George Bush vs. Tolerance

[Tweek]

The latest addition to why I don't like the man.

How dare he try to make it illegal for homosexual people to get married?! What kind of message is that sending? "The president is intolerant!"

The sanctity of marriage would not be harmed by two men or two women getting married. Divorce is the enemy of marriage, not homosexuals. There's an outcry for the banning of gay marriage but not for the banning of idiots getting married (ahem JLO).

I cannot begin to wrap my mind around the logic of this.

[bmain77]

Screw tolerance...people need to move beyond that and get to acceptance. With tolerance is still possibly hating something, but you're keeping your mouth shut about it. Acceptance is "hey what you're doing is not bothering me or the public at large life so do whatever floats your boat". Thats where we need to get. As long as one is being hurt who why should anyone care.

But in this case thats not even the point. Even if you are against for religious reasons or whatever you have to admit their are bigger fish to fry out there by our government. Hello there are way too many people dying in Iraq. Our education sysytem is dying. We have so many kids with no form of health insurance. I could go on and on...but still time is being taken up on all levels of government, from local up to the federal leve, with trying to pass laws against homosexuals gettiing marriend. Hello....where are your priorities at?

[outsyder]

Frankly, each religion can practice whatever they want. That's the point of calling it a religion. So if any Synagogue, Church, Mosque, or temple turns away a gay couple looking for marriage, so be it.

Of course, the government should have it's own way of recognizing the unnofficial marriage of homosexuals, in order to provide them tax benefits, etc.

As far as having them recognized as an officially married couple by a religious group? Government should have nothing to do with that.



Just another state vs. religion matter.

[Tweek]

yes! exactly!

if a church, synagogue or whatever wants to turn away a homosexual couple, they can.

The law shouldn't interfer!

[bowieee]

Originally posted by outsyder

Of course, the government should have it's own way of recognizing the unnofficial marriage of homosexuals, in order to provide them tax benefits, etc.

.

Yeah their unofficial way of recognizing should be called marriage with a marriage certificate just like anyone elses. The government is the one letting religion get in the way not vice versa. If only religous people could get officially married there would be alot of non married athiests out there. It just comes down to the fact that as a country we are really hypocritical. We are the land of democracy as long as you don't offend our fundamentalist ideals.

[Moviefan1234]

It honestly baffles me to try to understand how Bush can say some of the things he does about gay marriage. To me, marriage is between two people who love each other regardless of age, race, or sex. If they truly love each other we have no right to exclude them from marriage.

[JohnTheHenchman]

But as crazy as we all think that Bush is, there are millions of people that agree with him wholeheartedly. Even Kerry's stance on gay marriage isn't cool.

But I'm not a fan of tolerance, because asking someone to tolerate something is not quite right. It's forcing someone to hold back feelings they have. If a person believes that homosexuals should not be allowed to get married, they are entitled to that opinion, what is wrong, however, is when that opinion crosses the line of possibly becoming law.

The constitution was made to limit the power of government, not the rights of the people. The founding fathers would be turning in their graves.

[Moviefan1234]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
But as crazy as we all think that Bush is, there are millions of people that agree with him wholeheartedly. Even Kerry's stance on gay marriage isn't cool.


I've always gotten from him that he agrees with gay marriage, but he can't come out and say it because he'd lose a lot of votes.

[JCR]

Originally posted by Moviefan1234
I've always gotten from him that he agrees with gay marriage, but he can't come out and say it because he'd lose a lot of votes.

Ah that sort of thing annoys the fuck outta me. Say what you want about bush but at least he stays true to his aims. e.g. When they were state governors I find bush signing execution orders he actually believed in to be a lot more honourable than Clinton signing execution orders he almost certainly privately disagreed with for political capital.

And yes, this is the 1st and last time you'll ever hear me say anything positive about bush on this board. :D

[Raoul Duke]

I hate it when people use the 'sanctity of marriage' as a defence against homosexuals getting married. Uh, excuse me, sanctity? Do you consider this so called 'sanctity' to be best represented with another reality tv show? The Littlest Groom, Which of these gold digging whores wants to marry a fake millionaire, perhaps? Give me a break. It's time to evolve as a society, change is good.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by Moviefan1234
I've always gotten from him that he agrees with gay marriage, but he can't come out and say it because he'd lose a lot of votes.

I remember reading an article in a magazine about a friend of his, who came out of the closet, Bush was more than accepting.

The guy doesn't hate gays, I do believe that he's just doing it to have the support of the many who believe gays should not get married.

[Tweek]

if he's trying to appeal to a certain voter demographic, it's understandable then.
But I'm still insulted by the fact that he's tried to get gay marriage banned.
Get the damn reality dating shows banned!

[Morgana]

I think with the current divorce rate the "sanctity of marriage" went out the window a long time ago. Maybe it never had any sanctity to begin with since for many centuries marriages were arranged. Love was not always the reason why people got married.

I fail to see why gay marriages are even an issue with the many problems this country is having. If people love each other and they want to make a commitment to each other I say lay them. Doesn't matter what sexual orientation they are.

[KcMsterpce]

Maybe Bush is just afraid that gay marriages will last longer and have a lower divorce rate than straight marriages .

Then he'll think that because of this, the rest of America will become homosexuals, and Bush would then have to come out of the closet, therefore divorcing his wife, ensuring yet another notch on the hedro-divorce percentage rate.
It will be a viscious cycle. He'll then become a single older male looking for love in all the wrong places, and finding the men he likes are younger, stronger, and unavailable. They'll already have loves of their own that are more capable than him, and he'll be left alone and deserted by his wife and kids.

That could be the reason Bush is so hesitant about the legalization of gay marriages. He doesn't want to be left alone.
:rolleyes:

[Grim H.]

I have always held firm to the belief that any truly secular government could not legally ban gays the right to marry. Since most of the arguments against homosexuality are derived from religion. If there are any reasonable godless reasons why Homosexuality or gay marriage should be outlawed, I haven't heard them. Most of the opposition is from religous groups. The only argument I've found that isn't really religous is...

"But being gay is against nature!"

Yeah, well so is sitting on your ass for 8 hours a day watching "Hiraldo!"

Get over it, there are bigger things to complain about.

And the whole "Sanctity of marriage" thing? Don't get me started on this. As Raoul Duke already mentioned, how many people honestly keep the "sanctity of marriage" clause seriously. They say "till death do us part," but most marriages end long before that day comes. Sanctity, I think not.

I think the main reason people fear it is change. Change can frighten anyone in large enough doses. People aren't use to seeing two people of the same sex married (and, especially with kids). But even long ago interracial marriage was illegal, and today that seems really stupid (well, not to everyone of course.) And hey, why not let them adopt kids? I don't see any of these anti-gay adoption leaders offering to adopt any of these kids. If anything, at least more orphaned children in this world will have a place to call home. I think that a hundred years from now, we'll remember how we looked at gay unions, and we'll realiize how stupid it really was...

But that's just my two cents.

[Jon Lyrik]

Every time someone tells me they are against gay marriage because it's against the sanctity of traditional marriage, my bullshit detector goes off the charts.

Like what Grim said, what sanctity does marriage still have when the divorce rate is up to, from what I last saw, 60%? What harm will gay marriage do?

For all the people who I have stumbled into that are against gay marriage, and have not given me the answer above, it's almost always for religious reasons.

Religion. Honestly, I'm a Catholic, but law and religion do not mix. It's not just against the Constitution, but theocracy have never worked. And the country should not undermine minorities if they are supposed to have equal rights because some people are against it for religious reasons (and possibly prejuidice reasons).

[bob]

I really think it's a shame that politicians have to pander to public opinion on most subjects, because the public can be very close-minded about it. I don't even see how someone could honestly think that two people deserved reduced rights just because of their sexual orientation.

[TheDeadWalk]

I am for gay marriages.

The best argument I've heard against gay marriages was that there would be an uprising of people taking advantage of the system. Blood brothers would be marrying each other, cousins, relatives, friends of even the same sex not for love, but for the 'benefits' that come in marriage, especially insurance.

The only fear here is that it will cause somewhat of an inflation with the insurance premiums and other benefits that get taken out of your paycheck that cover for you and your family.

While that's a reality, I don't think its going to actually cause any inflation. If we are to look down upon that, and ban same sex marriages because of that, then we must start cracking down on other marriages such as the people that marry Russian mail-order brides and bring them into the United States. They do not marry out of love, they simply want to leave their country and become a citizen along with snatching up all of the American incentives.

[Grebdron]

But marriage is supposed to be about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.:rolleyes:

I hate this world.

[Annie Hall]

I believe that two people who love each other should be able to do whatever they damn well please and legally be aloud to publically celebrate their relationship.

A country where two consenting adults who love each other are forbade from gettting married because, in huge part, of the Bible is one that needs to seriously reexamine its values. At least in my mind.

Nothing against the Catholic or Christian religions, but I firmly believe that decisions of state should not be decided by the christian right. Anyone recall the separation of church and state?

[jeo4]

I'm mostly neutral about this issue, but my own stance is that of a heterosexual Christian. It isn't wrong to love someone and have a partnership with him/her. However, marriage for thousands of years has been regarded as man and woman. Not only does the Bible say this, but society has dicatated it as long as there has been an institution of marriage. It seems fair to grant legal privileges to gay couples the same as those who are heterosexual. While America has granted freedom of press, speech, religion, and so on, it hasn't kept church and state separated very well. I side with gay unions because I can look at both sides and say: Which is worse...a gay couple who love each other want a partnership and equal legal rights the same as a married heterosexual couple, or a Priest who rapes altar boys and then sweeps it under the rug, thus scarring the child for life and destroying the faith established by his church for thousands of years?

My only quip is an extension of Greb's comment...if "Adam and Steve" are okay, then how long until those who are sexually attracted to children, biological relatives or animals come forward and claim they are being treated unfairly? I think that clear boundaries need to be established and maintained on this matter.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by jeo4
My only quip is an extension of Greb's comment...if "Adam and Steve" are okay, then how long until those who are sexually attracted to children, biological relatives or animals come forward and claim they are being treated unfairly? I think that clear boundaries need to be established and maintained on this matter.

You do know that was in jest, right?

Right?

I would tend to agree with limits. But I think we need a fairly liberal idea of what "deviant" is. What goes on between two adults is none of our business. Children, animals, etc. should obviously remain off limits.

I'm personally split on the issue of relatives. As long as they don't reproduce, I don't give a shit.

[jeo4]

I understand you were joking. I think we are on the same plane, here. Limits are important. That was my main point in grabbing your joke and running with it. Sorry for the confusion.

[Tweek]

My only quip is an extension of Greb's comment...if "Adam and Steve" are okay, then how long until those who are sexually attracted to children, biological relatives or animals come forward and claim they are being treated unfairly? I think that clear boundaries need to be established and maintained on this matter.



But pedophilia, incest, and beastiality are illegal.
Not homosexuality

[RicochetShaw]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman

The constitution was made to limit the power of government, not the rights of the people. .

Incorrect. The constitution was written to constitute a government. There was a Confederacy of America for 10 years before the United States Republic was initated, the Confederacy failed. As a result James Madison wrote up the Constitution to constitute and outline a Democratic Republic of the USA. If anything, it was written to strengthen the government. The reason the confederacy failed is because it was too lenient on its tax laws and such, and as a result the country was going bankrupt. The constitution was then written with things like taxes in mind, to strengthen the government.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Tweek
But pedophilia, incest, and beastiality are illegal.
Not homosexuality

True. (So far.) Let's keep it that way. ;)

[ANavissi500]

You can't say that gay marriages will lead to inter-species ones. Besides being flat out absurd, it is also impossible: Animals can't sign marriage certificates.

[SLAW]

I find homosexuality compared to such deviance as pedophilia, beastiality, and incest very insulting to the gay community.

[Benny]

I can see why one would oppose gay marriage (I don't), but the whole Constitutional Amendment thing is just absurd! Amendments should not limit our rights, they should expand them. Bush obviously never learned of the failure of prohibition.

[flowrchild]

Originally posted by Annie Hall
I believe that two people who love each other should be able to do whatever they damn well please and legally be aloud to publically celebrate their relationship.

Sing it, Annie!

And yes, saying that President Bush is intolerant is a heavy understated truth. Bush doesn't like or support people who aren't in exactly his social class and exhibit his lifestyle choices.

The only thing he seems to have a high tolerance for is alcoholic beverages.

[Annie Hall]

Originally posted by flowrchild
The only thing he seems to have a high tolerance for is alcoholic beverages.

BOOM ;)

[James Logan]

Marriage is about love. Not genitalia. When the priest has you come up to the alter, does he go...

"Robby Robertson, do you want to love and cherish this woman (for the time being)..." and blah-blah-blah

...or does he go....

"Robby Robertson, do you have a penis? And does this woman have a vagina? Cause honestly, as long as you can fork into one another like a Fischer Price shape-fitting toy, that's all we care about".

Huh?

If two people love each other and want to stay with each other as long as they live, then they should be able to get married. Gay, lesbians, straight.

And to those who want to avoid people "taking advantage of the system" or who want to "protect the sanctity of marriage"? Look into what J.Lo is doing. Look into Britney Spears getting married drunk in Vegas. Look into how many divorces there are in every damn developed country in the world nowadays. The problems are there. Not with the gay people.

[ANavissi500]

Originally posted by SLAW
I find homosexuality compared to such deviance as pedophilia, beastiality, and incest very insulting to the gay community.

EXACTLY!!!

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by SLAW
I find homosexuality compared to such deviance as pedophilia, beastiality, and incest very insulting to the gay community.

Yes, exactly. Sex between two consenting adults is just that, and it doesn't harm anybody (bar possible STDs). Fucking a little kid is harmful to that kid. Fucking an animal...ok, I don't want to go there.

[Scarface98.9]

I don't see how making an amendment barring gay marriages will preserve "the sancity of marriage." Encouraging gay marriage may decrease the overall divorce rate, and wouldn't harm anyone. Or as Greg Giraldo once said:

"Gay people should be forced to get married so they can be as miserable as us straight couples."

[ANavissi500]

So the little ticker on Headline News said they were voting on the gay marriage amendment next month some time. Crazy times we live in.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Tweek
But pedophilia, incest, and beastiality are illegal.
Not homosexuality


And once upon a time blacks were not considered people, and were not allowed to eat, shop and bleed in the same places as white people and it was considered legal. Drinking alcohol and sodomy was considered illegal once as well.

But what happened was some well-minded individuals with very good lawyers came along and changed the laws and set precedents. And that's what has to be thought of when considering gay marriages.

The same argument one can make for gay marriages can be made for a 35 year old man to have a relationship with a 10 year old boy. Both unions are considered by many to be wrong and the law is very tricky when it comes to drawing lines that don't come off as bias or unfair to other parties.

Its very reasonable to believe that once gay marriages are made legal and honored that some weasely little lawyer from NAMBLAS won't petition the courts with a very convinicing piece of writing that uses the precedent of Gay Marriages as an argument for the legality of adults to be able to engage in sexual acts with a minor.

Keep in mind I'm playing devil's advocate here. I have no problem with gay marriages and don't buy that "sanctity" argument for a damn second. I know the difference between pedophillia and homosexuality. But when you have to phrase the difference in the language of the law the line can become blurred. The law can be manipulated to degrees that would make your head spin. The same law that can be used to make social change for the better can still be used to make change for the worse.

I'm sure this reason isn't the one that popped up immediately into conservative politicians' heads when the prospect of gay marriage entered the social arena, but I'm sure when they were looking for a legal way to oppose the matter they eventually ran across this little pitfall.

[Tweek]

And once upon a time blacks were not considered people, and were not allowed to eat, shop and bleed in the same places as white people and it was considered legal. Drinking alcohol and sodomy was considered illegal once as well.


Sodomy is still illegal in some parts isn't it?



Yes, blacks were segregated. But that has nothing to do with pedophilia, incest, or beastiality.

Because even though african americans were segregated, was it illegal and criminal to be black? No one in america (I think) got arrested on site and convicted JUST for being black... Because if that were to happen, that would be the biggest over crowding of the prison system ever...

NAMBLA can try to make their habits legal... But despite everything, our government has some sense of morality and ethics. The change would have to go through a LOT of people, and no matter how good the lawyers are, they can't change the laws themselves.


And whoever tries should get beaten severely.



Keep in mind I'm playing devil's advocate here.

i know. i know.



But gay marriage hasn't been illegal right? Hasn't it only been mostly up to churches and whatever governing bodies they go to?
They're looking to make it illicit now.
And if there's no ban on gay marriage, there's no basis for any argument by whatever group.
Because (if im right) gay marriage was not illegal and their perversion is.

oi...

[ANavissi500]

Originally posted by Tweek
Sodomy is still illegal in some parts isn't it?



There was a sodomy case, in Texas, that went to Supreme Court and they won so all the sodomy laws have been overturned.

[Jim H]

Personally, I think it is one thing to be against gay marriage, and another to want to have it CONSTITUITIONALLY BANNED. The first I strongly disagree with, but I can at least get a slight understanding of... The latter is just insanity, and there is no chance of it happening anyways.

It's also slightly ironic that so many conservatives support the amendment, but at the same time supposedly believe in strong state rights. Sure ya do.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by SLAW
I find homosexuality compared to such deviance as pedophilia, beastiality, and incest very insulting to the gay community.

I take it that this is directed toward my comment. Try reading the whole post, first. And no, it wasn't a dig. It was intended to make a valid point,. electriclite made several valid points as well. How far is too far??

[Jim H]

Originally posted by jeo4
I take it that this is directed toward my comment. Try reading the whole post, first. And no, it wasn't a dig. It was intended to make a valid point,. electriclite made several valid points as well. How far is too far??

When people can't give consent, then it is wrong. Children can not give consent, animals lack the intelligence to. Incest should be discouraged for health reasons, but.. Meh.

It isn't wrong to love someone and have a partnership with him/her. However, marriage for thousands of years has been regarded as man and woman. Not only does the Bible say this, but society has dicatated it as long as there has been an institution of marriage.

That's not really accurate. It is generally accurate in western civilization since Christianity's rise in the Roman empire, but before that there were gay marriages in Rome. Other cultures also have historically had gay marriages, such as the American Indians and many areas in Asia.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by jeo4
However, marriage for thousands of years has been regarded as man and woman.



It's the shit from thousands of years ago that got Jesus nailed to a cross.

[ANavissi500]

I just read that George Bush doesn't want gay couples to adopt children. If he was reelected could he enact legislation to 1) stop it? (I'm sure he could) 2) Take existing children away from their gay parents? (This is my real question.)

[countchocula]

Link? I doubt that such a law would ever be passed. It's too asinine, even more so than banning gay marriage. I'd be more concerned with a potentially abusive parent adopting a child. But hey, if they're straight, it's A-OK.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Grebdron

I'm personally split on the issue of relatives. As long as they don't reproduce, I don't give a shit.

Here is the problem with changing laws. Where does it stop? I am not against two gay people who love each other making a committment to be together etc (Marriage) but when you start to change the marriage laws it gets really cloudy. If a couple of first cousins want to get married and they love each other and want to have kids then who are we to stand in their way (using the same analogy as for gay marriage?) and who are we to stand in the way if they want to have kids? People who are not related have kids that are genetically impaired too.

It's called the slippery slope- the same slope that took abortion at 3 months to the issue of where Partial birth abortion became legal (stabbing a baby through the head to kill it moments before it is technically born).

part of the problem with our society is that as the rules keep changing to make them nicer to the individual, society as a whole is damaged. Look at the court system. Lots of wacky leniencies that let criminals back on the street to kill again.

When I am going to have a probelm with gay marriage is when the schools start teaching that gay marriage is just as right as heterosexual marriage. While I do not mind if gay people get married, it is totally against the beleifs of my religion and I have the right to teach my own kids that as Christians God has taught us to behave differently. Homosexuality is not an accepted lifestyle according to the biblcal teachings but of course everyone has the right to choose to beleive as they will -I just will have a problem with other people reaching into my right to teach my kids my religion. That is the difference. I do think that kids should be taught by their parents and their teachers to be nice to everyone and not to make fun of anyone.

[countchocula]

Originally posted by Lynn7
When I am going to have a probelm with gay marriage is when the schools start teaching that gay marriage is just as right as heterosexual marriage. While I do not mind if gay people get married, it is totally against the beleifs of my religion and I have the right to teach my own kids that as Christians God has taught us to behave differently. Homosexuality is not an accepted lifestyle according to the biblcal teachings but of course everyone has the right to choose to beleive as they will -I just will have a problem with other people reaching into my right to teach my kids my religion. That is the difference. I do think that kids should be taught by their parents and their teachers to be nice to everyone and not to make fun of anyone.

Gay marriage itself has nothing to do with religion. If you don't bring Christianity into this (which schools shouldn't), gay marriage is just as "right" as heterosexual marriage. I don't see why you wouldn't want teachers to promote tolerance and acceptance. It's not as if they'll be screening gay pornos in the gymnasium. If you want schools to respect everyone's theological beliefs, it should be left up to the students to decide how they feel about gay marriage. I only see the issue being brought up in class as a statistic or a cold fact in a textbook.

[Moviefan1234]

Originally posted by Lynn7
When I am going to have a probelm with gay marriage is when the schools start teaching that gay marriage is just as right as heterosexual marriage.

Isn't there a flip side to the coin? Perhaps homosexual students feel the same way you do, maybe they are bothered that in the classroom everyone assumes male/female marriage is normal and should absolutely be the only way.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by countchocula
Gay marriage itself has nothing to do with religion. If you don't bring Christianity into this (which schools shouldn't), gay marriage is just as "right" as heterosexual marriage. I don't see why you wouldn't want teachers to promote tolerance and acceptance. It's not as if they'll be screening gay pornos in the gymnasium. If you want schools to respect everyone's theological beliefs, it should be left up to the students to decide how they feel about gay marriage. I only see the issue being brought up in class as a statistic or a cold fact in a textbook.

I agree with your intial point. It is a religious issue and does not belong in school. School is for math,science etc. But schools are getting more and more involved in telling kids what is morally right and wrong and that is when schools step into fields that they have no business in. In general kids should be taught to respect each other and that people are different. That is it. The rest should be the right of the parent.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Moviefan1234
Isn't there a flip side to the coin? Perhaps homosexual students feel the same way you do, maybe they are bothered that in the classroom everyone assumes male/female marriage is normal and should absolutely be the only way.

Absolutely. Sexuality should not be in the schools at all. If people are teaching against homosexuality in public school that is just as wrong.

[Moviefan1234]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Absolutely. Sexuality should not be in the schools at all. If people are teaching against homosexuality in public school that is just as wrong.

I agree with you 100% on that one. Sexuality is one of the topics that shouldn't and really can't be taught in schools or be determined by the government. It should be an individual choice.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Absolutely. Sexuality should not be in the schools at all. If people are teaching against homosexuality in public school that is just as wrong.

That was pretty much how they did it in my school. Sexuality was not really discussed, only the barest aspects of it. I hear these days they show you how to put on condoms on in some areas (they didn't when I was in sex ed, which was like 10 years ago), which causes the religious to complain. Heh, they should see sex ed in some of the UK, where they literally teach you HOW to have sex - more than just mechanics, but how to achieve the most pleasure.

[ANavissi500]

Originally posted by Moviefan1234
I agree with you 100% on that one. Sexuality is one of the topics that shouldn't and really can't be taught in schools or be determined by the government. It should be an individual choice.

I don't think that sexuality is a matter of choice - its genetic.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by ANavissi500
I don't think that sexuality is a matter of choice - its genetic.
I think that in some cases this is correct. It seems that some people are born with an attraction to people of the same sex. For others it seems like choice (like in the case of Anne Heche). I have known a lot of gay people and of course each has a different story. Some are really into rebellion and acting out and shocking people and some just want to settle down and have a regular boring family life (same sex).

[Moviefan1234]

Originally posted by ANavissi500
I don't think that sexuality is a matter of choice - its genetic.

I've always thought that the genetic part kind of goes hand in hand with the a certain individuals choice. Some homosexuals chose to follow their feelings while others make the choice to live a life of what is seen by society as the majority.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Moviefan1234
I've always thought that the genetic part kind of goes hand in hand with the a certain individuals choice. Some homosexuals chose to follow their feelings while others make the choice to live a life of what is seen by society as the majority.

I tend to think sexuality is both genetic and upbringing - nature AND nurture. Almost everything is.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Moviefan1234
Some homosexuals chose to follow their feelings while others make the choice to live a life of what is seen by society as the majority.





Or go into "the Priesthood".....

[countchocula]

Originally posted by Moviefan1234
I've always thought that the genetic part kind of goes hand in hand with the a certain individuals choice. Some homosexuals chose to follow their feelings while others make the choice to live a life of what is seen by society as the majority.

It might be the individual's choice to act on desire, but your sexual orientation isn't a choice. I didn't choose to be straight. I just am. I never had to sit down and mull it over.

Lynn, in the case of the bisexual, it seems that they don't choose between men and women. They're just attracted to people. Their playing field is vast because they pay no mind to your outer shell. I hate to speak on behalf of bisexuals, but I don't think that I'm too far off.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by countchocula


Lynn, in the case of the bisexual, it seems that they don't choose between men and women. They're just attracted to people. Their playing field is vast because they pay no mind to your outer shell. I hate to speak on behalf of bisexuals, but I don't think that I'm too far off.


I dunno, I'm one of those that believes bisexuality is "Just a layover to gaytown.";)

[Moviefan1234]

Originally posted by countchocula
It might be the individual's choice to act on desire, but your sexual orientation isn't a choice. I didn't choose to be straight. I just am. I never had to sit down and mull it over.


I know that, I was just referring to those who ignore their true feelings to try to fit in the confines of society. It's something that's always bothered me, and I wish it wasn't the case.

[SLAW]

Originally posted by Lynn7
When I am going to have a probelm with gay marriage is when the schools start teaching that gay marriage is just as right as heterosexual marriage. While I do not mind if gay people get married, it is totally against the beleifs of my religion and I have the right to teach my own kids that as Christians God has taught us to behave differently. Homosexuality is not an accepted lifestyle according to the biblcal teachings but of course everyone has the right to choose to beleive as they will -I just will have a problem with other people reaching into my right to teach my kids my religion. That is the difference. I do think that kids should be taught by their parents and their teachers to be nice to everyone and not to make fun of anyone.

It's imposible to stop people from talking. Surely in social studies class they talk about current events. They may discuss. Just as a warning: if you're kids come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a perfectly fine lifestyle, it's no one's fault. Luckily the christian views on this is starting to decline and one day homosexuals will have the same rights. Bill Maher said it best when i saw him the other night. He gave his response to people who ask him why it's important to him that gays have the right to marry and why we can't settle on civil unions? "Because I need to know that we're all drinking from the same water fountain or we're not." I need to know as well.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by SLAW
It's imposible to stop people from talking. Surely in social studies class they talk about current events. They may discuss. Just as a warning: if you're kids come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a perfectly fine lifestyle, it's no one's fault. Luckily the christian views on this is starting to decline and one day homosexuals will have the same rights. Bill Maher said it best when i saw him the other night. He gave his response to people who ask him why it's important to him that gays have the right to marry and why we can't settle on civil unions? "Because I need to know that we're all drinking from the same water fountain or we're not." I need to know as well.

I don't mind if the social studies class talks about current events but there is often a teacher who is trying to push their own personal political agenda and their own moral code on to other people's kids.

The Christian vew on homosexuality is not starting to decline- people are falling away from the biblical teachings. Bill Maher mocks God and religion. His beliefs are fine for those who have rejected God but don't go following him as a model if you haven't rejected God.

My feeling is that the bible teaches certain things and people who want to commit to following God's teachings will attempt to follow these teachings even if it means denying their own wishes. For instance Britney Spears' new fiance would not be marrying Britney Spears - he would be staying with the mother of his two young children. God is not impressed with "But God, she is so hot and rich and my girlfriend and my kids are holding me back from what I WANT to do" As a Christian you have to give that stuff up. Sexuality and riches take a back seat to the spiritual. The spiritual is much more rewarding then a life of dissipation.

[SLAW]

This is very exhausting. How the hell do you do it? I'll just say that Bill Maher just isn't a fan of organized religon, but believes a person's relationship with God is their own business and even he has a certain faith. He hasn't given up on God and really, neither have I.

We can speak more of him in my Maher thread.

[Tweek]

Originally posted by electriclite
I dunno, I'm one of those that believes bisexuality is "Just a layover to gaytown.";)


I want to laugh... and i want to be offended by that.


:-\

[countchocula]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I don't mind if the social studies class talks about current events but there is often a teacher who is trying to push their own personal political agenda and their own moral code on to other people's kids.

I agree (!). There are still objective, impartial teachers out there, though. In my Creative Writing class, we had a squillion political/religious debates, but our teacher never took a side. She moderated the discussions and kept everyone in line. She never imposed her beliefs on us, although she very well could have (I later found out that she was a lesbian).

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by countchocula
I agree (!). There are still objective, impartial teachers out there, though. In my Creative Writing class, we had a squillion political/religious debates, but our teacher never took a side. She moderated the discussions and kept everyone in line. She never imposed her beliefs on us, although she very well could have (I later found out that she was a lesbian).

I have had some really great teachers like that too. I have also had a few of the others unfortuantely. I believe a teacher should present different sides of an issue and then leave it alone. But having said that I think sexuality should be left out of school when it involves the younger kids.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by SLAW
This is very exhausting. How the hell do you do it?

I am just giving my very own opinion on these issues but you should realize that my opinion is shared by millions of other people. I am not exhausted reading your point of view, especially since I used to be on that side of the fence. I just don't agree with those opinions any longer.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by SLAW
This is very exhausting. How the hell do you do it? I'll just say that Bill Maher just isn't a fan of organized religon, but believes a person's relationship with God is their own business and even he has a certain faith. He hasn't given up on God and really, neither have I.

We can speak more of him in my Maher thread.

In the bible Jesus says if you're luke warm he'll spit you out. Not my words. :D
But to be proper here is the way he says it:
"So, because you are lukewarm-neither hot nor cold-I am about to spit you out of my mouth" Rev 3:16

[ANavissi500]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I think that in some cases this is correct. It seems that some people are born with an attraction to people of the same sex. For others it seems like choice (like in the case of Anne Heche). I have known a lot of gay people and of course each has a different story. Some are really into rebellion and acting out and shocking people and some just want to settle down and have a regular boring family life (same sex).


I think that people like Anne Heche are an anomaly. Perhaps she is gay and decided it would hinder he career. Perhaps she was garnering publicity. There are countless gay people forced to live a life that isn't their own because of social norms. That is why coming out of the closet is a big deal - the people that do are rejecting the fact that society forced them into a niche that is not their own. The point of the story is sexuality is not a choice - some people may experiment because they are curious or what have you, but at the end of the day they know who they are. Like countchocula said, you don't wake up one day and actively pick. If that were the case I doubt there would be a gay population. A life of inequality and unacceptance is not a life that most people want.

[SLAW]

Originally posted by Lynn7
In the bible Jesus says if you're luke warm he'll spit you out. Not my words. :D
But to be proper here is the way he says it:
"So, because you are lukewarm-neither hot nor cold-I am about to spit you out of my mouth" Rev 3:16

I don't trust the bible's sources.

[Jim H]

That is why coming out of the closet is a big deal - the people that do are rejecting the fact that society forced them into a niche that is not their own. The point of the story is sexuality is not a choice - some people may experiment because they are curious or what have you, but at the end of the day they know who they are.

Well, there's also the general belief by most people who have deeply studied sexual behavior that no one is completely 100% straight or gay. Almost all straight people, if deeply psychologically probed, show some slight inklings the other way. And vice versa.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by SLAW
I don't trust the bible's sources.

The bible is the entire foundation of our faith. Without trust in it you can't really understand Christianity at all. a lot of people reject the bible and just believe in what they think is right. The problem with this is that they have no authority over the universe so I would never put my faith in them. For instance if Bill Maher tells us that he has a certain kind of faith and then states what it is i would want to know what he bases it on. If he answers its just what I believe I'd have to ask, "Who are you and what authortity do you have over the world?'

The bible was written my many different people from many different walks of life and yet there are prophecies stated and answered and there are so many different situations that meld together intricately in a way none of the individaul writers could have even known.Before Jesus was even born there were prophecies written in Isaiah and Psalms that told about his crucifixion and what it would mean. Those writers had no way of knowing what Jesus was going to be unless it was revealed by God. People need to study it before they dismiss it as nonsense.

[SLAW]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The bible is the entire foundation of our faith. Without trust in it you can't really understand Christianity at all. a lot of people reject the bible and just believe in what they think is right. The problem with this is that they have no authority over the universe so I would never put my faith in them. For instance if Bill Maher tells us that he has a certain kind of faith and then states what it is i would want to know what he bases it on. If he answers its just what I believe I'd have to ask, "Who are you and what authortity do you have over the world?'

Who are you and what authority do you have over the world?

The bible was written my many different people from many different walks of life and yet there are prophecies stated and answered and there are so many different situations that meld together intricately in a way none of the individaul writers could have even known.Before Jesus was even born there were prophecies written in Isaiah and Psalms that told about his crucifixion and what it would mean. Those writers had no way of knowing what Jesus was going to be unless it was revealed by God. People need to study it before they dismiss it as nonsense.

Sorry, that's just more of a deterrent from the bible than anything else.

[ANavissi500]

Originally posted by Jim H
Well, there's also the general belief by most people who have deeply studied sexual behavior that no one is completely 100% straight or gay. Almost all straight people, if deeply psychologically probed, show some slight inklings the other way. And vice versa.

That is true, but ultimately it seems logical you would sway the way that you are more.

I really wanted that to come out more intelligently than it did. :(

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by SLAW
Who are you and what authority do you have over the world?



I have no authority over the world. I was born and I'm going to die. I would never make up my own religion. I have looked into other religions and have decided which ones made sense to me or which ones I felt I could rule out. It is each person's individual decision and it only has ramifications for the individual. I have personally decided to put my faith into a religion that is thousands of years old and is based on more than one man's idea of religion.

Most religions have been started according to a single person's idea of what religion is. The bible is based on much more than that. All I'm saying is that before people dismiss it, they should take the time to check it out. If they choose to dismiss it, it has no effect on me one way or the other.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by ANavissi500
That is true, but ultimately it seems logical you would sway the way that you are more.

I really wanted that to come out more intelligently than it did. :(

It's funny but today I was talking to someone who knows a set of identical twins- one is gay and the other is not. I really think each case is different. It is genes and some environment- in some cases it is one or the other and in other cases a little of both.

[countchocula]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I have no authority over the world. I was born and I'm going to die. I would never make up my own religion. I have looked into other religions and have decided which ones made sense to me or which ones I felt I could rule out. It is each person's individual decision and it only has ramifications for the individual. I have personally decided to put my faith into a religion that is thousands of years old and is based on more than one man's idea of religion.

Most religions have been started according to a single person's idea of what religion is. The bible is based on much more than that. All I'm saying is that before people dismiss it, they should take the time to check it out. If they choose to dismiss it, it has no effect on me one way or the other.

Just out of curiosity, what made you feel like you had to submit yourself to a religion at all? You say that you've looked into other belief systems. I imagine that they're occupied by people who believe that they are right. How can so many people with different ideologies all be right? Isn't it possible that someone is wrong? Perhaps all of them? I should have PM'd these queries (this isn't the Religion forum), but I think it still relates to the topic at hand. Bush feels that he is right; others don't. Both sides are set in their ways.

I'm rambling, I suppose. I've done fine without religion, and I'd like to think that I know right from wrong. What is it that makes someone decide that their friends, family members, and themselves (excuse the poor grammar) just aren't enough? Why do we need an intangible deity to give us strength or to govern our moral footing? Can't we do it ourselves? And where did I leave my sunglasses?

[ANavissi500]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A49537-2004Jul14%20&notFound=true

The gay marriage amendment has been defeated. 6 Republicans voted against the measure. 3 Democrats voted for it. Party lines were drawn with the rest..

Republicans Against
Susan Collins (Maine)
Olympia Snowe (Maine)
John Sununu (New Hampshire)
Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island)
Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Colorado)
John McCain (Arizona)

Democrats For
Zell Miller (Georgia)
Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
Robert C. Byrd (West Virginia)

Zell Miller needs to switch parties already. He hates what the democratic party stands for but won't switch out of habit. Also John McCain continually proves that he is da' bomb.

[ANavissi500]

Originally posted by Lynn7
It's funny but today I was talking to someone who knows a set of identical twins- one is gay and the other is not. I really think each case is different. It is genes and some environment- in some cases it is one or the other and in other cases a little of both.

That really is very interesting because I had heard data before saying that identical twins would also be identical with sexual orientation. Perhaps, a little bit of "nurture" does come into play, or maybe the guy is just still closeted - j/k

[Thrizzle]

Lol, Zell Miller.
The guy is more conservative than most republicans.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by countchocula
Just out of curiosity, what made you feel like you had to submit yourself to a religion at all? You say that you've looked into other belief systems. I imagine that they're occupied by people who believe that they are right. How can so many people with different ideologies all be right? Isn't it possible that someone is wrong? Perhaps all of them? I should have PM'd these queries (this isn't the Religion forum), but I think it still relates to the topic at hand. Bush feels that he is right; others don't. Both sides are set in their ways.

I'm rambling, I suppose. I've done fine without religion, and I'd like to think that I know right from wrong. What is it that makes someone decide that their friends, family members, and themselves (excuse the poor grammar) just aren't enough? Why do we need an intangible deity to give us strength or to govern our moral footing? Can't we do it ourselves? And where did I leave my sunglasses?

Actually religion does play inot politics quite bit doens't it? I would even go so far as to suggest that the most basic divisions between the two parties can be traced to religious influence.

By choosing not to follow a religion you are also choosing a religion so to speak in that you are choosing to be an agnostic or an atheist. Maybe I should use the term belief system or philosophy rather than religion? I think you should always feel that you are "right" when you decide which belief system to follow but I guess the difference is that you should not ever force your own beliefs onto others.

I do beleive that I am "right" becasue I did my own research and I came to my own conclusions. Every person has to do their own research and come to their own conclusions and then each has to face the consequences of their decison on their own. My objection is when people allow themselves to drift into a decision without doing any research at all. It is in my mind the most important decision you can ever make (from a Christian point of view) but for people who decide to follow some of the other ways I guess if their way turned out to be right the consequences wouldn't be too bad.

And there can only be one right way. The many religions do not gel together. If the Christian way is right then none of the others are (cause it asserts that it is the only right way- although it does include Judaism as its foundation ) but if one of the other ways is right I guess many of those (the Eastern religions etc) could coexist but not with Christianity, Judaism or the Muslim faith which all have very firm guidelines.

[Jim H]

the Eastern religions etc

Or Hinduism, according to some, which seems to import new beings easily. Of course, I've heard it argued that Hinduism is actually monotheistic, and that the various gods are different forms of the same beings though.

What I find interesting is that a bunch of Eastern religions are atheistic - Buddhism, Confucianism (if you want to call that a religion), Shinto, Taoism, etc.

I guess that's about all I have to add.

[Raymond Babbit]

Originally posted by Jim H
What I find interesting is that a bunch of Eastern religions are atheistic - Buddhism, Confucianism (if you want to call that a religion), Shinto, Taoism, etc.

Buddhism isn't necessarily atheistic, they just don't say what you have to worship. They basically say you can worship whatever you want, as long as you make your worship and celebration about love, not just following a certain system. But you're right, most of the eastern religions are really more philosophies than religions, which is why I like them.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Raymond Babbit
Buddhism isn't necessarily atheistic, they just don't say what you have to worship. They basically say you can worship whatever you want, as long as you make your worship and celebration about love, not just following a certain system. But you're right, most of the eastern religions are really more philosophies than religions, which is why I like them.

You misunderstand me a bit.

An atheist is "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.". Buddhism has no gods.

[SLAW]

Originally posted by countchocula
Just out of curiosity, what made you feel like you had to submit yourself to a religion at all? You say that you've looked into other belief systems. I imagine that they're occupied by people who believe that they are right. How can so many people with different ideologies all be right? Isn't it possible that someone is wrong? Perhaps all of them? I should have PM'd these queries (this isn't the Religion forum), but I think it still relates to the topic at hand. Bush feels that he is right; others don't. Both sides are set in their ways.

Ofcourse it is essential to this onversation. Gay marriage wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't for religion. There'd be virtualy nothing for people to use to justify their biggotry.

[Lynn7]

Two years ago gay marriage was no where on the radar. Lots of people were making fun of Vermont becasue they were so liberal they allowed civil unions for gay people. All of a sudden everything has changed and people who were taken by suprise by a chnge in a system that's been in place since the beginning of this country are now described as bigots. Change in attitudes take time.

[RicochetShaw]

Originally posted by SLAW
Ofcourse it is essential to this onversation. Gay marriage wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't for religion. There'd be virtualy nothing for people to use to justify their biggotry.


My oh my, your ego is really just suffocating. It's been said quite a few times before, but I guess you don't get it.... just because they have a different belief than you, doesn't make them a bigot.

[SLAW]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Two years ago gay marriage was no where on the radar. Lots of people were making fun of Vermont becasue they were so liberal they allowed civil unions for gay people. All of a sudden everything has changed and people who were taken by suprise by a chnge in a system that's been in place since the beginning of this country are now described as bigots. Change in attitudes take time.

So? To some of us us on the other side it's a joke that people are actually opposed to it. Sure it takes time to adapt and I believe our society is progressing (despite loud noise made by those who are unable to). I don't think that everyone who doesn't want gay marriage is a complete biggot, but there is closed off thinking. I would never say that you in particularly (for example) are a biggot, Lynn.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Lynn7
By choosing not to follow a religion you are also choosing a religion so to speak in that you are choosing to be an agnostic or an atheist.

RE:

"An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time."

...So it's not a religion. Agnostism doesn't take a stand. I'm an agnostic, and while I admit that there *might* be God/Gods, I'm not worshipping any.

[countchocula]

In all fairness, she did say that it's better to call it a philosophy or a belief system. Religion isn't the right word, but it does fit in a figurative sense. I just hate being labeled one way or the other. I'm somewhere in between "atheist" and "agnostic," but I don't wear it on my sleeve.

Ric, no one here is a bigot, but bigots do exist. A bigot isn't someone who simply disagrees with you; a bigot is someone who feels that homosexuality is a disease that can be palliated. They think that a gay person should just be able to snap out of it. I know people who will walk out of movies if a gay character crops up. They are bigots.

[Jim H]

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

That's a bigot. An awful lot of mainstream Christianity is bigoted based on this definition. Point in fact, most politicians are as well.

BTW, religion's definition

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Only the fourth could apply to atheism or agnosticism, and that's on a case by case basis. I know what Lynn meant, I'm just bringing it up to see if it helps clarify it for anyone.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by countchocula
In all fairness, she did say that it's better to call it a philosophy or a belief system. ¨

RE:

True, but I understood she put atheism and agnostism on the same line. They are entirely different things. In fact I would argue that religion and atheism and far closer to each other than atheistm and agnostism. Religion and atheism state something as "fact", agnostism doesn't. So it's on the opposite end of the spectrum than religion and atheism.

[Lynn7]

Count's post inspired me to go look up the meaning of the word bigot:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

It's funny but using this definition it seems that both sides on any issue can call the other by that name.

I guess I think of a bigot as someone who goes out of their way to be mean to someone else. I see the gay marriage issue as something drastically new and that needs to have a little time to sink in. It is going to change a lot of things and people have to adapt to this. The issue is just happening within the last few months. Gay rights have come a long way. People used to stay in the closet because they were afraid that they would be persecuted or even killed- that wasn't that long ago.

The thing that complicates this particular issue is the religious factor. It is the case that some religions do forbid the practice of homosexuality and so this issue is one that really does really get to the heart of the separation of church and state.

On the other hand, I do know of some people who are not religious but are agaisnt gay marriage becasue they think it will weaken the institution of marriage as a whole. They sometimes cite Sweden or some other country that legalized gay marriage and then marriage as a whole went on the decline. I haven't seen this study for myself but I've heard it reffered to. I think our country is way past this already- marriage has been declining for many years.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Lynn7
They sometimes cite Sweden or some other country that legalized gay marriage and then marriage as a whole went on the decline. I haven't seen this study for myself but I've heard it reffered to.

RE:

I would doubt that. I think it was only 2-3 years or so since Sweden legalized gay marriages. It's impossible to say in such a short time span how the marriage institution has changed in Sweden. But you know, statistics can be shown in many different lights depending on who is collecting them.

Sweden does have high divorce rates, but so does Finland despite the fact that we haven't legalized gay marriages yet.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Tuukka
¨

RE:

True, but I understood she put atheism and agnostism on the same line. They are entirely different things. In fact I would argue that religion and atheism and far closer to each other than atheistm and agnostism. Religion and atheism state something as "fact", agnostism doesn't. So it's on the opposite end of the spectrum than religion and atheism.

If you do not believe in any god or gods, you are an atheist. An atheist does not have to be someone who actively refutes the existence of God - an absence of belief is enough. The default state of man is atheism.

"One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. "

That's the principle definition of an agnostic.

"One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. "

Secondary. I think this is misleading, as atheism literally means the opposite of believing in a god. So you can be an agnostic atheist, in other words, or a non-agnostic atheist.

[SLAW]

Originally posted by Jim H
Secondary. I think this is misleading, as atheism literally means the opposite of believing in a god. So you can be an agnostic atheist, in other words, or a non-agnostic atheist.

What's the difference? They're both going to Hell. :D

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Jim H
The default state of man is atheism.



That statement is great- so true!

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Lynn7
That statement is great- so true!

Thanks. I thought it up all by myself! :D

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Jim H
Thanks. I thought it up all by myself! :D

Some day it will be in Quotations books, attributed to Jim H :D