Should Same Sex Marriage Be Allowed?

[Kain]

rccar, you think that San Fran's liberalness on marriges is going to cause anarchy across the states? That is THE SINGLE MOST [edited] THING I'VE EVER READ IN MY 18 AND A HALF YEARS ON THIS SPECK OF DIRT CALLED EARTH. You have no idea what anarchy is. 'Oh no, gays are getting married all across the nation. Its the end of the civilized world!' is probably what runs through your head. I think the ONLY thing that would cause ANY form of anarchy in this nation would be that idiot Bush making it a federal offense to have a gay relationship. Actually, there are 2 things I can think of. Fundamentalists getting all [edited] and psycho when that law flops worse than Gigli and deciding that if they can't be right, than gays be alive, which sadly I could see happening especially with Dr Demento psycho pastor who blames everything on gays, Jews, and other races that AIN'T white.

 

I'm seriously leaning toward dragging every radical fundamentalist into the street and beating them mercifulessly.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Kain

I'm seriously leaning toward dragging every radical fundamentalist into the street and beating them mercifulessly.

 

All that does is create knew problems and ethical concerns (actually following through with it that is).

 

But the problem of christian fundamentalism (as well as that of judaism and islam) is one that needs to be addressed and dealt with by secular society. Historically speaking, religious fundamentalism has been bad for societies.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by rccar328

But a homosexual has the same right to marry as anyone...just not to someone of the same sex.

 

Also, this amendment sends a message to liberal activist judges that they will no longer be permitted to trample over the will of the people in order to promote their own agenda.

How is that freedom though, you can do what you want as long as you aren't gay or liberal?

 

Judges don't do these things because of their opinion they do it because they are obligated to hold up the freedoms of the people, ALL people including gays.

 

Also, civil unions between same sex couples is legal, but some want to marry because like you they are religious people and they have this crazy need to think that a deity is watching over their commitment.

[ET Warrior]

Originally by the Declaration of Independance

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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

There it is. The very foundation on which our country was formed. Seems to me that the government is standing in the way of Homosexuals pursuit of happiness, doesn't it?

[rccar328]

Judges don't do these things because of their opinion they do it because they are obligated to hold up the freedoms of the people, ALL people including gays.

 

They're not obligated to uphold the freedoms of the people, they're obligated to interpret the law. This misconception of the role of the judiciary is a contributing factor in the trend of judicial tyranny we see today. Under California state law, the judge in San Francisco had no right to allow marriage licences to be issued simply because he disagreed with the law. If someone had filed a law suit over the constitutionality of the law and the judge overturned it, then it's okay to issue marriage licences. But what happened in San Francisco is that a judge decided to issue marriage licences because he disagreed with the law - the suit contesting the law was filed after the law was broken.

 

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

 

California marriage law, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, was passed by a 60% majority.

 

Personally (as you well know), I am against gay marriage. If gay rights activists want to change the law so that they can get married, and they succeed, though, I won't stand in their way. I may not agree with the law in that case, but it is the law.

My main problem is when cases come up like the one in San Francisco, when people (maily the judiciary) show a blatent disregard for the law and decide to do what they want, and to hell with the law.

 

What if someone decided to wantonly hand out automatic weapons licences because they disagreed with our nation's (or their particular state or city's) gun laws? People would be up in arms:) trying to get them to stop. Why? Because it's against the law!!!

 

One of the great things about America is that if you disagree with a law, there are ways to change that law without breaking the law. If they had worked within the system to change the law, that's fine. But there is no excuse for this kind of lawbreaking.

 

Compare this with the case of Judge Roy Moore - I was with him up to a certain point. I have no problem with having a Ten Commandments display in a courthouse. Once he refused a court order to remove the monument, though, I felt that I could no longer support him, because no matter how much I agreed with his views, the law must be upheld.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by SkinWalker:

Ahh. But religious fundamentalists, particularly christian fundamentalists in our case, will have you believe that they are all correlated and that, somehow, this correlation equals a causation

 

rccar328's response:

So, are you saying that the Christians on this forum are blaming all of this on homosexuals? Personally, I believe that some of the examples he named are part of the same trend.

 

I think you confirmed exactly what I was trying to say in that last sentence.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker:

Morals are the express domain of society.

 

rccar328's response:

Personally, I don't understand this secular humanist trend to allow anybody to define their own moral code.

 

I'm sorry, but that's not part of any "secular humanist trend" that I'm aware of. In fact, I expressly pointed out that individuals do not develop their morals, but rather their morals are ingrained upon them from childhood in their social interactions with others. It is the responsibility of society to impress upon families the accepted moral values and the responsibility of families to impress upon their children what are accepted moral values of the society and of their family. Any religion that lays claim to the only correct set of morality is one to be skeptical of since Homo sapiens have thrived well and developed morality long before even the oldest of our religions.

 

rccar328's response:

You say that morals are defined by society - has it ever occured to you that society may be wrong?

 

Of course societies can be wrong. This has been demonstrated a time or two throughout history. The careless depletion of environmental resources on Rapa Nui in the name of status, power and one-upsmanship was an accepted norm that proved to be nearly fatal to the entire society. The belief that Europeans had rights to land in North America and that the aboriginal residents were less than human, uncivilized or otherwise unworthy to lay claim to the land also proved fatal to hundreds of sovereign nations and resulted in a genocide of immense proportions.

 

rccar328's response:

That the moral degradation that is continually being approved by society may be damaging to our society?

 

The "moral degradation" that you cite is your perspective. While I won't disagree that there are social problems that must be addressed (juvenile crime/truancy, substance abuses, etc.), I also see the trend that christianity has set over the course of the last 2k years. I see a history of religion blaming the degradation of society and modernity as the cause of the world's problems. I see overreaction to the point of stupidity in history. I see a definite trend.

 

Religion has failed society! It preaches the evils of society and the sanctity of family and that the "family that prays together stays together," blah, blah, blah…. Religion finds inroads to the prisons, half-way houses, homeless shelters, substance abuse centers, … everywhere there are the destitute, helpless, down-trodden, or hurt people. Religion promises these people "salvation" and "hope," but you know what? It fails. Sure, it works for some, but by and large… it fails. Utterly.

 

Prisoners get Christ and claim to be saved…. get paroled and commit more crimes. The addicted find others like them and try to fool themselves… but turn back to the drug or the alcohol. The "wicked" stay "wicked" unless they educate themselves.

 

Families that "pray together" don't "stay together." The incidence of divorce is the same among the "born again" as it is among the heathens. Pastors of churches steal. Priests rape little boys and run over the homeless.

 

So don't try to feed me the crap about how religion is the answer to our society and try to tell me it’s a Honeybun . It just doesn't taste like one. In societies where true separations have been made between church and state issues, crime is much lower; incidents of hate are fewer; a sense of community is present; education is at a premium; social programs like health care are the norm not the exclusion; etc. I'm thinking of countries like Norway and Denmark.

 

Secularism not only works, but the benefits to society are tremendous!

 

rccar328's response:

You say that I am blinded by Christianity - I say that you are blinded by secular humanism into believing that if society says it's okay, then it's okay.

 

No. I say you are blinded by fear. Fear is what drives the fundamentalist most. Fear of change; fear of progress; fear of rejection; fear of ….whatever.

 

rccar328's response:

I'd be interested to hear whay you say when society finally crosses whatever uncrossable moral line you have (if any).

 

If my post seems a bit terse today, that might be why. Because whatever is truly blinding you has preventing you from even acknowledging what I've said in several posts already: society can effectively manage appropriate morals independent of religion. History and archaeology bears this out. Moreover, the application of "moral relativism," particularly in the definition you provide regarding "each individual deciding what's right/wrong," isn't applicable. "Individuals" aren't deciding thousands of different expectations to gay marriage. A consolidation of a large segment of society is expressing it's opinion on an established taboo. One that is born of prehistoric thinking. One that is not relevant in today's society.

 

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that homosexuality in anyway has a negative effect on society beyond the controversy between modern opinion and out-dated belief systems. There is every indication that society will benefit from same-sex marriage.

 

rccar328's response:

Now, this moral relativist trend has led people in San Francisco to break the law and push us toward anarchy across America.

 

Wrong and right at the same time. It isn't a "moral relativist trend" by your definition of moral relativism ("I'm talking about morality that is relative to the individual"), these are a consolidated population of people with common agreement on what is morally correct. Contrasted with a thousand or so individual views of what is morally correct. I do, however, agree that they are wrong in that they have violated the law. I'm a bit dismayed that the municipal government of SF is complicit in the violation.

 

I think that there is more likelihood of Christian fundamentalism creating "anarchy across America" long before a few homosexuals can by engaging in matrimony. It's just me, but Queer Eye for the Straight Guy has yet to issue a manifesto or drop a federal building with a Ryder truck full of fertilizer.

 

rccar328's response:

The thing that disgusts me the most is when people compare what's going on in San Francisco & the "gay civil rights" movement to the real Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s & '60s. This comparison shows a blatent ignorance of history and the true evil nature of racism. I've never seen "gay" and "straight" bathrooms. Or water-fountains. [….] To compare this current movement to the Civil Rights Movement is degrading to the memories and sacrifices of African-Americans in that horrible time.

 

It's a bit hard to segregate those whom you cannot readily identify. But the subtle discriminations are enough to warrant a look at civil rights involved in the issue.

 

rccar328's response:

Just a few minutes ago, President Bush publicly announced his intent to introduce a Constitutuional ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I support him 100%.

 

No surprise there.

[Tyrion]

[skinwalker, I just finished watching Equilibriem and I envisioned your post as one of the Father's preaches. ]

 

The argument for gay marriage is based on "because they love each other." If we change the law based on that argument, it sets a legal precedent that I believe will eventually lead us to allow polygamy, bigamy, incest, and adult-child marriage. At the very least, under that argument, there is little legal basis for not allowing any, if not all of these.

 

Can't we address these issues one at a time? Just because A is allowed, doesnt mean B and C will. Or else, why allow marriage between a man and a women, because clearly it's setting a legal precedent for gay marriages!

 

Personally (as you well know), I am against gay marriage. If gay rights activists want to change the law so that they can get married, and they succeed, though, I won't stand in their way. I may not agree with the law in that case, but it is the law.My main problem is when cases come up like the one in San Francisco, when people (maily the judiciary) show a blatent disregard for the law and decide to do what they want, and to hell with the law.

 

I agree, it certainly doesn't help the gay rights activists by breaking laws for thier own cause. However, it has been shown in the past that breaking the law has helped activists, take Rosa Parks for example. She broke the law, and it helped blacks gain freedom. The government sent a precedent, wether good or bad, showing that you can get your point heard and even legalized by breaking the law.

 

What if someone decided to wantonly hand out automatic weapons licences because they disagreed with our nation's (or their particular state or city's) gun laws? People would be up in arms:) trying to get them to stop. Why? Because it's against the law!!!

 

Well, the person in question should be partially responsible for any murders because of his actions, right?

 

One of the great things about America is that if you disagree with a law, there are ways to change that law without breaking the law. If they had worked within the system to change the law, that's fine. But there is no excuse for this kind of lawbreaking.

 

But the government have been lenient and changed laws when an activist has broken the law. Infact, we broke British law when we separated from thier country, our country was formed from lawbreaking.

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by rccar328

What if someone decided to wantonly hand out automatic weapons licences because they disagreed with our nation's (or their particular state or city's) gun laws? People would be up in arms:) trying to get them to stop. Why? Because it's against the law!!!

 

although breaking a law is breaking a law, i clearly draw a line between "gay-marriage-crime" and "weapon-license-crime".

there is a huge difference between the "sin" of being gay and the "sin" of being responsible for murder or the promotion of it.

i have to wonder if, from the christian aspect, both would just get "hell-punishment" for it.

[rccar328]

"The gay lobby, in its tireless determination, has succeeded in framing the same-sex marriage issue as one of equal rights instead of the right of a society to preserve its foundational institutions. They have painted those who nobly want to preserve these institutions as hateful, homophobic bigots.

 

But opposition to same-sex marriage not about "rights," and it's not about hate or bigotry. No one is preventing homosexuals from living with one another. All homosexuals have a "right" to get married and to have that marriage sanctioned by the state. But in order to do that they must marry someone of the opposite sex – that's what marriage means and has always meant. When they insist that society be forced to redefine marriage to sanction same-sex unions, they are attempting to establish new and special rights.

 

What's worse is that if we view this from the narrow perspective of "gay rights," we are overlooking that these "rights" will not be created in a vacuum, without consequences to our society. It's not as simple as saying that homosexuals will have the right to live together and receive the "legal incidents" of marriage.

 

If they coerce society into placing its imprimatur on same-sex marriage, they will have eroded one of the fundamental supports of our society. But in our postmodern licentious, amoral culture, we are so hung up on radical individualism, we no longer seem to comprehend that society has a vital interest in establishing rules grounded in morality and enforced by law.

 

This is the larger issue underlying the marriage turf battle. Does our society even have a mandate anymore to base its laws on moral absolutes? Or does our myopic zeal for pluralism, "tolerance," "multiculturalism," "secularism" and moral relativism require that we abandon the moral pillars upon which our system is built?

 

I know it is chic to subscribe to the mindless notion that we can't legislate morality or that we can't even base our laws on our moral and religious beliefs, but that thinking is as destructive as it is nonsensical. We have always based our laws on our moral beliefs and must continue to for them to have any legitimacy.

 

It is completely possible to base a nation's constitutional system on specific religious beliefs and simultaneously guarantee the rights of its citizens to exercise other religious beliefs. That's precisely what our predominantly Christian Framers did. They built a system on Judeo-Christian roots, which they believed would guarantee, not threaten, political and religious freedom. America's history conclusively vindicates them.

 

They designed a governmental system grounded in the laws of nature established by the God they believe created them in His image and Who was therefore the source of their inalienable rights. A society so founded has an interest in preserving the moral foundation established by this God and observing His laws of nature. And the protection of this interest is wholly consistent with, indeed essential to, guaranteeing an ordered society with maximum political and religious liberties.

 

We are so spoiled with our freedoms that we never stop to think that they are based on a moral foundation, which, if uprooted, will uproot our liberties as well. You don't have to be an ardent churchgoer to grasp that we cannot continue in our rebellious and narcissistic quest for unrestrained liberty with impunity. If we persist in demanding freedom without responsibility; if we recklessly reject self-control and moral parameters; if we defy the laws of nature established by an omniscient God, we can expect chaos and the eventual erosion of liberty.

 

It is chilling that those who want to preserve our unique system and the unparalleled freedom it guarantees are viewed as a threat to that freedom, when, in fact, they are its sacred guardians."

Full text of WND commentary

 

This is from a WND commentary written by David Limbaugh - I agree with his views, and he says it so much better than I could.

 

It is the responsibility of society to impress upon families the accepted moral values and the responsibility of families to impress upon their children what are accepted moral values of the society and of their family.

 

But what you don't seem to realize is that morals in America are being hijacked by a vocal minority.

 

Prisoners get Christ and claim to be saved…. get paroled and commit more crimes. The addicted find others like them and try to fool themselves… but turn back to the drug or the alcohol. The "wicked" stay "wicked" unless they educate themselves.

 

Families that "pray together" don't "stay together." The incidence of divorce is the same among the "born again" as it is among the heathens. Pastors of churches steal. Priests rape little boys and run over the homeless.

 

Religion hasn't failed these people - if anything, it's the other way around!

First, the family that prays together is definitely more likely to stay together - I've seen many more healthy families who are united in their faith than those who have nothing to bring them together.

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Christianity is about personal choice. People are free to choose to accept Christianity, but the idea that it's a once-for-all-time choice is false...even after a person has accepted Christ, they can choose to turn away from that choice.

 

And besides that, the scenarios you named are not the rule, they're the exception.

 

No. I say you are blinded by fear. Fear is what drives the fundamentalist most. Fear of change; fear of progress; fear of rejection; fear of ….whatever.

 

Well, let's see...fear of change? fear of progress? That depends on what kind of change or "progress" you're talking about. There's good change and bad change. There's good progress, but there are times when progressing too far can be dangerous. So am I afraid of change and progress? Yeah...the kind of change and "progress" that would bankrupt our society of the moral values that it was founded on and bring our society into ruin.

 

And if I was afraid of rejection, I wouldn't hang out here;)

 

society can effectively manage appropriate morals independent of religion.

 

I disagree - there is too much push in our society by the minority to market immorality to our children, and children are so inundated by this, along with the pushing of a moral relativist agenda in our elementary schools1 that parents are rendered impotent in any moral teachings that they try to impart to their children. If anything, moral relativism is destroying society's ability to teach appropriate morals to our children.

 

I think that there is more likelihood of Christian fundamentalism creating "anarchy across America" long before a few homosexuals can by engaging in matrimony. It's just me, but Queer Eye for the Straight Guy has yet to issue a manifesto or drop a federal building with a Ryder truck full of fertilizer.

 

Well...first off, you can't seem to be able to distinguish between "anarchy" and "terrorism." The Oklahoma City bombing was a terrorist act. What's happening in San Francisco (and spreading across America) is a blatent disregard for our laws, which is, by definition, anarchy .

New York

New Mexico

Chicago

 

That is anarchy spreading across America.

 

(and by the way, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is part of the marketing of immorality that I was referring to earlier).

 

 

1 Bruce, Tammy: The Death of Right and Wrong

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

Religion hasn't failed these people - if anything, it's the other way around!

 

As a Treatment Director for a youth services organization in major U.S. city, I can tell you first hand that faith based programs have the highest recidivism rates. Faith-based organizations like to brag about "80% success rates, etc.," but this is based on the kids that don't drop out, get kicked out, or are otherwise discharged from their programs. On average, about 18% of the kids that begin Teen Challenge (a faith-based program for substance abuse) complete it. I base these statistics on the Results For Proposals issued by the Dallas County Juvenile Department each year when we submit our annual contract. "80%" is a way overblown figure that the Juvenile Department doesn't accept.

 

My program, secular in it's programming, has the lowest recidivism rate in the county, far lower than the faith-based organizations.

 

The bottom line is that the faith-based programs outright lie about their effectiveness. They either need to submit evidence to support their claims or stop making them.

 

If you have some evidence that supports their claims, you should send it to them... because they can't seem to find it.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

First, the family that prays together is definitely more likely to stay together

 

Not according to the Barna Research Group (1999), which found that "Overall, 33% of all born again individuals who have been married have gone through a divorce, which is statistically identical to the 34% incidence among non-born again adults."

 

Originally posted by rccar328

- I've seen many more healthy families who are united in their faith than those who have nothing to bring them together.

 

Just because one lacks acceptance of christian ideology, doesn't meant that they have nothing to bring or keep them together.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

Well...first off, you can't seem to be able to distinguish between "anarchy" and "terrorism."

 

I don't know... It seems to me that the two can occupy the same space & time.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

The Oklahoma City bombing was a terrorist act. What's happening in San Francisco (and spreading across America) is a blatent disregard for our laws, which is, by definition, anarchy.

 

But such blatant displays of disregard for law such as bombing federal buildings and abortion clinics has a better chance of creating anarchy since the ability for law enforcement to operate to peak efficiency is more impeded by emergency responses related to these disasters than by issuing citations to those that throw rice in the wrong place at a gay wedding.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

That is anarchy spreading across America.

 

No... that, sir, is peaceful activism.

 

This is anarchy spreading across America:

 

Resist.com

Aryan-Nations

Clayton Waagner

Army of God (I especially liked their instructions for how to manufacture a propane bomb a little less than halfway down the page).

[rccar328]

No... that, sir, is peaceful activism.

 

So, according to you, showing a total disregard for the law is not a push toward anarchy? You have to be a conservative extremist murderer/terrorist (or support them) in order to spread anarchy? Subtle anarchy is still anarchy. Just because these people aren't blowing up buildings or killing abortion doctors or aren't complete racist wackos doesn't mean that they aren't totally disregarding established law in an effort to subvert the majority of our nation.

 

but this is based on the kids that don't drop out, get kicked out, or are otherwise discharged from their programs.

 

Once again, personal choice. They may choose to drop out, to break the rules & be kicked out, or leave for some other reason, but it's their choice!

 

I don't know... It seems to me that the two can occupy the same space & time.

 

True...but once again, that doesn't mean that what's going on in SF and other cities isn't anarchy.

 

But such blatant displays of disregard for law such as bombing federal buildings and abortion clinics has a better chance of creating anarchy since the ability for law enforcement to operate to peak efficiency is more impeded by emergency responses related to these disasters than by issuing citations to those that throw rice in the wrong place at a gay wedding.

 

What about law enforcement agencies being rendered impotent by political correctness? What about law enforcement agencies that are afraid to act because if they do, the liberal vocal minority will tear them apart & condemn them for upholding the law?

 

I am in no way defending the aryan nation or other conservative extremist terrorist groups, but the fact that their actions are more extreme does not justify less-extreme lawbreaking. This is not an argument over whether conservative lawbreaking outweighs liberal lawbreaking. Any lawbreaking is wrong and should be stopped.

 

America has changed since the Civil Rights Movement. This current trend of lawbreaking is irresponsible and unneeded. There are too many legitimate ways of working within the law in order to change the law to justify breaking the law simply because a group disagrees with it.

 

Like I said earlier, if gay marriage supporters had worked within the law to change the law, and they succeeded, I may not like that law, but it would be the law. As it stands now, though, it isn't the law, they are breaking existing law, and their lawlessness is spreading across America, which is an act of anarchy.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by rccar328

So, according to you, showing a total disregard for the law is not a push toward anarchy? You have to be a conservative extremist murderer/terrorist (or support them) in order to spread anarchy? Subtle anarchy is still anarchy. Just because these people aren't blowing up buildings or killing abortion doctors or aren't complete racist wackos doesn't mean that they aren't totally disregarding established law in an effort to subvert the majority of our nation.

 

So do you think back when Rosa Parks refused her seat on the bus to a white person she was pushing our country into anarchy? Because that's just silly.

Civil Disobedience

I recommend you read that and then tell me what you think.

 

When they insist that society be forced to redefine marriage to sanction same-sex unions, they are attempting to establish new and special rights.

 

No, they are attempting to establish EQUAL rights as heterosexuals. They dont' want anything special, they want what EVERYONE ELSE IS GIVEN.

 

It used to be the law that voting was only for men. The original deffinition of voting excluded women. Was giving women the vote a push towards social anarchy?

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

No, they are attempting to establish EQUAL rights as heterosexuals. They dont' want anything special, they want what EVERYONE ELSE IS GIVEN.

 

I partially agree with you. They should get civil unions for the equal rights, but marriage itself would be reserved for religious bindings.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Tyrion

I partially agree with you. They should get civil unions for the equal rights, but marriage itself would be reserved for religious bindings.

 

Every world culture has an institution of marriage. It is, therefore, a domain of society not religion. Religous organizations should be free to have norms / taboos regarding marriage, but ultimately, governments should have the final say on what is legally considered marriage.

 

By calling it "civil union" and giving all the rights of marriage, you still have marriage. Marriage is but a word.

[lukeskywalker1]

Interesting, I heard today that they are trying to make woman cells, impregnate woman, and have succeeded, and are studying it. Personnally, I think the child will:

 

• Have Defects, due to the SAME (or genes, from the same sex, but possibly another woman) being passed on
  
• Have pschiological damage when he/she (probably a she) finds out, they were made in a lab, and put back into the mother
  

 

Basically, they are trying to make woman asexual. That means that lesbians can get married, and have kids. Is this ethical?

 

Can a male be born with this process? Considering the male sperm, or something, determine the sex of the child, what determines it? Is it like those parents who decide there childs sex, hair color, eye color, height, and intellegence? Is this ethical?

 

People dont believe in God, so why are they trying to be God? Is this ethical too? I mean, cloning human embrios in Korea, is taking things a little too far.

 

You guys cry "seperation of church and state" when you see anything christian, and you say it has offended you. And theres a law passed dictating what the church and can and cannot do. (Pasters were visiting a school, during a lunch break, talking to a youth group, that no one had to attend, but its not allowed anymore, the pastors had been going there for about 11 years, and not one complaint was filed, but the principal, or someone important said it might offend someone, so, its not allowed anymore) Is this ethical? Moral? I mean, its not like the pastors actually went up to people, and tried to force the religion on to them.

 

They allow abortion, the mother is allowed to kill her own child, when there is an alternative (adoption) (Even after the child is born, before the first breath, I think, the doctor can stab the child's head with a pair of scizzors, as ive heard) Of course, im sure a child can feel that. Even if the child cant feel, it is alive, maybe it cant think.. but its alive, nevertheless. It just depends on the mother to keep it alive. But people are allowed to kill it. (Of course, Roe (from Roe Vs. Wade) has now changed her mind on the case, a bit late but... never late than never. Homosexuality, is considered immoral, by several people, but is allowed. Whats the point?

 

When Christianity offended people, they even ripped down statues of it. They took it out of everywhere... except Churchs.

 

When Abortion and Homosexuality offends a christian, its as if it doesnt matter. Now, when a christian, or anyone for that matter, opposes homosexuality, it gets basically..... (whats the word im looking for?) i cant say ignored.. its far from ignored.. but.. maybe not taken seriously? Why is that?

 

This is ironic... some of you have said (maybe not in this thread) that you think homosexuality is immoral, and wouldnt participate in it. But you defend it. I understand how you want equal rights for all people. But immorral, is immoral! I mean, its like trading bad for bad, to acheive good. It cannot be done, if you understand what I mean. Because people's rights have to be equal, you allow abortion, and discrimination against God.

 

Try to overlook any weird errors, im like really tired... and dizzy... thats what happens when you spin around in a chair a lot... maybe thats why I went off topic so much too, but im trying to relate it all to the discussion, even though i didnt quote any of you

 

I searched through the "500" (quoted from rhett) smilies LF had, and couldnt find a tired one. I thought this one was cool, so here it is:

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

People dont believe in God, so why are they trying to be God? Is this ethical too? I mean, cloning human embrios in Korea, is taking things a little too far.

 

If they don't believe in God, then they aren't BEING God, they're just using science to do waht they can

 

Plus, your listed problems are just guesses. You dont have any evidence.

[Kain]

Well rccar, by many of your statments about anarchy and what it is, I'd like to ask you a few questions...

 

So gays are peacefully being wed in San Fransisco, and that is an anarchist movement in your definition. So by that, Rosa Parks was an anarchist for breaking the law and not moving to the back of the bus, correct? Martin Luther King Jr was an anarchist for forming several civil rights parades, even after the police told them to stop, correct?

 

Please, correct me if I'm wrong but your perspective is, for lack of better term, bigotry.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

By calling it "civil union" and giving all the rights of marriage, you still have marriage. Marriage is but a word.

 

But that's why Christians dont want gays to have marriage- marriage is a sacred word to them, while civil union isnt.

 

Again, I dont quite care as much as the name of the union- just as long as gays get the same rights.

 

This is ironic... some of you have said (maybe not in this thread) that you think homosexuality is immoral, and wouldnt participate in it. But you defend it. I understand how you want equal rights for all people. But immorral, is immoral! I mean, its like trading bad for bad, to acheive good. It cannot be done, if you understand what I mean. Because people's rights have to be equal, you allow abortion, and discrimination against God

 

I wouldnt participate in eating spagetti- I absolutely hate it. Does that mean that I believe no one should eat spagetti? No.

 

And I dont mind abortion- as long as the baby cannot feel the pain, I think that it's on the same level as using birth control and abstaining from sex.

[ET Warrior]

So by that, Rosa Parks was an anarchist for breaking the law and not moving to the back of the bus, correct?

 

 

So do you think back when Rosa Parks refused her seat on the bus to a white person she was pushing our country into anarchy? Because that's just silly.

HA! Beat ya to it

[Kylilin]

1. polygamy isnt just "one man - many women". it would work the other way around, too. polygamy itself is NOT disempowerment of women and girls. polygamy is a "multi person relationship" and a relationship does/ must/ should not include the disempowerment of someone.

also "polygamy" has nothing to do with religion.

if two men love one women (and she loves them too) or vice versa there is no problem with it. if everybody who is involved is fine with it, there is no problem.

 

 

This is all true in theory, but its not the reality of polygamy. And the practice of polygamy is almost exclusively tied to religion. Women and girls are forced to marry men in many cases. How is that not disempowerment?

 

 

I've never seen "gay" and "straight" bathrooms. Or water-fountains. I've never heard of a gay person being arrested for trying to eat in a restaurant with straight people. It's true that there has been some violence, but I've never heard of authorities turning fire hoses and unleashing dogs on gay pride parades.

 

 

What I've seen is people beaten to death specifically because they are gay. Do you understand this? Beaten to DEATH. You don't see police turn fire hoses on Gay Pride parades because they are only in San Francisco and New York, places where homosexuality is accepted on a much, much higher level than the rest of the country.

 

But you have a point when you say this is nothing compared with the civil rights movements of the 60's. This is nothing. This should not even be an issue, and that is my real point. We as Americans have so many larger problems to deal with, that Gay marriage, and gay rights shouldn't even be an issue.

 

I really don't like the way Bush is running things anymore, I did for a while, but he's just getting a little too right wing for my tastes. What he needs to focus on is the slumping economy. Then again, he probably brought this whole gay marriage thing to the front burner so hopefully everyone will forget what a dismal economy he's been running. I think it's time for Bush to go. he came in handy when we needed him, but slowly he's going to remind us what an idiot he really is.

[lukeskywalker1]

If they don't believe in God, then they aren't BEING God, they're just using science to do waht they can

 

Fine, why are they trying to alter nature?

 

And of course there guesses, I said "I think..." They are still studying it. Theres no way to know right now.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Fine, why are they trying to alter nature?

 

Do you take medicine? Then you alter your natural production of white blood cells.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Fine, why are they trying to alter nature? .

 

So you don't take medicines, or believe in surgery? How about buildings? They are altered nature. Scyscrapers sure aren't natural structures.

[SkinWalker]

You guys are making that point because we see the ludicrous nature of that line of thinking, plus: we don't believe lukeskywalker1 goes that far (I know I don't).

 

But there are many in the United States that do. My posts in the bible thread that InsaneSith started clearly demonstrate the ambiguity and errant nature of the christian religious documents, yet people cling to fallacies surrounding the "literal truth of every word."

 

I'm not knocking the christian religion here, in fact I have a great respect for those who practice christianity in general. But its the fundamentalist perspective on the christian dogma that is dangerous to our society.

 

There are those within the United States that firmly believe that they should abstain from modern medicine because it's "playing god."

 

It is because humans have challenged the authority of civil and religious rulers that democracy has emerged: women have been emancipated; child labor laws have been enacted; private ownership has expanded; and the benefits of adequate food, clothing, shelter, and loving care have touched more people than ever before in history.

 

I pointed out that "fear" is what drives fundamentalists of christianity (or any religion), but it is specifically: the fear of having their beliefs challenged and the threat that this poses to their belief systems that drives the fundamentalist.

 

The bible must be inerrant, or what is to keep the flock from straying to other belief systems? -or so they seem to believe.

 

Never mind that the bible was created using many of the stories and myths in existance already in the Near East and that its authors followed the same pattern of creativity present in nearly all primitive human cultures (which was the case for the cultures that the biblical/"priestly" authors lived in): explain the unexplainable through the use of supernatural forces.

 

There is much wisdom in the christian bible, as there is in many sacred texts and oral histories. I advise anyone interested in learning about themselves to read these texts. But to base the ethics and moralities of the modern day on those of a few primitive cultures, 2000 to 6000 years ago, is ridiculous and unrealistic.

 

To suggest that marriage between two people of the same sex violates a religious belief and doctrine is fine. The church doesn't have to recognize the marriage.

 

But churches don't have the express right to marriage. Marriage is a human concept that appears to go back to early hominids of 2.5 million years ago. Christianity wasn't even a blip on the radar then. Every culture of the world has a concept of marriage, even cultures that have no religious doctrines (or I should say "culture" since I've only ever seen one without religion).

 

To say same-sex marriage threatens society is a baseless hypothesis. But as a hypothesis, it can be tested. The more likely hypothesis is that same-sex marriage will augment a society that allows it, since the combined incomes and legal benefits of marriage create economic stability and market advantages (homes are bought, insurance policies taken out, families established, etc.).

 

To hypothesize that same-sex marriages are the beginning of anarchy is ridiculous as well. There is no evidence to support it.

 

To hypothesize that same-sex marriage will increase the moral decay of the country is, again, ridiculous. There's no evidence to suggest that crime rates will increase, in fact, it is likely that they will decrease since more families means more stability, etc.

 

To hypothesize that same-sex marriage will create a rash of homosexuality or increase the populations of those that want to try the "homosexual lifestyle" also has little merit. There has been no conclusive evidence one way or the other that homosexuality is or isn't "chosen" by the individual, but there is more evidence to suggest that homosexuality isn't chosen than is.

 

The only threat that I see posed by same-sex marriages is to the fundamental theistic belief systems. These systems don't like to be called into question and the believers refuse to question their own documents in spite of the numerous inconsistencies and parallels to Near Eastern mythologies.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

Once again, personal choice. They may choose to drop out, to break the rules & be kicked out, or leave for some other reason, but it's their choice!

 

Agreed. They chose to drop out, etc. But the point is, the faith-based programs are liars. They are not 80% effective as some claim to be. The goal should be to develop programs that help the majority of the community serviced and not a select minority. THAT is where my program differs from them. We actually count the total number of youths serviced in our numbers and still have the best recidivism rate.

 

Faith based programs are ineffective. Period. Moreover, they are a wast of taxpayer dollars.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

True...but once again, that doesn't mean that what's going on in SF and other cities isn't anarchy.

 

What's going on in SF is a far-cry from anarchy. I've seen far closer definitions anarchy in some of the world's more wretched reaches... these places didn't include women in business suits or men in colorful, flowing garmets holding hands.

 

People casually walking past a partially decapitated person slumped at the wheel of his car on the street with a cigar extinguished in his brain seemed a little more like the definition I have of anarchy when I try to picture it.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

I am in no way defending the aryan nation or other conservative extremist terrorist groups, but the fact that their actions are more extreme does not justify less-extreme lawbreaking.

 

No. But is seems to indicate that there are more serious things to attend to in this country than impeding the civil rights of those with whom you disagree. Interestingly enough... those sites that I linked are to organizations that have been around long before the same-sex marriage issue.