I am perplexed by fundamentalist christians that are always targeting gay people. They want to pass all sorts of laws restricting rights and privileges that everyone else has. What frustrates me the most is that they seem to be tunnel-visioned on gays. There are many things in the christian bible that they could talk about. I bet you there are more adulterers in the US than gay people and adultery is a ten commandments topic. What about honoring your parents? Can we focus on that for a while? This gay marriage thing being a religious idea only? I know of several religions that encourage gay people to find partners to marry including Unity, Unitarian Universalists and the Quakers.
I believe that gay people are the target because the christian religion, or its higher ups, have nothing else to target? They have lost the battle with alcohol and porn, they used to say black people couldn't marry white people but can't do that anymore. They try to stop drugs but you can't pass any more laws about that. Ok I'm being a bit out there, but really, Christianity has been losing its control over its flock for decades, if not centuries. Every sociologist and psychology person can easily see that when someone or some group sees its former control waning they will do anything to regain it. It's a desparate act. These fundamentalist christians have to find something to rally the troops.....wha-laa!.....gay people. A marginalized group in our over masculinized, sports culture that many people feel uncomfortable with. From history, the Nazi's for example, we know that hate is an excellent way to mobilize a group.
Isn't it blatantly unconstitutional to forbid the marriage of two people? In Virginia they want to outlaw any 'marraige like' contracts between two people of the same sex, doesn't that seem unconstitutional? The sodomy laws that Chief Justice Souter condemned was obviously directed at gay men. The 14th amendments says no state shall pass a law abridging the rights of its citizens. The only people saying I cannot marry another guy is christians? Right there we have a church-state conflict.
Ok, let me have it!
Why are gay people a Christian target?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Colorado127
- Newbie
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 4:39 pm
Post #382
I'll take Al's side for a moment here, and point out that the proposed amendments are to "define" marriage more explicitly, as between one man and one woman. While this has the unfortunate result of ruling out homosexual unions, it also rules out polygamy. I suspect that Al and I both agree on the idea that polygamy is wrong. Perhaps, we use different criteria, though. Mine is that polygamy, at least as practiced in the US (and, according to its practitioners, as dictated by god), is usually forced servitude of underage girls to men who do not necessarily treat them nicely.Chimp wrote:And yet there are many proposed amendments to various state constitutions and even the US constitution to ban it.AlAyeti wrote:No one is trying to outlaw same-sex marriage. It is already not legal.
Unfortunately, polygamy is already illegal, and it hasn't stopped the practice. Indeed, it merely results in the Chief Wife being legally married, and the others merely being married by the church, and officially listed as unwed mothers who obtain state and/or federal child support.
But let's look at this more closely. The amendments actually seek to have marriage defined as a legal union by one person with a penis and one without. They pay no regard to the true sex of the individuals, which may more properly be defined by the brain and not the genitals. It is entirely plausible that, even with this amendment in place, homosexuals will be eligible for marriage when we define maleness and femaleness on the basis of the sex of the brain.
This would still rule out polygamy.
The agenda of people whom god caused to be born with homosexual tendencies is that of many minorities: to try to get the majority group to stop persecuting them, and to accord them the rights that others have. Sure, it's a private sexual act, as you say...but why should that bother you? You don't have to participate! No, the private sexual act is not being elevated to a culture status. It remains a private sexual act. What is, or should be, elevated to a culture status is acceptance of people who are different than you are.AlAyeti wrote:The homosexual agenda is to force NEW laws on society. Thus, outlawing any attempt to keep the laws sane. No, the intolerance is on the side forcing unacceptable NEW laws on the populace whether they want them or not. This is a far cry from slavery as this is a private sexual act being elevated to a culture status. Bizaare as that is, some people with educations are trying to justify that absurdity.
Biology and anatomy and physiology, also do not lend credence to homosexuailty being normalized. Only politics. The humann family is man-woman-children. Pure empirical truth. But, not "politically" anymore, on one side of the aisle.
On one side of the aisle, the human family is man-woman-children. On the other side, probably because of educations, people recognize that this is one cultural variation. It is the one that is most common in the US, but it is not the one that has been adopted by all cultures at all times. In some cultures, polygamy has been the norm--but not in the way it is practiced in the US. In others, polyandry (multiple husbands) has been accepted. And in yet others, arrangements are more fuzzy, with groups raising the children of "somewhat relaxed" relationships. So, you can't accurately say that the human family is man-woman-children. You have to say that the US tradition is man-woman-children.
Ah. So, it has nothing to do with anything but "decency." And your idea is that you and your minority should be the ones to define "decency" for everyone? It seems to me that "decency" is keeping private sexual acts private, rather than making them a subject for constitutional amendments. It's not "decent" to fantasize about what other people do when they are alone--yet this is the fundamental basis for your anti-tolerance, anti-diversity movement.AlAyeti wrote:It is time to be fair and let the facts speak for themselves and not emotionalism on the side of the agenda. There are laws being forced to change against all decency. The homosexual agenda does not want diversity, they want a minority status that is just not decent. There is a slippery slope that cannot be denied, by letting individual sexual preference be a classified as a distinct people.
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #383
Jose,
A very small minority IS changing the definition of marriage and Anatomy.
Pedophiles are then by logic, a race.
That I have been asked (by an AtheistT to detail what I mean, shows that the world is already sliding headlong on the slippery slope.
If homosexuals shouted about decency and privacy like they demand a voice in public schools (and soon private schools) searching out "Questioning Youth," there would be little to fear from their recruitment techniques hidden in legislation.
I am an adult that has lived for years in "the big city" their is definitely an agenda at work and it is not decent and/or safe for the children forcefully exposed to it.
People are not born to accept abnormalitity but, to deal with it accordingly. Although there is no solid evidence for the congenital condition of the misuse of genitalia. How can a sound mind believe that? We do not allow the mentally ill to cut themselvesd or to pound their heads against a wall, but that is exactly what we are allowing people to do that are doing with their genitalia, what easy observation proves is not justifiable.
Yet, we are now calling this a culture.
Christians are on the side of logic and reason on the issue of "same-sex" sex. The science proves that.
If it needs to be detailed in an explanation, the person asking for the explanation hasn't yet left thelower grades of elementary school.
Some people are labeling them "Questioning Youth."
Education labels them "ignorant."
Or, as we Christians like to think of children, "innocent."
Original sin does not mean chaos. Just exactly the opposite.
Rational thinking should decide this issue. Using the bodies anatomy is the first place to start.
A very small minority IS changing the definition of marriage and Anatomy.
Pedophiles are then by logic, a race.
That I have been asked (by an AtheistT to detail what I mean, shows that the world is already sliding headlong on the slippery slope.
If homosexuals shouted about decency and privacy like they demand a voice in public schools (and soon private schools) searching out "Questioning Youth," there would be little to fear from their recruitment techniques hidden in legislation.
I am an adult that has lived for years in "the big city" their is definitely an agenda at work and it is not decent and/or safe for the children forcefully exposed to it.
People are not born to accept abnormalitity but, to deal with it accordingly. Although there is no solid evidence for the congenital condition of the misuse of genitalia. How can a sound mind believe that? We do not allow the mentally ill to cut themselvesd or to pound their heads against a wall, but that is exactly what we are allowing people to do that are doing with their genitalia, what easy observation proves is not justifiable.
Yet, we are now calling this a culture.
Christians are on the side of logic and reason on the issue of "same-sex" sex. The science proves that.
If it needs to be detailed in an explanation, the person asking for the explanation hasn't yet left thelower grades of elementary school.
Some people are labeling them "Questioning Youth."
Education labels them "ignorant."
Or, as we Christians like to think of children, "innocent."
Original sin does not mean chaos. Just exactly the opposite.
Rational thinking should decide this issue. Using the bodies anatomy is the first place to start.
Post #384
I have not yet left 2nd grade- I need an explanation here. In what way does "the" science (btw, which science is that?) prove Christians are on the side of logic and reason on this issue. "On the side of?" What are you suggesting here? Do you mean that everyone who doesn't agree with you is illogical and not a Christian? If not, then you're statement contradicts itself, aside from arrogantly dismissing a great many people.Christians are on the side of logic and reason on the issue of "same-sex" sex. The science proves that.
If it needs to be detailed in an explanation, the person asking for the explanation hasn't yet left thelower grades of elementary school.
Is this really an example of the scientifically proven logic and reason you use? Race has nothing to do with mental illnesses. Race, in its dellusional conception, deals with color of skin, geographical location, and ethnicity.A very small minority IS changing the definition of marriage and Anatomy.
Pedophiles are then by logic, a race.
Last edited by palmera on Fri Sep 02, 2005 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post #385
Al,
I have not seen one post from you that supports a Christian position.
Your posts are filled with venom, bile and hate.
Even if you had a valid point, your inability to express yourself in any other
way than hateful causes people to ignore your message.
I have not seen one post from you that supports a Christian position.
Your posts are filled with venom, bile and hate.
Even if you had a valid point, your inability to express yourself in any other
way than hateful causes people to ignore your message.
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #386
AlAyeti wrote:Christians are on the side of logic and reason on the issue of "same-sex" sex. The science proves that.
If it needs to be detailed in an explanation, the person asking for the explanation hasn't yet left thelower grades of elementary school.
Rational thinking should decide this issue. Using the bodies anatomy is the first place to start.
It appears as if the only thing that I agree with AlAyeti here is that "Rational thinking should decide this issue." AlAyeti repeatedly invokes science as being on his side on this issue. Yet, he has not yet posted any of his arguments in the thread, appropriately in the Science and Religion section, "Does Science show that Homosexual behaviour is immoral?".
Post #387
Where is the line of reason to use with a person that will not look at the anatomy and physiology of the human being and not see the facts of what sexuality is normally?
Morailty is too big a question to answer even for an arrogant mean guy like me.
But unless a person can see the truth how can they be convinced to change? If anatomy cannot be used to have a position NOT based on bigotry and hate, which I am being acused of, the what good is logic and rationality?
Homosexuality, if it is a congenital condition, is, by all degrees of logic, wrong!
Helping a handicapped personn OVERCOME their handicap is pure compassion and goodness. And yet, look at the posts calling me a hate-monger.
Logic and the Bible agree with my assertion and that is not an arrogant statement, but one of logic.
It is hateful NOT to help a person UNLESS they do not want help. Homosexuals are proclaiming the sexual acts as some kind of minority status. How insane is that? Will guys that like certain sexual positions during their sex acts want to be known as a new culture? Donn't ask don't tell right? Seriously.
Is it "Politically Correct" to say a person is a "victim" of Cerebral Palsy?
Do we promote a Cerebral Palsy vi-- person, as a "normal member of society? They cannot drive. They are not on NBA teams for the reason of their birth condition. They are even, not allowed in the Army!!!
Are they a new culture deserving of a new classification due to their congenital condition?
Is that an arrogant thing to say or just a fact?
If homosexuality is a birth condition OR a choice behavior, then society has the right to weigh in with an opinion.
Why are we allowing people that like sexual intercourse (although that is impossible same-sex), to claim some kind of civil right to be recognized by what they do supposedly -and morally - IN PRIVATE.
Christians are not attacking homosexuals. The vast majority of Christians all have sex (as we are always reminded by everyone), but, we do not make a cultural classification out of it.
How many people know that the term "Missionary Position" came from Christians teaching a more beautiful way to primitive peoples to have a more beautiful (private) sexual encounter with their (own) wife?
Women honoered instead of "just done."
("I'm" a hate monger? What a joke.)
Society is embracing a group of people demanding to have their sexual actions be public civil rights. Then why not Pederasty?
The history of Pederasty is well documented and it was accepted as well.
There is absolutely a slippery slope to the rape and pillage of the word, concept and truth of "Marriage."
No wonder the only comparison for allowing and accepting same-sex marriage is to compare it with divorce related to adultery.
Even non-Christians know a wrong when they see it.
Yet somehow, two wrongs make a right.
Talk about a hateful position.
Morailty is too big a question to answer even for an arrogant mean guy like me.
But unless a person can see the truth how can they be convinced to change? If anatomy cannot be used to have a position NOT based on bigotry and hate, which I am being acused of, the what good is logic and rationality?
Homosexuality, if it is a congenital condition, is, by all degrees of logic, wrong!
Helping a handicapped personn OVERCOME their handicap is pure compassion and goodness. And yet, look at the posts calling me a hate-monger.
Logic and the Bible agree with my assertion and that is not an arrogant statement, but one of logic.
It is hateful NOT to help a person UNLESS they do not want help. Homosexuals are proclaiming the sexual acts as some kind of minority status. How insane is that? Will guys that like certain sexual positions during their sex acts want to be known as a new culture? Donn't ask don't tell right? Seriously.
Is it "Politically Correct" to say a person is a "victim" of Cerebral Palsy?
Do we promote a Cerebral Palsy vi-- person, as a "normal member of society? They cannot drive. They are not on NBA teams for the reason of their birth condition. They are even, not allowed in the Army!!!
Are they a new culture deserving of a new classification due to their congenital condition?
Is that an arrogant thing to say or just a fact?
If homosexuality is a birth condition OR a choice behavior, then society has the right to weigh in with an opinion.
Why are we allowing people that like sexual intercourse (although that is impossible same-sex), to claim some kind of civil right to be recognized by what they do supposedly -and morally - IN PRIVATE.
Christians are not attacking homosexuals. The vast majority of Christians all have sex (as we are always reminded by everyone), but, we do not make a cultural classification out of it.
How many people know that the term "Missionary Position" came from Christians teaching a more beautiful way to primitive peoples to have a more beautiful (private) sexual encounter with their (own) wife?
Women honoered instead of "just done."
("I'm" a hate monger? What a joke.)
Society is embracing a group of people demanding to have their sexual actions be public civil rights. Then why not Pederasty?
The history of Pederasty is well documented and it was accepted as well.
There is absolutely a slippery slope to the rape and pillage of the word, concept and truth of "Marriage."
No wonder the only comparison for allowing and accepting same-sex marriage is to compare it with divorce related to adultery.
Even non-Christians know a wrong when they see it.
Yet somehow, two wrongs make a right.
Talk about a hateful position.
-
youngborean
- Sage
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:28 pm
Post #388
I don't even want to know how they taught them. And did they ask what position these "primitive people" were engaging in. Great, another thing that non-christians can bash christians for. The institution of boring sex. But seriously, I really don't see the point of this section of your argument. You're saying that Christians are not attacking homosexauals because they taught Native Americans a certain sexual position? A little strange and irrelavant.How many people know that the term "Missionary Position" came from Christians teaching a more beautiful way to primitive peoples to have a more beautiful (private) sexual encounter with their (own) wife?
Post #389
Did you know...the church (any church) has no legal authority to marry
two people.
It's not official without the civic documents witnessed and submitted to
the appropriate city hall.
In fact if you live with someone long enough you are automatically married.
(common law)
It was not always required to have the woman's assent to marriage.
More than 1/2 of those that get married end it.
Knowing all that...how does gay marriage ruin the "sanctity" of marriage?
One must have a crappy marriage if two guys getting married alters your
vow to partner with your wife.
two people.
It's not official without the civic documents witnessed and submitted to
the appropriate city hall.
In fact if you live with someone long enough you are automatically married.
(common law)
It was not always required to have the woman's assent to marriage.
More than 1/2 of those that get married end it.
Knowing all that...how does gay marriage ruin the "sanctity" of marriage?
One must have a crappy marriage if two guys getting married alters your
vow to partner with your wife.
-
MagusYanam
- Guru
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
- Location: Providence, RI (East Side)
Post #390
It's not exactly true that more than 50% of those who get married end up divorcing - I think the statistic goes that more than 50% of marriages end in divorce, but that's partially because it's usually the same people divorcing and getting remarried.Chimp wrote:Did you know...the church (any church) has no legal authority to marry
two people.
It's not official without the civic documents witnessed and submitted to
the appropriate city hall.
In fact if you live with someone long enough you are automatically married.
(common law)
It was not always required to have the woman's assent to marriage.
More than 1/2 of those that get married end it.
Knowing all that...how does gay marriage ruin the "sanctity" of marriage?
One must have a crappy marriage if two guys getting married alters your
vow to partner with your wife.
That being said, Chimp, along with the rest of your argument, the point is well-taken. It doesn't (better perhaps to say, it shouldn't) alter in any way the love or the relationship of a married man and his wife if two men or two women completely unconnected with them decide to marry.
