posted
I do not see why it has to be all or nothing. I have met OSC in a couple of book signings and from what I have seen of him, he genuinely appears to be a stand up guy. The only faucet of him that I do not respect is certain aspects of his ideas. Keep in mind, that does not mean particularly, that I do not respect the man.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can certainly respect, and even like, someone who holds opposing views on an issue. You might not want to marry them, depending on the issue and its importance to you. But you can be friends, as long as you are willing to find common ground enough to treat each other kindly.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've had people tell me, OSC is a stand up guy and treats people with kindness, dignity and respect. I'd rather know him by his actions, rather than words. Ironic, I know, considering he's an admirable author. But when I disagree so strongly with words written, looking at the man, and his decency of action with other human beings, puts things in perspective. If we call on others to see them as who they are in how they physically treat others, we can only do the same for them.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
i can like or even love people who disagree with me... but some of the things he was saying and how they were said... the tone of it... it just makes me wonder
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it's because of my personal opinions/viewpoints, but his essay seemed very much like his other War Watch (now Civilization Watch?) articles. I can understand people taking offense at any number of them. OSC's fictional writing style and non-fictional writing styles have some pretty strong differences. I totally understand people feeling hurt from this particular essay. I guess I feel like the essays show part of who OSC really is. The fiction does a great job at showing more of him. Maybe OSC has multiple personalities disorder? Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I stepped out for a moment, and...23 pages later...
Odouls:
quote:The decency, functionality, and neccesity of heterosexuality is attested to by millions of years of evolution and every other species on the planet. Heterosexuality IS inherently right. That is fact. I'm wondering where the logic is for the assumption that homosexuality shares the same luxury.
1) Millions of years of evolution have nothing to say about decency. Decency is a purely sociological imposition. Up until the last couple of thousand of years or so, humans weren't decent to each other at all, and it's still open to debate.
2) Yes, Heterosexuality is necessary for the continuation of the species. Have I missed something? Are we at risk of dying out as a species because of homesexuality? I think not. Should we also have a Constitutional amendment banning smoking, or fast food, or vasectomies, or driving without a seatbelt, or playing baseball without a cup?
3) Inherently right? I'm real sorry, but most animals exhibit some level of homosexual activities. Is that indecent? Let's be honest here--watching two male dogs going at it is no more or less indecent than watching male and female dogs going at it. Similarly, I have absolutely no desire to watch my heterosexual neighbors going at it, let alone any homosexual neighbors I might have...why in the world would you care who puts what where? It's really not anyone's business.
Child molestation and any other clearly illegal acts should be appropriately punished, whether heterosexual or homosexual in nature.
(For those who know me--please note that I'm not making any priest jokes here, even though it's soooo tempting!)
But U.S. laws do not have to--nor should they--reflect the New Testament Bible code-for-code. Shall we pass a Constitutional ammendment mandating that all prostitutes be stoned to death?
Aren't there also laws outlined in the New Testament banning the mixing of certain fabrics? How'd you like an ammendment banning spandex?
quote:A bunch of people have said that in this thread. But, as Lalo has clearly shown, this doesn't cover the extent of the issue.
Well...maybe I shouldn't have said anything, not having read the whole thread. I know there are complexities beyond "God said so." What I was saying is that I agreed with Icarus on the previous page. And to extend that, I believe we need a better basis for the laws we pass than religion. The laws have to make sense, they have to have a clear basis in the interest of all people in the society, they should be clear and concise, and unambiguous, and they should be fair not just on the face of it, but in the actual practice as well.
I guess that's a sort of peripheral issue to the overall discussion.
I was just wanting to agree with something Icarus said back on p.12.
posted
ssywak, I don't have the Bible memorized by any means, so it would really help me out if you quoted book, chapter, and verse when you're referring to things that the Bible says you shouldn't do, so I can quickly go to them.
The only thing I can think of that remotely matches what you're describing is Matthew 9:16, but I know that everyone here knows what a parable is, so I'm sure you didn't mean that one.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
People who quote particular verses without putting it into the context of the chapter are bearing false witness.
Why don't you read the whole of Acts and Romans (and both Corinthians), if you want to find quite a few laws that aren't applicable today? Paul didn't just say "be excellent to each other" and leave it at that. He left some very specific instructions, and I have seen no church ever follow those instructions to the letter. I see a lot of "well, what he really meant" and "I interpret this as" from people, though. How interesting that people can re-interpret some laws (the ones that affect them), yet be completely literalist about other laws (that don't directly affect them), isn't it? Do we really also have to include OT law?
And as I already pointed out in the other thread—not that I expect you to have read it, Belle—laws that are religiously based like this do not deserve to be imposed on people who are not of that religion. And don't claim to own marriage, because many other cultures have had it as well, and marriage has not belonged to just religion for a very long time.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: 2) Yes, Heterosexuality is necessary for the continuation of the species. Have I missed something? Are we at risk of dying out as a species because of homesexuality? I think not. Should we also have a Constitutional amendment banning smoking, or fast food, or vasectomies, or driving without a seatbelt, or playing baseball without a cup? 3) Inherently right? I'm real sorry, but most animals exhibit some level of homosexual activities. Is that indecent? Let's be honest here--watching two male dogs going at it is no more or less indecent than watching male and female dogs going at it. Similarly, I have absolutely no desire to watch my heterosexual neighbors going at it, let alone any homosexual neighbors I might have...why in the world would you care who puts what where? It's really not anyone's business. Child molestation and any other clearly illegal acts should be appropriately punished, whether heterosexual or homosexual in nature. (For those who know me--please note that I'm not making any priest jokes here, even though it's soooo tempting!) But U.S. laws do not have to--nor should they--reflect the New Testament Bible code-for-code. Shall we pass a Constitutional ammendment mandating that all prostitutes be stoned to death? Aren't there also laws outlined in the New Testament banning the mixing of certain fabrics? How'd you like an ammendment banning spandex?
I bet you won't get mad about it. By the way, I never said anything about the Bible. I didn't make any reference to any religion at all. You made that up on your own. I actually, (as I posted three posts below) made it clear that I was making no indictment about the 'sinfulness' of being gay. If you look closely, I was throwing out a simple question, which you never adressed in any way at any time.
quote:What exactly makes homosexuality inherently right? What makes it just ok to do in your opinion?
Is it just because that's what homosexuals naturally want and desire?
What makes being black, or Jewish, or a woman "inherently right"? What makes having to get around in a wheelchair, or having ADD inherently right?
I think it's more a matter of they're not inherently wrong. I also am coming to the conclusion that most of the people opposing gay marriage are doing so because they do feel that being gay is inherently wrong, but that it is not PC to say so. So, instead, it's all about the "sanctity of marriage," and "civil unions."
Yeah, I had the same problem when all those pesky black Jewish handicapped mercurial women naturally wanted and desired equal treatment under the law. It really ruined the freedoms I enjoyed when we started giving those freedoms out to just anyone who wanted and desired them!
And you're right--you hadn't mentioned the Bible. But others had, and I was just starting to open up...
--Steve
Oh, and while we're at it...you failed to respond to any of my points. I feel snubbed.
quote:Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.
Deuteronomy 22:11, 22:12
quote:22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together.
22:12 Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.
No fringes?!? Cher is going straight to HELL!
Sorry, I mis-read that one. Apparently, Cher is to be spared, as is everyone who came of age in the 1970's. However, the rest of us are going straight to HELL!
If you're going to make scripture-based arguments about what is and what is not a sin to Christians, you need to be more careful in your New/Old Testament distinctions. It makes a huge difference in Christian doctrine.
I'm staying out of the substantive argument for now, but I wanted to clarify that point.
posted
Old Testament laws are old covenant ssywak, they don't apply to me. And John, please again I ask - what is it you take issue with in Paul's writing?
Book, chapter, verse and I'll respond to it. "Paul didn't just say love each other and leave it at that" is not something I can respond to.
Specifics, and I'll answer them, to the best of my ability.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok , so I have a few comments....first I live in Massachusetts (not to be mispronounced as "Massatush*ts") , and went to college in the next town over from Northampton...aka "the City that doesn't need...or want...men!". I am a happy newlywed of 4+months, and I am looking forward to someday in the not too distant future, starting a family of my own. I do , however, have some married friends who much prefer cats to the thought of children, and some who have gone so far as to have a hysterectomy to prevent just that....children! They live contentedly as married people: working, vacationing, and raising their 3 cats. They take pictures of their cats and send them via the internet to family and friends..... so, should they not have been allowed to marry because they do not have the wish to procreate? Yet, I have some homosexual friends that do wish to marry and live the same lifestyle that some of my heterosexual married friends live...is that so wrong? If they pledge to live their lives together and love and comfort each other "til death do us part", and live their lives as any other married couple (with the exeption of their sexual preference), why should they not have the same benefits? Is it wrong to want to be covered by your "spouse's" insurance policy, or to share the same last name without going through a court proceeding, or many other benefits that married people have and many times take for granted? OK so what about children? How many thousands of children are waiting to be adopted in this country alone ? How many children could have a loving and stable family life with a homosexual couple instead of being shipped from foster home to foster home where, they may be physically, emotionally, or sexually abused? I have friends that grew up in that system and they would have done almost anything to get out of it... to have a "normal" home. Then again .. what is normal? Normal is what society deems as acceptable behavior... ...so if society believes that it is acceptable to beat anyone that wears the color pink, that behavior would be normal, but would it be right? So who is to say what behavior is normal? To homosexuals their behavior is normal and therefore, right.....to heterosexuals their behavior is normal and therefore, right.....
The list and the different points of view go on and on. My problem with the whole thing is in Massachusetts...if church and state must remain seperate, then why does the state have anything to say about church weddings and why does the state charge for a marriage license when they are seperate from the church ....or why is a state official able to "sanctify" a civil marriage , or a town clerk the person that signs the marriage license saying the marriage is sanctified? Also if a wedding is a religious tradition and ceremony, why is there a need for a license when the people have consented to the marriage..or their parents have given consent? I was ticked off that I had to pay not only for a marriage license (the money goes directly to the State of Massachusetts... aka "the Big Dig" "the City that doesn't need...or want...men!" ), but also to have 2 seperate blood tests done (while Kwea only had to have 1 becuase he is a male?)! What does any of that have to do with me getting married? Of course I live in western Mass so Boston has no idea that I exist...except if I neglected to pay my taxes. Nothing out here has any effect on Boston , or the government of the state,so my opinion does'nt count any more than would the opinion of a talking horse! Thanks for letting me rant and ramble!
Posts: 325 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I also am coming to the conclusion that most of the people opposing gay marriage are doing so because they do feel that being gay is inherently wrong, but that it is not PC to say so. So, instead, it's all about the "sanctity of marriage," and "civil unions."
I think you hit the nail right on the head.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"if church and state must remain seperate, then why does the state have anything to say about church weddings"
Because the government is stupid. Really. Because, at the moment, marriage is both a legal AND a religious institution, and consequently the state has to certify the legal component in order for someone to receive the legal benefits and recognitions. Someone CAN be married in a church without obtaining legal recognition, in the same way that someone CAN be married by a justice of the peace without being recognized by a church.
It's for this reason that I have always proposed eliminating the legal recognition of marriage altogether, and replacing it entirely with personal incorporation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But in all seriousness, Leviticus is also used for the "abomination" reference for a man lying with another man as if a woman (please forgive me my horrible paraphrasing...).
posted
If I say that solution is merely preferable to full fledged gay marriage, does that mean I still agree with Tom? The reason I don't whole heartedly agree is because I think legal marriage is beneficial for children. But since this debate is mostly about the self esteem of adults...
And on that subject, I actually am finally replying to Tom's question at the head of page 11. How does gay marriage hurt women? Well, being gay is not simply about being attracted to the same sex. It is also about being repulsed or indifferent to the opposite sex. Or possibly having an impossible ideal of the opposite sex. This does seem to be the case with gay men who worship, say, Ann Baxter.
So I guess we need to discuss my impression that homosexuality is not about who you love, but who you cannot love. Being unable to love a category of people seems problematic to me.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, are you saying that gay marriage hurts women because gay men are incapable of loving women in the way you believe women need to be loved?
------
Dag, by "personal incorporation," I mean the ability to incorporate with other people in a contract that permits the sharing of assets, liabilities, appellations, and benefits.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, then--it's a matter of imposing the Christian worldview on American politics, not the Jewish worldview.
I don't think either person who corrected your misguided "spandex" argument is advocating imposition of the Christian worldview on American politics. I can't speak for Belle, but she certainly hasn't done so in her responses to you. And I know I'm not.
posted
Thanks, Tom. We probably agree on the idea. It'd be interesting to start a thread defining the exact boundaries of such a legal entity. But I don't have the strength right now.
posted
I am sad for the wonderful men who are "out of circulation" on the dating scene for heterosexuals. So many gals find this awesome, cute, funny, sensitive, respectful guy--then he turns out to be gay.
I guess that is how homosexuals feel all the time about strict heterosexuals.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
There are a number of ideas circulating on this thread, and we all represent some, but not all of them. Even if you should split us one way or another into Liberal/Conservative, or Religious/Atheist, or whatever, we'd still fall out of the strict "party lines" herre and there.
You've been projecting third-party arguments onto other people's posts. Your response with the crack about establishing Christian worldiview not Jewish was aimed either at Belle's or my explanation about your mistaken, sarcastic analogy to spandex.
That post wasn't about religious rules being made into laws. While most of your points are pretty good, a lot of your responses are to arguments not made in this thread, although they purport to be so.
posted
If it wasn't, half of the kids in my mother's Emotional Support classroom would have been killed at birth.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
How in the world is a United States Constitutional ammendment banning homosexual marriages not about making religious rules into laws?
I would give $5 to the Paypal account of anyone finding stats on this that don't point to at least 80% "Followers of Christ" supporting this nonsense.
On top of that, you'll also find that at least 90% of the supporters believe in God.
Of course it's religious! Please don't try to pretend that it's anything but!
Oh, yeah, and my "misguided" and "mistaken" remark about Spandex...I'm sorry...would I have "won" the argument if I had chosen a fabric-related edict from out of the New Testament? I think you're obsessing over the Spandex.
Do you read posts before responding? Apparantly not, since nothing I said can remotely be taken to support the amendment.
Since it seems necessary to point out again, “I’M OPPOSED TO THE AMENDMENT.” Did you catch that? I’ll say it again: “I’M OPPOSED TO THE AMENDMENT.”
Where did I say it wasn’t about religion? Where, where, where?
No one was having an argument with you. I pointed out why your common but tired “Oh, you don’t support all the rules in the bible so you’re a hypocrite” argument wasn’t valid. You’re whole ridiculous post about said nothing about secular law – it was entirely about the Bible. All I did was point out the factual reason why that criticism isn’t valid. And as far as I know, there isn’t a fabric-related edict in the New Testament.
I said nothing to support the amendment. I said nothing to oppose equal civil marriage rights for homosexuals.
You just reinforced my previous statement, which is you’re projecting a lot of baggage onto people’s posts that just isn’t there.
posted
I've got to stop posting when I'm tired, or stressed (or burnt, or dead).
And if I was half as smart as I think I am, I'd probably stop posting on religion-related threads entirely.
You're (obviously) right, Dagonee--I completely misjudged you, read the wrong things into your posts, and missed your earlier posts where you stated you position pretty clearly.
Mea Culpa.
I crashed through here like a bull in a china shop, spouting nonsense and pissing the wrong people off.
Shutting up now, and getting back to the projects I'm supposed to be working on.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I also am coming to the conclusion that most of the people opposing gay marriage are doing so because they do feel that being gay is inherently wrong, but that it is not PC to say so. So, instead, it's all about the "sanctity of marriage," and "civil unions."
Fair enough, but that just leaves me wondering why one would refrain from saying what they mean in a forum such as this in which debate has basically (through common usage) become the primary function. 'Its not PC' just doesn't fly with me as an excuse to hide behind euphemisms.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not just that it isn't PC to say so. It's not a a good argument. There are planty of good arguments to be made on each side of the marriage issue, but "There is something inherently wrong with homosexuality" and "There is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality" are not. In as statments of faith, neither one of them really has any place in the debate.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ssywak, thanks for acknowleding that. I just reread my post and realized I should probably not post right after an argument with somebody - way too harsh and I apologize.
quote:How does gay marriage hurt women? Well, being gay is not simply about being attracted to the same sex. It is also about being repulsed or indifferent to the opposite sex. Or possibly having an impossible ideal of the opposite sex. This does seem to be the case with gay men who worship, say, Ann Baxter.
So I guess we need to discuss my impression that homosexuality is not about who you love, but who you cannot love. Being unable to love a category of people seems problematic to me.
o_O
Do you not see how easily this argument can be turned on its head? Many homosexuals I know admit to being at least a little bit bi-, but few heterosexuals do. Virtually every gay man I have ever known has had dozens of female friends; they are hardly "repulsed" by women. If there's a group that is unable to love a category of people, it's not gays--or at least, they don't fit this description any more than heterosexuals do.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
