Same sex Marriage

[mettech]

All of the things you listed have a direct negative impact on others. That isn't necessarily so when it comes to homosexuality and same sex marriage.

 

Also, there are many cases where the things you listed can't be helped because of genetic or psychological conditions. That is why we don't send everyone to jail for their crimes (and in the case of sex offenders, we probably send too many of them to jail rather than to places more appropriate to their condition).

 

You are the one who has just made a poor argument.

 

What do you mean by that statement?

 

Anyway, I don't care who lives with who. It just isn't marriage if it is with the same sex.

[RangerM]

What influenced the law may have been religious, but it seems that the law in the form it was implemented was within allowance for a secular state. The law as enacted was not religious in nature.

I understand where you're coming from, and you're right that the law was not religious in nature, but given that it was religious in origin (as acknowledged by Warren), what does that mean that the State is protected from Religion?

 

I found this passage particularly interesting to the discussion in this thread.

The standards under which this proposition is to be evaluated have been set forth many times by this Court. Although no precise formula has been developed, the Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment permits the States a wide scope of discretion in enacting laws which affect some groups of citizens differently than others. The constitutional safeguard is offended only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State's objective. State legislatures are presumed to have acted within their constitutional power despite the fact that, in practice, their laws [366 U.S. 420, 426] result in some inequality. A statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.

Edited May 31, 2009 by RangerM

[joihan777]

Secularism is the idea that there should be freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion. Within a secular state, people can belong to whatever religion they want to (or to no religion). In a secular state, they are also free to not be dictated to by one particular religious group. It may be a set of values, but it is a non discriminatory set of values.

 

What do you call it when people are free to not be dictated to by one particular {group}?

 

Any one who is not religious is a group. People who defy nature is a group. Whatever....

 

The point is homosexuals want to dictate to heterosexual's CHILDREN what normal is (because children cannot fight back as well).

 

(This thread is starting to smack of Bubba asking what "is" is)

Edited May 31, 2009 by joihan777

[suv_guy_19]

The point is homosexuals want to dictate to heterosexual's CHILDREN what normal is (because children cannot fight back as well).

 

No, that's not it. Homosexuality exists and is part of nature and reality. Teaching about it can't do any harm.

[suv_guy_19]

I understand where you're coming from, and you're right that the law was not religious in nature, but given that it was religious in origin (as acknowledged by Warren), what does that mean that the State is protected from Religion?

 

 

Presumably, it means that any group can influence the state, but that they cannot influence it in certain ways. It seems that this was not a case of the state being influenced in any of those ways.

 

The passage was interesting. Of course nothing can ever be absolute or certain, and sometimes exceptions have to be made, but homosexuality doesn't seem to require an exception.

[joihan777]

Teaching about it can't do any harm.

 

You can not defend that statement because it is dependant on the values of the author.

 

You do not allow other people's values to hold true for them and thus allow them to defend themselves against attack.

[suv_guy_19]

You can not defend that statement because it is dependent on the values of the author.

 

No it isn't. Learning about something that exists isn't harmful. We can't just live in ignorance pretending that homosexuality doesn't exist and that it will just go away.

[macattak1]

Both. We should all tolerate behaviours that don't harm us and we should learn to accept things that exist in reality and that we cannot change.

 

OK. Just don't You be the determiner of what causes Me harm OK?

 

It is too bad you have such a defeatist attitude.

[suv_guy_19]

OK. Just don't You be the determiner of what causes Me harm OK?

 

It is too bad you have such a defeatist attitude.

 

Fine, as long as you don't feel it's your place to determine what two other people can and can't do based on your beliefs when their actions wont harm you at all (and I can say that without reservation, people being gay and gay marriage will do you no harm).

 

As for having a defeatist attitude...? There are some things that we simply can't change. People have been gay since the dawn of time, and it's really time we started to realize that it isn't going to change and that we should accept these people for who they are and extend them equal rights. Not only do I think it's impossible to change (homosexuality, the advancement of same sex marriage), but I don't think it's my place to decide that it should be.

Edited May 31, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[macattak1]

And I have said that the US Supreme Court says that the Constitution does not allow for any one church to influence the state in a way that affects another religion or group. To allow any one religion to influence policy that negatively (and perhaps even positively) affects to any other group is arguably a violation of the First Amendment.

 

I really don't think I'm twisting your words. They're all there for everyone to read. I was simply stating what the First Amendment says.

 

What one church are you talking about? One Church or One Religion? You use so many terms interchangeably. I did not know we were discussing one church?

 

You only live in the last 80 years. Prior to that the bible was a main teaching tool in schools and evolution was illegal to teach. It sure is funny that the bible is no Not allowed in the schools at all and evolution is. What happened to acceptance? Tolerance? And our country was so horrible back then?

 

No. Its a supreme court that acts in no way that the founding fathers ever intended regarding religion. So be it. Times change. Peoples wants and needs change. And in another 100 or 200 years when things get bad enough in one area or another the pendulum will swing back the other way. But don't try to use the constitution as proof positive because it clearly is not.

[macattak1]

No it isn't. Learning about something that exists isn't harmful. We can't just live in ignorance pretending that homosexuality doesn't exist and that it will just go away.

 

You are partially correct. Teaching my kids about homosexuality is not harmful because I teach them that it is wrong and a sin just like any other sin. But you want to twist that to mean that others can teach my kids right and wrong about some of the most important things in life.

 

So, you the teacher decides what my children should and need to learn. You wont let me opt my children out of it even though I have already taught them about it. That is called indoctrination. Hitler did it to his own people. Sounds like a good plane. Let the author write it, then let the author decide what to teach, then let the author teach it with no never mind about any one else's concerns, values, beliefs, etc.

 

Here is what I plan to do. Lets talk about what I plan to do. Now lets do what I plan to do.

 

Under that guise why is there even discussion on it?

 

It is very sad. Many times in this thread alone people against same sex marriage have made concessions and offered up solutions and resolutions. But the opposing side will have NON of it. Just who is it that needs to learn about tolerance and acceptance here?

[suv_guy_19]

What one church are you talking about? One Church or One Religion? You use so many terms interchangeably. I did not know we were discussing one church?

 

That's because many terms are interchangeable, including church and religion (for the most part). I've been told that when writing, it's always best to avoid using the same worlds too many times in close proximity.

 

You only live in the last 80 years. Prior to that the bible was a main teaching tool in schools and evolution was illegal to teach. It sure is funny that the bible is no Not allowed in the schools at all and evolution is. What happened to acceptance? Tolerance? And our country was so horrible back then?

 

1) Acceptance and tolerance of all religions exists today, and that's why no one religion is allowed in the public school system. Nothing is to say that Christianity or any one Christian denomination is correct and nothing is to say that any other group is correct. Everyone entitled to have their own beliefs, and they don't have to be subjected to the teachings of another religion. That's part of the reason that the bible has no place in school.

 

2) The bible also has no purpose in school. There are other teaching tools that are far more effective when it comes to learning about literature.

 

3) The bible has no scientific basis, unlike evolution. I know you're going to want to argue about this, but the simple reality is that science gives evidence for evolution. Very little evidence (if any) exists to support the Bible stories. Like I said, schools have to teach reality. As we learn more about the world, curricula change and things move forward.

 

No. Its a supreme court that acts in no way that the founding fathers ever intended regarding religion.

 

Reading a Constitution is always an exercise in interpretation. The interpretation of one person will likely be much different than another. The interpretation of the supreme court matters more than most others though.

[macattak1]

Here is a simple little page regarding the harm in homosexuality. And it is too bad that we even have to go in this direction. But when people deny all possible concerns one has what do you do?

 

Homosexuality and the Truth: Is it Just Another Lifestyle?

 

Now, if they were going to teach about all the pain and suffering that comes with the homosexual life style then many of us would not be so concerned. But they don't and won't. They teach it as an alternative and how acceptable it should be. Not about the real dangers.

 

Peace and Blessings

[suv_guy_19]

You are partially correct. Teaching my kids about homosexuality is not harmful because I teach them that it is wrong and a sin just like any other sin. But you want to twist that to mean that others can teach my kids right and wrong about some of the most important things in life.

 

What you teach your children is your own business for the most part....what the teach at school will be determined by people that create curricula that is based on the latest knowledge.

 

So, you the teacher decides what my children should and need to learn. You wont let me opt my children out of it even though I have already taught them about it. That is called indoctrination.

 

What you are doing is also called indoctrination...in fact I think that the word would apply even more to what you're doing. What the school is doing is teaching. Cirricula aren't based on feeling sand beliefs, but instead, facts (for the most part). Your children should have every opportunity to learn about the world beyond your world view. They should be allowed to decide for themselves.

 

Hitler did it to his own people.

 

No, this isn't want Hitler did. Hitler didn't teach reality. That's what schools do.

 

It is very sad. Many times in this thread alone people against same sex marriage have made concessions and offered up solutions and resolutions. But the opposing side will have NONE of it. Just who is it that needs to learn about tolerance and acceptance here?

 

The opposing side is of the mind that homosexuals should be extended marriage rights, where the people against same sex marriage are not. There is no tolerance coming from that side.

[ibinubu12]

You are partially correct. Teaching my kids about homosexuality is not harmful because I teach them that it is wrong and a sin just like any other sin. But you want to twist that to mean that others can teach my kids right and wrong about some of the most important things in life.

 

So, you the teacher decides what my children should and need to learn. You wont let me opt my children out of it even though I have already taught them about it. That is called indoctrination. Hitler did it to his own people. Sounds like a good plane. Let the author write it, then let the author decide what to teach, then let the author teach it with no never mind about any one else's concerns, values, beliefs, etc.

 

Here is what I plan to do. Lets talk about what I plan to do. Now lets do what I plan to do.

 

Under that guise why is there even discussion on it?

 

It is very sad. Many times in this thread alone people against same sex marriage have made concessions and offered up solutions and resolutions. But the opposing side will have NON of it. Just who is it that needs to learn about tolerance and acceptance here?

 

You know what? Teaching kids that shouldn't be a bad thing at all. I consider myself a conservative, but this the one issue that really winds me up. I'd wager that I went to school more recently than you, and, i don't know, maybe watching my best friend getting verbally and, quite often, physically tormented by other kids because he was publicly outed by somebody that wanted to hurt him. Maybe teaching acceptance would be a good thing. Maybe then we could stop the hate and abuse kids inflict on those they know are gay. Maybe then we wouldn't have had to talk him down from wanting to kill himself almost every night because of what they put him through, right in the face of teachers, who did nothing because they were scared to intervene. The only reason this intolerance exists is because people like you are scared of those that are not the same as you. I'm not gay, but believe me when I say this, acceptance is the only thing we should be teaching.

 

This intolerance has gone far enough.

[suv_guy_19]

Here is a simple little page regarding the harm in homosexuality. And it is too bad that we even have to go in this direction. But when people deny all possible concerns one has what do you do?

 

Homosexuality and the Truth: Is it Just Another Lifestyle?

 

Now, if they were going to teach about all the pain and suffering that comes with the homosexual life style then many of us would not be so concerned. But they don't and won't. They teach it as an alternative and how acceptable it should be. Not about the real dangers.

 

 

Wow, an article from a religious website that points out all the negatives about the gay community, who would ever have imagined? Yes, problems exist in the gay community, but this is irrelevant given reality. There is strong (almost insurmountable) evidence that homosexuality is inborn. There is a reality that homosexuality has been around since the dawn of man and even before. There is a small but not insignificant percentage of the population that is homosexual at any given time that ranges from 2 - 4%.

 

Homosexuality is real, it is not going anywhere, and it's time that people in religious organizations accepted that reality. Labeling homosexuals as sinners is not going to reduce any of the problems that exist in the community....on the contrary, it will probably make it worse. The reality also exists that learning about homosexuality, it's existence, and the scientific facts that surround it's existence won't harm anyone. The negatives can be talked about, sure, but taking about such negatives isn't going to discourage many people or anyone, because most of them literally can't help it.

[macattak1]

That's because many terms are interchangeable, including church and religion (for the most part). I've been told that when writing, it's always best to avoid using the same worlds too many times in close proximity.

 

You wont be able to write a legal document then.

 

 

1) Acceptance and tolerance of all religions exists today, and that's why no one religion is allowed in the public school system. Nothing is to say that Christianity or any one Christian denomination is correct and nothing is to say that any other group is correct. Everyone entitled to have their own beliefs, and they don't have to be subjected to the teachings of another religion. That's part of the reason that the bible has no place in school.

 

Acceptance and tolerance of all religions exists today? My you paint with such broad strokes. The simple reality is that no religion experiences acceptance and tolerance today even in the US.

 

2) The bible also has no purpose in school. There are other teaching tools that are far more effective when it comes to learning about literature.

 

So says you. But as a Christian I see it having more value then any other book. It teaches law, truth, respect, love, sin, loss, gain, responsibility, and a whole host of other things. Further, it is the basis for much of our science.

 

3) The bible has no scientific basis, unlike evolution. I know you're going to want to argue about this, but the simple reality is that science gives evidence for evolution. Very little evidence (if any) exists to support the Bible stories. Like I said, schools have to teach reality. As we learn more about the world, curricula change and things move forward.

 

What scientific basis does art, music, speech, psychology, home Ec, phyed, language, archery, etc. have? Is science the only thing you find value in? Science is not the god of answers. It can be as much a personal trap of vanity as anything else.

 

Reading a Constitution is always an exercise in interpretation. The interpretation of one person will likely be much different than another. The interpretation of the supreme court matters more than most others though.

[macattak1]

Wow, an article from a religious website that points out all the negatives about the gay community, who would ever have imagined? Yes, problems exist in the gay community, but this is irrelevant given reality. There is strong (almost insurmountable) evidence that homosexuality is inborn. There is a reality that homosexuality has been around since the dawn of man and even before. There is a small but not insignificant percentage of the population that is homosexual at any given time that ranges from 2 - 4%.

 

Homosexuality is real, it is not going anywhere, and it's time that people in religious organizations accepted that reality. Labeling homosexuals as sinners is not going to reduce any of the problems that exist in the community....on the contrary, it will probably make it worse. The reality also exists that learning about homosexuality, it's existence, and the scientific facts that surround it's existence won't harm anyone. The negatives can be talked about, sure, but taking about such negatives isn't going to discourage many people or anyone, because most of them literally can't help it.

 

But it again, is irrelevant given reality.

 

Actually, the evidence does not point to inborn. It at best is Nature, Nurture, and Environment.

 

Homosexuality was around from before the dawn of man?

 

Literally cant help it?

 

So, its here, and they cant help it, so we have to accept it? You have the mantra down well.

[suv_guy_19]

Actually, the evidence does not point to inborn. It at best is Nature, Nurture, and Environment.

 

No, there are several factors, and it believes that exposures to hormones in the womb along with some genetic traits do play a part. There is probably no one cause, but there is almost no evidence that it simply based on your upbringing...though that would be convenient for you. Many homosexuals think that they cannot help the way they are.

 

http://www.glow.cc/isa/become_gay.htm

 

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/...kes_people_gay/

 

Homosexuality was around from before the dawn of man?

 

Yes, since animals were around before man (sorry, they were).

 

You wont be able to write a legal document then.

 

I wasn't aware we were writing legal documents here.

 

Acceptance and tolerance of all religions exists today? My you paint with such broad strokes. The simple reality is that no religion experiences acceptance and tolerance today even in the US.

 

Acceptance and tolerance exists within the system, if not always on an individual level. Any person is free to belong to any religion and they are free to have no religion.

 

So says you. But as a Christian I see it having more value then any other book. It teaches law, truth, respect, love, sin, loss, gain, responsibility, and a whole host of other things. Further, it is the basis for much of our science.

 

I see it as having less value as a teaching tool than books actually designed to teach.

 

What scientific basis does art, music, speech, psychology, home Ec, phyed, language, archery, etc. have? Is science the only thing you find value in? Science is not the god of answers. It can be as much a personal trap of vanity as anything else.

 

Actually, most of those things do have very scientific or at least mathematical value. Music and speech are all about mathematics at their core really and Psychology is a science...as is physed when it all comes down to it (its called Kinestheology). There are other things will value, of course. Science however contradicts with religion far more than say....literature...or language. The bibles 'science' contradicts real science, and so it cannot be taught in parallel.

Edited May 31, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[tommyturbo]

You are partially correct. Teaching my kids about homosexuality is not harmful because I teach them that it is wrong and a sin just like any other sin.

 

I hope none of your children is gay, cause they will probably go through alot of trouble if they are. But it would be a good eye opener for you, maybe get you to think out side your narrow little world.

 

My Uncle is a Dr. He studies genetics and works for a company that does intense research for new medications at a genetic level. There is no doubt in his mind that homosexuality is part of someones genetic make up, that cannot be changed, and is set before birth durring development. It is also possible that it could be caused by improper hormone levels at certain times durring fetal development also.

 

I know you can not even fathom this, and are so stubborn you probably couldn't even take the time to just think about this.

 

What if homosexuality is something that is genetic? what if God did make people this way? How could that possibly make them a sinner when it is outside of their control? And what would you do if your son said dad I like boys. Are you going to banish him?

[joihan777]

I hope none of your children is gay, cause they will probably go through alot of trouble if they are. But it would be a good eye opener for you, maybe get you to think out side your narrow little world.

 

My Uncle is a Dr. He studies genetics and works for a company that does intense research for new medications at a genetic level. There is no doubt in his mind that homosexuality is part of someones genetic make up, that cannot be changed, and is set before birth durring development. It is also possible that it could be caused by improper hormone levels at certain times durring fetal development also.

 

I know you can not even fathom this, and are so stubborn you probably couldn't even take the time to just think about this.

 

What if homosexuality is something that is genetic? what if God did make people this way? How could that possibly make them a sinner when it is outside of their control? And what would you do if your son said dad I like boys. Are you going to banish him?

 

Even if it is a gene, that doesn't make it ideal.

 

You criticize someone has a narrow view, funny but we think the same thing of you. To think injecting sperm into a rectum as "natural" is the stupidist arguement on Earth. Please tell everyone how sperm is "naturally" supposed to be in a rectum. Please.

 

No one wants to "change" a homosexual. But homosexuals need to realize they cannot inculcate OUR children in THEIR value system.

 

Preying on someone else's children is the epitomy of filth.

[tommyturbo]

Preying on children, right cause trying to open other peoples eyes about the cause of homosexuality is preying on children. Most kids don't care. If they are straight they will not turn gay, and gay will not turn straight. I love how discussing the cause of homosexuality or educate children that there are people out there who have different sexual orientation is preying on them.

The books and instruction is very simple and not graphic. they are picture books. They are not showing kids gay porn, and if they were I can tell you I would be discusted by that. A picture book about two dads or moms is not going to scar them. One day they will have to accept that there are people out there different from the narrow little world mom's and dad's like you talk about.

 

My cousins grew up like that, and were totally freaked by every little thing outside the sheltered little wolrd they grew up in, everything from homeless people, to mentally ill people, to other races etc.

 

Oh and there are lots of straight men who do inject sperm in to womens rectums, I'm not sure but I think that makes your point mute.

 

It's funny to me that the one gay man here willing to talk about homosexuality is the only one who doesn't bring up disgusting references to sexual acts, and has tried to be factual and scientific, and open minded...yet the relgious zelots are focused on the porn aspects and can't saeem to stop thinking about anal sex.

[joihan777]

Preying on children, right cause trying to open other peoples eyes about the cause of homosexuality is preying on children. Most kids don't care. If they are straight they will not turn gay, and gay will not turn straight. I love how discussing the cause of homosexuality or educate children that there are people out there who have different sexual orientation is preying on them.

The books and instruction is very simple and not graphic. they are picture books. They are not showing kids gay porn, and if they were I can tell you I would be discusted by that. A picture book about two dads or moms is not going to scar them. One day they will have to accept that there are people out there different from the narrow little world mom's and dad's like you talk about.

 

My cousins grew up like that, and were totally freaked by every little thing outside the sheltered little wolrd they grew up in, everything from homeless people, to mentally ill people, to other races etc.

 

Oh and there are lots of straight men who do inject sperm in to womens rectums, I'm not sure but I think that makes your point mute.

 

It's funny to me that the one gay man here willing to talk about homosexuality is the only one who doesn't bring up disgusting references to sexual acts, and has tried to be factual and scientific, and open minded...yet the relgious zelots are focused on the porn aspects and can't saeem to stop thinking about anal sex.

 

I'm not saying education is bad. But it is a private matter, not for homosexual influenced school systems to do. Let the family do it their way.

 

I didn't say heterosexual couples were incapable of using their organs like that, but obviously the "norm" is vaginal intercourse, we have 6 billion folks around to prove that.

 

We wouldn't be having this conversation if radical homosexuals weren't trying to force indoctrination of their lifestyle uponn our children.

 

Keep your private matters private and let us keep our children's moral education up to us.

 

Funny thing is, a few of my homosexual friends respect my position on education of my children.

And I respect their right to legal unions.

 

You want to try to "open my eyes" to homosexuality? Try opening your eyes to thinking homosexuality is a sin.

Neither one of us will convince the other. You know that, I know that.

 

The difference is the homosexuals are deliberately targeting children.... not adults.

Leave my children out of it.

Edited May 31, 2009 by joihan777

[mettech]

I hope none of your children is gay, cause they will probably go through alot of trouble if they are. But it would be a good eye opener for you, maybe get you to think out side your narrow little world.

 

My Uncle is a Dr. He studies genetics and works for a company that does intense research for new medications at a genetic level. There is no doubt in his mind that homosexuality is part of someones genetic make up, that cannot be changed, and is set before birth durring development. It is also possible that it could be caused by improper hormone levels at certain times durring fetal development also.

 

I know you can not even fathom this, and are so stubborn you probably couldn't even take the time to just think about this.

 

What if homosexuality is something that is genetic? what if God did make people this way? How could that possibly make them a sinner when it is outside of their control? And what would you do if your son said dad I like boys. Are you going to banish him?

 

By bringing "God" into this, do you believe that God intended for man to marry and to multiply?

[RangerM]

Presumably, it means that any group can influence the state, but that they cannot influence it in certain ways. It seems that this was not a case of the state being influenced in any of those ways.

It was a case of religious values having influence on secular law; not imposing religious law but influencing. You're right that any group can influence the State. I acknowledge that, of course.

The passage was interesting. Of course nothing can ever be absolute or certain, and sometimes exceptions have to be made, but homosexuality doesn't seem to require an exception.

The question before us is not whether or not homosexuality should be outlawed (or punished). It is whether or not the State should sanction same sex marriage, which isn't the same thing. You assert that it is not for the people to decide. Given that homosexuality does not have protected status in Federal Law, it would seem a matter for the States; who get to choose such matters in their own way. CA did it though popular vote, rightly or wrongly. Like I said earlier, what has been done, can be undone. The pendulum swings both ways.

 

If same sex marriage will become a (Federal) civil right, my guess is it will come in the form of something akin to Rowe v. Wade (if it comes at all), and it will remain controversial for many years.