|
Post by ladytera on Oct 22, 2008 20:38:38 GMT -5
Caunion, I missed you!!!! Yes, acceptance makes some of those things easier. Yes, children seek the approval and acceptance of their parents. Yes, all those other groups I mentioned seek the approval of others. My purpose was not to dismiss that this happens. My point was this, until an individual accepts who they are themselves, without regard to the approval of others in their lives, they will never attain happiness. When it comes right down to it, happiness is all about look yourself in the eye and being content with the person looking back at you. As long as folks stay focused on gaining the acceptance of society, they will always have an excuse to be miserable. I find that frustrating, sad, and a bit of a cop out. Also, I'd like to make one distinction here. The respect and opinion of those you love should not be dismissed from your feelings about yourself. I don't think it needs to be an integral part of who you are or your self-image as you grow into the adult you will be (speaking generally, not you or anyone else specifically). My true objection is to those who seek the acceptance of "society" in order to feel fulfilled. I don't know you, I have no say over your life, therefore, why the hell should you give a rat's ass about what I think, and by the same token why should I have to change my beliefs, attitudes or perceptions to make you feel better.
Because I am comfortable in my own skin, and treat all people I come in contact with with the respect due them as a fellow human being, I refuse to allow people to try to guilt me into agreeing with their world view. And, while that is probably not the intent of the individuals within any given group of people, it is most certainly the intent of most of the advocacy movements out there. It pissed me off when my mom did it to me as a kid, it pissed me off when my first two husbands did it to me as an adult, and I will not allow strangers to use the same methods to dictate my world view either. By the same token, I also will not attempt to guilt the rest of society into my world view either, which is why I rarely, if ever, use my morals, my faith, or my feelings as an argument for my opinions.
Now that I've completely wandered off topic, sort of, I'll get back to work.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 23, 2008 6:32:56 GMT -5
Yes, I choose who I am attracted to. Including, I suppose when it came down to it, what gender. Coming out of an abusive relationship is an interesting experience. Those people in place to help you are extraordinarily anti-male. There were many women telling me that men were awful pigs, and I should really consider not ever taking up with another one. So, the alternative would have been looking at relationships with women. Now, personally, I do have to say the thought really didn't cross my mind. But the idea was certainly there. Before entering into another relationship, you bet your butt I made a conscious decision about the type of person I would allow myself to be attracted to, and then I set about making darn sure that none of the previous patterns of behavior were present in my potential choices before I made any choices about advancing a relationship. So, yes, you have a choice. Do you have a choice about instinctive attraction? No, probably not. Our brains are wired a certain way, whether it be something we're born with or behavior we observe. That causes instinctive chemical reactions that translate to sexual attraction. Those instinctive chemical reactions are often detrimental as hell to a persons well being. Making conscious choices is necessary to a healthy relationship. So, let me ask you this, if you lived in a society where homosexuality was forcefully frowned upon, and your sister grew up in a loving home environment, is it also possible that she might have outgrown those curiosities? I'm not saying that she would have, nor that for her the decision she made was wrong. Those are personal choices that aren't mine to judge. I'm just positing the thought. It is impossible to tell how much influence society has in those situations, for good or ill. As I said, I'm not easily offended, nor is my faith easily shaken. I didn't figure that was your intent. I was merely pointing out that on the one hand, you want your moral judgment to be considered valid, and accepted as the basis for making changes to laws that would have a huge impact on society. At the same time, you ask a vast segment of the population to disregard millenia of doctrine, dismissing it as outdated. This would be why I rarely use faith as a basis for this argument. Your words: The inference being that the word of God is no longer valid in its original form because of the time and place it was written. While I firmly believe that there are translational issues with the Bible, many of the a result of the difference in time and culture, the basic premises don't change with the setting. Right and wrong are still what they are, and so are moral values. Where are Christmas Trees mentioned in the Bible? The Christmas Tree in the Christian faith, is a symbol of the tree that Jesus would eventually be nailed to. The lights are a symbol of the light Christ symbolized in the Bible. Was it adopted from pagan religions, I do believe so. Then again, many would believe that the Catholic religion involves a lot of idolatry with all the statues of saints and such. Simple truth, traditions and rituals develop over the years in any religion. To my knowledge there is nothing in the Bible that forbids us the celebration of Christ's birth, or the symbols we have chosen to represent him. How is this different? We are not being asked to change a tradition of the church, but a fundamental belief, a fundamental sacrament, and an instruction that was a direct sin in the Bible. Having been considered trailer trash by my former husband and his mother in law, I'm not quite sure how to take that remark. Marriage is work. It's hard, it takes compromise, discernment and infinite love. To reduce the requirement for those things cheapens the commitment of it, and makes the world a darker and uglier place. Ideals are set high to give us something to aspire to. If you make them easy, you get mediocrity and misery. And that is a reference to all, not gays, or any other group. Why can't you believe that? I was not speaking legally, as the conversation had veered to religion. I was speaking of sin. Those are the ones in the Ten Commandments, to them I can add lying, worshiping false gods, and a few others. I did not liken a relationship to murder, I likened the sin of sodomy to the sin of murder. There are quite a number of sins in the Bible that do not "harm" anyone, and yet, they are still sins. What proof is there, anywhere, that the God would have changed his stance on this one issue just because some people wish it so? I never said this was a criminal issue. Not once in any post I've made. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure, somewhere in this conversation, I've stated something to the effect that people's private lives is none of the government's business, until they choose to make it so. Jesus was not a tolerant man. Jesus was a kick ass, take names, tear down your temples and tell you that the Lord your God was watching, and it was time to make a new covenant with him. He would not be the head of Amnesty International, were he here today, he would be the King of Kings, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. But I digress. See what happens when I mix religion with legal issues. That's great, if that's what floats your boat. I'm not Gay, I don't have any interest in being gay, for a week or a day. Damn, I'm rhyming. You are correct. This is a very different society, and for the most part a conservative one. Despite what you may see on TV, there are very few people here that object to homosexuality itself. We object to two men or women groping each other in the streets, promoting homosexuality in the streets, etc. At the same time, we object to a man and woman groping each other in the streets, promoting heterosexuality in the streets, etc. What two consenting adults choose to do between themselves is their own business. If you put the responsibility for your happiness on my shoulders by requiring my approval for your decision, you will be sorely disappointed and unhappy. That simple from my point of view. BTW, on tolerance, as that word has arisen here a few times. I do not have to be tolerant of behavior I do not agree with. This is a free country still. Tolerance is not much more than a code word for shut up if you don't agree, be still if you think something is wrong, because you might hurt someone's feelings. If people were tolerant, we would still have slavery. If people were tolerant, the KKK would still be a respected organization. If people were tolerant, women would not be allowed to vote. I am always tolerant of people. I am not always tolerant of their actions.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Nov 4, 2008 19:10:40 GMT -5
How can you say that you choose who you are attracted to? That's like saying you choose what foods to crave. You choose who you marry, you choose who you go out with, not who you like. Just like you choose what food goes in your mouth. Now, most of the time you marry/go out with people you are attracted to (and you usually eat what you crave), but that is beside the point.
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Nov 5, 2008 18:24:17 GMT -5
Well, a mark of sadness for what would otherwise be a wonderful election day. Gay marriage has been banned by voters in California, Florida, and Arizona. While it is quite likely there will be a vote to repeal that amendment, it's still rather sad that we still reserve prejudice despite having an African American president. Any thoughts on this? Emotions? Outrage? Sadness? Happiness for those among us?
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Nov 5, 2008 21:38:26 GMT -5
Good for Arizona, Florida and California. I will say again, this is not a matter of prejudice, with out without a Black President. 'Tis a matter of societal preservation.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Nov 5, 2008 23:09:37 GMT -5
|
|
wolf
Apprentice
Arrrooooo
Posts: 53
|
Post by wolf on Dec 11, 2008 18:16:02 GMT -5
(I havent read the whole thread but)
Quick question for all of you opposed to gay marriage.....why is it you care about other peoples sex lives? I mean honestly. Because to be honest the only reason they want to get married is
1. For the simple fact that they love each other the same as, or more than you and your partner 2. With marriage comes rights, freedoms, bonuses and other important factors 3. They want their rights and freedoms to be respected
Heading on to the charter, by refusing to let them marry and recieve marriage services the same as any other person IS actually breaking their charter rights, and by law actually IS punishable, though not many would put a law suit on a church. Personally if I was ever gay and wanted to get married and a church refused to provide me with the same services and equality as other I WOULD put a law suit on them for the simple fact that the charter of rights and freedoms in both canada and america says I cannot be refused based on sexual orientation.
Now religion may not like the fact that a person may be gay, but when was someone elses sex life when was it ever anyone elses business, they arent doing it to you. Telling a person they cant marry cause they are gay is like someone telling you that you cant have a job because you are female. And yes that entirely and completely applies because its discriminating a singular group of people prohibiting a resource or service.
As for the reasons for being gay...whats it matter? you either are gay or your not, whatever makes you happy is what you are gonna stick with.
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Dec 14, 2008 0:42:45 GMT -5
OK my two cents. Right now churches have the freedom to marry or not to marry two people of the same sex. The State may or may not recognize it as marriage, but the State will recognize civil unions and other contracts. The Churches should have the right to chose, as per the 1st Amendment. If a state recognizes marriage between two people of the same sex in contradiction of any given Church, then that church would be open to law suit, as Wolf so aptly points out. This would be the State interfering with religious freedom, again against the 1st Amendment. Right now, you and your wife may "marry" a second wife, and if you can find a church to do the service, you can even have a church wedding. The State however will not recognize the second wife, but would recognize any legal contracts made with her. In short, by the state recognizing only traditional marriages, it give the churches 1st amendment rights, but also allows for civil contracts between adults. It may not be perfect, but it is better then all of the law suits and the trampling of constitutional rights that would follow with state recognize gay marriage. And by the way, it is not about some ones sex life, it is about the Constitutional protections Churches now have.
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Dec 14, 2008 11:24:24 GMT -5
Good for Arizona, Florida and California. I will say again, this is not a matter of prejudice, with out without a Black President. 'Tis a matter of societal preservation. Societal Preservation? Could you elaborate on that please, before I reply.
|
|
wolf
Apprentice
Arrrooooo
Posts: 53
|
Post by wolf on Dec 15, 2008 20:33:43 GMT -5
'Tis a matter of societal preservation. Of what? KY jelly on the store shelves? o.O
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Dec 15, 2008 21:21:23 GMT -5
I discussed, extensively, the concept of societal preservation as it pertains to the laws regarding marriage, in the first page or two of this topic. I'd really rather not start sounding like a broken record. Historically speaking, the family unit is the building block of our society. When we went from extended families to individual families, many things were lost in that process. Not saying we can or should go back to that, but the more the definition of marriage is diluted, the less of a foundation family provides, the more unstable society becomes. If you want more of an explanation, try ideasarebulletproof.proboards104.com/index.cgi?board=debate&action=display&thread=109&page=1#1653, and then read on from there.
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Dec 20, 2008 13:15:46 GMT -5
I re-read over the thread from page 1 - here and I dunno, perhaps I'm just a bit thick. But I'm still unsure of exactly what it is you mean. Perhaps you could explain it in laymans terms so that I can get a true grasp of what it is you mean.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Dec 21, 2008 7:46:56 GMT -5
(I havent read the whole thread but) Quick question for all of you opposed to gay marriage.....why is it you care about other peoples sex lives? I mean honestly. Marriage, gay or otherwise, is not about a persons sex life. I have stated, repeatedly, that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes and lives is none of my business, unless they choose to make it so. When those consenting adults seek to change the definition of a religious or legal marriage, they make it the business of the rest of the country. That too is none of my business, and not a justification for changing the laws. There are no "freedoms" that stem from marriage. As to the bonuses and "rights" that come with marriages, I'll get into that in the following post. Their rights and freedoms are respected. They have exactly the same rights and freedoms anyone else does, they are asking for additional rights. Perhaps in Canada. Not so here in the states. The government here in the US is specifically forbidden from interfering in the business of the church. Therefore, it would be a violation of the 1st Amendment for the government to impose any law under which a church could be sued for refusing to go against their doctrines. By the same token, it is also a violation of the 1st Amendment for the government to impose any laws that disallowed churches from marrying gay couples if the church chose to do so. So, as I've stated ad nauseum, there is nothing to prevent a gay couple from finding a church to perform the religious ceremony if they wish to do so. And, again to repeat, that is a totally separate issue from the legal definition of marriage. Again, I don't know about Canada's laws. You are incorrect on this issue here in the US. However, by legally recognizing marriage, it is entirely possible that it would leave our churches open to interference from the government on this issue, which would violate our Constitution, and leave those marriage laws open to Supreme Court challenge. And, I WOULD call you and all the rest of the folks who make such a huge deal out of this a bunch of drama queens if it started coming to law suits. (Holy crap, no pun intended) I'm assuming you're one of the many atheist/agnostic/non-Christians on this forum, so I'll excuse the condescension and lack of understanding apparent from this statement. "Religion" doesn't dislike the fact that a person is gay, nor is it particularly interested in coming into your bedroom and imposing punishment for your sexual behaviors. Christians, (and Jews, Muslims, and many other religions), believe that sodomy is a SIN, therefore it is against church law, therefore the church is forbidden from condoning it by performing gay marriages. That is a purely religious nor secular issue, and there is no way that a group of people should be allowed to impose their own morality on a religion, any more than those religions should be able to legally impose their morality on you. No, it is not. Being female is an accident of birth, as is being black, white, latino, handicapped, etc. Being Gay is not, despite the arguments about feelings and lack of control, there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic, nor that it is anything more than a choice. Choices have consequences. Touched on that above. What fails to get addressed in these arguments is this. The law, as it stands, says that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman. Accomodations such as domestic partnership and civil unions have been made in some places to afford some of the same protections. Even without those, there are other legal contracts that afford many of the same rights (living wills, wills, joint ownership, etc). Because the law has been in place as it is almost since marriage became a legal status instead of just a religious one (I think polygamy and bigamy may have been permitted at one point, but I'm not sure), the burden of proof that a change to the legal definition of marriage is desirable for society as a whole falls on those wishing to change the law. So far they have not made the legal case that gay marriage would in any way, shape or form benefit society, nor have they made the case that its current state is in any way an infringement upon their rights. The reasons don't matter, except in a legal sense. If, for instance, the gays proved beyond doubt that it was a genetic condition, then there might be some kind of grounds for their complaints, although even that is doubtful when it comes to marriage. As it stands, there is no legal basis for their claims.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Dec 21, 2008 8:06:21 GMT -5
I re-read over the thread from page 1 - here and I dunno, perhaps I'm just a bit thick. But I'm still unsure of exactly what it is you mean. Perhaps you could explain it in laymans terms so that I can get a true grasp of what it is you mean. Okay, I am a layman, so I can't really put in any other terms. Lets try to break it down a little. There are two separate arenas when it comes to gay marriage, just as there are when it comes to any marriage. There is the religious marriage, and there is a the legal marriage. On the religious front, I addressed that above, but to reiterate, there are no, and can be no laws forbidding the churches to marry gay couples, as religion is protected under the first amendment. By the same token, there are no, and can be no laws forcing churches to marry gay couples, as religion is protected under the first amendment. There are those that seek to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies for gays, just as there are those that seek to force gay clergy on the churches. This would be a gross violation of the freedom of religious expression clause in the first amendment, and must be stopped, but it has no bearing on the legal definition of marriage. So, in other words, let's steer clear of morals and religion for the next part because it's a totally separate issue. Marriage in the legal sense came well after the religious practice of marriage. I'm not sure of the exact timelines there, or all of the reasons the state became involved, but I can venture some guesses. Should one spouse die, the property and custody rights of the surviving spouse needed to be acknowledged. Should the marriage be dissolved, there needed to be legal standing for both parties to equitably divide property and custody. Those would be the two main reasons I can think of. As the states started to evaluate the role of stable marriages in society, they started to recognize their value. Children, our most necessary resource for growth as a country, were more often than not a result of marriage. Stable, married men and women provided the best environment for the children to be raised into functional members of society. In addition, the best situation seemed to be if the father worked and the mother stayed home to care for the family. In order to encourage this foundation of society, the states created benefits in the form of tax credits for being married (providing the best environment for the next generation), and tax credits for children (providing the next generation). The states agreed to these benefits to compensate married couples for providing for a need in the country. Most states recognize marriage as between one man and one woman, in a legal sense, as this was determined to be of most benefit to society. Gay couples provide none of those benefits to society, therefore, there is no legal basis for the claim that they are entitled to the benefits given to married couples in return. There is evidence that legally condoning homosexuality leads to moral corruption in a society (Rome), and that it is certainly a self-annihilating behavior (cannot reproduce). Therefore, it is not in the interest of society to change the long standing definition of marriage in favor of rewarding behavior that has no positive impact on society as a whole (other than perhaps making the gay activists shut up). Laws, as I said earlier, are designed to protect, promote, and prosper society as a whole, not the individuals within them.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Dec 21, 2008 13:03:33 GMT -5
Could you explain to me how homosexuality led to corruption in Rome? The "corruption of Rome" is such an extremely broad topic and there were numerous factors that caused it to fall. I would think that it is very hard to pinpoint anything as a major reason for it corruption.
It is true that gay couples cannot reproduce, but there will always be the straight people. There will always be people giving birth, regardless of their sexual orientation. The world is overpopulated as it is. I don't see how it would be much of a problem.
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Dec 21, 2008 14:22:12 GMT -5
That was laymans terms? Keyodie said it best. Just by giving homosexual couples the same legal benefits as a Heterosexual couple will not bring about the downfall of society. Straight couples won't stop having sex and procreating because homosexuals are allowed to marry and if there's a death or seperation, are entitled to the same legalities. That's just absurd quite frankly.
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Dec 21, 2008 15:11:22 GMT -5
OK folks, you keep getting side tracked. Gays already have the same rights as the rest of the population do they not. What gay marriage proponents are asking for is a special right bestowed on a small segment of the population. What if the Mormon church wanted the state to recognize multi-wife mirages? Same legal issues, and the same reasons why the state should say no. Three way partners as well as same sex partners can get all of the same legal contracts and so forth already available to heterosexual couples. What state recognition would do is interfere with first amendment rights of every church out there, by forcing churches to recognize state law. Can any of you who have been calling Ladyteras views wrong address this one aspect? How can it be right to be unconstitutional? My church right now can not force its will on gays or other churches, nor can gays or other churches force their will on my church. A recognition by the state of Gay marriage or multi-marriage or anything other then what it is now will force my church to go agents its own doctrine or face legal suits. How can this be justified?
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Dec 21, 2008 16:20:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Dec 21, 2008 18:39:34 GMT -5
Okay, apparently, I've once again failed to make my point. I'm guessing my long windedness has your eyes glazing over before you get to the end, or you're getting sidetracked onto minutia.
Keyodie, I'm currently studying Humanities. When I get to the fall of Rome, I'll see about getting more in depth. In the meantime, I did not say it was the only contributing factor to the fall of Rome, nor even the major one, just that it was one of the indicators cited by some historians in the progression of the cultural corruption of the Roman Empire. I can't cite sources here as this is something I learned way back in high school world history class, and that was a long time ago. All I can say is that this is not my personal opinion, it is a part of what is (or was when I was in school) taught about the fall of Roman civilization.
The second point both you and Raivynn made misses the point I was making. The laws promoting marriage are designed to benefit society. There is no evidence that homosexual marriage will benefit society. Ergo, there is no legal foundation to grant those benefits to homosexuals. There is evidence that granting those benefits could harm society, and that evidence has not been addressed or refuted by gays, nor have they made the case that their demands would benefits society.
As to the idea that slower reproduction isn't a problem, please look at Europe a little more closely. There are countries over there that are being forced to accept Sharia in parts of their countries, that are looking at massive civil unrest and eventual take over by immigrants from the Middle East. Why? Because the immigrant population continues to reproduce and the native population has decreased reproduction. Another example, those countries not affected by rising immigrant populations are affected instead by falling economies due to a reduction in work force. So, in other words, yes there can actually be harm in not promoting stable families who reproduce.
As to English, Welsh and Scottish Law, I may at some point skim them, but they are irrelevant to whether or not Gay Marriage should be legal here in the US. We aren't part of the UK anymore. Our laws are not dictated by their precedent. So while they might be academically interesting, they have no bearing on the issue here, and are in all likelihood actually unconstitutional by our laws.
So, I'll pose again the question BD put forth. What justification is there for violating the Constitution to bestow a special privilege on a singular group of people? And because it will make them feel better does not count.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Dec 21, 2008 20:46:57 GMT -5
I hope either BD or LT would explain to me how exactly gay couples have the same rights as married couples. Why do I hear about gay couples getting married in a hurry before prop 8 was passed if they have equal rights? And I did find a list of benefits for couples whose marriages are recognized by the state. If the marriage of gay couples aren't recognized by the state, how is that the same as the rights of straight couples? Why do people move to Massachusetts to get married if they really have equal rights? Maybe I'm missing something.
|
|