Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2008 - 02:49pm PT
|
"We have homosexuals in Idaho, too, and they seem to get along fine without parades, gay festivals and special holidays."
If'n I were gay and lived in the inter-mountain west and thought I might be tied to fence and beaten to death, I suppose I too might keep my homo-ness on the down low.
|
|
rockermike
Mountain climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2008 - 03:06pm PT
|
Hey Crusher; "shut up" (to borrow your phrase), and lay off Jennie.
There is room here for various opinions and they are all welcome.
The question to me is does the collective society have ANY rights or responsibilities to "form" and manage social standards. For 10,000 plus years human society (which has also been religious society) has almost universally condemned homosexuality, as do almost all traditional religions. Now, in the last 20 years or so, at least in Calif, that norm has largely been reversed. Its now seen, at least amongst the young and hip, that accepting or defending the older moral standards (that is the rejection of homosexuality) IS ITSELF a sin. If I say "homosexuality is unnatural and against the laws of God" most young people consider ME the transgressor. "Equal rights" is their rhetoric". Talk about the tail wagging the dog. The PC cops tell people openly to "shut up" if they don't support the new mind set.
But if moral standards really are merely relative to contemporary trends then what is the moral standard, the base line, that we can all agree to. Child marriage, polygamy, animal sex, public sex, drug use, nudity, "man-loves-boy" clubs meeting in the public library?? Do they get "equal rights"? All these are still forbidden and few would defend them, but with an organized PR campaign perhaps they will all become legitimate and popularly accepted. Does that make it right? I actually don't know where I come down on the subject but I do believe that the social fabric holding this (once fine) nation can be torn. In that you can call me a conservative. Not as in "neo-con", but as in respecting the values of our forefathers, and not being comfortable with shaking things up too much just for the cheap thrill of change.
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2008 - 03:07pm PT
|
I'll repeat what I said on a previous post: the court decision jumped the gun and might well turn out to have been a very big mistake. A Gay group has also made that point. California is a liberal state when and only when the central parts of the state are apathetic about issues. When the vote quantity is high due to an issue that generates a lot of emotion, the state goes center right.
If the court had stayed out of this, I feel certain, California would have gone for Gay marriage. The court has shoved this issue forward in a way that now could take the issue down to defeat as well as significantly help McCain in November. Makes one wonder about the court doesn't it; I'm a real cynic.
|
|
rockermike
Mountain climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2008 - 03:14pm PT
|
I'm with Woody on that. Same sex marriage is the third rail of politics. Nobody wants to touch it. At least not the liberals if they want to win. Too much backlash potential and little vote gain.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 20, 2008 - 03:16pm PT
|
" If I say "homosexuality is unnatural and against the laws of God" most young people consider ME the transgressor"
Our laws are secular.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2008 - 03:32pm PT
|
Courts are like guns, they can't stay out of things unless nobody pulls the trigger. It may be that gay rights groups moved too soon on this, but the courts simply decide the cases brought before them.
We've had a couple of cases in front of the gay marriage trial court judge, the one whose opinion was affirmed by the Cal Supe. Ct. He has a corporate/banking law background, is smart and methodical and is certainly no "activist."
|
|
JuanDeFuca
Big Wall climber
Stoney Point
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2008 - 03:37pm PT
|
Call it what you want but in my book a union between two men or two women is not a Marriage.
Juan
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2008 - 04:20am PT
|
Rockermike wrote: Hey Crusher; "shut up" (to borrow your phrase), and lay off Jennie.
There is room here for various opinions and they are all welcome.
What about hatred? Bigotry? Are those welcome, 'cause jennie's post was clearly filled with both.
Rockermike wrote:The question to me is does the collective society have ANY rights or responsibilities to "form" and manage social standards. For 10,000 plus years human society (which has also been religious society) has almost universally condemned homosexuality,
The ancient Greeks considered homosexuality to be perfectly normal.
Rockermike wrote:as do almost all traditional religions.
Now, I've read the Torah (Old Testament) a couple of times, many passages in the original Hebrew, and with the exception of the "spilling seed" passage, I can't remember it stating anywhere that homosexuality is wrong and to be condemned.
While a good portion of the values, laws and morals in the US certainly have judeo-christian origins, the ancient Greek and Roman philosophies, laws and governments are right up there in influence. Not that it matters, the US was founded on the separation of religion and state.
Rockermike wrote:Now, in the last 20 years or so, at least in Calif, that norm has largely been reversed.
Discrimination based on race was a norm reversed not so long ago. Women not having the right to vote was the norm for a long time.
See where I'm going with this?
Rockermike wrote:Its now seen, at least amongst the young and hip, that accepting or defending the older moral standards (that is the rejection of homosexuality) IS ITSELF a sin.
Care to site any examples?
My grandparents taught my parents to be tolerant of others, regardless of differences, my parents taught me the same. That's just about 100 years of moral standards.
Rockermike wrote:If I say "homosexuality is unnatural and against the laws of God" most young people consider ME the transgressor.
See comment about separation of religion and state.
Rockermike wrote:"Equal rights" is their rhetoric". Talk about the tail wagging the dog. The PC cops tell people openly to "shut up" if they don't support the new mind set.
First, you're exaggerating, second, that's Sunday school compared to what happens if you're gay, people know about it and you live in Wyoming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard
Rockermike wrote:But if moral standards really are merely relative to contemporary trends then what is the moral standard, the base line, that we can all agree to. Child marriage, polygamy, animal sex, public sex, drug use, nudity, "man-loves-boy" clubs meeting in the public library??
Lovely, once again those who would discriminate against anyone homosexual slyly slip the animal sex and child molestation issues into the discussion. One has nothing to do with the other. Most child molesters are heterosexual (and many of the more recent highly publicized cases were with Catholic priests).
By the way, underage marriage (at least a man marrying a woman younger than 18) has been around a lot longer during those 10,000 years you mentioned than having to be 18 to marry. As a matter of fact :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age#Americas
Many states allow underage marriages as long as there is parental consent.
Rockermike wrote:In that you can call me a conservative. Not as in "neo-con", but as in respecting the values of our forefathers,
If you really plunged into history, I'd think you'd be quite surprised (and not in a good way) about what our forefathers valued. Those same forefathers had slaves (and no qualms about it) and the brilliant Thomas Jefferson had plenty of illegitimate children.
Rockermike wrote:and not being comfortable with shaking things up too much just for the cheap thrill of change.
Cheap thrill? Really, that's what you think equal rights under the law is all about? Tolerance of those different from you is a cheap thrill?
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2008 - 04:44am PT
|
"Cheap thrill? Really, that's what you think equal rights under the law is all about? Tolerance of those different from you is a cheap thrill?"
waah waaah waambulance? Its the internet duder. Its all a cheap thrill.
So I found out recently I can marry my first cousin in California. Score! Too bad Brian is taken : /
(and in 24 other states, to boot!)
Why is this not an issue, I ask curiously. Anyway... if my cousin were Anne Hathaway I might just take California up on that offer (or CO, NM, TX, NY, TN, FL... etc)
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2008 - 09:20am PT
|
But the restroom enthusiasts run the state don't they?
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2008 - 10:00am PT
|
Jody,
What "lifestyle" would you be referring to?
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2008 - 10:38am PT
|
There will always be those who choose not to take a wide stance on this issue.
|
|
james Colborn
Trad climber
Truckee, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2008 - 10:52am PT
|
Jody, I think Nita's point is that Christian infers that you live your life by the example of Christs life. The guy hung with societies low lifes. Hookers, thieves, deviates, hell nearly all the Apostles were a bunch of losers. Acceptance and understanding was his MO. Most right wing christians spout hatred, thats the hypocrisy.
|
|
Tahoe climber
Trad climber
a dark-green forester out west
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2008 - 11:52am PT
|
Agreed.
Including Jody.
Hatred is not = righteousness.
TC
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2008 - 01:24pm PT
|
Please cite bibilical passages that address homosexuality.
|
|
rockermike
Mountain climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2008 - 05:04pm PT
|
Degaine, in partial response;
I carefully said "almost" all religions. Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Chinese Toa, all condemn homosexuality. Of course we don't have to follow their examples but its interesting to note the fact.
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 wasn't equating homosexuality with pedophilia; 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. Hell, we have millions of people in jail for using drugs or for driving away in cars that society has deemed "private property". 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. Yea, the conservatives always use the example of animal sex (do you support equal rights?) but the liberals always point to racial discrimination as if that is the only valid analogy. Neither fits perfectly.
By the way, it is said that Marry, the mother of Jesus, was only 12 years old when she gave birth. I'm not arguing for or against any particular age for marriage, I'm only pointing out that society makes those decisions - fairly or not.
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.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2008 - 05:18pm PT
|
Threads like this can usually use a report of this classic. Funny how we selectively use what we want out of scripture...
Of course, we could just go back to the Holy Marriage of the Old testament, where you could have as many wives as you wanted and screw some concubines and slaves too. (Soloman had 700 wives plus concubines and Abraham had a kid with his slave before he sent them both packing when his old actual wife finally conceived)
Morality, same as it ever was, but different.
""The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362
admonishments to heterosexuals.
That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that
they need more supervision."
Dr. Laura Schlesinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice
to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as
an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according
to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The
following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident,
which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as
informative.........
Dear Dr. Laura
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other
specific laws and how to follow them.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can
you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don.t agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room
here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn.t we just burn them to
death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident
you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,
Jack"
From all over the net
Peace
Karl
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2008 - 06:46pm PT
|
It's funny when people quote bible verses to back up their hatred.
They focus on a handful of sentences, and then completely ignore, or contradict the rest of the book.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2008 - 06:46pm PT
|
Perhaps if it had been three wise womyn, they would have:
1. Made reservations, so no one had to stay in the stable.
2. Reported Joseph for child abuse.
3. Given the child up for adoption, as he was a male.
Assuming that three wise womyn could have been found, that is.
|
|
rockermike
Mountain climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2008 - 08:05pm PT
|
If the serpent had had a photo ID we might not be in all this trouble.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!