Ugh. Enough. Your ignorance is painful to observe. Please start a new thread, I think we’ve hijacked this one quite enough. If you want to talk about evolution, I will be more than happy to get into it with you, seeing as how I have a passing interest in science. Or whatever evolution is, seeing as how you don’t like it being called “science”.
PS Genetic mutation is real, and can be used to “add” to the “library”. Look at anyone with Down’s syndrome. They actually have MORE DNA than a normal human because of an error in their DNA replication. This is an example of a harmful DNA mutation, but there are plenty of examples of how smaller mutations are beneficial – just look at drug-resistant bacteria.
Do I get a gold star now? Honestly, that was too easy. Start a new thread, I dare you.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
It’s interesting to note, that the most troublesome presuppositions tend to follow whatever is politically correct at the time. When it was politically correct to assume that the earth was the center of the universe, that particular presupposition left scientists with an improbable, unworkable hypothesis. The more they observed the movements of the planets, the more they had to make up strange, improbable stories about how the planets and stars moved. They were very inventive, intelligent and persuasive.
[/quote]
It is interesting. So was Tom Cruise on Oprah. Damn, that dude’s crazy
Charles Darwin IS MY GOD!! I mean, since when did evolutionary theory become a cult?
This quote doesn’t seem to have any relevance. How does random gene mutation defy the second law of thermodynamics?
Sure thing, physics dude…
I think we have different working definitions of data and logic. Data is information collected from an experiment, often expressed in numbers or other quantifiable data. Logic is a system of argument - for a full definition, consult your local Philosophismist. It’s a broad topic.
Do YOU understand what it is? Explain it to me in your own words and how genetic mutation violates it.
Of course! Making up things! THAT’S how to gain full understanding of the universe! It’s all so opaque to me now…
Like what?
Haha, sorry, just had a mental image of one of my profs scurrying across the lab to catch the word “hypothesis” in a beaker. I’ll move on…
And yet here you are on them there INtarnets communicating with thousands of people who apparently can’t solve things, even though the very people you say are morons created the electronics you use, cure diseases, and are on the verge of designer babies. Weird, ain’t it?
Nope. Nothing’s undeniable. The counterevidence just has to make a lick of sense.
For the sake of argument, we’ll call them “smart.”
Well, that’s one possible model. We’re still working out the kinks, as some of the information needed to track a preceise timeline of progression is a LITTLE hard to put together millions of years later.
MAGIC!!!
DAMN!
It does. But I believe you misrepresent it below.
Technically, I think you’re right. It’s a theory constructed by the information found through science by “smart” people.
Is it big?
YES!
Um… you mean like why my pee-pee gets big and hard sometimes? Or do you mean how they get expressed and grow from a little spermie and egg all the way to big ol’ people? 'Cause we know both. Or is it something else?
I like the idea of anthropometric DNA that has read all the books people have written about how the body works. How do I talk to it? My right shoulder sometimes makes a clicking sound.
We know a LOT bit about natural selection. But it’s not the only mechanism at work in evolution. Where did the traits that affect which type of creatures survive from a given population come from?
I don’t really think this is true. Ever seen X-Men? Those guys have some pretty wacky traits. If DNA ever wants to make me shoot laser beams out of my eyes, that’d be great.
Natural selection also weeds out some traits that are caused by random mutations. You know, like people born without reproductive organs. They don’t get to reproduce. Thus, the trait doesn’t get passed on (for an overly simplistic statement).
I likes the challenges.
Damn! This must have been posted decades ago.
Have you ever cracked a book and taken a look at what you’re arguing against? DNA isn’t the only contributor, for one, DNA can be damaged, changed, extended, shortened, you name it. It’s a string of freakin’ physical particles, it’s subject to the laws of physics!
What “obvious hole” did you even bring up?
What sort of cosmic rays? Like the ones that make Superman fly? Or do you mean different kinds of radiation?
Fix what up? Nobody claims that random mutation happens for a specifc purpose in a directed manner - hence, “random.” Where we are now is the product of millions of years of these random mutations sorting themselves out, not working to “fix things right up.”
Is it the Golden Gate? I’ve always wanted the Golden Gate bridge.
Explain the second law to me. I’ve looked at some basic explainations, but I wanna hear it from the expert.
You just made baby Jesus cry with that horrible analogy. It’d be more like… somebody shooting trillions of BB guns at trillions of planets (for size) for millions upon millions of years (for timeframe) producing one random set of outcomes, where ours is this one.
I used to think that…
Holy crap! ALL of them?! They’ve produced EVERY POSSIBLE OUTCOME of random mutation and subjected it to EVERY possible combination of outcomes, mixing them all together to see what would happen over millions of years?
Sweet.
If they created every possible alternate biological reality, I think that’s money well spent.
Hey, where can I get a unicorn?
Can you explain this please?
You jam it in there, transcribe an extra bit if info once in a while, accidentally break and reform a bond.
And it’s not better. Just different. Like homosexual marriage. (had to stick to the thread topic somehow)
Nah, God and I talked last night, he said it’s cool. We’re just actualizing the free thought and free will he gave us to try to gain a greater understanding of the world around us for the betterment of mankind.
Oh, and he says he doesn’t know where he put the science pointing to the soul. He’s sorry about that, but says it’s a matter of faith now and totally cool that way.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hold on there lothario, I do think there have been many (you as well) who have stated that homosexuals did not chose to be that way, if they could change it they would. Now you can’t have it both ways![/quote]
I don’t think that was me that said MOST gays would change if they wanted to. In fact, I’m pretty sure I haven’t mentioned anything like that at all, because I don’t know any gays who hate themselves for what they are. Still, there’s always room for wishful thinking… I wish I was born as the son of Bill Gates. I want a Ferrari.
And again, you assume that being gay is bad. Think ZEB… what happens if you say to yourself “being gay is okay”? I’m not saying that everyone should try being queer, I’m saying everyone should try to accept some people as being different from themselves. That’s all. If you are able to do that, then it will follow that you are no longer feeling threatened by them as if they were some kind of hazard. And you are doing exactly this, right now ZEB.
You wrote: “Is it not possible that they would influence that child to become Gay.”
And that is a tragedy… how? Oh, I know… because being gay is bad. Here we are right back to where we started.
The truth of the matter is we don’t have enough studies out yet to determine if a child reared in a gay household will be more likely to turn out homosexual. The data I have found shows that the chances are equal, but the studies are arguably skewed toward non-random samples… in other words, the test subjects were not chosen at random, they were solicited from gay/lesbian websites and such, so basically it’s too soon to call either way with any certainty. What we do know with certainty is that kids raised by gay parents are just as well-adjusted socially and otherwise as kids raised in hetero families:
So what are we “protecting” those kids from? Loving parents? What a great idea!
I have stated what I believe a bunch of times. It is not scientific evidence, but oh well. Here we go:
I personally was born a heterosexual. I have always liked boobies, even before I could read. There is an old family photo of me somewhere as child sitting on my Dad’s lap with a Pabst Blue Ribbon in one hand, and a Playboy in the other. I was two, I think. It’s a cute picture. Anyway, I do not think that my heterosexuality was determined by my exposure to that magazine, it goes deeper than that. As a teenager, I found my underwear became increasingly uncomfortably tight around certain girls, and there was nothing I could do about it. It just happened all by itself. So, I conclude right here and now that my sexual preference is nothing I have any control over, nor something that I have chosen for myself. If you label me as a sinner, then I am sorry, there is nothing I can do about it. I am what I am.
Now if you want to apply the above to a gay man, simply change a few words… from girl to boy, for example, and Presto! Origin of homosexuality. I will go on record here and say that people don’t “become” gay, they just are. Take that however you wish. I don’t see how this is rocket science or anything.
[quote]You do not go far enough with your assesment. That is my only complaint. Yes, I’m a Christian who thinks homosexuality is a sin. However, if I were to become an Atheist on Monday morning I would still think that that particular behavior runs contrary to nature and would still be opposed to it.
I have looked at this issue from many different angles.[/quote]
So I was right below, and you aren’t against gay marriage due to your religious beliefs? I kinda thought so, but you do fall back on the bible thing a lot, you have to admit. You debated 100 for like four pages or something about the bible and homosexuality.
It was all stuff in their past for the most part. Nobody here in the hospital has a problem now that I know of. But still, your sentiment is appreciated I am sure. I am always glad to be wrong when I sit back and accuse someone of being a homophobe… which you quite plainly aren’t.
Well… I’m also not buying that the gay population are made up of pill-popping ecstasy junkies who trade each other off sexually at every opportunity. I just don’t see it, ZEB. I see the grown-ups and the good work that they do.
This is the kicker, I think: are we able to differentiate the two (gay party freakazoid vs. gay responsible person) when it really matters? Can we do the interviews, etc. like we do for heterosexual adoptive parents? Can we apply the same standards to gay adopting couples? I think we can.
There are always going to be bad apples in any group, gay or otherwise. Do we let the bad examples speak for all, or do we do this on a case for case basis? Is a human being just an average of the various demographics and categories we put him in? And is that how we judge him?
[quote]You are not catching my drift, sorry I’m trying to be as clear as possible. I never stated that they were “diseased” (once again you mischaracterize). I stated that we don’t know why Gay people become Gay. Until we do, I am not, and never will be for placing a child in a home with two Gays, married or not.
It’s not about being open minded, it’s about being careful with children. Why be reckless? What is the gain? Why not find out the facts before moving in that direction?[/quote]
You say that I am mischaracterizing you, but I don’t think I am. You are writing about gays like they need to be quarantined or something. There is nothing reckless about getting children out of orphanages. Countless studies, ZEB. Many many many. That’s how many studies show that children of gay parents turn out just fine. I will not post the link for the millionth time, I did in this post already. And I understand that it’s not what you want to hear, and that’s why I keep posting the very same link over and over. There are others, too. Other people have posted links to other studies. You are dragging your feet here, I think.
All right, I was into a little hyprebole there just to get my point across. My bad. No more poetic license… bad lothario! Bad!
[quote]I am for interraacial choice. I am also for women involved in the military. Up to this point I have not given much thought to a teens pants hanging down their backside, but off the top of my head I don’t like it…:[/quote] Trust me, the kids down here dress like imbeciles… LOL
As an elementary understanding of evolution will tell you, sometimes adaptation takes a long time. Oh well.
Man I gotta tell you… any change which brings us closer together and erases the lines we’ve drawn between ourselves is a welcome thing to me. I see our people as growing stronger when we work together for a common good for everyone, and that means for gays too. We are all in this together.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Back on topic!!
I don’t think that was me that said MOST gays would change if they wanted to. In fact, I’m pretty sure I haven’t mentioned anything like that at all, because I don’t know any gays who hate themselves for what they are. Still, there’s always room for wishful thinking… I wish I was born as the son of Bill Gates. I want a Ferrari.[/quote]
Not if the “wanted to” if they “could!” I’m not going to bother to find a web site which has stats to go along with this, what’s the point? You won’t read it anyway. Let’s just say that I think (and have been told by other Gays-I have friends that are Gay too) that "if they could change they would. In fact, that is actually the entire argument isn’t it? They say they are “born that way.” They can’t change, but if they could…
My argument (relative to how they got that way) is that no one knows. Hence, could a child be influenced? Well, kids sure are impressionable, who knows? Certainly not you, or I.
Um, it’s not “okay” from what I have read, and personally witnessed. Being Gay is largely a life which can lead to higher suicide rates, loneliness and a shorter life span etc. Are all of these stats wrong? I doubt it!
Thank you for that admission. Now we are getting somewhere. As soon as we have those definitive studies, then we can make a determination. Until then the court of ZEB has ruled that no child will be adopted by any Gay couple. Case closed, let’s go have a beer.
We are protecting them from a life of pain! (See above). Why not give them the potential to have a normal life. “WHATS NORMAL ZEB YOU IDIOT?” Hey, relax, I’m simply saying that the likelyhood of happiness is much greater if the person is heterosexual. Let me ask the reader this: If you had your choice would you want your child to be Gay, or heterosexual? We all know the answer to this.
I want to make sure that you understand (isn’t it everyones desire to be understood?) I am against homosexual marriage on every front! Religious-yes. Practical-yes. Economical-yes. Against Nature-yes. Let’s see are there any others? Hmm…can’t think of any right now, but if I do I will let you know.
The debate with 100meters came about because I happened to mention the religious aspect as being one reason. He pushed me on it, so we went at it. It was fun and I’d like to continue it too!
Well, thank you for stating that. It’s nice to be able to debate and not have to recieve horrible insults from the other side.
I’ll tell you why I’m not homophobic, or racist, or any other thing that creates pain for others. Basically, I look at life as being really, really hard. Lot’s of things happen to us in life. The good things we have to work really hard for: Good relationships, a decent job (or business), Raising children etc. All (and much more are difficult).
Then along comes the things of life that just “happen.” Loved ones die, accidents occur, sickness sneaks up on you. No, I don’t want to add to any ones pain…There is enough of that in life.
[quote]Well… I’m also not buying that the gay population are made up of pill-popping ecstasy junkies who trade each other off sexually at every opportunity. I just don’t see it, ZEB. I see the grown-ups and the good work that they do.
This is the kicker, I think: are we able to differentiate the two (gay party freakazoid vs. gay responsible person) when it really matters? Can we do the interviews, etc. like we do for heterosexual adoptive parents? Can we apply the same standards to gay adopting couples? I think we can…[/quote]
No, sorry. No Gay couple will ever be able to adopt until we know why people become Gay.
Where did I ever say or even imply that Gays should be “quarantined?” This is your goofyiest statement ever!
A funny thing about studies: When Gays do a study it turns out that everything they do or so is perfect. When social liberals do a study a similar thing occurs. You have no legitimate “studies” so please don’t bother me anymore by mentioning them, they don’t exist!
Now go ask a drug company if Celbrex is completly safe! After all they did studies showing that it was
[quote]The majority of Americans have not abused any homosexual. This fantasy you have of a great class of people who have been abused is nonsense. Who is currently “oppressing” Gay people? Are you talking about the minority of idiots who use slang directed at homosexuals? There will always be a small minority of fools who are clueless. You can’t legislate that away.
All right, I was into a little hyprebole there just to get my point across. My bad. No more poetic license… bad lothario! Bad! :)[/quote]
I thank you
Yea, but when I think back to the late 60’s and early 70’s, shoulder length hair etc. they might look better today! YIKES! LOL
I think you are in for a very long wait relative to Gay marriage. In fact they might be calling you Grandpa lothario before that happens!
[quote]rising_hope wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Dude, that relates the how marriage started and that it was started as a religious institution. Not the it is fact or not.
Fine. Whether it started as a religious institution to be between man and woman is actually irrelavant. The point is, we live in a living, breathing, evolving, ever changing society. The words I type now will seem foreign to those 300 years from now as our language evolves. The concepts we propose on paper here and now will seem ancient to those in the future. What I’m getting at is we live in a society that is changing. Change is inevitable - you can’t stop it. My point is, for the people who want marriage as an institution, it has it’s place - in the church. In society, marriage’s only function is the protection of a family unit. It is not necessarily to produce children (some couples cannot, others do not.) It is about two persons, their families, and the life they are working toward building.
My point is, the function of marriage is relavant to society, but people keep getting hung up on the definition. I refuse to accept to seperate definitions, because I believe to do so would be to seperate a segment of society - and heading down that road leads us into very civil rights movement era territory. I think we need to work toward building something better, that all people can generally accept.
I’m not saying marriage has no place. It absolutely does. I’m not saying that civil marriage has no place - it absolutely does. I’m saying that if it’s the term we’re hung up on here, let’s fix it. But if we fix it, we need to do so in a manner in which works for all people.
[/quote]
I think you have hit it on the head. Some parts of current society want to try and change all of society and what we feel and think. So you are correct in that society does evolve and change. But it does so by the majority, not the special interrest minority.
So the bottom line is that the gay (minority) wants to change how the majority (hetero) thinks. And to do this they are trying to use the courts.
I represent the majority who think that the current understanding of marraige between a man and woman should stay just like it is.
First, I do believe the DP law gives the same rights and you don’t have any actual facts to the contrarry. If you do please post them.
Next, I and many others like me believe that the gay lifestyle is wrong and a negative aspect of society. Giving this lifestyle “equal rights” is an attempt to “normalize deviance”. So the goal is to really change society’s views on gayness, not equal rights. And fortunately the majority will not sand by and let the deviant minorty tell them what to think and believe.
[quote]
The U.S. was founded by protestants, fleeing persecution for their beliefs that excess and waste have no place in the church. But it has evolved into a place that is so much more than those people. It now represents people from all corners of the earth, and all walks of life. Certainly, they believed in God, and they wanted to protect what mattered to them. But they also had the sense to set up an amazing doctrine which has guided our sensibility over the last 200+ years to become this great nation that it is. That doctrine gives all citizens basic rights and freedoms. It allows us all to function here as one. I’m not sure if our forefathers ever anticipated this to become such an amazing nation steeped in diversity and culture. I think it’s important that personal values be protected. I think it’s important that we all work together as a society. I think it’s important that we not place blame on Arab-American’s for 9/11, since they had nothing to do with it. I think it’s important that blacks and whites and asians and all our other races work together to build a better society. I think it’s important that gays not be persecuted for who they are, too. I think it’s important that we, as American’s, lead the example as a society that can function with one clear vision for a better world in which all people, despite our differences, can function. Sure, they’ll be economic downturns (like now), and great tragedy (like 9/11), and war (like in Iraq)… But I think it’s important that all people are represented, and can live in relative peace. And I think the only way of doing that is through equality. Denying gays (as it is today), or any other group or segment of society (as blacks as it was 40 years ago, and women as it was 80 years ago), any right whatsoever that any other catagorical part of society has is contrary to this fundamental belief.[/quote]
Dude, comparing gayness to race and culture is offensive to all those of non-white origin who have come to the US to live a free life.
We (society) do not have to bend at the whim of every freak who comes up with some new form of behavior.
So the only thing that is truely gay or un-masculine is gay’s sexual behavior.
If you’re quoting me, you’re misquoting me. Whilst I don’t believe anyone would make the choice to be gay, I believe the overwhelming majority of gay people out there are perfectly happy being gay, and would not to change a huge part of their own self-identity. It’s like anything else in life that defines your self-identity. You might struggle with it at first, but once you’ve accepted it, it become a part of who you are, and it would be difficult to function if it were no longer a part of who you are.
Theories, of course, that stem from a religious organization. I suppose there isn’t sufficient evidence to disproove it, but there’s far from enough evidence to proove it, either. More recent science has shown more of a correlation to the X chromosone, which would make sense, since the X chromosone is found in both sexes. While the evidence is not yet conclusive, it certainly points that homosexuality is most probably genetic, at least in large part. If the issue is genetic, it appears to be fairly complicated, moreso than simple eye color.
Part of my fear in determining that it is solely genetic is that it could then be viewed as a birth defect. Since abortion is legally, it would seem probable that should this “gay gene” be discovered, mother’s might choose to abort their baby if the baby is shown to have such a “defect.” On the other hand, it might help better prepare them in how to deal with their child once they do eventually “come out.” From this standpoint, it really does become a double-edged sword.
Chances are, however, significantly more likely that a gay couple who seeks adoption is going to be pretty stable. We’re talking about a lifetime commitment in raising a child. It’s not exactly like raising a puppy, here. I sincerely doubt the overwhelming majority of single people out there are going out seeking the adoption option, be they hetero or homosexual. Otherwise, there’d be a lot fewer kids in orphanages. Asside from which, there are a growing number of teen pregancy, as well as children brought into the world with unstable families.
My brother would be a perfect example. At 21, he got an 18yo girlfriend pregnant. They stayed together 2 years (till Avery was about 1yo), at which point they split up. She moved to New Jersey, taking my nephew with her. After 6 months, she decided the burden was too much, where he was sent back with my brother, who has been caring for him ever since. He’s since declared bankruptcy, and our entire family has done the majority of the work raising my nephew, babysitting while he’s at work, footing the bill for 95% of all expenses, etc, etc.
Now, I’m pretty happy that my nephew is in my life and that my brother has at least taken some responsibility in his care, but I wouldn’t exactly call his environment stable. So, even if only 10% of the gay relationships out there are stable (though I suspect the number to be higher), they should be denied the right to adopt? Seems pretty predjudice to me…
Now for the “facts” you mention. Assuming these facts are true (I do not), let’s just ponder them for a moment.
Monogamy in general is probably increasingly uncommon. Face it, people have been cheating on their spouses for eternity. It’d be interesting to see a factoid on the percentage of straight relationships in which one partner cheats, but with nothing to compare it to, it’s rather a useless “fact.” I will stereotype here and say that men are probably much more likely to cheat on their partners than women. Add two males to the equasion, and it would seem more likely that gay men are probably more likely than heterosexual couples to have cheated, yet lesbian couples are probably less likely to have done so.
Again, it’s a baseless “fact” since there is no information given about the success or failure of heterosexual or lesbian relationships here. I suspect that heterosexuals go through a number of shorter term (under 5 year) relationships as well before they find someone it works with for 10+ years (usually resulting in marriage, 60% of which eventually end in divorce, I might add.) I fail to see how such “frightening” and compelling information holds up here without some basis from which to compare.
Beside from which, it is important to determine how their polling methods were determined, whether this statistic is just from the US (the only country that matters for this debate), age, race, etc could all be contributing basis for comparrison as well. Seriously, when you get “facts” from a source, it’s imporant to consider that the information is likely to be inaccurate to a certain margin of error. Take, for instance, that the majority of national polls on the day of the last national election showed Kerry by 10%, yet Bush won, with 51% of the vote, leaving an 11% margin of error when all things were said and done. Statistics are occasionally useful when looking at a larger picture, but remember there is no way of determining their legitimacy.
While you may not feel they are “second class citizens” the fact remains that they continue to be treated as such. By the way, it’s more than 1% of the population. The last census showed 1 in 9 households with unmarried partners were same sex. This corresponds very closely to Kinsey’s old 1948 report that 1 in 10 people are homosexual. See for yourself:
Asside from which, even if it were 1%, or even .0005% of the population, don’t you agree that it’s important the rights for all individuals, no matter how small or unpopular a group of people be, be protected? I find it very un-American to think otherwise.
I agree with you, actually, that changing a 5,000 year old religious institution seems like it might be a bit of a leap. But, this is also why I keep reminding people over, and over, and over, and over that we’re talking about religion here. We’re talking about civil marriage, which is the government’s recognition of marriage.
I think if people are so hung up on changing the word marriage, why change it at all, and instead change the wording of the laws to reflect civil union, instead of civil marriage, at which point we can define union however we wish. We can take the Canadian definition of “a union between two persons to the exclusion of all others” or really do with it as we please. I really think to do so would be a comprimise that should be acceptable to everyone.
It’s not primarily about financial benefit. I don’t know if you’re married (I’m not yet), but in talking with my parents, they actually tell me there are more taxes because of marriage than credits. It makes sense if one couple is not working, but in all other senses, it’s a detriment as far as the federal government is concerned. My step-mother keeps joking she intends to divorce my step mother once they reach retirement because it is in their financial interest to do so, since many of the qualifications for medicare-aid, etc, are better for single. You look at marriage from the standpoint of procreation. Certainly, one can procreate out of marriage (like my brother, per previous discussion), but I agree it is better to do so while married. But marriage is for much, much more than the protection of the human race. It’s for the legal and financial protection and security of a family unit. That family unit might just be two people, or include two people + children. Marriage allows people who love each other the opportunity to live together, even if they come from different nations (my mom is american, step dad is canadian, for instance… this is not possible with gay relationships, due to the limitations of visas.) Marriage protects the right to visit your spouse in the hospital, should one become ill, crash in a car, or face any other number of calamity. Marriage allows people to share an intimate bond (such as sharing a common family name.) Most importantly, marriage is about the creation and preseveration of family. I doubt anyone would dispute me on this.
Funny about the “natural order of things.” Homosexuality has existed since the dawn of time, in humans, as well as in the animal kingdom. A 1300 page scientific account of homosexuality in nature can be found in a book called “Biological Exuberance” which you can pick up in the science section in your local Border’s. You might find it fascinating. Just because you can’t or do not wish you envision what homosexuals do in the bedroom doesn’t make it unnatural. As I’ve mentioned before, anal sex can and also occur between heterosexuals as well. Of note, anal sex is not the most common form of sex between homosexual men either, though it’s the one that most heterosexuals seem most disgusted by. As I have stated once before. I’m not entirely sure what causes homosexuals to exist, but the fact remains, they do, have always existed, will continue to exist, and their existance seems completely natural. Why, then, is it so important to continue to treat them as if there is something wrong with them, seperating them from the rest of society, and denying them equal opportunity toward achieving the unalienable rights our forefathers sought. While it seems obvious the framers of this nation were Christian, they also believed that God, not the government, gave them these rights, and the duty of the government was uphold these rights. The Bible tells us that it is not our right, duty, or obligation to judge others on what we believe to be right or wrong, yet our forefathers tell us it is our government’s obligation to uphold these unalienable rights. When a government fails to do so, it is our duty and obligation to abolish it, and create a new one. I’m not yet ready to throw in the towel on this government, but I do feel as if we are marching all over God given rights in deciding what is right and wrong, here. Read again, if you will…
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I suspect for all the “horror” stories out there of kids who were raised in Gay households, the number of horror stories for heterosexual households would likely be 10 times higher (my own childhood included, with my physically/verbally abusive, alcoholic ex-step father), or roughly the proportion of hetero to homosexuals. My point being: of course there are bad homosexuals out there. But, there are bad heterosexuals out there as well.
There’s a fine line between love and hate, I’m afraid. As you hate the sin, too often it translates into hating the sinner. That, by and large, is what drives most of the organizations out there aimed at “protecting family” and “protecting marriage.” Phrases like these I find highly troubling. A better frame of mind is to promote love, acceptance, understanding, and compassion. About all you can do, if you feel homosexuality is against your own belief, is to share your belief. The first thing they teach you in Alanon/Alateen is you can’t change the alcoholic. Change must come from within if it is to occur at all. That said, for all the “evidence” out there of homosexuals being able to change, there is a multitude more from legitimate psycholigical organizations, most notably the APA, which denouce such attempts, as they are extremely harmful to the pscholigical health of all persons involved.
But does it change your opinion of how you think about them? Even subliminal descrimination is still discrimination.
On the contrary. We live in a nation and society where the overwhelming majority are Christain, and it is not acceptable or “politically correct” as you imply, to attact anything Christian. This is the reason why the democrats lost, in my mind. There was a perception that Christian faith was under seige as we know it, and the Republicans did a very good job of pretending to care about the values of middle American Christians.
I might have called you stubborn in the past (I didn’t, but I might as well have… I thought it), but it is clear to me that you are open to political (and potentially religious) debate. I, myself, have studied religion a fair amount, though I have come to no final conclusion about religion. My mind and perceptions are based upon what I have read, seen, witnessed, felt, and otherwise intrinsically “known” or have “felt” to be right. I don’t believe in absolutes. I certainly don’t take the bible as literal. It’s clear to me that it has many important values that really should be part of the cornerstone of society. That said, I think there’s also more to the story, and also feel, in my heart of hearts, that the bible does not have all the answers, despite the majority of American’s feeling that it does. I am certainly open to new ideas, and love learning about religion, but I think at this point in my life, it’s pretty clear I will forge my own spiritual path, and probably won’t become a part of a religion. I am not atheist, however I would not catagorize myself as Christain, or otherwise. I was raised in the Church of Christ, only to discover the hypocracy of much of what they believed, versus what the bible taught. I studied with Evangelical Presbeterians, mormon’s, been to lecures from a Vedic priest, learned about the Church of Scientology, have listened the Humanistic Jewish point of view, and studied Buddhism. If anything, the study of faith has brought more questions than answers, but has also opened my eyes to things I would have never believed to be true, otherwise. Perhaps the most interesting film I’ve come accross as to being much, but not all of what I believe, is “What the Bleep do We know?” As a man open to new ideas, you might find it interesting.
[quote]
More than any one specific statement is your overriding attitude that anyone who opposes Gay marriage is somehow a closed minded and homophobic. I think your actual mindset is no different than the one which you accuse me of having.
That is perhaps the single most disappointing argument which is continually launched by the pro homosexual marriage crowd. Why can’t anyone oppose them without being labeled? Have you ever read of me labeling homosexuals? Have I ever stated that they were all hairdressers, or interior decorators? How foolish that would be!
[/uote]
I do not believe you are closed-minded. I believe you misunderstand the point of view of the homosexuals. I also think (well-intended) lathario is more frustrated with “beating a dead horse” so to speak. The truth of the matter is, most people, be they pro or anti gay marraige, are unlikely to be persuaded in their opinion, and that comprimise on the issue is unlikely to happen any time soon, as most people on both sides are willing to concede any part of the argument. I also feel there is a great deal of misinformation being disemminated to discredit gays in order to protect the status quo. You say that you have worked with, hired, and otherwise interacted with homosexuals throughout your life. Perhaps the best source of information to get a better understanding of where they are coming from is those people with which you have daily dealings. Ask them why it’s important. I can’t say for sure, but I venture a bet that they will largely tell you much of what I have been arguing all along.
[quote]rising_hope wrote:
I do not believe you are closed-minded. I believe you misunderstand the point of view of the homosexuals.[/quote]
Gee, I didn’t think I did, but who knows. What is it that I don’t understand?
Those are the wisest words that anyone has posted on this topic on the entire forum!
Yes, there is some. However, there is even more disinformation on the pro gay side. To read that bilge one would think that being gay is a walk in the park.
I have talked to them in the past and many have had some very serious issues in their life. Largely because they are gay. That’s one reason we don’t want to place a child in the home of a gay couple, at least until we know why people are gay.
By the way, you spoke of religion. It seems that you are on somewhat of a spiritual journey (I admire that). I would like to ask you this: Who is Jesus Christ in your opinion?
Change is always driven by pressure, and usually by a minority. The majority of whites didn’t want blacks to have equal rights, but change still occured. There are still people who hate blacks (that feeling is still VERY much alive in the south), but the law sees no difference between whites and blacks - and that is important. That was certainly not always the case. While I’m sure gays would love to see less hatred, discrimination, violent crime, etc, I think many are realistic enough to know that that kind of change isn’t going to happen anytime soon. Even if/when gay marriage does become legal, it’s not exactly like the world will suddenly have grown tolerant and happy and friendly. Blacks still get beaten up and dragged behind pickup trucks down south. (James Byrd) Likewise, hate crimes against gays are on the rise again (probably due to backlash against issues such as marriage).
Point being, just because it’s unpopular, and not in the interest of the majority (you), doesn’t make it wrong. I think history will show this at some point in the future.
Like I said, you are misinformed. I’ll GLADLY post proof:
DP partnership benefits provided by employers and not recognized by the state are taxed as income. Legally married couples enjoy tax-free benefits.
Vermont civil unions offer most (but not all) of the same benefits as marriage.
Immigration between same-sex partners is still illegal. Other nations, including SOUTH AFRICA, have offered such recognition since 1999 (Canada, June 1998.)
Thanks to DOMA, though heterosexuals have the ability to move from state to state without re-registering their marriages, homosexuals have no such privilage.
Since marriage is not transferrable between states, nor is it offered in 49 states, nor are civil unions transferrable to any state, to ensure such legal protections naturally afforded by marriage, you must stay in the state that issued the license. This means that, say, a couple decides to move to Mass to get married, but decides they miss family too much, and moves back to where they grew up, they would no longer have a legally recognized marriage. Should one spouse die, assets, rather than going to the spouse, would go to the family. Even if there was a will, it is the families right to contest it (not so between married persons.) Etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam.
For the full text of the Vermont Civil Unions law:
As I said before - acceptance will not happen with the passage of a law. Many whites still do not accept blacks. Nowhere I have been is so pronounced as it is in my home city of Detroit, though I understand it’s even more pronounced down South in Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and such (I have not spent a great deal of time down south, so I cannot attest.) It’s actually a challenge not to be racist because whether you are black or white here, you’re taught to disrespect the other side. (Racism comes from all races.) What is important is that the federal government steps up to the plate and protects the rights of the minority, even if it is unpopular to do so.
The struggle for equality is very similar among gays and other groups around the world. I find it offensive that you consider otherwise. Remember that just 100 years ago in this nation, we were beheading people because of their sexual orientation. Just 60 years ago, gays stood among Jews and political leaders as they were gassed in mass showers, thrown into furnaces, bones turned into buttons, turned into slaves, tortured, and used for human experiments the likes of which would seem inhumane for animals during the holocost. Just 40 years ago, blacks were shoved to the back of buses, made to learn in substandard school systems, hung on trees, and dealt with burning crosses on their lawns. Just 30 years ago, the police illegally raided Stonewall bar, attempting to arrest the patrons, causing a riot which later sparked the gay rights movement.
Just 8 years ago, Matthew Shepard was tied to a fence post and beaten to near to death by the butt of a handgun and left to die. People were so disgusted by his sexual orientation that a church group from Kansas drove out to Wyoming to picket his funeral holding signs about Matt burning in hell, God hates fags, and AIDS cures fags, and other epithets. Four years ago, James Byrd was kidnapped by three racist, bound with rope and dragged to his death from the back of a pickup truck, merely because of the color of his skin.
2 years ago, a man stripped naked and beaten to death before getting tossed in a dumpster just outside of Vancouver Park simply because he was gay. To this day, it is common to “circumsize” women in many arab and African nations so that sex become displeasurable for women, so they will not cheat on their husbands, and throughout the Middle East, stoning is still the common punishment if you are found out to be gay.
This is obviously FAR from a comprehensive list… if you care, I can provide more, but my point is this:
Gays, like other groups of society, have been persecuted throughout history. Their plight is not unique. It has been said that homosexuals are the last widely accepted group to persecute in this nation. I do not disagree.
Being gay is hardly a new form of behavior. After all, if the precious bible you cling to talks about it from 5,000 years back, as you claim, how is this something new? Also, being gay has absolutely NOTHING to do with masculinity. Interesting that you mention it, actually. In most latino cultures, it’s not being gay that’s unacceptable. It’s not being masculine. If you want to get your dick sucked by a guy, no problem. But, if you want to persue a career, say, sewing curtains for a living, yet your straight as an arrow… Well, then… THAT’S not right. I find moral value highly facinating. The most interesting thing about moral value is it’s all a matter of perspective. If justice really is blind, I fail to see how the court can rule any other way than to allow same-sex marriage.
[quote]rising_hope wrote:
Change is always driven by pressure, and usually by a minority. The majority of whites didn’t want blacks to have equal rights, but change still occured. There are still people who hate blacks (that feeling is still VERY much alive in the south), but the law sees no difference between whites and blacks - and that is important. That was certainly not always the case. While I’m sure gays would love to see less hatred, discrimination, violent crime, etc, I think many are realistic enough to know that that kind of change isn’t going to happen anytime soon. Even if/when gay marriage does become legal, it’s not exactly like the world will suddenly have grown tolerant and happy and friendly. Blacks still get beaten up and dragged behind pickup trucks down south. (James Byrd) Likewise, hate crimes against gays are on the rise again (probably due to backlash against issues such as marriage).
Point being, just because it’s unpopular, and not in the interest of the majority (you), doesn’t make it wrong. I think history will show this at some point in the future.
[/quote]
Comparing someone’s skin color to a lifestyle choice is offensive to blacks and other who just wanted to be accepted as equal based on the color of their skin and not based on who they want to have sex with.
No one needs to accept someone based purely on their sexual preference.
[quote]rising_hope wrote:
Change is always driven by pressure, and usually by a minority. The majority of whites didn’t want blacks to have equal rights, but change still occured. There are still people who hate blacks (that feeling is still VERY much alive in the south), but the law sees no difference between whites and blacks - and that is important. That was certainly not always the case. While I’m sure gays would love to see less hatred, discrimination, violent crime, etc, I think many are realistic enough to know that that kind of change isn’t going to happen anytime soon. Even if/when gay marriage does become legal, it’s not exactly like the world will suddenly have grown tolerant and happy and friendly. Blacks still get beaten up and dragged behind pickup trucks down south. (James Byrd) Likewise, hate crimes against gays are on the rise again (probably due to backlash against issues such as marriage).[/quote]
Indeed some of the greatest causes to effect change have come from minority groups which needed to be recognized as equal under the law.
Homosexuals already have “special rights” under some state laws as well as Federal hiring practices. They are also protected under hate crime legislation. They are now not “equal” under the law, but actually have “super rights” in many ways.
Unlike Blacks, or women before them being Gay is not a race or gender, but an action. While the majority of Americans are indeed against Gay marriage (67%), most feel that homosexuals should be treated equally under the law.
What homosexuals are attempting to do is change the institution of marriage. That is not “tolerance,” but acceptance and I don’t think Americans will ever be ready to change a 5000 year old institution for less than 1% of the population. No group has ever been awarded such a massive change to our society for such a small percentage of people!
History will show that attempting to change the institution of marriage in order to favor Gay unions was a complete failure! However, I do think more tolerance will come about (eventually) because of this and that is a good thing.
Yes, Vermont home of the former Gov. of Vermont Howard (screech) Dean. Not much more needs to be said. If Vermont is for it then how good could it be? “On to Iowa and let’s win there YIHAAAAA”
(Chortle chortle).
Thanks to DOMA, though heterosexuals have the ability to move from state to state without re-registering their marriages, homosexuals have no such privilage…[/quote]
Yes, we know it’s largely about money.
Currently in the USA a homosexuals rights are better protected than a heterosexuals rights. Read some state laws when you get the chance, begin in the North East.
And I find it offensive that you would compare a race that had to undergo slavery for a few hundred years to a small group of people (1%) who want to have sex with someone of the same gender! One is a choice, the other is a race! And it is a choice (born that way or not, and there is no proof that you are born that way) as it’s an act.
Please site all of the beheadings of gays that have taken place. I like the word “orientation.” I know a few guys who are “oriented” toward having sex with many women. Unfortunately their wives don’t find this “orientation” very beneficial to their marriage, so they had to stop…it’s sad. That entire adultery “orientation” isn’t even a crime anymore. Tell me are other “orientations” okay?
What if someone is “oriented” to be sexually attracted to relatives. Don’t laugh this is an actually psychological disorder…at least it’s a disorder for now. Who knows maybe they will get their own political lobby.
Anyway, can that guy marry his sister? What if they promise not to have kids? What if they are stable? What if…
Again, where did this occur and how many people were directly effected?
[quote]Just 40 years ago, blacks were shoved to the back of buses, made to learn in substandard school systems, hung on trees, and dealt with burning crosses on their lawns. Just 30 years ago, the police illegally raided Stonewall bar, attempting to arrest the patrons, causing a riot which later sparked the gay rights movement.
Just 8 years ago, Matthew Shepard was tied to a fence post and beaten to near to death by the butt of a handgun and left to die. People were so disgusted by his sexual orientation that a church group from Kansas drove out to Wyoming to picket his funeral holding signs about Matt burning in hell, God hates fags, and AIDS cures fags, and other epithets. Four years ago, James Byrd was kidnapped by three racist, bound with rope and dragged to his death from the back of a pickup truck, merely because of the color of his skin.[/quote]
I like how you tied the struggle of the African American in with the gay argument. That’s very clever, but totally worthless when it comes down to a real comparison. Does that mean every group which is ever attacked because they are different deserves special rights? Does it also mean that society must bend over backward and change a 5000 year old institution in their name?
Yes you should provide more! You left out the extreme torture of the Native American Indian at the hands of the evil white settlers. I think you could somehow tie this in to the 1% of the population that wants to change our societal fabric. (Leave out the part about Custer).
Do I detect a bit of sarcasm there? Oh, that’s right it’s only directed at Christians. I forgot, you only have to be tolerant regarding gays. Christians do not get the same consideration.
Nope not a thing
I have several friends who are Latino and they were very highly insulted by your comments. They found them very insensitive and denigrating. At least that’s what they told me. Go figure some groups don’t like being sterotyped. Should I apologize for you, or do you want to do it yourself?
Ahh the precious age of relativism. God bless those liberal Universities who ushered in this age. Oops, I said “God,” sorry …
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Gee, I didn’t think I did, but who knows. What is it that I don’t understand?
[/quote]
I won’t paint a rosy picture for you. The path to accepting gay life is difficult, no doubt. So difficult, 1 in 3 attempt to commit suicide at some point along the road to acceptance.
If you look at it from their perspective, you see society as a whole, rather biggoted toward homosexuals. Most people have the attitude of disgust. You know all your life that you’re not like all the other kids, but you’re not quite sure why. When you begin to mature, you are naturally curious about the other boys (in the case of men) or girls (in the case of women), but you realize that this is not normal.
Perhaps you hate yourself because of it, but you can’t help your curiousity. Meanwhile, you go to church every Sunday and Wednesday, get good grades in school, try your hardest to fit in, but your curiousity keeps nagging. You want to talk to someone about it, but who? You can’t. Not even your parents. Everyone will hate you if you tell them. So, you bury this secret, and you try to supress it. Maybe you try dating girls to throw the scent off the trail. Maybe you even sleep with her to proove your not gay to yourself.
But, when you do, you hate yourself more, because you realize you’re this thing that everyone else thinks is so wrong. “WHY!?!” you ask yourself. “Why did God make me this way?” You hate yourself. You think you’re going to hell, because like a good Christian, the bible tells you that even a thought betrays you. You are sinning merely by your very nature. You try to repent. You plea with God to make you different. It doesn’t happen. You feel so alone. You feel like God has foresaken you. You hate yourself.
Everyone believes you must have this perfect life, but you hate yourself. You want to die, so even though you know you’re going to hell, you might as well expedite the process, so maybe you try cutting your wrists with a knife, or taking too many pills one night. Everyone wonders what would have ever compelled you to such a drastic decision. Perhaps at this point, you make a decision to live. Perhaps you tell people why you did it. Most reject you.
Maybe your parents throw you out on the street, so disgusted with you, they don’t want you living under their roof, or maybe they send you to a “homosexuals can change” camp in the backwater woods of Tennessee. But, you still have friends. Well, at least your best friend. You get by, but everyone whispers about you when you walk down the halls in school.
Then, one day, you finish high school. It felt like hell to get to this point, but you’re finally there. You get to college, and you meet another boy. You hang out, but you dare not tell him your secret. You try to fit in, drinking beer, going to frat parties, doing “guy” things. One night at a frat party, you and your new friend have a little too much to drink. Both of your inhibitions are down, so you kiss him. At first, you pull back in shock and horror about what you just did. He looks shocked as well. But then, to your surprise, he kisses you back.
Suddenly, all at once, the burden of so many years suddenly feels lifted. Finally, you realize you’re not alone in life. And just then, at the height of this moment, you realize you really aren’t alone. Someone else saw you. Suddenly, the other frat guys start pushing you and calling you a faggot. You’re so stunned, you don’t know how to react. You just want to die, all over again. But you don’t. You push back, but there are too many of them.
You get the shit kicked out of you, and end up in a hospitol. But, you’re not alone. Finally, you know you’re not alone. Suddenly, you don’t care about the bullies in the frat. You come out at school. College is different. More people, more opportunity. You and your friend have started dating. You join the gay group on campus, and start to finally feel what you’ve never felt before: human.
See… Being gay is very much like the story of the ugly duckling. You never quite fit in, but in the end, you blossom into something so much more than you ever thought you would be. It makes you stronger as a person. You form new friends, and new alliances, have new enemies, and sometimes new family. All you want to be is treated equal. You want to be left alone, to live your life. But you know that you can’t. Society won’t let you, so you pick up the torch, and you march in the marches, you walk in the walks, and you advocate where you can.
Perhaps things don’t work out with your guy from college, but one day, maybe 10 years down the road, when you’ve built a career, and things are going great in your life, you meet someone. You’ve dated a lot of losers in life, but something is different about this relationship. After two years or so, you know that you’re going to be together for the rest of your life. You want to get married, but society won’t let you. You sue the state, but you lose. At least you still have eachother.
See… the perspective from homosexuals is one in which the world hates you. But, you don’t much care that the world hates you, because you’ve risen above the hate and transcended to a new level: self-acceptance. You’ve spent so much of your life hating yourself that when you finally do accept yourself, not much else matters. The political world might be a long standing fight, but in the end, what really matters is that you, as a person, have survived.
Can you even imagine the pressure it must be to grow up in a world in which society insists that the right thing to do is what you feel to your deepest core just isn’t what you were meant to do? Can you even imagine getting to a level of self-acceptance, only to know that you can still be fired for who you are, you can’t hold the hand of the person you love in public without also having fear that someone might harass you, or have the government recognize you as a legitimate class of people, and even up until June 2002, most every state said that what you do in your own bedroom isn’t your private right, but is equivilant to having sex with animals?
And furthermore to know that you “had it good” compared to the gays in most other nations, you wonder how they even survive it all. No wonder gays are angry! No wonder they fight for equal rights! You have to re-learn everything you think about society, and then get people, most of whom will never understand, to at least accept that you exist, that you can be happy, and hopefully, maybe, accept you as an individual. I don’t necessary expect you to understand. Most people don’t understand it.
Besides, everything in your life tells you that society is right. But, if you flip life upside down and on it’s head, and understand that from their perspective, everything is wrong, it starts to make sense. If you have an open enough mind, even if your moral fabric tells you that what they are doing is wrong, perhaps you can understand, at least, why they would feel that what they are doing is right. As Sarah McLachlan said so brilliantly in one of her songs, “Mother can’t you see I’ve got to live the way I feel my life is right for me. Might not be right for you, but it’s right for me.”
Thanks.
Who ever said being gay was a walk in the park? Certainly not me. Heck, I’ve said many times, I think if it really were a matter of choice, as so many people still seem convinced it is, I don’t know how or why anyone would choose it. You say there is more disinformation on the pro-gay side. I’m not sure there is such a thing as pro-gay. I would say there is gay/pro-rights and anti-gay, but I’m I’m merely speaking semantics, of course. Before I piss you off too much with that statement, I wonder what you might consider to be disinformation coming from the left…?
I find the “why” somewhat irrelivant. I see no suitable reason why gay’s can’t make great parents. Just for curiousity, were the gays you’ve had dealings with in the past single, or coupled? I’m not sure it makes much difference, really, just curious. See, I think the primary problem homosexuals have is they start life at least 10 years later than heterosexuals.
Because of the coming out/coming to terms process, gays don’t have the opportunity for childhood romance or close intimate relationships early on. They have to keep their identity hidden so much of their life that it hinders them greatly in terms of ability to grow. I blame society for most of this, but I do know growth can happen. I’ve met plenty of very stable homosexuals in stable relationships. I’m not saying every homo out there should have kids. Of course, I’m not saying every hetero out there should have kids either! There are plenty of unstable heteros who should NOT be breeding. But, I think when it comes to adoption, the screening process should be tough, but I see no great, overwhelming reason why they shouldn’t be considered.
A very difficult question, and I’m reluctant to answer it, but I will, because I think it’s important to know where I’m coming from. I will not tell you with any certainty that I believe Christ was the son of God. Jews obviously didn’t believe it. Of course, I’m not Jewish, so chosen people I am not.
So, under Christain faith, I guess that means I’m going to hell, since I haven’t accepted Jesus Christ as my savior and God. I will say this about Jesus and his teachings. Regardless of what else was said between what Jesus spoke in the four gospels, his words were incredibly insightful. He was, at least, a man with incredible wisdom, strength, and faith. He was a healer, a leader, and a man of great compassion. Even non-believers, and people of other faith should have respect for the words it is written he had spoken.
Since we’re having this discussion about homosexuality/marriage, etc, I think I should point out something interesting about Jesus’s life, words, and wisdom. If marriage is such a foundation of society dating back 5,000 years, and gays are an abomination as Leviticus claims (though not found in the dead sea scrolls, as pointed out earlier), and so important, why didn’t Jesus mention them once? Surely, homosexuality was around then, as Paul points out in Romans, but in all his wisdom as the King of Kings, son of God, being life, resurrection, and redemption for all mankind, he never once mentions homosexuality in his teachings. Perhaps it’s not as vitally important as modern society makes it out to be?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Comparing someone’s skin color to a lifestyle choice is offensive to blacks and other who just wanted to be accepted as equal based on the color of their skin and not based on who they want to have sex with.
No one needs to accept someone based purely on their sexual preference.
[/quote]
No offense, but since you’re not contributing anything new or useful and keep spouting the same shit which is largely offensive and untrue, where as Zeb offers some interesting insight from the conservative angle, I’ll not bother responding to your comments hence forward. Perhaps you can debate with any of the other lefties, but Zeb is giving me enough intelligent discussion to respond to.
Homosexuals have absolutely ZERO special rights. Name me ONE, I challenge you. As for hate crimes legislation, there is no hate crimes legislation at the state level for most states that cover sexual orientation. At the federal level, if the FBI deems something a “hate crime” it merely gives money, not adds time to the sentence, in order to ensure there is proper evidence to convict. It’s really pretty useless legislation aimed at shutting up the masses after Matt Shepard was murdered.
BTW, the term sexual orientation covers heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. So, if a bunch of homo thugs got together and started kicking the shit out of straights, they’d fall under the protection too. (It just isn’t likely.) There is no special rights. It’s a totally baseless attack from the right in order to make it seem like gays are seeking protection to which they are not entitled. Interesting you mention about the majority of Americans feel that homosexuals should be treated equal under the law.
To further clarify, most American’s feel that workplace and housing descrimination based on sexual orientation should be illegal. But, it’s not illegal. I suppose that works for both sides (gays could fire heteros for no other reason than there sexual orientation), but doesn’t that sound ridiculous? It shouldn’t happen. Period. Yet the law continues to allow this. In fact, the court system has even upheld thier rights to discriminate numerous times.
It’s ironic to think that when a court goes against common public interest in the case of gay marriage as in Mass, the public is outraged, but when the courts go against the common public interest when it comes to job protection, it hardly even makes the evening news.
Obviously, we’re both speculating. Only time will tell on the matter. The little boy in me just can’t wait, be it in 5 or 10, or 20 years down the line to say “I told you so,” though. At least you agree tolerance is a good thing.
Dean, bless his heart, is in idiot. His heart is in the right place, but he has no tact, and has done more harm than good to the image of the party. A lot of what he says is true, but you can’t force issues on people. In the end, I think he’ll isolate more people. As one republican said recently, “Dean is the best thing that ever happened to the republican party! I’d vote to keep Dean any day.” Or something to that effect. I hate to say it, but the democratic party needs strong leaders to step up to the plate, and unfortunately, I don’t see that happening any time soon. Hopefully that will change between now and 2008.
You mock me. Either you didn’t read what I said before or you just don’t care. I find it somewhat of a personal insult that you didn’t respond to that then, but sit here now and say “It’s largely about money.”
See above. Homosexuals do NOT have special rights. Period. End of story. Proove me otherwise. Seriously, I challenge you.
I presume you mean act[ion]. I suppose you’re right. It’s a choice to live a life of persecution in order to live what you know in your heart to be what you need to do versus living a life in utter solitude or living a lie and hoping you can live with yourself. Blacks were slaves in this country, sure. Just as gays have been made slaves before in other nations. But mostly around the world, they’re not considered worthy of slavework and are executed instead. Yup, terrible comparrison. Surely, gays don’t experience the same level of persecution.
No, growing up in constant fear of being exposed, societal pressure to “change,” prison time (even up to 2002 in this country), and possible execution (based upon where you happen to live in the world) are completely not the same thing. Whatsoever.
Actually, I mispoke. I was thinking of England, actually. But, the person that was executed in England by beheading was arrested here, in New York for being a homosexual. (Oscar Wilde)
Okay, let’s just get this shit out of the way, right here, right now… From the dictionary on sexual orientation:
Main Entry: sexual orientation
Function: noun
: the inclination of an individual with respect to heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual behavior
We’re not talking about the inclination of people to marry dogs, brothers to marry sisters, or adults to have sex with children. It’s positively distracting, insulting, and just plain not in context of what we’re talking about here, so would everyone PLEASE stop making such comparrisons.
Hence forward, I will not even bother to address such suggestion. There are no such implication as to the changes of marriage beyond allowing two persons, regardless of gender, to become legally recognized under the rights, responsibilities and duties of the current marriage contract as legally defined. I have great respect for you, Zeb, but statements like these are just meant to antagonize.
Holocost. You know. That minor thing that happened in German a while back? That’s actually where the pink triangle came from. Worn on the arm then as the worst thing you could be in Nazi camps, it now is the symbol of survival throughout the gay community worldwide.
The Nazis sought to annihilate all Jews and all enemies of the state. Every Jew was to be wiped out, but not necessarily every Russian, Serb, or Yugoslavian. That millions of non-Jews were also killed demonstrates the determination and magnitude of the Nazi extermination program to eliminate anyone who could even remotely be considered an enemy of the state.
Current estimates based on documents from Nazi war records, and official government documents of various countries, place the death toll of people murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust as conservatively over 15 million non-combatant people. One official source estimates the number killed at 26 million. However, “with the mass graves on the eastern front, exact figures will never be known”.
While no official number exists, this site says “tens of thousands,” but it is difficult to determine since:
(1) Being homosexual, you don’t exactly wear the information on your face, like the color of the skin
(2) Many homosexuals claimed to be Jewish to avoid “the worst”
(3) If record keeping was inaccurate by 11 million people fewer, this number is probably significantly higher.
For more information, there’s a holocaust museum here in Detroit. Though there are hundreds of films on the matter, these are among the best I’ve seen:
Schindler’s List
Bent
Life is Beautiful
Caberet
Pretty much. Yes, actually. That’s what I’ve said all along. If a group of people are persecuted for who or what they are, for any reason, that is unacceptable, and the government should protect them from persecution. Why is that a bad thing?
No. Hence, I’ve said several times now, I think we need to change the law on federal marraige such that it doesn’t exist in such terms, and make a new term. Leave marriage to religion. Leave the protection of rights to the federal government. I’ve been very forward and consistent with this message, yet you insist I have been otherwise, as if I want to change marriage. I don’t. I just find marriage to be inadequate in today’s society, since it does not provide equal protection under the law. For reference, doing a simple google search, the Hawaii Dept of Education deems the following protected:
The Department of Education shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, age, disability, marital status, assignment of income for child support obligations, arrest and court records, National Guard Participation, or sexual orientation as prohibited by federal and state laws.
It’s not really relevant here, but I thought it’d be interesting to see a list of what some see as groups that could be potentially discriminated against.
Blah. I doubt you’re being serious. Yes, there was extreme torture, murder, enslavement of Native American’s (covered under race discrimination/hate crimes legislation now.) My point was that every atrocity, every act of violence, every protection we can think about any group of people is now covered under the law. Except sexual orientation. That really needs to change.
Of course I was being sarcastic. Point of reference, this is a very Christian/Moral majority vs. gay debate. I felt it only appropriate in context to be sarcastic.
I wasn’t necessarily referring to all latinos, and I was specifically not referring to Latino’s of this country. Sorry if you’re offended, but the fact remains, machimso attitudes are a very interesting part of many Latin cultures. For the record, the majority of catholics in the world are Latino, and most Latino nations/cultures are even more anti-gay than Southern Baptists.
[quote]
Ahh the precious age of relativism. God bless those liberal Universities who ushered in this age. Oops, I said “God,” sorry [/quote]
Please do not appoligize for the use of God. It is in the context of your religion, and therefore appropriate, and appoligizing for it somehow implies that I, or anyone else, would be insulted by it, which in itself is somewhat of an insult.
Regardless of how you look at it, I was correct: morality is, and has always been, a matter of perspective. Though I would certainly agknowledge that virtually every society around the world agrees that it is morally wrong to kill/eat another person, aboriginal Austrialians were known canibals. Though people of this nation generally agree that monogamy is best, Mormons (of course not modern mormons) once felt it was perfectly morally acceptable to take on multiple wives. (Multiple husbands was another matter entirely.) Point being, morality is a matter of perspective.
I’m not. Because I don’t believe justice is always truely served. So long as we have a human system, there will always be human error. Personal politics/morality will always get in the way for some judges.
[quote]rising_hope wrote:
I won’t paint a rosy picture for you. The path to accepting gay life is difficult, no doubt. So difficult, 1 in 3 attempt to commit suicide at some point along the road to acceptance.[/quote]
Just one more reason not to allow gay couples (married or not) to adopt!
That has to be a very difficult time.
As this point one woders if quality Psychological counciling would have a greater impact. Since no one knows why people are gay then how can anyone say that this would not help? Nurture, nature, a little of both…who knows?
We are all sinners, every one of us!
[quote]Everyone believes you must have this perfect life, but you hate yourself. You want to die, so even though you know you’re going to hell, you might as well expedite the process, so maybe you try cutting your wrists with a knife, or taking too many pills one night. Everyone wonders what would have ever compelled you to such a drastic decision. Perhaps at this point, you make a decision to live. Perhaps you tell people why you did it. Most reject you.
Maybe your parents throw you out on the street, so disgusted with you, they don’t want you living under their roof, or maybe they send you to a “homosexuals can change” camp in the backwater woods of Tennessee. But, you still have friends. Well, at least your best friend. You get by, but everyone whispers about you when you walk down the halls in school.
Then, one day, you finish high school. It felt like hell to get to this point, but you’re finally there. You get to college, and you meet another boy. You hang out, but you dare not tell him your secret. You try to fit in, drinking beer, going to frat parties, doing “guy” things. One night at a frat party, you and your new friend have a little too much to drink. Both of your inhibitions are down, so you kiss him. At first, you pull back in shock and horror about what you just did. He looks shocked as well. But then, to your surprise, he kisses you back.
Suddenly, all at once, the burden of so many years suddenly feels lifted. Finally, you realize you’re not alone in life. And just then, at the height of this moment, you realize you really aren’t alone. Someone else saw you. Suddenly, the other frat guys start pushing you and calling you a faggot. You’re so stunned, you don’t know how to react. You just want to die, all over again. But you don’t. You push back, but there are too many of them.
You get the shit kicked out of you, and end up in a hospitol. But, you’re not alone. Finally, you know you’re not alone. Suddenly, you don’t care about the bullies in the frat. You come out at school. College is different. More people, more opportunity. You and your friend have started dating. You join the gay group on campus, and start to finally feel what you’ve never felt before: human.
See… Being gay is very much like the story of the ugly duckling. You never quite fit in, but in the end, you blossom into something so much more than you ever thought you would be. It makes you stronger as a person. You form new friends, and new alliances, have new enemies, and sometimes new family. All you want to be is treated equal. You want to be left alone, to live your life. But you know that you can’t. Society won’t let you, so you pick up the torch, and you march in the marches, you walk in the walks, and you advocate where you can.
Perhaps things don’t work out with your guy from college, but one day, maybe 10 years down the road, when you’ve built a career, and things are going great in your life, you meet someone. You’ve dated a lot of losers in life, but something is different about this relationship. After two years or so, you know that you’re going to be together for the rest of your life. You want to get married, but society won’t let you. You sue the state, but you lose. At least you still have eachother.
See… the perspective from homosexuals is one in which the world hates you. But, you don’t much care that the world hates you, because you’ve risen above the hate and transcended to a new level: self-acceptance. You’ve spent so much of your life hating yourself that when you finally do accept yourself, not much else matters. The political world might be a long standing fight, but in the end, what really matters is that you, as a person, have survived.
Can you even imagine the pressure it must be to grow up in a world in which society insists that the right thing to do is what you feel to your deepest core just isn’t what you were meant to do? Can you even imagine getting to a level of self-acceptance, only to know that you can still be fired for who you are, you can’t hold the hand of the person you love in public without also having fear that someone might harass you, or have the government recognize you as a legitimate class of people, and even up until June 2002, most every state said that what you do in your own bedroom isn’t your private right, but is equivilant to having sex with animals?
And furthermore to know that you “had it good” compared to the gays in most other nations, you wonder how they even survive it all. No wonder gays are angry! No wonder they fight for equal rights! You have to re-learn everything you think about society, and then get people, most of whom will never understand, to at least accept that you exist, that you can be happy, and hopefully, maybe, accept you as an individual. I don’t necessary expect you to understand. Most people don’t understand it.
Besides, everything in your life tells you that society is right. But, if you flip life upside down and on it’s head, and understand that from their perspective, everything is wrong, it starts to make sense. If you have an open enough mind, even if your moral fabric tells you that what they are doing is wrong, perhaps you can understand, at least, why they would feel that what they are doing is right. As Sarah McLachlan said so brilliantly in one of her songs, “Mother can’t you see I’ve got to live the way I feel my life is right for me. Might not be right for you, but it’s right for me.”
Who ever said being gay was a walk in the park? Certainly not me. Heck, I’ve said many times, I think if it really were a matter of choice, as so many people still seem convinced it is, I don’t know how or why anyone would choose it. You say there is more disinformation on the pro-gay side. I’m not sure there is such a thing as pro-gay. I would say there is gay/pro-rights and anti-gay, but I’m I’m merely speaking semantics, of course. Before I piss you off too much with that statement, I wonder what you might consider to be disinformation coming from the left…?
I have talked to them in the past and many have had some very serious issues in their life. Largely because they are gay. That’s one reason we don’t want to place a child in the home of a gay couple, at least until we know why people are gay.
I find the “why” somewhat irrelivant. I see no suitable reason why gay’s can’t make great parents. Just for curiousity, were the gays you’ve had dealings with in the past single, or coupled? I’m not sure it makes much difference, really, just curious. See, I think the primary problem homosexuals have is they start life at least 10 years later than heterosexuals.[/quote]
If we don’t know why people become gay then why would we want “gay couples” to adopt? It is possible that the “gay influence” might turn a child gay…who knows? Would you want that child going through the pain that you described above? I’m sure you wouldn’t.
I’m with you on that one.
[quote]A very difficult question, and I’m reluctant to answer it, but I will, because I think it’s important to know where I’m coming from. I will not tell you with any certainty that I believe Christ was the son of God. Jews obviously didn’t believe it. Of course, I’m not Jewish, so chosen people I am not.
So, under Christain faith, I guess that means I’m going to hell, since I haven’t accepted Jesus Christ as my savior and God. I will say this about Jesus and his teachings. Regardless of what else was said between what Jesus spoke in the four gospels, his words were incredibly insightful. He was, at least, a man with incredible wisdom, strength, and faith. He was a healer, a leader, and a man of great compassion. Even non-believers, and people of other faith should have respect for the words it is written he had spoken.[/quote]
It is interesting that you think highly of Christ. I wonder why anyone would think highly of Christ and then deny his divinity? He claimed to be the son of God, if you don’t think he is then he is a liar, or a mad man. Yet, how can such a person do the many wonderful deeds that he did?
You seem to have a paradox of sorts, no?
No you have it wrong regarding that point. Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality directly, that’s true. However, he didn’t mention bestiality, rape, sex with children and many, many other sexual sins.
Is everything allowed if Jesus didn’t mention it? It is mentioned many times in the Bible and it is always negative. I hate to beat a dead horse on this topic, but it’s true.
The only people who even pretend that homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible are the many pro homosexual web sites that have popped up. They take several words from ancient texts and attempt to twist their meaning to suit their agenda. this is not only wrong, it’s actually sad. Furthermore, it devalues the fine work of many very credible people who have spent a life time in the field of Biblical interpretation.
If you would like I would be more than happy to send you (PM) the many passages which speak about homosexuality. I have posted them so many times on this thread that quite frankly I think everyone has had enough. I know I have…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Perhaps you need to take another look at Revelations (and the rest of the Bible as well) while using one of Krishnamurtis pieces of advice
“only a mind that is in a state of inquiry is capable of learning.”
[/quote]
He was trying to free people such as yourself from attachment to religious dogma. You twit.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sorry if I offened you, that was not at all my intention.
[/quote]
I told you that I didn’t want to argue religious beliefs with you. But you insisted on lacing into mine.
In any case religion has nothing to do with gay marriage or its prospective legality. In this country, marriage is not a religious institution, but a civil one.
On a different matter, has anyone noticed that Canada took a giant step forward in legalizing gay marriage today?
How long do we have to wait before god smites them?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
However, simply because the sin (all of our sin) is wrong that does not mean that we hate the person involved. As I have repeatedly stated we are to love the sinner and hate the sin.
[/quote]
Right, so gay folks just chop it off or sew it up. Love you, love you, love you.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Comparing someone’s skin color to a lifestyle choice is offensive to blacks and other who just wanted to be accepted as equal based on the color of their skin and not based on who they want to have sex with.[/quote]
So you’re black, and you are offended by this? And if you are, you speak for the everyone else who is black?
[quote]No one needs to accept someone based purely on their sexual preference.
[/quote]
Well, that’s right. You don’t have to accept anybody for any reason. You know what we call folks like that where I come from?
“Asshole”
Is this what you want for yourself? Come on, man! Why be a jerk if you don’t have to be? I was right about you in the first place… you are a homophobe, you just don’t want to admit it. “It’s offensive to blacks”? What a joke. You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
The reason that evolutionists resist reality and true science is that they are either knowingly or unknowingly being influenced in one of the New Age religions, probably Secular/Religious Humanism, Atheism, or Agnosticism, and that influence is making it impossible for them to be objective. Evolution isn’t science.
There is no proof of evolution, and, in fact, there are a growing number of observations that show evolution to be a scientific impossibility. The reason that evolution-scientists are still backing the debunked hypothesis of evolution is that they have a hidden agenda which causes them to be willingly ignorant of the facts. This hidden agenda has to do with a desire to follow the precepts of worldly liberalism. Many people are not aware that liberalism is tied closely to the New Age religion and that Secular/Religious Humanism is a denomination of New Age. New Age doesn?t want Almighty God, but it either wants a god of forces, or humanity as god, or no God at all.
As a result of the effect of the New Age influence, evolution scientists are willing to accept presuppositions, rationalized fantasies, and faulty logic as if any of these were proof, which none of them are. None of these are proof, but they are the basis of all proof offered by evolutionists.
In addition, evolutionists are increasingly drawn to Post Modernism and Chaos Theory, under which there is no truth, there are no absolutes, there are no lies, and winning is all that really counts. As a result the evolution-scientists have found many ways to misrepresent the facts and have been able to totally deceive some and partially deceive many.[/quote]
Ha ha. Wrong thread, dude. This is Gay Marriage, not Creation v. Evolution. Still, since you’re fundamentally misguided (pun intended) on both topics, I suppose it’s all good.
But, I think when it comes to adoption, the screening process should be tough, but I see no great, overwhelming reason why they shouldn’t be considered.