Fag jokes don't cut it, hatred won't cut it, and quite frankly, the traditional conservative tactic of "thinking around" this issue is senseless. This culture gave up on marraige, gave up on chastity, gave up on parenting, for sport fu<king, day care, and divorce. How in the hell can any of you tell Kirkland were to get off? (no pun intended)
You gave up your moral authority a long time ago.
I was wondering when President Bush was going to chime in with his thoughts...
I think political parties are outdated and counterproductive anyway, but the issue looks pretty clear to me. It seems inevitable that we accept that homosexuals exist naturally in human society, because they always have and nothing will change that. We have given them the right to have and raise their own biological or adopted children. If gays can have kids, they need the legal ability to support their children, to take them to the hospital, to give them insurance benefits, everything that straight parents can do for their kids. What you call it is irrelevant.
Either we give homosexual families the ability to fully function legally as families, or we stop allowing homosexual families. And if we think that children can only be raised properly in a traditional household with a male and a female parent, then should we not also outlaw single parenthood? Working mothers and stay-at-home dads? Women wearing pants? You get my point.
It looks like a pretty simple choice to me. Ultimately, either homosexuals will eventually acquire equal rights under the law, or homosexuality will be outlawed and an entire class of American citizens will go back into the closet and continue to live their lives, albeit in secret and without the protection of the law, whether we like it or not. No amount of legislation can change people's minds on either side of the issue. Social conventions and attitudes about homosexuality will change slowly over time, just as they have and still do with every other civil rights issue.
Hey, if you've made huge discoveries in genetics, then publish, publish, publish. Use PLoS.
But I'm not making any such grand claims, nor does does this tangent even matter in the larger discussion of gay marriage.
The simple fact is that it is innate, has existed far into the past and will likely exist as far into the future. It irrelevant in the current discussion whether it is genetic, especially considering we do not know one way or the other, regardless of what great discoveries in genetics you might claim to have made.
Don't feel compelled to carry anything over to this side of the temporary lock. Remember, if you can't trust yourself to remain civil, then just walk away. You're not going to change the world, let alone anyone else' beliefs or opinions here. Thanks. 8)
So then homosexuality is a disease? Or a genetic disorder? Something that I could treat with 12 steps at the Betty Ford Center or Promises and then go on to date J-Lo?
I'm not quite sure if you aren't seeing the parallel here, or if you are. Or which is worse....
No, it's not a disease. I wasn't making any claim as to what homosexuality is. All I was doing was drawing an illustration about how it's entirely possible to dislike one particular aspect of someone but still like them overall. That's it. I was not saying that homosexuality is in any way similar to alcoholism or drunk driving.
So you choose to hate gays. Right back at you, bigot.
And go ahead, tell me, how precisely does my relationship with my boyfriend hurt me? Or him? Or the people around us?
Come on. Don't hold back. You know you want to do it. Go ahead and say it.
Kirk
No, I specifically said that I thought it was wrong to hate someone just because of what they are. To clarify, that means it's wrong to hate gays simply because they're gay.
I don't have any examples of how your relationship with your boyfriend hurts anyone. I never said it did, and I think it's more likely that it doesn't. All I said was that I wasn't entirely convinced that it doesn't hurt anything (the reason being that I haven't giving it enough thought to completely make up my mind yet).
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet (Rom 1:24-27).
Kirkland, was Paul kidding around when wrote that? All things are "legal" but all things are not efficacious. Effacing the image of God in yourself is not a good thing.
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet (Rom 1:24-27).
Kirkland, was Paul kidding around when wrote that? All things are "legal" but all things are not efficacious. Effacing the image of God in yourself is not a good thing.
Freaky religious mumbo-jumbo doesn't belong in law. Everyone in the US has to agree to that.
Paul wrote his own opinions, and he was wrong, dead wrong, about many things, gender issues and sexuality included.
And in any case, what he was writing about was not homosexuality as we know it today, but the sort of pagan pan-sexual rituals that were common amongst the Mystery Religions that many of his Greek-speaking gentile audience were attracted to. Many mystery temples also had both male and female temple prostitutes, which is specifically what Paul speaks of in many cases.
And so, though I know many gay priests, I certainly wouldn't pay them to have sex with me in a church, so I'd consider myself pretty safe, by any logical reading of Paul's writings.
Paul was also self-loathing, and seemed to fear that he couldn't control his "members," and that he couldn't stop desires he didn't want to have from surfacing. Does the term self-loathing homosexual mean anything to you?
You have to filter out his personal biases and ignorance of how the world really works before you can even begin to approach anything meaningful in Scripture.
You can't separate Paul from his background. Paul was a product of The Law, which is even less ambivalent about homosexual relations. Homosexual acts are grouped in with bestiality, etc., and carried the death penalty. Paul had to have known the seriousness of what he was talking about.
As for self-loathing, that is just part of the curse. As for reading into the Bible whatever you think is reasonable, you aren't being internally consistant with the principles of a revelation-based God. Drifting off into some wierd Barthian rework of some pretty plain-speaking passages sounds forced.
Comments
Originally posted by Ganondorf
Boo-hoo, mommy wont buy me toy. Everybody hates me.
You can have the marriage toy when you're ready to marry a woman. Now go to your room.
Someone should take away your toys. Quickly.
Originally posted by dmz
Fag jokes don't cut it, hatred won't cut it, and quite frankly, the traditional conservative tactic of "thinking around" this issue is senseless. This culture gave up on marraige, gave up on chastity, gave up on parenting, for sport fu<king, day care, and divorce. How in the hell can any of you tell Kirkland were to get off? (no pun intended)
You gave up your moral authority a long time ago.
I was wondering when President Bush was going to chime in with his thoughts...
He is a Mac user, you know.
Kirk
Originally posted by tmp
how do you manage to post from Birmingham in 1954?
Flying DeLorean.
Originally posted by Influenza
I think political parties are outdated and counterproductive anyway, but the issue looks pretty clear to me. It seems inevitable that we accept that homosexuals exist naturally in human society, because they always have and nothing will change that. We have given them the right to have and raise their own biological or adopted children. If gays can have kids, they need the legal ability to support their children, to take them to the hospital, to give them insurance benefits, everything that straight parents can do for their kids. What you call it is irrelevant.
Either we give homosexual families the ability to fully function legally as families, or we stop allowing homosexual families. And if we think that children can only be raised properly in a traditional household with a male and a female parent, then should we not also outlaw single parenthood? Working mothers and stay-at-home dads? Women wearing pants? You get my point.
It looks like a pretty simple choice to me. Ultimately, either homosexuals will eventually acquire equal rights under the law, or homosexuality will be outlawed and an entire class of American citizens will go back into the closet and continue to live their lives, albeit in secret and without the protection of the law, whether we like it or not. No amount of legislation can change people's minds on either side of the issue. Social conventions and attitudes about homosexuality will change slowly over time, just as they have and still do with every other civil rights issue.
Word. And well said.
Originally posted by johnq
Pretend it probably isn't genetic at your peril.
Hey, if you've made huge discoveries in genetics, then publish, publish, publish. Use PLoS.
But I'm not making any such grand claims, nor does does this tangent even matter in the larger discussion of gay marriage.
The simple fact is that it is innate, has existed far into the past and will likely exist as far into the future. It irrelevant in the current discussion whether it is genetic, especially considering we do not know one way or the other, regardless of what great discoveries in genetics you might claim to have made.
Originally posted by Kirkland
I was wondering when President Bush was going to chime in with his thoughts...
He is a Mac user, you know.
Kirk
I must admit that I am, how can I put this delicately, for bush.
Don't feel compelled to carry anything over to this side of the temporary lock. Remember, if you can't trust yourself to remain civil, then just walk away. You're not going to change the world, let alone anyone else' beliefs or opinions here. Thanks. 8)
It's too simple. I think there's more to it.
The other is probably two parts residual self-loathing caused by an unfortunate childhood in a right-wing Jesus cult and one part Uncle Tom syndrome.
Kirk
Originally posted by tmp
So then homosexuality is a disease? Or a genetic disorder? Something that I could treat with 12 steps at the Betty Ford Center or Promises and then go on to date J-Lo?
I'm not quite sure if you aren't seeing the parallel here, or if you are. Or which is worse....
No, it's not a disease. I wasn't making any claim as to what homosexuality is. All I was doing was drawing an illustration about how it's entirely possible to dislike one particular aspect of someone but still like them overall. That's it. I was not saying that homosexuality is in any way similar to alcoholism or drunk driving.
Originally posted by Kirkland
.
Does this board have an ignore feature?
No, but it does have an ignorant feature that most posters seem accustomed to using.
It so matches the ad-hominem decor. ( That's matching carpet and drapes to you ).
Aqua
Originally posted by Kirkland
So you choose to hate gays. Right back at you, bigot.
And go ahead, tell me, how precisely does my relationship with my boyfriend hurt me? Or him? Or the people around us?
Come on. Don't hold back. You know you want to do it. Go ahead and say it.
Kirk
No, I specifically said that I thought it was wrong to hate someone just because of what they are. To clarify, that means it's wrong to hate gays simply because they're gay.
I don't have any examples of how your relationship with your boyfriend hurts anyone. I never said it did, and I think it's more likely that it doesn't. All I said was that I wasn't entirely convinced that it doesn't hurt anything (the reason being that I haven't giving it enough thought to completely make up my mind yet).
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
How could it possibly hurt anything?
Kirk
You're hurting yourself, for starters:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet (Rom 1:24-27).
Kirkland, was Paul kidding around when wrote that? All things are "legal" but all things are not efficacious. Effacing the image of God in yourself is not a good thing.
Originally posted by dmz
You're hurting yourself, for starters:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet (Rom 1:24-27).
Kirkland, was Paul kidding around when wrote that? All things are "legal" but all things are not efficacious. Effacing the image of God in yourself is not a good thing.
Freaky religious mumbo-jumbo doesn't belong in law. Everyone in the US has to agree to that.
And in any case, what he was writing about was not homosexuality as we know it today, but the sort of pagan pan-sexual rituals that were common amongst the Mystery Religions that many of his Greek-speaking gentile audience were attracted to. Many mystery temples also had both male and female temple prostitutes, which is specifically what Paul speaks of in many cases.
And so, though I know many gay priests, I certainly wouldn't pay them to have sex with me in a church, so I'd consider myself pretty safe, by any logical reading of Paul's writings.
Paul was also self-loathing, and seemed to fear that he couldn't control his "members," and that he couldn't stop desires he didn't want to have from surfacing. Does the term self-loathing homosexual mean anything to you?
You have to filter out his personal biases and ignorance of how the world really works before you can even begin to approach anything meaningful in Scripture.
Kirk
You can't separate Paul from his background. Paul was a product of The Law, which is even less ambivalent about homosexual relations. Homosexual acts are grouped in with bestiality, etc., and carried the death penalty. Paul had to have known the seriousness of what he was talking about.
As for self-loathing, that is just part of the curse. As for reading into the Bible whatever you think is reasonable, you aren't being internally consistant with the principles of a revelation-based God. Drifting off into some wierd Barthian rework of some pretty plain-speaking passages sounds forced.
It's 2004 not 36.
Damn I wish I could start an atheist colony on Mars for me to join.
Actually I'm not anti-god so much as anti-people-blinded-by-their-religions.