"You accept my sexuality as normal or you will be labelled, targeted, smeared, and accused of fear mongering as well as instilling hate. We will outshout you and use words such as "homophobe" and "bigot" to guilt you into submission until you show us our version of tolerance."(In other words, you better dam well agree with them)
Ironically they would not grasp the meaning of tolerance if it slapped them up side their intolerant little heads. Tolerance is not neccessarily agreeing with one another. It means agreeing to disagree respectfully. For example I may say to a homosexual:
"I recognise you as my fellow human being and as a contributing member of society. I also recognise that what goes on behind closed doors is your business. However, since you insist on making your sexual prefrences public knowledge on a weekly basis thru your pity parades, protests, and shoveing it in my face thru media I will now exercise my fundmental right to freedom of moral conscience allowed to me under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to inform you that I do not recognise your sexual practices as normal, natural, or Godly. That is my entitled opinion and inherent right to freedom of expression. Would you now care to join me for a cup of coffee to talk about motorcycles and sports?"
As you can see by my response, I have exercised the true meaning of tolerance. I have freely expressd myself, my view, my opinions, and my values in a very non hateful, non fear mongering, and non threatening way. I have displayed my secureness in my sexuality and my willingness to co-exist with them in society. This is all possible without having to embrace their sexual lifestyle.
However I do not expect them to realise that. Why? Not because they can't but because they absolutlely refuse to. Yet another "choice" they make. They proved that once again this week when "TOLERANT" homosexuals and their supporters showed up at Ryerson University to protest the honorary doctorate being handed out to renowned ethicist Margaret Somerville.
What did she do that got the gay masses in a stir? Just what was her appalling, hateful, fearmongering, bigoted, and homophobic crime?
**DISCLAIMER** before I tell you I must warn you the answer is rather disturbing.
Well, she....oh I don't know if I can repeat it....but she....oh here it goes....she DISAGREED with same sex marriage!!!. There I said it. But can you believe it? She actually disagreed with homosexuals. HOW DARE SHE?
She is qouted as saying in her acceptance speech:
"I am pro-gay rights, but I am also pro-children's rights, and same-sex marriage is one of the very few areas where those rights are in conflict,"
"A child's right to its natural biological mother and father can't be set as a value in society if we recognize same-sex marriage."
Did you catch that venomous rant? What hate. What fearmongering. What homophobia. What bigotry. What intolerance! (I hope you all denoted my sarcasm)
Margaret, this is Canada, home of the disgustingly politically correct. You are not ALLOWED TO DISAGREE with the homosexual community. In fact you are not even allowed to have an opinion on the matter if it disagree's with the gay community. You are only allowed to freely express yourself if your opinions and view points line up with theirs. Otherwise they will show up to bully, ahem, I mean protest you into embrassment. This is how they practise TOLERANCE. The following is taken from the Canadian Press:
"Protesters from Ryerson's gay-rights support group, RyePride, joined a group of activists from the University of Toronto as they stood out front of the university's auditorium, some wearing Halloween masks as they brandished picket signs and waved rainbow flags.
As Somerville took the stage, several other members of the official party entered the auditorium wearing rainbow pins and necklaces, while others carried small rainbow flags.
When Somerville was summoned to receive her award, several academics on stage behind her silently hoisted banners and rainbow flags with slogans such as 'My Ryerson honours equal rights' and 'Equality.' The crowd stood and cheered in support of the display.
Several even turned their backs when Somerville was hooded."
There is never a reasonable or logical counterpoint to this ongoing heated debate. If there is then let's hear it without all the (Yawn) "homophobic" terms and endless harrassments they call protests. It is just getting so old and tired already. But, sadly, the term homophobe is the only weak argument they can come up with. Take our token protestor in the crowd with their typical "one line" response.
"Homophobia is not honorary," said one protester. "It shouldn't be celebrated by granting an honorary degree." (Erin Atack, Canadian Press
Published: Monday, June 19, 2006)
You catch that? No intellectual response just typical labelling terms. In other words, the strategy is:
"Let's just call them names until we get our way!"
Margaret Sommerville, I commend you for standing by your beliefs and your principles which you are entitled to in a free and democratic society without expeirencing your own fear of reprecussion from these bullying types (who are the fearmongerer's again?) who refuse to acknowledge their own intolerance towards those with a differing view.
And to the supporters of the FORCED ACCEPTANCE AGENDA...
What can I say? Thanks for setting such a fine example for the youth of our future. By your bullying, fear mongering, labelling, and intolerant ways you continue to display that the best way to deal with an agenda is to bully the opposer's into submission. Clearly another fine example of your tolerance.
Until next time...
81 comments:
I do have to conceed that there seem, at first sight, to me more potential issues from a set of same sex parents than from a heterosexual pair. This is not to imply that I would view the issues as comming from pedophilia or something of the sort.
People are built certain ways. People are built by and for "mommy and daddy".
With this being said, I wouldn't say that there couldn't be many vastly successful homosexual parents just as there are vastly unsuccessful heterosexual married parents. But, there is more "issue potential" in the former case.
This is an example of when you see something and think to yourself "You people really are not doing yourself any favours".
If any group demonstrate and protest about every little thing, then when something comes along that is worth protesting about, it is diluted.
They would of been better served, if they felt they did needed to register their discontent with Mrs Sommerville, in a letter to the Dean of Ryerston University disapproving
of her honorary doctorate.
This action just makes them seem reactionary and as you said, intolerant of opposing views.
Nog:
You make a good observation here. That is... the potential issue's regarding the stabilization of the family unit.
As a father myself I have the humility to recognize that without my wife raising my daughter ...on my own accord or, for sake of argument, with another man that there are obvious things that I cannot comprehend in raising her.
Not because I am a lousy parent but because I do not pretend to understand the things I simply cannot because I am not a female. I am built on testosterone while she is built on estrogen.
How does a man relate to her first menstrual cycle and all the emotional mood swings and body changes she is going thru? The answer is he can't. We know we have to go to a store and make a purchase to address the physical aspect of it but we can't relate to their sudden mood swings and outburst of tears which to us are occurring for no apparent reason. This where a mother comes into her role.
It is no different then women trying to raise boys. My wife originally used to thwart any attempts at my boys being physical with one another. I had to "enlighten" her that first off, they are NOT girls so do not raise them as such.
Secondly, I understand their high levels of testosterone and their need to be aggressive. I throw them outside with a set of boxing gloves and let them "get it out of their system". No harm done and I understand it because by design we are more physically aggressive. We address that thru contact sport and the need for speed. Women do not understand this and , although well intentioned, can end up doing more harm then good when they try to suppress a young male into behaving on a level that only a female can comprehend.
Who knows, maybe this is why in this day and age we have more men then ever confused about their sexual orientation. Their being raised to be women rather then men. (purely speculative)
In short though, I think it sums up the validity to the claim that where the children are concerned (and if they are truly the most important people to be considered in this debate) then same sex marriage loses even more ground in it's quest to be established.
I would like to recommend the following book for you to read regarding this issue. It is very well written and explores a lot of the social implications. It is called "Divorcing Marriage" Here is a little history on the two authors:
Daniel Cere is director of the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law, and Culture in Montreal and a consultant to several North American think-tanks.
Douglas Farrow is associate professor of Christian thought at McGill University, author or editor of several other books, including Recognizing Religion in a Secular Society, and a frequent contributor on social issues to Canada's national newspapers.
For the record, Daniel Cere ( I hope I got the correct author here) is a homosexual opposed to same sex marriage.
I wonder how the term "homophobe" would apply to him in this case?
Lucy:
"This is an example of when you see something and think to yourself "You people really are not doing yourself any favours"
My sentiments EXACTLY. DOH! There we go agreeing again.
"If any group demonstrate and protest about every little thing, then when something comes along that is worth protesting about, it is diluted."
It not only get's diluted it will eventually get completely ignored to the point that those who may have once supported it are now just plain annoyed by it all. I view it as obnoxious.
"hey would of been better served, if they felt they did needed to register their discontent with Mrs. Sommerville, in a letter to the Dean of Ryerston University disapproving
of her honorary doctorate."
It definitely would have been a more mature approach but even then, is it necessary? Is Margaret not entitled to her own views on the subject? Is a University not allowed to present awards and doctorates recognizing achievements and not base their decisions on one's personally held convictions?
Imagine the feeding frenzy the media would have if the award went to a individual in favor of same sex marriage and a group of protestors showed up to protest the award of the doctorate based on their views.
I already know the answer to this one Lucy but I would like to hear your response as a former journalist with the "Left" views. How would media treat this if the shoe were on the other foot?
I'd have to agree with both of you on the protest issue. When you're always noisy, your voice doesn't carry much weight. But if your choosy about your battles, everyone knows that your intentions are honorable and well thought out when you take point with something.
Nog:
I think the other issue at stake here is one's point must be substantiated in order to be considered valid by those you are trying to get it across to in the first place.
Protesting at someone's award ceremony simply because they do not agree or see things your way has to be the most ignorant form of protest.
Unlike the way media will try and present it like this was a worthy cause to protest, the average Joe Canada will frown upon this type of unneccessary conduct.
I believe this will lead to gay and lesbian groups eventually losing all the ground they have gained. Canadians are an apathetic sleeping giant.
They will tolerate ALOT for a long time but there will come a day when they will stand up say "OK, ENOUGH ALREADY!" And the "support" for gay and lesbians will begin to dwindle. They will have no one to blame but themselves.
It is like that child who throws tantrums everytime they do not get their way. Eventually the parent get's fed up and banishes them to their room until they learn RESPECT!
You are right, if the roles were reversed then the lefty media would portray the protesters as homophobic, ignorant and out of touch with a modern and changing world. They would also find the one tattooed person with his face contorted in rage and make a thing out of how people like this protester are the reason why homosexuals feel unsafe and how we need to drive out this view from our nation and isolate these morons.
If i was commissioned to write a piece covering this, i would go with the 'right to protest but pick the protests' angle which i mentioned above.
Lucy:
"They would also find the one tattooed person with his face contorted in rage and make a thing out of how people like this protester are the reason why homosexuals feel unsafe and how we need to drive out this view from our nation and isolate these morons."
Yeah those people are the most obnoxious out of all of them....hey....something is a little familiar here. (LOL)
Nice jab :)
TIO
"A child's right to its natural biological mother and father can't be set as a value in society if we recognize same-sex marriage.
This statement would rule out adoption and step-parenting also, then. Those wouldn't be natural biological parents, after all.
There are so many children who have no homes and no parents at all. Why would you deny them love, from loving couples, on the basis of the adoptive parents' sexuality?
Biological parenthood guarantees nothing. There are some natural parents who are pure poison to their children.
Homosexuality does not equate to pedophilia.
Heterosexuality does not equate to wonderful parenting skills.
And what day in your life did you choose to be heterosexual? I'm sure it must have been a memorable event. Such a decision.
TIO
"A child's right to its natural biological mother and father can't be set as a value in society if we recognize same-sex marriage.
This statement would rule out adoption and step-parenting also, then. Those wouldn't be natural biological parents, after all.
There are so many children who have no homes and no parents at all. Why would you deny them love, from loving couples, on the basis of the adoptive parents' sexuality?
Biological parenthood guarantees nothing. There are some natural parents who are pure poison to their children.
Homosexuality does not equate to pedophilia.
Heterosexuality does not equate to wonderful parenting skills.
And what day in your life did you choose to be heterosexual? I'm sure it must have been a memorable event. Such a decision.
Sounds like karen has you on THAT one. *wink*
Karen,
"A child's right to its natural biological mother and father can't be set as a value in society if we recognize same-sex marriage.”
I think that was Margaret Somerville’s statement from her speech.
“This statement would rule out adoption and step-parenting also, then. Those wouldn't be natural biological parents, after all.”
That’s a good point, but it seems she speaking more to the mother/father relationship to the child. I must agree though, her statement is a little restrictive. To be fair to TIO, his central address was regarding “tolerance” and the fact that a homosexual doesn’t support that specific issue. But, since it’s his post, and the quote he used—he would probably be able to speak more specifically about it.
“There are so many children who have no homes and no parents at all. Why would you deny them love, from loving couples, on the basis of the adoptive parents' sexuality?”
Deny love? I think that’s a red herring. Two left shoes might appear as a pair, but it’s not the appropriate fit. Personally, for me (I do not support same sex parenting), my position is centered on my faith. I know everyone hates it when “religion” is brought to the public square, even TIO tries to leave it on the sidelines with homosexual issues, but speaking for myself—this is where my belief on this issue comes from. So-- TIO will have to forgive me, but sometimes I find it impossible to separate my faith vs. philosophical position.
When I say I do not support same sex parenting, I am not pronouncing moral judgment on the homosexual community. God is the one rendering that verdict. All I’ve done is to agree with God.
Now, I will offer another line of reasoning here. It goes like this:
P1. A homosexual couple does not constitute a "family" (I do not accept that def.)
P2. Children should be adopted into a healthy environment, that is, a family.
C3. Therefore, children should not be adopted by homosexual couples.
Look, it breaks my heart that children are abandoned (especially as a father). It’s worse though, that society wants to place them into such an odd and disparaging environment.
From the Christian perspective, there is a role called "mother" and a role called "father." Both are needed to adequately parent children. Not a father and a father or a mother and a mother. Though, there are situations were its just one mother/father, but those situations are not the ideal family. Social placements should be placing children in the most benevolent environment. There are plenty of heterosexual families desiring to adopt.
“Biological parenthood guarantees nothing. There are some natural parents who are pure poison to their children.”
I think we all agree with that, but there are good heterosexual households and there are bad ones. However, by contrast, my theological position is that there are no morally or psychologically healthy homosexual home environments in which to place a child. The ratio is 100% depraved. Yes that’s harsh, but I don’t see any way to sugar coat it.
“Homosexuality does not equate to pedophilia.”
Who ever said that it does? The problem is that the same arguments for homosexuality can be used for pedophilia. Go to a pro-homosexual website, take the word “homosexual” and replace it with “pedophile” and see how nicely it fits. But to say that they are the same it to argue against a strawman (at lest for someone like TIO).
“Heterosexuality does not equate to wonderful parenting skills.”
Of course not, but do you send a child form one unhelpful environment to another unhelpful environment? here is a study . But any study is subservient to Gods Word. That’s were I stand.
“And what day in your life did you choose to be heterosexual? I'm sure it must have been a memorable event. Such a decision.”
You know-even if homosexuals are born “homosexual” it doesn’t follow that it’s “morally acceptable.” Like I said about pedophilia—taking your statement: And what day in your life did you choose to be pedophile? I'm sure it must have been a memorable event. Such a decision So, doesn’t your argument work the same for pedophilia? If pedophilia is not “chosen” or pedophilia is “natural” is it okay? Well, it’s not. That’s called the is-ought fallacy.
Hi Karen!
I do not recognize the name so I will welcome you into this as a first time visitor.
You quoted Margaret Sommerville (not myself) as BF pointed out the caption:
"A child's right to its natural biological mother and father can't be set as a value in society if we recognize same-sex marriage."
I was in fact quoting Margaret for the sake of pointing out her personal view and opinion and then (as BF was once again quick to point out) displaying the intolerant attitudes towards her for voicing it. She is entitled to that opinion/belief/value whether one agrees with it or not. She is also entitled to it with out the "harassment" of the so called "Tolerant" Rainbow Society!
The intent behind this article was to expose the utter hypocrisy of an ideological movement that preaches this message of "Tolerance" but has no clue how to put it into practice. To them, tolerance is a one way street.
As far as Margaret's quote over all even I am not sure what she meant by "biological". I personally have no qualms against adoption and I think it is a great idea for those who cannot conceive. It is also a great deterrent for abortion.
I would definitely be on side with BF when it comes to the placement of a child into a home with both a mother and father. I personally have experienced the world of having a single mom as well as, for a period of time (year and a half), lived with "Two mommies". No, my mother was not gay, we lived with her best friend who had a kid of her own and I was raised by both for that time.
Did they love me? Yes. Were they good at parenting? Absolutely! Did they do anything for me personally as far as addressing the longing inside a little boy for a daddy? Nope! I loved (still do) my mom but I wanted and needed a father figure in my life. That will never change within the human race. This is part of the reason I feel whenever a child is placed the priority lies with the father/mother family unit. The other part of course is my Christian faith. However, that being said, I have only been a Christian for nine years and yet I felt the same way long before my conversion.
"Homosexuality does not equate to pedophilia.
I have to ask..what is up with this statement? In my last three entry's I have never linked, hinted , accused, or made any connection whatsoever with the two and yet those who hold your position throw this bone at me. It almost sounds like there is an attempt to deflect a cover-up. It comes across as a "defensive" statement.
"And what day in your life did you choose to be heterosexual? I'm sure it must have been a memorable event."
Although I liked BF's response to this, seeing you are a first time visitor, I will humor you.
It was 1977, I would have been 7 years old, me and a buddy found our first Playboy in the garbage can.
I am glad to see you are acknowledging it for what it is....a choice.
Thanks for stopping in Karen.
BF:
Thanks for the input and that link to that study. I will be keeping that in my files.
I skimmed some of it. Alot to read there. I will have to put sometime aside for it.
I wanted to address just two points you made in your comment to Karen. First one was:
" I know everyone hates it when “religion” is brought to the public square, even TIO tries to leave it on the sidelines with homosexual issues,"
I am sure you are already aware I am not one of those who hate it and the other's, well, let's call it what we both know it is....conviction.
One of the main reasons I tend to leave "religion" out of the fold on a topic like this is:
1.) My faith is out there already (just look at my blog banner) so everyone is going to be familiar about my angle.
2.) In order to detract from an ideology/belief I find it more stumping to the opposition when you use their own messages/teachings/ideals/values as a means to demonstrate the conflict from within. Thereby displaying to them how their own philosophy's contradict themselves.
Evolution has to be the best one to go after. I get the usual rhetoric about how because I believe in a deity that this somehow invalidates my argument. (I know, how childish. sounds just like Brian Fleming's "Statement of Belief") But even using their (evolutionists) own science you can dissect the theory into what it is. A "belief" in very long shot. They just hate that. :) They do not like being called "believers". But essentially one can establish just that using their own findings (which they vehemently stand by) against them.
Your second statement:
"So-- TIO will have to forgive me, but sometimes I find it impossible to separate my faith vs. philosophical position."
Brother, do not ever apologize for being open about your faith. If it is one thing I cannot stand is wimpy Christians who go thru life without anyone ever knowing they were a believer. Wear it on your sleeve bro as often as you like.
My articles may not always be "religious" in context but I have still written some and plan to do more. The Christian perspective is just as welcome as the atheists. (even though they got it wrong LOL)
ITO
Thank you for the welcome. I have lurked for a while, after reading some of your comments at BF's blog, but that was my first official visit.
I like your tats.
I had started with a response to BF, but lost it when I linked to his study. I may get back to that, but it was rahter lengthy, so I'll just start again with you.
I know I was quoting Ms. Somerville and not you. Sorry I didn't make myself clear.
I thought her statement was rather intolerant of itself, and since you used it representing her views in a post about intolernace, I found that ironic.
Certainly she is entitled to her opinion. But as someone in the public eye, making pronouncements upon the public, she opens herself up for public protests from those she maligns. If she had specifically mentioned adoptive parents in her statement, some of them would probably have been present to protest her honorary doctorate also.
I understand it would have been ever so much more polite for all the protestors to simply mail their thoughts to the lady. But that does nothing to get attention for the cause does it?
To them, tolerance is a one way street. In your own little "tolerance" speech, you say, "I do not recognise your sexual practices as normal, natural, or Godly". So because YOU don't recognise it, it isn't so?
May I touch your crown?
Even though you did not bring it up, I said that homosexuality doesn't equate to pedophilia because that is often used as an argument against gay marriage and gay adoption. Perhaps it was a defensive statement as I was sort of heading it off at the pass.
It was 1977, I would have been 7 years old, me and a buddy found our first Playboy in the garbage can.
I am glad to see you are acknowledging it for what it is....a choice.
It would have been a choice if you had found both a Playoy and a Playgirl, and said, "Nah, THAT one doesn't do anything for me, but THIS one..."
I will address BF's response to that here also, as I hadn't got that far yet in what I'd lost.
The problem with pedophilia is that it involves someone who is without the cognitive ability to give informed consent. I really don't know if people are born or made pedophiles-maybe there are cases for both.
Every person I know-who I've talked to about it- feels they were born with their particular sexuality, be it straight, gay, bi, or trans. It is not a choice. I know some who have tried to fight their persuasion, with no success, in order to fit in.
In any event, the homosexual is not harming, or taking advantage of anyone in his/her relationship with another adult homosexual. The pedophile, it can be argued, does both.
Ok, BF, back to you.
Hi! First of all.
Deny love? I think that’s a red herring.
Howso? If you eliminate adoption possibilities on the basis of sexual orientation alone, you are negating chances for children to be placed in loving homes.
my position is centered on my faith.
That's fine. But you don't have the right to impose your faith, or the rules thereof, on others.
God is the one rendering that verdict. All I’ve done is to agree with God.Again, your god is not everyone's god. Even other people who believe in the same god do not hold the same position as you. Too much room for interpretation.
P1. A homosexual couple does not constitute a "family" (I do not accept that def.) From what you said,(and perhaps Ms Somerville also), a single mom or dad, or an orphanage, or a foster home would not qualify either.
So many children, so few real "families".
It’s worse though, that society wants to place them into such an odd and disparaging environment. The disparaging come from outside the environment! Except for what goes on in the bedroom-and harassment from society-gay couple life is pretty much like yours and mine.
There are plenty of heterosexual families desiring to adopt. What world do you live in? What about all the kids languishing in foreign orphanages? Piled up in inadequate American foster care? Roaming the streets in South America?
I think we all agree with that, but there are good heterosexual households and there are bad ones. However, by contrast, my theological position is that there are no morally or psychologically healthy homosexual home environments in which to place a child. The ratio is 100% depraved. Yes that’s harsh, but I don’t see any way to sugar coat it.
And you call yourself tolerant when you make a blanket statement like that? It's OK because you couch it in a theological position? I don't know how to sugar coat it, but, what crap.
Do you seriously believe that Christ would not allow a homosexual couple to raise a child that no one else came forward for? WWJD? It wouldn't even have to be that desperate a case, I would think.
Of course not, but do you send a child form one unhelpful environment to another unhelpful environment?
You are assuming, because of your bias, and because of biased studies, that a homosexual home would be an unfavorable environment.
Insisting on having a "traditional" family for an adoptive child as a reason to block gay adoption because there is not both a mother and a father is like saying interracial adoptions should be blocked because the child will not get enough of its heritage enforced.
Give the child a home, with people who will love him/her first. Whether they get enough wrestling or how they learn about their periods is secondary. (I know-that was from ITO's comment, but it indirectly fits here.) Kids aren't just bags of testosterone or estrogen. They're mixes. Homosexual couples are mixes as well as heteros. They're all people, and similarly equipped to deal with raising kids.
Karen,
“If you eliminate adoption possibilities on the basis of sexual orientation alone, you are negating chances for children to be placed in loving homes.”
No, there are plenty of loving families that can provide both the mother/father relationship for the child. I am simple favoring the better environment.
“That's fine. But you don't have the right to impose your faith, or the rules thereof, on others”
1)On what basis do I not have the right to impose your faith, or the rules thereof, on others?
2) What establishes a right?
3)Are you not imposing your view on me?
.
“Again, your god is not everyone's god. Even other people who believe in the same god do not hold the same position as you. Too much room for interpretation.”
Wrong, my God is everyone’s God whether you recognize it or not. First demonstrate my “interpretation” is wrong, and then your statement may carry some weight.
“From what you said,(and perhaps Ms Somerville also), a single mom or dad, or an orphanage, or a foster home would not qualify either.”
Wrong again. My statement is about purposely placing children in those situations. The other situations are many time out of the control of the parent/guardian. Moreover, if we have a choice between heterosexual parents vs. homosexual parents we go with the heterosexual. We are talking about choices, not UNCONTROLLABLE circumstances. Thus, your comparison fails.
”The disparaging come from outside the environment! Except for what goes on in the bedroom-and harassment from society-gay couple life is pretty much like yours and mine.”
No-it’s definitely not like mine (can’t speak for you). Again, if we are choosing what’s best for the child—a loving mother and father always supersede the alternate.
What world do you live in? What about all the kids languishing in foreign orphanages? Piled up in inadequate American foster care? Roaming the streets in South America?
I am speaking specifically about USA (and Canadian for TIO) policy. Specifically, something I can vote on.
“And you call yourself tolerant when you make a blanket statement like that? It's OK because you couch it in a theological position? I don't know how to sugar coat it, but, what crap.”
That’s fine, if only you had a moral foundation to criticize mine—then you could make your case, but since morality is relative, your sentiments are ineffective beyond your own opinion.
“Do you seriously believe that Christ would not allow a homosexual couple to raise a child that no one else came forward for? WWJD? It wouldn't even have to be that desperate a case, I would think.”
So you’re an authority on Jesus? I thought the guy never existed? The fact of the matter is that if Jesus had the choice between heterosexual parents vs. homosexual parents he would go with heterosexual. That’s what we are talking about the choice between the two.
“You are assuming, because of your bias, and because of biased studies, that a homosexual home would be an unfavorable environment.”
The onus is not upon me to prove otherwise. Also, I could state likewise, that you are assuming, because of your bias, and because of biased studies, that a homosexual home would be a favorable environment.
Insisting on having a "traditional" family for an adoptive child as a reason to block gay adoption because there is not both a mother and a father is like saying interracial adoptions should be blocked because the child will not get enough of its heritage enforced.”
That is pathetic. It doesn’t get any lower than that—I thought you would never do that. But maybe that’s another character speaking, so I always take that into consideration when discussing issues with you, since it’s different than discussing issues with others.
Now, a homosexual parenting environment is inherently corrupt and corrupting. An interracial domestic arrangement is not.
In the case of placing orphans or foster children in interracial homes, you would have the same screening process in place that you would have for adoption and foster care where any other ethnic group is concerned.
There are good interracial homes as well as bad interracial homes.
“Give the child a home, with people who will love him/her first. Whether they get enough wrestling or how they learn about their periods is secondary. (I know-that was from ITO's comment, but it indirectly fits here.) Kids aren't just bags of testosterone or estrogen. They're mixes. Homosexual couples are mixes as well as heteros. They're all people, and similarly equipped to deal with raising kids.”
From a policy standpoint, I go with the heterosexual parents. But from a ‘whole world’ of abandoned children perspective’ a roof is better than no roof, and a meal is better than no meal, but if we have a choice between the two…you know my position
“The problem with pedophilia is that it involves someone who is without the cognitive ability to give informed consent. I really don't know if people are born or made pedophiles-maybe there are cases for both.”
Let’s not conflate what is being stated. We must distinct between stating the same arguments can be used vs. stating they are equivalent. Secondly, ‘cognitive ability’ for sexual activity is not free of difficulty. At what point does cognitive ability become sufficient to become ‘informed consent.’ Does the age of driving establish it? Is it the jr high mark? It is the ‘legal’ age of 18? It’s difficult to put a finger on it—especially scientifically since people vary so much in their cognitive ability. How about mentally ill or disabled people? How do they fall in to play?
“Every person I know-who I've talked to about it- feels they were born with their particular sexuality, be it straight, gay, bi, or trans. It is not a choice”
Does being born a certain way make that way morally acceptable? If so, how do respond to someone who was born a pedophile? What about a grandfather who falls in love with his grand daughter/or son who has informed consent? Should you be obligated to accept these things as being moral?
“In any event, the homosexual is not harming, or taking advantage of anyone in his/her relationship with another adult homosexual. The pedophile, it can be argued, does both.”
Besides the fact that you can’t even give a foundation to why “harming” is wrong, homosexuals can do what they please. Neither TIO, nor myself are promoting kicking down doors or invading privacy. However, don’t accept everyone to embrace it with open arms, change all policies and parade around celebrating their conduct.
Karen:
Welcome back.
"I like your tats."
Thank you. Flattery will you get you everywhere ;) Have any yourself?
"I thought her statement was rather intolerant of itself, and since you used it representing her views in a post about intolerance, I found that ironic."
It was very intentional that I used it. If one supports gay marriage this is deemed OK by the "enlightened thinkers" of our morally bankrupt society but if one does not support it this is considered "Intolerant"?
I see the irony coming from the other side. (That would be your side) How is it that one group can say gay marriage is OK and lay claim that their opinions are their inherent right to freedom of thought, expression, value, and moral conscience but when the other side exercises those same rights in opposition to it this is considered (by yourself and others) as unacceptable. The irony is clearly displayed by those who cannot practice what it is they come to expect from other's.
These gay and lesbian protestors are blatantly setting a double standard. You do not answer the question as to why it is OK to support gay marriage and be vocal about it but it is not OK to hold an opposing view.
If it is OK to hold an opposing view then you should be content with heterosexuals protesting an honorary doctorate being handed out to an individual who does support gay marriage.
As I touch on in my article, these protests are juvenile attempts at trying to intimidate people into submission. Not everybody is going to accept gay marriage just like not everybody is going to accept Jesus Christ as the son of the living God.
"Certainly she is entitled to her opinion. But as someone in the public eye, making pronouncements upon the public, she opens herself up for public protests from those she maligns."
At least you acknowledge she still has the right to her own opinion. Yet you display your own double standard. So what if she is in the public eye? Why should that have any bearing on her views? I am willing to bet you are just fine with public figures who support gay marriage. Again, it is OK to be a public figure and say what you want in the public square as long as it agrees with the gay agenda but woe to you if you disagree.
Your statement shows that your only capable of tolerating those who agree with you in which case, understanding the definition of tolerance, you are not tolerant at all.
And what is it that she said that was so maligning? There was no "ugliness" in her statement. She was not mean spirited or malicious in anyway. She expressed herself quite maturely. Something the protestors could actually learn from. Because you do not agree with her view this somehow constitutes "maligning? C'mon, do you not think that is embellishing it just a tad?
"I understand it would have been ever so much more polite for all the protestors to simply mail their thoughts to the lady. But that does nothing to get attention for the cause does it?"
So let's just go and ruin her special day so they can selfishly focus on themselves? There are far more productive ways of bringing attention to their plight and this was not one of them. It was a childish tactic. One that deserved absolutely no media attention.
"To them, tolerance is a one way street. In your own little "tolerance" speech, you say, "I do not recognise your sexual practices as normal, natural, or Godly". So because YOU don't recognise it, it isn't so?"
Nice try. You take a partial quote and then try to manipulate it. When you read the entire quote I am indeed expressing my opinion on the matter but also displaying my "tolerance" of the hypothetical individual by inviting them for coffee. What my "real life" gay friends understand about me is that I do not have to be a supporter of their lifestyle and yet I can still be a friend. I can still work together with them and laugh with them. In other words I can comfortably co-exist with them without bowing down to them and "their" view of tolerance. I can maintain relationships with them while sticking to my personal convictions as well as being free to express them. This is the true meaning of tolerance.
Not today's version that DICTATES what your supposed to accept in order to be accepted.
"May I touch your crown?"
I have not received it yet. I will be receiving one at the Judgement seat of Christ though. (BF knows what I am talking about) If you give Christ a chance in this life you can have one for yourself in the next life. :)
Thanks Karen for your continued contribution.
Before we get into the Jesus thing again and i fall silent, my personal belief on homosexual parents is that as long as the child is loved and protected, looked after and raised well with kindness to his fellows, (stop shouting she means a lefty at the back), then the parents have done their job. The sexuality should be an afterthought, if is a thought at all. I know that it is an issue in Society but my answer to the mostly put forward argument of 'Gay parents mean gay children' is to ask just how exactly the gay people in our world came about? Heterosexual parents doesn't always make for heterosexual children.
BF
No, there are plenty of loving families that can provide both the mother/father relationship for the child. I am simple favoring the better environment
I don't think so. Where are they? There are plenty of couples who want healthy white American babies.
1)On what basis do I not have the right to impose your faith, or the rules thereof, on others?
So you think you do have the right to impose your faith on others?
2) What establishes a right?
In this country, the Constitution. And the Bill of Rights.
3)Are you not imposing your view on me? Tough one. Yes, I guess I am, in a sense. Not my faith, though. I am asking you to understand that others are being oppressed by your faith view. And since your faith view is not universal, it should not be applied universally.
Wrong, my God is everyone’s God whether you recognize it or not. First demonstrate my “interpretation” is wrong, and then your statement may carry some weight.
I don't have to prove your interpretation is wrong. I simply point out all the other interpretations to show there are variables. How do you prove yours is the right one?
We are talking about choices, not UNCONTROLLABLE circumstances. Thus, your comparison fails.
Somerville was the one who said BIOLOGICAL parents.
No-it’s definitely not like mine (can’t speak for you). Again, if we are choosing what’s best for the child—a loving mother and father always supersede the alternate.
A homosexual couple has two helpmates, a mix of varied feminine and masculine. They work together to sustain the household and raise the children. They love, laugh, argue, cry. Watch TV, mow the grass, vote, even go to (GASP) church). Except for the bedroom, what's different? ITO said he was raised by two women for a while. They were not lesbians, but had they been having sex behind closed doors, would it have made a difference? No.
To me a loving hetero mother and father would be equivalent to two loving gay mothers or fathers.
Just what do you see as the problems arising for the children in these situations?
I am speaking specifically about USA (and Canadian for TIO) policy. Specifically, something I can vote on. Well, many American couples import their children from overseas, becasue they do not want what is available here. Yet you say there are plenty of families for all of our children?
So you’re an authority on Jesus? I thought the guy never existed? The fact of the matter is that if Jesus had the choice between heterosexual parents vs. homosexual parents he would go with heterosexual. That’s what we are talking about the choice between the two.
Hmmm. The Jesus I was taught about and have read so much about would have cared first and foremost that a child was loved and cared for, not about what sexual orientation the caregivers were. Guess I give him too much credit, once again.
I was allowing for his existence since you believe in him, and that's where your argument stems from.
Maybe you're talking about the choice between homosexual and heterosexual couples in adoption. I'm talking about simply allowing homosexuals the freedom to marry and adopt.
That’s fine, if only you had a moral foundation to criticize mine—then you could make your case, but since morality is relative, your sentiments are ineffective beyond your own opinion.
Aren't everyone's sentiments ineffective beyond their own opinion, unless people of the same opinion group together and make motions of change?
Plus, I've tried to tell you my view of moral relativity may not jive with what your definition is. Morals exist, but are relative to the time and society involved.
At what point does cognitive ability become sufficient to become ‘informed consent.
Frankly, I don't know. But that seems to be another argument altogether. I'd go with legal age of adulthood, for now.
Does being born a certain way make that way morally acceptable?
Since one can't help how one is born, I don't think one should be faulted for it.
If so, how do respond to someone who was born a pedophile?
Again, the informed consent conundrum.
What about a grandfather who falls in love with his grand daughter/or son who has informed consent? Should you be obligated to accept these things as being moral?
You can't be obligated to accept anything as moral . You either do or you don't. If it becomes legal, then you have to accept it, legally.
That is pathetic. It doesn’t get any lower than that—I thought you would never do that.
How is that low? I thought it was on point. You and ITO keep harping about the mother AND father aspect of the "family". You don't say how homosexual parenting would be harmful, except that there is this lack of both gender figures. Interracial adoption used to be blocked because a child might not gert enough "ethnicity". Which meant children who could have had families, didn't.
Now, a homosexual parenting environment is inherently corrupt and corrupting.
Please explain how.
sorry, some of this is out of sequence. I was having trouble with blogger.
k.
AAARRRGGGGHHHH!!!!
I was near the end of my comment to ITO when the guy came to replace my electric meter and shut my electricity off!!
*sigh*
Hi ITO
Have any yourself?Just got my first one on Mother's Day weekend! :)
It was very intentional that I used it. If one supports gay marriage this is deemed OK by the "enlightened thinkers" of our morally bankrupt society but if one does not support it this is considered "Intolerant"?
It is one thing to disagree with gay marriage. It is another thing entirely to say "A child's right to its natural biological mother and father can't be set as a value in society if we recognize same-sex marriage."
You do not answer the question as to why it is OK to support gay marriage and be vocal about it but it is not OK to hold an opposing view.
It IS OK to hold the opposing view! You're the one who is complaining about people expressing oppositional views. This seems to have been a fairly quiet protest from what you have reported. Where was the bullying? Where was the double standard? Did the protestors try to keep out anyone from the other side, or shout them down? It's not mentioned.
If it is OK to hold an opposing view then you should be content with heterosexuals protesting an honorary doctorate being handed out to an individual who does support gay marriage. Fine with me. Go right ahead. (Wow, it'd be great if someone got an honorary degree for SUPPORTING gay marriage!)
As I touch on in my article, these protests are juvenile attempts at trying to intimidate people into submission.Yeah, kinda like that Rev. Phelps who protests at the funerals of gay soldiers here in the US. Makes quite a spectacle. There's nimrods on both sides. Where's your post about that?
At least you acknowledge she still has the right to her own opinion. Yet you display your own double standard. So what if she is in the public eye? Why should that have any bearing on her views? I am willing to bet you are just fine with public figures who support gay marriage.
No double standard. If you are in the public eye, public demonstration comes with the territory. Like stars and papparrazzi. And it doesn't matter what side of the issue you stand on. So you are wrong about me, you see.
Your statement shows that your only capable of tolerating those who agree with you in which case, understanding the definition of tolerance, you are not tolerant at all. Which statement was that? I have coffee and discussions with people I disagree with all the time, so it seems by your definition, I am tolerant.
And what is it that she said that was so maligning?
Let me try it this way: "A child's right to its natural biological mother and father can't be set as a value in society if we recognize Christianity" Get it now? It's a blanket statement that trashes a cultural subset without any explanation.
It was a childish tactic. One that deserved absolutely no media attention. So who is your beef really with? The protestors, or the media?
Nice try. You take a partial quote and then try to manipulate it. When you read the entire quote I am indeed expressing my opinion on the matter but also displaying my "tolerance" of the hypothetical individual by inviting them for coffee.
Pardon me. How nice. You will invite my son in for a cup of coffee, but also deny him marriage to his significant other. How tolerant. Mighty white of you. Thank you, Massah!
In other words I can comfortably co-exist with them without bowing down to them and "their" view of tolerance. I can maintain relationships with them while sticking to my personal convictions as well as being free to express them.
But they must bow down to you? Or to the rules of your faith? Tell me, do you discuss with them issues that pertain to their lifestyle-these blood-n-guts issues- or just motorcycles and sports? If you actually make that little speech you printed to them, then your gay friends are very tolerant, at any rate, to put up with you. You started out well with it, but went off-course rapidly.
Substitute the name of another religion for homosexuality and see how it flies.
Karen,
Had I the time, I would go tit for tat with you, but I am leaving town on vacation and that’s just seems more important to me than this conversation right now (no offense).
TIO,
Go easy on all the digital martyrdom while I’m gone.
Karen:
"Just got my first one on Mother's Day weekend! :)"
Welllllll...what did you get? Where? How big? And how many colors?
Let me guess OK? You got a huge banner across your back that says "The Intolerant One ROCKS!" (LOL)
"It is one thing to disagree with gay marriage. It is another thing entirely to say "A child's right to its natural biological mother and father can't be set as a value in society if we recognize same-sex marriage."
You still have not convinced me that what this person said was so terrible. It is their entitled opinion. Why is it "another thing"? Because it does not fall into line with your perception of child rearing this is to be considered "out of line"? As I keep going back to my original point, if one holds your view on same sex parenting this is deemed "tolerant". If someone says otherwise they are labeled "intolerant" because it does not line up with your take on it. Ho tolerant of the opposing view.
"It IS OK to hold the opposing view!
Then why are those opposed to gay marriage/parenting deemed intolerant by the "enlightened left" IF indeed we are entitled to our opposing view? Where is the tolerance from your side towards our views?
"You're the one who is complaining about people expressing oppositional views."
I never complained about expressing views. I demonstrated the hypocrisy of the "Tolerant" and their approach. If those in favor of gay marriage/parenting are allowed to express their views publicly free from the "Harassment" of protest then why can't they show the same courtesy?
"This seems to have been a fairly quiet protest from what you have reported. Where was the bullying? Where was the double standard? Did the protestors try to keep out anyone from the other side, or shout them down?"
Have you ever been to one of these events where these protestors show up? I have and they get very loud and ignorant. I actually witnessed this group of "tolerant" individuals scream at another homosexual man to "get back in the closet" because he disagreed with gay marriage.
They do not conceive the meaning of "peaceful protest". Secondly, if you have ideological/political concerns you want to address you take it to your local government officials office or parliamentary buildings. Protest there. Wave all the flags you want and yell to your hearts content. You do not show up at an honor awards ceremony. That is the height of ignorance.
The double standard was displayed in that if the shoe was on the other foot this type of recourse would not be "tolerated" by the "tolerant" crowd.
The bullying is in the form of intimidation that their presence brings. Coming from the biker realm I can give you an excellent example of how this works. If an individual on trial is able to get off his charges with a plea bargain by ratting his fellow biker's out. Often you will see a number of bikers fill the court room. They do not say a word. They just sit there. This alone is intimidating to the witness. The same effect is had on the people who were present at this ceremony. It makes them uncomfortable when all they wanted was to celebrate a day of achievement with their loved ones.
"Yeah, kinda like that Rev. Phelps who protests at the funerals of gay soldiers here in the US. Makes quite a spectacle. There's nimrods on both sides. Where's your post about that?"
I know little about him but from what I have heard about him, well Karen, I am onside with you on this one. What a hypocrite. I checked out his site. I cannot believe he put "god hates you" and "love thy neighbor" on the same web page. I think I would be awfully tempted to introduce Fred to what we bikers call five fold ministry (that would be a hard punch in the mouth!) I will not refer to him as reverend because he is not worthy of it. You have challenged me on this. In the future I will write a post on him. Hold me to it OK?
"If you are in the public eye, public demonstration comes with the territory."
She is just an ethicist! Not a politician, movie star, activist or otherwise. This was a strategic maneuver intentionally done to prop up the gay agenda with free publicity.
"Let me try it this way: "A child's right to its natural biological mother and father can't be set as a value in society if we recognize Christianity" Get it now?"
Actually I not only "get it" I live it daily. You forget that Christianity is trashed on a daily basis thru TV, movies, music, art, and peoples everyday attitudes and language. While we are tolerating all this we are being called intolerant.
You said she was entitled to this view/opinion. She expressed that view she did not "trash" a culture. Freddy (Phelps) boy trashes the culture. If your concern was an explanation then why not read the doc. supplied by BF? Or how about reading "Divorcing Marriage" by Daniel Cere. A highly educated homosexual man opposed to same sex marriage.
"So who is your beef really with? The protestors, or the media?"
Both. Only it is not a beef. Again, I was exposing the double standard.
"Pardon me. How nice. You will invite my son in for a cup of coffee, but also deny him marriage to his significant other. How tolerant."
OK so you have a gay son. Yes I would have coffee with him and should the topic arise I would obviously disagree with him regarding same sex marriage/adoption. The tolerance comes into play when two individuals at an impasse agree to disagree yet continue to co-exist side by side. One does not despise the other because they refuse to agree with them.
Every time I have had to listen (or read on blogs) to people run Jesus Christ down in some of the most profane ways, as much as it disturbs me, I do not get up in their face with flags screaming what a bunch of Chrisitianphobes they are. How much more tolerant can one be?
"Mighty white of you. Thank you, Massah!"
I am trying to keep this civil so do not patronize me.
"But they must bow down to you? Or to the rules of your faith?"
Again see above. You have completely missed the point. I do not think anyone involved in this thread (including myself) is asking for any body to "bow down" to the other's. Because I will not bow a knee to the gay agenda where have I asked them to bend to the rules of my views. And why are you bringing my faith into this debate? It is not even mentioned in the article. If my views/opinions are shaped by my faith that is my business and makes them no less valid then your own.
"Tell me, do you discuss with them issues that pertain to their lifestyle-these blood-n-guts issues- or just motorcycles and sports?"
They already know where I stand. I know where they stand. So it is almost never discussed. Unless one of us is going to have a sudden change of heart, re-hashing the "blood and guts issues becomes an exercise in futility.
"If you actually make that little speech you printed to them"
Read the post Karen. It clearly says "For EXAMPLE I may say...".
"You started out well with it, but went off-course rapidly."
I would disagree and say that I feel you took this a little off course yourself. But I will "tolerate" your opinion on the matter. :)
"Substitute the name of another religion for homosexuality and see how it flies."
It goes on all the time already. If you want to see Christianity maligned look no further then the ever popular "Da Vinci code".
I am now off for the Canada day long weekend. I did not even get the chance to respond top the others.
Take care.
ITO
Welllllll...what did you get? Where? How big? And how many colors? A 2" diameter sunburst of my own celtic design with the American atheist atomic symbol in the center, on my left shoulder, in black, yellow, and red.
Let me guess OK? You got a huge banner across your back that says "The Intolerant One ROCKS!" (LOL)Maybe next time, but somewhere I can see it, like strategically below my navel. ;)
Why is it "another thing"? Because it does not fall into line with your perception of child rearing this is to be considered "out of line"?As I said, because she disses an entire group of people with this staement without explanation. How, or why, will a child's right to it's biological parents be disabled from a set value simply by recognizing gay marriage? I don't see the connection. Can you show it to me?
This is a harsh statement. I will not find the answer in BF's study, or in the book you listed. The answer lies in Ms. Somerville's mind, as it is her statement.
Where is the tolerance from your side towards our views?You are mistaking people standing up and fighting for what they believe to be their rights as intolerance. For a very long time, your view has been the prevailing one, and some people have been crushed under the weight of it. Now they are pushing it off, and saying,"Enough!" In allowing gay marriage, there is no taking away of hetero marriage. There's no intolerance there. In disallowing gay marriage, there is intolerance, because one side is saying WE can have this, but YOU can't.
If those in favor of gay marriage/parenting are allowed to express their views publicly free from the "Harassment" of protest then why can't they show the same courtesy?
This happens? I can't imagine that there has ever been a pro-gay anything that hasn't had some harassment from the other side. Got any examples?
Have you ever been to one of these events where these protestors show up?
No, I haven't.
I have and they get very loud and ignorant. I actually witnessed this group of "tolerant" individuals scream at another homosexual man to "get back in the closet" because he disagreed with gay marriage.
Well, that IS intolerant, and intolerable. Must be one place where Jerry Springer finds his guests.
I don't suppose you spoke to the gay man who opposed marriage and found out his reasoning did you? I'd be very interested.
In the future I will write a post on him[Phelps]. Hold me to it OK?
W-h-y-y-y.....C-oi-nt'nly!
She is just an ethicist! Not a politician, movie star, activist or otherwise. This was a strategic maneuver intentionally done to prop up the gay agenda with free publicity.
Just an ethicist, but apparently outspoken and well-known enough that her views draw a following, and perhaps she is influencial towards policy. Big fish, little pond.
But I agree that it was probably free publicity. Still, I'm not clear on if she was receiving the honorary doctorate because of her views on gay marriage, or something else. If her views led to the coferring of the degree, then I'd say this was a legitimate forum for demonstration. Otherwise, let the woman have her day.
You forget that Christianity is trashed on a daily basis thru TV, movies, music, art, and peoples everyday attitudes and language. While we are tolerating all this we are being called intolerant.
Ok, but please, as an atheist, I would like just a little time to be tolerant as the ruling class.
Every time I have had to listen (or read on blogs) to people run Jesus Christ down in some of the most profane ways, as much as it disturbs me, I do not get up in their face with flags screaming what a bunch of Chrisitianphobes they are. How much more tolerant can one be?
One can simply allow others to live as they wish to live -without Christ if it pleases them-and marrying if they are gay, and if they wish-because it is none of one's business and does not effect one.
No more time right now.
Enjoy your weekend.
Q
Nice to meet you.
Tolerance, as proscribed by liberals, and as you are presenting it, really means "discard the power of the majority". It is an attempt to make the next evolution.
Actually, I would much prefer that the majority show some empathy and tolerance for their fellow humans and extend to their fellows the same rights and freedoms they enjoy without having to fight for it. At times, throughout history, it has become necessary to disrupt the majority's power, because they were using it to oppress a certain group.
I am glad you approve of the process, if not the ideal.
I know you didn't cheat, but did you get it right?
Didn't cheat. Didn't get it right. Didn't think outside the box-was trying to use the parameters given.
You're right-no one gets out of this life alive.
But I'm afraid the whole euphemism
thing just took me off track. What exactly was your point with it? Just reinforcing that tolerance is what you perceive?
Karen:
"Maybe next time, but somewhere I can see it, like strategically below my navel. ;"
Thanks sista! That can really bring my integrity under scrutiny. (LOL)
I appreciated a lot of what "Q" had to say so I do not want to get too repetitive here so I will finish up with this.
"One can simply allow others to live as they wish to live -without Christ if it pleases them-and marrying if they are gay, and if they wish-because it is none of one's business and does not effect one."
To state that it does not affect anyone is where the delusion lies. For example, here in Canada many supported the notion of a legally recognized civil union. for gays and lesbians. This way there was no potential threat against the church's who would not perform gay marriages because the "word" or "terminology" was not being redefined. Therefore nothing could be challenged before the courts and everyone could dwell in peace.
It was stated by the people and some of our members of parliament that by redefining a "word" the implications would cause an upheaval in society that would have a ripple effect thru human rights cases and higher courts having to intervene on both sides. They would now have a bowl of mixed" nuts and bolts" and accommodating one's "rights" over another was eventually going to lead , not too equality, but establishing a hierarchy of "rights". Thus you will end up with endless human rights tribunals, court hearings/proceedings, and appeals.
It is already under way. (I am personally involved in an ongoing case right now where my marriage license has been revoked). Before the law passed, EGALE (Equality for gays and lesbians) stated this would not affect the church's decision to refuse gay marriages. After the law passed they went on record to state that their next campaign was to remove any church's tax charitable status who refused to marry gay people. Pretty mean spirited don't ya think? Can't convince me there is no agenda of FORCED ACCEPTANCE out there.
All because of redefining one word. None of this would have taken place with a "civil union". And what was the purpose of redefining a word that has ended up confusing everything and making a bigger more muddled mess that was not there when the term "Marriage" was used in the context it was meant for?
How many other "terms/words" are we going to have to redefine to make homosexuals feel good about themselves? Because that is what it boils down too. If they are that confident in who they are then stop trying to make the majority accept something they are simply unwillingly to. I cannot force a gay man/woman accept Christianity any more then they can make me recognize homosexuality as an "alternative" lifestyle.
One other comment I would like to address:
"I don't suppose you spoke to the gay man who opposed marriage and found out his reasoning did you? I'd be very interested."
No I did not BUT he actually gave his reasoning during his speach so the question would not have been asked in the first place. His name is Dennis Owens. He is a social policy analyst for the city of Winnipeg in Manitoba. He is very open about his homosexuality and has been a gay man for 35 years. He is currently in a relationship.
His reasoning was based on the high level of sexual promiscuity within the gay community. Especially the men. He made mention of the "hundreds" of gay couples he has gotten to know over the years and how ALL but three of them are still together. Of those three, he said, they are ALL "open " relationships. Regarding family this is not a healthy environment to raise children in. In his words:
"Same sex marriage is bad social public policy"
There was far more to it then that but I am going from memory. If I can ever track down a transcript I am going to post it.
I have discovered that there are many homosexuals who are also opposed to gay marriage but "Liberal" media will not give them the time of day. Not too mention there is a fear or "retribution" within the gay community itself against those who do speak out against gay marriage. (More tolerance for ya!)
Alright off to work now. (Yeecchhhh!!!)
PS: Karen, why do you not have a blog of your own? If you did and I visited, I promise to be nice :)
And you could post a picture of your tattoo. Especially your NEXT one ;)
Karen:
I also forgot to include another thing Dennis had mentioned in his speech regarding the promiscuity of the lifestyle.
He stated, and I assume based on his research, that for every gay man involved in a "monagmous" relationship he still (on average) would have as many as 7 other "partners" on the side.
This was another one of his reason's for not supporting same sex marriage.
In a clear display of their TOLERANCE, the homosexual community has completely ostracized him. Backing up my post which stated that no one is allowed a differing view unless it coincides with the gay agenda. That includes other homosexuals.
ITO
If the legal civil union gave the same rights and responsibilities and protections under law as the word "marriage, then I don't see what the problem was with that. I don't know to what you are referring in the redefining of a word otherwise. If, however, "Marriage" provides something that "legal civil union" does not, then I would have objections to it's fairness and objectivity.
As for going after churches who refuse to marry gays, I agree that is over the line. It is the church's prerogative and is not harmful, so the state should not become involved.
I fail to see how two people of the same sex being married, no matter what it is called, has any affect on anyone else's relationship.
Thank you for the explanation for why Mr. Owens objects to homosexual marriage. I would agree that the open-marriage concept would not be ideal for raising children. It is unknown whether the couples Mr. Owens was referencing were even interested in raising children. Imagine the consequences if you could legislate the raising of children based on fidelity in heterosexual marriage.
I see Mr. Owen's point, but I disagree with it. It seems unfair to deny the possibility of marriage to anyone based on the behaviors of some of the people in the subset. Again, this could disqualify hetero marriage also.
My own experience with gay people is that while they are in a committed relationship, they are monogamous. Most of the hetero couples I've known have had problems invoving infidelity.
So I just don't see this as a legitimate argument.
I don't have a blog cos I'm too lazy to come up with intelligent postings for others to critique! And I'm not computer literate enough to make it look snazzy and manage it well. You'll just have to imagine my tats...especially the one I don't have yet! ;)
Don't know if I answered everything-in a rush!
Enjoyed it,
karen
Karen:
"If the legal civil union gave the same rights and responsibilities and protections under law as the word "marriage, then I don't see what the problem was with that."
Originally there was not even a need to go that far. In Canada, whether one is heterosexual or homosexual, if they are residing together as a couple for a period of a year they become recognized as a "common law" couple and are then entitled to all the benefits of a married couple. This would include "entitlements" in the event of a split or health/dental benefits from one or the other's insurance plan from their place of employment.
Where the problem comes into play when a word is redefined is first off...confusion. My generation hears the word marriage and we automatically imagine a bride and a groom. A man and a woman. My children's generation will not know what that means. If a man says he is married, does that mean to a man or a woman?
Secondly, this opens the doors to "other's" demanding their right to marry. I wrote in an earlier entry of mine, before our same sex marriage laws came into effect that, for example, the polygamists would now hop on the bandwagon by borrowing a page from the gay community's book by stating that it is discriminating to them to be denied marrying many wives. That they too should have the "right" and argue with the same question, as you have said yourself, what's the problem? Well it has begun. In our Province of Alberta the polygamists are filing human rights cases and court actions in order that they too may obtain "the right" to marry. Can you see where the confusion begins? If "everybody" constitutes a marriage then there is nothing left to define marriage. It becomes as ridiculous as redefining the word "woman" to include a penis because some men claim to feel like women and therefore want to be called one even though they are clearly a man.
Thirdly, it falls in line with what I stated in one of my earlier comments to you when I said:
"...by redefining a "word" the implications would cause an upheaval in society that would have a ripple effect thru human rights cases and higher courts having to intervene on both sides. "
You have human rights complaints (and court action) filed by the polygamists who want the right to redefine marriage (again) to include them. You have EGALE threatening to take court action against church's who will not marry homosexuals by having their tax charitable status removed. You also have myself as a Christian who has had to file a human rights complaint and take court action against my Provincial government for revoking my license to marry couples because I would not violate my religious beliefs by marrying homosexuals. It will continue to escalate.
A legal union would have been equal to a marriage only there would have been no room for the chaos that this nation is about to endure. Keep in mind that this whole debate has become a "rights" issue when there was none to debate. Homosexuals wanted the "right" to marry. Well they have always had the "right" to marry. It was never taken from them because they were gay. Under the proper definition it would have to be someone of the opposite sex but they were entitled to it. Redefining has become an act of selfishness and an exercise in futility.
To sum up my response to your statement Karen, I would suggest that there is a big problem with redefining the term/word marriage. I know that you stated you had no problem with civil unions as long as they provided the same rights and responsibilities and protections under law as does marriage. What was proposed by our then opposition party in Parliament was exactly that.
I gave my long winded, sort of bunny trail answer, to give you a glimpse as to what is going on up here in the land of the igloo.
"It is the church's prerogative and is not harmful, so the state should not become involved."
Although the state would have the final say, the push is coming from government sponsored organizations like EGALE who want ALL to comply with their idea that everyone should accept their lifestyle or be punished.
"Imagine the consequences if you could legislate the raising of children based on fidelity in heterosexual marriage."
You make a good point. I say it is too bad that we can't. I remember there was a time when infidelity between a heterosexual couple was frowned upon. Where shame was felt for these types of choices (and rightly so). Now everybody shrugs it off like it is no big deal. Maybe if the accountability level was restored and society went back to frowning on adultery maybe less people would not be so quick to "unzip"!
"I don't have a blog cos I'm too lazy to come up with intelligent postings for others to critique! "
Too bad. Even though I tend to disagree with you in obvious areas you strike me as an intelligent person thru your responses. You should maybe reconsider.
Alright, alright, part of that motivational speech is so I can see you tats! But that does not disqualify what I said.
"You'll just have to imagine my tats...especially the one I don't have yet! ;)"
(deep, heavy, pathetic "sigh")
My children's generation will not know what that means. If a man says he is married, does that mean to a man or a woman? I think the generation will grow with the times and be able to handle the concept quite well. I find it heartening to think that they will consider the question without being judgemental, taking the answer into account for information's sake alone.
In our Province of Alberta the polygamists are filing human rights cases and court actions in order that they too may obtain "the right" to marry
I remember reading your post about polygamasts. Let them petition. Let them file. It is their right to do so.
If they can gain enough support, then perhaps the time will have come for them to have the right to marriage also. As long as we are talking about adults who have the ability to give reasoned consent, I don't see the problem. Polygamy would be a nightmare for taxmen and insurance handlers, but the insurance handlers are independent and can dictate how they will cover people. And taxmen love a challenge.
My personal idea of marriage is not threatened by the concept of any other marriage. It is the relationship -in my case-between me and my husband. It does not stand or fall because a man is allowed to marry a man, or a woman a woman, or a man, a tree. (Although, technically, the tree can't consent.)
I suppose every minister is discriminating in some fashion as to whom s/he will/will not marry. I'm sorry that you've become embroiled in the legal issues and your license has been taken away. I'm sorry there wasn't someone else for folks to go to who could say, "I have no qualms about joining you two in matrimony before God." I'm even sorrier for the homosexuals who still seek blessings from a god who supposedly made them what they are, but won't allow them to live life fully as they are.
Seems like Canada should have let well enough alone. Legally recognized civil unions would be a giant step here in the states.
Don't get yourself too lathered up over my ink. You'll end up being let down by the time you see it!
Karen:
"I find it heartening to think that they will consider the question without being judgemental,"
Although "at times" this has been the case, I feel for the average person it is not a question of being "judgmental", it is quite simply their opinion. I would have to disagree with you on this one. Regardless of what direction it takes in the future many will continue to disagree and not recognize homosexuality as normal, especially from a natural perspective. Without going into description, even medical science cannot support two people of the same gender as a natural union. There is no natural physical fit sexually speaking.
Another question is: does one have the right to speak out against a sexual lifestyle if they disagree with it without being referred to as judgmental? Do you disagree with pedophilia? (I suspect that is a rhetorical question). Are you being judgmental when you speak out against it? Or are you expressing your entitled moral view?
"I remember reading your post about polygamasts. Let them petition. Let them file. It is their right to do so.
If they can gain enough support, then perhaps the time will have come for them to have the right to marriage also. As long as we are talking about adults who have the ability to give reasoned consent, I don't see the problem."
Here is where you and I draw our respective lines. You do not see the problem and yet I have already provided you with the predicted outcome and the evidence that is beginning to surface to support that prediction. If "everybody" constitutes a family (not the traditional view of Mom, Dad, & kids) then there is nothing left to define family. Here is another prediction for you. You will see an even bigger break down of the family unit. We will see even more and more single parents, abandoned children, and complete moral decay within the structured unit we once called a family. This will take place due to the simple fact that marriage will become meaningless to society and fewer will become wed. It will no longer be the lifetime commitment it was intended to be. To phrase a common cliché, "it will be just another piece of paper". There was a time when that "little piece of paper" was honored as a binding contract which was why people took the time to consider a marriage proposal.
" (Although, technically, the tree can't consent.)"
Neither can a dog but how much would like to wager that some sicko into bestiality is going to go before a human rights council and the courts to whine about his sexual rights and freedoms being discriminated against? He/she will fall back on the fact that accommodations were made for the homosexual (and quite possibly the polygamist) so why not him/her? We can take that argument back to the pedophile (**Disclaimer** I am NOT linking homosexuals and pedophiles). We know that these sicko's can get into the mind of a child in a very terrible and twisted way. Due to brainwashing and fear, there very well could be instances where a child does consent before the courts to marriage. These are the foreseeable problems when we redefine marriage. It allows all kinds of ugly legal loopholes.
" god who supposedly made them what they are, but won't allow them to live life fully as they are."
Recognizing the fact you say you do not believe in God, indulge me a little here. God did not make them to be gay anymore then he made me out to be a heterosexual adulterer.
Be honest here Karen. What if you came home to find your husband in bed with one of your closest confidantes/friends and his reasoning to you was that God made him to be sexually active with more then just you? Would his rationale wash with you? Let's face it, many men would love to fall back on that line of reasoning but if it was even to be considered legitimate then why do they fear getting caught by their wives?
The answer is because there is nothing reasonable about it. God did not create man for the sake of being unfaithful but faithful to his wife. And he did not create man to be a homosexual/pedophile/necrophiliac or otherwise either. Again, apply your line of reasoning to the other sexual preferences that I just listed above.
"Seems like Canada should have let well enough alone."
Considering the topic, here is one of the few areas we agree upon. Homosexuals have been afforded the same benefits already. There was never a need to open up this legal hot potato. Human rights commissions and the courts are going to have to prepare for the onslaught of legal entanglements from all directions that are on the way.
"Don't get yourself too lathered up over my ink."
C'mon. It's like walking in a room and announcing a pregnancy! Actually I just think it is a cool thing when an atheist and a theist have something in common. Our debates can be endless so it is nice to discuss something we can both kick back and share as opposed to going "toe to toe" in the battle arena.
Wouldn't you agree?
ITO
Regardless of what direction it takes in the future many will continue to disagree and not recognize homosexuality as normal, especially from a natural perspective.
I agree that many will not recognize it as normal. But in light of overpopulation, it could be considered natural for couplings to not be reprductive, yet still mating.
Without going into description, even medical science cannot support two people of the same gender as a natural union. There is no natural physical fit sexually speaking.
"Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it..." It happens in the "lesser" animals also, so how is it not natural? It doesn't lead to reproduction. If you have oral sex with your wife, do you consider it unnatural?
Another question is: does one have the right to speak out against a sexual lifestyle if they disagree with it without being referred to as judgmental?
In the US, we have the right to SPEAK about anything we wish. For/against.
There is no guarantee that you won't be called judgemental, because that is someone else's right to speech. There is nothing that everyone is going to agree about at the same time.
As for pedophilia, personally, I am indeed being judgemental when I speak out against it. It is a very personal issue for me, and I can see it as nothing but harmful for the child involved. It is an unbalanced relationship, and I think the child has to be protected. I can see no moral "good" coming from the situation.
Polygamy-I'm sorry. I just have trouble taking the issue seriously. I don't think it will gain enough support to get very far in first world nations. I don't like it myself; it sould seem to water down a relationship. Can't see how it would work to everyone's satidsfaction, and would most likely be abusive in some way. That is why it is fostered by religious nuts. It is based on the archaic ida that women are property and servants to the man. In that way, marriage has already been redefined, which is a good thing.
. This will take place due to the simple fact that marriage will become meaningless to society and fewer will become wed. It will no longer be the lifetime commitment it was intended to be. To phrase a common cliché, "it will be just another piece of paper"
I think we are already there. People don't honor marriage anymore. They slip in and out of it like buying real estate. It's been going on for a while, and it's not the "threat" of homosexual parity that's doing it.
" god who supposedly made them what they are, but won't allow them to live life fully as they are."
Recognizing the fact you say you do not believe in God, indulge me a little here. God did not make them to be gay anymore then he made me out to be a heterosexual adulterer.
You're an adulterer, then? :0
I was speaking on behalf of the gays who DO believe in god, and for some reason want desperately to be married in church and have that blessing bestowed upon them. I do not believe in god, but I was brought up to believe and the story is he made everyone. So he made gay people as well as heteros. He made it all and "saw that it was good".
Be honest here Karen. What if you came home to find your husband in bed with one of your closest confidantes/friends and his reasoning to you was that God made him to be sexually active with more then just you?
Since I don't believe in god and he claims agnosticism, that certainly wouldn't wash. If I were religious, I would point out the vows we had taken while briskly ripping the duct tape from his privates.
The answer is because there is nothing reasonable about it. God did not create man for the sake of being unfaithful but faithful to his wife. And he did not create man to be a homosexual/pedophile/necrophiliac or otherwise either. Again, apply your line of reasoning to the other sexual preferences that I just listed above.
And that was so easy when there was just one man and one woman. Were Adam and Eve allegory? The Bible also has women as subservient to men.
If there is an all-creating god, and there exists homosexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc, then god must have created them. For what purpose did he creat them? More free will testing? Isn't there enough without all that?
Homosexuality isn't another temptation like adultery. It's an entire way of being.
Our debates can be endless so it is nice to discuss something we can both kick back and share as opposed to going "toe to toe" in the battle arena.
Wouldn't you agree?
Oh, definitely. I just don't want you to give the ink so much build-up that you're disappointed when you get to view it! ;)
It's a pleasure talking to you, ITO.
Have a good one.
karen
Karen:
"Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it..." It happens in the "lesser" animals also, so how is it not natural?"
This is where the argument falls completely apart. One cannot "justify" a sexual lifestyle "because the animals do it!". You set yourself up to condone ALL sexual preferences. Animals also engage in necrophilia, incest, pedophilia, and rape. The reason this becomes a weak argument is because:
1.) We are not animals.
2.) Animals do not live by a moral compass. We do.
3.) Pedophiles and incestuous parents would just love to validate their "sickness" with the line of reasoning you provide.
Again it all goes back to the same old argument. If you say that homosexuality is OK because the animals do it, then you obligate yourself to accept the rest of the sexual lifestyles. How can you pick and choose when your argument is based on what the animal kingdom does?
"As for pedophilia, personally, I am indeed being judgmental when I speak out against it.....I can see no moral "good" coming from the situation."
I am certainly in agreement with you Karen but just to play devil's advocate (sounds funny when a Christian says that) for a moment, are you not imposing your moral view upon the pedophile just as you feel that I do it towards the homosexual?
Not to go to far off topic here, but as an atheist, by what authority can you possibly establish a "moral" view?
"Polygamy-I'm sorry. I just have trouble taking the issue seriously. I don't think it will gain enough support to get very far in first world nations."
Canadians said the same thing 15 years ago regarding same sex marriage but the complacent and apathetic bunch that we are decided to "go to sleep" on the issue. Very few ever thought the day would come. So do not be too caught off guard when you see polygamy legalized.
"I think we are already there. People don't honor marriage anymore. They slip in and out of it like buying real estate. It's been going on for a while, and it's not the "threat" of homosexual parity that's doing it."
I sadly agree with you. I think, in part, that it has a lot to do with the fact that it is too easy for people to get out of their obligation/ marital commitment. "Irreconcilable differences" is a pathetic argument and weak cop out. Adultery or abuse are certainly different circumstances. Watching "Hollywood" couples loosely use the "Irreconcilable differences" translated to me says "I am tired of having sex with this person".
I do not think homosexuality is helping the matter because in my opinion (obviously) it only further dilutes the whole meaning behind it.
On a more positive and slightly personal note, it has been the high divorce that has inspired me to fight all the more to work at my marriage. (12 years and still very much in love). I think people in general have lost sight of the fact that "Love" is not some euphoric teenage feeling. It is an action. Loving them in "sickness and I health, for better or worse (even when she is really nasty), until DEATH do you part".
"You're an adulterer, then? "
LOL! I had a feeling AFTER I had submitted my response that it could be a little misconstrued.
My point was to demonstrate that , like your line of reasoning regarding animals, it also comes apart when one states that they are the way they are because "God made them that way". For those who follow the Bible the book of Genesis was very clear. A man shall leave his mother and father and be united to his wife. I do not see room for anything else???
Secondly, as I was making a statement regarding my hypothetical adultery, the Bible does NOT single out homosexuality it includes among all sexual sin. Fornication, rape, bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and of course adultery.
Again, applying your line of reasoning from a scriptural perspective says that if one states that homosexuality is OK because "God made him/her that way" then you open up the argument for the rest. Here was the point I was making:
"I am an adulterer because God made me that way."
"I am a pedophile because God made me that way"
"I have sex with animals because God made me that way".
"I rape women because I am too shy to ask, and besides, God made me that way"
Do you see where I am going with this? I am not trying to mock you but just apply your rationale to the other sexual lifestyles who feel their sexuality should be given the same recognition. Again, another dangerous platform to go by.
"He made it all and "saw that it was good".
This was prior to the fall of man into sin in the garden of evil.
"I would point out the vows we had taken while briskly ripping the duct tape from his privates."
In the words of Austin Powers....OUCH baby!
"The Bible also has women as subservient to men."
Yes it does BUT when God made man and woman before the "fall" the scriptures said that God made her as a "helper". In other words, a partner not a slave. Don't blame God for what man has done. The woman compliments the man and vice versa. Women bring certain strengths and abilities that a man simply does not possess. This is how the heterosexual couple was designed in order to form a "wholeness" or "completion".
No future generations can begin any other way. It requires a man and a woman to be united. The child requires both mother and father in order to reap the benefits from the strengths of both.
"If there is an all-creating god, and there exists homosexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc, then god must have created them."
He created mankind for fellowship. People made in his own image. This type of sexual behavior did not exist until Adam and Eve sinned against God and were thrown out of the garden. Keep in mind that "sin" defined means rebellion towards God. Sin originally did not exist. When man did sin he inherited it for himself and ALL generations to follow. Anything that God is for we instinctley oppose or rebel against. That is why following Him will cost you your life here on earth. Complete surrender of the things that cause one to rebel. This why it was never His intent for these type's of sexual conduct. If it was then why does He condemn it in the scriptures?
If the scriptures declared that God made them ALL "heterosexual (which is declared in the scriptures) homosexual, pedophile, incestuous, and some for the beasts of the field" then you and I would not be engaging in this because I would see that it was written by God and that this was His intent. However that is not the case. It is written very much in opposition towards ALL sexual conduct outside the heterosexual marital unit.
"Homosexuality isn't another temptation like adultery. It's an entire way of being."
I don't buy into that one either Karen. Over the years of being a Christian I have heard many testimony's from Christian men who once lived a homosexual lifestyle. Although they no longer practice it (and some have even married women and had children) they do concede they are "tempted" from time to time. They make a choice not to engage. Just like I can be tempted to commit adultery, I too have a "choice" in the matter.
"I just don't want you to give the ink so much build-up that you're disappointed when you get to view it! ;)"
Does that mean you MIGHT be getting your own blog?
"It's a pleasure talking to you, ITO."
Likewise Karen. There is a little part of me who always wants to agree with you but then I deny who I am, what I believe, and I turn it into a popularity show that only brings glory to me. And I am not worthy of it. Only God is.
I do hope you will continue to come around.
Karen:
OOPS!!! I made statement regarding the garden of "Evil" that of course was supposed to read the garden of Eden.
Lucy:
Good to see you are still kicking around.
"I was going to ask if we could exchange links."
Absolutley. I will look forward to it. Let me know when you have reached your final blog/web destination and I will hook you up.
"...as yours is a well written and intelligent blog (for a righty anyway)"
Thanks for the vote of confidence your royal "Leftyness". :)
"i would like to try and bring your point of view to some of my readers."
So would I. It would appear they could use some enlightenment. (LOL!)
Hi ITO
1.) We are not animals.
Yes, we are. Sorry.
2.) Animals do not live by a moral compass. We do.
Most animals don't live by what we would call a moral compass, but some are capable of empathy and the concept of fairness.
3.) Pedophiles and incestuous parents would just love to validate their "sickness" with the line of reasoning you provide.
I am not providing a line of reasoning. You said the acts weren't natural. I said they occurred in nature, in lesser animals, by which I meant that humans didn't specifically contrive them. That doesn't mean that every act is acceptable in general society. (I know, that's your point.)
If you say that homosexuality is OK because the animals do it, then you obligate yourself to accept the rest of the sexual lifestyles. How can you pick and choose when your argument is based on what the animal kingdom does? No, again, I'm just saying that nature reinforces that when man acts in a homosexual manner, it isn't necessarily an unnatural act. We are animals, but we are more highly developed animals. We don't eat our own dung-for the most part-because we understand the health implications, for example. But we are still driven to engage in sex of various combinations determined by our hormones and genetic coding.
I haven't researched it, but I doubt that hormones has anything to do with necrophilia, pedophilia, or polygamy. Genetics might. I wonder if there are any studies?
I notice you sidestepped my question about oral sex.
are you not imposing your moral view upon the pedophile just as you feel that I do it towards the homosexual?
Quite possibly I am. However, the homosexual relationship does not involve an imbalance of power or authority. It is adult to adult. Beings without the proper power for consent must always be protected.
Not to go to far off topic here, but as an atheist, by what authority can you possibly establish a "moral" view?By man's authority. Morals are made by man.
So do not be too caught off guard when you see polygamy legalized.
OK, I'll try not to be. I hope homosexual unions are legal here (in the US)first. We've already done the polygamy thing in Utah for a while. It didn't work.
"Irreconcilable differences" is a pathetic argument and weak cop out.
Hey, guess what? Here in NC, you don't even have to state irreconcilable differences. Just separate for a year and a day and you can get divorced.
Congrats on your 12 years and still in love. We're at 29 and about to separate. That "till death" thing? My husband decided I was too ill to deal with any longer. So much for vows.
A man shall leave his mother and father and be united to his wife. I do not see room for anything else???
Well, the Bible did. Sometimes, it was the man's sister-in-law, sometimes his daughters. I gave BF a whole citation on talmudic law that talked about how children of both sexes were legally and morally used for sex up to certain ages, but he waved it away because it wasn't christian law. But the fact is, it didn't change under christianity for quite some time, and then the ages only went up slightly.
AS to the God made me that way (whatever type of sinner)argument-If you think god makes people and there are homosexuals, who made them if god didn't?
This was prior to the fall of man into sin in the garden of evil.
What a deliciously Freudian slip!!! Yes, I saw your later correction! ;)
Man would not have fallen had god not set him up to fall. God, being omnipotent, knew what choice would be made. The only way for man to be able to choose wrongly was for god to give that option. Like throwing a baby in a pool and saying, if you swim, I won't love you anymore. But if it doesn't swim, it dies.
In the words of Austin Powers....OUCH baby!
Heh,yeah, don't cross me. ;)
The woman compliments the man and vice versa. Women bring certain strengths and abilities that a man simply does not possess. This is how the heterosexual couple was designed in order to form a "wholeness" or "completion".
Nice try and very enlightened of you. But nowhere does it ever say for the man to also "submit" to the woman. Man is to be dominant. Unless you believe the Davinci code.
No future generations can begin any other way. It requires a man and a woman to be united. Or a petrie dish and a test tube. The child requires both mother and father in order to reap the benefits from the strengths of both. I agree two parents are best. I disagree it has to be both a mother and a father.
Anything that God is for we instinctley oppose or rebel against.You sure you mean that? What about love? Beauty? Soft, cuddly critters?
That is why following Him will cost you your life here on earth.
AHA! So if I DON'T follow him, I won't die? Seriously, nobody gets outta here alive; you can follow all the gods and their purple twins; won't do you any good.
Complete surrender of the things that cause one to rebel. This why it was never His intent for these type's of sexual conduct. If it was then why does He condemn it in the scriptures?
There were so MANY things he condemned that NOONE pays any attention to anymore. Eating shellfish. Wearing different types of cloth, having graven images, coveting thy neighbor's ass, blah, blah, blah. The guy broke just about every rule he lay down for people to follow. Then you cherry-pick the ones you like to fit what makes you feel good and call it morality.
you and I would not be engaging in this because I would see that it was written by God and that this was His intent.
1. Where is it written that the other sexualities are not made by god?
2. It's not written by god, it's written by man, and therefore, very subject to error and who knows where it came from.
I have heard many testimony's from Christian men who once lived a homosexual lifestyle. Although they no longer practice it (and some have even married women and had children) they do concede they are "tempted" from time to time Then they are lying to themselves to try to fit in with society. There is a difference in denying temptation and denying yourself. I have a brother-in-law who spent the first forty years of his life trying to pretend he wasn't gay. Since I was a teen, I've known others who also tried to pass. They could do it, but they were miserably unhappy. Many people who commit suicide are closet gays. I don't have a citing for that, it's an inderground source I can't reveal. You just don't know the price your're asking them to pay for your comfort.
You used to be a non-believer. Can you go back in time and imagine a world where there was no Bible, no word of god to condemn homosexuality, or bisexuality. What if peoople who were attracted to each other just mixed together and nobody said anything about it. There would still be plenty of hetersexual sex. There would be people who were born with male bodies, but their hormones told them to hook up to other males--and there would be other males that would in turn be available to them. The same for females who liked females. It...doesn't ...do....any....harm.
You haven't shown me that it does any harm. Show me if you can.
Does that mean you MIGHT be getting your own blog?
Not what I meant. Thought I might email you a picture though.
Wow. These comments are getting long.
but then I deny who I am,
Hmmm....if you say this, you should be able to get the idea about homosexuality....
till next time
Hello again Karen,
Regarding animals:
"Yes, we are. Sorry."
No we are not and I am not sorry. I do believe we must acknowledge a stalemate on this one as I can already see that neither of us is about to budge.
"Most animals don't live by what we would call a moral compass, but some are capable of empathy and the concept of fairness."
Empathy I will give you. Fairness? No. But for sake of argument here no moral compass has been established either way. If we are animals like you say we are then we too should only be capable of a little bit of empathy and the odd bit of fairness now and again. However regarding some of the more deviant sexual lifestyles that we have discussed there should be no shame, guilt, or judgement because we are all just animals and if the animals can do it then so can we, right?
"I am not providing a line of reasoning. You said the acts weren't natural. I said they occurred in nature, in lesser animals, by which I meant that humans didn't specifically contrive them. That doesn't mean that every act is acceptable in general society. (I know, that's your point.)"
I am glad to see you understand my point but your entire statement here contradicts itself. First you state that you are not giving a line of reasoning regarding (I assume) pedophilia, bestiality, etc. But you justify homosexuality with the phrase "because the animals do it". I say the acts are not natural even if they occur in nature. You on the other hand say they are natural because they occur in nature. Thus proving them to be a natural act. But this apparently only applies to homosexuals according to your statements. The other sexual acts of rape, incest, and pedophilia that are going on naturally within the natural environment are excluded. Either they are all natural or they are not. You are picking and choosing in order to rationalize your perception.
You also say that not every act is acceptable in society. That would include, when asking the majority, homosexuality. As you understand my point already, when one states that homosexuality is natural because it has been observed in animals then the door opens wide for the rapist/pedophile/incestuous relative to apply the same line of reasoning whether it is acceptable in society or not. This is how your statements "provide" a line of reasoning although I am obviously aware you do not support the rest of them.
" when man acts in a homosexual manner, it isn't necessarily an unnatural act."
Placing one's anatomy into an orifice that has only two muscles that are specifically meant for "pushing" (not receiving) out bodily excrement is natural? I am sure we have all been for our physicals over time and there is nothing "natural" about that feeling. Medical science and physicians alike will not endorse this as they know the long term damage this can have when one tears their rectal lining and in some cases it is irreparable. Sorry Karen, you cannot convince me there is anything natural about that.
"I haven't researched it, but I doubt that hormones has anything to do with necrophilia, pedophilia, or polygamy. Genetics might. I wonder if there are any studies?"
Hormones are what determine how high or low our sexual drive is. Regarding genetics I am aware of one experiment conducted over the years to try and substantiate the claim that homosexuality is genetic. The study fell apart when researcher's discovered that because identical twins share the same genetic make up they also share the same DNA. If genetics was the cause for homosexuality (or other sexual preferences) then both twins would have to either be gay or straight. What they found was too many cases where one was gay and one was straight. This refuted the theory that homosexuality is a genetically inherited.
"I notice you sidestepped my question about oral sex."
Wasn't necessarily sidestepping it just seemed a little personal. But I will indulge you. In my BC (before Christ) years I did engage. That changed for me when I became a Christian. Nobody told me it was wrong or unnatural and regarding scripture (unless I have overlooked it) I have never found anything saying that I cannot. However by my own personal conviction that I believe comes from God I no longer partake. Now before you point out that scripture may not say anything at all in regards to it therefore it must be OK keep in mind then that would only state that God would be OK with it within the confines of a heterosexual marriage. Every sexual practice outside of the heterosexual marriage is forbidden by God. So He may be OK with it provided it is within the confines of the man/woman marital unit. He is very clear that the heterosexual union (marriage) is blessed by Him.
"Quite possibly I am." regarding imposing your morality on pedophiles.
Actually, Yes Karen, you are. Although I am in total agreement with you on this one.
"By man's authority. Morals are made by man."
Which man? Which man's moral code? What are they? Without this authority how can you even begin to establish morality? How do you decide which ones to go by? And in keeping in line with the atheists view of moral relativity, how can you possibly establish that which is right and wrong? One man thinks homosexuality is OK another does not. Do you just pick the one's you like and toss the rest away? I can always resort to God for my moral authority but when your first comparing us to animals and then gauging our level morality to ourselves I suspect you do not hold the human race in very high regard.
Anyways these questions are going off on a bunny trail. You do not have to respond to them.
"Hey, guess what? Here in NC, you don't even have to state irreconcilable differences. Just separate for a year and a day and you can get divorced."
I do believe we are heading the same direction. In fact I believe we are already there. Sad isn't it?
"Congrats on your 12 years and still in love. We're at 29 and about to separate. That "till death" thing? My husband decided I was too ill to deal with any longer. So much for vows."
Thank you. The first years were the rough ones with the reckless lifestyle I once led. If we can make it thru that we can make it thru anything.
I am truly sorry to hear about your personal situation. 29 years is a lot to have invested into a relationship. And he is leaving because you are ILL? Wow! What a man. (denote my cynicism and pass it on to him) I got no respect for guy's who walk out on their wives when they need them most.
"Well, the Bible did. Sometimes, it was the man's sister-in-law, sometimes his daughters.
OK this one can be another bunny trail however it is somewhat applicable considering the topic. I understand where BF is coming from as he is correct in that it is not Christian law. Many things that took place within the Old Testament times were done away with when the New covenant came into place. For example a lot of the old Jewish sacrificial rituals continued on after Christ but they were no longer necessary because Christ had fulfilled the ultimate sacrifice for sins. The only thing that transcended from the old to the new was moral law. When it came to "populating the earth" in OT times God did permit inter family marriage "But only for a time" after that He put a stop to it. However I am not so sure about the daughter's you speak of. I recall in Genesis where Lot's daughter's took advantage of his "slip up". (he got drunk one night) and slept with him in order to impregnate themselves as they felt they were never going to marry and continue the family lineage. This was not something Lot initiated. Is it possible he could have sex with his own daughters in such an inebriated state and not remember? I would say yes. I used to suffer "blackouts" in my drinking days and I did not remember many acts that I apparently committed.
" But the fact is, it didn't change under Christianity for quite some time"
That was by human choice. Not because it was necessary. If I climb to the top of a mountain with a sacrificial goat for my sins then I am doing it by my own accord. Not because God requires it of me. I am engaging in a practice that was done away with when the NT came into effect.
"If you think god makes people and there are homosexuals, who made them if god didn't?"
God made man. Man made the choice. God did not make man a homosexual (or a pedophile, rapist, etc.). He just made him. Because you can physically walk away from the act of sex one can willingly choose not to indulge. You make it sound like homosexuals have no control over themselves.
"What a deliciously Freudian slip!!! Yes, I saw your later correction! ;)"
Yeah, thanks for rubbing it in. (LOL).
"Man would not have fallen had god not set him up to fall."
Be careful how you observe this Karen. Put this into the perspective of your own child/children. I am quite sure as a mother (Keeping in mind God the father) that you love your child to the point where you would lay down your own life for him/her. There is nothing you would not do for them. But ask yourself this, would you want your children to love you, adore you, and respect you because they "chose" to or because you made it so they had too? In other words they actually had no choice in the matter. Speaking as a parent I think I already know your response to this. If God created us for fellowship and relationship what good are we if we are essentially bunch of robots bowing down on command. The relationship is not real. It is superficial. Did God know we would fall? I am sure He did. Does that mean He wanted us to fall? I do not believe that for a moment. I believe He really wanted Adam to make the correct decision regarding the fruit of the tree and continue on in a close relationship with Him. After all He did instruct Adam not to do it and even told him of the consequences yet God still allowed him to make his own choice. Had Adam chosen not to partake of the fruit the world would be a different place and yet it still would have been man's choice. God allowed freewill because He desires a real relationship with His own creation.
"Heh,yeah, don't cross me. ;)"
Glad your in NC in that case.
"But nowhere does it ever say for the man to also "submit" to the woman"
Right. But you take the "submit" thing out of context. God has ordained the husband as head of the household. Although the man makes many decisions they are not to be without the valid input of the wife. After all they are partners. The "submit" portion refers for her to respect her husbands final decision after all input has been consider and weighed. A wise husband will not just hear but actually listen to what his wife has to say. She is not considered sub human. by God. However God is a God of order.
Also keep in mind that often in scripture we see Christ refer to Himself as the groom and the church as the bridegroom. We are given a picture of marriage thru the life of Christ. As a groom what example did he set? He served the body, including the ones who later rejected him. (Example: washing the disciples dirty, grungy, smelly feet). He also said that "I have not come to be served but TO serve." If He is the example for the groom then that clearly tells me as a man that although I am to take leadership in my home I am also called upon to serve my wife. Make a little more sense now?
"You sure you mean that? What about love? Beauty? Soft, cuddly critters?"
Yes I do. Love has been distorted to apply to sexual relations for example. How many teenagers are giving up their virginity because they are mistaking infatuation and hormonal rage for love? How many people move into together before marriage because they feel they are in love when really all they had was some good sex and no relationship? That is not love and that is one form of how it is rebelled against. And beauty? Do you ever take notice of the world's version of beauty? It usually includes a strung out crack addict model who is thinner then a beanpole and looks like death warmed over. That is not beauty that is tragic.
Although there is certainly remnants of love and beauty I was just using a couple of examples of what I meant when I say man rebels against the natural order of God.
"AHA! So if I DON'T follow him, I won't die? Seriously, nobody gets outta here alive; you can follow all the gods and their purple twins; won't do you any good."
I have been misunderstood here. My fault for speaking "Christianese". Sometimes I make the mistake that everyone just knows exactly what I am talking about. When I say following Christ will you cost you your life that does not necessarily mean physical death. Take myself for example. I have "died" to my old self. I have given up my old ways. I no longer practice sexual sin, drunken debauchery, intimidation, physical harm, instilling fear, stealing, extorting and all those other rotten things I used to do. I have surrendered my entire life over to Jesus. Therefore, by choosing to follow Him it literally cost me my life. My life now belongs to Him and not me.
" Eating shellfish. Wearing different types of cloth, having graven images, coveting thy neighbor's ass, blah, blah, blah. The guy broke just about every rule he lay down for people to follow. Then you cherry-pick the ones you like to fit what makes you feel good and call it morality."
No cherry picking here. Christ did away with the laws of sacrificial rituals, and the mosaic laws of what to wear and what to eat. He also did it by the authority that He was given as the son of God. You need to understand first why these laws were there in the first place. In order to protect the Israelites from adopting "heathen" traditions and gods measures were put into place that intentionally set them apart as God's people. When Christ came to offer redemption to the "Jews" as well as the "gentiles" there was no longer any need for these ritualistic laws to be in place as redemption was offered to ALL people of all cultural backgrounds.
That is why only moral laws transcended to the NT times. Morality is a human characteristic instilled in each and everyone of us. We are born with it and it carries over from generation to generation. It is written that the laws of God are ingrained upon the heart of man. That is why without you ever reading a bible you instinctively know that stealing is wrong. Murder is wrong. lying is wrong, etc. No man has to tell you that. Which is why I questioned your man made morality earlier.
"1. Where is it written that the other sexualities are not made by god?"
Where is it written that they are?
"2. It's not written by god, it's written by man, and therefore, very subject to error and who knows where it came from."
This is one of those arguments that will end up in a stalemate. Instead I'm going off on another bunny trail, and I do not know if you are much of a reader, but check out "the case for Christ" written by a very outspoken "former" atheist Lee Strobel. I certainly expect you to draw your own conclusions but who better to explain this statement that you make then a former atheist who made the same claims that you do.
"Then they are lying to themselves to try to fit in with society."
Please Karen. That is a rather presumptuous statement. Are you telling me these people are incapable of making a life changing decision for themselves? You make it sound like the "crusaders" came in and rounded them up like a herd of cattle and forced them into the pen. If you and I can both agree that "homosexuals are people too" then do not equate them as a bunch of weak minded fools who are incapable of making an individual decision regarding their own lives. Not every homosexual wants to remain a homosexual. And it can have nothing at all to do with external influence.
"You used to be a non-believer. Can you go back in time and imagine a world where there was no Bible, no word of god to condemn homosexuality, or bisexuality."
Yes I remember. But I was far less tolerant of it then , then I am now. I never recognized it as a natural act. I also did not accept evolution even though I was a non believer in God. It just never fit the equation. The logic and the science never lined up.
"You haven't shown me that it does any harm. Show me if you can."
I feel I have clearly demonstrated that thru societal impacts on children and religious rights and freedoms clashing with equality freedoms clashing with sexual freedoms and so forth. You even acknowledged them. Did you forget? Or did you minimize them so you could make such a statement. The impacts are rather colossal.
"Not what I meant. Thought I might email you a picture though."
I will look forward to it. Let me know thru comments when you do so I am sure to open up your e-mail. Unless your e-mail address says Karen right on it then I will know it is from you.
"Wow. These comments are getting long."
Agreed. I will be the gentleman here and let you have the last word. Even if it pains me not to respond because I might have a "killer" comeback to something you might say. I really should be writing my next entry anyway. I think I have written enough for two blog posts already in this response alone.
Always a pleasure Karen.
ITO
Your non-acceptance of evolution explains a lot. And presents a gulf we will probably not bridge over humans being animals and morals evolving naturally through time, circumstance and society. So I'm going to skip the arguments about nature and morality, if that's ok.
But ask yourself this, would you want your children to love you, adore you, and respect you because they "chose" to or because you made it so they had too?I want my children to love me because I show them love, respect me because I give them respect. I would not expect them to love me if I gave them impossible tests in order to receive my love.
If God created us for fellowship and relationship what good are we if we are essentially bunch of robots bowing down on command. I thought god was complete unto himself. Why did he need to make us for fellowship and relationship? If he is almighty, how can it possibly bother him if we don't properly relate to him?
I believe He really wanted Adam to make the correct decision regarding the fruit of the tree and continue on in a close relationship with Him.
Why was there a need to have him make the decision in the first place. It's like lighting a fire in the fireplace with a baby present, then telling the baby he should decide not to touch the fire, and leaving the room. The baby doesn't have the capability to make the decision. Adam, without tasting of the tree of knowledge, didn't have the same capability. He was akin to a baby in innocence and developmental knowledge.
Aside from that, if one of my children learns a lesson by making the wrong choice, I do not punish ALL of my children for what the one child has chosen!!!
He may be OK with it provided it is within the confines of the man/woman marital unit. He is very clear that the heterosexual union (marriage) is blessed by Him. So anything goes within the traditional marital unit, eh? Bondage, S&M, anal, oral, dildos, what-have-you? Kind of hypocritical for something to be natural if one is married, but unnatural if not.
I have given up my old ways. I no longer practice sexual sin, drunken debauchery, intimidation, physical harm, instilling fear, stealing, extorting and all those other rotten things I used to do.
Gee, I don't do those things either. Never have-well, a christian would say i have sexually sinned-and I do it without Jesus. People mistake me for a christian all the time; it's quite irritating.
It is written that the laws of God are ingrained upon the heart of man. That is why without you ever reading a bible you instinctively know that stealing is wrong. Murder is wrong. lying is wrong, etc. No man has to tell you that. Which is why I questioned your man made morality earlier.
Again, I disagree. I think it must be taught. There may be some ingrained sense of protecting the herd and maitaining the species; that killing is not beneficial, but not that it is inherently wrong.
Are you telling me these people are incapable of making a life changing decision for themselves?
OK. YOU try to be homosexual. Go ahead. Try it. For 10 minutes. Are you capable?
I feel I have clearly demonstrated that thru societal impacts on children and religious rights and freedoms clashing with equality freedoms clashing with sexual freedoms and so forth. You even acknowledged them. Did you forget? I guess I have. What did I acknowledge? The only negative societal impact I see is the bashing of gay parents. If you don't deny freedoms, there is no need for clashing of freedoms. (yes, there is still that problematic polygamy leading to beasiality leading to pedophilia thing...)
I got no respect for guy's who walk out on their wives when they need them most.
Well, in all fairness, he's stayed thru 13 years of intensive therapy for me, while I went thru breakdowns and was constantly suicidal. The irony is that now I'm getting mentally stronger, and having physical problems, but he thinks it's all mental and just doesn't want to deal with it anymore. And iactually brought up the idea of a separation, because we were so strained: I thought time apart might help. I envisioned counseling; he just wants out.
I'll get my son to take a digital pic of my tat and let you know when I'm sending it in a comment as you said.
Hope you'll change your mind about giving me the last word!
Karen:
"Hope you'll change your mind about giving me the last word!"
I just felt that was fair in order to bring the debate to a close.
You did gave many responses that I was chomping at the bit to respond but I wanted to honor my word.
I am willing to tangle some more if you are willing to "release" me to do so.
Well, discussing the issue is fine, but I think there was an impasse about 20 comments ago. It’s like watching a dog going around in circles trying to catch its tail, but no matter how many spins or how much faster the dog goes around it never gets it.
Perhaps things get redundant at a certain point (though patience has never been my forte).
ITO
Release away!
BF
Welcome home from vacation. I trust you are well R&R'd?
There are very well thought arguments presented here.However,I have to agree with the author(TIP)on lots of things he says here.When we talk about individual rights we also must not forget the society's rights.Lots of times we have spoken about moral decay of our societies while separating society's interests and rights.And moral decay has a lot to do with family as the original entity of society.I believe its quite unfair to deny the children to choose about their sexual orientation by influencing and totally confusing them (automatically) at a tender age when they can't figure out what is going on.Using common sense and not emotions,one could easily realize that it does not to be everybody,everytime!
BF:
Nice to have you back bro. Hope your trip was an enjoyable one.
I suspect with the new baby it may have not been all that much relaxing as those little critter's can keep a parent hopping.
Jeff;
Good to hear from you. I always appreciate your contributions.
Karen:
I have not forgotten my response to you. Thank you for relaeasing me to do so.
I am going to try and piece it and post it here before I leave for my vaction on the weekend.
I do agree with BF that we are begining to run circles here so I will offer up one last response to you and should you choose to do so..fire away at me one last time.
Of course I will be anticipating your participation the next time I post a hot button issue. I appreciate your input, I don't agree with alot of it, but I do respect your views.
ITO
Looking forward to your response.
And a new issue to discuss. You told me to stay on you about the Rev. Phelps, so here's a reminder.
In all honesty, I have to say, I respect you, but not some of your views. I do deeply appreciate being able to discuss our differences, however. Thank you.
I hope you have a lovely and restful vacation.
Karen:
thank you for the kind words and well wishes on my departure.
"You told me to stay on you about the Rev. Phelps, so here's a reminder."
Thank you also for your accountability. I have not forgotten and I will make it my next posting. when I return.
Alright Karen, my final response:
"Your non-acceptance of evolution explains a lot."
Your non-acceptance of God explains a lot more. (LOL)
"morals evolving naturally through time, circumstance and society. "
Sounds like an oxymoron. How can morals evolve when, from your perspective, there was nothing "in the beginning" to even substantiate them. What foundation were they even founded upon? I can claim God and that they have always been that way, unchanging, from the beginning but from your view, who decided what was right and what was wrong in the first place? And what or who decides whose morality should trump another's?
"I would not expect them to love me if I gave them impossible tests in order to receive my love."
If we are going back to the garden of Eden then I must first point out that the "love" was already there when God breathed life into Adam. He certainly did not create man out of disdain.
Secondly, just what is so "impossible" about staying away from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"? This was not an impossible test. This is a choice between obedience and disobedience.
The other thing you have missed here is that even when the "test",as you say, was failed, God's love still remained. Therefore, there was no "impossible" test that was required in order to receive His love.
-Man was created out of love.
-Man was given a mandate by God.
-Man willfully chose to disobey and paid a price for it.
-God continued to love man regardless and proved that by providing a way back to Him thru redemption of one's sin's thru the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
In summary, there was no test in the first place. Especially in order to receive God's love as it was already in place. You have misconstrued the story.
"If he is almighty, how can it possibly bother him if we don't properly relate to him?"
Prior to man's fall he did relate to God accordingly. Everything he did was within the will of God. Why would it bother God if we do not relate properly? Because our way of not relating properly is called sin. We are choosing to willfully rebel against Him. That is why it would bother Him.
"Why was there a need to have him make the decision in the first place."
Why not? Then one has not chosen to love God. God has made them to worship Him by essentially making their decision for them. In that case why give man a brain if he is not allowed to make the decision on his own. Which would you prefer? That your children love you by choice or because you "programmed" them too?
"The baby doesn't have the capability to make the decision. Adam, without tasting of the tree of knowledge, didn't have the same capability."
Well actually he did. Unlike a baby, Adam had constant communication with God. He could listen as well as respond to God. A baby cannot. Adam understood the word's "do not eat" because when Eve presented him with the apple his initial response to her was "God said do not eat". He acknowledged God's instructions and the consequences when he also said to Eve"..or we will surely die". Adam knew exactly what he was doing. In other word's, he did have full knowledge, otherwise he could not have known the consequences ahead of time. The real problem here is Eve must have been one "hot dish" for him to make such a dumb choice.
" So anything goes within the traditional marital unit, eh? Bondage, S&M, anal, oral, dildos, what-have-you?"
Tying someone up, anal, dildo's and what have you do not represent "natural". They take the "natural" way and distort it. If, for example, buggery is condemned in the bible then that would cross over even into the marital unit as non-permissible. However, heterosexual sex is quite permissible but only within the confines of marriage as heterosexual sexual activity is only condemned outside of marriage. So there are some practices that are condemned across the board whether in marriage or not and some that are permissible within the marital unit but not outside of that. But somehow I do not think you are going to understand this as I speak from a Christian perspective.
"Again, I disagree. I think it must be taught." (re: morality)
Based on what? Your ideals? What if I disagree? I can do that. I can challenge your morality, question it and even ignore it. What I cannot do is argue with God's.
"There may be some ingrained sense of protecting the herd and maitaining the species; that killing is not beneficial, but not that it is inherently wrong."
So murder actually is OK it is just not beneficial. Well, the world is starting to overpopulate so why don't we just lift prison terms for the next three decades and "legalize" murder in order to downsize.
It is either wrong or it is not. It cannot be "inherently wrong". You have failed to establish any sense of morality whatsoever. Your essentially saying there is no wrong or right (which says there is no morality/values) only that which is convenient for the time being. This refutes your earlier argument that morality is established thru the evolution of circumstance and society. How can you establish it if you do not actually accept or cannot recognize an absolute wrong or right?
Again you have no basis or foundation that could stand the test of time. Murder is wrong today BUT circumstance and society could decide that it is OK tomorrow.
And on a final note:
"In all honesty, I have to say, I respect you, but not some of your views."
I do thank you for that. Now allow me to point out the core of my post regarding our favorite word, "tolerance".
I feel likewise towards yourself "only" I do respect your views. I totally disagree with them but I respect them as yours to have. THAT is the true definition of tolerance.
You respect me but you do not respect my views. You do not respect them because they do not "agree" with yours. This is what is referred to as "intolerant" as the definition stands.
And that, Karen, was what the whole point of my article was all about.
I will look forward to more dialogue with you when I get back. I am already mentally preparing my "expose" on Freddy boy.
TIO
First, I apologize for getting your initials mixed up all this time.
Second, so much to say, but since you won't be answering, I will let most of it go. Perhaps there will be other opportunities on another post. Or not.
Last, as to intolerance and respect: Something to think about. Can you honestly say you respect the views of the pedophile and the polygamist and the homosexual? If you do, I don't get that perception from what you write.
I do vehemently disagree with many of your views. I respect both you and your right to hold them. I do not have to respect the ideas themselves.
Have a wonderful vacation.
karen
"TIO
First, I apologize for getting your initials mixed up all this time."
Fugeddaahbowditt! Possibly one of those "Freudian" slips? Although I am not sure I would want to know what the acronym stands for.
I am not leaving for a few hours yet so I thought I would take the opportunity for a quick response to your question.
"Second, so much to say, but since you won't be answering, I will let most of it go."
That is your decision to make but eventually a ceasefire has to be called when the two opposing sides are unwilling to budge. Although I do enjoy the experience of learning more about the oppositions train of thought and why they feel the way they do.
And also remember Karen that some of us "Right wing Christian" holy roller's do have a family member who is gay as well as co-workers and friends. Just because we disagree with them does not mean we are incapable of co-existing together. Only Fred Phelps is. (LOL)
"Can you honestly say you respect the views of the pedophile and the polygamist and the homosexual?"
You bring up a valid point here. As you say, something to think about. However there is a little bit of comparing "apples to oranges".
By your own admission and my agreement, homosexuals and polygamists are consenting adults. Although I oppose their lifestyle's I do respect their right to choose and I am respectful of their entitled opinions, just not in agreement. I voice that disagreement when the issue's continue to give rise to it.
The pedophile, on the other hand, manipulates his/her victim thru deception, lies, fear, and threats. Thus "trying" to cloak the situation into one of consent where the reality is the innocence of a child instead has been stolen thru the fear of some sort of retribution.
Therefore without feeling I have contradicted myself I can say no I do not respect the pedophile's views/opinions or values.
Talk to ya when I return as I am sure down the road I will post on this subject and other's I am sure you will be in disagreement with but I value your input.
Hey, I would appreciate your input on my latest posting. Did I even come close to figuring out how you women function based on my years of observation
TIO
Heh. I think ITO was just a slightly dyslexic form of shrtening InTolerantOne, and leaving off the "the".
Just because we disagree with them does not mean we are incapable of co-existing together. Only Fred Phelps is. (LOL)
Yeah, but I bet it makes it uncomfortable for them, at least, if they know how you feel. I'm thinking of the friend of my son, whose folks just found out he's bisexual (their son). His mother told him she could NEVER accept his lifestyle and he would not be welcome in their home with a partner of the same sex. And she's a school psychologist. His dad has been quieter on the issue, but supports sending the son off to military school to "fix" him. It's just so sad to me. My own son is Bi, and we have been openly accepting, and welcomed both male and female partners into his life and our home. And guess what? The sky didn't fall.
One of my Baptist friends commented to me that I must be so relieved that my son is currently in a relationship with a young lady. I told her it made no difference to me; I just wanted him to be happy, and would support him either way.
Yes, I guess the discussion must come to an end at some point. I have so much more to say; but I will agree to disagree.
From your explanation about the pedophile, polygamy, homosexual respect situation, I would say we are both approaching it in a similar way.
But I had thought before you had accused me of contradicting myself morally by supporting homosexuality, not condemning polygamy and being against pedophilia. I don't see why I have to have a god-belief to be able to do that, if we are looking at it from a consenting adult position, which I have consistently done.
I stopped in at your new post. I had missed it because I had this one bookmarked, and didn''t notice that the new one was over to the side there.
Viva vacation!
ITO:
Here's my response -http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/2006/07/consider-line-in-sand-drawn-support.html
TIO,
It’s too bad an atheist line can only be in the sand. Just kick some dirt over an impermanent line and walla! If only they had a line that could not be moved to appeal to…hmmm
RA:
Read your response/entry. Your argument is well thought out and yet predicatble.
What I do not see in your response is what it has to do with my entry which address's the double standard set by those in favour of gay marriage within their masses when manipulating the word "Tolerance"!
It would appear that the term "Tolerance" is used when it is in favor of their particular cause and is not recognised when they cannot seem to practice it with those who have an opposing view.
Kinda of like the atheist and morality? Morality comes into play when it suits their argument otherwise it does not excist. It is all relative.
Alanita:
Good to see you back girl.
" Popular subject, eh?!"
Popular? I would say "touchy" might be the more appropriate term.
However, it should not be that way. If someone has an opposing view to the subject (even within general society) then they should have the inexplicable right to voice that view without fear of reprecussion or insult.
"I've been trying to get into contact with you for a while with great difficulty."
I sent you one of those "invites" at your other site. The one you sent me expired. Did you even recieve it? I have not had a response from you either.
I am sure we will eventually connect but I think I may require some coaching on how that will happen.
BF:
Ditto! It makes for a rather confusing debate when one is permitted to move the line according to their argument.
Siighhhh! Like trying to debate a Liberal.
TIO:
What I do not see in your response is what it has to do with my entry which address's the double standard set by those in favour of gay marriage within their masses when manipulating the word "Tolerance"!
Ummm...yes I did cover that. I didn't write the post in response to yours: it's been building for some time.
It's actually a normal response of centuries of discrimination. Point #5.
Once the dust settles, I'm sure this will tone down somewhat. It goes to acceptance, and newness.
Give it a decade or so.
It would appear that the term "Tolerance" is used when it is in favor of their particular cause and is not recognised when they cannot seem to practice it with those who have an opposing view.
Hey, that's not exclusive to any 1 group of folks. Again, common response. Somebody somewhere is gonna get stoked over something.
Besides which, what do you define as 'tolerance', exactly?
Kinda of like the atheist and morality? Morality comes into play when it suits their argument otherwise it does not excist. It is all relative.
I don't know who you're talking to: 'cause it sure ain't me.
It makes for a rather confusing debate when one is permitted to move the line according to their argument.
Again: not me. I stick to my guns, & my parameters are drawn.
I get a little tired of the innuendoes of dishonesty, truth be told.
I may be a leftie liberal atheist, but I'm also an honest man.
RA:
"Besides which, what do you define as 'tolerance', exactly?"
Being at peace and co-existing with your neighbor WITHOUT having to agree/accept/condone/etc. their lifestyle if it conflicts with my personal values and beliefs.
This is called "Traditional tolerance". Something today's "enlightened" society is trying to do away with.
Society is moving towards the "positive tolerance" movement which essentially says that if I as an individual do not recognize ALL lifestyles as acceptable then I am deemed INTOLERANT!
This is the double standard that is now the precedent. The "tolerant" now label you as "intolerant" for not agreeing with them. Hence my adopted blogger name.
Appeasing them has become an exercise in futility.
"I may be a leftie liberal atheist, but I'm also an honest man."
I did not know a "lefty" was capable of being honest! (LOL) Just a little jab, no offense intended.
I can respect your statement. Glad to see you stopping by. I do appreciate "opposing" input.
ITO:
Yeesh, I keep screwing up your acronym. Apologies.
Being at peace and co-existing with your neighbor WITHOUT having to agree/accept/condone/etc. their lifestyle if it conflicts with my personal values and beliefs.
That's fair enough.
This is called "Traditional tolerance". Something today's "enlightened" society is trying to do away with.
Traditional? Maybe in Canada. Down south here, tolerance is a battleground. Nobody can agree on the definition.
Society is moving towards the "positive tolerance" movement which essentially says that if I as an individual do not recognize ALL lifestyles as acceptable then I am deemed INTOLERANT!
ALL lifestyles? Bit of a broad brush statement there, ain't it? I mean, for instance, I support gay marriage. I certainly don't support some of the more disgusting POVs.
This is the double standard that is now the precedent. The "tolerant" now label you as "intolerant" for not agreeing with them. Hence my adopted blogger name.
Hey, again, you get large groups of people who are at odds, no matter what the issue is, epithets are gonna fly. That's just people. Take Dante Aligheri. Guy who wrote the Divine Comedy, came up w/a general roadmap of hell.
Back in the day, he was a member of a political party named the Whites, who were violently opposed to a group called the Reds (or Blacks?). He actually put them in hell in his work, because of the political partisanship.
People are going to call each other names. Left, right, blue, green, it's just human nature, that's all.
For the record, I think you're remarkably tolerant.
Appeasing them has become an exercise in futility.
As some wise old wag once said, "You can't please all of the people all of the time" (no, that wasn't Lincoln).
I did not know a "lefty" was capable of being honest! (LOL) Just a little jab, no offense intended.
I'm really not all that thin-skinned. It does wear on the nerves a bit. I'm a WYSIWYG sorta guy: too damn blunt for my own good. I just get a little incensed when my character is questioned, is all.
I can respect your statement. Glad to see you stopping by. I do appreciate "opposing" input.
See? You keep bein' so nice, you may have to adopt a new nickname. ;)
RA:
"Yeesh, I keep screwing up your acronym. Apologies."
Fugeddabowdit! Happens all the time.
"Down south here, tolerance is a battleground. Nobody can agree on the definition."
Well then maybe you can begin to appreciate what we are going thru up here. Your definition of tolerance battle is our definition of marriage battle.
"ALL lifestyles? Bit of a broad brush statement there, ain't it? I mean, for instance, I support gay marriage. I certainly don't support some of the more disgusting POVs."
Not when you are from Canada where self professing pedophiles like John Robin Sharpe write vile crap about having sex with boys and distributing it. Then having the police arrest him just so some boneheaded supreme court judge can dismiss the charges stating that his garbage "warrants artistic merit". No RA, I am not kidding. Why do you think some of your 40 year old American counterparts flock to our nation where sex with a 14 year old is legal? We have to be ever so tolerant of everyone's "RIGHT'S" to their preferential sexual freedom. It is no longer about common sense and basic human decency.
You and i are certainly in agreement regarding POV's but up here "tolerance" has gone overboard.
"For the record, I think you're remarkably tolerant."
Aww shucks. Who is being the nice guy now? Besides, I am Canadian. In our free and democratic society we are only allowed to behave in a politically correct manner. (denote my sarcasm)
"You can't please all of the people all of the time" (no, that wasn't Lincoln)."
Hey, I would not expect you to quote a Christian. (LOL)
"you may have to adopt a new nickname."
And let my legion of fans down? Who then would be the voice of controversy? Who then would stand up and say: "YES, I will be the voice of intolerance!"
ITO:
Well then maybe you can begin to appreciate what we are going thru up here. Your definition of tolerance battle is our definition of marriage battle.
Well, I still stand firm: not allowing gays to marry is discriminatory. Forbidding 1 group of people the right to marry is just plain wrong.
Not when you are from Canada where self professing pedophiles like John Robin Sharpe write vile crap about having sex with boys and distributing it. Then having the police arrest him just so some boneheaded supreme court judge can dismiss the charges stating that his garbage "warrants artistic merit". No RA, I am not kidding. Why do you think some of your 40 year old American counterparts flock to our nation where sex with a 14 year old is legal? We have to be ever so tolerant of everyone's "RIGHT'S" to their preferential sexual freedom. It is no longer about common sense and basic human decency.
Well, we've got those sorts down here too. & again, if they don't act on it, not much that can be done. I don't approve of those fellas; but we've got the 1st amendment. That protects the people I dislike just as much as the people I like.
"I do not know why they call it common sense, as it is not so common." - Voltaire.
14 is legal age up there? Holy crap. I look at a 20 yr old beauty, I think, "I'm old enough to be her dad!" Legal consenting age is a cultural thing, not gonna go there.
You and i are certainly in agreement regarding POV's but up here "tolerance" has gone overboard.
Well, really, I don't think the slippery slope argument is as powerful as you or BF make it out to be. We had the Sexual revolution in the 70's, remember? 36 yrs. later, (almost) everyone still agrees about consenting adults.
Aww shucks. Who is being the nice guy now? Besides, I am Canadian. In our free and democratic society we are only allowed to behave in a politically correct manner. (denote my sarcasm)
Hey, I hear ya. I go over to the Nogodblog pretty frequently. We get accused of intolerance on a regular basis. Most people protest at how we bash religion. Just had a recent poster proclaim it a 'hate site'.
Trust me, we on the left get the accusation just as frequently.
Hey, I would not expect you to quote a Christian. (LOL)
I know you're kinda kidding, but I've quoted xtians in the past. Someone's right, they're right, regardless of proclivity. What I meant (& didn't explain), was that's attributed to Lincoln, but unprovable.
And let my legion of fans down? Who then would be the voice of controversy? Who then would stand up and say: "YES, I will be the voice of intolerance!"
Trust you me: if either of us stopped, someone else would fill in. Nature abhors a vacuum.
RA:
"Well, I still stand firm: not allowing gays to marry is discriminatory. Forbidding 1 group of people the right to marry is just plain wrong."
As do I stand firm. It was in no way discriminating. Forbidden? Gays were always allowed to marry under the definition of marriage. Re-defining marriage and making it out to be a "rights" issue (which it was not since the "right" was already in place) in order to pacify them is just as ludicrous as handing my seven year old the keys to my Harley because he feels he has the "right' to drive it.
"14 is legal age up there? "
For now. Our newly elected conservative government is looking to move it up to 16. And up here it is most definitely not a cultural thing. We're Canada, we do not have a national identity. That is why our "liberals" spend so much time comparing ourselves to Americans telling us how "we are not like them". They are such a grumpy lot in obvious denial.
"Well, really, I don't think the slippery slope argument is as powerful as you or BF make it out to be."
I wouldn't bet the farm on that. Just because it does not happen immediately does not mean it won't eventually get there.
"Trust you me: if either of us stopped, someone else would fill in. Nature abhors a vacuum."
Agreed. And we would not want to let our fans down with second rate substitutes. :)
ITO:
As do I stand firm. It was in no way discriminating. Forbidden? Gays were always allowed to marry under the definition of marriage. Re-defining marriage and making it out to be a "rights" issue (which it was not since the "right" was already in place) in order to pacify them is just as ludicrous as handing my seven year old the keys to my Harley because he feels he has the "right' to drive it.
Wait: what? Always allowed? In your country? You lost me there. It’s never been allowed here in the USA. Your analogy w/the Harley falls flat, because we’re talking about adults here.
. For now. Our newly elected conservative government is looking to move it up to 16. And up here it is most definitely not a cultural thing. We're Canada, we do not have a national identity. That is why our "liberals" spend so much time comparing ourselves to Americans telling us how "we are not like them". They are such a grumpy lot in obvious denial. .
No national identity? Yeesh, must be kinda messy up there. Hope y’all hash that out soon.;)
The Asians have an interesting take: you’re not out of puberty until you’re 25. If I was 24, I’d have bridled at that. In my middle-age, it makes a whole lotta sense.
I wouldn't bet the farm on that. Just because it does not happen immediately does not mean it won't eventually get there. .
I’m more than happy to bet the farm on it: marriage has been redefined on multiple occasions over the centuries. Look at common-law marriages. Once, those were frowned upon. Now common practice. Single parenting: the woman used to be considered unclean & unfit. Polygamy used to be legal in the US: not any more.
In short, the slippery slope argument is pretty much null & void. History shows that while it takes humanity some time to adjust to new conditions properly (it does take a little long), in the end, what’s best for all usually triumphs.
Agreed. And we would not want to let our fans down with second rate substitutes. :) .
Ain’t that the truth. ;)
RA
I think TIO is referring to the idea that gays always had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's one of those cute little tricks he and BF like to play.
TIO, why would you condone a marriage that would so obviously be set on false pretenses? It would be doomed to fail.
It is cruel to point out that one has the right to marry someone one has no interest in.
Karen,
Tricks? You have been looking behind the curtain huh?
RA:
"Wait: what? Always allowed? In your country? You lost me there."
Apologies for the confusion. What Karen said was where I was coming from.
"Your analogy w/the Harley falls flat, because we’re talking about adults here."
Hey RA, children are people too! :) Naturally I will disagree. The intended comparison is not one of children versus adults but in the behavior of the approach. Gays are saying they have the "right" to ride the proverbial marriage bandwagon...according to their definition and not the Webster's version. It is not their "right" to change it. Just like it is not my boy's "right" to ride my Harley. Although he is welcome to shine it anytime.
"No national identity? Yeesh, must be kinda messy up there."
Yep! 13 years of Liberal rule will do that to a nation. (I can't believe, many moons ago, that I actually once voted for them). But I am confident in our new conservative government. At least they are capable of making a decision and, thus far, have managed to honor their election promises.
"Look at common-law marriages. Once, those were frowned upon. Now common practice."
Common yes but a good thing? Most single moms are just that because of common law. The whole "commitment" thing is diluted and even easier to walk away from without the marriage (vow/covenant). In other words, no messy divorces that get them thinking twice about the commitment they chose to make. Let's be honest here, most men like this scenario. The attitude becomes one of callousness that in action says "when I am done screwing you I will move on and shack up with someone else!" Nothing worthwhile invested except casual sex and another fatherless child.
This has not been a positive for society at all. There are now more fatherless children out there then even as little as 50 years ago. And these "deadbeat dads" we continue to see on Maury Povich tend to have an average of 6 kids with 5 different "common law" women. Seems polygamy has found a backdoor to re-legalizing itself.
I would argue that the slippery slope is well into effect and it is not a matter of society adjusting but that they are to self absorbed to really give a dam about future implications. We have become apathetic to consequence.
Karen:
Hey there dreamy blonde girl in the painting on my website ;)
"why would you condone a marriage that would so obviously be set on false pretenses? "
Why would anyone want to marry under false pretenses? Secondly, if I was aware a marriage was based on false pretenses I would not condone it.
I am assuming you mean that if a gay man were to marry a woman correct? Although to be fair I would also not condone a heterosexual marriage that was to take place for sake of convenience rather then a lifetime commitment of love.
"It is cruel to point out that one has the right to marry someone one has no interest in."
There is nothing cruel in pointing out reality or what is true. If marriage defined is one man and one woman a gay man does have the inherent "right" to marry whomever he chooses provided it is a woman. What is so cruel about pointing that out?
Is it not more deceiving when the homosexual says they should have the "right" when it is already in place? I find this to be one of those "little tricks" you speak of. I have only exposed the deception in their statement.
If a gay man/woman wants to argue that they have the "right" to marry I am not going to disagree with them because they are correct. I am going to disagree when they feel it is their "right" to re-define marriage.
BF
You have been looking behind the curtain huh? In a manner of speaking...with all the wind blowing, I got a peek up your skirts. ;)
TIO
I posted another comment on your "women" thread, but don't know what happened to it. May have to redo.
There is nothing cruel in pointing out reality or what is true. If marriage defined is one man and one woman a gay man does have the inherent "right" to marry whomever he chooses provided it is a woman. What is so cruel about pointing that out?
Maybe it's my perception of your delivery. The thing is, a gay person can't be true to him/herself and marry a person of the opposite sex. And they know they wouldn't be honoring the other person either. So to offer them that as their only choice is really offering them no choice at all. It's not even saying, "You can ride on the bus, but you have to sit in the back."
What's cruel is the implication that "We like it this way, so too bad you can't conform and change your biological make-up to be like the rest of us. We will always have this and YOU won't."
Is it not more deceiving when the homosexual says they should have the "right" when it is already in place?
No. They are not trying to be deceptive. THEY understand that hetero marriage would only be a lie for them. They are being honest in saying they wish to have the right to marry someone they would have a chance of having a true marital relationship with.
Karen:
"What's cruel is the implication that "We like it this way, so too bad you can't conform and change your biological make-up to be like the rest of us. We will always have this and YOU won't."
Again, I disagree. It is not matter of "liking" it this way as that is just the way it is. Are we supposed to redefine the entire English dictionary every time one of them feels "put out", offended, or discriminated against. From my perspective it is selfish on their part to expect everyone to redefine terminology to accommodate a very small percentage.
Especially when that one act of redefinition is going to cause a massive societal upheaval. Such as:
- Gays filing complaints of discrimination when officials won't marry them due to conflicting moral conscience beliefs.
- Church's losing tax charitable status because of this.
- Minister's losing their license's to marry.
- Officials in turn filing complaints of discrimination against other government officials for not protecting their "religious rights".
- Other sexual lifestyles filing both complaints of discrimination with human rights commission's AND taking and filing legal proceedings in order to convince the judges (who are responsible for this who debacle) to once again redefine the term marriage to include them as well.
I know we have already been down this road Karen but this is going on in Canada which is most likely why our Federal Government is bringing the issue back to the House of Commons in the fall session.
It has become one big friggin' mess up here. And completely unnecessary when, according to the gay community, all they wanted was the same benefits afforded to them as married heterosexual couples.
While they had them only it was not called a marriage because the above listed points were all foreseen by legal experts as colossal mess. I see this push on part of the gay community as one of utter child like tantrums and selfishness.
I know you do not agree with that but I hope you could at least gain some insight as to why the bulk of the population feels the way they do.
"They are not trying to be deceptive."
Once again I disagree. If they already "have the right" to marry under the definition, then to claim "they SHOULD have the right" is totally misleading. If the "right" is already in place then to claim otherwise is deceptive.
I want to thank you for the civil discourse you are having with me on this obvious sensitive topic. I consider all things you say and at times I am sympathetic to your strong feelings towards it all. Even though I still disagree with you on many areas.
TIO
Are we supposed to redefine the entire English dictionary every time one of them feels "put out", offended, or discriminated against.
Words are constantly being redefined, or definitions added to, as the need arises. It is not because "one of them" feels anything.We are not talking about one person whining in a corner somewhere. This is approximately one-tenth of the population. Homosexuality is a fact of life that is not going away, but I fear that some think (NOT YOU) that by legislating against it, or discriminating against it, they can somehow make it go away.
From my perspective it is selfish on their part to expect everyone to redefine terminology to accommodate a very small percentage.
Especially when that one act of redefinition is going to cause a massive societal upheaval. Such as: (I left the list out)
I don't think one-tenth the pop. is that small a percentage. Imagine if that percentage didn't have to pay taxes because they were homosexual...seems like a bigger number now, huh?
I really don't know what to say about the societal upheaval thing. I've already admitted that gays had a decent deal going in Canada with the civil unions. I don't know the history of how it got around to redefining marriage to begin with. (I mean the specific history.)I assume some gay couple wanted a church wedding and were disallowed. Again, from an atheist perspective, I only feel sorry for them for having that need for that particular acceptance. I think the legal particulars of marriage are what's important.
Of the social upheavals, the one most talked about seems to be the slippery slope of deviant lifestyles. I think we've already covered that.
I see this push on part of the gay community as one of utter child like tantrums and selfishness.
I disagree, or at least see tantrums erupting on both sides, with the conservatives being the one who has the toy but own't share it. And I know, you will again repeat that homosexuals DO have the right to marry. But I also repeat, it is an empty right when that allowable marriage could not be true for them.
I think this boils down to our difference of opinion over whether homosexuality is a choice or not. I really wish you could put yourself in the other's shoes for a moment, and not view the lifestyle as from the "eeww" factor. I know the flamers can be off-putting, but so can any extremists.
Thanks for your part in this discussion also. I do feel very strongly about it because I have for most of my life known many gays and they have never been any less deserving than any hetero person. Except for one,that I can think of, they have all had the biggest hearts, and were loyal and loving, generously kind people. I don't know how that happens when they are treated so poorly. Maybe I just don't meet any bitter, loud, hateful ones.
Again, I disagree. It is not matter of "liking" it this way as that is just the way it is. Are we supposed to redefine the entire English dictionary every time one of them feels "put out", offended, or discriminated against. From my perspective it is selfish on their part to expect everyone to redefine terminology to accommodate a very small percentage.
1 of them? No. A large enough percentile? Yes. I don’t know how it is in Canada, but we have a fairly large demographic section, in both S.F & N.Y.
Especially when that one act of redefinition is going to cause a massive societal upheaval. Such as:
I’m sorry, but when you said that, I got a flash from that Simpsons episode, where Flanders & his kids re-enact the Cain & Abel story: while Cain does the deed, flashes of newspaper headlines like ‘Gay Marriage okay in Massachusets!’ while the devil spews maggots.
I think you’re overstating something that will likely not occur. At least in the US.
- Gays filing complaints of discrimination when officials won't marry them due to conflicting moral conscience beliefs.
That, my friend, IS discriminatory. More power to them, I say.
- Church's losing tax charitable status because of this.
Again, I don’t know about Canada, but in the US? You don’t pay taxes; I think you don’t get to use whatever taxes pay for.
- Minister's losing their license's to marry.
That is wrong. The couple can always go elsewhere. Got link?
- Officials in turn filing complaints of discrimination against other government officials for not protecting their "religious rights".
Wait: what? This seems completely divorced from the subject at hand. Religious rights? What?
- Other sexual lifestyles filing both complaints of discrimination with human rights commission's AND taking and filing legal proceedings in order to convince the judges (who are responsible for this who debacle) to once again redefine the term marriage to include them as well.
As well they should. It IS discriminatory. That simple.
It has become one big friggin' mess up here. And completely unnecessary when, according to the gay community, all they wanted was the same benefits afforded to them as married heterosexual couples.
Which of course were denied them.
While they had them only it was not called a marriage because the above listed points were all foreseen by legal experts as colossal mess. I see this push on part of the gay community as one of utter child like tantrums and selfishness.
What legal experts? Can you drop names, please?
I know you do not agree with that but I hope you could at least gain some insight as to why the bulk of the population feels the way they do.
I know this was directed at Karen, but, hey: discrimination is discrimination. Again, don’t know Canada, but the US is founded on the concept of having rights is inclusive. Exclusion is the enemy of liberty.
Once again I disagree. If they already "have the right" to marry under the definition, then to claim "they SHOULD have the right" is totally misleading. If the "right" is already in place then to claim otherwise is deceptive.
No no no no no NO.
I’m calling that deception on your part. Sorry.
You’re a biker. Again, not Canadian. But down here, bikers are looked down on, mistreated, stereotyped. They get discriminated against. Have you experienced discrimination? Don’t say it’s different because of ‘this or that’.
I used to run w/the carnies. Those people get fucked w/in just about every town they go to. Sometimes for good reason, sometimes not. I’ve known people who got shot over an incident they had nothing more to do w/, other than be a carnie. I’ve been jacked up for nothing (& some of my traveling compadres were as well), just for being a carnie.
& I’m w/karen: I’ve been to their parades, & they’re very tolerant & well-behaved. I’ve had gay friends in the past.
If we subtracted the sexual aspect from the equation, I’m guessing you’d be outraged for them.
Besides which, if marriage is such a hallowed institution, surely it can survive this tempest in a teapot.
Fact is, gay marriage may very well change their lifestyles. Implied fidelity, less promiscuity (hey, guys ARE promiscuous, gay or straight), an acceptance that has more symbolic meaning than anything else:
Being human.
RA & Karen:
Life has caught up with me this week. Apologies for my tardiness regarding a response.
I just finished a new post so I intend to respond to you tommorrow.
Take care.
RA:
OK after this I will have to say "Uncle" and move on so I am sure you will appreciate the last word. In fact, I do not believe you stop until you get it anyway ;)
"1 of them? No. A large enough percentile? "
I confused Karen on this one as well. Apologies for my bad English terminology. I should have stated "a small group" maybe? Regarding a large percentage, in Canada polling is conducted every 4 years by Statistics Canada and one of the things they try to determine is how much of the Canadian population is gay. Every 4 years for the last 3 decades the results were always at 2% or slightly lower. (Organisations like to inflate those numbers by as much as 20% because it never finds in their favor.) Keep in mind that this agency was sponsored by our previous and very pro gay liberal government.
Of the entire 2% that made up the gay population less then 1% even cared to be included in marriage. So you figure (rough math here) according to our population of 36 million only 720,000 are homosexual. Of the 720,000 only 7,200 care to actually marry. There may be more numbers regardless of orientation that support gay marriage but not many who care to actually do it.
I would suggest many cities have their demographics. In Winnipeg, the Osbourne village is known for the gay community.
"I think you’re overstating something that will likely not occur. At least in the US."
First off because gay marriage has not been legalized in your country. (Am I wrong on that?) I am aware that the mayor of San Francisco was performing illegal same sex marriages but I recall in one of you previous elections the question was posed on the ballots in 11 states and they all voted against redefining marriage
Overstating? I think you are underestimating. It may take years to unfold but as I have been trying to demonstrate in the past it is already occurring up here. The only difference between you and me is a border. You might suggest your constitution will protect religious and civil liberties but in Canada we have the Charter of rights and freedoms. It has essentially guaranteed the same protections but as it stands now is beginning to look more like the UN. Nothing but a paper tiger.
"Gays filing complaints of discrimination when officials won't marry them due to conflicting moral conscience beliefs."
"That, my friend, IS discriminatory. More power to them, I say."
Thank you for proving my point on the left's pro gay view of one way tolerance. From your perspective it is always discriminating when it is against the homosexual but when the shoe is on the other foot "tolerance" has left the building! My how tolerant of you. :) Tolerance and respect of one's religious beliefs and convictions take a back seat to sexual preferences. Is that how it works?
"That is wrong. The couple can always go elsewhere. Got link?"
I am one of them so here is your link.
"Wait: what? This seems completely divorced from the subject at hand. Religious rights? What?"
I have got to stop responding after a nightshift. Apologies again for my confusing English. Let me break this down with my own example. I held a license to marry couples thru the government. One agency of that government, Vital stats, wants to pull my license for not violating my own religious conscience, I in turn file a complaint with the human rights commission who is also funded and run by the same government. You now have a conflict of the government fighting within itself. It's all confusing. I would have been better served leaving that statement out.
"Other sexual lifestyles filing both complaints of discrimination with human rights commission's AND taking and filing legal proceedings in order to convince the judges (who are responsible for this who debacle) to once again redefine the term marriage to include them as well.
As well they should. It IS discriminatory. That simple."
So polygamists, pedophiles, and animal lovers should all file claims of discrimination and have marriage redefined again in order to accommodate their sexual lifestyles? When does common sense begin to prevail with you people?
"all they wanted was the same benefits afforded to them as married heterosexual couples."
Which of course were denied them.
Sorry RA sometimes I write like everybody already knows the history up here. They ALREADY had the benefits it was just not called a marriage. Redefining was the selfish part as far as I am concerned
"What legal experts? Can you drop names, please?"
Yes I could. But your only focus is to discredit them. However, if you are that concerned I will get them to you. I must say that list would also include In the meantime for your listening pleasure sit back and listen to this audio interview with Daniel Cere who is director of the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law, and Culture in Montreal and a consultant to several North American think-tanks.
Oh yeah, and he is gay. His associate is Douglas Farrow who is an associate professor of Christian thought at McGill University, author or editor of several other books, including Recognizing Religion in a Secular Society, and a frequent contributor on social issues to Canada's national newspapers.
"discrimination is discrimination. Again, don’t know Canada, but the US is founded on the concept of having rights is inclusive. Exclusion is the enemy of liberty."
So it is OK to violate religious rights in order to accommodate a sexual preference? Same sex marriage, in order for gays not to be discriminated against ,had to essentially discriminate against the religious to have their way. If that is not the case then why I am heading to the highest court in the land to hopefully have my religious rights and freedoms honored and the return of my license to marry couples? Removal rights to hand them over to those who never lost theirs in the first place is a contradiction of terms.
"Have you experienced discrimination?"
Yes. (friggin' biker gang unit) :( And of course now my religious rights are being discriminated against. No accommodation has ever been offered in m y case and now I have to sue the a** off the government and fight for the right's that I am supposedly entitled too.
When it comes to "already having the right" regarding gays right to marry. We are just going to butt heads here. You think I am deceptive on the issue and I think you are so let's call a truce on that one, it is going nowhere.
Your a fun debate, last word is yours friend. And with respect, in my sandbox, please refrain from the "F" word. I hear enough of it with the outlaws and it s highly overrated.
Karen, I have run out of time again. Get back to you tonight.
RA:
I left something out in response to your first point. In brackets I meant to write "organisations like EGALE..."
Karen:
" This is approximately one-tenth of the population. "
Inflated numbers. We wouldn't have the world population we have now if that many people were gay. Those numbers are quite often pushed by gay and lesbian organizations. All speculative to try and gain support for their cause.
"but I fear that some think (NOT YOU) that by legislating against it, or discriminating against it, they can somehow make it go away."
MOST people you will find, Karen, could care les what is going on behind closed doors. So to say they are trying to "make it go away" is misleading. People stand up vocally when homosexuality begins to infringe on other peoples rights. It is not discriminating to say redefining marriage will have an effect on other people's religious rights and/or right to moral conscience. people are entitled to speak their opinions, like the homosexual, without having the "D" word flung at them.
"I've already admitted that gays had a decent deal going in Canada with the civil unions."
I know you did. But the very small "militant" factions within the gay community absolutely refused compromise.
" I don't know the history of how it got around to redefining marriage to begin with."
Exactly why I said it was selfish on their part. It was not necessary if ALL they wanted was the same "benefits" extended to married heterosexual couples.
"I assume some gay couple wanted a church wedding and were disallowed."
They were already having them even though they were not recognized under the previous law. As far as I am concerned it was not the church of God but I am sure you would know that about me anyway.
"Of the social upheavals, the one most talked about seems to be the slippery slope of deviant lifestyles. I think we've already covered that."
Indeed we have. If the current legislation holds then check on Canada in about 5 years and see where we are at. Although I certainly see the slippery slope I do not expect it to happen over night. It will be gradual and will happen right under the noses of most and it will be too late before they realize what happened.
"I really wish you could put yourself in the other's shoes for a moment, and not view the lifestyle as from the "eeww" factor."
As I wish they could see things from my perspective. The whole "eewww" factor....how do I explain this. Because I do have gay friends ( and one relative) I truly have human feelings for them. I experience a Christ like love toward them. They are not "icky" to me. I am quite comfortable around those who will have me around.
Just because someone in my position does not recognize their sexual preference's as "natural/Godly" does not render me incapable of interacting with them and developing relationship's with them. I certainly do not expect everyone to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior (although I would like to see nothing more) whom I come across.
Alright Karen, I am officially spent on this topic for awhile. You may certainly have the last word. I offered it to RA and that extends to you as well.
TIO
I will just respond to this
MOST people you will find, Karen, could care les what is going on behind closed doors. So to say they are trying to "make it go away" is misleading.
You must not be exposed to many Baptists or other fundamentalists. Here in the bible belt, folks make it their business to know whats going on behind others' closed doors. *sigh* It's not as bad as it used to be though, I will give it that.
Thanks for the discussion.
I'm counting you as a new friend. Hope that suits you. :)
TIO
I was just watching an episode of Queer Eye, and their "project" was a transgender gal-guy. The support and acceptance by friends and family shown in the show brought tears to my eyes. I wish I could have got your take on it.
Anyway, at the end of the show a comment was made about tolerance that I thought really summed things up:
"Tolerance is OK, but acceptance is better."
TIO
That anonymous was me. I forgot to click all the right categories. Sorry.
Karen:
""Tolerance is OK, but acceptance is better."
Karen, with sincerity, I am relating to on a different playing field.
As a Christian many "may" tolerate my views but I am often not accepted or even mocked. Even verbally persecuted. (Maybe because of guys like Fred).
But at the same time I think it is unrealistic to expect others to accept my choice in life.
So here is my take on such a statement.
You already know I tolerate the homosexual in life. Because I have some who are close to me, I accept them as my friends and I truly value them.
BUT (You knew that was coming) because I do not recognise homosexuality as a natural/Godly form of sexual activity then to say otherwise is to be a false friend to them and to make a statment to God (and others) that I am alright with something I recognise as immoral/sin.
These individuals on the show want it ALL. Before they (homosexuals in general) wanted people to just let them be. Then they wanted tolerance. Now they have it. Then they wanted the right to live together as a couple. Latley they want in on marriage. Now they want acceptance of their lifestyle. It is one continous elevation of trying to bend the minds to conform to their idea of sexuality.
Karen, you do not "accept" my way of Christian" life. I would love nothing more then if you would reconsider. But I have to tolerate and respect your right to your own perceptions/views/values even if I do not agree.
Yet we can still maintain a friendship. Again, that is the true meaning of tolerance.
I was actually glad to hear how the family continued to love on these people. But love does not always mean a close one MUST accept. God loves you and you will not accept Him.
I love my own children, unto death. But I would not be accepting of a chosen lifestyle that I could not in good conscience support. Yes, even if one of them chose to live as a gay man/woman. That however would not remove my love or relationship to them.
They are my children and I love and accept them as such. But I would not feel any obligation to accepting a choice in life they have made that I do not agree with.
TIO
I think I both tolerate and accept your Christian way of life. That is, I accept your choosing of it for you. I would not choose it-or any other religious thinking- for myself, but if it works for you...well, it works for you.
I hardly know anyone in my non-virtual life who is not Christian, so I love, accept, tolerate all the time. I argue with you because A. You let me, and B. because I don't feel that same tolerance in my regular life coming from the other direction, and it's terribly frustrating. Being an atheist is like being either a pariah or a non-entity. The contrast doesn't make sense on the surface, but if we make ourselves known, we are pariahs; if we remain silent we are non-entities.
So you and BF and a few others on some blogs sometimes get the "benefit" of my voice.
I truly hope none of your kids turns out to be gay. It would be very sad that you couldn't accept that part of them. I don't know how one tells his child something like that. I don't know how a relationship can't be irrevocably damaged by such a statement. I know one young man whose mother is doing that to him right now.
She seems to think she can use her non-acceptance as leverage to make him "choose" to be as she would want, and not what he really is. Instead, she is only driving a wedge between them.
Why, why, why would anyone CHOOSE to be hated and persecuted and discriminated against? You have said you do not go into personal issues with your gay friends and relatives, but I have and do. I wish there was a way to convince you that this is not a choice. But I know you will not see that.
Tell me, if you will, what would not accepting the sexuality of your children entail, exactly?
Karen:
"I think I both tolerate and accept your Christian way of life."
I think you and I have differing versions of acceptance here. You do not accept my Christian lifestyle. It is not acceptable to you or you would be a vocal supporter of it even though you are not a Christian yourself.
Accepting that it is my choice to live this life is not acceptance of it. On the other hand you are a heterosexual who voices her support and acceptance of the homosexual, therefore you exercise acceptance of it when it comes to the homosexual.
Our friendship clearly displays you tolerate my Christianity and accept that it is my choice to follow this path. But you disagree with it so there is no way you are accepting of the Christian lifestyle.
" I argue with you because A. You let me, and B. because I don't feel that same tolerance in my regular life coming from the other direction, and it's terribly frustrating."
Argue? And all this time I though it was mature and respectable debate between the "Right" and the one who thinks (Left view) they are right. (LOL)
Point A) Let you? I don't think you would let me go without a good verbal scrap.
Point B) That is too bad but sometimes in the physical verbal area of life emotions run hot and we as people do not always allow our thoughts to process. Instead we allow our passions override all avenues of civil discourse. I find blogging allows me the time to read and absorb what the other person is saying and even in disagreement try to at least appreciate their angle (without tolerating it....of course!)
" Being an atheist is like being either a pariah or a non-entity."
Try being a Christian in Canada. Trust me Karen, I can relate to that feeling.
"I truly hope none of your kids turns out to be gay."
So do I. But it will not squelch my love for them...ever!
"It would be very sad that you couldn't accept that part of them. I don't know how one tells his child something like that. I don't know how a relationship can't be irrevocably damaged by such a statement."
I believe it is all in the approach. My children already know (everyday) how much they are loved. They know that love is always in place. They also know that there are times in life where dad will not accept certain behaviors. But they never feel unloved because of it.
If in the future I were to be faced with such a situation as a gay child, they know that dad's love never dies. That he is a man of loyalty, honor, integrity, and one who stands on his moral convictions. He will not make a hypocrite of himself or deny the God he believes in. He/she will not be forced or guilted into change but he/she will understand how dad feels about it. And they will still be loved, not shunned, as my child.
"She seems to think she can use her non-acceptance as leverage to make him "choose"
I do not even agree with that. Yes, voice your opposition (I think any concerned parent should have that entitlement) but if they are to "come out" of the lifestyle let it be because they chose to and not because they felt forced too. Which as you say, can drive a wedge between parent and child.
" You have said you do not go into personal issues with your gay friends and relatives"
That is by their choosing although what can be said when both sides know where the other stands. The bottom line is can we continue to interact together relationally? The answer is yes.
"I wish there was a way to convince you that this is not a choice. But I know you will not see that."
Because I have one male friend and met other Christian men who have come out of the gay lifestyle you are right when you say I will not see it as "not a choice." You then will argue that they were never gay in the first place or that their on some sort of denial or not being true themselves. What if someone you knew to be gay their whole life experienced a conversion to Christianity (or maybe no conversion at all) and out of pure conviction decided to stop practicing it. And they were actually happy with the decision. Would you not acknowledge that they made a willful "choice" to stop?
"Tell me, if you will, what would not accepting the sexuality of your children entail, exactly?"
I think I may have answered this one above already. But I think to sum it up they would know that I do not recognize the relationship as moral or natural. That I am concerned as well for their health as this is a lifestyle where the risk's for disease are much higher. They would already know where God stands with the issue as they are raised in a Christian home (obviously). That although I do not accept the relationship as legitimate my love for them will never change and as a father I will always be their for them. Unless of course it is for a wedding. To be there is a statement that I support it which I would not.
Loving my children is not about being their "buddy" and supporting them in things I feel are not conducive to their physical and spiritual well being. It is about being a parent first. Giving them direction and guidance even with their own personal life choices. As a parent I am under no obligation to go along with every decision in life my child decides to make. I am obligated to raise them.
Post a Comment