How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 This whole gay-marriage fiasco - Continu   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

This whole gay-marriage fiasco - Continued...

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
sea_of_okc
Senior Member
since 06-15-99
Posts 595
Oklahoma City, OK, USA


75 posted 03-08-2004 10:53 PM       View Profile for sea_of_okc   Email sea_of_okc   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for sea_of_okc

quote:
Minority Rights supersede Majority Rule


Okay but what if we are talking about two different minorities rights which are at odds? Is the origins of the marriage ceremony religious or legal in nature? I put forth that marriage is religious in nature first and traditionalists will consider even Justice of the Peace marriages as a bastardazation of the sacred ceremony. Some groups will not even recognize such marriages. So do the religious traditionalists have a right to have what they consider to be a sacred convenant ordained by God to be kept intact? Does the government have the right to tell them they MUST recognize what they would consider to be blaphemous and perverse? I would think the religious traditionalists have just as much right to maintain what they consider to be the integrity of a sacred covenant as gay couples have of being joined.

quote:
The only difference between Civil Unions then and the Marrige Contract is words -- which is why the doublespeak is so silly.

But letting the traditionalists have their double-speak while allowing gays thier due civil rights seems like a decent compromise for now.


Perhaps LR had the best idea. Compromise, recognize the unions legally but find something other than marriage to call such unions. Everyone should be happy, no one's rights are squashed.

quote:
Put another way, why shouldn't we accommodate all lifestyles that bring happiness without harm?


Who defines what is harmful? And somehow I am thinking my insurance company would balk when I tried covering my 2 husbands, 3 wives and 16 kids... (assuming of course both same sex and poligamous marriage is aloowed)

I will say sir Ron you make rather eloquent arguments, not that I necessarily agree with them all...
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


76 posted 03-09-2004 08:19 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Sea-

'Does the government have the right to tell them they MUST recognize what they would consider to be blaphemous and perverse?'

this has nothing to do with forcing religious sects to recognize (or not recognize) gay marriage. The government can't tell relions what to do- so fundamentalists can continue not recognizing, and considering it perverse, that's fine. Nobody said they ahd to recognize it.

'Compromise, recognize the unions legally but find something other than marriage to call such unions. Everyone should be happy, no one's rights are squashed.'

Would you rather have a high school diploma, or a GED? They both essentially say the same thing- you have enough knowledge to have completed high school- but the GED is socially considered less, a "good enough diploma." Would you want a "Good enough marriage?"

You still haven't answered my question- who does gay marriage hurt? And you also haven't answered the point I made to you in my previous thread- what's the difference in where the behavior originates?I'm not letting you get away with that one.

Ron-

Your points are really good ones... my ideas I threw out weren't really thoroughly thout out, they were just ideas. I guess my point was that, put the pragmatic aspects aside, and I don't have a moral problem with either of the two. Would I want to marry my brother or have 3 husbands? No... (God, wouldn't one be enough to take care of? ) But if other people choose to live that way... I have no qualms.
grassy ninja
Junior Member
since 07-20-2003
Posts 45
Kentucky


77 posted 03-09-2004 09:06 AM       View Profile for grassy ninja   Email grassy ninja   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for grassy ninja

i have to agree with hush.  who does gay marriage hurt?  it is disturbing to compare homosexuality compared to pedophilia (and saying that the two genes are "next" to each other is definitely a comparison.)  can i then compare rape to heterosexual sex?  and isn't it true that most child molesters are heterosexuals?  i don't have any statistic on that, but i believe i read that once. (i'll look around).
any "deviant" thing that one wants to say that homosexual marriage will lead to can be refuted.  bigamy? not if marriage was limited to two consenting adults.  pedophilia? not possible because that is not a union, but an act of violence perpetrated against an unconsenting minor.  bestiality? again, not possible, because it is abuse against an animal, and i think we can all recognize that an animal has no legal right to enter into any sort of legalized union, regardless of whether or not it "consents."  incest? this, like bigamy, will go on regardless of whether there is a law to prevent  it.  but there are reasons to create incestuous marriages illegal that don't apply to homosexual unions.  the offspring of an incestuous couple will be more likely to have birth defects.  whether it's immoral or not can't be decided by the government.  it will happen regardless of what they say, but they do have a responsibility to protect the offspring of these potential unions.  and by the way, we all realize that incest was rampant in the 16th, 17th, and even 18th century in order to keep bloodlines "pure."
genetics or no, i will not be able to change my mind on the unconstitutionality of banning gay marriage unless someone shows me how gay marriage actually hurts anyone.  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


78 posted 03-09-2004 04:54 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I still don't see why both parties shouldn't be-- heterosexuals and homosexuals--  justly treated as lovers  when they seek the social confirmation of loveship--marriage.   When heterosexuals wish to get married we don't call them "sexuals" We call and treat them right as, lovers, coronating their love and religious beliefs.   Don't homosexuals love each other, don't they have religious beliefs?  How may banning them observe the freedom to love and the freedom of their religion?  Don't love and marriage transcend sex anymore?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


79 posted 03-09-2004 05:13 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
And again I ask what does marriage have to do with monogamy??? Monogamy is a CHOICE made individually according to the persons ethics, morals or beliefs of what is right and wrong. I am not monogamous because I am married, I am married because I am monogamous. I have to agree with Ess in that monogamy has suffered due to the increased bombardment of our senses with sexual images and overtones. Recognizing gay marriages will have absolutely zero impact on the percentage of monogamous people. A gay person whose choice is monogamy will be monogamous whether or not society recognizes their relationship.


I see a confusion here. On the one hand, society does influence monogamy, on the other hand, monogamy suffers from, well, uh, society. I have no idea how much impact it would have on homosexual promiscuity, but if one does accept the idea that monogamy is, overall, a good thing, why not celebrate it?

Social pressure can work both ways. I don't know, the only example I can think of for your side is Prohibition. But if marriage has no impact, or at least very little impact, what's the big deal?

quote:
Very true when you take it on an individual basis but we are talking about legal recognition here and no argument as subjective as love should be taken into account in my opinion.


But what are we talking about except something that happens on an individual basis? Again, if marriage has no societal impact (and I admit this may not be what you're saying), what's the big deal?

quote:
I know my definition of what love is has changed substantially over the last 20 years. And I think we all know many couplings (of any disposition) are based on things other than love...


I agree that definitions of love change over time. One of the reasons I support marriage is precisely that it gives individuals the time to recognize and experience those changes (I see those changes as enriching, not limiting) -- as opposed to running around looking for reruns of that initial Romantic love. You're certainly right to say that couples may not be interested in such things, but I think we have to give the benefit of the doubt to those couples. If they claim they are in love, if they are adults, do we have the right to interfere?

Would you like someone interfering with your relationship? What if you were barred from getting married because you're genetic makeup was wrong, you couldn't have children, or you were Catholic and the woman you loved Jewish?

----------------------------

Sea,

In regards to your last comment, is political correctness, a changing of names, really the answer?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


80 posted 03-09-2004 09:52 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Well Brad,

How are you going to define love anyway?

Physiologically we understand what it is -- a coctail of Phenylethylamine, Dopamine, Oxytocin, Adrenaline, and Norepinephrine.

I don't deny that it is integral to marriage as most would prefer -- but -- since we're talking governmental regulation I don't think it belongs in the jurisdiction.  After all -- goverment can only regulate behaviour.

If you look at the role these chemicals play in monogomy -- the bonding chemical -- oxytocin serves the purpose of making sure a couple stays together long enough to get a child to an age of relative competency -- the PEA tends to wear off after only a very short time -- presumably so the couple can get back to the business of survival, work, hunting, gathering, whatever -- instead of spending all their time, um... doing what couples on PEA do.. as the chemicals fade so do the monogomous tendencies -- the polyamorous proponents would say that monogomy beyond a certain point is not beneficial or natural and that we're the only culture in history to have tried it extensively -- add that to the increased life expectancy we have now over humans of 2000 years ago when mass monogomy got its push-- you get a lot of roving eyes according to them...

I'm just throwing out stuff here -- I'm not married to any of these ideas
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


81 posted 03-09-2004 11:06 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I accept the biological description, I also accept the Romantic description (Well, except for that happily ever after part.). It's just two different descriptions of the same thing as far as I can tell.  

But both seem to leave out individual, active participation in the relationship. I see love as both something that is done to you and something that you do.

I don't think you can choose to love someone, but you can, in part, choose loving someone. Now, there's a tremendous risk involved in such a choice, the risk of failure, betrayal, bordom, manipulation etc. There is no guarantee.  

Is there ever a guarantee when it comes to another individual?

On the other hand, I wonder if I'm advocating something along the lines of an angry parent line, "When you have children, I hope they're just like you."

As Oscar said, "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


82 posted 03-10-2004 03:45 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

While it may be true that we don't usually choose whom we love/have feelings for, isn't it a definite choice as to whether we act on those feelings or not?

I think the concept of 'harm' is something that should be more fully explored before it is just accepted as a truth that no harm is done by our decisions/choices.

In the broader societal framework, can the decisions/actions of an individual/individuals within that society  have a beneficial and/or harmful effect upon society as a whole? Take the soaring divorce rate, for example. Even if we don't see it as detrimental (it could even be argued that it is beneficial in most cases for the couples involved, and even sometimes for the children of those couples) to society, what are the long term implications of these decisions that we make? Can it be considered good for a society when an increasing number of its members have an increasingly devalued view of marital commitment, for instance, and how does that decreased valuation effect the children of that society?

Is there a connection that can be made between individual actions and the overall well-being of a society, or are we all insignificant independent functioning entities whose decisions/choices have no ultimate effect on the whole, for the better or worse?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


83 posted 03-10-2004 05:23 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

To touch on Ron's mention of the majority/minority issue:

In democracies there is always the danger of mob rule by the majority at one end of the spectrum and tyranny by the minority at the other. That's why the framers didn't choose a democratic form of government and did choose a republican form which was meant to be a safeguard against the pitfalls at both ends of the spectrum inherent in a strict democratic form of government. Both ends of the spectrum can present a potential danger and neither should be considered to take preeminence in and of themselves. A minority view does not take precedence over a majority view just by virtue of its being a minority view, whereby the 'majority needs to get its act together.' And a majority view does not take precedence over a minority view just because they outnumber the minority. The view itself is just that, a view. Our republican form of government gives us a system to work within for the consideration of any view. And that's why it's important to work within the system, otherwise there is a very real danger in ending up with either mob (majority) rule or tyranny by the minority, or even anarchy (a disregard for the law followed through to its logical conclusion.)

And that is precisely why I feel it is so dangerous, as is happening in the current situation, where the laws are being flagrantly violated in order to precipitate a crises. I see it as a deliberate attempt by a group to circumvent the system, instead of working within it, in an attempt to force their will on others. That's not the proper way to do things in a republic, in my estimation, and makes a mockery of it, no matter the cause being espoused. Demonstrate, yes, petition, yes, lobby, yes, run for office, yes, vote, yes, break the law, no.

And a mindset that has no regard for the rule of law is really nothing more than an anarchist mindset, it's not a "democratic" or "republican" mindset, and those who have such a mindset should not be serving in an official capacity in positions that require the taking of an oath to uphold and defend the State Constitution and the laws of that State.

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


84 posted 03-10-2004 09:48 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Denise-

Your question about whether actions can 'hurt' society in the broader sense is one of the best (and most well-stated) on this thread.

My answer is that, yes, of course individual actions that become trends (such as the soaring divorce rate) will affect society. But I don't think it always happens in a negative way. The Montgomery Bus Boycott affected society. And so did the proliferation of fast-food restaurants- but whether they were responding to a demand, or simply created the demand, is another question.

It is my personal opnion that witholding rights from a group based sheerly on who they love is detrimental to society as a whole. It breeds hatred and prejudice against everyone, children especially, because as kids, the laws we see are most often considered right and people who break them are seen as bad.

I don't think we should force any religious group to recognize the gay marriage, but social institutions based on a separation of church and state should not be able to discriminate based on a primarily religious doctrine.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


85 posted 03-11-2004 08:56 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Hush, I'd say that the Boycott was responding to a demand and the fast-food restaurants definitely created the demand! I'm old enough to remember a time before McDonalds!  

I personally don't see the issue as a 'witholding of rights', as if it is something that is intrinsically their due by virtue of their wanting them or believing that they should have them. These rights that they seek, which vary widely from State to State, are contingent upon meeting certain legal conditions, i.e., entering into a marital contract, and as currently stated by law that is defined as the joining of a male and a female (who are currently free to marry because they aren't already legally married to someone else and my State also required blood tests until recently to prove that you were free from venereal disease.) I don't see that people are being deprived of their 'rights' by virtue of who they love. They simply aren't able to take advantage of certain legal rights because they haven't met the conditions, that's all. Now if they want to seek to change the law, to change the qualifying conditions, (without breaking the law) I don't see anything wrong with that.  Hey, I'd love to be able to take advantage of certain things, especially in the tax laws, but I can't because I don't meet the specified conditions. We all have the right to attempt to change the laws through legal means, to work within the system, if we think something is unfair, but none of us has the right to break the law when it suits our desires or purposes.

Anyway, I see this current demand for "marriage" as having more to do with self-image and acceptance by society of their lifestyle, moreso than a desire for "rights", because if it were merely about rights, they can be obtained already in the States that offer Civil Unions that provide those legal rights.

It doesn't seem too long ago that it was the "in-thing" not to get married. It was considered cool to shack-up, and so uncool, and even mercenary, to be concerned with the benefits that could be obtained through a marital contract. Boy, times have sure changed! And I'm really giving away my age!
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


86 posted 03-12-2004 05:09 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Rights and laws aren't the same thing.

'These rights that they seek, which vary widely from State to State, are contingent upon meeting certain legal conditions'

When we were talking about first wave feminism and the suffragettes in my women's studies class last year, we (of course) talked about Susan B. Anthony. She made a speech once on the topic of suffrage stating that she didn't want to be given the right to vote- it was already her right as an American citizen. She was, however, being denied that right based on discrimination toward her gender.

From the way you state your argument, it would seem that you don't think women had the "right," per se, until it was granted to them. Susan simply didn't meet the legal conditions that would have enabled her to vote (although I believe she was arrested once for storming in and voting anyway as a way of protest... what's your take on that?) So I ask you, woman to woman Denise- did we always have the "right" to vote, or are rights something that can be granted and taken away? And what are laws in relation to rights?

'Anyway, I see this current demand for "marriage" as having more to do with self-image and acceptance by society of their lifestyle, moreso than a desire for "rights", because if it were merely about rights, they can be obtained already in the States that offer Civil Unions that provide those legal rights.'

What about our rights to 'life, liberty, and happiness?' I would include self-image in happiness.

I would direct you to a point serenity made, and I echoed, earlier. Civil unions are demeaning. They are to marriage what the GED is to a diploma- they're basically the same thing, but one has a definite inferior connotation.

Denise, I know that you are a deeply religious person and as such, probably believe that homosexuality is a wrong behavior. I can respect that. But what harm, if any, do you think the recognition of same-sex unions as marriage would cause?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


87 posted 03-12-2004 05:47 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

When we were talking about first wave feminism and the suffragettes in my women's studies class last year, we (of course) talked about Susan B. Anthony. She made a speech once on the topic of suffrage stating that she didn't want to be given the right to vote- it was already her right as an American citizen. She was, however, being denied that right based on discrimination toward her gender.



Agree 100%.  When I heard Jesse Jackson come out against gay marriage because it wasn't about civil rights in his mind -- I just about fell out of my chair.

His argument was that being gay isn't about who you are but what you do -- which is so patently wrong it's difficult to even enumerate the reasons why..

He's going down the path though, that blackness is what the civil rights movement was about -- which again -- is patently false -- the civil rights movement was about the fact that people are people...

Now -- we've talked about the genetic stuff -- and I maintain there is a genetic basis for homosexuality (most of the time) -- but we need to discount it because this issue is about a simple matter of freedom.  It should be considered completely as a choice because freedom of choice (for adults) is what freedom is.

Gay marriage is not about special rights for gays -- it's about equal rights for everyone...

Now if you want to talk about amending the constitution -- may I suggest bringing back up the ERA..

quote:

I would direct you to a point serenity made, and I echoed, earlier. Civil unions are demeaning. They are to marriage what the GED is to a diploma- they're basically the same thing, but one has a definite inferior connotation.



I'm not going to say that it is demeaning or isn't demeaning hush and blaze -- what I'm going to say is that it took a long time for this country to mature from Lincoln to Martin Luther King.  People like Barney Frank and Diane Feinstein are saying take the deal (civil unions) and -- I agree -- it's taken so long to get here -- I'm not saying it ends there -- but -- civil unions do offer advantages for other people besides gays -- as I've mentioned before.

Now -- my favorite argument from those who are against gay marriage is the 'slippery slope' argument -- well then what's next?  pedophiles?  people marrying their dogs?

Ridiculous -- pure ridiculous.  Dogs and children can't get married anyway -- period -- they can't enter into a contract.  There is no precedent that says if we allow adults to marry that we have to let them marry anyone besides adults.

The polygamist, polyamourous argument -- well -- to me it sounds like they're saying 'if we can't discriminate against gay's anymore then we won't be able to discriminate against anybody'... um, yeah... that's the point ... everyone has rights.

I'm glad you transcribed it that way hush.

But, and here's the big thing... we do have a majority of people in this country who have a problem with gay marriage -- that doesn't make (all of) them bad people.   Some of them are just trying to grow into this -- and if it gets pushed too hard it just hurts everyone.  

My opinion.

A Romantic Heart
Member Ascendant
since 09-03-99
Posts 5497
Forever In Your Heart


88 posted 03-12-2004 06:33 PM       View Profile for A Romantic Heart   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for A Romantic Heart

Do you know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor theives nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9 10

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomonation ~Leviticius 18:22

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woamn, both of them have done what is destestable. They must be put to death: their blood will be on their own heads~ Leviticus 20:13

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshiped and served the creature more than the creator, who is blessed for ever.Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and...who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.~Romans 1:24-27,32

Quotes and scriptures taken from the King James Holy Bible~ Written by God our creator.

These are Gods words, and being gay or homosexual is against God, therefore if you love God, you will obey his commandments.

God says it is an abomination to him....

I am not preaching..just quoteing scriptures from the bible...seeing what says about homosexuality.



Open your eyes, open your mind, open your heart, let me come in and show you love.....~ARH
Cpat Hair
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 06-05-2001
Posts 12075


89 posted 03-12-2004 06:40 PM       View Profile for Cpat Hair   Email Cpat Hair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Cpat Hair

"Quotes and scriptures taken from the King James Holy Bible~ Written by God our creator"

Not to be disagreable.. but this statement is opinion I'm afraid and not fact, though you state it as fact.

The King James Version of the boble was not the original version of the boble and it is hard to quote it as written by god our creator when in fact it is a version of the scriptures as taken from the original scrolls and translated from latin to english.
Men I am afraid wrote the King james version of the Bible.

having said that, then your argument that it is against "God's" commandments..is also suspect.

I respect your right to believe as you please, I however, find that the arguments you present as to why gay marriage is wrong to be less than convincing.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


90 posted 03-12-2004 07:24 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

On the other side of this debate are those Christians who have become convinced by insights from the field of modern science that a homosexual orientation is a natural and normal, albeit minority, aspect of the human sexual experience, that it is not something one chooses, or is conditioned into, but something one is. Homosexuality is, for those who hold this point of view, like being left-handed, which is statistically a deviation from the norm of human life, that was also once a cause for both discrimination and persecution. These members of our church hold that sexuality is morally neutral and that both homosexuality and heterosexuality can be lived out either destructively or in life-affirming ways. The position of the Church, they argue, should be to oppose all destructive uses of the gift of human sexuality and to support those sexual expressions that issue in life and wholeness for the people involved. That would be their attitude whether they were talking about heterosexual persons or homosexual persons.

Those who advocate this point of view believe that the knowledge available to people today arising from studies of the brain and the way it functions have effectively challenged the previous definitions. They note, for example, that science can today document the presence of homosexuality among animals who are not thought to possess freedom of thought or the ability to choose. They also note that heterosexual people do not choose their sexual orientation. They simply awaken to it. So, they argue, do homosexual people. To the argument that homosexuality violates scripture, those members of our Communion counter by reminding the Church of other ancient attitudes found in scripture that have been abandoned because of new scientific discoveries and changing cultural attitudes. The suggestion that the earth is the center of the universe around which the sun rotates is one of them. So is the legitimacy of slavery as a social institution, the second-class status of women, and the idea that epilepsy is caused by demon possession. Yet each of these issues was once supported by scriptural quotations and viewed as the will of God.

.....
Implicit in these disagreements is a third issue on which we cannot now find consensus. It has to do with conflicting views on the use and authority of Holy Scripture. The Bible can certainly be read as condemnatory of homosexual practice. Both sides admit that. For some members of this communion that is all that is required to form their judgment and opinion. They believe that the final truth of God is found in the Sacred Scripture which they believe is God's self-revelation. Other Christians argue that the Bible also calls us beyond human barriers and prejudices that once excluded from the fullness of the church's life Gentiles, Samaritans, lepers, ritually unclean persons, women, left-handed people, racial minorities and people who committed suicide. The church's rejection of homosexual people is just one more prejudice that the Bible's authority is quoted to justify, they say. These members of our communion would oppose a literal interpretation of the Bible. But both sides, it needs to be said, treasure the Bible and neither side would recommend either that we worship the Bible as an idol or that we set it aside as irrelevant.



Rev. John Shelby Spong (ret)

from http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/catech.html
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


91 posted 03-12-2004 07:41 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

ARH, for several thousand years people have been using the Bible to justify condemning and persecuting other human beings. They even used it to condemn Jesus. In retrospect, it's hard to find even a single instance where they were right to hurt others in the name of God.

If God has a problem with someone, I'm inclined to let God handle it on His terms. He doesn't seem to make mistakes. We invariably do.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


92 posted 03-12-2004 09:49 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Hush, the way that I see it, there are certain rights protected in the Constitution, not "given" in the Constitution, among them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The framers saw these as God given rights to all people. And some rights (or benefits) I see as contingent upon the meeting of certain conditions.

Much of our understanding as a society on different issues did indeed have to be dealt with down through the centuries in the fleshing out of our understandings of what the Constitutional rights entailed, or should entail, and people working through the established system eventually made changes that specifically addressed certain issues such as the vote for women and for blacks. I think it speaks to the genius of our founding fathers to have made provisions that such change could be effected within the system that they established, and I think we imperil that system when we decide to work outside of it to achieve our aims.

I don't think it can be brought down to something as simplistic as rights being defined as something that can be given and taken away or something that are ours implicitly (some are and some aren't, as I see it) without being specific about an issue or the perceived right, not in a society based on the rule of law, anyway. After all, anyone can claim that they have a right to anything and anyone can claim that they have a right to do anything that will bring them happiness. The law is the last word on any topic, and even if not agreed with, it should be respected as one of the most important pillars of our civilization, and unless and until it is changed through the legitimate process that is in place, that was put in place by those elected by the goverened, it should be obeyed, otherwise there would be complete and utter chaos, lawlessness and anarchy. The law, including the established system for redress of grievances, is the only safeguard against this.

And the way I see it, everyone's right to their pursuit of happiness has limitations. The law would be one such limitation. The well-being of others or the overall good of society would be others. Now it's not always easy to define the last two, but these things can and should be discussed in the public forum, and if change is to be enacted, it should only be done through the established system.

As someone who views the traditional family unit as the strength and backbone upon which societies are built and flourish, I think anything that devalues that traditional family unit is a potential source of confusion and emotional upset to children. Now of course there can always be exceptions, as in everything else, but I think that, by-and-large, children fair better emotionally within that traditional framework, all else being equal.

Given the small percentage of homosexuals in society, I don't see that giving them benefits through Civil Unions as those given to married couples would necessarily harm society at large. The harm I see is in the redefining of what marriage is. I do see such a redefinition as a slippery slope, the opening of a Pandora's box, that once it's traditional meaning is done away with, marriage could eventually come to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. That's all just a little too relativistic for my traditional mindset.

There are extremely radical elements within the larger gay rights movement that are advocating things that are quite frankly, disturbing to say the least, such as lowering the age of consent, thereby making it legal to have sex with, and one day perhaps even 'marry' (if it is redefined) what we now consider a child. I think people need to look more closely at these darker elements within the gay rights movement, at these activists and organizations such as the Man/Boy Love Association, who have their sights set to prey on these innocent children, who would definitely use and benefit from such a drastic lowering of the age of consent and redefinition of marriage. I can never concede that these predators are entitled to 'equal rights' in a marital sense. What 'rights' are these innocent children entitled to? Shouldn't we do everything within our power as a society to protect our children from such possibilities? Shouldn't we make sure that we retain our legal recourse against such people who would manipulate, brainwash and molest innocent children? Let's not be so naive as to think this could never happen, either. Less than a year ago when the Sodomy law was struck down in Texas, some 'traditionalists' were warning that a demand for gay 'marriage' would be next, that this case was only the setting of the groundwork for just such a demand. They were scoffed at, of course, by those who had been advocating for the law to be struck down, that it had nothing at all to do with a demand for marriage, that it was simply a privacy rights issue and that the 'traditionalists' of course, were over-reacting, as 'traditionalists' are wont to do (according to them.) But look at the situation that we have less than a year later. Just a coincidence? I don't think so.

Cpat, I think you will find that no matter what translation of the Bible is read, the homosexual act is defined as a sin. I don't think it is described as a greater or a lesser sin than any other that is mentioned, but it is described as such, unless there is a new translation out there that I haven't heard of yet that edits out those verses.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


93 posted 03-13-2004 12:25 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.

Henry David Thoreau
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Literature/Thoreau/CivilDisobedience.html



Perhaps time to re-read.

quote:

I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest. - Martin Luther King, Jr, from his Autobiography
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King//publications/autobiography/chp_2.htm




Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


94 posted 03-13-2004 02:22 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"The harm I see is in the redefining of what marriage is. I do see such a redefinition as a slippery slope, the opening of a Pandora's box, that once it's traditional meaning is done away with, marriage could eventually come to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. That's all just a little too relativistic for my traditional mindset."

Denise

If we are equal as human beings, no matter what our sex, why may an amendment to the definition of marriage be hindering in anyway?  Two women, or two men should be treated equally as able to tend the estate of marriage as one man and one woman.
To me it seems like a great sexism.  The road of the homosexuals that sincerely seek the happiness and security of marriage is being hindered because of societies' misgivings about homosexuality itself; the homosexuals themselves are now treated like
homosexuality rather than like equal human beings; the road is further cluttered and hurt by those that are homosexuals from continually playing with a sexual lifestyle and deviancy; the swingers, and pornographers, exploiters etc; and by those that are are a spiteful towards the opposite sex; those that are hurt from bad experiences on the "normal" road and that decided to "deviate" on purpose.  To me one's suspicions should be removed.  One's judgements should be unbiased by the different lines of homosexuality out there when it comes to marriage.  For when people pursue marriage, including homosexuals, I still believe they seek the tradition "bond" and security in a sacred sense for greater intimacy and happiness.  And how in the world should we deny someone that because of our misgivings regarding their sexuality?  Either way, I think the pursuit is one of intimacy, something all men and women should equally be able to enjoy.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


95 posted 03-13-2004 04:57 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

A Romantic Heart-

That's great for religious law and docrtine. However, if the only justification is "Well, God Sez It's Wrong!" I don't see how we, as a nation that respects a separation of church and state, could approve a ban.

BTW...cpat... the 'boble?' I agree with Denise... it's pretty hard (IMO) to read the Bible and think that God would consider homosexuality permissable. But, if people want to engage in homosexuality and remain Christian, I've got nothin' to say about it. Whatever helps ya sleep at night.

Denise-

You're a fan of Mr. Smith goes to Washington, aren't you?

In any case, I respect your opinion, especially on laws and such -tho I'm not so sure I agree with you... was Harriet Tubman really ripping the moral framework of the nation apart? Or, more accurately... did she damage it, or help repair it?- however, I must say...

As a child from a one parent household, I find myself terribly offended when people use the 'preserving the family unit' argument as one against gay couples having children, or just against single moms or divorce or whatever else... I was much happier with my mom and seeing my dad on weekends than I would have been with both of them- for various reasons. So I actually find it terribly pretentious for people to presume to know what is best for every child, in every situation. Just as you think rights vary by situation, I think the issue of parents and childrearing do, too. Being a good parent has absolutely nothing to do with being married to the child's other parent, or a suitable step-mother/father-figure.

Denise, I also must say... there are radical elements in any social movement or sect. Just because there are black activists that believe in becoming superior over the white man doesn't mean they should have had their rights witheld. Similarly, there are feminists that believe a matriarchy (at least temporarily) is the only way to offset the damage that years of patriarchal rule have done. But we women still have rights... although, in my opinion, maybe those fringe groups have a point, because I haven't seen a lady president, or a president of any skin shade besides bona-fide caucasian yet.

Now fringe groups such as NAMBLA certainly should NOT be given any rights to hurt children... but I agree with LR- how does legislation about what adults can do have anything to do with what kids can do? Hell, I'm legally an adult, and I can legally die for this country in war, but I can't legally buy myself a beer. I don't see the odds tipping in my favor anytime soon... unless I take a trip up to Canada. So I think that your argument is flawed in that sense... It's like saying that allowing marriage between two consenting adults of the opposite sex will encourage men to molest little girls.

I also don't see what's wrong with a sodomy law being struck down to make way for gay-marriage. After all, if they were law-abiding gay men, there wouldn't be much point in getting married with that law still around, now would there?

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


96 posted 03-13-2004 08:14 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Well, L.R., I guess I just view things differently than some do in regard to respect for the law, and my conviction that there is no excuse to violate it (unless for saving a life, if that situation were ever to arise in my experience), even by means of what our current culture deems acceptable for the most part...civil disobedience, when we have a system that we can work within for our grievances. Sure, it usually takes longer to work within the system, especially without all the media hype that usually surrounds such 'events', but I see it as the correct way to do things. That some people see it differently, well, so be it. Ultimately we all have to live with our own consciences.

Ess, I don't see the homosexual community's desire to redefine the meaning of marriage as a civil rights issue or an equal rights issue. I see it as their demanding the benefits of something that they just don't meet the conditions for. And I basically see their demand for such a redefinition as totally unwarranted in light of the fact that the ones who really do want these benefits can obtain them, if they really want them, in the States that offer Civil Unions. I don't think they should be discriminated against in jobs or housing. I don't think that they should be treated as outcasts of society, and I believe that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, whether we agree with them or not. I just don't think that they have a valid argument in wanting to redefine marriage, and as I said before, I see the redefining of it a dangerous step in the wrong direction for our society.

Actually Hush, I've never seen that movie, but if you think I would like it, I probably would.

And my children were much happier (and so was I) when I left their father (my first husband). As I said, there are exceptions in everything, and children sometimes are a bit more resilient than we sometimes think they will be, and the unique circumstances of each situation plays into it as well. I still believe, though, that the optimal environment for children is in the traditional family framework. And if we can't give them that due to circumstances beyond our control, we just do the best we can for them.

And my point about the sodomy law being struck down as a laying of the groundwork for gay marriage was simply to show how one thing leads to another(the slippery slope), and also to show the deception surrounding the whole issue at the time, in that it was denounced, at least by the gay activists in the news at the time, that that's what it would NOT lead to, or that it was NOT intended to be a laying of the groundwork for the next 'cause' to advance their agenda. But as in most other things today, it's all political, and so I guess we should be more surprised when the mouthpieces for political organizations don't lie. I think they would do more for their cause though if they didn't act as if we'd all just had a lobotomy and won't catch them in their lies. At least give it a few years between the time they say they aren't going to do something and when they actually do it.

As for NAMBLA, I see the danger in all of this in their aggressive endeavor to drastically lower the age of consent, to make what they currently do now illegally, legal. And they may just succeed with the ACLU championing their every cause. If they do succeed in that, and marriage is redefined to include same sex unions, what is to stop them from further exploiting these children, who could then be considered consenting adults,(but really, how much consent would there really be in such young impressionable children?) for their own gain. And with all the current legal foundations gone (the current definition of marriage and the current definition of the age of consent, mostly 18 yrs. of age with a couple of States at 16, I believe), what recourse would be available to protect them, especially if their parents are out of the picture legally? I think the slippery slope can definitely take us to places where we don't want to be as a society.

And what about what we have heard of taking place already with "Queer Day" and "Cross Dressing Day" and "Transgender Awareness" Day, with participatory skits of cross dressing and pantomimed "sexual acting out" and sex toys being handled and passed about and discussed in elementary schools, no less? Is this okay?  That some people think it is, and that some people defend it, really nauseates me. Is this protecting and nurturing our children? And I don't ever recall hearing of or reading about heterosexual pantomimed "acting out" skits and programs presented in elementary schools to impressionsable young children. So why the "in-your-face" programs promoting the homosexual lifestyle? I don't get it, I really don't. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is no one else's business. And in my opinion that's where it should be kept.
A Romantic Heart
Member Ascendant
since 09-03-99
Posts 5497
Forever In Your Heart


97 posted 03-14-2004 01:27 AM       View Profile for A Romantic Heart   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for A Romantic Heart

Former Homosexual healed of AIDS....

http://www.700club.com/700club/features/matthew%5Fmanning%2Easp
http://www.700club.com/spirituallife/inspirationalteaching/gordonteaches%5Fcorinth0307%2Easp
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


98 posted 03-14-2004 10:50 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Below are some interesting points about the gay lifestyle and some of its associated problems excerpted from writings from those in that lifestyle, and I think it clearly points to the emotional and psychological damage done to children in that lifestyle. And it can also be seen in their writings that the view on commitment to long term relationships and fidelity to one's partner while in a relationship are not held in the same regard as they are held generally in the heterosexual mindset, and the statistics concur that it is a highly promiscuous lifestyle, and not merely a lifestyle where one gender is preferred or desired over another in a relationship.

The entirety can be found at the link below these excerpts.

quote:
In Lesbians at Midlife: The Creative Transition, one article, "Life as Improvisation," by Matile Rothschild, describes a bizarre scenario involving herself and her husband, a married couple who'd had children together, and both "come out" as gay and lesbian in their early 40s.

Of the more than 100 lesbian mothers in a group Rothschild surveyed, "only three or four had the same lesbian partner during all of a child's teen years. Only one mother had the same lesbian partner from the time the child was very young until age 18."

Suzanne Slater, author of The Lesbian Family Life Cycle, devotes an entire chapter to persistent "stressors" in lesbian couples' lives. She says numerous problems arise from lesbian "family" relationship attempts. What are some of these "stressors," and how will they affect children of these relationships?

Some lesbians, the author says, want to parent in ways that will break "patriarchal" child-rearing patterns.

In addition to protecting their children, lesbian parents must also articulate a clear and affirming family identity to their children. With no clear consensus on what lesbian families' areas of uniqueness and specialness are, the parents must demonstrate their pride in the family to their children. Difficult for any family that mainstream society devalues, lesbian (and gay) families' task is compounded by the fact that not all members of the family are lesbians. While family members within non-dominant racial, religious, and ethnic groups all share their minority identity, lesbian parents cannot assume their children will grow up to be gay. In that sense, these are not "lesbian families" at all, but rather families with lesbian parents. The child's likely identification with heterosexual peers complicates naming the family's shared group identity and potentially threatens the family members' experience of belonging.

Lesbian mothers often express disappointment or anger at what has historically been an inadequate response by non-parenting lesbians to the child-related needs of lesbian mothers. These women argue that non-parenting lesbians seem to view their parent status as some kind of artifact from their previous existence as heterosexually involved women. As a result, lesbian parents may feel ignored by the community as they see their needs and agendas superseded by those of childless lesbian women.

In other words, the gay/lesbian community doesn't always support gay parents. What affect will this have on children?

Specifically, many childless lesbians argue that the desire to have children has replaced earlier implicit commitments for lesbians to be each others' families -- different from mainstream nuclear families, and marked by primary commitments and a shared long range future. These women express feeling suddenly more alone as their lesbian friends re-define their immediate families, more closely emulating heterosexual family life and replace the primacy of their previous friendship commitments.

The lack of a relational and communal sense of unity in the world of gay lifestyles, together with the fact that most gay couples do unite (and often dissolve) solely on the basis of sexuality, seems to undercut one critically important basis for the successful committed relationships observed among heterosexual couples in Sex In America, and conducive to the relational stability vital to the emotional and psychological health of children: The fact that people who stay in committed sexual relationships tend to be people who have "connected" with other people like themselves. Again, this most vital foundation for successful child-rearing seems often to be missing from gay/lesbian relationships. As we have seen, gay "families we choose" appear more akin to intentional communes than to traditional families.

("Love alone makes a family" may be a popular slogan among gay activists. But if "love" alone makes a "family," then "unlove" alone may easily destroy a "family.")

One thing stands out in reading gay/lesbian discussions of "family": The gay world seems to be interested primarily in how children will affect gay "families" and not on how gay "families" will affect children. In most "gay family" speculation, one finds not one word of concern about the psychological and/or spiritual health of the children, other than that children of "families we choose" might be more accepting of gays and gayness as a result of being part of same-sex "families," and might have greater opportunity to be gay if they so desire. (When one lesbian activist author does raise the question of how all this will affect the children of "families we choose," she never goes on to venture an answer.)

All in all, the notion of same-sex "families" seems like a formula for creating highly unstable adult relationships and pitiably dysfunctional children. The effects of a massive influx of such children on society as a whole might well prove catastrophic.

Must our society be required to make its children "sacrificial lambs" on the altar of gay activist "spousal" expediency and "family experimentation"? In still another remarkable self-admission, one former lesbian activist admits to sacrificing her children in just such a manner...

Cherie's story

Cherie and her lesbian lover, citizens of Auckland, New Zealand, appeared on TV's "60 Minutes" some years ago to argue the case for lesbian "domestic partnership" and parenthood by articifial insemination. By the time of their appearance on "60 Minutes," Cherie and her partner had had three artificially-inseminated children. For most of her lesbian life, Cherie considered herself a gay activist. Today, she has reversed her political stand and left the "lesbian life." In November, 1994, she told the world why.

I used my kids to deceive the public and get gay rights. I thought only of my own needs and not of their futures. Although I love my kids, I have damaged them. Now lesbians have got what I fought for, and I wish I'd never done it.

I became a lesbian because I was so hungry for love from women. My mother was an alcoholic. She didn't have what it took to love me, so I never got it from her. And as a result, I looked for love in women all my life.

My father used to beat my mother, so that made me not want to be a women either. I used to get out of bed and go in and pull him off her. I thought she was weak for not standing up to him. You don't want to be a woman, because being a woman means being kicked around by a man. My father used to sexually abuse me as well, so I grew up anti-male and hated being a woman.

A lot of lesbians are like that: detached from their mothers, abused by fathers or brothers and abandoned by men. We always said we were not anti-male, but we were.
We get into lesbian relationships because we want to be loved. Then we want children. When I became a lesbian I remember the devastation, thinking, "I'll never be able to have kids because I'm lesbian." So I got into lesbianism, boots and all, to get us the rights to have children, to show everyone that we had the same rights as heterosexuals.

Cherie met her last lesbian lover when she was 19, "and our relationship was dysfunctional from day one. We fought and hit each other and blackmailed and abused each other emotionally." She thought having children would make things better. It didn't.
But in 1992, Cherie, her partner and their (by then) three children went on "60 Minutes," to state their case for lesbian "dual motherhood."

We deceived society. We said gays only had problems because society put them on to us. We came across well. We portrayed ourselves as the warm, loving, normal, alternative family, and we used these children to get the gay rights message across.
They [the children] were so cute; they talked about having two "mummies" who loved each other like a mother and father, and they had us cuddling the kids and reading to them at bedtime.

We talked about all the male support and role models we had for the [two] boys. But it was a load of bull -- we didn't. My boys had no masculine role models and no masculine identity. Lesbians don't have many male friends, certainly not ones they know well enough to take their kids places and role model for them.

Jonathan's 11 now, and he's angry. He knows he was conceived by artificial insemination and that I don't know his father, but he's always asking me, "What color eyes did my father have? What does he look like? What does he do?" I can't tell him because I don't know. He's still in counseling -- all about his anger and his lack of a father. I see the hurt on the boys' faces daily -- especially when the father-son events come along, like school camps and father-son evenings.

I don't know whether I've pulled my kids out of the gay lifestyle early enough. I often hear the kids saying how neat it would be to have a Dad. They go straight to any man who will show interest in them. They're starved for male affection. Jenna [Cherie's daughter] is so hungry for male love I'm scared she'll be abused.

http://www.leaderu.com/marco/marriage/gaymarriage5.html#possible

The societal impact that the legalizing of 'gay' marriage has had in Scandinavia can give us a pretty good idea as to how it will affect our own society if implemented here.


http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/03-06-04/cover_2.asp
sea_of_okc
Senior Member
since 06-15-99
Posts 595
Oklahoma City, OK, USA


99 posted 03-14-2004 11:29 AM       View Profile for sea_of_okc   Email sea_of_okc   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for sea_of_okc

Very interesting stuff Denise. Thank you

hush -

quote:
That's great for religious law and docrtine. However, if the only justification is "Well, God Sez It's Wrong!" I don't see how we, as a nation that respects a separation of church and state, could approve a ban.


Wouldn't separation of church and state also mean the government has no right to force a change in religious ceremonies or rites? After all marriage is religious and not legal in origin.

quote:
You still haven't answered my question- who does gay marriage hurt? And you also haven't answered the point I made to you in my previous thread- what's the difference in where the behavior originates?I'm not letting you get away with that one.


Seems that others have answered these for me. Denise's post shows that gay marriage could potentially harm children... then again it seems the hetero family turns out plenty of damaged/dysfunctional children as well...
As to the difference in where the behavior originates I think LR's post about certain Christian factions accepting the lifestyle answers that. If it is genetic then God made them that way and they would be more acceptable to the religious right... if it is a choice or an environmental occurence then you can expect the religious to continue condemning it as immoral...
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> This whole gay-marriage fiasco - Continu   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors