"gay" marriage

[Genesis315]

Ok, I think we’re getting to our basic problem. First off, i guess if that is your definition of elitest, than everyone who believes something that someone else doesn’t is an elitest and so it really doesn’t matter. Likewise, everyone is prejudiced in some way so that doesn’t matter either.

I believe (and I am pretty sure you would agree) that obviously not all discrimination is bad. If I am going to hire someone I will discriminate based on many factors, like past experieince, competence, etc. Likewise, I believe that certain classes of people do not have a right to a driver’s liscence: the young, the blind, people with extreme mental deficiencies, etc. I guess the question, however, is what kind of discrimination is ok, and this may be where we hit our wall. I found this definition of bigoted:

blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion
and intolerant toward others (this seems like a fair one we can agree on)

I am attached to a creed although not blindly (which I’m sure you think otherwise, lol), but you are also attached to an opinion (although I would say not blindly either). Since it is not blind, we are not bigots according to this definition. But let’s for the sake of argument move onto the last part about being intolerant towards other opinions. This goes back to the whole love thing. If I truly believe something is eternally killing (even if I turn out to be the wrong one in the end), I cannot tolerate someone doing it and still claim love for that person. For example, after evaluating all the evidence available to me, I believe that a certain food has a very high probability of being deadly, I could not with love tolerate my best friend to eat that food, even if it tastes good to him as he eats it, it leaves him fulfilled, and he does not believe it is harmful. An hour later he may have dropped dead or he may not have, but I could not allow him to take such a chance. If that makes me intolerant, than I’m intolerant. If stigmatizing homosexual behavior by banning marriage gets across the message that it is wrong and is a deterrent to that behavior to at least some people, than I’m all for it. Likewise, if it helps in anyway preserve the sanctity of marriage (which when done with sanctity I am convinced is good for the soul and when done wrong with no sacitity (given what I believe sanctity means) has the potential to be damning) I am all for that too (sorry for the parentheticals). I could not tolerate someone I love to hurt themselves, even if in the end I had bad information.If all the possible barriers to that behavior have been put up and they still do it, than I can do nothing more to help.

I’m not sure how this discussion can go much further. I think we will both come to the conclusion that I am intolerant and you will say that is bad while I say it is good. I would not go far as to say bigoted because that involves reasonless and irrational belief and all my beliefs have very solid reasons. Yours also do. I think there really is no hate from either of us on this issue. We both want what is best for people dealing with homosexuality but we differ on what that is and how it should be determined. Unfortunately we won’t be able to prove whose beliefs are right until we both die. You cannot prove to me beyond doubt that God does not exist and I cannot prove to you He does exist beyond doubt. We just have to evaluate all the evidence that is available and make our best judgment. We just come to different conclusions when we see the same evidence. It happens in courts everyday between totally rational and well educated people.

 

[Tlaloc]

Genesis315:

But let’s for the sake of argument move onto the last part about being intolerant towards other opinions. This goes back to the whole love thing. If I truly believe something is eternally killing (even if I turn out to be the wrong one in the end), I cannot tolerate someone doing it and still claim love for that person.

If you believe someone is doing something harmful to themselves you can tolerate them doing it and still love them, if you respect them. That’s the key. Knowing that whatever your beliefs are it is fundamentally disrespectful for you to force them on another. Feel free to try and talk them out of whatever you think is wrong but when you run to the law to push your beliefs on others you are fundamentally saying you are their superior.

For example, after evaluating all the evidence available to me, I believe that a certain food has a very high probability of being deadly, I could not with love tolerate my best friend to eat that food, even if it tastes good to him as he eats it, it leaves him fulfilled, and he does not believe it is harmful.

By all means tell him the hemlock is poison, but respect that he may still choose to take it. It’s not your life to live.

I’m not sure how this discussion can go much further. I think we will both come to the conclusion that I am intolerant and you will say that is bad while I say it is good.

Let me ask this, by what right do you think that your beliefs deserve to be the ones pushed on others? Majority rule? Are you comfortable saying that might makes right? And will you accept it quietly when inevitably your beliefs become the minority and you become the oppressed rather than oppressor?

I would not go far as to say bigoted because that involves reasonless and irrational belief and all my beliefs have very solid reasons. Yours also do. I think there really is no hate from either of us on this issue.

I agree but you and I are a rare breed unfortunately.

We both want what is best for people dealing with homosexuality but we differ on what that is and how it should be determined. Unfortunately we won’t be able to prove whose beliefs are right until we both die. You cannot prove to me beyond doubt that God does not exist and I cannot prove to you He does exist beyond doubt.

Indeed, but I can let you live your life the way you want. Can you do the same for me? Or for the gay guy down the street? Can you respect your neighbors enough?

 

[Beaver]

Tlaloc:

If you believe someone is doing something harmful to themselves you can tolerate them doing it and still love them, if you respect them. That’s the key. Knowing that whatever your beliefs are it is fundamentally disrespectful for you to force them on another. Feel free to try and talk them out of whatever you think is wrong but when you run to the law to push your beliefs on others you are fundamentally saying you are their superior.

No, but God is. He created this person and he knows what he created. To define that creature as something other than what He says that creature is, is to be in error. Yes, I am not superior, but He is.

Tlaloc:

1.Let me ask this, by what right do you think that your beliefs deserve to be the ones pushed on others? 2. Majority rule? 3. Are you comfortable saying that might makes right? 4. And will you accept it quietly when inevitably your beliefs become the minority and you become the oppressed rather than oppressor?

1. God. 2. No. 3. No. 4. Yes

Tlaloc:

Indeed, but I can let you live your life the way you want. Can you do the same for me? Or for the gay guy down the street? Can you respect your neighbors enough?

Will you accept the consequences? The curses are many and harsh. Is your life worth it? Is this country worth distroying?

 

[Brad]

Tlaloc:

Brad, so long as the church is in government then the government is going to be in the church. it’ll never go only one way. If you want to preserve your church’s rituals (which is a fine goal) then you have to keep it separate from the body of laws.

This is nonsensical. You cannot take everything that is good out of the government simply because it has either a religous foundation or a religion teaches it.

Further, our “body of laws” was based on the Judeo-Christian moral law as testified to by multiple founding fathers. Over half the founding fathers had seminary degrees. All but 3 are verifiable devout Christians and even those 3 believed in the providence of God. The intent of the fathers is clear. Judicial authority stems from the higher divine law of God. You many want to change history but you cannot.

Some in the government want to take/keep out: prayer, Christmas carols, abstinence teaching, intelligent design teaching etc.

But what about:

Private property ownership and currency exchange - taught as beneficial by the Church, used by the Jewish people.

A Legal system that says certain things such as murder, stealing , and speeding are wrong - taught by the Church

Classical songs written by Christians and for a Christian purpose

Thanksgiving Holiday

Christams Holiday

The Calendar - based on Christ’s birth

Martin Luther King Holiday - He was a Christian

Recreation and rest (parks) - taught as beneficial by the Church

What people take out of the government is because they don’t like it, not because it has an association with religion. What you will end up with is Communism or worse - no thanks.

 

[Brad]

Tlaloc:

If you believe someone is doing something harmful to themselves you can tolerate them doing it and still love them, if you respect them. That’s the key. Knowing that whatever your beliefs are it is fundamentally disrespectful for you to force them on another. Feel free to try and talk them out of whatever you think is wrong but when you run to the law to push your beliefs on others you are fundamentally saying you are their superior.

Am I being intolerant or disrespectful or superior if I stop a mugger from beating up an old lady for her purse? After all, the mugger believes he needs the money and the old lady has lived long enough and has plenty of the green stuff. Should I be pushing my beliefs on him?

Speaking of using the law to push your beliefs on others, I would say that is what homosexual activists have been doing for years, most notably in trying to force the marital laws to be changed in the judicial system despite the overwhelming majority of the populations of these states being against the change.

 

[goofyjim]

My spiritual director poses an interesting question. Why are we even debating this? Regardless of what civil government does we as Christians should take comfort in a higher law and remember that under that law there will never be “gay” marriage.

 

[Brad]

goofyjim:

My spiritual director poses an interesting question. Why are we even debating this? Regardless of what civil government does we as Christians should take comfort in a higher law and remember that under that law there will never be “gay” marriage.

We are debating this because societies rise and fall based on the moral stucture and fabric of that society. This can be seen in the histories of various civilizations. Seeing as we live in this particular civilization (US in the 21st century) and we have a democracy whereby we can all express what we think is best for society, we have a moral obligation to do so. Vatican documents are very clear on this. Spiritual directors are not always in tune with Vatican documents - but these are what guide our faith as Catholics.

Whereas we can take comfort in a higher law, we also have a responsibility as Christians to evangelize, proclaim the truth, care for the souls of others, and build societies that reflect our belief that Christ is Lord. Our most important concern is the children that we raise and their children etc. It is our responisbility to hand on a society that, as much as possible, does not give them lies or mixed messages that could possibly imperil their judgement, actions, and soul.

 

[Tlaloc]

Beaver:

No, but God is. He created this person and he knows what he created. To define that creature as something other than what He says that creature is, is to be in error. Yes, I am not superior, but He is.

Then leave it to God to do something about it. God most definitely doesn’t need your help, He can take on the queers and communists all at once!

Will you accept the consequences? The curses are many and harsh. Is your life worth it? Is this country worth distroying?

Everyone has to accept the consequences of their actions. Thats life. To you the consequences are harsh. To others they are acceptable. If this country would be destroyed by tolerance then it does not deserve to exist. It won’t be though anymore than the civil rights movement destroyed it or the suffragette movement. Each made America not more weak but more just.

 

[Tlaloc]

Brad:

This is nonsensical. You cannot take everything that is good out of the government simply because it has either a religous foundation or a religion teaches it.

Psst…the good stuff in government isn’t religious…pass it on…

Further, our “body of laws” was based on the Judeo-Christian moral law as testified to by multiple founding fathers.

No they aren’t. Our laws are a direct descendent of the enlightenment which was a break with theocratic ideologies. The founding fathers were devout in their religions but also men of learning and wisely constructed a government that was secular.

Over half the founding fathers had seminary degrees. All but 3 are verifiable devout Christians and even those 3 believed in the providence of God. The intent of the fathers is clear.

Apparently not.

Judicial authority stems from the higher divine law of God. You many want to change history but you cannot.

Thats the christian ideal, notice that that is not the case in America? Thats the proof that our government is not descended strongly from Christian thought at all. Our authority system comes not down from God but up from the people. Democracy is a fundamental break with Christian thought.

Thank you for providing the evidence to refute your own position.

 

[Tlaloc]

Brad:

Am I being intolerant or disrespectful or superior if I stop a mugger from beating up an old lady for her purse? After all, the mugger believes he needs the money and the old lady has lived long enough and has plenty of the green stuff. Should I be pushing my beliefs on him?

The difference here must be obvious even to you Brad. A mugger is assaulting someone else. A homosexual is assaulting no one.

Speaking of using the law to push your beliefs on others, I would say that is what homosexual activists have been doing for years, most notably in trying to force the marital laws to be changed in the judicial system despite the overwhelming majority of the populations of these states being against the change.

The majority could want blacks to be led around in chains but our system is supposed to prevent discrimination. The majority cannot legitimately persecute one segment of the population.

 

[Lisa_N]

goofyjim:

My spiritual director poses an interesting question. Why are we even debating this? Regardless of what civil government does we as Christians should take comfort in a higher law and remember that under that law there will never be “gay” marriage.

Jim, government sanctioned ‘marriage’ between two people of the same sex does have some pitfalls even if we don’t accept this as a sacramental marriage. Further any laws that would remove barriers to homosexuals marrying same sex parthners would also remove barriers to any sort of arrangement between any group of people. Are we ready for plural marriage? Marriage between siblings? Marriage of children? Because if the term “marriage” is a human right then it would inur to ANY human or group of humans regardless of current restrictions. Further I think homosexual “marriage” would make it easier for them to obtain children. I don’t think any child should be DELIBERATELY denied a mommy or a daddy.

Lisa N

 

[Tlaloc]

Brad:

we also have a responsibility as Christians to evangelize,

That’s why you don’t get invited to the good parties.

I find it very funny when people portray tolerance as un-Christ like. All that time preaching about helping the meek and comforting your enemies he actually wanted people to go out and create institutions of prejudice and discrimination. Who knew?

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

Jim, government sanctioned ‘marriage’ between two people of the same sex does have some pitfalls even if we don’t accept this as a sacramental marriage.

Such as?

Further any laws that would remove barriers to homosexuals marrying same sex parthners would also remove barriers to any sort of arrangement between any group of people. Are we ready for plural marriage? Marriage between siblings? Marriage of children?

When we decriminalized interracial marriage did that lead to marriage between siblings? Children marrying? Actually if you want to talk traditional kids getting married (often to adults) is as traditional as it gets.

The slippery slope argument sounds nice until you look at all the times we’ve changed marriage already without slipping.

Because if the term “marriage” is a human right then it would inur to ANY human or group of humans regardless of current restrictions.

Right just like the second amendment rights apply to any human. We don’t stop kids from buying guns how could we stop them from marrying? Oh wait, that’s right we do actually reserve almost all rights to adults and allow very few to children. Shucks.

Further I think homosexual “marriage” would make it easier for them to obtain children. I don’t think any child should be DELIBERATELY denied a mommy or a daddy.

Even if it means they languish in orphanages or shoddy foster families! Keep those kids out of homes and in the state care by God!

 

[Kevin_Walker]

As I wrote before ,

Bats aren’t blind;

Owls arent’ wise;

and Homosexuals aren’t gay.

Dispensing with the politically correct euphemism ‘Gay’ for homosexuals; homosexual marriage is an absurdity because of:

1. Homosexual promiscuity: which was discovered and documented by AIDS researchers, using W.H.O. methodology, by interviewing infected homosexuals and tracking down and treating their sex partners, which turned out to be over a hundred in some cases. Demonstrating a lack of pair-bonding behaviour.
2. Narcisissm: Homosexuals are self-centered to the exclusion of all else; during the initial AIDS outbreak, more than once did a homosexual upon learning of his fatal infection would go out and have unprotected sex with as many other partners as possible without telling them. This demonstrated homosexual misanthropic tendencies impairing any meaningful pair-bonding.
3. Non-Reproduction: Because no homosexual psuedo-marriage is capable of reproduction, they must either adopt or partake in artificial insemination to have a child, and since homosexuality is not genetic, the heterosexual child will be reared in a dysfunctional family environment, possibly inducing yet another homosexual, or certainly emotional damaged behaviour. The lack of reproductive capability also affects pair-bonding.
4. Abberant Sex: Since homosexual marriages are incapable of reproduction, then the sex act is misused purely for erotic gratification and nothing else, also impairing any pair-bonding devotion.
5. Opposites attract and likes repel: The male/female relationship forms the emotional and psychological as well as the instinctual pair-bonding attraction from both fulfilling a companionship need absent in the other gender; the recognition of continuation in offspring; the mutual benefits male territoriality establishing a stable environment for the female, and of female nurturing to the male; all of which are absent in the homosexual marriage.

In essence, the homosexual marriage is an absurd and failed parody of heterosexual marriage; with *ersatz *behaviours passing for the power of pair-bonding found in true devoted man/woman relationships.

Thus, there is nothing ‘Gay’ about a homosexual marriage. It is a relationship of convenient sex and common misperceptions, beginning in entropy and spiraling quickly into disillusionment in short term experience of gay, happy, or festive.

 

[Tlaloc]

Kevin Walker:

homosexual marriage is an absurdity because of:

1. Homosexual promiscuity: which was discovered and documented by AIDS researchers, using W.H.O. methodology, by interviewing infected homosexuals and tracking down and treating their sex partners, which turned out to be over a hundred in some cases. Demonstrating a lack of pair-bonding behaviour.

So they have problems being faithful and the answer to that is to deny them the ability to make a legal commitment? Wouldn’t it make more sense to allow them to marry and try to change the behavior pattern? On the other hand infidelity and promiscuity is rampant among heteros too so by your logic nobody should be allowed to marry. Because you’d never engage in a double standard, right?

1. Narcisissm: Homosexuals are self-centered to the exclusion of all else; during the initial AIDS outbreak, more than once did a homosexual upon learning of his fatal infection would go out and have unprotected sex with as many other partners as possible without telling them. This demonstrated homosexual misanthropic tendencies impairing any meaningful pair-bonding.

Nice of you to dig up your own ugly prejudices and parade them for the world. Tell me about how all chinese are good at math. Or all blacks love sports. Or maybe about how all women can’t drive. Aren’t stereotypes fun?

1. Non-Reproduction: Because no homosexual psuedo-marriage is capable of reproduction, they must either adopt or partake in artificial insemination to have a child, and since homosexuality is not genetic, the heterosexual child will be reared in a dysfunctional family environment, possibly inducing yet another homosexual, or certainly emotional damaged behaviour. The lack of reproductive capability also affects pair-bonding.

You managed to get both biology and psychology wrong in one paragraph. Good for you! If you could mangle your grammar and diction as well you’d really get your point across.
Psst…people who don’t want or can’t have kids are still allowed to marry…

1. Abberant Sex: Since homosexual marriages are incapable of reproduction, then the sex act is misused purely for erotic gratification and nothing else, also impairing any pair-bonding tendency.

Psst…people who don’t believe sex is only for procreation are still allowed to marry…

1. Opposites attract and likes repel: The male/female relationship forms the emotional and psychological as well as the instinctual pair-bonding attraction from both fulfilling a companionship need absent in the other gender; the recognition of continuation in offspring; the mutual benefits male territoriality establishing a stable environment for the female, and of female nurturing to the male; all of which are absent in the homosexual marriage.

This isn’t a new point but just a repeat of your previously fallacious points.

In essence, the homosexual marriage is an absurd and failed parody of heterosexual marriage; with *ersatz *behaviours passing for the power of pair-bonding found true man/woman relationships.

Thanks for playing, Kevin. Better luck next time.

 

[goofyjim]

Lisa

I stand corrected. Maybe I am misquoting or misunderstanding his comments. After all he would never approve of gay marriage any way.

But should we criminalize the behavior in a persons own bedroom? If so shouldn’t we criminalize adultery, fornication, and all the other stuff? This is my main concern on the topic of inequality. St. Paul certainly did not make one any worse or better than the others.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Tlaloc:

So they have problems being faithful and the answer to that is to deny them the ability to make a legal commitment? Wouldn’t it make more sense to allow them to marry and try to change the behavior pattern? On the other hand infidelity and promiscuity is rampant among heteros too so by your logic nobody should be allowed to marry. Because you’d never engage in a double standard, right?

Nice of you to dig up your own ugly prejudices and parade them for the world. Tell me about how all chinese are good at math. Or all blacks love sports. Or maybe about how all women can’t drive. Aren’t stereotypes fun?

You managed to get both biology and psychology wrong in one paragraph. Good for you! If you could mangle your grammar and diction as well you’d really get your point across.
Psst…people who don’t want or can’t have kids are still allowed to marry…

Psst…people who don’t believe sex is only for procreation are still allowed to marry…

This isn’t a new point but just a repeat of your previously fallacious points.

Thanks for playing, Kevin. Better luck next time.

Chinese and blacks are a race, women are a gender, homosexuals are neither a race nor a gender - more illogic (a category mistake) from Tlaloc.

 

[goofyjim]

In my mind there will be no “gay” marriage. Everyone that knows me personally knows I will never recognize it no matter what the government does. Just as I will not say the sky is green when I already believe it to be blue. I refuse to change my definitions for anyone.

That said, I would still like to share my personal life journey with someone here if there is a way to do it outside the forum. Anyone feel qualified?

 

[Kevin_Walker]

goofyjim:

Lisa

I stand corrected. Maybe I am misquoting or misunderstanding his comments. After all he would never approve of gay marriage any way.

But should we criminalize the behavior in a persons own bedroom? If so shouldn’t we criminalize adultery, fornication, and all the other stuff? This is my main concern on the topic of inequality. St. Paul certainly did not make one any worse or better than the others.

Adultery is against the law in 32 U.S. States; in some its a misdemeanor, in others its a felony. Unnatural sex (oral, anal, etc.) is also illegal for heterosexual couples (and throughout the military).
Homosexuals are not above the law and must comply like any other citizen (homosexuals don’t have a right to public nudity or fornication in public).

 

[goofyjim]

Kevin Walker:

Adultery is against the law in 32 U.S. States; in some its a misdemeanor, in others its a felony. Unnatural sex (oral, anal, etc.) is also illegal for heterosexual couples (and throughout the military).
Homosexuals are not above the law and must comply like any other citizen (homosexuals don’t have a right to public nudity or fornication in public).

Seems like those are not being enforced much. Again what is the problem if the behavior is kept behind closed doors of private residences? Of course I emphatically would not have it in my home but I see no reason to keep someone from doing it a theirs. My approach is to let them know the medical risks to prevent them from the result. I will not control their every action. This is my compromise that I offer them. I have yet to hear whether they concede.