bush may be republican be he isn't conservative, at least in my opinion .
what gives anyhow all this wasted thought when only supposedly 3-7% of the nation is gay. Its just sad that even tho they have such a small share, they are in such prominent positions, such as media, press, and the like. thats why all we ever heard about. What about our nations unsung, and much greater problems? This is just a way for CNN to throw some dirt into the administration's eye. I personally believe gay people don't need to marry, whats with them just living together. You can have ceremonies and everything what gives, does it take the states blessing to make them feel if what they are doing is alright?
Its as if the all the gay people tho admittadly gay, don't think we approve of them or don't love them enough as is. Thats the only reason why this is brought up. Whats going to be funny is once the government approves it, the taboo around homosexuality will be plain and boring, and there'll hardly be anymore gay people left.
It appears to me that the anti-allow crowd is afraid of legitimizing homosexuality. To me, that's no a good enough motive to prevent a gay marriage.
Trumptman, I think your semantics are just that. Certainly a church shouldn't have to marry anyone they don't agree should be married, but changing the vocabulary isn't correct. That opens up problems down the road when laws, social customs or whatever spring up that offer benefits to those that are 'married' while not those that have civil unions. It's an unfair double standard in my opinion.
I don't think I could get much more clear than same full legal benefits as marriage. It isn't a sematic issue. Marriage is just a loaded word for some people. There are some feminists who declare marriage equivalent to slavery because of the patriarchal tradition associated with it via church and religion. This fully equal civil union could appeal to them as well and allow them a type of union that doesn't denote honor and obeying.
There are plenty of example where secular institutions have set up shop right along side religious holidays or institutions. Spring break instead of Easter Break. Winter break instead of Christmas break. Santa instead of Jesus, A bunny instead of passover.
Some people celebrate both, some people pick and mix and match from both. I'm all for the rights but people get hung up on a word. So use a different word.
Isn't reality TV fascinating? We have shows like "Joe Millionaire", "Meet My Parents", "Who Wants to Marry My Father", "For Love or Money" and one and one and on.
Where are all these people bitching and complaining about preserving the sactity of marriage and why aren't they concerned about this? They're so afraid that allowing homosexual monogomous couples from getting married or engaging in civil unions, but they're complete mute when it comes to all these reality TV shows that, in my opinion, are doing far more damage to the institution. Is our opinion of marriage so low that we make these programs "must see TV". Or are we just threatened by the gay and lesbian legitimization agenda? I believe it's the latter.
If it weren't for that one little line buried deep in that little book we all love to quote, then there would be absolutely no excuse to openly and actively discriminate against this minority group. Period. This behavior is not tolerated anywhere else in our society. Except this issue.
The President says he won't judge, but he'll label it a "sin". Sounds like judgment to me. Heck, that bible also says I can sell my daughter after she turns 14 years of age...do you think I could fetch a good price for her?
Not to be rude but I have heard and read criticism of these shows. Just because your radio isn't tuned to the station doesn't mean it isn't playing a song.
Marriage is just a loaded word for some people...So use a different word.
Guess what. You need to deal with the fact that a) you live in a country with free speech and b) you live in a country with freedom of religion. As such, religions (and individuals) are free to use the words they want to without state interference. If you belong to a group of people that decide to use certain words for certain things, then so be it. But it is unconstitutional for the state to dictate what I decide to call a rose. Besides, it's still a rose by any other name.
What's next? Are you going to promote legislation that prohibits the dutch from calling it huwelijk?
what gives anyhow all this wasted thought when only supposedly 3-7% of the nation is gay.
What gives with all this wasted thought about murder? Someone's always making a ruckus on the news when someone gets killed, and then there are all of these laws, all this damned gun control debate... and hell, less than 1% of us ever get killed or murder anyone. A phony issue if I ever saw one!
What gives with all this wasted thought about murder? Someone's always making a ruckus on the news when someone gets killed, and then there are all of these laws, all this damned gun control debate... and hell, less than 1% of us ever get killed or murder anyone. A phony issue if I ever saw one!
[ <-- emoticon added for the sarcasm-impaired]
\\
dude don't be such a twit , if you read more i said there are other things that matter more like people being shot, and being hungry. When you think about things like that, its hard to focus about if 2 guys can share the same last name, and not be brothers.
however I do see your point. But still the only reason this headline has any prominence is to drive ratings, hurt bush, and play on our nerves from its taboo.
Guess what. You need to deal with the fact that a) you live in a country with free speech and b) you live in a country with freedom of religion. As such, religions (and individuals) are free to use the words they want to without state interference. If you belong to a group of people that decide to use certain words for certain things, then so be it. But it is unconstitutional for the state to dictate what I decide to call a rose. Besides, it's still a rose by any other name.
What's next? Are you going to promote legislation that prohibits the dutch from calling it huwelijk?
I'm sorry but while speech is free it isn't devoid of meaning. People get upset when you try to change what a word means. Likewise there are prohibitions against what is considered hate speech or indecent speech. I fuly understand that we have freedom of religion but that doesn't mean the state can take a word used by religion and declare it to mean whatever they want. I know you would understand and argue against this in reverse. If people wanted to start calling civil institutions religious names, I am absolutely sure you be the first one pitching a fit.
Do you support prayer in the classroom? I mean what if prayer is only defined as moment of silence civilly and thus the students can do what they want in silence. Do you support that if we redefine what prayer means and put it in schools?
Likely not because to the large majority of folks prayer would still have a religious connotation that would be to hard to ignore civilly.
It's not a one way street. Likewise if you called your registered civil union a "marriage" would the secret police come crashing through your door? My uncle and his partner have been "married" with rings for years. The state can call it a civil union and give you xyz rights and benefits. They don't dictate what you call it.
what gives anyhow all this wasted thought when only supposedly 3-7% of the nation is gay. Its just sad that even tho they have such a small share, they are in such prominent positions, such as media, press, and the like. thats why all we ever heard about.
Replace 'gay' with 'a Mac user', and we'll suddenly call you a troll.
oops for you frank777. go read what I linked to. Your assumptions are wrong on every count, from your inaccurate characterization of the study to the unfounded assumption that religious commitment is a result of divorce. The paper even cites a christian source for research opposing the latter and instead demonstrating that ~90% of divorces amoung these christians happens after the conversion.
Sorry for the late reply. Busy day at work.
It is true that I was replying more to the often-repeated notion of divorce-crazy Christians than to your link, but in reviewing the link I find the arguments confusing at best.
The premise is taken, that from statistical data Christians have a higher rate of divorce. Then the argument is made that:
"Many couples would find it difficult to continue attending services in the same congregation after their marital separation; meeting at church would be awkward. So, they drop out."
So are we talking about the measurement of people who just call themselves Christian on a census or survey or actual churchgoers? I think the article confuses the two.
If you're going to condemn churches or churchgoers, the least you can do is judge by the people who are attending regularly.
With regard to the committment-after-divorce question, I didn't see that addressed in the article. All I can say is that I've been a church-goer most of my life, and just about every church I've been to has pre-marital classes, counselling services and post-divorce ministry. A good example of a group ministry to divorcees is DivorceCare It's safe to say that for a lot of people, the church is a major stop on the road to recovery from Divorce.
Finally, the article mentions in passing:
Donald Hughes, author of The Divorce Reality...claim (sic) that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been "saved."
While I'm sure he is a Christian as you claim, even devout Christians should provide sources when spouting statistics, and there's no footnote to say where he came up with that number, or how the term "saved" is defined by the questioner.
So are we talking about the measurement of people who just call themselves Christian on a census or survey or actual churchgoers? I think the article confuses the two.
The part you cite is speculation posed as a possible explanation for why christians like yourself have wildly inaccurate beliefs about divorce rates in their group, as established by the Barna studies.
Your other questions could be probably explained by actually digging up the Barna study, which would be the logical course of action.
note that the methodology is described, which is standard for studies of this kind. Though you apparently did not know it, your biggest problem with it could have been addressed with a 30 second search. It also describes the conditions they use for each classification, which is also standard.
As for your tangent on counseling, it has nothing to do with the statistical reality.
Quote:
Donald Hughes, author of The Divorce Reality...claim (sic)*** that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been "saved."
While I'm sure he is a Christian as you claim, even devout Christians should provide sources when spouting statistics, and there's no footnote to say where he came up with that number, or how the term "saved" is defined by the questioner.
They cite the book, which is entirely acceptable. Do a search for the book and you will find numerous reviews discussing his statical findings and research methods in depth. He actually attributes it to other barna research, but if you would like to know more, he can be reached at [email protected] (note that my 'claim' is substantiated). I suggest you take up any issues you have with him directly and report back.
The part you site is speculation posed as a possible explanation for why christians like yourself have wildly inaccurate beliefs about divorce rates in their group, as established by Barna study.
What is a "christian ACCURATE belief" then ????
~~
The Pope declared a few days ago that the same-sex marriages are bad for society etc. An online vote for what the italians think = agree or not, showed 70 % of them not agreeing with him. Article here (La Repubblica), vote here ("Do you agree with vatican = gay unions are bad for society" yes / no)
The Pope declared a few days ago that the same-sex marriages are bad for society etc. An online vote for what the italians think = agree or not, showed 70 % of them not agreeing with him. Article here (La Repubblica), vote here ("Do you agree with vatican = gay unions are bad for society" yes / no)
Ah yes, the Catholic Church telling those in power what they should and should not do. This is the same Catholic Church mind you who stayed silent during the Holocaust, and more recently, did very little to discipline priests who were sexually abusing children. If this is the kind of thing the Catholics are doing to make the world a better place, I'm glad I'm not Catholic. Isn't that one of the things religion is supposed to do? Help people become better people? Who is the Pope to say that a demonstration of love is immoral, even though homosexuals aren't hurting anyone, neither are they demanding very much (benefits should be given to all married couples, gay or straight). What kind of sick narrowminded people lead this religion. Why can't they just leave people alone, mind their own business, and deal with their own problems, of which they have plenty of. not to mention the divorce rate among heterosexual couples just keeps getting higher and higher. Rant over.
what gives anyhow all this wasted thought when only supposedly 3-7% of the nation is gay. Its just sad that even tho they have such a small share, they are in such prominent positions, such as media, press, and the like.
Replace the word "gay" with "Jewish" and read that back to yourself. See how it sounds.
And by the way, there are plenty of gays in education, bus driving, catering, your family ... it's just that you notice them when you see them. Says a lot more about you then it does about gay people.
I think that in America, people have the right to live their lives. That being said, our government must stand for certain standards of social behavior. I have no problem at all with those who are gay, but I also don't think the government should sanction gay marriage by recognizing it. It opens up a whole host of other issues, including benefit payments, etc.
well, i disagree with the government making stands in the form of laws or amendments which criminalize or sanction social behaviors. imo, government should have no part of the social sector, unless to protect the discriminated, and perhaps for a few other limited reasons which i cant think of now. What happens when/if the tide changes, and suddenly most americans are not opposed to gay marriages or unions (or gaity in general)? Theres gonna be a period there where these people will be persecuted by law, despite acceptance in society. I dont think the government should enact laws/amendments which promote any set of morals. For me, thats going to close to the church-state line. Each individual should be free to live by his/her moral guideline; some will accept gays, some won't. When the totality of the populous can agree on a moral law, like the malicious killing of another person, then the law is reasonable.
Quote:
Like it or not, the majority of the population here still considers homosexulaity to be immoral, according to polling data. My position is a bit more complicated. People have a right to be gay. Though it is against my religous beliefs in general, I also believe there are many gay people who are "born that way"....
What I have a problem with is the active promotion of the gay "lifestyle" (for lack of a better term). It's like some gays are literally recruiting! I remember several years ago I was watching a promo for an updated "Ugly Duckling" movie on HBO. Of course, the Ugly Duckling was actually the Gay Duckling. One of the voice over celebs (forget who) was being interviewed and going on and on about how there was no one telling kids "it's OK to be gay". She thought was a really important message kids should be hearing. This really struck me as misguided and wrong...especially since she was talking about kids...not adults. Essentially, it's as if some gays lives are all about being gay.
if i were gay, i would be personally offended by this. first, do you honestly question that some people are naturally inclined to like their own rather than the opposite sex? we are all different, often vastly, from each other and some people, are naturally attracted to their own sex (or to both). they aren't lying about it; i dont see any reason for them to. of course, there are probably some who changed their sexual preference after playing the field a bit, but that doesn't negate that some people are naturally gay.
also, i dont see gay people promoting it in some sinister manner, as you seem to. they aren't trying to convince people to become gay (well, some of they might be, but in general they dont seem to). what they are trying to do, i think, is tell people who are gay, but are hiding it, that it isn't something to be ashamed of. you, and many religious folks, have the right to disagree with that idea, but outlawing it is wrong and illegal, i think. outlawing it, based on religious ideas, would be promoting a religion.
gays have the right to be, and to not hate themselves or consider themselves sinners (in their gaity), and i dont think government should require otherwise.
Quote:
If someone is gay, that's fine with me. I've known many gay people in my life. It's not a mainstream behavior though, and it shouldn't be promoted as such...which is exactly what's happening at times. The government sanctioning marriage would implicitly do so.
well, whether or not its mainstream and popular shouldn't be anyone's concern. its not like if gay people outnumbered heterosexuals that they'll take over and create a totalitarian state or something.
what gives anyhow all this wasted thought when only supposedly 3-7% of the nation is gay.
So minorities deserve to face abject discrimination just because there aren't very many of them?
Quote:
Its just sad that even tho they have such a small share, they are in such prominent positions, such as media, press, and the like.
Why is it sad that so many gay people do well for themselves? And could it possibly mean that there are more gay people than you might think?
Quote:
I personally believe gay people don't need to marry, whats with them just living together. You can have ceremonies and everything what gives, does it take the states blessing to make them feel if what they are doing is alright?
It has nothing to do with right or wrong. Marriage entails over 400 special privileges in this country which straight people take for granted. Let's say you're married, and you get cancer, and you're dying a horribly painful death. Your wife or husband can be there, in your room, with you at the end, because you are family.
If I were in the same position, in many states, under the current laws, I would have to die alone, because the state would refuse to look upon my relationship as being one of "family." Is this right?
If you and your wife purchase a home together, and she dies, you inherit the home tax free. If I were to do that with my significant other, and he were to die, I could be charged estate taxes. I could lose my home. Is that right?
Marriage is about stability and security. That's why its important to make it available to all Americans, because anything that spreads stability to the various segments of our culture where it is legally lacking the more stable our national culture as a whole will become.
Quote:
Whats going to be funny is once the government approves it, the taboo around homosexuality will be plain and boring, and there'll hardly be anymore gay people left. [/B]
This is downright insulting. I'm gay because it's who I am. I'm not gay because it's scandalous or because I like to cause controversy. I would kill (mainly conservatives) for homosexuality to be considered plain and normal and boring, because then my life would be just like yours and I would be an actual, fully-vested citizen in this country. As it is, I'm a second class citizen, and that's just not right.
Comments
what gives anyhow all this wasted thought when only supposedly 3-7% of the nation is gay. Its just sad that even tho they have such a small share, they are in such prominent positions, such as media, press, and the like. thats why all we ever heard about. What about our nations unsung, and much greater problems? This is just a way for CNN to throw some dirt into the administration's eye. I personally believe gay people don't need to marry, whats with them just living together. You can have ceremonies and everything what gives, does it take the states blessing to make them feel if what they are doing is alright?
Its as if the all the gay people tho admittadly gay, don't think we approve of them or don't love them enough as is. Thats the only reason why this is brought up. Whats going to be funny is once the government approves it, the taboo around homosexuality will be plain and boring, and there'll hardly be anymore gay people left.
Originally posted by bunge
It appears to me that the anti-allow crowd is afraid of legitimizing homosexuality. To me, that's no a good enough motive to prevent a gay marriage.
Trumptman, I think your semantics are just that. Certainly a church shouldn't have to marry anyone they don't agree should be married, but changing the vocabulary isn't correct. That opens up problems down the road when laws, social customs or whatever spring up that offer benefits to those that are 'married' while not those that have civil unions. It's an unfair double standard in my opinion.
I don't think I could get much more clear than same full legal benefits as marriage. It isn't a sematic issue. Marriage is just a loaded word for some people. There are some feminists who declare marriage equivalent to slavery because of the patriarchal tradition associated with it via church and religion. This fully equal civil union could appeal to them as well and allow them a type of union that doesn't denote honor and obeying.
There are plenty of example where secular institutions have set up shop right along side religious holidays or institutions. Spring break instead of Easter Break. Winter break instead of Christmas break. Santa instead of Jesus, A bunny instead of passover.
Some people celebrate both, some people pick and mix and match from both. I'm all for the rights but people get hung up on a word. So use a different word.
Nick
Originally posted by Northgate
Isn't reality TV fascinating? We have shows like "Joe Millionaire", "Meet My Parents", "Who Wants to Marry My Father", "For Love or Money" and one and one and on.
Where are all these people bitching and complaining about preserving the sactity of marriage and why aren't they concerned about this? They're so afraid that allowing homosexual monogomous couples from getting married or engaging in civil unions, but they're complete mute when it comes to all these reality TV shows that, in my opinion, are doing far more damage to the institution. Is our opinion of marriage so low that we make these programs "must see TV". Or are we just threatened by the gay and lesbian legitimization agenda? I believe it's the latter.
If it weren't for that one little line buried deep in that little book we all love to quote, then there would be absolutely no excuse to openly and actively discriminate against this minority group. Period. This behavior is not tolerated anywhere else in our society. Except this issue.
The President says he won't judge, but he'll label it a "sin". Sounds like judgment to me. Heck, that bible also says I can sell my daughter after she turns 14 years of age...do you think I could fetch a good price for her?
Not to be rude but I have heard and read criticism of these shows. Just because your radio isn't tuned to the station doesn't mean it isn't playing a song.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Marriage is just a loaded word for some people...So use a different word.
Guess what. You need to deal with the fact that a) you live in a country with free speech and b) you live in a country with freedom of religion. As such, religions (and individuals) are free to use the words they want to without state interference. If you belong to a group of people that decide to use certain words for certain things, then so be it. But it is unconstitutional for the state to dictate what I decide to call a rose. Besides, it's still a rose by any other name.
What's next? Are you going to promote legislation that prohibits the dutch from calling it huwelijk?
Originally posted by kraig911
what gives anyhow all this wasted thought when only supposedly 3-7% of the nation is gay.
What gives with all this wasted thought about murder? Someone's always making a ruckus on the news when someone gets killed, and then there are all of these laws, all this damned gun control debate... and hell, less than 1% of us ever get killed or murder anyone. A phony issue if I ever saw one!
[
Originally posted by shetline
What gives with all this wasted thought about murder? Someone's always making a ruckus on the news when someone gets killed, and then there are all of these laws, all this damned gun control debate... and hell, less than 1% of us ever get killed or murder anyone. A phony issue if I ever saw one!
[
\\
dude don't be such a twit
however I do see your point. But still the only reason this headline has any prominence is to drive ratings, hurt bush, and play on our nerves from its taboo.
Originally posted by kraig911
But still the only reason this headline has any prominence is to drive ratings, hurt bush, and play on our nerves from its taboo.
Bush clearly intended to get high exposure for this comment. Let me say it again: it wasn't just expected, it was clealy intended.
Originally posted by kraig911
But still the only reason this headline has any prominence is to drive ratings, hurt bush, and play on our nerves from its taboo.
Why did Bush bring it up if it's going to hurt him?
Originally posted by giant
Guess what. You need to deal with the fact that a) you live in a country with free speech and b) you live in a country with freedom of religion. As such, religions (and individuals) are free to use the words they want to without state interference. If you belong to a group of people that decide to use certain words for certain things, then so be it. But it is unconstitutional for the state to dictate what I decide to call a rose. Besides, it's still a rose by any other name.
What's next? Are you going to promote legislation that prohibits the dutch from calling it huwelijk?
I'm sorry but while speech is free it isn't devoid of meaning. People get upset when you try to change what a word means. Likewise there are prohibitions against what is considered hate speech or indecent speech. I fuly understand that we have freedom of religion but that doesn't mean the state can take a word used by religion and declare it to mean whatever they want. I know you would understand and argue against this in reverse. If people wanted to start calling civil institutions religious names, I am absolutely sure you be the first one pitching a fit.
Do you support prayer in the classroom? I mean what if prayer is only defined as moment of silence civilly and thus the students can do what they want in silence. Do you support that if we redefine what prayer means and put it in schools?
Likely not because to the large majority of folks prayer would still have a religious connotation that would be to hard to ignore civilly.
It's not a one way street. Likewise if you called your registered civil union a "marriage" would the secret police come crashing through your door? My uncle and his partner have been "married" with rings for years. The state can call it a civil union and give you xyz rights and benefits. They don't dictate what you call it.
Nick
Originally posted by kraig911
what gives anyhow all this wasted thought when only supposedly 3-7% of the nation is gay. Its just sad that even tho they have such a small share, they are in such prominent positions, such as media, press, and the like. thats why all we ever heard about.
Replace 'gay' with 'a Mac user', and we'll suddenly call you a troll.
oops for you frank777. go read what I linked to. Your assumptions are wrong on every count, from your inaccurate characterization of the study to the unfounded assumption that religious commitment is a result of divorce. The paper even cites a christian source for research opposing the latter and instead demonstrating that ~90% of divorces amoung these christians happens after the conversion.
Sorry for the late reply. Busy day at work.
It is true that I was replying more to the often-repeated notion of divorce-crazy Christians than to your link, but in reviewing the link I find the arguments confusing at best.
The premise is taken, that from statistical data Christians have a higher rate of divorce. Then the argument is made that:
"Many couples would find it difficult to continue attending services in the same congregation after their marital separation; meeting at church would be awkward. So, they drop out."
So are we talking about the measurement of people who just call themselves Christian on a census or survey or actual churchgoers? I think the article confuses the two.
If you're going to condemn churches or churchgoers, the least you can do is judge by the people who are attending regularly.
With regard to the committment-after-divorce question, I didn't see that addressed in the article. All I can say is that I've been a church-goer most of my life, and just about every church I've been to has pre-marital classes, counselling services and post-divorce ministry. A good example of a group ministry to divorcees is DivorceCare It's safe to say that for a lot of people, the church is a major stop on the road to recovery from Divorce.
Finally, the article mentions in passing:
Donald Hughes, author of The Divorce Reality...claim (sic) that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been "saved."
While I'm sure he is a Christian as you claim, even devout Christians should provide sources when spouting statistics, and there's no footnote to say where he came up with that number, or how the term "saved" is defined by the questioner.
Originally posted by Frank777
So are we talking about the measurement of people who just call themselves Christian on a census or survey or actual churchgoers? I think the article confuses the two.
The part you cite is speculation posed as a possible explanation for why christians like yourself have wildly inaccurate beliefs about divorce rates in their group, as established by the Barna studies.
Your other questions could be probably explained by actually digging up the Barna study, which would be the logical course of action.
Here's another study on divorce conducted by Barna (a christian group, mind you) that took me a total of 30 second to locate: http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePre...95&Reference=C
note that the methodology is described, which is standard for studies of this kind. Though you apparently did not know it, your biggest problem with it could have been addressed with a 30 second search. It also describes the conditions they use for each classification, which is also standard.
As for your tangent on counseling, it has nothing to do with the statistical reality.
Donald Hughes, author of The Divorce Reality...claim (sic)*** that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been "saved."
While I'm sure he is a Christian as you claim, even devout Christians should provide sources when spouting statistics, and there's no footnote to say where he came up with that number, or how the term "saved" is defined by the questioner.
They cite the book, which is entirely acceptable. Do a search for the book and you will find numerous reviews discussing his statical findings and research methods in depth. He actually attributes it to other barna research, but if you would like to know more, he can be reached at [email protected] (note that my 'claim' is substantiated). I suggest you take up any issues you have with him directly and report back.
You can also pick up his eBook here: http://www.ebookjoy.com/divorcereality.html
In short, the problems you have would probably be answered if you did a little bit more than a half-hearted speculative critique.
Oh, and note that all of my references are christian ones. Thanks.
***This is an internet forum. You don't need to put 'sic' unless you are reaching for things to criticize.
Originally posted by giant
The part you site is speculation posed as a possible explanation for why christians like yourself have wildly inaccurate beliefs about divorce rates in their group, as established by Barna study.
What is a "christian ACCURATE belief" then ????
~~
The Pope declared a few days ago that the same-sex marriages are bad for society etc. An online vote for what the italians think = agree or not, showed 70 % of them not agreeing with him. Article here (La Repubblica), vote here ("Do you agree with vatican = gay unions are bad for society" yes / no)
Originally posted by Giaguara
What is a "christian ACCURATE belief" then ????
~~
The Pope declared a few days ago that the same-sex marriages are bad for society etc. An online vote for what the italians think = agree or not, showed 70 % of them not agreeing with him. Article here (La Repubblica), vote here ("Do you agree with vatican = gay unions are bad for society" yes / no)
Ah yes, the Catholic Church telling those in power what they should and should not do. This is the same Catholic Church mind you who stayed silent during the Holocaust, and more recently, did very little to discipline priests who were sexually abusing children. If this is the kind of thing the Catholics are doing to make the world a better place, I'm glad I'm not Catholic. Isn't that one of the things religion is supposed to do? Help people become better people? Who is the Pope to say that a demonstration of love is immoral, even though homosexuals aren't hurting anyone, neither are they demanding very much (benefits should be given to all married couples, gay or straight). What kind of sick narrowminded people lead this religion. Why can't they just leave people alone, mind their own business, and deal with their own problems, of which they have plenty of. not to mention the divorce rate among heterosexual couples just keeps getting higher and higher. Rant over.
Originally posted by kraig911
what gives anyhow all this wasted thought when only supposedly 3-7% of the nation is gay. Its just sad that even tho they have such a small share, they are in such prominent positions, such as media, press, and the like.
Replace the word "gay" with "Jewish" and read that back to yourself. See how it sounds.
And by the way, there are plenty of gays in education, bus driving, catering, your family ... it's just that you notice them when you see them. Says a lot more about you then it does about gay people.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I think that in America, people have the right to live their lives. That being said, our government must stand for certain standards of social behavior. I have no problem at all with those who are gay, but I also don't think the government should sanction gay marriage by recognizing it. It opens up a whole host of other issues, including benefit payments, etc.
well, i disagree with the government making stands in the form of laws or amendments which criminalize or sanction social behaviors. imo, government should have no part of the social sector, unless to protect the discriminated, and perhaps for a few other limited reasons which i cant think of now. What happens when/if the tide changes, and suddenly most americans are not opposed to gay marriages or unions (or gaity in general)? Theres gonna be a period there where these people will be persecuted by law, despite acceptance in society. I dont think the government should enact laws/amendments which promote any set of morals. For me, thats going to close to the church-state line. Each individual should be free to live by his/her moral guideline; some will accept gays, some won't. When the totality of the populous can agree on a moral law, like the malicious killing of another person, then the law is reasonable.
Like it or not, the majority of the population here still considers homosexulaity to be immoral, according to polling data. My position is a bit more complicated. People have a right to be gay. Though it is against my religous beliefs in general, I also believe there are many gay people who are "born that way"....
What I have a problem with is the active promotion of the gay "lifestyle" (for lack of a better term). It's like some gays are literally recruiting! I remember several years ago I was watching a promo for an updated "Ugly Duckling" movie on HBO. Of course, the Ugly Duckling was actually the Gay Duckling. One of the voice over celebs (forget who) was being interviewed and going on and on about how there was no one telling kids "it's OK to be gay". She thought was a really important message kids should be hearing. This really struck me as misguided and wrong...especially since she was talking about kids...not adults. Essentially, it's as if some gays lives are all about being gay.
if i were gay, i would be personally offended by this. first, do you honestly question that some people are naturally inclined to like their own rather than the opposite sex? we are all different, often vastly, from each other and some people, are naturally attracted to their own sex (or to both). they aren't lying about it; i dont see any reason for them to. of course, there are probably some who changed their sexual preference after playing the field a bit, but that doesn't negate that some people are naturally gay.
also, i dont see gay people promoting it in some sinister manner, as you seem to. they aren't trying to convince people to become gay (well, some of they might be, but in general they dont seem to). what they are trying to do, i think, is tell people who are gay, but are hiding it, that it isn't something to be ashamed of. you, and many religious folks, have the right to disagree with that idea, but outlawing it is wrong and illegal, i think. outlawing it, based on religious ideas, would be promoting a religion.
gays have the right to be, and to not hate themselves or consider themselves sinners (in their gaity), and i dont think government should require otherwise.
If someone is gay, that's fine with me. I've known many gay people in my life. It's not a mainstream behavior though, and it shouldn't be promoted as such...which is exactly what's happening at times. The government sanctioning marriage would implicitly do so.
well, whether or not its mainstream and popular shouldn't be anyone's concern. its not like if gay people outnumbered heterosexuals that they'll take over and create a totalitarian state or something.
Originally posted by kraig911
what gives anyhow all this wasted thought when only supposedly 3-7% of the nation is gay.
So minorities deserve to face abject discrimination just because there aren't very many of them?
Its just sad that even tho they have such a small share, they are in such prominent positions, such as media, press, and the like.
Why is it sad that so many gay people do well for themselves? And could it possibly mean that there are more gay people than you might think?
I personally believe gay people don't need to marry, whats with them just living together. You can have ceremonies and everything what gives, does it take the states blessing to make them feel if what they are doing is alright?
It has nothing to do with right or wrong. Marriage entails over 400 special privileges in this country which straight people take for granted. Let's say you're married, and you get cancer, and you're dying a horribly painful death. Your wife or husband can be there, in your room, with you at the end, because you are family.
If I were in the same position, in many states, under the current laws, I would have to die alone, because the state would refuse to look upon my relationship as being one of "family." Is this right?
If you and your wife purchase a home together, and she dies, you inherit the home tax free. If I were to do that with my significant other, and he were to die, I could be charged estate taxes. I could lose my home. Is that right?
Marriage is about stability and security. That's why its important to make it available to all Americans, because anything that spreads stability to the various segments of our culture where it is legally lacking the more stable our national culture as a whole will become.
Whats going to be funny is once the government approves it, the taboo around homosexuality will be plain and boring, and there'll hardly be anymore gay people left. [/B]
This is downright insulting. I'm gay because it's who I am. I'm not gay because it's scandalous or because I like to cause controversy. I would kill (mainly conservatives) for homosexuality to be considered plain and normal and boring, because then my life would be just like yours and I would be an actual, fully-vested citizen in this country. As it is, I'm a second class citizen, and that's just not right.
Kirk