posted on May 27, 2004 10:47:23 AM new
Due to legal challenges from well-heeled homosexual lawyers" groups such as the Lambda Legal (which has a Chicago office), the Boy Scouts came within one vote in the U.S. Supreme Court of losing their freedom to live by their own moral code. That would have been a devastating loss of liberty not just to the Scouts, but to all Americans, regardless of their creed.
Why is the BSA the only group in the United States allowed to discriminate?
Linda, what is your views on the "male only Country Clubs"? Do you feel they HAVE TO ALLOW woman? Are they not following their own moral code by not allowing woman?.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
We’re gonna love one another
[ edited by logansdad on May 27, 2004 10:49 AM ]
posted on May 27, 2004 10:49:37 AM new
CC: Of the 6 lesbians, 4 were IV drug users) and for the most part they say the same thing: I wish I had chosen a different path.
So are you say lesbians wished they were not lesbains or are you saying they wish they did not use drugs?
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
posted on May 27, 2004 11:31:31 AM new
logansdad - To me it's a matter of the activists forcing groups to make changes that are in opposition to what their groups have always stood for - believed in. Whether they be moral decisions the groups have made...or religion based decisions.
The Salvation Army has always been a religious based group. And as in most religions they oppose gay sexual behavior. If you know of one religious group that condones gay sexual behavior please inform me.
But the gay activists are demanding the SA provide gay 'partner' benefits or make the choice to close up shop....discontinue the help they've long given to their communities. They are forcing them to take an action that they believe violates their Constitution right to practice their religion or to set their own moral base.
And the gay activists aren't going to step in and provide that same community help. So it will just no longer be there. We will have more people become government dependent....as these faith based groups close down. Some also worry this will continue to spread to other faith-based organizations.
Some worry it is the goal of the gay activists that soon they won't be able to even speak about how the Bible states men shouldn't lie with men in their churches without there being some law against it.
Some pretty much see the way the schools would start condoning gay behavior as normal and accepted...when they don't see it that way...and when they don't want their children being exposed to those teachings.
Why would a gay man want to force himself upon an organization like the Boy Scouts when they don't want them? What reason would they have except to force acceptance of their sexual behavior on a group that doesn't want to accept it? And why would a gay activist group want to shut down the SA when they know when they hired on they were a religious based organization? Or when a person takes a job in a Church. They could have gone elsewhere...but no...they want to force an organization who's base opposes their sexual behavior. And who will lose out? The community these groups served. That hurts society.
posted on May 27, 2004 11:37:00 AM newLinda, what is your views on the "male only Country Clubs"? Do you feel they HAVE TO ALLOW woman? Are they not following their own moral code by not allowing woman?
No, I don't feel they should have to. I think all this 'discrimination' business has gotten to PC. Because it tramples on the rights of the majority to cater to the minority....and it's not necessary, imo.
I see no reason for a women to join a man's only club...or the other way around. Clubs are formed for all sorts of activities....you think gays want straights joining them in the old SF bath houses? You think gays would feel comfortable if a group of straights came into their clubs to join them? I don't think they would have. Same thing here, imo.
Haven't heard from you for a while - unless I've been asleep, which is not entirely impossible! Glad to hear you're still far to the left of the center line! We're good people over here.
posted on May 27, 2004 01:42:43 PM new
Linda, doesn't it seem that only the religious groups shun homosexuality? Do you know of any non-religious groups that do? The only real problem, is the sexual aspect of being gay. Nobody even thinks about the sexual aspect of straight people. Are straights just about sex like most people think gays are? Of course not, so why should this be the only real issue as fas as gays go? What if there were another group of people that only loved the same sex but didn't have sex. Would they be acceptable? Would they be allowed to marry?
posted on May 27, 2004 03:05:26 PM new
Cheryl, I don't go around saying I'm a good person, but there can be good people on all 'sides'
Kraft, the beginning of this thread, or its name: How does gay marriage hurt society?
ok here's a list, yeah the first is religious, but not all
Most religions consider homosexuality a sin. Virtually every religion in the world, including all the major ones in this country, consider homosexuality unacceptable. It is offensive and a swipe to the religious freedom of the majority to have to recognize a relationship they consider sinful. The legal system in the United States evolved out the laws contained in the Bible. We shouldn't go even farther to tear down those laws.
It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. The 50 percent divorce rate has already weakened the definition of marriage. We shouldn't be taking further steps to define what marriage is. A law allowing gay marriage would increase the number of joke or non-serious marriages, such as a couple of friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create.
It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. The building blocks of our society and the thing that makes it strong is the traditional family of man, woman, and children. It is what has sustained us through two world wars, a great depression, and numerous other challenges over the years. While friends & lovers come and go, your family is always there. The main reason our culture and values have started to crumble is the weakening of families. Introducing another form of "family" would only make the situation worse.
It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an object could be next). Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the absurd options are endless.
posted on May 27, 2004 03:33:05 PM new
Why are stupid things always brought up when the idea of gay marriage is talked about? Like marrying your car or a dog or a blow-up doll?
Being gay is a sin because that's the way certain lines in the Bible have been interpreted. Nothing more.
posted on May 27, 2004 04:09:41 PM new
You think gays would feel comfortable if a group of straights came into their clubs to join them? I don't think they would have. Same thing here, imo
Linda, if you ever venture into a gay bar, you will notice there are straight MEN and WOMEN that go to these clubs. THEY ARE WELCOME AND TREATED WITH RESPECT. They same can be said of straight people that go to gay owned restaurants, that go to gay pride parade.
I have only read of one instance where a straight couple was discriminated against when they went to a gay orientated hotel. While I don't approve of this happening, I am almost glad that it did because it make straight people finally feel discrimination and can only then relate to what a gay person has to go through.
I know you will find this hard to believe but I am sure there are straight men that go to gay bathhouses. I am sure the straight man wouldn't be going to a bath house with the purpose of making friends. He would only be going for one reason and I think you know what that reason would be. I dont think there is one women that has tried going to a straight male only "massage place" or what ever the equivalent is in the straight world so the chance of a women trying to get into a gay bathhouse would be impossible.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
posted on May 27, 2004 04:33:09 PM new
KD - doesn't it seem that only the religious groups shun homosexuality? Do you know of any non-religious groups that do?
No, not really to your first question. And as a matter of fact there are Churches that welcome gays into their fold too. But yes, it's against most religions that I'm aware of.
On your second question:
There are many non-religious people who oppose gay relationships/civil unions/marriages who aren't affiliated with any religious group - they just believe the behavior is morally wrong. We've talked about that before....one does not have to be religious to have good morals.
The only real problem, is the sexual aspect of being gay. Nobody even thinks about the sexual aspect of straight people.
Sure they do. The sexual aspect comes into play in other areas of life too. Pedophilia, child molesters, swinging couples, swapping partners, S&M partners, pornography,etc. We all have made our own decisions/moral judgements about those sexual behaviors too. They too are multi-dimensional people...it's not only about their sexual preferences.
I personally believe part of that is straights and others don't have the same need to tell everyone they're from one of those groups...they haven't formed political partys to push their own agenda. They keep their sexuality to themselves - private. In the gay community they've chosen to make their sexuality their political platform - forcing changes many don't want to see. And we see the results of that.
Are straights just about sex like most people think gays are? Of course not, so why should this be the only real issue as fas as gays go?
To live our lives ....exist...be happy...it doesn't. But when a very tiny minority try to force change on the majority - wanting into an institution that has always been for one man and one woman....it's natural there would be problems/disagreements. And many do believe it would be like saying anyone could get married. It opens up all kinds of different types of relationships that might want to consider themself 'married'. It's not just denying gays....it would be this way if brother and sisters wanted to marry - either so they could or might not have sex....it wouldn't matter. That would be a 'different' type of relationship and should have it's on identifying catagory/name. SOME would find that objectionable either due to their moral standards or their religious beliefs or factual health issues. Just as multi/group marriages called themselves Polygamists and weren't allowed to have a 'different type' of 'marriage', all that was allowed was one man and one woman.
BUT I believe in my heart there are many people out there who wouldn't care one iota who sleeps with whom IF it doesn't infringe on their own life/moral beliefs/religious beliefs. But when it does....as with what we've been discussing ...then they speak out and oppose it.
.....Would they be acceptable? Would they be allowed to marry?
KD - As society changes what was once not acceptable is/has become more acceptable....to some...not to all. Somethings change with time somethings never change.
I'm sure if the issue at hand were not gay marriages, but rather plural marriages you'd be seeing the same reaction against that lifestyle too.
We each have our own morals on most all the issues in life....and because we want to see our moral standards maintained doesn't mean we *hate* others....seen them as substandard in some way....we just choose a different path for ourselves and protect what we have.
posted on May 27, 2004 04:42:10 PM new
Linda:
Why would a gay man want to force himself upon an organization like the Boy Scouts when they don't want them?
That question is like asking a black why he doesn't join the KKK. Why shouldn't a gay man that can help in the development of a child (boy scout) be allowed to help that child (boy scout). Why should a person's sexual orientation come into play? It shouldn't. The Boy scouts fear is that the gay male is trying to pervert or molest the scout and that is why they do not want gays in their organization.
The girl scouts do not discriminate why do the bouy scouts find it necessary to discriminate. Would the boy scouts discriminate against a child raised by gay parents?
What reason would they have except to force acceptance of their sexual behavior on a group that doesn't want to accept it?
When a person joins the boy scouts do they ask what a person's sexual orientation is? I don't think so. How many gay people are serving in the scouts right now hiding their sexual identity? The scouts are not about sex. I don't see straight men teaching the scouts about sexual positions and how to pick up women. So how does one's sexual identity effect the way a scout leader performs or teaches?
The only person that gets hurt in this circumstance is the child. The child is taught that is ok to discriminate against a person because he/she is different than most of child. This is where bigotry is taught and learned.
And why would a gay activist group want to shut down the SA when they know when they hired on they were a religious based organization? Or when a person takes a job in a Church. They could have gone elsewhere...but no...they want to force an organization who's base opposes their sexual behavior. And who will lose out? The community these groups served. That hurts society.
Examples like this are not the norm and few and far between. Your example is just like the doctor or nurse that is against abortion but chooses to take a job in an abortion clinic. I don't know why they do it except they want to draw attention to their own individual cause.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
posted on May 27, 2004 04:43:29 PM new
Well...darn it NearTheSea...and here I was going to praise you for your great summation of what took me 100 posts to say. and you copied it. lol
posted on May 27, 2004 04:50:41 PM new
I don't think society has ever taken an opportunity to understand a gay person - who they are, what they do, what they want in the future.
When homosexuality is brought up, the instant reaction is "It is a sin", "It is wrong". Why because they equate it with sex. Sex between two men. I am sure a good majority of the straight men would love to see two women having sex. That is fine by them. It is only when sex between two men is discussed, does it become wrong and gross.
Since the first gay character was shown on TV, straight people have had a problem with it and it hasn't changed since. Straights will not be happy until the gay person is thrown back into the closest because they do not care/nor what to care about a "lifestyle" that is different than their own.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
Most religions consider homosexuality a sin. Virtually every religion in the world, including all the major ones in this country, consider homosexuality unacceptable. It is offensive and a swipe to the religious freedom of the majority to have to recognize a relationship they consider sinful.
What gives the majority the power to believe their relationship is any better? Is a relationship between a white man and women and better/worse than that between a black man and black woman or between a black and a white person? Is their relationship better because it is simply acceptable or not sinful?
The legal system in the United States evolved out the laws contained in the Bible. We shouldn't go even farther to tear down those laws.
Not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. We don't go chopping a person's hand off because they accidently cut off someone's hand
It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. The 50 percent divorce rate has already weakened the definition of marriage. We shouldn't be taking further steps to define what marriage is. A law allowing gay marriage would increase the number of joke or non-serious marriages, such as a couple of friends who want to save on taxes.
Don't straight people already do this? How many straights go to Vegas to get married? How many straight couples get married just to save on taxes or to get a foreign person from being deported? How many marriage based reality shows are there. If these do not make a joke of marriage, then I am the Pope.
Marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create.
OK Then if the whole reason behind marriage is to procreate, then Bush should pass a constitutional ammendment making it a law that every straight couple that gets married needs to have 2.2 children. How do you explain couples that get married and don't have kids?
It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. The building blocks of our society and the thing that makes it strong is the traditional family of man, woman, and children. It is what has sustained us through two world wars, a great depression, and numerous other challenges over the years. While friends & lovers come and go, your family is always there.
You are correct. Family Values are essential to our society. Taching children to treate everyone with respect,teaching kids that people will have different ideas/views than their own is ok, not to hate, not to steal, not to kill will give a child the right moral values.
The main reason our culture and values have started to crumble is the weakening of families. Introducing another form of "family" would only make the situation worse.
Again I agree with you that the family is weakening, but I think it is caused by parents not spending enough time with their children. Parents rely to much on others for the upbringing of their children.
It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an object could be next). Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the absurd options are endless.
Was this same reasoning used with interracial marriages back in the 50's and 60's? How have inter-racial marriages hurt society? The straights are saying this because that is what they want to believe because they do not have any real reason for defending their position. It is only accusations of what might happen.
The straight community is only guessing what may or may not happen if gays are allowed to marry. I really think the majority of this is based on fear. If given the right to marry, I would feel I would have to live up to a higher standard than the straight community. After all the straight community has already assumed all gays are trying to recruit straights in their ranks, are child molesters, caused the AIDS epidemic, can not be monogamous, can not hold a relationship for more than 2 years. I for one would be ready for that challenge and I am sure most of the gay community would love to prove the straights wrong. After all it is the straights that see gay marriage as the destruction of society as we know it.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
We’re gonna love one another
[ edited by logansdad on May 27, 2004 05:18 PM ]
posted on May 27, 2004 05:14:08 PM new
logansdad - Why shouldn't a gay man that can help in the development of a child (boy scout) be allowed to help that child (boy scout). Why should a person's sexual orientation come into play? It shouldn't.
This is difficult for me to answer....because a part of me wants to quickly say "it shouldn't". But the another part of me understands why a straight father [parents] would feel he/they don't want his/their sons development influenced by a gay man, especially at the age the scout would be...discovering his own sexuality....and this group would involve overnight sleepovers/campouts.
Just like other parents wouldn't want their sons in a religious group...they wouldn't want them to be 'taught/led' by someone who holds different values/morals than they do.
Why couldn't this be solved by just forming a group similar to the BSA and calling it what you want...setting your own bylaws etc? [With other gay fathers.] Like the religious groups do....Baptists groups, Methodist groups,etc.
Another part of me says because you're right....too many parents feel very uncomfortable having a gay man lead their sons. And whether that's right or wrong...it should be their choice, imo.
There are other organizations that would be so very thankful to have your help and influence...you don't need to pick one that holds a different moral standard from yours.
The Boy scouts fear is that the gay male is trying to pervert or molest the scout and that is why they do not want gays in their organization. I agree that is a concern of some. And as one of the links I posted says....schools are having problems now with young people thinking they're gay when they're not...or they're bisexual and their experimenting in those sexual areas. It is a concern whether you/others think it should be or not.
The girl scouts do not discriminate why do the bouy scouts find it necessary to discriminate. Yes they do and there are many articles where mother's have formed their own 'girl scout'-like groups because they didn't agree with the standards/bylaws of the GSA.
Would the boy scouts discriminate against a child raised by gay parents? How would I know? You've got a zillion questions....I never claimed to have all the answers. I would certainly hope not. But they wouldn't be 'out' about their sexuality either as gays tend to be. [more verbal about it] I'd bet. And the boys wouldn't influence the leaders....but a gay leader could influence the boys.
posted on May 27, 2004 05:22:36 PM newExamples like this are not the norm and few and far between.
Few and far between? Nope....happening more and more....and they will continue to take action, just as the ACLU does on these issues.
logansdad - Gays will NEVER force people to accept their way of life if they don't want to. Even if laws are changed.....one doesn't win hearts and minds by forcing themselves on anyone...but rather by their actions....they will be judged.
posted on May 27, 2004 05:31:14 PM new
Linda, I would like to answer each of your questions individually but I would rather just make a general statement.
It would be nice to have individual groups for every type of person/religious belief in the world, but would that really help society in the long run. History has shown us that discrimination/segregation/separate but equal is wrong. I think this is why there should not be separate groups.
As a society they only way we will grow and develop and advance is to learn about those that are different from us.
At work we are taught to work as a team. We are thought that everyone has something to contribute to society. This is the attitude that should be used outside of the workplace if we are to develop as a society. As a society we need to get away from the "US vs "Them" Attitude, but this is easier said than done.
You've got a zillion questions....I never claimed to have all the answers.
Didn't mean to overwhelm you. In my opinion questions make people think - think about their own beliefs, think about things that may be different. It is through thinking and understanding that one learns. I don't take things at face value and thusly I ask a lot of questions to see what makes a person tick.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
posted on May 27, 2004 05:48:40 PM new
logansdad, again.... I didn't write them, there is a page with 'Pros' and 'Cons' since the title of this thread is How does gay marriage hurt society? I thought I would post the 'cons' since that WAS your original question. Here are the 'pros'
Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions). The main reason for denying marriage to gay couples is that all major religions consider homosexuality a sin; however, the First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that a person's religious views or lack thereof must be protected. Marriage by the state is a secular activity; the government cannot start making laws just because a religion says they should. What's next, should we make taking the Lord's name in vain a criminal activity because Christians consider it a breaking of a commandment?
Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples. Marriage is more than a legal status. It affects many things in society such as tax filing status, joint ownership of property, insurance benefits, and agency law. It affects critical medical decisions. For example, if one member of a gay couple that has been together for 20 years gets critically ill, visitation may not even be allowed since the other isn't considered a "spouse or immediate family member". Also, critical medical decisions must often be made when one person is incapacitated; e.g. should a certain surgery be done or not? It is completely unfair to deny these privileges to people because their relationship doesn't fit the state's definition of one.
Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological causation. For too long homosexuality has been considered a form of "deviant sexual behavior". Those making these accusations should examine the history books and the psychological research. Throughout our history going all the way back to ancient Greece, homosexual relationships have existed. The term "lesbian" comes from a Greek island called "Lesbos" where many such couples lived. An overwhelming amount of research has been done showing that homosexuality has a biological causation; not a genetic one, but a biological one. The easiest way to think of it is as a hormonal switch that gets thrown one way or the other. And if you think about it, it makes logical sense. Consider many gays and lesbians you've seen. Not always, but many times, secondary sexual characteristics resemble the opposite sex. In other words, homosexual males often have softer voices. Lesbians may have strong cheekbones and a more masculine body shape. It's all affected by those hormone switches. And why would someone choose to be gay. Do people analyze the situation..."Let's see, I can be discriminated against, ridiculed by friends and co-workers, rejected by my family, told I'm going to hell by the church, subjected to beatings by gay bashers...hmmm, sign me up!" Now, there will be odd cases where people experiment with different types of sex, but you can't just teach people to be gay or not gay for a lifetime.
Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination. America was founded on the concept that the majority should rule, but the rights of minorities should be protected. It is the main reason we have a Bill of Rights as well as anti-slavery and equal protection amendments. Denying marriage to a homosexual couple is no different than denying marriage to Hispanic or black couples.
It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular. A marriage is a relationship between two people. How does it hurt society or people not involved in a marriage? It is a personal commitment that really is no one else's business. Society shouldn't be dictating what two people can or can't do when no one else is hurt in the process. If the church or certain groups disapprove, that's their right, but it isn't their right to stop it.
The only thing that should matter in marriage is love. The number one reason that heterosexuals marry is not to establish legal status, allow joint filing of taxes, or protect each other in medical decision-making. They marry because it is the ultimate expression of a person's love for another. Marriage is a commitment that says I love you so much that I want to live the rest of my life with you. I want to share the ups and downs, forsake all others, and be together until death do us part. Should it matter that the couple doesn't fit into what society is used to?
It encourages people to have strong family values and give up high-risk sexual lifestyles. One of the main arguments against gay marriage is that it would further erode family values; however, the opposite is true. The problems related to sexuality in our society such as STD's stem from carefree, frivolous lifestyles; in other words, having frequent, unprotected sex with many partners. Marriage encourages people to settle down and to give up that type of lifestyle. Married people commit themselves to one partner and work to build a life together. Isn't that the type of behavior we want to encourage?
I hope it will put an end to this very very long thread
posted on May 27, 2004 06:14:37 PM newI don't think society has ever taken an opportunity to understand a gay person - who they are, what they do, what they want in the future.
I don't see that being a gay issue, but rather a human one. Unless you're speaking about it from a gay political activist position. Most people are too busy leading their own lives to be concerned with what even their neighbors want/need/dream/hope for. That's something usually shared with family or close friends or a 'partner'.
Many groups feel they are discriminated against based on their weight...how they're dressed...where they come from...what the do to earn a living...etc. there are many reasons. And to some, none of those reasons matter, just who the person is....as a human being.
When homosexuality is brought up, the instant reaction is "It is a sin", "It is wrong". Why because they equate it with sex. I think that depends on their previous interactions with gays/lesbians. You're overlooking many of those who posted here....that didn't react that way - are you?
Since the first gay character was shown on TV, straight people have had a problem with it and it hasn't changed since. If they like ANY program that's offered they watch it...if not they don't.
Straights will not be happy until the gay person is thrown back into the closest because they do not care/nor what to care about a "lifestyle" that is different than their own. I can only speak for myself. I wouldn't ask that gays 'go back into the closet'. Live your life and let me live mine. Don't be forcing your lifestyle on me and we can live in peace. Let me be around you and learn to like you as a person...rather than judge you by the sexual way some act out at say...the Gay Pride Parades. I don't want to get to know those people and I wouldn't if they were all straights acting/dressing like that. Truly.
posted on May 27, 2004 07:39:10 PM new
out of all these posts, I just want to say one thing:
Linda, The salvaltion army is a very stupid organization when it comes to finances. If anyone remembers that guy in North Carolina who won the 122 million powerball and he wanted to donate some money to them? They refused it because they said it was from gambling and against their christian principles. Well, to me, if their objective is to help the poor, and all things are of God, then they refuted a blessing that was offered to them - which God moved this guys heart to make. They turned it down on principle? wtf when it could have really really helped their main objective? Siteing them anywhere is a an example of pure Christian ignorance to me.
ed to add: I think the Christian Right feels its their mission to not allow gays the rights to unionize based on some of the same principles as above mentioned. However, I also think they forget Jesus forewent a lot of principles that were held at that time to complete his objectives. (Namely preaching on Sundays, hanging out with known sinners, etc.) I have to wonder -- what if -- what if gay marriage is allowed and the promiscuity weans off as they integrate into the realm of marriage like straights do? Maybe that would interrupt the passage of aids, too? Soemthing to think about, Linda.
first of all, for you to bring anything here that Bill Bennett said is VERY SLANTED. He makes Hitler look like a flaming liberal.
Also, Christian Coffee said, "As to being straight, God created me that way". At least someone hear has the balls to say the God created him that way. You don't seem to.
Christian Coffee says,
"As to being straight, God created me that way"
That leads me to this question for you. If God created you that way, and God created all people, then didn't God create gay men and women too??
You also need to understand that your religious belief system, is only that. A belief system. Your beliefs have NOTHING to do with me. They are only between you and your God. That's all.
You also said,
let’s say that in time, 10% of the kids now decide to become homosexual What a laugh! You just contradicted yourself with that statement. You implied that God created you as being straight. Why would anyone have to choose to be gay, if God created them that way. What benefits would "turning gay" bring any person anyway?
They need the stability that a father and a mother offer to them If that is the case, then when a straight couple divorces, why isn't the government taking the children away from them. It seems to me that you should be working towards making marriages work better, rather than placing obstacles in the path of others.
You don't need to tell anybody about the sperm and egg concept. I am sure that most here know that. What you haven't mentioned is that many people get married and choose not to have children. Many can't have children. Here are a few examples. Maybe these people should be tested for the ability to produce children BEFORE they are granted a marriage license.
The couple that simply chooses not to have children and see them as a bother to their careers of lifestyles.
The women who is infertile and can't produce an egg.
The man who has low sperm motility.
The man who used steroids in the past and is now sterile.
The post menopausal woman that can't have children.
The 80+ year old man who no longer produces sperm.
The woman who uses the pill. And many others. Should these people not be granted a marriage license in the fact they can't bear children?
Also, you don't need to imply that a person that has an opinion different than yours in thick skulled.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on May 27, 2004 10:06:50 PM new
neroter - well....you managed to stay quiet for quite a while...while we continued to poster our repetative thoughts.
On the SA...I have a big beef with something one group did in Santa Clara, CA a few years back....and while I can understand how you can see that taking that money would have benefitted the people they help....in that example I think they held to their moral convictions, and I applaud them for doing so.
To me it's like right afte 9-11 when that Saudi prince offered NY mayor that large check....the people of NY SURE could have used that $25M [I believe] but it was a matter of principle...and I admired him for refusing to take it.
1) what if gay marriage is allowed and the promiscuity weans off as they integrate into the realm of marriage like straights do?
2)Maybe that would interrupt the passage of aids, too?
1)Gay marriage MAY come about. I'm hopeful it won't. Would be wonderful if what you suggest were to come about...but I don't see that happening. From everything I've read...and I've read a lot...I don't at all get the impression that would ever happen. They're leaders address that specific issue and they appear to me to be bound and determined to have traditional marriages ACCEPT the way they practice their out-of-relationship - arrangements even if they were to marry. They're pretty vocal about that.
2) That's an area they take too little responsibility for, imho. And there would be too few who would marry anyway. Not enough to really effect the rates of infection. I mean 100/500 or more sexual encounters in their lifetime??? We'd all have aid/hiv if we all were so promiscuous and practicing unsafe sex. Even with all the information that they're aware of this is still what the majority choose. The infection rates were going down there for a while...and now with the new drugs it's going back up. It's like they're in denial about the seriousness of this disease.
And yes....just so no one has to think they need to remind me....others who make risky choices too are more prone to get aids.
But on the whole....no...I wouldn't be willing to agree to the 'experiment' of gay marriage to find out if I'd be proven wrong. I'd love to be proven wrong...but not willing to put traditional marriage and it's historical meaning up to a social experiment.
posted on May 27, 2004 10:11:52 PM newfirst of all, for you to bring anything here that Bill Bennett said is VERY SLANTED. He makes Hitler look like a flaming liberal.
Also, Christian Coffee said, "As to being straight, God created me that way". At least someone hear has the balls to say the God created him that way. You don't seem to.
ROFLMHO
No....I don't have any....I'm FEMALE. WE don't have 'them'.
and yeager - You wouldn't believe anything anyone said...I told you that from the beginning. IF Moses came down from the Mountain and told you himself....you wouldn't believe him either. LOL
posted on May 28, 2004 03:42:06 AM new
Linda, youre right. I havent said much because it seems to all go round and round. While I can appreciate its your choice to accept gay people or not (i.e, like them, approve of lifestyle, etc.), I do think if given the chance they could have what they want which is integration with traditional values, there would be very little harm done to the rest of society. And it might even make it better on a harmonious level for everyone.
Also, I can understand 9-11 not wanting to take money from Saudis because of the Arab connection and it was arabs related who caused the damage; but the SA -- this guy was a Christian. He got caught up in the powerball excitement and bought a few tickets. He was a business man - he wasnt a gambler. Surely that was a blessing (where who knows whereby the money from the saudis came) and it foolish for them to refuse it. God doesnt suffer fools
posted on June 1, 2004 05:10:26 PM new
Well, when I think of those gay people in Mass. getting in their gay cars and coming home from their gay jobs to their gay spouses and eating their gay dinners then watching their gay TV's and brushing their gay teeth with their gay toothbrushes and getting into their gay pj's and going to gay sleep I can see how really dangerous this is to us all. LOL!
posted on June 1, 2004 06:59:18 PM new
Well, when in doubt blame the gays for society's ills. Let's not forget to blame the blacks, the Hispanics, the Jews, the Muslums. . . .single mothers, single fathers, childless couples. . . .
Really, we're all to blame for society's ills. Not one group, not one person. To say that allowing gays to marry will cause the deterioration of family values or anything else is really laughable. The "nuclear" family no longer exists and it stopped existing long before gays came out of the closet. There is no place in today's society for the homophobics. Stop worrying about what others are doing and start worry about yourselves.
posted on June 3, 2004 02:04:46 PM new
yeager, here's the answer to your question.
If marriage is redefined to include others besides a man and a woman - where does it stop?
Does it stop being marriage when a man wants to marry his 10 yr old daughter or niece?
Does it stop when a woman wants to marry her german shephard?
These examples may sound silly but think about American society as it is today. Americans are litigation happy. Everyone is suing everyone else. The ACLU has gone completely off the deep end and the only thing that matters to most Americans is what matters to them individually.
NAMBLA already has the ACLU on their side suing to allow men to have sex with boys. If tradiotional marriage is redefined how long do you think it will take for the NAMBLA guys or any other wackos to jump on the bandwagon?
Don't even say it won't happen. This type of lunacy is contagoius and unfortunately most Americans have the lunacy disease.
I'm not gay bashing - I have several friends who are gay and I love them dearly. I'm not against civil unions for gays, that's a fair and judicious course of action.
Just don't mess with marriage as we know it. Redefining marriage will open up a Pandora's box and we as a nation will be forever changed. Not for the better!!!
posted on June 3, 2004 02:17:52 PM new
Capolady: Just don't mess with marriage as we know it. Redefining marriage will open up a Pandora's box and we as a nation will be forever changed. Not for the better!!!
What crystal ball are you looking into when you saw the future. How the heck do you know the nation will be forever changed and not for the better? Do you have a time machine?
With that attitude blacks would still be slaves, forced to sit in the back of the bus, forced to attend separate schools, women would not have equal rights and would not have the right to an abortion.
Why don't we just get rid of marriage all together and end this ridiculous debate of what may or may not happen?
Civil unions for every one.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
posted on June 3, 2004 02:57:15 PM new
Besides kerry not supporting gay marriages.....wonder where he'll end up on the topic of gays in the military. Appears by his position there may be some question about just what position he'll end up taking.
In the WT, today:
Ms. Anderson [campaign spokeswoman] had no comment on whether Mr. Kerry, as president, would move to end the ban on open homosexuals in the military. As a senator, he has opposed the prohibition. But he also has said that commanders in some units should have the flexibility to exclude homosexuals to protect unit cohesion.
Protect unit cohesion???? Wonder what he means by that?
the article continues:
Mr. Clinton began his first term by trying to lift the ban, but ended up signing a defense bill that codified the restriction. If Mr. Kerry wants to change the policy, he would need the approval of Congress.
Kind of gives one the impression that it isn't
ONLY a Republican President that makes decisions concerning the lives of gay people.
I do just love all the 'no comments' his spokespeople keep giving on the 'hot topics' he tries to avoid answering.
Re-elect President Bush!!
This topic is 11 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new11new
and you copied it. lol