U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 04-26-2007, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Somewhere East of Laramie
27,838 posts, read 16,872,261 times
Reputation: 11492
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolinajack View Post
Before we relied on Gods word, and now people have thrown out God and replaced it with public opinion and feelings, therefore we dont even use scientific method, we skip it, and go right to what is "cool".

And it was homosexuality believed to be a deviant social behavior for millenia, not in the book for millenia.
I'm all for scientific method, it doesn't make moral judgements.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-26-2007, 09:52 AM
 
7,767 posts, read 9,133,307 times
Reputation: 3383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nea1 View Post
I am not offended, in many cultures it is acceptable, now would I go there and tell them I think it is wrong, no, not my business.
What if they came here and brought their culture with them?

Trying to make the culture you are in more like the culture they are in?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2007, 09:55 AM
 
7,767 posts, read 9,133,307 times
Reputation: 3383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nea1 View Post
But let me ask you this, since you are against gay marriage, (they can do unions on there own that are not legal.) But they have NO protection. Would you be Ok with allowing the laws that protect us in marriage to extend to civil unions as well?
Protection from what?

If you are asking me if I am OK with two people predetermining what happens to real and personal property in the event one of the two dies, the answer is yes.

If you are asking me if I am OK with two individuals giving each other complete and absolute Power of Attorney over each other, the answer is yes.

If you are asking me if I am OK with any legal instrument that may be used to give an individual's consent for whatever that individual may want to give their consent for, the answer is yes.

But if you are asking me if I'm OK with simply renaming 'marriage' civil union, the answer is No.

Plain and simple: I am opposed to any action of the government that would imply that the homosexual lifestyle is acceptable.

And: I am opposed to any action of the government that would imply that the polygamist lifestyle is acceptable.

And: I am opposed to any action of the government that would imply that the pedophilia lifestyle is acceptable.

And: I am opposed to any action of the government that would imply that the adulterous lifestyle is acceptable.

And: I am opposed to any action of the government that would imply that the beastiality lifestyle is acceptable.

And: I am opposed to any action of the government that would imply that the 'shacking up' lifestyle is acceptable.

ET AL

Look, read through my posts...long time back on the "Gay Chrisitian" thread. I do not hate homosexuals, quite the contrary. I embrace EVERYONE, but this LIFESTYLE goes against my morals.

But just like you don't have to accept my POV on this subject, I shouldn't have to accept yours. I hope we can both respect our rights to disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2007, 09:56 AM
 
3,042 posts, read 5,775,315 times
Reputation: 1092
Burdell, thats great, its your choice to do so and I respect that. I believe in the scientific method too but not over morality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2007, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Colorado
10,010 posts, read 11,446,114 times
Reputation: 2027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207 View Post
What if they came here and brought their culture with them?

Trying to make the culture you are in more like the culture they are in?
Gay has been around here since the begining. They are our citizens, they are a part of the USA. People that come to the US, need to assimulate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2007, 10:00 AM
 
3,042 posts, read 5,775,315 times
Reputation: 1092
wow, Alpha, i am so impressed, that was such an awesome post and I could not have said it better. It was succinct, and gets at the heart of the matter, marriage not being some legal "get me protection" but rather a holy committment, legal committment to the society that a man and a woman will care for each other, raise a family, live within the bounds of civil and moral codes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2007, 10:01 AM
 
7,767 posts, read 9,133,307 times
Reputation: 3383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nea1 View Post
Gay has been around here since the begining. They are our citizens, they are a part of the USA. People that come to the US, need to assimulate.
Ahhh. I've give up, Nea1. I'm trying to use a hypothetical example here and it just ain't working. It's not you, it's me.

Thanks for trying though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2007, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Colorado
10,010 posts, read 11,446,114 times
Reputation: 2027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207 View Post
Protection from what?

If you are asking me if I am OK with two people predetermining what happens to real and personal property in the event one of the two dies, the answer is yes.

If you are asking me if I am OK with two individuals giving each other complete and absolute Power of Attorney over each other, the answer is yes.

If you are asking me if I am OK with any legal instrument that may be used to give an individual's consent for whatever that individual may want to give their consent for, the answer is yes.

But if you are asking me if I'm OK with simply renaming 'marriage' civil union, the answer is No.

Plain and simple: I am opposed to any action of the government that would imply that the homosexual lifestyle is acceptable.

And: I am opposed to any action of the government that would imply that the polygamist lifestyle is acceptable.

And: I am opposed to any action of the government that would imply that the pedophilia lifestyle is acceptable.

And: I am opposed to any action of the government that would imply that the adulterous lifestyle is acceptable.

And: I am opposed to any action of the government that would imply that the beastiality lifestyle is acceptable.

And: I am opposed to any action of the government that would imply that the 'shacking up' lifestyle is acceptable.

ET AL

Look, read through my posts...long time back on the "Gay Chrisitian" thread. I do not hate homosexuals, quite the contrary. I embrace EVERYONE, but this LIFESTYLE goes against my morals.

But just like you don't have to accept my POV on this subject, I shouldn't have to accept yours. I hope we can both respect our rights to disagree.

See thats all I was asking. I would never change it from marriage to civil union but for homosexuals, that is what it would be considered. But you do realize unless they are married, they dont have those rights you mentioned. If one is in a serious accident, their partner cant even visit, they are not family, they can make No decisions, have No rights to inheritance or property. They cant claim each other on taxes, or have medical benefits. Even if one is named as beneficiary or power of attorney if not married family can fight it, if not married the family can fight it and win. I have seen this, it was a disgrace what happened. She wasnt even allowed in the room to say goodbye. She lost everything. And yes I respect your opinions and your rights to have them and no you dont have to accept my views and I would never force you too, but it seems as these views are being forced on them( homosexuals).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2007, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Somewhere East of Laramie
27,838 posts, read 16,872,261 times
Reputation: 11492
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolinajack View Post
Burdell, thats great, its your choice to do so and I respect that. I believe in the scientific method too but not over morality.

When it comes to personal life I'll go with morals, but when it comes to the laws of a diverse country made up of different cultures with, good, bad, or ugly, different morals, I think there's a need for some unbiased guidance.

A simple example: Some cultures/religions may deem it immoral to eat a particular food. As long as there is no scientific evidence that the particular food is harmful I wouldn't support a law banning it because of any cultural/religious beliefs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2007, 10:10 AM
 
3,042 posts, read 5,775,315 times
Reputation: 1092
well as long as we moralize about things like smoking, drinking, drugs, murder, theft and others and then make them legal issue, I will continue to rely on morality as the basis for societal codes of conduct, and laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top