How Quick we are to Judge!

Buzz Dixon said:

The mere fact that I am indulging in this fruitless (no pun intended) debate is a sign I'm tolerant of those who differ with me, Neverstop. Perhaps the bigotry is on the other side of the line since the pro-gay side never seems willing to say, "Y'know, perhaps the people who think homosexuality is a sin may have a point..."

Click to expand...

*shrug* I think homosexual sex is generally a sin. But I also think that gay people should have all the same rights accorded any other people. We are all of us sinners and it is not just to condemn one sin above all the rest. Personally, I think that materialism is a much bigger problem for US society than homosexuality ever could be, and you never see people even addressing that.

Robert the Pilegrim said:

(And lesbians, do be serious, women can't
survive on their own ...)

Click to expand...

Whad did you mean by that? If you meant financially, I'd have to disagree, because even single women (straight or not) can certainly support themselves!

Milla said:

Personally, I think that materialism is a much bigger problem for US society than homosexuality ever could be, and you never see people even addressing that.

Click to expand...

AGREED! AMEN!!! And what about greed? That and materialism!

loveall said:

Whad did you mean by that? If you meant financially, I'd have to disagree, because even single women (straight or not) can certainly support themselves!

Click to expand...

Wow...this could be a great thread topic.

loveall said:

AGREED! AMEN!!! And what about greed? That and materialism!

Click to expand...

Indeed. It's addressed and condemned many times more, and more vehemently, than homosexual relations are. It was condemned by Jesus himself. And yet...how many people do you see "giving up what they own and following Jesus"?

Moreover, materialism and greed harm society in general, not just the people committing the sin. The wastefulness that leads to pollution and overconsumption of natural resources. The me-first capitalist mentality that guarantees that some will end up at the very bottom so others can stand on their shoulders. Businesses that operate without regard for humane or equitable treatment of employees, to better serve the "bottom line." An avaricious person loves themselves more than all others. How can this be better, less of a sin, than a gay person who loves someone else in a way we do not find acceptable?

It is very frustrating, the hypocracy of it.

Milla said:

And yet...how many people do you see "giving up what they own and following Jesus"?

Click to expand...

I see why the Amish live the way they do, a simpler life.
Even Buddhist monks and nuns choose a simpler life in spiritual pursuit. Why is it so hard for Americans, in general?

loveall said:

I see why the Amish live the way they do, a simpler life.
Even Buddhist monks and nuns choose a simpler life in spiritual pursuit. Why is it so hard for Americans, in general?

Click to expand...

Rich man, camel, eye of a needle, etc etc...

Yeah, I don't think Jesus was riding around like a king with a harem and excessive gold and that era's equivalent of a Hummer

loveall said:

Whad did you mean by that? If you meant financially, I'd have to disagree, because even single women (straight or not) can certainly support themselves!

Click to expand...

And that would explain why Ruth seduced Boaz how?

My context is that of the time when the Torah was written, Sorry if that wasn't clear in my post.

At that time the likelihood of a woman making it economically on her own were pretty low.

Oh, I did misunderstand! I thought you meant these days, in which case I'd have to disagree!

Milla said:

*shrug* I think homosexual sex is generally a sin. But I also think that gay people should have all the same rights accorded any other people. We are all of us sinners and it is not just to condemn one sin above all the rest. Personally, I think that materialism is a much bigger problem for US society than homosexuality ever could be, and you never see people even addressing that.

Click to expand...

You've never heard me say gays (i.e., people with a homosexual orientation) should be denied civil rights. You have heard me argue that re-defining marriage just to make a fraction of what is already a tiny minority happy is not a good idea, especially since any genuine and germaine legal/tax issues can be addressed just as easily through civil unions (which would also be available to long term non-sexual relationships).

At this moment in time gays enjoy exactly the same rights as straights, not one more, not one less. gays are allowed to marry any member of the opposite sex as will have them. Gays are free to voice their opinion on how marriage should be defined, and they are free to petition the government to change that legal definition.

But their freedom to espouse change does not deny others the same freedom to question the wisdom and value of what they propose, to offer alternatives to what is being put forth, and in the end to decide through majority vote whether or not the proposed changes will be enacted.

The sword cuts both ways.

loveall said:

Whad did you mean by that? If you meant financially, I'd have to disagree, because even single women (straight or not) can certainly support themselves!

Click to expand...

He said "survive," not "support" so I think his meaning was women can not "survive" as a people since they can't reproduce without males (though thanx to cloning this may no longer be the case).

Cloning will give you a duplicate of a DNA... I see this as limited in existence.

Still they need a human sperm or egg and still they can not give life to a body by explaining the theory of soul.

Buzz Dixon said:

You've never heard me say gays (i.e., people with a homosexual orientation) should be denied civil rights. You have heard me argue that re-defining marriage just to make a fraction of what is already a tiny minority happy is not a good idea, especially since any genuine and germaine legal/tax issues can be addressed just as easily through civil unions (which would also be available to long term non-sexual relationships).

Click to expand...

Many of the issues would be addressed with civil unions but many
others can only be addressed through marriage. Unless of course
you change a few thousand lines of Federal Law.

There is also the problem that Civil unions are generally at the state
level and thus do not allow gay couples to move without risking giving up
their legal status.

At this moment in time gays enjoy exactly the same rights as straights, not one more, not one less. gays are allowed to marry any member of the opposite sex as will have them.

Click to expand...

And blacks were allowed to marry members of their own race...

Buzz Dixon said:

Neverstop, you think much too highly of yourself.

Go back and re-read the message thread.

You are the one who keeps throwing non-sequitors into everything when you're confronted with an argument you don't care for.

I do find you amusing, especially the way you automatically assume bigotry among those who hold opinions contrary to your own.

Click to expand...

Neither one of you is a prize. Neverstop has brought up some good points
to which I have seen no response from you.

Robert the Pilegrim said:

Neither one of you is a prize. Neverstop has brought up some good points
to which I have seen no response from you.

Click to expand...

They've been addressed and re-addressed be me and others ad naseum elsewhere on this forum.

Robert the Pilegrim said:

And blacks were allowed to marry members of their own race...

Click to expand...

See, here's where you (rhetorical) keep running into the same logical falllacy again and again and again and again and again:

African-Americans reproduce. Europeans reproduce. Tall people reproduce. Dwarves even reproduce (kinda hit & miss, but often enough for multi-generations).

Gays do not reproduce.

Oh, sure, they can biologically produce offspring, and those offpsring or offspring they've adopted are extremely likely to grow up sharing their parents' views on tolerating homosexual behavior.

But the children are no more likely to be actual homosexuals themselves than any random dip in the gene pool.

In this sense, gays are like Christians: They can not biologically produce a new generation of their own kind, they must recruit others in.

In the case of gays, they need to persuade those who have phsyiological and/or psychological leanings towards homosexual behavior to embrace the self-defined gay lifestyle. With Christians they must educate their children then do evangelical outreach to share the good news.

The difference between the gay sub-culture and (to pick just one example) African-American sub-culture is that the African-American sub-culutre is spread through multiple biological generations. There are genetic lines going back hundreds of years even if the names of the people on those lines have been lost to history. There are families and interlinking relations that permeate the entire culture.

Gays have no bloodlines in the sense of homosexual orientation. Yes, gays are members of family trees, but their "gayness" is an apparently random mutation that does not breed true.

Remember the dwarves (or, as many prefer to be called now, little people) I mentioned above? If two dwarves marry, there is an excelent chance they will produce children who are dwarves. If they can trace back two or three generations of dwarven parents, the chance for their offpsring sharing those traits is virtually guaranteed. (There are instances -- and I know one such family personally -- where one or both parents had mothers or fathers who were of normal height, and as a result some of their nchildren are born with dwarf genes while others are born with normal height.)

There is in the little people community, in fact, a far better example of a sub-culture than among the gay community.

Each gay generation dies out.

They do not produce a new generation of gays.

Even if they give birth to biological children and/or adopt, those children have no more chance of becoming gay than any random selection of human beings. The gays' children will not be gay themselves, and their offspring will be no more likely to be gay, and so on and so on.

Homosexuality does not breed true.

Marriage is not just for two people who have the warm fuzzies for each other. Marriage is for two familial bloodlines joining together. Marriage is for a community, and past that community a society as a whole to best maintain societal order, justice, and stablility. It's many, many other things beyond that, such as the blending of male and female psyches into one bond.

Gay marriage does not contribute as much as it weakens.

Now, again, you (rhetorical) wanna address certain inequities in inheritance/community property/taxes that can be applied fairly to a great many unmarried couples, gay or straight, absolutely I'll listen to that argument and probably sign off on it if it's well drafted.

Likening the unlegality of gay marriage to the ban on whites and blacks marrying in bogus. There have always been class and caste systems in cultures and societies all around the world, and more often than not there are bans and restrictions, either in law or de facto, on intermarriage between classes and castes. They're not right, they're not fair, but they exist. In the years following the American Civil War, the country -- North and South, black and white -- was not ready to tackle the problem of racism/casteism/classism head on.

The difference is that there are virtually no examples (except among a few extrteme totalitarian governments derived from Enlightenment-era intellectual thought) where marriage did not exist within the different classes and castes.

Conversely, despite the efforts of folks advocating a pro-gay marriage agenda, there are virtually no examples of gay marriage existing in any culture. What there are are various levels of bonding, formal and informal, between members of the same gender that pro-gay marriage advocates have tried to retro-fit into marriages, but this is futile. If gay marriage existed and was common, it would be well known all around the world even if it was practicied only by a minority.

I will repeat what I've posted earlier: Gays have all the same rights as every other human being on the planet. They have the right to live their lives unmolested. They have the right to freedom of association. They have the right to voice and advocate contrarian opinions.

But those are the exact same rights the other 97% percent has.

marriage doesnt have to produce kids
marriage is between 2 people and whatever they want it to be
and just because other cultures aren't allowing gay marriage doesn't mean squat
people aren't recruited into being gay
that is ridiculous
the fact that gays do not reproduce is irrelevant
no one has to reproduce if they dont want to and to base marriage on reproduction is
silly
oh and gays are not like christians, christians baptize their kids and give them no say as to their creed,
i dont know why people care if gays get married or not
its not really any of anyones business but theirs
larry king can get married 9 times
is that the wonderful sanctity of marriage that is threatened?

So then a sterile person should not be allowed to marry?

robot23 said:

marriage is between 2 people and whatever they want it to be

Click to expand...

No.
Marriage is more than just two people. "Just two people" is shacking up. Marriage involves the melding of family lines. The fact that not all marriages produce children is irrelevant; not all automobiles go on the highway, but that's not the same as redefining a pushcart as an automobile just because it doesn't go on the highway the same way some automobiles don't go on the highway.

Marriage is also something the society as a whole has a vested interest in clearly defining and then supporting. If a majority of the people in a soceity do not wish marraige to be defined as anything except the union of one male to one female, and if the extremely tiny minority that wants gay marriage can get all the legal/tax breaks/perks they want through civil unions, are not the activists the ones who are in the wrong?