I grew up in church, father is a preacher/music minister, so I taught sunday school, lead in childrens chior, etc, etc. and I one thing I've learned is: Religion is a business. If you think it's anything else, you're a follower and have no idea what goes on behind the closed doors. With the growing out gay population, it's in the best interest for churches to look beyond biggotry and accept the gay population with open arms. There is a lot of money to be made there, and eventually the church will see this and make some changes to thier policies.
gay marriage = good
Will it be legal in the US soon? Who knows, remember, women were just (relatively) recently allowed to vote.
Gay Marriage
-
Chris Holden
- Dolla Llama
- Posts: 886
- Joined: 14 May 2002 10:44
- Location: Fairfax, VA. USA
- Contact:
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
I was looking back at this thread was thinking about the difference between the gay population and the gay leadership\activist groups. We can assume the activist and political leaders are a tiny minority of the gay population.
Activists may have different agendas that the rest. We could assume that gays just want to be left alone, have to same protections as everybody else, and the rest is none of our business.
But activists have other goals. Gay marriage going into law means it's legal and then aggressive moves into the school systems can occur. Gay activists are already pushing into the school systems in some places, looking to brainwash and intimidate at the youngest age possible.
If you would question your child being taught sex education in the second grade(or earlier), you would probably not want the first things they learn to be:
1. What gay sex is.
2. Why it is completely safe and OK.
3. Why you are a Nazi to oppose it.
4. Why you better accept it now, or be branded a "hater" for life.
I may have used a little artistic license on the list above, but you get the picture.
Groups like NAMBLA use tactics they many gays would find abhorent and harmful to there cause.
The point of this post is to show that opposing gay extremism does not mean you are a homophobe.
Conversely, criticizing clergy of a religious institution does not mean you hate all members of the faith.
Unfortunately, gays and the clergy is another issue that deserves it's own thread (this post is to long!)
Later
-n
Activists may have different agendas that the rest. We could assume that gays just want to be left alone, have to same protections as everybody else, and the rest is none of our business.
But activists have other goals. Gay marriage going into law means it's legal and then aggressive moves into the school systems can occur. Gay activists are already pushing into the school systems in some places, looking to brainwash and intimidate at the youngest age possible.
If you would question your child being taught sex education in the second grade(or earlier), you would probably not want the first things they learn to be:
1. What gay sex is.
2. Why it is completely safe and OK.
3. Why you are a Nazi to oppose it.
4. Why you better accept it now, or be branded a "hater" for life.
I may have used a little artistic license on the list above, but you get the picture.
Groups like NAMBLA use tactics they many gays would find abhorent and harmful to there cause.
The point of this post is to show that opposing gay extremism does not mean you are a homophobe.
Conversely, criticizing clergy of a religious institution does not mean you hate all members of the faith.
Unfortunately, gays and the clergy is another issue that deserves it's own thread (this post is to long!)
Later
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
It seems as if everything that is turned to someone's side will some day be equalized. Racism, sexism, etc., and this thread about how homosexuals have the hassles of being who they are, all spread out even to where things equalize, it's only time before gays and lesbians have their proper treatment, until then, it seems like they will have to push their way through. I just hope it's sooner than later.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
I don't know if it's a matter of time for equality.
America is a changing place, it may become more intolerant before it becomes more tolerant.
As America becomes more like the rest of the world, gays will lose out.
Open homosexuality can get you beaten in many South American countries.
Death sentences, or worse can be the result in some Muslim nations.
As these constituencies (voting groups) grow, politicians and those in power will pander to them instead of gays.
Gays will become a shrinking minority, typically non-violent and thus nothing to worry about. They will be told, (not directly) that their votes don't matter anymore.
Segments of the country will practice their own customs and cultures, and treat gays like they did in their home countries.
This is a bleak outlook, I hope America will not denegrate into that. I will speak out.
"First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out;
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out;
Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
-Martin Niemoller, 1892-1984
[/quote]
America is a changing place, it may become more intolerant before it becomes more tolerant.
As America becomes more like the rest of the world, gays will lose out.
Open homosexuality can get you beaten in many South American countries.
Death sentences, or worse can be the result in some Muslim nations.
As these constituencies (voting groups) grow, politicians and those in power will pander to them instead of gays.
Gays will become a shrinking minority, typically non-violent and thus nothing to worry about. They will be told, (not directly) that their votes don't matter anymore.
Segments of the country will practice their own customs and cultures, and treat gays like they did in their home countries.
This is a bleak outlook, I hope America will not denegrate into that. I will speak out.
"First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out;
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out;
Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
-Martin Niemoller, 1892-1984
[/quote]
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
"As America becomes more like the rest of the world, gays will lose out."
So do you think or see America as becoming more like other countries where our freedoms and choices are being lost ? Maybe your view goes many years past what i think, but what i see is a nation that has accepted our faults in views of minorities and slowly accepted what we've thought as wrong no matter how the rest world is .
__________________________________________________________________
"Gays will become a shrinking minority, typically non-violent and thus nothing to worry about. They will be told, (not directly) that their votes don't matter anymore."
Gays can go towards a more peaceful resolution, pushing someone's ideas and ways through violence isn't the default. I doubt when you are what you are, you will not just slowly go away because you are a minority. Even being a minority, the gay population is growing and can't just be discouraged to where they will be straight...how do you think it will be otherwise ?
I was never that good at reading comprehention so maybe i got it all wrong, but what do you think ?
So do you think or see America as becoming more like other countries where our freedoms and choices are being lost ? Maybe your view goes many years past what i think, but what i see is a nation that has accepted our faults in views of minorities and slowly accepted what we've thought as wrong no matter how the rest world is .
__________________________________________________________________
"Gays will become a shrinking minority, typically non-violent and thus nothing to worry about. They will be told, (not directly) that their votes don't matter anymore."
Gays can go towards a more peaceful resolution, pushing someone's ideas and ways through violence isn't the default. I doubt when you are what you are, you will not just slowly go away because you are a minority. Even being a minority, the gay population is growing and can't just be discouraged to where they will be straight...how do you think it will be otherwise ?
I was never that good at reading comprehention so maybe i got it all wrong, but what do you think ?
-
bigdirtyfoot
- Sloppy
- Posts: 3142
- Joined: 22 Apr 2002 12:30
- Location: NC
I am in agreeance to legalization of gay marriage. I can't see a difference between a gay couple and a straight couple. The only difference is in SOCIETY ITSELF, not the actual couple. Take for example the question raised about whether a gay couple should be able to adopt a child. One might counter in opposition to this question by saying "But the child will be ridiculed for life for having two dadies (or mommies, as the case may be)!"... but let's think here. That's SOCIETY itself, not the actual gay couple's "lack" of being able to care for the child. I know a lot of my close friends at my high school think being gay is "wrong" and shit. They claim that the vagina was designed by God to take in the penis and to create life... they say that the anus is for excretion, not acception of another organ... when I counter with the fact that the prostate gland was found to be partially designed for pleasure... they ignore me. When I tell them everything I know about anal sex and sphincters and how gay couples are people also, they ignore me. I can have all the information I want on a topic and they will ignore me, because they have already decided that they do not agree with me, and they don't want any information that will change their minds (at least that's the way I percieve it to be). Sorry to go off topic but I felt I had to share that stuff... personal experiences sometimes make responses to questions like these easier for me to handle. Any other thoughts?
I think statements like that are the exact reason why America has to become more like the rest of the world. Fundamental Muslim states and South American dictatorships are not the rest of the world. They are both types of government that have traditionally and are still sponsored by the US. The US government likes to talk about democracy but when it comes to international relations acts much more like a dictator.HighDemonslayer wrote: As America becomes more like the rest of the world, gays will lose out.
Many countries in the world are much more accepting of homosexuals than the US legally. Obviously my country (australia) has a long way to go as well.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
I tried to make this short,(and failed).
Responding to HooD:
Don't put yourself down. Your first question almost nails it pertaining to my previous statement:
-----------------------
Me: "As America becomes more like the rest of the world, gays will lose out."
HooD: So do you think or see America as becoming more like other countries where our freedoms and choices are being lost?
-----------------------
In a way, yes.
American citizens' various freedoms and choices are always under threat. Gays however, will be threatened by a different type of change.
Jeremy said: "Fundamental(ist) Muslim states and South American dictatorships are not the rest of the world."
True, but America's population isn't growing from enlightened, European nations that tolerate anything and everything.
America is growing from places that tolerate homosexuality less than your typical white American.
I said: "they will practice their own customs and cultures, and treat gays like they did in their home countries."
Example:
in France, a man was known in the local Muslim community as a kind of sex fiend (for what reason , I don't know). The man was seen later with one of his hands cut off. How did this happen? A local said that a (Muslim holy council) had decided that was his punishment. The French authorities had no idea... (according to the report I read).
Also, an increasing numbers of forced marriages are occuring. That doesn't sound very French to me.
The report said there is no information on numbers of possible female circumcisions taking place.
Do you guys KNOW what that is? it's interesting American feminists say absolutely NOTHING about it. They'd be pretty pissed off if their clits were cut out of them.
This is an extreme example, but who's to say this won't happen in America, as it changes.
Gays will lose out in the communities that act like their home countries, with no regard for our rights.
Hispanic communities are the fastest growing in the country. If openly homosexual men are beaten in the street, and nobody makes a fuss about it, that's a loss.
If Muslim communties enforce their own religious law on gays, who in the community is going to say something, or do something about it?
HooD said:
-----------------
Gays can go towards a more peaceful resolution, pushing someone's ideas and ways through violence isn't the default. I doubt when you are what you are, you will not just slowly go away because you are a minority.
-------------------
I don't mean pushing ideas with violence, but protecting yourself. A minority won't just go away because they are a minority, but they can be pushed aside by other groups lobbying and intimidating.
Gays should use their rights, as Americans, to defend themselves. A threatened minority shouldn't only depend on the government for protection. When Fundamentalist, or other homophobic groups can deliver more votes and money than gays, it's all over.
The first thing Hitler did before he sent the Jews, Christians, and the gays to the death camps, is take away their guns. The Jews fought savagely with the Nazis in the Warsaw ghettos, when they were the last ones left. But it was to little to late.
I would advise some minorities to keep sufficient or large numbers of firearms. Because if the government is to busy or doesn't care, you're on your own.
This ties in with Jeremy's post, saying my statement is the exact reason we need to "be like the rest of the world".
One way we DON'T want to be like the "rest of the world", is the constant gun-control push. The British gun ban has been a complete disaster , since 1997.
I've heard the Australian situation is trouble also.(Jeremy will have to give us real story).
Responding to HooD:
Don't put yourself down. Your first question almost nails it pertaining to my previous statement:
-----------------------
Me: "As America becomes more like the rest of the world, gays will lose out."
HooD: So do you think or see America as becoming more like other countries where our freedoms and choices are being lost?
-----------------------
In a way, yes.
American citizens' various freedoms and choices are always under threat. Gays however, will be threatened by a different type of change.
Jeremy said: "Fundamental(ist) Muslim states and South American dictatorships are not the rest of the world."
True, but America's population isn't growing from enlightened, European nations that tolerate anything and everything.
America is growing from places that tolerate homosexuality less than your typical white American.
I said: "they will practice their own customs and cultures, and treat gays like they did in their home countries."
Example:
in France, a man was known in the local Muslim community as a kind of sex fiend (for what reason , I don't know). The man was seen later with one of his hands cut off. How did this happen? A local said that a (Muslim holy council) had decided that was his punishment. The French authorities had no idea... (according to the report I read).
Also, an increasing numbers of forced marriages are occuring. That doesn't sound very French to me.
The report said there is no information on numbers of possible female circumcisions taking place.
Do you guys KNOW what that is? it's interesting American feminists say absolutely NOTHING about it. They'd be pretty pissed off if their clits were cut out of them.
This is an extreme example, but who's to say this won't happen in America, as it changes.
Gays will lose out in the communities that act like their home countries, with no regard for our rights.
Hispanic communities are the fastest growing in the country. If openly homosexual men are beaten in the street, and nobody makes a fuss about it, that's a loss.
If Muslim communties enforce their own religious law on gays, who in the community is going to say something, or do something about it?
HooD said:
-----------------
Gays can go towards a more peaceful resolution, pushing someone's ideas and ways through violence isn't the default. I doubt when you are what you are, you will not just slowly go away because you are a minority.
-------------------
I don't mean pushing ideas with violence, but protecting yourself. A minority won't just go away because they are a minority, but they can be pushed aside by other groups lobbying and intimidating.
Gays should use their rights, as Americans, to defend themselves. A threatened minority shouldn't only depend on the government for protection. When Fundamentalist, or other homophobic groups can deliver more votes and money than gays, it's all over.
The first thing Hitler did before he sent the Jews, Christians, and the gays to the death camps, is take away their guns. The Jews fought savagely with the Nazis in the Warsaw ghettos, when they were the last ones left. But it was to little to late.
I would advise some minorities to keep sufficient or large numbers of firearms. Because if the government is to busy or doesn't care, you're on your own.
This ties in with Jeremy's post, saying my statement is the exact reason we need to "be like the rest of the world".
One way we DON'T want to be like the "rest of the world", is the constant gun-control push. The British gun ban has been a complete disaster , since 1997.
I've heard the Australian situation is trouble also.(Jeremy will have to give us real story).
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
HIYAH KARATE CHOP! religion is a scam i knew it god is the devil what did i tell youChris Holden wrote:I grew up in church, father is a preacher/music minister, so I taught sunday school, lead in childrens chior, etc, etc. and I one thing I've learned is: Religion is a business. If you think it's anything else, you're a follower and have no idea what goes on behind the closed doors. With the growing out gay population, it's in the best interest for churches to look beyond biggotry and accept the gay population with open arms. There is a lot of money to be made there, and eventually the church will see this and make some changes to thier policies.
Like every man of sense and good feeling, I abominate work
-Aldous Huxley
-Aldous Huxley
I'm not too sure about the details of Australia's efforts at gun control. I agree the situation is in a bit of trouble but for the wrong reason to you. I think there are still far too many guns in Australia, obviously we have a lot less than the US (and suprisingly a much lower murder rate as well) but everytime the government tries to get rid of high powered weapons, and handguns, the far right (which is starting to seem like the majority of Australia) complains. There as certainly been a lot of progress since the last major massacre though. I'm for any effort at lowing the amount of guns in society.HighDemonslayer wrote:
I would advise some minorities to keep sufficient or large numbers of firearms. Because if the government is to busy or doesn't care, you're on your own.
This ties in with Jeremy's post, saying my statement is the exact reason we need to "be like the rest of the world".
One way we DON'T want to be like the "rest of the world", is the constant gun-control push. The British gun ban has been a complete disaster , since 1997.
I've heard the Australian situation is trouble also.(Jeremy will have to give us real story).
I've been a little bit hard on the US in that last paragraph I guess, because the evidence seems to show that the US are just more murderous than any other country for no obvious reason, but I still believe that there would be a lot less murders if there were a lot less guns. I can understand why some people have guns - they don't want to be unarmed if someone else has a gun, but if neither had a gun...
-
FootbagginBum
- Flower Child
- Posts: 2016
- Joined: 03 Jan 2003 00:58
- Location: Big Island of Hawaii
- Contact:
Is it just me, or do any of you want to break off onto another planet where people like that CAN'T be assimilated into culture anymore? Or, even better, throw them on another planet...no, I'm just being intolerant...they wouldn't be able to get to Mecca....
Thank you Brain for reiterating my statement and John for trying to clear it up, but I will reword because you are both semi right.
I hate people that hate gay people (.) I however am very into networking and would never burn the bridge in a personal relationship (although I really wanted to, and may have, but he went to the marines) but this is the first forum I have ever been on andhave never openly discussed these things before and I won't be burning to many bridges and may be forming better bridges with some people because of my blunt statements. Rob may be such a person, Chris holden as well.
Thank you Brain for reiterating my statement and John for trying to clear it up, but I will reword because you are both semi right.
I hate people that hate gay people (.) I however am very into networking and would never burn the bridge in a personal relationship (although I really wanted to, and may have, but he went to the marines) but this is the first forum I have ever been on andhave never openly discussed these things before and I won't be burning to many bridges and may be forming better bridges with some people because of my blunt statements. Rob may be such a person, Chris holden as well.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world" - Gandhi
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
I don't know if comparing murder rates between nations is a great indicator of anything. Nations are different in so many different ways.
Total populations are different, geographical features are different. etc. etc.
Comparing cities within the same country could be helpful. American cities with the most restrictive gun-control, are plagued with eternally high murder rates. for example: Chicago and Washington D.C.
There are a few exceptions, Phoenix has seen a rise in violent crime recently, but I would not tie this to gun availability.
Maybe Australians are correct in opposing the governments repeated attempts to disarm them. What has it accomplished in the past? Has each subsequent shooting massacre been prevented by the most recent gun ban? Do they see the British model and it's shocking failure?
One school yard shooting(Dunblane massacre) killed 16 or so before the 1997 gun ban. The homicide rate has jumped around 40% since then. How many hundreds or thousands of Brits have to suffer because of the knee-jerk reaction to ONE school shooting?
Jeremy said:
--------------------------------
but I still believe that there would be a lot less murders if there were a lot less guns. I can understand why some people have guns - they don't want to be unarmed if someone else has a gun, but if neither had a gun...
-------------------------------
I think there are more guns in America than automobiles. I think the "but if neither had a gun" is a utopian fantasy. The guns aren't going anywhere soon. Perhaps a Stalinist-type police state could try to take most of them away, but that's not a "utopia" I want to live in.
America also presently has military arms illegally imported from other nations, Chinese-made Ak-47's for example.
The "enlightened" world should accept that some people are responsible with firearms, and those people are a benefit to society as a whole.
The "enlightened" world should also admit that police forces cannot protect everyone all the time. They can clean up the bodies afterward. Your immediate personal protection is up to you.
Of course, the world won't accept this. Allowing the "people" to bear arms is to much power. This threatens the elite, who drive around in bulletproof limos and have armed bodyguards, and need defenseless citizens to push around as they see fit.
-n
Total populations are different, geographical features are different. etc. etc.
Comparing cities within the same country could be helpful. American cities with the most restrictive gun-control, are plagued with eternally high murder rates. for example: Chicago and Washington D.C.
There are a few exceptions, Phoenix has seen a rise in violent crime recently, but I would not tie this to gun availability.
Maybe Australians are correct in opposing the governments repeated attempts to disarm them. What has it accomplished in the past? Has each subsequent shooting massacre been prevented by the most recent gun ban? Do they see the British model and it's shocking failure?
One school yard shooting(Dunblane massacre) killed 16 or so before the 1997 gun ban. The homicide rate has jumped around 40% since then. How many hundreds or thousands of Brits have to suffer because of the knee-jerk reaction to ONE school shooting?
Jeremy said:
--------------------------------
but I still believe that there would be a lot less murders if there were a lot less guns. I can understand why some people have guns - they don't want to be unarmed if someone else has a gun, but if neither had a gun...
-------------------------------
I think there are more guns in America than automobiles. I think the "but if neither had a gun" is a utopian fantasy. The guns aren't going anywhere soon. Perhaps a Stalinist-type police state could try to take most of them away, but that's not a "utopia" I want to live in.
America also presently has military arms illegally imported from other nations, Chinese-made Ak-47's for example.
The "enlightened" world should accept that some people are responsible with firearms, and those people are a benefit to society as a whole.
The "enlightened" world should also admit that police forces cannot protect everyone all the time. They can clean up the bodies afterward. Your immediate personal protection is up to you.
Of course, the world won't accept this. Allowing the "people" to bear arms is to much power. This threatens the elite, who drive around in bulletproof limos and have armed bodyguards, and need defenseless citizens to push around as they see fit.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
I like debating with you HighDemonSlayer, you don't take things personally or end up makeing personal insults like so many people at many internet forums do, and you do argue well, even if I mainly disagree with you. I guess we are getting slightly off topic (or very off topic) so I apologise for that.
As I said, I don't know a lot about Australias gun control attempts. I do know, however, that the most biggest effort made to control guns in Australia occured immediatly after a massacre in my home state of Tasmania (the triangle island at the bottom of Australia) where a man killed 25 people at a tourist attraction (an old prison). That shooting is also the last multiple shooting of that nature to occure in Australia. I think the Port Arthur (the place where it happened) massacre occured in 1995.
Obviously reacting to shooting sprees like this is a reactionary measure, but I would much rather see people making an effort to see that it not happens again than see nothing happen (whatever happens to the killer/s is irrelevant).
Having a gunless society is far from a utopia. There are many nations in the world that have very low or non exsistant gun levels.
America's ban on importing weapons is a purely economic arrangment - but what happened to free trade that the US governement is so keen on?
What do responsible people want to do with firearms? The only use I can see, when you get down to it (apart from sport or killing animals on farms - which I don't think is what you are talking about) is killing people. Someone who owns an object for the sole perpose of killing another human (even if they hope not to have to use it) is, I believe, irresponsible and wrong.
As I said, I don't know a lot about Australias gun control attempts. I do know, however, that the most biggest effort made to control guns in Australia occured immediatly after a massacre in my home state of Tasmania (the triangle island at the bottom of Australia) where a man killed 25 people at a tourist attraction (an old prison). That shooting is also the last multiple shooting of that nature to occure in Australia. I think the Port Arthur (the place where it happened) massacre occured in 1995.
Obviously reacting to shooting sprees like this is a reactionary measure, but I would much rather see people making an effort to see that it not happens again than see nothing happen (whatever happens to the killer/s is irrelevant).
Having a gunless society is far from a utopia. There are many nations in the world that have very low or non exsistant gun levels.
America's ban on importing weapons is a purely economic arrangment - but what happened to free trade that the US governement is so keen on?
What do responsible people want to do with firearms? The only use I can see, when you get down to it (apart from sport or killing animals on farms - which I don't think is what you are talking about) is killing people. Someone who owns an object for the sole perpose of killing another human (even if they hope not to have to use it) is, I believe, irresponsible and wrong.
-
Acid~Reign
- Multidex Master
- Posts: 219
- Joined: 31 May 2002 21:11
Hmmm... long posts. Big read time. Anyway, I'mf a Christian although some people call me a bit of a radical but here's my point of view anyway.
Firstly, I voted yes. I won't say why I think it shouldn't be the case because I'll probably word it wrong and forget what I'm blathering about but I will state why I think it should be allowed. You have to remember that I am assuming the Christian premise here.
Generally there are two methods of disciplining oneself or another person or group of people: the legalistic approach and the appeal to a higher ideal. An example of the legalistic approach could be some parents threatening a child if he doesn't eat his spinach. Conversely, the parents could appeal to a higher ideal, that if the child doesn't eat his spinach then he won't grow up to be big and healthy and strong like Popeye.
This is relevant here because God doesn't enforce His commandments legalistically. Some people might argue that our final judgement is legalistic enforcement but I consider it more of being given the result of a test (ie: a teacher tells you the right answer in class but won't force you to write it in the class test. If you refuse to write the correct answer and subsqequently fail I'd say that the failure is not legalistic enforcement). Given that God chooses not to judge people before their time nor to impose upon their free will by stopping a chosen course of action, why then should we?
In a sense, banning, or not allowing, homosexual marriage is like banning a class from writing the wrong answer on a test. Your teacher may give you one answer, your parents another and your friend another but in the end it's you yourself that has to decide whose answer you want to trust. You could always fake it to please the teacher but hold the 'real' answer for the big exam though. But this analogy is really beginning to fail me so I'll get to the point.
The actual relationship between homosexual practises and the Christian faith is that the practise is viewed as a sin, but it's not unforgiveable. Christians are to love homosexuals just as they love everyone else, but loving someone does not mean you have to accept everything about them (eg: a parent may love his or her drug-addicted teen but that doesn't mean the habit must also be accepted).
If an atheist argues against homosexual marriage they are discriminating. If a theist argues against it they're discriminating (not that they care) and enforcing their (good)will onto another which is pointless as the physical action isn't as important as what is felt (think 1984).
This post is getting a bit long so I'll post a reply to this one.
Firstly, I voted yes. I won't say why I think it shouldn't be the case because I'll probably word it wrong and forget what I'm blathering about but I will state why I think it should be allowed. You have to remember that I am assuming the Christian premise here.
Generally there are two methods of disciplining oneself or another person or group of people: the legalistic approach and the appeal to a higher ideal. An example of the legalistic approach could be some parents threatening a child if he doesn't eat his spinach. Conversely, the parents could appeal to a higher ideal, that if the child doesn't eat his spinach then he won't grow up to be big and healthy and strong like Popeye.
This is relevant here because God doesn't enforce His commandments legalistically. Some people might argue that our final judgement is legalistic enforcement but I consider it more of being given the result of a test (ie: a teacher tells you the right answer in class but won't force you to write it in the class test. If you refuse to write the correct answer and subsqequently fail I'd say that the failure is not legalistic enforcement). Given that God chooses not to judge people before their time nor to impose upon their free will by stopping a chosen course of action, why then should we?
In a sense, banning, or not allowing, homosexual marriage is like banning a class from writing the wrong answer on a test. Your teacher may give you one answer, your parents another and your friend another but in the end it's you yourself that has to decide whose answer you want to trust. You could always fake it to please the teacher but hold the 'real' answer for the big exam though. But this analogy is really beginning to fail me so I'll get to the point.
The actual relationship between homosexual practises and the Christian faith is that the practise is viewed as a sin, but it's not unforgiveable. Christians are to love homosexuals just as they love everyone else, but loving someone does not mean you have to accept everything about them (eg: a parent may love his or her drug-addicted teen but that doesn't mean the habit must also be accepted).
If an atheist argues against homosexual marriage they are discriminating. If a theist argues against it they're discriminating (not that they care) and enforcing their (good)will onto another which is pointless as the physical action isn't as important as what is felt (think 1984).
This post is getting a bit long so I'll post a reply to this one.
-
Acid~Reign
- Multidex Master
- Posts: 219
- Joined: 31 May 2002 21:11
As a reply to Chris Holden's post regarding his past with the church. I do agree that some people do use religion as a vehicle to make money and this can give religion a bad name. But all because one person, or even 99% of the people who claim to be a part of that religion, does it, it doesn't mean the religion is like that. The 99% could have just deviated or decided to use religion to earn money. A full-time minister could use some of the donated money to support his or her family as is mentioned in the Bible where Jesus says to His disciples to go out without money or belongings and that they're 'earn their keep'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to bigdirtyfoot's reply on Tuesday July 15th (sorry, post was too long and I didn't want to quote the whole thing). Personal experience is definetely something that should shape your points of view. If not, all we'd rely upon is hearsay. When you talk about the prostate being partially made for pleasure and the vagina being made for penal insertion there is a slight dilemma here (maybe it's because I've studied philosophy? not sure):
When your friends claim the reason for the vagina's existence, they are saying that its existence had a reason. It did not just come about but was made/invented/created with a purpose in mind. We're not talking evolved here because there's no driving force and the driving force they are referring to is God.
But to take a step and say the prostate is partially made for pleasure is to accept the idea that this was made to be so and it didn't happen just by chance. An evolutionist could say this though; that the human body evolved such that the prostate developed to serve its function (I forgot
) as well as feel pleasure. The resulting problem here is that if there is no driving force directed by an entity then the only right and wrong are dictated by those in power (ie: subjective). Which means that if imposing ones will on another is what one personally deems wrong, then even imposing ones will on another to stop the other opposing ones will on somebody else will would be wrong (wrong in the subjectve sense).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to bigdirtyfoot's reply on Tuesday July 15th (sorry, post was too long and I didn't want to quote the whole thing). Personal experience is definetely something that should shape your points of view. If not, all we'd rely upon is hearsay. When you talk about the prostate being partially made for pleasure and the vagina being made for penal insertion there is a slight dilemma here (maybe it's because I've studied philosophy? not sure):
When your friends claim the reason for the vagina's existence, they are saying that its existence had a reason. It did not just come about but was made/invented/created with a purpose in mind. We're not talking evolved here because there's no driving force and the driving force they are referring to is God.
But to take a step and say the prostate is partially made for pleasure is to accept the idea that this was made to be so and it didn't happen just by chance. An evolutionist could say this though; that the human body evolved such that the prostate developed to serve its function (I forgot
) as well as feel pleasure. The resulting problem here is that if there is no driving force directed by an entity then the only right and wrong are dictated by those in power (ie: subjective). Which means that if imposing ones will on another is what one personally deems wrong, then even imposing ones will on another to stop the other opposing ones will on somebody else will would be wrong (wrong in the subjectve sense).
It hasn't happened already happened happened, it's only happened going to happen happened.Acid~Reign wrote: Which means that if imposing ones will on another is what one personally deems wrong, then even imposing ones will on another to stop the other opposing ones will on somebody else will would be wrong (wrong in the subjectve sense).
-
Acid~Reign
- Multidex Master
- Posts: 219
- Joined: 31 May 2002 21:11
. I only offend people when I intend to 
.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
I'll consider Acid~Reign's comment: "Hmmm... long posts. Big read time." into account and try to keep this post smaller than one screen 
Thanks Jeremy, I try not to take things personally. Personal attacks are sometimes a result of not being able to defend ideas (But they can keep posts short ). I will TRY to tie this back into the subject of this thread.
It is fortunate that you haven't had a big massacre since 1995. I don't like it when authorities do things just so they can "do something", without thinking about what the unintended consequences might be.
Jeremy said:
------------------
America's ban on importing weapons is a purely economic arrangment - but what happened to free trade that the US governement is so keen on?
------------------
I'm not sure what weapons they specifically ban from importing. I know many companies import a plethora of arms from Europe and Russia. AK-47 clones come from Hungaria and Romania and other places. These are usually semi-automatic versions. Full-auto weapons are heavily restricted, and have been since the 1930's.
The U.S. allows many arms from other countries, just not the really explosive type (I could be wrong on the explosives).
Jeremy also said:
------------------
What do responsible people want to do with firearms? The only use I can see, when you get down to it(....) is killing people. Someone who owns an object for the sole perpose of killing another human (even if they hope not to have to use it) is, I believe, irresponsible and wrong.
------------------
I think the purpose is(outside of hunting or blowing up empty beer bottles) to protect themselves, their family, and maybe the general public. I think it's responsible to defend your family.Most gunshot wounds are non-fatal( but possibly maiming). It is estimated that American citizens have prevented a violent crime by just SHOWING a handgun up to a million times a year, maybe more. I don't have time right now to get exact numbers.
This is NEVER reported by the mainstream media. They want all guns confiscated. That last rampage at a small college in the Carolinas(or Virginia) was stopped by two students who ran and got their guns from their cars. The media ONLY told about the "hero" who tackled the gunman, not about the students who held the psycho at gun point so he could be tackled and disarmed.
Thanks Jeremy, I try not to take things personally. Personal attacks are sometimes a result of not being able to defend ideas (But they can keep posts short
). I will TRY to tie this back into the subject of this thread.It is fortunate that you haven't had a big massacre since 1995. I don't like it when authorities do things just so they can "do something", without thinking about what the unintended consequences might be.
Jeremy said:
------------------
America's ban on importing weapons is a purely economic arrangment - but what happened to free trade that the US governement is so keen on?
------------------
I'm not sure what weapons they specifically ban from importing. I know many companies import a plethora of arms from Europe and Russia. AK-47 clones come from Hungaria and Romania and other places. These are usually semi-automatic versions. Full-auto weapons are heavily restricted, and have been since the 1930's.
The U.S. allows many arms from other countries, just not the really explosive type (I could be wrong on the explosives).
Jeremy also said:
------------------
What do responsible people want to do with firearms? The only use I can see, when you get down to it(....) is killing people. Someone who owns an object for the sole perpose of killing another human (even if they hope not to have to use it) is, I believe, irresponsible and wrong.
------------------
I think the purpose is(outside of hunting or blowing up empty beer bottles) to protect themselves, their family, and maybe the general public. I think it's responsible to defend your family.Most gunshot wounds are non-fatal( but possibly maiming). It is estimated that American citizens have prevented a violent crime by just SHOWING a handgun up to a million times a year, maybe more. I don't have time right now to get exact numbers.
This is NEVER reported by the mainstream media. They want all guns confiscated. That last rampage at a small college in the Carolinas(or Virginia) was stopped by two students who ran and got their guns from their cars. The media ONLY told about the "hero" who tackled the gunman, not about the students who held the psycho at gun point so he could be tackled and disarmed.
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Keeping with the thread topic....
I said earlier:
-------------------
Gays will lose out in the communities that act like their home countries, with no regard for our rights.
-------------------
I meant gay rights specifically in that case.
I am straight.
But they will ignore straights' right also.
I said earlier:
-------------------
Gays will lose out in the communities that act like their home countries, with no regard for our rights.
-------------------
I meant gay rights specifically in that case.
I am straight.
But they will ignore straights' right also.
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan