The upcoming election

[Outsiders71]

Quote[/b] ]

To claim compassion while at the same time supporting laws treating others as second-class citizens is hypocracy, period. If I'm polite and friendly to you, but work to remove your basic human rights, can you claim my behavior is compassionate? No, no more compassionate than the used-car salesman who smiles and jokes with you as you sign the lease on a car with a transmission made of tinkertoys.

I don't have the time right to reply to everything you said but right now I will give you an example and maybe you can see what I'm saying.

If a person thinks it's ok to murder someone and actually does murder someone, I can have compassion for the murderer. Just because I have compassion and forgiveness for the murderer doesn't mean that I agree with what he did or his beliefs of murdering.

If you would like to further the debate please reference to your information, especially your stats. I'm sure you didn't research all this work yourself so give credit the ones you stole it from.

 

[Mokele]

Quote[/b] ]However the definition of marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. Nowhere in the definition does it say 2 men or 2 women. Once again homosexuality is not equivalent to heterosexuality and never will be.

Which definiton? Yours? Why should we use yours?

Let's use the *REAL* american definition, which has a 40,000 year tradition of recognizing same sex marriages. After all, the Native Americans were here first.

Or maybe the traditions of any number of cultures, past and present, in which homosexuality has been widely accepted and given marriage rights?

*Your* definition is not the only one. Give me one good reason why I should be *forced* to live by it.

Quote[/b] ]Actually this is controversial, the origins of homosexuality is not as clear cut as you'd like to make it sound. There is no concrete "genetic" answer.

The research on origins is absolutely clear it is not a choice. Find me one paper which claims it is: peer-reviewed scientific journal articles only.

The evidence so far indicates that there *is* a genetic component, as proven by twin studies and familial histories. However, there is also evidence for environmental causes, such as birth order. There is, however, no evidence of any kind that it is chosen.

I've read the scientific literature on this subject (meaning the origianl, peer-review publications in scientific journals). Have you?

Quote[/b] ]Have you read the studies on this? Apparently not. The best environment for a child that is growing up is to have 2 parents, 1 of each sex. If you truely believe in what you stated that homosexuality is caused by genetics, what is the child to do if he's not genetically homosexual? The problems the child would face are obvious.

Did you even read my post? Apparently not.

The issue is not which parenting system is optimal compared to the other. There are more kids in the foster system than are being adopted, way more. To compare two-parent versus one-parent versus gay-parents ignores the obvious and more important part: Some parents, *any* parents, are better than *no* parents.

Oh, and speaking of studies, studies have also conclusively shown that children raised by gay parents, both adopted and genetic children, have no more problems than normal kids, and have no abormal sexuality issues. Adopted ones even have no greater incidence of homosexuality than the population as a whole, effectively refuting the claim that gay parents will make the kids gay.

Quote[/b] ]As in socially, historically, and culturaly normal.

In numerous cultures and societies throughout history, homosexuality has been accepted and even endorsed in various forms and ways. As I noted, the Christian church even performed gay marriage ceremonies until the 11th century. And let's not forget such trivial societies as Athens, the source of all modern civilization, birthplace of democracy, and Rome, the most powerful and advanced civilization of its time. Or the Native Americans and Native Australians.

So, once again, why should we be force to live by your norms? Aren't we free?

Oh, and on top of it all: tradition doesn't make something right. Slavery has a long and great tradition, but we don't claim that as "normal".

Quote[/b] ]Excellent public education... It is apparent you have no idea what your talking about

More than you do. I've been through the pathetic excuse for the American public education system, and taught the end-results of it. I've also got a darn good idea of the UK system from my fiancee.

You want to compare, how's this: You know calculus, that "really hard" math course most US high school students never take, which is not required at all for graduation? In the UK, it's taught at age 16, is standard in *all* schools, and *is* required.

Let's not get into the fact that we're the only civilized country in the world whose schools ignore the unifying theory of an entire science just to appease the uneducated few who reject it.

Mokele

 

[Mokele]

Quote[/b] ]If a person thinks it's ok to murder someone and actually does murder someone, I can have compassion for the murderer. Just because I have compassion and forgiveness for the murderer doesn't mean that I agree with what he did or his beliefs of murdering.

Are you actually comparing homosexuality to MURDER?

Your analogy is deeply flawed, and effectively worthless. This is not about understanding someone in spite of a crime, it's about you smiling while stabbing them in the back for no crime other than being different from you.

Quote[/b] ]If you would like to further the debate please reference to your information, especially your stats. I'm sure you didn't research all this work yourself so give credit the ones you stole it from.

Which do you require? Give me a list, and I'll give you the citations.

Similarly, I insist that if you make claim, you give me a reference for it. Scientific peer-reviewed journal articles only, top-tier journals preferred. Everything else is worthless.

Mokele

 

[Mokele]

Here's my first citation:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting free exercise thereof;"

Now, tell me how forcing everyone in the nation to live by your religion's rules is *not* a violation of the establishment clause.

Mokele

 

[PlantAKiss]

Ok folks.  This is escalating into something ugly.

There are ways of expressing your opinions that are not inflammatory.  Do not use accusatory language like "you stole it".

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and their different lifestyles.  If you can't discuss or debate this issue without getting ugly, please drop out of it or this topic will be locked.

Keep your statements to "I believe"..."It's my opinion", etc. And do not try to convince someone their beliefs are wrong. Diversity is a good thing. Everyone has something to offer no matter how differently we may think on issues.

No. 1 Rule.  BE NICE.

 

[PlantAKiss]

Personally I believe everyone is entitled to follow what religious beliefs suit them. But it is not OK to force others to live by someone else's religious beliefs. And unfortunately too much religion is embedded in our laws. I believe strongly in separation of Church and State.

I have never been able to understand why anyone cares how someone else lives their life as long as they are not hurting anyone. Who cares if Joe Smith down the street is gay or straight. If more people minded their own path through life and stopped trying to insert themselves into someone else's private business, we'd be much better off.

 

[Rubra]

Yaay, a party!! It's been a long time hehe... I used to waste a lot of time on threads like this

This upcoming vote is going to be a first for me, here's my attempt at a priority list.. The trouble is depending on your view these issues can be interpreted very differently, but here goes:

-Environment
-Constitutional rights
-Illegal immigration
-Civil rights
-Gun control
-Taxes
-Iraq war
-Afghanistan war
-Big government
-Oil prices
-War on terror
-Economy
-What the rest of the world thinks of us

On side note, homosexuality and heterosexuality aren't inherently different. You could add bestiality and incest to that list. On some level, they are all based on the same motives. Still, neither homosexuality or heterosexuality alone constitute marriage. Marriage can be the ultimate human relationship, and hopefully goes beyond people screwing around. It's about two people becoming like one. That's not the same as friendship, the bond between two people. Marriage is a unique two-in-one deal and I've only seen it work between men and women. We can either make a seperate legal status for superficial heterosexual bonds or for homosexual bonds, or we can recognize marriage for what it is, strive for or reject it, and move on. And if you'd like to discuss any of this, pm's are welcome.

cheers,
Peter

 

[seedjar]

Quote[/b] (Outsiders71 @ Oct. 25 2006,7:43)]

Quote[/b] ]
And the broken, worthless foster system that bounces kids from home to home with no semblance of stability or family is somehow better?

Have you read the studies on this?  Apparently not.  The best environment for a child that is growing up is to have 2 parents, 1 of each sex.  If you truely believe in what you stated that homosexuality is caused by genetics, what is the child to do if he's not genetically homosexual?  The problems the child would face are obvious.

OK, this is a stupid and pointless argument to present, but please tell us, explicitly, what you're getting at right here, because I'm not quite sure I believe a reasonable person could come up with what I've read into your comment. Or maybe I'm just missing the 'obvious.'
Are you suggesting that living in a loving household with a stable gay couple is a worse fate for an orphan, over being tossed around without guardians between foster homes and institutions until the court would emancipate them? Just how much worse could it be? Verbal, physical, emotional and sexual abuse are not unusual for foster children - are you honestly going to claim that the embarassment of having two dads is going to outweigh that? Do you know any gay couples? Do you know anyone who grew up in foster homes? As someone with both friends who were orphans and friends who grew up in same-sex households, I can confidently say that that is one of the most absurd assertions I have heard in recent times, if ever. I'll say right now that I don't have the research to back it up, but from what I know about foster kids I'd be willing to wager that there is as much, if not more, homosexual abuse perpetrated from within the foster system than in homosexual adopted homes. Is this really about protecting kids from harmful situations, or is it about protecting them from the idea that homosexuality is OK?

Quote[/b] ]
If a person thinks it's ok to murder someone and actually does murder someone, I can have compassion for the murderer.  Just because I have compassion and forgiveness for the murderer doesn't mean that I agree with what he did or his beliefs of murdering.

So here you're talking about the pithy kind of compassion where you feel kind of bad but don't actually care to think about the person's situation, then? How is this example at all applicable? For one, since when did a person's sexual orientation become harmful to others? And don't go pointing to sexual deviance, that's another ballgame altogether. Besides that, accepting that sexuality is not a choice, how can you condemn it the way you would a willful act? That's no different than sexism, racism, or any other type of discrimination; systematically treating people differently based on their immutible attributes.
And just for the record, American schools suck. Universally. Have you been to a school lately? Talked with any college kids recently? The best school I've ever been to was in Korea. American kids at my university are idiots; even the smart ones lack basic skills in their fields of interest. They have not been prepared by a compassionate, or even competent school system. Students from other nations, even some supposedly third-world nations, are far more prepared, so much that it's scary. When I was in Korea I went to a public high school where every student was involved in graduate-level art studies - you just don't find programs like that in the States, like it or not. We have exceptional students, but our educational system is decades behind.
As for important election topics, what about government accountability? That's a topic I never see in the elections. What would really get me into the voting booth would be some laws requiring politicians to enact the policies they run with.
~Joe

 

[Lauderdale]

I did not intend this turn in to a theoretical discussion of homosexuality/heterosexuality, simply, what are the most important issues you think we are facing at this time.
Discussion of these issues is perfectly acceptable but flat out arguments are not.  As PAK said…play nice boys and girls.

I am really surprised that the war on terror has not been mentioned as a high priority item.  There really are a large number of people out there that want to kill us and impose their brand of religious fanaticism on the whole world.  How quickly we forget.

I also wonder about the lack of concern about illegal immigration.  I am currently involved in a construction project that is manned by mostly Colombian Nationals.   It is hard, dirty, dangerous work. They are well paid; very few speak English, all are here legally, pay their taxes and are hard workers.  Here in Fort Lauderdale/Broward County our unemployment rate is at 3%, so we need them.  Why can’t our government set up a guest worker program that works?

 

[schloaty]

Wow! Don't sign on for a couple of hours and look what happens.

My political agenda, such as it is:

Education
Civil rights (leave me the &^%! alone, big bro - this includes the gay thing)
environment
immigration

Now, with respect to the discussion at hand:

Quote[/b] ]References please? If you want to get factual these "Christian" churches were not Christian but one of the many cults that branched off Christianity. Infact there's still a branch today in the U.S. that marries gays. Any church that marries gays and calls themselves "Christian" is not a Christian Church because it goes against the Bible. It's a counter-feit.

I always hear christians say that being gay is forbidden by the Bible. Where?
Is it "though shalt no lie with another man?" Is that what you're referring to?

I look at that commandment this way - it a commandment to WOMEN! Remember, when you get married, they often pronounce you MAN and wife....so it's the Bible's way of saying "don't cheat on your husband."

Now, Outside is completely entitled to his (her?) oppinion - that one of the things that makes this country great - however, one of the things that makes an individual great is recognizing when they're wrong.

The simple fact is that there is no good (peer reviewed) scientific evidence to support your view - in fact, there is plenty (as has been mentioned) of evidence to say you are incorrect.

This DOES NOT MEAN that you have to change your view. It simply means that you loose the athority to impose it on me.

The murder reference: There is an abundance of evidence that shows murder is bad for people (see: BODIES). Therefore this is not a valid comparrison. I understand that homosexuality is a sin in your moral code, but laws are based on how actions effect people/society, not moral codes (or they should be, anyway).

My two cents!

 

[Clint]

Quote[/b] (Outsiders71 @ Oct. 25 2006,10:15)]Clint I'm sorry you were offended by my position/opinions I honestly meant no disrespect towards you.  When I said I have compassion I meant that and no you don't really know me.  If I interacted with you in real life I would treat you the same way I would treat anyone else, with compassion.  Just because I have compassion for you and care about you just like everyone else doesn't mean that I have to share your views and tell you I agree with you.

When you posted your opinions, I could have easily jumped on it and made a scene like you did.  Instead I respected your post and posted my opinion/views and what did you do?  You jumped all over me because my view is opposite yours.  Why can't both views be posted?  Why is it OK for you to post your perspective but as soon as I post mine I'm a hypocrite, blind person with no common sense?  I'm willing to see both perspectives, maybe you are the blind one?

So they actually found the cause of homosexuality?  That's news to me!  How do you feel about homosexuals who find Jesus Christ and then turn heterosexual?  How did they change their genetics?

No, I may not know you but unfortunately i've had my fair share of people like you. That's why i'm agnostic.

You may treat me like an equal to my face, but in my opinion and experience after we parted you would go vote for politicians that want to treat me like dirt. I'm going to hell anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter how i'm treated here. There a big difference between "not sharing my views" and , in my opinion, posting on a public forum where you really don't know everyone, how gay's shouldn't have kids, get married, etc. And worst of all,in my opinion,  you have to drag religion into a political debate! religion is IRRELEVENT, acording to the seperation of church and state, in a political discussion. It's fine if you want to be a christian but don't drag the old "Because the bible says so!" argument into a political discussion.


You did respect my first post. That's true. I'll give you that. It's nullified by the nonchalant content in your post, though. But that's just MY opinion.

"How do you feel about homosexuals who find Jesus Christ and then turn heterosexual?  How did they change their genetics?"

I feel they are supressing their nature. I could have sex with a woman right now, and it wouldn't mean I was straight. It's not so hard to make yourself do something if you think you'll go to hell because of the old "FIRE AND BRIMSTONE!" scare tactics.

Insert "blacks" or "jews" wherever it says "gay" in your post. Maybe that will show you why everyone is so angry.

 

[Rubra]

The war on terror... Terrorists people aren't just generally hateful people who arbitrarily pick the U.S. or Israel to bomb. They are willing to commit suicide because they somehow believe they're doing society a favor. If we were really helping folks out, they wouldn't hate. If they had comfortable lives, they probably wouldn't hate us. The fact is that U.S. foreign policy with our need to control everybody's problem while we sit here watching it through our giant plasma TV's has made us as many enemies as friends.

Schloaty, Romans 1. Romans 2 is also relevant to our discussion.

Also, even without the Bible you could reach its same conclusions by natural law.

 

[Clint]

Natural law.... homosexuality is not a choice. It's natural. I've always been gay. Ever since I was a kid I've like dudes, althought not sexually at such a young age. Yes, i've got a masculine father and a straight brother. I've got a great relationship with my dad. Don't start that "lack of masculine influence" stuff. I was never molested or abused, and I played with cars and other little boy toys. I think I had a pretty normal, priveledged childhoon. Lucky for me the only time i've been in a church was at a narcotics anonymous meeting.

Look at the gay apes/monkeys. That's pretty natural. Oh man, I hope they hear the word of god soon!

 

[Mokele]

Quote[/b] ]References please? If you want to get factual these "Christian" churches were not Christian but one of the many cults that branched off Christianity. Infact there's still a branch today in the U.S. that marries gays. Any church that marries gays and calls themselves "Christian" is not a Christian Church because it goes against the Bible. It's a counter-feit.

First, sorry I missed this. The reference is the book Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, By John Boswell. It contains extensive documentation, and shows this not just isolated sects or cults.

Second, you're engaging in the "no true scotsman" fallacy. If they accept the divinity of Jesus, they are Christian, period, no matter how much you disagree with them. They're a different sect, but their belieifs are very bit as legitimate and grounded in scripture as yours are.

Or do I get to say you aren't a true Christian because you violate Jesus' most important teachings on tolerance, compassion and love for one's neighbor?

Quote[/b] ]I am really surprised that the war on terror has not been mentioned as a high priority item. There really are a large number of people out there that want to kill us and impose their brand of religious fanaticism on the whole world.

Well, I plan on voting against those individuals who plan to impose their religious fanatacism on the world in this upcoming election.

Quote[/b] ]Also, even without the Bible you could reach its same conclusions by natural law.

Yes, let's all adhere to natural law!

All those in favor of caring for your young and growing them internally? Ok, that's 4000 species-votes.

All those in favor of injecting your eggs into a living host, which your young then devour from the inside until they explode forth from it in a shower of blood and guts? Ok, that's 20,000 species-votes.

The votes are in, time to use a parasitiod mode of reproduction. The mammals have been over-ruled!

Nature isn't moral, merely effective, and can be brutally so. Murder, violent act, and truly horrific parasitic infestation are all common (over 50% of living species are parasites).

Also, as JLAP pointed out, and is *extensively* detailed in the book Biological Exuberance, homosexuality is very common in nature. In fact, we have observations of homosexual mating in species in which we don't even have observations of *heterosexual* mating.

The arguement that homosexuality is against nature is simply factually incorrect; it is abundant and present in species from apes to beetles.

Mokele

 

[Outsiders71]

This is the last post I'm going to make in this thread. I'm sorry that you have taken what I've said like you have. The purpose of posting my opinion/perspective was to do just that. I never directed what I said as a personal attack on anyone and I'm sorry you took it that way. I'm sorry you cannot understand being able to love someone, and have compassion for someone even if you don't agree with what they believe in. It's not hypocrasy, it's the great story of Jesus Christ. It amazes me to one extent but at another I should have expected such reactions as it is forwarned.

In light of this I'm going to provide a link. You can choose to read it or not, debate it or not. However I'm not continuing this debate as it is clear that people want to take what I say as a personal attack when I exclaim it isn't.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Diction....er=T348

 

[Clint]

Thank you so much for that fantastically one sided link.

You made a general statement that WAS a personal attack. You said through a general statement that I was not fit for parenthood, that I chose to be gay, that being gay is abnormal, that heterosexuals (and thus you) are better than me/us, that christian churches who marry gays are in fact cults, that homosexuals are not equals, and you compared us to murderers. When you made those statements, they WERE personal attacks on every GLBT person.

 

[Travis]

The best way to not get into heated discissions is to not talk politics & religion they are the root of all evil. You say one thing, you are guaranteed to piss someone off. Takes years to build a friendship, takes 5 minutes to end one. It is especially true on public forums.

 

[Mokele]

Quote[/b] ]I never directed what I said as a personal attack on anyone and I'm sorry you took it that way.

Your opinions *are* an attack. Or shall we also claim that KKK members are just "expressing their opinions" by burning a cross in front of someone's home.

Quote[/b] ]I'm sorry you cannot understand being able to love someone, and have compassion for someone even if you don't agree with what they believe in.

It's not belief, it's who we are. I'm sorry your faith has brainwashed and blinded you to the indisputable fact that sexual orientation is not a choice, but you must realize that you are attacking who we are, not just something we do. It's no different from saying you have compassion for racial minorities but you don't like the color of their skin.

Quote[/b] ]In light of this I'm going to provide a link.

Good, now how about a link that isn't factually incorrect and filled with logical fallacies and outright lies?

Quote[/b] ]However I'm not continuing this debate as it is clear that people want to take what I say as a personal attack when I exclaim it isn't.

Maybe that's because it *is*. Seriously, open your eyes and look at things from another perspecitve. You'll be amazed how hateful you sound.


Personally, I feel sorry for you. Your arguement are nothing but the usual crap, so it's clear you've not actually done any thinking for yourself on this issue; instead, you've listened to biased sources and just gullibly swallowed their mis-information whole, without ever actually exploring the other perspective, much less the actual evidence.

God may want faith, but not blind faith. Galileo once said "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

Do yourself a favor, and actually research this from an unbiased POV. Look at the evidence. Go and actually talk to some gay people, ask them if they ever 'chose'. Read the texts of other faiths. Read the histories of other lands. Read the scientific experiments and analyses done on the subject.

What has disappointed me most in this arguement is not your view themselves, but that it's plainly obvious you've done none of the above, and as a result, I was left refuting the same old uninteresting tripe that we've known is inaccurate for years. At least do some research and give some *good* reasons - make the debate worth my time.

Mokele

 

[Est]

Quote[/b] ]... If they had comfortable lives, they probably wouldn't hate us. The fact is that U.S. foreign policy with our need to control everybody's problem while we sit here watching it through our giant plasma TV's has made us as many enemies as friends.

Funny thing though is that we don't generally see the poor man with nothing to lose hijacking a plane. No, it's generally a more well-to-do individual. If we were seeing people mosly or only from the lowest economic tier of society committing the acts, then I think we could have more argue about.
I'm sure that economics plays a role in terrorism, but radical religion/beliefs have their fair hand in it (it's not just the poorest folks with nothing to lose comitting the acts.)

Just something interesting to mull over.

 

[Sarrfiend]

It seems to me people like Mokele and JustLikeAPill have a bigger agenda than just getting equal rights for Gays/Lesbians. They want to use the law of the land to try and make homosexuality MORALLY equal to traditional marriage of two opposite sexes. It's never been about the civil rights of being married, it's always been about trying to be morally acceptable and it is not!