If I can destroy the argument of the moral superiority of christianity, then I can take the foundation of their argument away from the discussion at hand.[/quote]
Up to your usual tricks I see. Only, no one here is saying I’m against gay marriage because the sky boss said it’s wrong. So can you “destroy the argument of the moral superiority of Christianity” somewhere else and not derail the thread please?[/quote]
Problem is there are many ethical concepts that are still rooted in western societies, as there is a hegemony of Christian ethics that still permeate everything from our justice system to who we elect. At least in the U.S. every president has claimed to be Christian, as do the vast majority of Politicians in General. It’s still one of those things, where people wont even vote for you unless you are some sort of Christian.
Great. A wall of text of stuff I’ve been through before ad nauseam. (Sigh…). Okay.
[quote]Ironskape wrote:
So, it affects because it affects?
[/quote]
It certainly changes society and it’s certainly a change in the norms and mores of society; indeed, a radical change. Otherwise we wouldn’t even be arguing about it would we? It’s a change you want and I don’t want. I don’t want it because I have a stake in this society; I have a vested interest in it. I do not believe that the institution of marriage, already weakened and devalued, should be redefined so as to include unions of gay couples(or throuples etc).
You realise you’re engaging in “special pleading” right? As I’ve shown before, and some people ignore or refuse to accept, gays already have "equality before the law". What you’re asking is for “special treatment” that I’m sure you aren’t willing to extend to everyone else. Should polygamous unions be allowed to marry?
(Sigh)…
I have a vested interest in the society and the culture. A society that is sexually permissive; that not only sanctions homosexuality but actually redefines the institution of marriage itself, constitutes a radical cultural transformation that I don’t want and most other people don’t want. Yes, I know you can point to some recent stats that show that 51% of people in some blue state or other now support gay marriage but I don’t live there. Where I live; in my society we don’t a radical transformation; we like the culture we have. I consider it liberal; I believe in “equality before the law”. I don’t support any legislation that specifically targets homosexuals in any way. I just want to keep the institution of marriage as it is. I don’t want homosexuality to be normalised. Tolerated in a liberal way; all rights extended to gay people that are extended to everyone else and no special privileges. No special pleading.
Before you argue that you don’t have the same rights; you do. A gay man can’t marry another man and a straight man can’t marry another man. A gay man can consensually marry any woman he wants and a straight man can marry any woman he wants. Don’t want to marry a woman? No one is forcing you to. However, you don’t have the right to demand the institution of marriage be redefined to accommodate what you want. As I said, it’s “special pleading” and you’re demanding something that, I presume, you’re not willing to extend to others such as polygamous unions.
Think of it like this: alcohol is legal and cocaine is illegal. Does that mean the law discriminates against people who have a preference for cocaine? No. Must we legalise cocaine to accommodate people who have a preference for cocaine? No. Just because you have a sexual preference for men instead of women doesn’t mean you have a right to demand society radically change to accommodate your preference.
As for being a…where were we? That’s right, I’m a “bigot,” a “hater” and a “homophobe” so far. As for that, I say you’re extremely fortunate to live in a society that is so liberal and permissive of homosexuality. There are no laws that target gay people in any way. Indeed, there’s a great deal of legislative protection to ensure that you are not subject to any ill treatment for being gay. Again, I consider myself liberal and permissive of homosexuality. I’m not calling for anything that targets gay people. In fact, I’m not calling for anything at all. I’m asking for things to remain as they are; the status quo. And that means equality before the law for gay people. So give the name callings rest. If you’re genuinely concerned about the mistreatment of gay people you would do best directing your attention towards societies and institutions that do target, indeed that actually hang homosexuals. I’m sure you can guess which societies and institutions I’m talking about. Or would that constitute “Islamophobia?” I guess I’m just one big ball of hate.
Have I not? I haven’t personally attacked you so you’re one up on me there.
Relevant to you. Not to me.
Of course. I was merely saying that in my opinion you are wrong to invest your sexual preference with such importance that it becomes a fundamental aspect of your identity. But obviously, it’s up to you to decide such things.
Not contempt. It also depends on how you define the “gay community”. As I said, a not insignificant number of gay people agree with me on gay marriage. Are they part of the community? Or are they sell outs or something? What’s the gay equivalent of an Uncle Tom?
You obviously don’t respect the institution of marriage. However, you’re not alone I’ll grant that. There are large numbers of people who aren’t gay who have no respect for the institution either. It’s a symptom of nihilistic postmodernity.
You’re actually highlighting what spurious ground your argument tests upon because, obviously, this isn’t about forcing gay men to marry women or have sex with women nor forcing them to do anything else. Which is why you’re forced to making phoney comparisons here.
See above. You’re highlighting the flaw in your own argument by virtue of having to make a phoney comparison.
No one should be allowed to redefine marriage. Not gays; not polygamous straights; no one.
I don’t like the idea of sodomy but I’m not calling for it to be outlawed as it’s none of my business what adults do consensually in private. However, marriage is an essential institution upon which the entire society is based. It’s the bedrock of the family and the family is the building block of the civil society, indeed of humanity itself. To transform marriage is to destroy what it currently is and replace it with something else. It’s not just that “I don’t like it(gay marriage)” - it’s that marriage and the family unit are a natural building block and fundamental component of the human race itself. A culture that places the same value upon a couple of gay men as it places on a husband and wife is literally devaluing humanity itself; humanity being contingent upon heterosexual couples reproducing and raising offspring together.
I really don’t see why people can’t accept this. You were born gay and don’t have a choice? Well that’s your misfortune. You should deal with it and accept that you cannot alter the very fabric of humanity to accommodate your sexual preferences. I’m sure it’s difficult and I’m not unsympathetic despite what you think. But it’s my opinion that you need to ask yourself some questions and make some difficult decisions. How badly do I want children? Am I willing to make sacrifices for their well being? Could I ever live with a woman I’m not romantically or sexually attracted to? Again, this is my personal opinion and I’m not telling you what to do.
I’m probably more qualified in answering how to be a man. Well, my father taught me how to ignore physical pain. He taught me to box when I was young. At first I couldn’t handle the pain of being punched in the nose. My eyes would water up. The pain would resonate through my head and I couldn’t respond. He taught me to ignore the pain and to keep fighting. He also taught me manly values like the duty to provide for and protect the family. He taught me not to blame other people or the environment; to accept responsibility. This is something my mother could never have taught me. The female has different and complimentary traits. A child needs exposure to both these sets of complimentary traits.
Go back and read what I said. I said [b]people of European or “Western” ancestry" have a declining birthrate. Whereas the third world has a healthy birthrate. Surely you know this? I know these stats very well; I know what I’m talking about and I don’t need to google anything. The US has a fertility rate of 2.1%. That’s just(barely) replacement level. It’s actually considerably higher than Western Europe, Italy, Japan etc. The reason it’s higher is because the US has a large population of people from the third world who bump up the stats. Most that 30 million increase is due to people from South of the border and immigrants from elsewhere in the third world.
It’s not a conscious decision on their part. I’m not sure you’ll understand but I’ll try to explain the reason. Japan was a traditional society that responded to the existential crisis of nihilism with what Nietzsche called “active nihilism” culminating in their imperialist adventures in China and then The Second World War. I know you’ll find this difficult to believe but traditional Japanese actually believed in the divinity of the Emperor and when Japan surrendered and people lost faith in the Emperor a mindset of “passive nihilism” entered the collective consciousness and they literally lost the will to live. And now like pandas in the zoo they’ve stopped breeding and are just waiting to die. Many of them get impatient; Japan has the highest suicide rate on earth. Mishima Yukio wrote a great deal about this. He’s one of my favourite political writers. A very interesting man(he was gay BTW). Anyway, this is getting off topic.
Well then stop asking for evidence. I’m not appealing to scientific evidence(although there is evidence).
Fine. I’m appealing to “tradition”. I’m appealing to what Edmund Burke called “the wisdom of the ages”. The institution of marriage has been around for millennia and I say there’s a reason it is what it is.
“…(the study) concluded that homosexual acts were involved in 25% to 40% of the cases of child molestation recorded in the scientific and forensic literature…”
A lot of people disagree with what I say and dispute the validity of my sources but I have a reputation as an intellectually honest poster - ie, I don’t make shit up.
Yes, that is safe to say.
That’s what second wave feminists say yes. But I believe that rapists who are sexually attracted to males rape males and rapists who are sexually attracted to females rape females.
The culture of “twinks” and “bears”. You can dispute it all you want but NAMBLA was an accepted part of the gay movement until it became a public relations liability. And I shouldn’t have to keep saying this but, I am not saying that all or most gay men are attracted to children - however, I’m saying considerably more gay men are than straight men.
Fine. And you’re a sexual deviant. Which is of course none of my business, but you announced it in your first post.
You’re demanding that our culture be changed to accommodate your deviant sexual preferences.
Again, the spurious comparison highlights the flaws in your own argument. I’m not forcing you to marry a woman am I? In fact, I’m not calling for you to be forces to do anything. Heck, I’m not calling for anything at all. You are.
Funny you mention that. Radical gay activists are intent on subjecting children to their ideology aren’t they? Radical gay activists are intent on “educating” children about the value of homosexual and transgender lifestyles and activities. And the “anti-bullying” nonsense is merely a pretext for their radical agenda. It’s an egregious and blatant attempt to further their goals by turning children against the values and beliefs of Christianity and traditionalism.
[quote]
I don’t want to take away a straight couple’s right to marry, something implied by my “attacking traditional marriage”. But your decision to vehemently oppose granting me access to an institution that would enrich my life, my husband’s life, and the lives of any children we have together, without any justification or evidence of potential for harm beyond your own personal opposition to the concept is insulting. [/quote]
See above. I oppose any changes to the institution of marriage gay or otherwise. And I find a great deal of what gay activists do way beyond “insulting” - I find it to be an egregious assault on the civil society.
If I can destroy the argument of the moral superiority of christianity, then I can take the foundation of their argument away from the discussion at hand.[/quote]
Up to your usual tricks I see. Only, no one here is saying I’m against gay marriage because the sky boss said it’s wrong. So can you “destroy the argument of the moral superiority of Christianity” somewhere else and not derail the thread please?[/quote]
Problem is there are many ethical concepts that are still rooted in western societies, as there is a hegemony of Christian ethics that still permeate everything from our justice system to who we elect. At least in the U.S. every president has claimed to be Christian, as do the vast majority of Politicians in General. It’s still one of those things, where people wont even vote for you unless you are some sort of Christian.
[/quote]
Regardless, we can’t start arguing about the morality of the bible every time a discussion about something that touches upon ethics comes up. We all know that some people here are Christians and some aren’t. There’s no reason to turn this into a debate about Christianity. No one here is quoting the bible as evidence against gay marriage. We should just address the arguments themselves, not start a new discussion.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Yes I did read your response. But you’re really not making any sense. You claim that the Bible is not contradictory yet you claim parts are. It shouldn’t matter to you if human interpretation is flawed since you already ‘know’ that the Bible is not. So there shouldn’t be any doubts about any parts unless of course you’re picking and choosing what you like. I find it amazing that God would create these rules for us to follow, rules that are so crucial that he makes us in such a way that we can’t even understand them because our interpretation is flawed. [/quote]
Again, the Bible itself is not contradictory-human interpretation can be. It doesn’t matter to me that human interpretation is, and that’s the only way it can be-humans are humans. I wrote a quick post or two and they came out wrong. I corrected myself. I, like almost everyone who talks about any religion, allowed myself to conflate the teachings of the deity with the teachings of the followers and others. I find it amazing that we exist.[/quote]
Here’s a link to an entire website DEDICATED to bible contradictions.
If I can destroy the argument of the moral superiority of christianity, then I can take the foundation of their argument away from the discussion at hand.[/quote]
Up to your usual tricks I see. Only, no one here is saying I’m against gay marriage because the sky boss said it’s wrong. So can you “destroy the argument of the moral superiority of Christianity” somewhere else and not derail the thread please?[/quote]
Problem is there are many ethical concepts that are still rooted in western societies, as there is a hegemony of Christian ethics that still permeate everything from our justice system to who we elect. At least in the U.S. every president has claimed to be Christian, as do the vast majority of Politicians in General. It’s still one of those things, where people wont even vote for you unless you are some sort of Christian.
[/quote]
Regardless, we can’t start arguing about the morality of the bible every time a discussion about something that touches upon ethics comes up. We all know that some people here are Christians and some aren’t. There’s no reason to turn this into a debate about Christianity. No one here is quoting the bible as evidence against gay marriage. We should just address the arguments themselves, not start a new discussion.
[/quote]
There doesn’t have to be anyone quoting from the bible, it’s already a given that western nations are for the most part were founded and to large effect follow Christian moral hegemony. As a nation we value certain ideals about freedoms of religion because they were Christian and they sought to avoid hegemony and persecution from Christians of other specific Christian religions.
When you look at it like this and just remove the, religion from it. It’s just people looking to be equals and to be allowed to go about their lives, as they aren’t hurting anyone any more than those that founded the United States were in the big picture. In the end it’s a fight over the hegemonic Christian values, that need to go away already unless they can be grounded in something other than lack of information and fear.
If I can destroy the argument of the moral superiority of christianity, then I can take the foundation of their argument away from the discussion at hand.[/quote]
Up to your usual tricks I see. Only, no one here is saying I’m against gay marriage because the sky boss said it’s wrong. So can you “destroy the argument of the moral superiority of Christianity” somewhere else and not derail the thread please?[/quote]
Problem is there are many ethical concepts that are still rooted in western societies, as there is a hegemony of Christian ethics that still permeate everything from our justice system to who we elect. At least in the U.S. every president has claimed to be Christian, as do the vast majority of Politicians in General. It’s still one of those things, where people wont even vote for you unless you are some sort of Christian.
[/quote]
Regardless, we can’t start arguing about the morality of the bible every time a discussion about something that touches upon ethics comes up. We all know that some people here are Christians and some aren’t. There’s no reason to turn this into a debate about Christianity. No one here is quoting the bible as evidence against gay marriage. We should just address the arguments themselves, not start a new discussion.
[/quote]
Yes people on this thread are using the bible as evidence
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Yes I did read your response. But you’re really not making any sense. You claim that the Bible is not contradictory yet you claim parts are. It shouldn’t matter to you if human interpretation is flawed since you already ‘know’ that the Bible is not. So there shouldn’t be any doubts about any parts unless of course you’re picking and choosing what you like. I find it amazing that God would create these rules for us to follow, rules that are so crucial that he makes us in such a way that we can’t even understand them because our interpretation is flawed. [/quote]
Again, the Bible itself is not contradictory-human interpretation can be. It doesn’t matter to me that human interpretation is, and that’s the only way it can be-humans are humans. I wrote a quick post or two and they came out wrong. I corrected myself. I, like almost everyone who talks about any religion, allowed myself to conflate the teachings of the deity with the teachings of the followers and others. I find it amazing that we exist.[/quote]
Here’s a link to an entire website DEDICATED to bible contradictions.
Enjoy.[/quote]
“A thread hijacking occurs when one or more individuals commenting on the original posting, go off topic, creating a separate conversation. This is rude, and bad internet etiquette. If people want to discuss a different topic, they should start their own thread”
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Yes I did read your response. But you’re really not making any sense. You claim that the Bible is not contradictory yet you claim parts are. It shouldn’t matter to you if human interpretation is flawed since you already ‘know’ that the Bible is not. So there shouldn’t be any doubts about any parts unless of course you’re picking and choosing what you like. I find it amazing that God would create these rules for us to follow, rules that are so crucial that he makes us in such a way that we can’t even understand them because our interpretation is flawed. [/quote]
Again, the Bible itself is not contradictory-human interpretation can be. It doesn’t matter to me that human interpretation is, and that’s the only way it can be-humans are humans. I wrote a quick post or two and they came out wrong. I corrected myself. I, like almost everyone who talks about any religion, allowed myself to conflate the teachings of the deity with the teachings of the followers and others. I find it amazing that we exist.[/quote]
Here’s a link to an entire website DEDICATED to bible contradictions.
Enjoy.[/quote]
“A thread hijacking occurs when one or more individuals commenting on the original posting, go off topic, creating a separate conversation. This is rude, and bad internet etiquette. If people want to discuss a different topic, they should start their own thread”
[/quote]
This is a related topic. The Bible is being used as a source of morality against homosexulaity. This is pointing out some issues with that source.
There doesn’t have to be anyone quoting from the bible, it’s already a given that western nations are for the most part were founded and to large effect follow Christian moral hegemony. As a nation we value certain ideals about freedoms of religion because they were Christian and they sought to avoid hegemony and persecution from Christians of other specific Christian religions.
When you look at it like this and just remove the, “Christian” from it. It’s just people looking to be equals and to be allowed to go about their lives, as they aren’t hurting anyone any more than those Quakers way of life was negatively affecting people of Europe at the time.
[/quote]
Cut the bullshit. An argument about the bible is off topic. It’s way beyond the scope of a gay marriage discussion. My thread was hijacked. Okay, fine whatever. I was interested in discussing gay marriage but obviously fascistic little twits want to show how terribly clever and ethical they are. I’m out of here.
BTW, the reason this thread was started in the first place is because another poster didn’t want their thread hijacked and derailed into a gay marriage discussion and so I showed the common courtesy of not derailing their thread.
If I can destroy the argument of the moral superiority of christianity, then I can take the foundation of their argument away from the discussion at hand.[/quote]
Up to your usual tricks I see. Only, no one here is saying I’m against gay marriage because the sky boss said it’s wrong. So can you “destroy the argument of the moral superiority of Christianity” somewhere else and not derail the thread please?[/quote]
Problem is there are many ethical concepts that are still rooted in western societies, as there is a hegemony of Christian ethics that still permeate everything from our justice system to who we elect. At least in the U.S. every president has claimed to be Christian, as do the vast majority of Politicians in General. It’s still one of those things, where people wont even vote for you unless you are some sort of Christian.
[/quote]
Regardless, we can’t start arguing about the morality of the bible every time a discussion about something that touches upon ethics comes up. We all know that some people here are Christians and some aren’t. There’s no reason to turn this into a debate about Christianity. No one here is quoting the bible as evidence against gay marriage. We should just address the arguments themselves, not start a new discussion.
[/quote]
But someone here DID claim to base their argument on morality they derive from scripture and stated it quite clearly… So I feel perfectly justified in refuting the source of their morality because it is flawed.
A poster was specifically asked where his “ethics come from”. He said religion/scripture. That’s the foundation of his ethics. It’s not offered as “proof” of why traditional marriage shouldn’t be destroyed. Understand the difference? The foundation of one’s belief system does not equal “evidence” of anything.
This is an example of trying to use the bible as evidence:
^^ That is an example of proffering the bible as “evidence” of something.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It should be noted that this discussion has been underway for the better part of an hour and there are NO CHRISTIANS jumping in to answer any of these challenges.
What’s wrong, cat got your tongue?
Or could it be that you feel safer burying your head in the sand because you can’t defend the actions of YOUR “god”?
“I’m not going to have a debate with a BIGOT like you who OBVIOUSLY hates Christians”…
That one is getting kinda old. TRANSLATION:
“I don’t want to confront the dark side of christianity because it challenges my belief system and I’m too much of a coward to do that - that’s why I’m a member of a flock, because I’m a fucking SHEEP. I do what I’m told and I believe EVERYTHING I was taught, cuz I’m a GOOOOOOD CHRISTIAN!”
And you WONDER why King James translated the bible! You couldn’t ASK for a more perfect devise to control a population![/quote]
[/quote]First, thank you for taking the time to reply[quote]
I will try to touch on some things that you have addressed in several posts. First, my religion is grounded in faith. Faith is belief in the absence of proof. God made this intentional, and also all the “rebuttals” of Christianity and the Bible. Without this, why have faith? Faith must persevere through arguments, strong arguments, made against it. So I have faith that the Bible I read God has provided for me.
[/quote]I’m not arguing about what faith is. We all have “faith” in one way or another. I have “faith” that the law of gravity won’t reverse itself. But that is because I can PROVE the law of gravity…
But what I don’t understand is why Christians chose to follow such a bloodthirsty and evil being. And then have the balls to say that EVERYTHING he does is “good”. Newsflash: KILLING KIDS IS NOT GOOD. According to YOUR bible, YOUR god ordered the death of children. That makes him a fucking asshole in MY book. Right up there with Hitler. I could keep going and going with examples of your god’s cruelty and egomaniacal demands. Why on earth would any sane person who wants to be “good” follow something so evil? And then call themselves “moral” and lecture to others how to behave? [quote]
And remember, stories are told through a variety of ways. Literal accounts, figurative speech, parables, metaphors, allegory, you name it. The Bible is meant to be taken both literally and figuratively. Just like we talk today.
“Man, I was late today! I was flying down the interstate!” Was I really flying?
[/quote]I understand what you are saying and most sane people would not take the bible “literally” because you are correct, there are many styles of communication demonstrated in those passages. But there are literally MILLIONS of people who DO take the passages literally. And some of those people are responsible for influencing the policies and laws in our country, and that’s something I cannot abide.[quote]
We should not conclude that everyone will agree on the exact meaning of every single statement the Bible makes. But people don’t agree on the meaning of every single statement of Shakespeare, the President of the United States, or even the meaning of federal and state laws (and laws are virtually always made to be crystal clear and understood literally!). Nor will they ever all agree on the meaning of every single scripture. Furthermore, even if they did agree on the meaning of every scripture, they would not agree on every single doctrine, because scriptures must often be combined to understand a single doctrine.
[/quote]But would you agree that the rule of LAW should be based on LOGIC and REASON and not on fantasy? Because what YOU call “faith”, I call “fantasy” and I don’t feel that I should be subjected to YOUR fantasy. I don’t care what you do or what you believe. But when YOUR beliefs start influencing and affecting laws and statutes that control MY existence, happiness and liberty, I have a fucking problem with that. Especially since you can’t PROVE any of it. If you could prove it, I’d change my opinion. But you can’t.[quote]
So, I take the literal statements literally, and the figurative statements figuratively. I use my common sense, my experience, and my knowledge of language and grammar to know the difference and to determine what the figures of speech mean. Along with historical context of course.
But this is not about the defense of the Bible. I simple say this is what I base my morality on. I believe what I believe. I feel religion creates the most time-tested foundation our world has when it come to laws and moral conduct.
[/quote]I believe religion (not just christianity) is a source of suffering throughout history. I’m not talking about the middle ages or anything either, I’m sure you are well aware of how women in OUR young country in OUR cities were BURNED alive in the name of your religion. That’s recent. Now another Abrahamic religion is being used as an excuse to kill people. I see religion as a vehicle of evil and a justification of a state to kill people. That’s what it’s been used for in the past, and at the VERY least it’s been used to manipulate, control, extort, influence and corrupt members of it’s “flock”.[quote]
Now I ask you, what do YOU base your morality on? You don’t have to belittle religion to state and defend yours.
[/quote]
I derive MY morality on my life experience. I’ve made mistakes. I’ve read historical accounts of the mistakes and victories of other people. I see what works and what doesn’t.
For me, I always try to play Win:Win with all of my interactions with other people. I always try to lead with a giving hand. I don’t ask anyone to do something that I haven’t done or wouldn’t do. I work hard, protect what is mine and what is important to me, and help those who I feel show potential for positive change. I also try to keep an open mind about things and mind my business. I allow people to make mistakes because they grow from them. But if their actions or mistakes are going to affect me or mine, I try to stop it.
If I had to sum up my morality into one sentence, it would be “try not to harm”. But on the flip side of that, it could be summed up as, “defend what is mine”… I feel strongly about both of those aspects.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
A poster was specifically asked where his “ethics come from”. He said religion/scripture. That’s the foundation of his ethics. It’s not offered as “proof” of why traditional marriage shouldn’t be destroyed. Understand the difference? The foundation of one’s belief system does not equal “evidence” of anything.
This is an example of trying to use the bible as evidence:
^^ That is an example of proffering the bible as “evidence” of something.
Edited to fix quotes[/quote]
He wasn’t asked where his ethics came from. He was asked about where his morality came from. You keep using the word ‘morality’ as well and I’m not sure if you have stated the foundation of morality but I’m sure it’s religious. So it is definitely a factor in this conversation.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
No one should be allowed to redefine marriage. Not gays; not polygamous straights; no one. [/quote]
I think that your entire position can be summed up by the above sentence, yes?
But the KEY word in that sentence is SHOULD…
Barack Obama SHOULD not be able to pass executive orders willy nilly, but he DOES.
Liberals feel that everyone SHOULD have health care and a living wage.
Your beliefs about what “SHOULD” be don’t amount to a hill of beans when contrasted with REALITY.
Gay marriage is HAPPENING. Your opinion on the matter isn’t going to change that. You may never change your opinion, I don’t care. But I think your opinion is wrong. And MOST of the population agrees with me.
Societies evolve. Throughout most of history, slavery was considered normal. We evolved.
Throughout history, burning and torturing people who “sinned” was acceptable.
We evolved.
Less than a hundred years ago, IN THIS COUNTRY, the LAND OF THE FREE, Blacks were segregated, forbidden to marry outside of their race, etc…
WE EVOLVED.
The breakdown of the family unit that you RIGHTFULLY blame for the destruction of conservative values is NOT under attack here. If anything, gay marriage STRENGTHENS the family unit! It will allow for MORE stable families to exist and provide a bedrock of stability for our society.
Our society has gone in a pretty negative direction because of feminism and women trying “LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD”, not because of a small percentage of homosexuals who are being systematically disenfranchised. If you want to blame the breakdown of the family unit, blame WOMEN, not fags…
The fact of the matter is that gay marriage WILL be a reality soon. They WILL win that battle because of the existing laws in our society that give special privileges to married heterosexual couples. I didn’t write these laws, but they are there. And those laws and implied rights effectively disenfranchise homosexuals.
I look at it as an opportunity for children to be raised in a loving home instead of a state run facility or moving from one foster home to another. Since homosexual couples (just like MILLIONS of heterosexual couples who are infertile) can’t have kids, there will be more homes opening up for children who need to be adopted. That is a GOOD THING.
Will there be a small percentage of “abusive” people who adopt these children? Of course there will. Just like there is a small percentage of “abusive” people who are STRAIGHT and end up adopting kids. It is a sad reality, but it is not one that is UNIQUE to the homosexual community. Will there be small statistical anomalies? Of course there will! There are many people fighting gay marriage and they will use statistical lies to back up their position. But in REALITY, the vast, overwhelming majority of PEOPLE (hetero and homo sexual alike) are NOT pedophiles.
I define the traditional family unit as :
-A Breadwinner
-A Homemaker
-Children
That is what works. Modern family units often devolve into:
-A PRIMARY Breadwinner
-A SECONDARY Breadwinner
-The School System (or possibly grandparents if they are lucky)
-Children
This is what “empowered feminist” family units look like:
-Single mother
-Absentee father (emasculated by the court system, renting a room because oppressive child/spousal support limits his ability to have a fucking like and limited by the court to seeing his children only 48 hours every other weekend)
-Spoiled dysfunctional children
Homosexual Married couples CAN fit into the role of a TRADITIONAL FAMILY UNIT.
Despite your fears and concerns (which I do understand), this CAN benefit society.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Sorry for the derailment guys. I’ll quit with the religious angle. [/quote]
You’re not the one who derailed the thread. [/quote]
I didn’t derail the thread, I was having a discussion that pertained to the thread. Several people were having the discussion. Just because YOUR opposition to gay marriage doesn’t originate from “the man in the sky” doesn’t mean that OTHER people don’t base their opinion on that! That makes religion a fair and open target for discussion.
I HAVE addressed YOUR secular points effectively as well. I am capable of having two arguments at once. You feel free to stick to yours.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Sorry for the derailment guys. I’ll quit with the religious angle. [/quote]
It’s not a derailment. Religion is a PRIMARY reason that many people discriminate against homosexuals. Please defend that if you are moved to do so. If not, I understand. It’s not an easy position to logically defend.
I think that your entire position can be summed up by the above sentence, yes?
[/quote]
That is my position on the institution of marriage yes. Pretty simple. Husband + wife; bride + groom = marriage. I know that’s “hateful” and everything but that’s my position.
Where are you going with this? I don’t know why I’m bothering to respond when you’re showing such disrespect by posting pages of infantile anti-Christianity stuff.
You’re a liberal. Stop pretending otherwise.
You forget. I don’t live in some blue state fucking hell hole. There is no “gay” marriage where I come from. Not in any state in the country. A federal act was passed in 1961 and reaffirmed in 2004 stating:
“Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others…”
That’s the “reality” here.
FABULOUS! Keep it over there.
Depends how you define “most”. Southern States don’t have majority support.
Yeah, and yours is devolving.
Give me a break. You’re boring me.
Why are you so invested in this? Why do you care so much? Many gays don’t support gay marriage. Yet you feel the need to involve yourself in activism on behalf of the tiny number of people who are gay and want to get married.
This is some of the most idiotic shit I’ve seen around here. Hosexuals are being “systematically disenfranchised?” Even gay activists don’t argue that. They say they’ve been very successful and that the exact opposite has occurred. As I said, there’s something odd here. You’re more invested in this than the most radical of gay activists. Got a gay brother or sister or something? Is that it? I suggest you work on the party line because you’ve got it wrong.
You’re mistaking your own strawman for something I said. As I’ve said several times in this thread:
The normalisation of homosexuality is not the cause of society’s problems. It’s a symptom of them.
And I’m not looking to “blame” anyone. I told you this is not about enmity or hatred. It’s about my fundamental beliefs about what’s normal and what’s not; what’s healthy and what’s not; what’s good for society and what’s not.
And so all the unfair laws that favour homosexuals are good right? Like “hate crimes” legislation: punch someone and call them a “nerd” and you get two months community service; punch someone and call them a “fag” and get ten years for a “hate crime”. Because gays are more valuable human beings than everyone else aren’t they? Equality before the law is not good enough is it?
Maybe if you spent some time actually reading other people’s posts instead of ranting about how unethical the bible is I wouldn’t have to keep repeating myself. Gays are not disenfranchised. They have all the same rights as straight people and more. Read my previous posts if you don’t understand why. If you disagree then address what I said instead of just ignoring it.
Why not address some of the arguments against adoption instead of ignoring them or brushing them off? One of the reasons Russia banned Americans from adopting Russian children is due to this:
The gay couple who molested this boy were hailed by the liberal media at the time. One particular lib went and did a big pro-gay adoption story and went and interviewed the parents. She thought they were wonderful at the time and she was a big supporter of gay adoption. When the truth came out she wrote a story saying she’d completely changed her mind about gay adoption. So not everyone is “evolving” in the way you mean.
Only it won’t be as small. It will be considerably larger.
They’re not equal numbers though and you can’t pretend otherwise. There is a much higher percentage of child molesters in the gay community.