Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage [Archive]

Uesugi Kenshin

04-07-2009, 20:22

That's right, through the legislature.

Before today Vermont had only legalized civil unions, and now my home state has legalized gay marriage, overriding a veto to do so. The result was a 23-5 vote in the State Senate and 100 to 49 in the House, even though the bill initially passed with less than two-thirds supports. I for one am very glad this has finally happened and hope that Vermont will continue to lead the way in providing its citizens with equal rights and opportunity.

Here's a link to the Burlington Free Press, and as a little background I would guess it is a fairly liberal rag, but I can't stand the thought of posting a link to my hometown newspaper because it does such a terrible job of reporting the news.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090407/NEWS03/90407016

Strike For The South

04-07-2009, 20:32

Uesugi Kenshin

04-07-2009, 21:40

How the system is supposed to work :thumbsup:

Yeah right?

I mean ideally for someone supporting the bill (me) the governor never would have threatened to veto, but we did it right this time. The only problem I can see in the way this went is that groups outside of Vermont tried to get involved and apparently spent money in the state, but I can't say how big the presence was as I wasn't back home.

I'm sure there will be some complaints that this didn't go to the people, but they'll probably be sparse and people will move on just as they did after the Civil Union bill.

Samurai Waki

04-08-2009, 02:39

I'm guessing we'll be seeing a domino affect happening here with a lot of other states. This is very good news in my eyes.

seireikhaan

04-08-2009, 02:42

Good for Vermont. :yes:

Not sure how this will end up being received by other states, but I hope it at least restores a bit of confidence in state legislatures as opposed to letting the courts do everything.

a completely inoffensive name

04-08-2009, 02:47

Iowa now Vermont. I thought California was going to set the movement back for a bit, but I guess I have been proved wrong.

LittleGrizzly

04-08-2009, 02:53

Vermont FTW!!

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-08-2009, 03:03

Can someone outline the differences between marriage and civil union in the United States for me?

a completely inoffensive name

04-08-2009, 03:06

Can someone outline the differences between marriage and civil union in the United States for me?

From Dictionary.com
Marriage:
The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Civil Union:
A legal union of a same-sex couple, sanctioned by a civil authority.

Lemur

04-08-2009, 03:45

Well, even though Vermont's decision was about as democratic as it can get, apparently the whole thing is a plot by rich hummasexuals to destroy democracy. No, really (http://www.frc.org/pressrelease/frc-urges-citizen-action-following-votes-in-vermont-dc).

Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins today condemned the vote of the Vermont State Legislature to overturn the Governor's veto on same-sex "marriage" as well as the vote by the District of Columbia City Council to recognize same-sex marriages performed in the 50 states.

"Same-sex 'marriage' is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well."

Remember kids, eat your crazy flakes every morning and maybe you too can grow up to be Tony Perkins.

-edit-

And I am forced to ask again, why is it that every group with the word "family" in its title is, without exception, completely nuts?

ICantSpellDawg

04-08-2009, 14:22

The Vermont decision sounds legitimate. I still oppose the measure, but that is how a Democratic Republic works. We're starting to catch on, eh?

The people of Vermont have the right to govern themselves and not be governed by tiny cadres of people using technicalities to overwhelm democratic consent.

I congratulate the people of Vermont for asking the right people to ammeliorate their issues - themselves. They got the wrong answer mind you, but we can't all be right 100% of the time.

CountArach

04-08-2009, 14:27

Bravo!

Nate Silver (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html) runs some numbers (using polling and demographic variables) on when States could be expected to vote down a gay marriage ban (Not legalise gay marriage, just declare it not-illegal):

Marriage bans, however, are losing ground at a rate of slightly less than 2 points per year. So, for example, we'd project that a state in which a marriage ban passed with 60 percent of the vote last year would only have 58 percent of its voters approve the ban this year.

[...]

The model predicts that by 2012, almost half of the 50 states would vote against a marriage ban, including several states that had previously voted to ban it. In fact, voters in Oregon, Nevada and Alaska (which Sarah Palin aside, is far more libertarian than culturally conservative) might already have second thoughts about the marriage bans that they'd previously passed.

By 2016, only a handful of states in the Deep South would vote to ban gay marriage, with Mississippi being the last one to come around in 2024.

rvg

04-08-2009, 17:21

I wonder if we're gonna see an amendment on the ballot in November.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-08-2009, 17:30

The Vermont decision sounds legitimate. I still oppose the measure, but that is how a Democratic Republic works. We're starting to catch on, eh?

The people of Vermont have the right to govern themselves and not be governed by tiny cadres of people using technicalities to overwhelm democratic consent.

I understand the point of view that the legislature should be involved. It makes sense. But isn't the "technicality" being used in these cases the concept of "equal rights"? Isn't the purpose of the court system, and of having rights in the constitution, to protect against a democratic majority when that majority infringes on a group of peoples rights?

Reverend Joe

04-08-2009, 18:18

From Dictionary.com
Marriage:
The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
Does that mean that all churches will have to recognize same-sex marriage? Because that's wrong.

Otherwise, though, sounds like good news to me.

Louis VI the Fat

04-08-2009, 18:29

Vermont, it's bigger than Texas! :us-vermont:

And I am forced to ask again, why is it that every group with the word "family" in its title is, without exception, completely nuts?When the fascist Vichy traitors were installed, the very first thing they did was to chance 'liberty, equality, fraternity' to 'family, work, fatherland'. Quite literally so, as the Republic's ancient motto is physically present everywhere, much to the chagrin of family value groups, who somehow consider 'fraternity' a grave threat to 'family'.

'Family' is a watchword for the far-right everywhere. The antithesis to liberty. It is never about family values, it is about an attack on diversity, individuality, and personal freedom.

GeneralHankerchief

04-08-2009, 18:32

Good that they did it the right way. :yes:

Lemur

04-08-2009, 19:45

More reaction from the rightwing crazysphere (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94268#):

There is a rising tide of pink fascism in this country, and it comes as a result of the election of Barack Hussein Obama. Obama has signaled that during his reign it will be acceptable to impose gay marriage on the people of the United States. He's being very cleverly used as a tool of the gay puppet masters. He is personally masculine, has a beautiful family and was used by the gay mafia to convince real American families that they should support him.

And now that Obama the Trojan horse has been taken inside the gates, so to speak, the contagion from within his administration is spreading throughout the country. One state at a time seems to be falling. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, California is teetering on the brink. Will Texas be next? Will Obama say that in order to make up for the oppression caused by slavery that the Deep South will now have to accept gay marriage under duress? Is this a sexual reconstruction of the entire country? Don't ask, because Obama won't tell.

seireikhaan

04-08-2009, 19:47

the gay mafia
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Strike For The South

04-08-2009, 19:48

If Texas passes a gay marriage bill I'll be the first one to get married. :laugh4:

BigTex

04-08-2009, 21:44

If Texas passes a gay marriage bill I'll be the first one to get married. :laugh4:

:sweetheart::belly:

I mean the tax breaks would be amazing.

Good for Vermont though, now I wonder if this will turn into another CA mess though.

PowerWizard

04-08-2009, 22:06

Yet another step to make the term "marriage" meaningless. Congratulations to Vermont for "legalizing" nonsense!

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-08-2009, 22:07

From Dictionary.com
Marriage:
The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Civil Union:
A legal union of a same-sex couple, sanctioned by a civil authority.

Yes, I know what the words mean, I was wondering about different benefits, state involvement in each, etc.

Meneldil

04-08-2009, 22:21

Vermont is awesome. As it is a former french state, I'm not surprised :clown:

Uesugi Kenshin

04-08-2009, 22:23

On to the differences. I believe Civil Unions were treated the same way under Vermont law, but federal law did not recognize these unions. I'm not sure if this bill actually changes anything, though the it will perhaps be recognized more broadly? I am not sure. What I do know is that the federal government basically does not recognize any sort of same-sex union.

An interesting note, Civil Unions are now going to be made null and void though with a little paperwork people can have their civil union become a marriage without any special ceremony. So in the future Vermont will only offer marriage with no distinction between same-sex and hetero marriages.

Does that mean that all churches will have to recognize same-sex marriage? Because that's wrong.

Otherwise, though, sounds like good news to me.

No, the bill specifically states that churches are not required to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Reverend Joe

04-08-2009, 22:27

Yet another step to make the term "marriage" meaningless. Congratulations to Vermont for "legalizing" nonsense!

Apparently it's only a legal term. If churches aren't required to perform ceremonies or recognize same-sex marriages, then marriage between a man and a woman is just as meaningful as before.

Besides which, I thought marriages were supposed to be economic unions of convenience that had absolutely nothing to do with love or companionship; so what's the big deal?

Lemur

04-08-2009, 22:50

Besides which, I thought marriages were supposed to be economic unions of convenience that had absolutely nothing to do with love or companionship; so what's the big deal?
Ah, finally, a post from someone who's been married a while. It's true, after a decade or so, it's very hard to maintain crazy romance. That out-of-your-head flush of emotion that you felt for the first year or so? Yeah, that's gone. It's okay though. A slow burn is better than a forest fire in the long run.

Reverend Joe

04-08-2009, 23:03

Ah, finally, a post from someone who's been married a while. It's true, after a decade or so, it's very hard to maintain crazy romance. That out-of-your-head flush of emotion that you felt for the first year or so? Yeah, that's gone. It's okay though. A slow burn is better than a forest fire in the long run.

:laugh4: I'm not even married... I just have common sense.

Lemur

04-08-2009, 23:08

My Google skills are failing me, so I'm unable to link to the report, but there was a study of long-term emotions between couples last year. Anyway, the findings were that 90% of people start with crazy love and then mellow into companionship/friendship love. But there was a small percentage of people who continued to feel mad, passionate romance for their entire relationship. For decades.

If we can't duplicate that with a drug, we must kill them all.

BigTex

04-08-2009, 23:16

Rhyfelwyr

04-08-2009, 23:38

Boo!

Well, even though Vermont's decision was about as democratic as it can get, apparently the whole thing is a plot by rich hummasexuals to destroy democracy. No, really (http://www.frc.org/pressrelease/frc-urges-citizen-action-following-votes-in-vermont-dc).

To be fair, didn't the Knights of Columbus play a similar role in California taking the opposite decision on this matter?

And I am forced to ask again, why is it that every group with the word "family" in its title is, without exception, completely nuts?

The religious right has taken things way too far in this respect. When I see these US Christian families sitting eating dinner together and saying grace it sends a shiver down my spine - they say the left wants to attack the individual! I think they are forgetting that 'family' meant an economic arrangement to their Puritan forefathers. But then, I'm maybe not the best to comment, since people tell me my family's like the one in Malcolm in the Middle. :laugh4:

Uesugi Kenshin

04-09-2009, 00:10

I'd just like to add that, in my parents' opinions, there was very little outside influence on this legislation. Apparently there were clergy from both sides testifying before the legislature, but really very little action was taken by outside groups and this bill passed with far less conflict than the civil unions legislation.

PowerWizard

04-09-2009, 00:52

Apparently it's only a legal term. If churches aren't required to perform ceremonies or recognize same-sex marriages, then marriage between a man and a woman is just as meaningful as before.

Besides which, I thought marriages were supposed to be economic unions of convenience that had absolutely nothing to do with love or companionship; so what's the big deal?

Don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with gays. I just find it amusing that gays want marry, despite marriage is between man and woman. I won't go to further explanations why do I think it is, I think it's either self-explanatory or not.

a completely inoffensive name

04-09-2009, 01:03

ICantSpellDawg

04-09-2009, 01:33

I don't understand something. Someone correct me here (which i have no doubt someone probably will), but:
1. Marriage is a social not a civil institution.
2. The people (AKA the society) of Vermont put forth their legislature to make decisions which they believe will vote for the same things they believe.
3. This legislature approved gay marraige.
4. Therefore, hasn't Vermont's society accepted gay marraige by electing representatives who accept gay marriage?

Maybe I should wait until the next state legislation election to see if these guys all get kicked out before this statement can be considered true....

Yes.

Vermont's democratic majority is in support of gay marriage. Congratulations - that is one population out of 50 so far.

I hope that the rest of the nation can hold out against this rising tide - I think that we will be able to unless the courts try to play dirty. There is no violence, we can resolve this issue peacefully, it will just take time and arguement. During the civil rights movement both God's law and man's law demanded equality between the races.

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us. Vermont is legitimate, but judicial legislation is not.

a completely inoffensive name

04-09-2009, 02:34

Yes.

Vermont's democratic majority is in support of gay marriage. Congratulations - that is one population out of 50 so far.

I hope that the rest of the nation can hold out against this rising tide - I think that we will be able to unless the courts try to play dirty. There is no violence, we can resolve this issue peacefully, it will just take time and arguement. During the civil rights movement both God's law and man's law demanded equality between the races.

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us. Vermont is legitimate, but judicial legislation is not.

Ok, I was just stating that last post because I have heard the argument that Government can not dictate what marriage is if it is not a civil institution.

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 03:03

Yes.

Vermont's democratic majority is in support of gay marriage. Congratulations - that is one population out of 50 so far.

I hope that the rest of the nation can hold out against this rising tide - I think that we will be able to unless the courts try to play dirty. There is no violence, we can resolve this issue peacefully, it will just take time and arguement. During the civil rights movement both God's law and man's law demanded equality between the races.

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us. Vermont is legitimate, but judicial legislation is not.

If you recall, racial equality was not supported by a majority for a long, long time.

The same with gay marriage. With time, my friend, with time.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-09-2009, 03:43

To be fair, didn't the Knights of Columbus play a similar role in California taking the opposite decision on this matter?

The Knights support the position of the Church which defines marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman. Matrimony is one of the Seven Sacraments. Though the church also opposes civil unions between same-sex couples, this stance seems less adamant.

Lemur

04-09-2009, 04:12

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us.
I think claiming to know the will of Almighty God is a very dangerous bit of hubris. God is, by definition, unknowable and incomprehensible.

And don't even think of bringing Leviticus into this. I don't see anyone stoning people who gather sticks on the Sabbath. Anyone who has actually studied the Bible, rather than reading off their pastor's Greatest Hits, knows that it is a library rather than a book. I don't know a single serious theologian who suggests that every word is meant to be taken literally.

The entire Biblical argument against gay people rests on Leviticus, and there's a hell of a lot more in that book than sexcrime.

Also, as long as I'm picking on you, how does one "force the issue" with a "superlative"?

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 04:34

[QUOTE=Lemur;2202894] pastor's Greatest HitsQUOTE]

With such hits as:

John, 3:16
He Died for Our Sins
Crumbling the Walls of Jericho (Remix)

Xiahou

04-09-2009, 04:38

I think claiming to know the will of Almighty God is a very dangerous bit of hubris. God is, by definition, unknowable and incomprehensible.That's true, maybe God really wants human sacrifice and cannibalism- but I doubt it. Religions base their teachings on many things including the bible, scholarly discussion, ect. Religions do claim to know some of the will of God pretty much by definition. Look at the Ten Commandments for starters.

And don't even think of bringing Leviticus into this. I don't see anyone stoning people who gather sticks on the Sabbath. Anyone who has actually studied the Bible, rather than reading off their pastor's Greatest Hits, knows that it is a library rather than a book. I don't know a single serious theologian who suggests that every word is meant to be taken literally.

The entire Biblical argument against gay people rests on Leviticus, and there's a hell of a lot more in that book than sexcrime.That's a pretty nice strawman you've built yourself there. :yes:

The entire Biblical argument against gay people rests on Leviticus, and there's a hell of a lot more in that book than sexcrime.Also, not only is that false to begin with, but there's more Catholic (which I'm pretty sure TSM is) doctrine against homosexual acts than what's in the bible.

Uesugi Kenshin

04-09-2009, 04:51

I don't understand something. Someone correct me here (which i have no doubt someone probably will), but:
1. Marriage is a social not a civil institution.
2. The people (AKA the society) of Vermont put forth their legislature to make decisions which they believe will vote for the same things they believe.
3. This legislature approved gay marraige.
4. Therefore, hasn't Vermont's society accepted gay marraige by electing representatives who accept gay marriage?

Maybe I should wait until the next state legislation election to see if these guys all get kicked out before this statement can be considered true....

You're more or less right about this. I doubt any legislators will be given the boot next election cycle over this because Vermont society is, outside of some intolerant patches, at least tolerant of same-sex unions. A few cowards voted against this legislation because they "got more no calls than pro calls" even on the Democratic side. Personally if I had any influence over Corcoran's (a guy who did just that) next election I'd give him the boot, but as this is not an election year I doubt he'll get much of a backlash.

I'd just like to put forward that since the institution of marriage is recognized by the federal and state governments and brings certain benefits it must be defined as a civil and not a social institution. Ceremonies held at churches are social in nature, but the right to make medical decisions for a loved one when they are sick, and the right to file joint tax returns are very definitely not merely social. Were marriage a social institution the only thing one would need to do to get a same-sex marriage is find a church or other religious institution/person who was willing to preside over a, materialistically speaking, meaningless ceremony. That is as I have shown not the case.

a completely inoffensive name

04-09-2009, 05:06

You're more or less right about this. I doubt any legislators will be given the boot next election cycle over this because Vermont society is, outside of some intolerant patches, at least tolerant of same-sex unions. A few cowards voted against this legislation because they "got more no calls than pro calls" even on the Democratic side. Personally if I had any influence over Corcoran's (a guy who did just that) next election I'd give him the boot, but as this is not an election year I doubt he'll get much of a backlash.

I'd just like to put forward that since the institution of marriage is recognized by the federal and state governments and brings certain benefits it must be defined as a civil and not a social institution. Ceremonies held at churches are social in nature, but the right to make medical decisions for a loved one when they are sick, and the right to file joint tax returns are very definitely not merely social. Were marriage a social institution the only thing one would need to do to get a same-sex marriage is find a church or other religious institution/person who was willing to preside over a, materialistically speaking, meaningless ceremony. That is as I have shown not the case.

But if marriage is a civil not social institution, then it must treat everyone the same, including same sex marriage. Brown vs Board of Education stated that separate but equal institutions are inherently unequal. Marriage and civil unions are supposedly separate but equal, but under that ruling it is unconstitutional, therefore same sex marriage is legal and the judges are right to rule in its favor.

That is, like you presented, if marriage is to be a civil not a social institution.

Lemur

04-09-2009, 05:32

That's true, maybe God really wants human sacrifice and cannibalism- but I doubt it.
See Abraham and Issac and then get back to me about human sacrifice. Anyway, your reducito ad absurdium has shaky legs; even atheists know enough not to engage in abhorrent practices. You don't need the Divine to not be a complete monster. Basic moral principles are a priori.

Religions do claim to know some of the will of God pretty much by definition.
The key word in that sentence is "some."

Also, not only is that false to begin with
Asserting something doesn't make it so. Declaring something to be a "strawman" without deigning to back up the claim is poor manners.

There's more Catholic (which I'm pretty sure TSM is) doctrine against homosexual acts than what's in the bible.
And how, exactly, does that contradict my point that "The entire Biblical argument against gay people rests on Leviticus"?

I think humility is extremely important when asking about God and His will. As I said, God is, by definition, infinite and unknowable. Take a look at what he had to say to Job and get back to me. Anyone who claims to know His will in picayune detail is delusional. We should all be humble before the Lord, and maybe even attempt to fathom how little we are capable of understanding.

Anyway, to bring this back to the hummasexual mafia and the destruction of America, every pastor I've ever heard denounce teh gayzorz has done so based on three sentences in Leviticus. Catholics have their own hierarchy and special rules which I am not going to make any attempt to summarize.

This is not a country ruled by clergy, thank God, and this is not a nation founded on Catholicism. Or Presbyterianism. Or Baptism or Seventh Day Adventism or Mormonism or Pentecostalism or the Anglican Union or Lutheranism or Methodism. This is a nation of democracy and laws. If you have a case to make against Vermont, please feel free to make it.

-edit-

Some brilliant person just leaked the audition tapes for the latest National Organization for Marriage (http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.3836955/k.BEC6/Home.htm) advert (at least they don't have "family" in their name). Watch them pretend to be victimized. It's more than amusing.

Tape 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRjVDZxho54), tape 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwqNFBt33o4), and the final advertisement (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AzLrn5JVIo).

Lord Winter

04-09-2009, 06:30

Yes.

Vermont's democratic majority is in support of gay marriage. Congratulations - that is one population out of 50 so far.

I hope that the rest of the nation can hold out against this rising tide - I think that we will be able to unless the courts try to play dirty. There is no violence, we can resolve this issue peacefully, it will just take time and arguement. During the civil rights movement both God's law and man's law demanded equality between the races.

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us. Vermont is legitimate, but judicial legislation is not.

So by extension, should the Supreme Court not overturn anti sodomy laws? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas)

ajaxfetish

04-09-2009, 06:33

The entire Biblical argument against gay people rests on Leviticus, and there's a hell of a lot more in that book than sexcrime.
Well, depending on your choice of translation, there's a pretty good argument to be made for condemnation in some of the Pauline epistles as well. Either way, however, there's plenty of room for interpretation and modern application.

Ajax

Xiahou

04-09-2009, 06:42

See Abraham and Issac and then get back to me about human sacrifice. Anyway, your reducito ad absurdium has shaky legs; even atheists know enough not to engage in abhorrent practices. You don't need the Divine to not be a complete monster. Basic moral principles are a priori.Unless my memory is horribly flawed, God stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaas- so I don't see where "see"ing that will change my view. Where atheists draw their moral direction from is totally irrelevant to my point, which I will re-state: All religions claim to know the will of God to varying degrees. The point of my example was to state that most all organized religions, in general, all maintain that having a basic level of civility towards fellow man is the will of God and I don't think anyone would call that finding hubris. Christianity in general, and Catholicism in specific (again, the viewpoint that I think TSM is coming from) come to an understanding on the will of God from many sources- the bible is certainly one of them, but not the only one. Based on thousands of years of Catholic teaching, I don't think it's overly presumption for a believing Catholic to state that God does not approve of homosexual unions.

Asserting something doesn't make it so. Declaring something to be a "strawman" without deigning to back up the claim is poor manners.I'm not sure what you want me to back up. You put forward the "Leviticus" argument, which no one here made, and then proceeded to knock it down. You don't get much more strawman than that- I think it was pretty obvious to everyone. As to "poor manners" I think it's making the strawman and putting words in someone's mouth that's poor manners- not pointing it out. :bow:

Anyway, to bring this back to the hummasexual mafia and the destruction of America, every pastor I've ever heard denounce teh gayzorz has done so based on three sentences in Leviticus. Catholics have their own hierarchy and special rules which I am not going to make any attempt to summarize.Just because you've never heard or bothered to look for any other arguments doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm not a bible scholar, nor do I want to carry on a biblical debate- as I've said, my religion's beliefs have more to them than just the bible -, but I'll throw you the most common New Testatment reference I've heard just to prove my point that not all biblical arguments are based on Leviticus: Romans, 1 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans1.htm) 26
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27
and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
28
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.
29
They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips
30
and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.

Louis VI the Fat

04-09-2009, 10:50

Why are the Americans even discussing what 'God' wants? Or, rather, what they personally want, disguised as what their god wants?

Isn't that an attack on other people's freedom of religion? Shouldn't it be entirely irrelevant? Why should Americans of different persuasions be kept under the yoke of the personal religious ideologies of other Americans?

Lemur

04-09-2009, 16:23

Unless my memory is horribly flawed, God stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaas
Who's "Issas"? God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Issac in the first place. This has implications which you don't seem to have thought through.

All religions claim to know the will of God to varying degrees.
"Varying degrees" has replaced "some." I think your first version was more apt.

Based on thousands of years of Catholic teaching, I don't think it's overly presumption for a believing Catholic to state that God does not approve of homosexual unions.
Based on at least a hundred years of documented gay, philandering and/or pedophile clergy, I don't quite understand where the Church is coming from on this issue. But it's not my church, so I'll walk away quietly.

I'm not a bible scholar, nor do I want to carry on a biblical debate
But you'll toss some verses out if you think they'll prove your point. Nice. Try this one on for size:

Galatians 3:18: "There is neither Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus."

There are plenty more where that came from. Your selective reading of the Bible is typical of those on the far rightwing. Quote the book when it reinforces your viewpoint, ignore the weird hippie stuff.

I suppose we should spin this off into its own thread.

Did anybody watch those videos I posted? They're hilarious.

-edit-

Why should Americans of different persuasions be kept under the yoke of the personal religious ideologies of other Americans?
As I said, and Xiahou ignored:

This is not a country ruled by clergy, thank God, and this is not a nation founded on Catholicism. Or Presbyterianism. Or Baptism or Seventh Day Adventism or Mormonism or Pentecostalism or the Anglican Union or Lutheranism or Methodism. This is a nation of democracy and laws. If you have a case to make against Vermont, please feel free to make it.
Unfortunately, Xiahou only responds to the parts of an argument that are congruent with his methodology; seize upon a detail that you believe you can disprove, ignore everything else, no matter if the detail is irrelevant to the overall thread or whether you're ignoring salient points. Then doggedly hang on to the point you think you can win, ignore everything else, and concede nothing, ever.

Charming stuff, really.

Lemur

04-09-2009, 16:44

The National Review in 1957 (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/001467.html):

The axiom on which many of the arguments supporting the original version of the Civil Rights bill were based was Universal Suffrage. Everyone in America is entitled to the vote, period. No right is prior to that, no obligation subordinate to it; from this premise all else proceeds.

That, of course, is demagogy. Twenty-year-olds do not generally have the vote, and it is not seriously argued that the difference between 20 and 21-year-olds is the difference between slavery and freedom. The residents of the District of Columbia do not vote: and the population of D.C. increases by geometric proportion. Millions who have the vote do not care to exercise it; millions who have it do not know how to exercise it and do not care to learn. The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could.

The National Review yesterday (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTkyYThkODRiODg1MGI4OTI2NThkNGRiZjIzMDU0OGQ=):

One still sometimes hears people make the allegedly “conservative” case for same-sex marriage that it will reduce promiscuity and encourage commitment among homosexuals. This prospect seems improbable, and in any case these do not strike us as important governmental goals [...]

Both as a social institution and as a public policy, marriage exists to foster connections between heterosexual sex and the rearing of children within stable households. It is a non-coercive way to channel (heterosexual) desire into civilized patterns of living. State recognition of the marital relationship does not imply devaluation of any other type of relationship, whether friendship or brotherhood. State recognition of those other types of relationships is unnecessary. So too is the governmental recognition of same-sex sexual relationships, committed or otherwise, in a deep sense pointless.

Rhyfelwyr

04-09-2009, 17:03

Galatians 3:18: "There is neither Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Spiritually, yes. On earth, Jews have a special inheritance that Gentiles do not. On earth, some people are enslaved, and others remain free. On earth, people are born biologically male or female, and are expected to desire heterosexual relationships (as other parts of the scripture make clear).

Andres

04-09-2009, 17:36

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage

Was God elected? If not, then what does He have to do with legislation?

~:confused:

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 17:53

Why should Americans of different persuasions be kept under the yoke of the personal religious ideologies of other Americans?

:applause::applause::applause:

This is probably the best contribution I've seen.

Lemur

04-09-2009, 17:53

Another cup of hot, frothy crazy from the wingnuts: Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders (http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/904759988.html).

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 17:59

On earth, some people are enslaved, and others remain free.

:inquisitive:

Does this mean we should allow them to remain enslaved?

Also, to the "WELL GOD SAYS ITS WRONG!!!!1" folks, what would your reaction be if Muslims started pushing for all our hot Texan chicks to start wearing those head scarfs?

rvg

04-09-2009, 17:59

Another cup of hot, frothy crazy from the wingnuts: Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders (http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/904759988.html).

Makes sense to me. According to the author, propagation of gay marriage is an indicator of the moral decline, and moral decline within the society causes mass murders. Arguable, but plausible. He even explicitly states that he does *not* believe that gay rights somehow cause mass murders.

ICantSpellDawg

04-09-2009, 18:00

I was merely asking where this push is coming from if not from God's will or the will of the majority.

In fact, it is counterindicated by both. The push seems to be less logical than emotional and appeals to no existing superlative other than the one that exclaims that there is no transcendent morality beyond what exists within the individual.

I reject that position and I reject the idea of Gay marriage. I support Democratic ideals, so I won't say that this Vermont decision is illegitimate.

Lemur

04-09-2009, 18:08

The push seems to be less logical than emotional and appeals to no existing superlative other than the one that exclaims that there is no transcendent morality beyond what exists within the individual.
TuffStuff, could you unpack this sentence a little? I'm having a hard time following your argument. Also, I do not understand how you're using the word "superlative." Could you help a brutha out?

Rhyfelwyr

04-09-2009, 18:17

:inquisitive:

Does this mean we should allow them to remain enslaved?

Of course not, I just think Lemur was confusing spiritual equality with temporal equality. Men and women are quite clearly biologically different, by his interpretation of Galations 3:18 you would have to argue they are not.

Lemur

04-09-2009, 18:24

Rhyfelwyr, you're choosing your interpretation of that passage. Fine by me, but don't pretend it's the only reading.

Apologies for this derailment. Here, something on-topic (http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2009/04/pointless.html):

There is all sorts of empirical evidence (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html) that the public is growing more accepting of the idea of gay marriage. What happened in Vermont yesterday would never have happened five years ago. And it's not hard to see from the age breakdown of poll respondents where this issue is heading. How completely insulated and oblivious do you have to be to think public opinion on this issue is static?

I also love the casual assertion that "marriage is by nature the union of a man and woman," as if marriage is some sort of naturally occurring phenomenon like evaporation or mitosis. Marriage is a social construct. It's whatever we say it is. And it has meant many different things over the course of human history. For instance, polygamous marriage was once very common (still is in some parts of the world). And for many centuries, marriage was primarily a financial arrangement and a way of ensuring inheritance rights. Women were essentially bought and sold. The modern concept of love as a basis for marriage is of relatively recent vintage. And civil marriage is a very different thing than religious marriage (which itself differs from religion to religion and culture to culture). The idea that there is some sort of platonic essence to marriage is just rubbish. Marriage was created by human beings and human beings can choose how they want to define it.

Xiahou

04-09-2009, 18:24

The National Review in 1957 (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/001467.html):

The National Review yesterday (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTkyYThkODRiODg1MGI4OTI2NThkNGRiZjIzMDU0OGQ=):
Oh wow, I get it now! Conservatives are racists and homophobes! :idea2:
That's some biting insight! What blog did you dig that up from? :laugh4:

Why are the Americans even discussing what 'God' wants? Or, rather, what they personally want, disguised as what their god wants?

Isn't that an attack on other people's freedom of religion? Shouldn't it be entirely irrelevant? Why should Americans of different persuasions be kept under the yoke of the personal religious ideologies of other Americans?I'm pretty sure it's called democracy. In general, people don't want their government doing things that they view to be morally wrong, whether it's performing gay marriages or regulating carbon dioxide. :shrug:

Lemur

04-09-2009, 18:27

That's some biting insight! What blog did you dig that up from?
Are you disputing that both articles were published by National Review? Explain, please.

Also, I don't understand how you're using the word "conservative," but then I never have.

-edit-

Best summation (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/the-rights-contempt-for-gay-lives-ctd-1.html) I've yet read:

Remember: civil marriage for gay couples is not some kind of liberal special right. It requires no concession from anyone else; it requires no individual recognition from anyone who disapproves; it coerces no one; it taxes no one; it spends nothing; it takes not an iota from the rights and dignity of heterosexual marriages, which gave birth to gay people and give many of us our sense of morality and duty and civility. If the right is concerned about religious freedom, please reach out to those of us who favor civil equality and free speech and help protect both. But no, this is not what they are interested in, preferring to construct ads in which actors pretend to be people allegedly persecuted by gays for being Christians. Really, this is pure animus at this point — a decision to define a political movement by the people it excludes and the families it despises.

Rhyfelwyr

04-09-2009, 18:36

Rhyfelwyr, you're choosing your interpretation of that passage. Fine by me, but don't pretend it's the only reading.

It is the only interpretation that is consistent with the rest of the scripture.

ajaxfetish

04-09-2009, 18:41

Did anybody watch those videos I posted? They're hilarious.

Doesn't 'a rainbow coalition of people' imply a coalition of homosexuals? They need to work on the connotations of their rhetoric.

Ajax

Lemur

04-09-2009, 18:45

He even explicitly states that he does *not* believe that gay rights somehow cause mass murders.
In an article titled "Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders." Why does this strike me as a classic case of "I'm not saying, but I'm saying ..."?

ICantSpellDawg

04-09-2009, 18:47

I like the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman only. I beleive that defining it as anythign other than that would obviously detract from the concept of marriage that I beleive in.

I don't beleive that my conscience calls on me to support Gay marriage, nor does my religion. If anything I beleive that my conscience and religion stand agaisnt both the practice as well as any detriment to marriage.

I don't see any benefit to supporting Gay marriage for myself or anyone that I care about and I believe that homosexuality is a bad thing to encourage for numerous reasons; including medical,emotional and spiritual.

I do not link the issue to the civil rights movement for women or minorities, nor do I see it as noble.

Effectively I am opposed to it. I disagree with the Vermont decision but view it as legitimate. I will continue to disagree with those in favor of it in order to keep my state and nation out of the business of marrying 2 people of the same gender.

Rhyfelwyr

04-09-2009, 18:50

Yes, the comparisons to the civil rights movement are ridiculous.

rvg

04-09-2009, 18:50

In an article titled "Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders." Why does this strike me as a classic case of "I'm not saying, but I'm saying ..."?

I think you're reading a bit too much into this. He suses gay marriage merely as an indicator of the moral degradation in our society. Then he explicitly blames the *moral degradation* for the mass murders. In other words, both gay marriage and mass murders stem from the same cause (moral degradation), but gay marriage doesn't cause mass murders any more than mass murders cause gay marriage.

woad&fangs

04-09-2009, 18:54

First off, congratulations to Vermont.

Apparently the Wisconsin supreme court will be hearing a case on gay marriage in the next couple of days. http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/breaking_news/446462

I expect the status quo will remain the status quo. The conservatives in the state bought themselves a majority on the court by pouring money into ugly smear commercials in the last two judicial races. It would be rather embarrasing if their trained monkeys on the court turned against them.:whip:

edit: I should have said 2 of the last 3 supreme court races. We just had an election here(my first vote!) and our chief justice was re-elected.

Lemur

04-09-2009, 18:57

RVG, were Vlad the Impaler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler) and Elizabeth Bathory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Bathory) also the result of moral decay? Last I checked they lived in a world where one man marries one woman, and the church's commandments were law. How about Ed Gein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Gein)? He was alive during the yesteryear that most history-impaired people hearken back to, the 1940s and 50s.

It's an absurd argument, and one that crotchety old coots have been making since before the city-state of Athens was founded. "We were much more noble before that darn Parthenon got built! Kids these days don't know a proper sacrifice to Zeus from a broken sandal!"

I can count on two constants in this world: Things keep improving and people keep complaining that everything's going to hell.

rvg

04-09-2009, 18:59

So were Vlad the Impaler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler) and Elizabeth Bathory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Bathory) also the result of moral decay? Last I checked they lived in a world where one man marries one woman, and the church's commandments were law. How about Ed Gein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Gein)? He was alive during the yesteryear that most history-impaired people hearken back to, the 1940s and 50s.

It's an absurd argument, and one that crotchety old coots have been making since before the city/state of Athens was founded. "We were much more noble before that darn Parthenon got built! Kids these days don't know a proper sacrifice to Zeus from a broken sandal!"

I can count on two constants in this world: Things keep improving and people keep complaining that everything's going to hell.

I wouldn't call it absurd. Weak perhaps. Nonetheless, it is not entirely without merit.

Lemur

04-09-2009, 19:03

The conservatives in the state bought themselves a majority on the court by pouring money into ugly smear commercials in the last two judicial races. It would be rather embarrasing if their trained monkeys on the court turned against them.:whip:
We'll see. The vast majority of judges who've been striking down same-sex marriage bans have been Republican appointees. These uppity judges today don't stay bought, that's the problem (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/04/10366).

Massachusetts (Goodridge, 2003) Margaret Marshall, appointed by Chief Justice Gov. Weld (R) in 1996, elevated to Chief by Gov. Cellucci (R);

in 1999 California (In re Marriage Cases, 2008) Ronald George, Chief Justice appointed by Gov. Wilson (R) in 1991, elevated to Chief by Gov. Wilson (R);

in 1996 Connecticut (Kerrigan, 2008) Richard Palmer, Associate Justice appointed by Gov. Weicker (Ind.); in 1993 — Note that Weicker was a Republican during his time in the House and Senate. He won the governorship as an independent.

And today, in Iowa (Varnum, 2009) Mark Cady, Associate Justice, appointed by Gov. Branstad (R) in 1998.

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 19:20

Yes, the comparisons to the civil rights movement are ridiculous.

Not really.

Racial equality? IN MY AMERICA? I don't think so buddy.

Lemur

04-09-2009, 19:22

I like the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman only. I beleive that defining it as anythign other than that would obviously detract from the concept of marriage that I beleive in.
I have been married for well over a decade. To my first wife, thank you very much, as opposed to "conservatives" like Limbaugh (who dumped his third wife in 2004) or Gingrich (who is still with wife #3).

I fail to see how the lesbian couple who live three houses down from me detract from my marriage. I fail to see how them becoming legally bound would detract from my marriage.

Somebody please explain. Will I love my wife less? Will our bond become less tight? How exactly will the private affairs of gay couples damage my marriage?

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 19:25

ICantSpellDawg

04-09-2009, 19:46

I have been married for well over a decade. To my first wife, thank you very much, as opposed to "conservatives" like Limbaugh (who dumped his third wife in 2004) or Gingrich (who is still with wife #3).

I fail to see how the lesbian couple who live three houses down from me detract from my marriage. I fail to see how them becoming legally bound would detract from my marriage.

Somebody please explain. Will I love my wife less? Will our bond become less tight? How exactly will the private affairs of gay couples damage my marriage?

Is marriage a private affair? Why is the public being asked to sanction it?

The private affair arguement worked for overturning the sodomy laws. State marriage rights are firmly in the realm of the public, living together is not. Like it or not, marriage drags the public into your relationship.

Anyone who dumps the mother or father of their children is a sham and a coward. I do not respect the moral authority of Gingrich or Limbaugh, they have none.

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 19:49

Is marriage a private affair? Why is the public being asked to sanction it?.

Why is the public trying to ban a private affair?

LittleGrizzly

04-09-2009, 19:52

I have been married for well over a decade. To my first wife, thank you very much, as opposed to "conservatives" like Limbaugh (who dumped his third wife in 2004) or Gingrich (who is still with wife #3).

I fail to see how the lesbian couple who live three houses down from me detract from my marriage. I fail to see how them becoming legally bound would detract from my marriage.

Somebody please explain. Will I love my wife less? Will our bond become less tight? How exactly will the private affairs of gay couples damage my marriage?

I have been thinking on this and i think i have come up with the answer...

People who believe gay marriage will make hetro marriage less will through thier own self belief see less value in marriage if gays get married... so its a self fufilling propehcy for them...

Don't worry yours and other marriages which don't see gay marriage as an insult to marriage will value marriage just as much as before!

tibilicus

04-09-2009, 20:02

Yes, the comparisons to the civil rights movement are ridiculous.

Really?

So you would choose to accept a person regardless of the colour of their skin but wouldn't accept someone because of their sexuality?

:inquisitive:

Rhyfelwyr

04-09-2009, 20:10

Really?

So you would choose to accept a person regardless of the colour of their skin but wouldn't accept someone because of their sexuality?

Yes. :shrug:

Your skin colour says nothing about your character, it's not an action. On the other hand, homosexuality is an act and often a lifestyle, don't try to tell me homosexuals act just like anyone else.

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 20:17

Yes. :shrug:

Your skin colour says nothing about your character, it's not an action. On the other hand, homosexuality is an act and often a lifestyle, don't try to tell me homosexuals act just like anyone else.

How many gays do you know? I know plenty, and they live the same as my straight friends. Eat the same food, watch the same movies, many even dress the same.

You seem to be making homosexuals out into animals rather than people. :inquisitive:

LittleGrizzly

04-09-2009, 20:17

homosexuality is an act and often a lifestyle,

Is an act... people go through thier whole lives pertending to have a sexual orientation ?

I don't doubt there are some who choose to be gay.. or who just don't really mind if thier with a man or a woman.. but for some people it is who they are as much as you didn't choose to be hetorsexual...

don't try to tell me homosexuals act just like anyone else.

Don't try to tell me whites act just like anyone else
dont try to tell me blacks act like just anyone else
dont try to tell me asians act like anyone else
dont try to tell me disabled people act like anyone else

All these groups share lots of similaritys but there are characteristics common or more common within the groups... my point people born with little differences act different..

don't try to tell me homosexuals act just like anyone else.

Lemur

04-09-2009, 20:19

Is marriage a private affair? Why is the public being asked to sanction it?
Marriage is public and private.

The private affair arguement worked for overturning the sodomy laws.
Note that the majority of sodomy laws also banned you from performing orally on your wife. People did hard time for that. No, really (http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/sodomy.html). I'm ashamed that we ever had such laws on the books in any state.

Like it or not, marriage drags the public into your relationship.
Fair point, fair point. That said, however, if I had to petition my township or my state to marry the woman I love, I would feel an anger that is hard to even begin put in words.

I'll concede that marriage is both public and private, that's an excellent point you make. So if you're opposed to public recognition of marriage in this case, how would you address the private side? If people want to live in monogamous, long-term relationships, why should we discourage that?

Do you think heterosexual men like you and me would behave differently if it were illegal for us to marry? Would that be desirable? If not, why should we encourage the exact behavior that we find undesirable in the gay population?

And once again, how will two old coots finally getting married materially affect my relationship with my wife?

Rhyfelwyr

04-09-2009, 20:29

How many gays do you know? I know plenty, and they live the same as my straight friends. Eat the same food, watch the same movies, many even dress the same.

You seem to be making homosexuals out into animals rather than people. :inquisitive:

I've met a few. I don't think they are animals, I just think their sexual preferences impact more on their personality than, say, their skin colour. To be frank, most of them were the drama queen type. There was one person on work experience who was a genuinely nice guy. But then, he was also, em, flamboyant, which is part of his character.

I didn't say its all bad, but if we're being honest, homosexuals do tend to be different.

homosexuality is an act and often a lifestyle,

Is an act... people go through thier whole lives pertending to have a sexual orientation ?

I don't doubt there are some who choose to be gay.. or who just don't really mind if thier with a man or a woman.. but for some people it is who they are as much as you didn't choose to be hetorsexual...

For all the "OMG Christians say people choose to be gay" comments, there isn't really any convincing proof that it isn't a choice. I also don't buy the 'population control' argument, since it's seeen in all cultures in all times and socioeconomicgeographicblabla situations, and humans must have been in short supply in the old hunter-gatherer days. I didn't choose to be heterosexual because that is the default for any person.

[don't try to tell me homosexuals act just like anyone else.

Don't try to tell me whites act just like anyone else
dont try to tell me blacks act like just anyone else
dont try to tell me asians act like anyone else
dont try to tell me disabled people act like anyone else

All these groups share lots of similaritys but there are characteristics common or more common within the groups... my point people born with little differences act different..

don't try to tell me homosexuals act just like anyone else.

Obviosuly the culture people are brought up in influences how they act, but that's not the same as race itself. People from different cultures do act different because they hold different values, I'm not saying any are superior. If they were brought up in a different culture, they would hold to those values, regardless of their 'race'.

But really, homosexuals do act differently from other people, and its because of their homosexuality. I'm not saying they're evil, but I don't see how this can be denied.

tibilicus

04-09-2009, 20:36

Yes. :shrug:

Your skin colour says nothing about your character, it's not an action. On the other hand, homosexuality is an act and often a lifestyle, don't try to tell me homosexuals act just like anyone else.

lol..

I know gay people and they're exactly like you and me, minus the fact they prefer to sleep with members of the same sex. Sure some act more camp, but that can probably be explained due to the fact they have a different set of hormones going on. It's bound to make them act a bit more feminine in a mans case or masculine in a women's. You also give me the impression you've been living under a rock if you think that great stereotype applies to all homosexual people. Out of the gay people I know, I can honestly say non of them act so differently that they stand out as gay, If you met any of them you probably wouldn't tell to be honest.

To also suggest it's a lifestyle choice is ridiculous. Are you honestly saying that some one would choose to be rejected by society and to openly choose a life of prejudice and hostility?

:inquisitive:

Lemur

04-09-2009, 20:38

For all the "OMG Christians say people choose to be gay" comments, there isn't really any convincing proof that it isn't a choice.
Oh really? "Proof" is a bit of a loaded word in the scientific world. There's no definitive "proof" of gravity, but there's a hell of a lot of evidence. So a less guano-filled way of saying that would be "There isn't really any evidence that it isn't a choice." And that statement would be as false as can be.

Fraternal birth order may affect homosexuality (http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20060626/birth-order-may-affect-homosexuality)

Homosexual study cites hormonal link (http://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/21/us/homosexual-study-cites-hormone-link.html?sec=health)

What makes people gay? (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/)

Relevant quote:

Then, in 1991, a neuroscientist in San Diego named Simon LeVay told the world he had found a key difference between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men he studied. LeVay showed that a tiny clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus - which is believed to control sexual behavior - was, on average, more than twice the size in heterosexual men as in homosexual men. LeVay's findings did not speak directly to the nature-vs.-nurture debate - the clumps could, theoretically, have changed size because of homosexual behavior. But that seemed unlikely, and the study ended up jump-starting the effort to prove a biological basis for homosexuality. [...]

In 1993 came the biggest news: Dean Hamer's discovery of the "gay gene." In fact, Hamer, a Harvard-trained researcher at the National Cancer Institute, hadn't quite put it that boldly or imprecisely. He found that gay brothers shared a specific region of the X chromosome, called Xq28, at a higher rate than gay men shared with their straight brothers. Hamer and others suggested this finding would eventually transform our understanding of sexual orientation.

So on the face of it you are correct, there is no proof. But "proof" is a chimera, a misused word that should not be applied in the practical sciences. There is no "proof" of the particle/wave theory of light. There is no "proof" of thermodynamics. There is only evidence and testing. (You can prove things in mathematics, though, and that's loads of fun for the whole family.)

Let me ask you this: When did you decide to be attracted to women? Say you're thirteen or so, and the hormones are just kicking in. Did you lie there in your Yoda-themed Star Wars sheets and ask yourself, "Do I want to make the beast with two backs or kiss boys where they pee?" Please describe the thought process that led you to "choose" to be attracted to women instead of, say, Thai Ladyboys.

LittleGrizzly

04-09-2009, 20:45

For all the "OMG Christians say people choose to be gay" comments, there isn't really any convincing proof that it isn't a choice.

What proof as i have seen lies on the side of it being nature over nurutre but i agree theres nothing concrete either way...

The things that do sway me...

Gay animals... these guys are obviously not in it to look cool

Gays throughout history... despite being looked down on and persecuted with the best of them people were still being gay... these people were either born gay or seriously sadistic...

Friend, in comprehensive school he acted gay all the way through... when i was younger he was my proof that just because people act gay doesn't mean they are gay... towards the end of school he came out....

Now either he had a really long term plan that he was going to be gay or he was just born with it...

Edit: just to calrify though i foun out the other day about another old friend who has come out as gay... i was shocked he had girlfriends ect. and didn't seem at all like he was gay....

I didn't choose to be heterosexual because that is the default for any person.

So are you attracted to members of the opposite sex because its the default or because of chemical reactions that make you attracted to a person ?

Obviosuly the culture people are brought up in influences how they act, but that's not the same as race itself.

My point is that with almost any grouping of people you can find charateristics that are more common in that group of people than the average...

A collection of policemen, a group of ex army vets, some people from highland scotland a group of people born with non working legs...

These people have shared common experience as gays (or disabled or police) they have been eqaully discriminated against or been to eqaully fabolous partys, or buy the same magazines which give them a slight different fashion sense..

Every grouping of people acts slightly different from the norm...

Sasaki Kojiro

04-09-2009, 20:46

Strike For The South

04-09-2009, 20:48

Let me ask you this: When did you decide to be attracted to women? Say you're thirteen or so, and the hormones are just kicking in. Did you lie there in your Yoda-themed Star Wars sheets and ask yourself, "Do I want to make the beast with two backs or kiss boys where they pee?" Please describe the thought process that led you to "choose" to be attracted to women instead of, say, Thai Ladyboys.

https://img24.imageshack.us/img24/2926/williamshakespeareportr.jpg

PLAGIARISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-09-2009, 23:15

Hi,

To all those who wish to use Leviticus as an arguement:

What's the conversion from Judaic silver shekals to £ Sterling, just incase I see any of your daughters in a city and want to rape her?

More to the point, instituting "gay marriage" redefines marriage as an institution. While Western marriage may be monogomous, following the Romans, I know of no culture where marriage has not involved one man and one woman. Which is not to say there aren't plenty of places where people (usually men) can marry more than one person.

So, this is really about changing our language, and thereby our culture.

Samurai Waki

04-09-2009, 23:16

God, I only have but one prayer to ask of you "please let people read and formulate opinions based on logical books relating to the neurological and social sciences behind homosexuality, and not just the bible."

Amen.

Lemur

04-09-2009, 23:31

Another shot across the bow from the crazysphere. Turns out it isn't the gay mafia that's to blame; it's anal sex (http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/04/blogging-gay-marriage.html).

If you take the heterosexual couples who engage in the practice which is sometimes "associated" with male gay marriage, I predict those couples will favor legal gay marriage to an astonishingly high degree. Their marriage is already "affiliated" with that practice, and so the notion of legally married gay men (and the practices which go along with that) does not constitute an extra and unwanted affiliation for their marriage ideal.

So girls, don't let your boys play with your butts, or they may wind up supporting gay marriage. Finally someone's making sense!

Rhyfelwyr

04-09-2009, 23:37

What difference does it make if homosexuality is an inevitable result of either a person's genes or upbringing?

Pretend for one moment that I am an employer. If you are an alcoholic, I am not going to employ you even if your father was a drunkard (purely upbringing). If you lack knowledge relevant to the job, I am not going to employ you whether or not its because you are naturally thick (genes) or you simply didn't get an education (upbringing). If you are mentally handicapped (purely genes), I am not going to employ you. If you are homosexual and act like an annoying drama queen, I am not going to employ you whether or not you chose to be homosexual or if it is in fact a result of your upbringing or genes.

Whether or not they can help it, I'm not going to pretend that homosexuals are no different from anyone else. I'll sympathise with their situation to an extent, but really they are not the only ones in life who got dealt a rubbish hand, and they should learn to deal with it like most others do. People with depression didn't choose to be depressed, its caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain - do we therefore demand that they be employed like anyone else even though they'll be useless half the time?

ajaxfetish

04-09-2009, 23:41

What difference does it make if homosexuality is an inevitable result of either a person's genes or upbringing?

Pretend for one moment that I am an employer. If you are an alcoholic, I am not going to employ you even if your father was a drunkard (purely upbringing). If you lack knowledge relevant to the job, I am not going to employ you whether or not its because you are naturally thick (genes) or you simply didn't get an education (upbringing). If you are mentally handicapped (purely genes), I am not going to employ you. If you are homosexual and act like an annoying drama queen, I am not going to employ you whether or not you chose to be homosexual or if it is in fact a result of your upbringing or genes.

Okay.

Alcoholic: 1 issue
Lack Knowledge: 1 issue
Homosexual and an Annoying Drama Queen: 2 conflated issues

Would you choose not to hire them because they're homosexual? Or because they're an annoying drama queen? What if they're homosexual but not an annoying drama queen? What if they're heterosexual and an annoying drama queen?

Ajax

Lemur

04-09-2009, 23:45

Whether or not they can help it, I'm not going to pretend that homosexuals are no different from anyone else.
Who is making that argument? I don't believe I've seen it. For that matter, nobody argued that black people or Asian people or straight people are "no different from anyone else." Bit of a strawman, that, if you'll pardon me for saying so.

I can't think of any two people who are "no different from anyone else."

Rhyfelwyr

04-09-2009, 23:55

Okay.

Alcoholic: 1 issue
Lack Knowledge: 1 issue
Homosexual and an Annoying Drama Queen: 2 conflated issues

Would you choose not to hire them because they're homosexual? Or because they're an annoying drama queen? What if they're homosexual but not an annoying drama queen? What if they're heterosexual and an annoying drama queen?

Ajax

If homosexuality was no more than their sexual orientation, and the homosexual did not act like a drama queen or have the other annoying traits, I would hire them like anyone else (except in my Godly Republic where sodomy is illegal), and hope he changed his ways, though I wouldn't fire him if he didn't (nobody's perfect). If a heterosexual person acted like a drama queen, I wouldn't hire him.

The issue is I think that homosexuals do overwhelmingly act like that, and since I view homosexuality as immoral I think this lack of morality often reflects itself in other areas of their character. So, I think the "2 conflated issues" are insperable, and are always seen to one degree or another. If some people supress their sexuality, I wouldn't be suprised if far more supress the traits to some extent to get along with everyone else.

Who is making that argument? I don't believe I've seen it. For that matter, nobody argued that black people or Asian people or straight people are "no different from anyone else." Bit of a strawman, that, if you'll pardon me for saying so.

I can't think of any two people who are "no different from anyone else."

It's a matter of degree, being homosexual seems to have a big impact upon people's character.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-10-2009, 00:24

Actually, as far as I know it's illegal in the UK to discriminate against someone with depression.

So I suppose you would have to hire the homosexual.

In any case, I have trouble believeing God is really worried about people's sexuality that much.

Homosexual men are different from heterosexual men in some ways, some of the time, in some cases.

Homosexual women seem a lot less different to heterosexual women.

So, I think you're most worried about the threat homosexual men pose to your notion of masculinity.

tibilicus

04-10-2009, 00:36

If homosexuality was no more than their sexual orientation, and the homosexual did not act like a drama queen or have the other annoying traits, I would hire them like anyone else (except in my Godly Republic where sodomy is illegal), and hope he changed his ways, though I wouldn't fire him if he didn't (nobody's perfect). If a heterosexual person acted like a drama queen, I wouldn't hire him.

The issue is I think that homosexuals do overwhelmingly act like that, and since I view homosexuality as immoral I think this lack of morality often reflects itself in other areas of their character. So, I think the "2 conflated issues" are insperable, and are always seen to one degree or another. If some people supress their sexuality, I wouldn't be suprised if far more supress the traits to some extent to get along with everyone else.

It's a matter of degree, being homosexual seems to have a big impact upon people's character.

Unbelievable..

Have you ever actually met a homosexual person or talked to one for a prolonged period of time? Because your views suggest you certainly haven't and if you have your carrying some sort of hate towards homosexuals which is quite apparent in your posts.

Here's how I see it, you might speak differently from someone, or act differently from someone but how does that give you the right to call their characteristics and the way they act as immoral?

I'm just struggling to see how you can call homosexuality immoral and a life style choice when scientific evidence proves it isn't and even if it was a life style choice, again why should you care so much? How does it effect you?

ajaxfetish

04-10-2009, 00:57

The issue is I think that homosexuals do overwhelmingly act like that, and since I view homosexuality as immoral I think this lack of morality often reflects itself in other areas of their character.
I think this suggests a considerable degree of naivety on your part.

Ajax

Sasaki Kojiro

04-10-2009, 01:10

If homosexuality was no more than their sexual orientation, and the homosexual did not act like a drama queen or have the other annoying traits, I would hire them like anyone else

We aren't talking about hiring though. That would be your business, literally. But gays marrying doesn't affect you.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-10-2009, 01:27

Folks:

Terms like "rape," "buttsex," etc. are pretty "loaded" words. None have been, at least clearly, mis-used or done purely for shock factor, but some of you ARE getting to close to that level. Please dial it back before this thread must retire.

Samurai Waki

04-10-2009, 03:24

The simple scientific truth behind the matter is that men who are so viciously against homosexuality either publicly or privately is most often because they themselves have personal issues with their own gender role, or have had homosexual experiences of their own. Most often hate crimes against homosexuals are committed by people who have either at one point had (sexual) relations with their victim, or have fantasized about having sexual relations with the victim. the most often heard rhetoric by the perpetrators of such crimes usually goes by something like "I can't be gay."

The Wright, Adam & Bernat Homophobia Scale test which were conducted at University of Georgia conclusively revealed that a very large percentage of men were homophobic in some way, but that the bottom 1/3 of test takers who were vehemently anti gay, and had considered themselves extremely pious Christians, also had the strongest homosexual urges (these men had been tested by showing images of homosexual activity while having their Genitals scaled by the Peter Meter.)

When the results were revealed to them, virtually all of them denied the results.

Be careful of who you hate on, and you can deny it all day long. But it doesn't make it true.

EDIT: I should add, that even if somebody does have these feelings, this does not make them gay in way, shape, or order. Cool your jets fellas.

ICantSpellDawg

04-10-2009, 04:36

Sasaki Kojiro

04-10-2009, 04:44

People who are visciously against having onions in their food are most often secretly onions themselves - or the children of onion/human marriages that they don't want to talk about. They most likely dice onions at home and bathe in their juices as well. 78% of them have, at one point, had a sexual experience with an onion.

I know this because not only did I make it up, but it sounds good, demeans my opponents and adds to my arguement. Plus, I heard somewhere that a friend of a friend once read it in some sort of scientific article.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

Would seem to be correlated more with bisexuality. Is just one study.

ICantSpellDawg

04-10-2009, 04:56

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

Would seem to be correlated more with bisexuality. Is just one study.

I thought part of the arguement was that acceptance of homosexuality would have nothing to do with increasing rates of homosexuality in general pop?. If 35 out of 64 heterosexual men could be converted to homosexuality based on that study, then wouldn't the arguement that people can't be converted to homosexuality from exclusive heterosexuality become less legitimate? It could also suggest that there is somethign to the notion that homosexuality can be positively or negatively reinforced with a major impact on overall levels in society - clearly of importance when determining a frivolous change in society's acceptance of alternatives to male/female relationships.

My larger point is that calling those who oppose homesexuality homosexuals is a bit childish.

KarlXII

04-10-2009, 05:50

78% of them have, at one point, had a sexual experience with an onion..

Don't judge me.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-10-2009, 05:54

Don't judge me.

It's okay, you can talk freely...we're all friends here.

How many layers was it? ~;)

Strike For The South

04-10-2009, 07:00

Judging by my tongue.....4

Samurai Waki

04-10-2009, 08:10

My larger point is that calling those who oppose homesexuality homosexuals is a bit childish.

and my point in opposing homosexuality because you have something against it, is also equally childish.

Rhyfelwyr

04-10-2009, 13:30

tibilicus

04-10-2009, 13:47

Yes I think homosexuality is immoral and so this means I'm probably gay. :wacko:

I'm not being "vehemently anti-homosexual", guess what I don't go and batter them in the streets. I'm just fed up with this PC bs because the fact is homosexuals do act differently from other people and if we accept this why can't I "discriminate" against them without the government clamping down?

I don't like homosexual acts because I think they are immoral. I don't expect homosexuals to like me either, because they just think I'm a Puritan :daisy: that's out to spoil everyone's fun and tell me I'm a hypocrite, and so in their own way they think I'm immoral.

Your views are outdated. You also say all homosexuals act differently which isn't true and as I mentioned previously this shows you clearly haven't spent the time to talk to a homosexual person.

You also oppose Gay marriage which is hypocritical as they wont object to you marrying a women so what's wrong with the Gays marrying each other? Why are you so concerned by it?

The fact is if it's the whole religious aspect that worries you then surely it's up to the religious leaders or that particular church to decide weather they want to allow two people of the same sex to marry in their church. This should have no influence on the legal side of marriage whatsoever.

I also ask you to consider this, everyday hundreds of people marry not out of love, but for convenience. For example people marry to obtain citizenship. Now, according to you as long those two people involved are a man and a women it's ok? Yet if two people of the same sex who actually love each other want to get married that's not ok?

It's this kind of attitude that slows down the development of society, in a fashion similar to that often expressed during desegregation in the 1950s.], You say there's a difference but there really isn't. Not all gay people act differently yet your saying otherwise, [deleted portion]. If God really has such a problem with gay people then he needs to tell all us straight people to stop having gay children.

You know what's even more sad about this? If you do have children when your older and say one of them turns out to be gay then I really pity that child. But hey, maybe you could send him/her of the straight camp for the summer?

ICantSpellDawg

04-10-2009, 14:15

Veiws don't really become outdated. At least they don't become outdated due to time elapsed. If you are saying that a view is ignorant, that is one thing - but simply because we live in the year 2009 doesn't mean that we can't hold veiws that are at odds with conventional wisdom.

If Ryf was saying that the current year was 1789, his veiw would be outdated, otherwise I don't see that he is ignoring fact.
That there is no expiration date on veiws is what I'm trying to say.

Lemur

04-10-2009, 15:38

I'm just fed up with this PC bs because the fact is homosexuals do act differently from other people and if we accept this why can't I "discriminate" against them without the government clamping down?
Actually, I think you've got a pretty good point there. Some folks think that not liking a group of people makes you a homophobe, which is ridiculous. You are not required to like anyone. You are not required to accept anyone. People who say you have to do so haven't thought this through.

"Discrimination" is a word crying out for more careful, thoughtful use.

Rhyf, you have my sympathy, if not my full agreement. I've had way too many positive experiences with gay people in my life to ever paint them with a single, negative characteristic. At my last corporate job one of my all-time best workers was a gay dude. Who cares?

But you're absolutely correct, you are not required to like or approve of gay folk, and not approving does not make you a homophobe or discriminatory. It just means you're coming from your own place.

ICantSpellDawg

04-11-2009, 15:47

Actually, I think you've got a pretty good point there. Some folks think that not liking a group of people makes you a homophobe, which is ridiculous. You are not required to like anyone. You are not required to accept anyone. People who say you have to do so haven't thought this through.

"Discrimination" is a word crying out for more careful, thoughtful use.

Rhyf, you have my sympathy, if not my full agreement. I've had way too many positive experiences with gay people in my life to ever paint them with a single, negative characteristic. At my last corporate job one of my all-time best workers was a gay dude. Who cares?

But you're absolutely correct, you are not required to like or approve of gay folk, and not approving does not make you a homophobe or discriminatory. It just means you're coming from your own place.

I keep meeting people that I assume are WAY gay, and they are great people, but it almost always turns out that they are just caring and rather effeminate heterosexuals, usually married with kids.

90% of the many homosexuals that I've met in my life, working in fashion and music (on Long Island), have seemed to have some type of mental illness. I can pick a few that were sweathearts, but clearly deranged by their experiences in childhood (which we would later talk about)

The most seriouly corrupt and sad people that I've met in my life have been homosexuals. That is a generalization that I feel comfortable making because it is based on my own empirical observation. They tend to be interesting, which is a plus - and almost always have flings on occasion with people of the opposite sex for short periods of time randomly - which is bizzare to me.

Strike For The South

04-11-2009, 15:53

I keep meeting people that I assume are WAY gay, and they are great people, but it almost always turns out that they are just caring and rather effeminate heterosexuals, usually married with kids.

90% of the many homosexuals that I've met in my life, working in fashion and music (on Long Island), have seemed to have some type of mental illness. I can pick a few that were sweathearts, but clearly deranged by their experiences in childhood (which we would later talk about)

The most seriouly corrupt and sad people that I've met in my life have been homosexuals. That is a generalization that I feel comfortable making because it is based on my own empirical observation. They tend to be interesting, which is a plus - and almost always have flings on occasion with people of the opposite sex for short periods of time randomly - which is bizzare to me.

How do you know they had illness? Thats like me assuming everyone in New York is a cross between Joe Pesci and Jeff Goldblum.

ICantSpellDawg

04-11-2009, 18:24

How do you know they had illness? Thats like me assuming everyone in New York is a cross between Joe Pesci and Jeff Goldblum.

If I start looking pale and throwing up, you can tell that I am ill. Ill as in not well.

Lemur

04-11-2009, 19:02

TuffStuff, you're perfectly free to arrive at whatever conclusions you like; this is a (relatively) free country, after all. But others may look at you stigmatizing an entire segment of the population and declaring them "sick" and "corrupt" and call you names such as "homophobe" and "bigot." That is their right.

I don't have a problem with either case, and I worry that people want to legislate any of it away. Free, frank and brutal speech is what makes the gears of the mind click. I vehemently oppose Hate Speech legislation for this reason, as well as Hate Crimes.

Freedom includes the freedom to hate, disapprove, arrive at ludicrous conclusions and call people names. (So long as you're willing to take the chaff that will come your way for saying such things.)

Having lived the majority of my life in big cities (Chicago and New York) I've come into contact with more gay men and women than I can count. Some were great people, some were okay people, and some were real scumbags. Kinda like the rest of the population. I don't see a productive purpose to making sweeping generalizations about them, and I don't see how you can possibly hope to be accurate.

That said, it's your God-given right to conclude as you like, so rawk on!

Louis VI the Fat

04-11-2009, 19:35

Rhyfelwyr

04-11-2009, 23:57

What a lot of hatred in this thread.

Lemur' got a point, it's a free country / world and all that. But it all makes me feel very uncomfortable.

Thank God we can safely assume non of the gay-bashers here are Christians, because Christians know the virtues of charity and compassion. :2thumbsup:

It's not hatred I just disapprove of homosexuality and I think I should be allowed to.

Anyway, most people I know are not Christians and they don't like gay people either. Plus my parents are atheists and they think they should all be locked up so I wish people would stop saying "OMG Christians don't approve of everything so they must be hateful!!!".

I'll work with homosexuals just like Jesus did with prostitutes, but I won't deny that what they are doing is sinful.

tibilicus

04-12-2009, 00:35

It's not hatred I just disapprove of homosexuality and I think I should be allowed to.

Anyway, most people I know are not Christians and they don't like gay people either. Plus my parents are atheists and they think they should all be locked up so I wish people would stop saying "OMG Christians don't approve of everything so they must be hateful!!!"

Where the hell do you live?

Rural England?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-12-2009, 01:00

Sasaki Kojiro

04-12-2009, 01:07

He's Scottish, and rural England is not that bad at all.

Our Town Crier is called Big Gay Al, because he's big, gay and called Al.

The most surprising thing about him is his size, nearer to seven than six foot.

Really!?

My picture of a town crier is someone who goes around yelling "2 O'clock and all's well!" and such. What does your guy do?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-12-2009, 01:27

Really!?

My picture of a town crier is someone who goes around yelling "2 O'clock and all's well!" and such. What does your guy do?

He does that sort of thing on special occasions, Mayor's Parade, Rememberence Sunday etc.

Lemur

04-12-2009, 02:57

It's not hatred I just disapprove of homosexuality and I think I should be allowed to.
You are allowed to. Nobody in their right mind is going to try to legislate you into approving of gay people, the gay lifestyle or gay sex.

That said, if the lesbians who live three doors down from me are allowed the legal protection of marriage, I don't see how that affects your right to think and say what you like any more than it affects my marriage. These are all unconnected issues. The attempt to connect them by claiming that marriage is just the tip of a massive, hidden gay agenda is misguided at best, and often dishonest. Michael Savage has been peddling the notion that gay marriage will cause churches to be sued into oblivion unless they wed lesbians. It doesn't matter that there is zero evidence for this, a lot of people who disapprove of homosexuality lap it up, no matter how fact-free the content.

Let's be calm and rational and look at which issues really are connected. Many gays want the legal and financial protection of marriage. Instead of cui bono, let's ask cui malo? And not in some vague sense of "It damages marriage," a slogan that is as empty as Paris Hilton's head. The strip club on Highway H damages marriages. No-fault divorce damages marriages. Men who expect their wives to look like sixteen-year-olds forever damage marriage. Two-career households, in my opinion, damage marriage.

But you don't hear pastors railing against divorce, now do you? That would be bad business. Many of their flock are likely to be divorced. We can't go telling them that they've done bad. No, it's the hummasexuals.

As I said, it's all deeply dishonest.

ICantSpellDawg

04-12-2009, 04:30

But you don't hear pastors railing against divorce, now do you? That would be bad business. Many of their flock are likely to be divorced. We can't go telling them that they've done bad. No, it's the hummasexuals.

As I said, it's all deeply dishonest.

Catholics rail pretty hard agaisnt divorce. That's the problem with so many denomintions, they don't have the size or power to resist popular trends. They've rationalized away their moral authority over the years.

Stand athwart bad policy and moral decay. When people who follow the vast unwashed popular horde make fun of you, stand firm. It is not progress and it makes the institution of marriage no longer mean what many believe it should mean. That reason in addition to the idea that we govern ourselves and send our representatives to make policy for us should be reason for you to oppose this.

If you do not believe that homosexuality is something that should be encouraged then stand agaisnt this.

ajaxfetish

04-13-2009, 00:13

The strip club on Highway H damages marriages. No-fault divorce damages marriages. Men who expect their wives to look like sixteen-year-olds forever damage marriage. Two-career households, in my opinion, damage marriage.

But you don't hear pastors railing against divorce, now do you? That would be bad business. Many of their flock are likely to be divorced. We can't go telling them that they've done bad. No, it's the hummasexuals.

As I said, it's all deeply dishonest.
For the record, the Mormon church rails against divorce, strip clubs, two-career households, and so forth as well as against homosexuality. Misguided on the last, imo, but consistent at least.

Ajax

ICantSpellDawg

04-13-2009, 01:44

For the record, the Mormon church rails against divorce, strip clubs, two-career households, and so forth as well as against homosexuality. Misguided on the last, imo, but consistent at least.

Ajax

A major problem is that certain major christian denominations are as morally bankrupt as their flocks are and don't preach agaisnt the ills that threaten us. They are caught in the same tail slide as the rest of popular culture.

Lemur

04-13-2009, 01:59

Actually, of all the protestant denominations (which means everybody but the Roman Catholic Church) I find Mormons and Episcopalians to be the least hypocritical and conflicted. Mormons because they really do try to live their principles, and Episcopalians because we have none.

(I hope it's okay to make fun of my own church.)

Rhyfelwyr

04-13-2009, 13:44

Presbyterians are sound here in Scotland.

Some of the Baptist churches are a litte bit dodgy... their congregations always seem to be stinking rich with big modern houses, I call them US-style Evangelicals (no offence to the US folk).

Strike For The South

04-13-2009, 14:57

Rhyfelwyr

04-13-2009, 15:59

Your baptists are rich? Well I got the short end of the stick there.

Yeah, but I was only talking about Baptists in Scotland. Of course, they're not all rich, but some of their churches have very wealthy congregations.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-13-2009, 17:03

A major problem is that certain major christian denominations are as morally bankrupt as their flocks are and don't preach agaisnt the ills that threaten us. They are caught in the same tail slide as the rest of popular culture.

Another major problem is that some denominations make a point of "railing against ills" in order to distract from their lack of piety and basic human decency. They are also often self-rightious in their condemnation of others.

Actually, of all the protestant denominations (which means everybody but the Roman Catholic Church) I find Mormons and Episcopalians to be the least hypocritical and conflicted. Mormons because they really do try to live their principles, and Episcopalians because we have none.

(I hope it's okay to make fun of my own church.)

If the Episcopalian Church is like the CofE (and I understand that's a matter of criteria for comparison) then it probably has to do with an effort to minister to the congragation rather than shove hard and unforgiving doctrine down their throats.

That said, I don't like your first-Archbishop, or whatever she's called.

Presbyterians are sound here in Scotland.

Some of the Baptist churches are a litte bit dodgy... their congregations always seem to be stinking rich with big modern houses, I call them US-style Evangelicals (no offence to the US folk).

Nothing wrong with money and big houses, so long as it's earned honestly. Baptists do a lot of good work, even if they can be Christocentrically-smug.

I heard two preachers this past Easter Weekend. One was a Lay-Evangelical, the other the Lord Bishop. On Good Friday I went to the Ecumunical Service at Exeter Cathedral, and the "talk" was given by a man called Derek Burnside. Now, this man is the chief Elder at an Independant Evangelical Church known as Belmont Chapel. The Chapel is very popular with students because it offers practical support, and a very welcoming atmosphere. However, I've been unhappy with what it has done to the Faith of several of my friends.

Friday was the first time I heard this man speak, I wasn't sure what to expect. I have to say I was expecting him at least to be charismatic, he wasn't really. Maybe it was being in an unfamilliar setting, but his tone was combative, then condecending, then rabble rousing. Of all things on Good Friday he chose to focus on how the Cross is out "treasure" because by it we are declared "not guilty" before God, he spoke about "Those of us here who were or are condemned" and "The Seven thing Jesus said on the Cross, can you remember what they are?"

I would have preffered something along thew lines of God's unlimited love for his creation, his dieing for a people who scorned him and his mercy. Instead it was mostly about people.

On Sunday the Bishop spoke about the regeneration of the resurrection, of loss and comfort and of Jesus' desperate lonlyness and anguish when he decended into Hell, only to rise again and conquer death. Actually, the whole service (which was Choral Mattins) was structured around the message of Hope, regeneration and transformation; and of the part Christians have to play in making the world a better and more compationate, more just, place.

Meneldil

04-13-2009, 18:43

I've met a few. I don't think they are animals, I just think their sexual preferences impact more on their personality than, say, their skin colour. To be frank, most of them were the drama queen type. There was one person on work experience who was a genuinely nice guy. But then, he was also, em, flamboyant, which is part of his character.

I didn't say its all bad, but if we're being honest, homosexuals do tend to be different.

For all the "OMG Christians say people choose to be gay" comments, there isn't really any convincing proof that it isn't a choice. I also don't buy the 'population control' argument, since it's seeen in all cultures in all times and socioeconomicgeographicblabla situations, and humans must have been in short supply in the old hunter-gatherer days. I didn't choose to be heterosexual because that is the default for any person.

Obviosuly the culture people are brought up in influences how they act, but that's not the same as race itself. People from different cultures do act different because they hold different values, I'm not saying any are superior. If they were brought up in a different culture, they would hold to those values, regardless of their 'race'.

But really, homosexuals do act differently from other people, and its because of their homosexuality. I'm not saying they're evil, but I don't see how this can be denied.

I'm gonna get edited out and probably receive a warning point for this, but :

"What a bunch of super-utter ridiculous crap".

There, I said it. The simple fact that people can come up with such arguments in the 21th century makes me lose my faith in humanity.

The whole "GAYZ R DIFRENTS, I MET 1 SO I NOW WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT K?" argument belong to the 1950's.

Edit: And things only gets worse after that. This topic is a nice summary of stupid prejudice, biggotry and generalization.

I think Catholic people should not be allowed to marry because they all behave like intolerant biggots. I won't hire them either, because I don't want intolerant biggots working with me. And they're all into paedophilia, it's well known by now. They're sinful, corrupted and ill and should all be locked up.

Rhyfelwyr

04-13-2009, 19:30

"What a bunch of super-utter ridiculous crap".

There, I said it. The simple fact that people can come up with such arguments in the 21th century makes me lose my faith in humanity.

Sorry please don't tell the PC police on me.

The whole "GAYZ R DIFRENTS, I MET 1 SO I NOW WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT K?" argument belong to the 1950's.

No they are still different nowadays.

Edit: And things only gets worse after that. This topic is a nice summary of stupid prejudice, biggotry and generalization.

Yes, they act just like you and me tralala

I think Catholic people should not be allowed to marry because they all behave like intolerant biggots. I won't hire them either, because I don't want intolerant biggots working with me. And they're all into paedophilia, it's well known by now. They're sinful, corrupted and ill and should all be locked up.

Fine, that's up to you, and so it should be.