Jump to bottom

Closed Thread Icon

Topic awaiting preservation: Canada - Gay Marriages (Page 1 of 4) Pages that link to <a href="http://ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=24357" title="Pages that link to Topic awaiting preservation: Canada - Gay Marriages (Page 1 of 4)" rel="nofollow" >Topic awaiting preservation: Canada - Gay Marriages <span class="small">(Page 1 of 4)</span>\

 
Gilbert Nolander
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Washington DC
Insane since: May 2002

posted posted 12-11-2004 15:34

Canada Supreme Court rules for gay marriage

quote:
In a landmark opinion, Canada’s Supreme Court said Thursday the government can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.



I thought some of you may be interested in this. Do you think this decision could help to change the attitudes of Americans?

jeff-nolan.com | Asylum Quotes

JKMabry
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: raht cheah
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 12-11-2004 16:31

I doubt what Canada or any other nation does will influence anyone else's convictions. Probably be good for tourism and immigration.

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 12-11-2004 17:30
quote:
Gilbert Nolander said:

Do you think this decision could help to change the attitudes of Americans?


I think the majority of the population has already made their minds up on this issue. I don't think what Canada does will have much influence.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 12-11-2004 18:26

I think it will have an influence. All lands that share a common border influence their neighbors, directly or indirectly. I think the Far Religious Right (like those above) would like to believe that it will not, because they cannot control it. And I suspect, that after the next four years, that will be a moot point anyway.

And what about those same sex couples from America going to Canada to get married? Will their marriages then not be recognized in the US? I think that will be an interesting problem. Then they could marry, and get divorced in Canada? Strange, strange.

Yes, I think such would definitely have an impact on the US.

(Edited by WebShaman on 12-11-2004 18:27)

JKMabry
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: raht cheah
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 12-11-2004 23:47
quote:
Do you think this decision could help to change the attitudes of Americans?



again, no.

ws: I appreciate you lumping me in with the Far Religeous Right [Control Freaks], whatever that is, I wasn't aware we knew each other that well. I understand it's a bit of an emotional hot button for you but sarcasm aside, don't do that please.

quote:
And what about those same sex couples from America going to Canada to get married? Will their marriages then not be recognized in the US?



I wouldn't think they'd be recognized since it's not law here.

quote:
I think that will be an interesting problem.



At best I think it's senationalist fodder on a slow news day sometime in the future, if ever. Maybe play some role in the ongoing debate here on the subject, in that aspect it may have some impact I suppose.



(Edited by JKMabry on 12-11-2004 23:49)

Ramasax
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

posted posted 12-12-2004 02:05
quote:
I think the Far Religious Right (like those above) would like to believe that it will not, because they cannot control it.

Always on the attack aren't you WS.

As far as I see it, like it or not, it is only a matter of time before it is legal in the US as well. As Jesse Jackson once said, "In politics, an organized minority is a political majority." Although I do not agree with his politics, that is a statement I have always remembered.

Will it influence the attitudes of Americans? Yes and no. No to existing Americans who are in their mid- to late-twenties and beyond. By this tme I think many have made up their minds, they have found themselves. You either are against it or for it and it is a rare case where one with a stable foundation of ideals will switch sides, politicians excluded.

On the other hand the more integrated it becomes with our society the more desensitized we become, this tactic is much more influential on the young though. Couple that with the decrease of traditional religious (primarily Christian, but not limited to) values and attacks upon those values where if you say you are a Christian you are automatically categorized, quite intolerantly, as intolerant.

It will eventually be taught alongside and as an equal alternative to traditional relationships. In many cases this is already a reality. So the next generation will likely embrace it, and polls show they already have. We'll just have to wait and see how it impacts society. I have many thoughts there, but I believe I have expressed many of those in the past.

Conservatives (aka The Far Religious Right ), like myself can only hope that like many of the 60's generation, the youth will grow up, have kids, take on more responsibility, and realize their socialist utopian dreams are nothing but a facade for Marxism. Not likely though in a world where morality has become manmade and relative to the impulses and whims of society, moreso than ever before.

All in all though, it still has to pass through Canada's parliment, so this discussion itself is a bit premature.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 12-12-2004 02:11)

Dan
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Insane since: Apr 2000

posted posted 12-12-2004 03:21

I don't think it will or should change people's attitudes. But it's definately a step in the right direction... kinda...
Not that I'm one way or the other on the issue of whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. Personally I'd like the government to stop recognizing all kinds of marriage, and stop giving benifits to married couples. That's a much better solution, and is definately closer to the envisioned seperation of church and state. This isn't an issue the government should get a say in.

If two (or more) people want to marry, they should go get married. Keep the government out of the lives of the people.

BiGCaC
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Hartford,Ohio,USA
Insane since: May 2003

posted posted 12-12-2004 05:43

I think it will raise some eyebrows, but I dont think it will be changing anyones mind anytime soon. Although I wish it would. I agree that the government should not butt into our personal lives, but that will never change either. Maybe sometime down the line and I mean way down the line America will change their narrow minds. But I highly doubt anytime soon. Americans will not reconize it, but gays in America who went to Canada to get a marriage will consider themselves married no matter where they are.

I dont understand how Americans can sit here and say that it is wrong for the same sex to marry. I mean what makes Americans experts at whats right and whats wrong? Its total bullshit that a certain race or sexuality can be discriminated against because of their personal lives. Its not homosexuals fault that they are gay. If it was so wrong to be gay then why are there gays?

And since people bitch about how marriage is not meant for same sex marriages then fine call it something else. Just give them their damn rights. I have no problem with gays getting married, nor do I care if they call it marriage, civil union or whatever else they can think of just as long as they have their rights.

BiGCaC

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 12-12-2004 06:11

If canadian policy had much impact on the view of most americans.....things would be a whole lot different in the US than they are.

I don't think it will make any difference at all in this case.

I think we are going to see a steady trend towards supporting gay marriage in terms of law regardless what happens anywhere else, and regardless of JK's staunch support of the extreme religious right ( )..

Jestah
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Long Island, NY
Insane since: Jun 2000

posted posted 12-12-2004 10:56

I doubt average USA citizens will even be aware that it was recognized in Canada. Of course more likely then not homosexual marriages will probably be recognized sooner or later here. Although there are occasional hiccups, the world is just in a process of becoming more liberal.

Gideon
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth*
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 12-12-2004 22:38
quote:
JKMabry said:

Probably be good for tourism and immigration.


Depends on who they want to immigrate.

quote:
WebShaman said:

Yes, I think such would definitely have an impact on the US.


Me too.

quote:
JKMabry said:

At best I think it's senationalist fodder on a slow news day sometime in the
future, if ever. Maybe play some role in the ongoing debate here on the subject,
in that aspect it may have some impact I suppose.


I think it has the potential to become big, if in the right person's hands.

quote:
Ramasax said:

it is a rare case where one with a stable foundation of ideals will switch
sides, politicians excluded.


quote:
Ramasax said:

We'll just have to wait and see how it impacts society.


Why do we have to wait and see? Couldn't we do something about it now?

quote:
Ramasax said:

in a world where morality has become manmade and relative to the impulses and
whims of society, moreso than ever before.


Amen to that.

quote:
Dan said:
Keep the
government out of the lives of the people.


It is kinda hard to do that. I'm no expert, but if the people want something, it is hard for the government to say no.

quote:
BiGCaC said:

Maybe sometime down the line and I mean way down the line America will change
their narrow minds


Dear God I hope not.

quote:
BiGCaC said:

I mean what makes Americans experts at whats right and whats wrong?


Absolutely nothing, and I hate it when Americans say that they are right just because they are Americans.

quote:
BiGCaC said:

Its total bullshit that a certain race or sexuality can be discriminated against
because of their personal lives.


Welcome to America, home of the free to discriminate. I believe there is a law paying jail time to anyone speaking out against homosexuality in Canada. That put my pastor in a sticky situation recently.

quote:
BiGCaC said:

Its not homosexuals fault that they are gay. If it was so wrong to be gay then
why are there gays?


And it's not murderer's fault they muder, liar's fault they lie, thieve's fault they steal... I mean, there is nothing wrong with canabalism or anything. I mean since there are people who think those things are right then they should be okay to do it, right?

quote:
DL-44 said:

If canadian policy had much impact on the view of most americans.....things
would be a whole lot different in the US than they are.


quote:
Jestah said:

Although there are occasional hiccups, the world is just in a process of
becoming more liberal.


Yeah, everyone wants it to be okay with everyone else. You have to please everybody. Well, there are two sides to that: 1.) You brainwash the nation and see what happens (that part of the plan is going well) or 2.) Just go about your buisness and remember that you will eventually step on somebody's shoes. You can't please everybody, and I think most extreme liberals try to do that.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Dan
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Insane since: Apr 2000

posted posted 12-13-2004 01:15
quote:
It is kinda hard to do that. I'm no expert, but if the people want something, it is hard for the government to say no.

That's a ridiculous argument. The government should have it's hands tied in any situation that doesn't equally affect all people (This includes tax laws, laws on vices, human rights, ect...).

It shouldn't matter if 99.9% of the population wants gay's banned from marrying. Just as it shouldn't matter if 99.9% want a tax payer sponsored program to benefit some interest group. The government should be forced to take no action on any policy that doesn't:
-Create a stronger market place
-Create a better standard of living
-Benefit all people (rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight) equally
(not that everyone should get the same from every decision, but the government should not be allowed to collect any data which would enable them to know differences between the citizens, so as to not be able to enforce different rules for different people)

quote:
And it's not murderer's fault they muder, liar's fault they lie, thieve's fault they steal... I mean, there is nothing wrong with canabalism or anything. I mean since there are people who think those things are right then they should be okay to do it, right?

It was much better times back when those degenerate Christians were murdered for believing in their false God, right?

We should be proud of a society that acknowledges and accepts differences. Not everyone believes homosexuality is wrong. Since when did we live in a society that caters to the fanatics. I mean, some people might have a problem with Christians. Should we start taking away their privileges? Perhaps Christians shouldn't be allowed to drive trucks on Wednesdays? Ambiguous laws that are written to have no positive affect, yet negatively affect one group of people should not be tolerated. Period.

(Edited by Dan on 12-13-2004 01:16)

Jestah
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Long Island, NY
Insane since: Jun 2000

posted posted 12-13-2004 04:30
quote:
Gideon said:

And it's not murderer's fault they muder, liar's fault they lie, thieve's fault they steal... I mean, there is nothing wrong with canabalism or anything. I mean since there are people who think those things are right then they should be okay to do it, right?



Those are pretty bad examples. You're comparing conscious actions with an inborn characteristic. That's like saying "it's not Ted's fault that he's left handed, oh right just like its not Mark's fault that he punched Tom in the stomach". I suppose it's a matter of opinion. Maybe I'm mistaken but I would assume you feel homosexuality is a conscious choice - like punching someone. That's an opinion I just don't share.

quote:
Gideon said:

Yeah, everyone wants it to be okay with everyone else. You have to please everybody. Well, there are two sides to that: 1.) You brainwash the nation and see what happens (that part of the plan is going well) or 2.) Just go about your buisness and remember that you will eventually step on somebody's shoes. You can't please everybody, and I think most extreme liberals try to do that.



I don't know what you're saying here Gideon. Could you elaborate?

quote:
Dan said:

That's a ridiculous argument. The government should have it's hands tied in any situation that doesn't equally affect all people (This includes tax laws, laws on vices, human rights, ect...).

It shouldn't matter if 99.9% of the population wants gay's banned from marrying. Just as it shouldn't matter if 99.9% want a tax payer sponsored program to benefit some interest group. The government should be forced to take no action on any policy that doesn't:
-Create a stronger market place
-Create a better standard of living
-Benefit all people (rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight) equally
(not that everyone should get the same from every decision, but the government should not be allowed to collect any data which would enable them to know differences between the citizens, so as to not be able to enforce different rules for different people)



There's a problem with that though Dan, governments aren't created soley to create a stronger market place, standard of living, etc. In a democracy, pretty much as long as a substancially large number of people want something it is hard for the government to say no.

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 12-13-2004 06:34

JKMabry, I don't remember mentioning your name directly. Sorry if you felt directly spoken to.

Poor word choice of mine. And no, I don't know you at all, aside from here and over at the GN. Certainly not well enough to call you much of anything.

As I said - all lands sharing a border influence one another.

Ramasax
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

posted posted 12-13-2004 08:36

Ramble mode on:

quote:
Dan: Since when did we live in a society that caters to the fanatics.



If you would be so kind, please clarify. Who are the fanatics?

quote:
Jestah: Those are pretty bad examples. You're comparing conscious actions with an inborn characteristic.



There is absolutely no evidence that shows homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims that it is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

As I am sure you are aware, the press has a tendancy of concentrating on one side of an argument and leaving out the side they disagree with. The gay gene issue is one of them. They have taken the findings of scientist X, while failing to hear the findings of scientist Y. Half of the equation is ignored because of personal opinion and what is more popular with the whims of popular culture.

Once again, I repeat, there is no scientific research indicating a biological or genetic cause for homosexuality. Biological factors may play a role in the predisposition to homosexuality. However, this is true of many other psychological conditions.

Research suggests that social and psychological factors are strongly influential. Examples include problems in early family relationships, sexual seduction, and sense of inadequacy with same-sex peers.

Yet another myth that has been pummeled into our brains by the media and the corrupt, self-indulging society in which we live.

I saw an article in Time Magazine a few months back that talked about the possibility of a God gene. They are subscriber only, so here is an alternate link. Do you believe that religion is genetic? And if so, can

us Conservative Christians be held accountable for our 'bigoted' and 'outdated beliefs'? Can Muslim extremists be held accountable for the acts they commit? Can muslims in general be held accountable for treating their women as second class citizens if their God, which they are genetically predisposed to believe in, tells them so?

They also say alcoholism is genetic. I have alcoholics in my immediate family. I do not drink. Why? Because I made a conscious choice of my own free will not to.

Maybe there is an athiest gene? A Liberal gene? A gene that causes less rationality in thought processes? A violence gene? An infidelity gene? A gene that compels some to beastiality? Seems to me that science will eventually 'prove' that every action we take is because of some predisposed genetic difference in our DNA, thus we will not have any accountability and personal responsibility at all. We will all eventually be classified as "victims" to our genetic makeup, robots with no free-will and no control of our fate whatsoever. We still do not have a total grasp of DNA and its innermost workings, there is a lot we do not know about it, so scientifically, how can any of these claims be proven? It's like building a house without ensuring a stable foundation.

This next paragraph is in reference to Gideon bringing up cannibalism. I believe I know why he did and how it is relevant to this discussion. Another argument that often arises is that animals engage in homosexual behaviours, so it must be natural. This line of reasoning is ridiculous. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism, which happen from time to time, are according to human nature? Isn't self control and the ability to act against animal instinct one of the things that sets us apart and above other species?

quote:
Dan: The government should be forced to take no action on any policy that doesn't:
-Create a stronger market place
-Create a better standard of living
-Benefit all people (rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight) equally



Dan, I would add one thing to your list above: defense of the homeland. This is vital in my eyes and I'd be curious how a nation in today's world could survive without it. A topic for another time perhaps. Other than that I agree.

quote:
Jestah: In a democracy, pretty much as long as a substancially large number of people want something it is hard for the government to say no.



*sigh* Yup, at least if they want to get re-elected. What kind of crap can we spend their money on now and present as the betterment of society? Before you know it, well, you are no longer a Democracy. You can call it democracy, but that does not make it such. If the majority of people want to switch to a "socialist utopia," are we supposed to forsake the Constitution, our history, and the things that made this country what it is in the first place?

Don't you realize the more those in power "give" the less freedom you have? Do not take that freedom for granted and do not confuse freedom with personal security of the monetary type and guaranteed personal well-being. The Constitution of the United States and the tenets of a true democracy guarantee no such things.

The whole reason this debate, and many other debates on social issues are going on is because government is sticking their noses in places they shouldn't. Christians, Conservtives, and people from ALL walks of life are against gay marriage, they have that right. The bottom line though is that government gives them the power to oppose it, just as they give big business the ability to lobby for their interests by being involved in business. There are lobbyists out there from every facet of our society, pressuring our politicians from all sides. Usually the highest bidder or the loudest group wins. Without government involvement in marriage there would be no debate and the opposition would have no power.

But they won't ever let it go will they? Not when they make money off it to pay for all those wonderful social programs. It's a vicious cycle. We need money for this, so we'll take it from here. Now we need money for that, let's take that from here. On and on until, uh oh, not enough money. Let's raise taxes. We need money for this...

Round and round we go, where it stops, nobody knows.

In the end, I just want the whole planet to shut up about the whole gay marriage thing. Let them marry already. This is like watching the episode of Star Trek with those hippies in it over and over again. It is excruciating, painful, and just downright silly. The religious views I and many others hold are, unfortunately, Irrelevent. We should also conclude that the government is secular, so being married by a judge technically is not seen in the eyes of the Lord and does not infringe upon our religious beliefs or our future place in the afterlife. A marriage before the law does not equal a marriage in the eyes of the Lord necessarily, it's what you make of it IMO.

There is nothing you, Gideon, I or anyone against it can do to stop it, not without compromising our democracy and the teachings of Christ, whom we try to emulate. Remember, the meek shall inherit the Earth. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

Regardless of how many of the founding fathers were Christians and Deists, we simply are not a theocracy, and we should be thankful for that. We have seen the ravages that theocratic goverments have caused in the past and are still causing in certain parts of the world today. Religion and government just does not mix well. I think those that want to remove the word God from everything are a bit over the top, because there is no harm done, but we cannot force others to comply with our values, and by having government create laws against it does just that.

My main concern is the future social implications. Marriage was created and defined for a reason. It is part of the fabric which holds our society together. It is an institution that has been around for over four-thousand years and although it has changed drastically over the years, particulary in the past forty or so, one thing has remained constant. That it has always been, in the eyes of government, between men and women.

Before Marriage, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. There is still this need, IMO.

Sorry for the lengthy post. Ramble mode off.

Ramasax

Jestah
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Long Island, NY
Insane since: Jun 2000

posted posted 12-13-2004 18:31
quote:
Ramasax said:
As I am sure you are aware, the press has a tendancy of concentrating on one side of an argument and leaving out the side they disagree with. The gay gene issue is one of them. They have taken the findings of scientist X, while failing to hear the findings of scientist Y. Half of the equation is ignored because of personal opinion and what is more popular with the whims of popular culture.



We're all aware of the partyline Ramasax. There's no reason to go into it in every post.

quote:
Ramasax said:

Once again, I repeat, there is no scientific research indicating a biological or genetic cause for homosexuality. Biological factors may play a role in the predisposition to homosexuality. However, this is true of many other psychological conditions.



It took me all of two seconds to search Google and come up with a study of homosexuality being biological. No scientific research indicating a biological or genetic cause for homosexuality? "As I am sure you are aware, [Conservatives] ha[ve] a tendancy of concentrating on one side of an argument and leaving out the side they disagree with."

quote:
Ramasax said:

They also say alcoholism is genetic. I have alcoholics in my immediate family. I do not drink. Why? Because I made a conscious choice of my own free will not to.



I see, and did you also make a conscious choice of your own free will concerning your eye color? How about not to get cancer? Of course I imagine the religious right will argue that these too are not genetic and are personal choices as well.

Gideon
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth*
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 12-13-2004 18:43
quote:
Dan said:

Not everyone believes homosexuality is wrong.


Not everyone believes murder is wrong, not everyone believes canabalism is wrong, what's your point? Should we celebrate those differences too?

quote:
Jestah said:

Maybe I'm mistaken but I would assume you feel homosexuality is a
conscious
choice - like punching someone. That's an opinion I just don't share.


Well, when people can conciously decide to be gay or not, murder or not, have sex with children of not. Oh that's a good one. Age. Why can't 60 year olds have sex with 16 year olds? Multiple marriage, marriage to animals. How do those sound? People have urges to kill, urges to have sex, urges for homosexuality, urges to steal, lie, cheat, what differenciates between them? Where is the line that says: this feeling is wrong, that action is wrong. Who has the right to say that? There are sides on all issues. Homosexuality is not the only one that is immoral.

quote:
Jestah said:

I don't know what you're saying here Gideon. Could you elaborate?


In a nutshell, I guess I was trying to say that you can't please everyone, no matter how much you try.

quote:
Ramasax said:

They have taken the findings of scientist X, while failing to hear the findings
of scientist Y


And A, B, C, D, ...

quote:
Ramasax said:

Remember, the meek shall inherit the Earth. Just sit back and enjoy the show.


I know, but I am afraid if my children get involved in that show. If America goes down the tube on morality, then land we live in, the leaders we follow go with it. It will just be history repeating itself. I just wish Jesus would hurry up and get here so we won't have to worry about it. *sigh*

quote:
Ramasax said:

There is nothing you, Gideon, I or anyone against it can do to stop it,
not without compromising our democracy and the teachings of Christ, whom
we try to emulate.


Not quite true. We can speak, we don't have to be violent. Voting works (if there is someone good to vote for). I just hope that Christians, and others that at least have good morals, will wake up and stop saying that it isn't their problem. Do you think that God gave us this land of liberty for no reason? (Physical) Matyring goes on in other regions, but the learning happens here (mostly). We are the spring board for most missions. If we go to the dumps, Christianity will have to take a private roll again like nearly 2000 years ago. Either that or we will have many more martyrs in the States than I would like.

quote:
Ramasax said:

Religion and government just does not mix well.


Well, will you agree with me that religion and government headed by men do not mix? That sounds logical. I think that one headed by someone not a man (or a woman) would have a considerably better shot.

quote:
Dan said:

The government should be forced to take no action
on any policy that doesn't:-Create a stronger market place-Create a
better standard of living-Benefit all people (rich, poor, black,
white, gay, straight) equally(not that everyone should get the same from
every decision, but the government should not be allowed to collect any data
which would enable them to know differences between the citizens, so as to not
be able to enforce different rules for different people)


Is that it? Is that all a government is there for? Just those things?

Good ramble Ramasax. I liked it. It was well researched too, that is always good.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Gideon
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth*
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 12-13-2004 18:54
quote:
Jestah said:

I see, and did you also make a conscious choice of your own free will concerning
your eye color? How about not to get cancer? Of course I imagine the religious
right will argue that these too are not genetic and are personal choices as
well.


Physical attributes are not a free choice, they are there for a reason.

Homosexuality IS NOT A PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTE.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Fig
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Houston, TX, USA
Insane since: Apr 2000

posted posted 12-13-2004 20:00

jestah, there's far from conclusive evidence for homosexuality being genetic. a lot of researchers also believe that environmental factors play a large part.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

amikael
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: övik
Insane since: Dec 2002

posted posted 12-13-2004 20:33

*LoL*

"I think it has the potential to become big, if in the right person's hands."

Just made me laugh..

(^-^)b

JKMabry
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: raht cheah
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 12-13-2004 20:49

ws: sorry for sidetracking the thread here, but I can't let it slide by, try as I might (or did), your statement:

quote:
I think it will have an influence. All lands that share a common border influence their neighbors, directly or indirectly. I think the Far Religious Right (like those above) would like to believe that it will not, because they cannot control it.



Did indeed label me directly. The operative word being "those" in "like those above". There are but 2 of use "above" in that thread, had it been 3 you might say you were referring to the other 2 and not me, but as it was only Bugs and myself, it was indeed directed at me. That fact that you didn't specifically use my name is immaterial.

Whether this was indeed a poor word choice or your heart finding a way to say what it meant, I can't say. I was just wanting to point it out so that you might have an opportunity to see more clearly through the eyes of another if you choose to. If this is your heart I fear you harbor a prejudice that you might want to consider holding in check, you seem (from other discussion I've read) to dislike prejudice and value tolerance for divergant views. I believe your pre conceived notion caused you to make assumptions about me that are patently false, and that's always a dangerous thing innit?

Dan: you're such an idealist, will you marry me?

Ramasax
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

posted posted 12-13-2004 23:14
quote:
Jestah: We're all aware of the partyline Ramasax. There's no reason to go into it in every post.



You, I and many other regulars here may be aware, but we are not the only ones reading these posts. There are many lurkers out there. I try to lay a certain groundwork in every thread I post to so that others may benefit from my profound insights...cough..., not just you or other regular posters. If that bothers you, I apologize, but I will continue to post as I always have, unabridged. You are free to skip over the points which you are familiar with in the future or simply skip my posts altogether.

quote:
Jestah: It took me all of two seconds to search Google and come up with a study of homosexuality being biological. No scientific research indicating a biological or genetic cause for homosexuality?



Give me a direct link to the actual study/studies if you have found them please. I'd like to read some of them and have been unable to find any in full.

I can do a Google search on anything my heart desires, and if I use the correct wording, I can more than likely find something or other to support it. For instance, if I wanted to find information that indicates the holocaust was a fabrication I could easily do so. Indications in science are not proof and are not relevent, primarily because other scientists have found indications to the contrary. Once again, scientifically, you cannot discard one set of findings and embrace the other. Unless you can, of course, prove one set of findings over another. On top of that, and what I think to be the biggest issue in the misunderstanding of these particular scientific findings that "prove" this link is that they were not expressed in an accurate way by the media and those with agendas in the public arena.

If you are interested I'd be happy to give you some links, although I am not sure your strong feelings on the matter would allow you to view them with an objective mind. Or perhaps you could word your Google search another way and find the alternative arguments yourself.

quote:
"As I am sure you are aware, [Conservatives] ha[ve] a tendancy of concentrating on one side of an argument and leaving out the side they disagree with."



Agreed, that is the nature of opinion and humanity. Conservatives, Liberals and whoever else wants to have a "biased" POV is one thing, we are all arrogant in this sense. Would you not agree, or do you believe you are right all the time? I don't. My opinions change constantly, to one degree or another. That is how we learn and grow as we assimilate new information.

The press is another matter entirely. There should be no emotional or personal opinion involved in their objectiveness as reporters, on either side, regardless of personal view. Unfortunately, there is. They should not be expected to be right 100% of the time, but all sides of an argument should be presented in an accurate and comprehensive manner. Perhaps the left and right side should work together to provide balanced view of events they cover, not likely, but it would sure make research a hell of a lot easier. Under the current press, to get the whole story, one must skip from article to article and try and piece together the puzzle.

quote:
I see, and did you also make a conscious choice of your own free will concerning your eye color? How about not to get cancer? Of course I imagine the religious right will argue that these too are not genetic and are personal choices as well.



Behavioural genetics are quite different, much more complex, and largely unknown as compared to the genetics of simple Mendelian traits such as eye color, hair color, or skin tone. You are comparing apples and oranges. Also, my argument was honest in this respect and religion plays no part in my conclusions, as you seem to feel the need to point out in order to try an discredit what I have said.

You don't believe anything is left to choice do you? No matter, we are on totally different wavelengths. Unfortunately for us and the rest of the world which faces the same troubles, we can never seem to overcome those differences. Here they escalate to arguments, vague generalizations, and the occasional outburst of insults. In the real world they many times escalate to violence and even outright war. Right wing, left wing. I know I am guilty of this as well, but perhaps someday we can see past these differences and enter into an honest debate. A debate where perhaps we can disagree, but still respect the opinions and beliefs of others.

In any case, in the eyes of a someone with your particular viewpoint, if you believe there is a Gay gene then you must also believe that science has correctly detected the God gene, so anything you say against me is intolerant. I have no control over my opinions of the world, I am simply a victim.

quote:
Gideon: Not everyone believes murder is wrong, not everyone believes canabalism is wrong, what's your point? Should we celebrate those differences too?



In time Gideon, in time.

quote:
I know, but I am afraid if my children get involved in that show. If America goes down the tube on morality, then land we live in, the leaders we follow go with it. It will just be history repeating itself. I just wish Jesus would hurry up and get here so we won't have to worry about it. *sigh*



Pass on your knowledge, do your best to raise them right, and give them the love and affection they deserve. That is all any parent can do IMO. People are shaped by their past, so make their past the best you can so their future will be bright. Being a person without children, I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about.

America will go down the tubes IMO, it is the destiny of every powerful nation that has ever existed. We're heading toward what's called "hyper-democracy" - a political system which knows no values other then liberty and equality. Ultimately, I think we're headed toward blurring all the essential distinctions that have made civilized life possible. All good things...

quote:
Not quite true. We can speak, we don't have to be violent.



Yes, we can speak, but our opinions regarding religion should stay out of public policy. In the long run, it only will lead to violence from the opposition and in the worst case scenario, war. We must understand that our religious views are irrelevent to those who disbelieve in God, so in most cases, words are simply an exercise in futility.

On the same note, public policy should not be determined by questionable and unproven scientific implications either.

quote:
I just hope that Christians, and others that at least have good morals, will wake up and stop saying that it isn't their problem. Do you think that God gave us this land of liberty for no reason?



First, I believe there has been an awakening of sorts. I do worry that the methods which are being employed by many on our side are wrong.

I do not think that God gave us this land per se. To say that, you would have to believe that he intended us to steal the land from those who dwelled here first. We aquired this land in an unjust way, not in an ordinance from the Lord.

I do beleive that there was a time when God gave this nation His blessings because of how we acted as a nation. That time is expiring if it has not already.

quote:
Well, will you agree with me that religion and government headed by men do not mix? That sounds logical. I think that one headed by someone not a man (or a woman) would have a considerably better shot.



I agree. It is men which corrupt and misinterpret religion, it is men who corrupt government. A corrupt government is bad enough without introducing the religious factor. We have no right to force the laws of religion upon men who reject it. It takes away their free-will to choose, something I believe very strongly in. We cannot be the judges of others or subjugate them to our values through public policy, we can only make our side of the argument known and spread the word to the inquisitive. In the en though, I am a pessimist in this regard and I do believe that this will be a downhill battle as civilized society continues its downward spiral morally.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 12-13-2004 23:28)

Dan
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Insane since: Apr 2000

posted posted 12-14-2004 05:47
quote:
Not everyone believes murder is wrong, not everyone believes canabalism is wrong, what's your point? Should we celebrate those differences too?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Let's ban Christianity because some people have a problem with it. That's the comparison. Let's dig deeper:
Murder = takes away peoples freedom.
Cannibalism = Well... you got me. I guess we should legalize cannibalism too. (As long as there is consent from both parties - preferably pre-mortem),
Gay Marriage = How does this limit people's freedom? What negative at all would it have on society?

quote:
Is that it? Is that all a government is there for? Just those things?

Yes... The government has way to much power over our lives right now. Gay marriage isn't the only thing in need of deregulation. I'd rather have a less equitable (or just, from whoever’s point of view) world, then a less free one.

quote:
Dan: you're such an idealist, will you marry me?

How's your cooking?

(Edited by Dan on 12-14-2004 05:47)

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 12-14-2004 06:31
quote:
Did indeed label me directly. The operative word being "those" in "like those above". There are but 2 of use "above" in that thread, had it been 3 you might say you were referring to the other 2 and not me, but as it was only Bugs and myself, it was indeed directed at me. That fact that you didn't specifically use my name is immaterial.



No, I wasn't trying to single you out in that - as I said (and apologized for) - poor word choice. It was meant to refer to the religious (political) Far Right - I should have said "like those above who are part of" the Far Right.

As you pointed out, I don't know you well enough to say much of anything about you. You don't often join into such discussions, nor do you explain much about yourself. I have been to your website many times - but so what?

To "lump" you into something, would certainly be wrong of me - I just do not have enough information about you to do such.

As such, my apology stands.

So, on to Jestah and Ram - both sides are leaning over an edge here. Neither is there conclusive evidence that Homosexual proclivity is genetic, nor is there conclusive evidence to the contrary (or for a psychological reason). Fact is, we don't know for certain! Genetic research of this kind is still in its infancy. And through all the years of study, no-one has conclusively proved that it is caused from purely psycological or evironmental factors.

In other words, there is some amount of evidence in both directions, but nothing conclusive.

So, what do we know?

Well, we know that homosexuality is as old as mankind itself (and occurs in Nature, where it has been documented), and that despite dangers and penalties of death, it didn't prevent such behavior. Thus, if psychological, it must be an unbelievably strong urge. However, there is no conclusive evidence that it is. That comes as suspect. We understand motives for Murder, Stealing, and such. Do we really understand the reason behind a sexual desire for the same sex? I don't think we do. We certainly understand the sexual desire for the opposite sex (or at least think we do).

I find that since it takes place in Nature, it must be a natural behavior, and not an aberration. As such, I see in that (since it brings no harm unto others) no problem with it as a behavior. This is what I do not understand, in Ram's and in other's position.

It is not affecting you. It is not harming you.

In that sense, positions against it are hardly based on a fair and impartial, rational process.

(Edited by WebShaman on 12-14-2004 09:10)

mobrul
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From:
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 12-14-2004 15:00

Well, as long as we're lumping homosexuality with murder, we might as well include all sorts of other things Christians of various ilks find immoral:

Baptists are against drinking alcohol - let's repeal the 21st Amendment

Catholics are agains birth control - let's outlaw condoms and birth control of all sorts

My father-in-law, die-hard Luthern, claims the Luthern church teaches it is immoral to have sex unless specifically trying to procreate. (Thank god, his daughter doesn't agree ) As such, we should test women for their most fertile 3 or 4 days, and outlaw sex on all other days. Furthermore, we should outlaw sex if a couple has been found to infertile.

Orthodox Jews find it morally offensive to break Kosher eating rituals. We, America the free, should outlaw the eating of pork or consuming milk with meat, or breaking any of the other Kosher rules.

Bugs, perhaps one of the most religious members of this board, points to Biblical passages to support his vegetarianism. We should, therefore, outlaw the eating of meat.

Protestants (in general) believe the communion wine and bread are representations of Jesus the Christ. Roman Catholics believe the wine and bread ARE Jesus the Christ. As such, they should all be jailed. They disagree and openly practice such heresey. Outlawed!

I could go on and on.
Do you see the point?

warjournal
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From:
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 12-14-2004 16:27
quote:
Well, when people can conciously decide to be gay or not, murder or not, have sex with children of not. Oh that's a good one. Age. Why can't 60 year olds have sex with 16 year olds? Multiple marriage, marriage to animals. How do those sound? People have urges to kill, urges to have sex, urges for homosexuality, urges to steal, lie, cheat, what differenciates between them? Where is the line that says: this feeling is wrong, that action is wrong. Who has the right to say that? There are sides on all issues. Homosexuality is not the only one that is immoral.



As already pointed out, the difference between some of those things is willing vs. forced.
Murder is forced. Stealing is forced.
Rape aside, homosexuality is willing - not forced.

This is has got to be one of my favorites:

quote:
Do you think that God gave us this land of liberty for no reason?



Since you said 'land of liberty', I assume you are talking about the early settlers from England.

What I find funny is that a lot of American Christians are fond of saying that this land was founded on good Christian values. No, the fact that the early settlers were some flavor of Christianity is incidental. This 'land of liberty' was founded on freedom from religious persecution.

What did those seeking religious freedom do? Persecute those already here.
Was this land given by God, or was it taken by force?
Moses set a good example for these kinds of things.
Yeah, good Christian values.

I want freedom from religious persecution.
This includes you (anyone) telling me that I can't get married to a man because of your religious beliefs.

Rick Ducommun said it best:
"You and yours leave me and mine alone."

(Edited by warjournal on 12-14-2004 16:51)

JKMabry
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: raht cheah
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 12-14-2004 16:28
quote:
How's your cooking?



There's so many gender/role/marriage/gay marriage jokes in that I dunno which to choose

WebShaman: no sweat, I was having trouble interpreting your post, thanks for the clarification, I'd never cack on an apology, please don't think that.

Legislating morality is just really difficult, I guess I'd draw the line at hurting others, if it doesn't, then leave it be. I think Jestah summed up our country's legislative process almost perfectly:

quote:
In a democracy, pretty much as long as a substancially large number of people want something it is hard for the government to say no.



"substancially large number of people" = substantially large amount of cash.

If we could somehow legislate against greed, wait, nevermind.

Gideon
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth*
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 12-14-2004 18:52
quote:
Ramasax said:

Being a person without children, I have absolutely no idea what I am talking
about.


That's okay. Good ideas though. In the home, parents can do all they want, but you have probably experienced this with your parents that peer presure and the media can be extremely hard road blocks in the raiseing of children. I just find that if people who are silent would speak up, then we might be able to turn the tide for another century or two. The Roman Empire went on for several centuries before they fell into the homosexual snare. I just hope we can hold off that long.

quote:
Ramasax said:

In the long run, it only will lead to violence from the opposition and in the
worst case scenario, war. We must understand that our religious views are
irrelevent to those who disbelieve in God, so in most cases, words are simply an
exercise in futility.


That is true, but words that are not of a religious stand point could be used. Using the Bible is a good idea, but not with unbelievers (I am learning that more and more on this site). Words that are on that level: scientific evidence, statistics, relating to nature, could possibly sway the other side. God did put rules down that weren't just in the Bible, most of them can be found just by pure logic.

quote:
Ramasax said:

I do beleive that there was a time when God gave this nation His blessings
because of how we acted as a nation. That time is expiring if it has not
already.


Looking around I can see that happening every day.

quote:
Dan said:

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?


Not much really.

quote:
Dan said:

Cannibalism = Well... you got me. I guess we should legalize cannibalism too.


Sounds good, lets do it.

quote:
Dan said:

Gay Marriage = How does this limit people's freedom? What negative at all would
it have on society?


Gay marriage does not limit freedom, it is a morality issue. Just like it is immoral to murder, rape, binge drink, etc. It is immoral to have homosexual feelings.

quote:
Dan said:

Yes... The government has way to much power over our lives right now. Gay
marriage isn't the only thing in need of deregulation. I'd rather have a less
equitable (or just, from whoever’s point of view) world, then a less free
one.


Well, that is the line isn't it? Where do we give up security and morality for freedom? Where do we say enough is enough? Do we even say that? If we go for only freedom there will be no more bag checks in airports, but that is a security and not a freedom. That is a violation of freedoms for security. Do we rid ourselves of that too? Where is the line?

quote:
WebShaman said:

and occurs in Nature, where it has been documented


Well, the animals may do it, but the parts don't fit.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

JKMabry
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: raht cheah
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 12-14-2004 19:25
quote:
Gideon said:
Gay marriage does not limit freedom, it is a morality issue. Just like it is immoral to murder, rape, binge drink, etc. It is immoral to have homosexual feelings.



Murder and rape force unwelcome action on another human being, therefor in my opinion are rightfully illegal. Binge drinking, well, nothing hurtful in and of itself there to another human, until the drunk gets behind the wheel, then it becomes a serious issue of possible unwelcome action against another (wreck, damage, injury, death etc) and is rightfully regulated.

I'm not sure what, if any, harmful, unwelcome action homosexual feelings or marriages would have on other humans (I'm sure taxes and the like would have to be looked at).

Jesus had constant condemnation for the dogmatic lawmen of his day didn't he? He was constantly going about with wine bibers (whatever that is ) tax collectors (thieves), whores and whatnot, even though they were law breakers. In regards to government he said to "render unto Caeser what is his". I think Jesus had the whole seperation of church and state down to a science, he didn't care much about the government, he cared about people. He lived to show grace to the immoral, and it worked much better to further His Kingdom than the haranguing of the immoral by the dogmatic lawmen of the time.

Not condemning any believer's conviction to take political stands or anything, just felt the need to be a reminder of our purpose as the church, and to maybe help prioritze our actions and the things we feel the need to make a fuss over.



edit: quote=name doesn't work?

(Edited by JKMabry on 12-14-2004 19:29)

mobrul
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From:
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 12-14-2004 19:31

First off, it wasn't "the homosexual snare" that caused the collapse of Rome. Certainly, there were lots of factors, but "the homosexual snare" wasn't one of them. (Not, anyway, without a significant stretch and reach of logic...)

Secondly, I suppose I did leave the question implicit. So, seeing as you didn't answer it, I'll ask it very explicitly.
Why legislate YOUR version of morality as opposed to others'?

Gideon, a specific answer to that question would help me better understand your point of view.

Fig
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Houston, TX, USA
Insane since: Apr 2000

posted posted 12-14-2004 19:47

people seem to get all upset when someone brings up the idea of "legislating morality". what people seem to forget is that we already do it. you're not supposed to kill people, you're not supposed to steal things that don't belong to you...these are things that the general populace agrees on and abides to.

when it comes to something like homosexual marriage is there a reason the same general principle shouldn't apply?

(i'm not necessarily saying it should or shouldn't, just opening the idea for discussion)

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 12-14-2004 20:23

Yes.

The other things you mentioned have a direct consequnece that is harmful to someone else.

Two men or two women getting married does not. It's not a question of morality.





(Edited by DL-44 on 12-14-2004 20:25)

mobrul
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From:
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 12-14-2004 20:30

I would say that it is wrong to legislate morality in any way. Our Founding Fathers would agree.

Look back to the people who influenced the Founders of the US of A.
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau etc.
Their political philosophies differed a bit, but they did have one thing in common - that is, they answered the question "Why do people socialize?" (and thus, why have governments, laws, etc) in pretty much the same way. They all said that people give up a limited amount of freedoms in order to live more productive and happy lives.

If murder were legal (or, more accurately, if murder were not illegal) we would all have to spend some significant portion of our time looking over our shoulders, and not as much time making a living, inventing things, loving our lovers, doing our hobbies, and all the other sorts of things humans like to do.

So, according to the people who invented Liberalism in the first place (the abovementioned list of names, and others) - the people who "wrote the book(s)" on the founding of our country - we DO NOT legislate morality. We legislate those things that make our lives more productive.

That's not to say we actually live up to that ideal, but that is the ideal upon which this country was founded.
Shouldn't we all honor the memories of our Founding Fathers by trying at least half as hard as they did to make that ideal a reality?

That's part of what really pisses me off when some wacko-right-wing-nut says such things as "if you don't like it, go live somewhere else".
I want to respond, "No m-f'er! If YOU don't like it, YOU leave!"
I'm trying to promote the ideal for which Jefferson and Washington and Madison and Paine, and Franklin, etc fought so bloody hard.

(Edited by mobrul on 12-14-2004 20:31)

WarMage
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Rochester, New York, USA
Insane since: May 2000

posted posted 12-14-2004 20:34

That is because I have a right to life and property

The law say that you can not commit murder, because if you were to murder me you would be taking my life from me. You can not steal from me because you would be taking some object from me.

The laws about morality that you talk about would be those such as, you can not commit suicide, or you can not smoke marajuanna, or you must be 21 in order to drink alcohol legally (int the US). The above 3 are moral because they are laws that prevent someone from doing something that affects only themselves (don't argue that doing drugs or drinking can lead to you killing someone or stealing from someone because we have other laws that are not morality based that deal with those specific actions, preventitive law tends to be a bad idea).

The top two are not laws that govern morality because they apply to someone doing something that directly affects someone else.

Homosexual marrige is a moral issue that should not be a part of the governments legal mandates, the same for laws that govern suicide, the personal use of drugs and alcohole, and many many other laws, that hang around in the legal books because some legislatures somewhere felt that they knew better than the people they are serving.

Dan @ Code Town

(Edited by WarMage on 12-14-2004 20:37)

Gideon
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth*
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 12-15-2004 01:50
quote:
mobrul said:

Baptists are against drinking alcohol


Actually against getting drunk, not alcohol.

quote:
mobrul said:

I could go on and on.Do you see the point?


Yup, I do see the point: Where is the line drawn? Where are things immoral, and where are they just stupid? That would be easy to fix if we had someone to fix it, but who has the power and authority to tell people what to think and do?

quote:
warjournal said:

Murder is forced.


Murder is forced upon another, but the murderer isn't forced.

quote:
warjournal said:

"You and yours leave me and mine alone."


I would, unless you are yours are hurting me and mine.

quote:
JKMabry said:

I guess I'd draw the line at hurting others


What would you define as hurting others? Directly? Indirectly? Both?

quote:
JKMabry said:

Not condemning any believer's conviction to take political stands or anything,
just felt the need to be a reminder of our purpose as the church, and to maybe
help prioritze our actions and the things we feel the need to make a fuss over.


Correct, Jesus did walk around with "sinners" (meaning "bad" sinners). He showed love. He loved the person but not the act. He loved homosexuals. I have nothing against the person. He despised homosexuality. So do I. You make it sound like I am homophobic. I am afraid of homosexuality not the homosexual. I still have hope for them, and with success stories like Sy Rogers, that hope stays alive for all homosexuals.

Jesus did love people, but don't forget:

quote:
Matthew 5:17-18
17 "Do not think that I [Jesus] came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
quote:
mobrul said:

Why legislate YOUR version of morality as opposed to others'?


I don't want to legislate MY version of morality. It is wrong.

quote:
Fig said:

you're not supposed to kill people, you're not supposed to steal things that
don't belong to you...these are things that the general populace agrees on and
abides to.


Not necessarily.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Dan
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Insane since: Apr 2000

posted posted 12-15-2004 07:48
quote:
Yup, I do see the point: Where is the line drawn? Where are things immoral, and where are they just stupid? That would be easy to fix if we had someone to fix it, but who has the power and authority to tell people what to think and do?

Clearly you don't see the point. Your bible may just be wrong. You may be praying to the wrong god (given that one even exists), all the morals you choose to live your life by may just be making some divine being more and more angry. Why should society be forced to live by your morals? What benefit is there? (Don't come back with a murder/rape/whatever analogy - this has nothing to do with those)

You don't seem to be able to put together obvious comparisons; instead you hyperbolize your side of the argument to no end. Let me try this just one more:

Some people believe homosexuality is wrong. Many of these people feel that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry.
Some people also believe Christianity is wrong. ...See where I'm about to go with this? Should we impose legislation to ban all things that anyone may find immoral? Impious? Scary? It would be ridiculous.

Since when is it acceptable for rules to be imposed on a society, when the rules are designed with only the purpose of hurting one group of the population, without benefiting another (regardless of how much clout the people who forced the law may have)?
(I realize all the pinkos no longer agree with me.. but on all the issues that they support, under these same consequences, they're wrong too)

Go ahead and start naming negative consequences gay marriage has on society.
Would any of them matter in a society that is avowedly atheist? No free country has a religion, and if it takes some brainless-asshole-socialist-fucker to remove the threat of religious interference in my, and everyone else’s lives... Then bring on the progressive taxes, and environmental/economical totalitarianism cause I'm going red.

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 12-15-2004 14:53
quote:
It is immoral to have homosexual feelings.



In your OPINION.

That is pretty much the entire point. You can feel as strongly as you wish that your opinion is supported by your bible, and that it is "right".

But it is still just your opinion.

quote:
I don't want to legislate MY version of morality. It is wrong.



Please clarify, as I am unsure if I've seen you state what your actual position is on the issue -

do you wish to see it illegal for homosexual couples to marry in the US?

mobrul
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From:
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 12-15-2004 15:11

See, Gideon, the thing about saying "It is wrong." is that any of the abovementioned groups would say EXACTLY the same thing about each of the things I listed. Roman Catholics (or, at least the RC Church) would say, just as strongly as you did about homosexuality, that birth control is wrong. Orthodox Jews would say, just as strongly as you did about homosexuality, that breaking kosher is wrong.
And, at the Southern Baptist Council of 1999, in Atlanta, GA, "Southern Baptists expressed overwhelming support for a lifestyle of abstinence from alcohol...by approving the report of a drug task force June 15".... (my emphasis) and they would say, just as vigorously as you did about homosexuality, that drinking alcohol is wrong.

Furthermore, I can point to millions of people (I'm one of them) who say, just as emphatically as you do, that homosexuality is NOT wrong, but just a part of the human existence.

It is YOUR version of morality. It may not be exlusively yours, but it is yours.

So if you argue that homosexuals do not deserve civil rights, you must argue that those who use birth control, consume alcohol, or don't keep kosher also should be denied civil rights.


And finally, you say that "[Jesus] despised homosexuality." I challenge you to produce one Bible verse in which Jesus is said to have uttered even half a thought about homosexuality.

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 12-15-2004 15:32
quote:
Furthermore, I can point to millions of people (I'm one of them) who say, just as emphatically as you do, that homosexuality is NOT wrong, but just a part of the human existence.



Right with you, 100%!! It is also a part of Nature (not just a part of human existence). Calling it wrong in Nature, would be tantamount to saying that God is also wrong, right? Didn't God make Nature? Apparently, God sees nothing wrong with animals doing it.

quote:
And finally, you say that "(Jesus) despised homosexuality." I challenge you to produce one Bible verse in which Jesus is said to have uttered even half a thought about homosexuality.



Now, THAT is going to be a tough one! I'm still waiting for Gideon to answer all the other questions that I posed.

(Edited by WebShaman on 12-15-2004 22:12)

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 12-15-2004 18:00
quote:
And finally, you say that "[Jesus] despised homosexuality." I challenge you to produce one Bible verse in which Jesus is said to have uttered even half a thought about homosexuality.



And quoting Paul doesn't count - that tells us what Paul thought about it, not what Jesus thought.

[1] 2 3 4Next Page »

« BackwardsOnwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu