A
Aramis
Guest
As I said, judges taking away the state’s rights in order for the sodomites to sodomize each other.
The Federal Government has no legitimate reason nor constitutional basis to decide on such.
- Status
The Federal Government has no legitimate reason nor constitutional basis to decide on such.
I
inocente
Guest
Hi friend.
I think debate on this issue is useful because some may never have thought beyond “it is/isn’t icky”.
Looking around CAF we see informed Christians, including Catholics, who believe the homosexual act in a monogamous relationship is not a sin. The argument for homosexual marriage is fairly simple (see my next post to Elizabeth). If we look at the arguments against (i.e. those the Church feels will stand up in a secular court, which exclude slippery slopes and so on) some are comparatively complicated, particularly the labyrinth of natural law.
You’ll know that my country changed the law with overall approval by an overwhelmingly Catholic population, and also that I have concerns about the falling away from the Church here. I mean it’s not my church but Christians are Christians, and our numbers seem to be dwindling. We can all say that it’s materialism, etc., but every time a country changes it laws on this, Christians who fight against will become a little more isolated and lose a little more relevance.
Your post raises an important point - is God is with them? The subject has been discussed from many angles, but has it included the most important - what does God want? I mean throw away all the politics, science, philosophy, quoting isolated verses and so on, and just debate from all we know through Christ.
Probably only last a couple of posts before being derailed though.
I
inocente
Guest
I understand your argument but feel it is misplaced. The change to the marriage laws in my country was to increase order, not the other way round. It wasn’t about “radical new perspectives on the individual in society”, but rather to maintain and improve the existing constitution.
The argument used was simply:
*]The status quo wrongly harmed a group of citizens.
*]A society that does not wrongly harm its citizens is a better society.
I would guess that all US citizens would agree with the principle of that argument, and would then concentrate on two points: First, in this case is the status quo actually harming a group of citizens? Then if it is, will removing that harm increase harm to others?
Those are questions that Americans must answer for themselves, but they can look at experiences elsewhere. Nations that have made the change are not collapsing into anarchy, but you could always wait a while to see if they do. Of course by waiting you may cause all the talented monogamous homosexuals to emigrate, which might then further polarize society.
K
kenofken
Guest
The federal government had no right to interfere with slavery or school segregation either, according to “states rights” folks.
And here we also get to another core truth about the Prop 8 movement. They claim to be motivated by Christian charity or somesuch, but when the mask comes off and the real heartfelt language comes out, it has all the hallmarks of a brownshirt movement. The “save marriage” campaign is an ugly act of attrition and retribution, a last battle in in a cultural war that we, and you, know that you’re losing.
It burns your hide to no end that we can’t simply jail these “degenerates” or force them into asylums or somehow “cleanse” them from the population. Denying them marriage won’t stop them from being gay or acting on it, of course, but it might humiliate and mariginalize them just enough to remind them who really owns this country…
T
ThomasToo
Guest
Except for the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Should I presume from your comment that you are a legal scholar of some kind with enough understanding and scholarship in the law to make substantive statements about the constitutional jurisprudence with any authority? Or are you just angry because bigoted, overreaching laws that are clearly unconstitutional are being overturned much to your dismay?
K
kenofken
Guest
My money (what little of it there is these days), is on the latter. It’s a pretty common American disease since colonial times. Wanting a libertarian government for yourself but a police state for everyone else.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
That is to say then, a government small enough to fit into everyone’s (or rather everyone else’s) bedroom.
E
ERose
Guest
Not a very good or convincing argument and it is irrelavant to the argument on this thread.
E
ERose
Guest
What God wants is for us to quit acting like a bunch of animals. You would figure that since we are suppose to be a more advanced society, we should start acting less like animals. The modern man has popularize being slaves to their lusts. We praise those who are sluts and whores, both male & female.Hi friend.
Your post raises an important point - is God is with them? The subject has been discussed from many angles, but has it included the most important - what does God want? I mean throw away all the politics, science, philosophy, quoting isolated verses and so on, and just debate from all we know through Christ.
Probably only last a couple of posts before being derailed though.
E
ERose
Guest
You mean misguided. It is not the place of the individual Christian to determine what is sinful and what isn’t. That is God’s job. Our job is to obey God. I can just imagine that alot of Christians are going to be suprised when they find that out on Judgement Day.Looking around CAF we see informed Christians, including Catholics, who believe the homosexual act in a monogamous relationship is not a sin. The argument for homosexual marriage is fairly simple (see my next post to Elizabeth). If we look at the arguments against (i.e. those the Church feels will stand up in a secular court, which exclude slippery slopes and so on) some are comparatively complicated, particularly the labyrinth of natural law.
You’ll know that my country changed the law with overall approval by an overwhelmingly Catholic population, and also that I have concerns about the falling away from the Church here. I mean it’s not my church but Christians are Christians, and our numbers seem to be dwindling. We can all say that it’s materialism, etc., but every time a country changes it laws on this, Christians who fight against will become a little more isolated and lose a little more relevance.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
It is the job of everyone to do the best he or she can to suss out what is right, good, moral and true and to live by the dictates of his or her conscience. In Christian terms, it is the duty of mankind to try to understand God’s will. I would agree that, assuming standard Catholic theology including its eschatology, many Christians will be surprised come Judgment Day but I think you will be doubly surprised at finding yourself amongst the number being lambasted by your creator.
E
ERose
Guest
Here is the fallacy of your arguments. You want to equate race and ethicity to lifestyle. If a man is black he will always be black no matter how hard he tries to be something else. I am of mixed descent and if I tried to be other than that then I would fail because this I cannot change.
But when it comes to lifestyles that is different. If I choose to be gay and want to live that lifestyle I can become gay. If I was gay and choose to no longer be gay and live a hetero or chaste life then I could change my lifestyle. No matter what anyone says on this forum or elsewhere the “gay” gene has not been found even though it has been actively sought after. Most scientists agree that people usually become gay due to external influences. But it also takes a decision on the person to become gay.
But no matter how much a black, oriental, white, etc man or women want to change their race they cannot. But if I being a heterosexual wake up tomorrow and decide to become gay then I can. There is a very big difference between the two and they are not comparable. So stop using this argument for it is not valid.
Whether we are loosing or not is debatable since this battle began what 15-20 years ago there has been how many states that have allowed same-sex marriages? Seven plus District of Columbia. How many states have amended their constitutions to support traditional marriage? Thirty. Also a federal law was passed defining marriage between men and women and that state who do not allow samesex marriage does not have to recognize samesex marriages from other states. Just because one gay judge in CA has ruled for samesex marriage does not mean that we are loosing.
Really? You taking this tactic now. I have seen this from other samesex proponents on this board. When you begin loosing the argument you start accusing people of being hateful. You are not the first one and probably not the last. It make me wonder. Are you going to come back to try to argue substancely or are you going to walk away so that you don’t have to concede the argument. Of course that is what the rest have done so I should I expect something differently?
T
ThomasToo
Guest
Are you a clinical psychologist? Some sort of specialist in sexual identity? Your scientific views, absent citations to clinical research, are somewhat less than credible.
I would also ask you–and I seem to recall you being called Elizabeth so I am assuming you are a woman, my apologies if this assumption is incorrect though the argument holds regardless of your gender–when exactly was it that you chose to be attracted, physically, romantically and sexually, to men? I was born a man and have never, ever, been sexually or romantically attracted to people of my own gender but of all my gay friends the same is true; they have always been romantically, sexually and physically attracted to persons of their same gender.
The humorous counterpoint of Michael Jackson aside, having sex with people of your own gender doesn’t–at least at my reading–make someone gay any more than having sex with someone of the opposite gender doesn’t make you straight. Sexual orientation is a matter of attraction over which we have little–if any–control.
Grammar note, ‘same sex’ is two words or possibly a hyphenate as ‘same-sex’ but it is not and has not ever been one word.
All those laws on both the state and federal level will mean nothing when this question hits the Supreme Court. My constitutional thinking aside–i.e. whatever the outcome–that is where this debate will come to a head and I hope a final one.
While Kenofken’s approach is not the one I would have taken, in his defense he was responding to someone not speaking against gay marriage as such but against the 2003 Supreme Court decision that overturned sodomy laws. As such criticisms about how that person truly did want to jail homosexuals is apt. I do not see how anyone in the Twenty-First Century can support a state it telling its adult citizens what sorts of consensual sex they are allowed have.
E
ERose
Guest
No but I read and quite honestly science hasn’t found one yet. Until they find one this argument for same-sex marriages cannot be used. But the problem is that people are told something so often they start to believe it instead of researching it, which is what you obviously have done. Here is you some reading material:
trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp
narth.com/menus/born.html
Nope. Don’t know Elizabelth so I am not a woman. Anyway, I am not talking about attraction. I am talking about living the gay lifestyle. You can be attacted to anyone, but you choose to have sex with them or not. There is no evidence whatsoever that gays are genetically or mentally forced to have sex with another gay when the opportunity arises. Thus it is truly a chosen lifestyle.
Really? Then how does someone know that he or she is gay? Homosexuality can be defined as being attracted to people of the same sex, but I would say being “gay” is living the lifestyle of being an active homosexual.
Really, is this all that you have? How very petty of you, but it something that I have learned to expect from those on your side, since you have no legitimate arguments when scrutinized.
Regretfully I don’t think that it will. If the proponents of gay-marriage looses they won’t quit. The Supreme Court is most probably going to send it back to the states and it will be a battle state to state.
Then you argue to point rationally instead of acting like an idiot. I have been on a few different threads and all of them had individuals there with an agenda and when the argument started to go south on them they threw out the hate-speech **** hoping to shut us up. Well I won’t have it without commenting on it. If you cannot argue effectively then don’t try the hate speech routine, when you cannot justify it. It is truly disgusting.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
I’ve read materials from those obviously biased sources. I would encourage you to read clinical research that has been published in peer reviewed journals or credible clinical sources such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists who in 2007 said ‘Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice’ (rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf).
Sorry for the confusion. I never said anyone was forced to have sex with anyone but just as the thought of having sex with another man is, at the least, unappealing to you so too with a gay man thinking of having sex with a woman. Is your argument then that people who are attracted to members of the same sex ought to forgo sex all together or attempt to suffer though sex with someone they do not find attractive?
Someone knows that he or she is gay because he or she is romantically, physically and sexually attracted to members of the same sex. As the APA puts it in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of California, homosexuality ‘refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them.’ Put more simply, it’s what you’re saying and what I’m saying and more in some amalgamation.
It’s not all I have as evidenced by the fact that I said more than that. You seem to care about this issue and frankly it undermines your credulity when you use words that aren’t words. My legitimate argument is absent any claims that homosexuality is a choice or not which is that laws against extending the legal protections of civil marriage to same-sex couples has no rational relationship to any legitimate government interest (i.e. these laws fail the rational basis test, the lowest level of scrutiny related to a fundamental right) and that marriage is fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia). Further that homosexuality is not a defect and is not a choice (see APA citations above) and children raised by homosexuals are as well or better socialized as those raised in two differing-sex parent homes (Michael Lamb’s 2009 Affidavit to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf). I appreciate that you care passionately about this issue and that you think I’m wrong but at least give me credit that my arguments are founded in an understanding and passion about this issue and much research as I try to remind myself (read: hope) your position is as well.
As I said, hopefully the issue will end at the Supreme Court and as you said that means the extension of the legal protection of civil marriage to homosexuals. I’m sure you’re not surprised that this is what I hope for.
Hate speech? I think people who advocate that homosexuals should be jailed for pursuing sexually fulfilled lives are speaking hate as much or more than Ken was. Note also that I didn’t endorse his claims only that in context they make a bit more sense than coming out of nowhere.
K
kenofken
Guest
I was not resorting to some ugly tactic of rhetoric when I attribute hate to many (certainly not all) of those opposed to gay marriage. I was referring to a poster who used the term “sodomite.” I don’t believe it takes any stretch of imagination whatsoever to read hatred into that. It’s nothing more than a quaint 1950s term for “******.” It is used with the same intention and inflection, and it’s every bit the equivalent of referring to black people as “the darkies” or the N-word. Can anyone seriously tell me that there’s a reasonable way to read charity or good intention into such words?
It’s no reach at all to attribute hatred to many people involved in this issue because they make their hatred very clear. Many of them are in fact quite proud of their hatred. Most are suble enough to use euphemisms of one sort or another for their hate. Some are not. As a very conservative looking middle aged male, I find that most of them in private unmask their hatred and boast of it when they believe they have a sympathetic audience. In a long career in journalism and life, I’ve found that people always reveal their true selves sooner or later. Most people mean what they say. You can never really know the content of someone’s heart, but when they consistently employ the language and actions of hatred and bigotry, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to assume it’s a true reflection of their motivations.
It’s no reach at all to attribute hatred to many people involved in this issue because they make their hatred very clear. Many of them are in fact quite proud of their hatred. Most are suble enough to use euphemisms of one sort or another for their hate. Some are not. As a very conservative looking middle aged male, I find that most of them in private unmask their hatred and boast of it when they believe they have a sympathetic audience. In a long career in journalism and life, I’ve found that people always reveal their true selves sooner or later. Most people mean what they say. You can never really know the content of someone’s heart, but when they consistently employ the language and actions of hatred and bigotry, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to assume it’s a true reflection of their motivations.
C
colmcille1
Guest
Hi kenofken,
May I readily assume that your second paragraph above is an inclusive statement?
IOW, I could cite some deeply disturbing anti-Catholic views which operate here in Ireland.
The level of hatred has to be seen and heard to be believed.
God Bless,
Colmcille.
I
inocente
Guest
Well put.
Less well put. I wouldn’t be able to respond unless you first clarify who is praising who there. Who are the “sluts and whores”? When you say “we” do you mean people allowed monogamous relationships, people refused monogamous relationships, or some other group? Do arguments from emotion work well? Is Jesus keen on us being judgmental?
You’re absolutely right, God never intended us to use our God given reason and conscience. My country right or wrong. I was only following orders. We are the Borg. Resistance is futile.
In other words has God spoken directly to you or are you just doing your best like the rest of us?It’s interesting that if I transpose gay/homosexual with heterosexual then your argument works exactly as well the other way round. As you said “stop using this argument for it is not valid.”
E
ERose
Guest
What I am referring to is the fact that is positively referred to in the majority of movies and TV shows when the subject comes up. You can find all the example you want by just turning a TV. In fact it has gotten so bad that when a movie is produced the respects chastity, it makes headlines, both positively and negatively, because there isn’t alot of movies and shows like that out there.
You can see this even in our schools. Who is the big guy on the block? The one that scores or can score the most. Who is the big gal on the block? Usually the one that scores with the oldest guy.
Sarcasm noted. Yes God has spoken to me directly through His Church. I know being Baptist you do not have that luxary, but at least you have the Holy Bible. Try reading it.You’re absolutely right, God never intended us to use our God given reason and conscience. My country right or wrong. I was only following orders. We are the Borg. Resistance is futile.
Really come on you can do better than that. Quite honestly the proof is on you not me. You want to change our minds on this you have to prove to us that you are right, which is why you are here right? Well prove to me that you are right, which your group has been failing at because the only arguments you have are variations of “why not”.It’s interesting that if I transpose gay/homosexual with heterosexual then your argument works exactly as well the other way round. As you said “stop using this argument for it is not valid.”
You said in a previous posting that your church is loosing members and it needs to do something. Well if you are a true representative of your church and the majority of its members think like you I can understand why you are loosing members. No conviction.
K
kenofken
Guest
Absolutely. I don’t see any reason why the principle won’t hold up in Ireland or anyone else. If people spend 90% of their time telegraphing hatred and 10% issuing disclaimers that they’re not bigots, it pays to go with what lawyers call “the preponderance of evidence.” Who hates Catholics in Ireland these days? I thought that was THE Catholic country. Still the unionists up north?
- Status