Im sorry. But respectfully, you're wrong concerning the "wishing them away" part. I've not seen anyone proposing legislation or putting forth bills to outlaw homosexuality.Originally Posted by TeamCasey
And I, and many others, do not see it as a civil rights issue on the same level as woman's right to vote, segregation, or even slavery.
Most who oppose homosexuality see it as behavioral, and unrelated to ethnic or culture. Completely different.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
I'm not talking about legislation doing away with homosexuals. I don't even know where you came up with that.
I'm talking about bigots who make comments like these:
"Try to dress it up as "consexual sex between two adults" carried into "a loving relationship," but men and women were not made to engage in sexual acts with the same sex. Therefore, any romantic love that springs from that is invalid as well. Of course, the deeper truth is that it is simply erotic love, but then the basis that leads to me that conclusion is not accepted by the very folks who are standing by the sideline shrugging their shoulders like spineless jellyfish wanting an everything goes society with no moral backbone whatsoever."
This immoral, spineless jellyfish says absolutely it's a civil rights issue, and nothing more.
"Whatever you choose, however many roads you travel, I hope that you choose not to be a lady. I hope you will find some way to break the rules and make a little trouble out there. And I also hope that you will choose to make some of that trouble on behalf of women." - Nora Ephron
But the "thorny" question about this issue is that IT IS an issue of morality. Those who oppose the lifestyle say/believe it is immoral, and not normal... and those who support it either say that is not an issue, or don't want the issue of morality injected into the discussion at all.
When it comes to the issue of morality - are there any societal lines/barriers? Obviously not. One generation says it's wrong. But that's only until a future generation comes along, professes "enlightenment", and then redefines those "lines" to their liking, and resets the barriers. And then, along the way, they label those past generations as ignorant and un-enlightened.
One can take that "equal protection" clause and stretch it to further extremes when one takes the definition of morality, and either strips it of any meaning, or continually broadens it to fit the current times live in.
People NOW may say these examples sound ridiculous; but a generation ago, those individuals would be saying the same thing about gay marriage.
How far do we allow our morality to slip, and then use the discrimination argument?
Why is it that even experts in the field of psychiatry have defined homosexuality as a sexual dysfunction/deviation and behavioral related? Are they wrong?
Can we deny the following when those individuals claim they are in a loving, caring, relationship? Are we being judgmental and discriminatory?
multiple marriages of any kind?
sibling marriage?
The fact is - the "nuclear" family has proved to be a stable and beneficial influence on society despite the social problems created by divorce. And to sight heterosexual divorce rate as a jusitification for gay marriage is simply ridiculous IMO. It would seem to me that responsible people, whether heterosexual or homosexual, would attempt to look at this issue in light of what is best for those that will be entering this world in future years.
Should children be taught that male/female sexual relationships are the same as male/male or female/female? Honesty requires that the children be taught the truth. The obvious truth is that they are not.
Why do homosexual couples, who wish to establish a union between themselves, insist on having the government allow them to be endowed with the same marriage title provided to heterosexual couples? Why are they not satisfied with being provided the same legal provisions in the form of a title called "civil union"? A single answer to both questions is obvious....They want society to consider their relationship normal.
My reading of the U.S. Constitution is that it guarantees freedom to individuals provided their actions do not infringe upon the freedom of other individuals. Thus, in regards to homosexuality, individuals with that preference are free to indulge themselves providing their indulgence does not affect the freedoms that non-homosexuals have. By claiming normality in their relationships homosexuals, and attempting to use the government to legally bless their unions, they hope to indoctrinate society to accept it as so.
In this process they are affecting one of the freedoms most parents desire to have for their children. That is to have them educated with the understanding of homosexuality that they consider to be self evident.
The best chance for the successful development of the child into adulthood occurs when both parents are deeply involved throughout the period of child rearing. Hence, marriage lays the foundation for the traditional nuclear family, whose basic constituents are a mother, a father, and a child and which is the primary unit for ensuring the procreation of human beings and the preservation of their societies.
But it is not on the same level as rascism or slavery, which involved ethniticity, not behavior.
Last edited by GAC; 09-12-2005 at 09:35 AM.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
You know that my source is Scripture for categorizing homosexuality as sexual sin, therefore is truly incapable of being "true" love.
Dom, wouldn't negligence be necessary for a trip down the stairs by a pregnant woman to be considered involuntary manslaughter?
FCB, Dom opened the door with his comparison. The inconsistency of that position was too glaring to not walk through the door. Also, technology has made it clear that your "not a person" defense is old news.
TC, the issue isn't wanting people to go away. I just don't want the government in the business of legitimizing any form of sexual perversion with the marriage covenant. And bigot? Now who's being intolerant?
Last edited by traderumor; 09-12-2005 at 09:40 AM.
"Rounding 3rd and heading for home, good night everybody"
Hey, I'll admit to being intolerant of your views. Just like I'd be intolerant of racist opinions, or misogynistic opinions. They're disgusting, just like your views on this matter.Now who's being intolerant?
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Yes, I'm intolerant of intolerance. Always have been.
To me, this isn't any different than anti-miscegenation laws. Just a different decade and a different discrimination.
"Whatever you choose, however many roads you travel, I hope that you choose not to be a lady. I hope you will find some way to break the rules and make a little trouble out there. And I also hope that you will choose to make some of that trouble on behalf of women." - Nora Ephron
Met these two guys about a decade ago, both in their early 70s. They'd been together since the 1950s and one of them had come down with Alzheimer's. The other guy fed him, bathed him, changed him, held him when the terror of not knowing where or who he was sometimes overcame him and sat night and day beside the man's deathbed until he passed. Erotic love my ass.
I saw my grandfather do pretty much the same with my grandmother (though cancer got him before Alzheimer's got her).
It's immoral to reduce people to stereotypes that don't fit and it takes a world-class spineless jellyfish to hide behind some sorry excuse for a religion (in this case hate-thy-neighbor Christianity) in an attempt to block someone's access to the same rights and privileges afforded the majority.
You don't like gays and I doubt gay people ever will like you. Que sera sera. You don't approve of them, but then again plenty of people (me included) think your brand of religion is a blight on society. Yet I've got to let you have all the rights and privileges that this society affords decent people. "Anything goes" is always the lament of people who think they're on the inside trying to keep the bad stuff out, but, to me, you're one of those anythings that we've allowed to go. Would I rather people not pollute their souls and minds with such a hate-filled creed? Sure, but allowing people to do so if they wish is part of the price I pay for living in a free society.
Legally-speaking I've got to let you do your thing even though I'm right and you're wrong. I suppose I could devote time and energy to pushing you to the margins of society and denying you equal recourse to the law, but I'm too good a person to do that.
Bang. Bang.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
Bad, bad comparisons, but that never prevents someone from trotting those arguments out. Again, I'll let you do the research since I answer that issue every time the discussion comes up. I have suggested nothing that is discriminatory against a class of citizens that they cannot help, such as their race or sex. [Insert homosexuals are born that way argument here, then research my position on that as well.]
TC, no civil rights are violated. No one is stopping of age homosexuals from practicing their perversion just as no one is stopping folks from engaging in whips and chains sex and creating millions of dollars of pornography. But sexual perversion is what it is, and giving it special privilges as a family unit under the law is not best for the city I live in, the state I live in or the country I live in, IMO.
"Rounding 3rd and heading for home, good night everybody"
Yep, hate is a great motivator eh?
Ah, anecdotal evidence. Would not brothers or sisters or best friends also exhibit that type of behavior?
A free society is not allowing people to do what they wish. Some are still willing to stand up for the Biblical definition of the family, even though they understand that we do not live in a theocracy. Just like the laws of murder and theft are covered both in the Bible and in our legal system, so can be the definition of the family without insinuating that one must live in a theocracy for a univeral moral principle to apply. And that is what I consider the concept of one man, one woman for life, and children if one wishes to be the universal moral definition of a family. That was adopted by our nation from its inception and should continue to be the guiding principal behind the legal definition of a family. That position has nothing to do with hating a person because of who they sleep with. That is their business. But, if those people want the nation that I am a voting citizen of to change the legal definition of a family to accomodate who they're sleeping with, then I will speak against that. It is not a personal issue with them, it is upholding the definition of a family.
"Rounding 3rd and heading for home, good night everybody"
Yet, you blindly send it the other direction with no impugnity.
"Rounding 3rd and heading for home, good night everybody"
Nice try, I'm sorry I'm not hating on anyone, that would be too perverse.
Arguably the biblical definition of family would have polygamy running wild.
But you get to practice what you think the biblical version of family is while you pervert the teachings of Christ and make a mockery of universal moral principles.
And gays aren't asking to change the legal definition of a family. In fact they're asking for it to remain intact. The only people who've attempted to change that definition in recent years are the right-wingers who've pushed legislation to specify that marriage must involve a male and a female. Why have they done that? Because, legally, it really only requires two consenting adults and they know that sooner or later the courts will have to come to that position if they don't start constructing firewalls. That's what ballot initiatives have been about as well. Slavery would still be the law of the land had it been a ballot question (St. Paul speaks well of it in fact). Women wouldn't have the right to vote had it been a ballot question. For sure miscegenation would be illegal. It's a ham-handed attempt at frightening judges away from where the law inexorably leads.
Sooner or later this is going to be the law of the land and you're going into the pile with all the other haters in the history of this nation (all of whom claimed they didn't hate anyone). Those who don't know history are destined to become the sad, sick folks the future shakes its head at.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
Nor am I. I have explained that, if you do not find that explanation satisfactory, that is certainly you're perogative.
"Rounding 3rd and heading for home, good night everybody"
Arguably is right, as is the tired old slavery argument. Could you point me to the passage of Scripture that commands multiple spouses? Involuntary servitude is also nowhere sanctioned by Scripture. I think you know that people have misapplied Scripture over the years to support their own sinful desires. After all, that is what you are accusing me of.
Finally, I've said before that it very well could be the law of the land. So what? Does that make it the right decision? I'm told that George Bush winning the election says nothing regarding the correctness of that decision. I think the same applies here. I'm pretty sure that all could be in agreement that a nation's laws are certainly not a statement of absolute truth.
BTW, for those throwing the hate word around, you realize that sets you up as the moral authority. Funny how that works.
"Rounding 3rd and heading for home, good night everybody"
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
