topic again?
-
A refreshing glimmer of sanity in the darkening abyss of the ever-more secularized and increasingly relativist United States of America.
The law is supposed to be secularized.
This isn't sanity. It's fucking bigotry. Plain and simple.
Imagine during the 20's rights were given to women but it's effect was that rights were taking away from men? Who has a greater right? Is there such a thing as a greater right?
Are you actually suggesting that women should have fewer rights?
Anyway I think everybody here will agree that people should have rights taken away if they have too many - i.e. if there isn't complete equality.
Anyway, you're working under two fallacious assumptions:
1. That it is somehow "natural" to engage in heterosexual activity and "unnatural" to engage in homosexual activity. This was a working implicit assumption of yours which you failed to support at any time. EDIT: More than this, it's important to explain why unnatural things are necessarily worse. Everything in America is unnatural. Buildings, air conditioning, prepackaged food, movies, books, guns, glasses, computers... basically everything. Homosexual activity seems to me to be a lot more natural than any of these things, and if you're going to make the "unnatural" argument, you're basically arguing that we shouldn't be doing anything but having heterosexual sex at any time ever.
2. That marriage exists in order to promote the well-being and health of children. Everybody who's against same-sex marriage says this at one point or another, and it couldn't be farther from the truth. I and others have pointed it out in this very thread and many other threads as well, and I've never even heard a direct response to this very valid objection.
Historically, marriage has not existed to promote the raising of children. As I said before, the idea of getting married to somebody who loves you, buying a house, and raising a child in a healthy environment is very recent indeed, and only exists in developed countries.
Under this argument, the process of marriage does work and always has worked like this:
1. Want to start a family.
2. Get married.
3. Have children.
This is factually incorrect. Marriage, in the past, has been more like this:
1. Want to have sex.
2. Get married (probably because the church will not permit you to commit adultery).
3. Have children as a consequence of the sex (because contraception does not exist or the church prohibits it).
-
I'll be sure to tell my dad who raised me on his own, sacrificing well paying positions so that he could be home when he needed to be home for me, and lost contact with almost all of his friends and gave up the chance of meeting any other women so that he could spend the little free time he had with me that he was "taking away the justice" I deserved by not sticking with the kind of woman that'd threaten to jump out of a moving car while her own kid was watching in the back seat. What right did he have forcing me out of the chance of experiencing a natural upbringing?
I don't think that's the point. Unfortunate the circumstances regarding your father and mother, yes, but we would be acting disingenuously if we didn't admit that the most optimal family unit consists of a loving and strong union between one man and one woman raising their biological children, nurturing them culturally and biologically to become productive members of society. It's no surprise that once this essential family unit is come to see as unnecessary by society that society begins to degrade. It is readily evident that, in principle, a parental unit of a man and a woman is superior to that of a single man or a single woman, or two men or two women, or many men and many women, etc. Also to note is that allowing homosexuals to "marry" will most certainly lead to the possibility of incest. Consider; there are two female lesbians in a relationship who are intent on "having a child" which they obviously cannot have unless you involve a male. The procedures that are used now by many lesbian couples are procedures that mask the identity of the father so that it cannot and will not be known who the father is. A conscious, willful effort is being made so that one could not know who is the father. Once you have made that effort, you've produced a child who cannot know who his father is. If you don't know and have no way of ascertaining who you father is, then you cannot know who your sisters and brothers are either. And if you cannot know who your sisters and brothers are, there is no way you could avoid having sexual relations with them.
-
Also to note is that allowing homosexuals to "marry" will most certainly lead to the possibility of incest. Consider; there are two female lesbians in a relationship who are intent on "having a child" which they obviously cannot have unless you involve a male. The procedures that are used now by many lesbian couples are procedures that mask the identity of the father so that it cannot and will not be known who the father is. A conscious, willful effort is being made so that you could not know who is the father. Once you have made that effort, you've produced a child who cannot know who his father is. If you don't know and have no way of ascertaining who you father is, then you cannot know who your sisters and brothers are either. And if you cannot know who your sisters and brothers are, there is no way you could avoid having sexual relations with them.
Um... sister and brother by defintion are people with the same parents. Unless the kid's mother had another kid with the same sperm donor, he wouldn't have any siblings.
As for half siblings, the odds of a kid meeting someone who was the child of the same sperm donor are astronomically low. Like, so low it's stunning that you'd even attempt to make that argument.
-
I'll be sure to tell my dad who raised me on his own, sacrificing well paying positions so that he could be home when he needed to be home for me, and lost contact with almost all of his friends and gave up the chance of meeting any other women so that he could spend the little free time he had with me that he was "taking away the justice" I deserved by not sticking with the kind of woman that'd threaten to jump out of a moving car while her own kid was watching in the back seat. What right did he have forcing me out of the chance of experiencing a natural upbringing?
It is readily evident that, in principle, a parental unit of a man and a woman is superior to that of a single man or a single woman, or two men or two women, or many men and many women, etc.
This is not evident to me or, I imagine, to many of the people in this thread so you'll have to explain why.
-
Um... sister and brother by defintion are people with the same parents. Unless the kid's mother had another kid with the same sperm donor, he wouldn't have any siblings.
As for half siblings, the odds of a kid meeting someone who was the child of the same sperm donor are astronomically low. Like, so low it's stunning that you'd even attempt to make that argument.
But over the years and if same-sex "marriage" were to be fully institutionalized, the chances of that happening would obviously increase exponentially.
-
Um... sister and brother by defintion are people with the same parents. Unless the kid's mother had another kid with the same sperm donor, he wouldn't have any siblings.
As for half siblings, the odds of a kid meeting someone who was the child of the same sperm donor are astronomically low. Like, so low it's stunning that you'd even attempt to make that argument.
But over the years and if same-sex "marriage" were to be fully institutionalized, the chances of that happening would obviously increase exponentially.
No it wouldn't. Same sex couples are still a minority. There aren't nearly enough of them having children to make the possibility anything worth fearing. The possibility currently exists for adopted children as well mind you, are you anti-adoption as well?
Also, please stop putting so many terms in quotation marks, it's degrading and insulting yet somehow permitted.
-
Um... sister and brother by defintion are people with the same parents. Unless the kid's mother had another kid with the same sperm donor, he wouldn't have any siblings.
As for half siblings, the odds of a kid meeting someone who was the child of the same sperm donor are astronomically low. Like, so low it's stunning that you'd even attempt to make that argument.
But over the years and if same-sex "marriage" were to be fully institutionalized, the chances of that happening would obviously increase exponentially.
Okay, and we could reduce the chances of incest happening exponentially if we all just stopped having sex completely. Obviously that is the best and most prudent option.
-
Um... sister and brother by defintion are people with the same parents. Unless the kid's mother had another kid with the same sperm donor, he wouldn't have any siblings.
As for half siblings, the odds of a kid meeting someone who was the child of the same sperm donor are astronomically low. Like, so low it's stunning that you'd even attempt to make that argument.
But over the years and if same-sex "marriage" were to be fully institutionalized, the chances of that happening would obviously increase exponentially.
:huh: There's nothing stopping (AFAIK) gay couples from having children now. There's also nothing stopping infertile couples and single moms from using artificial insemination (which already makes up a massive portion of sperm donation usage). There's really no reason to think the rate of artificial insemination would increase so much to make the odds of accidental incest 'exponential'.
Not to mention that there are ways for donor children to find/identify their half-siblings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donor_sibling_registration
-
Um... sister and brother by defintion are people with the same parents. Unless the kid's mother had another kid with the same sperm donor, he wouldn't have any siblings.
As for half siblings, the odds of a kid meeting someone who was the child of the same sperm donor are astronomically low. Like, so low it's stunning that you'd even attempt to make that argument.
But over the years and if same-sex "marriage" were to be fully institutionalized, the chances of that happening would obviously increase exponentially.
Okay, and we could reduce the chances of incest happening exponentially if we all just stopped having sex completely. Obviously that is the best and most prudent option.
Right, and we know that's completely impossible. Don't even try to argue that just not having sex is possible.
-
Um... sister and brother by defintion are people with the same parents. Unless the kid's mother had another kid with the same sperm donor, he wouldn't have any siblings.
As for half siblings, the odds of a kid meeting someone who was the child of the same sperm donor are astronomically low. Like, so low it's stunning that you'd even attempt to make that argument.
But over the years and if same-sex "marriage" were to be fully institutionalized, the chances of that happening would obviously increase exponentially.
Okay, and we could reduce the chances of incest happening exponentially if we all just stopped having sex completely. Obviously that is the best and most prudent option.
Right, and we know that's completely impossible. Don't even try to argue that just not having sex is possible.
I'm not saying it's possible. I'm saying it's the best and most prudent option if we're going to for some reason judge the worth of sexualities according to how much incest is theoretically possible therein.
-
That was directed at Omega, I was supporting your point. :)
-
Oh! Sorry, buddy.
-
Really? You think I believe that everyone should just stop procreating? You could have deduced (apparently) two things from my post:
1.) That I disapprove of the homosexual relationship norm of masking the identity of the father of potential children to be born to homosexual couples, etc.
or
2.) That I believe that everyone should just "stop having sex completely."
I cannot comprehend why option 2 was chosen.
-
1.) That I disapprove of the homosexual relationship norm of masking the identity of the father of potential children to be born to homosexual couples, etc.
It's not a homosexual relationship norm. Some sperm donors choose to be anonymous, regardless of who the child is born to (and bear in mind the majority of those births are not to lesbian couples but to infertile couples and single moms). Plenty of other donors allow their identity to be known.
-
Really? You think I believe that everyone should just stop procreating? You could have deduced (apparently) two things from my post:
1.) That I disapprove of the homosexual relationship norm of masking the identity of the father of potential children to be born to homosexual couples, etc.
or
2.) That I believe that everyone should just "stop having sex completely."
I cannot comprehend why option 2 was chosen.
Obviously I don't actually believe you believe that. I was showing you the result of your flawed logic: that a sexuality can be judged by its ability to theoretically cause incest.
And we've already shown you that there are systems in place to allow people to meet their half-siblings, and that homosexual parents don't have to get sperm/egg donations because they can adopt, so why do you keep arguing this ridiculous point?
-
Same sex marriage has been legal here for more then 10 years and absolutely none of the concerns raised by Omega and other have been shown to be the true. Children of same sex marriages are doing absolutely fine in school and life, and there haven't been any people calling to be wed with cartoon characters (hihi). If anything... all the 'dangers' concerning the 'gay lifestyle' (mostly STD concerns) have been minimizing by making same sex marriage legal, there is no secrecy any more and gay people can start building a secure future for themselves and their families. All these slippery slope arguments just don't go up in real life.
-
Same sex marriage has been legal here for more then 10 years and absolutely none of the concerns raised by Omega and other have been shown to be the true. Children of same sex marriages are doing absolutely fine in school and life, and there haven't been any people calling to be wed with cartoon characters (hihi). If anything... all the 'dangers' concerning the 'gay lifestyle' (mostly STD concerns) have been minimizing by making same sex marriage legal, there is no secrecy any more and gay people can start building a secure future for themselves and their families. All these slippery slope arguments just don't go up in real life.
I truly hope this post (like Sigz) doesn't go completely ignored.
-
Also some interesting stats:
In March 2006, Statistics Netherlands released estimates on the number of same-sex marriages performed in each year: 2,500 in 2001, 1,800 in 2002, 1,200 in 2004, and 1,100 in 2005.
(translated article about it:) https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coc.nl%2Fdopage.pl%3Fthema%3Dany%26pagina%3Dviewartikel%26artikel_id%3D835&act=url
the study is from 2006, but they show that already after the first year after introducing the law the amount of same sex marriages stabilized to about 3% of total marriages.
-
I'll be sure to tell my dad who raised me on his own, sacrificing well paying positions so that he could be home when he needed to be home for me, and lost contact with almost all of his friends and gave up the chance of meeting any other women so that he could spend the little free time he had with me that he was "taking away the justice" I deserved by not sticking with the kind of woman that'd threaten to jump out of a moving car while her own kid was watching in the back seat. What right did he have forcing me out of the chance of experiencing a natural upbringing?
I don't think that's the point.
It is. You can't be ok with what my dad did while also claiming that homosexual couples can't marry or shouldn't have children on the basis that children have some kind of right or obligation to be raised by a man and woman. Either he was in the wrong for parting with my mom and never bringing in a new mother figure into my life, or being risen by a man and a women isn't as important as you like to argue.
-
Same sex marriage has been legal here for more then 10 years and absolutely none of the concerns raised by Omega and other have been shown to be the true. Children of same sex marriages are doing absolutely fine in school and life, and there haven't been any people calling to be wed with cartoon characters (hihi). If anything... all the 'dangers' concerning the 'gay lifestyle' (mostly STD concerns) have been minimizing by making same sex marriage legal, there is no secrecy any more and gay people can start building a secure future for themselves and their families. All these slippery slope arguments just don't go up in real life.
I don't really have a horse in this race...but just as a point of clarification...
It may be true that YOU havn't heard of anyone "calling to be wed with cartoon characters"...but there HAS already been some people who *have* gone through ceremonies to "marry" their "virtual girlfriends"...
Now, it's only an extremely few people now...but what happens when it becomes more common? What happens when the technology improves? What happens when they become more realistic?
You can come up with all the logical arguments as to why it's not the same...*AND I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU*... But *TO THEM* it's different. And they might someday be able to set up a very logical argument as to why they should get benefits to take care of their "mates". This would make *ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE TO ME WHATSOEVER*...it would be the most stupid and illogical thing ever. But I don't see it as being any more "out in left field" than the idea of same sex marriage was 50-100 years ago.
Personally, it doesn't matter to me. Marriage has become less about "family" and more about "benefits"....it's become so secularized that I cannot see for the life of me why religion is even in the process at all.
In my opinion, legal aspect of marriage should be handled by lawyers...not priests. Don't they call it a "marriage contract"? Why not take that to the next logical step? A marriage contract should be just that...a *contract* drawn up by two agreeing parties. If said parties then wish to have their marriage vows done in front of whatever God they worship, they can have a religious ceremony if they wish. But even now, you're *technically* married the moment you sign the licence...not necessarily the moment you say your "I do's" in front of a priest. I don't see why they don't just make the legal aspect of it a contract like any other, and the religious angle can be handled however you wish.
I don't condone homosexuality...but I don't see it as any worse than a man and woman living together without being married....or sex before marriage....etc..etc...
At the end of the day, I view "same sex marriage" as a political issue, *NOT* a religious issue...and since my deeply held personal beliefs are that religion and politics don't mix....all this bickering just makes me happy to be completely apolitical.
-
Same sex marriage has been legal here for more then 10 years and absolutely none of the concerns raised by Omega and other have been shown to be the true. Children of same sex marriages are doing absolutely fine in school and life, and there haven't been any people calling to be wed with cartoon characters (hihi). If anything... all the 'dangers' concerning the 'gay lifestyle' (mostly STD concerns) have been minimizing by making same sex marriage legal, there is no secrecy any more and gay people can start building a secure future for themselves and their families. All these slippery slope arguments just don't go up in real life.
Not really going to step into this debate, but I'd like to say that it is great to hear an account of the reality of the situation, and not wildly extrapolated slippery slope arguments about incest and marrying R2-D2.
-
Same sex marriage has been legal here for more then 10 years and absolutely none of the concerns raised by Omega and other have been shown to be the true. Children of same sex marriages are doing absolutely fine in school and life, and there haven't been any people calling to be wed with cartoon characters (hihi). If anything... all the 'dangers' concerning the 'gay lifestyle' (mostly STD concerns) have been minimizing by making same sex marriage legal, there is no secrecy any more and gay people can start building a secure future for themselves and their families. All these slippery slope arguments just don't go up in real life.
I don't really have a horse in this race...but just as a point of clarification...
It may be true that YOU havn't heard of anyone "calling to be wed with cartoon characters"...but there HAS already been some people who *have* gone through ceremonies to "marry" their "virtual girlfriends"...
Now, it's only an extremely few people now...but what happens when it becomes more common? What happens when the technology improves? What happens when they become more realistic?
Look at the statistics I posted in my previous post, there is no slippery slope, the amount of same sex marriage is stable because only a small percentage of the population is gay and an even smaller percentage of those people wants to get married. The same will apply for people who want to marry cartoon characters, there will only be a very very very very very small percentage of the population who wants to marry a cartoon... let them be.. it's not like it will become more common, that's not how it works in real life. The vast majority of people will still be attracted to the opposite sex, legalizing cartoon marriages will not change that.
-
FYI, Germany got on the bandwagon slightly after the Netherlands, but it is the same story there too. We got a few more happy people, and anybody yet has to marry R2-D2. Whatever you hear about same-sex marriage changing anything about society, it doesn't. Except those few more happy people, which is something the naysayers seem to avoid considering at all cost.
rumborak
-
FYI, Germany got on the bandwagon slightly after the Netherlands, but it is the same story there too. We got a few more happy people, and anybody yet has to marry R2-D2. Whatever you hear about same-sex marriage changing anything about society, it doesn't.
No man, it does. Omega said so.
-
Same sex marriage has been legal here for more then 10 years and absolutely none of the concerns raised by Omega and other have been shown to be the true. Children of same sex marriages are doing absolutely fine in school and life, and there haven't been any people calling to be wed with cartoon characters (hihi). If anything... all the 'dangers' concerning the 'gay lifestyle' (mostly STD concerns) have been minimizing by making same sex marriage legal, there is no secrecy any more and gay people can start building a secure future for themselves and their families. All these slippery slope arguments just don't go up in real life.
I don't really have a horse in this race...but just as a point of clarification...
It may be true that YOU havn't heard of anyone "calling to be wed with cartoon characters"...but there HAS already been some people who *have* gone through ceremonies to "marry" their "virtual girlfriends"...
Now, it's only an extremely few people now...but what happens when it becomes more common? What happens when the technology improves? What happens when they become more realistic?
Look at the statistics I posted in my previous post, there is no slippery slope, the amount of same sex marriage is stable because only a small percentage of the population is gay and an even smaller percentage of those people wants to get married. The same will apply for people who want to marry cartoon characters, there will only be a very very very very very small percentage of the population who wants to marry a cartoon... let them be.. it's not like it will become more common, that's not how it works in real life. The vast majority of people will still be attracted to the opposite sex, legalizing cartoon marriages will not change that.
Actually, that's a pretty good point. And essentially backs up my argument about completely making marriage a legal contract. Now, as to whether or not you'll ever be able to create a sentient virtual girlfriend who is able to sign a contract remains to be seen. :corn
-
Actually, that's a pretty good point. And essentially backs up my argument about completely making marriage a legal contract. Now, as to whether or not you'll ever be able to create a sentient virtual girlfriend who is able to sign a contract remains to be seen. :corn
Well, this is why the example fails anyways. Even today, you have to sign a contract, and an inanimate object cant' sign a contract. It also prevents, ya know, people marrying dogs, and all that other ludicrous slippery slope things people put up as possible results.
-
Indeed. You could have made the same case for not allowing women to vote, because increasing the parameters of who is allowed to vote would obviously inevitably lead to animals and fictional characters voting.
And I agree Jammindude - and I think that is what most people in support of this would have said all along. Marriage is a legal and societal concept, not (necessarily) a religious one. I'm fully in favour of churches not allowing gay people to have religious ceremonies if they don't want to. But since a non-religious marriage between, say, two atheists supposedly isn't the "true" marriage recognised under God either, why should religious people care if gay people want some of these marriages outside of their religion as well?
-
As I said, it was out of curiosity (that avatar of yours can be misleading)
I knew it!!! :lolpalm:
-
:lol
On that note though, I've watched a bit of MLP and it's actually pretty funny.
-
What do you all think of just removing the term "marriage" from America's legal system? That way, everyone has the exact same right to civil union with whomever they choose, and the problem is solved.
-
What do you all think of just removing the term "marriage" from America's legal system? That way, everyone has the exact same right to civil union with whomever they choose, and the problem is solved.
That would be the ideal solution, but I can't see it happening any time soon.
-
What do you all think of just removing the term "marriage" from America's legal system? That way, everyone has the exact same right to civil union with whomever they choose, and the problem is solved.
That would be the ideal solution, but I can't see it happening any time soon.
-
Are there tax benefits to being married?
-
I'm liking what Bosk said earlier on. A gay man has the same amount of rights as a straight man. So this isn't really a civil rights issue - it's something else. I follow.
-
I'm liking what Bosk said earlier on. A gay man has the same amount of rights as a straight man. So this isn't really a civil rights issue - it's something else. I follow.
If one has the right to marry the person they love, and the other doesnt, how is there equality in rights?
-
I'm liking what Bosk said earlier on. A gay man has the same amount of rights as a straight man. So this isn't really a civil rights issue - it's something else. I follow.
If one has the right to marry the person they love, and the other doesnt, how is there equality in rights?
I addressed this earlier. It's one thing to say "Gay men have the same rights as straight men - gay men are free to marry women", but given that marriage is inherently sexual, the inequality is unavoidable.
-
Are there tax benefits to being married?
Yes but as an example my wife and I have the most taken out on us so it's not that big. There at other things like taxes on a house and kids that pay back more but do cost more. It's a vicious circle. :lol
-
I'm liking what Bosk said earlier on. A gay man has the same amount of rights as a straight man. So this isn't really a civil rights issue - it's something else. I follow.
Yeah, but by that logic, a gay man also has the same amount of rights as a straight man in Iran. Which obviously isn't true.
-
I'm liking what Bosk said earlier on. A gay man has the same amount of rights as a straight man. So this isn't really a civil rights issue - it's something else. I follow.
I guess black men didn't face any problems either then. After all, they "could" vote, it's just that they didn't pass the literacy tests. They had the same right to education, forget that they were less well funded and worse.
-
I'm liking what Bosk said earlier on. A gay man has the same amount of rights as a straight man. So this isn't really a civil rights issue - it's something else. I follow.
I guess black men didn't face any problems either then. After all, they "could" vote, it's just that they didn't pass the literacy tests. They had the same right to education, forget that they were less well funded and worse.
Don't forget that they were completely equal under the law.
-
I'm liking what Bosk said earlier on. A gay man has the same amount of rights as a straight man. So this isn't really a civil rights issue - it's something else. I follow.
I get the logic. However imagine a law passes that says that the only religious institution that people could attend is The Church of Scientology. Christians, Jews and Muslims would not be allowed to attend their own places. By the logic you're discussing, they aren't being denied any rights, since EVERYONE has the right to attend The Church of Scientology.
-
I'm liking what Bosk said earlier on. A gay man has the same amount of rights as a straight man. So this isn't really a civil rights issue - it's something else. I follow.
Yeah, but by that logic, a gay man also has the same amount of rights as a straight man in Iran. Which obviously isn't true.
And unfortunately the rights we like or we want are not global. Every country has their rights which are given to their people. Bosk's logic is absoluletly true but countries are wrong.
-
I'm liking what Bosk said earlier on. A gay man has the same amount of rights as a straight man. So this isn't really a civil rights issue - it's something else. I follow.
I get the logic. However imagine a law passes that says that the only religious institution that people could attend is The Church of Scientology. Christians, Jews and Muslims would not be allowed to attend their own places. By the logic you're discussing, they aren't being denied any rights, since EVERYONE has the right to attend The Church of Scientology.
Much better example.
-
I'll be sure to tell my dad who raised me on his own, sacrificing well paying positions so that he could be home when he needed to be home for me, and lost contact with almost all of his friends and gave up the chance of meeting any other women so that he could spend the little free time he had with me that he was "taking away the justice" I deserved by not sticking with the kind of woman that'd threaten to jump out of a moving car while her own kid was watching in the back seat. What right did he have forcing me out of the chance of experiencing a natural upbringing?
It is readily evident that, in principle, a parental unit of a man and a woman is superior to that of a single man or a single woman, or two men or two women, or many men and many women, etc.
Readily evident from what? You are using your perceived ideal to justify a wishful ideal.
Also to note is that allowing homosexuals to "marry" will most certainly lead to the possibility of incest. Consider; there are two female lesbians in a relationship who are intent on "having a child" which they obviously cannot have unless you involve a male. The procedures that are used now by many lesbian couples are procedures that mask the identity of the father so that it cannot and will not be known who the father is. A conscious, willful effort is being made so that one could not know who is the father. Once you have made that effort, you've produced a child who cannot know who his father is. If you don't know and have no way of ascertaining who you father is, then you cannot know who your sisters and brothers are either. And if you cannot know who your sisters and brothers are, there is no way you could avoid having sexual relations with them.
Are you against adoption as well? Since an adopted child can, potentially, sleep with his/her sister if they are separated early and contact not maintained.
Once again Omega, you are making this grand claims with absolutely no facts from reality; history nor the sciences; but only from your ideal world in your head Claims are nothing without facts and evidence.
-
It is readily evident that, in principle, a parental unit of a man and a woman is superior to that of a single man or a single woman, or two men or two women, or many men and many women, etc.
Studies? I'm actually interested in this topic, and I've found many studies pointing to better results for children raised by two women. Of course, you have to factor in the fact that they get to pick and choose the best sperm available and that it's never a "mistake" when you get a lesbian couple wanting a child - so they'll absolutely to their best to raise it.
-
I'm liking what Bosk said earlier on. A gay man has the same amount of rights as a straight man. So this isn't really a civil rights issue - it's something else. I follow.
I get the logic. However imagine a law passes that says that the only religious institution that people could attend is The Church of Scientology. Christians, Jews and Muslims would not be allowed to attend their own places. By the logic you're discussing, they aren't being denied any rights, since EVERYONE has the right to attend The Church of Scientology.
I agree with that. If religious rights weren't granted by the govt, and everyone was given the same option (e.g. right to attend Church of Scientology or not), then it wouldn't be a civil rights issue. It would be wrong, yes, but not on the basis of civil rights.
-
Why not? It's a matter of infringing on liberties.
-
Scientologists are allowed to go to their religious services, but Christians and Muslims and Jews and everybody else aren't? How is that not a civil rights issue?
-
It is readily evident that, in principle, a parental unit of a man and a woman is superior to that of a single man or a single woman, or two men or two women, or many men and many women, etc.
Studies? I'm actually interested in this topic, and I've found many studies pointing to better results for children raised by two women. Of course, you have to factor in the fact that they get to pick and choose the best sperm available and that it's never a "mistake" when you get a lesbian couple wanting a child - so they'll absolutely to their best to raise it.
I don't think there are many who would argue that all things being equal (child was wanted, two loving, involved parents, etc) that having a male and female parent is best. Don't know of any studies to confirm however. It would be hard to measure the success of a parent or parenting team really. What do you look at? Grades? College degrees? Lack of criminal convictions? Mental health? Every parent would have a different definition of a successful kid.
Like you mentioned, the one big advantage of same sex couples is that their kids are significantly more likely to be wanted, since having an "oops" is pretty difficult. So I would venture to guess that there's a higher % of involved parents in same sex couples.
-
Why not? It's a matter of infringing on liberties.
But it's not a matter of granting one group a certain set of liberties that are different than the liberties given to another group.
It's not like, say, giving white men the right to vote while withholding it from women and blacks. All Americans have been given the right to marry one non-minor that is of the opposite sex. The right is not withheld from any group.
BTW eric, there is no such American right as "the right to marry whomever you love". That doesn't exist.
-
Omega said "it is readily evident" -- obviously, he wasn't relying on any actual studies/anecdotes/real-world support of any kind. I asked him to explain why that was so evident a page or two back, so we'll just wait for that, I suppose.
Why not? It's a matter of infringing on liberties.
But it's not a matter of granting one group a certain set of liberties that are different than the liberties given to another group.
It's not like, say, giving white men the right to vote while withholding it from women and blacks. All Americans have been given the right to marry one non-minor that is of the opposite sex. The right is not withheld from any group.
Except it wouldn't make too much sense for a homosexual to "marry" someone of the opposite sex, would it? So they do not have the ability to marry in effect.
EDIT: Some of the things that have been said in this thread truly shock me. By bosk's and H's logic, it must be not be a civil rights issue to have separate restrooms/water fountains/seating areas for whites and blacks. After all, we're not denying any of these rights to any individual group, right?
-
Why not? It's a matter of infringing on liberties.
But it's not a matter of granting one group a certain set of liberties that are different than the liberties given to another group.
Homosexuals are not a different group than heterosexuals?
It's not like, say, giving white men the right to vote while withholding it from women and blacks.
Agreed. It's different. Race is not a factor in withholding the right to marry from homosexuals. It's based purely on bias against their sexuality. Most of which is based on religion.
What bugs me about that is we have some stuff written into our constitution that says "congress shall make no laws respecting any religion" or something along those lines, yet, states are being allowed to do just exactly that.
I think this issue is going to eventually reach the supreme court.
-
Yup. No federal laws, but maybe state laws? I don't know the US constitution inside and out but I suspect it's something like that.
-
All Americans have been given the right to marry one non-minor that is of the opposite sex. The right is not withheld from any group.
This is the letter of the law as it stands now, yes. And while legally it may have two legs to stand on, more and more people are feeling that, just because a law is “fair” in the legal sense, we as a society can do better to make things more fair and equitable.
-
What bugs me about that is we have some stuff written into our constitution that says "congress shall make no laws respecting any religion" or something along those lines, yet, states are being allowed to do just exactly that.
I think this issue is going to eventually reach the supreme court.
That's really not how it works. The First Amendment can't be used to prevent people from voting on their beliefs. What it can do is prevent formal incorporation of religion into state activities (like prayer in schools, or religious propaganda like "Intelligent Design"). But people are entitled to their opinions, including ones derived from their religious beliefs. I don't know much about Constitutional Law, but I don't think a law like this violates the First Amendment.
-
All Americans have been given the right to marry one non-minor that is of the opposite sex. The right is not withheld from any group.
This is the letter of the law as it stands now, yes. And while legally it may have two legs to stand on, more and more people are feeling that, just because a law is “fair” in the legal sense, we as a society can do better to make things more fair and equitable.
Which is how my earlier example of black voting rights kicks in. The letter of the law said blacks could vote, but it took 100 years for blacks to truly get the right to vote.
-
The way things should be according to the way it is written and the way things turn out don't always correlate.
-
If I recall correctly, wasn't this the logic behind Brown vs. Board of Education, or at least other cases around that time dealing with civil rights?
Also, seeing as how it took legislation to give blacks the right to vote, I'm guessing all those literacy tests and other things were upheld because they "applied" to everyone?
-
Omega said "it is readily evident" -- obviously, he wasn't relying on any actual studies/anecdotes/real-world support of any kind. I asked him to explain why that was so evident a page or two back, so we'll just wait for that, I suppose.
Omega has been asked not to participate in this discussion.
-
Except it wouldn't make too much sense for a homosexual to "marry" someone of the opposite sex, would it? So they do not have the ability to marry in effect.
It's been mentioned that people with homosexual preferences often marry someone of the opposite sex. And of course, it's also been mentioned that marriage doesn't need to be about the sexual relationship. Marriage can be about enriching the life of the person you're married to - even a person who is 100% homosexual has full access to this kind of marriage. So it does make sense for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex.
EDIT: Some of the things that have been said in this thread truly shock me. By bosk's and H's logic, it must be not be a civil rights issue to have separate restrooms/water fountains/seating areas for whites and blacks. After all, we're not denying any of these rights to any individual group, right?
On first impulse, I think that while segregation (in principle) is definitely an issue, it is not properly classified as a "civil rights" issue. Of course, historically we know that while blacks and whites were separate, they were certainly not equal.
Homosexuals are not a different group than heterosexuals?
Read: In modern America, homosexuals and heterosexuals are granted the same set of liberties - each group can and can't do the same things. Contrast to the Reconstruction Era - blacks and whites are granted different sets of liberties...one group can do something the other can't.
-
Except it wouldn't make too much sense for a homosexual to "marry" someone of the opposite sex, would it? So they do not have the ability to marry in effect.
It's been mentioned that people with homosexual preferences often marry someone of the opposite sex. And of course, it's also been mentioned that marriage doesn't need to be about the sexual relationship. Marriage can be about enriching the life of the person you're married to - even a person who is 100% homosexual has full access to this kind of marriage. So it does make sense for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex.
This is just utterly bizarre. By the exact same logic, gay marriage should be allowed for the exact same fucking reasons.
EDIT: Some of the things that have been said in this thread truly shock me. By bosk's and H's logic, it must be not be a civil rights issue to have separate restrooms/water fountains/seating areas for whites and blacks. After all, we're not denying any of these rights to any individual group, right?
On first impulse, I think that while segregation (in principle) is definitely an issue, it is not properly classified as a "civil rights" issue. Of course, historically we know that while blacks and whites were separate, they were certainly not equal.
Go tell this to historians. They should probably stop calling it "The Civil Rights Movement."
Homosexuals are not a different group than heterosexuals?
Read: In modern America, homosexuals and heterosexuals are granted the same set of liberties - each group can and can't do the same things. Contrast to the Reconstruction Era - blacks and whites are granted different sets of liberties...one group can do something the other can't.
In Saudi Arabia, all people have the same religious rights. They're all allowed to form Muslim churches, and no others. See? No infringement of rights there!
-
Yeah, one of the reasons I don't hang around here as often as I used to is the way you and others treat other members. So I don't care much to respond to your objections because they are objections based on awful (and likely intentional) misunderstandings of what I said. Plus, your tone is insufferably condescending. But I'll respond for the sake of clearing up some misunderstanding.
Except it wouldn't make too much sense for a homosexual to "marry" someone of the opposite sex, would it? So they do not have the ability to marry in effect.
It's been mentioned that people with homosexual preferences often marry someone of the opposite sex. And of course, it's also been mentioned that marriage doesn't need to be about the sexual relationship. Marriage can be about enriching the life of the person you're married to - even a person who is 100% homosexual has full access to this kind of marriage. So it does make sense for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex.
This is just utterly bizarre. By the exact same logic, gay marriage should be allowed for the exact same fucking reasons.
All I'm saying is that it's not unreasonable in every case for a homosexual to marry a person of the opposite sex (whether he be a full-on homosexual or one partially inclined to homosexuality).
EDIT: Some of the things that have been said in this thread truly shock me. By bosk's and H's logic, it must be not be a civil rights issue to have separate restrooms/water fountains/seating areas for whites and blacks. After all, we're not denying any of these rights to any individual group, right?
On first impulse, I think that while segregation (in principle) is definitely an issue, it is not properly classified as a "civil rights" issue. Of course, historically we know that while blacks and whites were separate, they were certainly not equal.
Go tell this to historians. They should probably stop calling it "The Civil Rights Movement."
Are you serious? I blatantly referred to segregation in American history as a civil rights issue. Understand that when I spoke of "segregation", I meant it in the idealist sense. In the ideal, segregation is not a civil rights issue.
Homosexuals are not a different group than heterosexuals?
Read: In modern America, homosexuals and heterosexuals are granted the same set of liberties - each group can and can't do the same things. Contrast to the Reconstruction Era - blacks and whites are granted different sets of liberties...one group can do something the other can't.
In Saudi Arabia, all people have the same religious rights. They're all allowed to form Muslim churches, and no others. See? No infringement of rights there!
I would define a "Civil Rights Issue" in America as something that violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Jim Crow laws violated the EPC, so Jim Crow laws were a civil rights issue. Segregation violated the EPC, so segregation was a civil rights issue. The present refraining from giving persons the right to marry someone of the same sex does not violate the EPC, so it is not a civil rights issue.
But what are "rights"? Simple question - in America, as a democracy, "rights" are what the people say they are. If America says that there is no right to marry someone of the same sex, then there is no right to marry someone of the same sex. It is wrong to claim that you have rights that don't exist.
-
It's been mentioned that people with homosexual preferences often marry someone of the opposite sex. And of course, it's also been mentioned that marriage doesn't need to be about the sexual relationship. Marriage can be about enriching the life of the person you're married to - even a person who is 100% homosexual has full access to this kind of marriage. So it does make sense for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex.
I'd love hear one of our gay poster's thoughts on this lovely bit of wisdom.
-
It's been mentioned that people with homosexual preferences often marry someone of the opposite sex. And of course, it's also been mentioned that marriage doesn't need to be about the sexual relationship. Marriage can be about enriching the life of the person you're married to - even a person who is 100% homosexual has full access to this kind of marriage. So it does make sense for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex.
I'd love hear one of our gay poster's thoughts on this lovely bit of wisdom.
You're too kind! It's people like you that make me love being on DTF. :)
-
Just for the record, here's Oxford dictionary's definition of civil rights:
plural noun the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.
And wikipedia's first paragaph:
Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.
-
All Americans have been given the right to marry one non-minor that is of the opposite sex. The right is not withheld from any group.
This is the letter of the law as it stands now, yes. And while legally it may have two legs to stand on, more and more people are feeling that, just because a law is “fair” in the legal sense, we as a society can do better to make things more fair and equitable.
In the early 1800's most people thought the laws of the land with respect to slavery were fine.
Societies progress. Slavery is now viewed -even by those who once supported it- as repugnant.
I believe that the denial of homosexual marriage will eventually be seen in the same light.
Again: Progress
Pretty much the opposite of conservatism.
That's just reality.
-
And so far, progress has had a pretty good track record in this country.
-
Then inevitably you get the "you feel that way now but just wait until a stance you hold and feel strongly about is deemed unjust in the name of 'progress!'" reply. I'd probably be pissed when/if it happens to me too, but, ultimately, it'd still be for the better of where society is heading. I'd fucking hope that humanity eventually does away with any hypocritical, baseless, unjust prejudices I have that are currently considered acceptable.
-
It's been mentioned that people with homosexual preferences often marry someone of the opposite sex. And of course, it's also been mentioned that marriage doesn't need to be about the sexual relationship. Marriage can be about enriching the life of the person you're married to - even a person who is 100% homosexual has full access to this kind of marriage. So it does make sense for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex.
I have no idea where you got this from or why it makes sense to you.
-
It's been mentioned that people with homosexual preferences often marry someone of the opposite sex. And of course, it's also been mentioned that marriage doesn't need to be about the sexual relationship. Marriage can be about enriching the life of the person you're married to - even a person who is 100% homosexual has full access to this kind of marriage. So it does make sense for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex.
I have no idea where you got this from or why it makes sense to you.
It doesn't happen that often, but it actually does occur. Especially in an culture where a man is expected to marry a woman at some point.
-
It's been mentioned that people with homosexual preferences often marry someone of the opposite sex. And of course, it's also been mentioned that marriage doesn't need to be about the sexual relationship. Marriage can be about enriching the life of the person you're married to - even a person who is 100% homosexual has full access to this kind of marriage. So it does make sense for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex.
I have no idea where you got this from or why it makes sense to you.
It doesn't happen that often, but it actually does occur. Especially in an culture where a man is expected to marry a woman at some point.
But would it happen in an open, non-discriminatory society with gay marriage?
-
It's been mentioned that people with homosexual preferences often marry someone of the opposite sex. And of course, it's also been mentioned that marriage doesn't need to be about the sexual relationship. Marriage can be about enriching the life of the person you're married to - even a person who is 100% homosexual has full access to this kind of marriage. So it does make sense for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex.
I have no idea where you got this from or why it makes sense to you.
It doesn't happen that often, but it actually does occur. Especially in an culture where a man is expected to marry a woman at some point.
But would it happen in an open, non-discriminatory society with gay marriage?
Probably, but far less. 99% of those marriages are because of conflicted feelings and confusion, and usually lead to very unhappy lives, relationships, and can end up destroying the lives of the spouse and children.
-
What bugs me about that is we have some stuff written into our constitution that says "congress shall make no laws respecting any religion" or something along those lines, yet, states are being allowed to do just exactly that.
I think this issue is going to eventually reach the supreme court.
That's really not how it works. The First Amendment can't be used to prevent people from voting on their beliefs. What it can do is prevent formal incorporation of religion into state activities (like prayer in schools, or religious propaganda like "Intelligent Design"). But people are entitled to their opinions, including ones derived from their religious beliefs. I don't know much about Constitutional Law, but I don't think a law like this violates the First Amendment.
Well, I guess what I really mean is I don't think we should be legislating the morality of any religion, which is what we seem to be doing with these gay marriage bans. Yes, there are some people who are not religious that are against gay marriage, but the vast overwhelming majority of people who are voting to ban it are citing their objection to it based on their religious beliefs. It just makes me uncomfortable that we're getting that close to legislating the specific moral code of one religion....particularly when we have a very good amount of proof that allowing homosexuals to marry does not cause any kind of problems (see: MA, VT, NY, et al)
-
But by the same logic, one could easily call for the banning of charities. I don't think there's any way to limit voting based on religious beliefs without infringing upon civil liberties.
-
But by the same logic, one could easily call for the banning of charities. I don't think there's any way to limit voting based on religious beliefs without infringing upon civil liberties.
I'm not trying to "limit voting" at all. I'm saying that we live in a secular society and have a secular government, but we have laws like "The Defense of Marriage Act" that define marriage as between one man and one woman and you can pretty much draw a straight line from that law to a Christian bible.
If we have a truly representative democracy that is supposed to function for all groups regardless of race, creed, religion, sex, etc,. I am just wondering if where this kind of specific, let's face it, discriminatory lawmaking has a place in what is supposedly an "inclusive" society.
-
Everyone will vote using their own personal beliefs, which will include religious ones. I support that.
If a majority votes for something, it should be what is implemented*. I support that.
*I also support a legal safeguard system that will make null and void any law that infringes of the rights of a group of people, regardless of how much of a majority voted for it.
-
It's been mentioned that people with homosexual preferences often marry someone of the opposite sex. And of course, it's also been mentioned that marriage doesn't need to be about the sexual relationship. Marriage can be about enriching the life of the person you're married to - even a person who is 100% homosexual has full access to this kind of marriage. So it does make sense for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex.
I'd love hear one of our gay poster's thoughts on this lovely bit of wisdom.
You're too kind! It's people like you that make me love being on DTF. :)
Oh. Yeah that was sarcastic. Sorry for the confusion.
-
Yeah I think he was making a sarcastic jab at your sarcasm.
-
It's been mentioned that people with homosexual preferences often marry someone of the opposite sex. And of course, it's also been mentioned that marriage doesn't need to be about the sexual relationship. Marriage can be about enriching the life of the person you're married to - even a person who is 100% homosexual has full access to this kind of marriage. So it does make sense for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex.
I'd love hear one of our gay poster's thoughts on this lovely bit of wisdom.
You're too kind! It's people like you that make me love being on DTF. :)
Oh. Yeah that was sarcastic. Sorry for the confusion.
Pretty sure he got your sarcasm loud and clear, as evidenced by his sarcastic response.
Ninja'd
-
Except it wouldn't make too much sense for a homosexual to "marry" someone of the opposite sex, would it? So they do not have the ability to marry in effect.
It's been mentioned that people with homosexual preferences often marry someone of the opposite sex. And of course, it's also been mentioned that marriage doesn't need to be about the sexual relationship. Marriage can be about enriching the life of the person you're married to - even a person who is 100% homosexual has full access to this kind of marriage. So it does make sense for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex.
This is just utterly bizarre. By the exact same logic, gay marriage should be allowed for the exact same fucking reasons.
All I'm saying is that it's not unreasonable in every case for a homosexual to marry a person of the opposite sex (whether he be a full-on homosexual or one partially inclined to homosexuality).
It's pretty damn unreasonable in most cases, actually. With the scientology-as-America's-national-religion example, this would be like saying "you know, not all people who go to scientologist religious services actually believe what they're hearing. Some just go anyway because they sing catchy songs and have free snacks. Therefore, equal rights".
-
Yeah I think he was making a sarcastic jab at your sarcasm.
It's been mentioned that people with homosexual preferences often marry someone of the opposite sex. And of course, it's also been mentioned that marriage doesn't need to be about the sexual relationship. Marriage can be about enriching the life of the person you're married to - even a person who is 100% homosexual has full access to this kind of marriage. So it does make sense for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex.
I'd love hear one of our gay poster's thoughts on this lovely bit of wisdom.
You're too kind! It's people like you that make me love being on DTF. :)
Oh. Yeah that was sarcastic. Sorry for the confusion.
Pretty sure he got your sarcasm loud and clear, as evidenced by his sarcastic response.
Ninja'd
Yeah and I was making a sarcastic jab at his sarcastic jab at my sarcasm. Sorry about it.
-
Except it wouldn't make too much sense for a homosexual to "marry" someone of the opposite sex, would it? So they do not have the ability to marry in effect.
It's been mentioned that people with homosexual preferences often marry someone of the opposite sex. And of course, it's also been mentioned that marriage doesn't need to be about the sexual relationship. Marriage can be about enriching the life of the person you're married to - even a person who is 100% homosexual has full access to this kind of marriage. So it does make sense for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex.
This is just utterly bizarre. By the exact same logic, gay marriage should be allowed for the exact same fucking reasons.
All I'm saying is that it's not unreasonable in every case for a homosexual to marry a person of the opposite sex (whether he be a full-on homosexual or one partially inclined to homosexuality).
It's pretty damn unreasonable in most cases, actually. With the scientology-as-America's-national-religion example, this would be like saying "you know, not all people who go to scientologist religious services actually believe what they're hearing. Some just go anyway because they sing catchy songs and have free snacks. Therefore, equal rights".
Or, "I go to Scientology meetings because I am terrified that people will know I am a Christian, and I desperatly want to fit in, even though it is against my true beliefs/identity."
-
Everyone will vote using their own personal beliefs, which will include religious ones. I support that.
If a majority votes for something, it should be what is implemented*. I support that.
*I also support a legal safeguard system that will make null and void any law that infringes of the rights of a group of people, regardless of how much of a majority voted for it.
That's pretty much what I'm trying ( and mostly failing ) to articulate.
-
By the way, I was reading a news article that had a video clip in it with Mitt Romney making the bold claim that "Most Americans" believe marriage should be only between a man and a woman.
He's actually incorrect, as demonstrated here:
https://factcheck.org/2012/05/do-most-americans-agree-with-romney-on-gay-marriage/
Clearly, it's not a large majority, but the trend is unmistakable.
-
By the way, I was reading a news article that had a video clip in it with Mitt Romney making the bold claim that "Most Americans" believe marriage should be only between a man and a woman.
He's actually incorrect, as demonstrated here:
https://factcheck.org/2012/05/do-most-americans-agree-with-romney-on-gay-marriage/
Clearly, it's not a large majority, but the trend is unmistakable.
Not that it matters much since, again, the numbers are fairly close. However, I don't see this as something to quibble over. Polls may show one thing. But I'm fairly certain he is drawing that conclusion from states (including California) where the issue has actually been put to a vote. In terms of actual election results directly on that issue, he is correct. You or I might disagree with him on whether poll results are more accurate in terms of gauging the entire population, but I think his argument is valid nonetheless.
EDIT: This assumes he is relying on election results as a data set to form his opinion. If he is just pulling things out of thin air based on what he subjectively believes is probably true, then please disregard everything I just said. :lol
-
Yeah, I was mostly commenting on the trend, which, you have to admit, is pretty clear
(https://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/05/Gallup_gay.jpg)
-
Yup. No argument from me on that. The results show what they show.
-
Wow, I was just going to link to that video. Nerdfighters!
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-V096lb2Mljc/Tcnddk1ocMI/AAAAAAAAAAo/gs08q3_cn-M/s1600/Nerdfighter_salute.png)
Also another video, this time from John Green:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQw0eLzfGNI&feature=youtu.be
-
It's been mentioned that people with homosexual preferences often marry someone of the opposite sex. And of course, it's also been mentioned that marriage doesn't need to be about the sexual relationship. Marriage can be about enriching the life of the person you're married to - even a person who is 100% homosexual has full access to this kind of marriage. So it does make sense for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex.
I have no idea where you got this from or why it makes sense to you.
It doesn't happen that often, but it actually does occur. Especially in an culture where a man is expected to marry a woman at some point.
If you take the view that an individual's sexuality is like a spectrum that can change over time, it's not unreasonable to expect that many gay men have married a woman. They might start out with dominant homosexual leanings with a small affinity for women, but once they marry a woman, their heterosexuality becomes dominant.
Plus, something else needs to be said. If the people that make up the government of America want it to be Christian, then it will be Christian and there's not much naysayers can do about it.
"But, but, but...church and state should be separate!" doesn't cut it if the majority think it should be otherwise.
-
I suppose that is one thing that occasionally annoys me.
I get it...it is sometimes the law of physics. "For every action, there is a reaction"...yada yada yada...
But it's kindof like when I spent some of my teenage years hanging around AA clubs...there were some alcoholics who were just in that frame of mind that if you've ever been drunk, and it caused you some kind of problem...*YOU'RE AN ALCOHOLIC*... Don't try to deny it now, because denial is just a block to healing from the disease.
I've been around the block in my 42 years, and I have to say that I have met some (not all) gay people who are like that. Like if you've ever looked at a guy's ass...you're in the closet. That type of attitude really ticks me off from BOTH sides of the issue.
I do believe in the scale that guy in the 50's invented....(his name slips my mind at the moment)...but he was really ground breaking, even though his findings have been shown to be a bit more hazy than anyone originally thought. But he adopted a kindof "scale" wherein there were varying degrees between *full on 100% gay* and *full on 100% hetero* and most people are somewhere on the sliding scale between the two.
I guess I do have a bit of a personal moral issue with the fact that if homosexuality is done openly and considered "normal" by the populace, more people from the middle of the scale will be open to experimenting. Maybe they won't "go gay", maybe they will...but it doesn't make any difference...it's just an enticement to engage in (what God deems...if you believe in God) immoral activity. If you don't believe in God, then this is just a healthy experimentation to decide which direction in life you wish to go. My personal beliefs are that this is a corruption of a person's spirituality....obviously, your mileage may vary.
EDIT: Dr Alfred Kinsey was the guys name...
-
Plus, something else needs to be said. If the people that make up the government of America want it to be Christian, then it will be Christian and there's not much naysayers can do about it.
"But, but, but...church and state should be separate!" doesn't cut it if the majority think it should be otherwise.
Doesn't make it right. That's why I feel democracy is a horrible form of governance.
-
Doesn't make it right. That's why I feel democracy is a horrible form of governance.
Plato didn't name democracy as the second worst form of governance (behind tyranny) for no reason...
-
Plato was a tool.
-
It's been mentioned that people with homosexual preferences often marry someone of the opposite sex. And of course, it's also been mentioned that marriage doesn't need to be about the sexual relationship. Marriage can be about enriching the life of the person you're married to - even a person who is 100% homosexual has full access to this kind of marriage. So it does make sense for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex.
I have no idea where you got this from or why it makes sense to you.
It doesn't happen that often, but it actually does occur. Especially in an culture where a man is expected to marry a woman at some point.
If you take the view that an individual's sexuality is like a spectrum that can change over time, it's not unreasonable to expect that many gay men have married a woman. They might start out with dominant homosexual leanings with a small affinity for women, but once they marry a woman, their heterosexuality becomes dominant.
Plus, something else needs to be said. If the people that make up the government of America want it to be Christian, then it will be Christian and there's not much naysayers can do about it.
"But, but, but...church and state should be separate!" doesn't cut it if the majority think it should be otherwise.
I don't understand how this is a defense for our current system at all. This is grasping at straws at best.
I hate to go back to the analogies that have been used a million times so far in this thread, but they're really very good and they shouldn't be ignored.
Taking the scientology-is-America's-national-religion example, what you've said here is rather like saying "you know, people's religious beliefs change over time, so even if you start out believing in Christ you might start to believe Scientology after a while. Therefore, equal rights."
Taking the all-interracial-marriage-is-outlawed example, what you've said here is rather like saying "even if you're in love with someone of a different race, that will change throughout time, so marry someone of your race. Therefore, equal rights."
-
Plato was a tool.
(https://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzbbc40spK1rpxft9o1_500.jpg)
-
Plus, something else needs to be said. If the people that make up the government of America want it to be Christian, then it will be Christian and there's not much naysayers can do about it.
"But, but, but...church and state should be separate!" doesn't cut it if the majority think it should be otherwise.
Doesn't make it right. That's why I feel democracy is a horrible form of governance.
Uhh what kind of alternative would you suggest? Anarchy doesn't count as a form of governance; it's a lack thereof.
-
Well. Governance wasn't the term I was looking for.... I actually can't find the term...
-
Political system? Societal organization? Either way, anarchy is still the antithesis of both. The absence thereof is the defining quality of anarchy.
-
Plus, something else needs to be said. If the people that make up the government of America want it to be Christian, then it will be Christian and there's not much naysayers can do about it.
"But, but, but...church and state should be separate!" doesn't cut it if the majority think it should be otherwise.
Doesn't make it right. That's why I feel democracy is a horrible form of governance.
Uhh what kind of alternative would you suggest? Anarchy doesn't count as a form of governance; it's a lack thereof.
I think what he was getting at is that just because something happens to be popular, that doesn't make it the right thing for society as a whole. Considering how the French and Russian revolutions spiraled out of control on tides of popular rage and unrest, or the fact that some of the most despicable tyrants in the history of mankind were elected by popular vote, history has shown that democracy does not always lead to freedom. The democratic model can very easily lead to a Despotism of Liberty, a nation where any dissent from the majority opinion is treated with violence and hatred. I think it can be safely argued that the Public can no better govern itself, or even knows what is in their own best interests, any more then the God-Kings of antiquity.
Plato was a tool.
POTY :tup
-
Yes but to a libertarian, any form of governance is a horrible form of governance.
-
If you take the view that an individual's sexuality is like a spectrum that can change over time, it's not unreasonable to expect that many gay men have married a woman. They might start out with dominant homosexual leanings with a small affinity for women, but once they marry a woman, their heterosexuality becomes dominant.
Plus, something else needs to be said. If the people that make up the government of America want it to be Christian, then it will be Christian and there's not much naysayers can do about it.
"But, but, but...church and state should be separate!" doesn't cut it if the majority think it should be otherwise.
A person's sexual orientation doesn't change over time though.
I'm open to the notion that there's a spectrum of varying preference (after all, there are people who are bisexual). However, a person is where they are on that spectrum. It doesn't change.
As for the religious majority argument; I've said this several times, but it's important in a civilized society for the government to protect all of its citizens, not just the majority, and to not decide minority rights by majority rule. Freedom of religion in the US is also freedom from any religion that you don't practice. It's pretty damn important. We've seen time and time again throughout the world the problems with countries becoming theocracies.
-
Word, TL
-
I'm kind of surprised that you guys are still having this conversation. I thought it would have died off a long time ago.
-
It will never die.
-
A person's sexual orientation doesn't change over time though.
I'm open to the notion that there's a spectrum of varying preference (after all, there are people who are bisexual). However, a person is where they are on that spectrum. It doesn't change.
I think it does. Nature plus nurture, right? Nature (your genotype) is obviously static, but sexuality also depends on surroundings, upbringing, habits, etc.. It works the same way as many other phenotypes.
EDIT: I've got no evidence to back this up, but there's no evidence to the contrary. Since most phenotypes are affected by "nurture", I think it's safe to assume the same for sexuality.
As for the religious majority argument; I've said this several times, but it's important in a civilized society for the government to protect all of its citizens, not just the majority, and to not decide minority rights by majority rule. Freedom of religion in the US is also freedom from any religion that you don't practice. It's pretty damn important. We've seen time and time again throughout the world the problems with countries becoming theocracies.
Freedom from religion exists if voters say it exists. That's how rights work. You could appeal to some higher order which dictates what human rights are, but that's just chasing after the wind.
-
A person's sexual orientation doesn't change over time though.
I'm open to the notion that there's a spectrum of varying preference (after all, there are people who are bisexual). However, a person is where they are on that spectrum. It doesn't change.
I think it does. Nature plus nurture, right? Nature (your genotype) is obviously static, but sexuality also depends on surroundings, upbringing, habits, etc.. It works the same way as many other phenotypes.
Again, this is no reason to justify the illegality of same-sex marriage.
-
A person's sexual orientation doesn't change over time though.
I'm open to the notion that there's a spectrum of varying preference (after all, there are people who are bisexual). However, a person is where they are on that spectrum. It doesn't change.
I think it does.
It doesn't. People may realize repressed tendencies, but gay people don't become straight and straight people don't become gay. No matter what your religious beliefs are on the matter, it's just not the way real people work. Sure, you can brainwash someone into thinking whatever you want them to think, and enough emotional guilt can make someone repress who they are and try to be someone else, but those people don't change. Despite what you think.
-
I'm kind of surprised that you guys are still having this conversation. I thought it would have died off a long time ago.
Conversations like this, are why trends like this happen:
(https://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/05/Gallup_gay.jpg)
I think it does. Nature plus nurture, right? Nature (your genotype) is obviously static, but sexuality also depends on surroundings, upbringing, habits, etc.. It works the same way as many other phenotypes.
The idea of a gay man turning straight is ridiculous, and more than one study has shown that attempts to make people straight are extremely harmful and bad for the person involved.
Besides, you're butchering nature vs. nurture. There are somethings which are genetically determined. Period. My genetics determined that I have a penis, no amount of nurture is going to change that (okay, castration...). Gay men pretty much have the brains of a woman, gay women pretty much have the brains of a man. Oddly enough, this could be tied to nurture, but not in the way you're thinking:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait.
But as Savic herself acknowledges, the study can't say whether the brain differences are inherited, or result from abnormally high or low exposure in the womb to sex hormones such as testosterone.
Rarely do I feel justified in saying someone is wrong, but you are wrong.
-
A person's sexual orientation doesn't change over time though.
I'm open to the notion that there's a spectrum of varying preference (after all, there are people who are bisexual). However, a person is where they are on that spectrum. It doesn't change.
I think it does. Nature plus nurture, right? Nature (your genotype) is obviously static, but sexuality also depends on surroundings, upbringing, habits, etc.. It works the same way as many other phenotypes.
Again, this is no reason to justify the illegality of same-sex marriage.
I don't think I actually argued for the illegality of same-sex marriage in this thread. I only recall arguing for:
- gay rights as nonexistent
- the gay marriage issue as not being a civil rights issue
- sexuality as changeable spectrum
Even given all that, I wouldn't sweat it if gay marriage was legal.
-
A person's sexual orientation doesn't change over time though.
I'm open to the notion that there's a spectrum of varying preference (after all, there are people who are bisexual). However, a person is where they are on that spectrum. It doesn't change.
I think it does. Nature plus nurture, right? Nature (your genotype) is obviously static, but sexuality also depends on surroundings, upbringing, habits, etc.. It works the same way as many other phenotypes.
Actually no it doesn't. It's a tricky subject though. Biologically you are heterosexual or homosexual and it isn't the thing you can choose. The things you mention surroundings, upbringing or habits just do not effect your sexuality directly. They may delay to identify yourself but for example upbringing doesn't make you homosexual suddenly or one day if you are gay you don't say "hey i'm hetero because of this social pressure". Well, of course you can deny what you are but it isn't the thing we discuss now.
-
Besides, you're butchering nature vs. nurture. There are somethings which are genetically determined. Period. My genetics determined that I have a penis, no amount of nurture is going to change that (okay, castration...). Gay men pretty much have the brains of a woman, gay women pretty much have the brains of a man. Nurture isn't going to just change that.
I'll say it again in a different way. There is rarely a straight line between genotype and phenotype. Yes, the fact that you have one X and one Y sex chromosomes is biologically fixed. But the fact that you have a penis isn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome)
Just examine twins who grew up in different environments. They can look completely different and have completely different personalities.
-
A person's sexual orientation doesn't change over time though.
I'm open to the notion that there's a spectrum of varying preference (after all, there are people who are bisexual). However, a person is where they are on that spectrum. It doesn't change.
I think it does. Nature plus nurture, right? Nature (your genotype) is obviously static, but sexuality also depends on surroundings, upbringing, habits, etc.. It works the same way as many other phenotypes.
Again, this is no reason to justify the illegality of same-sex marriage.
I don't think I actually argued for the illegality of same-sex marriage in this thread. I only recall arguing for:
- gay rights as nonexistent
- the gay marriage issue as not being a civil rights issue
- sexuality as changeable spectrum
Even given all that, I wouldn't sweat it if gay marriage was legal.
Ignoring that gay rights do exists (as much as any other rights do), that gay marriage is certainly a civil rights issue, and that sexuality is not changeable, this thread is about same-sex marriage so this discussion seems to be quite irrelevant.
-
A person's sexual orientation doesn't change over time though.
I'm open to the notion that there's a spectrum of varying preference (after all, there are people who are bisexual). However, a person is where they are on that spectrum. It doesn't change.
I think it does. Nature plus nurture, right? Nature (your genotype) is obviously static, but sexuality also depends on surroundings, upbringing, habits, etc.. It works the same way as many other phenotypes.
Again, this is no reason to justify the illegality of same-sex marriage.
I don't think I actually argued for the illegality of same-sex marriage in this thread. I only recall arguing for:
- gay rights as nonexistent
- the gay marriage issue as not being a civil rights issue
- sexuality as changeable spectrum
Even given all that, I wouldn't sweat it if gay marriage was legal.
Ignoring that gay rights do exists (as much as any other rights do), that gay marriage is certainly a civil rights issue, and that sexuality is not changeable, this thread is about same-sex marriage so this discussion seems to be quite irrelevant.
No. If someone says "Same-sex marriage should be legal because the right to same-sex marriage exists," then my statements are completely relevant.
-
Ever hear the saying that freedom in America is about the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" I would think that being able to marry the person you love falls under the "pursuit of happiness." It's supposed to be a right that every citizen of this county is granted. Part of what's supposed to make America such a great place, yeah?
-
That's a rather roundabout way to interpret the Declaration (which isn't the source of law anyway). If your interpretation were true, lots more things should be rights that are not - "right to monopolize", "right to hire workers for whatever wage I want to set", etc.
-
That's a rather roundabout way to interpret the Declaration (which isn't the source of law anyway). If your interpretation were true, lots more things should be rights that are not - "right to monopolize", "right to hire workers for whatever wage I want to set", etc.
And the right to deny the ability for someone to marry the person they love.
-
But the fact that you have a penis isn't
I wouldn't assume that is a fact.
Ever hear the saying that freedom in America is about the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" I would think that being able to marry the person you love falls under the "pursuit of happiness." It's supposed to be a right that every citizen of this county is granted. Part of what's supposed to make America such a great place, yeah?
COOKIE FOR YOU! I HAVE BEEN WAITING AND WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO SAY THIS! :cookie:
Short answer: All three of those rights have certain limits and, whether intentionally listed in this order or not, it just so happens that the number of limitations our Constitution, legal system, and generally-accepted societal norms have imposed on each of those freedoms is in ascending order (i.e., there are very few restrictions/limitations placed on the right to life, more restrictions/limitations on the right to liberty, and even more on the right to the pursuit of happiness).
And, again, good question to bring up in the first place.
-
Ever hear the saying that freedom in America is about the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" I would think that being able to marry the person you love falls under the "pursuit of happiness." It's supposed to be a right that every citizen of this county is granted. Part of what's supposed to make America such a great place, yeah?
That's from the Declaration of Independence and isn't really a "right" that is enumerated in any law in the United States that I am aware of. The problem with an argument like this is "the pursuit of happiness" is pretty vague.
What if pulling the heads off cats was something that made me happy? Should I have a "right" to do that?
As much as people like to argue against same-sex marriage as being a civil rights struggle, that's precisely what it is. Marriage, in the US is a civil institution. You need a license to do it. In order to obtain that license you need to have a blood test and you need to meet certain civil requirements. The arguments against it being a civil right are mostly very weak. It's going to end up in front of the Supreme Court at some point. And I'd be really surprised if the DOMA isn't repealed within a decade.
Remember, times are changing:
(https://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/05/Gallup_gay.jpg)
-
I always took it that we have the right to those three things (life, liberty & pursuit of happiness) as long as they don't infringe on someone else's rights to those 3 things. H's examples were bad because they would infringe on another's rights to one (or all) of those 3 things. I've yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (I smell an abbreviation: ll&poh?).
I guess the retort would be that it would infinge on the happiness of Christians, because if homosexual marriage were permitted in our society then that would make them unhappy because they'd be living in what they deemed an "immoral" society (which I suppose they could also argue that they already are, but I digress)?
I don't know, for what it's worth though I'll announce that I think gays should be able to marry, and that one day they will be able to as society continues to progress. Just like blacks and women are now allowed to do things that they previously weren't, and when we look back on how they weren't allowed to do those things it seems quite silly to us now. I saw a thing on the internet that was a picture of people protesting gay marriage in D.C. and an older picture of people protesting interracial marriage in D.C. The caption was "imagine how silly you're going to look in 40 years." I thougt it was pretty much right on.
*Edit- Oh, and also, just to clarify- I wasn't under the impression that the life, liberty, etc. was an actual right granted to us by law. Rather it's just one of the ideas that we value in this county and is supposed to be one of the things that makes America such a great, free place to live. One would think that allowing people to marry the person they love wouldn't be something that's frowned upon in a free country such as ours. It's been pointed out already in this tread that allowing gays to marry causes no tangible harm or suffering to anybody else, but not allowing them to actually DOES cause people harm and suffering. It just doesn't seem like a very American thing to do.
-
A person's sexual orientation doesn't change over time though.
I'm open to the notion that there's a spectrum of varying preference (after all, there are people who are bisexual). However, a person is where they are on that spectrum. It doesn't change.
I think it does. Nature plus nurture, right? Nature (your genotype) is obviously static, but sexuality also depends on surroundings, upbringing, habits, etc.. It works the same way as many other phenotypes.
Again, this is no reason to justify the illegality of same-sex marriage.
I don't think I actually argued for the illegality of same-sex marriage in this thread. I only recall arguing for:
- gay rights as nonexistent
- the gay marriage issue as not being a civil rights issue
- sexuality as changeable spectrum
Even given all that, I wouldn't sweat it if gay marriage was legal.
Ignoring that gay rights do exists (as much as any other rights do), that gay marriage is certainly a civil rights issue, and that sexuality is not changeable, this thread is about same-sex marriage so this discussion seems to be quite irrelevant.
No. If someone says "Same-sex marriage should be legal because the right to same-sex marriage exists," then my statements are completely relevant.
The right to same-sex marriage does not exist in every state in the union (evidently; if it did, we wouldn't be having this conversation), but some people are arguing that it should.
-
I've yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (I smell an abbreviation: ll&poh?).
I guess the retort would be that it would infinge on the happiness of Christians, because if homosexual marriage were permitted in our society then that would make them unhappy because they'd be living in what they deemed an "immoral" society (which I suppose they could also argue that they already are, but I digress)?
For what it's worth, I too have yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And I honestly think that the arguments I have seen about how it somehow infringes on other people's rights don't really hold any water (and this from someone who is a Christian who is against gay marriage). I will be the first to admit that I don't see how allowing gay marriage somehow infringes upon my rights in any meaningful way. I don't believe it does. If gay marriage were legalized today, it certainly wouldn't be the end of the world (or even my world, so to speak).
-
I've yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happines
Make no mistake, I am in full agreement with this.
-
Marriage, in the US is a civil institution. You need a license to do it. In order to obtain that license you need to have a blood test
Wait really? For what purpose?
-
I've yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (I smell an abbreviation: ll&poh?).
I guess the retort would be that it would infinge on the happiness of Christians, because if homosexual marriage were permitted in our society then that would make them unhappy because they'd be living in what they deemed an "immoral" society (which I suppose they could also argue that they already are, but I digress)?
For what it's worth, I too have yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And I honestly think that the arguments I have seen about how it somehow infringes on other people's rights don't really hold any water (and this from someone who is a Christian who is against gay marriage). I will be the first to admit that I don't see how allowing gay marriage somehow infringes upon my rights in any meaningful way. I don't believe it does. If gay marriage were legalized today, it certainly wouldn't be the end of the world (or even my world, so to speak).
So what the heck then Bosk? Come on and join us and say that gays should be able to marry, everybody who's anybody is doing it!
-
I've yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (I smell an abbreviation: ll&poh?).
I guess the retort would be that it would infinge on the happiness of Christians, because if homosexual marriage were permitted in our society then that would make them unhappy because they'd be living in what they deemed an "immoral" society (which I suppose they could also argue that they already are, but I digress)?
For what it's worth, I too have yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And I honestly think that the arguments I have seen about how it somehow infringes on other people's rights don't really hold any water (and this from someone who is a Christian who is against gay marriage). I will be the first to admit that I don't see how allowing gay marriage somehow infringes upon my rights in any meaningful way. I don't believe it does. If gay marriage were legalized today, it certainly wouldn't be the end of the world (or even my world, so to speak).
So what the heck then Bosk? Come on and join us and say that gays should be able to marry, everybody who's anybody is doing it!
We have bacon! :yarr
-
Marriage, in the US is a civil institution. You need a license to do it. In order to obtain that license you need to have a blood test
Wait really? For what purpose?
In some states maybe. I didn't need one.
-
For what it's worth, I too have yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And I honestly think that the arguments I have seen about how it somehow infringes on other people's rights don't really hold any water (and this from someone who is a Christian who is against gay marriage). I will be the first to admit that I don't see how allowing gay marriage somehow infringes upon my rights in any meaningful way. I don't believe it does. If gay marriage were legalized today, it certainly wouldn't be the end of the world (or even my world, so to speak).
:clap:
-
I don't know, for what it's worth though I'll announce that I think gays should be able to marry, and that one day they will be able to as society continues to progress. Just like blacks and women are now allowed to do things that they previously weren't, and when we look back on how they weren't allowed to do those things it seems quite silly to us now. I saw a thing on the internet that was a picture of people protesting gay marriage in D.C. and an older picture of people protesting interracial marriage in D.C. The caption was "imagine how silly you're going to look in 40 years." I thougt it was pretty much right on.
Out of curiosity I Googled the image. I'm not sure, but does one of the protester's signs say "Race mixing is communism"? :lol
(https://i.imgur.com/EJKCu.jpg)
-
That it does! The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh? Oh, and I guess I was being kind. I replaced "stupid" with "silly."
-
I've yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (I smell an abbreviation: ll&poh?).
I guess the retort would be that it would infinge on the happiness of Christians, because if homosexual marriage were permitted in our society then that would make them unhappy because they'd be living in what they deemed an "immoral" society (which I suppose they could also argue that they already are, but I digress)?
For what it's worth, I too have yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And I honestly think that the arguments I have seen about how it somehow infringes on other people's rights don't really hold any water (and this from someone who is a Christian who is against gay marriage). I will be the first to admit that I don't see how allowing gay marriage somehow infringes upon my rights in any meaningful way. I don't believe it does. If gay marriage were legalized today, it certainly wouldn't be the end of the world (or even my world, so to speak).
So what the heck then Bosk? Come on and join us and say that gays should be able to marry, everybody who's anybody is doing it!
:lol Well, as I said. I believe engaging in homosexual conduct is immoral and, therefore, the government should not grant special privileges to immoral conduct. But homosexuals marrying does not impact me directly, and if they do, okay--the sun will come out tomorrow, I will continue to love my friends, family members, and acquaintances who are gay/straight/other, and life will pretty much carry on as it has. That's where I'm coming from, in a nutshell.
-
That's where I'm coming from, in a nutshell.
Anyone else suddenly in the mood to impersonate a pistachio?
-
Apparently you didn't hear me.
We have bacon! :yarr
-
Well, bacon and pistachios go really well together.
-
Thoughts on bacon-pistachio marriage, everybody?
-
I wouldn't want bacon to be tied down like that. I prefer my bacon slutty, matching up with basically anything.
-
Wow, I was just going to link to that video. Nerdfighters!
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-V096lb2Mljc/Tcnddk1ocMI/AAAAAAAAAAo/gs08q3_cn-M/s1600/Nerdfighter_salute.png)
Also another video, this time from John Green:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQw0eLzfGNI&feature=youtu.be
Though I can't do the gesture with my right hand, I thought that dude kinda looked like me immediately...
(https://www.nickeh.com/images/dopple.jpg)
In hindsight it's probably just the glasses and thick hair, but I got a chuckle out of it.
-
I've yet to see a convincing argument as to how granting homosexuals the right to marry will infringe on somebody else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (I smell an abbreviation: ll&poh?).
I guess the retort would be that it would infinge on the happiness of Christians, because if homosexual marriage were permitted in our society then that would make them unhappy because they'd be living in what they deemed an "immoral" society (which I suppose they could also argue that they already are, but I digress)?
The argument (at least, not any type of argument I would ever support) isn't that allowing same-sex "marriage" will lead to the infringement of anther's civil rights (and God forbid that the argument to support same-sex "marriage" is that allowing it will not infringe upon anyone's rights; by that same misguided logic, an animal-human "marriage" would not infringe upon anyone's rights either and would therefore also be fair game to institutionalize). The argument against same-sex "marriage" (or at least one of the worthy ones, as I see it) is that the very idea of same-sex "marriage" is a metaphysical absurdity and a moral abomination.
Too many conservatives natter on about whether it ought to be the courts or "the people" who get to "define" marriage, effectively conceding to their liberal opponents the absurd supposition that the question fundamentally concerns what meaning we ought arbitrarily to attach to a certain word. It is no more up to the courts or "the people" to "define" marriage than it is up to them to "define" whether the Pythagorean Theorem is true of right triangles, or whether water has the chemical structure H2O. In each case, what is at issue is a matter of objective fact that it is the business of reason to discover rather than democratic procedure to stipulate.
-
And yet you still haven't given a single source or reason why marriage is such a historically fixed definition you make it ought to be.
-
Marriage is not a fundamental law like the laws of mathematics or gravity. Marriage is an invented social rite.
-
Consider moral realism. If it's true, then there very well might be fundamental laws of marriage.
-
And yet you still haven't given a single source or reason why marriage is such a historically fixed definition you make it ought to be.
I needn't. Even if I were to concede -- which I wouldn't for an instant -- that the historical, traditional and rational reason for the existence of the institution of marriage wasn't to oversee the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation from a socio-economic viewpoint, that wouldn't at all affect the metaphysical absurdity of the idea of same-sex "marriage." For natural law and natural teleology entail that marriage is determined by its final causes, thus inherently procreative and thus inherently heterosexual. The thing about natural teleology, though, is that it isn't something that you can merely chose to "subscribe to" or not; natural teleology is self-evident and you'd be irrational to deny it (for example, the final cause of our eyes is to allow us to see; the final cause of our lungs is to allow us to breathe; the final cause of our sexual organs is to reproduce -- and expel waste -- etc).
-
Consider moral realism. If it's true, then there very well might be fundamental laws of marriage.
I've not yet seen any evidence that that would be the case. Considering how different marriage looks today than fifty years ago or a hundred years ago or two thousand years ago, it's extremely hard for me to believe that marriage is anything other than something a guy made up one day which, for whatever reason, stuck around.
-
And yet you still haven't given a single source or reason why marriage is such a historically fixed definition you make it ought to be.
I needn't.
Yes, you do. This is what discussion is. You have to support your arguments.
I needn't. Even if I were to concede -- which I wouldn't for an instant -- that the historical, traditional and rational reason for the existence of the institution of marriage wasn't to oversee the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation from a socio-economic viewpoint, that wouldn't at all affect the metaphysical absurdity of the idea of same-sex "marriage."
As has been mentioned, I don't know, forty times in threads you've posted, children have historically not been the reason to get married. In the past, people got married because they wanted to have sex and the church told them they had to get married to do that.
Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is meaningless and irrelevant. ("In principle" means "relating to the definition of" as in "not relating to particular circumstances." So if an orange happens to have a bug residing in its insides, the bug is not part of the definition of an orange; it doesn't change what the orange is in principle.) Human beings reason and make laws by means of concepts and definitions. And if one doesn't know how to operate with respect to those concepts and definitions, that individual cannot make laws. Examples of individuals who are impotent or who are infertile or past the childbearing age do not change the definition of marriage in principle because between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible. It is this very possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law and government. But as when procreation is impossible, as with two males or two females, it isn't that this is incidentally impossible; it is impossible in principle! Yet if you say that this is a "marriage," you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.
As others have said in all of the threads you've posted this rant in (which you continually ignore whenever it's brought up), this is historically not the reason that marriage has existed. Marriage, up until the relatively recent past, has been an exchange of property, the wife being the property. Historically and factually, marriage has not served the purpose you claim it to serve. Children have been inconsequential as far as marriage is concerned; the romantic concept of getting married to a woman who loves you, buying a house, and having some kids is really very recent, and exists only in developed countries.
-
Theseoafs, I'm not relying upon any sort of weak historical assessment for my opposition to same-sex marriage (at least certainly not in my recent few posts). I'm not interested in diving into a desperate siege-thy-wikipedia-for-historical-occurrences-that-would-support-my-idea-of-marriage routine. What I am arguing is completely independent of historical examples and concerns itself with natural teleology and natural law, encapsulated within the confines of a more broader, metaphysical framework and discussion. These "but wait, in Spain in the 1340's, a lot of people married because of x" not only does not affect the proper, principal understanding of marriage, but also does nothing to justify same-sex "marriage" in any kind metaphysical foundation (indeed you can't).
-
Theseoafs, I'm not relying upon any sort of weak historical assessment for my opposition to same-sex marriage (at least certainly not in my recent few posts). I'm not interested in diving into a desperate siege-thy-wikipedia-for-historical-occurrences-that-would-support-my-idea-of-marriage routine. What I am arguing is completely independent of historical examples and concerns itself with natural teleology and natural law, encapsulated within the confines of a more broader, metaphysical framework and discussion.
You want to argue the histriocity of marriage devioid of any historical examples because they don't agree with you? Have at it hoss.
-
You want to argue the histriocity of marriage?
No, that's exactly what I'm not interested in doing.
-
You want to argue the histriocity of marriage?
No, that's exactly what I'm not interested in doing.
So you want to redefine marriage as it has never been defined your way. Yet somehow are against the idea of redefining marriage.
-
Theseoafs, I'm not relying upon any sort of weak historical assessment for my opposition to same-sex marriage (at least certainly not in my recent few posts). I'm not interested in diving into a desperate siege-thy-wikipedia-for-historical-occurrences-that-would-support-my-idea-of-marriage routine. What I am arguing is completely independent of historical examples and concerns itself with natural teleology and natural law, encapsulated within the confines of a more broader, metaphysical framework and discussion. These "but wait, in Spain in the 1340's, a lot of people married because of x" not only does not affect the proper, principal understanding of marriage, but also does nothing to justify same-sex "marriage" in any kind metaphysical foundation (indeed you can't).
But there is no proper, principal understanding of marriage. This is the whole point. Marriage has taken a lot of forms in the past few thousand years, and if we're to take anything from that indisputable fact, it's that trying to figure out what marriage looks like "ideally" or "in principle" is bound to fail because marriage is nothing more than an invented social rite.
EDIT: I realized just now that I initially wrote "This the whole point". It's been like that for a couple hours. :lol
-
Besides, you're butchering nature vs. nurture. There are somethings which are genetically determined. Period. My genetics determined that I have a penis, no amount of nurture is going to change that (okay, castration...). Gay men pretty much have the brains of a woman, gay women pretty much have the brains of a man. Nurture isn't going to just change that.
I'll say it again in a different way. There is rarely a straight line between genotype and phenotype. Yes, the fact that you have one X and one Y sex chromosomes is biologically fixed. But the fact that you have a penis isn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome)
Just examine twins who grew up in different environments. They can look completely different and have completely different personalities.
You're really just avoiding the issue. "Nurture" is not some magical thing that can cause anything to happen, and showing twins that have different appearances and personalities is a far cry from saying their brain structures can somehow turn from male to female. To more properly use my example, I was born with a penis, and nothing that I experience in life will make me grow a vagina. What you're suggesting is pretty much this, that a male brain can suddenly turn into a female brain.
You started with the fact that sexuality is found to be a sliding scale, and then you just added some hypothesis that it's possible to move along this scale. That's not true. People's skin colors are found to be on a sliding scale as well, but ignoring Michael Jackson, people born black don't turn white. There would possibly maybe be slight movement, but nothing so much as going from homosexual to heterosexual, as you are claiming.
*edit*
By the way, doing a quick glance through that wiki article you linked to, they seem to be laying a lot of the cause for what happens on genetics and mutations. So even there, it's not so cut and dry as you make it out to be.
-
There is obviously a nurture aspect to homosexuality. How else can you explain identical twins where one is gay and the other is not? It's not purely genetic.
I would say the best way to explain H's phenomenon would be to say that a person could choose to focus on one side or the other of their sexuality if they find themself somewhere in the middle. It's possible for a man to be say 60% gay, but meet a woman who he falls in love with and wants to have a monogamous heterosexual relationship with. That doesn't mean he's not still attracted to men and still 60% gay, he's just acting on the 40% straight side of his sexuality at that point and may for the rest of his life.
-
There is obviously a nurture aspect to homosexuality. How else can you explain identical twins where one is gay and the other is not? It's not purely genetic.
Identical twins still have genetic differences: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html
-
There is obviously a nurture aspect to homosexuality. How else can you explain identical twins where one is gay and the other is not? It's not purely genetic.
Well, I don't know where you read this but this is absolutely wrong. Monozygotic twins have genetic differences. We can only say that their phenotype could be %99 alike which is caused by genetic codes. Apart from that genotype is completely another matter in biology. It has its differences in each person even they are monozygotic twins.
-
Wow, I was just going to link to that video. Nerdfighters!
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-V096lb2Mljc/Tcnddk1ocMI/AAAAAAAAAAo/gs08q3_cn-M/s1600/Nerdfighter_salute.png)
Also another video, this time from John Green:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQw0eLzfGNI&feature=youtu.be
Though I can't do the gesture with my right hand, I thought that dude kinda looked like me immediately...
(https://www.nickeh.com/images/dopple.jpg)
In hindsight it's probably just the glasses and thick hair, but I got a chuckle out of it.
wait, that isn't you??
-
There is obviously a nurture aspect to homosexuality. How else can you explain identical twins where one is gay and the other is not? It's not purely genetic.
https://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay
Bocklandt has collected DNA from two groups of 15 pairs of identical twins. In one group, both twins are gay. In the second, one twin is gay, and the other is straight. Identical twins have the same DNA, but the activity of their genes isn’t necessarily the same. The reason is something called methylation.
Methylation turns off certain sections of genetic code. So even though we inherit two copies of every gene—one from our mother, one from our father—whether the gene is methylated often determines which of the two genes will be turned on. Methylation is inherited, just as DNA is. But unlike DNA, which has an enzyme that proofreads both the original and the copy to minimize errors, methylation has no built-in checks
Just becuase it's not purely genetic, doesn't mean it's someones "choice," or that differing social environments are what lead to this difference.
-
There are congenital factors for homosexuality as well. The more babies a woman has, the more estrogen is present in the womb due to an immune response, increasing the chances of homosexuality. This explains why younger siblings have an increased likelihood of being gay, and why older brothers tend to look more masculine. With twins, it's often said that there's a dominant one and a submissive one. Twins will fight in the womb and sometimes even try to cannibalize each other. Maybe the submissive one has a higher chance of being gay? Just a thought.
Obviously, sexuality is complex and relates to a number of factors. The causes of homosexuality are worth exploring purely for curiosity, and have no bearing on whether or not it is moral.
-
There are congenital factors for homosexuality as well. The more babies a woman has, the more estrogen is present in the womb due to an immune response, increasing the chances of homosexuality. This explains why younger siblings have an increased likelihood of being gay, and why older brothers tend to look more masculine. With twins, it's often said that there's a dominant one and a submissive one. Twins will fight in the womb and sometimes even try to cannibalize each other. Maybe the submissive one has a higher chance of being gay? Just a thought.
Obviously, sexuality is complex and relates to a number of factors. The causes of homosexuality are worth exploring purely for curiosity, and have no bearing on whether or not it is moral.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to need you to cite quite a few sources to back all of this up. Especially the whole "the twin that loses the fight in the womb becomes gay because gay people are submissive or something" thing.
-
There are congenital factors for homosexuality as well. The more babies a woman has, the more estrogen is present in the womb due to an immune response, increasing the chances of homosexuality. This explains why younger siblings have an increased likelihood of being gay, and why older brothers tend to look more masculine.
Wouldn't highly increased estrogen levels lead to the exact opposite of what you're describing?
[edit]And for what it's worth, the "younger siblings have a higher chance of being gay" isn't supported statistically.
a boy's probability of growing up gay increases by about one-third with each older brother in his family
https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/27/GAY.TMP
[/edit]
With twins, it's often said that there's a dominant one and a submissive one. Twins will fight in the womb and sometimes even try to cannibalize each other. Maybe the submissive one has a higher chance of being gay? Just a thought.
I'm not sure what you mean by twins trying to cannibalize each other. Are you referring to how early on it's possible for one twin fetus to suddenly die, with the other becoming larger? Or instead referring to where a fetus can form with a parasitic fetus inside it (presumably formed by one fetus surrounding the other in an earlier stage of development)? Or something else, instead?
-
Omega, you have been asked repeatedly not to post in this thread. This is the last time you will be asked.
-
And for what it's worth, the "younger siblings have a higher chance of being gay" isn't supported statistically.
a boy's probability of growing up gay increases by about one-third with each older brother in his family
https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/27/GAY.TMP
I must be reading this wrong, becuase it seems to be that if you have older brothers, you're a younger sibling, and if you have older brothers you're more likely to be gay, meaning younger siblings have a higher chance of being gay.
Is the immune response in woman due to testosterone being present?
-
I'm sorry, but I'm going to need you to cite quite a few sources to back all of this up. Especially the whole "the twin that loses the fight in the womb becomes gay because gay people are submissive or something" thing.
No need to apologize. That was pure speculation anyway.
And for what it's worth, the "younger siblings have a higher chance of being gay" isn't supported statistically.
a boy's probability of growing up gay increases by about one-third with each older brother in his family
https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/27/GAY.TMP
That seems like a contradiction. That article details precisely what I was talking about, though it does clarify that it's just a hypothesis.
I'm not sure what you mean by twins trying to cannibalize each other. Are you referring to how early on it's possible for one twin fetus to suddenly die, with the other becoming larger? Or instead referring to where a fetus can form with a parasitic fetus inside it (presumably formed by one fetus surrounding the other in an earlier stage of development)? Or something else, instead?
I read a book called Born Cannibal that talked about this. And no it wasn't using "born cannibal" in a purely metaphorical sense. It pointed out cases where twins literally tried to eat each other in the womb. If I find the book, I'll post the relevant information.
-
Won't the odds of a gay child in a family increase with the number children that family has simply just due to probability?
-
That's a different concept. The odds of having at least one gay child in a family would certainly increase as the family amassed more children due to probability, eventually approaching 1. But (according to this article), the odds of a particular child's being gay will be higher if that child has more siblings. This isn't due to probability but due to genetics.
-
Won't the odds of a gay child in a family increase with the number children that family has simply just due to probability?
The odds of having a gay child in a family isn't the same as the odds of a particular child being gay.
For instance, I saw another article based on the same research I pointed to earlier that indicated that the first son has ~3% chance of being gay, whereas if there are 4 sons the 4th has a 6% chance.
-
I must be reading this wrong, becuase it seems to be that if you have older brothers, you're a younger sibling, and if you have older brothers you're more likely to be gay, meaning younger siblings have a higher chance of being gay.
No I'm the one who misread the post I was responding to. Him and I were saying the same thing; I just failed at life when he didn't. :lol
Is the immune response in woman due to testosterone being present?
Women have testosterone so it can't be that.
edit: In any case, the immune response is theorized to be related to antigens on the Y-chromosome which with subsequent pregnancies leads to mutations to eventually change the Y-chromosome to not have the proposed antigens.
-
Women have testosterone so it can't be that.
Many things are fine in normal doses, but in higher than normal doses they can cause problems. I thought maybe the point you were making is that it's not necessarily when you're born, but how many brothers you have (the article didn't mention sisters). Was thinking maybe then that the testosterone present for a male child causes a different reaction in the female body than a female child. Was perhaps trying to read too much into what your "objection" to, even though apparently it wasn't a real objection.
In any case, the immune response is theorized to be related to antigens on the Y-chromosome which with subsequent pregnancies leads to mutations to eventually change the Y-chromosome to not have the proposed antigens
So it would still be related directly to male children, and not female children?
-
There is obviously a nurture aspect to homosexuality. How else can you explain identical twins where one is gay and the other is not? It's not purely genetic.
https://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay
Bocklandt has collected DNA from two groups of 15 pairs of identical twins. In one group, both twins are gay. In the second, one twin is gay, and the other is straight. Identical twins have the same DNA, but the activity of their genes isn’t necessarily the same. The reason is something called methylation.
Methylation turns off certain sections of genetic code. So even though we inherit two copies of every gene—one from our mother, one from our father—whether the gene is methylated often determines which of the two genes will be turned on. Methylation is inherited, just as DNA is. But unlike DNA, which has an enzyme that proofreads both the original and the copy to minimize errors, methylation has no built-in checks
Just becuase it's not purely genetic, doesn't mean it's someones "choice," or that differing social environments are what lead to this difference.
Cool. Did know that. Thanks. For the record, I've never thought that being gay was a choice.
-
And yet you still haven't given a single source or reason why marriage is such a historically fixed definition you make it ought to be.
I needn't. Even if I were to concede -- which I wouldn't for an instant -- that the historical, traditional and rational reason for the existence of the institution of marriage wasn't to oversee the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation from a socio-economic viewpoint, that wouldn't at all affect the metaphysical absurdity of the idea of same-sex "marriage." For natural law and natural teleology entail that marriage is determined by its final causes, thus inherently procreative and thus inherently heterosexual. The thing about natural teleology, though, is that it isn't something that you can merely chose to "subscribe to" or not; natural teleology is self-evident and you'd be irrational to deny it (for example, the final cause of our eyes is to allow us to see; the final cause of our lungs is to allow us to breathe; the final cause of our sexual organs is to reproduce -- and expel waste -- etc).
Even if 'natural law' / 'natural theory' determines that marriage should between a man and woman, what's stopping us from changing it? would anything happen if we don't follow the 'natural law' ?
(also, I think it's a bit silly that Omega isn't allowed to post ITT anymore (I also don't really how or when it was decided), it wouldn't really be P/R if opposing views are banned from a topic).
-
Even if 'natural law' / 'natural theory' determines that marriage should between a man and woman, what's stopping us from changing it? would anything happen if we don't follow the 'natural law' ?
I'm stuck with this thought. What's natural law? I mean, who wrote them, who made them law? Marriage is just something humankind made up.
-
Even if 'natural law' / 'natural theory' determines that marriage should between a man and woman, what's stopping us from changing it? would anything happen if we don't follow the 'natural law' ?
I'm stuck with this thought. What's natural law? I mean, who wrote them, who made them law? Marriage is just something humankind made up.
he explained it a few pages ago, but even then.. why should we adhere to them? like I mentioned, it has been legal here for a while now and all it did was make people more peaceful/happy... I can't see how it not 'fitting' in with natural law should be an argument against same sex marriage.
edit: the answer that same sex marriage is ' absurd' also isn't really an argument, the need is there and it has been done (in other countries)... so even it being absurd doesn't really change anything to gay people wanting to get married.
-
Even if 'natural law' / 'natural theory' determines that marriage should between a man and woman, what's stopping us from changing it? would anything happen if we don't follow the 'natural law' ?
I'm stuck with this thought. What's natural law? I mean, who wrote them, who made them law? Marriage is just something humankind made up.
he explained it a few pages ago, but even then.. why should we adhere to them? like I mentioned, it has been legal here for a while now and all it did was make people more peaceful/happy... I can't see how it not 'fitting' in with natural law should be an argument against same sex marriage.
Well, people are forced to fit people's laws not nature. If we literally want to mean "nature", nature itself has homosexual livings, biologically speaking.
I agree, I don't see anything wrong with same-sex marriages. It must be supported anyway. If we talk about rights, people have rights to be with someone who they want to. The only hadicap we have is moral matter just based on religions. Funny fact almost all religions have many immoral and conradictional statements, homosexuality is the only thing they seem come out against.
-
Even if 'natural law' / 'natural theory' determines that marriage should between a man and woman, what's stopping us from changing it? would anything happen if we don't follow the 'natural law' ?
I'm stuck with this thought. What's natural law? I mean, who wrote them, who made them law? Marriage is just something humankind made up.
he explained it a few pages ago, but even then.. why should we adhere to them? like I mentioned, it has been legal here for a while now and all it did was make people more peaceful/happy... I can't see how it not 'fitting' in with natural law should be an argument against same sex marriage.
edit: the answer that same sex marriage is ' absurd' also isn't really an argument, the need is there and it has been done (in other countries)... so even it being absurd doesn't really change anything to gay people wanting to get married.
Probably shouldn't worry about it, considering that Omega will probably get into severe trouble if you convince him to post in this thread again. Best to drop it.
-
^Agreed. And it's not fair to punish him if people are going to entice him to post by responding to his posts.
-
Can I just ask why he is banned from this topic? he was one of the few who gave arguments for the 'other side', even if he was a bit harsh/stubborn (which I don't mind).
-
Besides, you're butchering nature vs. nurture. There are somethings which are genetically determined. Period. My genetics determined that I have a penis, no amount of nurture is going to change that (okay, castration...). Gay men pretty much have the brains of a woman, gay women pretty much have the brains of a man. Nurture isn't going to just change that.
I'll say it again in a different way. There is rarely a straight line between genotype and phenotype. Yes, the fact that you have one X and one Y sex chromosomes is biologically fixed. But the fact that you have a penis isn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome)
Just examine twins who grew up in different environments. They can look completely different and have completely different personalities.
You're really just avoiding the issue. "Nurture" is not some magical thing that can cause anything to happen, and showing twins that have different appearances and personalities is a far cry from saying their brain structures can somehow turn from male to female. To more properly use my example, I was born with a penis, and nothing that I experience in life will make me grow a vagina. What you're suggesting is pretty much this, that a male brain can suddenly turn into a female brain.
You started with the fact that sexuality is found to be a sliding scale, and then you just added some hypothesis that it's possible to move along this scale. That's not true. People's skin colors are found to be on a sliding scale as well, but ignoring Michael Jackson, people born black don't turn white. There would possibly maybe be slight movement, but nothing so much as going from homosexual to heterosexual, as you are claiming.
*edit*
By the way, doing a quick glance through that wiki article you linked to, they seem to be laying a lot of the cause for what happens on genetics and mutations. So even there, it's not so cut and dry as you make it out to be.
Actually, you've provided me a great example. My nature provides me with a neutral amount of melanin and pigmentation. Depending on my environment (nurture), my skin color can wind up between pale and fairly tan.
This leads to a great way to thinking about the connection between phenotype and nurture. Your nurture can trigger the expression of genes that might otherwise never be expressed.
-
I completely disagree.
-
That your environment, upbringing, and other elements of "nurture" can affect gene expression?
-
No, I agree with that. I disagree that "Depending on my environment (nurture), my skin color can wind up between pale and fairly tan." You're always pale.
-
Okay, maybe that's a bad example. :lol
-
That your environment, upbringing, and other elements of "nurture" can affect gene expression?
I don't why you ignored my answer about this matter which I gave 2 pages ago. But you gave an example:
Actually, you've provided me a great example. My nature provides me with a neutral amount of melanin and pigmentation. Depending on my environment (nurture), my skin color can wind up between pale and fairly tan.
This leads to a great way to thinking about the connection between phenotype and nurture. Your nurture can trigger the expression of genes that might otherwise never be expressed.
A change of skin colour which is about phenotype matter names modification. (which can be temporary) If it'is being permanent the evolution starts and that is called mutation (in other name evolution.) The point is: phenotype and genotype are completely different matter in genetic.
-
Not sure what you're saying at all, but it sounds wrong.
Here's another example. Coffee tastes bad. Our genetic predisposition towards coffee is to reject it. But we "teach" ourselves to make it taste good.
-
Not sure what you're saying at all, but it sounds wrong.
What does it mean? Because you are not sure it doesn't mean it's wrong. Plus, they are not my thoughts, they are biological statements.
Your another example for that matter is completely invalid. Sorry but this time I am not sure what you are trying to say.
-
Okay. Individual organisms adapt over time through non-evolutionary processes. Sexuality is likely one trait that can undergo adaptation.
-
Genotype and phenotype are different matters in genetic and sexuality belongs to genotype traits. But again it's so deep subject. The genes which control our sexuality can change through the time but it literally takes so much time.
A human suddenly can't change his/her sexuality just because of nurtures (which you mentioned).We can't simply say "maybe the next generations can be effected". Because 100-200 or even thousand years do not even matter to have a gen mutation. You just can't explain "the sexuality" with genetic in your way.
-
Okay. Individual organisms adapt over time through non-evolutionary processes. Sexuality is likely one trait that can undergo adaptation.
Maybe over time a guy can change his preference from liking his men to have hairy bungholes, to them having a more clean and groomed bunghole. But he hasnt stopped liking mens bungholes as a whole.
-
Okay. Individual organisms adapt over time through non-evolutionary processes. Sexuality is likely one trait that can undergo adaptation.
Maybe over time a guy can change his preference from liking his men to have hairy bungholes, to them having a more clean and groomed bunghole. But he hasnt stopped liking mens bungholes as a whole.
Your thinking isn't far off from my own.
-
Okay. Individual organisms adapt over time through non-evolutionary processes. Sexuality is likely one trait that can undergo adaptation.
Maybe over time a guy can change his preference from liking his men to have hairy bungholes, to them having a more clean and groomed bunghole. But he hasnt stopped liking mens bungholes as a whole.
Your thinking isn't far off from my own.
You think about men's hairy bungholes too?
We are a match.
-
Okay. Individual organisms adapt over time through non-evolutionary processes. Sexuality is likely one trait that can undergo adaptation.
Maybe over time a guy can change his preference from liking his men to have hairy bungholes, to them having a more clean and groomed bunghole. But he hasnt stopped liking mens bungholes as a whole.
Your thinking isn't far off from my own.
You think about men's hairy bungholes too?
We are a match.
We are all match! YES! :neverusethis: :lol
-
Actually, you've provided me a great example. My nature provides me with a neutral amount of melanin and pigmentation. Depending on my environment (nurture), my skin color can wind up between pale and fairly tan.
Ya, that's a very slight modification on the scale, which I mentioned. I could stay out all day, and I won't turn black. I'll turn red, and then maybe I'll turn very tan - but at no point will I ever be black, or really confusable for a black person.
You're trying to imply that I can tan myself into a black skin. That is simply not possible.
-
H, I get what you're saying, however you're basing it off solely what you want to be true and not actual evidence. If you want try an experiment to prove your point....then train yourself to only be attracted to men and repulsed by women. Let us know how that goes.
-
I'm not saying that a guy can go homo to hetero or vice versa in a days time. Even for other traits, these things take years.
-
I'm not saying that a guy can go homo to hetero or vice versa in a days time. Even for other traits, these things take years.
I'm patient.
-
You don't want me on your tail, cutie. ;)
-
H, I get what you're saying, however you're basing it off solely what you want to be true and not actual evidence.
??? The "actual evidence" you are referring to being what exactly?
-
You don't want me on your tail, cutie. ;)
A girl can dream.
H, I get what you're saying, however you're basing it off solely what you want to be true and not actual evidence.
??? The "actual evidence" you are referring to being what exactly?
Evidence that gay people can completely and truly become straight or vice versa. Not just a few christians saying they've converted people.
-
H, I get what you're saying, however you're basing it off solely what you want to be true and not actual evidence.
??? The "actual evidence" you are referring to being what exactly?
Evidence that gay people can completely and truly become straight or vice versa. Not just a few christians saying they've converted people.
No, I get that that is the evidence you would like to see in support of his point. But your post implied that there is hard evidence to the contrary that he is ignoring. Is that what you are saying?
-
Given that we have no evidence for either a person being able or unable to change sexuality, we have to rely on probability here. Most phenotypes are movable spectra. Because of this, it is likely that a phenotype we don''t have evidence for (e.g. sexuality) is a movable spectrum.
Considering the massive amounts of external, non-genetic influences on our sexuality (social pressures, relationship experience, our own chemical balance, etc), do you really think it impossible that a person's sexuality is grounded at birth?
-
H, I get what you're saying, however you're basing it off solely what you want to be true and not actual evidence.
??? The "actual evidence" you are referring to being what exactly?
Evidence that gay people can completely and truly become straight or vice versa. Not just a few christians saying they've converted people.
No, I get that that is the evidence you would like to see in support of his point. But your post implied that there is hard evidence to the contrary that he is ignoring. Is that what you are saying?
Well, Jews have evidence of it, but it's kept in the great vault of Jerusalem. But seriously, I didn't mean to imply that evidence existed. In fact I assume it doesn't.
-
Given that we have no evidence for either a person being able or unable to change sexuality, we have to rely on probability here. Most phenotypes are movable spectra. Because of this, it is likely that a phenotype we don''t have evidence for (e.g. sexuality) is a movable spectrum.
Considering the massive amounts of external, non-genetic influences on our sexuality (social pressures, relationship experience, our own chemical balance, etc), do you really think it impossible that a person's sexuality is grounded at birth?
No, because sexual attraction isn't phenotype.
-
Given that we have no evidence for either a person being able or unable to change sexuality, we have to rely on probability here. Most phenotypes are movable spectra. Because of this, it is likely that a phenotype we don''t have evidence for (e.g. sexuality) is a movable spectrum.
Considering the massive amounts of external, non-genetic influences on our sexuality (social pressures, relationship experience, our own chemical balance, etc), do you really think it impossible that a person's sexuality is grounded at birth?
No, because sexual attraction isn't phenotype.
Organisms called humans express sexuality. Sexuality is a phenotype.
-
But seriously, I didn't mean to imply that evidence existed. In fact I assume it doesn't.
Oh, I see. Carry on then.
But for the record, IMO, it is mostly irrelevant anyway.
-
I really wanna meet someone who can be homosexual or vice versa whenever they want for supporting "actual evidence". But I know I want something "impossible".
-
Given that we have no evidence for either a person being able or unable to change sexuality, we have to rely on probability here. Most phenotypes are movable spectra. Because of this, it is likely that a phenotype we don''t have evidence for (e.g. sexuality) is a movable spectrum.
Considering the massive amounts of external, non-genetic influences on our sexuality (social pressures, relationship experience, our own chemical balance, etc), do you really think it impossible that a person's sexuality is grounded at birth?
No, because sexual attraction isn't phenotype.
Organisms called humans express sexuality. Sexuality is a phenotype.
It's more than just an expression.
-
Given that we have no evidence for either a person being able or unable to change sexuality, we have to rely on probability here. Most phenotypes are movable spectra. Because of this, it is likely that a phenotype we don''t have evidence for (e.g. sexuality) is a movable spectrum.
Considering the massive amounts of external, non-genetic influences on our sexuality (social pressures, relationship experience, our own chemical balance, etc), do you really think it impossible that a person's sexuality is grounded at birth?
No, because sexual attraction isn't phenotype.
Organisms called humans express sexuality. Sexuality is a phenotype.
It's more than just an expression.
In biology, expressed traits are called "phenotypes".
-
But seriously, I didn't mean to imply that evidence existed. In fact I assume it doesn't.
Oh, I see. Carry on then.
But for the record, IMO, it is mostly irrelevant anyway.
Oh I completely agree. However H seems (perhaps I'm wrong) to be arguing that we are able to convert all of the gays into straights and that gay people won't be a problem if we can just turn them all into straights. And if he's not arguing that, then I haven't a clue what he is.
-
Given that we have no evidence for either a person being able or unable to change sexuality, we have to rely on probability here. Most phenotypes are movable spectra. Because of this, it is likely that a phenotype we don''t have evidence for (e.g. sexuality) is a movable spectrum.
Considering the massive amounts of external, non-genetic influences on our sexuality (social pressures, relationship experience, our own chemical balance, etc), do you really think it impossible that a person's sexuality is grounded at birth?
No, because sexual attraction isn't phenotype.
Organisms called humans express sexuality. Sexuality is a phenotype.
It's more than just an expression.
In biology, expressed traits are called "phenotypes".
I know what a phenotype is. I just said it's MORE than an expression.
However it doesn't matter. Most phenotypes can't change with nurture either. You can't make a black person white (Michael jackson aside), you can't make a midget tall, you can't make a person born with 1 hand suddenly have 2 just by their environment.
-
I'm not arguing that is a reason for any kind of action. I'm just saying that we're not a slave to our phenotypes. The "it's not a choice" argument gets on my nerves because you can change your nature, including your sexuality. We are creatures of habit. It takes time to change yourself, but you can do it. Your brain is an easily-manipulated machine.
-
However it doesn't matter. Most phenotypes can't change with nurture either. You can't make a black person white (Michael jackson aside)
You can make a white person dark.
you can't make a midget tall
Once you're bones are solidified, no, but your upbringing will affect your height. There is no single gene or set of genes that scientists can look at and say, "Oh, this here says you'll be six feet tall!"
-
Given that we have no evidence for either a person being able or unable to change sexuality, we have to rely on probability here. Most phenotypes are movable spectra. Because of this, it is likely that a phenotype we don''t have evidence for (e.g. sexuality) is a movable spectrum.
Considering the massive amounts of external, non-genetic influences on our sexuality (social pressures, relationship experience, our own chemical balance, etc), do you really think it impossible that a person's sexuality is grounded at birth?
No, because sexual attraction isn't phenotype.
Organisms called humans express sexuality. Sexuality is a phenotype.
It's more than just an expression.
In biology, expressed traits are called "phenotypes".
I know what a phenotype is. I just said it's MORE than an expression.
However it doesn't matter. Most phenotypes can't change with nurture either. You can't make a black person white (Michael jackson aside), you can't make a midget tall, you can't make a person born with 1 hand suddenly have 2 just by their environment.
Well, I want him to understand that. Phenotype which is mostly apperance matter in biology doesn't do anything with sexuality that we are discussing right now.
True that phenotype can change in years but it's simply called "modification". Waiting a black guy to turn white is completely another thing can be explained by evolution which takes million years. We can include sexuality in this, then again which is about genotype not phenotype.
-
But seriously, I didn't mean to imply that evidence existed. In fact I assume it doesn't.
Oh, I see. Carry on then.
But for the record, IMO, it is mostly irrelevant anyway.
Oh I completely agree. However H seems (perhaps I'm wrong) to be arguing that we are able to convert all of the gays into straights and that gay people won't be a problem if we can just turn them all into straights. And if he's not arguing that, then I haven't a clue what he is.
Well, this is where I think the two sides of this argument often talk past one another. I do not like the term sexual orientation because I think it is both (1) a loaded term and (2) inaccurate. HOWEVER, putting that aside for a moment, let's assume for the sake of argument that sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable. (Again, I am not necessarily persuaded that that is true, but we'll go ahead and assume that) In that case, yes, you are correct that environment alone will not likely change one's orientation one way or the other. I would argue that, from a Christian standpoint, orientation is not the most relevant issue. The issue is, as I think H is trying to argue, solely one of expression. And no matter what one's orientation, Christianity gives only two options in terms of the expresssion of one's sexuality: (1) express it by engaging in sex within a marriage between a man and a woman; or (2) abstain and do not express it. No matter the source of one's desires, whether because of sexual orientation or some other factor that may for argument's sake be innate and unchangeable, or whether a product of one's enviroment, those are the only two options. So Christianity therefore teaches that if one is inclined to express their sexuality through any other means than those two options, one must discipline him- or herself to struggle against the temptation to do otherwise and to utilize one of those two options and to learn to be content with that. And I believe (and I think this goes more to what H is trying to argue) that most can (and some do), through a self-disciplined approach, come to change their expression and, over time, to varying degrees, change their preference of how they express their sexuality, whether they ever truly change their orientation or not.
That was not easy to articulate, but hopefully I got my point across, whether you disagree with it or not.
-
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say.
-
We all do things against our nature, for varying reasons, and with varying success. In the end it doesnt change our nature, it only changes our behavoir.
-
We all do things against our nature, for varying reasons, and with varying success. In the end it doesnt change our nature, it only changes our behavoir.
Well said. And, for the record, I agree.
-
Sorry if it is misunderstanding, Bosk but do you really think this argument can be based on religions? I mean, true that Christanity say "the orientation matter" like you explain and so does Islam, AFAIK. I believe, unfortunately science and religion conflict on many matters and as it seems sexuality is the strongest one.
-
Sorry if it is misunderstanding, Bosk but do you really think this argument can be based on religions? I mean, true that Christanity say "the orientation matter" like you explain and so does Islam, AFAIK. I believe, unfortunately science and religion conflict on many matters and as it seems sexuality is the strongest one.
From what I understand from discussions here, in regards to Christianity, it is OK to be gay, but not ok to act on it.
Or am I misunderstanding the question?
-
Sorry if it is misunderstanding, Bosk but do you really think this argument can be based on religions? I mean, true that Christanity say "the orientation matter" like you explain and so does Islam, AFAIK. I believe, unfortunately science and religion conflict on many matters and as it seems sexuality is the strongest one.
From what I understand from discussions here, in regards to Christianity, it is OK to be gay, but not ok to act on it.
Or am I misunderstanding the question?
I'm not stating this at all. Well, religions can support or whatever. I'm trying to say sexuality or anything about biology are not something can be explained by religions. But then again, I can misunderstood what Bosk said.
-
Sorry if it is misunderstanding, Bosk but do you really think this argument can be based on religions? I mean, true that Christanity say "the orientation matter" like you explain and so does Islam, AFAIK. I believe, unfortunately science and religion conflict on many matters and as it seems sexuality is the strongest one.
I do, yes. And that is because I believe Christianity is in fact real and its messages objectively true. If I did not believe that and thought that it is just something some people believe that may or may not be true, I wouldn't feel that it is right to rely on its moral principles in a discussion like this. But I am firmly convinced that we were ALL created by a loving God who has laid down the same moral laws for all humans, no matter our race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. That is why I believe religion should be part of the discussion. I realize you don't believe that, and I respect your right to not believe it. But it is what I believe, so it influences my opinion on the subject.
Sorry if it is misunderstanding, Bosk but do you really think this argument can be based on religions? I mean, true that Christanity say "the orientation matter" like you explain and so does Islam, AFAIK. I believe, unfortunately science and religion conflict on many matters and as it seems sexuality is the strongest one.
From what I understand from discussions here, in regards to Christianity, it is OK to be gay, but not ok to act on it.
Or am I misunderstanding the question?
Yeah, basically. That's how I understand it. But I think that distinction gets lost or misunderstood on both sides of the debate.
-
However it doesn't matter. Most phenotypes can't change with nurture either. You can't make a black person white (Michael jackson aside)
You can make a white person dark.
you can't make a midget tall
Once you're bones are solidified, no, but your upbringing will affect your height. There is no single gene or set of genes that scientists can look at and say, "Oh, this here says you'll be six feet tall!"
I get what you're saying, and how you want the world to be like. However your "this sounds good" argument is not really based in....anything other than a desire to have it be true. If you want to prove your case, feel free. Or else it's just a guy saying how he thinks the world should be. Which is lovely but has no actual place in this convo.
-
Sorry if it is misunderstanding, Bosk but do you really think this argument can be based on religions? I mean, true that Christanity say "the orientation matter" like you explain and so does Islam, AFAIK. I believe, unfortunately science and religion conflict on many matters and as it seems sexuality is the strongest one.
I do, yes. And that is because I believe Christianity is in fact real and its messages objectively true. If I did not believe that and thought that it is just something some people believe that may or may not be true, I wouldn't feel that it is right to rely on its moral principles in a discussion like this. But I am firmly convinced that we were ALL created by a loving God who has laid down the same moral laws for all humans, no matter our race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. That is why I believe religion should be part of the discussion. I realize you don't believe that, and I respect your right to not believe it. But it is what I believe, so it influences my opinion on the subject.
Bosk, I really respect what you say. I mean I wish all the believers could think like you. Personally I'm really tired that many people violently eliminate someone and support sexual discrimination just because of religions say so (or people make religions say so).
-
However it doesn't matter. Most phenotypes can't change with nurture either. You can't make a black person white (Michael jackson aside)
You can make a white person dark.
you can't make a midget tall
Once you're bones are solidified, no, but your upbringing will affect your height. There is no single gene or set of genes that scientists can look at and say, "Oh, this here says you'll be six feet tall!"
I get what you're saying, and how you want the world to be like. However your "this sounds good" argument is not really based in....anything other than a desire to have it be true. If you want to prove your case, feel free. Or else it's just a guy saying how he thinks the world should be. Which is lovely but has no actual place in this convo.
What I'm saying is that it's more reasonable to believe that sexuality is a by-product of both genotype and is heavily influenced by society, development, and experiences than to believe that sexuality is set in stone right out of the womb.
-
No it's really not. Because there's NO reason to assume sexuality is more like paleness of skin than it is height or number of limbs, you're just saying that because SOME aspects of phenotype can be minimally altered by upbringing that sexuality is changeable. You haven't linked the two logically in the slightest bit.
-
To H: No. Your nature is not heavily influenced by society/experiences, etc. Your behavoir will be...not your innate nature. If you are gay, you are gay. You might fuck a chick because you want to fit in with your fraternity borthers, but you will be closing your eyes, pretending you are butt banging Jonny's hairy ass.
-
Sorry if it is misunderstanding, Bosk but do you really think this argument can be based on religions? I mean, true that Christanity say "the orientation matter" like you explain and so does Islam, AFAIK. I believe, unfortunately science and religion conflict on many matters and as it seems sexuality is the strongest one.
I do, yes. And that is because I believe Christianity is in fact real and its messages objectively true. If I did not believe that and thought that it is just something some people believe that may or may not be true, I wouldn't feel that it is right to rely on its moral principles in a discussion like this. But I am firmly convinced that we were ALL created by a loving God who has laid down the same moral laws for all humans, no matter our race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. That is why I believe religion should be part of the discussion. I realize you don't believe that, and I respect your right to not believe it. But it is what I believe, so it influences my opinion on the subject.
Bosk, I really respect what you say. I mean I wish all the believers could think like you. Personally I'm really tired that many people violently eliminate someone and support sexual discrimination just because of religions say so.
Christianity is supposed to be a religion of peace and love. Often, those who claim to follow it do the wrong thing and treat it as a license to mistreat those who do not follow it. I share your sadness over the fact that many believers throughout history have done some very bad things. I know I haven't always behaved the way I should have towards others, and my own misconduct saddens me. I'm glad you are able to at least see my good intentions even though you disagree with me.
-
So bosk, is it a Christians responsibility to make sure other people are acting morally?
-
Your nature is not heavily influenced by society/experiences, etc.
You're serious.
Just look around. Think about all the things people care so much about. There is nothing in our nature to tell us that having straight white teeth is important. There's nothing in our nature that tells us we need to make money. There's nothing that tells women that they ought to straight iron their hair because it's more appealing that way. Our desires for these things are learned.
-
If you are gay, you are gay. You might fuck a chick because you want to fit in with your fraternity borthers, but you will be closing your eyes, pretending you are butt banging Jonny's hairy ass.
This is why we have homophobic homosexuals. Believe me, they worse than homophobics. This is actually the thing that H should have supposed to mean. A human lives his/her fake life just because upbringing, society or religion force to do like that. We suppose to fit in nature but it seems we are made not to.
-
Your nature is not heavily influenced by society/experiences, etc.
You're serious.
Just look around. Think about all the things people care so much about. There is nothing in our nature to tell us that having straight white teeth is important. There's nothing in our nature that tells us we need to make money. There's nothing that tells women that they ought to straight iron their hair because it's more appealing that way. Our desires for these things are learned.
Yes, serious...
That is behavoir, not someones innate nature. You cant equate a hair style to someones sexual orientation.
-
Our behavior is part of our nature, just like the behavior of ticking is part of a the nature of a clock.
-
So bosk, is it a Christians responsibility to make sure other people are acting morally?
That is sort of a loaded, multifaceted question, as I understand it. Here is my multi-part answer:
It is definitely a Christian's responsibility to, as gently as possible, point out to those who are not acting morally that they are not acting morally. Beyond that, I do not believe it is a Christian's responsbility to "make sure" people are acting morally, and I do not believe it is a Christian's business to try, for the most part (excluding, for example, making sure your kids do right when you are raising them).
However, tying your question back to the question of the N.C. amendment and other anti-gay marriage laws, I do not see that as Christians "making sure others are acting morally." I could be dead wrong, but the way I see it, by putting it to a vote, the government is essentially asking everybody, Christian or not, what we think on the issue. Because we are given a voice on the subject, I think it is perfectly appropriate to vote on it as a Christian. And going back to my opinion on the subject, which I posted earlier in the thread, I do not believe the government should be about granting special privileged status to conduct that is not moral. Therefore, I believe voting on laws the clarify that "marriage" should not be extended to homosexual relationships is approriate. Again, I may be completely misunderstanding what the proper role of Christians in politics should be, but that's my take on it. And, as I also mentioned earlier in the thread, if it were legal in all 50 states tomorrow, okay. Others who also have the right to use their votes who hold a different opinion than I do would be in the majority, so so be it if that's the case.
-
Our behavior is part of our nature, just like the behavior of ticking is part of a the nature of a clock.
But our nature may be something like:
Being Gay
Needing security
Wants social connection and approval
Our Bevavoir, influenced by society/environment can be:
Being straight in appearance only due to social pressure
Being a work a holic to earn lots of money to be secure
Straigtening hair to fit in with the in croewd
Behavoir changes, but nature wont. Big difference.
Our behavior is part of our nature, just like the behavior of ticking is part of a the nature of a clock.
The clock can tick loudly, or softly. It may be digital with no ticking at all. Behavoir. But its nature is to tell time. The changes in behavoir dont change its nature.
-
This is why we have homophobic homosexuals.
Oh, wow. I never realized that, but that makes perfect sense now that you mention it.
-
The external world influences our nature. This is an established biological fact.
-
The external world influences our nature. This is an established biological fact.
Example?
-
The external world influences our nature. This is an established biological fact.
Example?
Too easy. Eating more calories than you burn makes you gain weight.
-
The external world influences our nature. This is an established biological fact.
Example?
The addition of a bloody handprint [external influence] transforms what is otherwise merely a volleyball by nature into Wilson. For example.
-
The external world influences our nature. This is an established biological fact.
Clearly you have failed to see what insticts and behavior are. Nature can not be affected and change. Behaviours can.
The external world influences our nature. This is an established biological fact.
Example?
Too easy. Eating more calories than you burn makes you gain weight.
Eating is a nature thing and instict to survive but there is something can be called "eating habit" which can be changed.
-
The external world influences our nature. This is an established biological fact.
Example?
Too easy. Eating more calories than you burn makes you gain weight.
Gaining weight is changing a persons nature?
We are WAY off on what a persons nature means
-
The external world influences our nature. This is an established biological fact.
Example?
The addition of a bloody handprint [external influence] transforms what is otherwise merely a volleyball by nature into Wilson. For example.
I concede defeat. :hefdaddy
-
The external world influences our nature. This is an established biological fact.
Example?
Too easy. Eating more calories than you burn makes you gain weight.
Gaining weight is changing a persons nature?
We are WAY off on what a persons nature means
Apparently. I think an organism's nature is, well, the organism itself.
-
The external world influences our nature. This is an established biological fact.
Example?
Too easy. Eating more calories than you burn makes you gain weight.
Gaining weight is changing a persons nature?
We are WAY off on what a persons nature means
Apparently. I think an organism's nature is, well, the organism itself.
A persons nature is their inborn character, innate disposition, or inherent tendencies.
-
The external world influences our nature. This is an established biological fact.
Example?
Too easy. Eating more calories than you burn makes you gain weight.
Gaining weight is changing a persons nature?
We are WAY off on what a persons nature means
Apparently. I think an organism's nature is, well, the organism itself.
A persons nature is their inborn character, innate disposition, or inherent tendencies.
Agree with all of that but "inborn character". We obviously change quite a bit from the moment of birth.
-
inborn meaning innate or internal...not your behavoir or appearance at birth.
-
Sure, I agree with all of that. Your nature is basically who you are.
-
Sure, I agree with all of that. Your nature is basically who you are.
Not ALL you are. You can have behavoirs that go against your nature. That is the difference.
Anyway...great discussion....got to go to bed. Goodnight!
-
Sure, I agree with all of that. Your nature is basically who you are.
Not ALL you are.
Aaaaaaaaand we're back where we started.
-
Sure, I agree with all of that. Your nature is basically who you are.
Not ALL you are.
Aaaaaaaaand we're back where we started.
THIRD BASE!!!
-
Sure, I agree with all of that. Your nature is basically who you are.
Not ALL you are.
Aaaaaaaaand we're back where we started.
THIRD BASE!!!
+1
H, you are right to notice that nurture plays an enormous role in the development of people. This cannot be disputed. However, it's the intensity of some of your suggestions that seems to be turning some of the kind folk in this thread off. You are implying that somebody who is 100% homosexual can become 100% heterosexual, which doesn't make any more sense than saying a male can become female. Running with that example, a male can grow up to act extremely masculine or extremely feminine, and whether he does will certainly be determined by nurture; however, he can never act so feminine that he becomes a female.
That's the point. It's a sliding scale, but you're not free to move wherever you want. If you're born 100% heterosexual, you might become a bit gayer over time, but you're effectively locked into the hetero-zone.
I'll offer myself as an example. I would consider myself very heterosexual. I am simply not attracted to men. Just doesn't happen for me. If all women disappeared off the face of the earth (god forbid), and I simply didn't have a choice but to have sex with men, I'd probably eventually get used to it, but I don't see myself ever really enjoying it. I can't realistically envision a scenario where I can just trade women for men because I was born heterosexual. I encourage you to mull over this scenario yourself, realistically and without bias.
-
There is nothing in our nature to tell us that having straight white teeth is important.
And yet, despite wanting straight white teeth in our society, most of us are born with teeth that are not straight, and many more have to use whitening to make their teeth white. Naturally, most teeth would not be straight and white - and the reason we desire those traits is precisely becuase they are naturally rare, and indicative of natural health.
There's nothing in our nature that tells us we need to make money.
Naturally, I need food and place to live. That forces me, in the current social environment, to make money.
There's nothing that tells women that they ought to straight iron their hair because it's more appealing that way.
And yet, despite the social pressure to straighten out hair (?? honestly, I think I like curlier hair better... but that's way too tangential), people are still naturally born with hair that needs to be straightened.
-
Yet when someone straightens their hair, at that moment their nature is having straight hair.
-
Yet when someone straightens their hair, at that moment their nature is having straight hair.
No? Nevermind, you're defining nature very loosely to say the least, so I'm out. I guess you could say it's in my nature to leave this thread at this very moment or whatever. Have a fun time kiddos. :)
-
Yet when someone straightens their hair, at that moment their nature is having straight hair.
No? Nevermind, you're defining nature very loosely to say the least, so I'm out. I guess you could say it's in my nature to leave this thread at this very moment or whatever. Have a fun time kiddos. :)
Well, if nature is genotype plus external influences, then I don't see how the nature of their hair isn't straight.
-
Yet when someone straightens their hair, at that moment their nature is having straight hair.
No? Nevermind, you're defining nature very loosely to say the least, so I'm out. I guess you could say it's in my nature to leave this thread at this very moment or whatever. Have a fun time kiddos. :)
Well, if nature is genotype plus external influences, then I don't see how the nature of their hair isn't straight.
Then I guess that all the women with implants are naturally busty.
-
You're using "nature" in a way I'm not. When you're talking about nature, you're talking about genotype alone, sans external influences.
-
I'm using "nature" as it is defined in the dictionary.
https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural?s=t
1.
existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
2.
based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3.
of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
4.
of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.
5.
in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.
I mean, it's "nature vs nurture," and even though its really more "nature and nurture", you're pointing to nurture, and calling it nature.
-
Because it really shouldn't be "nature and nurture". Nurture is contained within nature.
Naturally, we are supposed to be lactose intolerant. So would you say it is against a person's nature to be tolerant of lactose? They maintain lactose consumption and effectively altered their predestined disposition.
-
Yet when someone straightens their hair, at that moment their nature is having straight hair.
Obviously not, because they had to straighten their hair to make it straight, and their hair will go right back to its natural form once they take a shower. This is more "working around your nature" than "changing your nature temporarily", because what would the latter even mean? And those who encourage gays not to express their homosexuality are forcing them to work around their nature.
-
predestined disposition.
i.e. nature.
-
you're pointing to nurture, and calling it nature.
This, definitely.
BTW, ran across a few quotes from John Locke. I thought of them in relation to the NC Amendment One. They struck my fancy, not sure how relevant anyone else will find them.
"New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common."
"The end of law is, not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom."
-
Since this thread has become such a nature/nurture pissing contest, I will now only post in yellow in this thread.
-
Since this thread has become such a nature/nurture pissing contest, I will now only post in yellow in this thread.
+ why does it matter if being gay is nurture or nature.
-
Given that we have no evidence for either a person being able or unable to change sexuality, we have to rely on probability here. Most phenotypes are movable spectra. Because of this, it is likely that a phenotype we don''t have evidence for (e.g. sexuality) is a movable spectrum.
Considering the massive amounts of external, non-genetic influences on our sexuality (social pressures, relationship experience, our own chemical balance, etc), do you really think it impossible that a person's sexuality is grounded at birth?
I'm going to stick with the "probability" that most professionals who are qualified to call this one reject the idea that a gay person can become straight. (https://psychcentral.com/news/2009/08/06/psychologists-reject-gay-reorientation-therapy/7589.html)
-
Many things are fine in normal doses, but in higher than normal doses they can cause problems. Was thinking maybe then that the testosterone present for a male child causes a different reaction in the female body than a female child.
While it's true that excess amounts of any substance can cause problems, we're talking about the immune system in particular here. The woman's immune system has encountered the testosterone molecule every day of her life and even for some time while she was in the womb. So the molecule itself would be ignored by the immune system. The only way it could possibly cause a problem would be if there was a mutation in the child's DNA for producing testosterone, which caused it to be slightly different and marked as foreign. But that doesn't make sense to me because then you'd expect the rates to increase not based on numbers of male children but based on all children (since if the woman had a daughter, that child could get the mutation) or based on an assumption that male testosterone is different from female which doesn't seem likely to me.
So it would still be related directly to male children, and not female children?
Correct. They theorize that something is attached to the Y-chromosome that allows the mother's immune system to recognize it as a foreign substance.
I read a book called Born Cannibal that talked about this. And no it wasn't using "born cannibal" in a purely metaphorical sense. It pointed out cases where twins literally tried to eat each other in the womb. If I find the book, I'll post the relevant information.
If you do find it, I welcome the information but at the moment I remain entirely skeptical, because the idea given that a twin literally attempted to eat the other twin tends to go against the idea that a baby can't eat solid foods even when it is at full-term. I've heard it reported as "one twin ate the other" in cases where what really happened is they were competing for the mother's nourishment and one died.
-
You gals all make my brain hurt. :lol
-
Well, at least one of us is studying for a biochemistry final and so genetics were kind of on the brain. :)
-
Correct. They theorize that something is attached to the Y-chromosome that allows the mother's immune system to recognize it as a foreign substance.
Interesting.
-
Correct. They theorize that something is attached to the Y-chromosome that allows the mother's immune system to recognize it as a foreign substance.
Interesting.
Yep. There's actually research that shows that female mice reject skin grafts from male mice due to an antigen that's on the Y-chromosome. And people theorize that something similar happens in humans that results in a mutation to not allow for that same kind of reaction. But who knows.
-
North Carolina strikes again!
https://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/05/22/pastor-build-electrified-fence-for-gays-so-they-die-out/#.T7vS9MsJ2Fs.facebook
MAIDEN, N.C. (CBS Charlotte) — A North Carolina pastor has come under fire after calling for gays and lesbians to be killed off by keeping them locked up behind an electrified fence.
During his sermon at the Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, Pastor Charles Worley said he figured out a way to “get rid of all the lesbians and queers.”
“Build a great big, large fence – 100 miles long – put all the lesbians in there, fly over and drop some food,” Worley said during his May 13 sermon. “Do the same thing with the queers and homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can’t get out … and in a few years they will die out.”
Worley went out to say that gays and lesbians will die off because “they can’t reproduce.”
The Catawba Valley Citizens Against Hate posted a clip of the sermon on YouTube which has gone viral.
“I was horrified. I was shocked,” Laura Tipton, member of the group, told CBS Charlotte. “I was hurt to hear him say such horrible things about the LGBT community. Those words were absolutely horrific.”
The group will be holding a protest against the church this upcoming Sunday morning. Tipton is expecting some 250 people to show up.
“In his newest sermon, Pastor Worley invited us to come demonstrate at the church,” Tipton said. “I think the congregation will either be very shocked or very silent.”
Worley also said in the video that he will not vote for President Obama because he is a “baby killer and a homosexual lover.”
“God have mercy, it makes me puking sick,” Worley said during the sermon. “Could you imagine kissing some man?”
The church’s website says, “We offer NO apologies in believing the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.”
CBS Charlotte has reached out to Pastor Worley for comment.
And I have to say, my favorite part is actually right at the end, "The church’s website says, “We offer NO apologies in believing the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.”" I find it difficult to discuss these matters with religious folks if they decide what parts of the bible can be ignored and what parts should be followed, because at that point I believe you're kinda just making up your own rules. Old testament is pretty clear on homosexuality and Jesus never overturned it, so technically I think the church is correct in what its saying. I don't agree with it, but I like there is actually something solid to stand against in this case.
And while I don't think it's that widespread anymore, it's somewhat scary to know there is a percent of the population out there that will eat this shit up, whether religiously fueled or not.
-
North Caroline strikes again!
https://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/05/22/pastor-build-electrified-fence-for-gays-so-they-die-out/#.T7vS9MsJ2Fs.facebook
Put all homosexuals in one place inside an electric fence?
It would be the biggest party the world has ever seen.
Hell, they would probably create their own contry, cecede, and it would be the most tolerant and nice place to live ever.
Imagine how tastefully decorated the entire country would be?
And I love how the pastor thinks they will all die out because they cant reproduce. :lol
-
And I have to say, my favorite part is actually right at the end, "The church’s website says, “We offer NO apologies in believing the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.”" I find it difficult to discuss these matters with religious folks if they decide what parts of the bible can be ignored and what parts should be followed, because at that point I believe you're kinda just making up your own rules. Old testament is pretty clear on homosexuality and Jesus never overturned it, so technically I think the church is correct in what its saying. I don't agree with it, but I like there is actually something solid to stand against in this case.
They most certainly do ignore parts of the bible and jesus' teachings. What about "love their neighbor", and "do unto others", and "judge not" ????
-
*snip*
(https://marinasleeps.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/3595-i-dont-want-to-live-on-this-planet-anymore.jpg)
But seriously, this really upsets me.
-
I like how he referenced lesbians, "queers" and homosexuals as if they are three seperate groups :lol
-
And I have to say, my favorite part is actually right at the end, "The church’s website says, “We offer NO apologies in believing the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.”" I find it difficult to discuss these matters with religious folks if they decide what parts of the bible can be ignored and what parts should be followed, because at that point I believe you're kinda just making up your own rules. Old testament is pretty clear on homosexuality and Jesus never overturned it, so technically I think the church is correct in what its saying. I don't agree with it, but I like there is actually something solid to stand against in this case.
I can understand your point, but if the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then they might want to give a glance to the bit that mentions 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone.'
-
I saw the video of that pastor's sermon. What an oxygen thief (https://www.kirksnosehair.com/Portals/0/images/smilies/nono.gif)
-
And I have to say, my favorite part is actually right at the end, "The church’s website says, “We offer NO apologies in believing the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.”" I find it difficult to discuss these matters with religious folks if they decide what parts of the bible can be ignored and what parts should be followed, because at that point I believe you're kinda just making up your own rules. Old testament is pretty clear on homosexuality and Jesus never overturned it, so technically I think the church is correct in what its saying. I don't agree with it, but I like there is actually something solid to stand against in this case.
They most certainly do ignore parts of the bible and jesus' teachings. What about "love their neighbor", and "do unto others", and "judge not" ????
Do abominations qualify for these statements? And in any case, do general vague sayings somehow overrule god's direct commands?
-
I'm pretty sure putting gays in concentration camp was not one of god's direct commands.
-
"Homosexual acts are an abomination to God."
"If a man has sex with another man, kill them both."
Both in Leviticus, written by Moses, and unless I'm mistaken represents the wishes of god.
-
"Homosexual acts are an abomination to God."
"If a man has sex with another man, kill them both."
Both in Leviticus, written by Moses, and unless I'm mistaken represents the wishes of god.
Could I get the verse for the second quote? Not doubting you, just curious.
-
Apparently it was modernized, old text is this:
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
-
Ah, right, thanks. I was trying to search for the passage but the modernization made it difficult. Appreciate it. :)
-
ive been curious about this for a while, dont take this as a shot at religion or anything, but why did God show up and talk to people in the old ages, but once we became modernized he is nowhere to be found? im sure he didnt assign some backwoods hicks to spread his word.
especially the word with electric fences for gays
-
This is what I would point to as answer from Hebrew 1:1-2.
"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds"
-
so what does that mean? When did Jesus last talk to humanity?
-
This is what I would point to as answer from Hebrew 1:1-2.
"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds"
But both Muhammad and Joseph Smith came after Christ. And if you talk to a fundamentalist Mormon, they're talking with God constantly, and all the time. They'd certainly deny that God has disappeared in modern times.
That's the author trying to get you to ignore other people's idea's. It's the same thing as Fox News calling themselves "fair and balanced," and constantly attacking the "liberal" media.
-
Apparently it was modernized, old text is this:
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
This is from Leviticus 20; it's a historical text detailing the laws of a dead civilization. The Christian God does not give its followers the right to kill people who have committed "abominations".
-
North Caroline strikes again!
https://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/05/22/pastor-build-electrified-fence-for-gays-so-they-die-out/#.T7vS9MsJ2Fs.facebook
Put all homosexuals in one place inside an electric fence?
It would be the biggest party the world has ever seen.
Hell, they would probably create their own contry, cecede, and it would be the most tolerant and nice place to live ever.
Imagine how tastefully decorated the entire country would be?
And I love how the pastor thinks they will all die out because they cant reproduce. :lol
I have a feeling the homosexuals would reproduce out of necessity. There are thousands of gay men who got married and had kids because it was what you did.
I almost want to see this happen just so it backfires. That isn't teaching God's love. This guy is a maroon and I feel bad for anyone who takes the nut seriously.
-
You know, this whole idea of putting a group of same sex creatures in a fenced-off environment as a means of limiting reproduction reminds me of something...........
"The kind of control the you're is attempting is not possible. If there's one thing the history of evolution has taught us, it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free. It expands to new territories. It crashes through barriers. Painfully, maybe even..dangerously, but and...well, there it is."
:P
-
I know and next thing you know the gays are going to get pissed, break out of their cages and eat us!
-
Also they're going to develop the ability to asexually reproduce via amphibian DNA splicing. That should be pretty neat.
-
It will be fabulous.
-
Apparently it was modernized, old text is this:
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
This is from Leviticus 20; it's a historical text detailing the laws of a dead civilization. The Christian God does not give its followers the right to kill people who have committed "abominations".
Not sure my civilization is dead yet.
-
Apparently it was modernized, old text is this:
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
This is from Leviticus 20; it's a historical text detailing the laws of a dead civilization. The Christian God does not give its followers the right to kill people who have committed "abominations".
Who decides that the Christian god did not give those laws to Moses to write for all his followers, both before and after Christ? And why did Jesus not rebuke such laws if they were indeed wrong?
-
Apparently it was modernized, old text is this:
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
This is from Leviticus 20; it's a historical text detailing the laws of a dead civilization. The Christian God does not give its followers the right to kill people who have committed "abominations".
Who decides that the Christian god did not give those laws to Moses to write for all his followers, both before and after Christ? And why did Jesus not rebuke such laws if they were indeed wrong?
I still maintain that Jesus did in fact rebuke death penalty in John 8:7. I admit that he wasn't direct about it, but he does set a precedent for 'not casting the first stone' which seems to contradict the whole 'kill all the gays' sentiment of Leviticus.
-
Apparently it was modernized, old text is this:
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
This is from Leviticus 20; it's a historical text detailing the laws of a dead civilization. The Christian God does not give its followers the right to kill people who have committed "abominations".
Not sure my civilization is dead yet.
did u chek pulse
-
Apparently it was modernized, old text is this:
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
This is from Leviticus 20; it's a historical text detailing the laws of a dead civilization. The Christian God does not give its followers the right to kill people who have committed "abominations".
Who decides that the Christian god did not give those laws to Moses to write for all his followers, both before and after Christ? And why did Jesus not rebuke such laws if they were indeed wrong?
I still maintain that Jesus did in fact rebuke death penalty in John 8:7. I admit that he wasn't direct about it, but he does set a precedent for 'not casting the first stone' which seems to contradict the whole 'kill all the gays' sentiment of Leviticus.
But once again, does something vague like John 8:7 overturn something very specific like Leviticus? Frankly those vague sayings could be twisted and turned to mean anything. Hell, I could cite Leviticus and say I am loving and serving thy fellow man by trying to rid the earth of all the abominations in the eyes of god. Clearly quite a stretch, but it's not like history is without precedent of people taking vague words and twisting them to mean whatever they feel is needed.
-
I think John 8:7 is just as clear as it needs to be. Jesus stopped a stoning for sexual misconduct that was in progress.
-
I think John 8:7 is just as clear as it needs to be. Jesus stopped a stoning for sexual misconduct that was in progress.
I agree that it was a pretty powerful example.
But more than that, Jesus told that the Jewish law would pass away once he fullfilled what he had come to do. And when you read through what the apostles taught and write in Acts and the letters in the new testament, while they carry over some things from the law, they are also pretty clear that Christians are not Jews and the Jewish law is not what Christians are to follow. They were specific commands for a specific people, just as "leave your home and go to a place I will show you" was a specific command for Abraham and not all followers of God.
-
Okay, you know far more than me beyond the actual main text, so I suppose the next question is, is it reasonable that Jews hate homosexuals on the basis of the old testament?
-
I still don't get why God created a morality for one people, and then decided to abandon it several thousand years later.
-
Okay, you know far more than me beyond the actual main text, so I suppose the next question is, is it reasonable that Jews hate homosexuals on the basis of the old testament?
I don't think it is reasonable for anyone to hate homosexuals.
-
^^^^that exactly!
a couple of things about John 8, as well, is the fact that the law required that both be stoned and they only brought the woman (because it was a test), and John 8 is one of two sections in NT that is doubtful since it isn't found in earliest mss
-
Okay, you know far more than me beyond the actual main text, so I suppose the next question is, is it reasonable that Jews hate homosexuals on the basis of the old testament?
I don't think it is reasonable for anyone to hate homosexuals.
Not even if it's clearly laid out in their scripture? A lot of people think that a lot of what Christianity lays out is unreasonable for anyone, but many Christians will point to the bible and use it to defend themselves.
-
I still don't get why God created a morality for one people, and then decided to abandon it several thousand years later.
I would dispute "created a morality"...that was not the point of the Mosaic Law. As a matter of fact (and I pointed this out somewhere else in P/R forum) Jesus pointed to one example (namely divorce) where God chose to regulate (rather than completely correct) something he didn't agree with. The law was "a tutor" leading them to Christ. It was to show them that it was impossible for them to be perfect...it was to show them that they NEEDED to be rescued. It was to show them just how far away from God's standards they were....EVEN WITH the concessions he made. Christ *RE-instituted* God's original purpose for marriage that he intended when he first married Adam and Eve.
-
Okay, you know far more than me beyond the actual main text, so I suppose the next question is, is it reasonable that Jews hate homosexuals on the basis of the old testament?
I don't think it is reasonable for anyone to hate homosexuals.
Not even if it's clearly laid out in their scripture?
Homosexuality was something that was laid out as one of many capitol offenses under the Jewish legal system, but even under that system, there is NOTHING in Jewish scripture that condones hatred toward those who may have been convicted.
-
Okay, you know far more than me beyond the actual main text, so I suppose the next question is, is it reasonable that Jews hate homosexuals on the basis of the old testament?
I don't think it is reasonable for anyone to hate homosexuals.
Not even if it's clearly laid out in their scripture? A lot of people think that a lot of what Christianity lays out is unreasonable for anyone, but many Christians will point to the bible and use it to defend themselves.
I realize you weren't addressing me, but for what it's worth, I can understand why someone following the Old Testament would hate homosexuals. It is sensible for a person to consider something an abomination if the God that person worships has specifically named that thing an abomination.
That being said, I personally cannot respect anyone who hates just because a book tells them to. This isn't a debate point; I just feel the need to say it because I felt dirty after typing the first paragraph.
But here's some other food for thought: if the rule in Leviticus is 'kill the gays', then is outlawing gay marriage really 'sticking to one's principles'? I mean, if this pastor was running around with a machine gun killing all the homosexual people he sees, I could kind of understand the 'at least he's living by his beliefs' angle of defense. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd think he was a lunatic and call for his imprisonment, but I would at least understand the argument you're making, because then he would at least be doing as the Bible tells him to. Sticking them in an electric fence and feeding them until they die of old age actually seems kind of opposite to the intent of Leviticus 20:13.
Same goes with gay marriage. How can you ban gay marriage based on the Bible when what the Bible actually says is that they must be put to death? To fully enforce the Old Testament, we would have to make it law that homosexuality is a crime to be punished by the death penalty. Anything less than that is not enforcing the Old Testament at all. And it's certainly not fair to the gays. So if it's not fair on a humanitarian level and it's not an enforcement of the Bible, what exactly is it? If it's a compromise, it's a compromise in no one's best interest.
-
If God commands to the hetero people to kill homosexuals there is something we must think about, considering God creates them how they are and then blame them for how they are? It doesn't make sense at all.
God's love is supposed to be for everyone even they are going wrong path for some reasons. As a deist, that's my thought.
-
I still don't get why God created a morality for one people, and then decided to abandon it several thousand years later.
I would dispute "created a morality"...that was not the point of the Mosaic Law. As a matter of fact (and I pointed this out somewhere else in P/R forum) Jesus pointed to one example (namely divorce) where God chose to regulate (rather than completely correct) something he didn't agree with. The law was "a tutor" leading them to Christ. It was to show them that it was impossible for them to be perfect...it was to show them that they NEEDED to be rescued. It was to show them just how far away from God's standards they were....EVEN WITH the concessions he made. Christ *RE-instituted* God's original purpose for marriage that he intended when he first married Adam and Eve.
If the Old Testament and the New Testament didn't differ regarding morality, than why is this discussion being had? What is Christ reinstating?
It just seems so easily contrived, to me. Earlier in the thread, you asked, what is more believable, that the universe came into existence by "chance," or by divine intervention. I now ask you: what's more believable, that God did everything as you said above - and I fail to see how you lead or tutor someone towards Christ, by telling them to do the exact opposite and let it stand for thousands of years, letting thousands of people fall prey to said morality - or that separate humans, at separate times, put forward theological works regarding what Morality is, or should be?
-
If God commands to the hetero people to kill homosexuals there is something we must think about, considering God creates them how they are and then blame them for how they are? It doesn't make sense at all.
God's love is supposed to be for everyone even they are going wrong path for some reasons. As a deist, that's my thought.
But the Bible *DOES NOT* teach that God creates us the way we are... I honestly don't know where that idea even comes from. The whole idea of Christianity is that *we are all born imperfect*...Adam lost perfection by rebelling, and we have all been imperfect ever since. NO ONE is immune. Christ (a perfect man) died to buy back what Adam (a perfect man) lost. So no...God doesn't create any of us the way we are.
-
I still don't get why God created a morality for one people, and then decided to abandon it several thousand years later.
I would dispute "created a morality"...that was not the point of the Mosaic Law. As a matter of fact (and I pointed this out somewhere else in P/R forum) Jesus pointed to one example (namely divorce) where God chose to regulate (rather than completely correct) something he didn't agree with. The law was "a tutor" leading them to Christ. It was to show them that it was impossible for them to be perfect...it was to show them that they NEEDED to be rescued. It was to show them just how far away from God's standards they were....EVEN WITH the concessions he made. Christ *RE-instituted* God's original purpose for marriage that he intended when he first married Adam and Eve.
If the Old Testament and the New Testament didn't differ regarding morality, than why is this discussion being had? What is Christ reinstating?
It just seems so easily contrived, to me. Earlier in the thread, you asked, what is more believable, that the universe came into existence by "chance," or by divine intervention. I now ask you: what's more believable, that God did everything as you said above - and I fail to see how you lead or tutor someone towards Christ, by telling them to do the exact opposite and let it stand for thousands of years, letting thousands of people fall prey to said morality - or that separate humans, at separate times, put forward theological works regarding what Morality is, or should be?
It wasn't the "EXACT OPPOSITE". You're being overly dramatic.
God has a certain set of moral standards....so he sets up a set of laws for the nation of Israel to be protected and kept separate from things the nations around them were practicing. (and they were executed because these practices had become so ingrained in their society...they had become so callous to wrongdoing...that there was no room for redemption any more) So the law was to keep them morally clean from God's standpoint...and to regulate (rather than fully correct) some other things out of regard for the fact that he already knew they were going to be too "stiff necked" (his words in several places of the OT) to follow the law as it was. And he was right. But he also needed a bloodline to the Christ...who was going to save the entire world. And he needed to keep the nation as clean as possible until that nation produced the Messiah. When they became even worse than the nations he had destroyed, he punished them by allowing Babylon to destroy them...but he kept the bloodline going for the sake of bringing his Son into the world.
The whole thing (the law, the nation of Israel, the priests, the temple) was ALL supposed to be pointing them to the Christ. But then they executed him as a traitor. So since the nation had now produced the Messiah that was needed to save the world...he no longer had to tolerate their constant rebellion, so he removed his protection from them. Much as we, as parents, might love a child very much...but at a certain point, if they show themselves incorrigibly rebellious, we are forced to kick them out of the house and remove our protection from them.
ALL OF THIS is what the Mosaic Law was designed to do. They show God's standards on certain moral issues, and how he regulated the nation of Israel and tried his best to keep a very rebellious nation as clean as possible until it produced the Messiah. From that point on, nationality no longer mattered. ANYONE (Jew, Greek, Oriental...whatever) could all be saved by following the example of Christ in their life course.
-
It wasn't the "EXACT OPPOSITE". You're being overly dramatic.
Well, what do you call saying homosexuals should be killed, and saying they shouldn't be killed, or even hated?
-
If God commands to the hetero people to kill homosexuals there is something we must think about, considering God creates them how they are and then blame them for how they are? It doesn't make sense at all.
God's love is supposed to be for everyone even they are going wrong path for some reasons. As a deist, that's my thought.
But the Bible *DOES NOT* teach that God creates us the way we are... I honestly don't know where that idea even comes from. The whole idea of Christianity is that *we are all born imperfect*...Adam lost perfection by rebelling, and we have all been imperfect ever since. NO ONE is immune. Christ (a perfect man) died to buy back what Adam (a perfect man) lost. So no...God doesn't create any of us the way we are.
People do wrong things, people do many things against what the religions say, so according to that those people must be killed in the name of religion?
We as a sinner or believer have two sides inside of us, bad and good. In my view this is how we were created. Our decisions may make us far from what God wants us to be but even from the view of Christanity, Islam or others God is merciful. In the sense of religion morality there is NO God that can command to kill whose fail to do things how they must be.
But note that please, even I mention something based on religions I'm not believing any religion but I have to see something from that side to tell what people think globally. To sum up, the decisions make us what we are but these are given by God, to choose against his will won't lead us to death in any circumstances, at least in this world.
-
It wasn't the "EXACT OPPOSITE". You're being overly dramatic.
Well, what do you call saying homosexuals should be killed, and saying they shouldn't be killed, or even hated?
The law was keeping the nation morally clean from God's standpoint. Because Christ's sacrifice opened up the way for anyone to be forgiven of anything (provided that they change their ways once they learn of God's standards) *WE* are not the judges....that is why Christians are told to *take no action*...but to show love to all in an attempt to save as many as possible, because we don't know what's really in someone's heart...and many of us were living a lifestyle just as bad or worse.
But the Bible also states that by the end of all things...Jesus is coming as an executioner of all who absolutely positively will not change their ways. So in reality, Christ's return in Revelation is not terribly different from the moral standards in the OT....just that it's Jesus and the angels taking the action and not people.
-
lol Maiden. That town is in the same county where I was born and raised.
Incidentally, I was just asked to say a prayer at a commitment ceremony for a lesbian couple I know. I was highly honored.
-
The last time someone wanted to take all the people he didn't like, corral them into little miniature cities, with the intent that they would all die off within a few years, the rest of the world did not look too kindly upon it.
-
The last time someone wanted to take all the people he didn't like, corral them into little miniature cities, with the intent that they would all die off within a few years, the rest of the world did not look too kindly upon it.
(https://www.kirksnosehair.com/Portals/0/emoticons/epic.gif)
-
I don't get it. Why is everyone talking about the Bible? This is an issue of United States law, so the Bible is completely irrelevant to this discussion, just like the Bhagavad Gita and the Qur'an are irrelevant to this discussion.
-
It is very relevant in this discussion. The people vote on the laws. The people vote based on their own reasons. Those reasons can, and usually are, based on their religious and moral values. NC is in the bible belt, so it stands to reason many NC residents are christians and use the bible as a moral guide. So it becomes very relevant to the discussuion.
I dont believe however that "majority rules" is always appropriate. If the law discriminates, it should be reversed.
-
That's fine to have your own religious and moral code, if it's just your religious and moral code. The moment you start trying to force others to follow your morals by law is the moment you become a piece of shit and also a terrible citizen.
-
That's fine to have your own religious and moral code, if it's just your religious and moral code. The moment you start trying to force others to follow your morals by law is the moment you become a piece of shit and also a terrible citizen.
I agree, but one does, and should, vote their moral conscience. Thats America and Democracy, and I have no problem with that. But we need to rely on, and make sure the government and the law protects the minority from discrimination, regardless of how it comes about....religious morals, greed, fear, etc.
-
I agree, but one does, and should, vote their moral conscience.
Why? There are plenty of things I think are immoral but I'm not about to try to ban them.
-
I agree, but one does, and should, vote their moral conscience.
Why? There are plenty of things I think are immoral but I'm not about to try to ban them.
That is your pergative, and for my personal view, I agree. But I wont fault anyone from voting their moral conscience. I may vehemently disagree with their position, but that really is their right. That is what this country is all about, right?
-
Is it? I would think protecting each person's rights is more important than allowing the populace to legislate their morality. If it's not affecting anyone but the involved parties (like gay marriage), why should it be okay to legislate against it based on someone's morality?
-
Is it? I would think protecting each person's rights is more important than allowing the populace to legislate their morality. If it's not affecting anyone but the involved parties (like gay marriage), why should it be okay to legislate against it based on someone's morality?
No. It is ok to try to legislate their morality. It is morality that freed the slaves, and allowed women to vote. It is not ok to actually legislate discrimination, and the govt needs to be the backstop to make sure that doesnt happen.
-
Since there are many immoral things coming from religions I think people just suit themselves.
You can do tattoo, piercing all over your body but no homo!
You can marry more than one woman but no homo!
-
Actually...and I admit it's OT but...Lev 19:28 bans tattoos as well.
-
^Yes, that's the point. Many Christians pick and choose which parts of The Bible to follow.
-
Actually...and I admit it's OT but...Lev 19:28 bans tattoos as well.
Which is why I will never get a tattoo. Not that I even believe in god, but stuff like that has been drilled into my head too much, it's stuck.
-
the biblical precedent of marriage being between man and woman (ie. Adam and Eve) is from the beginning. When Moses was given the law, it was a law that was only for the Jewish people (ie. tattoos, sacrifices, capital punishment occasions, etc).
Since America is not a jewish nation and is not a theocracy, there is no reason to appeal to the laws of Moses for our nation's laws.
the laws/principles that are outside of the laws of Moses should form convictions for voting for those who want to follow the God of the Jews.
-
I agree, but one does, and should, vote their moral conscience.
Why? There are plenty of things I think are immoral but I'm not about to try to ban them.
So lets legalize murder and rape? Lets get rid of all our rights? These are legislating a morality.
-
I agree, but one does, and should, vote their moral conscience.
Why? There are plenty of things I think are immoral but I'm not about to try to ban them.
So lets legalize murder and rape? Lets get rid of all our rights? These are legislating a morality.
I think his position is that if you want to do something that's immoral, but doesn't affect anyone else, it should be legal. Murder and rape affect other people.
-
I agree, but one does, and should, vote their moral conscience.
Why? There are plenty of things I think are immoral but I'm not about to try to ban them.
So lets legalize murder and rape? Lets get rid of all our rights? These are legislating a morality.
I think his position is that if you want to do something that's immoral, but doesn't affect anyone else, it should be legal. Murder and rape affect other people.
Exactly (I assume). I am very much against divorce, but I would never vote to ban it. I am also against white people, yet I'd never vote to murder all of them (I'd keep a few of the women alive).
-
I agree, but one does, and should, vote their moral conscience.
Why? There are plenty of things I think are immoral but I'm not about to try to ban them.
So lets legalize murder and rape? Lets get rid of all our rights? These are legislating a morality.
I think his position is that if you want to do something that's immoral, but doesn't affect anyone else, it should be legal. Murder and rape affect other people.
Its still a morality. When people say we should never legislate morality, it ignores the moralities we do legislate, and even take for granted.
-
He didn't say we should never vote on morality. Just that we shouldn't try to make the world adhere to our moral code.
Actually he didn't even say that. He just said that there are plenty of things he thinks are immoral but he's not about to try to ban them.
-
He just said that there are plenty of things he thinks are immoral but he's not about to try to ban them.
And that there are plenty of things he thinks are immoral that we should ban. We do try to make the world adhere to our moral code.
Myself for that matter too.
-
He just said that there are plenty of things he thinks are immoral but he's not about to try to ban them.
And that there are plenty of things he thinks are immoral that we should ban. We do try to make the world adhere to our moral code.
Myself for that matter too.
But it's not all or nothing. I think murder should be illegal, but not drugs. Yet I am vehemently against both. Just because we want SOME things we find immoral to be illegal doesn't mean we should try to shape the legal system around our morality. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand. It's not an all or nothing deal.
-
So, if someone wanted to keep gay marriage illegal, but agreed to decriminalize drugs even though they're against it, its suddenly fine?
You cant make a coherent and logical argument against gay marriage by saying its wrong to legislate morality, not without advocating complete anarchy.
-
So, if someone wanted to keep gay marriage illegal, but agreed to decriminalize drugs even though they're against it, its suddenly fine?
You cant make a coherent and logical argument against gay marriage by saying its wrong to legislate morality, not without advocating complete anarchy.
If you want to limit the argument to "legislating morality or not" then sure. But if you change it to legislating the morals that apply to harming others...then it's not so difficult.
-
If you want to limit the argument to "legislating morality or not" then sure.
And that's where the limit was being put, and is often put by people.
-
If you want to limit the argument to "legislating morality or not" then sure.
And that's where the limit was being put, and is often put by people.
Then what are arguing?
-
I agree, but one does, and should, vote their moral conscience.
Why? There are plenty of things I think are immoral but I'm not about to try to ban them.
So lets legalize murder and rape? Lets get rid of all our rights? These are legislating a morality.
No, they're legislating things that harm society that most/all people happen to find immoral.
-
We can define morality in the way of religion and global ethic.
For example, you can kill someone in the name of religion to float your religion. Muslims calls it "jihad" and it's not a sin. But in the law which many country have, that is called "murder".
Getting tattoo'd doesn't harm anybody, I have 5 tattoo and no one is offended by them.
-
I agree, but one does, and should, vote their moral conscience.
Why? There are plenty of things I think are immoral but I'm not about to try to ban them.
So lets legalize murder and rape? Lets get rid of all our rights? These are legislating a morality.
No, they're legislating things that harm society that most/all people happen to find immoral.
Supposing most people think gay marriage is immoral, would you still support legalizing it?
-
I agree, but one does, and should, vote their moral conscience.
Why? There are plenty of things I think are immoral but I'm not about to try to ban them.
So lets legalize murder and rape? Lets get rid of all our rights? These are legislating a morality.
No, they're legislating things that harm society that most/all people happen to find immoral.
Supposing most people think gay marriage is immoral, would you still support legalizing it?
Yes. Because majority rules is a terrible idea with no logic behind it.
-
I'm just asking Sigz, since it sounds like he supports whatever is deemed right by society.
-
I'm just asking Sigz, since it sounds like he supports whatever is deemed right in society's eyes.
What? No he's not. He specifically included the whole "harming others" thing. Since gay marriage doesn't do that, I doubt he'll change his mind based on the majority view.
-
What if most of society thought that gay marriage was psychologically harmful to everyone in society?
-
What if most of society thought that gay marriage was psychologically harmful to everyone in society?
It's not. They'd have to prove it. And tons of legal things are psychologically harmful. Do you want to ban 95% of advertisement?
-
What if most of society thought that gay marriage was psychologically harmful to everyone in society?
It's not. They'd have to prove it. And tons of legal things are psychologically harmful. Do you want to ban 95% of advertisement?
I'm not actually saying it is psychologically harmful. I'm just saying, if society thinks a given action is harmful, and if society thinks a given action is immoral, then should that action be illegal?
-
No. Because what society thinks is pointless if they can't prove it. If society suddenly thought that breathing air was harmful, would it be? Of course not. Thinking things doesn't make it true.
-
What if society thinks they have proof?
-
What if society thinks they have proof?
Yea, I'm out. Sigz, good luck with that one.
-
In the being homosexual discussion and morality in the society.
If I don't push my dick into your mouth it isn't your concern. A little bit harsh, I know but this is the summary of what we are talking about. Society is me.
-
Society is me.
There's a slight possibility that statement is a wee bit conceited.
-
What if society thinks they have proof?
I guess it depends on what constitutes proof. I mean, there are plenty of issues that have no clear answer about what the best solution is for society (I wouldn't put gay marriage under that heading of course). Obviously for some issues there are valid arguments to be made for both sides, and that's why we have a democracy (or close to it).
However, I wouldn't say that just because the majority believes something means it's true or even a valid concern, and it certainly doesn't mean action should be taken on it. Take, for example, fan death. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death) There's basically no evidence to support it in any way, shape, or form, but it's still a widespread belief.
-
It's about perspective. For me it's almost impossible to educe "conceited" meaning from what I said. You are as well a part of society. So it's you.
-
What if society thinks they have proof?
I guess it depends on what constitutes proof. I mean, there are plenty of issues that have no clear answer about what the best solution is for society (I wouldn't put gay marriage under that heading of course). Obviously for some issues there are valid arguments to be made for both sides, and that's why we have a democracy (or close to it).
However, I wouldn't say that just because the majority believes something means it's true or even a valid concern, and it certainly doesn't mean action should be taken on it. Take, for example, fan death. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death) There's basically no evidence to support it in any way, shape, or form, but it's still a widespread belief.
Gotcha.
It's about perspective. For me it's almost impossible to educe "conceited" meaning from what I said. You are as well a part of society. So it's you.
But it's not all about you.
-
And it's not all about you either but you want everything how you please. That's not how things work.
-
And it's not all about you either but you want everything how you please. That's not how things work.
Not sure what you mean. It's not about me either.
-
That's a relief. :)
On the other hand, here at Turkey, some of LGBT organizations were aware of what happened at USA about this matter and blame the Americans and their political path. Like we have all rights as homosexuals at Turkey. :lol That's really ironic. We were at a meeting yesterday, we talked about this matter as well and I mentioned some of yours thought in this thread and discussed, of course no name given. The result is the same. We must separate the personal beliefs based on religions and personal rights that we naturally have.
-
So, let me ask this. And I'll remove it one degree so I can be clear that we are hypothesizing here.
Let's say that a group of people want to live somewhere where they will never have to be exposed to wife swapping in any way, shape or form. Do *they* have a right to not have any exposure to it if they don't want it around? If they are of the opinion that wife swapping within a community degrades said community...do they have rights? If they moved somewhere and formed their own country...would they have the right to enforce that on their community as that community grew? Would they have the right to make standards that say, "these are OUR standards...if you want different standards, go somewhere else."
I'm not asking anyone to agree with it...not sure I do or not....this is only meant to be an exercise in thought. Does that group of people have rights too...if they have collectively decided they don't want something around, and they've gone through the trouble of removing themselves from "the problem"...do they have a right to keep the standards of where they live whether we agree or not?
-
Actually I felt that that question is very relevant to the current topic. But IDK...should it have its own thread? ???
-
Basically on your side WRT majority rule not always being a brilliant thing, Adami, but...
What if most of society thought that gay marriage was psychologically harmful to everyone in society?
It's not. They'd have to prove it. And tons of legal things are psychologically harmful. Do you want to ban 95% of advertisement?
...kind of, yeah!
-
Yes. Because majority rules is a terrible idea with no logic behind it.
See, statements like this are just silly. I know what you're going for, but you just said all democracy is a bad idea.
Everyone votes their moral conscience, everyone. Its just that a proper liberal moral conscious says live and let live, that if what you do doesn't "harm" (cause its a loose definition of harm), than you don't care. But its still a moral claim to say this, its still majority rule to tell people not to murder someone. That you find this obvious doesn't change this simple fact.
My argument is that these objections are impotent. Telling someone opposed to gay marriage to not vote their moral conscious is hypocritical and prevents the discussion from moving forward. Instead, argue how telling other people how to live their lives is immoral. That can actually move the discussion, that can actually have results.
-
1. I apologize for my poor grammar. Not sure if you read it the right way, but what I meant to say was "Majority rules is a terrible idea when the choices being made have no logic behind them"
2. I actually am against democracy. I consider it a bad idea for government.
-
So, let me ask this. And I'll remove it one degree so I can be clear that we are hypothesizing here.
Let's say that a group of people want to live somewhere where they will never have to be exposed to wife swapping in any way, shape or form. Do *they* have a right to not have any exposure to it if they don't want it around? If they are of the opinion that wife swapping within a community degrades said community...do they have rights? If they moved somewhere and formed their own country...would they have the right to enforce that on their community as that community grew? Would they have the right to make standards that say, "these are OUR standards...if you want different standards, go somewhere else."
I'm not asking anyone to agree with it...not sure I do or not....this is only meant to be an exercise in thought. Does that group of people have rights too...if they have collectively decided they don't want something around, and they've gone through the trouble of removing themselves from "the problem"...do they have a right to keep the standards of where they live whether we agree or not?
I wouldn't have a problem with something like this. I mean, I certainly wouldn't like these people, but I would respect their right to run their own country however they wanted. If a group of like-minded individuals want to form a country where homosexuality is forbidden, then homosexuals simply shouldn't move to that country. Likewise, if a group of like-minded individuals want to form a country where heterosexuality is forbidden, then heterosexuals simply shouldn't move to that country. But this isn't a question specific to gay rights or anything else. If a group of people want to form a country where national law dictates that no citizen is allowed to live past the age of 21, I have no real problem with that, either. If a group of people set out to form a society based on specific principles, and everyone in that society shares those same principles, then they absolutely should have the right to enforce those principles.
My problem is when people who don't share a principle are nevertheless legally forced to abide by that principle.
Everyone votes their moral conscience, everyone. Its just that a proper liberal moral conscious says live and let live, that if what you do doesn't "harm" (cause its a loose definition of harm), than you don't care. But its still a moral claim to say this, its still majority rule to tell people not to murder someone. That you find this obvious doesn't change this simple fact.
In the case of murder, I'd say it is more 'acceptable' to vote on moral conscience, because basically everyone shares the same moral conscience on the issue of murder. If you were to put it to vote - 'should first-degree murder be legalized?' - I'd be willing to bet that you'd get very few 'yes' votes. Because as a general rule, most people consider murder immoral. Therefore, there is no conflict of moral conscience.
When there is a conflict of moral conscience, then I would say it is wise to not vote your moral conscience. If you vote your moral conscience while being aware that someone else's moral conscience differs from your own, then you are effectively voting to oppress the moral consciences of other people. Which, I would argue, is wrong. Instead, when there is a conflict, I would encourage people to look outside their morality into the realm of logic. For instance, comparing gay marriage and murder. Well, I look at the Declaration of Independence of the United States. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I pose the logical question: does murder interfere with any of those unalienable rights? Well, yes, it quite obviously does, because if someone kills you, you've obviously been robbed of your right to life. Does gay marriage interfere with anyone's unalienable rights? I don't see how. Therefore, I decide that murder is logically 'worse' than gay marriage. This decision is independent from my own moral conscience - I have looked to logic to answer the question for me, and the answer seems pretty obvious.
So, in summary: I agree that everyone votes to their own morality, but I suggest that not everyone votes solely to their own morality.
-
So, let me ask this. And I'll remove it one degree so I can be clear that we are hypothesizing here.
Let's say that a group of people want to live somewhere where they will never have to be exposed to wife swapping in any way, shape or form. Do *they* have a right to not have any exposure to it if they don't want it around? If they are of the opinion that wife swapping within a community degrades said community...do they have rights? If they moved somewhere and formed their own country...would they have the right to enforce that on their community as that community grew? Would they have the right to make standards that say, "these are OUR standards...if you want different standards, go somewhere else."
I'm not asking anyone to agree with it...not sure I do or not....this is only meant to be an exercise in thought. Does that group of people have rights too...if they have collectively decided they don't want something around, and they've gone through the trouble of removing themselves from "the problem"...do they have a right to keep the standards of where they live whether we agree or not?
I wouldn't have a problem with something like this. I mean, I certainly wouldn't like these people, but I would respect their right to run their own country however they wanted. If a group of like-minded individuals want to form a country where homosexuality is forbidden, then homosexuals simply shouldn't move to that country. Likewise, if a group of like-minded individuals want to form a country where heterosexuality is forbidden, then heterosexuals simply shouldn't move to that country. But this isn't a question specific to gay rights or anything else. If a group of people want to form a country where national law dictates that no citizen is allowed to live past the age of 21, I have no real problem with that, either. If a group of people set out to form a society based on specific principles, and everyone in that society shares those same principles, then they absolutely should have the right to enforce those principles.
My problem is when people who don't share a principle are nevertheless legally forced to abide by that principle.
But as new people are born into said country, a few people might be born who are having this morality legally forced upon them. Does the country/community still have a right to legally enforce the principles on which the community/country was founded?
I don't have a horse in this race...I'm strictly debating the idea of communal rights vs. individual rights. I agree that the majority is not always right...as a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say that the majority IS WRONG a vast majority of the time. But I also think that communal rights can not be simply thrown out the window every time an individual disagrees. Nothing would *ever* be accomplished.
-
But as new people are born into said country, a few people might be born who are having this morality legally forced upon them. Does the country/community still have a right to legally enforce the principles on which the community/country was founded?
That's a very good question. I'm not sure there's one answer that would apply to every situation; it would depend on the principle in question. On the issue of gay marriage, I would say yes, they have the right to continue to enforce their principle. And then if two homosexuals fall in love and want to get married, there's nothing stopping them from leaving the country and seeking happiness elsewhere - probably in their best interest anyway, really, getting out of this country where their lifestyle is so frowned upon.
-
So, in summary: I agree that everyone votes to their own morality, but I suggest that not everyone votes solely to their own morality.
The idea that there "unalienable" rights is a moral claim. You're still voting along your moral conscience. You consider immoral to tell other people what morality to uphold. But: to tell other people to do the same is actually trying to tell them to obey your conceptions of morality. Some people consider it their moral obligation to help other people live morally, and thats always going to be their morality.
Tolerance intolerates intolerance.
If more people thought murder should be legal, would you still say the same thing? In medieval Japan, murdering someone in private was considered acceptable (of course, making a target of yourself) - doing it in public was a crime however. Does that sound good to you?
-
So, in summary: I agree that everyone votes to their own morality, but I suggest that not everyone votes solely to their own morality.
The idea that there "unalienable" rights is a moral claim.
It actually isn't. I mean, it is, but not on my part. The writers of the Declaration of Independence made that moral claim; I am only referring to the established principles of the nation. The country was founded on the notion that there are unalienable rights. It logically follows that in determining the laws of the country, those unalienable rights should be considered. It's not morality I'm considering, but the integrity of the nation.
If more people thought murder should be legal, would you still say the same thing? In medieval Japan, murdering someone in private was considered acceptable (of course, making a target of yourself) - doing it in public was a crime however. Does that sound good to you?
Of course it doesn't sound good to me. It sounds insane to me. But if some people want to run a country that way, and everyone in the country agrees to live by those laws (accepting that on any given day someone might privately and lawfully kill them), then I'm not going to try to stop them. I'll stay as far away from their country as possible, and I will voice my moral objections. But if it ever comes down to a vote on whether or not we should declare war and forcefully change the ways of that country, my vote will be for staying out of it and letting them keep on being insane.
Anyway, I fear we're getting off point. The problem isn't voting toward one's own morality. The problem is voting without due consideration of other people's morality. It's thinking that one's own morality should supersede the beliefs and rights of other people.
-
It actually isn't. I mean, it is, but not on my part
You agreeing with the moral claim doesn't somehow mean your not taking a moral position, and you're actually claiming this moral position now. I'm open to an argument that this isn't, but so far I haven't seen one that deals with the issue at hand.
and I will voice my moral objections.
I really don't know how you can write this, and continue to argue the opposite. To me, it comes off as cognitive dissonance. You're arguing for what you consider moral, whilst denying that your doing so.
-
Didn't seem like we needed another gay marriage thread, but found this interesting:
https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/majority-americans-support-legalizing-same-sex-marriage-poll-101314711.html
A majority of Americans — 54% — say same-sex marriages should be legally recognized, while 42% are opposed, according to a CNN/ORC International Survey released Wednesday.
I knew that opponents and proponents of same sex marriage we're fairly equal for a little bit now, but I've never seen a study with a 12 point difference. I mean, that's well below the margin of error.
-
It's also ONE poll.
-
According to the article, the poll was conducted in legitimate statistical fashion.
-
Is there any reason to believe it's not a legitimate poll? ???
-
Is there any reason to believe it's not a legitimate poll? ???
It was conducted by an orc. They are reported to be miserable, crafty and vicious beings.
-
It's also ONE poll.
Yep, you are correct. One of many. All of which came to pretty much the same conclusions. And all of which have been conducted pretty recently. Times are changing.
A June 6 CNN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN)/ORC International (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORC_International) poll showed that 54% of Americans say same-sex marriages should be legally recognized, while 42% opposed. The poll also showed that 70% of Democrats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29) and 60% of independent voters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_%28voter%29) say same-sex marriages should be legal, while 72% of Republicans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29) opposed.[13] A May 22 NBC News (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_News)/Wall Street Journal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal) poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.[14]
A May 17-20 ABC News (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_News)/Washington Post (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post) poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.[15][16]
A May 10 USA Today (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Today)/Gallup Poll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_Poll), taken one day after Barack Obama (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama) became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage,[17] showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement.[18] A May 8 Gallup Poll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_Poll) showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.[19]
An April Pew Research Center (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Research_Center) poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.[20]
A March 7-10 ABC News (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_News)/Washington Post (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post) poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.[21] A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Religion_Research_Institute) found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.[22]
A February 29 - March 3 NBC News (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_News)/Wall Street Journal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal) poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.[23]
-
Is there any reason to believe it's not a legitimate poll? ???
It was conducted by an orc. They are reported to be miserable, crafty and vicious beings.
Are you being sardonic?
-
Is there any reason to believe it's not a legitimate poll? ???
It was conducted by an orc. They are reported to be miserable, crafty and vicious beings.
Are you being sardonic?
I don't know. Let me look it up.
EDIT:
sar·don·ic adj \sär-ˈdä-nik\
Definition of SARDONIC
: disdainfully or skeptically humorous : derisively mocking <a sardonic comment>
No, I don't think I was being sardonic. A synonym for sardonic was "smart-alecky".....that seems more appropriate.
-
Maybe we should conduct a survey of the nation's orcs, just to be sure.
-
You guys are awful. Orcs are discriminated against daily in this country. Did you know that marriages between humans and orcs aren't even recognized in the US?
-
You guys are awful. Orcs are discriminated against daily in this country. Did you know that marriages between humans and orcs aren't even recognized in the US?
Because it is against Natural Law, and is not in the original definition of Marriage.
-
:rollin
-
I think it needs to be pointed out that more recent polls show a growing majority of people are in favor of orc/human marriages.
-
You guys are awful. Orcs are discriminated against daily in this country. Did you know that marriages between humans and orcs aren't even recognized in the US?
Because it is against Natural Law, and is not in the original definition of Marriage.
What are you, the alpha and Omega of philosophy?
-
I think it needs to be pointed out that more recent polls show a growing majority of people are in favor of orc/human marriages.
That is irrelevant and moot..... you cannot "extend" the "right" for an Orc and Human to "marry" because marriage is inherently procreative and thus inherently intra species. To ask that "marriage" be "extended" for Orc/Human would be analogous to asking to repeal the Pythagorean theorem and would be a joke at best and a straightforward assault on the foundations of morality at worst.
You guys are awful. Orcs are discriminated against daily in this country. Did you know that marriages between humans and orcs aren't even recognized in the US?
Because it is against Natural Law, and is not in the original definition of Marriage.
What are you, the alpha and Omega of philosophy?
;)
-
A June 6 CNN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN)/ORC International (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORC_International) poll showed that 54% of Americans say same-sex marriages should be legally recognized, while 42% opposed. The poll also showed that 70% of Democrats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29) and 60% of independent voters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_%28voter%29) say same-sex marriages should be legal, while 72% of Republicans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29) opposed.[13] A May 22 NBC News (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_News)/Wall Street Journal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal) poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.[14]
A May 17-20 ABC News (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_News)/Washington Post (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post) poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.[15][16]
A May 10 USA Today (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Today)/Gallup Poll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_Poll), taken one day after Barack Obama (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama) became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage,[17] showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement.[18] A May 8 Gallup Poll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_Poll) showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.[19]
An April Pew Research Center (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Research_Center) poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.[20]
A March 7-10 ABC News (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_News)/Washington Post (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post) poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.[21] A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Religion_Research_Institute) found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.[22]
A February 29 - March 3 NBC News (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_News)/Wall Street Journal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal) poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.[23]
Hadn't heard about some of those other ones. This is certainly an impressive change in the public attitude... not a single one of those polls had disapproval above approval.
-
^that's right and the way it's trending I wouldn't be surprised to see this issue in front of the SCOTUS within the next 15 or so years and I think you're going to see these gay marriage bans in most states get struck down as unconstitutional.
-
Next 15 years? There's two cases working their way through right now, that I've heard have a good chance of ending up at the Supreme Court. Unless the Supreme Court steps in, Prop 9 will be overturned.
-
Some might find this patronizing, but look what I found while YouTubing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=PSQSx3OCrXQ
-
It was conducted by an orc. They are reported to be miserable, crafty and vicious beings.
My ex-wife is an orc? Wow. Just when you think you know someone...
-
Some might find this patronizing, but look what I found while YouTubing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=PSQSx3OCrXQ
I remember this video. The school they mention at the end (BJU!) was like five miles away from Furman. Its a crazy place. They actually expelled a kid who was just about to graduate because he was watching Glee in a Starbucks.
-
Its a crazy place. They actually expelled a kid who was just about to graduate because he was watching Glee in a Starbucks.
(https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/forumavatars/avatar_217_1333374141.jpeg)
-
Any guy that watches Glee should be expelled....and beat up.
-
Some might find this patronizing, but look what I found while YouTubing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=PSQSx3OCrXQ
I remember this video. The school they mention at the end (BJU!) was like five miles away from Furman. Its a crazy place. They actually expelled a kid who was just about to graduate because he was watching Glee in a Starbucks.
Oh the irony of the abbreviation...is that school Blow Job University.
-
Sorry to resurrect this old, controversial thread, but I wanted to post this somewhere and it's not really worthy of its own. So:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/features/tribu/ijustworkhere/ct-met-gay-marriage-lawsuit-20120615,0,5385331.column
Basically, in Illinois (my state), various government officials have stepped up and admitted that our current ban on gay marriage violates the equal protection clause of the Illinois constitution. What this means is that the state's attorneys will no longer fight against lawsuits against the state regarding the ban, and these lawsuits - which, according to a different article, were recently combined into one big gay mega-lawsuit - are expected to go right to the courts, where the judges will probably say "yeah, you know what, you guys are right about the whole gay marriage thing".
Anyway, this is the first sign of great things to come in Illinois' future, and I'm really very excited about it.
-
Now Playing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJuNg-6_q2M)
-
:tup
-
Sorry to resurrect this old, controversial thread, but I wanted to post this somewhere and it's not really worthy of its own. So:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/features/tribu/ijustworkhere/ct-met-gay-marriage-lawsuit-20120615,0,5385331.column
Basically, in Illinois (my state), various government officials have stepped up and admitted that our current ban on gay marriage violates the equal protection clause of the Illinois constitution. What this means is that the state's attorneys will no longer fight against lawsuits against the state regarding the ban, and these lawsuits - which, according to a different article, were recently combined into one big gay mega-lawsuit - are expected to go right to the courts, where the judges will probably say "yeah, you know what, you guys are right about the whole gay marriage thing".
Anyway, this is the first sign of great things to come in Illinois' future, and I'm really very excited about it.
I think this is going to increasingly become an obvious Constitutional stance, which is a really good sign. Good things have happened in this country when we start applying the rights on the books to everyone.
-
Sorry to resurrect this old, controversial thread, but I wanted to post this somewhere and it's not really worthy of its own. So:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/features/tribu/ijustworkhere/ct-met-gay-marriage-lawsuit-20120615,0,5385331.column
Basically, in Illinois (my state), various government officials have stepped up and admitted that our current ban on gay marriage violates the equal protection clause of the Illinois constitution. What this means is that the state's attorneys will no longer fight against lawsuits against the state regarding the ban, and these lawsuits - which, according to a different article, were recently combined into one big gay mega-lawsuit - are expected to go right to the courts, where the judges will probably say "yeah, you know what, you guys are right about the whole gay marriage thing".
Anyway, this is the first sign of great things to come in Illinois' future, and I'm really very excited about it.
Wow, that's a pretty big step towards legalizing gay marriage in IL. I have some gay friends who are going to be absolutely ecstatic about this.
-
Anarchy coming soon to Illinois. People will marry their dogs and the family unit will collapse and they'll come for our guns and society will tear apart at the seams.
Sarcasm aside, here's a very sad story I read about in the local paper. A church was forced to shut down after a pastor endorsed gay marriage and most of the congregation left: https://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/160884695.html
Even though Minnesota is regarded as "blue" state, I can testify to the fact that there's a LOT of ultra-conservatives and religious fundamentalists around here. The buggers are all politically active too.
-
It depends on which part of the state they're in, for the most part. I know Pekin used to have its High School mascot be "The Chinks" and even in the 70s there was a sign left over warning "niggers" to leave town at night or be shot (since it was one of many cities that previously had it illegal for blacks to be there at night). I still don't know why my cousin stays there with her kid being mixed...
-
Anyway, this is the first sign of great things to come in Illinois' future, and I'm really very excited about it.
This might be the only good thing to come out Illinois... aside from pizza and hot dogs. :neverusethis:
-
Anyway, this is the first sign of great things to come in Illinois' future, and I'm really very excited about it.
This might be the only good thing to come out Illinois... aside from pizza and hot dogs. :neverusethis:
And we didn't even invent pizza and hot dogs. All we did was improve them. :lol
-
Anyway, this is the first sign of great things to come in Illinois' future, and I'm really very excited about it.
This might be the only good thing to come out Illinois... aside from pizza and hot dogs. :neverusethis:
And we didn't even invent pizza and hot dogs. All we did was improve them. :lol
Giordano's... *instant tastegasm" :eek