posted
Jacare, I wasn't suggesting that anyone be silenced because their beliefs are based on religious morals. I simply do not want to see laws made for which the sole basis is a set of religious morals. In a country as religiously diverse as this one is, I think the function of the separation of church and state in a modern sense is to prevent the establishment of laws based solely on religion which would not coincide with the beliefs of people not of that religion. There are many, many people in this country who do not share the set of religious beliefs that would require a banning of homosexual marriage. What makes it better to ignore their beliefs in favor of religious beliefs?
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: "I think it safe to say that everyone who has spoken up so far thinks that marriage is an important commitment not to be entered nor left lightly. I think it also self-evident that such a value is not to be found easily in the mainstream media nor in the general societal indicators like divorce rate etc."
It's worth noting that some of the very people who have spoken up so far about the importance of marriage are ALSO people who have contributed to general societal indicators like divorce. Hatrackers aren't all THAT special; we don't revere marriage more than your typical segment of society.
Very true. Nonetheless, it doesn't invalidate my point, does it?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Jacare, I wasn't suggesting that anyone be silenced because their beliefs are based on religious morals. I simply do not want to see laws made for which the sole basis is a set of religious morals.
Why not? What difference if a law is made for reasons of religious morals or for reasons of atheistic morals?
quote: In a country as religiously diverse as this one is, I think the function of the separation of church and state in a modern sense is to prevent the establishment of laws based solely on religion which would not coincide with the beliefs of people not of that religion.
I disagree. The separation of church and state clause is solely to keep the government from regulating religion. We have the rest of the amendments in place to make sure minorities don't get trampled.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, exactly how much do you value your marriage. Even though you are an athiest (I think, if you are agnostic forgive me) from what I have seen of you personally, you and Christy value your marriage very much and take it very seriously, even down to carefully considering the beliefs of exactly who was going to perform the ceremony. I even hazard to say you value your own marriage, far more than the "societal indicators" indicate that "society" values marriage.
So I think you are playing the devil's advocate ineffectively because your demonstratable personal life biases you the opposite direction. I also recall that one of the two of you is the child of divorced parents. Which way does this tip the scale in your own life, towards a permanent commitment or away from the permanency of marriage?
With my boyfriend(whose father is going on wife #3) interestingly enough it biases him towards the permanency of marriage but away from actually making the commitment for fear he can't keep it. I understand his quandry from the other direcion as my parents marriage is a sham of pretended happiness that desn't seem to really exist when you get down to it.
posted
"The poor fellow who was beaten, robbed and left by the roadside wasn't being tested. He was a victim. It was the people who went by him that were tested, all failing until the Good Samaritan stopped and helped. Understand?"
I refuse to believe that God would victimize millions of people to test the ones that DON'T suffer; I would prefer to think that God kills babies to teach the babies a lesson than think that He kills babies to teach the LIVING a lesson.
-------
"So I think you are playing the devil's advocate ineffectively because your demonstratable personal life biases you the opposite direction."
Banna, I'm not actually playing the devil's advocate at ALL. I think marriage is one of the most important elements of society, as it's ideally a strong and lifelong bond -- in the face of what often seems like an alien or hostile world. When asked, though, I think MOST people will say something similar, even if they don't really feel that way; it's a rare person who's honest enough to tell you that he or she just got married to do it, or that they can always just get divorced if things don't work out (as previously quoted).
And based on Jacare's "social indicators," like the divorce rate, a MAJORITY of people in this country actually hold marriage to less of a standard than we judgemental people would consider "ideal." But I'm sure a very, very small minority of THOSE would ever ADMIT to it.
For those of you who believe that Homosexual Acts are a sin,
Should a homosexual marriage be condoned between two men who refrain from proscribed physical acts, yet love and adore each other, desiring to be together, live together, as a couple but without sinning?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I would prefer to think that God kills babies to teach the babies a lesson than think that He kills babies to teach the LIVING a lesson.
Of course, if God exists then dying isn't such a bad thing after all anyway... so maybe he kills babies just for fun.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: For those of you who believe that Homosexual Acts are a sin,
Should a homosexual marriage be condoned between two men who refrain from proscribed physical acts, yet love and adore each other, desiring to be together, live together, as a couple but without sinning?
Yes. Also for little old ladies who really, really love their puppy dogs and for best friends who have pricked their fingers and become blood brothers.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The discussion seems to have moved back on topic, but darned if I don't like to get off track. Anyway, as long as we are offering anecdotal evidence (really, what other kind is there in this argument?), I couldn't resist throwing in my two cents, as a son of divorced parents and a man in an interracial and, if not interfaith, at least inter-belief marriage.
I know people who do take divorce lightly, but I've never known anyone who got divorced who, in my opinion, should have remained married. I'm quite convinced that I would have turned out much worse had they remained married.
I've been with my wife for almost 7 years. It's been a sexual relationship for over 5 years. We've lived together for the past 15 months, and we've been married for just over 5 weeks. I do think that seeing relationships fail has made me both more cautious entering a serious relationship and more determined to making it work. I also think that it makes very little sense to expect two people to be able to spend the rest of their lives together if they don't know what it's like to live with each other or if they are sexually compatible. I think it's wonderful to be in love, and I know many couples who have had successful relationships and marriages who never lived together or had premarital sex, but, realistically, doesn't it make more sense to find these things out beforehand? To give it a trial run before going all the way?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The topic of this thread is the legalization of gay marriages. Most of the arguments against it go back to a relgion-based argument. I disagree with this tenet, as do many other people not of that faith. What gives you the right to impose your religious beliefs on people who do not agree with them?
Now, Jacare, please correct me if I'm wrong, but the argument implied by "atheistic morals" is that by legalizing gay marriages, a law is being made based on a set of morals that you disagree with--ergo, it is your religious rights that are being trampled upon.
quote: Wrong. Separation of church and state means that the state may not favor one religion over another.
If that is your definition, then why should we prefer fundamentalist Christian morals over any other? And if you assume that by legalizing gay marriages, we'd be prefering "atheistic morals" over any other, then we are at an impasse and require compromise.
quote:Why not? What difference if a law is made for reasons of religious morals or for reasons of atheistic morals?
Because the law made solely on religious morals may not make sense to anyone outside of the religion. Because even inside a religion, members often cannot agree on accurate interpretation of their texts. Because as you mentioned, we are constitutionally forbidden to benefit one religion over another, so creating a law based on a single religious belief is automatically out of the question.
It might be argued that at their core, all laws are based on a religious moral of some kind, but if that's the case it's such a generic one that no single religion can lay claim to it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Oddly enough, Jacare, that is a concept that sometimes really worries me. What if God had a lousy moral system? What if God is evil? Posts: 2473 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, if you're an Atheist and I'm a Christian, why do you believe God goes around inflicting disease on individuals and I believe that diseases developing in nature are actually passed from person to person through scientifically proven methods of transmission?
Why does AIDS exist? Natural biological reasons, mutation, I've even heard speculation of human tampering with pre-existing virii. Did God make it? In the greater scheme of things, I guess so. Did God give it to all of those affected? I'm looking at the spread and seeing more human choices and interactions, mishaps and bad judgement. What do you see?
God didn't put the robbers in the path of that man that morning. Chances are that a group of folks got together and said, "Let's go out to the road and bushwhack someone for their money." And the victim, that morning, probably said, "I've got to head over to this town today to conduct some business." Two groups with free will on a collision course. Just like it was free will that allowed those folks later on to choose whether to keep walking or stop and help.
Events happen, testing grows from the circumstances.
I believe, to the depths of my soul, God gives us a life with a set number of days in it. We, individually lead those lives and have the opportunity to do what we wish with it. At the end, we are judged on our actions and our willingness to admit our failures.
But, I guess from an atheistic point of view, we could all be here by cosmic accident to do whatever we like and once we expire, we're lost to the cosmos as we turn back into fertilizer.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Why not? What difference if a law is made for reasons of religious morals or for reasons of atheistic morals?"
Because the law made solely on religious morals may not make sense to anyone outside of the religion. Because even inside a religion, members often cannot agree on accurate interpretation of their texts. Because as you mentioned, we are constitutionally forbidden to benefit one religion over another, so creating a law based on a single religious belief is automatically out of the question.
It might be argued that at their core, all laws are based on a religious moral of some kind, but if that's the case it's such a generic one that no single religion can lay claim to it.
Actually, what I was getting at is that a moral is a moral is a moral. Morals are all based on some type of underlying assumptions. Why should we prefer one type of moral to another? The differentiation between two moral systems is also based on morals. So when I read that someone believes that we shouldn't base our laws on religious morals I wonder why we should prefer some other set of morals.
You made the case for universal acceptance and applicability, which I think is a good basis since that is essentially what defines a community- an agreed upon set of morals. The problem is that in a community as large and diverse as the US it is impossible to reach an agreed upon set of morals. What we do then is compromise. The various religions, heathens, atheists etc find common ground. If common ground can't be found then what do we do? Automatically discount the religious?
quote:Now, Jacare, please correct me if I'm wrong, but the argument implied by "atheistic morals" is that by legalizing gay marriages, a law is being made based on a set of morals that you disagree with--ergo, it is your religious rights that are being trampled upon.
I am actually thinking more generally than this specific argument. By "Atheistic morals" I meant non-religious morals in general.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do worry here, that some people so easily shrug off someone's personal morals as something handed down to them by their religion.
That's a terribly smug position you have there. Are people of faith completely incapable of holding a valid opinion? Does having a religious affiliation mean that we should throw out their feelings on a subject when dealing with our government?
It's pretty closed minded of you to immediately bark that someone is just parroting the dogma of their faith, isn't it? Or do you see the religious as just a bunch of mindless lemmings in search of the next cliff?
Snobbery, it's bigotry for the "intellectual elite"! Buy it now in "All Shades of Gray" or super-hip stylish "Emperor Has No Clothes Clear"! Hurry now while supplies last! Be cool! Be the first on your block to look down your nose!
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oddly enough, Jacare, that is a concept that sometimes really worries me. What if God had a lousy moral system? What if God is evil?
I wonder what you mean by this. Evil can only have meaning relative to a given set of morals, right? So do you mean "what if God's morals and mine are very different"? Something along the lines of "what if God likes to cause pain and be mean etc? It wouldn't make much sense if that were the case, since pretty much every religion I know of ascribes generally benevolent attributes to God. But what if all of the religions are wrong and God really is mean? Then I would surmise that God doesn't waste much time with people since he has never even seen fit to let us know anything about him.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I basically mean is that we strongly disagree about what is right and wrong. If a religion tells me something is wrong, and my logic, understanding and experience make me disagree, I usually ascribe the difference to the religion not being a true representation of God.
Of course, those in that religion ascribe it to me being a stubborn sinner who won't admit the truth.
Which brings up the question: what if they are right?
Should I change my morals to suit the Will of God? Probably not, because the religion might be wrong, and then I would be doing wrong.
And what if God's morals were opposite those of all Men? He is the Ruler of the Universe; He gets to make the rules. But what if, by all our reasoning and experience, we decide He is wrong? Do we do what we consider a sin in order to obey God? Or do we oppose God because we believe Him to be immoral, and thus sin in that way?
Sure, most religions believe God to be benevolent. But notice that most people ascribe to God their own moral system. And remember, most religions are wrong. (Just ask anyone who is a believer in the "true" religion--anyone of them! )
Posts: 2473 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sure, most religions believe God to be benevolent. But notice that most people ascribe to God their own moral system. And remember, most religions are wrong. (Just ask anyone who is a believer in the "true" religion--anyone of them! )
I'd go so far as to say that all people who think they have right and wrong figured out are wrong. Because, just as they said, they ascribe their own morals to God. But what is the alternative? To ascribe someone else's morals to god? That doesn't make any sense. The importance is the consistency- everyone thinks that God does the right thing always and humans never live up to their own morals.
quote: What I basically mean is that we strongly disagree about what is right and wrong. If a religion tells me something is wrong, and my logic, understanding and experience make me disagree, I usually ascribe the difference to the religion not being a true representation of God.
Of course you do. So does everyone else, even the religious ("my church is so great, if only the Bishop would figure out that we should do X it would be perfect...")
quote: Which brings up the question: what if they are right?
Should I change my morals to suit the Will of God? Probably not, because the religion might be wrong, and then I would be doing wrong.
Well, here is the crux of the matter. Is there some way to get independent insight on what is objectively right and wrong? (objectively meaning right and wrong according to God).
Only if God gives one some kind of guidance.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: If common ground can't be found then what do we do? Automatically discount the religious?
quote:Are people of faith completely incapable of holding a valid opinion? Does having a religious affiliation mean that we should throw out their feelings on a subject when dealing with our government?
Not at all. Religious people are quite as capable of holding worthwhile opinions and positions as any others.
But if the only defense you can offer for your position is that it's defined by a book, I'm unlikely to give it much weight.
"Don't kill" is a scriptural commandment, but it's also one that has easily observable, easily measurable consequences. So does "don't steal," "don't bear false witness," and even "don't commit adultery." I don't see them as religious tenets as much as common sense ethics. Keeping committed homosexuals from bonding together doesn't have as clear a danger, hence the arguing. An ancient levitical law, especialy one that's surrounded by others that have slipped away over the centuries, isn't going to convince me on its own.
And here's the thing: I can be convinced. I'm pretty sure that allowing gay marriage will not cripple marriage as an institution. I am not, however, convinced that forcing it down everyone's throats won't cause more harm than good, and I'm extremely interested in how people feel about the matter, and why they feel that way.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting thought. Even though it isn't going to happen, would it be a better long-term strategy for the right to let gay couples have their legal marriage? Then they won't have anything to create a hubbub over, and not be able to push as many gay issues to the forefront (other than the really bad hate crimes)
quote:My quote that you quoted: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, but you would all be much more comfortable if there were no homosexuals, right? Barring that, it'd be best if no mention of that was allowed in the media or anywhere where a child might be influenced by it, right? Barring that, it should be well known that such behavior is a sin and something really terrible in God's eyes, right? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your quote: As a Christian, non-Mormon, I believe that Jesus Christ tried his best to teach us to accept and love everyone... everyone. I don't wish for gay people not to exist or to just stay quietly away. I hope and pray that they, and everyone else, will find happiness, fulfillment and personal salvation in their lives.
Here's the deal...you say that you agree with my position on Gay marriage. If true, that puts you firmly outside the conservative Christian group which I was adressing.
And I have yet to find a conservative Christian group that does not count homosexual behavior as a sin. There are some that are actively trying to address this issue and maybe refine the case to say something like "it's only a sin if it's casual sex" or something along those lines. But I have not encountered ANY Christian who is both against the idea of Gay marriage (on religious grounds) for whom at least one of the three alternatives I listed was not also true.
If you are that exception, then I apologize. I really didn't think I was mischaracterizing the "Christian conservative" opinion on this subject. I thought back and realized, however, that I was not clear in saying that it was mostly conservative Christians who hold the views that I find so hard to find any common ground with.
Anyway, I agree with you whole heartedly that Christ taught a message of love. The problem I have is that many people I run across who claim to be Christian only adopt that attitude when their mean-spirited attacks on people's rights are pointed out to them. Then it's all "hate the sin, love the sinner" nonsense, and "we love everyone" but still the undercurrent is there of "your behavior is a sin."
Which is what my 3rd option was.
In general, it is very hard to be a member of a Christian denomination and openly state that you believe homosexuality is just fine. There are a few sects that are that open and non-judgemental. The issue is that none of them are taking a stand AGAINST gay marriage -- at least not that I've seen. It's the Conservative sects who have the dual "vision" of "homosexuality is bad because the Bible tells me so" and "homosexual marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage."
quote:I knew that you couldn't resist the temptation to put words in my mouth for long! Maybe if you looked back over my posts you would see that I was commenting about disposable marriages and the social changes which have led us there and not about homosexuals at all. But I doubt it. You simply can't pass up a chance to draw devil horns and a pointy beard on someone.
You must excuse me for assuming that when speaking in future tense about changes to society's view of marriage--in a thread discussing the possibility of legalizing gay marriage--that you were, of course, discussing gay marriage.
Well, you don't have to excuse me at all, really. It's patently obvious what you were really talking about. Note the placement of present and future tense: "Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that we can create a society which teaches the opposite of what we value and then expect that everyone's children will of course see through the contradiction and do what's right."
I'll just take my little eraser and rub off the horns and the beard that you drew on yourself if you can show me what possible future you were describing in that sentence that isn't related to gay marriage. Unless you just happened to be posting in the wrong thread or something.
But come on, Jacare. I know you feel so victimized for having such a hard time hashing out your impersonal views on this subject. I understand that. I've even been there before.
The problem is that you have absolutely no understanding. You have no concept of what it might be like to be outside of your religion. There's no way you could possibly know just how much you demean homosexuals--people, mind you--with every word of your petty justifications.
Statistically black people are more likely to commit crimes, right? So for the sake of your children's society is it okay to deport African Americans? No, of course not.
But would it be okay if there were a couple Bible versus referring to them as an abomination?
NO, IT STILL WOULD NOT BE OKAY. And you think so too, damnit! Just like Tom asked earlier: how many Wiccans have you killed lately, Jacare?
No one is asking you to date other men. No one is asking you to have a drag queen in this year's Christmas paegent. The argument, here, is that social equality is the HIGHEST priority in our society. Concerns about what might happen to "the institution of marriage"--whatever THAT is in today's world--can take a back seat.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare - that's because you've never relied on doctrine to make your case for you, and why, when looking at pages upon pages of Hatrack posts, especially on topics based in religious subjects, I tend to skim and look for your name (and a few others...).
Don't tell anybody, though.
[ August 05, 2003, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, were you talking to Potemkyn? Because for all that I find his statement repugnant, I didn't see any ad hominems.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unproductive in what way? Because they can't create their own kids?
There's a gay couple fighting for adoption rights in south Florida that have worked as foster parents for years. They've taken quite a few kids that no one else would take, including an HIV-positive child. I'd say they're pretty damn productive.
And there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that two gay people can do to each other that two heterosexual people can't also do (although they may need appliances). Ready for a shocker? Many do.
I'll accept your post as compelling only if you also plan to call for bans on unproductive hetero couples and straights who pass on all those other venereal diseases that everyone seems to have forgotten about.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I think you've kind of hit the nail on the head there. It's the words Christian and conservative together. Somehow, somewhere, the conservatives latched onto Christians as a voter base. A little political wrangling, a few of the right people in office and in the pulpit and wow, you've got an electorate.
Personally, I've always felt that Christians would tend to be something of moderates on most issues. Sadly, people tend to use the title of Christian as a way to pull people across the warp and weft of the American political scheme.
Let's face it, the founding fathers were predominately Christian, but in hammering out the Constitution they wisely set forth a separation of Church and State. And I do believe that is supposed to work both ways, but in the case of organizations, not individuals.
A president who is Christian will act on his/her beliefs and why shouldn't he/she? A Buddhist would do the same. A true Atheistic president could be expected to operate on the moral beliefs they had developed.
Sadly, we're talking about individuals who happen to be part of larger organizations and belief systems. As individuals, they will have their own unique interpretations as well as the times when they fail and actually work against their beliefs. Nixon, a Quaker, okayed breaking and entering as well as bearing false witness. While he was an adherent to the Quaker faith, he didn't follow through on its morals. Kennedy, a Catholic, apparently had affairs and did prosecute a war. The list could go on and on, I'm sure.
But it's easy to speak in absolutes and almost impossible to live up to them. I know personally that I'll never meet the high marks of my faith, but I honestly believe in grace, no matter how clumsy my actions might be.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That lifestyle is not only unproductive, but dangerous to both involved and any others they might become involved with.
Wow, three pages of intelligent discussion for this statement to rear its ugly head.
Do you know how much of a puppet this makes you sound? Why exactly is homosexuality dangerous? Where do you base this belief on? Something your parents told you? Your preacher? An after-school special?
Why don't you think for yourself for a change.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah sure, your statement was a non-religious justification .
It was the most blatenly bigoted, misinformed, and religiously inspired statement on this entire thread.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still waiting to hear about how most hmosexuals transmit diseases. This is a new one on me. Got any figures? or is this one of those "everyone knows" things?
The only thing that a gay couple cannot do that a straight one can is have their own biological children, and even that's getting easier. They can adopt, and many do. They can be productive members of the society, and many are.
But if you've based your opinions on the certainty that every gay person is really a straight one that decided to be gay, we may as well quit right now because you clearly have inside information that the rest of the world isn't privy to. I haven't seen any evidence that sexuality is always a choice, so I'm at a disadvantge when arguing with such certitude.
[ August 05, 2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll just take my little eraser and rub off the horns and the beard that you drew on yourself if you can show me what possible future you were describing in that sentence that isn't related to gay marriage.
quote: quote:
As far as realizing that marriage requires more than love, I really think the responsibility for teaching this rests with parents rather than with society.
Of course this is the case, nonetheless this does not mean that we can create a society which teaches the opposite of what we value and then expect that everyone's children will of course see through the contradiction and do what's right.
quote:
I really don't think you can talk about "personal responsibility" as the most important thing, and then say that the way to accomplish that is to change society. That's just putting the blame back on society and you've just told us we shouldn't do that.
Shouldn't we do both? Shouldn't we teach our children AND try to change society so that it reflects what we most deeply value? When we see things in our society which conflict with our beliefs shouldn't we point them out so that others are aware?
quote:
I'm of the opinion that if the marriage is a failure, it really doesn't matter much whether you stay together or divorce, unless
their are kids. And then you have to decide what's better for the kids: growing up around adults who can't abide each other's presence or growing up in a split household.
Of course. However, what some of us are saying is that the point where people call their marriage a failure and give up on it should probably be a bit more stringent than what many think.
my comments are italicized. Call me crazy, but even though this thread is about homosexual marriage I thought that for a while there we were just discussing marriage in general and the harm (or lack thereof) done to it by loosening societal restraint on sex.
quote: The problem is that you have absolutely no understanding. You have no concept of what it might be like to be outside of your religion. There's no way you could possibly know just how much you demean homosexuals--people, mind you--with every word of your petty justifications.
Really? I must lead a very sheltered life.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Umm, Xavier, couldn't a person not be religious and still dislike homosexuals?
Or is there a grand enlightenment that no one's aware of?
C'mon... I don't agree in the least with Potemkyn's statements (and they hold as much substance as his namesake villages), but you're seeing religion where it wasn't mentioned?
Who is hunting the witches now?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Jacare - that's because you've never relied on doctrine to make your case for you, and why, when looking at pages upon pages of Hatrack posts, especially on topics based in religious subjects, I tend to skim and look for your name (and a few others...).
Don't tell anybody, though.
I have a secret too. The two Hatrackers who have likely had the most effect on changing my opinion of important political issues are you and David Bowles. I am not sure why that is, but there you have it.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Sorry, perhaps part of the problem is that no one can laugh at any of this...it's serious. Anyway...I've offended people. I'll take it all off. Sorry.
Posts: 131 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I admit that there's a small chance he got his views from somewhere else, but its rare for that sort of blindly accepted bigotry about homosexuality to come from elsewhere.
Lets ask him. How religious are you Pot?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I put a big grin after a pretty ridiculous statement of "I'm just telling it like it is"...I thought people would notice, but it was my fault for getting so deep into it in the first place.
Posts: 131 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, though, is sexual preference a choice? And if it isn't, how do you deal with it? How do you deal with it if some choose and others don't?
Posts: 131 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting, Ptok, and possibly the true reasoning behind many of the arguments against homosexual marriage that other's can't put into words outside of religion.
Can we look at these arguments more closely?
1) Homosexuality is a choice?
Define choice. Is it a person's choice who they find attractive? Is it a person's choice who they fall in love with. Suicide and depression amongst gay teens is higher than about any other sub-group because these people find themselves attracted to a type of person that society says it is a sin for them to be attracted to.
You make it sound as if they decide one day, "I think I will lust after men today." They don't. There may be some debate on whether it is chemical, genetic, or environmental factors that directs a person's sexual preference, but all agree that concious decision is not one of those factors.
Denial of those desires is what creates many of the monsters people fear.
2) Homosexual unions are unproductive.
In producing what?
The only thing a gay couple produce less of than a straight couple is Children?
If the reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry is based on their inability to procreate, then that "reason" is a threat to my happy but childless marriage of 15 years.
3) Homosexual activity is dangerous.
Can you give us some detailed statistics?
Premarital and for that matter-post marital sleeping around spreads diseases in both Gay and Straight couples.
How do you limit the spread of STD's? You promote and establish lasting monogonous relationships. How does denying homosexual marriages do this?
At least homosexuals don't leave behind a path of unwanted children.
Or perhaps you are refering to the various types of alternative intercourse that homosexual's participate in. I can understand where you find it unpleasant, as they find the thought of heterosexual intercourse ugly and unpleasant, however I am unaware of any reports stating one is more damaging or dangerous than the other.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But I'm sure a very, very small minority of THOSE would ever ADMIT to it.![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
