Your position on gay rights (prison, working, racial, great)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Liberals, at least the ones posting here, are the most close-minded I have ever run across. There is NO tolerance (using the word loosely) for anyone who holds a differing view.
Are you claiming that doesn't apply to all of the conservatives here? Find me one conservative in any of these discussions who has expressed tolerance and open-mindedness.
Quote:
Hell, there isn't even any tolerance for anyone willing to acknowledge that both sides have valid points. That the concept of WIN-WIN is rejected reveals an intolerance that is hidden in a lie.
Screw "equal rights for all". "My way or the highway" is more fitting.
But as you've been told, it's not equal rights. It's superior rights for straights, and inferior rights for gays.
Your ideas are not about equality, they are about ensuring heterosexuals get to maintain their superiority complex while throwing gays a bone.
I guess it depends on the level of the issue, and their financial means to do it. Insurance doesn't pay for it and it's very expensive. Transsexuals are also required to live at least 2 years as the opposite sex prior to surgery to make sure they can handle the change. It doesn't work for everybody. Transsexuality is very very complicated and still not entirely understood, much like orientation.
Understood, and thank you for being rational and answering the question.
Technically it is not that it is a sin to be homosexual, it is acting on that, according to the Christian belief (surely you ran across that in Bible study).
No, I haven't actually. But then I've studied the issue extensively in the original languages. Have you? For example. Can you find me a single Biblical reference that says "Homosexuality is a sin" or can you find me a single Biblical reference to same-sex behavior that does not involve pagan worship rituals?
Quote:
So no, being born a certain way isn't a sin.
However, just because something may not "do harm to others" doesn't mean it's not a sin. Some things harm our own souls and thus are sins.
I stand by my belief that gays are no better or worse than any of the rest of us in those pews; if we were saints we wouldn't need to go to church.
And again, God loves us equally and certainly does not "hate the gays" like some people either believe themselves or wish to think that all Christians believe.
Since you are claiming being born gay isn't a sin, acting on it is, I'm assuming you expect every gay or bisexual person to be celibate? Can you explain to me your take on 1 Corinthians 7 in relation to gays?
Originally Posted by Alltheusernamesaretaken Technically it is not that it is a sin to be homosexual, it is acting on that, according to the Christian belief (surely you ran across that in Bible study).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
No, I haven't actually.
I was responding to another poster who mentioned having Bible study.
But then I've studied the issue extensively in the original languages. Have you? For example. Can you find me a single Biblical reference that says "Homosexuality is a sin" or can you find me a single Biblical reference to same-sex behavior that does not involve pagan worship rituals?
Well there's the whole "you shall not lie down with a man the way you lie down with a woman" part, but of course the Bible is interpreted in various ways. And I'm Catholic; everyone knows we don't read the Bible; we have it read TO us.
Since you are claiming being born gay isn't a sin, acting on it is, I'm assuming you expect every gay or bisexual person to be celibate?
Can you explain to me your take on 1 Corinthians 7 in relation to gays?
I don't expect them to do anything; we are all born with certain traits which cause us to commit sin, apparently, and since we aren't perfect we act on those impulses, whatever they are.
I never said anything about the US.
The world consists of much more than the US.
True, but what's under discussion here is rights in the US, under our Constitution. And, under our Constitution, one's religious affiliation and/or beliefs make no difference in the rights protected by that Constitution. So, even if Iran, which is a theocracy, decides gays should all die, here in the US we say, "no they shouldn't". (Or at least most of us feel that way.)
government also encourages, endorses and subsidizes adoptions of children, for the same reason they do it for marriage. Although marriage between the man and woman creating the child is much more desirable then an adoption.
I would have to say that depends entirely on the two people involved and at least partly on the circumstances surrounding the conception. There are too many people (couples and singles alike) in this world who have children who simply shouldn't.
Well there's the whole "you shall not lie down with a man the way you lie down with a woman" part, but of course the Bible is interpreted in various ways. And I'm Catholic; everyone knows we don't read the Bible; we have it read TO us.
That verse wasn't written in English though, it was written in Hebrew. And the Hebrew doesn't say the same thing. That verse also follows a passage discussing the pagan worship practices of the Caananite god Molech, whereby his followers used to have sex with male prostitutes in the temples to gain favor with the Caananite fertility gods.
Hardly the behavior of your typical modern day gay is it?
I'd also point out, that command was given exclusively to the Israelites, and even people like Calvinist here will tell you Christians no longer follow those laws.
And on a final note about that verse. Even if we take the English literally, it says "the way you lie down with a woman". How does a man have sex with another man the same way he does a woman?
Quote:
I don't expect them to do anything; we are all born with certain traits which cause us to commit sin, apparently, and since we aren't perfect we act on those impulses, whatever they are.
My point being, Paul gives 2 options. Those gifted by God with the ability to be celibate, should be celibate. Most of humanity was not given that gift including gays. So Paul says, if you were not given the gift of celibacy, you should marry. So if a gay can't be celibate and can't get married, what other options are there?
My statement was directed at your "tolerant" view on gay marriage, and your insistence that we should all be so "rose by any other name."
In case you missed it, the "rose by any other name" is the name for a government-sponsored "marriage".
Whether the certificate says "marriage" or "civil union" has no bearing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alltheusernamesaretaken
It had nothing to do with God and our laws. You may wish to reread.
Which god(s) are you referring to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alltheusernamesaretaken
Now let me spell it out:
It would be simply lovely if the "tolerance"' sentiment extended past, say, gay rights or illegal immigrants or health care for lazy people or whatever,
extended also to those of us who are more conservative.
Please point out to me where I've one stated that my views are based on "tolerance". In fact, I don't "tolerate" homosexuals - seeing as how the definition of "tolerate" is: the practice of permitting a thing of which one disapproves. I fully approve of homosexuality.
Whether you, or others, do not approve of homosexuality is perfectly fine. Not everyone has to approve of everything. However, I don't see a valid reason they should be barred from getting the government sponsored civil union (currently called "marriage" in most places).
If a homosexual couple can do everything myself and my husband are capable of doing, then there's no valid reason in my eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alltheusernamesaretaken
For example, toward any references to God.
As you are well aware, God is often mocked or shot down here.
Secondly, references to any god (whether the Christian God, Odin, Zeus, Osiris, Amaterasu, etc) in regards to government action (such as laws and rights) will be shot down - seeing as how we are not a theocratic nation. Doesn't matter if the majority of this nation are Christian. Christianity should not be used as a basis for enacting (or striking) laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alltheusernamesaretaken
Now...substitute "gay" or "liberal" or whatever for "God" or "religion" or whatever.
Religion has no place in a non-theocratic government.
But, you'll notice that you are free to worship as you see fit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alltheusernamesaretaken
Now...apply your same "tolerance" toward those posts as you have spouted about on this thread.
I don't "tolerate" homosexuals. I fully approve of them.
I tolerate religious nutcases. I won't support a law that would keep them from worshiping as they see fit.
It's a case of "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
Such a cute family! Those are lucky kids. NPH is awesome!
Absolutely. Adorable. Those kids are lucky to have such great parents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alltheusernamesaretaken
Technically it is not that it is a sin to be homosexual, it is acting on that, according to the Christian belief (surely you ran across that in Bible study).
So no, being born a certain way isn't a sin.
However, just because something may not "do harm to others" doesn't mean it's not a sin. Some things harm our own souls and thus are sins.
I stand by my belief that gays are no better or worse than any of the rest of us in those pews; if we were saints we wouldn't need to go to church.
And again, God loves us equally and certainly does not "hate the gays" like some people either believe themselves or wish to think that all Christians believe.
What does homosexuality being a sin (in your religion) have to do with rights for homosexuals?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunucu Beach
Liberals, at least the ones posting here, are the most close-minded I have ever run across. There is NO tolerance (using the word loosely) for anyone who holds a differing view. Hell, there isn't even any tolerance for anyone willing to acknowledge that both sides have valid points.
Every "valid" point the "I don't want them to have a marriage" crowd has remonstrated has been refuted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunucu Beach
That the concept of WIN-WIN is rejected reveals an intolerance that is hidden in a lie.
Which concept of "WIN-WIN" are you referring to?
1) The one where heterosexuals get one thing, homosexuals get something else (separate but equal)
OR
2) Civil Unions for all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunucu Beach
Screw "equal rights for all". "My way or the highway" is more fitting.
"Civil Unions for all" is an "equal rights for all", correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
Are you claiming that doesn't apply to all of the conservatives here? Find me one conservative in any of these discussions who has expressed tolerance and open-mindedness.
You never know. We might have missed one post somewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
Your ideas are not about equality, they are about ensuring heterosexuals get to maintain their superiority complex while throwing gays a bone.
I went to work at my local library in the early 60's. (When I was 15 1/2.) One of my supervisors was openly gay and no one cared. My parents never said anything negative about gay people. And our town didn't care that one of the library employees was gay. He was a super nice guy and a hard worker and everyone liked him!...I think gay people should be able to get married. When I was growing up in the 50's and 60's I never ran into any "gay-bashing." It was just assumed that we were born with our sexual preferences. No one went on "witch hunts" to target gay people.
I beg to differ. I also grew up in the fifties and sixties and police raids of gay bars (and other areas where gays hung out, though they were not called gay at that time) were a regular feature on the evening news. I still remember when one parent of a student in my high school tried to get a teacher fired because it was suspected the teacher was homosexual. I still remember being called "lezzie" because those who did so figured I must be a lesbian because I wasn't dating. (I had other "problems" that made me uncomfortable with dating.) I didn't find out until years later, but it was right around the time I graduated high school in 1969 that the uncle of the man I eventually married was disowned by his family for being "*ueer". So don't try to tell me there was no 'gay bashing' going on in the 50s & 60s.
In case you missed it, the "rose by any other name" is the name for a government-sponsored "marriage".
Yes, I got it. It is you who do not get it, in any posts here which you oppose.
Whether the certificate says "marriage" or "civil union" has no bearing.
Which god(s) are you referring to?
Wow. The density is amazing.
Please point out to me where I've one stated that my views are based on "tolerance". In fact, I don't "tolerate" homosexuals - seeing as how the definition of "tolerate" is: the practice of permitting a thing of which one disapproves. I fully approve of homosexuality.
Whether you, or others, do not approve of homosexuality is perfectly fine. Not everyone has to approve of everything.
Damn skippy.
However, I don't see a valid reason they should be barred from getting the government sponsored civil union (currently called "marriage" in most places).
If a homosexual couple can do everything myself and my husband are capable of doing, then there's no valid reason in my eyes.
Secondly, references to any god (whether the Christian God, Odin, Zeus, Osiris, Amaterasu, etc)
We are in America; only the obtuse and/or contrary would not grasp the common reference to God
in regards to government action (such as laws and rights) will be shot down - seeing as how we are not a theocratic nation. Doesn't matter if the majority of this nation are Christian. Christianity should not be used as a basis for enacting (or striking) laws.
Religion has no place in a non-theocratic government.
But, you'll notice that you are free to worship as you see fit.
I don't "tolerate" homosexuals. I fully approve of them.
I tolerate religious nutcases. ("Religious nutcases" is subjective, and also quite rude, but it's your right to be ignorant.)
I won't support a law that would keep them from worshiping as they see fit.
It's a case of "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Disrespectful references to God are constantly allowed here and you know it, while disrespectful references to any liberal special interests are not. The inconsistency is glaring but not unexpected at this point.
Last edited by CaseyB; 09-17-2011 at 05:06 AM..
Reason: discuss the topic, not other members
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
