|
Post by teancum79 on Aug 14, 2006 12:12:00 GMT -5
Some people value unborn life even if they are not Christian. My wife and I recently had an ultrasound on our baby girl. Aside from some underdeveloped lunges she is (at about 4 months) a fully functioning human. To oppose the on a whim killing of such life is a normal value not limited to religionist. There are some non-religious reasons to not publicly endorse homosexual marriage. The fact that such unions do not produce offspring that further the survival of humanity being high on that list.
Religion and politics have always been connected to some degree. That a person’s morels and opinions are connected to religion does not invalidate them.
Making abortion and homosexual marriage legal is just as much shoving those values down our throats as forbidding them is shoving something down their throats.
I fail to see why the use of political means to promote the kind of society a person wants to live in is causing such a fuss.
If people where lynching homosexuals in the name of Christianity that would be a major problem. When the laws of this nation where written the definition of marriage was rather widely accepted and not defined anymore than the number of letters in the alphabet. To oppose the alteration to the marriage to include a practice that many of us find wholly opposed to marriage is not wrong. “Homosexual Marriage” is like “Nazi Synagogue” the two parts are quite opposed to each other and those of us who value the marriage union do not want it tented by imposing contrary values and practices under the same name. Yes heterosexual marriages are not all perfect, but that does not mean that opening the gates to allow any 2 things to be married is right either. If homosexual marriage becomes legal than man/horse marriages and a hundred other combos would also seem likely to be added.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Aug 14, 2006 13:16:51 GMT -5
Some people value unborn life even if they are not Christian. My wife and I recently had an ultrasound on our baby girl. Aside from some underdeveloped lunges she is (at about 4 months) a fully functioning human. To oppose the on a whim killing of such life is a normal value not limited to religionist. There are some non-religious reasons to not publicly endorse homosexual marriage. The fact that such unions do not produce offspring that further the survival of humanity being high on that list. Religion and politics have always been connected to some degree. That a person’s morels and opinions are connected to religion does not invalidate them. Making abortion and homosexual marriage legal is just as much shoving those values down our throats as forbidding them is shoving something down their throats. I fail to see why the use of political means to promote the kind of society a person wants to live in is causing such a fuss. If people where lynching homosexuals in the name of Christianity that would be a major problem. When the laws of this nation where written the definition of marriage was rather widely accepted and not defined anymore than the number of letters in the alphabet. To oppose the alteration to the marriage to include a practice that many of us find wholly opposed to marriage is not wrong. “Homosexual Marriage” is like “Nazi Synagogue” the two parts are quite opposed to each other and those of us who value the marriage union do not want it tented by imposing contrary values and practices under the same name. Yes heterosexual marriages are not all perfect, but that does not mean that opening the gates to allow any 2 things to be married is right either. If homosexual marriage becomes legal than man/horse marriages and a hundred other combos would also seem likely to be added. You are right. Religion does not de-value a persons morals. However, not having a religion or having a religion that differd from yours does not de-value morals eithers. So make a law based upon the religious beliefs of some and ignoring all other religious values, or non-religious values is forcing that religion down the throats of others. Gay marriage is a prime example. There is not one single legitimate LEGAL reason to ban same sex marriage. The ONLY reason Christians want it banned is because their religion says it is sin. This is Christians forcing their morals down the throats of everyone subject to the ban. As for you definition of marriage argument, the fact of the matter is that marriage only recently became defined as 'between one man and one woman'. For the longest time marriage was defined as a legal contract between to people. Then to attempt to use your slippery slope 'what other combinations' argument to reinforce your 'pick and choice definition' argument... Yet something tells me that you either will not or cannot see the snowballing of you are performing
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Aug 14, 2006 13:40:24 GMT -5
Marriage has been a long standing joining of male and female. It is only recently that others have decided to make same sex relationships publicly sanctioned.
Yes Christians see this as a sin (even if the left wing nut at the start of this thread does not get it).
“There is not one single legitimate LEGAL reason to ban same sex marriage.”
Thus is it clear that you reject the idea that the people rule. The vast popular opinion opposes same-sex marriage. This has been expressed through several states adding a definition of marriage to their constitution.
Minorities have rights, but they do not have the right to destroy one of the things that the majority holds most dear. Marriage is just such a thing.
|
|
moonchain
Guide
It raises a fever of intense apathy.
Posts: 595
|
Post by moonchain on Aug 14, 2006 17:40:05 GMT -5
Diana: Yeah. I'd just gotten a full-time gig myself. I needed some time to get used to it. It's still a little soul-sucking, but generally I like the work.
teancum:
To abuse the scriptures to promote the right agenda of calling all homosexuals evil people who are out to destroy and corrupt society when all they want is to be treated and loved like normal people, despite their transgressions, is wrong and evil.
The Religious Right & the GOP work together to not just stop the rights of gays, but to promote a hateful atmosphere for homosexuals to live in. Last I knew, Christ did not teach hate as a value. Not all Christians hate gays, but when your choice is to support a party that says homosexuality is okay vs. a party that says all homosexuals deserve to be beaten to death, Christians end up having to throw their weight behind one extreme or the other. I'm not saying you have to agree with the Religious Left, but you have to at least acknowledge the harm that comes from the Right before condemning the Left.
Correct. I oppose killing unborn "on a whim". I do support a woman's right to make the choice, though. And I support her right to fair medical information, sexual education, protection from abuse and rape, and financial support for either choice she makes. Oh yeah. None of that is really available.
Except for the fact that it creates family units more opt to adopting and in the case of lesbian couples, they can always look for a donor. So.... moot point.
Except it is passive vs. active ethics. The Right actively stops gays from marrying and actively tries to prevent abortion clinics from doing their duties, thus intervening directly. If both were fully legal, no one is forcing you to have, attend, or support a gay's marriage. You have the right to ignore it, except if you are dealing with it in a legal sense. No one is forcing your family to have an abortion and the ideal would be to promote safe sex & family planning while having abortion as a last option (which is how all pro-choicers treat the subject).
Any 2 things? So you are implying gays are things and not people?
...in the Western world. You have to finish that sentence. I think we've all been over this before. Marriage in the Western mind was a civil union between a man and woman to initiate a family unit and produce offspring under one legal household. Before Christianity it was a legal contract in Greece/Rome with some ritual behind it. Mainly it was a way to sell off daughters. In Egyptian tradition it included the option for more than one partner. And in the Jewish tradition it also included the option for more than one partner and was most definitely a legal contract with less religious emphasis. When Christianity came along, they adopted the non-Christian ritual of marriage to their own dogma and used it as a way for the Catholic Church to not recognize the standings of non-Catholic marriages (sorry to bring it up Diana), amongst having some legal control over married couples when the Church & State were one-and-the-same. In non-Western countries and cultures, there are different rituals and legal marriage ceremonies that include marriage of same sex, marriage of more than one partner, and marriage to human spirits (which doesn't seem so different when I talk to old women who refuse to get their electricity accounts out of their long-dead husbands' names). There aren't man/horse partnerships. We are still dealing with humanity. Point of this tirade: a) marriage is majorly a legal issue, not religious, b) since this is supposed to be a country where religious does not dictate the political (though it can affect), marriage should be open to non-Christian ideals.
That's the exact same argument used in the 1960's by white people who didn't want "Coloreds" to marry into the white race because it would ruin the sanctity of marriage. Also saying "man/horse" partnerships were going to happen was another argument used by racists/bigots. It's obvious what you are.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Aug 14, 2006 18:01:49 GMT -5
Marriage has been a long standing joining of male and female. It is only recently that others have decided to make same sex relationships publicly sanctioned. Marriage is a legal contract. If couples want to make it more than that, then that is between that couple. But marriage is now and has for centuries been a legal contract between two persons. Yes Christians see this as a sin (even if the left wing nut at the start of this thread does not get it). “There is not one single legitimate LEGAL reason to ban same sex marriage.” Thus is it clear that you reject the idea that the people rule. The vast popular opinion opposes same-sex marriage. This has been expressed through several states adding a definition of marriage to their constitution. Just like Bush losing the popular vote his first election... Minorities have rights, but they do not have the right to destroy one of the things that the majority holds most dear. Marriage is just such a thing. One look at the divorce rate shows that this is a load of crap. Then add all the adultry, seperations, unwed mothers, and it is easy to see that this "sanctity of marriage" isn't as wide spread as Christians would like to have everyone believe.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Aug 14, 2006 18:01:50 GMT -5
Moon: "That's the exact same argument used in the 1960's by white people who didn't want "Coloreds" to marry into the white race because it would ruin the sanctity of marriage. Also saying "man/horse" partnerships were going to happen was another argument used by racists/bigots. It's obvious what you are."
Gee thanks Moon nothing like good old friendly insult to make your point.
Why is it that so many people place race and homosexuality in the same category.
Race is beyond any doubt a matter of birth kind of like sex.
Sexual orientation is not a matter of birth it is a choice. They are not the same thing.
And I fully resent being labeled a bigot for for opposing perversions to something I hold sacred.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Aug 14, 2006 19:01:11 GMT -5
Of course you have to believe that sexxual orientation is a choice. If it was not a choice, it would cause all manner of problems, at least with those being honest about it, with your belief in the Bible.
How many people 'chose' to be heterosexual? I didn't choose any such thing. I am attracted to the opposite sex. I made no choice in the matter.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Aug 14, 2006 20:00:21 GMT -5
There are many paraphilias. None of them should be endorsed by the government.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Aug 15, 2006 4:37:57 GMT -5
You have got to be kidding me.
If you are going to resort to elementary school name calling then why bother even posting?
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Aug 15, 2006 11:57:39 GMT -5
What are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Aug 15, 2006 17:07:10 GMT -5
Are you not attempting to toss homosexuality into the paraphilia catergory?
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Aug 16, 2006 12:29:52 GMT -5
Yes homosexuality is “on the side of” sexual behavior. Paraphilias are not limited to sexual acts that directly harm others IE Pedophiles. Those paraphilias which pose a direct threat to others should be outlawed. Others are more or less harmless to the public and left up to the individual to seek help if they desire. Fetishes are a prime example of a “harmless” paraphilia they are a step away from “normal,” but for the most part hurt no one. Exhibitionism is a public nuisance, but also considered mostly harmless and in general treated as such. Paraphilias which pose no public threat do not need to be punished by law, but the government should never endorse them.
There is significant room between jailing someone for sexual deviance and public endorsement of their actions. Homosexuality like other paraphilias fits this area. It is not illegal, but it is not endorsed or promoted by the government
|
|
|
Post by cenk on Aug 16, 2006 12:59:41 GMT -5
teancum do you think homosexuals have the right to serve in the US army? I saw a news report on the CNN that said that gays in the US army were being kicked out, even if they are specialists in a certain field (lingustic experts, etc...) that currently have shortages in?
Do you think this is the right move?
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Aug 16, 2006 13:59:00 GMT -5
The primary reasons I’ve heard of for banning gays before was because many of the environments where quite chummy (showering together sleeping next to each other etc.) and made straights uncomfortable with the possibility that the guy he was next too might be sneaking peaks.
I don’t think there is any inherent inability of a homosexual to be a solider, but I also think that measures should be taken to not make life in a military any more uncomfortable or difficult than it needs to be.
Long story short if I was in a military and I knew that one of the guys I was around all day might think of me as a possible sexual partner that would be very difficult to deal with. There is a big difference between working a homosexual (when you are straight) with and all but living with them. One is a reasonable situation where someone even if they really dislike homosexuality should be able to deal with just fine and the other is asking a lot. If the guy who I hardly ever see and don’t shower with that I talk to know and than who does a good job is gay I don’t think it is going to hurt my ability or the over all functioning of the army.
This however gets sticky because solider A with a gay commanding officer and solider B does not want a gay person on the same planet with him. We somehow need to get the job done. If we made rules for where homosexuals could serve in the military (to protect persons from sexually compromising situations) there would be endless lawsuits of career limitations or special treatment. If you don’t have rules on where homosexuals could serve you run a high risk of making for a hostile work environment for some people. One idea I had awhile back was to create an all homosexual unit, but you can just imagine all the problems that could cause even if nothing bad happened to the unit. If they happened to wind up with really high causalities or where excluded form a battle to protect them there would be tons of problems there too. I’m not in the military so I don’t know how private things are now, but from the various movies I have seen I would not be comfortable in some situations if one of the guys in the team was a homosexual or a female.My guess (and rather uneducated) is that the cost of making the entire military life private enough that person would not be uncomfortable with the sexuality of their groups would be prohibitive.
Long story short I don’t know. I think it is wrong create an environment that people would find sexually uncomfortable. I also don’t think we can make a broad brush stroke and say that there is no room for a homosexual to defend their country. While I wholly disagree with one of their personal moral choices they are still very much people and have very real feelings including patriotism. Unlike the Boy Scouts or a church the military is not a private organization.
|
|
|
Post by cenk on Aug 17, 2006 13:36:42 GMT -5
I've heard the same arguments and I would also feel uncomfortable (and enraged) if a gay person was trying to sneak peaks at me too. However would you support some kind of gay only unit where all the men (and women) in these units were gays?
In the UK they allow gays in the army infact some gay soldiers have married each other and have been allowed to stay in the army. The army in the UK allows freedom of choice. I take it that the USA is restricting freedom of choice for the very people that are meant to be defending the USA and everything its meant to stand for. I wonder what the founding fathers of the USA would think...
(sorry if this is going too off topic)
|
|