Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2008 - 08:17pm PT
|
Thanks for spelling it out Jody.
You see, our opinions and beliefs translate into legal situations for others. That's what this argument is about. It's not about condemning Jody, It's about let and let live in the eyes of the state for both Jody and Gay folks.
Peace
Karl
|
|
nita
climber
chica from chico, I don't claim to be a daisy
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2008 - 08:22pm PT
|
Well, that specific answer does not apply to gay woman.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2008 - 09:27pm PT
|
This thread has reached the Jodisian point.
Here is the joke Jody... You basically said we didn't need to let them get married because they had the protections of civil unions. I pointed out that they did not get all of the same benefits as a heterosexual couple, to which you replied.
"they do not get all of them."
Well, they could just marry the opposite sex like most people and then they would get All the benefits."'
That is a joke. Not a particularly bad one, but could indicate that you don't really want to give them equal rights as Lois believes.
So which is it, do you believe they should have equal rights?
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Idaho Falls
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2008 - 09:27pm PT
|
”All of the "negative" things about homosexuality come from the Bible. Basically, a few thousand years ago some guy hated fags. He wrote it down, claiming it was the word of god, and today people STILL can't see it for what it is!
Talk about closed minded!?!?!?”
This is untrue. All major religious traditions of the world, condemned and still condemn homosexuality.
”But I would like Jennie to answer the question. I know she can't, but I find a great deal of humor in the fact that she is referring to other people as "closed minded".
I’m happy you’re finding humor in something, Andy. But I haven’t referred to anyone here, as “closed minded”. Perhaps your monitor is malfunctioning, this evening.
If I was of the opinion YOUR mind was closed, I wouldn’t be addressing you. Same goes for the other forum members who have diverging opinions. And if MY mind was closed, I wouldn’t take the time to read those opinions.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Idaho Falls
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2008 - 11:13pm PT
|
Lois, I respect your opinions and your medical knowledge greatly. But no homophilic genes, or series of genes have been discovered. Many in the medical profession share your opinion, but nothing concrete supports that view.
Many psychologists believe humans are born with both male and female sexual drives and through upbringing and socialization (and perhaps choice) one sexual polarity is accentuated and the other is attenuated. That is theory, also.
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2008 - 11:22pm PT
|
I find it interesting how quickly Jody's data was blown off as though it didn't exist.
If the data disturbs you, refute it with counter data; but don't run away from it.
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2008 - 11:56pm PT
|
I think ignoring Jody's data is just payback,
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2008 - 12:05am PT
|
masculine natures!
There's only one of me. But thanks for noting my masculinity. The girls at the yoga studio will appreciate knowing...
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2008 - 02:52am PT
|
Jody's data is beside the point. Are we going to give out social security on a sliding scale with lessened benefits for smokers, fat people or horney people?
There are tons of groups in this country that can be statistically categorized as having a greater share of certain problems. It might take more study to see if they were genetically prone to those problems or if some result from discrimination and feeling dissed by society around them.
We could find that African Americans have less money, a higher incarceration rate and more sickle cell anemia than whites but we don't use that data to isolate their legal status.
Peace
Karl
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2008 - 03:45am PT
|
My statement.
""He is mistreating homosexuals by not allowing them the same rights as heterosexuals."
Jody's response...
Welcome to Moosie's world, where simply voicing an opinion is the same as mistreating someone. I am not allowing them the same rights you say? I didn't know I was that powerful.
John, stop while you are behind. You aren't sounding too intelligent right now."
...............
Then I asked you if you would allow homosexual couples to have the same rights as heterosexual couples. This was your answer
"John, no, not as "couples"...as individuals, yes."
...............
So now you admit that I am correct, you would not allow homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. Your vote counts Jody. The same as it counted when you voted for George Bush twice. You have a responsibility for your actions. George Bush is against homosexuals having equal rights. So is John McCain. You voted for them and this is how you deny homosexuals equal rights.
Many years ago in the South people thought they treated Blacks kindly, yet they denied them equal rights. Equal rights are what the homosexuals are asking for.
Nothing extra, just equal.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Idaho Falls
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2008 - 05:31am PT
|
John Moosie posted:” You voted for them and this is how you deny homosexuals equal rights.”
“Many years ago in the South people thought they treated Blacks kindly, yet they denied them equal rights. Equal rights are what the homosexuals are asking for.”
“Nothing extra, just equal.”
Rights must have a source. They don’t pop into existence out of nothing. Rights don’t flow from mountain springs or wash up on the seashore. We inherit no rights from the Earth. Rights must have a source and authority that declares and logically supports their CORRECTNESS.
Where else can rights come from but the STATE or a transcendent source (GOD)?
Barring a direct revelation from God, we have no source of Deity from which to attribute gay marriage rights, since all major religions condemn homosexual marriage.
If the right of homosexual marriage must come from the STATE, it follows that those who make laws and declare rights must be convinced of their CORRECTNESS. In a democratic state, the people are the authority from which laws are enacted and rights declared.
Being free will creatures, homosexuals can make covenants with each other. In the United States, rights of free speech and assembly would suggest they have rights to conduct insular marriage ceremonies in the presence of others willing to attend. But the state is not obliged or in authority to RECOGNIZE homosexual marriage unless that authority is given to it by voters in the democratic process.
…….And that must depend on whether the voting public believes state recognized marriage of homosexuals gives credibility to a questionable lifestyle or a lifestyle they deem incorrect. And contrary to some opinions, there is really nothing in the U.S. Constitution from which the authority to recognize marriage rights of homosexuals can be inferred.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 23, 2008 - 08:26am PT
|
"And contrary to some opinions, there is really nothing in the U.S. Constitution from which the authority to recognize marriage rights of homosexuals can be inferred. "
The decision in CA is based on the state Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution.
And actually we have a republic, not a democracy.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2008 - 08:37am PT
|
Jennie wrote :
And contrary to some opinions, there is really nothing in the U.S. Constitution from which the authority to recognize marriage rights of homosexuals can be inferred.
Could you please clarify for me where in the U.S. Constitution we can infer authority to recognize the marriage rights of heterosexuals?
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2008 - 08:37am PT
|
Jody wrote : Degaine, I edited my post to say "homosexual" instead of "gay", does that help?
Sorry, Jody; I should have been clearer with my question. I was actually referring to the word lifestyle.
What is this “homosexual lifestyle” (or gay if you prefer) to which you refer?
Jennie also mentioned in a post this “homosexual lifestyle” that I don’t understand:
Because one criticizes the homosexual lifestyle, does that equate with "hate"?
Do both of you feel that there is a “heterosexual lifestyle”?
The thing is, in terms of lifestyle, the only thing I have in common with a lot of heterosexuals - let’s take Mike Tyson or say Ms Spears as examples - is the heterosexual sex as in when I have sexual relations with my significant other (wife). Given the two examples I even wonder if the heterosexual sex I’m having even resembles what goes on in their bedrooms.
On the other hand, I’ve met a few climbers who are homosexual, and aside from the difference in sexual orientation, our “lifestyles” – that’s to say climbing, travelling, interests, etc. were very, very similar.
So what exactly do you mean by lifestyle? Do we deny people rights in the US based upon their lifestyle?
Jody wrote :
When are you people (and another, et al) going to get it through your thick skulls full of mush that I don't HATE the homosexuals?! I just don't approve of their behavior. Go ahead and another, show me any verse in the Bible that condones homosexuality(or any sexual immorality). Love the person, not the sin...this is the last time I am going to explain myself on this issue.
For what it’s worth I understand that you don’t hate homosexuals, etc., etc.
I also have no doubt based upon your posts here, that you’re a nice, caring person on an individual to individual level. I’m sure you’re a good father, etc.
That said,
I also have met plenty of Vietnam Vets who have best friends from their former units who are African American, a lifelong bond type of friendship, yet they are extremely racist. They are capable of looking beyond their prejudices and bigotry to see the individual before them.
But they’re still bigots.
It’s also pretty unbelievable that you still consider AIDS to be a homosexual disease when it’s been clearly documented that (a) the primary mode of infection is intercourse between members of the opposite sex, and (b) the incidence rate of contracting HIV is higher in penile/vaginal intercourse than in anal intercourse (and the anal intercourse incidence rates take into consideration both male/female and male/male intercourse).
Jody wrote :
If I condoned legal homosexual "marriage", would I not be condoning the act itself?
No, you would not be condoning the act.
You are still confusing equal rights under the law with condoning, just as others are confusing hatred and the fact that you do not condone homosexuality..
I know plenty of Jewish people who don’t condone the idea of eating pork (or mixing milk and meat, etc.) yet have no problem with it being legal. Ditto for their kids or other Jewish people marrying someone who is not Jewish: they don’t condone it but they don’t think it should be illegal either.
I don’t think people should smoke (I don’t condone the behavior) but also think that they should have the legal right to do so as long as my health isn’t affected.
See where this is going?
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2008 - 08:39am PT
|
rockermike wrote : Our laws may theoretically be "Secular", but presumably there is some "moral" grounds that they are based on, and I would argue that those moral fundamentals are the children of religion. The whole concept of marriage and fidelity to sexual partners, and lifelong commitment comes from religious tradition.
I’m pretty sure I addressed this in my other post, but I’ll address it again.
First, I stated that there are definitely judeo-christian foundations to US law, but it’s certainly not limited to that: as I mentioned before, the Greeks and Romans had a significant influence. Add 232 years of history in the country since the Declaration of Independence – waves of immigrants, wars, etc., etc. – and the culture and laws have certainly evolved.
To take your example of the concept of fidelity to sexual partners, while infidelity is for the most part a cultural no-no, it certainly is not illegal to cheat on one’s girlfriend / boyfriend, to have multiple partners, etc., etc.
Second, do I really need to bring up the whole “separation of church and state” concept again?
Why not get the state out of the marriage business altogether?
rockermike wrote : I wasn't equating homosexuality with pedophilia;
Glad we cleared that up. So what was your point?
Oh, here it is:
rockermike wrote : by way of analogy I was trying to point out the weakness of the argument "equal rights", that's just a rhetorical device to win the argument, but no one actually supports equal rights for everyone.
It’s pretty obvious that you, Jody, and Jennie do not support equal rights for everyone.
rockermike wrote : Hell, we have millions of people in jail for using drugs or for driving away in cars that society has deemed "private property".
So now, instead of comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, you’ve decided to use crime as an analogy.
I’ll make it simple for you, a highly regarded Constitutional Law scholar once explained it to me in very basic terms that our rights extend as far as our neighbor’s nose. That’s to say that we pretty much have the right to do what we want as long as it does not have impede on the rights of our neighbors.
Stealing, drug related crimes, etc., very much affects others. I fail to see where to people of the same sex getting married has any affect on the lives of others, or at least anything different than a heterosexual marriage.
rockermike wrote : As with my other examples - society sets standards. The phrase "equal rights" sounds good but only blurs the issue I was trying to make, that ultimately "society" makes decisions about what goes and what doesn't, and that society has the right and the responsibility to make such standards.
I agree, society sets the standards. At the same time, as Karl pointed out(I believe it was Karl), the US Constitution affords protection from the potential dictatorship of the majority. He better expressed this point, so I'll leave it at that.
I don’t agree that “equal rights” blurs the issue. Perhaps I should rephrase and write “equal opportunity under the law” or “equal rights under the law”. Don’t know if that makes a difference for you.
rockermike wrote : Try to run a business and not hire homosexuals and see how long it takes before you are sued in a court of law for discrimination.
So you only hire someone whose sexual orientation is homosexual simply to avoid being sued in court?
You see, that’s where you and I differ, I don’t give a rat’s ass about the sexual orientation of a person applying for a position at my company, don’t care about their sex, age, family status, race (I could continue the list, but you get the point). I look at the experience, the qualifications to perform the job, and whether or not based on the interaction the person is someone with whom I’ll be able to work for 8-10 hours a day.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2008 - 10:57am PT
|
"There is only one state in the country that still bans interracial marriage and, if the polls are right, a majority of Alabama voters will vote next year to repeal that statute.
But about a third of them are expected to vote against repeal, just as a third of South Carolinians voted unsuccessfully last year to keep their state's ban. Both states mirror the nation as a whole: Polls show that between a quarter and a third of us oppose the marriage of whites to blacks.
It is telling that most Alabamians opposed to interracial marriage identify themselves as evangelical Christians, according to a poll by the Alabama Educational Association. They say they believe that such relationships contravene the word of God....Any prohibitions - religious or otherwise - against interracial relationships would seem moot in 1999, 32 years after the US Supreme Court's landmark decision known as Loving v. Virginia. In the middle of the night on July 11, 1958, Richard Loving, who is white, and his African-American wife, Mildred, were rousted from their bed and arrested in Caroline County, Va.
Soon afterward a Virginia judge ruled their marriage illegal and added, ''Almighty God created the races ... and the fact that He separated the races showed that He did not intend for the races to mix.'' The Supreme Court ruled otherwise.
But today, three decades later, a sizable percentage of Americans continue to be skeptical about mixed marriages. A Washington Post poll conducted last summer revealed that 1 in 4 Americans still found marriages between blacks and whites ''unacceptable....''
thats from 1999!
http://members.aol.com/ebonylvory/dividingus.html
Society ultimate does decide and it's clear which direction society in inexorably moving toward. Gay Marriage is going to be legal sooner or later.
The whole thing is sad for religion because Christians are once again being known for being judgmental and negative rather than for loving and attractive aspects of their faith that could make them a stronger force.
It has little to do with religion and more about conservative values that fear those who are different than themselves. After all, the marriage of Bible times was almost universally arranged by the family, often to an under-age bride and the wealthy often had numerous wives. We're not hearing about rushing to return to Bible marriage are we?
PEace
Karl
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2008 - 11:11am PT
|
Skip
I'm hoping that if Jefferson were alive today, he's support gay marriage. After all, he didn't have a problem having sex with his black slave and having a baby with her, despite the fact that mixed-race marriage was illegal at the time
Peace
Karl
|
|
Dick_Lugar
Trad climber
Indiana (the other Mideast)
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2008 - 11:20am PT
|
God loves everybody...and God does not judge, we sad, pathetic humans do!
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2008 - 01:00pm PT
|
Thank You Degaine and karl for your thoughtful posts.
Karl wrote,
"The whole thing is sad for religion because Christians are once again being known for being judgmental and negative rather than for loving and attractive aspects of their faith that could make them a stronger force."
This is the reason I do not want to make marriage between two people of the same sex illegal or deny them any of the privileges that heterosexual couples have even though I understand the background forces in why God says homosexuality is a perversion and I accept this as Truth. Ultimately I believe we shouldn't engage in homosexuality, but I wouldn't deny them the same privileges as heterosexual because of what comes out of Stizzo's post.
"Once again, it's between those who take their direction from "God" and those who take their direction from good sense..."
And Dingus' post,
"I'm not moved by Jefferson's god. Not one whit."
Christians today seem to think that by making things legal or illegal we can demonstrate our Love for God. Yet when you examine Jesus' teachings you see that during his lifeftime the people who were considered to be the most righteous people where the leaders of the church. They had set down so many rules of behavior that the average person just couldn't live up to them. The people, being blind, thought this was how one became more God like and thus more righteous and so they elevated the leaders of the church giving them power. Power is what the leaders really wanted, The rules weren't really about helping people know God, Love accomplishes that, forgiveness accomplishes that, not rules. Once a person finds they want to know God better, then one can show them the things that block them from deeply knowing God.
What did Jesus say and do in regards to these rules? He healed the sick on the Sabbath even though the church leaders said the sabbath was holy and to keep it holy we must rest as God did. Healing was considered to be work, so it was outlawed. Jesus broke these rules in an effort to show people that rules are not what gets you to heaven, rules do not make you God-like nor does the following of rules make you more like God .
Jesus went on to say.
"unless your righteousness exceeds even that of the scribes and the Pharisees, then you shall in no way enter the kingdom of heaven."
Say what??? How could the average person exceed the righteousness of the leaders of the church, the people who are chosen to be leaders because they follow the law better then anyone else and are therefor more god like?
This is where you have to start learning what it truly means to be righteous. It isn't about how many laws you follow and how correctly you follow them. It is about how much you can Love. Love God first, Love yourself, and Love others as yourself.
This is the beginning of spirituality and the beginning of Truth.
So even though I think homosexuality is wrong, I do not support outlawing it nor do I support denying them the privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy because people need the chance to see and experience a loving God and the only way they can is through "We the People". If we show them a judgmental God, then that is all they will know.
Don't legalize spirituality, Jesus was against that.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone....
You are casting a stone when you deny people equal treatment under the law.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2008 - 03:02pm PT
|
I believe the relevant half of that phrase is: "...the Laws of Nature... "
Homosexuality expresses itself throughout nature and has been observed in most mammalian species. It is, by it's very existence, a "law of nature". If anything, humans who attempt to deny homosexuality and depict it as 'unnatural' are the ones who are perverting reality and simply fooling themselves. For that matter, heterosexuals are the real problem in this case; marriage between a man and a woman is the true source of the problem. I mean, if those damned 'natural' heterosexuals would simply quit having all these homosexual children then the problem would simply go away.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!