Poll shows backlash on gay issues

[Satisfied]

This is irrelevant. The bible has nothing to with this discussion.

Please stay on topic.

Did you notice how post #2 had reference to scriptures?

Was that not okay with you? What is okay with you?

I was giving an example from history of how what one does affects others (the topic at hand), but it seems you don't like the history book.

I was simply addressing what was just said.

Does that mean that you're intolerant?


Satisfied

 

[Lotar]

First off I must reply to link that tribe submitted that called into question the legitimacy of a gay marriage. Since he expressed his opinion thru a link I shall reply in kind.

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml

That is cold hard data. The heterosexual americans have absolutely no right to call into question the honesty of gay marriage when they themselves teeter on a 50% divorce rate. To do so is highly hypocritical.

Percentage of first marriages that end in divorce in 1997: 50%
Percentage of remarriages that end in divorce in 1997: 60%

@Volos
"
The bible has been used for nearly two thousand years to justify prejudice and discrimination against women, against people from color, against non-Christians, against the handicapped and many other minorities.

Simply because a prejudice can be defended biblically does not make it moral, good or right."

preach it!

It's not so much the bigotry I'm surprised at but the reasoning behind it. As you said it's the same faulty reasoning that has led to the oppression of many races and beliefs. Wether they realize it or not they're an echo of slave owners, NAZI's, and KKK.

Well, the Nazis and KKK don't justify their beliefs biblically, or any discrimination against color. Slavery defences were taken out of context, and wheren't usually used, as bibically the slave owners would have to give their slaves freedom after a certian amount of time (I can't remember what). Handicapped, well I've never even heard of that before. Women, well thats a whole different debate.

Anyways, anything that can be justified bibically, within context, is moral. For a Christian, the Bible defines what is moral and immoral. The bible is not vauge on this subject, as it is in some of the mentioned topics.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

It's not so much the bigotry I'm surprised at but the reasoning behind it. As you said it's the same faulty reasoning that has led to the oppression of many races and beliefs. Wether they realize it or not they're an echo of slave owners, NAZI's, and KKK.

Agreed.

It's a bit frightening, but on the KKK web site they parallel allowing homosexual marriages, clergy, etc, with allowing interracial marriages, and so on.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Anyways, anything that can be justified bibically, within context, is moral. For a Christian, the Bible defines what is moral and immoral. The bible is not vauge on this subject, as it is in some of the mentioned topics.

Well, the Bible does say gay men should be put to death. It's quite clear on the subject, too. Do you believe that putting gay men to death is morally justified?

 

[Lotar]

Well, the Bible does say gay men should be put to death. It's quite clear on the subject, too. Do you believe that putting gay men to death is morally justified?

As I said, put it in context, those are among the laws that we are no longer required to follow, just like stoning adulters. Our justification for our beliefs doesn't come from Leviticus, but from Peter.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

As I said, put it in context, those are among the laws that we are no longer required to follow, just like stoning adulters. Our justification for our beliefs doesn't come from Leviticus, but from Peter.

That doesn't stop some from using passages in Leviticus to condemn homosexuality.

 

[Lotar]

That doesn't stop some from using passages in Leviticus to condemn homosexuality.

As I said, the most common arguements use passages written by Peter.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

"Well, the Nazis and KKK don't justify their beliefs biblically"

http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/Christian_Identity.asp?xpicked=4&item=Christian_ID

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]... you don't know the KKK then.

The KKK has ORDAINED MINISTERS who are openly members. Christianity is a cornerstone in the KKK, they are some of the most fundamentalist biggots you'll ever find.

gah, it's the neo nazi's that identify with christianity >_< NAZI's hated everybody and even tried to use "survival of the fittest" as a reason for killing.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

"As I said, put it in context, those are among the laws that we are no longer required to follow, just like stoning adulters"


Do you think that future christians will look back and think "Wow, I can't believe they wouldn't let them get married?!"

Just as current christians look back at stonings, burnings, etc with disgust?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

As I said, the most common arguements use passages written by Peter.

You mean Paul don't you?

 

[Lotar]

Well, I didn't read the whole thing, I must admit that my knowledge on that subject is more historical than modern day. Anyways, from what I read, to justify their beliefs they had to make up history and pull scripture out of context. Compairing our beliefs to theirs is like comparing us to cults, which they are.

 

[Lotar]

You mean Paul don't you?

Hahaha, actually yes. Thats what I get for writting faster than I think. Now I lost all credibility, might as well give up.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I was giving an example from history of how what one does affects others (the topic at hand),

That's not the topic at hand. What you replied to was the statement that it does not affect others' rights and freedoms. Homosexuality does not affect others' rights and freedoms. You also drew a false analogy to homosexuality and have zero evidence that supports the assertion that homosexuality will affect others in the same way. Even if it did, that's not relevant. What matters here is the Constitution.

but it seems you don't like the history book.

It's not a history book.

 

[Volos]

originally posted by tribe:
Gay Definition of Marriage

An interesting article but one with a few problems. The Author is trying to show that same-sex unions are morally wrong because same sex couples tend to be less monogamous than heterosexual couples. Most of information presented is based on biased and inaccurate information.

A study of gay male couples indicated that only 20% of relationships were sexually open. Many of the other couples followed a wide variety of patterns -- as diverse as a similar survey of heterosexual couples indicated (Blasband & Peplau, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 1995).

There are no differences comparing the quality of the relationship and strength of the commitment between homosexual and heterosexual couples (Duff & Rusbult, Journal of Homosexuality, 1996).

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/sacramento_study.html
This is a large study of gays and lesbians in San Diego indicating a significant number of same sex couples in long term relationships.

Is a study indicating that same-sex “marriages” fall apart for exactly the same reasons that heterosexual marriages do.
http://www.gottman.com/research/abstracts/detail.php?id=17


A further significant problem was the citing of Peter LaBarbera as a source for the sexual activities of gay men. While it took some time to find the article the author was referring to it showed that LaBarbera was quoting a study done by Paul Cameron. Paul Cameron poses as a researcher and writes anti-homosexual “studies”.” No serious scholarly journal will publish his writings because he has continually reported false or invented data.

 

[Wolseley]

>>>>We would like to be able to voice our religious beliefs without being called homophobes or bigots or hatemongers or whatever.<<<<

You don't have that right. Perhaps if those Christians who deserve the label "homophobe" for demanding special rights for their agenda of bigotry realized that there are other people who live in this country who should be able to enjoy the freedoms they do, then maybe there wouldn't be such a backlash from those people who realize that freedom is being unjustly restricted by such zealots.

So now if a Christian believes that homosexual activity is a sin, that he objects to it on moral or ethical grounds, then the 1st Amendment no longer applies to that Christian? He cannot say that he feels such activity to be a sin according to his religion? He doesn't have the same right to freedom of speech as every other American?

Wow.

This is precisely what disturbs me about the whole "gay rights" issue---in their zeal to press for their own rights, be they real or imagined, the "gay rights" advocates seem to have no problems whatsoever in trampling on the rights of everyone else, with the added element that if you dare to disagree with them in the slightest degree (which usually means anything less than a complete and vigorous wholehearted support for any and all forms of homosexual behavior), then you are fair game to be subjected to treatment that for virtually any other group on the surface of the planet would be considered a hate crime.

142 years ago, the issue of slavery contributed to a division of this country that literally split it in half, led to four years of warfare unparalleled in its violence, and the effects of which are still being felt today......and we nearly didn't make it out of that war in one piece.

About 36 years ago, the issue of the Vietnam War contributed to a division between hawks and doves that led to nearly a decade of demonstrations and violence, again, the effects of which are still being felt today.

I wonder if this issue will lead to a similar division, splitting the American public in half, and whether the effects of such a division might eventually eclipse both of the other examples above......

I wonder.

I'm a fairly tolerant guy, so long as nobody tries to trash the Catholic Church (in which case they'll hear from me); and while I have my political views, which are conservative, I don't expect everybody in the country to agree with them.

But when somebody tries to tell me that the constitutional rights of American citizens are now suspended because said citizens happen to disagree with current liberal opinion on the topic of homosexuality.....then we have moved out of the realm of disagreement and into something much, much more sinster, and much, much more serious.

I wonder where this is going to end, and what it's going to lead to. And I suspect it is not going to be pretty.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

142 years ago, the issue of slavery contributed to a division of this country that literally split it in half, led to four years of warfare unparalleled in its violence, and the effects of which are still being felt today......and we nearly didn't make it out of that war in one piece.

About 36 years ago, the issue of the Vietnam War contributed to a division between hawks and doves that led to nearly a decade of demonstrations and violence, again, the effects of which are still being felt today.

I wonder if this issue will lead to a similar division, splitting the American public in half, and whether the effects of such a division might eventually eclipse both of the other examples above......

I wonder.

I doubt it. Slavery and the Vietnam War had far more serious consequences than the current disputes over homosexuality.

Besides, worse case scenario all the gay American people can just move to Canada.

 

[Wolseley]

I doubt it. Slavery and the Vietnam War had far more serious consequences than the current disputes over homosexuality.

Ah, but just as the Civil War was not about slavery per se, but about states rights with slavery as a contirbuting factor, I can envision this expanding into a situation not about homosexuality per se, but a question of rescinding the constitutional rights of American citizens, with homosexuality as a contributing factor---or perhaps as a catalyst.

I don't think this is going to end up being something lightly brushed off, and I think it is likely to lead to situations and events that none of us want to travel into---and I suspect it is going to uncover facets unforseen, and reprisals corresponding. I have grave concerns about where this will go. I truly do.

But, like the windup toy, it has been set in motion now, and all we can do is stand back and see what it does. When the snowball reaches maximum mass and velocity, let's hope that what it doesn't encounter is a large tree at the bottom of the hill.

 

[Woodsy]

Social engineering. Let the chips fall where they may. Let the generations after us clean up our mess.
It makes me sick.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Ah, but just as the Civil War was not about slavery per se, but about states rights with slavery as a contirbuting factor, I can envision this expanding into a situation not about homosexuality per se, but a question of rescinding the constitutional rights of American citizens, with homosexuality as a contributing factor---or perhaps as a catalyst.

Well, the social climate back in the civil war is pretty removed from the current social climate in America. Somehow I just don't see a civil war errupting over this.

Comparing it Vietnam, a more recent event, the consequences of the Vietnam war were magnitudes more grave than the consequences of homosexual rights. Even the current conflict in Iraq, which has divided the country on many issues, has not errupted into the level of social unrest seen during the Vietnam war. I don't think the rights of homosexuals even comes close on the scale.

I don't think this is going to end up being something lightly brushed off, and I think it is likely to lead to situations and events that none of us want to travel into---and I suspect it is going to uncover facets unforseen, and reprisals corresponding. I have grave concerns about where this will go. I truly do.

I don't think the reprisals will be that severe. Yes, there will be tension, but I don't think it will be as bad as you fear.

One thing of note, is that in statistics of whether or not people are accepting of homosexuality, younger people tend to be much more accepting than older people. I think you'll see a gradual social shift, as the current generation matures and the previous generation disappears.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Social engineering. Let the chips fall where they may. Let the generations after us clean up our mess.
It makes me sick.

What mess?