well, a murderer goes to jail because he harmed another. A married homosexual harms no one. I'm a sociology minor, and the field of criminology is all about the concept of norms, devience, and the origins of law. In short, like you said, there is no inherent morality in the universe, but we slowly evolve laws as a society, theoretically based on the perceived greater good, but often in the interests of the influential upper class. Vagrancy laws, for instance, came about in the 14th century because landowners had a shortage of labor after the black plague, and they wanted to force people to work for them.
anyway, you say you think homosexual couples should have the same legal rights as straight married couples -- having the same legal rights means being legally married, doesn't it? how can they have the same legal rights as married folks if they're not legally married? I keep bringing up the church thing -- if it bothers anyone that their church would marry g4y people, they should complain or find a new church. Let's say that no priests anywhere would voluntarily marry 2 men together, which isn't the case; even in that scenario, the men would still need the option of being married at city hall by a judge, if they're to be afforded the same legal rights as married heteros.
<!--QuoteBegin--Quaunaut+Aug 14 2003, 09:13 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Quaunaut @ Aug 14 2003, 09:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2: They'll be discriminated for it. We all know the kids will, because the adults are. And kids are MUCH more cruel than adults.
3: Its dangerous. You have a 23% chance of CREATING AIDS, sypholis, and other deseases during g@y sex. Thats just how it is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2. If they are discriminated, shouldn't our focus be more targeted at fighting the ignorance that breeds the hate towards homosexuals? Yes, I don't believe that homophobia will ever be fully vanquished, neither do I believe that of racism. However, it doesn't mean we shouldn't stop trying. One of the original points in this topic briefly touched on "just because I disagee with the homosexual lifestyle, doesn't make me homophobic". My definition of homophobia is hate directed towards *** and lesbians for their choice of lifestyle. While I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, as much as I would disagree with people's taste in pop music, who that person really is will determine whether I will like/dislike that person.
3. My understanding of STDs is still very unclear, but here's what I've gathered:
First off, STDs are not created, they are <b>contracted</b>. According to scientists, AIDS is believed to have originated from primates living in Africa. Now, what I am most unclear about is how great of a factor is **** sex does in contraction of STDs over heterosexual intercourse. As I see it now, individuals today are engaged in more partners than ever before. That in itself is a contribution to increases to STDs. I'm kind of curious what the chances of contracting an STD are between an monogamous homosexual couple and heterosexual couple. I have heard reports that the **** and lesbian community have a greater chance of contracting STDs here in North America over heterosexual couples. However, Africa and China are suffering huge AIDS epidemics right now, but my understanding is that the couples over there are generally homosexual. Is it because medical and sanitary conditions over there are much poorer? Would their STD rate climb even higher if a greater percent of the population was homosexual? Not to mention that contraction of STDs can be contributed due to drug use (sharing of needles).
Ahhh, morality. I spent four years in a prestigious Jesuit school, and morality was one of my favorite subjects. Are you sure you want a piece of this? Clearly you do. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Subjective vs. objective morality... I'll agree with you that the notion of subjective ("relative") morality is bogus, because it prevents us from making judgements on anything with any hope of credibility. I'm pretty well convinced of this.
However, there is no way for a given person to be certain of what the objective moral truth on a given subject is. If there were, there wouldn't be any such concept as subjective morality. What we have to do is form opinions on what the objective moral truth is. So yes, there is an objective moral truth, but we have to determine subjectively what we think it is.
What does this mean in light of separation of church and state? Well, the state doesn't have authorization to tie itself to a given church and accept that church's teachings on what objective moral truth is. All the state can do is pass legislation that seeks to protect the rights of its citizens - in the US, most notably, the pursuit of "life, liberty, and happiness". Hence, murder is illegal, because it infringes on the right to pursue life. (Whoever said "dead people don't have rights so murder doesn't infringe on rights" was being incredibly facetious.) As it turns out, morality and protection of rights intersect in many many places. Drunk driving is another good example. Drug use... well, the argument for that one is largely based on protecting the individual from infringing on his own rights. I personally don't agree with this, but that's an entire other debate.
So what it comes down to is this. (Pay attention here.) When you say things like "the homosexual lifestyle is wrong," you are voicing YOUR opinion as to the objective moral truth on the issue of homosexuality. Your word is not law. In fact, not all Christians (using "Christian" in its general meaning as "follower of Christ," not "fundamentalist Protestant" or "papal fanboy") even agree with you. You are entitled to your belief that homosexuality is wrong, but you are NOT entitled to inflict that belief on others, and the state is not entitled to inflict that belief on others either, without anything less than a major Constitutional amendment. (Majority opinion is not legally sufficient in this case, so arguments based on how many people in a given area are Judeo-Christian or whatever are not valid.)
The state is ONLY entitled to legislate against homosexual marriage if it can be shown that homosexual marriage infringes on someone's rights somehow. Thus far, nobody in this thread has offered anything to reasonably suggest that it does. The primary argument is "homosexuality is just wrong," and as above stated, that is NOT a legal argument, nor is it even a really good moral or theological argument, in my opinion.
I'm sure all this goes in one ear and out the other. As I stated way back at the beginning of the thread, it's generally not possible to change anyone's mind on this topic - homophobia (for lack of a better word, even if you maintain that fear has nothing to do with it) is just too deeply ingrained in too many people. Hopefully things will be better by the time my children are growing up.
<!--QuoteBegin--DiscoZombie+Aug 14 2003, 01:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Aug 14 2003, 01:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> well, a murderer goes to jail because he harmed another. A married homosexual harms no one. I'm a sociology minor, and the field of criminology is all about the concept of norms, devience, and the origins of law. In short, like you said, there is no inherent morality in the universe, but we slowly evolve laws as a society, theoretically based on the perceived greater good, but often in the interests of the influential upper class. Vagrancy laws, for instance, came about in the 14th century because landowners had a shortage of labor after the black plague, and they wanted to force people to work for them.
anyway, you say you think homosexual couples should have the same legal rights as straight married couples -- having the same legal rights means being legally married, doesn't it? how can they have the same legal rights as married folks if they're not legally married? I keep bringing up the church thing -- if it bothers anyone that their church would marry g4y people, they should complain or find a new church. Let's say that no priests anywhere would voluntarily marry 2 men together, which isn't the case; even in that scenario, the men would still need the option of being married at city hall by a judge, if they're to be afforded the same legal rights as married heteros. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1) Let's ignore the fact that you assumed I agree with moral relativity, which I do not 2) The field of criminology is all about the concept of norms and deviance? <a href='http://www.inoohr.org/homosexualstatistics.htm' target='_blank'> link</a> to what I consider pretty deviant behavior. 3) No, having the same legal rights as a married couple does not equate to marriage - check out Vermont's Civil Union laws (people are protesting those too). Under Federal law, other states have to honor Vermont's civil unions, but no one has gone to court over it yet.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 02:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 02:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2) The field of criminology is all about the concept of norms and deviance? <a href='http://www.inoohr.org/homosexualstatistics.htm' target='_blank'> link</a> to what I consider pretty deviant behavior. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think it should be a law that any website that plays the song "Just a closer walk with thee" whouldbe immediately disqualified as a reputable source of info.
Especially since a large amount of the info in this page is admited to in the bibliography as dating back to the 70's.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 11:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 11:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 3) No, having the same legal rights as a married couple does not equate to marriage - check out Vermont's Civil Union laws (people are protesting those too). Under Federal law, other states have to honor Vermont's civil unions, but no one has gone to court over it yet. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I already tackled moral relativity, so I won't repeat myself. However, I'll note that if a "Civil Union" is equivalent to a "marriage" in the legal sense, well, it's a "marriage" in the eyes of the law. If calling it that makes you uncomfortable, don't call it that, but that's what it is - "Civil Union" is just a synonym. (This is probably why people are protesting.) If the "Civil Union" is NOT legally equivalent to a marriage, then something is missing from this happy picture of equality.
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 14 2003, 02:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 14 2003, 02:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What does this mean in light of separation of church and state? Well, the state doesn't have authorization to tie itself to a given church and accept that church's teachings on what objective moral truth is. All the state can do is pass legislation that seeks to protect the rights of its citizens - in the US, most notably, the pursuit of "life, liberty, and happiness". Hence, murder is illegal, because it infringes on the right to pursue life. (Whoever said "dead people don't have rights so murder doesn't infringe on rights" was being incredibly facetious.) As it turns out, morality and protection of rights intersect in many many places. Drunk driving is another good example. Drug use... well, the argument for that one is largely based on protecting the individual from infringing on his own rights. I personally don't agree with this, but that's an entire other debate.
So what it comes down to is this. (Pay attention here.) When you say things like "the homosexual lifestyle is wrong," you are voicing YOUR opinion as to the objective moral truth on the issue of homosexuality. Your word is not law. In fact, not all Christians (using "Christian" in its general meaning as "follower of Christ," not "fundamentalist Protestant" or "papal fanboy") even agree with you. You are entitled to your belief that homosexuality is wrong, but you are NOT entitled to inflict that belief on others, and the state is not entitled to inflict that belief on others either, without anything less than a major Constitutional amendment. (Majority opinion is not legally sufficient in this case, so arguments based on how many people in a given area are Judeo-Christian or whatever are not valid.)
The state is ONLY entitled to legislate against homosexual marriage if it can be shown that homosexual marriage infringes on someone's rights somehow. Thus far, nobody in this thread has offered anything to reasonably suggest that it does. The primary argument is "homosexuality is just wrong," and as above stated, that is NOT a legal argument, nor is it even a really good moral or theological argument, in my opinion.
I'm sure all this goes in one ear and out the other. As I stated way back at the beginning of the thread, it's generally not possible to change anyone's mind on this topic - homophobia (for lack of a better word, even if you maintain that fear has nothing to do with it) is just too deeply ingrained in too many people. Hopefully things will be better by the time my children are growing up. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Firstly, let me address separation of church and state. Separation of church and state does not mean that the state is apart from all religious affairs. Remember the Heaven's Gate Cult? What if you are a member of a church that condones, and even requires human sacrifice? Don't argue that this is infringing on other people's rights, they can always voluntarily give up their own rights. Would/should this sort of religion be legal? At the same time, if separation of church and state truly existed, why should we ban polygamous relationships? They do not infringe on other people's rights, and no one is "hurt" by it.
Secondly, proof that not all Christians think that homosexuality is wrong? The Bible clearly states many times that homosexuality is wrong, so if you are going to include "secular Christians" in that mix you are way too broad in your label of "Christian." Also, perhaps you should refine your definition of a "good theological argument".
Lastly, you should keep a check on that attitude that everything you say goes whizzing past without me acknowledging or considering it. I find that kind of moral superiority often contributes to the problem, instead of helping it. In fact, people who feel morally and intellectually superior on both sides end up causing this kind of rhetoric and propaganda. I truly am sorry that while you are clearly very intelligent, you cannot seem to see this.
My take on it is this.... You can live ANYWAY you want, as long as it dosen't effect me negativly. Although, the children, for the sake of the CHILDREN. We are products of our environments...to an extent. What I'm trying to say is, no, just because the parents are homosexual, the kids won't nessacarily grow to be the same way...Its a known fact that the male figure is extremely important in a childs development, and having too much, or none at all REALLY messes up with a childs development. If two people love each other great, but they really shouldn't burden their offspring. I never want children, not because of the work, or the time, etc. I love them to much to bring them into a world like THIS. Especially in our times. (I hope that makes sense). So to sum it up. 2 consenting adults should be able to do whatever they wish as long as their aren't negativly impacting another human.
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Aug 14 2003, 02:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Aug 14 2003, 02:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 02:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 02:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2) The field of criminology is all about the concept of norms and deviance? <a href='http://www.inoohr.org/homosexualstatistics.htm' target='_blank'> link</a> to what I consider pretty deviant behavior. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think it should be a law that any website that plays the song "Just a closer walk with thee" whouldbe immediately disqualified as a reputable source of info.
Especially since a large amount of the info in this page is admited to in the bibliography as dating back to the 70's. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry, I don't have sound right now, so I completely missed out on that. I apologize. /me looks for other sources. And those sources in the bibliography actually range from 1970s to the mid 1990s. Not that old if you ask me, and I doubt you actually took the time to look into the validity of the sources. They look pretty sound to me. <a href='http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasrsuppVol9No1.htm' target='_blank'>cdc link</a> <a href='http://www.cdc.gov/std/Syphilis2001/2001SyphSuppText.pdf' target='_blank'>another cdc link</a> (page 3, bottom)
I really don't think you can discount the CDC as a reliable source of data.
<!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Aug 14 2003, 06:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Aug 14 2003, 06:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Don't blow a gasket here Nem <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> The objective Libertarian in me likes to peek out once in a while <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Jeez, you gave me a medium sized heart attack here. Don't let agreements between us become a habit, OK? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I largely agree with Samwise, with the little expection that I doubt the existance of an objective morality in the Kantian sense, but that's another days screaming fit...
Going over to Wheee...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At the same time, if separation of church and state truly existed, why should we ban polygamous relationships? They do not infringe on other people's rights, and no one is "hurt" by it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, who said everyone in here is opposing it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly, proof that not all Christians think that homosexuality is wrong? The Bible clearly states many times that homosexuality is wrong, so if you are going to include "secular Christians" in that mix you are way too broad in your label of "Christian." Also, perhaps you should refine your definition of a "good theological argument".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Realize that you just slapped a large portion of this community in the face. Deciding who, and thus what is Christian, is not entirely up to you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Firstly, let me address separation of church and state. Separation of church and state does not mean that the state is apart from all religious affairs. Remember the Heaven's Gate Cult? What if you are a member of a church that condones, and even requires human sacrifice? Don't argue that this is infringing on other people's rights, they can always voluntarily give up their own rights. Would/should this sort of religion be legal? At the same time, if separation of church and state truly existed, why should we ban polygamous relationships? They do not infringe on other people's rights, and no one is "hurt" by it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, people do not currently have the right to give up their own right to live - suicide is not legal. Whether or not suicide is permitted or even required by your religion doesn't enter into it. In fact, that's the entire POINT. One church (Heaven's Gate) saying suicide is okay does NOT make suicide legal. Another church (yours) saying homosexuality is not okay does NOT make homosexual marriages illegal.
Polygamous relationships are not banned - I know people who are in them. I have already addressed the issue of polygamous marriage as being a problem in the realm of how taxes are currently figured.
Personally, I think that suicide and assisted suicide should be legal (as long as you can get past the thorny issue of making sure people don't use assisted suicide as an alibi for murder), and that polygamy is perfectly fine as long as it doesn't open up unfair legal loopholes. But those are other topics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly, proof that not all Christians think that homosexuality is wrong? The Bible clearly states many times that homosexuality is wrong, so if you are going to include "secular Christians" in that mix you are way too broad in your label of "Christian." Also, perhaps you should refine your definition of a "good theological argument".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Bible also clearly states that the sky is formed by a firmament which divides the water above from the water below - the sky is blue because we live in a big fishtank and there's water above us. The stars, sun, and moon are stuck into the wall of the fishtank, which revolves above us. Lots of stuff in the Bible has been garbled over the ages, or was originally scribed by someone who put a certain slant on things. This, I believe, is why we got the Golden Rule - Jesus said "look, forget all that other crap - just try to be nice to each other, okay? That's the real point of it all."
I know quite a few confirmed Catholics who think that the Church's current teaching on homosexuality is bogus - in fact I know a few ORDAINED Catholics who feel this way, and are working to change it. Catholics are Christians, despite what fundamentalist Christians like to tell everyone.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lastly, you should keep a check on that attitude that everything you say goes whizzing past without me acknowledging or considering it. I find that kind of moral superiority often contributes to the problem, instead of helping it. In fact, people who feel morally and intellectually superior on both sides end up causing this kind of rhetoric and propaganda. I truly am sorry that while you are clearly very intelligent, you cannot seem to see this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I said that because many people in this thread (I wasn't trying to single you out, but since you brought it up, yes, you) seem to persist in saying things like "it's just wrong and hence should be illegal," without first addressing why "it's just wrong" isn't a valid argument in a political discussion, even though this has been brought up MANY times. Your most recent post is in fact the first time someone has actually tried to refute the separation of church and state, and I think all you really did was prove my point by giving an example of a religion whose teachings should not be allowed to override the law.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Aug 14 2003, 02:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Aug 14 2003, 02:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Aug 14 2003, 06:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Aug 14 2003, 06:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Don't blow a gasket here Nem <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> The objective Libertarian in me likes to peek out once in a while <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Jeez, you gave me a medium sized heart attack here. Don't let agreements between us become a habit, OK? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I largely agree with Samwise, with the little expection that I doubt the existance of an objective morality in the Kantian sense, but that's another days screaming fit...
Going over to Wheee...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At the same time, if separation of church and state truly existed, why should we ban polygamous relationships? They do not infringe on other people's rights, and no one is "hurt" by it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, who said everyone in here is opposing it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly, proof that not all Christians think that homosexuality is wrong? The Bible clearly states many times that homosexuality is wrong, so if you are going to include "secular Christians" in that mix you are way too broad in your label of "Christian." Also, perhaps you should refine your definition of a "good theological argument".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Realize that you just slapped a large portion of this community in the face. Deciding who, and thus what is Christian, is not entirely up to you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Im catholic, but not practicing, for my own beliefs. The point is, the best way to fix something is to quesiton it.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Aug 14 2003, 02:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Aug 14 2003, 02:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Realize that you just slapped a large portion of this community in the face. Deciding who, and thus what is Christian, is not entirely up to you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Saying that I am a Muslim does not make me one.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 07:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 07:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Saying that I am a Muslim does not make me one. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not necessarily, but <i>you</i> are not the one to judge that. For further references on the being deciding whether one is of true belief, see the Revelations.
amen, samwise =/ we can only hope that people who want to limit the freedoms of others will someday be frowned upon and ostracized for something themselves. claiming one's point is moral because it's backed by SOME members of a religion with an infrastructure rife with pedophilia doesn't say much for one's point. if an adoptive child of **** parents is mocked by his peers, neither he nor his parents are the problem -- he simply needs to find new friends. there's no such thing as a 'normal' family. so a kid with an alcoholic mom and an abusive dad lives in a normal family, but a kid with 2 loving, successful **** parents is a freak show? what a world we live in...
Wheeee, it's obvious the agenda of the creators of the link you provided. I keep comparing this argument to racism: I have seen similar statistics about Blacks, and how they're convicted of many more crimes than whites, etc. The link is ironic and hilarious, actually: assuming the statistics are true and unbiased (the latter of which they're certainly not), the mere fact that you cited them proves <i>why</i> they would be true. homosexuals want to do something "normal" like marry each other and lead happy, productive lives. People say they can't, because they're immoral people, thereby leaving them no recourse but to live "abnormal" lives. How awesome. "You're g4y -- you can't get married! you're supposed to do things like sleep with tons of partners and spread disease, so I continue to have an excuse to hate you!"
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 14 2003, 02:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 14 2003, 02:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lastly, you should keep a check on that attitude that everything you say goes whizzing past without me acknowledging or considering it. I find that kind of moral superiority often contributes to the problem, instead of helping it. In fact, people who feel morally and intellectually superior on both sides end up causing this kind of rhetoric and propaganda. I truly am sorry that while you are clearly very intelligent, you cannot seem to see this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I said that because many people in this thread (I wasn't trying to single you out, but since you brought it up, yes, you) seem to persist in saying things like "it's just wrong and hence should be illegal," without first addressing why "it's just wrong" isn't a valid argument in a political discussion, even though this has been brought up MANY times. Your most recent post is in fact the first time someone has actually tried to refute the separation of church and state, and I think all you really did was prove my point by giving an example of a religion whose teachings should not be allowed to override the law. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> First of all, I have never actually said "homosexual marriage is wrong and therefore should be illegal", I have said time and again that legal benefits of marriage should be available, but not the institution of marriage itself because of how our culture and beliefs have defined it over the last few centuries. Consider this: Palestinians have lived in the area now known as Israel for over a thousand years before we decided to take their land and give them to the Israelis. Does the argument that "they were oppressed and therefore deserve some recognition" entitle them to land that others have owned for generations?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think all you really did was prove my point by giving an example of a religion whose teachings should not be allowed to override the law.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--DiscoZombie+Aug 14 2003, 02:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Aug 14 2003, 02:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> amen, samwise =/ we can only hope that people who want to limit the freedoms of others will someday be frowned upon and ostracized for something themselves. claiming one's point is moral because it's backed by SOME members of a religion with an infrastructure rife with pedophilia doesn't say much for one's point. if an adoptive child of **** parents is mocked by his peers, neither he nor his parents are the problem -- he simply needs to find new friends. there's no such thing as a 'normal' family. so a kid with an alcoholic mom and an abusive dad lives in a normal family, but a kid with 2 loving, successful **** parents is a freak show? what a world we live in...
Wheeee, it's obvious the agenda of the creators of the link you provided. I keep comparing this argument to racism: I have seen similar statistics about Blacks, and how they're convicted of many more crimes than whites, etc. The link is ironic and hilarious, actually: assuming the statistics are true and unbiased (the latter of which they're certainly not), the mere fact that you cited them proves <i>why</i> they would be true. homosexuals want to do something "normal" like marry each other and lead happy, productive lives. People say they can't, because they're immoral people, thereby leaving them no recourse but to live "abnormal" lives. How awesome. "You're g4y -- you can't get married! you're supposed to do things like sleep with tons of partners and spread disease, so I continue to have an excuse to hate you!" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Disco, please. Keep it civil.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 11:43 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 11:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Saying that I am a Muslim does not make me one. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Correct. However, saying that you are a Muslim, and accepting Mohammed as the prophet of God, does, I'd say.
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 14 2003, 02:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 14 2003, 02:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 11:43 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 11:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Saying that I am a Muslim does not make me one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Correct. However, saying that you are a Muslim, and accepting Mohammed as the prophet of God, does, I'd say. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> By accepting Mohammed as prophet of God, you also inherit the responsibility to believe his teachings. Saying one thing and believing another does not make what you say true.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First of all, I have never actually said "homosexual marriage is wrong and therefore should be illegal", I have said time and again that legal benefits of marriage should be available, but not the institution of marriage itself because of how our culture and beliefs have defined it over the last few centuries. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The "institution of marriage" is something the state does not have the power to legislate. The legal contract of marriage is. Your culture and beliefs can say anything they want about homosexual marriage, but that has as much bearing on *legal* marriage as religious beliefs do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Consider this: Palestinians have lived in the area now known as Israel for over a thousand years before we decided to take their land and give them to the Israelis. Does the argument that "they were oppressed and therefore deserve some recognition" entitle them to land that others have owned for generations?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you're saying that by getting married, homosexuals will be robbing marriage from heterosexuals...? You use very strange examples. Use one that involves one group getting something WITHOUT negatively impacting another group.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think all you really did was prove my point by giving an example of a religion whose teachings should not be allowed to override the law.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who is to determine this?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The principle of separation of church and state. The US constitution. Religious teachings do NOT override law, as far as the state is concerned. That is the point I was trying to make, and that is the point you supported by bringing up Heaven's Gate. Separation of church and state does not mean you have the right to practice your religion however you like regardless of the law - in fact, it's <b>exactly the opposite</b>. The law has no authority to regulate religion in and of itself, nor does religion have authority to regulate the law. Voters CAN alter laws, but only insofar as those laws do not violate the higher authority of the US constitution (whose prime purpose, in fact, is to say what laws are and aren't fair game).
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 07:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 07:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 14 2003, 02:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 14 2003, 02:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 11:43 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 11:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Saying that I am a Muslim does not make me one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Correct. However, saying that you are a Muslim, and accepting Mohammed as the prophet of God, does, I'd say. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> By accepting Mohammed as prophet of God, you also inherit the responsibility to believe his teachings. Saying one thing and believing another does not make what you say true. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your personal rights end where another persons rights begin. Your right of free speech or opinion end where another persons religious rights come into the picture. You are <i>not</i> entitled to judge another persons religious convictions, you are <i><b>not</b></i> entitled to tell someone he or she isn't part of a religious community he or she believes to be a part of. End of discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Aug 14 2003, 12:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Aug 14 2003, 12:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 07:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 07:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 14 2003, 02:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 14 2003, 02:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 11:43 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 11:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Saying that I am a Muslim does not make me one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Correct. However, saying that you are a Muslim, and accepting Mohammed as the prophet of God, does, I'd say. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> By accepting Mohammed as prophet of God, you also inherit the responsibility to believe his teachings. Saying one thing and believing another does not make what you say true. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your personal rights end where another persons rights begin. Your right of free speech or opinion end where another persons religious rights come into the picture. You are <i>not</i> entitled to judge another persons religious convictions, you are <i><b>not</b></i> entitled to tell someone he or she isn't part of a religious community he or she believes to be a part of. End of discussion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Heh, let God do the judging of others.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Aug 14 2003, 03:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Aug 14 2003, 03:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Your personal rights end where another persons rights begin. Your right of free speech or opinion end where another persons religious rights come into the picture. You are <i>not</i> entitled to judge another persons religious convictions, you are <i><b>not</b></i> entitled to tell someone he or she isn't part of a religious community he or she believes to be a part of. End of discussion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First of all, what is your justification for this? Instead of just telling me "You can't do this", give me a reason. If you say "I am a moderator on these forums and I am disallowing you from judging others," fine and well. I can respect that. But I cannot respect someone who says in a blanket generalization "You can't do this....because, well, you can't"
<!--QuoteBegin--Confuzor+Aug 14 2003, 08:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Confuzor @ Aug 14 2003, 08:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Heh, let God do the judging of others.
You worry about yourself. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I haven't read the Bible for many a year, but that's the impression I got too..
[offtopic]
Y'know, this <i>is</i> oddly remniscent of the late "Discussion Forum", but with less shouting..
I think we're missing the true meaning of the "Judge not lest ye yourselves be judged" that many people seem to misunderstand. While I do not claim to know everything, nor understand the Bible to the fullest extent, I do know that while we should not judge others as being "sinners worse than ourselves" because we ourselves are sinners, we *can* make distinctions between what is right, and what is wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The principle of separation of church and state. The US constitution. Religious teachings do NOT override law, as far as the state is concerned. That is the point I was trying to make, and that is the point you supported by bringing up Heaven's Gate. Separation of church and state does not mean you have the right to practice your religion however you like regardless of the law - in fact, it's <b>exactly the opposite</b>. The law has no authority to regulate religion in and of itself, nor does religion have authority to regulate the law. Voters CAN alter laws, but only insofar as those laws do not violate the higher authority of the US constitution (whose prime purpose, in fact, is to say what laws are and aren't fair game).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, I'm not following your logic here. How does the principle of separation of church and state mean that the state can intervene in religious affairs? To deny a religion the right to practice? Isn't that what the separation of church and state is supposed to prevent? Am I being naive?
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 12:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 12:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sorry, I'm not following your logic here. How does the principle of separation of church and state mean that the state can intervene in religious affairs? To deny a religion the right to practice? Isn't that what the separation of church and state is supposed to prevent? Am I being naive? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, the state can NOT intervene in religious affairs.
Illegalizing homosexual marriage IS intervention in religious affairs, because it's passing a law based on the religious convictions held by one group.
Homosexuals getting married does NOT prevent you from practicing your religion. It simply prevents you from inflicting the dogma of your religion upon <b>other people.</b> That is what separation of church and state is all about - let everyone practice their own religion, and don't let the affairs of religion interfere in the affairs of state.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Separation of church and state does not mean you have the right to practice your religion however you like regardless of the law - in fact, it's exactly the opposite<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you just reversed yourself? I am completely confused now
This is a free land right? Then where is the freedom in not letting homosexuals marry?
Simple as that. God gave every human a God given right of choice, for example: the devil gave Jesus a choice during the "temptation of the desert," a choice of power and glory; God gave us a choice to believe in him or not.
I think restricting peope from marrying the same sex is abolishing everything God's freedom of choice is all about and that is what the law is doing. If the American government is built upon a Christian moral system, then they should let homo-sexuals marry and let God do the rest in the end.
There not criminals, just people without a right to marry the same sex.
It may seem odd, but I think we need to respect their right.
Comments
anyway, you say you think homosexual couples should have the same legal rights as straight married couples -- having the same legal rights means being legally married, doesn't it? how can they have the same legal rights as married folks if they're not legally married? I keep bringing up the church thing -- if it bothers anyone that their church would marry g4y people, they should complain or find a new church. Let's say that no priests anywhere would voluntarily marry 2 men together, which isn't the case; even in that scenario, the men would still need the option of being married at city hall by a judge, if they're to be afforded the same legal rights as married heteros.
2: They'll be discriminated for it. We all know the kids will, because the adults are. And kids are MUCH more cruel than adults.
3: Its dangerous.
You have a 23% chance of CREATING AIDS, sypholis, and other deseases during g@y sex. Thats just how it is.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2. If they are discriminated, shouldn't our focus be more targeted at fighting the ignorance that breeds the hate towards homosexuals? Yes, I don't believe that homophobia will ever be fully vanquished, neither do I believe that of racism. However, it doesn't mean we shouldn't stop trying. One of the original points in this topic briefly touched on "just because I disagee with the homosexual lifestyle, doesn't make me homophobic". My definition of homophobia is hate directed towards *** and lesbians for their choice of lifestyle. While I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, as much as I would disagree with people's taste in pop music, who that person really is will determine whether I will like/dislike that person.
3. My understanding of STDs is still very unclear, but here's what I've gathered:
First off, STDs are not created, they are <b>contracted</b>. According to scientists, AIDS is believed to have originated from primates living in Africa. Now, what I am most unclear about is how great of a factor is **** sex does in contraction of STDs over heterosexual intercourse. As I see it now, individuals today are engaged in more partners than ever before. That in itself is a contribution to increases to STDs. I'm kind of curious what the chances of contracting an STD are between an monogamous homosexual couple and heterosexual couple. I have heard reports that the **** and lesbian community have a greater chance of contracting STDs here in North America over heterosexual couples. However, Africa and China are suffering huge AIDS epidemics right now, but my understanding is that the couples over there are generally homosexual. Is it because medical and sanitary conditions over there are much poorer? Would their STD rate climb even higher if a greater percent of the population was homosexual? Not to mention that contraction of STDs can be contributed due to drug use (sharing of needles).
Too many factors...
Subjective vs. objective morality... I'll agree with you that the notion of subjective ("relative") morality is bogus, because it prevents us from making judgements on anything with any hope of credibility. I'm pretty well convinced of this.
However, there is no way for a given person to be certain of what the objective moral truth on a given subject is. If there were, there wouldn't be any such concept as subjective morality. What we have to do is form opinions on what the objective moral truth is. So yes, there is an objective moral truth, but we have to determine subjectively what we think it is.
What does this mean in light of separation of church and state? Well, the state doesn't have authorization to tie itself to a given church and accept that church's teachings on what objective moral truth is. All the state can do is pass legislation that seeks to protect the rights of its citizens - in the US, most notably, the pursuit of "life, liberty, and happiness". Hence, murder is illegal, because it infringes on the right to pursue life. (Whoever said "dead people don't have rights so murder doesn't infringe on rights" was being incredibly facetious.) As it turns out, morality and protection of rights intersect in many many places. Drunk driving is another good example. Drug use... well, the argument for that one is largely based on protecting the individual from infringing on his own rights. I personally don't agree with this, but that's an entire other debate.
So what it comes down to is this. (Pay attention here.) When you say things like "the homosexual lifestyle is wrong," you are voicing YOUR opinion as to the objective moral truth on the issue of homosexuality. Your word is not law. In fact, not all Christians (using "Christian" in its general meaning as "follower of Christ," not "fundamentalist Protestant" or "papal fanboy") even agree with you. You are entitled to your belief that homosexuality is wrong, but you are NOT entitled to inflict that belief on others, and the state is not entitled to inflict that belief on others either, without anything less than a major Constitutional amendment. (Majority opinion is not legally sufficient in this case, so arguments based on how many people in a given area are Judeo-Christian or whatever are not valid.)
The state is ONLY entitled to legislate against homosexual marriage if it can be shown that homosexual marriage infringes on someone's rights somehow. Thus far, nobody in this thread has offered anything to reasonably suggest that it does. The primary argument is "homosexuality is just wrong," and as above stated, that is NOT a legal argument, nor is it even a really good moral or theological argument, in my opinion.
I'm sure all this goes in one ear and out the other. As I stated way back at the beginning of the thread, it's generally not possible to change anyone's mind on this topic - homophobia (for lack of a better word, even if you maintain that fear has nothing to do with it) is just too deeply ingrained in too many people. Hopefully things will be better by the time my children are growing up.
anyway, you say you think homosexual couples should have the same legal rights as straight married couples -- having the same legal rights means being legally married, doesn't it? how can they have the same legal rights as married folks if they're not legally married? I keep bringing up the church thing -- if it bothers anyone that their church would marry g4y people, they should complain or find a new church. Let's say that no priests anywhere would voluntarily marry 2 men together, which isn't the case; even in that scenario, the men would still need the option of being married at city hall by a judge, if they're to be afforded the same legal rights as married heteros. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) Let's ignore the fact that you assumed I agree with moral relativity, which I do not
2) The field of criminology is all about the concept of norms and deviance? <a href='http://www.inoohr.org/homosexualstatistics.htm' target='_blank'> link</a> to what I consider pretty deviant behavior.
3) No, having the same legal rights as a married couple does not equate to marriage - check out Vermont's Civil Union laws (people are protesting those too). Under Federal law, other states have to honor Vermont's civil unions, but no one has gone to court over it yet.
I think it should be a law that any website that plays the song "Just a closer walk with thee" whouldbe immediately disqualified as a reputable source of info.
Especially since a large amount of the info in this page is admited to in the bibliography as dating back to the 70's.
I already tackled moral relativity, so I won't repeat myself. However, I'll note that if a "Civil Union" is equivalent to a "marriage" in the legal sense, well, it's a "marriage" in the eyes of the law. If calling it that makes you uncomfortable, don't call it that, but that's what it is - "Civil Union" is just a synonym. (This is probably why people are protesting.) If the "Civil Union" is NOT legally equivalent to a marriage, then something is missing from this happy picture of equality.
What does this mean in light of separation of church and state? Well, the state doesn't have authorization to tie itself to a given church and accept that church's teachings on what objective moral truth is. All the state can do is pass legislation that seeks to protect the rights of its citizens - in the US, most notably, the pursuit of "life, liberty, and happiness". Hence, murder is illegal, because it infringes on the right to pursue life. (Whoever said "dead people don't have rights so murder doesn't infringe on rights" was being incredibly facetious.) As it turns out, morality and protection of rights intersect in many many places. Drunk driving is another good example. Drug use... well, the argument for that one is largely based on protecting the individual from infringing on his own rights. I personally don't agree with this, but that's an entire other debate.
So what it comes down to is this. (Pay attention here.) When you say things like "the homosexual lifestyle is wrong," you are voicing YOUR opinion as to the objective moral truth on the issue of homosexuality. Your word is not law. In fact, not all Christians (using "Christian" in its general meaning as "follower of Christ," not "fundamentalist Protestant" or "papal fanboy") even agree with you. You are entitled to your belief that homosexuality is wrong, but you are NOT entitled to inflict that belief on others, and the state is not entitled to inflict that belief on others either, without anything less than a major Constitutional amendment. (Majority opinion is not legally sufficient in this case, so arguments based on how many people in a given area are Judeo-Christian or whatever are not valid.)
The state is ONLY entitled to legislate against homosexual marriage if it can be shown that homosexual marriage infringes on someone's rights somehow. Thus far, nobody in this thread has offered anything to reasonably suggest that it does. The primary argument is "homosexuality is just wrong," and as above stated, that is NOT a legal argument, nor is it even a really good moral or theological argument, in my opinion.
I'm sure all this goes in one ear and out the other. As I stated way back at the beginning of the thread, it's generally not possible to change anyone's mind on this topic - homophobia (for lack of a better word, even if you maintain that fear has nothing to do with it) is just too deeply ingrained in too many people. Hopefully things will be better by the time my children are growing up. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, let me address separation of church and state. Separation of church and state does not mean that the state is apart from all religious affairs. Remember the Heaven's Gate Cult? What if you are a member of a church that condones, and even requires human sacrifice? Don't argue that this is infringing on other people's rights, they can always voluntarily give up their own rights. Would/should this sort of religion be legal? At the same time, if separation of church and state truly existed, why should we ban polygamous relationships? They do not infringe on other people's rights, and no one is "hurt" by it.
Secondly, proof that not all Christians think that homosexuality is wrong? The Bible clearly states many times that homosexuality is wrong, so if you are going to include "secular Christians" in that mix you are way too broad in your label of "Christian." Also, perhaps you should refine your definition of a "good theological argument".
Lastly, you should keep a check on that attitude that everything you say goes whizzing past without me acknowledging or considering it. I find that kind of moral superiority often contributes to the problem, instead of helping it. In fact, people who feel morally and intellectually superior on both sides end up causing this kind of rhetoric and propaganda. I truly am sorry that while you are clearly very intelligent, you cannot seem to see this.
I think it should be a law that any website that plays the song "Just a closer walk with thee" whouldbe immediately disqualified as a reputable source of info.
Especially since a large amount of the info in this page is admited to in the bibliography as dating back to the 70's. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, I don't have sound right now, so I completely missed out on that. I apologize. /me looks for other sources. And those sources in the bibliography actually range from 1970s to the mid 1990s. Not that old if you ask me, and I doubt you actually took the time to look into the validity of the sources. They look pretty sound to me.
<a href='http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasrsuppVol9No1.htm' target='_blank'>cdc link</a>
<a href='http://www.cdc.gov/std/Syphilis2001/2001SyphSuppText.pdf' target='_blank'>another cdc link</a> (page 3, bottom)
I really don't think you can discount the CDC as a reliable source of data.
Jeez, you gave me a medium sized heart attack here. Don't let agreements between us become a habit, OK? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I largely agree with Samwise, with the little expection that I doubt the existance of an objective morality in the Kantian sense, but that's another days screaming fit...
Going over to Wheee...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At the same time, if separation of church and state truly existed, why should we ban polygamous relationships? They do not infringe on other people's rights, and no one is "hurt" by it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, who said everyone in here is opposing it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly, proof that not all Christians think that homosexuality is wrong? The Bible clearly states many times that homosexuality is wrong, so if you are going to include "secular Christians" in that mix you are way too broad in your label of "Christian." Also, perhaps you should refine your definition of a "good theological argument".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Realize that you just slapped a large portion of this community in the face. Deciding who, and thus what is Christian, is not entirely up to you.
Actually, people do not currently have the right to give up their own right to live - suicide is not legal. Whether or not suicide is permitted or even required by your religion doesn't enter into it. In fact, that's the entire POINT. One church (Heaven's Gate) saying suicide is okay does NOT make suicide legal. Another church (yours) saying homosexuality is not okay does NOT make homosexual marriages illegal.
Polygamous relationships are not banned - I know people who are in them. I have already addressed the issue of polygamous marriage as being a problem in the realm of how taxes are currently figured.
Personally, I think that suicide and assisted suicide should be legal (as long as you can get past the thorny issue of making sure people don't use assisted suicide as an alibi for murder), and that polygamy is perfectly fine as long as it doesn't open up unfair legal loopholes. But those are other topics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly, proof that not all Christians think that homosexuality is wrong? The Bible clearly states many times that homosexuality is wrong, so if you are going to include "secular Christians" in that mix you are way too broad in your label of "Christian." Also, perhaps you should refine your definition of a "good theological argument".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Bible also clearly states that the sky is formed by a firmament which divides the water above from the water below - the sky is blue because we live in a big fishtank and there's water above us. The stars, sun, and moon are stuck into the wall of the fishtank, which revolves above us. Lots of stuff in the Bible has been garbled over the ages, or was originally scribed by someone who put a certain slant on things. This, I believe, is why we got the Golden Rule - Jesus said "look, forget all that other crap - just try to be nice to each other, okay? That's the real point of it all."
I know quite a few confirmed Catholics who think that the Church's current teaching on homosexuality is bogus - in fact I know a few ORDAINED Catholics who feel this way, and are working to change it. Catholics are Christians, despite what fundamentalist Christians like to tell everyone.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lastly, you should keep a check on that attitude that everything you say goes whizzing past without me acknowledging or considering it. I find that kind of moral superiority often contributes to the problem, instead of helping it. In fact, people who feel morally and intellectually superior on both sides end up causing this kind of rhetoric and propaganda. I truly am sorry that while you are clearly very intelligent, you cannot seem to see this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I said that because many people in this thread (I wasn't trying to single you out, but since you brought it up, yes, you) seem to persist in saying things like "it's just wrong and hence should be illegal," without first addressing why "it's just wrong" isn't a valid argument in a political discussion, even though this has been brought up MANY times. Your most recent post is in fact the first time someone has actually tried to refute the separation of church and state, and I think all you really did was prove my point by giving an example of a religion whose teachings should not be allowed to override the law.
Jeez, you gave me a medium sized heart attack here. Don't let agreements between us become a habit, OK? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I largely agree with Samwise, with the little expection that I doubt the existance of an objective morality in the Kantian sense, but that's another days screaming fit...
Going over to Wheee...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At the same time, if separation of church and state truly existed, why should we ban polygamous relationships? They do not infringe on other people's rights, and no one is "hurt" by it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, who said everyone in here is opposing it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly, proof that not all Christians think that homosexuality is wrong? The Bible clearly states many times that homosexuality is wrong, so if you are going to include "secular Christians" in that mix you are way too broad in your label of "Christian." Also, perhaps you should refine your definition of a "good theological argument".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Realize that you just slapped a large portion of this community in the face. Deciding who, and thus what is Christian, is not entirely up to you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Im catholic, but not practicing, for my own beliefs. The point is, the best way to fix something is to quesiton it.
Saying that I am a Muslim does not make me one.
Not necessarily, but <i>you</i> are not the one to judge that. For further references on the being deciding whether one is of true belief, see the Revelations.
Wheeee, it's obvious the agenda of the creators of the link you provided. I keep comparing this argument to racism: I have seen similar statistics about Blacks, and how they're convicted of many more crimes than whites, etc. The link is ironic and hilarious, actually: assuming the statistics are true and unbiased (the latter of which they're certainly not), the mere fact that you cited them proves <i>why</i> they would be true. homosexuals want to do something "normal" like marry each other and lead happy, productive lives. People say they can't, because they're immoral people, thereby leaving them no recourse but to live "abnormal" lives. How awesome. "You're g4y -- you can't get married! you're supposed to do things like sleep with tons of partners and spread disease, so I continue to have an excuse to hate you!"
I said that because many people in this thread (I wasn't trying to single you out, but since you brought it up, yes, you) seem to persist in saying things like "it's just wrong and hence should be illegal," without first addressing why "it's just wrong" isn't a valid argument in a political discussion, even though this has been brought up MANY times. Your most recent post is in fact the first time someone has actually tried to refute the separation of church and state, and I think all you really did was prove my point by giving an example of a religion whose teachings should not be allowed to override the law. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, I have never actually said "homosexual marriage is wrong and therefore should be illegal", I have said time and again that legal benefits of marriage should be available, but not the institution of marriage itself because of how our culture and beliefs have defined it over the last few centuries. Consider this: Palestinians have lived in the area now known as Israel for over a thousand years before we decided to take their land and give them to the Israelis. Does the argument that "they were oppressed and therefore deserve some recognition" entitle them to land that others have owned for generations?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think all you really did was prove my point by giving an example of a religion whose teachings should not be allowed to override the law.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who is to determine this?
Wheeee, it's obvious the agenda of the creators of the link you provided. I keep comparing this argument to racism: I have seen similar statistics about Blacks, and how they're convicted of many more crimes than whites, etc. The link is ironic and hilarious, actually: assuming the statistics are true and unbiased (the latter of which they're certainly not), the mere fact that you cited them proves <i>why</i> they would be true. homosexuals want to do something "normal" like marry each other and lead happy, productive lives. People say they can't, because they're immoral people, thereby leaving them no recourse but to live "abnormal" lives. How awesome. "You're g4y -- you can't get married! you're supposed to do things like sleep with tons of partners and spread disease, so I continue to have an excuse to hate you!" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Disco, please. Keep it civil.
Correct. However, saying that you are a Muslim, and accepting Mohammed as the prophet of God, does, I'd say.
Correct. However, saying that you are a Muslim, and accepting Mohammed as the prophet of God, does, I'd say. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
By accepting Mohammed as prophet of God, you also inherit the responsibility to believe his teachings. Saying one thing and believing another does not make what you say true.
The "institution of marriage" is something the state does not have the power to legislate. The legal contract of marriage is. Your culture and beliefs can say anything they want about homosexual marriage, but that has as much bearing on *legal* marriage as religious beliefs do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Consider this: Palestinians have lived in the area now known as Israel for over a thousand years before we decided to take their land and give them to the Israelis. Does the argument that "they were oppressed and therefore deserve some recognition" entitle them to land that others have owned for generations?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you're saying that by getting married, homosexuals will be robbing marriage from heterosexuals...? You use very strange examples. Use one that involves one group getting something WITHOUT negatively impacting another group.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think all you really did was prove my point by giving an example of a religion whose teachings should not be allowed to override the law.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who is to determine this?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The principle of separation of church and state. The US constitution. Religious teachings do NOT override law, as far as the state is concerned. That is the point I was trying to make, and that is the point you supported by bringing up Heaven's Gate. Separation of church and state does not mean you have the right to practice your religion however you like regardless of the law - in fact, it's <b>exactly the opposite</b>. The law has no authority to regulate religion in and of itself, nor does religion have authority to regulate the law. Voters CAN alter laws, but only insofar as those laws do not violate the higher authority of the US constitution (whose prime purpose, in fact, is to say what laws are and aren't fair game).
Correct. However, saying that you are a Muslim, and accepting Mohammed as the prophet of God, does, I'd say. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By accepting Mohammed as prophet of God, you also inherit the responsibility to believe his teachings. Saying one thing and believing another does not make what you say true. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your personal rights end where another persons rights begin. Your right of free speech or opinion end where another persons religious rights come into the picture.
You are <i>not</i> entitled to judge another persons religious convictions, you are <i><b>not</b></i> entitled to tell someone he or she isn't part of a religious community he or she believes to be a part of. End of discussion.
Back to topic...
Correct. However, saying that you are a Muslim, and accepting Mohammed as the prophet of God, does, I'd say. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By accepting Mohammed as prophet of God, you also inherit the responsibility to believe his teachings. Saying one thing and believing another does not make what you say true. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your personal rights end where another persons rights begin. Your right of free speech or opinion end where another persons religious rights come into the picture.
You are <i>not</i> entitled to judge another persons religious convictions, you are <i><b>not</b></i> entitled to tell someone he or she isn't part of a religious community he or she believes to be a part of. End of discussion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh, let God do the judging of others.
You worry about yourself.
You are <i>not</i> entitled to judge another persons religious convictions, you are <i><b>not</b></i> entitled to tell someone he or she isn't part of a religious community he or she believes to be a part of. End of discussion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, what is your justification for this? Instead of just telling me "You can't do this", give me a reason. If you say "I am a moderator on these forums and I am disallowing you from judging others," fine and well. I can respect that. But I cannot respect someone who says in a blanket generalization "You can't do this....because, well, you can't"
You worry about yourself. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I haven't read the Bible for many a year, but that's the impression I got too..
[offtopic]
Y'know, this <i>is</i> oddly remniscent of the late "Discussion Forum", but with less shouting..
[/offtopic]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The principle of separation of church and state. The US constitution. Religious teachings do NOT override law, as far as the state is concerned. That is the point I was trying to make, and that is the point you supported by bringing up Heaven's Gate. Separation of church and state does not mean you have the right to practice your religion however you like regardless of the law - in fact, it's <b>exactly the opposite</b>. The law has no authority to regulate religion in and of itself, nor does religion have authority to regulate the law. Voters CAN alter laws, but only insofar as those laws do not violate the higher authority of the US constitution (whose prime purpose, in fact, is to say what laws are and aren't fair game).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, I'm not following your logic here. How does the principle of separation of church and state mean that the state can intervene in religious affairs? To deny a religion the right to practice? Isn't that what the separation of church and state is supposed to prevent? Am I being naive?
No, the state can NOT intervene in religious affairs.
Illegalizing homosexual marriage IS intervention in religious affairs, because it's passing a law based on the religious convictions held by one group.
Homosexuals getting married does NOT prevent you from practicing your religion. It simply prevents you from inflicting the dogma of your religion upon <b>other people.</b> That is what separation of church and state is all about - let everyone practice their own religion, and don't let the affairs of religion interfere in the affairs of state.
you just reversed yourself? I am completely confused now
Simple as that. God gave every human a God given right of choice, for example: the devil gave Jesus a choice during the "temptation of the desert," a choice of power and glory; God gave us a choice to believe in him or not.
I think restricting peope from marrying the same sex is abolishing everything God's freedom of choice is all about and that is what the law is doing. If the American government is built upon a Christian moral system, then they should let homo-sexuals marry and let God do the rest in the end.
There not criminals, just people without a right to marry the same sex.
It may seem odd, but I think we need to respect their right.