Topic awaiting preservation: Persuasive Speech (Page 2 of 3)

Yannah - a very good effort. I hope you received a good grade. I don't mind that you used some of the sentences I provided. And your grammar was much better the second time around.

Bugs - the idea that hetero/homo relationships are the same came from me, I believe. I stated it in a couple of places. And I wasn't referring to the sexual side of it, obviously there are differences there. I was referring to the human interaction of two people. And yes, they are amazingly similar. I have known and been close friends with couples of both persuasions. They have the same emotions for each other, and the same arguments with each other. The difference in sexes has no bearing in that area. In most relationships, there are both a dominant and submissive partner. Sometimes they switch places, but both sides exist. In homosexual relationships, the dynamic is the same.

People are people - regardless of sexual orientation. It's our individual idiosyncracies that makes us special...

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 06-12-2003).]

I don't know that I really disagree with most of that, bodhi23. But I am curious to know how you view relationships with more than two people. I ask because I have found that most people that have argued with me about legalizing gay marriages are dead set against recognizing marriages between more than two people and marriages between people and animals.

You didn't ask...but I've got an opinion anyway.

Two things are important:
1) Is the relationship a consentual one, where all parties entered the relationship not under duress and can leave the relationship at will?
2) Is the relationship among adult humans?

If the answers to both those questions are yes, then that relationship should be given a legally equivalent status to 'marriage'. I don't care what you call it, but the partners must be able to share insurance, property, social security, etc as man-woman marriages do.
Anything else is the state (in a democracy 'of the people', the state is, by definition, you and me) interfering in something that is none of its (our) business.

Bugs - if the people involved are ok with multiple spouses, who am I to say what they should be able to do? I know that in many African countries, there are still tribes where the men have many wives... Less of that as they become "westernized", but it still happens. And I also know that many Mormons believe in polgynous marriages, even here in the states. If I'm remembering correctly, I believe it's legal in Utah only.
You hear more about men with multiple wives (polygyny) than you do of women with multiple husbands (polyandry), but I understand that polyandry exists still too. I'd have to poke around to find any references... And I'm sure there are areas of the world where community "marriages" exist as well... (but I'm not sure what you'd call it!)

As for beastiality, my personal tastes are against it - but whatever floats your boat man... (that's "you" general, not you, Bugs... ) I can't see how you can really compare a relationship between a human and an animal with a relationship between 2 (or more!) humans though.

Mobrul - I fully agree with that statement...

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 06-12-2003).]

If the answers to both those questions are yes, then that relationship should be given a legally equivalent status to 'marriage'. I don't care what you call it, but the partners must be able to share insurance, property, social security, etc as man-woman marriages do.

As for beastiality, my personal tastes are against it - but whatever floats your boat man...

These statements make me cringe. With thinking like this, its not a wonder that the state of the union would go to the dogs all in the name of the bill of rights.

I guess it would be ok for public sex too since its between two consenting human adults. I'll just have to look the other way and they are not harming anyone.

Jade - given most of your posts recently, I wouldn't expect you to understand or agree with any of this discussion. But you, too, are entitled to your opinions...

Free speech is one of the things that makes this country great.

And please do give humans some credit for common sense.

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 06-12-2003).]

Bdi,

Your a very intelligent poster and I don't mean to point your lack of sense.

But is it COMMON SENSE for two men or two woman to have intercourse?

Its unnatural behavior. Its a CHOICE of unnatural behavior between same sexes. Lets call a spade, a spade. Lets not sugarcoat it and say its fine as long as it doesn't bother me. Well, it does bother me that it would be classified and considered normal its beyond me.

I have a a great love for people, even if they are homosexual or lesbian. And I sympathize. But that doesn't mean I think the way they are is ok. Ok, so you have a problem with your sexual identity but why is it so important for the cause to push for normal to compare with a heterosexual relationship?

Why should society be forced to accept the recgonizing of a marrige between the same sexes? What point is trying to be made here?

Jade, do you define the relationship with your husband strictly in terms of sex? Isn't there more to your family than sex? What makes you think it's any different for a homosexual couple? a polygamous family?
There's more to a relationship, there's more to a family than sex. Let's not make this about sex.

Sex is gross.

I have no idea what in the world social security, descrimination in the job market and joint property ownership has to do with having sex in a public place. It's not quite as ridiculous as Rick Santorum's recent statements, but yours are pretty close.

If we allow gay people to have legal rights, they'll have sex in the streets!
If someone isn't just like me they 'have a problem'.

Insane

The Bill of Rights is a wonderful document. It allows hate-filled bigots to spew their virulence in public and not get thrown in jail...or worse.
You, Jade, should be happy we have the Bill of Rights.

There's no need to argue about this anymore.

jade:

I'm curious as to how you have come to the conclusion that what gays & lesbians do is unnatural. It seems to me that there is is quite the varity of things that can be done with one's "god -given" equipment.

When I think of an unnatural activity the first thing I think of is..... Flying.

norm, I have to disagree with you on that one. There is nothing unnatural about flying. It involves air, gravity, a whole lot of screaming and then finally one-ness with the earth. (Unless you follow Douglas Adam's advice from The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy and simply jump at the ground and miss.)


Seriously though, who is to say that homosexuality is unnatural? Humanity is not the only species on this planet to practice it. Perhaps the wiring/genetics that creates homosexuals is simply a mutation (not meant to be derrogatory! think evolution!) that is a built-in method of population control.

Yannah- Though you may have intended this thread only to give insight into your speech, it has sparked an interesting debate. Not argument. Perhaps the topic is no longer useful to you, but you could perhaps gain something more by listening to the debate.

This may sound strange but isn't it very "natural" to consider homosexuality to be "unnatural"?

This is a very difficult topic because it has so many facets and because it is such a focal point for much of the cultural civil war we find ourselves in. Nutshell time.

I have very little personal aversion to homosexuality. I am just as concerned for the well-being of homosexuals as I am about that of any other human being on this planet. But I am also a practicing Christian and there is no way I can see to read the Bible and not consider engaging in homosexual sexual acts as sinful.

My religious views are my own and need not be forced on anyone else in our society *unless* society feels the need to force certain behaviors that may or may not correspond to individual beliefs. Let me explain.

I don't think the government has any business dictating who can or cannot have sex with one another or with whom people choose to live with. But there are exceptions to this rule. We don't allow children to enter into these types of relationships because we as a society feel they are not capable of making those decisions yet. Society also has recognized heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman as the ideal. I believe this is the way it should remain. Not because I want my religious views to prevail, but because I think society has the right to maintain its survival and the nuclear family has been shown to be the brick that comprises society's foundation. It is by far the most successful institution for raising the next generation of citizens.

The bottom line for me is I think society should keep marriage what it is now but I have no problem with extending certain benefits to other arrangements as long as the traditional marriage remains the ideal.

I'm not entirely sure how coherently that came out.

bodhi23, thanks for the clarification. It's just that I love asking people about those other arrangements when I think they have a knee-jerk opinion about gay marriage and then seeing them become just as judgemental as the people who oppose gay marriage.

mobrul, I hope you can see from my point above that if society feels one (or more) marriage arrangements benefit society as a whole, that it (we) have the right to hold those up as preferred.

. . : slicePuzzle

Isn't sex for anything other then reproduction -- while not unnatural isn't "normal". If you consider the entire population of creation.

jstuartj:

If sex for any other reason than to produce offspring is not normal, than at any given time a large chunk of the worlds population is engaged in , or pursuing, the something that is not normal.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure most people aren't trying to make a baby every time they get laid.

[This message has been edited by norm (edited 06-13-2003).]

Well that kind of my point, the majority of the animal kingdom doesn't engage in pleasureable sex. It's not perpetuating the species, so techinically it's unnatural to do so. It is part of our nature so there for natural for humans but abnormal when compaired to other mammals.

[This message has been edited by jstuartj (edited 06-13-2003).]

Strangeness abounds...fact is, Nature is full of homosexuality...it seems to be as natural as heterosexuality...

Of course, there are those who, for whatever reason(s), ignore this...*shrugs*

Mbl.

Sex is gross? Are you serious?

We are sex from head to toe. Sex is written all over us in who we are. We know we are a product of the sexual act. And we are sensual by nature. As for some married men are concerned it is a big chunk of the marriage. I read a study awhile back that men think about sex or near to it on average 200 times a day even if they are not in their prime. I know that the libido is different in all persons and even woman during or after menopause have a heighten libido that could last years. And I think the majority of humanity will agree that sex is great but especially with the person you love it is super super wonderful great. But all of this is intended for the sexual pleasure in a marriage state of two persons, male and female. But in the culture of today human sexuality is used as pleasure for the senses in many ways and types that have degenerated the reason it exist. Sex is all over TV, movies, magazines & muisc videos. How many times have I seen my husbands car magazines with near naked women on top of the cars. Scantly clad women are used to sell just about anything. Sexuality dominates the culture of today where children are growing up are geared up for it as soon as they can experiment. Pornography is selling better than ever with homosexuality in it. Children can have access to this and what messages are they getting? That its ok to experiment with both & that there is pleasure in both. So the sexual culture of today can dictate the outcome of a persons preference out of confusion.

Well, I wanted to post that I don't want to offend any gay persons who are posters. I, for one hate gay bashing and am offened when remarks of ridicule are made about gays. I hate it. They are human persons who are connected to me and my heart goes out & hurts for them because their way in the world is difficult. Their sexual preference is not the part of themselves they want us to relate to or see. I can see their anguish at being looked upon different from the norm. But I cannot ignore the reality of their will in choosing a lifestyle that is contrary to the nature of life which is the will of common good for all people of society. Yes, good people are gay, but to say a gay society would work for society would be wrong and it disturbs the harmony. What can be gained by a homosexual marriage? How productive can it be for mankind? Can they be fruitful and multiply? No. Do they have a right to be married? I don' t think so.


My sisters best friend is a cross dresser and he knows we don't want to see that part of what he is, but he knows we love him dearly anyway. My best friends daughter is married with a child, but moved in with her boss who is a woman, and her reasoning is that this woman supports her better. She left her child & her husband for this woman? How is this good for humaity. I don't consider her gay. I helped raise her and she was boy crazy all her teen years.

But Morbul what about sexual realations between two consenting adults who are father and son or mother and daugher? Horrible as it is to conceive, it does happen. Would they have the rights also to do what they want. They are not hurting anyone. Shouldn't the bill of rights protect them?

Ok - we're talking about 2 different things here. Sex is one thing. There is no requirement to be married in order to have sex - unless your particular beliefs dictate that to be so. Jade - it's obvious yours do - no need for you to respond to that. Not everybody believes the way you do. We've determined that already.

Marriage is another issue entirely. There are 2 types of marriage: legally recognized, and married in spirit. People who commit to each other for the rest of their lives in front of witnesses, are married, even though the gov't may not recognize this. The Episcopal Church performs ceremonies for gay/lesbian couples all the time that may not be legally recognized. It's the act of commitment that is marriage. Even so, many businesses and insurance companies now offer benefits to "Significant Others", as opposed to "legal spouses". And hell - if three or more people decide to commit to each other for the rest of their lives, I don't see any reason they wouldn't be considered "married" either.

Sex is a big part of a loving relationship between humans. It's also a big part of simple personal pleasure. We were created with the ability to knowingly enjoy sex. What would make women have sex for procreation otherwise, considering the pain of bearing children? I'm not planning on, or interested in having children myself - I still have sex with my husband. But that pleasure has a side effect - we know it feels good, so we seek to express ourselves in that manner for the simple reason that it feels good. Granted - that has been and will continue to be exploited in such things as prostitution and rape, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist. Don't be any thicker than you must.

Victorians were nortorious prudes. Sexuality is natural. It happens. It exists. Yet an entire era was spent covering up the human body and pretending sex was something that shouldn't be discussed or experienced except where procreation was concerned. It's not so surprising that the pendulum has swung to the opposite end of the spectrum.

Again - people are people. We intereact with each other in the same ways, regardless of our sexual orientation. Relationships are the same, no matter who you are. Exactly how many gay/lesbian people have you interacted with on a daily basis? How many do you consider to be your close friends? How many do you allow to be themselve around you? To try and pretend that part of a person doesn't exist diminishes that person in your eyes, and often in their own. What right do you have to judge that persons actions in that manner?

What goes on in your bedroom is no one's business but your own. Likewise, what goes on in my bedroom or anyone else's in no business of yours. Even if I choose to have sex in my living room or kitchen (!) - it's no one's business but mine. Don't you dare presume to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body in my own house.

That said - if one doesn't want someone to make statements about their sexual practices, one probably shouldn't be having sex on the street. That's just asking for trouble.

But the fact that a person chooses to have sex with another member of the same gender, doesn't make them a bad person, or even unnatural as far as I'm concerned. If I judge a person at all, I judge them based on their merits and personality. Not their choice of bed partner.

Again, I don't expect you to understand or agree with any of this, Jade. You have already shown yourself to be the type of close-minded fundamentalist that I prefer to avoid conversation with.

Bodhi - Cell 617

I can see that a human can not reproduce without at least one heterosexual act. I agree with that. The fact is, most people would engage primarily in heterosexual sex exclusively (or near exclusively) regardless the legal status of hetero, homo, or any other sexual relationships. We do not have to worry that if we stop ostracizing people 'like us' the whole world is going to suddenly turn gay and the human species will die off in a generation or three. That is silly.

Bugs, you've made good points and I actually agree (mostly) with all of them.
According to your religion, homosexuality is a sin. Great. I don't agree with you, but I will stand next to you and fight for your right to believe that.

The government has no right dictating with whom we may or may not have sexual relations. You go on to talk about children. I agree with both points. I'm not sold on the animal idea, mainly because I think animals can not consent to such a relationship. That is a topic for another time...

Heterosexual relationships are the ones that produce offspring. I agree. I'm not convinced that one could say without doubt that a polygamous family is more or less suited to raise children than a monogamous family. I don't have enough data. I would argue that a two parent homosexual relationship is better for raising children than a one heterosexual parent family. I think an abundance of time, dedication and love is more important to a healthy child than the nature of the parental relationship. We could argue all day and never come to a conclusion. But that's really not the point. As I said in the first paragraph, if homosexuality or polygamy suddenly became 'un-hated' there would not be a shortage of heterosexual sex. The species will live.

And finally in your 6th paragraph you say the same thing I did. Those legal benefits should not be kept from homosexuals, etc. You have a condition that "the traditional marriage remains the ideal". That's not going to change.
If homosexuality suddenly became 'exepted' would you leave your wife and abandon your kids? I wouldn't.
I know sexuality isn't a binary thing -- there are shades of homosexuality and heterosexuality in almost everyone -- but most people are way on the heterosexuality side of the scale...and it's not because of social stigma.

Jade,
Sex IS gross. It's slimy and gooey, and it always leaves a mess. Then there's that whole touching and cooties thing...
[turns off sarcasm]
No sex isn't gross. It's a wonderful beautiful thing. My point was homosexual relationships aren't all about sex. Often, people make it out like homosexuals are simply indulging in some sort of 'unnatural' and 'immoral' desecration of their bodies for some pleasure and if they were 'normal' they'd have self control and limit themselves to heterosexual relationships...or something silly like that.

Your rant in your first paragraph there -- where you go on about the car magazines and so on -- illustrates my point. You somehow tried to relate a homosexual relationship to your husband looking at silicon-bikini-chicks and sex-sells consumerism and children having access to pornography...as if these were all examples of some disregard for the sacredness of sex.

I'm not arguing that sex-sells-consumerism is a good thing, or that children should have access to porn. But these are two entirely seperate issues from the issue of extending legal rights to homosexuals.

Homosexual relationships are very similar to heterosexual relationships. Sometimes they're passionate, lust-filled, hedonistic one-night-stands. Often times they are loving, caring relationships that involve sex, but also involve dancing and drinking coffee on the back porch, and cooking dinner and watching TV and going to a show and working in the garden. Those are the things my wife and I do, and I imagine those are the things that couples (heterosexual or otherwise) do all over the country.

My big problem with your stance comes from putting two things together. First, you say "But all of this is intended for the sexual pleasure in a marriage state of two persons, male and female." That is your belief. You are welcome to it. As I said to Bugs, I will stand next to you and fight to defend your right to believe that.
Where I must part ways with you is when you wish to use YOUR BELIEF to deny LEGAL rights to those with whom you don't agree. That is unacceptable.

That is the action of religious extremists, whether we're talking about the Iranian clerics, the KKK, the Taliban or Eric Rudolph. As soon as you start wishing to use your religious belief to push legal agenda, you are no different than any other religious extremists. You may not use violence (I suppose that is a positive) but the desired outcome is the same and it is wrong.

Nice posts, Bohdi and Mobrul! Well said! Couldn't agree with you both more.

Again, I don't expect you to understand or agree with any of this, Jade. You have already shown yourself to be the type of close-minded fundamentalist that I prefer to avoid conversation with.

Bodhi - Cell 617

That is the action of religious extremists, whether we're talking about the Iranian clerics, the KKK, the Taliban or Eric Rudolph. As soon as you start wishing to use your religious belief to push legal agenda, you are no different than any other religious extremists. You may not use violence (I suppose that is a positive) but the desired outcome is the same and it is wrong.


Bdi & Mbl
I do not consider my self an extreme fundamental religious fanatic and I know that is your opinion of me. I am more open minded that you think. Because my beliefs are contrary to yours or to anyone else that may have an opposing opinion with your extreme liberalism ideals you label us that way. You pigeon hole us and group us together as bigots. Contrary to what you think Christians have a deep love for humanity in all its misdirected forms. We seek for the common good of ALL people.

Because the USA & present culture of today dictates we observe the rights of every individual the liberty to happiness, we have allowed the liberties to run amuck. Gosh, we even have to consider Animal rights, gay rights, abortion rights, right to die rights and we have to consider children rights according to goverment, because parents can raise them right. So goverment steps in to show them how. Its easy to see how a young one growing up in todays world can get so warped and confused about who is charge of thier lives.
The USA Bill of Rights or the God Almighty.

quote:

---

Its easy to see how a young one growing up in todays world can get so warped and confused about who is charge of thier lives.
The USA Bill of Rights or the God Almighty.

--Jade

---

What about those living in other countries? What about Alah? What about my people, and their beliefs, on Nature and spirits? And what about all the others, who do not fall under those two catagories?

In your example, at least the Bill of Rights is tangable, and truly exists (though much only on paper, so it seems).

I don't lump all Christians together in one category. Just Christians who think their God should be in charge of everyone's lives. My mother is an Episcopal minister, and I was raised in a Christian church. I firmly believe in freedom of choice and belief for all people.

quote:

---

we have to consider children rights according to goverment, because parents can raise them right. So goverment steps in to show them how.
-jade

---

There are a great many parents in the world who cannot raise their children right - and who should not have been allowed to even have children. I can't find the link for it, but there was a thread here recently regarding a young man who had been repeatedly physically abused by his parents - and no one believed him... It's obvious that some parents don't know what it means to bring up a child.

None of that has anything to do with the legal rights extended to homosexual couples or the fact that folks have the right to make their own decisions regarding their
relationships with people.

There are grey areas of fundamentalism, just like anything else. The fact that you may not be on the extreme end of that curve, makes little difference to me. You still seem to think you know what's best for the rest of us, as regards our personal beliefs and choices.

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 06-13-2003).]

Of course you don't see yourself as an extremist. Most don't.
Bugs is very close to you in religious beliefs. I've never called him a bigot. (For the record, I've never called you a bigot either. I alluded to it, sure. Maybe that's close enough...) I absolutely respect him. In fact, I respect Bugs' thoughts and opinions more than I do those of many people who agree with me!
Why?
Because he thinks. He communicates intelligently. He sees and understands the difference between religion and law. He knows that secular and sacred societies are BOTH stronger when they recognize their seperate spheres of influence.

I don't automatically respect those who agree with me and disrespect those who don't agree with me. You have my values all wrong. I respect people who are logically minded, who can see outside of their own box, who can communicate effectively, who can hold a reasonable conversation, who respect that people are different and see that is what makes us great!

I disrespect people who try to force others to to obey some arbitrary set of superstitions, who can't have a reasonable, logical conversation, who don't believe in the freedom of religion (or think that it only applies to one special group of people).

Bugs understands that my NOT practicing Christianity does not force his hand one way or another.
You do not.
Bugs sees past "I am a Christian, you are not."
You do not.
Bugs makes room for me to exist side-by-side with him.
You do not.

That is the difference. That is why I respect Bugs. That is why I disrespect many people who actually agree with me on many issues.
You don't have to live someone else's life. I don't ask that you change your beliefs one ounce. All I ask is that you not try to impose them on others. All I ask is that you walk a mile in someone else's shoes. You don't have to live in them forever, just a mile.
You can learn a lot in a mile.

I respect people who are logically minded, who can see outside of their own box, who can communicate effectively, who can hold a reasonable conversation, who respect that people are different and see that is what makes us great!

Thank you Morbul. Your disrespect for me is obvious. Why are you responding to my post(s). I happen to respect all, even the feeble minded and plain stupid and ignorant and have a hard time communicating or putting their thoughts into words. Just because Bugs has a different way of approaching subjects because he doesn't want to tread certain waters or step on feet makes him a better considerate person than I.

Talking about who has their nose up in the air.

I love you anyway.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 06-13-2003).]

You still seem to think you know what's best for the rest of us, as regards our personal beliefs and choices. Bdi


Bdi.

I don't go on my own personal assumptions. It is someone elses who I follow who dictates what I post. I fear not in stating what is truth. And am one who speaks for change when I see an evil and if that makes me look self righetous in your eyes, you are entitled to your own opionion of me.

I didn't say self righteous - I said close-minded.

You are entitled to your beliefs. My beef is that you continue to assume the rest of the world should believe the same as you. You refuse to allow that there are other paths that people may choose to follow. Your God may dictate your thoughts and statements, but your God does not dictate mine, nor Mobrul's, nor WebShaman's, nor those of many other people in the world.

I stand by your right to believe what you like - as I support religious freedom. But you have no right to state that what you think is what is best for all people in the world.

I have no problem with a difference of opinion, provided you can logically back it up. Religious thought is by no means the only way to think in the world. It just appears to be yours. I disagree with lots of people - but I can still hold a rational conversation with them. The problem I seem to have in talking to you is that you bring your God into every conversation. It gets a little tiring to see a perfectly good thread disemble into an argument like this one. Broaden your horizons a little bit. There's a whole lot more out there.


Bodhi - Cell 617

Bdi.

Believe me, your post and Mbls really do enlighten me. I admire your articualte way of getting your point across and seeing a view that I haven't before. Its a gift that I admire. In your statement that there is more out there than God, please tell me what it is in life that I am missing?

The different spiritual perspectives of other people and cultures - in addition to the scientific explanation of just about everything... While you can always state that God is behind it all, it's sometimes helpful to look at the world from a secular perspective... And at least open yourself up to the possibility that there are other ways of thinking...

I'm glad to hear you get something out of what I'm saying... perhaps there's hope.


Bodhi - Cell 617

I don't think anyone is saying we can't have our own beliefs on any of these things. I think what is causing unnecessary friction is respecting, or not as the case may be, everyone's right to hold said beleifs.

jade, you know that you and I agree on quite a bit of this stuff but we don't agree on how we regard others. mobrul, makes a very good point when he said that he has more respect for me than with some of those with whom he agrees with more. It is precisely the same with me. I know quite a few people, Christians, with whom I have much less respect because of the way they treat those with whom they disagree *and* because they refuse to *think* about what they believe.

I am very glad that you are still here with us, jade. It seems a very normal thing for people to sort of get used to how things work around here. I think that as everyone gets to know each other's positions better, the conversations tend to be productive.

bodhi23, you said a couple of things I wanted to comment on.

quote:

---

Just Christians who think their God should be in charge of everyone's lives.

---

From a Christian point of view, how can one want anything else for all humanity? If I'm misreading you, then disregard this.

I just want to be clear that Christians have every right to expect others to come to God. They have every right to tell others that. They have every right to explain that if you die without salvation, you end up in a very nasty place. What do not have a right to do is force people to become Christian or expect the secular government to force that on the populace.

I have said this in several other threads now but if God Himself does not force His will on humanity, then His followers are in no position to do so either. Our responsibility is to live our own lives as we see fit and to tell others of the way we think is right. It is up to the recipients of that message to respond as they see fit.

This is my understanding of how that should work in our modern society. The best I believe we can hope for in this world is a secular government and a religious populace. I am still very much in favor of continuing this grand experiment that was begun here in this country a little over 200 years ago.

Bugs,

What friction? Am I guilty of pushing Christianity on anyone?

If I disagree with an opinion, I am considered closed minded. How many times have I been called bad names on this thread. Am I so insolent, arrogant, etc..

I see your point that your suprised that I am still with this site, as it seems I cause friction or dissention and the majority of the times I stand alone. Maybe my post have not affected anyone in ay real postive way and I am posting against the wind. Or haven't contributed well thought out good views. I will have to think about this.


And I am seeing your point, but what isn't it fair to say that Morbul is guilty of the same. Because I don' t agree with his point of view, I live in a closed box and don't know the real world? Does one have to take the secular view to know the the way of the world? I never want to put anger in anyones heart and if that is what I am doing I apologize to anyone I have offended.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 06-14-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 06-14-2003).]

I'm sorry for implicating myself at this point in a debate I didn't enter, but I had a few things to say.

Jade, you have the right to speak here like everyone else, to expose your opinions, thoughts, and nobody shall be upset at you for this, this is your freedom. But there is a little problem. As you're a Christian, you constantly refer to religious values or feelings to discuss of the topics. This is not condemnable in itself I must say. I believe the problem is that you tend too much to praise these values. Furthermore, I think the religious values you use are rather...strict (in lack of a better vocabulary). I think people here search completely open-minded debates, and by constantly repeating the same religious arguments that refuse the other theories, you irritate people. I believe people here would be less upset if you considered more their opinions, if you accepted to think about it a bit more rather than just answering by the religious opinions. I think the problem is that people here search new thoughts, new ways of thinking, and the often close-minded opinions of Religion get them upset.

Yesterday as I was rereading Chapterhouse : Dune, I came accross an interesting comment. I think it applies very well to our problem. To be frank, it is a rather harsh comment on Religion. I submit it here because I think there are very interesting points in it. All I ask is that you think about this quote. To give you an hint, was is important for us here lies in the two last sentences.

"Religion (emulation of adults by children) encysts past mythologies : guesses, hidden assumptions of trust in the universe, pronouncements made in search of personal power, all mingled with shreds of enlightenment. And always an unspoken commandment : Thou shall not question ! We break that commandment daily in the harnessing of human imagination to our deepest creativity."
--Bene Gesserit Credo

Hmm what was the original topic ?

Is there any chance we can collectively get off of jade's back? I have disagreed with just about all of her viewpoints in this and previous posts, not surprising since I am about as far from a Christian as it is possible to be. But she has not called me or any of you who disagree with her any names.

If she is a "....close-minded fundamentalist " because she won't see things from someone elses perspective, what does that make me (and some others here) who damn sure won't look at things from the point of view of a Christian?

Although many of the words and catch phases jade uses bother me, that is my reaction, my problem. I realize that she is not trying to offend me. All in alll, jade has been respectful of others here at the Asylum in her posts. I think we owe her the same courtesy and respect.

Let's play nice kids... or I'm gonna tell.

[This message has been edited by norm (edited 06-14-2003).]

It's true. She's curteous. And it isn't her lack of embracing another Point fo View that makes her a fundamentalist. It's her insistance that it should be law that makes her a fundamentalist. She can believe anything she wants and teach it to her kids too. She can try and influence us with her words and teach us by example. All that means is that she's as free as you or I. As soon as she starts recommending passing laws based on religious viewpoints, she starts breaking the rules of American Society. If you wanted to make your beliefs law, you'd be a fundamentalist too. There isn't anything wrong with that word. It's like calling me a heathen... I am, How can I be upset by that?

But you hav a point. I can leave her alone, knowing that she isn't going out of her way to irritate me. However... that means I'll have to ignore her. A situation I am a bit loath to be in. I think she has some valid viewpoints. And she brings to the table her own viewpoint of a deeply christian person. It's her insistance on, once stating her belief, not even allowing for other possibilities. If she would look at what I say, think about it and come back with 'I see what you mean, I don't agree and this is why. All of this would go away. Even if the thisis why was only 'because the bible tells me so'. She doesn't need to agree with it. Just acknowledge my POV and address it without repeating herself.

Ok - let me back up and punt here. Jade - my apologies for coming off harsh... obviously I have some issues with fundamentalism, and I chose you for a target. That was wrong.

Feel free to espouse your beliefs, no one's asking you to change them. There are some things I feel as strongly about, as strongly as you feel about your God. I can't fault you for that.

Let's go back to what set me off then:

quote:

---

If the answers to both those questions are yes, then that relationship should be given a legally equivalent status to 'marriage'. I don't care what you call it, but the partners must be able to share insurance, property, social security, etc as man-woman marriages do.

As for beastiality, my personal tastes are against it - but whatever floats your boat man...

These statements make me cringe. With thinking like this, its not a wonder that the state of the union would go to the dogs all in the name of the bill of rights.

I guess it would be ok for public sex too since its between two consenting human adults. I'll just have to look the other way and they are not harming anyone.

---

It's hard to emphasize "tongue-in-cheek" in text, but that's what my comment about beastiality was... (perhaps I should start appending that to some of my posts...) Bugs was checking to see if, in advocating the legality of homosexual marriage, I wasn't being hypocrytical in regards to other types of union. I try really hard not to speak in double standards. If you catch me in one, you let me know, ok? But that doesn't mean I expect the legalization of beastiality any time soon, nor that I advocate going out and finding yourself a sheep when you can't find a woman - make sense?

However, I feel the remainder of my points are valid. Simply to assume that the fact that somebody thinks it's ok, makes the world "going to the dogs" - is a typically fundamentalist response... And I truly was not surprised to see you post that, based on your responses in the abortion debate. Diversity is what makes this world a great place. The fact that everyone can believe something totally different, yet most of us still be good people is one of the things I really like about being alive. Just because you don't agree with what someone else does with their life, doesn't make it wrong, no matter what you think. It just makes us all different. This country exists so that we can all have the freedom to make our lives as we please.

Now this conversation started because Yannah had a speech about the acceptance of homosexuals in society. I have strong feelings about homosexuality being accepted as a reality that is not going away. I have many close friends, and even relatives who are homosexual. The are just people to me. Just because you don't like homosexuals or agree with the lifestyle, doesn't make them bad people, nor does it make it any more likely that it will just up and disappear. That's the point I'm trying to get across. But I refuse to butt heads with someone who simply can't agree to let people live the way they feel is best for themselves. I did state that I didn't expect you to agree or understand that idea. If you understand, but don't agree, that is your perogative, at least you understand.

I personally don't go in for proselytizing. I feel strongly that people should be free to make their own choices in regards to religion. It's one of the reasons that I do not profess to be a Christian (one of many, I might add). Yes, the Christian Church should make itself available, and it's information and beliefs available... it's a legitimate choice. But it's not the only choice. Even if your beliefs tell you it is. I'm not someone who needs to be convinced of my spirituality. Even if you feel like you need to, just don't. If you don't agree, then disagree. There's no need to always bring God into it.

All I ask - is that you give people with other perspectives a chance to make their case, before you close your mind to the idea. No one's trying to convince you to change your mind, just to accept that other people have choices to make as well. A conversation is just that, a conversation. No need to always turn it into a debate about who's right and who's wrong... or who's going to hell if they don't believe. Most of us are intelligent adults here, and should be able to hold a conversation intelligently, without stepping on other toes. I also think we should all be able to agree to disagree, no matter what the topic. There's no sense in going on and on about something we're never going to come to terms with.

That said, if you make an effort not to spoon-feed me Christianity, I'll make an effort to accept your opinion for what it is: your opinion.

We straight now?

Bodhi - Cell 617

Ms. Bdi.

I see your point in working on our attempts in trying to convey our perspectives without becoming too personal. As per your gracious request, we are straight. But I never took your comments in a personal way because I know there is no ill will behind your words. Through your post(s) I see a kind person. Never intended to spread any ill feelings on my part. As norm and GD commented I needed to try to use a better choice of words without disturbing anyones peace. Everyones reflective points matter. I want to clarify, my comment about the feeble minded, stupid, ignorant was not intented for this site, but people in general one runs accross in life that are not able to see or their intellect is lacking. I feel we have to be compassionate because all have something important to add in life. This being said I didn't want to be treated any different than the way I was. Contrary to the way it seems, Mbl was right when he stated on a post in earlier days, that I would learn much from this site. There are a few of you that I wait for to see a post. So I have my favorites.

This issue of bringing God into most comments or debates usually is when the issue called for it. Well, at least that is the way I saw it. The comments made to me about walking in secular shoes so I could take a different perspective about issues would mean I would have to stop trying to walk in the ones shoes that I follow. I know whats out there. To me its like I know if I put my hand in the fire, it will burn me so why would I attempt to go even put it there. Its hard to separate myself from God in me and that is the real issue. I don't go everywhere wearing Christianity on my shoulder and try to spoon feed it to everyone. I try to think if God or how one sees their Gods was a poster on this site, what would he post or respond. Would he say, " its ok not to believe in me. Go your own way as long as you co-exist in socieity you will be fine because I am able to see your view too" or "its right for my sons to lie down next or one another lustfully, I give it my blessing". You see, it would be wrong if I remained silent and not spoke on the will of Gods behalf. So herein lies the problem if this view is accepted by all here as a should be accepted social norm as opposed to one seeing it as a social ill, which is how I see it and maybe one other that I know of.

Well, regardless, I will think about how I could relate better and am off for awhile.

Thanks again for your explanation.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 06-16-2003).]

It's threads like this that prove that the heart of the Asylum is still beating...

Just got to love it!

Asylum hug!

hmm... ok.

I think I understand all of that jade. You are one of those people who is so engrossed in your spiritual beliefs, you cannot separate yourself from them at all. Even in the interest of accepting human nature as human.

Homosexuality is a "social ill"?

I see we have a serious difference of opinion here. There are a great many other things in the world that I would consider "social ills" over homosexuality: child abuse, homelessness, violence against innocents, rape, theivery, war...

Most homosexual folks I know are pretty good people on the whole. They care for their fellow humans, devote time, money and energy to charity, are kind to animals, and fight for the rights of their fellow humans... male and female alike. They make every effort to be productive, contributing members of a society that consistently shuns them. And because they choose to express themselves differently in their physical relationships, you will condemn them as people? That's a pretty uncharitable judgement from the spiritual corner you should be sitting in.

Far be it from me to try to convince you otherwise. I can only shake my head that you would judge a person solely on their sexual orientation, rather than on their merits as a person in general.



Bodhi - Cell 617

I, too, must beg to differ with Homosexuality is a social illness. This is...incorrect, on every level. The fact that the Bible mentions homosexuality, indicates just how old the behavior is, and I suspect that it is much, much older still. In fact, a glance at nature informs us that it is a natural part of nature itself!.

To put it bluntly, Jade - could you just drop being attracted to men, and start a sexual relationship with a woman? Because that is exactly what you are suggesting that homosexual people should do. Homosexuality is namely not an illness! It is also not a choice! It is the way one is - it's that simple.

Thus, judging one on just this principle alone, is not only extremely intolerant, but it opens the door to also being judged, on the very same principle yourself.

Jade, try putting yourself in other shoes for a minute - what if it was hetrosexuality that was being considered here - and the Bible was against it. How would you then feel? Cope? Could you then hold your belief, knowing that you were 'sinning'? That God had prohibited your type of sexuality? How could you ever possibly change to becoming a homosexual? And would being a hetrosexual change the worth of your person, based soley on this?

Man, I thought this kind of stuff had died out...looks like it is alive and kicking, within the Christian faith...that would, indeed, then support the accusation that the Republicans are mostly homophobes...those that Believe, anyway (of course, this doesn't shut-out Democrats who believe likewise).

Ooo.... damn - caught myself in my own logic. Of course homosexuality is not a choice... In fact, there have been reports that scientists have linked it to particular genes... my bad!

However, living a homosexual lifestyle is a choice... Many homosexual people choose not to live as homosexuals simply because of the derision they might face...


Bodhi - Cell 617