Your MATURE opinions on homosexuality

[Dale_Valley]

Christmas was placed on the day it was because, that day was a Pagan holiday. they just replaced it with the birth of christ.

[orbindo]

Buddahs name was something along the lines of Sidarma Gud-something and his followers turned him into something he wasnt. He didnt claim to be a god, just claimed to be a knowledgeable being. over the yrs as people followed his teaching they changed him into a god somewhere. big oops on them

[The Newfie]

[quote name='orbindo']Buddahs name was something along the lines of Sidarma Gud-something and his followers turned him into something he wasnt. He didnt claim to be a god, just claimed to be a knowledgeable being. over the yrs as people followed his teaching they changed him into a god somewhere. big oops on them[/quote][COLOR=SeaGreen]

Yes, somthing to that effect... But I fail to recall how this fit into the original topic... Somthing about me not claiming the existence of the Enlightened One...

'Da Newf

Oowatanite

Edit: Trust me, you wouldn't believe me if I told you... 41. Sitting at home all night on the computer argueing with people half my age. Seems a little bit pathetic, especially on New Years.

Ah well, 'tis a good life.[/COLOR]

[Esther]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=SlateGray][SIZE=1]orbindo, you are totally getting off subject here. On top of that you disobeyed the rules and double posted, I really do suggest you delete one of those two posts, or spams.

And to set the record straight Buddah's name was Siddartha Guatama.

And you can't just shut down a thread in call it a day and decide to resume the whole thing on a later date. You three have just taken the thread that CHW has created and twisted it into something of your own.

It really makes me upset since the idea was a good one, and the beginning of the debate was really fun. It is a bummer you guys had to spoil it.

I think that this thread has served its purpose. [/SIZE] [/COLOR] [/FONT]

[orbindo]

[QUOTE=Grace][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=SlateGray][SIZE=1]orbindo, you are totally getting off subject here. On top of that you disobeyed the rules and double posted, I really do suggest you delete one of those two posts, or spams.

And to set the record straight Buddah's name was Siddartha Guatama.

And you can't just shut down a thread in call it a day and decide to resume the whole thing on a later date. You three have just taken the thread that CHW has created and twisted it into something of your own.

It really makes me upset since the idea was a good one, and the beginning of the debate was really fun. It is a bummer you guys had to spoil it.

I think that this thread has served its purpose. [/SIZE] [/COLOR] [/FONT][/QUOTE]



Well i am terribly sorry, i didnt know i couldnt double post. you have 100 appologies from the deepest parts of my heart and i will delete some. but rest assured theyre not spams, i dont even know exactly what it is, besides the fact that its bad
Thank you for the Buddah insight.
And well, i didnt shut down the thread, by all means, everyone keep posting. i just meant that me and the other 2 stop arguing.
and in a way i didnt start all of the religion bashing, they did, honestly. ok lame excuse and i did start all of this. after finishing typing this i will send a heartfelt sorry pm to CHW.
I cant appologize enough and hope that i havent offended anyone on a level that is not religious.
Live long and prosper
-Orbindo

[Drix D'Zanth]

Oh, I have to admit, I do love these discussions. It is interesting to see the plethora of new post?ees in this particular thread- one that has been long overdue my dear CHW.

The first point I should address about most people?s unanimous support of homosexuality is that there is an overriding opinion of ?it doesn?t hurt anybody, who cares??. Certainly, [i]you[/i] all care about this subject. The fact that you are thinking of it so inductively tells me that very few of you are [b]thinking[/b] beyond the impassioned rhetoric of our ever-liberal culture (note I didn?t state how I felt about our culture becoming more liberal, but as a rule- it is swinging liberal).

So, I?ll tell you why this topic is important to myself: someone opposed to both homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and in favor of homosexual couples adopting.

[b][u]Homosexual couples adopting[/b][/u]
Let me start by saying that if it is an untraditional family adopting a child- whether that is a homosexual couple or a single parent- no child should be denied a nurturing upbringing. That isn?t to say, however, that those companies who are adopting the child often provide that environment themselves! The family structure of any potential adopting family must be taken into consideration, just as money, current extended family, and family history are carefully inspected before a child is adopted out. I appreciate my parent?s marriage as an example of commitment and upbringing. They married for not only their own love, but to bring another generation into the world and support them in a safe, loving environment. Fractured commitments can drastically and negatively harm a child?s upbringing. The government recognizes the fact that the vast majorities of families produce children, and as a result, have legislated benefits that smooth over the expensive act of raising children. Because of this, I think it?s only fair that any couple that adopts, unmarried or not, should be granted similar governmental support (and I think they are, to a certain extent if I?m not mistaken).

[b][u]Homosexuality from a Christian standpoint[/b][/u]

[b]Is homosexuality a sin?[/b]
Yes. Biblically homosexuality is sinful behavior. Then again, so is lying. So is adultery. So is stealing. So is lusting over women. So is breaking the law (give unto Cesar, which is due unto Cesar). So is taking God?s name in vain (ie. ?Goddammit?).

There isn?t a Christian who hasn?t broken one of God?s laws. I have. No one is perfect. Therefore, taking that into consideration, I am not going to point a finger at a homosexual person and tell him that his whole life is a sin. That would be simply hypocritical, as I am no better than he/she. Instead, I don?t think we should in any way discriminate toward or hate homosexuals. I have friends who do things that aren?t ethically right, but that doesn?t mean I should abandon our friendship or think less of them. I have friends who are homosexual, and my opinion of their sexual orientation doesn?t burden our friendship.

It is important to understand that, with my ethical standards lying in Christianity, I do not condone certain actions. As something I see as morally wrong, homosexual sex and relationships (that is, where two mutually cross over into a physical intimacy or romance as opposed to ?brotherly love?) are something I do not [i]accept[/i] as being okay or right. Most importantly, and here is where many people in my situation often fall short- I respect and tolerate their decision. My friend smokes marijuana. I don?t think that?s a [i]good[/i] thing, and something that might get him in trouble. But I?m not going to force his lifestyle to change because of my convictions. If he wants to change and he needs advice, he knows I?ll be there for him. That?s kind of the stance the Church should take. ?Hey, we don?t agree with that particular lifestyle choice, but you are free to make mistakes. We?re here for you anyway.? Jesus never turned his apostles away when they were guilty of great moral sins. He embraced them with forgiveness. No Christian should EVER condemn anybody, it is simply un-christianlike- and certainly a sin that I, and others like me have committed.

As others have said before, it really is a personal journey.

[b]But? homosexuality isn?t a choice, right?[/b]

There?s a yes side and a no side to this. I almost had the opportunity to speak on this in another thread concerning homosexuality that was closed. I mentioned that there is no real, credible, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of an inherited gene responsible for homosexuality. Now there [i]have[/i] been studies. But if you check the journals, the few that have been published are both inconclusive and negative to the hypothesis of a gay gene. PLEASE prove me wrong! I really am looking for this answer personally and I would be very intrigued if it were a biological phenomena. So please, if you have information otherwise; cite it!  I don?t think it is a genetic thing, and if it is- well, the legalization of gay marriage should effectively eliminate homosexuality from the population (except for the small minority of lesbians who choose artificial insemination, where the gene ?may? be passed).

So given that I don?t think there?s a biological case for it, do I believe that it is a choice? Not entirely. I?m not going to say that I was ?forced? or ?predestined? to have sex with the woman I fall in love with because she?s a woman. Neither would I diminish a homosexual?s choice to a member of the same gender as saying ?well he didn?t have much choice.? I think if we make choices that we believe are good, then we should value the decision as well as the outcome. We should pride ourselves that it wasn?t a purely animal desire that lead to the union of two people.

I think the only explanation as to homosexuality is purely psychological. I think that it has to do with not only the environment, but the personal development of the child to adulthood. Hey, I never liked brussel sprouts when I was a kid. No matter how much I tried them, I hated them. I couldn?t really explain why. Finally, after I got a little older, I tried some brussel sprouts and they tasted a little better. Now, I can happily say that they are some of my favorite veggies . Excuse the trite analogy, but it?s difficult to truly explain a psychological maxim.
(did I spell that right? It is ?brussel?, isn?t it?)

[b][u]And the big question: Gay marriage?[/u][/b]

Who cares? Why not? It?s not hurting anybody? Marriage is about love!

That?s what I?m hearing over and over again. And it disappoints me to hear how few people actually seriously take gay marriage into realistic consideration.

The legalization of homosexual marriage will affect the future in three big ways:
1) It will affect how it is viewed from a historical standpoint and taught to my children.
2) It affects us as taxpayers and moral citizens.
3) It affects the legalization of future alternative unions.

Gay marriage will be taught as the second civil rights movement in the United States if it is unanimously supported and allowed. If I teach my kids my moral standpoint that homosexuality is an immoral behavior, they will be condemned as bigots and homophobes. I do not think this movement resembles the first civil rights movement at all because of one fundamental principle: gay marriage opposes religion?s involvement in politics while the first civil rights movement embraced Christianity as its deal-breaker. The entire case for Rev. King?s consolidation of equal rights was based on biblical principles and he had a perfectly legitimate case! Unfortunately, this cannot be used to support gay marriage because it is biblically wrong.

If homosexual marriage is legalized, a certain percentage of my tax dollar will go to certain benefits allotted to the new unions. That doesn?t bother me so much really. Lots of tax dollars go to things that I don?t necessarily approve. But really, when someone is making a case for legislation, they really need to take that into serious consideration.

The most important decision to be made politically is my responsibility as a citizen. I owe it to myself and to my country to vote for legislators and representatives in the government who share the majority of my moral values. If I am called to vote ?for? or ?against? gay marriage, I am going to be honest with myself and oppose it. I simply would not be ?true? to myself If I voted for it because I ?didn?t care?, would I? And people, that?s really as far as I go when it comes to the political opposition of gay marriage. If it is legislated, I?ll be disappointed, but I won?t lose much sleep over it.

I do agree with the recognition of some sort of civil union, however the details are often so esoteric that it boils down to ?if they have a civil union anyway, might as call it a marriage.? But I can understand with the right for easy property transfer to your partner. And folks, gay partners [b]can[/b] visit eachother in the hospital just like any family member. I speak from experience here. Should they have the same life insurance plan, etc? Well, that takes a bit of a history lesson to understand the purpose of each. Which leads me to my final opposition of gay marriage: the slippery slope argument.

The very arguments that are used in supporting gay marriages can also be used to support polygamy and incest, for starters. I mean, who am I to oppose three people that love each other unconditionally from expressing that love in a legal union? Especially if we know that marriage isn?t codified by traditional principles anymore. Why can?t a father have a civil union with his daughter to put her on his life insurance policy? Why shouldn?t I have a civil union with my apartment roommate to share car, or health insurance if we both drive it? Simply put, legalizing gay marriage ends up legalizing a lot of things that I really don?t agree with. This sort of thing breaks down a tradition in our culture that I think should be upheld under certain conditions. If I want to play soccer, I can?t expect to pick up the soccer ball, throw it in the net and call it a goal. If you want a marriage, which is a legal union between a man and a woman, that criterion must be obliged.

Not only that, but when I get my future marriage legalized, I don?t consider that the point where I will look at my fiancée and call her my wife. It is the moment at the alter, when I can say before God that we are married, that I will consider us married. While I don?t expect anybody to share these specific beliefs, I?m trying to give you an idea of what [b]I[/b] consider the moment of marriage. I know that there is a need for homosexual couples to be publicly recognized. As I?ve mentioned before, civil unions accommodates this need. Again, that opens a whole new bag of discussion.


Gay couples can get married in certain religious establishments and churches. They can put rings on their fingers, recite vows, and call each other husband and husband. I respect that choice and I won?t interfere with it. Ask yourselves when you really consider when a marital union occurs. Is it when the government [i]tells[/i] you that you are, or when you decide to make that mutual commitment together?


[b][u]Thanks for reading[/b][/u]

Some of your opinions have been nice to read, and I hope that this discussion really produces some positive insight into this very relevant topic. I hope you respect my opinions as much as I have tried to respect yours. If you want to argue any of my points; as always, I am glad to engage in civil debate 

Cheers
-Jordan

P.S. Reading through the latter posts are really full of some heavy vitriolic between Da Newf, vick, dale, and orbindo. Really people, are we going to lose this discussion because of some heated remarks? Lets try to act at least civil. As for the idea that Jesus wasn?t real? well, then you must really regard any historical figure with equal skepticism. Honest proof and records are through both texts and to a lesser extent, census (which they have apparently found a roman census counting Jesus among Judea's inhabitants). I mean, do we have any similar evidence that Alexander the Great existed? His exploits are filled in only a few transcripts (often conflicting in details) by no more than four legitimate sources- Dorrian, Arrian, Ptolemy, and Plutarch. It is really absurd to claim that he didn?t exist, agreeing with him besides the point.

[Raiyuu]

[color=DarkGreen][font=Trebuchet MS]Thank you, Drix, for raising the tone of the thread by several orders of magnitude.

I'm leaving this thread open for now, but it's on [b]strict probation. [/b]Any more spam or flaming (I'm looking at [b]orbindo, Dale_Valley, The Newfie [/b]and [b]renayiiq [/b]here) and I'm locking it. With gusto, you hear me? Gusto!

(I've deleted a lot of spamulatory posts in an attempt to clean up a bit. Hope you like what I've done with the place.)
[/font][/color]

[Starwind]

At the heart of the matter I don't see why this is sucha controversy. True I can't speak from a religous point of veiw since I haven't fallen inot that group since I was about 8. But on a personal level I have no problem with homosexuality. I'm army enlisted and you find that a great deal of those enlisted are usually homo phobes, I just got to say. Is there anymore of a useless thing a person could be, to be all worked up and afraid of Homsexuals.

I just find it all pointless. I'm straight, I'm not even a little bi, but I have nothing agains those who are. To hold something against someone for there sexual preference is senseless and sometimes it even becomes hateful.

Gay marriage, why not. If it's something someone really wants to persue, sure more power to you. As it stands, I have no plans for mariage myself, and I mean lie ever. But if someone wants to they shouldn't be denied because of this. I thought we were suppose to living in an enlighten age, latly it's seeme more like the dark ages. The army is practically on a whitch hunt for gays and throwing them out of the army left and right.

I just want to put forward my disapproval for this senseless attempt to hold down the gay community and say "Get over it." This isn't a new subject, this has been on every bodies radars for a while now, shouldn't we, as a society, be a little more comfortable with this idea by now then we seem to be. Just putting my thoughts in on the equation.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=Grace][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=SlateGray]orbindo, you are totally getting off subject here. On top of that you disobeyed the rules and double posted, I really do suggest you delete one of those two posts, or spams.

And to set the record straight Buddah's name was Siddartha Guatama.

And you can't just shut down a thread in call it a day and decide to resume the whole thing on a later date. You three have just taken the thread that CHW has created and twisted it into something of your own.

It really makes me upset since the idea was a good one, and the beginning of the debate was really fun. It is a bummer you guys had to spoil it.

I think that this thread has served its purpose. [/COLOR] [/FONT][/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet][font=lucida calligraphy]Agreed. If people are just going to hi jack threads for their own purposes we can just shut this one down. Shame too because most of us were obeying the rules.




However if the rest of us can stay on topic and respect eachother maybe we can steer this back in the direction it was going...?

[b]EDIT[/b]

[quote name=' Drix D'Zanth']Oh, I have to admit, I do love these discussions. It is interesting to see the plethora of new post?ees in this particular thread- one that has been long overdue my dear CHW.[/quote]

Yeah I forgot. The inspiration for this thread was a brief IM with Drix (AKA Jordan and if you let me call you Jordan you can call me Meg since it's the same ammount of letters as CHW) So blame him!

[/color][/font]

[shinji172]

Theres been a lot of references made to the bible on how homosexuality is imorral. However, forgive me if i missed one but why have i not seen any comdemnation from the new testament. if both the old and new testaments are equally important, surely the point would have been brought up in both.

Another problem i have is the fact that the bible is incredibly old and over the years the church has been known to withdraw certain texts from the public (e.g. the dead sea scrolls). Its a safe bet to say that the bible could have been open to manipulation. After all, up until the middle ages, the vast majority of people couldnt even read.

Then theirs the problem of translating the origional texts from the origional language (Latin if im not misrtaken). When the texts were first translated, Latin was a long dead languadge known only to members of the clergy. Hence it would have been easy to omit certain details.

I could go on but all other points (that i can think of) on the matter have already been stated.
For the record, Im not saying they were manipulated. Im just suggesting that their is a possibility of manipulation.

[renayiiq]

CHW:
I apologize for my very defensive behavior. I've had to deal with this crap for years, so naturally, I bite back.
Sorry I screwed up your thread. *takes the blame*

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]The legalization of homosexual marriage will affect the future in three big ways:

1) It will affect how it is viewed from a historical standpoint and taught to my children.[/QUOTE]

[color=green] Any cultural change effects history and all of them are recorded in textbooks. The end of slavery in the United States, passage and repeal of prohibition, de-legalization of narcotics and the success of the civil rights movement are all social upheavels that are recorded in history textbooks.

Are all right? You be the judge. There are still people on both sides of every issue. The recording of legalization of gay marriage, should that come to pass, isn?t relevant.[/color]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Gay marriage will be taught as the second civil rights movement in the United States if it is unanimously supported and allowed. If I teach my kids my moral standpoint that homosexuality is an immoral behavior, they will be condemned as bigots and homophobes.[/quote]

[color=green]Gay marriage [i]is[/i] the second civil rights movement in the United States. The U.S. is discriminating against a group of people because of their gender.

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

If you teach your kids that homosexuality is immoral, [i]your children will be bigots[/i]. Just as my children would be bigots if I were to tell them that anyone without blond hair and blue eyes was inferior.

You would be teaching intolerance, Drix.[/color]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']I do not think this movement resembles the first civil rights movement at all because of one fundamental principle: gay marriage opposes religion?s involvement in politics while the first civil rights movement embraced Christianity as its deal-breaker. The entire case for Rev. King?s consolidation of equal rights was based on biblical principles and he had a perfectly legitimate case! Unfortunately, this cannot be used to support gay marriage because it is biblically wrong.[/quote]

[color=green]America is a democracy, not a theocracy. Church and state both exist in our country ? each in a separate sphere.

Just because the civil rights movement used biblical principles doesn?t make it right. Lack of mainstream religious backing for gay marriage doesn?t make it wrong.

Equality is the core principle of a democratic society. We are all equal; one person, one vote. Every person is entitled to the same liberties ? and when those liberties are denied because of prejudice, that is a violation of civil rights.

By allowing some people to marry and denying that privilege to others, [b]you are designating homosexuals second-class citizens.[/b][/color]

[eleanor]

[color=darkslateblue] Ho hum. I love this saying: religions don't pervert people, people pervert religions. Whoever said it is amazing.

As for my personal opinions on homosexuality, they're basically similar to the ones many people here have voiced. I don't have a problem with homosexuals and I don't have a problem with people that are against homosexuality on a religious base, either. If someone wants to follow their faith, whatever. Of course, there is a fine line between being against homosexuality and actually harrassing and beating up homosexuals because they're a sin against god (which, of course, if the most hypocritical thing to do if you are indeed a Christian who has done this).

If people want to have rallies against gay marraige, they have the right to. If people want to rally for gay marraige, they have the right to. I don't care about what kind of people rally about what kind of idea, but there is also a difference between rallying and the actual political decisions. I think that's where the problem lies, but at the same time, mixing religious ideas with political deicions is inevitable. We elect our representatives based on if we think they're moral ideas are ideal to lead our country or city or whatever place. However dumb or stupid we may think the other political party may be, the US has a 'majority-rules' base.

At the same time, I support gay marraiges, so the best I can do as a 15 year old high school student is try and influence people around me to see gay rights in the same light as me. Hopefully in 30 years or something gay marraige will be a norm. Every civil rights movement has had a hard time justifying itself, so it's logical that gays would have the same problem. I mean, 50 years ago, interracial marraige was illegal in many states. :][/color]

[Dale_Valley]

i would just like to semi-publically anouce my complete apology, for having gone off subject. im sorry if i helped to decrease the value of this thread. i dont however beleive that what i did was "hijack the thread". again i apologize for my actions, i was caught up in the moment.

--PS, i hope that this isnt considered SPAMing Raiyuu. i just wanted to make sure that others recieved my apology.

and i would also like to point out a scripture, i believe its in Romans 1. i dont have it with me, but it, and other verses throughtout the new testemant, (especially in the episltes of Paul) conserning homosexuality.

[TheShinje]

[QUOTE=The Newfie][COLOR=SeaGreen]
Ah, my mistake. I confused the word's 'Angle Rapers' with 'Angle Rapists' (See how the Bible can be misinterpreted?). But that still doesn't change the fact that the so-called 'righteous and just' Lot offered up his own daughters to the rapists... and don't say god asked him too, because any good that asks a man to give his daughters a crowd of rapists is a little... well, you know.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=crimson]Okay, the thing you need to realise about the Bible is, it's heroes are often played out as fallen as the 'sinful' are.

Lot offering his virgin daughters up as a sacrifice to the sodomites was a kneejerk reaction, and it in itself was a wholly unjust and imnmoral thing to do, and the Bible never shows God condoning this action at all.

I love my neighbour as my Bible tells me,but this quote has been bastardised and quoted to death as if it were some immuntiy pledge from having to take a stand on your beleifs. The fact of the matter is, Love thy neighbour, means just that, it doesn't necessarily mean agree with everything they do. Hell, I can disagree with someone and their lifestyle, but I can still love and respect them.

Short point is, you can disagree with somebody's lifestyle without laying the smackdown, and if my experience is anythign to go by, you can still befriend them and love them just like Jesus did, and would have.

Don't judge the faith by the actions of a few, and most certainly, don't judge God by the flawed characters and their actions that are littered through the biblical pages.[/color]

[Brasil]

I think it's worth nothing that most (if not all) scripture found in the Bible has a cultural foundation in the time period. For example...why do you think there was all of this discourse condemning homosexuality in an ancient time when the predominant rule when it came to survival was...oh, I don't know..."safety in numbers"?

Was it really a sin as said by God, or rather a sin because they (various tribes writing the scriptures) needed all the tribe members they could get? Think about it. Was homosexuality actually an affront against God, or was it simply counter-productive to a society's survival, because it limited their numbers?

I'm not saying this is the case for all of the Blibical limitations, but for homosexuality specifically...I think one could make a fairly strong case for that theory. The history for that time period is particularly interesting in the socio-cultural foundations for certain pieces of scripture.

And just to add a bit of humor...who says God doesn't like the gays? I mean, do you honestly believe God ([i][b]a straight male[/b][/i]) has any fashion sense whatsoever? I sincerely doubt his "look" is of his own style. He's got to rely on a few queermo angels to look good...a [i]Queer Eye for the Straight God[/i], as it were.

[TheShinje]

[color=crimson]Interesting theory there, Alex.

It is entirely plausible that the OT writers had something like safety in numbers in mind, especially when they were going up against the Caananites, yet, with homosexuality being a rather small minority throughout our history, would it be worth all the trouble to castigate the few unless it were truly an abomination against God?

And then, we're discounting the passages in the NT book Corinthians where homosexuals are listed amongst drunkards as having no claimance to the kingdom of God. It's like people can explain Sodom and Gomorrah away as being more about the citizens' debauchery than their preferrence for the other team, but in the end, that isn't the last time the act itself is mentioned amongst sin, and the other verses, such as Leviticus 18:22 state God's viewpoint much more clearly (read: balck and white, no grey there).

I went off on a tangent there to cover the "sodomgate" controversy with the same stone, but the gist of what I'm saying is, if the homosexual laws were re-iterated in a time when the tribal survival of the fittest wasn't exactly the top drawcard of the period, why then, would an archaic law from the tribal days, be routinely kept as gospel from God?[/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

Firstly, thanks for replying. It is always nice to have some feedback, critical or not. Secondly, I am taken aback by your response to my thread! Dave, you seem to be reading my opinions with a sour taste in your mouth rather than taking them for what they are! Here, I?ll explain what I mean.

[QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green] Any cultural change effects history and all of them are recorded in textbooks. The end of slavery in the United States, passage and repeal of prohibition, de-legalization of narcotics and the success of the civil rights movement are all social upheavels that are recorded in history textbooks.

Are all right? You be the judge. There are still people on both sides of every issue. The recording of legalization of gay marriage, should that come to pass, isn?t relevant.[/color] [/color][/QUOTE]
It certainly [i]is[/i] relevant. Because, as I?ve said before, if gay marriage is passed it will be regarded as the second civil rights movement and carry several implications with it. Most importantly, it will be regarded as a [i]good[/i] thing. I simply don?t see it as a good thing.

[QUOTE=Boba Fett ][color=green]Gay marriage [i]is[/i] the second civil rights movement in the United States. The U.S. is discriminating against a group of people because of their gender.

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

If you teach your kids that homosexuality is immoral, [i]your children will be bigots[/i]. Just as my children would be bigots if I were to tell them that anyone without blond hair and blue eyes was inferior.

You would be teaching intolerance, Drix.[/color][/QUOTE]

I think the key word you confuse here is ?intolerance?. Do I ever implicate that we should not tolerate homosexuality or even homosexual marriage (as far as privately and religiously)? No, I tolerate homosexuality just as I would tolerate any aspect of our society. I tolerate homosexuality, I endure homosexuality, and I recognize that it?s a part of our society. I do not consider a homosexual any more ?inferior? to a heterosexual (did you even read my post?). I do not consider it a morally right choice, however. Similarly, I do not consider the changing of the meaning of marriage (in public non-religious forum, of course) a good thing.

Because, Dave, when the government asks us to vote on a political side, representative, or even if we end up becoming the law-makers ourselves we must discriminate (?To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available. To make sensible decisions; judge wisely?) what we consider to be right and wrong!



[QUOTE=Boba Fett]
[color=green]America is a democracy, not a theocracy. Church and state both exist in our country ? each in a separate sphere.

Just because the civil rights movement used biblical principles doesn?t make it right. Lack of mainstream religious backing for gay marriage doesn?t make it wrong.[/QUOTE]

[URL= http://members.aol.com/klove01/promland.htm][color=navy]Promiseland[/URL][/color] Read this speech by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

?When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.? ?Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence.
Every man must decide when some things are right and some things are wrong. This is [i]ethics[/i] and some people decide their ethical principles through any number of philosophies and many decide their principles through their faith. Neither of these methods is any less acceptable than the other.
But, you?re absolutely right, Dave. The United States is [i]not[/i] a theocracy. Through the creation of laws, the representative body of this country begins categorizing certain aspects of our life. I was merely pointing out an irony in claiming that this was the ?second civil rights movement?. Our government tells us when we need to serve it in battle, when we should pay its taxes, our status through census, and even whether or not the family restaurant can serve wine. These laws are codified on the principle that there is a ?right? way to do certain things and a ?wrong? way. It is wrong for a thirteen year old to drive, or a nineteen year old to drink alcohol. Those are privileges one must earn. When I fill out my information for tax returns I don?t receive thousands of dollars in tax refunds like some more wealthy people do. I haven?t earned that money, I don?t meet those requirements. Some kids haven?t earned MEAP-testing scholarship money every year to help pay for college, while I have. These are privileges, institutions created around specific requirements, which leads to my next point.
[QUOTE=Boba Fett]
Equality is the core principle of a democratic society. We are all equal; one person, one vote. Every person is entitled to the same liberties ? and when those liberties are denied because of prejudice, that is a violation of civil rights. [/color]

By allowing some people to marry and denying that privilege to others, [b]you are designating homosexuals second-class citizens.[/b][/color][/QUOTE]

I?m not [b]denying[/b] homosexuals marriage any more than I am denying a nineteen year old the right to drink. They simply do not meet the prerequisites that I recognize classify what a marriage [i]is[/i]. Instead I see the supporters of gay marriage trying to change the institution at its disenfranchisement. Marriage, in the legal sense, is not a liberty- it is a privilege, and something I respect.

And here?s where your claim that I am intolerant falls to pieces. Even though I disagree with the idea of gay marriage, I do not regard any homosexual as less than myself. I do not disrespect their right to change the policies of this nation by voting any more than my right to maintain certain policies. There is no second-class citizen issue here at all, Dave, and I?m disappointed that you made that interpretation from my post.

[QUOTE=Brasil]
And just to add a bit of humor...who says God doesn't like the gays? I mean, do you honestly believe God ([i][b]a straight male[/b][/i]) has any fashion sense whatsoever? I sincerely doubt his "look" is of his own style. He's got to rely on a few queermo angels to look good...a [i]Queer Eye for the Straight God[/i], as it were.[/QUOTE]

:D

And on a final note, Shinji, a very well-thought out response. Despite some colorful syntax, I think you and I share some key opinions on the issue, especially with regards to the Christian standpoint.

[Morpheus]

[quote name='orbindo][COLOR=Red'] Sodom and Gomorrah were two cities that were full of gays and lesbians. Guess what happened to them, both obliterated (or so it says).[/COLOR][/quote]
That's fool's logic, like "They hate our freedom" or "I don't have a gamecube, so Nintendo sucks."

I find it funny that if people see two gay guys, it's evil, but two lesbians...

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=Morpheus]
I find it funny that if people see two gay guys, it's evil, but two lesbians...[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet][font=lucida calligraphy] Ryan I hate to burst your bubble, but not all lesbians are hot. They just get the really good looking ones or the ones who are willing to screw anything for taping.

And I think the whole girl on girl thing is popular because guys can watch and picture themselves there. Because they don't have to think of themselves as competing for the girl's attention. (Gotta love Freudean thinking I guess)

And to everyone who appologized- accepted. Thank you.[/color][/font]

[freakydorky]

I completly agree with it, I myself am bisexual and so comeplty back it, if it makes people happy go for it, I don't think I could ever see myself getting married to another girl, but if you want to, I'll totally support you!

[Morpheus]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet][font=lucida calligraphy] Ryan I hate to burst your bubble, but not all lesbians are hot. They just get the really good looking ones or the ones who are willing to screw anything for taping.

And I think the whole girl on girl thing is popular because guys can watch and picture themselves there. Because they don't have to think of themselves as competing for the girl's attention. (Gotta love Freudean thinking I guess)

And to everyone who appologized- accepted. Thank you.[/color][/font][/QUOTE]
I'm not saying that they're all good looking (there are a few in my school that most definately are not), but most Straight Men that talk about this issue second guess themselves, sad as it may be, when they are reminded that lesbians are a part of this group. They equate Legalizing Gay marriage with Gay men having sex everywhere. Yet again, Fool's logic.

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth] Most importantly, it will be regarded as a [i]good[/i'] thing. I simply don?t see it as a good thing.[/quote]

[color=green]Why not? I?ve read all these religious arguements on the topic, but I think Alex addresses this well when he says.[/color]

[quote name='Brasil'] I think it's worth nothing that most (if not all) scripture found in the Bible has a cultural foundation in the time period.[/quote]

[color=green]We must recognize that times have changed and hope we can shed the prejudices we?ve carried for so many years.[/color]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth'] I tolerate homosexuality, I endure homosexuality, and I recognize that it?s a part of our society. I do not consider a homosexual any more ?inferior? to a heterosexual (did you even read my post?).[/quote]

[color=green]An inferior is one we say is, ?A person lower in rank, status, or accomplishment than another.? What else could you possibly be implying when you deny someone marriage, a right you afford everyone else?[/color]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth] I?m not [b]denying[/b] homosexuals marriage... They simply do not meet the prerequisites that I recognize classify what a marriage [i]is[/i'].[/quote]

[color=green]That?s well and good for you to do.

But this is a government matter. A government shouldn?t be in the business of deciding what a marriage is. If two people want to join in union, a government should treat them like any other two people who want to be together.

If a government doesn?t do that, it is discriminating.

I?m not saying people shouldn?t voice their opinions in regard to government, but rather that they should recognize that religion and government serve different purposes and must act accordingly.[/color]

[quote name='Drix']These laws are codified on the principle that there is a ?right? way to do certain things and a ?wrong? way. It is wrong for a thirteen year old to drive, or a nineteen year old to drink alcohol. Those are privileges one must earn.[/quote]

[color=green]If laws are based in morality... I?m not sure I follow how it?s morally wrong for a 19 year old to drink or a 13 year old to drive. I drink. Am I immoral?

And we earn these privileges, by aging? A ludicrous and wildly inaccurate test at best.

How are homosexuals to ?earn? this right?[/color]

[quote name='Drix'] Even though I disagree with the idea of gay marriage, I do not regard any homosexual as less than myself.[/quote]

[color=green]Can you marry? Can a homosexual marry?

And there?s no disparity there?

Marriage, once administered by a government, becomes service that must be provided equally to all. Don?t discriminate by gender. It?s wrong.[/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

Glad to see you replied again, Dave, I like how your opinions are refining and I hope we can take something from this discussion. 
[QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green]Why not? I?ve read all these religious arguements on the topic, but I think Alex addresses this well when he says.[/color]
[color=green]We must recognize that times have changed and hope we can shed the prejudices we?ve carried for so many years.[/color][/QUOTE]

John 4:24 ?God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in [b]truth[/b].?
2 Samuel 22:31 ?As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless.?

I am not ignorant to the history of the Bible. And I recognize that it is not the same book as its original texts. However, just because culture and society may change, I see the truth in the word of God as unchanging. Two thousand years hasn?t wearied Jesus? original sacrifice, and thousands more have not eroded those ten commandments of Moses. I know that some of the old laws were designed to preserve and keep God?s people. However, throughout the word it has been clearly outlined that the union set for every marriage is between a man and his wife. And while you can debate cultural significance of specific verses, that principle remains throughout the Bible.

But we aren?t debating the Bible, are we? This discussion isn?t really about a religious marriage. The Bible simply serves as the moral guideline that I agree with and form my moral foundation upon. You might found yours on through any other philosophy. Criticism or skepticism of [b]your[/b] philosophy?s history isn?t going to erode the fact that you are genuinely concerned over an ethical dilemma.
[QUOTE=Boba Fett]
[color=green]An inferior is one we say is, ?A person lower in rank, status, or accomplishment than another.? What else could you possibly be implying when you deny someone marriage, a right you afford everyone else?[/color] [/QUOTE]

Marriage isn?t a rank; it isn?t a status symbol to hold as some sort of lofty accomplishment you can hold as a token of superiority. Marriage doesn?t grant any citizens special rights or privileges, or favor citizens once acquired. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. This is how I identify and acknowledge marriage. Marriage is not the union of brother and sister. Marriage is not the union of man, woman, [i]and[/i] woman. Marriage is not the union of man and dog. I am trying to maintain this definition and this institution. You think I am ?denying? a right. Well the right doesn?t actually exist unless you [b]change[/b] the definition of marriage (and marriage itself).

[QUOTE=Boba Fett]
[color=green]That?s well and good for you to do.

But this is a government matter. A government shouldn?t be in the business of deciding what a marriage is. If two people want to join in union, a government should treat them like any other two people who want to be together.

If a government doesn?t do that, it is discriminating. [/QUOTE]
You missed this:
[quote name='Myself] Gay couples can get married in certain religious establishments and churches. They can put rings on their fingers, recite vows, and call each other husband and husband (or wife and wife). I respect that choice and I won?t interfere with it. Ask yourselves when you really consider when a marital union occurs. Is it when the government [i]tells[/i'] you that you are, or when you decide to make that mutual commitment together?[/quote]
As far as their right to personal freedoms are concerned, they [b]can[/b] get married.

This is most definitely a government matter when we are talking about legal and political implications. When we are talking about the state?s recognition of this particular union, and bring it from the private life to the public forum- it becomes a government matter. The government is represented by her people, and as a member of that representative body (tiny fraction as it may be) I am obligated to voice my ethical opinion.

[QUOTE=Boba Fett]
I?m not saying people shouldn?t voice their opinions in regard to government, but rather that they should recognize that religion and government serve different purposes and must act accordingly.[/color] [/QUOTE]

If I believe in some ethical truth from a religion, and am asked how I should help shape this country, I will respect my idea of ?right? and ?wrong?. You cannot separate a man from his ethics, their source notwithstanding.

[QUOTE=Boba Fett]
[color=green]If laws are based in morality... I?m not sure I follow how it?s morally wrong for a 19 year old to drink or a 13 year old to drive. I drink. Am I immoral?

And we earn these privileges, by aging? A ludicrous and wildly inaccurate test at best. [/QUOTE]

Drinking is an action that has been regulated because it requires a certain amount of responsibility. One of the fastest killers of young people is drunk driving. This is a testament to the lack of maturity that often comes with age. Maturity doesn?t always come with age, but if it means saving a life or two, I don?t mind postponing their right to alcohol consumption until they turn 21. Sounds like a fair justification to you, right?

But our age does not always define our level of maturity- that much is true. But can you deny the fact that most episodes of drinking and driving occur under, or close-to the drinking age limit? How about the fact that due to enforcement and education of this policy drunk driving has decreased 60 percent over the last 20 years? Sounds like this government policy is not only working, but in doing so, saving lives.

[QUOTE=Boba Fett]
How are homosexuals to ?earn? this right?[/color] [/QUOTE]
A man of legal age can marry a woman. The government will then recognize this union as a marriage. I don?t earn the right to fly a plane by passing a driver?s education exam. I don?t earn the right to graduate from college by ignoring my major?s credit requirements. I don?t earn the right to practice medicine without attending medical school.

It would be nice to legalize my practicing medicine after graduating from undergraduate college, but that would really change what it means to be a Doctor, wouldn?t it?

[QUOTE=Boba Fett]
[color=green]Can you marry? Can a homosexual marry?

And there?s no disparity there?

Marriage, once administered by a government, becomes service that must be provided equally to all. Don?t discriminate by gender. It?s wrong.[/color][/QUOTE]

I?m not denying anybody the right to go out and find a member of the opposite sex and get married, homosexual or not (although it would seem absurd for a homosexual to join in a heterosexual union- as it would seem absurd if I received my pilot?s license without any intention of flying a plane) I will see that as fulfilling the prerequisites that we all must equally follow if we wish to participate in this institution. In this regard, marriage is a perfectly equal establishment. Besides, if they wish to get married in their private lives (as far as a cultural marriage or religious marriage is concerned) outside the [b]public[/b] (key word! key word!) arena; who am I to deny that?

Cheers,
Jordan

[Brasil]

A quickie before bed. ~_^

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']I see the truth in the word of God as unchanging.[/quote] That's the problem, though, now isn't it? I generally tend to stay away from playing the "moral relativity" angle because at times, I think it's more a cop-out than an actual rebuttal, used when someone really has no other response.

But I think it's relevant here, in that there was never much "truth" in the Bible, even in the so-called "word of God." If you closely examine the text, when you get down to the nitty-gritty, most of that book is completely subjective. An unchanging truth would generally imply that the said truth is objective and relevant all the time. And that's just not the case.

I mean, when you really consider it...how much "truth" is there in the Bible? When broken down into percentages, most of it is either conjecture, second-hand testimony, posthumous narrative assembled from bits and pieces of scattered documentation that by today's standards of modern law and forensics would be classified as completely unreliable in the determination of facts and dates, artificial socio-cultural rule-sets transcribed by the cultural (read: tribal) leaders of the time (some of whom could barely read or write from what I've read), and so on.

As I delve into Biblical studies more and more, I'm finding that the Bible only really held a few particular truths, and those truths were completely non-ideological. Archaeologists believe they've found Lot's Cave, for example, and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. They found minor evidence of a very violent culture that dates back a few thousand years. But nothing more than that.

I know you weren't exactly speaking from a historical perspective when you said "truth in God's word," but I feel what I just said is pretty important when it comes to figuring out what exactly in the Bible is accurate and what is merely the result of some-odd 350 years of re-transcription.

And let's talk about "truth" from the ideological perspective. It seems to me that the word of God (of the OT and NT) can only be "true" if it is universally confirmed. If everyone across the universe (and across time) adheres to his particular "ground rules," then I'd agree that the truth in the word of God definitely was unchanged.

But what do we find when we examine history? Or even the NT and the OT? What could have possibly changed between the Finale of the OT and when JC comes onto the ancient Israeli scene? Why do modern Fundamentalist Christians seemingly never quote Jesus when supporting any one of their numerous "anti-[insert social progressive issue]" arguments? There's a reason for that, and it's a reason that I feel too few people (if any) have even realized:

That the messages between the OT and the NT are almost completely different. Nowhere in the NT do you see stories about God smiting some foolish bastard, just like how Jesus doesn't exactly get medieval on anyone's *** when he's preaching to the lepers or healing the possessed. Granted, some of what JC was saying was pretty irrelevant by today's standards, bordering more on Communism/Socialism than an actual, workable life philosophy, but I think even in light of that, it's incredibly worthwhile to see the process throughout the Bible.

I don't think anyone can argue that the deaths, the smitings, the boils, the disease, the plagues, etc., in the OT weren't direct results of some group not obeying one of the "truths" in God's word. And what "truths" do we regularly hear about when someone like Jerry Falwell opens his mouth? That God forbids homosexuality; that God forbids polygamous relationships; the list really goes on and on.

In the OT, you see that. You see those rules at work, you see them result in the complete obliteration of entire cities. You see just how dickish God can be.

In the NT, all of that changes. Even ignoring the "Peace, love, and forgiveness" that Christ preached, let's talk about the brief story of him exorcising a possessed girl. Had that story been based sometime in the OT, say...let's say the girl and her mother were Egyptians. The mother went to Moses for help. What would have happened? Since she wasn't Jewish...I highly doubt Moses (and God) would have lifted a finger to help her daughter. Now, I don't think that's an unreasonable conclusion to make. The OT God is the same God who plagued Egypt about a dozen times within a week.

So what truth in God's message in the OT remained unchanged there? Is there an "Outsiders are unworthy" vibe anyone gets from anything Jesus was saying? To quote Fred Willard from A Mighty Wind, "Iiii don't thiiink sooo!"

Unchanging truth? Not at all. Jesus represents a dramatic ideological reversal of 99% of what we heard in the OT.

Now, sure, some could play a technicality and say "Well, it's the word of God in the OT, and Jesus was more a demi-God, so his word isn't really the word of God," but I think they're really missing the point, because the point is is that Jesus was the main man back then.

He was there, he was happenin...he was pretty much the original founder of the God Squad for Christianity--and he wasn't even Christian. I don't see his re-definition of religion as a bad thing at all. If anything, it's positive.

When it comes to what Jesus was doing and saying...he was a social progressive like nothing else. And with that social progressivism, people really need to start wondering What Would Jesus Say, because I get the feeling he would be far more inclined to start bitchslapping Fundamentalist Christians who like quoting an angry and vindictive book of scripture rather than bitchslapping those today fighting for true equality.

And honestly, I think the fact that we never, ever hear Pat Robertson, Falwell, etc., quoting Jesus is really testament to that. They don't quote him to help them suppress gay rights because...survey says? Jesus was all about equality.

So I ask you, Jordan (and any others here quoting the Bible), where is the truth?

Old Testament? Smiteful Yahweh? Angry father? Vindictive?

New Testament? Pleasant God? Groovy Jesus? Equality for all?

I think virtually anything one can point to in the OT in terms of social restrictions and guidelines can be outright refuted when it comes to closer readings of Christ's teachings.

[quote]Two thousand years hasn?t wearied Jesus? original sacrifice.[/quote] I disagree. I do not see any prominent religious leaders talking about Christ anymore in terms of his sacrifice. All I've seen is a bunch of vitriolic rhetoric that borders on "God destroyed New Orleans because it was sinful." I think two thousand years has certainly wearied Jesus' original sacrifice, because virtually nobody I see in the public arena seemingly gives two sh*ts about that anymore. Plus, one shouldn't devote themselves to a religion because of a sacrifice one man made to absolve others of sin. That is basically what The Passion of the Christ was: one huge guilt trip.

[quote]and thousands more have not eroded those ten commandments of Moses.[/quote] Again, how many people actually quote the Ten Commandments these days, or refer to them explicitly, or even subtly draw from them?

Not many. And how many of those Ten Commandments are all that relevant today, anyway? Thou Shalt Not Kill, sure, but do you really need a stone tablet to know it's not a good idea to hack up your neighbor with a machete?

Pardon the morbid sense of humor, but is it a lack of religious values that enable a man to think to himself, "Gee whiz, you know what? I sure like Bob's riding mower. I think I'm going to take that axe, kill Bob, then take his riding mower. Maybe I'll also have sex with his wife, too."

Or is that kind of thought process more indicative of just pure, straight-up lack of common sense?

Or what about the "No Idolatry" clause? By the definition in there...we should kill Shigeru Miyamoto. We should eliminate all fanboys and fangirls. We need to have public exterminations of all things Pokemon, and stone to death every child who was obsessed over the Pokemon card craze from a while back.

You see where I'm going with this.

There are loads of other things in your post that I feel are entirely incompetent and clumsy, Jordan, but it's 2:30 am, I need to take a piss, and then I need to get some sleep.