OT: Evangelicals frustrated by Bush

[Lurker]

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.

Sorry, Ted but I didn't post the comment about research.

My point in the whole argument has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is right or wrong from a moral or religous point of view.  I'll leave that up to each person to decide for themselves based on their faith.

My argument is that these people deserve the same rights & protections under the laws of the United States as any other citizen.  Their choice of sexual preference shouldn't change their rights or freedoms.  Just because we don't approve of something doesn't mean we should persecute those that do.

[Ted]

"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?"

Absolutely not true! I've been called a homophobe many times by protesters (who don't know me from Adam) outside of Temple Square in downtown Salt Lake City. These people went out of their way to seek out people they knew did not share their beliefs, and even though I've never once used the word "fag" to another person in a derogatory way (since I was a teenager at least :/). What exactly would you call that? These people knew we didn't believe in homosexuality; they sought us out, and even though we'd never said a word to them in our lives called us "scum homophobes" and told us "you're the ones going to hell." Don't give me that bullsh*t that homosexuals never instigate prejudice. You may say they only do it because someone else in the past attacked them, but does that give them the right to attack me? I don't hate them. Hell, I don't even hate what they do! Although I'd hate to have it done me. :blink:  

[Ted]

Lurker, sorry, I shouldn't have directed my "research" comments at you. My mistake.

[Lurker]

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.

Very well said, jn.

[Lurker]

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.

I'm not saying they should enact a law to legalize gay marriages...just get rid of any laws that don't.

A fine line....I know....but it gets back to an underlying principal that people in America should be free to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Lurker]

"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?"

Absolutely not true! I've been called a homophobe many times by protesters (who don't know me from Adam) outside of Temple Square in downtown Salt Lake City. These people went out of their way to seek out people they knew did not share their beliefs, and even though I've never once used the word "fag" to another person in a derogatory way (since I was a teenager at least :/). What exactly would you call that? These people knew we didn't believe in homosexuality; they sought us out, and even though we'd never said a word to them in our lives called us "scum homophobes" and told us "you're the ones going to hell." Don't give me that bullsh*t that homosexuals never instigate prejudice. You may say they only do it because someone else in the past attacked them, but does that give them the right to attack me? I don't hate them. Hell, I don't even hate what they do! Although I'd hate to have it done me. :blink:

In that fact situation...I agree with you Ted.  They have no more right to hurl inflammatory insults at you than you do at them.  But the actions of a small percentage who are the most active protestors shouldn't invalidate the argument.

But then again (despite that it might raise Randy's ire) I see many similarities with the fight for racial equality.  Should the more violent (either verbal or physical) actions of some be held against the more peaceful demonstrations of others who are working to gain equality under the laws of our country?

[spursfan101]

Agree about NAMBLA, can't compare the two. That's like me mentioning the KKK in the same breath as white conservative republicans.
 

[SPURSX3]

I think the battle here is the ones who would say the govt should have no influence by God, and those who would say it should.  I believe while oganized religion should not play a part in our govt, i DO believe our faith should pay a part in our political arena.  That being said I dont see homosexuality as being morally right, it is simply - for the most part - the PC fad that is in right now.  seriously liberals, if there is a group that is perceived as being persecuted, wouldnt you stand up to say let them be heard?  it is not even so much that any group would be persecuted as much as it is for people to have some sort ot cause to b*tch about.  i dont deny that some homosexuals are born that way, but I dont think the number justifies ratifying what has been a moral institution in this country.  hey if we could do away with the morality in marriages in this country, what next?  lets just go ahead and make polygamy legal?  anyone know a number of friends that are polygammists they want to stand up for?  I am sure they are great people to know.  how about bi sexual polygamists?  ohhh and then how about dropping the legal age limit for consent with minors, i am sure people are born with that sick perversion in thier heads to commit that nasty s#it too but that doesnt mean i want to give them a say or opportunity to express themselves.  yeah i know, "but that is a crime"  sure it is, but it doesnt change the fact that some people do not choose that perversion, and yet it is considered a disease - homosexuality (choice or not) is not, it is PC to accept it as a way of the world and we hetero's be damned if we dont agree with it or think bad of it.  screw that.  I dont need to bend my beliefs or accept any other belief just because a few of you think it is ok to be gay.  I can understand it and not do anything or say anything to anyone about it, but i have the right to continue to believe it is not right without you telling me "no, you need to let them be and have thier rights too."  no, I dont actually.  and yes i can support any law restricting such marriages, becuase yes - i dont think it is right at all.

[Lurker]

But what is wrong with polygamy if it is between consenting adults?

Call me a liberal if you want...I don't feel it's true because I have many conservative stands also.  I am more of a strict constitutionalist.  If consenting adults are enjoying the freedoms that our country provides and it is not infringing on the freedoms of others then there should be no limitations.

You may feel homosexuality is morally wrong...so don't practice it.

Hindus may feel eating beef is morally wrong...but you don't hear them saying McDonald's should be outlawed.

Or are we to just allow Christian morality to influence our laws?

["The Tyranny of the Majorit]

X3 I will expand on this later but the fact that homosexuals or any other group are low in number has no bearing on their rights.  The Constitution is designed to afford equality to ALL, not just the majority.   There is no sliding scale of rights based on numbers in group.  I can hear James Madison rolling in his grave when you make that argument.




 

[jn]

Ooops, the last one was me.  

[Randy]

X3 I will expand on this later but the fact that homosexuals or any other group are low in number has no bearing on their rights.  The Constitution is designed to afford equality to ALL, not just the majority.   There is no sliding scale of rights based on numbers in group.  I can hear James Madison rolling in his grave when you make that argument.

lol -- any idea WHY Madison decided to conscript the Bill of Rights?  Check your history -- it's an interesting story and definately applies to this issue.

I only have a problem with a group of people who want laws enacted based on their PREFERENCE not upon the color of their skin, etc.  I don't want this taught to my children (that it's okay since I don't believe it is) -- the school system doesn't teach that husband and wife is the only way but there is definately a push to teach "my two dad's, etc."  This issue is STILL much bigger than just getting their "marriage" to be accepted.  

As for NAMBLA, it should be quite disturbing to everyone.  As for not being an issue, I would state that it is relevant -- in the same way that Lurker made it relevant.  He brought up the fact that we are called "homophobes" because of the fact that we make derogatory comments about homosexuals -- it's a very small group of radicals who do that.  I have been called a homophobe just BECAUSE my beliefs say that it is wrong -- and that I follow it.  

I have never stated that homosexuals have to follow my faith and I have never sought out their children to teach that it shouldn't be acceptable -- I don't want them to tell me that I have to accept their sexual preference and I don't want them to teach that sexual preference to my children.

This country should never enact laws based on people's preference.

[Randy]

The tyranny of the majority. 
X3 I will expand on this later but the fact that homosexuals or any other group are low in number has no bearing on their rights. The Constitution is designed to afford equality to ALL, not just the majority. There is no sliding scale of rights based on numbers in group. I can hear James Madison rolling in his grave when you make that argument.

Shall we also list the tyranny of the minority (or the few) as well?  Whose list will be longer?

My faith was largely responsible for the Bill of Rights -- something I still fell very strong about.  However, I don't believe that I have to accept something that goes against my faith -- and this issue does VERY strongly.  Is it any more wrong than any other sin listed, absolutely not.  It also doesn't mean that I hate people who practice that lifestyle and who choose that preference -- but at the same time, I don't believe they have a right to force it onto me any more than I have the right to force my faith onto them.  I also don't believe that they have the right to teach my children to accept a lifestyle that goes against my faith -- any more than I have the right to teach their children to accept my faith.  The fact is that we are talking about preference, something that is chosen -- just like my faith.

[SPURSX3]

X3 I will expand on this later but the fact that homosexuals or any other group are low in number has no bearing on their rights.  The Constitution is designed to afford equality to ALL, not just the majority.   There is no sliding scale of rights based on numbers in group.  I can hear James Madison rolling in his grave when you make that argument.

the arguement still stands nonethe less jn, any other group, including the extreme that i mentioned would have to get equal treatment just as well, would i support ratifying the constition - federal or state - to protect those groups, no.  I dont think the US constitution mentions anything about marriage, and from what i can tell california does not allow same sex unions.  how does the government DEFINE marriage?  does that definition include the words "same sex", "man with man", "woman with woman" (<--i would say only if they were HOT to that one.  hehe), or "human with human"  I tend to think the definition would be "the union of a man and a woman."   I dont think same sex marriages let alone any other type of sicko perv (just kidding) type of union should be allowed to be called a "marriage."   why not give it a completely different name?  like "homo-bonding" or whatever to give them something to be happy about and get out of the spotlight already......ok i know that was a bit much but you can get my point.

[jn]

By the way Randy I took a look at some bios on John Leland after you mentioned him in an earlier topic.  Good man there.  A devout man who understood the value of keepin Govt secular.  

Before you go claiming it was one faith responsible for the Bill of Rights, let's not forget that it was the writings of atheist Tom Payne that stirred the revolt that meant there was even an opportunity to have a Bill of Rights.  Of course he was then rewarded by the religous community by being hounded into an early grave with only the deiest Jefferson standing by him.