Gays

[kcmcdonald]

This iisue is ridiculus. Gay people have no right to marriage. Period. Marriage is a union of a man and a women. That is it, no if's and or but about it. If a Gay couple wants to get married move to Canada. This country does not support Gay marriage in the least. I don't understand this whole issue. Most states have civil unions, wich under the law is almost the same thing and you don't get a tax penalty. Mabey it's just symbolic or something but this issue is not on teh table. over 2/3 of the country are oppossed to Gay marraige. I for one am a meember of that constitution changing majority. Live your life I'll live mine. Kepp your behavior private and I'll do the same. It's called deciency. It used to exsist in America. Where it went I don't know?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I don't think so. In 1800 you could say the same thing about slavery. Ethics and morality change even in a governing context, like it or loathe it. I wouldn't be surprised that by the next generation opinions will change as I believe western civilization always moves towards social liberalization. I don't believe the cases are truly that far of in an ethical evolution context.

Gays are being told they cannot enter into a "marriage", a sacred institution for thousands of years.

Blacks were chained up, beaten and tortured, forced to do unspeakable acts and sold as if they were cattle. They were forced to sleep on cement floors and in barns. They were sent into the fields to perform manual labor day in and day out. They did so or they were killed.

I'm sorry, I don't see the similarities. Apples and oranges.

 

[eric]

perfect case study of the Tyrrany of the Majority, as described by Tocqueville.

You call it Tyrrany, I call it democracy !

Is that not the heart of a democratic republic ? Should we cater to the whims of every minority no matter how small ?

I am sure there was a minority that did not want the US to enter WWII, should we not have done so ?

I know your answer will be that equal protections under the constitution must be affored to the minority, and with this I agree. Keep in mind that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction, there is no question about that in any intelligent persons mind, and as any person with a dysfunction or disability there will be limitations on their rights. A blind man can not be a Fireman, does that mean he is being discriminated against ?

Lets get real for a moment, gays have the same freedoms that we do except for the right of marriage. Legal protections can be afforded through contracts, much the same way they are required even in a marriage for many purposes. As far as benefits such as family health insurance, don't think if gays get married that will we be able to obtain such insurance automatically. Insurance companies can set policies based on risk factors and a host of other factors and so still exclude gay married couples if they choose.

So tell me where is the real benifit of marriage to gays ?

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Gays are being told they cannot enter into a "marriage", a sacred institution for thousands of years.

Blacks were chained up, beaten and tortured, forced to do unspeakable acts and sold as if they were cattle. They were forced to sleep on cement floors and in barns. They were sent into the fields to perform manual labor day in and day out. They did so or they were killed.

I'm sorry, I don't see the similarities. Apples and oranges.

But why were they chained up, beaten, tortured and exploited? Because the general feeling was that slavery was perfectly acceptable and blacks and others slave-people were not human. That morality was based on our societal instituation at the time.

Marriage (strictly speaking of course) is just another institution. Like many other religious institutional changes (Lutheranism, Calvanism, acceptance of evolution by the Church, ordination of female reverends) before, from a theologic point of view, I see even this as just another eventual shift in doctrine. Religious instituational change is slow, and probably rightfully so, but there is no doubting that it happens. So like the societal changes of years past, theologic changes would seem to follow very similar changes in terms of human perception, albeit at a much slower rate.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
But why were they chained up, beaten, tortured and exploited? Because the general feeling was that slavery was perfectly acceptable and blacks and others slave-people were not human. That morality was based on our societal instituation at the time.

Marriage (strictly speaking of course) is just another institution. Like many other religious institutional changes (Lutheranism, Calvanism, acceptance of evolution by the Church, ordination of female reverends) before, from a theologic point of view, I see even this as just another eventual shift in doctrine. Religious instituational change is slow, and probably rightfully so, but there is no doubting that it happens. So like the societal changes of years past, theologic changes would seem to follow very similar changes in terms of human perception, albeit at a much slower rate.

The people opposed to this are opposed to redefining the institution of marriage, they're not necessarily homophobes, though some are.

Everything's just another institution open to redefinition to you libs, isn't it? I know destroying the concept of the nuclear family is important to you lefties(so the government can be the primary vehicle for the transmission of culture), but please try to be a little more subtle. Your asscrack is showing.

 

[jimnyc]

But why were they chained up, beaten, tortured and exploited? Because the general feeling was that slavery was perfectly acceptable and blacks and others slave-people were not human. That morality was based on our societal instituation at the time.

And it was corrected for the horrible things that were being done to human beings. I don't think disqualifying gays from entering into a "marriage" is so horrible.

If you want to make a general comparison about how things were once forbidden are now being more accepted, or things that were generally accepted are now outlawed, that's fine. But comparing slavery to the banning of gay marriages is crazy. No harm is being brought to gays. They are being offered alternatives to share their bond and receive the same rights as married couples.

Let me ask you this, Isaac. Should blacks be allowed to have any institutions that are for blacks only? Should jewish organizations be forced to accept christians? Should people with IQ's less than 60 be allowed to go to regular public schools? Should the gay & lesbian alliance accept heterosexuals into their fold? What if someone is born with tourettes syndrome, should they be granted unfettered access anywhere they go?

 

[tim_duncan2000]

If homosexuality was genetic, it would be eliminated from the human gene pool within a generation or two because the genes that survive are the ones that get passed to the next generation. Kinda hard to do that with two men or two women.

I hadn't really thought about that. Being gay wouldn't be very conducive to passing on genes.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I've heard that the brain is masculinized or feminized based on certain hormone levels at certain times during gestation. So though it may not necessarily be genetic, it is biological.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by deciophobic
why worry about that, it shows over the years people have become more accepting of gays, which is the whole point of the gay rights movement.

Gays have had to use a movement to become more accepting to our society over the years. Why is that? Are they viewed as abnormal or unnatural? Incest is viewed as abnormal and taboo, but perhaps someday we can move beyond our limiting beliefs and allow brother and sister marry or perhaps father and daughter.

 

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by eric
Once again, I could care less if you are gay, live and let live, just stop pushing your agenda on the masses. I feel the same way with heterosexual people, hey if you like to dress like tarzan and swing on a vine during sex, go for it, just don't tell me about it, or broadcast it in public.

were people mad when blacks pushed their agenda in front of the masses, or how about women?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by deciophobic
were people mad when blacks pushed their agenda in front of the masses, or how about women?

Were the women or blacks pushing a vile, deviant lifestyle?

 

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Were the women or blacks pushing a vile, deviant lifestyle?

everything can be called deviant from culture to culture.

At the time they were pushing a deviant lifestyle....

"deviant"- Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society. One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards

the "accepted standard" of society back then was blacks were property and women were supposed to stay at home and have no say in politics. so they were pushing a deviant lifestyle at the time. some may consider homosexuality deviant today, but you know what, things change.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by deciophobic
some may consider homosexuality deviant today, but you know what, things change.

Yes, and that change you refer to is called a "constitutional amendment".

 

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Yes, and that change you refer to is called a "constitutional amendment".

you haven't really adressed what i said.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by deciophobic
you haven't really adressed what i said.

What's their to address? Do you think queers are going to get the same treatment as blacks and women?

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT is what they'll get!

 

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by jimnyc
What's their to address? Do you think queers are going to get the same treatment as blacks and women?

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT is what they'll get!

eventually, yeah.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by deciophobic
eventually, yeah.

Keep that hope alive! As long as it's not in my lifetime.

 

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Keep that hope alive! As long as it's not in my lifetime.

fine

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by jimnyc
And it was corrected for the horrible things that were being done to human beings. I don't think disqualifying gays from entering into a "marriage" is so horrible.

If you want to make a general comparison about how things were once forbidden are now being more accepted, or things that were generally accepted are now outlawed, that's fine. But comparing slavery to the banning of gay marriages is crazy. No harm is being brought to gays. They are being offered alternatives to share their bond and receive the same rights as married couples.

Let me ask you this, Isaac. Should blacks be allowed to have any institutions that are for blacks only? Should jewish organizations be forced to accept christians? Should people with IQ's less than 60 be allowed to go to regular public schools? Should the gay & lesbian alliance accept heterosexuals into their fold? What if someone is born with tourettes syndrome, should they be granted unfettered access anywhere they go?

I'm not at all making any moral weighing of whether gay marriage is on par with slavery at all. Nor am I talking about their current condition. I was only referring to the evolution of ethics and moral in society. You also know my stand on gay marriage in general.

As for your questions, I have a myriad of answers for all of them, but I see that point you are making. You are asking if all insitutions should placate to special interests outside of the main functions of the institution itself. A valid point, and franky I agree with you. But more often than not, that is exactly what does happen in the liberalization of society. I'm not saying it's good or not, but historicall, that tends to be the direction in which we are always heading as shown by some of my examples.

 

[deciophobic]

"All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions."
Adlai Stevenson