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  ]
 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139
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 
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


125 posted 03-21-2004 07:53 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Should we throw out all law that relates to human behaviors because even having such laws could be considered finger pointing by somebody?

No, Denise, we should throw out all laws that don't demonstrably hurt another just because it's the right thing to do. We should stop trying to legislate morality, because it never works, and try living it instead, because that just might.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


126 posted 03-21-2004 11:23 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Ah, my mistake Denise

And what is up with my spelling of proper names lately?  That should be Tim Lahaye, writer of the popular Christian doomsday fiction series 'Left Behind'.  And head of the American Coalition for Traditional Values. Former cohort of Falwell in founding the Moral Majority.

Wave a flag.  Splash a kid on the homepage -- they all start to run together in my head after a while.

Anyway -- it was his friend Falwell who said

quote:

The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.
-- Jerry Falwell from Finding Inner Peace and Strength



And there are only about 50 million Evangelical Christians in this country who say the Bible is the absolute literal word of God.  Many of them are in the White House.

That same Bible that says homosexuals should be executed.

I do wonder why homosexuals would like some recognition and reassurance from their government that they have a right to exist.

Pesky aren't they?

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


127 posted 03-22-2004 07:54 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Denise- correct me if I'm wrong- but it seems as if your opposition to a redefinition of marriage is that it leads to a redefinition of family?

quote:
Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! magazine, has stated that homosexuals should, "...fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely To debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of 'family' altogether." (Out! magazine, Dec./Jan., 1994)



Although I adisagree with some of the language here (that's pure radical rhetoric) I agree with the message. I don't think it's subversive to transform the notion of family...

I considered my mother and I a family unit. We didn't have to ahve a dad living with us. If I were to become pregnant, and choose not to get married, but remain with my boyfriend- I would consider us a family. And if I broke up with my boyfriend, had custody of the child, and later had a female lover who treated that kid as her own, I would consider US a family as well.

I did an annotated bib on the history of marriage last year... and marriage ahs already undergone quite a bit of redefinition, from the arranged marriages and stolen brides of the middle ages to the (yeah, I'm gonna say it) still patriarchal traditions we practice today. My father paying for the wedding, then 'giving' me away to my husband? No thanks! What about the name issue? More and more women are choosing to keep their own name, but how many men take their wives' last names? And thank god I don't have to agree to 'honor and obey' anymore, or my husband still can't beat me according to 'rule of thumb'- those are traditions that have been done away with, and for good reason. Maybe there's a good reason to do away with the tradition that only those of the opposite sex can marry.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


128 posted 03-22-2004 09:00 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Which only goes to prove, Amy, why any return to Traditional Values will have to start at the very beginning. Educating a woman past the sixth grade was probably our first mistake.
Nan
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 05-20-99
Posts 24426
Cape Cod Massachusetts USA


129 posted 03-22-2004 01:44 PM       View Profile for Nan   Email Nan   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Nan's Home Page   View IP for Nan

...Biting my tongue here...
FALDERAL
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


130 posted 03-22-2004 07:34 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Or allowing them shoes?

(duck)
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


131 posted 03-22-2004 07:47 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

It's the tradition in Korea for the woman to keep their family name after marriage.

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


132 posted 03-22-2004 08:22 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Ron, I agree that morality can't be legislated in the sense that you can't really force people to comply with any law simply because it is a law, especially what folks choose to do in their own bedroom. And I don't think that the government belongs there anyway, not in the least. But I also think that since the definition of harm is a subjective judgment, I'm sure it would follow that the definition of a demonstrable harm would also be something quite subjective, and I think these issues should be discussed in the public square to try to arrive at some sort of consensus on an issue by issue basis in our legislatures.

quote:
That same Bible that says homosexuals should be executed.

I do wonder why homosexuals would like some recognition and reassurance from their government that they have a right to exist.

Pesky aren't they?


L.R., the Law that the Jews were under called for the death penalty for virtually everything. But it was only the law for the nation of Israel. It didn't apply to any other nation and its penalties under that law certainly didn't apply to any other nation and it certainly didn't carry over into the New Testament. Find me one place in the New Testament where anyone is commanded to stone anyone to death for breaking the Law of Israel or for breaking any moral code for that matter. There was a transition there: Jesus Christ. The one who was slain for the iniquities of everyone, the one who took the death penalty that we all deserved, so that we didn't have to bear the penalty of our sin: for Jews, the breaking of the Law of Moses, for Gentiles, the violating of their consciences, and for both groups, the falling short of the perfection of God.

Homosexuals don't need reassurance from our government that they have a right to exist, and they've got recognition as a protected class and hate crimes legislation as well, and some judges are already using it to describe any statement that expresses a disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle as a hate crime. So those priests and preachers better make sure they leave out that one thing in the long lists of things described as sins that besets the human race in their sermons, or they may one day find themselves being dragged off in hand cuffs. Silence those who disagree with you, that sounds tolerant doesn't it? That sounds, oh what's the word, a bit totalitarian?

The issue of this thread was not someone's right to exist (we've all got that right under the Constitution here in the U.S., I thought (?), oh, yes, with the exception of  pre-born humans of course). The issue was whether gays should have the right to marry. I gave my reasons why I thought that would not be the course to take (Hush, see my several previous posts). And instead of honest intelligent discussion of the issues, and answers to questions that I raised, and perhaps tolerantly showing me where I may have been wrong, it seemed better to answer my questions with questions, to completely change the topic several times, to ridicule me and my reasoning processes and my values.

I am very disheartened by this exchange and if I thought people really didn't want a discussion including both sides of the issue I would have just kept my mouth shut. I have enough crap going on in my real life without this too.

If you all don't care for or agree with traditional values, that's fine, you have that right. I just have a different view, that's all. And I've never ridiculed any of you for any position that you've expressed. It would have been nice if I had been shown the same courtesy.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


133 posted 03-22-2004 09:21 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

But it goes to the very core of their right to exist Denise.

Did you know that this government isn't paying any benefits to homosexual partners of 9/11 victims?  But, they are paying benefits to illegal alien victims/survivors of 9/11.

We just came off a Texas law that tried to outlaw sodomy -- ok -- they can exist -- but they can't do anything about it.  And, yep the court struck it down.  Just like it should have. (but people were arrested)

I don't deserve to be executed for anything.  You're missing the point.  It isn't about doctrinal differences.

Do you ever hear Americans in general talking about the fact that the Koran calls for the killing of infidels?  

The fear factor is the same thing Denise.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


134 posted 03-22-2004 09:43 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Denise-

First of all, I'd like to apologize if I've said anything that seems disrespectful. We disagree in a very divergent manner, but I want to make it clear that I respect your opinion, and even though (from what I can gather) we don't agree on a whole lot (at least politically) I really respect the fact that you are convicted in your beliefs, you believe them because factually, thewy make sense to you, and out of the people who disagreed that gay people should be able to be married (in the traditional sense) you stuck it out and held your ground, even though most of us still "in" the thread are in favor of that.

Just to clear the air on that...

Maybe I can explain this in another way... something that I've been tiptoeing around but really just came to me today.

When our forefathers penned the words "all men created equal"- that's not really what they meant, was it? It was all white landowning men created equal. Nonwhite men, as well as all of us women (heck, we weren't even mentioned!) were left out of that immense provision for human dignity and rights. But it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have had them. And we eventually did get them... and they did change the fabric of society.

Do you think that ex-slaveowning southern men wanted blacks to be able to vote? No, because if those guys had a voice, well then they just might be able to do soemthing about those Jim Crow laws and constant segregation. Did men want women voting? No... hell, some traditionalist women didn't even want women voting (and some revolutionary ones, too... did you know that Mother Jones didn't think women should vote?) and there were a variety of reasons... but I think what both of those things boiled down to was, far more than any hatred or bigotry (though that was surely a part in the case of many of those who opposed) a fear of how things would change if their dignity and rights as Americans (and humans) were recognized.

Granted, GLBT people can vote. They can legally do just about everything we straight folks can do (altho straight's a relative term). But, in my opinion, they are one of the last greatly discriminated against groups in America, (the military 'don't ask don't tell' policy, Matthew Shepard, a cruel litany of 'lesbian' rumors I endured during school, experiences of gays and lesbians I know...) and I think it's mostly due to two things: Fear, and religious conviction.

It's fine to disagree with what someone does. It's fine to voice that disagreement. I haven't heard of the cases you mention where calling homosexulity 'wrong' is ruled as a hate crime... in my opinion, even if the words were said hatefully... we ahve a freedom of speech in this nation, and as heinous as I may or may not find the statements, they have the right to make them.

Just as no matter how heinous some poeple find homosexuality, I think they should have the right to their mistake.

I don't know if I see this conversation going anywhere further... I kind of think we've all exhausted our arguments, and none of us are going to change what we think. If something else interesting comes up, I'll be back, but other than that, thanks for the good conversation to all.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


135 posted 03-22-2004 11:03 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Amy, unfortunately I don't think we even scratched the surface of this issue -- even though most of the points were addressed -- and I want to say again how impressive your participation is here -- it's just phenomenal for someone of your age (can I say that without being agist? ) or someone of any age.  2/3rds of the population of this country could tell you what Paris Hilton did last tuesday but not be able to enjoin the issues.

Everyone has participated well -- and I don't think things got out of line here -- I feel bad that Denise thinks it did and how she feels is the only real thing that matters in that regard.

So -- to Denise -- I say as well -- the amount of effort that you put into participating -- the level of discourse that you infuse -- the courage of your convictions -- not to mention the fact that I just plain like you -- you deserve a badge of honor.  

I don't think these threads are about changing anyone's minds to begin with -- the encouragement of thought is about the only goal that we can attain... I can't even get my four-year-old to go to bed.  

We need pluralism in our society, in our circle of friends, in our threads on the web.  


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


136 posted 03-22-2004 11:24 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

I'm a pluralist by nature. But there has to be, at some point, a limit- a stopping point.

One thing I've noticed about the devoted Christians on this site (this is in no way meant to be a slight) is that they feel much more strongly about universal right and wrong (naturally, as defined by the Bible) and that pluralism is a slippery slope... possibly a dangerous one, too.

Oh, and thanks LR... BTW, what's my age again?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


137 posted 03-24-2004 06:29 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

No apologies are necessary, Hush. And I've already given my opinion on the issue of what our founders may have intended or may not have intended in this thread and elsewhere. Despite the fact of their being a product of their times culturally and socially, as we all are, I think they were wise enough to provide provisions for changing cultural and social understandings, and that therefore any issue can be addressed legally.

I personally believe that our traditional understanding of family is the ideal that generally our society should aim towards because I think it lends stability to society. But that doesn't mean that I think other family situations are second class or should be looked down upon in any way. We all work with what we have to work with no matter the circumstances that we find ourselves in. But that doesn't mean that we can't have an ideal of what we think works best for children and society and attempt to foster that ideal, and in those areas where there may be a lack, recognize the lack and try to make up for it in other ways as best as possible. I've personally seen the damage that I have done to my children through the poor choices that I have made in life. If I had it to do over again, I would have made wiser decisions so that they would have had less emotional distress and a more stable home environment.

Ron, I don't think it's valid to disparage wholesale all traditional values because we may disagree with some past or present understandings of traditional values by one group or another, just as I don't think we should automatically accept anything wholesale espoused by one group or another, traditional or otherwise. In other words, I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bath water. Everything should be evaluated point by point on its own merits.

L.R. I wasn't missing your point and I wasn't talking about doctrinal differences. I was just trying to point out that in Christians believing the Bible to be the innerant word of God, it does not follow that Christians believe that homosexuals or anybody else should be executed. Nothing could be further from the truth, as even a cursory reading of the New Testament would show. So I don't think that anyone can make a valid argument about a fear factor regarding Christianity. Now, if they should fear anything, I think perhaps it should be a book that does call for the killing of anyone who doesn't believe as they do and not the book that calls for loving all humanity no matter who they are or what they do or what they believe.

But I don't know, maybe this is just my faulty logic at work again.

And instead of a badge of honor, can I get combat pay instead?
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


138 posted 03-25-2004 05:55 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Ron, I don't think it's valid to disparage wholesale all traditional values because we may disagree with some past or present understandings of traditional values by one group or another, just as I don't think we should automatically accept anything wholesale espoused by one group or another, traditional or otherwise.

I admit to being a bit harsh earlier, but apparently failed to direct that harshness very accurately. I was not, in any way at all, disparaging the values in question. It's the Orwellian doublespeak I find repugnant.

Groups increasingly invent descriptive labels that were never meant to accurately describe, but rather were only intended to provide spin. "Lets call it something good so everyone agrees with us." After all, who in their right mind doesn't want a Big Brother to help guide and protect them? Prior to Orwell's book, that term was a positive one that provoked only warm and fuzzy images. The image, however, wasn't necessarily the reality.

Doublespeak, today, is rampant. Is there anyone here who is either anti-life or anti-choice? Sorry, but our language dictates you have to choose one or the other and can't really be both. Anyone here not want to keep the peace? Or help in building nations? Taken literally, terms like pro-life, pro-choice, peace keeping missions, and nation building mean something very, very different that the reality to which they are applied. It's all spin, all doublespeak, and all pretty much evasive language that pretends to communicate but actually does not.

Denise, the term "traditional values" is doublespeak. It was that which I disparaged earlier, not any values someone thinks the term might describe.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


139 posted 03-25-2004 11:12 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Ron, I tend to be dense and not quick on the pick-up sometimes. You have to tell me plainly and directly exactly what you are talking about. I had no idea that you were trying to get me to see the term as doublespeak. But I'm relieved to know that you were disparaging the term and not my values. You had me quite perplexed the past couple of days. And that's never a good thing! And of course I agree that much that was and/or is undesirable has been labled as a traditional value, which is why we have to look at things issue by issue on a case by case basis.

quote:
Did you know that this government isn't paying any benefits to homosexual partners of 9/11 victims?  But, they are paying benefits to illegal alien victims/survivors of 9/11.


L.R., yes I did know that. And neither are heterosexual "Significant Others", or "Fiancees", being paid benefits. The only ones who are getting benefits to my knowledge are legal spouses and children, whether they are citizens or aliens, legal or illegal, of the victims.


quote:
We just came off a Texas law that tried to outlaw sodomy -- ok -- they can exist -- but they can't do anything about it.  And, yep the court struck it down.  Just like it should have. (but people were arrested)


I thought that sodomy was already outlawed (at least in my state it was always a law on the books, maybe it still is, I don't know) and that the court struck down an existing law. Maybe I read it incorrectly. But like I said earlier, I don't think the government  belongs in people's bedrooms. What were the circumstances under which some people were arrested? Wouldn't they have had to have been caught in the act, or was heresay or suspicion enough to get them arrested? Was their bedroom rigged with cameras or were they practicing sodomy in a public park or restroom? If it were in public, they should have been arrested, just as should anyone be who is performing sexually in a public area.
quote:
One thing I've noticed about the devoted Christians on this site (this is in no way meant to be a slight) is that they feel much more strongly about universal right and wrong (naturally, as defined by the Bible) and that pluralism is a slippery slope... possibly a dangerous one, too.


Hush, I think it just comes down to the difference between one who has an absolute morality mindset and one who has a relativistic morality mindset.  


 
 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