| should homosexuals be allowed to legally marry | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
| Total Votes : 24 | ||||||||||||||
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 30
Location: Betwixt the green and blue.
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:02 pm Post subject: | |||||||
What I would personally describe as a discriminating or hateful group would be one that seeks to exclude people from the rights and rites that other people in the same country enjoy the freedom to do based on sex, skin color, or sexual preference. The Concerned Women of America use the Bible to exclude, and work to get laws pased that would exclude Gay people from these basic things that "normal" people enjoy. My favorite quote from one of thier articles:
Oh! No! Under thier thin vail of, "This is for the children," lies deeper issues very reminiscent of people who were against interracial couples years ago.... to strike out against one select (non-criminal-- I am not advocating NAMBLA in any sense) minority, no matter what package you wrap it in-- be it the Bible, save the children, ect-- is hatred. Is discrimination. Is wrong.
Yes, there are a lot of good people in the world, reguardless of faith or faithlessness... I am not saying all Christains are insane, hating freaks that should be burned down... what I was saying is that the CWA uses the Bible as thier banner to attack anyone that doesn't "fit thier moral mold." Plain and simple... and I wouldn't have even brought them into this had someone not used them as a link for a "credible news source"...... of course they would report something that would make Gay people look like sex-crazed beasts.... it is what they want people to think Gays act like! It saddens me that those in this country who have the money to lobby and camapign, are those that don't want to include the whole of the diverse nation we live in, but rather assimilate and mold us into thier image of what a human should be. |
|||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 24
Location: down by the bay....
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2003 5:33 am Post subject: | |
cool. though i do not have a proper rebutal, i think they are at least consistent with their world view, and are people with strong beliefs...do i condone their activities and their promotion of their 'shoulds'? that's another topic i guess. but if they are accumulating support, isn't that the purpose of a democratic society in some way? Free to become a majority, free to remain a minority? but wouldn't you say on the flip side that perhaps members of the gay community are forcing people to accept their mold of what a human being should be? I mean, God forbid someone disagreeing with a homosexual without being labeled a homo-phobe...or how many times have christians been painted as fanatic, hateful, out of date, irrational, emotional and dogmatic individuals in regards to this issue? I think a lot of the clashes arise out of this topic because of exactly that...how each group sees human beings. The bible teaches a point of view, gay right activists perpetuate another...so the sticky thing comes down to, how do lawmakers fit everyone together? but again, living in a democratic society, at least we have the choice to leave the dance when we've had enough...and that's cool! 
|
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2003 8:18 am Post subject: | |||||||
By honestly examining, without pride nor prejudice, the consequences of accepting any variety of "deviant" behaviors from an ample and comprehensive perspective. Politics, by nature, has a very narrow and self-serving focus which limits expression and promotion of world views that lay on a scale broader than the "here & now". The primary reason for this has a biological foundation IMO. Short lives == short vision (another thread maybe). Yet, like any other mutation, every once in a while a visionary is born. Historically, the cultural progress humans have made has been the result of a classic battle: vision vs. status quo. For example: What condition would the worlds cultures be in today without people like Galileo? Or MLK? The status quo is exactly what groups like the CWA aim to protect and, in some severe cases, even re-instate. Much like Cardinal Bellarmine's stance on Galileo's observations, the CWA's short-sighted defense of the status quo is based solely on the premise of a series of beliefs - not facts - not observations - beliefs. So, while not depreciating the value of such beliefs on an individual level, they are, as history demonstrates, by no means an appropriate influence in politics.
By definition we live in a republic. And with that, I'll leave you with a juxtaposition to ponder... ;)
(emphasis added) America: Republic or Democracy? |
|||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 613
Location: New Frickin' Jersey
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2003 6:17 pm Post subject: | |
| aren't you a bit off topic? | |
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2003 1:25 pm Post subject: | |
|
Here is a subject that I have found myself making a "180" on. If you had asked me this question two years ago, I would have answered "No". I have completely reversed my belief on this issue now.
I believe all people, straight, bi, and gay, have the right to the pursuit of happiness. I also believe it is possible for people of the same gender to love each other. When that occurs, why shouldn't they have the right to live together, legally as spouses? Who does it harm? Isn't there more harm caused to the individuals who are closest to the situation if they are prevented from legally bonding in the first place? As for adopting children, I believe that a gay couple is certainly capable of providing a loving, caring home environment for a child. There are thousands of "heterosexual homes" in todays society where children are present but love, kindness, and caring aren't. One only needs to look at the news each night, or read the newspaper stories on domestic violence to know that heterosexual couples don't have the corner on righteousness. I do agree with those who have said "it shouldn't be forced down our throats". Sexual preference isn't an issue that should be forced on anyone. It is primarily for this reason that I am opposed to what Sears does on an annual basis when they celebrate "Sears Gay & Lesbian Week". This years' "event" coincided with "Bring Your Children To Work Day" at Hoffman Estates. As parents with young children walked through the atrium on their way to the cafeteria for lunch, they were surrounded by large pictures on the walls of "famous gays and lesbians", a couple of large hanging gay flags, and professionally made banners with Sears official corporate logo announcing that Sears supports Gay, Bi, and Lesbian Week. I witnessed several children (in the 7-10 yr old range) stopping to look at the photos and read the posters. The parents, who were there to have an enjoyable lunch with their children, suddenly found themselves in the position of having to explain what this was all about. By having those two events at the same time, Sears determined when it was the appropriate time for this discussion, not the parents. I think the question that needs to be asked is..... IS SEXUAL PREFERENCE OR A LIFESTYLE CHOICE AN APPROPRIATE THING FOR SEARS TO BE SUPPORTING? If so, shouldn't Sears also have "Heterosexual Week"? I can't think of a more personal topic than sexual preference. And I certainly can't think of a topic that is more the business of families and not Sears Roebuck and Company. FOOTSOLDIER |
|
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 30
Location: Betwixt the green and blue.
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2003 1:40 pm Post subject: | |||
That is a slightly strange thing for a store to do, but I will offer this as possible insight to your other pondering: Why "Gay Pride" weeks and not "Straight Pride" weeks? The same reason that we have Black History Month (which people also said, "OK, they have thier rights...why do they have to flaunt it!?).... To turn the attention to positive influences in a minority catagory. I agree that there shouldn't be any need to seperate gender, race, or sexual preference when talking about a person's achievements, rights, etc.... but when the country is coming around in it's infant stages of acceptance, things like this can be a positive, educational, way of teaching about minorities. It is also said that forgetting history only dooms us to repeat it... by reminding people of atrocities (another aspect of awareness months) that happened because someone was Black, Jewish, Gay, a woman, etc, it reminds us that we are not angels, and we have the ability to do great harm to people just because we think it is "right" at the time.... As for showing children the pictures.... I remember a time when kids would hear about Black Equality in school, only to go home to parents using the "N" word and preaching about segregation. I don't always believe that the parent knows what is best... and this might be the only "other side of the coin" information the child is allowed to see... so that they may make up thier own mind. |
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2003 1:57 pm Post subject: | |
|
Thank you for your thoughtful post.
I guess I took exception to the timing of the two events and, whether intentional or not, Sears put itself in the position of knowing what was best for the children and not the parents. I agree that not all parents are going to instruct their children in a tolerant and accepting manner, but it is their responsibility as parents not Sears. It is the parents right to decide when the time is right, or if the time is ever right, not Sears. IMO 
"Footie" |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 395
Location: Still on The Hill (Ya Think?)
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2003 6:10 am Post subject: | |
|
Ok,
Can a turtle swim, or a rabbit hop? Think, before you try to judge, Ratchet |
|
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: I would tell you, but than I would have to kill you!
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 2:08 am Post subject: | |
I would comment on this. but I am not sure where to begin 
|
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 12:48 am Post subject: | |
|
I thought this would lighten thinks up a bit and still be topical........since just a few minutes ago a gay bishop was elected...
Episcopal Church Appoints First Openly-Muslim Bishop (2003-08-04) -- Bishops in the Episcopal Church today approved the election of the first openly-Muslim bishop in the church's history. The Islamic cleric, who rejects the deity of Jesus Christ, received an overwhelming majority of the vote. A spokesman for the Episcopal Church said the move demonstrates, "Our church is open to all people, regardless of their beliefs, or whether they accept the teachings of the Bible." The election of the Muslim bishop comes as the church stands ready to approve its first homosexual Bishop, V. Gene Robinson. Later today, the bishops plan to vote on the election of the church's first openly-atheist bishop. |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 24
Location: down by the bay....
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 3:55 am Post subject: | |
well...that's certainly interesting.  i guess...
in a bid to become inclusive, i wonder how they'll redefine themselves or maintain their disctinctiveness as a religious group when a member of their council holds diametrically opposite convictions as a muslim/atheist... i wonder how many pepsi workers prefer coke? |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 4:01 am Post subject: | |
|
Kenzo that post was from Scrappleface.com it is a comedy editorial...sorry for the confusion......
|
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 4:02 am Post subject: | |
LMAO! 
Awesome! |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 24
Location: down by the bay....
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 4:04 am Post subject: | |
|
ic...
i prefer coke though... |
|