PDA

View Full Version : N.J. Court Opens Door to Gay Marriage



Alan Yee
10-26-2006, 02:49 AM
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/10/25/506851.html&cvqh=itn_samesex

True, it's only the second U.S. state to do it, but it's progress nonetheless. I'm still ashamed that my own state (Washington State) reinstated the ban on gay marriage. I still do not comprehend why some people get to vote on things that do not affect them personally. Straight couples have nothing to lose on judgments for gay marriage, yet they still get to vote toward hindering the rights of gay couples. I know it's just how voting works, but it's still mind-boggling. Will there ever be a point in time where all 50 states allow gay marriages? Perhaps in a hundred yers, maybe sooner, or perhaps never. But the ruling with New Jersey is a step in the right direction.

billythrilly7th
10-26-2006, 02:52 AM
True, it's only the second U.S. state to do it, but it's progress nonetheless.

Actually, it's most likely only going to lead to civil unions, not gay marriage.

dclary
10-26-2006, 02:56 AM
I work in the IT industry. I'm a computer nerd. I'm good at math.

I'd like to be acknowledged as an Asian.

To deny me this is to be a bigot.

tiny
10-26-2006, 02:57 AM
Civil unions are the only thing that matters. Religous unions don't mean a thing to insurance companies and the court system.

Jean Marie
10-26-2006, 02:59 AM
I work in the IT industry. I'm a computer nerd. I'm good at math.

I'd like to be acknowledged as an Asian.

To deny me this is to be a bigot.
What's your point, aside from having nothing to do w/ the topic? :)

As to civil unions, it's about freakin' time!

Alan Yee
10-26-2006, 03:01 AM
Um, I feel stupid asking this, but...

What are the main differences between marriages and civil unions? I'm not entirely clear on this. Could someone enlighten me, please?

tiny
10-26-2006, 03:03 AM
A civil union is recognized by the law. That way, the partners are protected. They can benefit from insurance and have all the legal rights that people get when they marry.

dclary
10-26-2006, 03:03 AM
What's your point, aside from having nothing to do w/ the topic? :)

That words mean something.

The definition of an Asian is someone born in Asia, or to people of Asian descent.

The definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

As writers, who ought to understand the value of words, you should understand that homosexuals are demanding the world redefine existing words just so they can fit square pegs in round holes.

What's wrong with having a new word that means "a union between two men or two women" -- bedonkled, for instance. "Come to the Smith-MacKenzie bedonkling, it's the event of the year." "Bob and Stan were bedonkled this summer!" "We've been bedonkled for 50 years now."

Words mean something. I'm not going to lightly watch a minority fringe group change words that have value to me without a fight, or at least being really prissy about it.

dclary
10-26-2006, 03:05 AM
That said, I'm totally against bedonkling.


(LOL, just kidding. If two dudes or dudettes want to form a family unit together, who am I to say no? And neither should the law. Just don't call it a marriage. Because it isn't.)

tiny
10-26-2006, 03:08 AM
Why not call it a marriage? Who really cares? Two people who love each other and want to make a life together shouldn't be allowed to call what they have a marriage? It's a blending of two souls.


It's just a word.

dclary
10-26-2006, 03:10 AM
Just so long as you allow me the right to be called an Asian.

Just a word.

tiny
10-26-2006, 03:13 AM
call yourself anything you like, it doesn't hurt anyone

kikazaru
10-26-2006, 03:27 AM
I can't figure out why people are so against the use of the term "marriage" when it comes to gay ceremonies. No one has a monopoly on the word, and the term is used to describe other situations (for example #5 and 6 below). It seems to me that it is just arguing semantics.

Definition from encarta.
mar·riage (plural mar·riages)

noun
Definition: 1. legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners

2. specific marriage relationship: a married relationship between two people, or a somebody's relationship with his or her spouse
http://encarta.msn.com/xImages/dictionary/bullet.gifhttp://encarta.msn.com/xImages/trans.gifThey have a happy marriage.

3. joining in wedlock: the joining together in wedlock of two people

4. marriage ceremony: the ceremony in which two people are joined together formally in wedlock

5. union of two things: a close union, blend, or mixture of two things
http://encarta.msn.com/xImages/dictionary/bullet.gifhttp://encarta.msn.com/xImages/trans.gifCivilization is based on the marriage of tradition and innovation.

6. card games king and queen of same suit: in card games such as pinochle and bezique, a combination of the king and queen of the same suit

dclary
10-26-2006, 03:29 AM
Of *COURSE* the educational elite have changed their definitions to match their liberal agendas. Duh.

Encarta.

*snicker*

dclary
10-26-2006, 03:30 AM
call yourself anything you like, it doesn't hurt anyone

Fair enough. At least we know where we stand. Except I'm demanding YOU call me Asian. Not just me. It doesn't mean anything if *I'm* the only one who calls me Asian.

tiny
10-26-2006, 03:33 AM
I've had people request that I call them something, I roll with it. It doesn't take anything away from me and makes them happy usually :D

MacAllister
10-26-2006, 03:36 AM
Well, no. It's not the same thing until we start taxing Asians differently, using different rules for Asians who want to visit their loved ones in the hospital, make different laws for Asians who'd like to know their children will be raised by their spouses...I could go on and on.

Then, if you want to insist that you're being discriminated against, Deek, since you don't get the special treatment, you might well have a point.

dclary
10-26-2006, 03:40 AM
Well, no. It's not the same thing until we start taxing Asians differently, using different rules for Asians who want to visit their loved ones in the hospital, make different laws for Asians who'd like to know their children will be raised by their spouses...I could go on and on.

Then, if you want to insist that you're being discriminated against, Deek, since you don't get the special treatment, you might well have a point.

Fair enough. But as I said, Mac, I'd be fully in support of a law that allowed any two people form a family unit, with the same benefits (and responsibilities) of any other family.

I just won't call that "marriage."

Jean Marie
10-26-2006, 03:41 AM
clary, call yourself anything you'd like. Means nothing to me. Really.

Civil unions, marriage should be the right of anyone, anywhere, anytime. Period. No particular group should be privy to certain rights while others are denied them. This is a democracy, right? And we've got that thing called the Bill of Rights, right? That's what I thought.

Besides, being Asian, you're protected under those rights, so why can't gays be?

tiny
10-26-2006, 03:45 AM
I just won't call that "marriage."

Why? Chefs call a blending of ingredients a marriage of flavors. All it means is a joining of elements in a harmonious nature. Do you think that two people who are the same sex somehow diminish the word? Or the institution itself? Because let's face it, straight people are diminishing it really well themselves.

kikazaru
10-26-2006, 03:52 AM
I don't quite understand the objection to using the term "marriage." It's not like anyone has a monopoly on the word, in fact one of the definitions is a union between 2 people (none that I looked at said of the opposite sex) or a close and intimate relationship - which can also be referring to something beyond people, to infer a close relationship - like the marriage of art and architecture, the marriage of wine and cheese etc etc. It just seems to me to be an argument in semantics - and quite petty to decide that a word should only "belong" to heterosexual couples.

I also think that as writers, we should know that words are very often redefined in response to changes in society. In fact not too long ago, I was reading a thread here at AW on how words change.

ETA - Argh! That's weird - I could have sworn my post 13 didn't "take" so I reposted, sans the dictionary info. Oh well, ignore one of them...

kikazaru
10-26-2006, 04:09 AM
Of *COURSE* the educational elite have changed their definitions to match their liberal agendas. Duh.

Encarta.

*snicker*

Actually, I just randomly picked it from a list of dictionaries on line. There were several others with the same info - none had any reference to the sex of the marriage participants. This is not to say that there aren't any, it just never occured to me that encarta would be considered "liberal" or that it makes it unusual to not have the sexes mentioned since up until this time, there would be no question about it - and therefore not noteworthy.

dclary
10-26-2006, 04:23 AM
It's because you don't realize that academia has had an unspoken agenda against christianity and its sacraments for millenia.

Look at the defintion of marriage in 1828. Then look at the definition of marriage in 1919. And then look at your definitions of marriage there. For centuries this word has meant "union of man and woman." I don't want that definition to change during the century I'm alive.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=marriage&use1913=on&use1828=on

MacAllister
10-26-2006, 04:31 AM
It's because you don't realize that academia has had an unspoken agenda against christianity and its sacraments for millenia.BWHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!! Please tell me you didn't just say that with a, ahem, "straight" face?

From your 1913 definition, btw:

4. Any intimate or close union. Marriage brokage. (a) The business of bringing about marriages. (b) The payment made or demanded for the procurement of a marriage. -- Marriage favors, knots of white ribbons, or bunches of white flowers, worn at weddings. -- Marriage settlement (Law), a settlement of property in view, and in consideration, of marriage. Syn. -- Matrimony; wedlock; wedding; nuptials. -- Marriage, Matrimony, Wedlock. Marriage is properly the act which unites the two parties, and matrimony the state into which they enter. Marriage is, however, often used for the state as well as the act. Wedlock is the old Anglo-Saxon term for matrimony.

But interestingly, the assertion made in the 1828 definition you linked to:

Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.Oh please. That's part of a dictionary definition we're supposed to return to?

Christine N.
10-26-2006, 04:34 AM
Um, dclary, christianity doesn't OWN "marriage".

Used to be, all you had to do to be married was to openly declare your intention in front of witnesses. No priest, rabbi or monk. If Christianity chooses to use the word as a sacrament, it's their right. But it's NOT their right to claim they have an exclusive claim to what they see as marriage, nor to tell people who do not follow that religion what they can and cannot call 'married'.

What about 'common law marriage'? You have no problem with that, I'll bet, and there is NO religious connotation to that at all - merely a state-regulated one based on how long two people live together.

I personally think it's fine, it doesn't hurt me, it doesn't hurt you. It's a word. Civil union, marriage, it's semantics. They would LIKE to have the CHOICE to be married legally, because they feel that otherwise they are being discriminated against. I tend to agree, and think that such a thing is small potatoes compared to other things in this world. Sometimes you just gotta roll with it.

dclary
10-26-2006, 04:35 AM
BWHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!! Please tell me you didn't just say that with a, ahem, "straight" face?

From your 1913 definition, btw:

Yes. Like I said, Academia has been at this a while. You can see the changes made from one millenia to another. Removing God, adding a possibility of non-man/woman unions.

Evil, I tell ya.

dclary
10-26-2006, 04:36 AM
Um, dclary, christianity doesn't OWN "marriage".

Used to be, all you had to do to be married was to openly declare your intention in front of witnesses. No priest, rabbi or monk. If Christianity chooses to use the word as a sacrament, it's their right. But it's NOT their right to claim they have an exclusive claim to what they see as marriage, nor to tell people who do not follow that religion what they can and cannot call 'married'.

What about 'common law marriage'? You have no problem with that, I'll bet, and there is NO religious connotation to that at all - merely a state-regulated one based on how long two people live together.

I personally think it's fine, it doesn't hurt me, it doesn't hurt you. It's a word. Civil union, marriage, it's semantics. They would LIKE to have the CHOICE to be married legally, because they feel that otherwise they are being discriminated against. I tend to agree, and think that such a thing is small potatoes compared to other things in this world. Sometimes you just gotta roll with it.

Actually, it does, Christine.

Alan Yee
10-26-2006, 04:42 AM
Thank you, Dave. Time for my long-restrained rant.

Why should they get a different term? Because they're somehow less worthy of being called married? Is the emphasis of the definition of marriage on "man/woman" or "two people who live together and acknowledge themselves as a couple"?

The word marriage implies so many other things besides just "man/woman." It implies love, affection, commitment, dedication, support, and other things. You can have a man and a woman, but have no marriage. You can have a man who beats the sh!t out of his wife, doesn't love her, and doesn't care whether she lives or not, and yet they're still technically married. You can have two men who do everything with each other that other married couples do. You probably couldn't tell the difference between them and heterosexual couples except for the fact that they're two men instead of one man and one woman. And with the current divorce rates of heterosexual couples, it seems that many of them aren’t very worthy of being called “married.” If all the conservative Christians trying to ban gay marriage are so full of morals themselves and all about “preserving the sanctity of marriage,” then focus on all the divorce. Besides, marriage is so overrated these days.

Necessary info: I am a non-conservative Christian who supports gay marriage. This is an issue that may potentially affect me personally, because at the moment, I have attractions to males. I’m told it might just be jacked-up hormones, or it may be genuine. I have to wait a few years for things to settle before I’m able to tell whether or not I really am gay. At the moment, because of other things I’ve noticed, I think it might be genuine. If/when I’m older and have a male partner whom I want to stay with for the rest of my life, I sure as hell want us to have the same rights as straight couples, who quite frankly don’t always give marriage a good name. I don’t want to have our union considered something less worthy than marriage. I find it insulting that people get so caught up in saying that marriage means “man/woman” that they completely forget everything else that comes with it.


It's because you don't realize that academia has had an unspoken agenda against christianity and its sacraments for millenia.

Look at the defintion of marriage in 1828. Then look at the definition of marriage in 1919. And then look at your definitions of marriage there. For centuries this word has meant "union of man and woman." I don't want that definition to change during the century I'm alive.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=marriage&use1913=on&use1828=on

Dude, I am Christian, so that is really insulting. Not all Christians believe the same things as you.

And did it ever occur to you why the definition was man/woman? There's a good reason why it didn't include man/man or woman/woman. Hmmmm, maybe because... it was the only combination that was socially acceptable for the past several hundred years?


I don't want that definition to change during the century I'm alive.

Why? Does it really change the meaning so much to include same-sex couples that it somehow negates the value of marriage? I don't get why the sexes of the two people matter so much to the overall concept of marriage. There's so much more to marriage besides man/woman. Straight people can get married, then divorce whenever they get tired of each other. Many gay people are dedicated enough to stay together for many years, despite that they can't marry their partners. I've heard of gay couples who've been together for decades, love and are dedicated to each other, and have even raised children that they adopted or had from previous marriages.

If that ain't married, then I guess the whole concept of marriage has gone down the drain in the past fifty years. Makes me feel so blessed to live in this world.

/end rant

Perks
10-26-2006, 04:42 AM
The meanings of words evolve over time. There is no disputing that and I'm not looking to time warp back to the 1820's for any money, but it's a cute argument. By the way, 'cute' originally meant cross-eyed and bowlegged.

Using the word marriage for two men or two women, names it as legitimate as the joining of a man and a woman. Homosexual couples don't live outside of our society. It's hardly radical of them to balk at having to use a "separate but equal" lexicon.

tiny
10-26-2006, 04:44 AM
Actually, it does, Christine.

So no other religion has marriages? Tell me how that works?

Alan Yee
10-26-2006, 04:51 AM
Oh great, now that we're talking about what words originally meant, let's talk about the word "gay." Everyone knows that it originally meant "happy, merry, joyous, lively, etc." Guess what? The word evolved and changed over time to also mean homosexual. Words changing definitions over time isn't really a brand-new concept, you know.

kikazaru
10-26-2006, 04:52 AM
First off if you look at the history of European marriage, it was originally a legal bonding for the express distribution of property. It wasn't until the middle ages that marriage became a religious rite. So the definition in the 1828 ie "marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing promiscuous intercourse of the sexes" is not only vastly differing from it's original conception, but it is also reflecting the times - 1828 being a mostly Christian and society with a large number of rigid rules for the upper classes - to whom this dictionary definition was directed.

Then in 1913 among the definitions #4 is "any intimate and close union" which is in dictionaries today.

So now in "modern" dictionaries, there is no mention of the sex of the couple, how is this change, any different to the changes in the previous definitions. Society isn't static and societal shifts and change is reflected in defining words.

I don't quite understand your objection to the use of the word btw, If you are married how does an other couple hetro or gay - no matter what they call their union, have any relevance whatsoever to your relationship?

Perks
10-26-2006, 04:56 AM
Oh great, now that we're talking about what words originally meant, let's talk about the word "gay." Everyone knows that it originally meant "happy, merry, joyous, lively, etc." Guess what? The word evolved and changed over time to also mean homosexual. Words changing definitions over time isn't really a brand-new concept, you know.Exactly my point, Alan. I hope that was clear. Dave was taking exception to the use of the word 'marriage' for same sex couples and I was taking exception to his exception.

Alan Yee
10-26-2006, 05:00 AM
Exactly my point, Alan. I hope that was clear. Dave was taking exception to the use of the word 'marriage' for same sex couples and I was taking exception to his exception.

Oh, it was perfectly clear to me what you meant. I just felt like using another example while we were on the subject. ;)

Perks
10-26-2006, 05:04 AM
Oh good. I want to make sure I'm not muddled. I care very much about this issue. It's important, not just to the people who will be directly affected by it, but as an attitudinal indicator.

MacAllister
10-26-2006, 05:04 AM
I have this theory that all the protestation is essentially about sexual envy.

The implication is that without special legal protection, het marriage could be wiped out by the proliferation of queer domestic bliss.

Why is that? Clearly because queer relations must be so terribly hawt that, once straight people are exposed, then like super-crack, they're hooked for life.

By golly, we need a Constitutional Amendment, then, to protect the endangered straight people...

Marlys
10-26-2006, 05:11 AM
Good for New Jersey! :hooray:

Opty
10-26-2006, 05:11 AM
A lady married a dolphin a few months ago. I don't know why two people can't marry each other, but some wacko can marry a freaking dolphin.

Perks
10-26-2006, 05:14 AM
Ah, yes. The dolphin. Now that's one argument I've heard - seriously. "If you're gunna let queers marry, why, next it'll be livestock and upholstered furniture." The domino effect just doesn't wash with me. Even those screwheaded queers can tell the difference between love and psychosis. Wait. There is a difference, right?

MacAllister
10-26-2006, 05:16 AM
There's *cough* that little question of, yanno, being a legal adult, and consensual relations and all that...

Poor dolphin.

tiny
10-26-2006, 05:20 AM
I have this theory that all the protestation is essentially about sexual envy.

The implication is that without special legal protection, het marriage could be wiped out by the proliferation of queer domestic bliss.

Why is that? Clearly because queer relations must be so terribly hawt that, once straight people are exposed, then like super-crack, they're hooked for life.

By golly, we need a Constitutional Amendment, then, to protect the endangered straight people...


My grandmother always said they recruited but I didn't know it was catchy. :D* (she was old and had a screw loose)





*note the green smile, hence the unseriousness of my post, though my grandma did believe that, but she believed a lot of weird stuff.

billythrilly7th
10-26-2006, 05:31 AM
I'd love to marry a dolphin.

Dolphins are the smartest, bestest animals on the planet.

They were brought here by Aliens.

Seriously.

Look it up.

Perks
10-26-2006, 05:32 AM
Clearly because queer relations must be so terribly hawt that, once straight people are exposed, then like super-crack, they're hooked for life.

Tell me, is it that during a queer romp no one ever gets their hair stuck under their partner's elbow and has to face the awkward decision of perservering without being able to move their head for the duration or spoil the mood by shouting "Will you get off my head, you big lummox!"?

I bet you guys never have to sneeze or plot out where you want to put your underpants for quick retrieval either. Homosexuals have all the fun.

Alan Yee
10-26-2006, 05:33 AM
A lady married a dolphin a few months ago. I don't know why two people can't marry each other, but some wacko can marry a freaking dolphin.

Heh. There's a thread in the Erotica forum that talks about dolphins. It will suffice to say that they are very horny creatures.

*cough*

Okay, back to my own topic. So, I guess New Jersey might not be allowing gay marriage, but they're allowing civil unions.

I find it very scary that later in that article, it states that at least eight states have bans on gay marriage on the ballots. Why do Americans give such a cottonpicking damn about people's sex lives? It's great to know you can marry whomever you wish to marry, except I may not have that same right if I end up with another male as my companion. Just something to think about.

Christine N.
10-26-2006, 05:35 AM
Actually, it does, Christine.

NO, it doesn't. That's my point. People were being 'married' to each other LONG before Christianity came about.

Christianity is the new religion on the block, remember. People were being bound by spousal vows for a long while before it even existed. Different forms, different ways, but people were married. What, you think Christians invented it?

Yeah, so that's why Jesus attended a Jewish wedding at Cana. Uh huh.

Defining marriage as a union between two consenting adults I don't think is really stretching the definition of marriage. At all.

MacAllister
10-26-2006, 05:37 AM
Perks, exactly.

Also, queers all have great bodies, and they smell better. And the background theme music is always much, much better, and the house is exquisitely decorated and spotlessly clean.

Who could compete with that?

tiny
10-26-2006, 05:38 AM
I'm feeling some sort of weird pull.....

Christine N.
10-26-2006, 05:50 AM
And I have to say that a gay man IS the perfect shopping buddy. 'Cause they always tell you the truth about what you pick out, and can coordinate the BEST outfits.

I used to live in the city.

Perks
10-26-2006, 05:55 AM
And the background theme music is always much, much betterThat's a lie. It's always Indigo Girls or some Madonna Techno Dance mix.

veinglory
10-26-2006, 06:02 AM
I *am* the slippery slope. I want a threeway marraige with two gay men. Or possibly a polyamorous marraige two gay men, a dolphin, three my little ponies and a chaise lounge. Until I can have that, I vow to stay single!

Dolphins everywhere let out a sigh of relief.

Jean Marie
10-26-2006, 06:02 AM
That's a lie. It's always Indigo Girls or some Madonna Techno Dance mix.
You completely killed the mood. Madonna's a total freak.

Alan Yee
10-26-2006, 06:10 AM
You completely killed the mood. Madonna's a total freak.

Why did they let Madonna write children's books? I mean, she has a CD called Erotica, and a book called Sex. Not a good role model for little kiddies, you know.

ETA: And I just realized how much random info I have crammed into my bigass head. That is just sad, that I know the above.

Ol' Fashioned Girl
10-26-2006, 06:16 AM
Defining marriage as a union between two consenting adults I don't think is really stretching the definition of marriage. At all.

There you go. What's so hard to accept about that?

Oh. Wait. I know what it is. Some folks just can't stand to let other people live their lives. They've got to be telling others how to live, who to love, what to do, where to go, where to live, when to live... and, when it's time to let go, they've just got to stick their noses in someone else's business and tell 'em, "No, by Gawd. You cannot let that woman die! You must force feed her! You MUST resusitate her. You cannot let nature take her course."

They've just GOT to impose their own narrow-minded agendas on the rest of the universe.

Ppppppplllpth.

It was good enough to quote a second time... just in case some one missed it:


Defining marriage as a union between two consenting adults I don't think is really stretching the definition of marriage. At all.

billythrilly7th
10-26-2006, 06:17 AM
You completely killed the mood. Madonna's a total freak.

She was unwatchable on Oprah today.

She has this half English accent that is like listening to finger nails on a chalkboard.

And she's turned into a total snoozefest.

dclary
10-26-2006, 06:21 AM
Thank you, Dave. Time for my long-restrained rant.

Why should they get a different term? Because they're somehow less worthy of being called married? Is the emphasis of the definition of marriage on "man/woman" or "two people who live together and acknowledge themselves as a couple"?

The word marriage implies so many other things besides just "man/woman." It implies love, affection, commitment, dedication, support, and other things. You can have a man and a woman, but have no marriage. You can have a man who beats the sh!t out of his wife, doesn't love her, and doesn't care whether she lives or not, and yet they're still technically married. You can have two men who do everything with each other that other married couples do. You probably couldn't tell the difference between them and heterosexual couples except for the fact that they're two men instead of one man and one woman. And with the current divorce rates of heterosexual couples, it seems that many of them aren’t very worthy of being called “married.” If all the conservative Christians trying to ban gay marriage are so full of morals themselves and all about “preserving the sanctity of marriage,” then focus on all the divorce. Besides, marriage is so overrated these days.

Necessary info: I am a non-conservative Christian who supports gay marriage. This is an issue that may potentially affect me personally, because at the moment, I have attractions to males. I’m told it might just be jacked-up hormones, or it may be genuine. I have to wait a few years for things to settle before I’m able to tell whether or not I really am gay. At the moment, because of other things I’ve noticed, I think it might be genuine. If/when I’m older and have a male partner whom I want to stay with for the rest of my life, I sure as hell want us to have the same rights as straight couples, who quite frankly don’t always give marriage a good name. I don’t want to have our union considered something less worthy than marriage. I find it insulting that people get so caught up in saying that marriage means “man/woman” that they completely forget everything else that comes with it.



Dude, I am Christian, so that is really insulting. Not all Christians believe the same things as you.

And did it ever occur to you why the definition was man/woman? There's a good reason why it didn't include man/man or woman/woman. Hmmmm, maybe because... it was the only combination that was socially acceptable for the past several hundred years?



Why? Does it really change the meaning so much to include same-sex couples that it somehow negates the value of marriage? I don't get why the sexes of the two people matter so much to the overall concept of marriage. There's so much more to marriage besides man/woman. Straight people can get married, then divorce whenever they get tired of each other. Many gay people are dedicated enough to stay together for many years, despite that they can't marry their partners. I've heard of gay couples who've been together for decades, love and are dedicated to each other, and have even raised children that they adopted or had from previous marriages.

If that ain't married, then I guess the whole concept of marriage has gone down the drain in the past fifty years. Makes me feel so blessed to live in this world.

/end rant

I'm curious what franchise of Christianity you belong to. Is it the one that doesn't believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God?

Just wondering how you reconcile homosexuality being ok with your religious beliefs, which clearly state is it not.

Kentuk
10-26-2006, 06:29 AM
Common law marriages also lack rights, can't get on spouses health insurence plan for example.
My gay brothers and lesbian sisters gain will be my gain too.

tiny
10-26-2006, 06:30 AM
oh dear lord, not this road! MAC!!!! (this was in response to clary's question, not kentuk)

Kentuk
10-26-2006, 06:31 AM
Common law marriages also lack rights, can't get on spouses health insurence plan for example.
My gay brothers and lesbian sisters gain will be my gain too.

MacAllister
10-26-2006, 06:57 AM
dclary, more than one perfectly respectable, mainstream Christian denomination doesn't believe or teach that homosexuality is against the precepts in the Bible. This has been discussed at great length on this board, many times.

billythrilly7th
10-26-2006, 07:10 AM
What's the whole goat thing mean?

Bravo
10-26-2006, 07:16 AM
What's the whole goat thing mean?


thou shalt not have false gods.

billythrilly7th
10-26-2006, 07:20 AM
You sure?

The goat is a false god?

Ahhhhhh....whatever!

Bravo
10-26-2006, 07:24 AM
i think so.

or maybe that was just the golden calf.

i forget.

MacAllister
10-26-2006, 07:25 AM
It means my dayjob is being the fallen angel that takes the scapegoat.

Bravo
10-26-2006, 07:26 AM
oh.

that works too.


:roll:

billythrilly7th
10-26-2006, 07:27 AM
I hope it has nothing to do with A-Rod.

That would be an unecessary cheap shot.

billythrilly7th
10-26-2006, 07:28 AM
It means my dayjob is being the fallen angel that takes the scapegoat.

Am I Aaron, Azazel, the Lord or one of the goats?

Bravo
10-26-2006, 07:30 AM
azazel is the fallen angel.

i know that much.

tiny
10-26-2006, 07:32 AM
shhhhh, i think someone pushed him

MacAllister
10-26-2006, 07:32 AM
You're definitely one of the goats, Billy.

billythrilly7th
10-26-2006, 07:34 AM
azazel is the fallen angel.

i know that much.

I think Azazel is a wilderness town.

billythrilly7th
10-26-2006, 07:35 AM
You're definitely one of the goats, Billy.

A Billy Goat by some chance?

WriterInChains
10-26-2006, 07:37 AM
Why did they let Madonna write children's books? I mean, she has a CD called Erotica, and a book called Sex. Not a good role model for little kiddies, you know.

You know the answer to this one (everyone say it with me): Writing is a business.



Besides, isn't calling Madonna a freak (unless you mean it as a compliment) exactly the kind of attitude this thread is against? She's a strong woman who's not afraid to say or do what she pleases. I may not agree with it all, but she hasn't hurt anyone that I know of so I don't have a problem with her. Now, if she decided everyone had to walk down the street wearing only platinum blond curls or write children's books to be cool, I'd be against that. :)

dclary
10-26-2006, 07:38 AM
I won't press, then. Was just inquiring.

billythrilly7th
10-26-2006, 07:40 AM
Besides, isn't calling Madonna a freak (unless you mean it as a compliment) exactly the kind of attitude this thread is against?

God I hope not, because if we can't call Madonna a freak in every thread we want to, then I predict a dire future for the messageboard industry.

Christine N.
10-26-2006, 04:09 PM
Dclary,
I'll bet Alan belongs to the branch of Christianity that believes "judge not, lest ye yourself be judged."

I'll bet that Alan believes that while he should take care of his own soul, that it is not HIS responsibility to force other people to fit into his beliefs.

Ya know, I think I actually know more pagans/non-Christians that follow the spirit of Christian ethics than Christians? (no offence to those Christians that DO, it's just my observation.)

I've adopted a Buddist philosophy about it - JUST LET OTHER PEOPLE BE WHO THEY ARE.

Which means, d, that although I can try and persuade you to see my side of the argument, I cannot force you to change. You are. I am. Let them be too.

WDS
10-26-2006, 05:42 PM
Just wondering how you reconcile homosexuality being ok with your religious beliefs, which clearly state is it not.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the bible say basically homosexual sex is wrong, while saying nothing about a man being attracted to a man, or woman to woman? As for the lets take everything literally bit. I believe it says its bad for a man to lay with a man. Does that mean they can stand up and have sex? Does it mean they can't sleep in the same bed if there is not a spare or a couch?

veinglory
10-26-2006, 05:56 PM
satire warning:

The bible clearly says atheism, polytheism, every non-Christian religion and the eating of shellfish is wrong--but these people are still allowed to marry in this uniquely Christian ritual. How can this be allowed to continue! Not only should gays not be allowed to marry we should be annulling the marraige certificates of unbelievers and revealing their kids not only as congential sinners but also as the bastards God knows they truly are.

SeanDSchaffer
10-26-2006, 06:33 PM
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/10/25/506851.html&cvqh=itn_samesex

True, it's only the second U.S. state to do it, but it's progress nonetheless. I'm still ashamed that my own state (Washington State) reinstated the ban on gay marriage. I still do not comprehend why some people get to vote on things that do not affect them personally. Straight couples have nothing to lose on judgments for gay marriage, yet they still get to vote toward hindering the rights of gay couples. I know it's just how voting works, but it's still mind-boggling. Will there ever be a point in time where all 50 states allow gay marriages? Perhaps in a hundred yers, maybe sooner, or perhaps never. But the ruling with New Jersey is a step in the right direction.


I'm glad to hear this. Denying the rights of gay people to marry just because they're gay is, IMO, the height of stupidity.

It kind of ticks me off when Christians like to take one or two verses in the Book of Leviticus and make a doctrine out of it, but at the same time are not willing to listen to the manifold teachings and commandments of Christ that say, "I say unto you, Judge not that ye be not judged."

So I am quite glad that gay people have the right now, in the said state, to marry other people of like orientation and gender preference. A homosexual should not be treated with despite just because of their sexual orientation. They should be treated with the same respect and dignity that we would treat anyone like ourselves with, even if we believe that their lifestyle is wrong.

Christ is the ultimate Judge, not those who follow Him. I think it's about time that more of His People start obeying His commandments and stop trying to force other people to live by our personal beliefs.

SC Harrison
10-26-2006, 06:58 PM
azazel is the fallen angel.

i know that much.

I thought she was a housekeeper on one of those family-oriented, soap-selling sit-coms from the 60's. Wait a minute...that was Hazel. Nevermind.

Perks
10-26-2006, 08:16 PM
It kind of ticks me off when Christians like to take one or two verses in the Book of Leviticus and make a doctrine out of it, Although, it's going to be kickass funny if it turns out the garments of two fibers is the deal breaker (Leviticus 19:19) and we all burn for eternity for our cotton/lycra blend socks.

Joe Unidos
10-26-2006, 08:20 PM
Although, it's going to be kickass funny if it turns out the garments of two fibers is the deal breaker (Leviticus 19:19) and we all burn for eternity for our cotton/lycra blend socks.

:roll:

Perfectly stated.

dclary
10-26-2006, 09:12 PM
satire warning:

The bible clearly says atheism, polytheism, every non-Christian religion and the eating of shellfish is wrong--but these people are still allowed to marry in this uniquely Christian ritual. How can this be allowed to continue! Not only should gays not be allowed to marry we should be annulling the marraige certificates of unbelievers and revealing their kids not only as congential sinners but also as the bastards God knows they truly are.

Actually, gays ARE allowed to be married. There is no law in any state of the union preventing any gay person from getting married.

Christine N.
10-26-2006, 09:18 PM
Bleck. You can do better than that.

dclary
10-26-2006, 09:21 PM
Although, it's going to be kickass funny if it turns out the garments of two fibers is the deal breaker (Leviticus 19:19) and we all burn for eternity for our cotton/lycra blend socks.

Having just barely survived the 70s, I think it would be no small stretch to add polyester to the list of deadly sins.

:p

Christine N.
10-26-2006, 09:23 PM
Polyester comes from Satan.

veinglory
10-26-2006, 09:24 PM
Actually, gays ARE allowed to be married. There is no law in any state of the union preventing any gay person from getting married.

I mean a full federally registered marraige with legal recognition, pensions, shared parenting and inheritance--just as God intended.

dclary
10-26-2006, 09:48 PM
I mean a full federally registered marraige with legal recognition, pensions, shared parenting and inheritance--just as God intended.

So did I. There's no law on the books anywhere in this country saying that any gay man can't get married.

He just has to get married to a woman, since "marriage" is (legally, if not literally) "a union between a man and a woman"

Clearly there is no discrimination here. There's no rule saying "a union between a hetero man and hetero woman only." ANY man and ANY woman may get married.

Pretty simple.

Jean Marie
10-26-2006, 10:18 PM
clary, get over yourself and learn to accept the world around you. 'Cause it sure as hay ain't gonna change to fit your agenda. Just sayin'. That is, if you want to be a part of.

veinglory
10-26-2006, 10:20 PM
Sorry, silly me--I should have specified getting married to a person they actually want to be betrothed to. I foolishly thought that could be assumed. Really, what was I thinking.

dclary
10-26-2006, 10:25 PM
Sorry, silly me--I should have specified getting married to a person they actually want to be betrothed to. I foolishly thought that could be assumed. Really, what was I thinking.

Well, that's a different question altogether, isn't it?

Silly goose.

dclary
10-26-2006, 10:27 PM
clary, get over yourself and learn to accept the world around you. 'Cause it sure as hay ain't gonna change to fit your agenda. Just sayin'. That is, if you want to be a part of.

Why don't you get over yourself instead, and learn to accept that not everyone agrees with how the world is changing? Or are you saying it's wrong for someone to try and make a change or a difference if it doesn't match your own worldview?

SeanDSchaffer
10-26-2006, 10:48 PM
You see, here's the problem I have with this attitude that gay marriage is bad. I personally do not like the idea, but as a Christian, it is not my job--nor is it the job of any Christian--to force other people to obey the laws of my God. A lot of people get this idea that because Jesus said, "Teaching them to observe all I have commanded thee", that gives us the right to force others to do things our way.

The problem with such thought is that Jesus did not say "Forcing them to observe all I have commanded thee". He said "Teaching....".

One thing I have trouble understanding is how a nation that claims "Separation of Church and State" can turn around and legally force a religious law down the throats of its people. Like Perks pointed out, it's also against the laws of the Book of Leviticus to have clothing made of fabrics that are both synthetic and natural. Yet we have absolutely no trouble as a nation finding no fault whatsoever with someone wearing a piece of clothing that has mixed fabrics in it.

If this nation truly wants to follow all the laws of the Old Testament, then children who slap their parents should be put to death. After all, that is the Law of the Old Testament. Also, the Law of the Old Testament says that a person who "Misuse[s] the Name of the Lord" is to be put to death. Maybe we should impose that law, and see how long our country survives.

Also, eating blood is a crime in the Old Testament. For those who love their meat bloody, you're committing a sin. The same thing goes for eating pork or ham, because pig meat is forbidden.

And on and on it goes. There are many things that are forbidden in the Old Testament Law that are not problems these days. Yet we hold to two or three verses about homosexuality as fanatically as we can, thinking that our whole world will end if we allow homosexuals to marry people of the same gender.

This kind of argument makes no sense to me, because Christians are not supposed to judge other people. We are taught in the Bible that 'Judgment belongs to God'. If it belongs to God, then it does not belong to His People.

I believe in personal responsibility. It is my personal responsibility to say "Such-and-such thing is wrong", and it is my personal responsibility to live my own life in accordance with what I believe to be right.

It is not my responsibility to make sure everyone else lives their lives in accordance with what I believe to be right, however. I personally wish this wasn't such a major issue, especially with a people who are supposed to forgive other people their trespasses and who are supposed to reserve all judgment for God.

Christine N.
10-27-2006, 12:19 AM
Well, we know how smashingly that whole "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" thing turned out.

:D

Dclary, it seems, is all for gathering the firewood. I'm sure he'd like to be first in line with a torch.

dclary
10-27-2006, 01:30 AM
She turned me into a newt!

MacAllister
10-27-2006, 01:31 AM
I'm gonna disemvowel the lot of you, if you don't ease up on each other a bit.

Alan Yee
10-27-2006, 01:35 AM
You know the answer to this one (everyone say it with me): Writing is a business.

Besides, isn't calling Madonna a freak (unless you mean it as a compliment) exactly the kind of attitude this thread is against? She's a strong woman who's not afraid to say or do what she pleases. I may not agree with it all, but she hasn't hurt anyone that I know of so I don't have a problem with her. Now, if she decided everyone had to walk down the street wearing only platinum blond curls or write children's books to be cool, I'd be against that. :)

I was being sarcastic, but apparently I wasn't clear enough to show it.

Besides, I did not call Madonna a freak, did I? You're putting words in my mouth.

MacAllister
10-27-2006, 01:36 AM
Not you, Alan. Another poster did, though.

dclary
10-27-2006, 01:38 AM
I'm gonna disemvowel the lot of you, if you don't ease up on each other a bit.

I got better!

Kate Thornton
10-27-2006, 01:39 AM
I think any consenting adult should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult. As long as the parties are adults and are in agreement, what's the beef? I don't see how it takes anything away from anyone else.

Alan Yee
10-27-2006, 02:45 AM
Well, to tell you the truth, it sounds like a double-standard to say that you can be attracted to other people of the same sex, and yet not be allowed to have sex with your partner, while heterosexuals get to have as much sex as they want.

It also seems like a slap in the face to say, "get with a woman, or no one at all," especially when gay people just naturally aren't attracted to the opposite sex. It's not really a matter of choice for them. I didn't just decide to have these attractions. They're just there. People don't just wake up one morning and decide to be gay because it sounds like it would be fun. Why would they? So people could scoff at them, throw hate and intolerance their way, and try to take away their right to marry their loved one? No. It's just another characteristic, like being Chinese or black, or having red hair, or having blue eyes. For the most part, people don't really choose their orientation in the same way that people choose what shirt to wear today or what CD to buy. It's something in the mind that people can't really control.

If after the hormones level down a bit I find I'm gay or bi or straight, then I'll be happy to stick and live with it. At the moment I'm just not dating anyone and am waiting until I'm a little older to pinpoint my exact orientation. Until then, I'm just trying to live my life and deal with these attractions and not act on any of them. In the meantime, I'm anxiously waiting for more people to be more tolerant to others. It may be a waste of time, but there's always the hope that at least some progress will be made in the next few years. I hope that will really happen.

MacAllister
10-27-2006, 03:08 AM
Oh lord, Alan--the Family Research Institute is a pretty seriously Far Right, Conservative Christian resource. Be careful researching this topic on the net--a lot of the more notorious misinformation is put out by groups essentially masquerading under scientific-sounding names that bear no relationship whatsoever to any real research or science. :)

There's certainly some evidence that homosexuality is genetic.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/100/105486.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/

Alan Yee
10-27-2006, 03:17 AM
Nevermind. I read the rest of the site, which made it clear what it really was. I'm an idiot, I know.

Thanks for the links, Mac.

Jean Marie
10-27-2006, 04:00 AM
Why don't you get over yourself instead, and learn to accept that not everyone agrees with how the world is changing? Or are you saying it's wrong for someone to try and make a change or a difference if it doesn't match your own worldview?
The point is, clary, the world's changing w/ or w/o you. So, you can either be in your own closed tunnel-vision corner, or accept it. Your choice, of course.

No, I'm not saying that trying to change things is wrong. Why would I? After all, that's what allowing gay marriage (FINALLY!) is about :) Actually, it isn't. It's about equal rights, under the laws of the land and everyone being entitled to them. Not just a select grouping.

Btw, I'm the one who said Madonna's a freak. IMO, she is. Her on-stage slam/so-called performance of the crucifixion was in incredibly poor taste. It was also unneccesary.

TheGaffer
10-27-2006, 04:05 AM
When did Madonna cross the line from provocative to desperate?

Can anybody tell me when? There was a moment. I'm not sure when. Was it the Britney/Christina/Madonna lip lock on stage? Because there was a point, somewhere, when I woulda taken Jean Marie's above statement and said, "Eh, just get over it, ya prude." (like the writhing on the floor with the Like a Virgin performance, bad as that song is)

But now? I kinda agree. Maybe I'm just old.

billythrilly7th
10-27-2006, 04:06 AM
I long believed that homosexuality was spiritual and based on reincarnation.

After a soul lives consecutive lives as a woman or a man and then reincarnates, the soul may have not made the switch into the opposite body and still feels the pull and desires of the previous lifetimes.

But...since I believe homosexuality is also part of the animal kingdom, you'd have to then make the leap that animals are reincarnating.

That's where my theory gets a little cloudy. And I ain't as big a believer in reincarnation as I used to be. Good chance it's one roll of the dice and back to the Tiki Bar. God, I hope not. What a jip that would be.

But it ain't a choice. That's for sure.

Except for crap like Girls Gone Wild behavior.

And I know that if there is a god, he can't be happy with what our society is turning into and those types of "girls making out with other girls to be cool" type choices.

But what do I know?

A'las, I am just a humble Thrilly and I serve at the pleasure of thee.


Thank you.

Christine N.
10-27-2006, 04:13 AM
That, Billy, is what I think is at the core of the whole 'Homosexuality as sin' debate.

If we find (as I believe, btw) that homosexuality is indeed genetic or somehow othewise related to nature, and not a choice, then we must agree that God/Budda/your choice of deity here created it, and how could anything that God/Budda/Your Deity created be bad?

Therefore, if God created homosexuality, it should be accepted.

Which is why you will never convince all Christians that homosexual orientation is genetic.

billythrilly7th
10-27-2006, 04:15 AM
Which is why you will never convince all Christians that homosexual orientation is genetic.

I know.

But I still respect their right to have that opinion.

MacAllister
10-27-2006, 04:20 AM
But I still respect their right to have that opinion.Oh, absolutely.

What bugs me are the attempts to legislate that opinion into our laws and our Constitution.

billythrilly7th
10-27-2006, 04:20 AM
Oh, absolutely.

What bugs me are the attempts to legislate that opinion into our laws and our Constitution.

I hear ya.

But it goes both ways.

No pun intended.:ROFL:

MacAllister
10-27-2006, 04:21 AM
*snort*

You totally intended the pun, Billy. 'Fess up!

Alan Yee
10-27-2006, 04:22 AM
We know that some animals engage in homosexual acts, like those damn horny dolphins, funny and wonderful creatures that they are. I found that to be a revelation that it really is natural. Sadly, some people will never accept that notion.

billythrilly7th
10-27-2006, 04:22 AM
*snort*

You totally intended the pun, Billy. 'Fess up!

lol..I wish I was that good.

Jean Marie
10-27-2006, 04:24 AM
Gaff, you hit the nail on the head w/ Madonna. It's in desperation, I think. Her popularity trailed off and she's turned the notch up on shock-value performances. Again, IMO. Problem is, her music doesn't hold up, anymore.

As to what is sin or not, ask yourselves this question: Who's the final judge? I don't care what your religion is, mind you. But, the answer to that question certainly isn't any one of us, here.

On the flip-side of that, I know in my gut when I've done something wrong. That's always been my barometer. I'm talking morals, here, okay, not robbing a gas station. Btw, I never did that.

In my heart, homosexuality's not wrong. In reality, that's all I need to know.

billythrilly7th
10-27-2006, 04:28 AM
As to what is sin or not, ask yourselves this question: Who's the final judge? I don't care what your religion is, mind you. But, the answer to that question certainly isn't any one of us, here.


Yes, but since God has been AWOL for a couple thousand years as to the rules of what is sin and not sin, it is left up to us humans to decipher and pass laws and give society guidelines as to what behavior will be acceptable or not.

And that's the tug of war.

I've said it and I'll say it again.

If you're out there, G, come on down, go on O'Reilly. Do an hour. And just give us some thumbs up and thumbs down.

I think we'd all appreciate it.

Thank you.

Ol' Fashioned Girl
10-27-2006, 04:28 AM
What bugs me are the attempts to legislate that opinion into our laws and our Constitution.

Mac, I wish you could give yourself a rep for that one sentence so it would be worth ten of mine.

Jean Marie
10-27-2006, 04:36 AM
Yes, but since God has been AWOL for a couple thousand years as to the rules of what is sin and not sin, it is left up to us humans to decipher and pass laws and give society guidelines as to what behavior will be acceptable or not.

And that's the tug of war.

God's not AWOL, billy. Nobody listens to each other, why would we listen to Him?

It's exactly when we humans get in there and try and interpret God's law, that it gets screwed up. The tug o' war's between freakin' political egos, that's all. Who's on top...no pun intended--I swear!! there's no other way to say that...

billythrilly7th
10-27-2006, 04:48 AM
It's exactly when we humans get in there and try and interpret God's law, that it gets screwed up. The tug o' war's between freakin' political egos, that's all. Who's on top...no pun intended--I swear!! there's no other way to say that...

You're 100% right.

Elections aren't about helping the American people towards a better future. Especially this one.

This is about "winning the big high school football game!!"

Yay!!

We won!!

Both sides.

Disgusting. Our elected officials are immature, narcisistic, power hungry children.

The whole lot of them.

God isn't AWOL?

Where is he?(or sheeee....zzzzzz)

SC Harrison
10-27-2006, 06:19 AM
If you're out there, G, come on down, go on O'Reilly. Do an hour. And just give us some thumbs up and thumbs down.



Man, that show would last about two minutes. The third time Bill interrupted God with one of those, "Come on, that's not what you said to Solomon! I've got it right here, and I quote you,'Then I will establish...'", it would be over, and Bill would either be turned to stone or smoking from the lightning strike.

SeanDSchaffer
10-27-2006, 09:07 AM
Oh, absolutely.

What bugs me are the attempts to legislate that opinion into our laws and our Constitution.


And that is what this whole situation is really about, IMO. Legislating a common sense law is one thing; legislating an opinion, however?

It's like the story I heard a preacher mention once about pornography. He quoted an old judge as saying, "I cannot legally define pornography, but I can certainly point it out to you when I see it."

Such is the problem with legislating an opinion. What is obvious and easy to understand to me, might not be so obvious or easy to understand to you. For this reason, laws ought not, IMO, to be based on a particular group's opinions.

cree
10-27-2006, 09:32 AM
Whenever I see a thread or hear a discussion like this, I think: how CLEVER our politicians are during election season!

There's nothing quite like throwing a gay marriage bone to the American public, to watch everyone descend upon the bone like wolves so that the REAL election issues get lost in the shuffle.
Brilliant, really.

Opty
10-27-2006, 10:03 AM
It's like the story I heard a preacher mention once about pornography. He quoted an old judge as saying, "I cannot legally define pornography, but I can certainly point it out to you when I see it."


Off-topic, but...

That was Justice Potter Stewart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potter_Stewart):

"It is possible to read the Court's opinion in Roth v. United States and Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476, in a variety of ways. In saying this, I imply no criticism of the Court, which in those cases was faced with the task of trying to define what may be indefinable. I have reached the conclusion, which I think is confirmed at least by negative implication in the Court's decisions since Roth and Alberts, that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. "

Opty
10-27-2006, 10:20 AM
That, Billy, is what I think is at the core of the whole 'Homosexuality as sin' debate.

If we find (as I believe, btw) that homosexuality is indeed genetic or somehow othewise related to nature, and not a choice, then we must agree that God/Budda/your choice of deity here created it, and how could anything that God/Budda/Your Deity created be bad?

Therefore, if God created homosexuality, it should be accepted.

Which is why you will never convince all Christians that homosexual orientation is genetic.

While I don't disagree with the underlying message of your post, I do disagree with the faulty logic you're using in your example, when you claim, basically, that just because something exists, God must've specifically created it.

Homosexuality is believed to be genetic. That, however, doesn't imply that God "created" it. Homosexuality could very well be the result of genetic mutations resulting from DNA damage.

That's pretty much how many cancers are created. DNA becomes damaged which causes gene mutations that disrupt protein synthesis and lead to a perverse form of cell division.

Did God create the DNA damage or the resultant gene mutations?

Not likely, and it'd be silly to conclude so.

God (if you believe in Him) created life, including the building blocks and operating mechanisms of life. He created the universe and the substances within it. He didn't create nor does He control what people do with those substances or how random acts of nature affects these things.

If you believe that God created cancer (simply because he created genes and those genes mutated), it would then also follow that God created meth, and cocaine, and crack, and child rape, simply because he created people, and plants, and kids.

Too much sun exposure can damage epithelial DNA, causing mutations which lead to melanoma. God created the sun. God created epithelial cells. God created DNA. He didn't, however, force a person to spend way too much time in the sun, thus incurring the damage which led to the melanoma.

Thus, it doesn't logically follow that God "created" skin cancer.

Much like it doesn't logically follow that God "created" homosexuality, simply because he created genes. He created the genes, not the mutations.

Inkdaub
10-27-2006, 12:07 PM
Good for New Jersey.

Good Word
10-27-2006, 05:15 PM
Homosexuality is believed to be genetic. That, however, doesn't imply that God "created" it. Homosexuality could very well be the result of genetic mutations resulting from DNA damage.

So you are stating that non-heterosexual people are defective human beings.

Uh-huh.

Godfather
10-27-2006, 05:35 PM
I agree with Jean Marie. Who decides whats right and wrong?


Yes, but since God has been AWOL for a couple thousand years as to the rules of what is sin and not sin, it is left up to us humans to decipher and pass laws and give society guidelines as to what behavior will be acceptable or not.

And that's the tug of war.

You make a good point Billy, but one thing. A victimless crime; can it be a crime?

Jean Marie
10-27-2006, 06:20 PM
Much like it doesn't logically follow that God "created" homosexuality, simply because he created genes. He created the genes, not the mutations.
In other words, God only creates good things, in your world. Which means you're the interpreter of good and evil.

Bolding is mine. That's a contradiction, you realize. You're saying God only created part of the DNA. What about Downs? Hint: Be careful w/ this one.

In short, your God picks and chooses, "Think I'll make me a mutant, today." Sounds off the charts weird.

That's sad, actually.

In my world, God created everything, regardless of your so-called worthiness.

What you said, Sporky, is the core of the problem, as I understand it. Boosting your opinion w/ bad science, and logic. It's not much different than attempting to legislate an opinion, which Mac mentioned yesterday.

Bottom line, what are you afraid of?

Christine N.
10-27-2006, 06:31 PM
While I don't disagree with the underlying message of your post, I do disagree with the faulty logic you're using in your example, when you claim, basically, that just because something exists, God must've specifically created it.

Homosexuality is believed to be genetic. That, however, doesn't imply that God "created" it. Homosexuality could very well be the result of genetic mutations resulting from DNA damage.

That's pretty much how many cancers are created. DNA becomes damaged which causes gene mutations that disrupt protein synthesis and lead to a perverse form of cell division.



That's not the same. If we 'created in his own image', then so were homosexuals. I'm not talking about drugs, obviously those are created by man, which was created by God, but has free will.

Just like the whole view that some religions have that they won't see doctors because they rely on God for healing. Well, folks, God gave man the brainpower to heal.

If you believe homosexuality to be genetic, then you take out free will, therefore it is acceptable, just like having red hair or blue eyes.

Iincidentally, disease came to man once he was thrown from the Garden of Eden, and essentially did come from God. If you follow the Bible's teachings, which, amazingly, I don't. Pretty good for a Wiccan, eh?

dclary
10-27-2006, 06:37 PM
I agree with Jean Marie. Who decides whats right and wrong?



You make a good point Billy, but one thing. A victimless crime; can it be a crime?

Victimless crimes are legislative crimes only, usually. But in almost every case there IS a victim: the one committing it.

SeanDSchaffer
10-27-2006, 09:14 PM
So you are stating that non-heterosexual people are defective human beings.

Uh-huh.


I know you weren't quoting me, but this statement caught my eye.

I personally think that all human beings are defective in some way. The reason I believe this is, that the world was perfect in the Bible up until Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Once that happened, all hell basically broke loose on the human race and we all became "Sinners" because of Adam's having eaten of the tree.

That said, this is one major reason I think that Jesus said His people should never judge others. It's because we're all defective, and we're all somehow not right with God, simply because that's our nature.

A good example of this sinful nature is fear. God constantly says in the Bible 'Fear not' and 'Do not be afraid', yet we humans have the most bizarre of fears within the animal kingdom, not the least of which is the fear of being judged. Most animals don't give a rat's rear end what people think of them, yet we for some reason do. Some suggest that's one of the reasons we wear clothing when in each others' presence. The idea that people would judge us based upon what clothes we wear--or don't, as the case may be--produces, from what I've seen, a tremendous amount of fear inside us.

We were not made to have such fear of one another.

Of course, this is just one example of what our defective nature does for all Humanity. There are many other examples of the effects of our defective nature as a whole, but the space required to list them all would be quite prohibitive.

The point I am making is, I believe that one reason Christ told His people never to judge, is that we are just as defective, if I may use that term, as any other human being. To judge other people as somehow 'more defective' than we are, is quite hypocritical, because according to the Bible that so many Christians like to quote to defend their position on Gay Marriage, "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". It's not just the homosexuals who have this so-called 'defective' nature that DrSpork spoke of. It's everyone.

cree
10-27-2006, 10:03 PM
....and while the voters continue to debate the "unwinnable" debate, the planet is dying.....
Dog chases tail, sun rises and sets, and American voters get their panties in a bunch about gay marriage. How odd we do this, rather than see that every time there's an election, we are deftly steered back into this issue.
I love irony.
Sorry to interrupt, carry on...

Good Word
10-27-2006, 11:43 PM
Cree, I actually have a longer post I started drafting--not finished yet--but it kinda says the same thing about the bigger issues.

And Sean, that's true, we are all imperfect, but one imperfect group shouldn't be telling another that they can't get married, now, should they?

Christine N.
10-28-2006, 12:05 AM
Because the planetary issues are too big for any one person, I think, but this is something we can sort of do something about.

Maybe?

dclary
10-28-2006, 12:07 AM
Cree, I actually have a longer post I started drafting--not finished yet--but it kinda says the same thing about the bigger issues.

And Sean, that's true, we are all imperfect, but one imperfect group shouldn't be telling another that they can't get married, now, should they?

Like we should be accepting theology opinions from Freakin Satan.

;)

Good Word
10-28-2006, 12:18 AM
That's Ms. Fricken Satan to you, wisebutt.

:)

dclary
10-28-2006, 12:28 AM
:D

Opty
10-28-2006, 01:04 AM
So you are stating that non-heterosexual people are defective human beings.

Uh-huh.

I never stated anything of the sort. Please point out, specifically, where I said that, alluded to that, or even implied that. You can't because I didn't.

As Sean said, we're all defective to a certain degree. Hell, aging is the result of cell damage. Does that mean that one's grandmother is "defective?" Does that mean that you are more "defective" than I am, simply because you're older?

I'm stating that a common genetic theory of the origins of homosexuality refer to it being the result of altered genes.

Whether or not you believe that sexuality is something which dictates how "effective" or "defective" one as a "human being" is I leave up to you.

I happen to not hold the opinion that one's sexuality determines one's "human beingness."

Therefore, I never stated nor implied that one's homosexuality in any way makes one a "defective human being," nor should such a moronic distortion be inferred from what I said.

Please stop putting words in my mouth and use a logical argument next time.

Opty
10-28-2006, 01:23 AM
In other words, God only creates good things, in your world. Which means you're the interpreter of good and evil.

"Good" and "bad" are moral labels. I was speaking scientifically.

Genes are genes. I consider them to be neutral. Their "normalcy" has been determined by the scientific community to refer to their overall propensity to promote good health and the perpetuation of the species under their "normal" functioning.

So, if you consider genes which do this to be "good" and genes which do not to be "bad," then that is your interpretation. The general scientific nomenclature for undamaged, unaltered genes which perform their designated functions is "normal" and for those which have been damaged or otherwise altered resulting in a different outcome is "abnormal."

"Good" and "bad" are your own terms, not anything I addressed.

All of our genes perform different functions. Some perform certain functions because they are acting in the way in which they were originally designed. Some perform certain functions because they were altered by mutation or DNA damage or because some other genetic "abnormality" occured.

Whether one believes the functions performed by genes that function possibly as the result of these abnormalities are "bad" is up to that person. I made no such judgment.

However, genetic mutations can cause a wide variety of outcomes including variations in hair and eye color, to shape of one's nose, to sexual preference.

I made no judgment as to whether one's sexual preference was "good" or "bad." That is a judgment that both you and another poster interpolated (forced into my post) all on your own.

I just offered one of the current scientific theories for the origin of homosexuality. It is not the only theory, just one of the more popular ones currently.


Bolding is mine. That's a contradiction, you realize. You're saying God only created part of the DNA. What about Downs? Hint: Be careful w/ this one.

Actually, I realize that it is certainly NOT a contradiction. God created the genes/DNA. In certain individuals, those genes experience alterations which cause outcomes which science deem to be "abnormal."

And, why do I need to "be careful" with the Down Syndrome example? Are you threatening me? It'd be laughable if you were.

Down Syndrome is the result of extra genetic material affixing itself to the 21st gene chromosome. That is a random occurence that results in the abnormality of that gene's structure and functioning. That's how it happens. That's scientific fact.

Did God cause those alterations? I'd argue that he didn't. Genetic alterations which result in genetic abnormalities happen for various reasons which are scientifically explainable. None of those reasons is "God."

God doesn't make a person smoke cigarettes, therefore he didn't "create" the lung cancer that person may get. He didn't force a person to spend too much time sun-bathing, therefore he didn't "create" the melanoma that person may get.

He created the genes. He created the materials and their natural operations and set them in motion. As far as I know, He did not cause them to become altered by random chance or by environmental influences. Again, claiming that He did is about as silly as claiming that He created meth, since He created people, who created cold medicine, stoves, and pots and then used those to make meth.

Pardon me, but that type of logic is idiotic.


In short, your God picks and chooses, "Think I'll make me a mutant, today." Sounds off the charts weird.

No, my God does nothing of the sort. And, I never said anything remotely related to that. Do try to actually read my posts before you fly off the handle attacking things I never said.

All I said is He created the genes and their normal operations and then set them in motion. Anything that happens afterwards is the result of environment or random chance, not God.


That's sad, actually.

No, the fact that you're arguing with yourself after having created some fictitious argument I never stated is what's sad.


In my world, God created everything, regardless of your so-called worthiness.

Okay, now THAT is a contradiction. So, if God created "everything," then you're saying that He created AIDS and crack and date rape and child pornography.

And, where are you getting this "worthiness" bullcrap? I never made any such statements or judgments.

If you're going to argue against my position, please take the time to ensure that it is a position I actually hold and actually stated somewhere.

Stop pulling stuff out of your *** and then claiming that I said it and then attacking me for it.


What you said, Sporky, is the core of the problem, as I understand it. Boosting your opinion w/ bad science, and logic. It's not much different than attempting to legislate an opinion, which Mac mentioned yesterday.

There was no "bad science" about anything I said. And, the only "bad" logic being used here is by you.


Bottom line, what are you afraid of?

I'm not "afraid of" anything. However, stupidity does annoy me.

Opty
10-28-2006, 01:32 AM
If you believe homosexuality to be genetic, then you take out free will, therefore it is acceptable, just like having red hair or blue eyes.

Um...okay. Nothing I stated has anything to do with "free will." I also never addressed whether or not homosexuality was morally "acceptable." Please point out to me where I did.

If the genetic theory of homosexuality is correct then there is no free will involved. And, if you ask pretty much any real homosexual (and not one of those attention-starved chicks on Girls Gone Wild like Bravo watches), they will tell you that they never "chose" to be gay, that they were "born" that way.

Like we never choose to be born with blue eyes or brown eyes or bumpy noses or big ears. Our genes control that, which was my entire point.


Iincidentally, disease came to man once he was thrown from the Garden of Eden, and essentially did come from God. If you follow the Bible's teachings, which, amazingly, I don't. Pretty good for a Wiccan, eh?

If you believe the literal interpretation of Genesis (I happen to believe that a lot of Genesis was allegorical), then I suppose you would have that opinion.

However, my post never addressed any of that.

I do wish that people here would take the time to actually read what's posted here before forcing their own agendas into the responses of others.

dclary
10-28-2006, 01:36 AM
Genes are genes.

Unless you're talking Gene Simmons. Then Genes ROCK DA HOUSE, DETROIT!

Opty
10-28-2006, 01:46 AM
I've now counted three responses to my original post that argued vehemently against things I never said, implied, nor even addressed with my post.

It's hard to have an intelligent, rational, logical discussion with people who seem to eschew such things and seem only interested in arguing against things which do not fit their world-views, or in framing other people's opinions in a negative way which has nothing to do with the actual views of that person, simply so that they can attack them and further some agenda.

To quote Jean Marie, "That's sad."

billythrilly7th
10-28-2006, 01:56 AM
I've now counted three responses to my original post that argued vehemently against things I never said, implied, nor even addressed with my post.


It's maddening.

It really is.

Bravo used to do it all the time, but he was able to right the ship and hasn't done it in a long time.

I used to call it the "Qaz/Bravo Phantom Memory."

Good times. Good times.

dclary
10-28-2006, 01:59 AM
I've now counted three responses to my original post that argued vehemently against things I never said, implied, nor even addressed with my post.

It's hard to have an intelligent, rational, logical discussion with people who seem to eschew such things and seem only interested in arguing against things which do not fit their world-views, or in framing other people's opinions in a negative way which has nothing to do with the actual views of that person, simply so that they can attack them and further some agenda.

To quote Jean Marie, "That's sad."

Why do you hate genetics, Dr. Spork?

Godfather
10-28-2006, 03:02 AM
Victimless crimes are legislative crimes only, usually. But in almost every case there IS a victim: the one committing it.

hmmm... so you're saying that a man who's been in a loving and sexual relationship with another man is a victim, because he's in love?

Christine N.
10-28-2006, 03:15 AM
Well, Spork you stated that if one thing is created by God, that ALL things, like drugs, etc.. that are bad for us are also created by God, so why would God create bad things.

God created tobacco, but MAN created cigarettes.
God created poppies, but MAN figured out how to make it into opium

Do you get where I'm going with that? We are given a brain, we're not just mindless drones (well, some of us are).

My point, being, based on your point, that God did have a hand in those things, but it's man's choice as to how they are used. Unlike homosexuality, which is NOT a choice.

You were responding to my original point that if we were all created in God's image, that homosexuality would also be part of God's plan, therefore should not be shunned by Christians.

Ok, I think I confused myself. I hope you got it.

Opty
10-28-2006, 07:02 AM
Well, Spork you stated that if one thing is created by God, that ALL things, like drugs, etc.. that are bad for us are also created by God, so why would God create bad things.

That's sort of what I said. The point of my entire post was to refute a point made in your post, which I summarized here:

I do disagree with the faulty logic you're using in your example, when you claim, basically, that just because something exists, God must've specifically created it.

This is a summary, from my perspective, of the underlying message and logic used when you said this:


If we find (as I believe, btw) that homosexuality is indeed genetic or somehow othewise related to nature, and not a choice, then we must agree that God/Budda/your choice of deity here created it, and how could anything that God/Budda/Your Deity created be bad?

Therefore, if God created homosexuality, it should be accepted.
Bolding is my emphasis.

Your reasoning here is flawed because it does not follow a logical path to a logical conclusion.

We start with the assumption that homosexuality may, indeed, be genetic, therefore, possibly caused by a genetic abnormality of some sort. From what we currently know scientifically, I'm inclined to accept this theory. You say that you accept this theory ("as I believe, btw"), so we are in agreement here.

However, you then fall down a slippery slope (quite quickly, I might add) when you then make the leap when you assert that God created these genetic abnormalities. You then further conclude that, since God made genes, and (according to you) he made the genetic abnormalities, then he must have created homosexuality.

And (according to the position you took in your post), God is good and all he creates is good, therefore homosexuality must be good since God created it. You then stated that such a notion is hard for Christians to accept, because they view homosexuality as "bad" or "wrong" and to accept things the way you have explained them, Christians would have to accept that either God creates "bad" or "wrong" things (a notion contrary to Christianity) or that homosexuality must be "good" since "God created it."

If that is a misrepresentation of what you meant, please clarify, as I'm basing that summary on what you actually posted.

This is where we disagree.

I believe that God created genes because I believe that God created life. However, I do not believe that God "creates" or "causes" alterations in genetic material; those alterations have obvious environmental or biological explanations.

Genetic alterations can happen for any number of environmental or biological reasons. I do not believe those reasons are "supernatural."


God created tobacco, but MAN created cigarettes.
God created poppies, but MAN figured out how to make it into opium

Do you get where I'm going with that? We are given a brain, we're not just mindless drones (well, some of us are).

Yes, but you missed my point entirely.

Here's what I said:

Homosexuality is believed to be genetic. That, however, doesn't imply that God "created" it. Homosexuality could very well be the result of genetic mutations resulting from DNA damage.

...snip snip...

God (if you believe in Him) created life, including the building blocks and operating mechanisms of life. He created the universe and the substances within it. He didn't create nor does He control what people do with those substances or how random acts of nature affects these things.

...snip snip...

If you believe that God created cancer (simply because he created genes and those genes mutated), it would then also follow that God created meth, and cocaine, and crack, and child rape, simply because he created people, and plants, and kids.

My point was a simple one and can be summarized thus: If you buy a car, ideally that car operates according to the way it is designed when it leaves the lot. If your car happens to get damaged in some way, either from a rock flying from the highway to crack your windshield, or a shopping cart striking your car in a parking lot and denting/scratching it, or from another car hitting it, do you blame this damage on the car manufacturer?

Is it somehow Ford's fault that some thoughtless old lady backed into your car at the grocery store?

No. However, that is exactly the type of logic you're using when you go from saying that "God created genes" to "God also created the damage/alterations/abnormalities that happen to genes."


My point, being, based on your point, that God did have a hand in those things, but it's man's choice as to how they are used. Unlike homosexuality, which is NOT a choice.

Not everything that happens to our genes is our choice, either. People don't "choose" to get cancer (which is caused by abnormal genetic protein coding), or "choose" to get Down Syndrome (caused by abnormal formation of chromosome 21) or "choose" to be born with spina bifida. And, they certainly don't "choose" to be born homosexual.

Just because something is NOT man's "fault," does not mean that it is, therefore, God's "fault."

Sometimes, sh!t just happens.

It can happen to your car. It can happen to your genes.

Jesus said that it will rain on the just as well as the unjust. I think this applies to genes, too.

WriterInChains
10-28-2006, 07:05 AM
....and while the voters continue to debate the "unwinnable" debate, the planet is dying.....
Dog chases tail, sun rises and sets, and American voters get their panties in a bunch about gay marriage. How odd we do this, rather than see that every time there's an election, we are deftly steered back into this issue.
I love irony.

Exactly.

I'd love it if the majority of people in the US would learn from history for a change. Knowledge is not evil; it's power.

The argument that people of color were "genetically inferior" was once "accepted" -- much as the argument that anyone who's GLBT is today.

Who'll be next?

Jean Marie
10-28-2006, 07:18 AM
At least I'm in good company w/ misunderstanding your posts, Sporky. Maybe you need to work on your clarification since there's so many of us. Not all of us can be that stupid, or dense.

When discussing mutation of genes, the implication can be either negative or positive. The light in which you discussed homosexuality appeared negative. Then, you set about comparing the variation of genes to cancer, etc.

The long and short of it, God does allow all to occur through free will. That is part of his creation, too. So, yes, it's all inclusive; the good and the bad was all created by God. He allows rape, disease, murder, etc.

But, that's not what we're talking about, here. We're talking about equal rights for all, regardless. Period. Those are rights that all of us are entitled to. Rights that have no business being legislated.

Opty
10-28-2006, 07:22 AM
The argument that people of color were "genetically inferior" was once "accepted" -- much as the argument that anyone who's GLBT is today.



There's quite a difference in saying that "this person is genetically inferior because he is black" and saying "this person is homosexual because of (for example) a form of congenital adrenal hyperplasia."

The first statement is ignorant, moronic, and both logically and scientifically bogus.

Scientifically, the second statement makes no value-judgments of any kind. It simply offers an explanation which is scientifically sound and provable/falsifiable.

What's really sad is when someone makes and infers a value judgment against a scientific explanation which, ironically, makes no value judgment.

Opty
10-28-2006, 07:28 AM
At least I'm in good company w/ misunderstanding your posts, Sporky. Maybe you need to work on your clarification since there's so many of us. Not all of us can be that stupid, or dense.

I was quite clear in my explanation, supported by the fact that I got several messages by people baffled as to why some individuals weren't understanding what I'd clearly stated.


When discussing mutation of genes, the implication can be either negative or positive.

I made no implications at all in that respect. I simply stated neutral facts. "Positive" and "negative" are values that have nothing to do with the genetics portion of argument I presented.


The light in which you discussed homosexuality appeared negative.

That, Jean, is an inference on the part of the reader, not an implication by me.


Then, you set about comparing the variation of genes to cancer, etc.

Yes. Because both operate on similar mechanisms within the context of genetic alterations.


The long and short of it, God does allow all to occur through free will. That is part of his creation, too. So, yes, it's all inclusive; the good and the bad was all created by God. He allows rape, disease, murder, etc.

Again, that's a logical fallacy. "Allowing something to happen" does not mean nor even imply that one "creates the something that happened."

Those two statements/thoughts are NOT equal.

SeanDSchaffer
10-28-2006, 07:41 AM
Cree, I actually have a longer post I started drafting--not finished yet--but it kinda says the same thing about the bigger issues.

And Sean, that's true, we are all imperfect, but one imperfect group shouldn't be telling another that they can't get married, now, should they?


Well said, Good Word. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement. It's like the old saying 'The blind leading the blind'. Or, like Christ put it, trying to remove the mote from your brother's eye, when beholding not the beam that's in your own.

Jean Marie
10-28-2006, 07:45 AM
In a feeble attempt to keep this on topic, we're desperately trying to discuss equal rights for all.

Regardless.

Period.

Skip the genes.

Can't legislate genes--thank god. They'd probably try, if they could.

= rights for all.

SeanDSchaffer
10-28-2006, 07:53 AM
In a feeble attempt to keep this on topic, we're desperately trying to discuss equal rights for all.

Regardless.

Period.

Skip the genes.

Can't legislate genes--thank god. They'd probably try, if they could.

= rights for all.


I think the genes thing, personally, is very much worth discussing. If a person has a gene that causes them to be homosexual versus heterosexual, then that would take away some amount of personal responsibility for what that person does. I'm not saying I agree with the idea that people are born this way, but it is a good discussion that I think should bear some scrutiny. If a person is unable to change the behavior, much like the color of their eyes or skin, then this would be very much a civil rights discussion.

So I think that the genes issue is very important to this discussion. If religion cannot explain someone's sexual orientation, then maybe science can. I, for one, would very much like to hear what science has to say about this subject. If my views on homosexuality and its causes are mistaken, for instance, then I most certainly would want to know about it so that I could remedy the problem within my own viewpoints on the subject.

Again, not to say that I agree with it off-hand. But rather to say, that this is a very relevant part of the issue that should not be ignored.

cree
10-28-2006, 07:58 AM
Because the planetary issues are too big for any one person, I think, but this is something we can sort of do something about.

Maybe?

ROFL!

Jean Marie
10-28-2006, 08:00 AM
Nothing personal meant to you, Sean. I guess I feel that it just doesn't matter "why" to me, anyway. You know? I accept people for who they are. I love 'em because they're my friends and that's all I need to know. I don't care about any of the other stuff, it's not important.

SeanDSchaffer
10-28-2006, 08:05 AM
Nothing personal meant to you, Sean. I guess I feel that it just doesn't matter "why" to me, anyway. You know? I accept people for who they are. I love 'em because they're my friends and that's all I need to know. I don't care about any of the other stuff, it's not important.


I wish more people had an attitude like that, Jean Marie. Just accept people for who they are: I've always admired people who can live up to such a standard. In this world, that can really take some doing.

:Sun:

Jean Marie
10-28-2006, 08:09 AM
I wish more people had an attitude like that, Jean Marie. Just accept people for who they are: I've always admired people who can live up to such a standard. In this world, that can really take some doing.

:Sun:
:Hug2: I try, Sean. That's the best any of us can do. Progress not perfection.

Opty
10-28-2006, 08:48 AM
I guess I feel that it just doesn't matter "why" to me, anyway. You know? I accept people for who they are. I love 'em because they're my friends and that's all I need to know. I don't care about any of the other stuff, it's not important.

Unfortunately, most people don't view life that way.

Some are bigots. They hate differences. They're scared of them.

And, unfortunately, many of them hide their bigotry behind religion. The small-mindedness already existed. Religion - if these people twist and distort it enough to match/validate their agendas - is simply their "excuse" for the hate they spew.

And, unfortunately, many of these people claim to be "Christians." As a Christian, this offends me greatly, as their actions/attitudes are completely unChristian.

I think an adequate knowledge of and intelligent acceptance of scientific explanations of nature and the universe cast doubt on many people's silly assertion that homosexuality is a "choice" (as much of a choice as heterosexuality, right?). So, understanding the possible genetic explanations of homosexuality might unravel certain misguided explanations which claim to be theological.

However, this acceptance relies on people being intelligent. And, unfortunately, the world is full of stupid people who are perfectly happy remaining stupid.

Jean Marie
10-28-2006, 06:01 PM
Um, Spork, I'm not stupid. Far from it. I understand, all too well the scientific explanation.

Thank you.

Yes, people do hide behind their collective bigotry. And they call themselves Christian. Makes me angry, too. I'm Christian as well.

Over the years, I've had to throw out the garbage of my youth. Many of the things I was taught were bad logic. More like destructive logic. Things like, if you have an abortion, you're going to hell. Yup, I was raised Catholic. Still am.

Hence my statement of progress not perfection. Anyone who says they cannot make changes is doing so out of fear, IMO.

WriterInChains
10-28-2006, 08:06 PM
There's quite a difference in saying that "this person is genetically inferior because he is black" and saying "this person is homosexual because of (for example) a form of congenital adrenal hyperplasia."

The first statement is ignorant, moronic, and both logically and scientifically bogus.

Scientifically, the second statement makes no value-judgments of any kind. It simply offers an explanation which is scientifically sound and provable/falsifiable.

What's really sad is when someone makes and infers a value judgment against a scientific explanation which, ironically, makes no value judgment.
My point obviously wasn't clear. I'm not against scientific evidence proving that people are born GLBT -- quite the opposite. Maybe some of the "debate" over the validity of these "alternative lifestyles" will quiet down when that evidence becomes widely accepted. I sincerely hope so. It will have a direct impact on my life and the lives of some people I love dearly.

I was trying to say, that social attitudes change but not without some terrible and often tragic expense to people who only want to live their lives without hurting or imposing their ideals upon anyone else. Maybe I should've used the example of women's suffrage? Not long ago the belief that women simply lacked the intelligence to vote was widely accepted. Now it seems ridiculous. Why can't we just skip the persecution and hate, and get right to the acceptance? Believe me, I realize that's a huge dream, but if I have to wear a label I'll take dreamer.

On your last statement, we're in complete agreement. :Sun:

Christine N.
10-28-2006, 08:06 PM
Spork, you called it an "abnormality". That speaks volumes. What if it's a recessive gene, like blue eyes? Then how is that 'abnormal' ?

Jean Marie
10-29-2006, 01:49 AM
Spork, you called it an "abnormality". That speaks volumes. What if it's a recessive gene, like blue eyes? Then how is that 'abnormal' ?
See, I knew I wasn't reading it wrong.

Sometimes, when we post/write, the implied words are stronger/just as than the written ones. In that case, they can be equally as harmful. Just sayin'.

Opty
10-29-2006, 08:12 AM
Spork, you called it an "abnormality". That speaks volumes. What if it's a recessive gene, like blue eyes? Then how is that 'abnormal' ?

Then the theory will change to fit this new information.

For now, it has not been found to be the result of recessive traits. On the contrary, several scientists have proposed that it could be the result of genetic alteration due to bio-environmental factors. There are several possible explanations which involve prenatal development which make the argument that it is caused by a "recessive gene" highly unlikely.

Therefore, repeating these objective findings only "speaks volumes" if the listener is forcing some sort of opinion-laden value judgment on a neutral statement.

The sooner certain people stop erroneously equating "abnormal" with "always bad," the sooner we can be on a similar level of understanding in this discussion.

Opty
10-29-2006, 08:14 AM
See, I knew I wasn't reading it wrong.

You were simply interpreting it wrong.


Sometimes, when we post/write, the implied words are stronger/just as than the written ones. In that case, they can be equally as harmful. Just sayin'.

How does one "imply words" on a messageboard?

Again, you are erroneously INFERRING these negative meanings. I think it likely comes from a misunderstanding of certain scientific terminology on your part.

These negative connotations are your own invention.

Christine N.
10-29-2006, 06:55 PM
I think that has to do with the connotation of 'abnormal'. I see what you're saying - abnormal as 'outside the usual' - but most people will read it as something else.

Perhaps 'variation' would be a better word?

So, if this is a variation, is it part of the evolutionary process? Obviously it won't further the species, as far as procreation, but perhaps it came about to, say, prevent overprocreation? Just a speculation, a theory.

Bravo
10-29-2006, 07:14 PM
So, if this is a variation, is it part of the evolutionary process? Obviously it won't further the species, as far as procreation, but perhaps it came about to, say, prevent overprocreation? Just a speculation, a theory.

actually mac gave a link of one of the better evolutionary explanations ive seen of this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519

Jean Marie
10-29-2006, 07:14 PM
You were simply interpreting it wrong.



How does one "imply words" on a messageboard?

Again, you are erroneously INFERRING these negative meanings. I think it likely comes from a misunderstanding of certain scientific terminology on your part.

These negative connotations are your own invention.
More by what you don't say, Sporky. Or, by your particular phraseology. Which means, you as a writer are not being clear. Possibly. Since I read your words several times and several of us "misunderstood" you.

Especially when you say it comes from bio-environmental. How does having 2 or more sons equate to the environment, as opposed to DNA being passed from mom?The link Mac put up, explained it in full. Got it, including the bio-environment part.

As a scientist, you can't bring God into it and say what he did/didn't create. Not as pure science.

I've always thought those were 2 seperate arguments, no?

Jean Marie
10-29-2006, 07:16 PM
actually mac gave a link of one of the better evolutionary explanations ive seen of this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519
No surprise, there.

That's because Mac's smarter than all of us put together :D

ETA: Read the link and it explains it w/ great clarity. Thanks, Bravo for reposting it :)

Christine N.
10-29-2006, 07:37 PM
That does make sense.

But it still doesn't allow people who are against gay marriage to understand that gay people are, in fact, PEOPLE, who should have the same rights and privileges as non-gay people.

Which should be a simple principle to understand; so I don't get why the controversy. Well, I do, but the arguments don't make much sense to me, and often come out as thinly veiled bigotry.

Bravo
10-29-2006, 08:02 PM
hopefully, that link also shows ppl why it's silly to relate sexuality w/ a phenotypic variation like "hair or eye color" as was argued here.

aghast
10-29-2006, 08:09 PM
its sad that in the land of the free and the home of the brave and the richest country in the world, in the year 2006 we still treat gay people as second class citizens or worse, lump them with criminals and deviants and child molesters when most of the rest of the developed world have recognized the truth that gay people are just like you and me and god loves all her children

robeiae
10-29-2006, 08:57 PM
I'll remove the cause...

But master, what about the symptoms!?

...but not the symptoms!

Jean Marie
10-29-2006, 09:31 PM
That does make sense.

But it still doesn't allow people who are against gay marriage to understand that gay people are, in fact, PEOPLE, who should have the same rights and privileges as non-gay people.

Which should be a simple principle to understand; so I don't get why the controversy. Well, I do, but the arguments don't make much sense to me, and often come out as thinly veiled bigotry.
It comes out as thinly veiled bigotry because it is. Quite simple, really.

What sickens me is that some attempt to hide behind supposed Christian beliefs. I call that, chicken. And boldly bigoted.

blacbird
10-29-2006, 11:07 PM
It doesn't matter a charmed quark whether a person is biologically programmed to have homosexual orientation, or has homosexual relationships through free choice. It's personal business, and not an issue the government or any other agency has a right to be interfering with.

caw

Christine N.
10-29-2006, 11:38 PM
Yep.

Opty
10-30-2006, 02:29 AM
So, if this is a variation, is it part of the evolutionary process?

Some have argued that it could be. There's little proof of that, but a strong argument can be made in that regard.


Obviously it won't further the species, as far as procreation, but perhaps it came about to, say, prevent overprocreation? Just a speculation, a theory.

Well, a theory is substantially more than mere "speculation," but your speculation could very well be spot on.

Opty
10-30-2006, 02:33 AM
hopefully, that link also shows ppl why it's silly to relate sexuality w/ a phenotypic variation like "hair or eye color" as was argued here.

I never argued that, so I hope that wasn't directed at me (since I mentioned that genetic abnormalities can cause a variety of outcomes, including affecting such things as eye color).

Alan Yee
10-30-2006, 02:37 AM
I never argued that, so I hope that wasn't directed at me (since I mentioned that genetic abnormalities can cause a variety of outcomes, including affecting such things as eye color).

That was me, but I think I might have misremembered something that Veinglory said in a different thread. Now I don't know for sure what I read.

Opty
10-30-2006, 02:45 AM
More by what you don't say, Sporky. Or, by your particular phraseology. Which means, you as a writer are not being clear. Possibly. Since I read your words several times and several of us "misunderstood" you.
I'm failing to see how I wasn't clear.


Especially when you say it comes from bio-environmental. How does having 2 or more sons equate to the environment, as opposed to DNA being passed from mom?The link Mac put up, explained it in full. Got it, including the bio-environment part.

Well, by "bio-environment" I mean a combination of biological factors and environmental factors. Also, a mother is the baby's own "bio-environment" (the placental environment). Hormonal variation in the placenta during fetal development is one theoretical explanation for the development of a homosexual child. These variations, which could be the result of the mother not producing adequate hormones for the baby (environment) or the baby's own genes developing abnormally, therefore, producing an abnormal level of hormone production by the developing fetus or causing structural variations in the baby's brain (genetic/biological) might explain the stark and consistent differences noted in the brain structures of homosexual men and women (as compared to their heterosexual counterparts).



As a scientist, you can't bring God into it and say what he did/didn't create. Not as pure science.

Sure I can. Science has never answered (or really ever asked) where life came from. Science attempts to answer "how." Religion attempts to answer "why."

So, the genetic/biological explanations I've stated are the science; the "how" homosexuality could develop from biological variations. This is part of life. Life was created by God (in my opinion). That is not a question that science touches, so I can bring it into the discussion as I please, as it doesn't in any way fundamentally alter the science part of the discussion.


I've always thought those were 2 seperate arguments, no?

Depends on what you mean. My original beef was with the suggestion that God WAS playing an active role in the on-going mechanics of life (someone here suggested, though I'm not sure she was serious, that perhaps God was causing the genetic alterations. To me, that puts God into a "hands on" role in a scientific equation where he doesn't belong. My entire argument has been focused on debunking that argument).

billythrilly7th
10-31-2006, 05:39 AM
Good news for Hillary fans...She has evolved.

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?navpath=/channels/families&date=2006/10/27/1


Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., addressing a gathering of LGBT organizations Thursday, said that she "has certainly evolved" on gay issues, Gay City News reported.

Although she still doesn't support the term gay "marriage."

She is willing, however, to let the states decide.

Does this concern you Hillary fans?

Does her "evolving" give you hope?

dclary
10-31-2006, 05:43 AM
Only if she isn't evolving into like, a velociraptor/human or something equally bad.

robeiae
10-31-2006, 05:44 AM
She didn't evolve...her postion changed due to an intelligent design.

TheGaffer
10-31-2006, 06:09 PM
Does this concern you Hillary fans?

Does her "evolving" give you hope?

Hillary seems to evolve in some way or another every week.

blacbird
10-31-2006, 10:06 PM
Only if she isn't evolving into like, a velociraptor/human

You mean, like, quick-smart-tough? That's what scares the bejesus out of Repubs, isn't it, that the Dems might find someone having all those qualities.

And quit insulting my ancestors.

caw

TheGaffer
10-31-2006, 10:37 PM
You mean, like, quick-smart-tough? That's what scares the bejesus out of Repubs, isn't it, that the Dems might find someone having all those qualities.
Not what he meant. Look at his avatar. It's obvious Clary is a raptor/human hybrid, and with the low possibilities for breeding, he doesn't want Hillary in the mix as a possible mate candidate. That's all.

zarch
11-01-2006, 08:11 AM
I still do not comprehend why some people get to vote on things that do not affect them personally.

Like referendums for new professional sporting venues? Like local propositions that concern firefighters or police officers? Like school bond elections in your district even if you don't have kids in school? Like judges?

If I could only vote on issues that affect 28 year-old caucasian male English teachers who are married with two kids...well...that's just silly. The notion that people shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues that don't directly affect them is contrary to the philosophy this country embodies. Besides, there are trickle-down effects, and I think probably most issues affect most people in some way.

dclary
11-01-2006, 08:35 AM
Not what he meant. Look at his avatar. It's obvious Clary is a raptor/human hybrid, and with the low possibilities for breeding, he doesn't want Hillary in the mix as a possible mate candidate. That's all.

Yeah, I'm kinda holding out for the Natalie Portman - Raptor.

Alan Yee
11-02-2006, 06:18 AM
Like referendums for new professional sporting venues? Like local propositions that concern firefighters or police officers? Like school bond elections in your district even if you don't have kids in school? Like judges?

If I could only vote on issues that affect 28 year-old caucasian male English teachers who are married with two kids...well...that's just silly. The notion that people shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues that don't directly affect them is contrary to the philosophy this country embodies. Besides, there are trickle-down effects, and I think probably most issues affect most people in some way.

I see you've completely missed my point. That wasn't intended to be a statement regarding all things in this country, just a thought about this one in particular. I just don't get why people get to vote to take rights away from gays. That is contrary to the philosophy this country embodes. It doesn't affect your marriage if gays are also allowed to marry, too. I mean, really. Allowing gays to marry should really be a non-issue. Unfortunately, people do make it an issue.

Bravo
11-02-2006, 08:29 AM
I never argued that, so I hope that wasn't directed at me (since I mentioned that genetic abnormalities can cause a variety of outcomes, including affecting such things as eye color).

no, i never even read that statement from you.

i was actually referring to christine (and others who've used the same argument in other threads).

dont worry spork, when i take issue w what youve said ill say your name. for old time's sake. ;)


p.s. please work on the word count of your posts, so i can actually read some of it. it's not a rob level of blocked text, but we excuse him b/c of his boring blog. you write screenplays.

thanks

:)

blacbird
11-02-2006, 08:44 AM
I've become of the opinion that if marriages can't be gay, they should at least be cheerful.

caw.

dclary
11-02-2006, 09:00 AM
I also agree with Roseanne Barr here.

"I thought christians were against homosexual sex. If you really wanna stop homosexuals from having sex, then you gotta let them get married. Then they'll never have sex."

karo.ambrose
11-02-2006, 09:00 AM
Is it just the term "marriage" that gay couples want? Is it the priveliges that a marriage entitles them? Why not allow them a union that offers 100% equal rights as a marriage, but just call it something else.

BTW, could someone please clarify if "civil unions" and "marriages" are equal in terms of rights, tax benefits, etc.?

MacAllister
11-02-2006, 09:02 AM
"Separate, but equal" eh?

aghast
11-02-2006, 09:08 AM
'dont taint our sacred marriage, you pervs' and there, have your benefits and shut up - seems like progress to me <roll eye>

blacbird
11-02-2006, 09:15 AM
Is it just the term "marriage" that gay couples want? Is it the priveliges that a marriage entitles them? Why not allow them a union that offers 100% equal rights as a marriage, but just call it something else.

BTW, could someone please clarify if "civil unions" and "marriages" are equal in terms of rights, tax benefits, etc.?

In general, the civil union laws that have been proposed (and in some places adopted) are designed to provide precisely the legal rights that marriage does, without the use of the inflammatory m-word.

But even "civil unions" are vigorously opposed by some, and in Ohio, I believe, there's been a ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to ban those, too. Weird thing is, I can actually see some heterosexual couples opting for "civil unions" rather than "marriage", which can often be damned uncivil.

caw.

BottomlessCup
11-02-2006, 09:43 AM
Obviously, the word is more important than basic civil rights.

If gay people get to use the same word, all the straight people will have to get divorced - which will lead to orphaned children, a depressed real estate market, power-mad lawyers, disemboweled family pets, etc.

Our culture will be in ruins and our enemies - both terrorist and extra-terrestrial - will be emboldened. These NJ activist judges are begging for a dirty-bomb/plutonic-death-ray attack.




Seriously, though, I can't believe anybody is pretending this is about the word. "Words have meaning. Traditiondefinitionhistorically blah blah blah" whatever. Sorry, you're a homophobe.

Opty
11-02-2006, 09:45 AM
p.s. please work on the word count of your posts, so i can actually read some of it.

OK.

billythrilly7th
11-02-2006, 10:10 AM
Seriously, though, I can't believe anybody is pretending this is about the word. "Words have meaning. Traditiondefinitionhistorically blah blah blah" whatever. Sorry, you're a homophobe.

I disagree.

I really think for a lot of people it is simply the word "marriage" that they have a problem with and not homosexuality and co-habitating and raising kids and civil union and all the benefits that married people have.

I can't believe that you would think everyone against the use of the word "marriage," but have no problem with the above things is a homophobe.

But clearly, many many many are.

Thank you.

BottomlessCup
11-02-2006, 10:28 AM
I really think for a lot of people it is simply the word "marriage" that they have a problem with and not homosexuality and co-habitating and raising kids and civil union and all the benefits that married people have.

I can't believe that you would think everyone against the use of the word "marriage," but have no problem with the above things is a homophobe.

The overwhelming majority of Americans don't give a crap about words. But suddenly, millions of them are up in arms and pushing for a constitutional amendment to protect the traditional definition of a word? Horsesh!t.

And the whole, "I'm fine with civil unions, just don't call it marriage" thing is bogus. "Gay people can have love, but it's not like my love. Gay people can have a family, but it's not like my family. Gay people can have rights, but they're not like my rights." Horsesh!t.

Also, do you know why 'marriage' traditionally refers to a heterosexual union? Because gay people traditionally haven't been allowed to marry. It's like saying that women shouldn't be called citizens, because historically they haven't been allowed to vote or own property.

It's time to stop using bigotry to defend bigotry.

billythrilly7th
11-02-2006, 10:38 AM
It's like saying that women shouldn't be called citizens, because historically they haven't been allowed to vote or own property.

Or as I like to refer to them...

The good 'ole days.
:)


Oh for the love of god, it's a joke!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bah!!!!!

karo.ambrose
11-02-2006, 11:07 AM
Seriously, though, I can't believe anybody is pretending this is about the word. "Words have meaning. Traditiondefinitionhistorically blah blah blah" whatever. Sorry, you're a homophobe.

I seriously hope you weren't referring to me when you used 2nd person. I asked a question, nothing more. I did not state my opinion on the matter.

If you want to know my opinion, then here goes. If a gay couple wants to have a ceremony and call it a marriage, they should do what they want. I lived in Ohio in 2004 and voted against the gay marriage ban. I too believe in equal rights. I just posed a question. Debate for debates sake.

Hakuna matata, my friend-- it's my problem free philosophy (copyrights excluded, of course).

BottomlessCup
11-02-2006, 11:21 AM
I didn't mean to direct that at anyone in particular.

billythrilly7th
11-02-2006, 11:25 AM
The entire community appreciates that, BC.

Goodnight.

SeanDSchaffer
11-02-2006, 04:40 PM
The only time I was ever frightened by gay marriage, was when I was a fanatical ultra-right-wing Baptist. Common sense took over about, I'd say two or three years ago, and I'm glad it did.

But the point I'm making is, I've seen this argument from both sides of the coin. I know people who have said that gay marriage will lead to other, far worse situations, and I know a lot of people who think gay marriage is wrong because their form of religion does not believe in it.

I think what got me to realize that this whole situation was really not my place to judge on, were Christ's words, "Judge not, that ye be not judged". I am amazed at how many Christians I know who are not willing to accept those words as applying to them. They get so up-in-arms about other people having the same rights as they do, using terms like 'Special Rights' and stuff like that, saying that gays already have the same rights as anyone else.

But the thing is, I've seen the harmful effects of some people's viewpoint of homosexuality, in beatings I have received for sitting at the same booth at a Denny's with another man. Really, I think the fanaticism is the problem, not gay people getting married to other gay people.

All this begs a similar question to one mentioned earlier. Why is this even a debate? Who am I, or you, or anyone, to judge whether someone other than yourself should be allowed to marry who they wish? Okay, so I am a Christian, and I believe homosexuality is condemned in Scripture. So what? I also believe that forcing other people to obey the commandments of the Old Testament is wrong, as well, because not everyone in the whole wide world believes the Old Testament laws in the first place.

Besides that, the Old Testament laws were written specifically to the Children of Israel, not the whole wide world. That's why before Moses gave those laws, the Bible tells us "The Lord spoke unto Moses saying, 'Say unto the children of Israel...'" Those laws were written for one nation, not the whole wide world. To apply those laws to a nation that is not even found in the Bible is a bit of a stretch, IMO.