Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The only thing that racism and homophobia have in common is that they're both forms of resentment. People who hate gays don't do so for the same reason that other people hate Black people.
It used to be the same. Most "good Christian" white people hated african americans becasuse they were "black with sin." it was a "MORAL" issue.
I never said that reasons today are the same for discrimination agaisnt gays and homosexuals were the same. Luckily, some of us (with mentalities like my own) were around to give rights to the "evil and amoral" minorites. People who use the "moral" "argument" that being gay is a "sin" are using the same argument used in the last century to fight interacial marraiges and desegregation.
Today, peoples "arguments" for homosexuality might be different for those of racists, but they are both blatant bigotry.
Originally posted by Nellinator
No. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman under God. However, I would settle for allowing civil unions.
No, that is not correct. Marriage is a legal arrangement by the STATE. Many couples also get the blessing of their clergy, but it is not required under any circumstance to be married. A marriage not filed with the state is not recognized.
A "civil union" would allow homosexuals to recieve the same rights, but it would just be segregation. Seperate but "equal." We've seen how well that worked out. However, civil unions are a step in the right direction and its a hell of a lot better than the blantant discrimination prevelant now.
Originally posted by Nellinator
I believe that homosexuality is a choice. All credible evidence I have seen has supported this view. That said, I do believe that the decision is strongly affected by environment and even by genetics. I believe that afeminate behavior is partially genetic and can make one more likely to become homosexual. However, homosexuality is not determined at birth. Also, I have seen and know people who have overcome homosexuality through prayer and self-discipline. Homosexuality is not irreversible, however, one needs to want to change to change.
This is crock. Most of the evidence supports a strong genetic link (which you mentioned 😖). Not all of the evidence does, but the majority. I will pass you some studies if you desire, because apparently you haven't been reading peer-reviewed scientific journals. If homosexuality is mostly or strongly genetic (which most evidence supports), its not a choice, is a part of who you are.
No one "overcomes" homosexualitry. They can stop homosexual behavior, but they never are able to change themselves. People who put up this ruse are the Jim McGreevys of the world that cheat on their spouses and destroy their families all because they coudn't be honest with themselves.
Originally posted by Damien B
Its just immoral wrong and everything else you can think of,. being gay is a sin in my book,and in the bible.
And thank goodness the US government does not reconize religous texts as law. Pfft.
Originally posted by Nellinator
The Bible does not have all sins as being equal. The OT law attests to that as does the existence of the unforgivable sin. However, homosexuality is grouped with sins including slandering, prostitution, greed, and swindling in 1 Corinthians. Therefore, I consider it to be on the same level as these. And I disagree that no one deserves a label. Sin must be recognized for what it is. If someone lies they are a liar and should not be trusted. If someone is a murderer they should be put to death, if they are a rapist they should be castrated. If they are gay they should be prayed for.
Then if person is defined by the bad things they do they should be equally defined by the good things. The tag "saved by Jesus" means nothing, nothing in terms of telling whether that person has lived a good or bad life. Before or after being saved.
And of course the big differences in the examples you gave: Murder, rape, slander = these harm others. Homosexuality.... harms no one. Except the person in question when your God decides the sexuality they didn't choose is grounds for damnation.
I believe that I am right, this much is true, in believing that homosexuality is a sin. However, I do not think I am better for "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Everyone needs grace.
But not everyone wants it, nor believes in it, nor things the kinds of things it applies to are always right.
Yes, because homosexuality is not truly natural.
Do. They. Choose. It?
If so tell me the age where you decided you would be straight instead of homosexual. And tell me how I can change my sexual orientation, because I am damned if I can see a way to find men sexually attractive.
And if by chance they don't choose it... and it is built in either genetically and/or mentally... well God has essentially declared a sin something people can't help. Which is comparable to damning a person on the color of their skin. Unlike murder and rape, which is a choice to do wrong, homosexuality isn't.
He was lonely because I grew up in a backwater rural town that was not very accepting. He was also the only homosexual in a school of 1200. He was bullied. That said, he was three years older than me so I never knew him. But, when I heard the story I vowed that I would never again treat homosexuals with the indignity he faced. He would still be alive if people had treated him with respect even if they didn't agree with his sexual orientation.
Or do you think it might of been even better instead of just treating him respectively - like a human with a defect - they treated him just like everyone else: a person without anything wrong.
He is likely in hell. However, I do not know the whole story. Only God does, therefore, only God can be an accurate and just judge.
And tell me - do you believe that is just? That it is right for him to be in hell?
And the people who bullied him, ignored him, isolated him - some of them are undoubtedly God fearing people. They will have been saved. Are they truly deserving of Paradise while he is likely in hell?
My friend knows that I disagree with her lifestyle. Yet, she told me straight to my face that I'm one of the few people she knows does not judge her and treats the same as I would if she were heterosexual.
Well it is fortunate you have such understanding and accepting friends. How do you feel it is unlikely they will ever change? How do you feel knowing even if they marry into a straight relationship they will still be bisexual?
I believe that homosexuality is a choice. All credible evidence I have seen has supported this view. That said, I do believe that the decision is strongly affected by environment and even by genetics. I believe that afeminate behavior is partially genetic and can make one more likely to become homosexual. However, homosexuality is not determined at birth. Also, I have seen and know people who have overcome homosexuality through prayer and self-discipline. Homosexuality is not irreversible, however, one needs to want to change to change.
All credible evidence? What evidence is this you are looking at? I am yet to see any of it.
As I asked above - if it is choice tell me when you could have gone either way (though that makes you bisexual) and tell me how to change my sexuality. I mean surely if it is possible for a gay to turn straight it should work the other way.
And explain why no psychological associations consider it a mental problem, nor something curable or in need of cure. And why they say that suppression of such things are not healthy - mentally.
And you do realise if it is partially genetic then it is no longer choice. Or that effeminate behavior is not inherently linked ot homosexuality.
And homosexuality is likely decided very early on - but only becomes relevant when one is old enough to feel such things. When I was a child I didn't know such things, but when I was old enough it was an automatic thing. I can't remember sitting down having to ponder. None of the gay people I know had a moment where they "chose" - when they were old enough to realise such things it was an automatic thing.
It is possible to suppress it - but to make it clear - one does not stop being homosexual just by not having sex with men. No more then a straight person is gay when he doesn't have sex with women.
Its just immoral wrong and everything else you can think of,. being gay is a sin in my book,and in the bible.
Ironically your book is also the Bible. If you aren't Christian you don't deal in sins. Homosexuality is neither a legal crime nor a medically one. Thus the reality is... the only place homosexuality is wrong is in your head and in the Bible - neither of which are the moral compasses of the civilised world!
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Even if you are not christen does not make you right about the bible being right.Just thought I should pass that by you.jm
Ok, let me see if I can put togteher a multiple choice of what I think you might be saying...
A. If a person isn't Christian and they say the Bible is right that doesn't actually mean it is.
B. If you aren't Christian you have no right to comment on the rightness of the Bible.
C. The Bible can be right even if you don't believe it due to not being a Christian.
D. The Bible is wrong and saying it is right if you aren't a Christian doesn't change that.
E. I don't know myself what I am saying and I don't know how other people can be expected to know either.
I suspect E. is the right answer.
Originally posted by debbiejo
I think you are sweet
delusional much?
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Ok, let me see if I can put togteher a multiple choice of what I think you might be saying...A. If a person isn't Christian and they say the Bible is right that doesn't actually mean it is.
B. If you aren't Christian you have no right to comment on the rightness of the Bible.
C. The Bible can be right even if you don't believe it due to not being a Christian.
D. The Bible is wrong and saying it is right if you aren't a Christian doesn't change that.
E. I don't know myself what I am saying and I don't know how other people can be expected to know either.
I suspect E. is the right answer.
you forgot: F. WTF is a jew doing by supporting the bible?
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
you forgot: F. WTF is a jew doing by supporting the bible?
Yes, it is one of the oddest things her "I'm not a Christian but I think the Bible is right and gays will burn in hell" - doesn't she have her own religion that has anti-homosexual claims?
Why use the holy text of a religion that she doesn't believe in?
Originally posted by KMC User
Marriage is not a right. If it was every person should have a shot at it, but relationships do not work out like that for everyone. If the Bill of Rights says that marriage is a right then I would say that it needs to be changed. Marriage is a privelege..
Originally posted by http://www.law.umkc.edu
The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia's miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967). Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state. The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage.
Similarly, when the Sodomy laws were struck down, opinions written about the regulation can also be applied to a future decision on same-sex marriage.
Originally posted by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the state, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.
Originally posted by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the state’s moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review.
Originally posted by Dec. 11, 1912 as a proposed Amendment to the US constitution by the 3rd Session of the 62nd Congress
"That intermarriage between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians or any other character of persons within the United States or any territory under their jurisdiction, is forever prohibited; and the term "negro or person of color," as here employed, shall be held to mean any and all persons of African descent or having any trace of African or negro blood.
Originally posted by KMC User
Respect and the belief that can be changed are not really related so I'm not sure why you grouped them together. I treat them with respect in that I am not cruel to them, I am polite, and I help them when they ask for it. I treat them as I would anyone else. That is respect. Me believing that they could change has nothing to do with it.
You can't check the rights of a specific group and say you respect them.
Originally posted by Alliance
Not true...lets turn back the clock to the last time religious psychos tried to legislate marriage...So since the Supreme court is the living US constitution, its has been precedent for over 40 years and is the basis of countless decisions.
Similarly, when the Sodomy laws were struck down, opinions written about the regulation can also be applied to a future decision on same-sex marriage.
That aside...Do you remember this amendment?
Hmm...its seems Christian zealots have been at this as for while. And yes, scriptural arguments were used to "back" the amendment. The new ones are no more acceptable than the old.
Your actions with gays may not be violent, but RESPECT is "esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability." You respect gays for their "ability" (which is NOT documented) to become "straight." You "respect" them, but deny them the rights to marriage and the over 1000 rights that come with marriage. 100 can be found here http://www.fairwisconsin.com/ban/100.html .
You can't check the rights of a specific group and say you respect them.
Originally posted by Alliance
Which god do we have to be married under? The US does not endorse a god.