Jerusalem bans Gay Pride - Page 8

No I am not.

impose

1. To establish or apply as compulsory; levy: impose a tax.
2. To apply or make prevail by or as if by authority: impose a peace settlement. See Synonyms at dictate.
3. To obtrude or force (oneself, for example) on another or others.

I have ability or authority to do none of these things. Therefore, I am not "imposing" my beliefs on anyone.

If you say that voting is the same as "imposing", you are wrong, but in case you wish to take that approach...have you ever voted? About any issue at all in your area? Have there been people that have voted the opposite the way you have voted on those issue? If so, if you assume that voting = "imposing", then you have "imposed" your beliefs on others as well.

Face it, you do the very same things. You are just all riled up because my opinion is "wrong" (in your opinion) and so I should be disallowed from expressing it...at least through a governmental, civic process.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way...at least in the U.S.

With that said, I am done. I have tired of going around in circles with someone (you) that is unwilling to recognize their own intolerance and prejudice towards someone that they disagree with. Yes intolerance. You are plainly intolerant of my views. Yes prejudice. You have regularly assumed that I either "hate" those that engage in homosexual behavior and that I wish them ill.

To those of you who believe we're trying to "impose" our beliefs on others:

Please see that in OUR eyes, you who support gay marriage are trying to "impose" YOUR beliefs on us. Whether you believe it's the tyranny of the majority or not, there has been overwhelming support for state constitutional amendments supporting marriage between a man and a woman. Most people want it that way.

You ask why we're trying to impose our beliefs on you. We ask why we should go against the will of states' voters by imposing your beliefs on the majority. You state that it's "rational" that gays should have the "right" to marry each other legally, but more and more states' voters that it's rational that marriage remain between a man and a woman.

Right or wrong in your eyes, that's the way it is. It's not the same as slavery. It's not the same as women's voting rights. It's not the same as the civil rights movement.

Chris, saying that you are just having your belief and that's the end of it is pretty disingenuous.

First of all, you aren't just "disagreeing" with homosexuality, you are asserting that gay people are deliberating choosing a life predicated on "sin".

That's quite a bit different from simply having reservations, and it is quite a bit different from the standard Christian "we are all sinners" line.

I'm sure you would readily acknowledge that you are flawed, that sometimes you aren't completely honest, or compassionate, or that fear or self-centeredness makes you act in ways that fall short of what you believe God would have you be. So you ask for forgiveness, knowing you will never be perfect, and try to do better next time.

You can't pretend that that stance in the world somehow equates with the "sin" of homosexuality, since what you are therefore demanding (or what you believe God is demanding, which in my book amounts to the same thing) is that the homosexual turn away from one of life's greatest God given pleasures and forswear something very fundamental to his or her sense of self.

You: lied to your boss, made amends, prayed. Homosexuals: never have pleasurable sex again, and pretend with all your might to be something your not.. And from this you conclude that you are just as hard on yourself as you are on homosexuals, since you are all "sinners".

Son, that dog don't hunt.

Secondly, this notion of "sin" is obviously not happening in a vacuum. We live in a culture where the notion of sin and redemption are powerful, inchoate currents. When you label something "sinful" (and that's the kinder, gentler version; see also "against God" and "abomination") you are setting in motion a set of judgments that far, far exceed the rather mild form of disapproval that you have expressed in this thread.

Now you can insist that the crime is not yours, that you don't condone violence or hostility towards gay people and simply reserve the right to "disapprove" of the "lifestyle", as your religion teaches you you must.

But the chain of oppression is forged one link at a time, and your "beliefs" help forge your link of the chain every day. When the preacher fulminates against "the homosexual agenda", when talk of "family values" inevitably has its embedded homophobia, when new code for bigotry like "no special rights" is tossed around like a punch, when the specter of gay marriage is somehow made to be the most profound threat to the republic since the civil war, you and all the perfectly nice fellas who think like you are right there, quietly adding your "yes". Because it's a sin. Because God wants you to.

And it's that amplified yes, echoing down the chain from modest disapproval to programatic discrimination to a back alley beating that you can't walk away from. Because that's really how it works. That really is cause and effect.

You don't get to say "I disavow the chain", much as that might make your part in it less discomforting. Maybe you didn't make it, but you're doing your part to keep it strong.

You are wrong on count 1.

You vote and you also pressure politicians to support your view. That is power. That is you imposing your power. You also pressure others into supporting your view, and voting as you do, and continuing the process of oppression.

Yes, you as an individual have as much power as a single drop of rain. But that doesn't excuse you. In a downpour, people get hurt. The fewer the drops, the lighter the rain.

Please, I want to know. How do two men having sex in the privacy of their own home, and not hiding the fact that that's what they choose to do infringe on YOUR rights? You do not have any right to be shielded from others' legal behavior. If the gay TV channel disgusts you, change it!

Have it your way. You're right. I'm wrong.

No, we're not. You are free to believe that homosexuality is wrong. You are telling us we are NOT free to believe that homosexuality is natural. There is a huge difference there.

Guess what, I support marriage between one man and one woman. I am not taking that right away from you nor am I saying that marriage between one man and one woman is wrong. But you want your club to be an exclusive one. That's okay, within the limits of your church or your private organization. If you are a church leader, you have every right to refuse to perform same sex marriages within your church. But that's where your right ends, because by imposing your beliefs in the public sector, even for people who do not agree with your beliefs, you are infringing on their secular rights as a human being, as well as their religious rights, if their religion or denomination supports same sex marriage. Do you not see that you do not have the right to restrict other peoples' beliefs, as long as they harm no one? Do you not see that state and federal govenrments do not have that right? Now, I know what you're going to say to this. Your belief is that homosexuality does harm people. Please explain in a non-religious context.

Because state laws that restrict same sex marriage are by their very nature inequal, and therefore unconstitutional. Inequal. You can't lie like Nick and say, "It's equal -- everone can marry someone of the opposite sex". That's like saying, "Everyone can marry someone of their same race." The fact is that not everyone can marry the person they love. That is where it is inequal. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person that they love, as long as both partners are adults and the marriage is agreed upon by both partners. Homosexuals do not have that very same right.
You have shown no evidence to support such claims. It is the same as the civil rights movement, in almost every manner. Homosexuals can "choose" to live heterosexual lives just like Yentl an Mu Lan can choose to behave like a man, and just like Michael Jackson can choose to appear white (no one knows what the heck he's trying to behave like).

If the gay haters -- or "disapprovers" -- win this battle, the next thing you know, they'll be pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban the practice of Islam. Because they "disapprove". And for no other reason than that.

This thread contains some of the best posts I've ever read on AI. Please continue to keep it civil ... it's a refreshing change.

I've just learned that Hong Kong's single most powerful anti-homosexual is going to speak at my monthly human rights organization meeting (Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor). He's the leader of an organization called "The Society for Truth and Light". In the past several months, this organization's activities have become much more aggressive, from massive letter writing campaigns to Hong Kong's legislators to a four-page newspaper advertisement costing tens of thousands of dollars publishing a petition against same sex unions. The downpour continues.

There is a real fear among some heterosexuals that allowing same sex marriages will somehow lessen the sanctity of their own heterosexual marriages or those that they aspire to have. This is a false fear. We cannot change what is sacred to individual human beings. What is sacred is up to them. Not anybody else.

It's sad that I will be unable to attend this month's meeting, as I'll be visiting my sister in Hawaii. I'd really like to see how this man can defend his views in front of a well respected group that includes some of the most educated and qualified among Hong Kong's legal and political community, (most are human rights lawyers and lifetime rights advocates), as well as the most vocal and intelligent among Hong Kong's youth.

Should we outlaw this group's activities? As long as there is no threat of violence, no. Absolutely not. But we should communicate to them, and to the politicians and public that they are calling to for support, where the errors in their arguments lie. And we will continue to do so.

We don't want to outlaw their activities. We don't want to control the way they live their lives. But they want to perpetuate the oppression of same sex couples. I know whose side the God I have faith in is really on here.

By the way, thanks, mods, for keeping this thread open despite the repeated change of topic and the inevitable off-color remarks. Perhaps we can change the thread title to better reflect the overall thread content?