|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/01/2007 03:57:23 PM · #501 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I hope that you see where I am coming from when I get frustrated because people project their morals, values, and beliefs on others and then get really nasty when they meet resistance. |
I don't know how much more accurately I could have described my own feelings. I just wanted to point out that this is true not just for the gay marriage issue, but for other issues as well, particularly those revolving around religion and "faith". Push a little, get shoved back real hard.
edit: messed up quote
Message edited by author 2007-02-01 15:57:55. |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 08:12:24 AM · #502 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Jeb seems to think that it is not OK to deny homosexuals marriage / civil union because it is, in his words, a "right" and he supports the free exercise of all "rights" guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The only problem is that the U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee any such "right" - that "right" is currently reserved to the individual states by virtue of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has thus far refused to hear arguments about state laws concerning same-sex marriage. Jeb is from Pennsylvania, not Massachusetts, if one is to believe his profile, so in his state same-sex marriage is still not a "right". |
I think I should probably try and clarify my position a little 'cause even I'm not sure what constitutes a right or rights.
And bear in mind I don't have a set of standards and a solution all mapped out, I'm just armchair quarterbacking and I fully admit that.
I don't necessarily think that the Constitution guarantees same sex couples the right to a civil union/marriage, and that needs to be separated as well. A marriage is, I believe, a religious thing and the civil union, a civil thing.
I don't believe that a church can be told that they have to marry two people that their beliefs do not condone the relationship, that's fine, so be it. Though I don't share their beliefs, they have as much right to believe that it's not okay as I do to believe that it is okay.
A civil union on the other hand, is a contractual agreement that is based on a commitment of two people to each other in a marriage-like environment that is for the benefit of the two in matters of living arrangements and estate matters.
I'd like to call to attention the not so uncommon arrangement of two spinsters who have a relationship and spend their waning years together as companions after the death of their spouses. I know I had an aunt and her friend that spent their last years together.
I have seen these relationships for years and they have always been understood and accepted.
Why would it not be acceptable for these two women to have a civil union giving them the same privileges and rights accorded them by the marriages since they have chosen to finish out their lives with each other for support and companionship?
I don't think anyone can honestly say that this is an unacceptable idea because it's assumed that the whole issue of sex is a non-issue.
Yet these two women have to go through a myriad of hassles to get powers of attorney, estate planning, and insurance coverage as if they were not a single entity.
I am just as much in favor of this being a situation where a civil union could be declared and all of those issues be automatically granted by their legal, and moral, commitment to live with and care for each other.......'til death do they part!
And that's where I am with the same-sex/gay/lesbian civil unions as well. It's not my business what two consenting adults do in the comfort and privacy of their home and I would never presume that it is.
What I object to is that two of my friends who have been committed to, lived with, and shared a life together for 20+ years, are not accorded the same rights and privileges *LEGALLY* as an acquaintance of mine is for the fourth time that she's married, to the current jerk.....which probably will not last, either.
Yet this woman, and her string of husbands on a whim, by convenience, or whatever, have all those rights, even though their commitment pales in comparison to my friends' commitment to each other.
And part of it that has me bugged is the lack of knowledge on some of our part, and by that I mean those of us who are in conventional relationships.
Are you aware that if you have a same-sex relationship, have been totally committed to that person for twenty years, and that person gets into a car accident and goes to Intensive Care, that the partner is NOT allowed by law to see them because they are not legally family?
Yet in most states, if a couple, man and woman, has been living together for five to seven years, they are generally considered to have a common-law marriage and are accorded that pirvilege?
And, same gay couple, at least here in Pa, if one of the couple has the other covered under his/her medical plan through work, the other must claim that medical coverage as income on their tax return!!!
I don't know whether that applies for the common law couple or not, but I'll bet it could be taken as a given.
Any tax attorneys in this thread?....8>)
Anyway, the same-sex couples have other issues as well such as not having the tax break for filing jointly; the list goes on.
I'm not asking anyone to change how they feel or what they believe, all I'm saying is that if two people commit to each other to care for, share a life together, and be responsible for each other's legal commitments and needs, they should be allowed to make a contractual agreement, that I would call a civil union, with each other in the eyes of the law.
IMO that's not right that they are not.
So with that, do you see where I stand?
I don't feel it's my right to judge another's commitment to each other if they are willing to make it legal, and I don't think it's right to prohibit such a legal agreement due to gender.
Whether the people are gay or just wanting to have a plan for how they help each other while spending a life together like my aunt and her companion, who are there for each other since their husbands died and now have each other to grow old and die with.....is it unreasonable to ask that they be granted some basic privileges of a committed, legal relationship??
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 08:55:27 AM · #503 |
WOW, this is a very long and obviously contentious thread and I haven't read it all, but let me let you all in on a natural truth.
Homosexuality is 100% natural. It occurs in EVERY species on our planet and there is one single fundamental reason. Self-moderation of population.
I'm not a religious man, so I discount what the catholic bible has to say on the matter altogether (mainly because if we followed it to the letter, we'd ban and hate anyone who wasn't a god fearing & able-bodied male Christian.)
I make only one apology for more position on this and that is to anyone who is religious AND accepts everyone for who they are.
If I have offended you and you are a closed & single minded homosexual-hating bigot - sorry, but you offend me, so I figure we're even.
Just so we're clear, I don't expect ANYONE to change there belief system based on anything I have to say. And I don't have a problem with hard-lined anti-gay Christians - what they want to practice behind closed doors is totally up to them ;-)
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 09:45:29 AM · #504 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
And, same gay couple, at least here in Pa, if one of the couple has the other covered under his/her medical plan through work, the other must claim that medical coverage as income on their tax return!!! |
that's true in a lot of places, including IN. |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 12:26:40 PM · #505 |
Originally posted by PurpleFire:
Homosexuality is 100% natural. It occurs in EVERY species on our planet and there is one single fundamental reason. Self-moderation of population. |
Uhhhhh, what? I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask for some proof of that. I'm a little dubious of that claim.
Upon further review, you are right only to an extent. Homosexuality has been well documented in about 500 species, and observed in around 1500 species. Oh yeah, in Rams, homosexuality is attributed to brain problems, not self-moderation of population. Reference
Message edited by author 2007-02-02 12:31:10.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 03:49:26 PM · #506 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Yet in most states, if a couple, man and woman, has been living together for five to seven years, they are generally considered to have a common-law marriage and are accorded that pirvilege? |
Actually, this is not true. Currently, only 11 of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, recognize common-law marriage contracts ( though, by consensus, the other 39 states recognize common-law marriages lawfully contracted in those states where such contracts are permitted ).
That being said, I agree with you that there ought to be recognition of a civil union contract by which people could legally commit to hold all property jointly, to commit to joint financial responsibility for debts incurred by one another, and to convey the right to act on behalf of the other when circumstances dictate. One of the problems of civil unions that will invariably occur is how to limit a civil union to just two persons - surely three or four or more could also agree to commit to one another - it happens in business relationships all the time. But that is a topic for another thread.
Originally posted by PurpleFire:
Homosexuality is 100% natural. It occurs in EVERY species on our planet and there is one single fundamental reason. Self-moderation of population. |
According to Clark University's Dr. Susan Foster, "More than 1,300 species of animals will eat one of their own kind -- alive."
Do you think the facts that cannibalism is also 100% natural and that over 1,300 species of animals engage in cannibalism constitute rational arguments for concluding that cannibalism in humans should be acceptable to everyone? If not, then the fact that EVERY species on our planet engages in homosexual behaviour ( even if true ) fails as a rational argument for concluding that homosexual behaviour in humans should be acceptable to everyone. Note: I'm not arguing about the acceptability of homosexuality one way or the other, only that the argument that was presented is flawed. |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 06:42:20 PM · #507 |
OK Ron & bigalpha, fair point. My point was way over simplified (for impact...I know!), but the fact that "Homosexuality has been well documented in about 500 species, and observed in around 1500 species." is proof enough that being gay is nature and not nurture as the bible will have those following the 'faith' believe (an abomination my ass!).
Although not gay myself, it makes my blood boil when the church says it opposes same sex marriage and adoption of children by same sex couples in the UK because, and this is a quote "accepting same sex adoption forces us to acknowledge what we believe is wrong" - well duh!
Oh and Ron, the cannibalism point is good counter point to my own, but isn't it due to the fact the 'pack' will pick off the weakest for the good of the group, to ensure the group doesn't fall foul of their natural predator? I would suspect that cannibalism in humans would give great support to the argument of evolution...
Message edited by author 2007-02-02 18:43:07.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 09:55:25 PM · #508 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Yet in most states, if a couple, man and woman, has been living together for five to seven years, they are generally considered to have a common-law marriage and are accorded that pirvilege? |
Actually, this is not true. Currently, only 11 of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, recognize common-law marriage contracts ( though, by consensus, the other 39 states recognize common-law marriages lawfully contracted in those states where such contracts are permitted ). |
I should have been a little more specific and that was taken a little bit out of context.....but since I wasn't clear, that'll happen...8>)
That was a statement I made right after the point I was making about one partner not being able to visit the other in an ICU......the live-in girlfriend is usually accorded some leeway, where often the same-sex partner is not. Not that it's any more legal, but it's deemed more acceptable. Not by me, but you get my drift.
And I am aware that common-law is gone as a legality, but there are an awful lot of rights and privileges that are accorded partners that are not married when their arrangement is made clear.
Even in a case where a mother and father are not married, the school where the child attends often treats them like an entity. Although some scholls are accepting of this situation, this is still an issue that desperately needs addressed.
Part of what bothers me about this kind of discrimination is the tacit acceptance of it simply because it's been done for years.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 11:27:44 PM · #509 |
Originally posted by PurpleFire:
OK Ron & bigalpha, fair point. My point was way over simplified (for impact...I know!), but the fact that "Homosexuality has been well documented in about 500 species, and observed in around 1500 species." is proof enough that being gay is nature and not nurture as the bible will have those following the 'faith' believe (an abomination my ass!). |
FYI, two points: 1) nowhere does the bible imply that homosexuality is nurture, not nature; 2) the urge ( for men in particular ) to be sexually promiscuous is natural but the bible still condemns adultery and fornication - as does the majority of society.
The sexually immoral found out long ago that the courts would rule that such activities as adultery and fornication ( among consenting adults ) were legally protected under the "right to privacy". They then use the fact that such activities are legally protected to rationalize that the behaviours are morally OK as well - after all, they're legal. The majority, however, still believe that such acts are immoral, whether legal or not. |
|
|
|
02/03/2007 12:19:23 AM · #510 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by PurpleFire:
OK Ron & bigalpha, fair point. My point was way over simplified (for impact...I know!), but the fact that "Homosexuality has been well documented in about 500 species, and observed in around 1500 species." is proof enough that being gay is nature and not nurture as the bible will have those following the 'faith' believe (an abomination my ass!). |
FYI, two points: 1) nowhere does the bible imply that homosexuality is nurture, not nature; 2) the urge ( for men in particular ) to be sexually promiscuous is natural but the bible still condemns adultery and fornication - as does the majority of society.
The sexually immoral found out long ago that the courts would rule that such activities as adultery and fornication ( among consenting adults ) were legally protected under the "right to privacy". They then use the fact that such activities are legally protected to rationalize that the behaviours are morally OK as well - after all, they're legal. The majority, however, still believe that such acts are immoral, whether legal or not. |
And this is exactly the way it should be, to protect perfectly innocent people from those that would cast their behaviour as "immoral". Secularism is a wonderful thing. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 08:58:14 AM · #511 |
Originally posted by RonB:
FYI, two points: 1) nowhere does the bible imply that homosexuality is nurture, not nature; 2) the urge ( for men in particular ) to be sexually promiscuous is natural but the bible still condemns adultery and fornication - as does the majority of society.
The sexually immoral found out long ago that the courts would rule that such activities as adultery and fornication ( among consenting adults ) were legally protected under the "right to privacy". They then use the fact that such activities are legally protected to rationalize that the behaviours are morally OK as well - after all, they're legal. The majority, however, still believe that such acts are immoral, whether legal or not. |
I am interested by this point - especially in the light of the recent Ted Haggard conversion (and his gay lover's riposte). I feel tremendously sorry for that poor man, who must be going through hell because of the belief system that he inhabits (though my sorrow is tempered by the thought of the intolerance that he preached).
I would be surprised if the majority would believe homosexuality to be immoral (if this is the comparison being made). This maybe because I live in metropolitan London and have a large number of gay friends (in fact, I saw one friend get engaged last night when his boyfriend proposed at his 40th birthday party). However, especially in the light of increased understanding of the causes of homosexuality, and in particular the genetic context, it is clearly not a voluntary decision.
I would similarly be surprised if many people rationalised that adultery were moral simply because it is not a criminal offence. This is a breach of a social contract.
I would be interested in any other thoughts.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 11:54:12 AM · #512 |
Originally posted by "matthew":
(though my sorrow is tempered by the thought of the intolerance that he preached). |
Are you without love and sympathy?
Funny, over the year's I have had friends "come out of the closet" even get sex changes. Now, I believe homosexuality to sinful (imperfect). That said, i believe sex outside of marriage to be likewise. That does not mean I hate such people. Just don't ask me to condone the actions.
That said, I found something interesting over the years. A lot of my free-thinking non-religious friends had difficulties when for example one of my friends in high school had her coming out party. When if first occurred they were afraid to tell me because I was a 'christian' and they thought I'd stop being her friend. When I was told, I simply said I don't condone the lifestyle but it's not going to stop me from being a friend. If I had to stop loving people because of sin there would be no one I could love.
Ironically, it would be me the christian who remained her friend over the years when a number of other free-thinkers found themselves uncomfortable with her announcement and/or the fact that she could be attracted to them.
This is my issue with political correctness. It often masks the truth. Where as my stance might be condemned under political correctness it was I who actually stood by as a friend and didn't depart. Years later....it's I who she respected.
Now, I have a friend who's undergoing a sex change. I'm not going to cease being his/her friend.
Do I believe these things are according to the perfect ideals of the Creator. Nope. But I believe we live in a fallen and imperfect world. Much is not according to those ideals.
Your points regarding adultery and a breach of a social contract are noteworthy. Though in truth, there does seem to be a trend that is starting to see adultery as more acceptable since it's de-criminalization in many areas.
As for the gay marriage debate. I've long questioned why anyone needs a license from the government to get married. I've advocated something along the lines of seperation of church and state. Have government pull completely out of the marriage business.
If marriage is either a religious thing or about love. Then let it be merely that.
In truth, a large part of the issue is actually financial (taxes, insurance, inheritance, etc.) I've argued for a civil incorporation of common household. This would be open to two or more people. (If we're going to reform this then we should do it right. Why should we go from just 1 man + 1 woman to merely 2 men or 2 women. Presently we restrict muslims, mormons and some pagans from having multiple marital partners.
And why should love really even be an issue. Please, marriage is often not about love. There are enough loveless marriages out there. How many marriages are for the mere sake of children, etc. No...love is not a requirement.
In fact, two elderly sisters should be able to file a common household together as well.
As for marriage. Marriage would be religated to the individual belief system of it's members and those who are in like agreement. So christians might only recognize marriages by those in their faith or with like beliefs. A pagan might have a marriage according to her belief and have her two husbands. A muslim or mormon might have their multiple wives. A homosexual couple's marriage would be recognized by all those with like feelings.
Then no one is forcing their beliefs set or morals on another. Only recognizing that which is according to whatever manner of beliefs and ideals they have. A marriage would just be a spiritual thing or merely about love. There would be no material/civil/secular benefit. Marriage would not prescribe inheritance, etc unless civil incorporation of a common household was filed with the government.
This to me is the best solution. Neither side quite gets what they want.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 01:29:38 PM · #513 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "matthew":
(though my sorrow is tempered by the thought of the intolerance that he preached). |
Are you without love and sympathy? |
That must be it. I express tremendous sorrow, and am accused of being without love or sympathy.
I don't love the man (though he might try it on with me...!) - I have never met him. I expressed my sorrow just then. However, I also pointed out that this is tempered by the intolerance and hatred that he preached against gay people - as a hypocrite, I don't feel as sorry as I would for someone less hypocritical. I am not sure what criticism you mean for me - especially when you explain your sympathy for your friends is tempered by an inability to condone their actions and a belief that they are sinful.
I believe that the model you describe (other than in regard to polygamy) is broadly what we already have: a civil marriage/partnership system and a religious marriage/blessing system.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:45:05 PM · #514 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by RonB:
FYI, two points: 1) nowhere does the bible imply that homosexuality is nurture, not nature; 2) the urge ( for men in particular ) to be sexually promiscuous is natural but the bible still condemns adultery and fornication - as does the majority of society.
The sexually immoral found out long ago that the courts would rule that such activities as adultery and fornication ( among consenting adults ) were legally protected under the "right to privacy". They then use the fact that such activities are legally protected to rationalize that the behaviours are morally OK as well - after all, they're legal. The majority, however, still believe that such acts are immoral, whether legal or not. |
I am interested by this point - especially in the light of the recent Ted Haggard conversion (and his gay lover's riposte). I feel tremendously sorry for that poor man, who must be going through hell because of the belief system that he inhabits (though my sorrow is tempered by the thought of the intolerance that he preached).
I would be surprised if the majority would believe homosexuality to be immoral (if this is the comparison being made). This maybe because I live in metropolitan London and have a large number of gay friends (in fact, I saw one friend get engaged last night when his boyfriend proposed at his 40th birthday party). However, especially in the light of increased understanding of the causes of homosexuality, and in particular the genetic context, it is clearly not a voluntary decision.
I would similarly be surprised if many people rationalised that adultery were moral simply because it is not a criminal offence. This is a breach of a social contract.
I would be interested in any other thoughts. |
First, I don't know why you tagged the link to the Denver Post's article on Ted Haggard as his conversion. I don't see any conversion detailed in the article. Rather, the article states
"Haggard admitted to "sexual immorality" and a long battle against feelings contrary to his beliefs."
Then again, I have never met a born-again Christian that does not admit to battling against feelings contrary to their beliefs - and of losing the battle at times. That constant battle is what the Apostle Paul spoke of when he wrote Romans chapter 7 verses 21-24
"So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?"
Secondly, I don't concur with your assessment that Haggard is "going through hell because of the belief system he inhabits". He WAS going through hell because he was doing that which his belief system condemns - now that he has confessed and repented, he is NOT going through hell any longer. This is what King David spoke of in Psalm 32 verses 1-7
"Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the LORD does not count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit. When I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was sapped as in the heat of summer. Selah Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD"-- and you forgave the guilt of my sin. Selah Therefore let everyone who is godly pray to you while you may be found; surely when the mighty waters rise, they will not reach him. You are my hiding place; you will protect me from trouble and surround me with songs of deliverance. Selah"
Thirdly, you claim that he preached intolerance. But I counter that he was no more intolerant than you are. He spoke out condemning homosexual behaviour and you call that being intolerant. You speak out condemning his behaviour - and that makes you just as intolerant.
Fourthly, I cannot speak of what people in the U.K. believe, but in a 1996 Gallup poll ( presumably of U.S. residents ), 59% of the public believed that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. A Gallup poll in 2003, showed that 52% believed that homosexual behaviour was immoral. The differences in response may be due to the way in which the question was worded, or it may be because people are becoming more liberal in their views of what is and is not immoral.
Fifthly, you have taken the liberty of rebutting my argument about homosexual BEHAVIOUR, with a statement about homosexual ORIENTATION. This is very common among those who rationalize that homosexual behaviour is morally OK. For the record, I do not now, nor have I ever stated that homosexuality ( the orientation ) is a choice. I do, however, and have continually maintained that homosexual behaviour IS a choice. Wikepedia says "In normal circumstances, the decision to engage in a particular sexual act is a conscious choice.", and that goes for ANY sexual behaviour.
Lastly, a CNN/Time poll in 1998 showed that only 86% of those surveyed thought that adultery was immoral. That leaves 14% who do not think it immoral. The survey did not ask WHY they held the opinion on adultery that they did. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 04:04:57 PM · #515 |
Originally posted by RonB:
First, I don't know why you tagged the link to the Denver Post's article on Ted Haggard as his conversion. |
Hi Ron.
Sorry - I should have used quotation marks. He is claiming to be completely heterosexual - presumably converted from the homosexuality he previously exhibited.
Originally posted by RonB:
Secondly, I don't concur with your assessment that Haggard is "going through hell because of the belief system he inhabits". He WAS going through hell because he was doing that which his belief system condemns - now that he has confessed and repented, he is NOT going through hell any longer. |
That is my assessment of his likely condition. Having one orientation and denying it must be very difficult. I suspect that life, pretending not to have homosexual thoughts, will be difficult (possibly, in common parlance, hellish).
Originally posted by RonB:
Thirdly, you claim that he preached intolerance. But I counter that he was no more intolerant than you are. He spoke out condemning homosexual behaviour and you call that being intolerant. You speak out condemning his behaviour - and that makes you just as intolerant. |
I think that this is a very difficult issue: I agree that I am intolerant of people preaching intolerance. I don't think that this is hypocritical - the act of objecting to intolerance can always be interpreted as being intolerant. I think that this is probably a semantical issue, as any supporter of tolerance should not be expected to support intolerant people.
Originally posted by RonB:
Fourthly, I cannot speak of what people in the U.K. believe, but in a 1996 Gallup poll ( presumably of U.S. residents ), 59% of the public believed that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. A Gallup poll in 2003, showed that 52% believed that homosexual behaviour was immoral. |
-thanks for finding that, As I said, I probably get a different view living in a metropolis and being exposed to a greqat variety of types of people.
Originally posted by RonB:
Fifthly, you have taken the liberty of rebutting my argument about homosexual BEHAVIOUR, with a statement about homosexual ORIENTATION. This is very common among those who rationalize that homosexual behaviour is morally OK. For the record, I do not now, nor have I ever stated that homosexuality ( the orientation ) is a choice. I do, however, and have continually maintained that homosexual behaviour IS a choice. |
I don't disagree. I think that it is very hard for people to deny sexuality from their lives, but it is a religious mainstay. It is for this reason that I believe Mr Haggard will be suffering.
Originally posted by RonB:
Lastly, a CNN/Time poll in 1998 showed that only 86% of those surveyed thought that adultery was immoral. That leaves 14% who do not think it immoral. The survey did not ask WHY they held the opinion on adultery that they did. |
Interesting again - and IMO a bit sad. One minor point is that the 14% remainder might not respond to a survey to say that adultery is moral (even though the question appears to be bi-polar).
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 16:06:08.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2007 01:55:44 PM · #516 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by RonB:
First, I don't know why you tagged the link to the Denver Post's article on Ted Haggard as his conversion. |
Hi Ron.
Sorry - I should have used quotation marks. He is claiming to be completely heterosexual - presumably converted from the homosexuality he previously exhibited. |
You are once again purposely confusing homosexual behaviour with homosexual orientation. Haggard is, indeed, claiming to be completely heterosexual - in orientation. He did not convert from a homosexual orientation. The homosexual behaviours he previously exhibited were contrary to his orientation. Surely, you would not say that a gay man who married a woman and even fathered children before he "came out" as being gay actually "converted" from being heterosexual to being homosexual. He only decided to stop exhibiting those behaviours that were inconsistent with his orientation. That is not a "conversion" in orientation. One does not "exhibit" one's orientation, only one's behaviours. That's why many can remain "closet" homosexuals for years.
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by RonB:
Secondly, I don't concur with your assessment that Haggard is "going through hell because of the belief system he inhabits". He WAS going through hell because he was doing that which his belief system condemns - now that he has confessed and repented, he is NOT going through hell any longer. |
That is my assessment of his likely condition. Having one orientation and denying it must be very difficult. I suspect that life, pretending not to have homosexual thoughts, will be difficult (possibly, in common parlance, hellish). |
As I have tried to explain, Haggard did not deny his orientation, which, after counseling, he realizes and clearly states is, and always was, heterosexual. I don't know that he ever pretended not to have homosexual thoughts - I've not seen any evidence to that effect. For that matter, however, I doubt very seriously that ANY heterosexual man can honestly state that he has never had homosexual thoughts, fleeting though they may be. Furthermore, I don't think that anyone needs to pretend about it, nor that it makes life difficult ( or hellish ).
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by RonB:
Thirdly, you claim that he preached intolerance. But I counter that he was no more intolerant than you are. He spoke out condemning homosexual behaviour and you call that being intolerant. You speak out condemning his behaviour - and that makes you just as intolerant. |
I think that this is a very difficult issue: I agree that I am intolerant of people preaching intolerance. I don't think that this is hypocritical - the act of objecting to intolerance can always be interpreted as being intolerant. I think that this is probably a semantical issue, as any supporter of tolerance should not be expected to support intolerant people. |
To admit that you are intolerant, while yet condemning intolerance, is, to me, hypocritical.
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by RonB:
Fifthly, you have taken the liberty of rebutting my argument about homosexual BEHAVIOUR, with a statement about homosexual ORIENTATION. This is very common among those who rationalize that homosexual behaviour is morally OK. For the record, I do not now, nor have I ever stated that homosexuality ( the orientation ) is a choice. I do, however, and have continually maintained that homosexual behaviour IS a choice. |
I don't disagree. I think that it is very hard for people to deny sexuality from their lives, but it is a religious mainstay. It is for this reason that I believe Mr Haggard will be suffering. |
What? Denying sexuality is a "religious mainstay"? How did you come to that conclusion? I am a born again Christian, and freely admit to being the proud father of 3 children. Many of my fellow believers have children as well. How do you think they came to be? It's really difficult for religious people to deny their sexuality when they show up at church with their children at their side. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 02:42:53 PM · #517 |
Good Grief, Ron! Your latest post is so fogged up with misdirection and obfuscation as to be startling even in the context of this thread, which is characterized by so much illogic on both sides as to be borderline hysterical. And I say this as a Christian: I'm not fundamentally at odds with your positions, although sometimes I disagree radically, as in this case.
1. According to the foregoing, you believe a man's sexual orientation is based on what he says, not what he does. You speak of "exhibiting behaviors that are inconsistent with orientation"; yet how else may we judge orientation except through behavior? In the limited context, straight, gay, or mixed (bisexual?) would seem to be the obvious choices. The man engaged in consistent homosexual behavior for at least several years; doesn't this become a part of his "orientation"?
2. "To admit you are intolerant while yet condemning intolerance is, to me, hypocritical" ΓΆ€” that's mangling logic, Ron. Why? Because Matthew said that he will admit that condemnation of intolerance may, itself, be seen as an intolerant act, and he admits this. So the two terms of your statement separated by "while yet" actually refer to the same thing, and how can that be hypocritical? To admit that I am A while still doing A is hypocritical? The real problem here is one of semantics. In no rational, logical moral structure is the condemnation of intolerance, per se, the same as being intolerant.
3. Your reaction to "denying sexuality" appears to be deliberate obfuscation, sheer smoke screen. Obviously, "religious people" have sex and children, we all know that. The sexuality they are denying, if indeed they ARE denying it (meaning they feel the urges and refuse to act on them, if such is the case) is whatever sexuality their holy books deny them on moral grounds. And yes, this IS a mainstay of numerous religious codes...
As an addendum, intolerance is largely a matter of action, not thought. It doesn't matter too much what you think or believe, really; it's what you DO that counts. It's not intolerant to believe that something is immoral. Intolerance comes into play when you will not tolerate actions from others that break your moral code.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2007 10:02:28 PM · #518 |
Ron- the arguments that you and many others use to justify discrimination against gays and lesbians mirror the justifications used by racists in the 40's, 50's, and 60's.
Back then racists asserted that racism was a just cause by quoting the Bible, citing 'morality,' and speaking in ambiguous terms about what is natural and unnatural.
You have added to the list of justifications by citing Wikipedia (God help us all!).
In 1954, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, effectively desegregating all public schools. The ruling was immensely unpopular in the south where school segregation was legislated. Many people in the south accused the justices of the supreme court of being 'activist judges' and asserted that these types of decisions should be left to the people.
At the end of the day, no one's civil rights should be left to a popular vote. There are far too many people out there, like you Ron, who use God and country as a mechanism to oppress others. The tyranny of the majority is just too real.
We are currently in the infancy of gay rights. Sixty years from now, we will look back at this time in much the same way we look back at the 40's, 50's, and 60's. We will wonder how on Earth people could have thought gays and lesbians did not deserve equal rights under the constitution. How on Earth could so many people have been so cruel and unfeeling?
Ron, history has told us that your brand of 'God justified hate' will not endure. And that helps me sleep easier at night.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2007 10:33:45 PM · #519 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
especially when you explain your sympathy for your friends is tempered by an inability to condone their actions and a belief that they are sinful. |
I never expressed sympathy or a need for sympathy regarding such?
As for sympathy, I do not believe that sympathy and justice are exclusive to each other. I can have sympathy for someone even if they are facing a death sentence. I guess it's a personal thing. I have sympathy for Osama bin Laden but it doesn't mean that would absolve justice.
Though, were Osama to come out and apologize and state that he was gravely wrong and his actions were inexcusable. I would forgive him. As strange as that might sound.
Originally posted by Matthew:
I believe that the model you describe (other than in regard to polygamy) is broadly what we already have: a civil marriage/partnership system and a religious marriage/blessing system. |
We are far from it. The fact that we need a license from the government to be married clearly states to me that we are not. |
|
|
|
02/11/2007 11:52:10 PM · #520 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by Matthew:
I believe that the model you describe (other than in regard to polygamy) is broadly what we already have: a civil marriage/partnership system and a religious marriage/blessing system. |
We are far from it. The fact that we need a license from the government to be married clearly states to me that we are not. |
Co-habitation is no longer a crime (in most states anyway), so a license from the government is not necessary to live in exactly the same manner as a "married" couple. What the license does is confer certain rights and privileges (as have been detailed here before) in the areas of taxes, property, and legal decision-making, and it is restrictions on that which makes the current laws discriminatory. |
|
|
|
02/12/2007 01:35:32 AM · #521 |
I live in a seriously liberal/hippie town in northern California, and all variations of humans are welcome here. Just today there is some wood paneled truck posted with anti-gay spam parked on a main street. Why would they do that in a town like this? As if we are going to change our minds. That would be like me driving through Oakland complaining about affirmative action, its just silly.
Anyway, the thing that bothers me the most about being denied marriage, is that it gives the impression that you have less worth as a human because of your sexual preference. I must confess, I cant stand those ultra-fem gay guys wearing make-up and talking with a lisp. But most gay folks are just like you and me(might be difficult for southerners and religious ppl to comprehend), and are usually very nice, successful people.
People who hate on gays, do so because its considered abnormal, they spit out some chew and say "it jus ain rite". My question is, where would someone draw a line on sexual deviation? I bet most guys, even hardcore Christians, wouldn't turn down a hand job from a random hot chick in a public bathroom. Ooohh I bet god would hate that! |
|
|
|
02/12/2007 06:08:32 AM · #522 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I never expressed sympathy or a need for sympathy regarding such? |
I said "tempered" - that means you have sympathy, but that there are opposing factors that moderate the sympathy that you might otherwise have had. Your misunderstanding of the word explains your previous response to me.
Originally posted by theSaj:
As for sympathy, I do not believe that sympathy and justice are exclusive to each other. I can have sympathy for someone even if they are facing a death sentence. I guess it's a personal thing. I have sympathy for Osama bin Laden but it doesn't mean that would absolve justice. |
Yes - your sympathy is tempered (probably significantly in his case) by your feelings concerning his actions/beliefs etc.
Originally posted by theSaj:
We are far from it. The fact that we need a license from the government to be married clearly states to me that we are not. |
I am not exactly sure of the comparative systems - in the UK, you need a marriage license in order to be married in a church or civil ceremony. In the church, there is a religious ceremony, at which the religious wedding takes place, at the same time as which the civil wedding is effected (by signing the register). In a civil service, there is just a civil wedding (a shorter service followed by signing the register) and religion is banned from the occasion.
So there is a civil system. The religious element may be applied or not. In the UK we also have civil partnerships for gay couples. If the couple are also religious, they could have a seperate religious service (eg a church blessing, if they could find a willing vicar).
However, in essence, the system allows for couples to be married legally/civilly, and for a religious element to be incorporated as they desire. The legal element is determined secularly, rather than through arbitrary religious rules (although they are not as developed/relaxed as you suggested re: polygamy or co-habitors). I think that this is what you were getting at.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2007 06:50:46 AM · #523 |
Originally posted by RonB:
The homosexual behaviours he previously exhibited were contrary to his orientation. Surely, you would not say that a gay man who married a woman and even fathered children before he "came out" as being gay actually "converted" from being heterosexual to being homosexual. He only decided to stop exhibiting those behaviours that were inconsistent with his orientation. That is not a "conversion" in orientation. One does not "exhibit" one's orientation, only one's behaviours. That's why many can remain "closet" homosexuals for years. |
Ron - others have said quite a bit already.
I would say that completely heterosexually oriented men are very unlikely to commit homosexual acts (eg personally, I find it sexually very unattractive - physically a complete turn-off - though I consider it, as with other sexual practices, very much a matter of "each to his own"). By committing homosexual acts, Mr Haggard has indicated a homosexual or bisexual orientation. To say that he is now "completely heterosexual" indicates some conversion of his orientation.
In a society that discriminates heavily against homosexuality, it is far more probable that you would find repressed gay men leading straight lives, than repressed straight men leading homosexual lives.
Originally posted by RonB:
To admit that you are intolerant, while yet condemning intolerance, is, to me, hypocritical. |
No - I only said that I was intolerant of intolerance. I tried to explain why the allegation of "hypocrisy" is purely a matter of semantics, but obviously failed.
I am broadly a tolerant person. I don't object to people based on their skin colour, nationality or race, colour, creed, or sexual preference. I object to people who do wish to discriminate against people on these bases (I think that I have a fairly consistent track record on this forum).
Various people on this forum are intolerant of, say, muslims, people from various specific countries, arabic people, people with liberal political beliefs, people with certain sexual orientations - they tend to use derogatory language and ad hominems criticising others who do not share their view.
Hopefully, I manage to steer a good course disagreeing, presenting arguments against and seeking to persuade people that my views are correct without giving being intolerant of the existence of those people: I wholeheartedly support the right of people to hold opposing views (even if I try to point out their fallibility!).
FWIW, you seem to be a tolerant man in most respects, though less so in the issue of gay rights - it seems to me that this is on religious grounds, rather than reasoned grounds (one of my objections to religion is the promotion of these arbitrary rules).
Originally posted by RonB:
What? Denying sexuality is a "religious mainstay"? How did you come to that conclusion? ... |
Sorry - maybe I should have expanded. I presumed that your suggestion that people could make a choice about whether to indulge in homosexual behaviour meant that for a gay man the choice is to indulge, or to be celibate. In terms of religion, celibacy is a religious mainstay - it is celebrated in various religions (including Catholicism, I believe).
Message edited by author 2007-02-12 06:52:53.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 07:02:20 PM · #524 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Good Grief, Ron! Your latest post is so fogged up with misdirection and obfuscation as to be startling even in the context of this thread, which is characterized by so much illogic on both sides as to be borderline hysterical. And I say this as a Christian: I'm not fundamentally at odds with your positions, although sometimes I disagree radically, as in this case.
1. According to the foregoing, you believe a man's sexual orientation is based on what he says, not what he does. You speak of "exhibiting behaviors that are inconsistent with orientation"; yet how else may we judge orientation except through behavior? |
We can't, Robert, and therefore we shouldn't.
Take, for example, a woman I know. For many years she was married and apparently engaged in heterosexual behaviour. If one were to judge her orientation from her behaviour, then one must judge that she was heterosexual during those years. She has lived in a lesbian relationship now for nearly as many years. So her orientation now must be judged as homosexual. Does that mean that, as Matthew would have us believe, that she "converted"? If the answer is no, then I rest my case about Ted Haggard - he did not "convert". On the other hand, one who believes that the answer is "yes", must then accept the logical conclusion that if my friend "converted" from heterosexual to homosexual, then it's quite likely that either sexual orientation is NOT genetic, or that, even if it is, "conversion" IS possible. Yet a majority of recently published articles tend to weigh heavily in favor of genetics, and the majority say that "conversion" is not really possible. So, in the end, either you can convert, or you can't. And behaviour ought not be the litmus test.
Originally posted by BearMusic:
In the limited context, straight, gay, or mixed (bisexual?) would seem to be the obvious choices. The man engaged in consistent homosexual behavior for at least several years; doesn't this become a part of his "orientation"? |
I don't know. If it does, then was he always Bi-Sexual? Or did he "convert" from heterosexual to bi-sexual and then back to heterosexual? Or is he still bi-sexual? Or was he always homosexual, but living a heterosexual lifestyle, and now is only pretending to be heterosexual? Or, if we are to believe him, he was always heterosexual, but engaged in homosexual acts? How can we know? The answer, of course, is we can't.
As an aside, how do you know the homosexual behaviour was consistent for at least several years? I don't mean to "call you out" as it were, but a lot what has been said in this forum seems to not be based on any finding of fact. For what it's worth, I wouldn't want to judge Haggard based on the testimony of a man who, by his own admission, made his revelation just before an election that contained a gay marriage amendment for the explicit purpose of influencing voters. I would tend to think that his charges must be viewed in light of his stated agenda.
Originally posted by BearMusic:
2. "To admit you are intolerant while yet condemning intolerance is, to me, hypocritical" ΓΆ€” that's mangling logic, Ron. Why? Because Matthew said that he will admit that condemnation of intolerance may, itself, be seen as an intolerant act, and he admits this. So the two terms of your statement separated by "while yet" actually refer to the same thing, and how can that be hypocritical? To admit that I am A while still doing A is hypocritical? The real problem here is one of semantics. In no rational, logical moral structure is the condemnation of intolerance, per se, the same as being intolerant. |
Robert, please read Matthews quote again. He did not admit to being intolerant of intolerance. He said "I agree that I am intolerant of people preaching intolerance". Perhaps I should have stated it thusly:
"To admit that you are intolerant [of people] while yet condemning [people who preach] intolerance is, to me, hypocritical". Does that make it a little clearer?
Originally posted by BearMusic:
3. Your reaction to "denying sexuality" appears to be deliberate obfuscation, sheer smoke screen. Obviously, "religious people" have sex and children, we all know that. The sexuality they are denying, if indeed they ARE denying it (meaning they feel the urges and refuse to act on them, if such is the case) is whatever sexuality their holy books deny them on moral grounds. And yes, this IS a mainstay of numerous religious codes... |
Again, you need to read what Matthew wrote. He said "I think that it is very hard for people to deny sexuality from their lives, but it is a religious mainstay." He didn't qualify the term sexuality. I take that to mean hetero-sexuality as well as any other -sexuality. As such, I wished to point out that the statement, as stated, is not entirely accurate. Both because non-religious people deny some sexuality from their lives and, and because religious people obviously do not deny some sexuality from their lives. In neither case is it a religious mainstay.
Originally posted by BearMusic:
As an addendum, intolerance is largely a matter of action, not thought. It doesn't matter too much what you think or believe, really; it's what you DO that counts. It's not intolerant to believe that something is immoral. Intolerance comes into play when you will not tolerate actions from others that break your moral code.
To get semantical, there is a difference between intolerance and being intolerant.
R. |
To remain semantical, "intolerant" is an adjective meaning unwilling to tolerate or support, and "intolerance" is a noun meaning the condition of being intolerant. Neither are transitive verbs - thus neither connotes action. One can be intolerant of ( unwilling to tolerate or support ) a position taken by a person, or one can be intolerant of ( unwilling to tolerate ) the person himself/herself.
Again, Matthew stated that he was "intolerant of people preaching intolerance". While he could be intolerant of preaching, that would be viewed as being hypocritical, because that is just communicating one's opinions on an issue, which he, himself, does in these fora on many occasions. But the fact of the matter is that he says that he is intolerant of people - people who are just doing what he is doing, though expressing a different viewpoint - and I view that as being hypocritical. |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 07:53:18 PM · #525 |
Originally posted by voxpop78:
Ron- the arguments that you and many others use to justify discrimination against gays and lesbians mirror the justifications used by racists in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. |
What arguments have I used to justify discrimination against gays and lesbians? List one or two, if you can.
To be fair, I do support discrimination toward gays and lesbians when their behaviour ( not their orientation ) is evident and contrary to the foundational principles of the organization. And I would expect to see that same level of discrimination toward heterosexuals whose behaviours ( e.g. adultery ) were evident and contrary to their foundational principles, as well. And I have no problem in justifying such discrimination. There are many organizations who discriminate against those who do not meet their qualifications for many reasons, including age, gender, race, ethnicity, etc. One of the primary reasons is to prevent a complete erosion of their purpose by "majority rule". For example, what would happen to the National Organization of Women if they were required to admit male chauvinists? If enough male chauvinists could join to make a majority, they could take over the organization by majority rule and thus assume control of all it's property, bank accounts, etc. and turn it into a Male Chauvinist organization. Do you see why there is a need for discrimination?
But apart from that, I do not now, nor have I ever, justified general discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Originally posted by voxpop78:
Back then racists asserted that racism was a just cause by quoting the Bible, citing 'morality,' and speaking in ambiguous terms about what is natural and unnatural.
You have added to the list of justifications by citing Wikipedia (God help us all!). |
Have I spoken in ambiguous terms about what is natural or unnatural? If so, please provide the evidence.
The citation from Wikipedia was not a justification for discriminating against gays. It was to point out that sexual behaviour is always a choice. As it is. Do you disagree? If so, on what basis. Do you ever engage in sexual behaviour that you choose not to engage in? ( note: this last question is only rhetorical. I really don't want to know the answer )
Originally posted by voxpop78:
In 1954, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, effectively desegregating all public schools. The ruling was immensely unpopular in the south where school segregation was legislated. Many people in the south accused the justices of the supreme court of being 'activist judges' and asserted that these types of decisions should be left to the people.
At the end of the day, no one's civil rights should be left to a popular vote. There are far too many people out there, like you Ron, who use God and country as a mechanism to oppress others. The tyranny of the majority is just too real. |
1) Though the thread began with a discussion about gay marriage, the topic at hand was not civil rights. It was about Ted Haggard. But, now that you mention it, just how should civil rights be decided, in your opinion?
2) Who have I used "God and country" as a mechanism to oppress? How do you know that I have? Do you have any evidence?
3) I agree - the tyranny of the majority is too real. That's why I support the electoral college for presidential elections, and oppose the 17th amendment that established the election of U.S. Senators by popular vote. Do you agree with those positions? If not, why not?
Originally posted by voxpop78:
We are currently in the infancy of gay rights. Sixty years from now, we will look back at this time in much the same way we look back at the 40's, 50's, and 60's. We will wonder how on Earth people could have thought gays and lesbians did not deserve equal rights under the constitution. How on Earth could so many people have been so cruel and unfeeling? |
a) What constitutional rights are gays currently being denied?
b) I don't know how. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions.
Ron, history has told us that your brand of 'God justified hate' will not endure. And that helps me sleep easier at night. [/quote]
What brand of 'God justified hate' have I exhibited?
You have made a lot of what I consider to be completely unwarranted attacks on my character in your post. I'd be interested to see if you can provide any evidence to support them. Accusation is the easy part. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/05/2025 03:56:37 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/05/2025 03:56:37 AM EDT.
|
