Page 1 of 1 pages
I wonder, IF we allow gays to marry, do we also allow group marriages? If not, why not? (I note that Pat Ireland had both a husband and a lesbian lover - perhaps she might have wished to “marry” both?)
How about marriages between people and pets?
While i know that these questions might strike some as “stupid” or whatever, how do we codify marriage in such a way as to make clear what the new boundaries might be?
Perhaps the optimal solution is to end the state sponsoring of marriage altogether? We could allow civil unions by the state, and marriage only by the religious sector. . .
Posted by curious on Jan 24, 2005 at 10:29 AM
NO you get used to the fact that America rejects gay” marriage”. Outside of taxachussets and the gay bay this ridiculous idea won’t ever fly. Rampant homosexuality is a true sign of a civilization in decline. But go ahead and push your agenda- I LOVE seeing democrats especially far left wacko democrats lose elections.
Posted by reddog on Jan 24, 2005 at 12:43 PM
This is just a response to ‘curious’ and ‘reddog’...when you think about it, it may seem silly to think that someone should be able to marry a dog, or have group marriages.
But when it comes down to it, if your neighbor wants to get married to - I don’t know - a kitchen chair, why should you care? It doesn’t affect you at all. So sure, maybe someone would want to get married to their pet. Or maybe they love two people (who also love each other) and want to have a group marriage. Who are you to stop them?
I don’t remember reading anywhere that the rules were that only 2 LIVING HUMANS, a man and a woman, were allowed to be married. Except, of course, the Bible, but we DO have that little thing called separation of church and state.
And, as for the fact that ‘rampant homosexuality’ is a true sign of a civilization in decline…uh, sorry. No. I would love to hear a theory on how that would work. Because in my head, it wouldn’t.
Let’s face it. Separation of church and state means that the Bible or the Torah or whatever has no bearing on who should be allowed to marry who.
You can come up with as many excuses as you’d like…I firmly believe that the only excuse for anti-LGBT behavior or opinions is bigotry and religious brainwashing.
Posted by open-minded on Jan 24, 2005 at 2:10 PM
open-minded: “You can come up with as many excuses as you’d like…I firmly believe that the only excuse for anti-LGBT behavior or opinions is bigotry and religious brainwashing.”
There are clearly other possiblities.
I suppose your statement is equivalent to saying: “I firmly believe that the only excuse for anti-Christian behavior or opinions is bigotry and religious brainwashing.”. I expect everyone on this list can see the error in *that*.
I say, different strokes for different folks. But i am still left with my original curiousity unsatisfied. . .
Posted by curious on Jan 24, 2005 at 2:31 PM
I really don’t know what other possibilities there are for anti-LGBT behavior and opinions. You either don’t like gay people (bigotry) or you’ve been taught that being gay is wrong (religious brainwashing). (And just a side note, maybe ‘religious brainwashing’ is a little too harsh of a phrase. Sorry, didn’t mean to offend).
Anyway, if there are other possibilities, I don’t see them. Anyone I have met, seen on TV, read about, etc. who is anti-gay is that way due to either of the above reasons. I’d be interested to hear of any other reasons.
And as for the whole ‘anti-Christian’ thing…I do not have any hatred or dislike toward Christians, other than the fact that the more powerful leaders in the Christian community are going out of their way to spearhead anti-gay movements. And I certainly don’t see any error in my statement, and heavily disagree with the statement that it is equivalent to saying “I firmly believe that the only excuse for anti-Christian behavior or opinions is bigotry and religious brainwashing”. Religion and sexual orientation can’t really be interchanged in sentences like that.
So, just to clarify, are you for or against gay marriage? Or neutral?
And as for your original curiosity…I can’t say whether or not we can draw a line where marriages and freedoms can and cannot go. It may be crossing the line to marry a dog or a chair, but where was it made a rule against two men marrying? Or three people? Nowhere.
I think marriages should have set guidelines that should make it clear whether or not the marriage is in the best interest of both parties. Yes, even if someone wants to marry their pet.
Posted by open-minded on Jan 24, 2005 at 2:47 PM
open minded- sure why not how about if we all want to take a dump in the road or smoke crack with the kids or tie up women and kill them. Hey according to your “open mindedness” anything goes right. The separation of church and state you lefties love to harp on is a tired old horse. Where do we even get the notion of right v wrong? From the Bible, from a higher authority. You cannot pick and choose according to you your own perversions which ideas are allowable and which are not. There are basic rules of civilization that define us a being civilized . Your using PC phrases like tolerance and diversity are just code words for “progressives” trying to redefine society while trying to destroy the true definition of a family. have you on the left not done enough to destroy the American family and values?
Posted by reddog on Jan 24, 2005 at 2:57 PM
Fact: Homosexuality is not a “learned” behavior. Disagreement with this statement is an option, but being correct in that disagreement is not.
Fact: The requirements of equality outlined in the U.S. Constitution demand acceptance of gay marriage. Personal opinions based on religion or spoon-fed bias must be left at the door.
Fact: There are not “more and more” homosexuals every year. Continued acceptance of homosexual culture in the media results in less secrecy. If you look at historical texts dating back hundreds of years, there are clear signs of hidden homosexual lifestyles - much less accepted back then.
Fact: The Bible was written by men, for men. This, too, is a disputed statement - and while I cannot stand on any proof that God’s hand wasn’t on the pen, I CAN say that most of us have no real idea of what the original scripture says after so many translations and edits through the centuries.
Fact: Allowing homosexual marriage will not open the door to polygamy or beastiality or incest. There is a question of person and societal harm in regard to allowing these practices, and while homosexuality harms no one, these other items have a long history of both physical and psychological trauma. As with many things, this is only a red herring used when discussing the fuller context.
Fact: STDs are spread just as quickly, (and often times at a pace which far outstrips gays) between heterosexuals as homosexuals. In regard to sexual activities, there is nothing a homosexual couple can do that heterosexual couples don’t also engage in on a frequent basis. This is a scare tactic and nothing more.
FACT: Children raised by homosexual families are no more or less balanced than other children, nor do they exhibit homosexual tendencies. As a simple factor of mathematics, the chances of a heterosexual couple raising a gay child is 10 times that of a homosexual couple who adopts or, in the case of women, take advantage of other fertility options to have children.
FACT: Ignorance is not an excuse for intolerance, nor is it a justification for spreading lies and distortions to satisify personal faith. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to email me (homepage link), but unless they are also willing to have an open mind, it isn’t going to do either of us much good.
Quit being chauvinistic, get off of your soapbox. It’s time to exit your chimerical reality.
Posted by Mathias on Jan 24, 2005 at 3:22 PM
fact- homosexuality is deviant behavoir and it is wrong
fact America will never accept homosexual “marriage”
Posted by reddog on Jan 24, 2005 at 3:35 PM
Consenting adult humans should be assumed to know who they want to marry, and should be allowed to do so. Animals and kids can’t conceive the significance of making their lives into partnerships (it must be difficult for plenty of straight, married, man + woman couples to conceive it, judging from their adultery and divorce rates), so “marrying” any of them is absurd and abusive. As for “marrying” furniture, nuff said. Christians didn’t invent marriage, they have no moral right to dominion over it, and furthermore choosing not to be Christian simply is not an attack upon Christianity. As for the Bible as a source of moral authority, it’s a mixed bag and depends most on the intentions of people and the uses to which they put it. In the Old Testament, 42 children are said to have been killed by bears for speaking disrespectfully to the prophet Elisha. Elsewhere, the Israelites were supposedly encouraged by God to invade, dispossess, and destroy the Canaanites. Are those moral outcomes? But also, in the Gospels, Jesus is said to have taught that only those free of sin were justified in attacking those they saw as behaving immorally by throwing the first stone. I see that as an exalted moral message. The Bible is an edited document, compiled over centuries, and does not contain a seamless moral message beyond that of obedience to the God it describes (the specifics of that obedience vary among the books). In any case, it will certainly be an uphill climb to get anti-gay crusaders to see that they are not harmed the marriages of those who get hot over people with the same gender. Within my lifetime, hetero-racial marriages were outlawed in many American states but today they’re ordinary. It will just take more effort and relentless reasoning to show the large, anti-gay group that they’re mistaken in trying to force the Bible into our faces. Y’all should live by it if you wish, I just can’t figure out why you insist that we all live by it.
Posted by Kuya on Jan 24, 2005 at 4:49 PM
you have the “right” to be homosexual in this country. No one (at least not me) advocating meanness or violence toward gays. But you do not have the right to distort a societal norm i.e. marriage to legitimize a behavoir that most of America finds repugnant. it is mean and cruel of you on the left to infringe your views on the rest of society. Quit trying to frame the debate in terms that anybody that does not agree with your totalitarian view of diversity is the problem- you are the problem.
Posted by reddog on Jan 24, 2005 at 4:56 PM
They don’t want us, sir, they only want each other. It shouldn’t be a problem… Surely freedom means being able to follow your own lights, the pursuit of your own happiness, that’s all I’ve ever said about it. I do get hot under the collar about this issue and I get pretty damn strident in my tone, it’s true, but just to take a step back and rephrase, freedom really ought to be the highest value in America, shouldn’t it?
Posted by Kuya on Jan 24, 2005 at 6:06 PM
Reddog: since when do you speak for ‘most Americans’? A poll determined that 86% of Americans would have no problem voting for a presidential candidate who was openly gay.
Grow up.
Isn’t it a free country? What, pray tell, is a ‘social norm’? I was under the impression that we lived by something called the rule of law, not the neighbor’s opinion, so I guess we can throw away *your* legal rights too? The fact that there are many people who do not believe as you do, but who are just as much citizens of their country, does not make *them* the norm for some reason? Why the double standard?
In reference to America—the U.S. Constitution speaks of equal justice before the law. It does not say that you are under the dictatorship of someone else’s personal opinion. Marriage is a legal state, therefore it is governed by state law, and the question becomes whether or not the state can regard gays as not having access to the status of marriage when it is obligated by the concept of equal justice to admit them to every other institution.
Face it, homophobia is the new racism. Now that sexism and racism have become socially taboo, ignorant people don’t have many places to go, except to that one point. How pathetic.
Reddog and curious are just pig-headed types who get a kick out of being nasty. One could go on forever about the psychological problems concomitant with religious fanaticism and homophobia. Suffice it to say that the claims about people next wanting to marry a goat or something, are patently absurd. Some people just like to use big words to make their twisted stereotypes look like legitimate social concern. Nonsense. Trash like reddog and curious have about as much concern for the rest of society as a fly does about nuclear physics.
Besides, since when does the church control the government? When did this turn into the Spanish Inquisition?
It sounds like that was the only time clowns like those two would have been happy.
Posted by d.r. on Jan 24, 2005 at 6:17 PM
hey d.r. do you propose to speak for America?? Every state rightfully voted down gay “marriage”. what planet were you on? You homophiles have forced the gay issue to be the new racism at any cost. What’s next on your tolerance and diversity tour- banning the bible? arresting priests who speak out against the abomination of homosexuality? i am not going to allow you to make me out to be the bad guy. We got along great for over 200 years without gay “mariage” in this country. I say you are trash sir. Trash that wants to pervert this country for your own sodomite interests. you put yourself above all else to make the decision for the rest of us that homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle-it is not. I do not get a kick out of being nasty but I do get a good feeling when I am right.
Posted by reddog on Jan 24, 2005 at 6:29 PM
MAN.
You people bashing homosexuality are the main reason I LEFT your (well, OUR, though it embarrasses me)sorry country. Jesus, people, comparing a gay marriage to marriage to the family pet or furniture? The laws of the land are written BY and FOR PEOPLE. That is clear enough. It’s the first three words of the US Constitution.
This author is right - times and religion and social acceptance are all things that change, and I would submit that they are FORCED to change. My marriage, to a Chinese woman (Chinese national, in fact), would have been illegal on the grounds of mixing races not too long ago, in both of our countries. How is that more absurd than my homosexual aunt being forbidden to marry her partner? I don’t see it. Anti-gay thoughts, belief, behavior and legislation are ALL, as open-minded pointed out, mindless bigotry or religious zealousness. That’s all. And this WILL change, like it or not.
Posted by Gregor on Jan 24, 2005 at 7:07 PM
Freedom should be Freedom for ALL,not just for the majority.as far as distorting a social norm,we’re talking about changing a law which is discriminatory and clearly unconstitutional.but I guess the Constitution only applies to people who think they’re right.
Posted by whats the thuth? on Jan 24, 2005 at 7:29 PM
reddog, you’re gay!accept it.deal with it,get on with your life.you’re spending way to much time and energy trying to convince everyone else that you’re not gay.we’re not buying it.
Posted by whats the truth? on Jan 24, 2005 at 7:34 PM
Dear reddog:
The Christian doctrine that framed the constitution of this nation excluded black folk from equality. Many people died so that others could obtain civil rights. Lynched, burned to death, casually executed because they wanted the right to vote, or be treated with the dignities afforded their white neighbors.
To deny ANYONE the same rights and protections, that were fought for through the sacrifice of many, is a violation of that individual’s civil rights!
If you can deny civil rights based on sexual orientation, why not race next?
Posted by Chrisb on Jan 24, 2005 at 7:43 PM
I have often wondered about this, and perhaps someone out there knows of a resource that would satisfy, or at least stimulate, my curiousity on this subject: homosexuality as step in evolution. Being left-handed, genetic mutations interest me. Oddly, the number of lefties and gays are both roughly 10%. 98% of chimpanzees are right-handed, and while I don’t know the number of gay chimps, I do know that the bonobo, which is closer to us than the chimp, has wild orgies of 2, 3, 5 apes at a time, not to mention same-sex pairings. Dolphins, the mammal we most often concede to having intelligence, also have same-sex pairings for recreation.
It may seem contradictory to say, since gays can’t reproduce, but perhaps they add to the social unit in a way that furthers the whole. That is, perhaps the ability to isolate physical pleasure in sex, rather than some dull animal magnetism whose sole purpose is procreation, is an expression of a more evolved creature. It may also explain why anti-evolutionist Christians hate and fear them. Anyway, food for thought.
Posted by rocco on Jan 25, 2005 at 1:29 AM
I’ll bet reddog is a perfect Christian in all areas of his life… he must be to judge people like that. I would gladly slap him with that bible of his if he keeps up all this hatred. I will only slap him with the old testament though.
Posted by Ryan Conover on Jan 25, 2005 at 2:58 AM
Jesus said that he cant force anyone to follow him.every person can make his or her choices.in europe as far as i know and can see with my eyes,many gays do go to church and many of them do confess(i suppose its up to the individual priest ).nobody is a saint and nobody can force anyone to be a saint.instead of being against gays why dont we all try to simply accept them as part of the society with equal rights?we r all equal arent we?here though i have to say that i am against gay religious weddings.a wedding i think is between a man and a woman.another solution should be found that will satisfy the needs of gay people without involving the church…..this is just my personal opinion…..
Posted by force on Jan 25, 2005 at 3:21 AM
boy the wackos were out in force to my response to my common sense idea that people of the same sex don’t have any right to marry. Whew what a bunch of -i don’t know even the words right now. Using Jesus to protect homosxuality takes the cake tho. I wish America would read some of the above posts and find out how wacked out you supporters of gay “marriage” really are. Thank God people had enough sense to vote gay “marriage” down in every state. Outside of this site there are still people with good sense.
Posted by reddog on Jan 25, 2005 at 5:20 AM
As an addendum to my earlier post, I’d like to say something regarding a religious reading of homosexuality, as this seems to be the most powerful catalyst in the argument against gay marriage, and is direct contrast to my own leanings.
Paul Carus once wrote: “Good is that which fosters life, evil that which hinders or destroys it.” He also defined evolution as not simply the ability to adapt to surroundings, “but a more and more perfect incarnation of Truth.” I fear that instead of looking for rational explanations for anomalies like homosexuality, those disquieted by the vague implications of subjectivity look towards the more comforting Truths of the old religions, regardless of their inconsistencies in logic or their irrevelance to modern life. Thinking along the lines of Carus’ statements may help our fundamentalist compatriots to let go of such pacifiers, which do hinder our lives by blocking our collective understanding, by recognizing that the humanities point to a larger objectivity from which to guide our actions.
Posted by rocco on Jan 25, 2005 at 5:30 AM
hey Ryan good luck trying to slap me with a bible dude- you may get surprised and get hit with something a lot worse than a bible- my right fist. and rocco good point- the difference is what is perceived as right and wrong. Nobody is trying to round up or persecute gays. The gays and their friends on the left pushed the gay"marriage” thing. They are trying to legitimize thru marriage what most folks consider abnormal or deviant behavoir. You want to live and let live-quit stirring the hornets nest of values in this country.
Posted by reddog on Jan 25, 2005 at 6:17 AM
reddog,you are an idiot.
Posted by whats the thuth? on Jan 25, 2005 at 6:18 AM
hey what’s the truth - thank you- i consider it an honor to be denigrated by such an highly esteemed character such as yourself. You make all call me names like the infantile fools you are but that does not change the fact that I am right and you are wrong.
Posted by reddog on Jan 25, 2005 at 6:49 AM
It seems quite natural that a minority group would struggle to gain equality of treatment. Gays also represent an interesting anomaly, even amongst minorities, because it cuts across all regions of the socio-economic, ethnic, and gender spectra; therefore they are not necessarily economically or educationally disenfranchised, while being legally so.
The frustration of this kind of “outside-looking-in” position is evident. So we can understand why the gay agenda wants immediate action, whether the rest of the country is ready or not (easy parallels can be made with blacks in the South). Now the only questions can be that of morality (which I hope I have addressed sufficiently with my previous two posts) and that of the sanctity of marriage. As to the internal laws of a specific religion, I have no place to question, but can someone explain to me why marriage - performed by a justice of the peace - is invalid in a country that purports separation of church and state?
Posted by rocco on Jan 25, 2005 at 6:59 AM
The central issue here is “what is marriage”? In the past it has *ALWAYS* referred to a union of a man and a woman. This word - “marriage” - has a meaning. It is this that some, apparently, want to alter.
For the record, i am against this alteration.
Why? Because to those who believe in this institution and this word, marriage is sacred. To change the meaning of the word into something else that is anathema to their personal beliefs is not just wrong, but stupid. (There is also the obvious practical issues of what would this new institution encompass, eg, group “marriage”, etc?)
This obviously does not imply *any* discrimination against gays. Let them have civil unions if they wish, with all the **government** granted rights of a marriage. After all, isn’t this what it is really about - $$$ and rights? But lets just keep the word “marriage” and the concept it represents the same as it always has been, throughout all of our history. A history that is steeped in religions of various forms.
To capture and destroy the word marriage is a hostile attack on much of the people in this country (and most others).
This is, of course, just my opinion. As are most of the “FACTS” Mathias states above are his opinions (but obviously strongly held ones). I find it useful to distinguish between facts and opinions (but this is probably just due to my scientific background).
PS - it is far from determined that homosexuality is fully genetic or fully environmental. The smart money is that it has components of both, as do most other sophisticated animal behaviours (really a no-brainer, if you think about it).
Posted by curious on Jan 25, 2005 at 7:47 AM
Do we really have to resort to namecalling? Whether by liberals or conservatives, it is counterproductive. It would be more enlightening to say what you think about an issue, rather than call someone names - even if they started it! (How many times i say **that** in a week!)
One possible rule that might be useful. Call ideas stupid, silly, screwed up, etc. But be respectful of individuals - even when they disagree with your opinions.
Just a thought.
Posted by AFather on Jan 25, 2005 at 7:51 AM
Curious -
Thanks for the correction…I did not expound on all aspects of homosexual origins - that there may be sociological impeti - solely for the sake of brevity, hoping that someone might know of an outlet of information re: gays in evolutionary biology.
I have heard it defined as a bell curve: if 1 is genetically gay, and 10 hetero, then the majority of us fall somewhere in the middle, and environmental effects shape what we become. This is an answer to why some societies embrace homosexuality as a commonality (Ancient Greece, many tribes of Papua New Guinea).
As for the term “marriage:” if civil unions are granted, what then differentiates a marriage from a civil union? Wouldn’t that be a semantic compromise, weakening the relevance of the institution of marriage anyway? And why can’t we create our own rites from our personal beliefs? Is that not one of the points of freedom of religion?
Posted by rocco on Jan 25, 2005 at 8:19 AM
to curious: if “marriage” is so sacred, why is divorce so rampant? rather than worrying about gays “capturing and destroying the word marriage”, i would consider how hetero’s are already reducing the meaning of marriage on their own.
For the record, I personally think the insitution of marriage is laughable. As long as civil unions are recognized and ANY couple regardless or gender can receive the same legal benefits as a hetero one that is fine with me. However, i do believe that if for whatever reason gays want to get “married” they should be allowed to just like everyone else.
Posted by beth on Jan 25, 2005 at 8:32 AM
Rocco - Long ago i read a wonderful book “On Human Nature” that discussed human sexuality in terms of evolutionary development. The author is Ed Wilson, but i imagine much has been written since then. Anyway, i agree with the “bell curve” hypothesis. It is also interesting (to me at least) that homosexuality seems to be prevalent in many species (mammals and birds). So it would appear that it has some sort of evolutionary advantage (Wilson tentatively ascribed it to altruism, as i recall. Perhaps the uncles and aunts with no kids will help their nieces and nephews, for instance).
As for “Wouldn’t that be a semantic compromise, weakening the relevance of the institution of marriage anyway?”: i agree it is a compromise. But nonetheless it leaves “marriage” alone. . . (who said, rather cynically, that any good compromise is one that leave both sides unhappy?)
beth asks: “if “marriage” is so sacred, why is divorce so rampant?”. Life is sacred, yet death is ubiquitous. Alas we live in an imperfect world. . .
As you say, you have no respect for marriage itself. Being an “old guy” i have to say that i have seen some really pathetic marriages. But then again, i have seen some really wonderful ones too. For bringing up children, a (preferably happy) married couple is an optimal social unit.
Synopsis: “Marriage” is a “reserved word”, with a long history and strong religious overtones (which many of our laws have as well). The rights the *state* gives to couples could either be totally eliminated (libertarian point of view) or conferred to those who obtain civil unions (for those who like social engineering of a moderate sort). Using it to describe homosexual unions or group unions is offensive to a large fraction of the US population (and an even larger population of **any** Islamic state, i strongly suspect!).
Posted by curious on Jan 25, 2005 at 9:51 AM
Curious -
Thanks for the book…will look it up. As for the compromise quote, well, fine. If it keeps both parties relatively contented (or equally unhappy), it would be an improvement. Though the logical redundancy still perturbs me. They’re only words, and they have as much power as we decide to give them.
But, to quote George Clooney’s character in O Brother Where Art Thou, “It’s a fool who looks for logic in the human heart.”
P.S. While we’re juggling with the subtle shades of synonyms, can we change civil unions to “bindings”? Or, no?
Posted by rocco on Jan 26, 2005 at 4:18 AM
Wow…I thought I’d have to defend my opinion against reddog but I came back to find that all of you guys have done it for me.
Reddog, it’s this simple. I can understand that you feel - for whatever reason - that gay people are the scum of the American society. Unfortunately it’s your bigoted religious upbringing that caused you to be this way. Going by what the Bible says…is out of date. The Bible says that being gay is a sin, and that gay people should not be allowed to be married. But the Bible also says that you should build a railing around the roof of your house so nobody falls off, and that a woman who doesn’t scream while being raped is to be put to death along with her rapist. How crazy is that?
You have expressed your opinion clearly…which is fine…but you also said that you are right and we are wrong. Period. I don’t know where it’s been proven that you are the correct one here, but I would really love to see this proven. Because an opinion is an opinion…nobody’s right when it comes to opinions, except in their own head.
As for who should be allowed to be married and raise children (whether biological or adopted), I think it’s people like you who shouldn’t be allowed to raise children. The last thing we need in this society is more people with the homophobic, bigoted opinions similar to yours. In nature, it’s the survival of the fittest, and people like you just aren’t fit for this society - an all-sccepting one.
Posted by openminded on Jan 26, 2005 at 10:26 AM
on the contrary openminded. i do not think gays are scum at all- just misdirected. I have had gay friends and associates and got along with them just fine. it is nothing personal at all I just don’t like the gay “marriage” thing. i am all for civil unions so that the insurance companies and big businesses cannot cause them pain.
I have not been to church in years but I do think the bible is relevant today. I do find you and others on this site very judgemental of religious folks tho. i guess your “diversity and tolerance” dogma is not all inclusive and hypocritical.
who the hell are you to tell me about kids?? you are so bigoted and close minded about divergent opinions. It is the judeo-christian ethic that built this country so liberal idiots like you have the freedom to spread your hate.
as to homophobic that implies phobia and there is something wrong with me for not accepting gay marriage. That is typical liberal thinking - the good people who do not believe your twisted logic are the ones with the problem. You sound like the old adage -I am ok the world is all F**ked up right. Nice try openminded but openminded you ain’t
Posted by reddog on Jan 26, 2005 at 4:56 PM
oh and by the way all the states that voted down gay “marriage” proved that I may be not right but I am not alone in my thinking
hey openminded- should all these folks in these states not have kids too because they might be gasp- homophobic.
I just don’t know what college or tv show or what venue you get these ideas from that you get the idea that folks who are against gay “marriage” are the problem. we did not bring it up- you on the liberal-progressive side pushed the issue. what’s next on the agenda affirmitive action and reparations for all these poor gay folks that america has discriminated against?????
Posted by reddog on Jan 26, 2005 at 5:05 PM
Reddog said: “you are so bigoted and close minded about divergent opinions”.
He/she also said: “I am right and you are wrong”.
Which is it, buddy? You can’t be expected to be taken seriously if you keep changing your mind.
Allow me to also mention that the first quote I made of you can also be said of yourself.
And, as for me NOT being open-minded, well, it’s only fair for me to be open-minded towards those except those who aren’t open-minded themselves.
The golden rule that they taught us all in kindergarten: Treat others how you would like to be treated.
Posted by openminded on Jan 26, 2005 at 5:08 PM
well which is is it buddy are you openminded or not??
I do live by that golden rule- I treat others with respect and kindness. Quti trying to frame anybody that does not agree with you as bigoted- it sounds like you are the bigoted one.
i have been denigrated and insulted on this board by you openminded ones. that’s ok I understand the liberal mind to the extent that hypocrisy is the true dogma that you adhere to and I expect the attacks.
you all on the left opened the can of worms of gay marriage and you don’t even realize what damage you have done to your cause by your self righteousness and ignorance.
Posted by reddog on Jan 26, 2005 at 5:41 PM
I guess we can see from all the posts the intensity this issue generates, not the least from me. I’ve thought a lot since reading all the postings connected to this article and earlier ones. Other than all the insults which are truly boring and an irritant within this site, some of the views are thoughtful and thought-provoking. But in the end, I want the law to be religiously neutral. Prosecuting harm to others, fraud, theft, etc etc can all be done without pinning legal precedents to religious or cultural majority views (and I fully admit that my view is the minority view, for now), but the harm done when a particular religious attitude has the backing of the law is huge. I want the law to change, I want it to expand and be more permissive, so that consenting adults can marry, yes marry. The preference that marriage be a narrowly defined, biblically identified institution is what I hope to see change, and I accept the fact that it will be a slow evolutionary process. The law should be secular, and uphold minority rights against majority pressures, that’s what it should do in a democratic republic with a vast number of communities and worldviews. Church or temple is the place for religious marriage vows, and more power to them. But for one group to claim to own the term “marriage” is unhistorical and contributes to discrimination. And frankly, gay folk appear to be the last group that it’s somehow “OK” to hate, but not for any good reasons. Time for some reasoned discourse, all this shouting and culture-warring gets us nowhere.
Posted by Kuya on Jan 26, 2005 at 9:05 PM
show me one society-civilization in modern or historical times other than very recently that has legitmized homosexual “marriage”. In this country majority rules and this past November eleven out of eleven states voted to deny gay “marriage”. In every place that the people have been allowed to vote on this it has been soundly rejected. Other than Vermont where Dean bullied and Massachussets where activist judges allowed it america is wholeheartedley against this attack on religion- religious people and the family.
Posted by reddog on Jan 27, 2005 at 7:13 AM
Kuya one more thing- the only people that is acceptable to hate anymore is you “progressives” are unanimous in YOUR hate and contempt for religion- and religious leaders and anybody that is against your vile & twisted agenda. We will not let you destroy this country !
Posted by reddog on Jan 27, 2005 at 7:16 AM
Reddog, you just continue to make attacks on other people. As much as you point fingers at ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ and say they’re the problem, it’s actually people like YOU who are the problem. You continue to lash out at people for doing nothing but expressing their opinions.
You say you have been ‘denigrated and insulted’ on this board, when you’re the one who continues to ruffle feathers.
A perfect example, Kuya made a perfectly legitimate post that you turned against, insulted and threatened. And for what? A new round of name-calling? That is extremely immature, and just shows what kind of person you are.
I really find it interesting how you seem to defend yourself and your position by simply finding ways to turn other peoples’ words into weapons to use against them.
You may want to make an attempt at actually defending your position instead of continuing with the immature games.
You are a disgusting person.
Just a sidenote…I am going to find your response interesting. Because if you continue with your childish charade of insults, you’ll just be proving me correct in all of these accusations.
It’s your move…go ahead and make it.
Posted by openminded on Jan 27, 2005 at 3:22 PM
I do get mad that the left pushes the gay “mattiage ” thing. You on the left started it not me. I do not want to disrespect anybody here I think that while we differ in opinion you are all basically good people. I have no problem like I said with civil unions and I don’t think most of the country does. Where I statrt to lose it is when sponge-bob starts to ask kids- little kids to take a pledge of “tolerance” toward homosexuality. I always taught my kids about differences in people and not to bully or pick on anybody else. If you think I am bad here ya should have seen me when one day little johnny (not his real name) came home from school with a note from the teacher saying he had been rude to somebody in class. Bread& water for a week! not really but grounded- no TV etc.
We have to all learn to respect one another I’ll agree- how about you respect the segments of society that are “traditional” by backing off the gay marriage issue and accepting civil unions. I do feel bad when someone has to beacause of their sexual orientation is ripped off by insursance or corporate greed. I hope we all come to some kind of rough concencus in this country and get along a little better beacause I know that there are forces outside this country that wish us ALL very bad. I enjoy the verbal sparring here I meant no disrespect for anyone so as you would say openminded- peace.
Posted by reddog on Jan 27, 2005 at 4:39 PM
Reddog,
I think the whole issue (and homosexual readers, correct me if I’m wrong) has nothing to do with the word “marriage.” I know that my gay friends couldn’t care less what the law CALLS them. All they want is the same next-of-kin rights and insurance coverage and so on that any other spouse gets. They want to be married because the laws and policies specify that certain benefits only go to immediate family or legal next-of-kin. If Congress passed a law saying that civil unions were in every way equal, as far as rights and privilages, to marriage, I think they would be perfectly happy with that. What would you think of THAT? What reasonable person, “conservative” or “liberal,” fault that solution? You have your biblical definition of marriage in tact (and the rest of you heterosexual couples can remain blissfully married without the thought of the gay people across town having the same WORD as you - YECH!), and the gay community can carry on with their lives, unhindered by old-fashioned and out of date laws. Maybe my Chinese wife and I will be welcome in their community, because I KNOW that they wouldn’t want a chink living on their street.
Posted by Gregor Zieglou on Jan 27, 2005 at 5:57 PM
Mr Zieglou- I am all for civil unions as I have stated before and I think your idea is great. it provides legal protections for gay folks while still having respect for people who get angry at the whole idea and sound of gay “marriage”. That is all I am talking about is a compromise. My daughter and son n law live next to a gay couple and I have never shown any dis-respect toward them. I am troubled by your equating homosexuality with ehtenicity tho . I am sorry you frame my views and the majority of the countries as “out of Date”. I don’t know what the #### is but I assure you where I live your Chinese wife would be welcome with open arms. It is sad that you denigrate people of faith and label us as bigots and haters- it is not true. There is no more truth in that than saying gay people are evil. How did I do openminded??
Posted by reddog on Jan 27, 2005 at 6:15 PM
I don’t hate you, sir, we’ve never met. I don’t think most of us who want liberalized marriage laws hate religious people in general, either. I have a pretty fair mystical streak of my own, although it’s more triggered by what I learn from science, personally. But gay people who want to marry simply want the same thing that you and I have, and I can’t think of a single good reason to prevent them from having it. The offendability of the neighbors isn’t a good enough reason. I think it’s closer to the example of Jesus to be more tolerant and generous of spirit than to be doctrinally strict. I may not buy ideas like virgin birth or (especially not!) original sin, but I do find the example of Jesus to be a compelling one, lots of secular-minded “liberals” do. I accept what you say that you’re not an attacker of gays, but we can both see that there are a lot of others who do go on about how “God hates fags” and foolishness like that. Some of them have a national scope, they influence millions, and when they target a group like that, it legitimizes attacks, either legal ones or physical ones. I don’t hate faith, I hate oppression, however, and when I imaginatively put myself in the shoes of a person who is forbidden a right that other citizens enjoy, simply because of my sexual tastes, it feels like oppression. No one wants to take anything away from churchgoers or negate their right to practice their faith in the way they live (that’s the way THEY CHOOSE to live THEIR LIVES), but their being offended or grossed out by gay sex shouldn’t be the basis of law. Even if the Bible says it should be. We don’t all accept the Bible as the last word, and in America we don’t have to.
Posted by Kuya on Jan 27, 2005 at 8:03 PM
As if I needed another provocation, I see in the NYTimes that the Arlington Group, a coalition of conservative religious organizations like the Southern Baptist Convention, the Family Research Council, James Dobson and Jerry Falwell and their own groups, etc, is leaning on the White House to once again go for a constitutional amendment defining marriage in their own specific terms. The article says they’re threatening to withhold support for Bush’s revamping of Social Security and other domestic agenda items unless Bush restarts the amendment process and backs it with vigor. The SocSec issue is a separate complex can of worms, and Bush has already made it clear his views on marriage laws. But it’s as clear as can be that leaders in what I call the crusader faction are doing their best to change the very law of the land to target a specific group of citizens, and to constitutionally define for us all an institution that involves intensely personal issues of rights, religion, self-concept, romance, and family. It sure as hell isn’t the liberalizers who are the aggressors, it’s the restrictors who are. I can only hope that the federal legislators and/or the Supreme Court justices (and American citizens, most of all) still think the First Amendment is worth preserving, because it’s obviously under attack. Why isn’t that more disturbing to the majority of Americans??? How the hell can a restriction be seen as the same in spirit as a permission??? F’n mind-boggling! If they can codify stripped rights for some citizens and give it constitutional weight, why not others, why not me or you?
Posted by Kuya on Jan 27, 2005 at 8:55 PM
god hates fags is at the far end of the spectrum just like some radical gay groups are at the other end. I like to consider myself in the middle regard extremism in either direction reactionary and unproductive. Like you don’t have to believe the bible verbatim I am not forced to accept what i don’t believe in.
I live in a nudist resort and park full time (surprised - it’s true) when the weather is cooperative i swim, garden, lounge and recreate and carry on daily life in the buff. My wife and I have lived this “lifestyle” for many years now. I choose and accept living this way. That being said I realise that not everbody ( including the law) concurs with my lifestyle outside of the park. Therefore out of respect I do not drive, shop, go to the movies or otherwise be in public in the nude. My point is in this society we must find what i call a “balance of civility and respect” . if we all could not wear our incongruities and values on our sleeves so to speak we might all get along better without intentionaly or unitentionaly offend others.
Posted by reddog on Jan 27, 2005 at 9:07 PM
let me ask a question - do you think that there would be a push for federal marriage ammendment if Gavin Newsome in San Francisco had broken the law by allowing gay Marriage. Or there would be this uproar if a few judges in Massachussets had seen fit to interpet the law to allow gay Marriage. After Mr.Dean in Vermont signed the domestic partnership law there was not such a reaction from the political and religious right. The reason for this whole devoloping and increasing bitterness on both sides is beause you are treading on unbroken ground. you are asking a MAJOR change in values . Since the birth of the concept of marriage- maybe 2-3 thousand years the whole idea of a marriage has been defined entirely as between a man and a woman for procreation. I think of it as exteremely naieve to think that in just few short years you are going to change unchallenged what has been the basic unit of civilization.
Posted by reddog on Jan 27, 2005 at 9:19 PM
It won’t be quick, it is a major shift, all that is true. Perhaps a slower pace might have provoked less stridency and determination on the other side; it’s clear that my side suffered a real setback last November. Maybe their tactics and rhetoric pissed off too many, or frightened them. But the effort to equalize and expand rights has always met opposition, and in time they do expand if enough forthright energy is applied to the question. I feel compelled to contribute to that evolution, I can’t just be still and say “some day” when I believe so strongly that the restrictions are unjust. It’s an uphill battle, that’s all, I’m sure it won’t be the last. There’s this principle I can’t let go of, and in fact I learned it from Christians, that I’m on the side of right if I treat other people the way I want to be treated. And politically speaking, if I claim a right for myself (and choosing who I marry is one I claim), by extension I grant that same right to everyone else. Of course I see how people react to the whole topic, crap, as soon as the conversation leads into it everyone becomes irrational. Not to ascribe anything to you, but as a tangent example when Falwell cited tolerance of gays and sexual promiscuity as causal to 9-11, I about passed out with disgust, and when I gathered that people actually bought it I thought my f’n head would explode, I wished that I was hallucinating. One more example of the abandonment of reason, one more opportunity for a national “leader” to target his pet hate (ah, but we only hate the sin, we actually “love” the sinner, don’t we Jerry… With love like that, I’d rather be ignored). My contempt is showing…
Reddog, all I can do as an individual is try to reason with people, get them to see my premise and the chain of logic that follows. If enough of us individuals who want this change to happen continue our efforts, maybe we can get folks to see what they don’t want to see right now. Now that’s a statement of faith if I’ve ever made one!
Posted by Kuya on Jan 27, 2005 at 10:56 PM
This seems to have become something of tea party between the two of us, reddog, thanks for your views. Til next time.
Posted by Kuya on Jan 27, 2005 at 11:06 PM
Fun with concept-swapping: I took some of reddog’s statements and made them racial instead of sexual-identification oriented, paralleling other events in our history. (My changes in italics).
disclaimer: I understand some homophobic blacks get angry at gays & lesbians for ‘appropriating’ the language of the civil rights movements of the 60’s, and I agree with them that the experiences of blacks and gays are not identical. For example, gays were never made slaves, and blacks were never turned away from their own families for being black. However, given the fact that being gay is not a choice (I’m gay, so I’m an expert on this, trust me), the struggles do have enough similarities that some linguistic and conceptual comparisons can be made. Here are some of Reddog’s recent comments, altered:
—————————-
I do get mad that the left pushes the “desgregation” thing. You on the left started it not me. I do not want to disrespect anybody here I think that while we differ in opinion you are all basically good people. I have no problem like I said with separate but equal schools & facilities and I don’t think most of the country does. Where I start to lose it is when sponge-bob starts to ask kids- little kids to take a pledge of “tolerance” toward negroes. I always taught my kids about differences in people and not to bully or pick on anybody else. If you think I am bad here ya should have seen me when one day little johnny (not his real name) came home from school with a note from the teacher saying he had been rude to somebody in class. Bread& water for a week! not really but grounded- no TV etc.
We have to all learn to respect one another I’ll agree- how about you respect the segments of society that are “traditional” by backing off the desegregation issue and accepting separate but equal facilities. I do feel bad when someone has to because of their race is ripped off by insursance or corporate greed.
....
let me ask a question - do you think that there would be an assassination attempt on Dr. King if Rosa Parks in </I>Alabama</I> had broken the law by not sitting in the back of the bus. Or there would be this uproar if a few judges in Massachussets had seen fit to interpet the law to allow interracial Marriage.
...
That being said I realise that not everybody ( including the law) concurs with my lifestyle outside of the black part of town. Therefore out of respect I do not drive, shop, go to the movies or otherwise act ‘black’ in public (ie. listen to rap music, etc,.). My point is in this society we must find what I call a “balance of civility and respect”....
—————
Hopefully now you understand why gays and lesbians, while preferring civil unions to nothing, still prefer marriage to civil unions.
Posted by ScottinCali on Jan 28, 2005 at 4:04 PM
reddog,it’s me again,I read your analogy about the nudest colony,and yes,I’m a bit suprised,well,to tell the truth,I never would of guessed it,but anyway,you say that you would’nt go out in public nude out of the respect for the social norms in place.But it seems to me that,to take your analogy a bit further,that a certain group of people are allowed to be nude in public,while another less desirable group would’nt.How would you feel if you were part of the ‘less desirable group’?Would’nt you fight for your right to be nude in public?This seems to me to what the whole gay marriage issue is about.
Posted by whats the thuth? on Jan 29, 2005 at 6:58 PM
No I would not fight for my “right” to be nude in public. I respect societal norms and the idea of offending people who may not accept social nudity is one of the basic premises of being a nudist. I underestand your comparison about one group allowed to eb nude and the other not being able to but it seems to me to be an apples and oranges question. I have the right to be nude on private property where I do not offend anyone or push my values on another segment of society.
I believe that you have the “right” to be gay in this country if that is what lifestyle you choose. My point is you do not have the right to re-define society and marriage and seek societal acceptance for your lifestyle choice especially by pushing your views on that society.
Posted by reddog on Jan 30, 2005 at 5:26 PM
In his posting of 27 January, Reddog states that his children live in a house next to a gay couple. Note: He does not speak of his family. Just of his children.
This leads me to believe that he lives separated from his wife and children.—In other words: He has violated his “holy vows” of marriage.
Perhaps it is because he himself was a failure at marriage that he seeks to deny the warmth and security of the institution to others.
And this brings us to another… and perhaps the main… point: Marriage is not about “form”, but about “content”. Marriage is 2 people who care enough about each other to officially take responsibility for each other’s well-being. To live their lives together.
If marriage were merely a means of legalising sexual relations or of encouraging child bearing, then it would stand to reason that all marriages that did not produce offspring within a given amount of time (Say 2 years?) would be declared void.
By the way: “Homosexuality” has nothing to do with “sex”. It is about feeling emotional intimacy and security with someone of the same gender. About love. The sex is only one of many expressions of those feelings.
Posted by Ben on Jan 30, 2005 at 11:33 PM
In addition…..
Reddog states in another posting of 27 January:
“Since the birth of the concept of marriage- maybe 2-3 thousand years the whole idea of a marriage has been defined entirely as between a man and a woman for procreation.”
This is simply not true.
For most of history, marriage has been a means of maintaining and expanding one’s property and wealth. For most of history, humans have lived from income, not from salaries. For the lower classes, a good marriage was a question of economic survival. And so it has been of great importance to secure the continuance of a good income. (From land holdings, etc.—You get a glimpse of this even as late as the very early 19th century: See the importance attached to fortuitous marriage prospects and wise marriage decisions in the novels of Jane Austen.) Love marriages are a rather new-fangled notion. They have developed since the rise of the middle-class era. (19th century / late 18th century. The development has something to do with the shift in inheritance laws (From primogeniture, whereby everything was inherited by the first-born son to a system whereby everything was divided equally among all sons.), and the fact that slowly but surely the middle classes were acquiring money and property to bequeth to their children. And they wanted to ensure that it was inherited by THEIR children, not by offspring fathered by their wives’ paramours.) In ancient and early modern Europe it was only the ruling classes who were allowed to officially marry. The lower classes would just “shack up” together.
Again, I maintain that if the right is serious about marriage being an institution with the purpose of procreation, then all marriages that remain childless after a given period of time should automatically become void.—That would only be consistent.
Posted by Ben on Jan 30, 2005 at 11:54 PM
Ben you are a classic case of the delusional left trying vainly to twist concepts of family to suit your push for so called gay marriage. Not that it is any of your business but I was talking about my step-daughter and her husband. I am NOT separated from my wife and children. Quit try to play detective/psycologist to advabce your agenda of re-defining the family. You are just talking on and on and not making any sense!
Marriage is between one man and one woman. That is the way it is and that is the way it will stay. Get over it.
Posted by reddog on Jan 31, 2005 at 5:03 AM
Reddog,
If you have a “step-daughter” it means that you have married into a dysfunctional family, and are therefore now part of one.
:-P
But—hey!—don’t be ashamed: Every 2nd marriage ends in divorce these days. It’s not liberals or gays who are redefining marriage. It’s married (or once married) heterosexuals themselves.
I don’t see how it is acceptable to allow some people to marry-divorce-remarry-divorce-remarry ad absurdum, and yet unacceptable to let other people marry once at all.
Reddog, your vision of America is hypocritical and self-righteous, hateful, arrogant and haughty. And the whole world sees through it.—The whole world. Which is why the United States has been going out of style FAST as a role model or world leader since the Bush regime took power.
Get over it.
Posted by randy on Jan 31, 2005 at 10:01 AM
ok randy- you sure are judgemental with no knowledge of my life or reality. how do you know the woman I married was not a widow?? How do you know she was not divorced beacause of an abusive realtionship.
That is your problem randy you are delusional and misinformed is all- you are not a bad person.
My vision as you put it of America is just fine thanks. Style- do you think “style” has anything to do with relationships, marriage and family?? haughty hunh?? now I really feel bad. Hateful- you sound full of hate because Bad mr. Bush won’t let you say “I do” to your boyfriend.
No America is still the leader and eleven states that rejected so called gay marriage confirmed it. You lead my dear friend not by following “style” but honoring tradition, history, and what you think is right not some persons self delusional concept of style. You need to quit trying to badger, cajole and wheedle the people who rightly define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. you only make yourself and your cause look foolish and terribly unrealistic and so I think you need to get over yourself before you can go on.
Posted by reddog on Jan 31, 2005 at 11:04 AM
As you can see, evil takes many forms.
Pertaining to the subject matter:
-evil is thought, actions that looks to harm or destroy all forms of life and human spirituality.
-organisations/political groups clearly are identified for what they support in the form of homosexuality, abortion, and secularism; or followers heretic doctrine.
Look to understand what is truth in the house that has remained true and unchanged for 2 millenium. What is generally known to be led by human infallibility for a millenium, was once one among five equals.
Posted by 7thAngel on Jan 31, 2005 at 12:15 PM
I have to say that is the best Marylin Manson impersonation I have heard in a long time… Which one of the horseman of the apocolypse are you?? Or are you trying to sound like Christopher Walken??
Posted by reddog on Jan 31, 2005 at 1:50 PM
Curious, men and women are equals, men and men are equals, women and women are equals. People and pets are not equals.
If you think marrying a pet is the same as marrying a member of your own sex then please try it and report back.
Reddog, liberals are not trying to destroy America, conservatives are, you silly rabbit.
By the way, are you familiar with the phrase ‘in the closet’?
Posted by Matilda Gatsby on Feb 1, 2005 at 11:21 PM
Also, Reddog, what’s worse, Gavin Newsom ‘breaking the law’ by allowing gay marriage, or George W. Bush breaking international law by killing seventeen thousand innocent civilians?
Hmmm, let me think.
Posted by Matilda Gatsby on Feb 1, 2005 at 11:27 PM
Hands down Gavin Newsome.. America does not want and will not have gay “marriage” It ain’t gonna happen now or ever so get used to it.
Matilda you are off your medication again! You sleazy little liberals try to indoctrinate our children with your homo filth. You are all a bunch of sickos- Matilda- in the closet- really. I am sorry to tell you that I do not have the mental disorder that causes homosexuality-That means I am NORMAL- heterosexual . God but you are some kinda nutball. That’s it mental degenerates pushing mental degenerates. that’s what you all are.
Hmm let me think you say Matilda- give it up you have not the ability to think if you foster and push this kind of degeneracy on America- please go to France or something and leave America alone with your sheer stupidity…
Posted by reddog on Feb 2, 2005 at 5:55 AM
When Mr Bush and the republican led congress rightfully pass the marriage ammendment to make the law of the land that marriage shall ONLY be between a man and a woman then, then will all you fruitcakes please go back to your closets and leave this country alone with your degenerate ideas?
Posted by reddog on Feb 2, 2005 at 5:59 AM
Twenty questions to get honest with ourselves.
This quiz is for those who care about current issues. Please pass it on to anyone you think should ponder these questions.
1. Do you believe in free speech about homosexuality for everyone except conservatives or Christians?
2. Do you participate in name-calling of those who object to homosexuality—names like bigot, hate-monger, etc.?
3. Do you believe ‘gays’ have been deprived of the right to marry? Doesn’t pretty much everyone have the right to marry now—to a person of the opposite sex?
4. Do you believe those who object to homosexuality are motivated by fear or ignorance? Do you believe they could never be motivated by compassion for the people involved, and if they say so, they must be lying?
5. Do you believe some people will just inevitably be homosexual, and that there’s a set percentage of the population that will always be ‘gay’, and that this won’t increase, even if a culture embraces ‘gay’ sex? Do you think homosexual experimentation could never become ‘chic’ and popular? Is there no risk for the people involved or our culture if this happens?
6. Do you automatically dismiss any conservative comments about homosexuality without listening? Do you believe you are well-informed, while refusing to learn about what homosexuals actually do and the risks involved?
7. Do you believe that the tragedy of any suicide by someone involved in homosexuality is the fault of conservatives? Is the best solution to these tragedies to demand that everyone in America accept homosexuality?
8. Do you automatically dismiss the idea that anyone could be a former homosexual, despite the hundreds of groups started by ex-‘gays’ and the thousands who live in America?
9. Do you believe that homosexuals are born that way? Do you refuse to consider the evidence against this claim? Have you ever looked at the connection between child sexual abuse and later homosexual attraction?
10. Do you believe that only churches that accept homosexuality have interpreted the Bible in the ‘correct’ way? Do you feel it isn’t necessary to read the relevant Bible passages yourself, all of which are straightforward in condemning homosexual acts? Do you believe it’s impossible to be “kind” and oppose homosexuality?
11. Are you quick to say “Judge not, lest you be judged” ( Matthew 7:1) and similar passages, without understanding the Christian theology behind it, and all the while being very judgmental yourself?
12. Do you sincerely believe Jesus would have accepted homosexual sex acts? Do you believe Jesus is cool with whatever anyone wants to do? Do you believe there’s such a thing as ‘sin’ and if so, how is it defined? Are you the one who defines sin for yourself? Do you have no need of a savior and if not, wasn’t Christ’s death and resurrection pretty pointless? Despite all these contradictory and self-constructed beliefs, do you consider yourself a “Christian”?
13. Do you believe sweeping stereotypes, like that all ‘gay’ people are innocent victims or that all conservatives must be mean and stupid?
14. Do you close your ears and figure it’s a conservative plot if you hear that at least 2/3 of all the HIV transmission in the United States still involves males having anal sex with each other?
15. Do you believe anyone who objects to homosexuality is automatically “hateful,” while you seethe with hate yourself?
16. Do you believe it’s okay for thirteen- year- olds to learn at school that they have the right to have homosexual sex with each other? Do you close your ears when concerned parents are outraged? Would you call such parents “ignorant” and accuse them of “censorship”?
17. Do you believe that, after several thousand years where most cultures have prohibited homosexuality, only now the ‘real’ truth is emerging? Do you believe this is not an arrogant, narrow or immature position?
18. Do you believe that ‘gays’ are the target of widespread violence that goes unpunished in the United States? Do you understand that hate crimes stats don’t support this claim and that laws already exist to punish all crimes, no matter why they are committed? Would you be unconcerned about overall civil liberties if trumped -up charges of so-called “hate speech” were used to silence people?
19. Do you believe that conservatives are making a big deal out of a behavior that has no harmful effects on individuals, families, communities, or societies? Do you scoff at any claims that serious public health issues are involved, like sexually transmitted diseases or risks to children?
20 And—very big question: Is your need for other people’s approval greater than your appreciation of truth? Do you refuse to consider an unpopular viewpoint because it might make you appear unenlightened to some people? If your mind and heart changed about this issue, would you have the courage to be a rebel for a worthy cause, to speak up and inform family, friends—and fellow humans who are involved in homosexuality?
The purpose of this quiz is to educate. If you feel angry now, it could be you have some bigoted attitudes, much like the author of this quiz did before learning the facts. Maybe it’s time for a change of mind and heart- -and courage to go with them. God bless you in your sincere search for truth.
From
Mission
Posted by the truth on Feb 2, 2005 at 6:33 AM
nice try “the truth”
but the bully doesn’t get to play the victim…
your 20 questions are so off-base and well, offensive that it’s almost laughable…nice try though…
Posted by neil on Feb 2, 2005 at 1:07 PM
how were the questions off base- or did you just not like the answers you gave?
how do you mean bully? is it not the folks pushing the gay agenda the ones bullying the rest of society? there is nothiung funny about pushing homosexuality on little kids. the whole gay thing is offensive to decent families.
Posted by the truth on Feb 2, 2005 at 2:11 PM
At last ‘reddog’ you show your true character.
There is nothing wrong with being homosexual, there never has been and there never will.
Intolerence and bigotry have, however, caused a lot of unnecessary suffering throughout the long history of humankind.
‘the truth’, I could tear your twenty questions apart, but to be honest, I’m just not that bothered.
Posted by Matilda Gatsby on Feb 3, 2005 at 1:17 AM
yes matilda - homosexuality is a mental disorder and you sound like you may have a bad case of it on top of your already delusionally liberal mind. better get help soon lady- or are you a guy? or do you know are you confused? had not anybody let you know the 60’s is over yet.
You know you are bothered and you WILL come back & read my post and it will put you thru the roof- you will feel like your head will explode- oh those bad hetero- religious people- why can’t they just let men take it in the ass in peace and leave us all alone- oh opression - oh freedom.
give it up you old windbag -liberalism is dead- you killed it…you are not the great gatsby- you are a liberal moron- bush won 4 more years tilda 4 more years and I hope every day is hell for you and your ilk.
Posted by reddish on Feb 3, 2005 at 8:17 AM
i have a question for the politically correct police. Do you think it is right to take Christmas out of the schools while teaching them it’s ok to be gay? maybe now you will understand why everybody hates the politically correct police..ho ho ho
Posted by santa on Feb 3, 2005 at 4:56 PM
As you can see, evil takes many forms.
Pertaining to the subject matter:
-evil is thought, actions that looks to harm or destroy all forms of life and human spirituality.
-organisations/political groups clearly are identified for what they support in the form of homosexuality, abortion, and secularism; or followers heretic doctrine.
Look to understand what is truth in the house that has remained true and unchanged for 2 millenium. What is generally known to be led by human infallibility for a millenium, was once one among five equals.
reddog : Your perspective is for the most part correct, but your comments in regards to mine are worthless, baseless and lack any hint of real intelligence. You really need to settle down or just grow up.
My last paragraph will serve anyone that has any kind of reasoning if interest is taken, but somethings are worth trying to figure out.
Posted by 7thAngel on Feb 4, 2005 at 2:25 PM
What do you mean 7thAngel?? i thought you were just mindlessly trying to attack or intimidate me like they all do on this site. I’ll settle down but please continue….....
Posted by reddog on Feb 4, 2005 at 6:07 PM
The Bottom line is that there is a secular cancer growing in our global society. A society that worships nothing but it’s own vanity and opinion while reasoning that death, harm through abortions and violence, along with homosexuality that also defiles life is a normal part of our world.
The media has taken the forefront of promoting homosexuality by programming the acceptance of this way of life to it’s viewers. The portrayal of homosexuality as being perfectly normal while injecting the idea that this “life style” has an insight that can “make over” a seemingly lackluster individual that happens to be interesting enough “straight”, into an enlightened product of there own life style.
On the other side of the spectrum, the promotion of promiscuous heterosexuality along with bisexuality is at unavoidable levels on every form of media. Programming from “gone wild” to
even commercials offering phone sex offered at all times, offering no consideration to who is sitting in front of that television.
Morality has been diluted and infected with the growing acceptance of lesser values. We are all being subjected to this and the perfect example of the end result of our society is what mirrors it perfectly, Children. No one needs anyone to explain examples of this since it is prevalent everywhere.
As an analogy, amphibians are a perfect barometer of the environment since it mirrors the environmental condition of our Earth, and by exhibiting monstrous patterns of mutation it gives a very distressing outlook. The same distressing outlook is given for our Children since they are only replicating and compounding our (adult) patterns of behavior. I have no question that adult society is no longer active in the forefront of setting “the ground rules” for morality, the media is. Yes, there is a good percentage of parents and organizations that hold onto strong values but the “powers to be” know that they can inject promiscuous entertainment on the web, tv, music and cinema and get away with it since any repercussions are benign by our civil and political “leadership”.
In the end, society in general is following a script set by a dark entity that wants the soul of humanity, and humanity has not figured it out yet, but not to worry it soon will. Only problem is that it may be too late when it does.
An individual has control over themselves, and the ability to influence family, friends and to a certain degree society, in the hope of helping others, if just one, to the realization of the ominous times we live in, and that we all should learn to live in pursuit of our own Theosis.
Posted by 7thangel on Feb 7, 2005 at 12:11 PM
Hello thetruth
I’d like to take a stab at answering your questions posted above. No idea if you’ll check back to this aged board to read, but here goes. My starting point is that I think life as a human being is worth living. Another idea that follows is that I don’t buy original sin as either a fact of the cosmos or a good attitude to carry into life. Very self-defeating.
1. Do you believe in free speech about homosexuality for everyone except conservatives or Christians?
Every side should be heard, even people who dislike homosexuals, or those who may like individuals but consider them a “special” group who need a special legal status. That’s part of liberal democracy because interplay of ideas is a better idea than suppression. Some opinions are more peaceful than others, but it’s no harm to hear one out.
2. Do you participate in name-calling of those who object to homosexuality—names like bigot, hate-monger, etc.?
Nope. But if people talk in hateful ways, then they’re haters. Just like one can thoughtlessly react to the word “conservative”, many also react to the word “gay”. Accountability for the words you say (and me) is fair and reasonable. If the words are hateful, there you go. So-called liberals who insult, or talk hateful, same.
3. Do you believe ‘gays’ have been deprived of the right to marry? Doesn’t pretty much everyone have the right to marry now—to a person of the opposite sex?
They have the right to marry people they’re not in love with, who they don’t want to join their lives to. They have a right to a sham marriage. That’s not really a right at all.
4. Do you believe those who object to homosexuality are motivated by fear or ignorance? Do you believe they could never be motivated by compassion for the people involved, and if they say so, they must be lying?
I think those who object to homosexuality are motivated by the thought that it’s unnatural. Also, they’re obeying the theological values they’ve been taught. But it’s not unnatural, since same-gender sexual behavior is observable across human cultures and in numerous other species. As for compassion, it’s hard to see how all the singling out is a gesture of kindness or a wish to benefit. Maybe it’s not actually lying, maybe it’s doublethinking, but containing a man and passing laws against him isn’t compassionate. Is it?
5. Do you believe some people will just inevitably be homosexual, and that there’s a set percentage of the population that will always be ‘gay’, and that this won’t increase, even if a culture embraces ‘gay’ sex? Do you think homosexual experimentation could never become ‘chic’ and popular? Is there no risk for the people involved or our culture if this happens?
Some people just are homosexual. They know what they feel. Lots know what they feel but push it down because of the hassle they know they’ll get. The number of gays isn’t really important, people have the right (or should have) to love who they love, and to marry who they love. And some people are willing to experiment with risky behaviors, skydiving, racing, anonymous sexual encounters. If they accept the risk, they get the result, can’t whine if they don’t like the outcome. But if people marry, they’re saying they want monogamy. Whether they stick to it or not, oh well, but that’s what they’re reaching for if they marry. People should not be compelled to conform to cultural values they don’t accept when they’re different preference harms no one. Must we all be the same, believe and live the same? Man to man or woman to woman love harms no one, in and of itself. Human sex is not primarily about babies; if it were, human female would have a different estrus pattern, they’d come into season like horses. But they don’t, because human sex is much more about fun and intimacy and passion for the passion of another. People only do it with same-gender partners if they really want it, either out of inner desire or a will to investigate. No one is coerced into gay sex unless they’ve been raped by a same-sex attacker. There’s more risk to our culture from legalized discrimination at the constitutional level than from gay marriage. One goes against American traditions, the other changes what America is.
6. Do you automatically dismiss any conservative comments about homosexuality without listening? Do you believe you are well-informed, while refusing to learn about what homosexuals actually do and the risks involved?
Homosexuals, like you and like me, can surely negotiate their own love lives. Any sex that isn’t monogamous has risks, hetero or homo. Gays deal with the risks, and so do the straights.
7. Do you believe that the tragedy of any suicide by someone involved in homosexuality is the fault of conservatives? Is the best solution to these tragedies to demand that everyone in America accept homosexuality?
Suicide is always tragic, for whatever reason. If a person has been made to feel despair and hopelessness because of all the sneering attention, all the derogation, all the mythology and past culture poured on their head, it’s the ones singling them out for hassle who are accountable.
8. Do you automatically dismiss the idea that anyone could be a former homosexual, despite the hundreds of groups started by ex-‘gays’ and the thousands who live in America?
If a man thinks he’s taken the wrong path and wants to correct it, that’s what he should do. If he would benefit from support groups, they’re out there. But another who knows he’s on the right track should be able to stick to it without having to hide. Some people know what they want with confidence and forthrightness, it’s sad that others don’t. Help is available, for those who want it.
9. Do you believe that homosexuals are born that way? Do you refuse to consider the evidence against this claim? Have you ever looked at the connection between child sexual abuse and later homosexual attraction?
Inborn v. acquired are so intertwined it’s hard to pick them apart. Abused children very often do show precocious sexual behavior with unhealthy manifestations. Hetero and homo. Lots of kids are abused, sickeningly. But consenting adults who do have an attraction and affection for each other are not showing signs of abuse or damaged minds. Even if they’re both boys, or both girls.
10. Do you believe that only churches that accept homosexuality have interpreted the Bible in the ‘correct’ way? Do you feel it isn’t necessary to read the relevant Bible passages yourself, all of which are straightforward in condemning homosexual acts? Do you believe it’s impossible to be “kind” and oppose homosexuality?
The Hebrews didn’t countenance homosexuality, they thought it wrong. The Greeks, whose thoughts helped shape the books of the New Testament, thought it no problem. The early Christians adopted the ways of their Hebrew theological forebears, so also did not accept homosexuality. However, the law of the United States, a country whose basic founding ideology is religiously neutral, must therefore not pattern itself on the cultural ways described in the Bible. Law and order, justice and social peace, do not rely upon a Biblical legal referent.
11. Are you quick to say “Judge not, lest you be judged” ( Matthew 7:1) and similar passages, without understanding the Christian theology behind it, and all the while being very judgmental yourself?
Ready to not judge, here and now. No one is qualified to evaluate the spiritual worthiness or unworthiness of another person, if they believe in such things as Divine Judgment and spirits at all. But I do judge constitutional law that sets the stage for enforced cultural ways upon those who don’t accept them as being oppressive. Fundamental national law, oppressive. Scary.
12. Do you sincerely believe Jesus would have accepted homosexual sex acts? Do you believe Jesus is cool with whatever anyone wants to do? Do you believe there’s such a thing as ‘sin’ and if so, how is it defined? Are you the one who defines sin for yourself? Do you have no need of a savior and if not, wasn’t Christ’s death and resurrection pretty pointless? Despite all these contradictory and self-constructed beliefs, do you consider yourself a “Christian”?
Growing up in Roman-ruled Hebrew Palestine, he would have been taught that homosexuality was wrong. To the extent that the Gospels reveal his character, it doesn’t appear likely that accepting the hassling of gays or anyone was his speed, however. American law should be religiously neutral, I will repeat. I am christian to the extent that I admire the teachings of Jesus that lead people to take care of each other and identify with their worshipful source. But who confronted religious convention more than Jesus, who claimed to be the Son of God among a culture that saw such a thing as abhorrent? Is that conforming to majority values? And that claim is a more fundamental “heresy” (in its context) than homosexuality, because it gets to the core of Spirit and Who God really Is. Jesus may have gone along with his culture plenty, but he certainly departed from it in a pivotal and public way.
13. Do you believe sweeping stereotypes, like that all ‘gay’ people are innocent victims or that all conservatives must be mean and stupid?
People who get harmed by the law when they have hurt no one, who have done nothing but be themselves and seek a little love in a mean and stupid world, are innocent victims.
14. Do you close your ears and figure it’s a conservative plot if you hear that at least 2/3 of all the HIV transmission in the United States still involves males having anal sex with each other?
I’d want to check the data. HIV transmission worldwide is overwhelmingly associated with promiscuous heterosexual sex, if the reported data is real. It can be checked also. It could be possible that the US has a divergent model, but if the virus is spread by promiscuity, whether hetero or homo, that’s not the same as being due to gay sex per se.
15. Do you believe anyone who objects to homosexuality is automatically “hateful,” while you seethe with hate yourself?
It’s not a matter of hate, it’s a matter of equal rights for all adult US citizens regardless of descriptive category. But it is shameful to oppress others who do no one any tangible harm. America says it’s out on that sort of thing, has for two centuries. Our law should reflect our highest rhetoric, it’s miserable that it doesn’t.
16. Do you believe it’s okay for thirteen- year- olds to learn at school that they have the right to have homosexual sex with each other? Do you close your ears when concerned parents are outraged? Would you call such parents “ignorant” and accuse them of “censorship”?
Parents must raise their kids, no one wants to stop them. If homosexuality is coming up regularly in the classroom, it must be a preoccupation of the teacher or, more likely, a question that the youth are grappling with. The kids will grow up and choose their own values and sex partners, in conformity with their parents’ views or not. In the end, they will have the control of their own bodies and who they share them with. When my kids were little, I censored violent entertainments out of their reach, felt fine about it. But as adults, they’re free agents. It’s not correct for me to push them around (or anyone) using law or muscle.
17. Do you believe that, after several thousand years where most cultures have prohibited homosexuality, only now the ‘real’ truth is emerging? Do you believe this is not an arrogant, narrow or immature position?
A value with a thousands-year-long history that has been recently assaulted is the idea that one person may own or dispose of another by force. This underlies slavery and all forms of oppression. Old or not, it’s an idea best left behind. Some ancient ideas or folkways are better dissolved. Female subjugation. Absolutist rule. Harm against people who have done no harm. All ancient, all aggressive, all defended by the terms culture, religion, or tradition. There is such a thing as new wisdom, we can actually learn and progress. The ancients did not know everything, no need to over-exalt them. We can learn a lot from their examples, and also from their anti-examples, the things we should not imitate.
18. Do you believe that ‘gays’ are the target of widespread violence that goes unpunished in the United States? Do you understand that hate crimes stats don’t support this claim and that laws already exist to punish all crimes, no matter why they are committed? Would you be unconcerned about overall civil liberties if trumped -up charges of so-called “hate speech” were used to silence people?
Laws that punish anti-gay violence are good laws, and they’re also relatively new. At least, enforcement upon anti-gay attackers is much more likely than in the past. Constitutional amendments that force cultural conformity and play favorites with granting rights are a far more serious concern today. Trumped up charges shred the fabric of a democratic republic, including the charge that expanding marriage rights to include gays will destroy families and hurt children.
19. Do you believe that conservatives are making a big deal out of a behavior that has no harmful effects on individuals, families, communities, or societies? Do you scoff at any claims that serious public health issues are involved, like sexually transmitted diseases or risks to children?
There are ways to prevent or at least minimize disease transmission due to sex, whether hetero or homo. People who force sex upon kids should be put away. Anyone who thinks they have the right to regulate the sexual behavior of ostensibly free, consenting adults, really is overstepping. And as for marriage, which is not entirely about sex at all but more about love and wanting to form a legal family with another, the only harm is the confrontation with those who think their religious ways ought to be legally enforceable. They should not be!
20 And—very big question: Is your need for other people’s approval greater than your appreciation of truth? Do you refuse to consider an unpopular viewpoint because it might make you appear unenlightened to some people? If your mind and heart changed about this issue, would you have the courage to be a rebel for a worthy cause, to speak up and inform family, friends—and fellow humans who are involved in homosexuality?
Considering that the pro-gay marriage view is a minority stance in America, I don’t think mass approval is really the idea. Acknowledging differences that already exist and considering the people who we’re talking about to be just fine is the idea. Equalizing rights among free citizens is the idea. Some of us are promoting a very unpopular viewpoint, and we are thought perverse because we don’t accept your premise or share your aversion. You should be able to love who want, whoever loves you. You should be able to marry whoever you want, everyone should.
Yeah yeah, obviously not kids, animals, or furniture, <sigh>
I gave these answers a lot of thought, I hope you return to this board to read them, thetruth.
Posted by Kuya on Feb 10, 2005 at 8:55 AM
homosexuality is a disease of modern society. Liberalism is a mental disorder. AIDS cures homosexuality. Now we have to find the cure for liberalism.
Posted by more truth on Feb 21, 2005 at 12:37 PM
truth: Liberalism has nothing to do with it at this stage in the game. You are a bigot. It doesn’t matter how you word it; you sound like the stupid macho asshole your father probably is. I feel sorry for you, because I don’t know if you know how uninformed and ignorant you truly sound to people who have sat down and really THOUGHT about this issue instead of jumping to some conclusion based on personal fear and a work of fiction written a few thousand years ago. The sooner you realize that your almighty opinion doesn’t mean squat in this dicussion, the better off we’ll all be.
You Deserve It:
I hope you get AIDS from a heterosexual skank you know from work, and feel the pain you just passively wished on other human beings first-hand. You are a lowlife scumbag waste of human life for suggesting something so stupid, and the earth would be a better place without you.
Go to hell.
Posted by Devinw on Mar 15, 2005 at 10:28 PM
In My opinion I feel like who to say who can marry who… It known that people dont like when other people try and regulate their lives so why are we trying to do the same?? I know many people feel that it is morally wrong but we also have to face the facts that not everyone believe or feel the same way… And trying to force your beliefs on other people isnt right either… It seems to me that by not allowing Gay Marriages people think that will stop all Homosexual relations… But it wont… Homosexuals will continue to go about their lives and still be with their partner so really I see no point in stoping it… There is a quotes that says:“If you cant change it, Change the way you think about it.” I believe that this quotes is good advice
Posted by Jess on Mar 21, 2005 at 10:08 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
I wonder, IF we allow gays to marry, do we also allow group marriages? If not, why not? (I note that Pat Ireland had both a husband and a lesbian lover - perhaps she might have wished to “marry” both?)
How about marriages between people and pets?
While i know that these questions might strike some as “stupid” or whatever, how do we codify marriage in such a way as to make clear what the new boundaries might be?
Perhaps the optimal solution is to end the state sponsoring of marriage altogether? We could allow civil unions by the state, and marriage only by the religious sector. . .
NO you get used to the fact that America rejects gay” marriage”. Outside of taxachussets and the gay bay this ridiculous idea won’t ever fly. Rampant homosexuality is a true sign of a civilization in decline. But go ahead and push your agenda- I LOVE seeing democrats especially far left wacko democrats lose elections.
This is just a response to ‘curious’ and ‘reddog’...when you think about it, it may seem silly to think that someone should be able to marry a dog, or have group marriages.
But when it comes down to it, if your neighbor wants to get married to - I don’t know - a kitchen chair, why should you care? It doesn’t affect you at all. So sure, maybe someone would want to get married to their pet. Or maybe they love two people (who also love each other) and want to have a group marriage. Who are you to stop them?
I don’t remember reading anywhere that the rules were that only 2 LIVING HUMANS, a man and a woman, were allowed to be married. Except, of course, the Bible, but we DO have that little thing called separation of church and state.
And, as for the fact that ‘rampant homosexuality’ is a true sign of a civilization in decline…uh, sorry. No. I would love to hear a theory on how that would work. Because in my head, it wouldn’t.
Let’s face it. Separation of church and state means that the Bible or the Torah or whatever has no bearing on who should be allowed to marry who.
You can come up with as many excuses as you’d like…I firmly believe that the only excuse for anti-LGBT behavior or opinions is bigotry and religious brainwashing.
open-minded: “You can come up with as many excuses as you’d like…I firmly believe that the only excuse for anti-LGBT behavior or opinions is bigotry and religious brainwashing.”
There are clearly other possiblities.
I suppose your statement is equivalent to saying: “I firmly believe that the only excuse for anti-Christian behavior or opinions is bigotry and religious brainwashing.”. I expect everyone on this list can see the error in *that*.
I say, different strokes for different folks. But i am still left with my original curiousity unsatisfied. . .
I really don’t know what other possibilities there are for anti-LGBT behavior and opinions. You either don’t like gay people (bigotry) or you’ve been taught that being gay is wrong (religious brainwashing). (And just a side note, maybe ‘religious brainwashing’ is a little too harsh of a phrase. Sorry, didn’t mean to offend).
Anyway, if there are other possibilities, I don’t see them. Anyone I have met, seen on TV, read about, etc. who is anti-gay is that way due to either of the above reasons. I’d be interested to hear of any other reasons.
And as for the whole ‘anti-Christian’ thing…I do not have any hatred or dislike toward Christians, other than the fact that the more powerful leaders in the Christian community are going out of their way to spearhead anti-gay movements. And I certainly don’t see any error in my statement, and heavily disagree with the statement that it is equivalent to saying “I firmly believe that the only excuse for anti-Christian behavior or opinions is bigotry and religious brainwashing”. Religion and sexual orientation can’t really be interchanged in sentences like that.
So, just to clarify, are you for or against gay marriage? Or neutral?
And as for your original curiosity…I can’t say whether or not we can draw a line where marriages and freedoms can and cannot go. It may be crossing the line to marry a dog or a chair, but where was it made a rule against two men marrying? Or three people? Nowhere.
I think marriages should have set guidelines that should make it clear whether or not the marriage is in the best interest of both parties. Yes, even if someone wants to marry their pet.
open minded- sure why not how about if we all want to take a dump in the road or smoke crack with the kids or tie up women and kill them. Hey according to your “open mindedness” anything goes right. The separation of church and state you lefties love to harp on is a tired old horse. Where do we even get the notion of right v wrong? From the Bible, from a higher authority. You cannot pick and choose according to you your own perversions which ideas are allowable and which are not. There are basic rules of civilization that define us a being civilized . Your using PC phrases like tolerance and diversity are just code words for “progressives” trying to redefine society while trying to destroy the true definition of a family. have you on the left not done enough to destroy the American family and values?
Fact: Homosexuality is not a “learned” behavior. Disagreement with this statement is an option, but being correct in that disagreement is not.
Fact: The requirements of equality outlined in the U.S. Constitution demand acceptance of gay marriage. Personal opinions based on religion or spoon-fed bias must be left at the door.
Fact: There are not “more and more” homosexuals every year. Continued acceptance of homosexual culture in the media results in less secrecy. If you look at historical texts dating back hundreds of years, there are clear signs of hidden homosexual lifestyles - much less accepted back then.
Fact: The Bible was written by men, for men. This, too, is a disputed statement - and while I cannot stand on any proof that God’s hand wasn’t on the pen, I CAN say that most of us have no real idea of what the original scripture says after so many translations and edits through the centuries.
Fact: Allowing homosexual marriage will not open the door to polygamy or beastiality or incest. There is a question of person and societal harm in regard to allowing these practices, and while homosexuality harms no one, these other items have a long history of both physical and psychological trauma. As with many things, this is only a red herring used when discussing the fuller context.
Fact: STDs are spread just as quickly, (and often times at a pace which far outstrips gays) between heterosexuals as homosexuals. In regard to sexual activities, there is nothing a homosexual couple can do that heterosexual couples don’t also engage in on a frequent basis. This is a scare tactic and nothing more.
FACT: Children raised by homosexual families are no more or less balanced than other children, nor do they exhibit homosexual tendencies. As a simple factor of mathematics, the chances of a heterosexual couple raising a gay child is 10 times that of a homosexual couple who adopts or, in the case of women, take advantage of other fertility options to have children.
FACT: Ignorance is not an excuse for intolerance, nor is it a justification for spreading lies and distortions to satisify personal faith. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to email me (homepage link), but unless they are also willing to have an open mind, it isn’t going to do either of us much good.
Quit being chauvinistic, get off of your soapbox. It’s time to exit your chimerical reality.
fact- homosexuality is deviant behavoir and it is wrong
fact America will never accept homosexual “marriage”
Consenting adult humans should be assumed to know who they want to marry, and should be allowed to do so. Animals and kids can’t conceive the significance of making their lives into partnerships (it must be difficult for plenty of straight, married, man + woman couples to conceive it, judging from their adultery and divorce rates), so “marrying” any of them is absurd and abusive. As for “marrying” furniture, nuff said. Christians didn’t invent marriage, they have no moral right to dominion over it, and furthermore choosing not to be Christian simply is not an attack upon Christianity. As for the Bible as a source of moral authority, it’s a mixed bag and depends most on the intentions of people and the uses to which they put it. In the Old Testament, 42 children are said to have been killed by bears for speaking disrespectfully to the prophet Elisha. Elsewhere, the Israelites were supposedly encouraged by God to invade, dispossess, and destroy the Canaanites. Are those moral outcomes? But also, in the Gospels, Jesus is said to have taught that only those free of sin were justified in attacking those they saw as behaving immorally by throwing the first stone. I see that as an exalted moral message. The Bible is an edited document, compiled over centuries, and does not contain a seamless moral message beyond that of obedience to the God it describes (the specifics of that obedience vary among the books). In any case, it will certainly be an uphill climb to get anti-gay crusaders to see that they are not harmed the marriages of those who get hot over people with the same gender. Within my lifetime, hetero-racial marriages were outlawed in many American states but today they’re ordinary. It will just take more effort and relentless reasoning to show the large, anti-gay group that they’re mistaken in trying to force the Bible into our faces. Y’all should live by it if you wish, I just can’t figure out why you insist that we all live by it.
you have the “right” to be homosexual in this country. No one (at least not me) advocating meanness or violence toward gays. But you do not have the right to distort a societal norm i.e. marriage to legitimize a behavoir that most of America finds repugnant. it is mean and cruel of you on the left to infringe your views on the rest of society. Quit trying to frame the debate in terms that anybody that does not agree with your totalitarian view of diversity is the problem- you are the problem.
They don’t want us, sir, they only want each other. It shouldn’t be a problem… Surely freedom means being able to follow your own lights, the pursuit of your own happiness, that’s all I’ve ever said about it. I do get hot under the collar about this issue and I get pretty damn strident in my tone, it’s true, but just to take a step back and rephrase, freedom really ought to be the highest value in America, shouldn’t it?
Reddog: since when do you speak for ‘most Americans’? A poll determined that 86% of Americans would have no problem voting for a presidential candidate who was openly gay.
Grow up.
Isn’t it a free country? What, pray tell, is a ‘social norm’? I was under the impression that we lived by something called the rule of law, not the neighbor’s opinion, so I guess we can throw away *your* legal rights too? The fact that there are many people who do not believe as you do, but who are just as much citizens of their country, does not make *them* the norm for some reason? Why the double standard?
In reference to America—the U.S. Constitution speaks of equal justice before the law. It does not say that you are under the dictatorship of someone else’s personal opinion. Marriage is a legal state, therefore it is governed by state law, and the question becomes whether or not the state can regard gays as not having access to the status of marriage when it is obligated by the concept of equal justice to admit them to every other institution.
Face it, homophobia is the new racism. Now that sexism and racism have become socially taboo, ignorant people don’t have many places to go, except to that one point. How pathetic.
Reddog and curious are just pig-headed types who get a kick out of being nasty. One could go on forever about the psychological problems concomitant with religious fanaticism and homophobia. Suffice it to say that the claims about people next wanting to marry a goat or something, are patently absurd. Some people just like to use big words to make their twisted stereotypes look like legitimate social concern. Nonsense. Trash like reddog and curious have about as much concern for the rest of society as a fly does about nuclear physics.
Besides, since when does the church control the government? When did this turn into the Spanish Inquisition?
It sounds like that was the only time clowns like those two would have been happy.
hey d.r. do you propose to speak for America?? Every state rightfully voted down gay “marriage”. what planet were you on? You homophiles have forced the gay issue to be the new racism at any cost. What’s next on your tolerance and diversity tour- banning the bible? arresting priests who speak out against the abomination of homosexuality? i am not going to allow you to make me out to be the bad guy. We got along great for over 200 years without gay “mariage” in this country. I say you are trash sir. Trash that wants to pervert this country for your own sodomite interests. you put yourself above all else to make the decision for the rest of us that homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle-it is not. I do not get a kick out of being nasty but I do get a good feeling when I am right.
MAN.
You people bashing homosexuality are the main reason I LEFT your (well, OUR, though it embarrasses me)sorry country. Jesus, people, comparing a gay marriage to marriage to the family pet or furniture? The laws of the land are written BY and FOR PEOPLE. That is clear enough. It’s the first three words of the US Constitution.
This author is right - times and religion and social acceptance are all things that change, and I would submit that they are FORCED to change. My marriage, to a Chinese woman (Chinese national, in fact), would have been illegal on the grounds of mixing races not too long ago, in both of our countries. How is that more absurd than my homosexual aunt being forbidden to marry her partner? I don’t see it. Anti-gay thoughts, belief, behavior and legislation are ALL, as open-minded pointed out, mindless bigotry or religious zealousness. That’s all. And this WILL change, like it or not.
Freedom should be Freedom for ALL,not just for the majority.as far as distorting a social norm,we’re talking about changing a law which is discriminatory and clearly unconstitutional.but I guess the Constitution only applies to people who think they’re right.
reddog, you’re gay!accept it.deal with it,get on with your life.you’re spending way to much time and energy trying to convince everyone else that you’re not gay.we’re not buying it.
Dear reddog:
The Christian doctrine that framed the constitution of this nation excluded black folk from equality. Many people died so that others could obtain civil rights. Lynched, burned to death, casually executed because they wanted the right to vote, or be treated with the dignities afforded their white neighbors.
To deny ANYONE the same rights and protections, that were fought for through the sacrifice of many, is a violation of that individual’s civil rights!
If you can deny civil rights based on sexual orientation, why not race next?
I have often wondered about this, and perhaps someone out there knows of a resource that would satisfy, or at least stimulate, my curiousity on this subject: homosexuality as step in evolution. Being left-handed, genetic mutations interest me. Oddly, the number of lefties and gays are both roughly 10%. 98% of chimpanzees are right-handed, and while I don’t know the number of gay chimps, I do know that the bonobo, which is closer to us than the chimp, has wild orgies of 2, 3, 5 apes at a time, not to mention same-sex pairings. Dolphins, the mammal we most often concede to having intelligence, also have same-sex pairings for recreation.
It may seem contradictory to say, since gays can’t reproduce, but perhaps they add to the social unit in a way that furthers the whole. That is, perhaps the ability to isolate physical pleasure in sex, rather than some dull animal magnetism whose sole purpose is procreation, is an expression of a more evolved creature. It may also explain why anti-evolutionist Christians hate and fear them. Anyway, food for thought.
I’ll bet reddog is a perfect Christian in all areas of his life… he must be to judge people like that. I would gladly slap him with that bible of his if he keeps up all this hatred. I will only slap him with the old testament though.
Jesus said that he cant force anyone to follow him.every person can make his or her choices.in europe as far as i know and can see with my eyes,many gays do go to church and many of them do confess(i suppose its up to the individual priest ).nobody is a saint and nobody can force anyone to be a saint.instead of being against gays why dont we all try to simply accept them as part of the society with equal rights?we r all equal arent we?here though i have to say that i am against gay religious weddings.a wedding i think is between a man and a woman.another solution should be found that will satisfy the needs of gay people without involving the church…..this is just my personal opinion…..
boy the wackos were out in force to my response to my common sense idea that people of the same sex don’t have any right to marry. Whew what a bunch of -i don’t know even the words right now. Using Jesus to protect homosxuality takes the cake tho. I wish America would read some of the above posts and find out how wacked out you supporters of gay “marriage” really are. Thank God people had enough sense to vote gay “marriage” down in every state. Outside of this site there are still people with good sense.
As an addendum to my earlier post, I’d like to say something regarding a religious reading of homosexuality, as this seems to be the most powerful catalyst in the argument against gay marriage, and is direct contrast to my own leanings.
Paul Carus once wrote: “Good is that which fosters life, evil that which hinders or destroys it.” He also defined evolution as not simply the ability to adapt to surroundings, “but a more and more perfect incarnation of Truth.” I fear that instead of looking for rational explanations for anomalies like homosexuality, those disquieted by the vague implications of subjectivity look towards the more comforting Truths of the old religions, regardless of their inconsistencies in logic or their irrevelance to modern life. Thinking along the lines of Carus’ statements may help our fundamentalist compatriots to let go of such pacifiers, which do hinder our lives by blocking our collective understanding, by recognizing that the humanities point to a larger objectivity from which to guide our actions.
hey Ryan good luck trying to slap me with a bible dude- you may get surprised and get hit with something a lot worse than a bible- my right fist. and rocco good point- the difference is what is perceived as right and wrong. Nobody is trying to round up or persecute gays. The gays and their friends on the left pushed the gay"marriage” thing. They are trying to legitimize thru marriage what most folks consider abnormal or deviant behavoir. You want to live and let live-quit stirring the hornets nest of values in this country.
reddog,you are an idiot.
hey what’s the truth - thank you- i consider it an honor to be denigrated by such an highly esteemed character such as yourself. You make all call me names like the infantile fools you are but that does not change the fact that I am right and you are wrong.
It seems quite natural that a minority group would struggle to gain equality of treatment. Gays also represent an interesting anomaly, even amongst minorities, because it cuts across all regions of the socio-economic, ethnic, and gender spectra; therefore they are not necessarily economically or educationally disenfranchised, while being legally so.
The frustration of this kind of “outside-looking-in” position is evident. So we can understand why the gay agenda wants immediate action, whether the rest of the country is ready or not (easy parallels can be made with blacks in the South). Now the only questions can be that of morality (which I hope I have addressed sufficiently with my previous two posts) and that of the sanctity of marriage. As to the internal laws of a specific religion, I have no place to question, but can someone explain to me why marriage - performed by a justice of the peace - is invalid in a country that purports separation of church and state?
The central issue here is “what is marriage”? In the past it has *ALWAYS* referred to a union of a man and a woman. This word - “marriage” - has a meaning. It is this that some, apparently, want to alter.
For the record, i am against this alteration.
Why? Because to those who believe in this institution and this word, marriage is sacred. To change the meaning of the word into something else that is anathema to their personal beliefs is not just wrong, but stupid. (There is also the obvious practical issues of what would this new institution encompass, eg, group “marriage”, etc?)
This obviously does not imply *any* discrimination against gays. Let them have civil unions if they wish, with all the **government** granted rights of a marriage. After all, isn’t this what it is really about - $$$ and rights? But lets just keep the word “marriage” and the concept it represents the same as it always has been, throughout all of our history. A history that is steeped in religions of various forms.
To capture and destroy the word marriage is a hostile attack on much of the people in this country (and most others).
This is, of course, just my opinion. As are most of the “FACTS” Mathias states above are his opinions (but obviously strongly held ones). I find it useful to distinguish between facts and opinions (but this is probably just due to my scientific background).
PS - it is far from determined that homosexuality is fully genetic or fully environmental. The smart money is that it has components of both, as do most other sophisticated animal behaviours (really a no-brainer, if you think about it).
Do we really have to resort to namecalling? Whether by liberals or conservatives, it is counterproductive. It would be more enlightening to say what you think about an issue, rather than call someone names - even if they started it! (How many times i say **that** in a week!)
One possible rule that might be useful. Call ideas stupid, silly, screwed up, etc. But be respectful of individuals - even when they disagree with your opinions.
Just a thought.
Curious -
Thanks for the correction…I did not expound on all aspects of homosexual origins - that there may be sociological impeti - solely for the sake of brevity, hoping that someone might know of an outlet of information re: gays in evolutionary biology.
I have heard it defined as a bell curve: if 1 is genetically gay, and 10 hetero, then the majority of us fall somewhere in the middle, and environmental effects shape what we become. This is an answer to why some societies embrace homosexuality as a commonality (Ancient Greece, many tribes of Papua New Guinea).
As for the term “marriage:” if civil unions are granted, what then differentiates a marriage from a civil union? Wouldn’t that be a semantic compromise, weakening the relevance of the institution of marriage anyway? And why can’t we create our own rites from our personal beliefs? Is that not one of the points of freedom of religion?
to curious: if “marriage” is so sacred, why is divorce so rampant? rather than worrying about gays “capturing and destroying the word marriage”, i would consider how hetero’s are already reducing the meaning of marriage on their own.
For the record, I personally think the insitution of marriage is laughable. As long as civil unions are recognized and ANY couple regardless or gender can receive the same legal benefits as a hetero one that is fine with me. However, i do believe that if for whatever reason gays want to get “married” they should be allowed to just like everyone else.
Rocco - Long ago i read a wonderful book “On Human Nature” that discussed human sexuality in terms of evolutionary development. The author is Ed Wilson, but i imagine much has been written since then. Anyway, i agree with the “bell curve” hypothesis. It is also interesting (to me at least) that homosexuality seems to be prevalent in many species (mammals and birds). So it would appear that it has some sort of evolutionary advantage (Wilson tentatively ascribed it to altruism, as i recall. Perhaps the uncles and aunts with no kids will help their nieces and nephews, for instance).
As for “Wouldn’t that be a semantic compromise, weakening the relevance of the institution of marriage anyway?”: i agree it is a compromise. But nonetheless it leaves “marriage” alone. . . (who said, rather cynically, that any good compromise is one that leave both sides unhappy?)
beth asks: “if “marriage” is so sacred, why is divorce so rampant?”. Life is sacred, yet death is ubiquitous. Alas we live in an imperfect world. . .
As you say, you have no respect for marriage itself. Being an “old guy” i have to say that i have seen some really pathetic marriages. But then again, i have seen some really wonderful ones too. For bringing up children, a (preferably happy) married couple is an optimal social unit.
Synopsis: “Marriage” is a “reserved word”, with a long history and strong religious overtones (which many of our laws have as well). The rights the *state* gives to couples could either be totally eliminated (libertarian point of view) or conferred to those who obtain civil unions (for those who like social engineering of a moderate sort). Using it to describe homosexual unions or group unions is offensive to a large fraction of the US population (and an even larger population of **any** Islamic state, i strongly suspect!).
Curious -
Thanks for the book…will look it up. As for the compromise quote, well, fine. If it keeps both parties relatively contented (or equally unhappy), it would be an improvement. Though the logical redundancy still perturbs me. They’re only words, and they have as much power as we decide to give them.
But, to quote George Clooney’s character in O Brother Where Art Thou, “It’s a fool who looks for logic in the human heart.”
P.S. While we’re juggling with the subtle shades of synonyms, can we change civil unions to “bindings”? Or, no?
Wow…I thought I’d have to defend my opinion against reddog but I came back to find that all of you guys have done it for me.
Reddog, it’s this simple. I can understand that you feel - for whatever reason - that gay people are the scum of the American society. Unfortunately it’s your bigoted religious upbringing that caused you to be this way. Going by what the Bible says…is out of date. The Bible says that being gay is a sin, and that gay people should not be allowed to be married. But the Bible also says that you should build a railing around the roof of your house so nobody falls off, and that a woman who doesn’t scream while being raped is to be put to death along with her rapist. How crazy is that?
You have expressed your opinion clearly…which is fine…but you also said that you are right and we are wrong. Period. I don’t know where it’s been proven that you are the correct one here, but I would really love to see this proven. Because an opinion is an opinion…nobody’s right when it comes to opinions, except in their own head.
As for who should be allowed to be married and raise children (whether biological or adopted), I think it’s people like you who shouldn’t be allowed to raise children. The last thing we need in this society is more people with the homophobic, bigoted opinions similar to yours. In nature, it’s the survival of the fittest, and people like you just aren’t fit for this society - an all-sccepting one.
on the contrary openminded. i do not think gays are scum at all- just misdirected. I have had gay friends and associates and got along with them just fine. it is nothing personal at all I just don’t like the gay “marriage” thing. i am all for civil unions so that the insurance companies and big businesses cannot cause them pain.
I have not been to church in years but I do think the bible is relevant today. I do find you and others on this site very judgemental of religious folks tho. i guess your “diversity and tolerance” dogma is not all inclusive and hypocritical.
who the hell are you to tell me about kids?? you are so bigoted and close minded about divergent opinions. It is the judeo-christian ethic that built this country so liberal idiots like you have the freedom to spread your hate.
as to homophobic that implies phobia and there is something wrong with me for not accepting gay marriage. That is typical liberal thinking - the good people who do not believe your twisted logic are the ones with the problem. You sound like the old adage -I am ok the world is all F**ked up right. Nice try openminded but openminded you ain’t
oh and by the way all the states that voted down gay “marriage” proved that I may be not right but I am not alone in my thinking
hey openminded- should all these folks in these states not have kids too because they might be gasp- homophobic.
I just don’t know what college or tv show or what venue you get these ideas from that you get the idea that folks who are against gay “marriage” are the problem. we did not bring it up- you on the liberal-progressive side pushed the issue. what’s next on the agenda affirmitive action and reparations for all these poor gay folks that america has discriminated against?????
Reddog said: “you are so bigoted and close minded about divergent opinions”.
He/she also said: “I am right and you are wrong”.
Which is it, buddy? You can’t be expected to be taken seriously if you keep changing your mind.
Allow me to also mention that the first quote I made of you can also be said of yourself.
And, as for me NOT being open-minded, well, it’s only fair for me to be open-minded towards those except those who aren’t open-minded themselves.
The golden rule that they taught us all in kindergarten: Treat others how you would like to be treated.
well which is is it buddy are you openminded or not??
I do live by that golden rule- I treat others with respect and kindness. Quti trying to frame anybody that does not agree with you as bigoted- it sounds like you are the bigoted one.
i have been denigrated and insulted on this board by you openminded ones. that’s ok I understand the liberal mind to the extent that hypocrisy is the true dogma that you adhere to and I expect the attacks.
you all on the left opened the can of worms of gay marriage and you don’t even realize what damage you have done to your cause by your self righteousness and ignorance.
I guess we can see from all the posts the intensity this issue generates, not the least from me. I’ve thought a lot since reading all the postings connected to this article and earlier ones. Other than all the insults which are truly boring and an irritant within this site, some of the views are thoughtful and thought-provoking. But in the end, I want the law to be religiously neutral. Prosecuting harm to others, fraud, theft, etc etc can all be done without pinning legal precedents to religious or cultural majority views (and I fully admit that my view is the minority view, for now), but the harm done when a particular religious attitude has the backing of the law is huge. I want the law to change, I want it to expand and be more permissive, so that consenting adults can marry, yes marry. The preference that marriage be a narrowly defined, biblically identified institution is what I hope to see change, and I accept the fact that it will be a slow evolutionary process. The law should be secular, and uphold minority rights against majority pressures, that’s what it should do in a democratic republic with a vast number of communities and worldviews. Church or temple is the place for religious marriage vows, and more power to them. But for one group to claim to own the term “marriage” is unhistorical and contributes to discrimination. And frankly, gay folk appear to be the last group that it’s somehow “OK” to hate, but not for any good reasons. Time for some reasoned discourse, all this shouting and culture-warring gets us nowhere.
show me one society-civilization in modern or historical times other than very recently that has legitmized homosexual “marriage”. In this country majority rules and this past November eleven out of eleven states voted to deny gay “marriage”. In every place that the people have been allowed to vote on this it has been soundly rejected. Other than Vermont where Dean bullied and Massachussets where activist judges allowed it america is wholeheartedley against this attack on religion- religious people and the family.
Kuya one more thing- the only people that is acceptable to hate anymore is you “progressives” are unanimous in YOUR hate and contempt for religion- and religious leaders and anybody that is against your vile & twisted agenda. We will not let you destroy this country !
Reddog, you just continue to make attacks on other people. As much as you point fingers at ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ and say they’re the problem, it’s actually people like YOU who are the problem. You continue to lash out at people for doing nothing but expressing their opinions.
You say you have been ‘denigrated and insulted’ on this board, when you’re the one who continues to ruffle feathers.
A perfect example, Kuya made a perfectly legitimate post that you turned against, insulted and threatened. And for what? A new round of name-calling? That is extremely immature, and just shows what kind of person you are.
I really find it interesting how you seem to defend yourself and your position by simply finding ways to turn other peoples’ words into weapons to use against them.
You may want to make an attempt at actually defending your position instead of continuing with the immature games.
You are a disgusting person.
Just a sidenote…I am going to find your response interesting. Because if you continue with your childish charade of insults, you’ll just be proving me correct in all of these accusations.
It’s your move…go ahead and make it.
I do get mad that the left pushes the gay “mattiage ” thing. You on the left started it not me. I do not want to disrespect anybody here I think that while we differ in opinion you are all basically good people. I have no problem like I said with civil unions and I don’t think most of the country does. Where I statrt to lose it is when sponge-bob starts to ask kids- little kids to take a pledge of “tolerance” toward homosexuality. I always taught my kids about differences in people and not to bully or pick on anybody else. If you think I am bad here ya should have seen me when one day little johnny (not his real name) came home from school with a note from the teacher saying he had been rude to somebody in class. Bread& water for a week! not really but grounded- no TV etc.
We have to all learn to respect one another I’ll agree- how about you respect the segments of society that are “traditional” by backing off the gay marriage issue and accepting civil unions. I do feel bad when someone has to beacause of their sexual orientation is ripped off by insursance or corporate greed. I hope we all come to some kind of rough concencus in this country and get along a little better beacause I know that there are forces outside this country that wish us ALL very bad. I enjoy the verbal sparring here I meant no disrespect for anyone so as you would say openminded- peace.
Reddog,
I think the whole issue (and homosexual readers, correct me if I’m wrong) has nothing to do with the word “marriage.” I know that my gay friends couldn’t care less what the law CALLS them. All they want is the same next-of-kin rights and insurance coverage and so on that any other spouse gets. They want to be married because the laws and policies specify that certain benefits only go to immediate family or legal next-of-kin. If Congress passed a law saying that civil unions were in every way equal, as far as rights and privilages, to marriage, I think they would be perfectly happy with that. What would you think of THAT? What reasonable person, “conservative” or “liberal,” fault that solution? You have your biblical definition of marriage in tact (and the rest of you heterosexual couples can remain blissfully married without the thought of the gay people across town having the same WORD as you - YECH!), and the gay community can carry on with their lives, unhindered by old-fashioned and out of date laws. Maybe my Chinese wife and I will be welcome in their community, because I KNOW that they wouldn’t want a chink living on their street.
Mr Zieglou- I am all for civil unions as I have stated before and I think your idea is great. it provides legal protections for gay folks while still having respect for people who get angry at the whole idea and sound of gay “marriage”. That is all I am talking about is a compromise. My daughter and son n law live next to a gay couple and I have never shown any dis-respect toward them. I am troubled by your equating homosexuality with ehtenicity tho . I am sorry you frame my views and the majority of the countries as “out of Date”. I don’t know what the #### is but I assure you where I live your Chinese wife would be welcome with open arms. It is sad that you denigrate people of faith and label us as bigots and haters- it is not true. There is no more truth in that than saying gay people are evil. How did I do openminded??
I don’t hate you, sir, we’ve never met. I don’t think most of us who want liberalized marriage laws hate religious people in general, either. I have a pretty fair mystical streak of my own, although it’s more triggered by what I learn from science, personally. But gay people who want to marry simply want the same thing that you and I have, and I can’t think of a single good reason to prevent them from having it. The offendability of the neighbors isn’t a good enough reason. I think it’s closer to the example of Jesus to be more tolerant and generous of spirit than to be doctrinally strict. I may not buy ideas like virgin birth or (especially not!) original sin, but I do find the example of Jesus to be a compelling one, lots of secular-minded “liberals” do. I accept what you say that you’re not an attacker of gays, but we can both see that there are a lot of others who do go on about how “God hates fags” and foolishness like that. Some of them have a national scope, they influence millions, and when they target a group like that, it legitimizes attacks, either legal ones or physical ones. I don’t hate faith, I hate oppression, however, and when I imaginatively put myself in the shoes of a person who is forbidden a right that other citizens enjoy, simply because of my sexual tastes, it feels like oppression. No one wants to take anything away from churchgoers or negate their right to practice their faith in the way they live (that’s the way THEY CHOOSE to live THEIR LIVES), but their being offended or grossed out by gay sex shouldn’t be the basis of law. Even if the Bible says it should be. We don’t all accept the Bible as the last word, and in America we don’t have to.
As if I needed another provocation, I see in the NYTimes that the Arlington Group, a coalition of conservative religious organizations like the Southern Baptist Convention, the Family Research Council, James Dobson and Jerry Falwell and their own groups, etc, is leaning on the White House to once again go for a constitutional amendment defining marriage in their own specific terms. The article says they’re threatening to withhold support for Bush’s revamping of Social Security and other domestic agenda items unless Bush restarts the amendment process and backs it with vigor. The SocSec issue is a separate complex can of worms, and Bush has already made it clear his views on marriage laws. But it’s as clear as can be that leaders in what I call the crusader faction are doing their best to change the very law of the land to target a specific group of citizens, and to constitutionally define for us all an institution that involves intensely personal issues of rights, religion, self-concept, romance, and family. It sure as hell isn’t the liberalizers who are the aggressors, it’s the restrictors who are. I can only hope that the federal legislators and/or the Supreme Court justices (and American citizens, most of all) still think the First Amendment is worth preserving, because it’s obviously under attack. Why isn’t that more disturbing to the majority of Americans??? How the hell can a restriction be seen as the same in spirit as a permission??? F’n mind-boggling! If they can codify stripped rights for some citizens and give it constitutional weight, why not others, why not me or you?
god hates fags is at the far end of the spectrum just like some radical gay groups are at the other end. I like to consider myself in the middle regard extremism in either direction reactionary and unproductive. Like you don’t have to believe the bible verbatim I am not forced to accept what i don’t believe in.
I live in a nudist resort and park full time (surprised - it’s true) when the weather is cooperative i swim, garden, lounge and recreate and carry on daily life in the buff. My wife and I have lived this “lifestyle” for many years now. I choose and accept living this way. That being said I realise that not everbody ( including the law) concurs with my lifestyle outside of the park. Therefore out of respect I do not drive, shop, go to the movies or otherwise be in public in the nude. My point is in this society we must find what i call a “balance of civility and respect” . if we all could not wear our incongruities and values on our sleeves so to speak we might all get along better without intentionaly or unitentionaly offend others.
let me ask a question - do you think that there would be a push for federal marriage ammendment if Gavin Newsome in San Francisco had broken the law by allowing gay Marriage. Or there would be this uproar if a few judges in Massachussets had seen fit to interpet the law to allow gay Marriage. After Mr.Dean in Vermont signed the domestic partnership law there was not such a reaction from the political and religious right. The reason for this whole devoloping and increasing bitterness on both sides is beause you are treading on unbroken ground. you are asking a MAJOR change in values . Since the birth of the concept of marriage- maybe 2-3 thousand years the whole idea of a marriage has been defined entirely as between a man and a woman for procreation. I think of it as exteremely naieve to think that in just few short years you are going to change unchallenged what has been the basic unit of civilization.
It won’t be quick, it is a major shift, all that is true. Perhaps a slower pace might have provoked less stridency and determination on the other side; it’s clear that my side suffered a real setback last November. Maybe their tactics and rhetoric pissed off too many, or frightened them. But the effort to equalize and expand rights has always met opposition, and in time they do expand if enough forthright energy is applied to the question. I feel compelled to contribute to that evolution, I can’t just be still and say “some day” when I believe so strongly that the restrictions are unjust. It’s an uphill battle, that’s all, I’m sure it won’t be the last. There’s this principle I can’t let go of, and in fact I learned it from Christians, that I’m on the side of right if I treat other people the way I want to be treated. And politically speaking, if I claim a right for myself (and choosing who I marry is one I claim), by extension I grant that same right to everyone else. Of course I see how people react to the whole topic, crap, as soon as the conversation leads into it everyone becomes irrational. Not to ascribe anything to you, but as a tangent example when Falwell cited tolerance of gays and sexual promiscuity as causal to 9-11, I about passed out with disgust, and when I gathered that people actually bought it I thought my f’n head would explode, I wished that I was hallucinating. One more example of the abandonment of reason, one more opportunity for a national “leader” to target his pet hate (ah, but we only hate the sin, we actually “love” the sinner, don’t we Jerry… With love like that, I’d rather be ignored). My contempt is showing…
Reddog, all I can do as an individual is try to reason with people, get them to see my premise and the chain of logic that follows. If enough of us individuals who want this change to happen continue our efforts, maybe we can get folks to see what they don’t want to see right now. Now that’s a statement of faith if I’ve ever made one!
This seems to have become something of tea party between the two of us, reddog, thanks for your views. Til next time.
Fun with concept-swapping: I took some of reddog’s statements and made them racial instead of sexual-identification oriented, paralleling other events in our history. (My changes in italics).
disclaimer: I understand some homophobic blacks get angry at gays & lesbians for ‘appropriating’ the language of the civil rights movements of the 60’s, and I agree with them that the experiences of blacks and gays are not identical. For example, gays were never made slaves, and blacks were never turned away from their own families for being black. However, given the fact that being gay is not a choice (I’m gay, so I’m an expert on this, trust me), the struggles do have enough similarities that some linguistic and conceptual comparisons can be made. Here are some of Reddog’s recent comments, altered:
—————————-
I do get mad that the left pushes the “desgregation” thing. You on the left started it not me. I do not want to disrespect anybody here I think that while we differ in opinion you are all basically good people. I have no problem like I said with separate but equal schools & facilities and I don’t think most of the country does. Where I start to lose it is when sponge-bob starts to ask kids- little kids to take a pledge of “tolerance” toward negroes. I always taught my kids about differences in people and not to bully or pick on anybody else. If you think I am bad here ya should have seen me when one day little johnny (not his real name) came home from school with a note from the teacher saying he had been rude to somebody in class. Bread& water for a week! not really but grounded- no TV etc.
We have to all learn to respect one another I’ll agree- how about you respect the segments of society that are “traditional” by backing off the desegregation issue and accepting separate but equal facilities. I do feel bad when someone has to because of their race is ripped off by insursance or corporate greed.
....
let me ask a question - do you think that there would be an assassination attempt on Dr. King if Rosa Parks in </I>Alabama</I> had broken the law by not sitting in the back of the bus. Or there would be this uproar if a few judges in Massachussets had seen fit to interpet the law to allow interracial Marriage.
...
That being said I realise that not everybody ( including the law) concurs with my lifestyle outside of the black part of town. Therefore out of respect I do not drive, shop, go to the movies or otherwise act ‘black’ in public (ie. listen to rap music, etc,.). My point is in this society we must find what I call a “balance of civility and respect”....
—————
Hopefully now you understand why gays and lesbians, while preferring civil unions to nothing, still prefer marriage to civil unions.
reddog,it’s me again,I read your analogy about the nudest colony,and yes,I’m a bit suprised,well,to tell the truth,I never would of guessed it,but anyway,you say that you would’nt go out in public nude out of the respect for the social norms in place.But it seems to me that,to take your analogy a bit further,that a certain group of people are allowed to be nude in public,while another less desirable group would’nt.How would you feel if you were part of the ‘less desirable group’?Would’nt you fight for your right to be nude in public?This seems to me to what the whole gay marriage issue is about.
No I would not fight for my “right” to be nude in public. I respect societal norms and the idea of offending people who may not accept social nudity is one of the basic premises of being a nudist. I underestand your comparison about one group allowed to eb nude and the other not being able to but it seems to me to be an apples and oranges question. I have the right to be nude on private property where I do not offend anyone or push my values on another segment of society.
I believe that you have the “right” to be gay in this country if that is what lifestyle you choose. My point is you do not have the right to re-define society and marriage and seek societal acceptance for your lifestyle choice especially by pushing your views on that society.
In his posting of 27 January, Reddog states that his children live in a house next to a gay couple. Note: He does not speak of his family. Just of his children.
This leads me to believe that he lives separated from his wife and children.—In other words: He has violated his “holy vows” of marriage.
Perhaps it is because he himself was a failure at marriage that he seeks to deny the warmth and security of the institution to others.
And this brings us to another… and perhaps the main… point: Marriage is not about “form”, but about “content”. Marriage is 2 people who care enough about each other to officially take responsibility for each other’s well-being. To live their lives together.
If marriage were merely a means of legalising sexual relations or of encouraging child bearing, then it would stand to reason that all marriages that did not produce offspring within a given amount of time (Say 2 years?) would be declared void.
By the way: “Homosexuality” has nothing to do with “sex”. It is about feeling emotional intimacy and security with someone of the same gender. About love. The sex is only one of many expressions of those feelings.
In addition…..
Reddog states in another posting of 27 January:
“Since the birth of the concept of marriage- maybe 2-3 thousand years the whole idea of a marriage has been defined entirely as between a man and a woman for procreation.”
This is simply not true.
For most of history, marriage has been a means of maintaining and expanding one’s property and wealth. For most of history, humans have lived from income, not from salaries. For the lower classes, a good marriage was a question of economic survival. And so it has been of great importance to secure the continuance of a good income. (From land holdings, etc.—You get a glimpse of this even as late as the very early 19th century: See the importance attached to fortuitous marriage prospects and wise marriage decisions in the novels of Jane Austen.) Love marriages are a rather new-fangled notion. They have developed since the rise of the middle-class era. (19th century / late 18th century. The development has something to do with the shift in inheritance laws (From primogeniture, whereby everything was inherited by the first-born son to a system whereby everything was divided equally among all sons.), and the fact that slowly but surely the middle classes were acquiring money and property to bequeth to their children. And they wanted to ensure that it was inherited by THEIR children, not by offspring fathered by their wives’ paramours.) In ancient and early modern Europe it was only the ruling classes who were allowed to officially marry. The lower classes would just “shack up” together.
Again, I maintain that if the right is serious about marriage being an institution with the purpose of procreation, then all marriages that remain childless after a given period of time should automatically become void.—That would only be consistent.
Ben you are a classic case of the delusional left trying vainly to twist concepts of family to suit your push for so called gay marriage. Not that it is any of your business but I was talking about my step-daughter and her husband. I am NOT separated from my wife and children. Quit try to play detective/psycologist to advabce your agenda of re-defining the family. You are just talking on and on and not making any sense!
Marriage is between one man and one woman. That is the way it is and that is the way it will stay. Get over it.
Reddog,
If you have a “step-daughter” it means that you have married into a dysfunctional family, and are therefore now part of one.
:-P
But—hey!—don’t be ashamed: Every 2nd marriage ends in divorce these days. It’s not liberals or gays who are redefining marriage. It’s married (or once married) heterosexuals themselves.
I don’t see how it is acceptable to allow some people to marry-divorce-remarry-divorce-remarry ad absurdum, and yet unacceptable to let other people marry once at all.
Reddog, your vision of America is hypocritical and self-righteous, hateful, arrogant and haughty. And the whole world sees through it.—The whole world. Which is why the United States has been going out of style FAST as a role model or world leader since the Bush regime took power.
Get over it.
ok randy- you sure are judgemental with no knowledge of my life or reality. how do you know the woman I married was not a widow?? How do you know she was not divorced beacause of an abusive realtionship.
That is your problem randy you are delusional and misinformed is all- you are not a bad person.
My vision as you put it of America is just fine thanks. Style- do you think “style” has anything to do with relationships, marriage and family?? haughty hunh?? now I really feel bad. Hateful- you sound full of hate because Bad mr. Bush won’t let you say “I do” to your boyfriend.
No America is still the leader and eleven states that rejected so called gay marriage confirmed it. You lead my dear friend not by following “style” but honoring tradition, history, and what you think is right not some persons self delusional concept of style. You need to quit trying to badger, cajole and wheedle the people who rightly define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. you only make yourself and your cause look foolish and terribly unrealistic and so I think you need to get over yourself before you can go on.
As you can see, evil takes many forms.
Pertaining to the subject matter:
-evil is thought, actions that looks to harm or destroy all forms of life and human spirituality.
-organisations/political groups clearly are identified for what they support in the form of homosexuality, abortion, and secularism; or followers heretic doctrine.
Look to understand what is truth in the house that has remained true and unchanged for 2 millenium. What is generally known to be led by human infallibility for a millenium, was once one among five equals.
I have to say that is the best Marylin Manson impersonation I have heard in a long time… Which one of the horseman of the apocolypse are you?? Or are you trying to sound like Christopher Walken??
Curious, men and women are equals, men and men are equals, women and women are equals. People and pets are not equals.
If you think marrying a pet is the same as marrying a member of your own sex then please try it and report back.
Reddog, liberals are not trying to destroy America, conservatives are, you silly rabbit.
By the way, are you familiar with the phrase ‘in the closet’?
Also, Reddog, what’s worse, Gavin Newsom ‘breaking the law’ by allowing gay marriage, or George W. Bush breaking international law by killing seventeen thousand innocent civilians?
Hmmm, let me think.
Hands down Gavin Newsome.. America does not want and will not have gay “marriage” It ain’t gonna happen now or ever so get used to it.
Matilda you are off your medication again! You sleazy little liberals try to indoctrinate our children with your homo filth. You are all a bunch of sickos- Matilda- in the closet- really. I am sorry to tell you that I do not have the mental disorder that causes homosexuality-That means I am NORMAL- heterosexual . God but you are some kinda nutball. That’s it mental degenerates pushing mental degenerates. that’s what you all are.
Hmm let me think you say Matilda- give it up you have not the ability to think if you foster and push this kind of degeneracy on America- please go to France or something and leave America alone with your sheer stupidity…
When Mr Bush and the republican led congress rightfully pass the marriage ammendment to make the law of the land that marriage shall ONLY be between a man and a woman then, then will all you fruitcakes please go back to your closets and leave this country alone with your degenerate ideas?
Twenty questions to get honest with ourselves.
This quiz is for those who care about current issues. Please pass it on to anyone you think should ponder these questions.
1. Do you believe in free speech about homosexuality for everyone except conservatives or Christians?
2. Do you participate in name-calling of those who object to homosexuality—names like bigot, hate-monger, etc.?
3. Do you believe ‘gays’ have been deprived of the right to marry? Doesn’t pretty much everyone have the right to marry now—to a person of the opposite sex?
4. Do you believe those who object to homosexuality are motivated by fear or ignorance? Do you believe they could never be motivated by compassion for the people involved, and if they say so, they must be lying?
5. Do you believe some people will just inevitably be homosexual, and that there’s a set percentage of the population that will always be ‘gay’, and that this won’t increase, even if a culture embraces ‘gay’ sex? Do you think homosexual experimentation could never become ‘chic’ and popular? Is there no risk for the people involved or our culture if this happens?
6. Do you automatically dismiss any conservative comments about homosexuality without listening? Do you believe you are well-informed, while refusing to learn about what homosexuals actually do and the risks involved?
7. Do you believe that the tragedy of any suicide by someone involved in homosexuality is the fault of conservatives? Is the best solution to these tragedies to demand that everyone in America accept homosexuality?
8. Do you automatically dismiss the idea that anyone could be a former homosexual, despite the hundreds of groups started by ex-‘gays’ and the thousands who live in America?
9. Do you believe that homosexuals are born that way? Do you refuse to consider the evidence against this claim? Have you ever looked at the connection between child sexual abuse and later homosexual attraction?
10. Do you believe that only churches that accept homosexuality have interpreted the Bible in the ‘correct’ way? Do you feel it isn’t necessary to read the relevant Bible passages yourself, all of which are straightforward in condemning homosexual acts? Do you believe it’s impossible to be “kind” and oppose homosexuality?
11. Are you quick to say “Judge not, lest you be judged” ( Matthew 7:1) and similar passages, without understanding the Christian theology behind it, and all the while being very judgmental yourself?
12. Do you sincerely believe Jesus would have accepted homosexual sex acts? Do you believe Jesus is cool with whatever anyone wants to do? Do you believe there’s such a thing as ‘sin’ and if so, how is it defined? Are you the one who defines sin for yourself? Do you have no need of a savior and if not, wasn’t Christ’s death and resurrection pretty pointless? Despite all these contradictory and self-constructed beliefs, do you consider yourself a “Christian”?
13. Do you believe sweeping stereotypes, like that all ‘gay’ people are innocent victims or that all conservatives must be mean and stupid?
14. Do you close your ears and figure it’s a conservative plot if you hear that at least 2/3 of all the HIV transmission in the United States still involves males having anal sex with each other?
15. Do you believe anyone who objects to homosexuality is automatically “hateful,” while you seethe with hate yourself?
16. Do you believe it’s okay for thirteen- year- olds to learn at school that they have the right to have homosexual sex with each other? Do you close your ears when concerned parents are outraged? Would you call such parents “ignorant” and accuse them of “censorship”?
17. Do you believe that, after several thousand years where most cultures have prohibited homosexuality, only now the ‘real’ truth is emerging? Do you believe this is not an arrogant, narrow or immature position?
18. Do you believe that ‘gays’ are the target of widespread violence that goes unpunished in the United States? Do you understand that hate crimes stats don’t support this claim and that laws already exist to punish all crimes, no matter why they are committed? Would you be unconcerned about overall civil liberties if trumped -up charges of so-called “hate speech” were used to silence people?
19. Do you believe that conservatives are making a big deal out of a behavior that has no harmful effects on individuals, families, communities, or societies? Do you scoff at any claims that serious public health issues are involved, like sexually transmitted diseases or risks to children?
20 And—very big question: Is your need for other people’s approval greater than your appreciation of truth? Do you refuse to consider an unpopular viewpoint because it might make you appear unenlightened to some people? If your mind and heart changed about this issue, would you have the courage to be a rebel for a worthy cause, to speak up and inform family, friends—and fellow humans who are involved in homosexuality?
The purpose of this quiz is to educate. If you feel angry now, it could be you have some bigoted attitudes, much like the author of this quiz did before learning the facts. Maybe it’s time for a change of mind and heart- -and courage to go with them. God bless you in your sincere search for truth.
From
Mission
nice try “the truth”
but the bully doesn’t get to play the victim…
your 20 questions are so off-base and well, offensive that it’s almost laughable…nice try though…
how were the questions off base- or did you just not like the answers you gave?
how do you mean bully? is it not the folks pushing the gay agenda the ones bullying the rest of society? there is nothiung funny about pushing homosexuality on little kids. the whole gay thing is offensive to decent families.
At last ‘reddog’ you show your true character.
There is nothing wrong with being homosexual, there never has been and there never will.
Intolerence and bigotry have, however, caused a lot of unnecessary suffering throughout the long history of humankind.
‘the truth’, I could tear your twenty questions apart, but to be honest, I’m just not that bothered.
yes matilda - homosexuality is a mental disorder and you sound like you may have a bad case of it on top of your already delusionally liberal mind. better get help soon lady- or are you a guy? or do you know are you confused? had not anybody let you know the 60’s is over yet.
You know you are bothered and you WILL come back & read my post and it will put you thru the roof- you will feel like your head will explode- oh those bad hetero- religious people- why can’t they just let men take it in the ass in peace and leave us all alone- oh opression - oh freedom.
give it up you old windbag -liberalism is dead- you killed it…you are not the great gatsby- you are a liberal moron- bush won 4 more years tilda 4 more years and I hope every day is hell for you and your ilk.
i have a question for the politically correct police. Do you think it is right to take Christmas out of the schools while teaching them it’s ok to be gay? maybe now you will understand why everybody hates the politically correct police..ho ho ho
As you can see, evil takes many forms.
Pertaining to the subject matter:
-evil is thought, actions that looks to harm or destroy all forms of life and human spirituality.
-organisations/political groups clearly are identified for what they support in the form of homosexuality, abortion, and secularism; or followers heretic doctrine.
Look to understand what is truth in the house that has remained true and unchanged for 2 millenium. What is generally known to be led by human infallibility for a millenium, was once one among five equals.
reddog : Your perspective is for the most part correct, but your comments in regards to mine are worthless, baseless and lack any hint of real intelligence. You really need to settle down or just grow up.
My last paragraph will serve anyone that has any kind of reasoning if interest is taken, but somethings are worth trying to figure out.
What do you mean 7thAngel?? i thought you were just mindlessly trying to attack or intimidate me like they all do on this site. I’ll settle down but please continue….....
The Bottom line is that there is a secular cancer growing in our global society. A society that worships nothing but it’s own vanity and opinion while reasoning that death, harm through abortions and violence, along with homosexuality that also defiles life is a normal part of our world.
The media has taken the forefront of promoting homosexuality by programming the acceptance of this way of life to it’s viewers. The portrayal of homosexuality as being perfectly normal while injecting the idea that this “life style” has an insight that can “make over” a seemingly lackluster individual that happens to be interesting enough “straight”, into an enlightened product of there own life style.
On the other side of the spectrum, the promotion of promiscuous heterosexuality along with bisexuality is at unavoidable levels on every form of media. Programming from “gone wild” to
even commercials offering phone sex offered at all times, offering no consideration to who is sitting in front of that television.
Morality has been diluted and infected with the growing acceptance of lesser values. We are all being subjected to this and the perfect example of the end result of our society is what mirrors it perfectly, Children. No one needs anyone to explain examples of this since it is prevalent everywhere.
As an analogy, amphibians are a perfect barometer of the environment since it mirrors the environmental condition of our Earth, and by exhibiting monstrous patterns of mutation it gives a very distressing outlook. The same distressing outlook is given for our Children since they are only replicating and compounding our (adult) patterns of behavior. I have no question that adult society is no longer active in the forefront of setting “the ground rules” for morality, the media is. Yes, there is a good percentage of parents and organizations that hold onto strong values but the “powers to be” know that they can inject promiscuous entertainment on the web, tv, music and cinema and get away with it since any repercussions are benign by our civil and political “leadership”.
In the end, society in general is following a script set by a dark entity that wants the soul of humanity, and humanity has not figured it out yet, but not to worry it soon will. Only problem is that it may be too late when it does.
An individual has control over themselves, and the ability to influence family, friends and to a certain degree society, in the hope of helping others, if just one, to the realization of the ominous times we live in, and that we all should learn to live in pursuit of our own Theosis.
Hello thetruth
I’d like to take a stab at answering your questions posted above. No idea if you’ll check back to this aged board to read, but here goes. My starting point is that I think life as a human being is worth living. Another idea that follows is that I don’t buy original sin as either a fact of the cosmos or a good attitude to carry into life. Very self-defeating.
1. Do you believe in free speech about homosexuality for everyone except conservatives or Christians?
Every side should be heard, even people who dislike homosexuals, or those who may like individuals but consider them a “special” group who need a special legal status. That’s part of liberal democracy because interplay of ideas is a better idea than suppression. Some opinions are more peaceful than others, but it’s no harm to hear one out.
2. Do you participate in name-calling of those who object to homosexuality—names like bigot, hate-monger, etc.?
Nope. But if people talk in hateful ways, then they’re haters. Just like one can thoughtlessly react to the word “conservative”, many also react to the word “gay”. Accountability for the words you say (and me) is fair and reasonable. If the words are hateful, there you go. So-called liberals who insult, or talk hateful, same.
3. Do you believe ‘gays’ have been deprived of the right to marry? Doesn’t pretty much everyone have the right to marry now—to a person of the opposite sex?
They have the right to marry people they’re not in love with, who they don’t want to join their lives to. They have a right to a sham marriage. That’s not really a right at all.
4. Do you believe those who object to homosexuality are motivated by fear or ignorance? Do you believe they could never be motivated by compassion for the people involved, and if they say so, they must be lying?
I think those who object to homosexuality are motivated by the thought that it’s unnatural. Also, they’re obeying the theological values they’ve been taught. But it’s not unnatural, since same-gender sexual behavior is observable across human cultures and in numerous other species. As for compassion, it’s hard to see how all the singling out is a gesture of kindness or a wish to benefit. Maybe it’s not actually lying, maybe it’s doublethinking, but containing a man and passing laws against him isn’t compassionate. Is it?
5. Do you believe some people will just inevitably be homosexual, and that there’s a set percentage of the population that will always be ‘gay’, and that this won’t increase, even if a culture embraces ‘gay’ sex? Do you think homosexual experimentation could never become ‘chic’ and popular? Is there no risk for the people involved or our culture if this happens?
Some people just are homosexual. They know what they feel. Lots know what they feel but push it down because of the hassle they know they’ll get. The number of gays isn’t really important, people have the right (or should have) to love who they love, and to marry who they love. And some people are willing to experiment with risky behaviors, skydiving, racing, anonymous sexual encounters. If they accept the risk, they get the result, can’t whine if they don’t like the outcome. But if people marry, they’re saying they want monogamy. Whether they stick to it or not, oh well, but that’s what they’re reaching for if they marry. People should not be compelled to conform to cultural values they don’t accept when they’re different preference harms no one. Must we all be the same, believe and live the same? Man to man or woman to woman love harms no one, in and of itself. Human sex is not primarily about babies; if it were, human female would have a different estrus pattern, they’d come into season like horses. But they don’t, because human sex is much more about fun and intimacy and passion for the passion of another. People only do it with same-gender partners if they really want it, either out of inner desire or a will to investigate. No one is coerced into gay sex unless they’ve been raped by a same-sex attacker. There’s more risk to our culture from legalized discrimination at the constitutional level than from gay marriage. One goes against American traditions, the other changes what America is.
6. Do you automatically dismiss any conservative comments about homosexuality without listening? Do you believe you are well-informed, while refusing to learn about what homosexuals actually do and the risks involved?
Homosexuals, like you and like me, can surely negotiate their own love lives. Any sex that isn’t monogamous has risks, hetero or homo. Gays deal with the risks, and so do the straights.
7. Do you believe that the tragedy of any suicide by someone involved in homosexuality is the fault of conservatives? Is the best solution to these tragedies to demand that everyone in America accept homosexuality?
Suicide is always tragic, for whatever reason. If a person has been made to feel despair and hopelessness because of all the sneering attention, all the derogation, all the mythology and past culture poured on their head, it’s the ones singling them out for hassle who are accountable.
8. Do you automatically dismiss the idea that anyone could be a former homosexual, despite the hundreds of groups started by ex-‘gays’ and the thousands who live in America?
If a man thinks he’s taken the wrong path and wants to correct it, that’s what he should do. If he would benefit from support groups, they’re out there. But another who knows he’s on the right track should be able to stick to it without having to hide. Some people know what they want with confidence and forthrightness, it’s sad that others don’t. Help is available, for those who want it.
9. Do you believe that homosexuals are born that way? Do you refuse to consider the evidence against this claim? Have you ever looked at the connection between child sexual abuse and later homosexual attraction?
Inborn v. acquired are so intertwined it’s hard to pick them apart. Abused children very often do show precocious sexual behavior with unhealthy manifestations. Hetero and homo. Lots of kids are abused, sickeningly. But consenting adults who do have an attraction and affection for each other are not showing signs of abuse or damaged minds. Even if they’re both boys, or both girls.
10. Do you believe that only churches that accept homosexuality have interpreted the Bible in the ‘correct’ way? Do you feel it isn’t necessary to read the relevant Bible passages yourself, all of which are straightforward in condemning homosexual acts? Do you believe it’s impossible to be “kind” and oppose homosexuality?
The Hebrews didn’t countenance homosexuality, they thought it wrong. The Greeks, whose thoughts helped shape the books of the New Testament, thought it no problem. The early Christians adopted the ways of their Hebrew theological forebears, so also did not accept homosexuality. However, the law of the United States, a country whose basic founding ideology is religiously neutral, must therefore not pattern itself on the cultural ways described in the Bible. Law and order, justice and social peace, do not rely upon a Biblical legal referent.
11. Are you quick to say “Judge not, lest you be judged” ( Matthew 7:1) and similar passages, without understanding the Christian theology behind it, and all the while being very judgmental yourself?
Ready to not judge, here and now. No one is qualified to evaluate the spiritual worthiness or unworthiness of another person, if they believe in such things as Divine Judgment and spirits at all. But I do judge constitutional law that sets the stage for enforced cultural ways upon those who don’t accept them as being oppressive. Fundamental national law, oppressive. Scary.
12. Do you sincerely believe Jesus would have accepted homosexual sex acts? Do you believe Jesus is cool with whatever anyone wants to do? Do you believe there’s such a thing as ‘sin’ and if so, how is it defined? Are you the one who defines sin for yourself? Do you have no need of a savior and if not, wasn’t Christ’s death and resurrection pretty pointless? Despite all these contradictory and self-constructed beliefs, do you consider yourself a “Christian”?
Growing up in Roman-ruled Hebrew Palestine, he would have been taught that homosexuality was wrong. To the extent that the Gospels reveal his character, it doesn’t appear likely that accepting the hassling of gays or anyone was his speed, however. American law should be religiously neutral, I will repeat. I am christian to the extent that I admire the teachings of Jesus that lead people to take care of each other and identify with their worshipful source. But who confronted religious convention more than Jesus, who claimed to be the Son of God among a culture that saw such a thing as abhorrent? Is that conforming to majority values? And that claim is a more fundamental “heresy” (in its context) than homosexuality, because it gets to the core of Spirit and Who God really Is. Jesus may have gone along with his culture plenty, but he certainly departed from it in a pivotal and public way.
13. Do you believe sweeping stereotypes, like that all ‘gay’ people are innocent victims or that all conservatives must be mean and stupid?
People who get harmed by the law when they have hurt no one, who have done nothing but be themselves and seek a little love in a mean and stupid world, are innocent victims.
14. Do you close your ears and figure it’s a conservative plot if you hear that at least 2/3 of all the HIV transmission in the United States still involves males having anal sex with each other?
I’d want to check the data. HIV transmission worldwide is overwhelmingly associated with promiscuous heterosexual sex, if the reported data is real. It can be checked also. It could be possible that the US has a divergent model, but if the virus is spread by promiscuity, whether hetero or homo, that’s not the same as being due to gay sex per se.
15. Do you believe anyone who objects to homosexuality is automatically “hateful,” while you seethe with hate yourself?
It’s not a matter of hate, it’s a matter of equal rights for all adult US citizens regardless of descriptive category. But it is shameful to oppress others who do no one any tangible harm. America says it’s out on that sort of thing, has for two centuries. Our law should reflect our highest rhetoric, it’s miserable that it doesn’t.
16. Do you believe it’s okay for thirteen- year- olds to learn at school that they have the right to have homosexual sex with each other? Do you close your ears when concerned parents are outraged? Would you call such parents “ignorant” and accuse them of “censorship”?
Parents must raise their kids, no one wants to stop them. If homosexuality is coming up regularly in the classroom, it must be a preoccupation of the teacher or, more likely, a question that the youth are grappling with. The kids will grow up and choose their own values and sex partners, in conformity with their parents’ views or not. In the end, they will have the control of their own bodies and who they share them with. When my kids were little, I censored violent entertainments out of their reach, felt fine about it. But as adults, they’re free agents. It’s not correct for me to push them around (or anyone) using law or muscle.
17. Do you believe that, after several thousand years where most cultures have prohibited homosexuality, only now the ‘real’ truth is emerging? Do you believe this is not an arrogant, narrow or immature position?
A value with a thousands-year-long history that has been recently assaulted is the idea that one person may own or dispose of another by force. This underlies slavery and all forms of oppression. Old or not, it’s an idea best left behind. Some ancient ideas or folkways are better dissolved. Female subjugation. Absolutist rule. Harm against people who have done no harm. All ancient, all aggressive, all defended by the terms culture, religion, or tradition. There is such a thing as new wisdom, we can actually learn and progress. The ancients did not know everything, no need to over-exalt them. We can learn a lot from their examples, and also from their anti-examples, the things we should not imitate.
18. Do you believe that ‘gays’ are the target of widespread violence that goes unpunished in the United States? Do you understand that hate crimes stats don’t support this claim and that laws already exist to punish all crimes, no matter why they are committed? Would you be unconcerned about overall civil liberties if trumped -up charges of so-called “hate speech” were used to silence people?
Laws that punish anti-gay violence are good laws, and they’re also relatively new. At least, enforcement upon anti-gay attackers is much more likely than in the past. Constitutional amendments that force cultural conformity and play favorites with granting rights are a far more serious concern today. Trumped up charges shred the fabric of a democratic republic, including the charge that expanding marriage rights to include gays will destroy families and hurt children.
19. Do you believe that conservatives are making a big deal out of a behavior that has no harmful effects on individuals, families, communities, or societies? Do you scoff at any claims that serious public health issues are involved, like sexually transmitted diseases or risks to children?
There are ways to prevent or at least minimize disease transmission due to sex, whether hetero or homo. People who force sex upon kids should be put away. Anyone who thinks they have the right to regulate the sexual behavior of ostensibly free, consenting adults, really is overstepping. And as for marriage, which is not entirely about sex at all but more about love and wanting to form a legal family with another, the only harm is the confrontation with those who think their religious ways ought to be legally enforceable. They should not be!
20 And—very big question: Is your need for other people’s approval greater than your appreciation of truth? Do you refuse to consider an unpopular viewpoint because it might make you appear unenlightened to some people? If your mind and heart changed about this issue, would you have the courage to be a rebel for a worthy cause, to speak up and inform family, friends—and fellow humans who are involved in homosexuality?
Considering that the pro-gay marriage view is a minority stance in America, I don’t think mass approval is really the idea. Acknowledging differences that already exist and considering the people who we’re talking about to be just fine is the idea. Equalizing rights among free citizens is the idea. Some of us are promoting a very unpopular viewpoint, and we are thought perverse because we don’t accept your premise or share your aversion. You should be able to love who want, whoever loves you. You should be able to marry whoever you want, everyone should.
Yeah yeah, obviously not kids, animals, or furniture, <sigh>
I gave these answers a lot of thought, I hope you return to this board to read them, thetruth.
homosexuality is a disease of modern society. Liberalism is a mental disorder. AIDS cures homosexuality. Now we have to find the cure for liberalism.
truth: Liberalism has nothing to do with it at this stage in the game. You are a bigot. It doesn’t matter how you word it; you sound like the stupid macho asshole your father probably is. I feel sorry for you, because I don’t know if you know how uninformed and ignorant you truly sound to people who have sat down and really THOUGHT about this issue instead of jumping to some conclusion based on personal fear and a work of fiction written a few thousand years ago. The sooner you realize that your almighty opinion doesn’t mean squat in this dicussion, the better off we’ll all be.
You Deserve It:
I hope you get AIDS from a heterosexual skank you know from work, and feel the pain you just passively wished on other human beings first-hand. You are a lowlife scumbag waste of human life for suggesting something so stupid, and the earth would be a better place without you.
Go to hell.
In My opinion I feel like who to say who can marry who… It known that people dont like when other people try and regulate their lives so why are we trying to do the same?? I know many people feel that it is morally wrong but we also have to face the facts that not everyone believe or feel the same way… And trying to force your beliefs on other people isnt right either… It seems to me that by not allowing Gay Marriages people think that will stop all Homosexual relations… But it wont… Homosexuals will continue to go about their lives and still be with their partner so really I see no point in stoping it… There is a quotes that says:“If you cant change it, Change the way you think about it.” I believe that this quotes is good advice
register a new account »Posting Security