A New Stance on Morality

[musicman]

The issue of Christian values that I've so strongly opposed as a national standard is not because I don't respect them, it's because there are values that dictate how an individual should live when they are respecting the rights of others. If you are a Christian, go for it, but don't tell me that I should live that way if I'm not breaking the law. If anything, it's these "traditional values" that are being pushed down the throat of America.

Example?

And part of my argument was that there is room to disagree; there is room to state your opinion, but that doesn't mean it should be forced upon another if they are acting in accordance with the law.

Example?

And then of course we have to hear: let everyone vote on it!

Yeah - representative government can be SUCH a drag.

Well, perhaps the best line I've heard in a while is what Powerman said:
"Sometimes the minority needs to be protected from the majority."

To the exclusion of the majority's rights?

 

[Gem]

Liberalogic,

I think that what you are saying is very sound. What I do not see you and Powerman hearing, however...is that some people here feel that by giving homosexuals "legitimacy" as you define it...you are hurting our nation.

Do I agree? I don't know...I have several gay friends that I would love to see in stable, loving relationships that were recognized as important and equal to my own relationship with my husband.

At the same time...I do not feel that the debate over this issue has been a rational, logical one. I feel that it has been an emotional battle of rhetoric. We have not, as a nation, delved into the possible consequences of redefining such a large institution...we have not discussed what the next steps might be and how we would address them...many who support gay marriage unequivocally have not been able to attempt to understand the concerns of those who don't without first labeling them Christian bigot assholes...many who are against gay marriage have their reasons firmly grounded in religious beliefs...while they have the right to oppose or support anything because of their religion...we should not base national policy or law on religious beliefs alone (or arguably, at all).

In order to make a rational decision about the we have to push past the talking points...will gay marriage change our society? If so, how? How will we deal with the uninteded consequences...and what might those consequences be? What would the consequences of "forcing" gay marriage on a majority who do not support it be? What would the consequences of civil unions rather than gay marriage be?

There have been very few rational debates about this issue...which is why I am so wary of deciding one way or the other...but I do feel that we get nowhere when we reduce the argument to name calling on one side or the other.

 

[Powerman]

So Gem. What is your reasoning as to why we shouldn't allow gays to get married? They are humans ya know.

 

[Gem]

Powerman,

See my posts above for an explanation as to why I find it pointless to respond to you other than to say this:

Your mind is clearly made up...you treat people who may not agree with you with contempt.

There is no point in wasting time trying to discuss an issue with someone who is so close-minded. You have no desire to discuss opinions, concerns, ideas that are outside your own comfort sphere.

You have claimed to support tolerance why showing none for someone who's opinion you do not even know. I'll respect your right to view me however you will...but I won't waste the time trying to discuss a controversial issue with someone who makes such disgusting assumptions about people before they know anything about them.

 

[Powerman]

Ya know it would take a lot less effort for you to give me one reasonable reason why gays shouldn't be able to get married than to completely dodge the question.

 

[musicman]

So Gem. What is your reasoning as to why we shouldn't allow gays to get married? They are humans ya know.

Whose call should it be?

 

[Annie]

Liberalogic,

I think that what you are saying is very sound. What I do not see you and Powerman hearing, however...is that some people here feel that by giving homosexuals "legitimacy" as you define it...you are hurting our nation.

Do I agree? I don't know...I have several gay friends that I would love to see in stable, loving relationships that were recognized as important and equal to my own relationship with my husband.

At the same time...I do not feel that the debate over this issue has been a rational, logical one. I feel that it has been an emotional battle of rhetoric. We have not, as a nation, delved into the possible consequences of redefining such a large institution...we have not discussed what the next steps might be and how we would address them...many who support gay marriage unequivocally have not been able to attempt to understand the concerns of those who don't without first labeling them Christian bigot assholes...many who are against gay marriage have their reasons firmly grounded in religious beliefs...while they have the right to oppose or support anything because of their religion...we should not base national policy or law on religious beliefs alone (or arguably, at all).

In order to make a rational decision about the we have to push past the talking points...will gay marriage change our society? If so, how? How will we deal with the uninteded consequences...and what might those consequences be? What would the consequences of "forcing" gay marriage on a majority who do not support it be? What would the consequences of civil unions rather than gay marriage be?

There have been very few rational debates about this issue...which is why I am so wary of deciding one way or the other...but I do feel that we get nowhere when we reduce the argument to name calling on one side or the other.

Gem, I agree, we haven't seriously looked at the 'benefits of marriage' and what it means if we confer the same status on homosexual or 'living together' partners:

* medical/dental/vision/life insurance
* social security for surviving spouse and progeny until majority
* survivorship of retirement benefits, including 401k and that ilk
* joint ownership in property

Now most of these are employer/state related, which means that 'civil unions' might well cover them, since so many employers have been going pc. Kind of makes one wonder if this is the 'problem' with retirement plans that we've seen, i.e., United Airlines, Ford, etc.

However, social security, the one thing that covers all of us, can you imagine the costs, if benefits now cross to homosexuals and 'living together' couples?

 

[musicman]

Ya know it would take a lot less effort for you to give me one reasonable reason why gays shouldn't be able to get married than to completely dodge the question.

Although homosexuals comprise 1-3% of the population, they account for a staggering 20-40% of child molestations. This fact alone suggests to me something deeply disturbing about the behavior. I would stand against any legitimization of this demonstrably harmful and dangerous practice if it were my call, which - according to the U.S. Constitution - it is.

 

[Gem]

Kathianne,

You bring up an interesting point. I don't, however, think that we should deny people rights because it might make financial situations difficult.

But where you are going is one of the areas I do not think has been discussed rationally. What are the potential outcomes of legalizing gay marriage...and what are the solutions to the potential problems legalizing gay marriage might create?

Would gay marriage spell trouble for health care, social security, etc.? How are we prepared to handle the change and any potential problems?

 

[Annie]

Kathianne,

You bring up an interesting point. I don't, however, think that we should deny people rights because it might make financial situations difficult.

But where you are going is one of the areas I do not think has been discussed rationally. What are the potential outcomes of legalizing gay marriage...and what are the solutions to the potential problems legalizing gay marriage might create?

Would gay marriage spell trouble for health care, social security, etc.? How are we prepared to handle the change and any potential problems?

And I guess my point is purely financial benefits and costs, because that is reality. I oppose gay marriage and benefits for 'significant others' because they harm the economy, privately and through taxes.

I'm not homophobic and certainly could care less if someone is shacking up with another. Not my business, UNLESS my taxes or the cost of things I need to buy are effected.

 

[liberalogic]

Liberalogic,

I think that what you are saying is very sound. What I do not see you and Powerman hearing, however...is that some people here feel that by giving homosexuals "legitimacy" as you define it...you are hurting our nation.

Do I agree? I don't know...I have several gay friends that I would love to see in stable, loving relationships that were recognized as important and equal to my own relationship with my husband.

At the same time...I do not feel that the debate over this issue has been a rational, logical one. I feel that it has been an emotional battle of rhetoric. We have not, as a nation, delved into the possible consequences of redefining such a large institution...we have not discussed what the next steps might be and how we would address them...many who support gay marriage unequivocally have not been able to attempt to understand the concerns of those who don't without first labeling them Christian bigot assholes...many who are against gay marriage have their reasons firmly grounded in religious beliefs...while they have the right to oppose or support anything because of their religion...we should not base national policy or law on religious beliefs alone (or arguably, at all).

In order to make a rational decision about the we have to push past the talking points...will gay marriage change our society? If so, how? How will we deal with the uninteded consequences...and what might those consequences be? What would the consequences of "forcing" gay marriage on a majority who do not support it be? What would the consequences of civil unions rather than gay marriage be?

There have been very few rational debates about this issue...which is why I am so wary of deciding one way or the other...but I do feel that we get nowhere when we reduce the argument to name calling on one side or the other.

I have to say that I've argued this issue with many people and that is probably the most rational, fairly written response that I've gotten (without agreeing with me).

As I've said before, I'm not asking people to agree with it. If you are deeply religious and this is something that violates your faith, do I expect you to embrace gay marriage? Do I expect you to march in the gay pride parades?

No, not at all. But I stress the difference between acceptance and tolerance. Just because people in your (and when I say "you" and "your" I am speaking in general terms) country violate that part of your religion, doesn't make you any less religious. You are not "sinning," they are. Therefore, while you may not accept it as a way of life for you, that doesn't mean you should prevent it as a way of life for others. Faith is not telling people how to behave; it's believing it yourself.

As for the national impact of the marriage. If I revert back to my original post, I wrote about how things effect you and how we should treat each other. If people aren't violating your rights or the rights of any others, why must we concern ourselves with the issue? Many people on the other side of this argument claim that it is being forced on them. I ask how? If we put a gun to your head and said have gay sex and get married, then maybe I'd agree. But NO ONE is telling opponents of gay marriage that they have to participate in it, so I see that argument as irrational.

The argument of harming the country intrigues me. I've been on other messageboards where I've had all statistics thrown in my face to prove the intrinsic evil of homosexuality. They molest more children, they tend to have a poor upbringing, they all have AIDS, they're all sick perverts, etc. To me that is plain bigotry. But I see no reason why this weakens our country or the institution of marriage itself. The current argument from the President is "we need to protect the sanctity of marriage." That is, quite frankly, bullshit. If there was any "sanctity" in marriage, would there be divorce? Adultery? And why are we saying the word "sanctity" in the same sentence as the marriage sponsored by the GOVERNMENT AND NOT THE CHURCH?

Whatever the case, it saddens me that we are apparently teaching the world a lesson about freedom, when we can't apply it within our own borders.

 

[Emmett]

GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG!!!!!!

Technically it would be a drain on SS system and in my opinion is morally wrong however it goes even beyond that.

The numbers of gays have risen sharply in recent years. This is due in my opinion largely to adolescence changing, people looking for more outlets of social expression and population.

I remember in the 70's being attacked by four country boys in Hall County Georgia where I now live about 50 miles north of Atlanta. As I was being persued I remember the word "longhair" being yelled many times. My friend and I were beaten up pretty good for no other reason than we had long hair. I grew my hair long because others in the neighborhood did. I can't say I really liked long hair but it was pier pressure. I didn't fit in without it. It's just like the first joint I ever smoked. My friends were doing it. Girls thought it was cool, etc,... I feel alot of the issue with Gays are rooted in similar scenarios.

I wonder how many folks get into the lifestyle innocently while impressionable childrn and then increased exposure continues the passion to be part of a resistance group and so forth. You see, for the life of me I can not understand what in the hell a man would see attractive about another man. I am certain that during puberty these kids are not fantasyzing about the same sex. Not with the frequency that gays exist in older ages. It's culture! Man, when I was nine or ten I did more crazy stuff to that blonde headed chick who brought Captain Kirk the ship's log than you can shake a stick at. To me, that is normal. Poor Barbara Eden just does not know the things that her and I did in that bottle in my mind.

What age is most prevelant for gays. Does this continue on in to being seniors? I don't see that many gay seniors. Hmmmm! That will get you thinking. Are they dying of AIDS? We already know that gay men have the highest rate of AIDS. This is just a fact!

So for me: wrong is wrong!

 

[musicman]

The argument of harming the country intrigues me. I've been on other messageboards where I've had all statistics thrown in my face to prove the intrinsic evil of homosexuality. They molest more children...

They do, in proportion to their population numbers - astronomically so. Doesn't this fact suggest something to you?

To me that is plain bigotry.

Unpleasant truth = bigotry? That's convenient.

 

[Gunny]

Yeah try getting that point through to all the bigoted homophobic Christians on this board.

Yeah, try getting that point through to all the bigotted anti-Chrsitians on this board.

 

[Gem]

Liberalogic,

I think when people talk of "being forced" to accept gay marriage/homosexuality...they are referring to what the legalization of gay marriage would mean for the "gay agenda."

Many gay rights activists have stated that one of the main reasons gay marriage is such a huge issue is because it would bring increased legitimacy to homosexuality in general. For people who feel that homosexuality is wrong, this is what is being "forced down their throats," the concept that homosexuality is just as normal and legitimate as heterosexuality. They see gay marriage not as something that the gay population will do and then go back to their lives...but rather as a cultural, societal, moral stepping stone...

My issue is seperate from this. I have no issue with people who are homosexual. I have an issue with changing the way our nation has handled one of its traditions and foundations since its inception without an accurate assessment of what such changes might be.

Either way...we will eventually have to deal with all sides of this debate...the people who are against gay marriage for religious and/or moral reasons, the people who are against it for societal or economic reasons, the people who are for gay marriage for how it would further the legitimization of homosexuality and those who are for gay marriage because they want two people who are in love to be able to have that union recognized legally...and that isn't going to be easy...and many will not be pleased with the outcome.

 

[MissileMan]

Although homosexuals comprise 1-3% of the population, they account for a staggering 20-40% of child molestations. This fact alone suggests to me something deeply disturbing about the behavior. I would stand against any legitimization of this demonstrably harmful and dangerous practice if it were my call, which - according to the U.S. Constitution - it is.

Are you going to start that argument again? You have shown NO link between homosexuality and pedophilia. All you have is an inferrence. Did you ever finish that link I gave you a few weeks ago?

Why do you conveniently dismiss the fact that 60-80% of molestations are male against female.

There is only one fact appropriate to a discussion of child molestation. One hundred percent of the molestations are being perpetrated by pedophiles. While you are busy trying to convince yourself that homosexuality is bad because some pedophiles prefer same sex victims, there are hundreds of thousands of children being targeted by monsters. It's way past time to start worrying about the forest instead of targeting specific trees.

Ask yourself this also: Is it possible that homosexual pedophiles accrue more victims because they get away with it longer? Is it possible that they get away with it longer because the stigma that people like you have placed on homosexuality terrifies and shames the victims into silence?

 

[Powerman]

I don't see how this would be such a forceful event. Gay people getting married would not affect your life negatively at all. It would make theirs much better and have literally 0 impact on the rest of society.

 

[Powerman]

Is it possible that they get away with it longer because the stigma that people like you have placed on homosexuality terrifies and shames the victims into silence?

That's it in a nutshell

 

[Avatar4321]

I find that to be incorrect in most cases. The reason why I spoke of fairness and respect is because I don't think it's your right or anyone else's right to tell people how to live if they are not impeding upon the rights of others.

Actually, its everyone's constitutional right to tell anyone whatever the heck they want. its guarenteed in the first amendment. Granted no one has to listen to a thing you say. But you have a right to tell others what to do.

I actually think its everyones duty, not to tell people what to do, but to exhort, inspire, and encourage our fellow men in good and just principles. Because it only through living a virtuous life that we will find happiness and society will thrive. Wickedness only brings misery and bondage. It is our civic privilege and responsibility to practice and teach others the principles of happiness and virtue.

 

[Gunny]

Are you going to start that argument again? You have shown NO link between homosexuality and pedophilia. All you have is an inferrence. Did you ever finish that link I gave you a few weeks ago?

Why do you conveniently dismiss the fact that 60-80% of molestations are male against female.

There is only one fact appropriate to a discussion of child molestation. One hundred percent of the molestations are being perpetrated by pedophiles. While you are busy trying to convince yourself that homosexuality is bad because some pedophiles prefer same sex victims, there are hundreds of thousands of children being targeted by monsters. It's way past time to start worrying about the forest instead of targeting specific trees.

Ask yourself this also: Is it possible that homosexual pedophiles accrue more victims because they get away with it longer? Is it possible that they get away with it longer because the stigma that people like you have placed on homosexuality terrifies and shames the victims into silence?

Dishonest argument. While pedophilia is the harsher crime, it in no way dismisses the fact that some are homosexual attacks and some are heterosexual attacks.