So, before someone in this country is allowed to do something, they have to prove that what they are doing is healthy?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
AvidReader, by your line of thinking, any group you observe as not being happy should not be allowed to have the same rights as those who you observe as being happy. Do you realize how obviously undemocratic and fascist this kind of thinking is? You may as well be saying that anyone you don't like shouldn't be allowed to have the rights people you do like have. This is why it's being called bigotry, and why, if you truly believe what you said, that I have no fear of calling you a bigot.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might do a little search, particularly for the thread a while back where we discussed a study done of studies of children raised by homosexual people, which found that every single study (meeting certain broad criteria that encompass by far most sociological studies) so far done could find no negative effects on the children. I rather suspect a search on "homosexuality" would turn it up .
Also, I would suspect that most people you've encountered would have little reason to share their sexual preferences with you, so its quite possible you've met well adjusted homosexual people and just didn't know it. After all, do you tell people you casually encounter that you're straight?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Argent, I'm not sure I agree with you that marriage is a right. It's too important to pair with a word implying everyone deserves it regardless of their worthiness. Of course, I don't want the government deciding who is worthy either. Makes for a bit of a conundrum.
I would also disagree that I am fascist or that fence sitting qualifies me as a bigot. But then, I'm biased on the subject.
Storm, while we shouldn't have to prove that what we are doing is healthy, is it moral of us as a society to encourage behavior that may be unhealthy? I'd like to be a little more sure before I endorse it.
Fugu, good point. Again, something to consider. All I can base my opinion on are the ones I know and have had a chance to observe.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
AR, outside of offending some people's sensibilities, no one has any proof that gay marriage is bad for anyone. So, the idea that society would be encouraging 'bad behavior' is questionable.
But let's engage in hypotheticals. Give me some hypothetical cause and effect. If the principle that is followed is that adults of any sex can be married, what ill effects do you see following from that?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, it's not the marriage part I'm not sure about. It's the nature of homosexuality in general. As a conservative Christian, I'm not sure I agree it's something people ought to be doing. This is where the argumant breaks down. Either God said don't do it for a reason, or we don't need to listen to that part of the Bible. Coming to the subject from such different viewpoints, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Civil disobedience: “a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the same of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government’s authority.” (Bleiker, 2002).
Using Rawls’s definition, the mayor of San Francisco acted within the bounds of civil disobedience. His action of issuing marriage licenses to gay couples was public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to California state law. This action was done with the intention of bringing about change in said law in order to force the policies of California to match the writing of its constitution. (Bleiker, 2002). California has a precedent of court cases involving the unconstitutionality of state laws. One case is 1948’s Perez vs. Lippold where the state’s law banning interracial marriage was ended. (Wolfson, 2003). In the findings of the case, the state pronounced that the essence of the right to marry is the freedom to join in marriage to the person of one’s choice. (Wolfson, 2003). The battle in court over this San Francisco mayor’s action will very likely use this legal case as precedent for unconstitutional restriction on a person’s right to marry whom they choose.
Conscientious objection is not relegated to just religious matters while not taking into account secular objections, certainly in a state that is separated from church (Epstein, 2002). In taking apart this definition of civil disobedience, conscientious is a word that has differing connotations. Conscience, in secular terms, is a type of morality shared by those in a society, such as fellow citizens, friends, political party members, etc. (Epstein, 2002). As we have come to agreement in previous threads, religious objection to the issue of legalizing civil marriage for gay couples has no place in state decisions, aside from those voters who hold those views. However, those who object on religious grounds are also conscientious objectors—but remain in a small minority among the entire group of objectors. (Epstein, 2002). As a citizen of the United States, a country that is a member of the United Nations, we are granted the freedom of conscience—the ability to hold opinions of the moral kind. (Epstein, 2002). In fact: “The primary aim of the United Nations in the sphere of human rights is the achievement by each individual of the maximum freedom and dignity. For the realization of this objective, the laws of every country should grant each individual, irrespective of race, language, religion or political belief, freedom of expression, of information, of conscience and of religion.” (Epstein, 2002). Therefore, in the spirit and definition of civil disobedience, this San Francisco mayor has acted in the realm of his freedom of conscience in publicly decrying a state law he has found to be in conflict with a state constitution, and of previous state legal findings.
As a province, Ontario, Canada has legalized civil marriage for same-sex couples (Wolfson, 2003). In this ruling, the Ontario high court stated that “the exclusion of same-sex couples from the important legal institution of civil marriage infringes upon human dignity, harms real families, and violates constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness.” (Wolfson, 2003). For the chicken littles who object to the legalization of civil marriages to same-sex couples, other radical changes have occurred in the past years that have had the same chicken little reactions yet brought nothing of the “sky is falling” effect: 1) Uncontested divorce, 2) the end of restrictions on interracial marriage, 3) establishment of women’s equality and end to married women’s loss of legal identity, property, and rights 4) the civil rights acts of the sixties. (Wolfson, 2003). While each change has brought about its positive and negative effects, none has brought society crashing down.
Social Ramifications of Same-Sex Marriage
“If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”-- Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972.
Here is another fight entirely. Other opponents of gay marriage rights decry the notion of children being brought up in that type of family unit. These objectors, religious and secular, bring up the statistics of those children brought up in homes of divorce, children being born out of wedlock, and the effects of those situations on those children. (Gomes, 2003). If gay parents could be legally married, the number of children born in wedlock and with both parents would rise.
This is why: 22 percent of gay/bisexual couples are raising children as compared to 23 percent of married/heterosexual couples. Nearly the same amount of children have married, heterosexual parents as do the children who have partners are parents. (Gomes, 2003). Those 22 percent of children of these same-sex couples are in families where they are born “out of wedlock” another social depravity used as a mark for an immoral society. (Gomes, 2003). Were there legal civil marriages for same-sex couples, those 22 percent of children would be from unbroken homes.
In terms of the effects on children who have same-sex parents, they are indistinguishable from their peers who have heterosexual parents. Another finding was that divorce has a more damaging effect on children than does having gay parents. (Gomes, 2003). To determine if children of same-sex parents had a higher incidence of being homosexual, Carlos Ball and Janice Farrell Pea surveyed a series of studies from 1978 to 1996 and found that “the percentage of children of gays and lesbians who were identified as gay or lesbian ranged from zero to nine.” (Gomes, 2003). Another study done by Carole Jenny determined that 94 percent of molested girls and 86 percent of molested boys were abused by men. Of those, 74 percent were abused by an adult male in a heterosexual relationship with the mother. However, these statistics are not taken into account in custody battles where a father is seeking the physical custody of the child. (Gomes, 2003).
References
Bleiker, R. (2002). Rawls and the limits of nonviolent civil disobedience. Social Alternatives, 21(2), 37-41.
Epstein, A.D. (2002). The freedom of conscience and sociological perspectives on dilemmas of collective secular disobedience: the case of Israel. Journal of Human Rights, 1(3), 305-321.
Gomes, C. (2003). Partners as parents: challenges faced by gays denied marriage. Humanist, 63(6), 14-20.
Wolfson, E. (2003). Case against marriage equality implodes. Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, 10(6), 25-28.
posted
Your bias on the subject is what makes what you say bigoted, AvidReader. Your lack of information on whether the marriage rights would be bad as a basis for your opinion makes your prejudgement illogical, and based entirely on your personal opinion on the matter. I'm not calling you a Hitler or a Klu Klux Klan member, but I am calling your blatant prejudice bigotry. Whether marriage is a right or not isn't the case, it's the criteria on whether marriage is allowed or not is based upon. Whether it's a right or not, the criteria to decide whether it's allowed is bigoted.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Argent, again that assumes that homosexuality is normal. I am not convinced that it is. Therefore I will not come down off the fence either for or against gay marriage.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read any studies about the children of homosexual parents, but I did got to school for years as a kid near San Francisco, and may of my friends had a homosexual parent. The majority, actaully. I had only one friend who, like me, lived with both biological parents who were still married.
I remember that my friends had a lot of emotional issues, often because they were born before one or both parents became gay/came out, but then "lost" one of their parents. My friends who had two moms really, really, missed their dads, but felt obligated to hate them, or at least consider them totally unneeded.
I never did meet a child of gay parents who felt differently. I'm sure there are some, but I can see how difficult it would be, to feel totally adjusted when you're missing a real role model of the other gender.
I wonder how "sexual abuse" is defined in that study metioned above. My friends were exposed to a LOT of really raw stuff that, I guess, seemed normal to their gay parents.
It's not much of a post, but that's my RL experience.
posted
Was that a pre-existing essay Mack or did you write that just now? If that was written for this thread I would say it is the best post I've witnessed during my 5 years here, but somehow I think not .
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wrote it in the past hour. This issue really bugs the crap out of me. I'm tired of hearing the "kids of same-sex parents will experience more sexual abuse" despite the numerous studies that prove otherwise.
And if people want to use anecdotal evidence as a basis for this finding, I have plenty that would indicate that children of heterosexual parents experience more sexual abuse.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I agree, I hate it when people use anecdotal evidence.
(I could make a comparison to people saying "But I know this gay couple and their love is pure, they should be allowed to marry!" but I think I'm too chicken)
My major point, and I wasn't clear enough, was that I would like to know 1. Who's doing the study, and 2. What are the defined terms? i.e., what is "sexual abuse"?
I've passed by a lot of studies done on monogamy in gay relationships, and the majority of those studies are done by gay people.
After all, if I posted a "study" done by Mormons that says "Mormon children are shown to be happier and better adjusted than non Mormon children" or whatever, wouldn't you question it? Or "Those raised by members of the KKK show no ill effects of bigotry"?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the well-researched essay. I want to let you know that your fellow hatrackers appreciate reasoned, researched arguments.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jenny, C. & Roesler, T.A. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94(1), 41-45.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the mayor of San Fransisco wants to break the law on his own time to bring about some change in policy, that's fine. But when he starts using the authority the public has entrusted in him to do so, it becomes abuse of power. He's not only being disobedient himself, but forcing his whole city to be disobedient.
Similarly, if Bush were to start arresting doctors who perform abortions, it would not merely be civil disobedience, even if it was just to get abortion banned. It would be abuse of power, because the President can't use his powers to break the law, regardless of what noble goals he has.
quote:Here's what I don't understand. Gays are not a race. They're not an ethnic group. They're individuals from all parts of our society who share a common experience — the psychological phenomenon known as homosexuality. It's an ill-understood phenomenon, since in a few short years, our nation has gone from seeing it almost universally as a loathsome aberration, to seeing it as a passionately sympathetic, abused minority with highly-charged political ramifications.
The psychological phenomenon? You're making some immense leaps of faith here, Geoff, and ignoring the gorilla in your living room that's rather insistently pointing out that whether or not homosexuals are an ethnic group -- which, presumably, should not be persecuted? -- they're still harassed and abused and murdered across the country for their shared trait of homosexuality. They're persecuted by the same bigotry that persecuted blacks, that kept women inferior to men all these years -- regardless of whether or not women are all of a single homogenous ethnic group, until suffrage, the US legal system considered them inferior. And eventually granted them equality under the law despite widespread criticism and popular support for the existing, bigoted system.
What I find remarkable about this paragraph, Geoff, is that you seem to be implying that it's okay to keep homosexuals as a sub-class of society because they're not an ethnic group -- if they were, though, of course it would be wrong to deny them equality.
quote:At no point in that process has anyone been able to study and understand this phenomenon and its place in society from an unbiased, rational perspective. We went straight from almost universal prejudice against gays, to the point we're at today, when even suggesting something that isn't aligned with the gay political agenda gets you tarred and feathered as a bigot.
Heh. Yes, Geoff, there's a gay agenda. They're trying to rule the country! Corrupt our children! Clog up our toilets!
C'mon, dude, I usually have respect for you. Earn it as you usually do. There is no "gay political agenda," except for the drive to get equal rights -- they're not seeking preferential treatment. If any group's seeking preferential treatment, it's the side that wants to prevent other monogamous couples from equality. Guess which side that is, Geoff?
quote:People like Lalo are so completely blinded to their own unquestioning acceptance of that agenda that they cannot listen even to the reasonable arguments of moderates like Tresopax, and instead paint all of their opponents with the same bigoted brush.
Don't be a jackass, Geoff. Tres has indeed offered an argument -- he claims that Newsom's going against the Californian law, and therefore these marriages are invalid. No kidding. I've responded that Newsom does have a legal case -- the California Constitution guarantees equal treatment of all citizens, and existing laws contradict that declaration. Not once have I called Tres a bigot, though I've questioned his fervent criticism of Newsom's actions -- somehow, in a thread about homosexuality, I'd expect Tres to address homosexuality itself. Instead, he's grown a sudden fury over a city granting equality to all its citizens, and developed a sudden uninterest in homosexuality itself. I've asked why the sudden change in focus, and have yet to receive an answer.
Thank god Newsom's forcing the issue -- now the California Constitution may need re-writing to state that everyone but homosexuals are equal. Not that I expect anti-homosexuals to be that honest about their political positions, but at least they won't be able to sweep homosexuals under the rug and pretend there's no discrepancy in the laws.
quote:First of all, how in the world do you think that kind of bitter divisiveness could be good for the country? If you take the position of a child holding his fingers in his ears, screaming "You're a bigot, la la la!" do you think you're going to persuade anyone to accept your point of view?
This "bitter divisiveness" characterized the Civil War. This "bitter divisiveness" was again brought up in the women's suffrage movement and the 1960's civil rights movement. I'd say it's damn good for the country to recognize existing bigotries and try to heal them -- don't you?
As for your attempt to paint a straw man, Geoff, I really do expect better from you. Are you so incapable of addressing why homosexuals don't deserve equal rights that you resort to false ad hominem attacks? It's pathetic, guy.
quote:But in truth, that doesn't seem to be your goal. You don't care if anyone agrees with you, or feels that the government and the laws represent their will. You are perfectly satisfied if the courts and rebellious leaders ram major social changes down our throats without a vote, and without a national mandate from the American people. You've completely abandoned the ideals of a democracy, and instead applaud dictatorial practices that steal any political influence from people that you arbitrarily disagree with. You're so in love with yourself and your Luke-Skywalker righteous-rebel self-image that you fail to see that a more accurate analogy to your political behavior is a blond German wearing a swastika armband, throwing a rock at a Jewish store window. Lily-white racists don't have a monopoly on oppression and prejudice, Lalo. It's sad that you're so blinded by your passion that you can't see the moral trap that you're blundering into.
Heh. Now you're trying to paint the civil rights movement as the rebirth of neo-Nazism?
True, if laws were passed denying any particular group of people equal rights, I'd be up in arms over it. If laws were passed mandating rocks through Jewish store windows, I'd be out demonstrating right now. But all that's happening here is the gift of equality to citizens -- exactly what's in accordance with the national and Californian Constitutions. Newsom's not ramming new laws down Californian throats -- Newsom's simply acting as the Constitution mandates he should.
But while you're busy trying to convince yourself that I'm blind or overly passionate or whatever it takes for you to convince yourself that I'm wrong, why not take a look at yourself? You're so desperate to keep this issue away from equality that you're resorting to argument over whether Newsom has the legal right to grant equality -- not whether or not that equality's deserved or not. Are you so incapable of providing reasonable discourse over why homosexuals should be denied equal rights?
quote:You may or may not be on the right side in this argument. But this is the wrong way to win it, and it doesn't make your side look any better.
But second of all, this IS a major social change, and it would do us all some good to stop and think for a minute before we go off half-cocked. We've made a lot of major social changes in the past century, with only the best of intentions, and not all of them have gone as well as we'd hoped. We created the easy, no-fault divorce. We decided that premarital promiscuity should be the norm, rather than the exception. And look at what we have now — most American children grow up in broken homes, or homes that have always lacked a father. Man-hating misanthropes might say this is a good thing, but I think most of us know better.
I had no idea I was a man-hating misanthrope, Geoff. Yet, since I believe pre-marital sex can actually contribute to the healthiness of a marriage, I must be doubly the misanthrope. Not that your stance on this issue doesn't directly support marriage for homosexual couples.
While I love how you're now trying to draw comparisons between divorce and marriage -- wouldn't the two be rather ridiculous to try and analogize, Geoff? -- I'm willing to address your divorce issue, too. You're not the only one that hates the idea that kids grow up in broken homes. I fully agree. And yet, if the alternative's growing up in a united, but abusive home, I fully support the right of women and men to seperate from their abusive or adulterous or neglectful spouses. And in the end, I think it's damn healthier for the kids to grow up understanding their parents divorced because the wife wouldn't put up with abuse, because the husband wouldn't put up with adultery, than growing up in a home where such things are accepted.
Don't you?
quote:We legalized abortion, thinking of it as a means to remove the responsibility of childbirth as a factor that held women back from absolute equality with men.
We did? That's news to me -- I had no idea abortion was instituted for purposes of removing responsibility and establishing equality. Can you provide any evidence over that, or is abortion just a favorite bugaboo that you wanted to complain about?
quote:But as time goes on, more and more young people are discovering that what looks like an easy way out of a tough and embarrassing pregnancy can lead to decades of regret that none of the abortion advocates warned them about. And this slippery slope has plunged us into a moral pit where now claiming support for "women's rights" obligates an individual to advocate even the most reprehensible forms of late-term abortion.
Moral pit? I'm fairly pro-life -- I favor the right to abortion in the first trimester, only special cases in the second, and none in the third -- but I can see plenty of reasons to not support late-term abortions without contradicting women's rights. Are you so incapable of arguing the same over homosexuality? Why homosexuals shouldn't be equal without coming off as a bigot? If you can't, it's fairly telling of the substance of your arguments.
quote:What we're really learning is how shortsighted we are as a people. When we make these changes, we may get what we want in the moment. Suzy gets to have her abortion so her parents don't find out she's pregnant, Bob finally gets to bang the girl next door without getting her a ring, Dick and Jane get to have a divorce and screw around without society holding them responsible for the welfare of their children. Everybody's happy, right?
But no one bothers to notice Suzy's years of regret, Bob's girlfriend's shame and heartbreak, or the fact that Dick and Jane's children grow up doubting their parents' love and lacking their influence and support during their critical formative years. We're too busy moving right on to the next big, exciting, romantic social movement. We're like a runaway train, plowing from one experiment to the next without ever checking our results. Am I the only one who wonders what will happen when our choices catch up to us, and we hit the end of the track?
Heh!
What I love about all these analogies, Geoff, is that you're trying to "prove" with them that homosexuals shouldn't have the right to marry.
Do you not see the irony?
But do tell, Geoff. Exactly what horrible consequences do you think will happen if we permit loving, monogamous couples the right to marriage that's already afforded to most loving, monogamous couples? And why did you think you would show why homosexuals shouldn't have the right to marry with analogies that show the dangers of abortion (which homosexuals don't need), the merits of marriage (which homosexuals long to be able to participate in), and divorce (which 60% of all heterosexual marriages end in)?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the mayor of San Fransisco wants to break the law on his own time to bring about some change in policy, that's fine. But when he starts using the authority the public has entrusted in him to do so, it becomes abuse of power. He's not only being disobedient himself, but forcing his whole city to be disobedient.
He isn't forcing anyone to get married. He isn't forcing the citizenry of San Francisco to break the law. There is no coercion on his part which is part of abusing power. He is inviting people to participate in what IS given to them in the constitution, despite the unconstitutional law. He's taking advantage of a loophole, the same loophole that Massachusetts is debating right now.
quote:Similarly, if Bush were to start arresting doctors who perform abortions, it would not merely be civil disobedience, even if it was just to get abortion banned. It would be abuse of power, because the President can't use his powers to break the law, regardless of what noble goals he has.
See, that action is entirely different that the mayor's. Bush going and ferreting out doctors who perform abortions and arresting them is a negative action. Meaning, he's going out and attempting to eradicate something he finds morally corrupt by imprisoning all the offenders.
The mayor does no such thing. He extended this right, without coercion, to those same-sex couples to obtain a marriage license. He doesn't go and arrest every justice of the peace who won't perform a sex-sex marriage ceremony.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Argent, again that assumes that homosexuality is normal. I am not convinced that it is. Therefore I will not come down off the fence either for or against gay marriage.
So, tongue piercing is normal? Full body tattooing is normal? People who want to get married while skydiving or BASE jumping is normal? People who want to sing their vows to each other is normal? Dressing up in fictional costumes or not at all is normal? I ask this because all of those people are allowed to marry. So, if you're saying that being gay, thus not being normal, is the reason they aren't allowed to marry then: 1. you are ignoring the many socially abnormal marriage practices that exist, or 2. you are picking out homosexuality as not allowed because it's an easier target to disallow. Either way, you're being bigoted about it, because you are using your own terms for normalcy to define what should and should not be allowed. Taking privileges away from those who don't conform is fascism in its simplist form.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men commited indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." -Romans 1: 26,27
If you do not believe in God, the Bible, or Paul's authority to speak for God, we must agree to disagree. If you believe this passage is metaphorical, we must agree to disagree. If you believe this passage is literal, it's hard to say homosexuality is a good thing. If it's not a good thing, is it a good idea for us as a society to hold it up as another alternate lifestyle?
Argent, I must respectfully disagree with your logic. Your argument seems to be: Group A does something bad so it doesn't matter if Group B does it, too. I say it doesn't matter if Group A or B does it, it's still wrong. Marriage granted by the state is a negotiable contract. As I said before, it seems silly to argue its sanctity. (Marriage in the church is a whole other topic I won't even touch.) However, by allowing gays to marry, we as a society acknowledge homosexuality as natural and desirable, or at least inevitable. I'm not sure I can agree with you that homosexuality is natural. Therefore, I'm not sure I agree that denying homosexuals a marriage license denies them a basic right.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Heh. Now you're trying to paint the civil rights movement as the rebirth of neo-Nazism?
I could be wrong, Lalo, but I believe he was referring to your approach to those who oppose gay marriage.
The name-calling and--in a sense--dehumanizing of the opposition in this case is bothersome.
You've a right to your opinion, but a little tact, politeness, and respect for other people's opinions is needed here.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We all know this, but the day Lalo displays any of those traits, we'll accuse him of being an impostor. Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You see, AvidReader, you have no argument outside of your religious fundementalism. If I am not of your religion, then I am already damned, so it doesn't really mean anything to you that I am not allowed the same rights you are. I'm less of a person, right? While this may be an exacerbation of your own words, and not your words exactly, this is exactly what you're getting at. This is also exactly the logic people used to claim blacks were inferior to whites. And it's always interesting to see people use religious references to attack things they don't like, because they can never use the cornerstone of their religion, Jesus Christ himself, as an example of why they shun those they dislike. That's because Jesus did exactly the opposite of this, meeting with whores and bankers and criminals on an equal standing, not condemning them for who they were, and not denying them because of what they did. You would accuse and deny the least of God's children and assume the piety of your church, while ignoring the very lessons His own son left for everyone. Quote Romans, Acts, and Deuteronomy, but never the Gospels or Jesus' teachings when discussing those we do not like. If I had to choose to follow the teachings of someone from the Bible, I would choose Jesus over Paul or Moses any day. So, if you are, as Lalo says, using "God hates fags" as your justification against gay marriage, then you are indeed a bigot, and you are not sitting on a fence on the subject.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
God does not hate fags. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." -Romans 3:23, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." -Romans 5:8, "As it is written: 'There is no one righteous, not even one.'" Romans 3:10, "This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." -John 15:12
Argent, since my "religious fundamentalism" is the most important part of my life, why shouldn't it be the cornerstone of my beliefs on any subject? Also, I believe I have mentioned my gay friends in at least two posts. How much can I hate them if I willingly associate with them? Yes, I have sat down to eat with them. Since they are not Christian it has never been my place to say anything to them on the subject. Christians are called to be accountable to each other, but we're not called to worry about those outside the church. Share the good news with them, sure, but not condemn. It's none of my business what they want to do. Hence the fence sitting. It's none of my business, but don't ask me to approve of it. Leave me out of it.
Fugu, again, Group A does it so Group B must be able to do it too doesn't work for me. It's still wrong whoever's doing it. But this isn't a thread on straight sham weddings or other weirdness. It's on homosexuality.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why should your fundementalism not be the cornerstone of your religion? Because Christ should be, not Paul or his laws. When you ignore Christ's works in favor of Paul's laws (where you only quote specific verses, not the whole of the statements), you bear false witness. By your own rules of fundementalism, you are breaking the very cornerstone you place your faith on.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Argent, well I'm not going to quote entire books of the Bible for you. Everything I quoted was pretty self contained. It's hard to quote Jesus on the subject because he addressed the more general topic of sexual immorality without addressing homosexuality specifically. And I generally interpret "religous fundamentalism" to mean anything about Christianity liberals don't like. I'm partial to the love God, love your neighbors bit. Blessed to be a blessing is good, too. But neither addresses the topic at hand directly. Paul's advice does. Since Paul worked for God through divine revelation, I don't have a problem with anyone quoting him in context, which I believe I did.
Everyone sins. Get over it. We're supposed to try to be perfect, but it will never happen. Only Jesus was perfect. We should love everyone, even sinners and our enemies. "You have heard it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." -Matthew 5: 43-45
Anyone who preaches hate is wrong. But saying we should accept any behavior because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings doesn't work either.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're quite right. We should make legal distinctions with no basis in non-religious reasoning, and regardless of the inconsistencies involved.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mack, I have given up hope of convincing anyone, around here or otherwise. I am just tired of being depicted as a bigot. I have an opinion, and that is all. I have done nothing to harm anyone.
Argent, your argument seems to suppose that Christ and Paul are in opposition to each other. I see no such opposition. I suspect that, like myself, AvidReader believes that Paul and Jesus taught essentially the same gospel with any differences being purely a matter of emphasis that had to do with the cultures they were speaking to.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul taught the same gospel as Jesus? Jesus taught love, while Paul, like Moses, taught Law. Jesus taught that when it comes down to a contest between Law and Love, to choose Love.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Jesus taught love, while Paul, like Moses, taught Law.
*sends out a call in all directions to evangelicals* Take a look at this one! *snicker*
Okay, that wasn't fair. I apologize. Most evangelicals would doubtless go much farther than I and say that Paul explicitly denounced the Law-principle. I disagree with them, but disagree with you as well.
Take a look at this from Romans:
quote: Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Love and Law, in other words, are not the separate concepts you are making them out to be. Law is merely the expanded version, Love the summary.
Jesus agrees (this should be more familiar):
quote: Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
I'm glad ALL parties here recognize the freedom of everyone to express their viewpoints without slander. Even when we don't agree, we can defend each other's right to say how we feel.
The one thing I don't understand in all this gay-marriage furor is why the gays suddenly feel a need for this. Legally, they could ALWAYS write up a document of communal property (what's mine is 1/2 yours, what's yours is 1/2 mine) as a legal contract, just as married couple have, as far as property split. In fact, there isn't ANY of the current arguments for gay marriage that I can see that enables to do anything they couldn't do before through legal means.
I think of marriage as being a spiritual convenant, as well as legal, and having the law give approval to "same sex marriage" still doesn't mean the churches will give approval, or that gay marriages can ever be performed in a church (some churches, at least) -- I don't see the purpose.
So what exactly are they trying to prove through all this?
My concern is that I have heard (not documented) that some of the wording proposed for this does not really specify "same-sex" marriage, but just basically says marriages between two "applicants" -- and that can be interpreted a LOT of differents ways. Not necessarily boy-girl or boy-boy but maybe even boy-sheep or some such thing. It could open a major can of worms if we rush into legal changes without thinking of all possible long-term ramifications.
One, while our religious beliefs are obviously going to influence how we personally see things, our government should NOT have laws based soley on religious beliefs, as one of the important things about our government to us is freedom of religion-therefor it would be denying freedom of religion if we started making laws based on one or even several religions without some logic basis as well.
Two, we have yet to see any argument outside of biblical references that gives any harms of homosexuality, or applies outside of a religion. So, if we're going to make a law against homosexual marraige, don't we need some secular reasons why it's bad? Y'all have mentioned possible ramifications-can we name some that would be unique to homosexual marraiges? And if we can't-what right to we have to legally deny people something that could easily bring happiness on the basis of our belief that they will be going ot hell?
and Framgirl-what were blacks trying to prove by sitting and eating in white resturants? THAT THEY WERE EQUAL, and entitled to the same rights. Maybe the owners of those resturants would never willingly let them eat there-but as long as they kept pushing it, eventually generations grew out of it, where they thought nothing of eating in the same resturant with black people. Maybe that is what gays are trying for? And maybe they're hoping that once they've gotten common people to accept them, churches may someday accept their marriages too. Or maybe they're simply trying to get equal treatment legally speaking. But there certainly is plenty to be proved by this.
posted
social security? partner benefits from your company? rights in the hospital (in which no legal form will be good enough for some parents who deny partners).
here is a brief list. not all of them can be given by legal documents.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
btw, "civil unions" are currently different from "civil marriages." This is why they wanted civil marriages in Massachusetts. Civil Unions do not include any federal benefits like social security and federal taxes.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's face it, Toretha...Aside from Geoff's "Be cautious, wait and see if it has side effects", there really is no secular argument. If there ever is, it won't be until gay marriage is too entrenched in society to change that it appears--you know, kinda like suddenly discovering the dangers of secondhand smoke.
That's why I have given up hope of changing anyone's opinion. It's not like I've ever managed to before.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Macc, at the very least, we can present more facts and studies. The link I just put up, for example, may be new to people. They may not realize just how many benefits a married couple have automatically.
And really. Would it change any of your minds if the federal version of marriage were called "civil unions" across the board? That way your precious "religious marriage" term is saved for the Church. Civil unions for any two adult homo sapiens.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the smoking thing is slowly changing. It's being banned in more and more places, thank goodness.
And anyway-since when does our not knowing of any certain harmsmeans we should refuse to allow a thing because harms MIGHT exist that we would find out later? If we took that attitude toward every policy, we would never change at all. That's ridiculous.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suneun, I believe I posted elsewhere that "religious marriage" is not a term I particularly care about. Properly speaking, I am not sure there should be any such thing as religious marriage; the early church accepted as married whoever complied with the legal regulations of their era, aside from a few basic restrictions (like having one male and one female as parties) and does not seem to have performed wedding ceremonies. Religious marriage is not, therefore, "precious" to me, and preserving civil marriage is all the more important, though not absolutely vital.
There is, of course, no hope of preserving it. That's usually the case with anything that matters.
Toretha, I believe I was simply referring to Geoff's argument that we should be cautious when making sweeping social changes instead of jumping in headfirst.
posted
Face it, Toretha, noone who uses the 'god doesn't like homosexuality' opinion is going to change their mind. And they're the ones who are in the majority.
They're just too scared to look outside their narrow view, and try to accept something they don't understand. They don't even think that when Jesus taught 'love thy neighbor', he didn't mean, 'love your neighbor who isn't gay'. He meant everyone, but that's just a little too hard for them to comprehend.
By the way, in warding off the no-doubt irate posts I'm going to field, I define love as un-reserved acceptance, with no thoughts of their 'sin', or their 'wrongness'. Anything like that creeping in is just a lesser form of judgement.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*grins at jon* no, I won't face it, because it's not true. People who have used that argument HAVE changed their minds before, and will do so again. And how do you know who is in the majority? Even if they were, what difference would it make to my questions?
And I'm sure they know Jesus meant everyone, they just love gay people, or try to while disapproving of their lifestyle. Being angry at people for being religious isn't going to help.
Oh, and what on earth are you doing online but not on AIM?!? I'm bored over here, and I never told you about the Dork Parade!
quote: -- they're still harassed and abused and murdered across the country for their shared trait of homosexuality
and the legalization of same-sex marriage is simply going to make this all go away???
The types of people who would harass, abuse and murder homosexuals will NOT have their mind changed simply by the government rubber-stamping homosexual marriage as okay. In fact, it might even increase for awhile as they protest.
I just think the gays are expecting this to change a lot more things than it truly will. Public law doesn't necessarily change public opinion. It didn't change the division of the country on the abortion issue, and it probably won't on this issue either.
posted
they weren't saying legalizing gay marriages would make it go away. they were showing how the situation of gay people can be equated with what used to be the situation of black people.
And maybe, just maybe if the government started treating that minority as equal in law, that would slowly leak over into the way people think. Probably not for the people now, but for their children, it might change their minds.
posted
Yeah, I know, Toretha. I'm just fed up with people saying that it's wrong for two people to love eachother just because their mental switches are flipped differently than the majority's. Or rather, doing that, and then saying that it's God's Will to hate them and harass them, and then trying to make that LAW.
I'm also fed up with seeing people present good, reasonable, researched arguments, a la Mack, then getting stopped short by some obscure bible verse that's only claim to fame is that the writer is allegedly 'inspired'.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
