OT: Evangelicals frustrated by Bush

[SPURSX3]

But, Ted, where in the Constitution does it say that marriages must be by parties of different sexes?  At this point it is not a Constitutional issue.  It is based solely on the law of the State.  And the way most laws in the US get made, modified or repealed is by challanges.  Although I don't know what the law in California is....the reports seem to indicate that it does not endorse gay marriages.  However until someone like the mayor in SF stands up & challenges the law there will be no discussion as to whether it is a just law or not.

It is not a flaunting of freedom at all.  In fact it is the exact opposite.  It is the exercise of freedom...an issue that our country was founded on.  Now if the exercise of that freedom violates laws then the recourse is to charge the person with a crime and give them their day in court.  Racial segregation was the law until it was challenged.  Should that challenge have never happened?  Did Rosa Parks "flaunt her freedom"?

does the actual constitution even speak about "marriage" at all?  people want to talk about the constitution, and isnt this something that could, can or would be ratified?

[Lurker]

You can believe that what they are doing is incorrect, immoral or just not right...but to impose your interpretation of what is right upon others or to persecute them for their beliefs does lean towards being intolerant.

And isn't forcing of their lifestyle upon my belief system also intolerant?  Please explain to me how it isn't?

They aren't forcing their lifestyle upon you any more than Phil Jackson is imposing Zen upon you.  You aren't being asked to convert to homosexuality but to just allow others the right to make that choice.  And again isn't that what America is about....the freedom to make your own choices?

You can choose to believe in homosexuality as much as you believe in Buddha.  But you can't condemn others for their beliefs....that is the difference.  Condemning others for their beliefs..be it sexual preference or religous preference...and saying that they cannot hold those beliefs is intolerant.

[Ted]

"But, Ted, where in the Constitution does it say that marriages must be by parties of different sexes? At this point it is not a Constitutional issue. It is based solely on the law of the State. And the way most laws in the US get made, modified or repealed is by challanges. Although I don't know what the law in California is....the reports seem to indicate that it does not endorse gay marriages. However until someone like the mayor in SF stands up & challenges the law there will be no discussion as to whether it is a just law or not."

You're right. It is a state issue. And the law in California does not endorse marriages; in fact from what I have read, it is an actual ban. I agree with you that laws are perfected in this country through trial and error. Laws need to be modified, changed, or repealed to make them right. You don't get a law changed by breaking it though. That's not how it works.


"To put sexual preference equal with racial equality paints people who oppose this based on their faith no room for their opposition."

That's exactly why they do it Randy. Making sexual preference equal to racial equality puts pissed off homosexuals on a moral plan that even the pope couldn't trump in today's world. It's an injustice to the very real problem of racial inequality IMPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT. A bigoted highway patrolman can't pull over a white guy because he thinks he's gay. But he can and does pull over a black man or a latino man because they're black or latino.

Now there have been instances where people have been assaulted and even killed because they're gay. The law punishes the offenders. But how many times have we heard of instances of a bunch of police beating the sh*t out of a gay guy?

[SPURSX3]

Research has shown that for the majority, homosexuality is not "chosen." I don't think people wake up and say, "you know what, I feel like being persecuted today, really feel like being disowned from my family, I think I'm going to be gay from now on."

I have a cousin who is gay, he came out a few years ago, but I knew when we were 5 years old that he was gay!  He was always that way. He has had several girlfriends, but being with them had always been forced. HE tried to do the right thing in the worlds eyes, but he never felt right. He's openly gay, in a stable relationship in Seattle, and Ive never seen him happier.  (Surely Ted, you have a gay member in your family, everybody at least has a gay cousin who can confirm this!)  

And SORRY X3, my gay cousin is off the market, so quit asking if he's available! :lol:

again, didnt we go over a qoute from the bible that made referrecne to homosexuals, jesus said that there were some that were born that way?  it was during the discussion about the gay bishop.  and yet in the bible it does not anywhere state that a union of man and man or woman and woman is correct.  never has been, never will be.  i dont approve of it, i dont support it.  call me a bigot if you want, it doesnt jive with what i see if right.

[Lurker]

So sexual preference is now equal with racial equality?  I sure hope not!  It's one thing to discriminate based on a person's color -- I don't agree that this is the same as sexual preference -- and I don't believe that homosexuality is right -- it's a chosen lifestyle and while I strive not to condemn anyone who chooses it -- I also don't want them to condemn my rights to oppose it.  To put sexual preference equal with racial equality paints people who oppose this based on their faith no room for their opposition.  Homosexuality is not a "new" preference and it's a preference -- I don't see people choosing what color they want to be.  I believe that they have the freedom to choose for themselves how they will behave behind closed doors as long as it is between two consenting adults who are of legal age.  However, I oppose the recognition of that legally and I don't believe that sexual preference is equal with racial equality.

No I'm not saying they are equal.  If you ever tried to comprehend what you read you would have known that.  What that paragraph was about was the flaunting...vs exercising...of freedom.  And challanging the laws that govern freedom.  At one point of time in our history racial equality was against the law.  And until someone stood up & challanged that law it probably would have never changed.  And you have to have freedom before you can challenge laws.

[Randy]

You can choose to believe in homosexuality as much as you believe in Buddha. But you can't condemn others for their beliefs....that is the difference. Condemning others for their beliefs..be it sexual preference or religous preference...and saying that they cannot hold those beliefs is intolerant.

And you just became intolerant and condemned my beliefs -- by stating that I must accept homosexuality.  Homosexuality is a great deal LIKE religion -- but when you pass laws to govern it's acceptance, you condemn my faith.  We would never pass a law to make Buddism, Christianity, Judaism a "legal" faith -- why will we make homosexuality a "legal" practice?  

[Ted]

"They aren't forcing their lifestyle upon you any more than Phil Jackson is imposing Zen upon you. You aren't being asked to convert to homosexuality but to just allow others the right to make that choice. And again isn't that what America is about....the freedom to make your own choices?"

That's not completely true Lurker. There's a huge movement against anti-homosexuality belief system. One of this movement's favorite weapons is the new MF word, "homophobe." Think about it. In many circles, a person who believes homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God is so demonized and so ostracized that you'd think there was no lower creation than a "homophobe." The fear and the guilt that some gay people try to put on religious people is absolutely an imposition of their beliefs. And it's just as wrong as if a religious person went around persecuting and insulting gay people.
 

[Randy]

Research has shown that for the majority, homosexuality is not "chosen." I don't think people wake up and say, "you know what, I feel like being persecuted today, really feel like being disowned from my family, I think I'm going to be gay from now on."

Umm, what research?  I can show you as many studies that contradict that research as you can for those that "prove" it's not chosen.  

[Lurker]

i dont approve of it, i dont support it.  call me a bigot if you want, it doesnt jive with what i see if right.

You don't have to approve of it or support it.  Just approve or support the freedom of others to pursue that lifestyle AND RECEIVE EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE GOVERNMENTAL LAWS.  Why should homosexuls be denied rights based purely on their sexual preferences?

[Randy]

You don't have to approve of it or support it. Just approve or support the freedom of others to pursue that lifestyle AND RECEIVE EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE GOVERNMENTAL LAWS. Why should homosexuls be denied rights based purely on their sexual preferences?

And why should laws be enacted based only on sexual preference?  Since when should we enact laws simply based on "preference?"  I don't believe we should base laws on the "preferences" of some -- because those laws will be discriminatory against the "preferences" of others.

[Lurker]

"They aren't forcing their lifestyle upon you any more than Phil Jackson is imposing Zen upon you. You aren't being asked to convert to homosexuality but to just allow others the right to make that choice. And again isn't that what America is about....the freedom to make your own choices?"

That's not completely true Lurker. There's a huge movement against anti-homosexuality belief system. One of this movement's favorite weapons is the new MF word, "homophobe." Think about it. In many circles, a person who believes homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God is so demonized and so ostracized that you'd think there was no lower creation than a "homophobe." The fear and the guilt that some gay people try to put on religious people is absolutely an imposition of their beliefs. And it's just as wrong as if a religious person went around persecuting and insulting gay people.

But Ted they (homosexuals) only use that to attack those who attack them.  If those people who are called homophobes weren't so adamant about "stamping out homosexuality" would there be any accusations?  Do homosexuals walk into restaurants and start calling patrons "homophobes" out of the blue?  Or do they only resort to that when they are first told how vile & disgusting their lifestyle is?

I seriously find it very hypocritical of religous leaders to express outrage and call for persecution of others based on a belief....flies right in the face of most religous teachings.

[Ted]

Lurker, I don't have a gay person in my family that I know of. I do know some gay people, and I know some people who have "struggled" with homosexual tendencies. Two are members of my particular faith, which does not condemn those who are born with homosexual tendencies, but does not tolerate in it members the practice of those urges.

The two friends I'm talking about both had an unbelievably hard challenge to face, considering what they believed to be truth and considering the culture they were raised in. It didn't take shock treatment; it didn't take drugs, surgery or any radical medical or psychological procedure. But through counseling, faith, and . . .I don't know . . . whatever it took, both "overcame" or "lost" those tendencies. Both are happily married to members of the opposite sex, have children, and according to what they tell me, have no attraction to members of the same sex.

Now I'm not assuming anyone can do it. But I also don't buy the "research proves some people are just gay." There's just as much research that says it is not biological; but many people don't hear of it. It takes away a really easy, comfortable answer.

[Lurker]

You don't have to approve of it or support it. Just approve or support the freedom of others to pursue that lifestyle AND RECEIVE EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE GOVERNMENTAL LAWS. Why should homosexuls be denied rights based purely on their sexual preferences?

And why should laws be enacted based only on sexual preference?  Since when should we enact laws simply based on "preference?"  I don't believe we should base laws on the "preferences" of some -- because those laws will be discriminatory against the "preferences" of others.

But why should we have laws that give preference to unions involving a man & a woman?  Doesn't our Constitution call for all people to be treated equally?  Why does the sexual preference of certain people make them less equal in the so-called blind eye of justice in our country?

[jn]

Randy,

Your argument about NAMBLA is logically incoherent and ethically wrong.  You pick a tiny organization that commits the worst behavior and associated with a larger group that doesn't commit that behavior.  

Would it be fair to say that because the vast majority of sexual abuse of children is men abusing girls we need a Constitutional Restraining Order that bans men from coming within 500 feet of girls?  Since some fathers rape their daughters should we ban fathers from being with their daughters unsupervised?  That's ridiculous and it's the logic of the argument you make by bringing in NAMBLA.  Even worse is dragging in bestiality which has nothing to with this debate. Absolutely nothing at all.  It's a complete red herring scare tactic.  

Frankly, the gays and lesbians I count among my friends are more sexually conservative than some of the heteros.   Which brings me to Ted's questions about why they feel it's important to be able to marry.  Does it ever occur to you that it might be for exactly the same reasons you do, including religous faith?

That brings us to the idea that it shouldn't be allowed because some people believe God approves of marriages between a man and a woman only.  The U.S. Govt is designed to avoid exactly this kind of situation.  If a church wants to marry gays the U.S Govt has no right to tell them no.  No more than than it would to tell Baptists to keep Kosher or Catholics to use Condoms or Mormons to drink.  


I won't call you Neanderthals or homophobes.  I grew up in the same cultures and shared some of the same feelings.  However at this point I look back and wonder how I ever had such dislike for my fellow humans based on who they slept with.

 

 

[Randy]

I seriously find it very hypocritical of religous leaders to express outrage and call for persecution of others based on a belief....flies right in the face of most religous teachings.

Lurker, I couldn't agree with you more.  Unfortunately, I would say this is the same as some in the homosexual community who have a much bigger agenda (see NAMBLA, etc.) than just "legalized marriages."  I believe there are people on both sides of this issue who persecute the "other side" for their beliefs and/or opinions.  While I believe it is wrong and while I believe it would be wrong for our country to enact a law based on the "preference" of a small group of people -- I also believe that those people are given the right to their preference.  I just don't think that preference should be made into a law.