What I want to know is, why should homosexuals not love one another and not have sex (as long as they are adults and consenting) to express their love? Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry one another in a bond of love?
I never stated they could not love each other?goodness there is more love needed in this world.
Though its thought of as disoriented love?homosexuals have a free will to choose the life they want to love/live just like you and I do..but whatever they, I or you decide is good for us... that does not mean is for the good of society or if it affects society in a negative impact.. If I chose to have 8 babies at once is it anyone?s business but mine? There was disgust, ridicule and horrible comments to this day made about the octo-mom because she is hurting society by us, the taxpayers paying for her and her 8 babies in care. So does what she decide to do with her body affect you and me??.yes?.just like the homosexual agenda does. I don?t agree with what she did but it is not up to me to force her not to have 8 more. Just like I cannot force two homexual men not to have sex. Is there going to be laws saying a woman cannot have 8 babies at once because she cannot afford them? Or is the US supreme court going to get involved in that woman?s body too? Concerned citizens will voice their opinions and try to make laws to protect society. They might win or loose. We have the right to voice or make legislation so this will not happen again. Just like two men want to enforce laws guaranteeing them a real marriage equal to a man/women marriage will affect all of society in regard to schools, government, family, children and the rewriting of laws to the USA.
?
I offer proof, you do not.
No you do not. I still have yet to see the proof for homosexual tendencies?being valid natural acts designed by the evolvement in the laws of nature. You may want to contact some genetic scientist as you will no doubt give them a scientific breakthrough? You may win the Nobel Peace Prize in science.
It?s not about I have to ?I need to ?Its about I WANT to have sex with men like me because I like the sex better.
This is actually pretty funny, because what you have posted is actually examples of heterosexuals engaging in homosexual activities when they are denied the opportunity to satisfy their heterosexual urges with someone of the opposite sex!
You did read the part that such revert back to their basic sexuality after the event ends (which is denial of a normal way to satisfy their sexual urges without another choice!)
In other words, one CANNOT make someone change their sexuality permanently! It can be suppressed, and it can be temporarily altered if the stress of the environment is great enough, but when presented with an environment where that is not so, it immediately reverts back to "normal".
It?s always a choice.
No. this is not want I see.. I see men, women giving in to their carnal animal nature URGES instead of using discipline. I see no control. I see weakness, lust, debauchery, evil and suffering. I see a person using any means of sexual gratification because they are addicted to their carnal lustful nature. I see a man who is ruled by his body instead of his heart/mind. Here the sexual organ is in control of the body by choice always.
I believe and also many others believe, where God is present in the spiritual nature of man, man can remain pure and innocent of this unnatural act?..
I find it interesting that you say that you can control attraction if you do not wish to be attracted.
Yes?.hard as it is for men who in general like to seek and conquer in a quest to bed women?(not all men)?if your more in touch with your canal nature in thought and visuals,?you will be seduced by attraction ?With prayer, diclipine if your heart is directed to the desire to be holy, good and honorable, pleasing, etc ?.. you can withstand the desire want to attraction.. I can look at the opposite sex and think how handsome and look at a woman and see beautiful?without being attracted. I appreciate how God can make some beautiful and striking creatures in appearance...
You know sometimes you do not need a scientific book to prove facts you already know by observation, wisdom and experience regarding human nature.....
Or are there people whose intellects are concentrated in their genitalia?
Yes.,,,,yes......most definitely in any area of life ... many sitcoms, series, news, variety shows, auto and motorcycle makers, magazines, novels, celebrities, clothes, tv commercials, music industry and your local news stands are geared towards arousing your genitalia because they want to for their interest.
DL...why has the US supreme court in their supreme intelligence regarding law want to keep gays in the closet in the military ....
3rd request.
1) I am not aware of what you are talking about off hand, or of what exactly was put before the court, or of exactly what their ruling was. If I get a chance, I will read up on it...
2) I am quite sure that whatever the case, they will (or have) detailed exactly why they ruled the way they did themselves.
3) I am not a mind reader, and cannot tell you (aside from quoting them) why they decided the way they did.
4) Just because the Supreme Court ruled on something, doesn't necessarily make them right. They are human too, and are appointed to their positions...
Just because the Supreme Court ruled on something, doesn't necessarily make them right. They are human too, and are appointed to their positions...by DL..
But by the same token just because homosexuals want a favorable ruling doesn't necessarily make them right in their petition.
I guess by this statment too DL you believe a supreme court judge's personal humanity (ideology) affected their decision instead of the rule law affected their ruling. Can this be true?
quote:I never stated they could not love each other?goodness there is more love needed in this world.
Though its thought of as disoriented love?homosexuals have a free will to choose the life they want to love/live just like you and I do..but whatever they, I or you decide is good for us... that does not mean is for the good of society or if it affects society in a negative impact.. If I chose to have 8 babies at once is it anyone?s business but mine? There was disgust, ridicule and horrible comments to this day made about the octo-mom ... blah blah blah ... Just like two men want to enforce laws guaranteeing them a real marriage equal to a man/women marriage will affect all of society in regard to schools, government, family, children and the rewriting of laws to the USA.
And yet you still fail to explain exactly what negative impact gay marriage will have on society. Again and again and again.
Wow, looks like people with your particular set of beliefs have gone from hating gays to still hating gays, but pretending to like them. Interesting.
quote:homosexuals have a free will to choose the life they want to love/live just like you and I do..but whatever they, I or you decide is good for us... that does not mean is for the good of society or if it affects society in a negative impact..
Yes, they have a free will. By not allowing them to make that choice (marriage), however, you are not allowing them to exercise that free will.
By extension, just because you decide homosexuality is bad doesn't mean it is bad. Since you've failed to offer any logical statements that are not based on fallacy and ignorance, you are inevitably wrong. Logical thought isn't like the legal system, it's the opposite -- you're wrong until you're proven to be right, and so far, you've offered a lot less proof than the people you're arguing against.
quote:If I chose to have 8 babies at once is it anyone?s business but mine? There was disgust, ridicule and horrible comments to this day made about the octo-mom ... blah blah blah ... Just like two men want to enforce laws guaranteeing them a real marriage equal to a man/women marriage will affect all of society in regard to schools, government, family, children and the rewriting of laws to the USA.
Octomom = Overpopulation =/= No Babies = Gays
Oh, no! We can't have increased equality in our schools, governments, families, and children! That would be a terrible alteration to society! Much better to teach them to hate each other for the most idiotic and insignificant reasons possible! </sarcasm>
quote:Oh, no! We can't have increased equality in our schools, governments, families, and children! That would be a terrible alteration to society! Much better to teach them to hate each other for the most idiotic and insignificant reasons possible! </sarcasm>
Who is teaching hatred...?? not I.....where does "HATE" come into the picture...???
You have choosen to used the word "HATE" to make your argument as to say all those who oppose gay marriage "HATE" gay people..do you know how silly, crazy, absurd and ridicilous this sounds...So all those in California who voted to uphold the ban on gay marriage...."HATE" gay persons...this is what your saying right? California then is filled with Hatred for their fellow man. The larger part of the American voters is what your describing. The voters are trying to preserve the marriage union of two consenting opposite sex couples....thats all.... in that its in no way equal in comparison to a union of two men/women. That is all.
I oppose abortion...does that mean I HATE women who have abortions or persons that perform or help in abortions. That means I would hate some of my friends who have had an abortion. Or my bisexual friend who is a friend of the family...That would be I "HATE" him too.
They, the gay cause promote hatred themselves in "HATE" words they use to those that oppose their cause. HATE mormans, HATE Catholics, HATE Chrisitans, HATE blacks who voted for the ban..."HATE" all who would work to defeat our case/cause.
Definition of Hate: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b: extreme dislike or antipathy
.
quote:Oh, no! We can't have increased equality in our schools, governments, families, and children! That would be a terrible alteration to society! Much better to teach them to hate each other for the most idiotic and insignificant reasons possible! </sarcasm>Who is teaching hatred...?? not I.....where does "HATE" come into the picture...???You have choosen to used the word "HATE" to make your argument as to say all those who oppose gay marriage "HATE" gay people..do you know how silly, crazy, absurd and ridicilous this sounds...So all those in California who voted to uphold the ban on gay marriage...."HATE" gay persons...this is what your saying right? California then is filled with Hatred for their fellow man. The larger part of the American voters is what your describing. The voters are trying to preserve the marriage union of two consenting opposite sex couples....thats all.... in that its in no way equal in comparison to a union of two men/women. That is all.I oppose abortion...does that mean I HATE women who have abortions or persons that perform or help in abortions. That means I would hate some of my friends who have had an abortion. Or my bisexual friend who is a friend of the family...That would be I "HATE" him too. They, the gay cause promote hatred themselves in "HATE" words they use to those that oppose their cause. HATE mormans, HATE Catholics, HATE Chrisitans, HATE blacks who voted for the ban..."HATE" all who would work to defeat our case/cause.Definition of Hate: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b: extreme dislike or antipathy .(Edited by jade on 06-11-2009 21:53)
Hate comes into the picture when false sincerity and empathy is used to justify the blatant and unjust denial of rights and equality to a group that deserves both; that sincerity and empathy is revealed to be little more than a facade through your constant condemnation of homosexuality as immoral when in fact it has no less morality than heterosexuality. The only difference between this -- the condemnation of a group of people, the deliberate denial of their rights, the encouragement of that denial, the ignorance to their plight -- and blatant hatred is that in this case, the hatred is indoctrinated and thus not seen as hate by those who practice it.
And please don't use the "majority" of the American public to support your views.
You have no way of proving that the majority of Americans are on your very ignorant side.
America is not your personal army.
Also, as an American, I can assure you that America has probably the highest incidence of inexcusable stupidity in the entire Western world, so even if the majority of America was on your side, that alliance would not be very meaningful.
You're just like those who say, "Oh, I don't hate gays, I just don't want them to be married." You don't hate them, you just publicly, blatantly, unforgivingly, and outright condemn them and the practices that form a significant part of their identity, while also denouncing them as immoral. You don't hate them, you just enjoy treating them like worthless piles of shit -- all at the behest of an ancient and completely implausible document written by cavemen who weren't even smart enough to write down the vowels in their god's true name for future reference!
just that u seem so passionate...
sorry..to disagree with your stance on issues in the "gay rights" platform..
America is a people mixture of may passionate political, curtural and religious ideologies.
There will never be total agreement in all issues pertaining to how we want our own utopias.
It is what it is and will be forever changing...There is always hope for your ideals and mine.
So lets agree to disagree..
DavidJCobbAre u gay?just that u seem so passionate...sorry..to disagree with your stance on issues in the "gay rights" platform..America is a people mixture of may passionate political, curtural and religious ideologies.There will never be total agreement in all issues pertaining to how we want our own utopias.It is what it is and will be forever changing...There is always hope for your ideals and mine. So lets agree to disagree..Peace to u.(Edited by jade on 06-11-2009 22:44)
I'm not gay, I just hate when religion and faith are used to justify blatant misuse or ignorance of logic and/or the denial of well-deserved rights to a group of people who have done nothing wrong.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-12-2009 09:46
quote:No you do not. I still have yet to see the proof for homosexual tendencies?being valid natural acts designed by the evolvement in the laws of nature. You may want to contact some genetic scientist as you will no doubt give them a scientific breakthrough? You may win the Nobel Peace Prize in science.
Well, I did provide you with proof as you asked for, backed up by Peer review. I have no idea why I should contact "some genetic scientist" however
He would only be interested if I had biological proof that Homosexuality (not homosexual tendencies, as you so snidely put it) was decided by genetic traits. If I did have this sort of proof, then yeah, it would probably be a scientific breakthrough for them. What that has to do with the Nobel Peace Prize I have no idea. In fact, I am absolutely certain that there is no such thing as a Nobel Peace Prize being awarded in Science. Perhaps you mean a Nobel Prize, instead? (hard to tell with you).
You really should get your facts and your terminology straight before you type. You come across as being uneducated and not very serious here.
It is widely accepted in the scientific community that Homosexuality occurs in Nature (and has been proven, it is a FACT, there are hundreds of documented cases of this behavior across a wide swath of species).
Where Homosexuality is found in a species, it is natural (a part of Nature).
Since Humans are a species and a part of Nature, that means that Homosexuality in Humans is also natural.
It comes as no surprise that you reject it, considering your religious background.
The deciding factor here is upon what is the argument based?
Mine is based on observation of said behavior occuring in Nature, documentation thereof that stands up under Peer review, which is factual information.
Yours is based on belief (you have failed, again, and again, and again to support your position both factually and scientifically).
When making (or changing) laws, one should go along with the best possible reason(s), the one(s) that is best supported and accurate. In this case, that is that Homosexuality is natural in Humans, and thus, should be treated exactly and equally as Heterosexuality under the Law.
Religion (belief) should not (and cannot) be a basis here for deciding this. There are protections in the Constitution regarding exactly this.
As for this little "gem"
quote:It?s not about I have to ?I need to ?Its about I WANT to have sex with men like me because I like the sex better.
This is actually pretty funny, because what you have posted is actually examples of heterosexuals engaging in homosexual activities when they are denied the opportunity to satisfy their heterosexual urges with someone of the opposite sex!
I never said this - it is pretty childish of you to do this sort of thing. I would ask you to act in a more mature manner.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:I'm not gay, I just hate when religion and faith are used to justify blatant misuse or ignorance of logic and/or the denial of well-deserved rights to a group of people who have done nothing wrong.
Oh...You
quote:HATE
so this means..your so angry with no-tolerance for persons of the religious/faith since they promote abstinance and a life of holiness so your HATE them...right?
quote:You really should get your facts and your terminology straight before you type. You come across as being uneducated and not very serious here.
I see could see u the same way.....you just copy and paste someones view or ideology or you find a site to satisfy your interest. A youngling from middle school could do the research and come up with the view you sent. So are you really highly educated compared to them???
This forum is about getting to know how people feel tick and what comes from their heart/mind/soul/thought...not to sumarize who has the smartest post or veiw....or determine IQ.
quote:I never said this - it is pretty childish of you to do this sort of thing. I would ask you to act in a more mature manner
what....???? a mature manner is a prerequisite to be a part of this forum????...its not a secret to anyone that homosexual men LIKE to have sex with each other. They prefer men from the back or they do oral to each other. They can do it to each other in restroom of bars, parks, rest stops, bathhouses to complete strangers. Just as long as they get sexual gratificatiion. This is not an act they NEED to do or HAVE to do...they WANT to do it...so...why is this an immature statement????...Is this fact or fiction Webshaman.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-12-2009 16:17
quote:what....???? a mature manner is a prerequisite to be a part of this forum????...its not a secret to anyone that homosexual men LIKE to have sex with each other. They prefer men from the back or they do oral to each other. They can do it to each other in restroom of bars, parks, rest stops, bathhouses to complete strangers. Just as long as they get sexual gratificatiion. This is not an act they NEED to do or HAVE to do...they WANT to do it...so...why is this an immature statement????...Is this fact or fiction Webshaman.
First of all, I never said anything about what sort of manners are appropriate for the Forum. I asked you (rather politely I might add) to act more mature because of HOW you posted - your insult was not lost on me, nor on others Jade. The way that you formed your statement was done with purpose, and that sole purpose was insulting (putting words in my mouth that I did not say).
It has nothing to do with the actual words themselves that determine the mature manner I am speaking of here, and I rather suspect that you know this. You can drop the pretend outrage.
quote:I see could see u the same way.....you just copy and paste someones view or ideology or you find a site to satisfy your interest. A youngling from middle school could do the research and come up with the view you sent. So are you really highly educated compared to them???
I am curious if you really believe this, or if this is again just another one of your snide insults. Just a quick check of some of the forum posts I have posted would remove any and all doubt as you have put it. I copy and paste things (and credit them) when the situation demands that certain points be backed up with authority (and of course you ASKED for, no DEMANDED such sources, if you remember correctly).
Since you asked for such, how am I supposed to supply it to you? This is nothing but a ruse on your part - when you ask for something and get it, is this how you normally react?
quote:This forum is about getting to know how people feel tick and what comes from their heart/mind/soul/thought...not to sumarize who has the smartest post or veiw....or determine IQ.
This forum is about
quote:Philosophy and other Silliness
What is reality? What are morals and ethics? Is there a Dog? Who really *is* on first? We're deep. You be deep too.
Though one may be able to think one is getting to know how people may feel, tick, and perhaps sometimes one does get something from heart(mind/soul/thought), this is not really what the forum is about, as one can see in the Title. This is not MySpace.
This is a place where those of this Website (which actually was created for Webdesign) to discuss things that have to do with Philosophy and other Silliness, so that such topics do not clutter up other forums of the Website with such.
Second, when one is asking for facts and accuracy, it is a wise course to follow to actually be able to make sense and at least try to keep a semblance of using terms and words that apply correctly, if one is expecting to be taken seriously. This does not mean that your spelling has to be perfect in every degree, but posting something along the lines of "a Noble Peace Prize for science" just does not make much sense - Noble Peace Prizes are not awarded for Science! Noble Prizes are awarded in Science, yes. Noble Peace Prizes are something entirely different here.
It would be like calling the Bible the Koran. Both are religious books, but they are not the same thing. If in a discussion on religious matters, I raised a point or debated a position, and I used the referrence Koran in place of the Bible (in order to support/debunk a biblical position), I think that most would tend not to take me as very knowledgeable and therefore, not seriously.
Since the position that you have been railing against has part of it embedded in Science, it makes sense that one would be expected to have at least a rudimentary understanding of that. You have repeatedly demonstrated that your grasp on Science, the scientific method, and even prizes awarded in Science are, at best, on an elementary level. This is not necessarily a reflection of your true grasp on Science, just how you come across here on the forum in how and what you post.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-12-2009 16:30
quote: White Hawk said:
quote:It?s not about I have to ?I need to ?Its about I WANT to have sex with men like me because I like the sex better.Pardon my abbreviation, but WTF?!? Is Jade attempting to put more than words in your mouth, WebShaman?
Hehe...I don't know if she is smart enough to imply something like that - I think she was just doing that little girl thing of repeating everything back but replacing certain words so that it looks like I am speaking for her position instead of against it.
Of course, who knows how Jade's mind truly works? I am sure that if there is a god, it is also puzzled!
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Haha?I am never outraged on this forum from day one..never get angry, flustered, never feel insulted. So you don?t have to try to put ?feelings? in my psyche..or words on my tongue for that matter. I know many of you don?t take me serious?so what else is new????
quote:
________________________________________
quote:I am curious if you really believe this, or if this is again just another one of your snide insults.
I am not insulting u?your taking me way to serious?remember I am just posting what I see /feel as opposed to you. No serious badgering, insult and name calling. I am being friendly...do i need to put slimes for u?
quote:This does not mean that your spelling has to be perfect in every degree, but posting something along the lines of "a Noble Peace Prize for science" just does not make much sense - Noble Peace Prizes are not awarded for Science! Noble Prizes are awarded in Science, yes. Noble Peace Prizes are something entirely different here.
Ok..I should not have put peace ...I do know Noble Prizes give money/recgonition for important persons regarding many titles in achievement.
Whatever?.this is not even revelant to bring up?da..spelling? word usage? Did you get my point or not is the question? Geezzzz?I feel I am in grammer school.
Hehe...I don't know if she is smart enough to imply something like that - I think she was just doing that little girl thing of repeating everything back but replacing certain words so that it looks like I am speaking for her position instead of against it.
What is your definition of a "Smart Person"...according to Webshaman standards..
Though your insulting my lack of knowlege according to your channel of thought, I don' t get or feel insulted.
Gosh..if I were to get a nickel for every post I have read that is absolutly silly, ignorant, useless, naive, jubberish, etc...i would have over a thousand.
quote:Of course, who knows how Jade's mind truly works? I am sure that if there is a god, it is also puzzled!
I think your the one who is puzzled by what or who God is? For the fact that you cannot say with absolute certainty that he exist or is a mytholgical invention. No one on the planet has the answer. You don't have all the answers to life or the comos. You like many others attempt to understand issues but your not well informed by any means regarding many subjects comparable to others I am sure. So don' t throw stones at persons who don't live up to your scholared standards..
Really off track but I am sure many have tired of my post...as whatelse can be said.....regarding a hot spot issue that has not been said by millions who will not give an inch on either side of the issue.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-12-2009 17:58
quote:quote:You can drop the pretend outrage.
quote:Haha?I am never outraged on this forum from day one..never get angry, flustered, never feel insulted. So you don?t have to try to put ?feelings? in my psyche..or words on my tongue for that matter. I know many of you don?t take me serious?so what else is new????
You will note that I said pretend outrage.
The rest of your post is just gibberish.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I think this is probably a good time to draw the conclusion that this thread has epitomised the struggle for sense that embodies a topic of such widespread contention, and that there is no reasonable accord that could be reached by this forum at this time. I don't like to see you all scrapping.
quote:so this means..your so angry with no-tolerance for persons of the religious/faith since they promote abstinance and a life of holiness so your HATE them...right?
Abstinence covers all sexual orientations. And I really hope you're not equating the spread of hatred and malice to "holiness".
I'm not angry with all religious people. I personally know and respect quite a few religious people.
I am, however, angry with the religious people who use their religion as a bullshit excuse to force their twisted and distorted views of the world on others. This doesn't just cover gay-haters -- missionaries can kiss my rear end, too.
And yeah, I hate people who hate gays for little or no reason. That hate is fine. Why? Because I hate people for what they do, not for who they are, and certainly not because some minor and unimportant psychological quirk(s) they possess. You, on the other hand, hate gays because of some uncontrollable and insignificant behavioral abnormality they possess -- though you do quite a good job at masking that bigotry under a facade of benevolence. Hating someone for being gay is just as deplorable as hating someone for being a woman, or for being black, or for being a Muslim, or for being a Communist... The only real reason to hate someone is for what they do -- hating someone for any other reason only makes people hate you, and for good reason.
I'm all for spreading positive religious ideas like "don't stab people" and "stealing is bad" -- hell, if everyone believed in that, the world would be a far better place. But when someone uses their religious beliefs to facilitate, justify, and foster meaningless hatred and bigotry against an innocent group of people... That is flat out wrong, and indeed, such actions are (or should be) a disgrace to whatever religion(s) that person(s) happen to practice, if not a disgrace to humanity as a whole!
Okay, fine, I don't mean "hate". "Incredibly dislike", on the other hand... "Perfectly reasonable moral outrage toward those who deny rights and impose their will upon others", on the other hand...
quote:Okay, fine, I don't mean "hate". "Incredibly dislike", on the other hand... "Perfectly reasonable moral outrage toward those who deny rights and impose their will upon others", on the other hand...
ok...good.. dislike sounds so way much "softer" than hate...now you sound much nicer as a poster
You are either delusional or truly hard up for entertainment.Either way you sure do enjoy that verbal masturbation you condemned above. I still don't see anything being said relevant to the topic that hasn't already been addressed quite adequately, so this is clearly dead.
Honestly, doesn't this pathetic internet tough guy routine of yours ever get old?
You've said virtually nothing in this thread outside of your usual silly quips that we've all seen for over a decade now. Give it a rest already.
I had forgot to come back and update one of my previous thoughts - I had spoken about Idaho, but the reason I couldn't find the reference is because the case I was thinking of was in Iowa. Oops.
quote: DL-44 said:
jestah - really? dig up a post I made a month ago to call me pathetic, while still not having anything to say on the actual topic?
Yes DL, I've said nothing on the subject ... because ... well ... you said so.
Give me a break.
Any idiot can read through this topic and see quite clearly that (1) I've said I see no suppression of homosexuals and (2) I've invited you and others to expand on this alleged suppression. That same idiot can see you've stuck to your typical pathetic internet tough guy routine of personal attacks, insults, and snarky barbs.
Perhaps for the 10 Year Reunion you can get a new act?
And any idiot can see, Jestah, that a man who comes in talking about insults while doing nothing but hurling them at others, and avoiding any of the on topic conversation directed toward him, is nothing but full of shit and hot air.
~shrug~
Your infatuation with me is flattering...but I'm afraid you are not my type.
From the official summary of the Iowa decision:
(I believe that the manner in which these issues are addressed in this decision very effectively addresses them in the bigger picture, which is why I am posting it here. bearing in mind, of course, that marriage is only one small issue as part of this topic)
quote: Maintaining Traditional Marriage. Initially, the court considered the County?s
argument the same-sex marriage ban promotes the ?integrity of traditional
marriage? by ?maintaining the historical and traditional marriage norm ([as] one
between a man and a woman).? The court noted that, when tradition is offered
as a justification for preserving a statutory scheme challenged on equal
protection grounds, the court must determine whether the reasons underlying the
tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements. These reasons, the
court found, must be something other than the preservation of tradition by itself.
?When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the
classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed
into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the
governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.? Here,
the County offered no governmental reason underlying the tradition of limiting
marriage to heterosexual couples, so the court proceeded to consider the other
reasons advanced by the County for the legislative classification.
Promotion of Optimal Environment to Raise Children. The second of the
County?s proffered governmental objectives involves promoting child rearing by a
father and a mother in a marital relationship, the optimal milieu according to
some social scientists. Although the court found support for the proposition that
the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and oppositesex
parents, it acknowledged the existence of reasoned opinions that dualgender
parenting is the optimal environment for children. Nonetheless, the court
concluded the classification employed to further that goal?sexual orientation?
did not pass intermediate scrutiny because it is significantly under-inclusive and
over-inclusive.
The statute, the court found, is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from
marriage other groups of parents?such as child abusers, sexual predators,
parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons?that are
undeniably less than optimal parents. If the marriage statute was truly focused
on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not
merely gay and lesbian people. The statute is also under-inclusive because it
does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children in Iowa. The statute is
over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. The
court further noted that the County failed to show how the best interests of
children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported
by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban, or how the
ban benefits the interests of children of heterosexual parents. Thus, the court
concluded a classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is
simply not substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal
environment to raise children.
Promotion of Procreation. Next, the court addressed the County?s argument
that endorsement of traditional civil marriage will result in more procreation. The
court concluded the County?s argument is flawed because it fails to address the
required analysis of the objective: whether exclusion of gay and lesbian
individuals from the institution of civil marriage will result in more procreation.
The court found no argument to support the conclusion that a goal of additional
procreation would be substantially furthered by the exclusion of gays and
lesbians from civil marriage.
Promoting Stability in Opposite-Sex Relationships. The County also
asserted that the statute promoted stability in opposite-sex relationships. The
court acknowledged that, while the institution of civil marriage likely encourages
stability in opposite-sex relationships, there was no evidence to support that
excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage makes opposite-sex
marriage more stable.
Conservation of Resources. Finally, the court rejected the County?s argument
that banning same-sex marriages in a constitutional fashion conserves state
resources. The argument in support of the same-sex marriage ban is based on a
simple premise: civilly married couples enjoy numerous governmental benefits,
so the state?s fiscal burden associated with civil marriage is reduced if less
people are allowed to marry. While the ban on same-sex marriage may
conserve some state resources, so would excluding any number of identifiable
groups. However, under intermediate scrutiny the sexual-orientation-based
classification must substantially further the conservation-of-resources objective.
Here again, the court found it was over- and under-inclusive and did not
substantially further the suggested governmental interest.
Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage. Having addressed and rejected
each specific interest articulated by the County, the court addressed one final
ground believed to underlie the same-sex marriage debate?religious opposition.
Recognizing the sincere religious belief held by some that the ?sanctity of
marriage? would be undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples, the
court nevertheless noted that such views are not the only religious views of
marriage. Other, equally sincere groups have espoused strong religious views
yielding the opposite conclusion. These contrasting opinions, the court finds,
explain the absence of any religious-based rationale to test the constitutionality of
Iowa?s same-sex marriage statute. ?Our constitution does not permit any branch
of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts
the task of ensuring government avoids them . . . . The statute at issue in this
case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead,
the statute, declares, ?Marriage is a civil contract? and then regulates that civil
contract . . . . Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges,
far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the
concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited
class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with marriage.?
Constitutional Infirmity. In concluding the marriage statute is constitutionally
infirm, the court stated:
We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian
people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially
further any important governmental objective. The legislature has
excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a
supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally
sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in
dispute, that can affect this determination.
We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of
the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa?s
marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa
Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our
constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to
different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification,
they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection
upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2
denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law
promised by the Iowa Constitution.
Don't really have anything to add here other than to state that I fully support equal rights for humans, without exception.
I also want to applaud WebShaman's comment:
quote:When making (or changing) laws, one should go along with the best possible reason(s), the one(s) that is best supported and accurate. In this case, that is that Homosexuality is natural in Humans, and thus, should be treated exactly and equally as Heterosexuality under the Law.
Religion (belief) should not (and cannot) be a basis here for deciding this. There are protections in the Constitution regarding exactly this.
:clap: this is basically everything that should be needed in this thread. Basically every counterargument has some sort of foundation in organized religion, thus to me they are null and void.
I can't help to wonder if this ever had become an issue at all if people would stick to personal beliefs in the true sense, ergo "keep it personal" rather than relying on organized religion to provide answers.
Personally I'm very sad that people can't respect that someone wants to be able to freely and openly formalize their choice of companion in life.
The fact that humans walk in fear everyday in different countries instead of being able to publicly display affection for the person they love since religion does everything from deny them rights to condemn them, to outright kill them is tragic beyond belief.
It's such a pathetic behaviour to place your own personal beliefs above another humans feelings and the rights that should be selfevident to all in the best of worlds.
Personally I wouldn't label myself as gay, bi or hetero to be very honest.
Sure I live with the mother of my children since 20 years (no we are not married, nor have we baptized our children, that's their choice as they grow up), but at heart I can safely say that I love an individual for who they are. I don't love the gender per se.
I'm actively not confessed to any religion of any kind, nor am I a true atheist.
If anything I'm probably gnostic, I can absolutely see a scenario where one believes in god but not in religion.
I don't ridicule a personal belief in god, allah or what it may be, I fully respect and value indiviuals personal beliefs and the right to express them.
To use those personal beliefs to force others to act accordingly to them by leaning on a religion created by man for control purposes is a completly different thing!
I actually deeply resent religion since it is nothing more than a tool to control masses of people through virtually blind obediance, thus removing free will and providing perfect excuses for not taking a personal responsability for your actions.
If there at one point in time was a basic intention of good in organized religion, it sadly dissapeared as soon as humans got introduced to it.
If I where god I would have shaken my head over how my intentions was misused by human religion and walked away a long long time ago. After all, according to the bible it's been about 2k years since god last made an impact through physical appearance... I'd say that says something...
Respectfully.
(and yes, I spell god etc without a capital G intentionally)
/Dan
*/ I'm a ginio.....genios......genu......smart person! /*
{cell 260} I have no site due to no free time.
-{ Sleep: A common physical disorder that manifests itself as the level of blood in the caffeine circulation exeeds 20% }-
If I where god I would have shaken my head over how my intentions was misused by human religion and walked away a long long time ago. After all, according to the bible it's been about 2k years since god last made an impact through physical appearance... I'd say that says something...
I don't think God'sanctions the action these persons suffered below ...this is why religion has to have a voice in the world no matter how personal you think it should be. We voice for the one that has no voice. God champions us and is pleased with us for helping those that others have forgotten
Is this the point where I should post a multitude of
equally horrible pictures and documentation of atrocities
and other equally distasteful actions performed time and time
again over hundreds of not thousands of years performed
in the name of one or another religion?
Sorry to dissapoint you if that's the case.
I don't intend to get into a religious war of words.
I can't change your mind, nor do I want to.
All I want is the right to express my personal belief without
someone trying to change it into something that fits their agenda.
/Dan
*/ I'm a ginio.....genios......genu......smart person! /*
{cell 260} I have no site due to no free time.
-{ Sleep: A common physical disorder that manifests itself as the level of blood in the caffeine circulation exeeds 20% }-
All I want is the right to express my personal belief without
someone trying to change it into something that fits their agenda.
ok...i am doing the same...peace to u.
There is one fundamental difference between you and me though, just to be clear.
Trough actively opposing equal rights for gay people,
you are in fact using your personal beliefs and your religion to try to change
a group of people who's personal beliefs and preferences don't match yours...
The very same fundamental type of right that you feel entitled to, you want to deny them.
I, and many others do not do that.
/Dan
*/ I'm a ginio.....genios......genu......smart person! /*
{cell 260} I have no site due to no free time.
-{ Sleep: A common physical disorder that manifests itself as the level of blood in the caffeine circulation exeeds 20% }-
The very same fundamental type of right that you feel entitled to, you want to deny them.
This is true.....I want to deny them the right to go against the grain of what their body is made for. Lustful disoriented deceit. Big cause of the fall of man...I believe their body is made for praise.. I cannot make them believe like me, but because they are in bondage. ....really really big bondage...i want to set them free.
Theirs is not my body i know...,but I share a planet with them...and if their right to be married under a religious embrella or other affects the planet that I have to share with them...then I have a right to voice and work against them...in a peaceful..prayerful way....Its like this...If someone is walking down a path and they are blinded by some sunlight and they don't see this really big hole and are in danger of falling in ... if I see they are going to fall in the hole, do I warn them that they are going to fall in or to I let them fall. I don' t believe that two males having married life like a male/female reflects the beauty of God. If you don't believe in God which many of you do...it will not affect you since you sincerely do not care for your fellow man's soul..You will never understand since you have no relationship with God.....so...you will can voice your opinions but it will fall on deaf ears.....like my view does not penetrate your ears. I can look at the beautiful sky and give it the glory of God..you can look at the same sky and just see blue and ..that is the real difference between us.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-14-2009 22:46
quote: jade said:
The very same fundamental type of right that you feel entitled to, you want to deny them.This is true.....I want to deny them the right to go against the grain of what their body is made for.
Except this is not a truth, it is not based on actual fact, it is not based on Nature (which actually does tell us what a body is made for, btw).
Instead, it is based on a belief system that is designed to hold things in a certain way and anything contrary to it is viewed as wrong and is aggressively and actively resisted - not only for those that believe in it, but for all.
And that is what is wrong in your stance, in all those stances that attempt to enforce a belief on those who do not hold that belief.
Especially those that are based on "it is for their own good" - those are the most dangerous of all. Many pograms of terror, murder, and grief have been based on this principle and commited by humans on their fellow man with this justification.
It is imperative that you, Jade, understand this. It is perfectly fine for you to hold to your beliefs, and to personally think what you like about Homosexuality. For you are entitled to your personal beliefs and that is something that the US was based on and something very precious that is worth fighting and protecting.
What you cannot do, what you must not do, is step over the line - and force your personal beliefs on others. You do not have this right. There is no law that grants you such a right to do such to others. It puts you on the side of injustice. You put yourself on the side that brings harm, grief, misery, and yes, even murder, death, and persecution upon others.
Even your own belief suggests what I am writing here - that only your god should be the judge. You yourself are supposed to follow and be true to the tenants of your belief, but you are not supposed to force others that do not believe in them to follow them! If you truly believed in the tenants of your belief and followed them, you would know this and not attempt to force others to do as you do, to be as you are, to think as you think,to believe as you believe.
Allowing and supporting Homosexuals in getting equal rights and recognition before the law is a worthy and just cause, and does not mean that you have abandoned your faith or belief. It also does not threaten your faith or belief, nor does it invalidate it, for it has absolutely nothing to do with you, personally. For it is not asking you to change your personal belief, opinion, or even how you view it. All that is being asked here is that you grant to others the same that has been granted to you - equal rights.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Btw, jade.
Don't think I'm unaware of the inner workings of a church/priesthood/the bible etc.
I was raised in a family of priests where prayers, sermons etc was a daily part of our life.
I've studied the bible and has had long discussion with my grandfather (priest) and uncle who also works in the church. My stance is based on knowledge, not just an opinion.
I have no problems what so ever with theological discussions when mutual respect is applied.
However, I'm sad to say that your arguments have the same tonality as any islamic fundamentalist who resort to suicidebombings as argumentation.
Quite simply, fundamentalists scares me, be it NRA, christians, islamists etc.
They always find an excuse or a reason in their religion.
There is nothing good in the way humans use religion today, period.
A personal belief in god on the other hand, I'm positive can bring happiness and peace to an individuals life.
Should you take your beliefs and use them to actually stand by people in need and help them through
hard times in life I applaud you!
If you use your personal belief to deny people rights under cover of "saving them on the name of religion", then I'm placing you in the same category as you place islamic fundamentalits.
/Dan
*/ I'm a ginio.....genios......genu......smart person! /*
{cell 260} I have no site due to no free time.
-{ Sleep: A common physical disorder that manifests itself as the level of blood in the caffeine circulation exeeds 20% }-
I couldn't agree more, though I find it hard to be quite as generous as Webshaman when it comes to my opinion of institutional indoctrination.
At the very least, an institution that spent many generations oppressing science, creative/critical thinking, and taught us that the naked body is shameful (a backward and damaging mindset that persists to this day) is IMHO unworthy of passing judgement on any aspect of what is right or proper. That such are based on the word of some intangible and unknowable supreme being (as written by some rambling lunatic who claims to speak for it, perpetuated by any number of child-rapists in frocks) doesn't in any way enhance their legitimacy for me.
So, while it might be your opinion that certain things are wrong or improper based upon your belief system, it is not necessarily what the majority of decent, upstanding people would consider 'against the grain' based upon a relatively advanced (by thousands of years) scientifically open-minded society's observations of the world around them; the real world.
While opinions may be shared freely (and ruddy well should be, regardless - even yours, Jade) it can only be wrong to enforce (one of many conflicting) interpretations of a long-dead rule-set upon the generally more enlightened and capable masses of the modern world.
Yeah, so a lot of them are incredibly stupid (as evidenced by any number of popular reality TV shows)... but I have some faith, though usually well hidden, in the animal we call the human race to make that judgement for itself.
their right to be married under a religious embrella or other affects the planet that I have to share with them...then I have a right to voice and work against them.
And you have yet to demonstrate in what way two men or two women being married will affect you or anyone else...
I want to deny them the right to go against the grain of what their body is made
for. Lustful disoriented deceit. Big cause of the fall of man...I believe their
body is made for praise.. I cannot make them believe like me, but because they
are in bondage. ....really really big bondage...i want to set them free.
Theirs is not my body i know...,but I share a planet with them...and if
their right to be married under a religious embrella or other affects the planet
that I have to share with them...then I have a right to voice and work against
them...in a peaceful..prayerful way....Its like this...If someone is walking
down a path and they are blinded by some sunlight and they don't see this really
big hole and are in danger of falling in ... if I see they are going to fall in
the hole, do I warn them that they are going to fall in or to I let them fall. I
don' t believe that two males having married life like a male/female reflects
the beauty of God. If you don't believe in God which many of you do...it will
not affect you since you sincerely do not care for your fellow man's soul..You
will never understand since you have no relationship with God.....so...you will
can voice your opinions but it will fall on deaf ears.....like my view does not
penetrate your ears. I can look at the beautiful sky and give it the glory of
God..you can look at the same sky and just see blue and ..that is the real
difference between us.
I really am shocked by this Jade. I only intended to quote part of your post but it is all so outrageously bad I had to select it all.
I am almost speechless. Your spelling reflects the lack of thought you have for your beliefs. It is ill conceived and badly delivered.
I will no longer take you seriously. I hope you can understand why.
posted 06-11-2009 18:10
