Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Bert:

Keyes obviously has overblown the situation with his comment. It wasnt a very smart comment, unless his intent was simply to get attention. Some politicians think ANY attention is good attention—I disagree with that concept.

I believe there are such things as sins, and as such, there are also sexual sins. I consider adultery to be a sexual sin, for example, though it also typically contains other sins as well (lying, cheating, hurting others etc).

I think Keyes is on solid ground when he states that in his opinion, someone committing a homosexual act is sinning by doing so. This equates more to his opinion than to any kind of legal statute, though I think there still are some legal statutes out there that consider homosexual acts a crime. To call it “selfish hedonism” goes too far.

I’d feel comfortable with Keyes saying lumping adultery, promiscuity and homosexuality together as sexual acts, and as sexual sins. But many find the first two somehow more acceptable than the third. I tend to see them as being similar in that they are all sexually based.

Bert, I apologize in advance if you find my opinion hurtful in any way. It is what I believe, and I recognize these things as actions, as opposed to who the person totally is. In that way, I can disagree with the action, while still finding the person to be good in general.

Joe, I know it wasn’t the main thrust of your post, but I can’t let your belief that homosexuality is a sin go unchallenged.

As you said, adultery could be considered to be a sin, and it is precisely because it, by definition, involves “lying, cheating, hurting others etc”.

Homosexuality does not, by definition, involve “lying, cheating, hurting others etc”.
It causes no harm, and I feel confident in suggesting, that if an act causes no harm it cannot be considered sinful. Any sin worth it’s salt should cause damage to the society or the world at large, homosexuality fails this test. That is why, all but the most close-minded, refrain from “lumping” it in with “adultery, promiscuity”.

Also I believe it is illogical for you to argue that Keyes is wrong in his belief that homosexuality is “selfish hedonism”, but would be correct in his assumption that it is a (sexual) sin. That it is a strange differentiation to make, as I would guess Keyes sees the selfish hedonism the source of homosexuality’s sinfulness, or at least a central tenet of it’s inate sinfulness.

In making this differentiation it strikes me that you are attempting to strike a conciliatory tone, which is to be commended, but are still stubbornly refusing to accept the conclusion to which logic points.

Seems the Republican/Conservative Hypocrisy Parade has just set-up temporary residence, here in Calumet City, Ill!!

First of all, internet rumors aside, what is hypocritical about Keyes’ stand on this issue? What evidence do you have to show that he says he believes homosexuality is wrong while secretly believing that it’s okay? You disagree with his position, but to label him, and “all Republicans and conservatives” liars in the process is unfortunate.

Second, why do you feel compelled to spread this rumor in this forum, especially considering that Keyes’ poll numbers in Illinois are presently at a stratospheric seventeen percent?

Bert: You wrote-
“Conservatives and Republicans. How can one preach such intolerance and hate towards gays and lesbians”
Why then, is it ok to preach intolerance and hate towards people who do not approve of such a lifestyle? Why must “everyone” agree that being gay is ok? Why is it that anyone with a differing view is intolerant or hateful?

Since this is the green column, you must surely believe in the “democracy” that our nation has become and not our once great Constitutional Republic. In a “democracy” majority rules and the majority of Americans think its wrong. This is “democracy” in action.

I personally don’t care one way or another if someone is gay or not and I am an atheist, so I have no book telling me its wrong either.
I’m a typical red blooded American male, two guys in love is gross but two women in love is a thing of beauty. Is this right? Of course not! But I am straight and can relate to how and why a woman could love another woman.
What I do know is this, “Disagreeing with something does not automatically make you intolerant, hateful, racist or a bigot. Disagreeing with something and promoting your views in a non-violent manner is your RIGHT.”
Intolerance comes from both sides of this issue.

Bert,

I’m not seeing the hypocrisy here. For all we know, he may have told his daughter in private that he thinks her behavior is sinful (and presumably, that he loves her regardless). Does he have to publicly criticize his own daughter to be intellectually consistent?

To backup Nototh’s point, why waste your breathe (or bits) on this guy? He is going down in flames already.

> spread this rumor in this forum

Keyes’s daughter is very openly gay. It’s not a rumor.

-Cf

this is a bit of a tangent but I cant pass this up:
“Why then, is it ok to preach intolerance and hate towards people who do not approve of such a lifestyle? Why must “everyone” agree that being gay is ok? Why is it that anyone with a differing view is intolerant or hateful?”

While I completely disagree with Keyes on gays and gay rights ect., this is a very important statement about the hypocricy of much of the left. Anyone who has been on a liberal campus which has used speech codes can clearly see the hypocricy of the left’s so-called tolerance. It goes so far as you agree with their views.

I think is perfectly acceptable to attack people like Keyes from making stupid, ignorant and homophobic comments. The problem, as I see it, is that much of the left is not content with just attacking the faulty logic of bigots, but want to muzzle them whenever they have the power to do it. I have no doubt htat if the left orthodoxy were in power, the comments made by Mr. Keyes would be the subject of criminal sanction. It is a sad thing that the first amendment has very few denfenders who support EVERYONE’s right to their opinions…

I have to agree with the other posters that there is no evidence of hypocrisy here. Bigotry and intolerance, sure, but probably not hypocrisy.

The post has brought up a good point about free speech though. It does seem that the PC part of the left would like to keep anyone from saying anything negative about anyone else, which certainly appears to an attempt to quash the First Amendmen (although you’d find few who would admit this).

On the other hand, where exactly does free speech end? As I understand freedom (in its simplest form), it means I can do whatever I want as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else. The question is, does it hurt someone else for me to go around saying gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married and that they are sinners who are going to hell?

Well, Alejo, I know that there are a lot of people whose feelings are very hurt when you say that gay marriage is just as legit as straight marriage. Moreover, it certainly hurts my feelings when people tell me they do not like me (well thats not usually true- but I think its true for many people).

Hurt feelings are, to be honest, too bad. My opinion is that you can say whatever you want unless it can be proven directly that your words are inciting violence. The standard of proof on this would have to be very high due to the high place free speech holds in our constitution.

Alejo: The hipocracy of it all is calling someone a bigot, intolerant or a racist for simply not supporting your views. It is hypocritical to say “You have to accept our views but we do not have to respect yours.”

Free speech: If saying gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married and they are sinners is what you firmly believe in, then yes, you should be allowed to represent your views. You hurt no one by doing this. You may hurt some feelings, but you are harming no one. It is your view and you have just as much right to support that view as those on the other side of the issue.

Misha: Beautifully said.

I had a class in college about hate speech and free speech. As part of the course I had to read ‘Linguistic Vulnerability’. I’d recommend it to anyone interested in where this hate speech argument is going. The basic lesson from the book is that what you say things they hurt people in the linguistic world and that is as bad as physically beating them. From there they tried to make a conclusion that you even if you don’t actually say anything hateful but only think it you are actually hurting the person just as badly.

The author and their supporters are working for legislation and court action that would make any hate speech (such as saying homosexuality is wrong) punishable with jail time. Eventually they hope that if it can be proven that you think hateful things (by membership to a church that teaches homosexuality is wrong for example) you could also be punished.

Free speech for all who think like me! Jail for any who think differently!

-D

The basic lesson from the book [Linguistic Vulnerability] is that what you say things they hurt people in the linguistic world and that is as bad as physically beating them. From there they tried to make a conclusion that you even if you don’t actually say anything hateful but only think it you are actually hurting the person just as badly.

That’s scary, especially that last bit. I’m virtually killing those authors in my head right this moment.

Misha —

For the most part I agree with you. There are laws about slander, however, which limit others from damaging our livelihood or reputation by the things they say. For instance, spreading rumors that someone is a child molester when they aren’t, even if you yourself believe it to be true, is illegal and you can be jailed for it. I think this fits into my simplified definition of freedom pretty well because “hurt” can be demonstrated.

kctim:

I’m not quite sure I follow your argument. Are you saying I’m a hypocrite for calling Keyes a bigot? Here’s the dictionary definition: “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.” If your daughter is gay but you use your public position to decry her lifestyle, I think you fit the definition.

But I think we agree that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion and the expression of it. But what about people who have a higher podium to speak from? Do politicians have a greater responsibility for their opinions because they can tell the whole country about it — for free?

Delzario —

The idea that expressing one’s opinions about homosexuality is hate speech is a scary one. Who wrote that book and how bad did it suck to have to read it?

The author was Judith Butler, and was only one book of several on the subject. It sucked quite a bit, specially since the TA came from a very liberal school and actually agreed with her theory.

On Keyes, you can only say he a hypocrite if you can prove that he approves of his daughters lifestyle. If he believes she’s as much a sinner has Cheney’s daughter he’d still be keeping with his earlier statements.

On Republican Hypocrisy, It’s a bit tough to point at Keyes’s and say he represents all Republicans or even most. I live in Illinois, most of my family and I plan to vote Bush and Obama. We would have voted for Ryan and don’t know why they forced him to quite but Keyes’s is too much of a nut.

Here is the reality check, you’d be hard pressed to find a more conservative family in Illinois, but we’d all vote for the Governator and Giuliani if we had the chance. I might even vote Lieberman. We can’t vote democrat because we don’t agree with their foreign policy, or the radicals that have hijacked the party. We don’t much like the Christian Coalition, but it beats letting the trial lawyers and people like Judith Butler take charge.

-D

Alejo: As long as you agree that a gay person who disagrees with straight people and talks on TV about how narrow minded some people are, is a bigot also, then you are not a hypocrite.
If a family member or friend is gay, you can still disapprove and voice your opinions.
Why does a person have to be “tolerant” of ones choice to be gay but does not have to be “tolerant” of ones choice to disapprove of the gay lifestyle?

Delzario —

I’m not even sure I’d call that author “liberal.” “Wacko” is more like it.

I wasn’t saying Keyes is a hypocrite — in fact it’s pretty clear he’s not. I’m saying he’s a bigot, which is completely different.

I think it’s interesting that you say the Democratic party has been hijacked by radicals. Can you give an example of a Democratic radical? Because it seems to me that the Democratic party is doing its pathetic best to be the Republican party, while it’s the Republican party that’s been hijacked. Let’s face it, Bush hardly fits the word “conservative.”

kctim —

I totally agree with you on your first point. A gay person who is intolerant of straight people and their views is also a bigot.

What does “tolerant” mean in your context? Please understand that I believe people are entitled to their feelings, opinions, sentiments, political leanings, and spiritual beliefs, and they are entitled under the Constitution to talk about all of them. What did I say that made you believe otherwise?

Alejo: This is just my take, but I think Delzario may see things the same way.
The Democratic party has been hijacked by liberals. boxer, pelosi, clinton, kerry, edwards, mcauliffe, hollywood etc… are all liberals with a liberal agenda. They do not support true Democrats, only their agenda. Ike Skelton is a Democrat from Missouri. He still supports workers rights, lower taxes, gun rights and other issues that are important to everyday Americans but not important to elitist liberals.
The Republican party has been hijacked also. The conservatives are the minority but have taken the party over. Republicans used to be for smaller govt., lower taxes, personal responsibility and the such, but look at them now with the neocons in control.

I’m with Delzario on voting. I won’t vote for Bush, but I have to vote against kerry.

Alejo: “What did I say that made you believe otherwise?”
You said nothing which made me think you believed otherwise. In all my posts, I was talking about the issue and not you. I am at work, mind going back and forth and may have typed “you” instead of “person,” sorry about that.

kctim —

Well, we’re sort of derailing the thread here, but I have to talk about your post about the parties. You see Clinton and Kerry as liberal? I could be wrong, but I think most people would call them “moderates.” As for the Democratic party being taken over by liberals — how is it possible for the party of the liberals to be taken over by liberals?

As for the Republicans, I don’t think the neocons really fit the definition of conservative, either. Here’s Merriam-Webster’s defintion of conservatism:

1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Given the number of radical changes Bush and Co. have made in the last four years I think they defy the core meaning of conservatism.

Alejo: kerry and clinton are two of the most liberal voters in the senate.
The Democratic party is not the liberal party. Liberals are an extreme wing of the Democratic party that have risen to power through promises of freebies to get votes. In the same context, the Republican party is not the neocon party, the neocon party is an extreme wing of the Republican party that has used the unconstitutional stances of the liberals to get votes, while promoting their own unconstitutional stances.
Two very extreme groups with very extreme and unconstitutional views run the country. They are in the minority but hold all the power.
The majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle. They disagree and agree with issues on both sides. They are just to lazy to research political platforms with an open mind. They vote by what they hear on CNN or FOX. Sad!

Wasn’t the guy who started the neocons (PNAC) a disenchanted Democrat?

kctim —

Okay, I see what you’re saying. We’re being spun to death, basically. Up until four years ago I didn’t even care who the President was — figured it didn’t make much difference. How wrong I was! But now we have to choose between two candidates that don’t really represent anybody and the third party candidate is a joke.

Perhaps the blogworld could be the breeding grounds for a real third party….

The radicals that I think hijacked the Democratic party are the race baiters like Jesse Jackson that use fear and intimidation to keep himself in and his friends in power. Progressive taxers like Kennedy who want to take from the sucessfull and give to the poor so that they be made slaves to the welfare roles so they stay in power. The judicial activist like the 9th cicuit court who re-write state and federal law to match thier own belief rather than the constitution. The trial lawyers like Edwards that care less about what’s best for the country and the courts and care more about keeping the path clear for class-action law suits that only benifit the lawyers. The teachers unions that fight any attempt to hold teachers accountable for thier preformance. The gun-activists that seek to erase the right to bear arm. And the pro-choicers that are so blinded by the desire to keep abortion that they can’t compromise to even punish murderers for the killing of a mother’s fetus. And finally the pasifists that choose to blame America for all the worlds problems, never seeing an enemy worth defeating.

I know Kerry sounds like a moderate now, but he has voted too much like a radical for me to believe he’d govern like a moderate. For all Clinton’s faults he was atleast good for the democratic party by bringing them to the center. To bad they’ve lost that.

-D

Delzario: Wish I could have worded it like that. It brought a tear to my eyes to finally find someone else who sees what is going on.
I was refering to senator clinton when I spoke of liberal votes.

Alejo: We can only dream and hope for a viable answer to the liberal and neocon problem.

Ok, Delzario, I see why you won’t be voting for Kerry — but will you be voting for Bush, the guy who’s already shown he’ll take us to war under false pretenses to further his own personal, secret agenda and is willing to bankrupt the country in order to do it? Talk about somebody who uses “fear and intimidation” — all anyone has to do is question what’s going on and the cries of “Traitor!” resound across the fruited plains.

I’m no Kerry enthusiast. I just can’t believe Bush is representing anybody in this country besides fundamentalist Christians.

Wasn’t the guy who started the neocons (PNAC) a disenchanted Democrat? Posted by Joseph Briggs at September 28, 2004 02:57 PM

The best short definition I’ve seen for a necon is: a liberal who got mugged by reality.

So as not to push this thread even further off topic, here’s a pretty good summary that you can read at your leisure.

Of course in the blogosphere and elsewhere, the term is too often used to describe anyone who doesn’t automatically vote for Democrats.

I appreciate and honest and frank discussion on the morality (or lack thereof) of homosexuality. Unfortunately, I’ve rarely seen it debated from anything other than an ideological standpoint.

I will preface my take by saying that I am a social liberal who is pro-gay marriage. My position has been influenced, however, by the scientific research by some of my peers.

Little coverage is ever given to the nature of homosexuality, but this point is essential in determining its morality. One end of the spectrum says that homosexuality is a choice, while others say it is innate. Science says it is a combination of the two but primarily innate.

Within the context of natural selection, what is the explanation for homosexuality’s existence? There is a growing belief within the scientific community that homosexuality is actually a natural mechanism that has arisen to effectively “breed out” undesirable characteristics.

I’ll boil it down for you. Gays tend to exhibit characteristics similar to that of the opposite sex, right? Think that’s by accident? Nope. This is a manifestation of their internal chemical processes and hormonal balances, which are in many ways closer to that of the opposite sex. Gay men are less aggressive, more nurturing, while the opposite is true of gay women. Generally speaking of course.

In terms of natural selection, however, survival has been more dependent on men being aggressive and women being the nurturers. Thus developed the natural mechanism of homosexuality, a sexual orientation that diminishes the opportunity of sexual reproduction and the passing on of these “undesirable” genetic traits.

So what’s the moral here?

(1) Many/most gays are that way because of nature, do they deserve to be discriminated against if they can’t help it?

(2) If being naturally selected “against” is a sin, why don’t we go around calling mentally disabled people sinners? Why not call short people or fat people or ugly people sinners?

(3) Some argue that homosexuality inhibits the “natural” reproductive process, but if my theory holds true, isn’t homosexuality in effect helping that process by ensuring the survival of the most “fit” genes?

When it comes down to it, there really is nothing immoral about inherent homosexuality. Homosexuality does not necessarily equate to sexual deviancy, and I believe it can only be argued that sexual deviancy (i.e. deviating from your natural sexual orientation) could possibly be immoral. Even though I still disagree with it for other reasons.

Now take a step back from your ideological positions for a moment and consider these points. If you look at homosexuality in this light, do you still think it’s a sin or immoral? Does a book written thousands of years ago know more than what science is pointing to today?

As someone with a grasp of the English language, unlike the Idiot running the country now, I am certainly glad that I do not word things as Delzario did. With four or five grammatical errors in your post, I can’t take any of it seriously. That might just be though. Sigh.

Alejo-

I don’t really see the sinister side of Bush that the anybody-but-bush crowed sees. I believe that Bush honestly saw Saddam as a threat in the new world order (post 9/11). I don’t really see a personal agenda. People yell about Halliburton, but when was the last time you looked at thier financials, their losing lost of money. If Bush was out to make lots of money for them, I’d think they’d be doing better.

The only people I hear yelling traitor is the Democrats putting words in the GOP’s mouth. To them disent is patriotic, but disagreeing or arguing about the disent is calling everyone a traitor. When I say I think Kerry’s final vote against the $87 billion was a mistake because it sends the wrong message to the troops, the left says I just questioned Kerry’s patriotism. I never questioned his patriotism, just his decisions.

As far as owened by the fundamentalist Christians, the only bones he’s thrown to them are the faith based initiative, and the gay marrige issue. I think the faith based stuff is a good idea, the churches in this country do some of the best charity work out there, why not help them. And for the gay marriage thing, I disagree with how’s he’s doing it, but I do think that something has to be done to stop the courts from writing the law.

Yes, I’ll be voting Bush because I haven’t seen any clue from the left or anywhere else that they know the world changed on 9/11. Kerry and the rest seem to want to keep doing the same things we always did, just raise the draw bridge a little bit. I want to send out the troops and change the world FDR style.

-D

Andrew —

You make good points, but you’re falling into the “faith vs. science” trap. Science can’t debunk religious (or religiously derived) arguments because there’s no common ground. My question to those who don’t want to tolerate gays is simpler: What possible harm can it do YOU if someone else is gay? Why do you care? Why is it your business?

I’m not asking snidely, I’m genuinely curious, because it seems to me that some of the folks who claim to believe in personal freedom can’t stand the idea of someone being gay.

Hey rapidray, I’m a dyslexic engineer that has to copy and past in and out of word processors because my learning disability has screwed up my ability to spell. Thanks for pointing out that I forgot to do it last time. You want to do this in my language you’ll have to switch this blog to Excel, my head only likes the numbers.

-D

Delzario —

I see where you’re coming from. I don’t agree, but I understand. When I was talking about personal agenda, I was talking Bush’s desire — like yours — to change the world through military might. That’s just a philosophical difference we’ll have to agree to disagree on, because I believe we should be minding our own business, particularly when the economy is threatening to tank. But you and I will both have our chance to choose in November, and it won’t matter how your spelling is.

In reading through the posts on this subject (I read most but not all of them) I noticed they tend to talk about homosexuality being a sin and the hipocricy surounding various peoples view points. I’d like to point out that “Sin” is a religous view point. This country was founded on religous freedom. By trying to prevent homeosexual marriage that would be forcing one set of religious values or beliefs on others.

I agree that the people, regardless of party, can say they don’t like homosexuality, that’s freedom of speech. But do not try to force those beliefs on the rest of the population.

There comes a point when the government needs to butt out of other peoples business. This is one of those issues.

My final questions for those opposed to legalizing homosexual marriage on religious grounds:

Would you ever want the government to tell your church who it can or can’t marry?

Today maybe it’s a limitation your church happens to agree with. Tomorrow it might not be. Tomorrow, it might be your choice of who to marry that is declared legally invalid. Should that be a power the government has?

Christian denominations may be more or less united against gay marriage (with the possible exception of the episcopalians?) but other religions recognize the validity of homosexual unions. Do you really think that the government should be able to pick and choose what religious marriages it legally recognizes?

If you can say yes to all of these questions, I’d really like to hear your reasoning.

Okay my lefty friends, I can’t stand it any longer. I’ll take the bait. Why I keep posting in this blue column could only be figured out by one of those people who write some of these books you all talk about. I feel like I’m getting ready to cross a six lane highway!

somebody said:

I wasn’t saying Keyes is a hypocrite — in fact it’s pretty clear he’s not. I’m saying he’s a bigot, which is completely different.

There goes that bigot charge again. To be a bigot by definition would mean hating the individual. While that may certainly be true for some,(on both sides of the issue)for most it isn’t even close. I work with a woman that is a homosexual and I like her as a person.We joke around and work well together. But I think the best example in my own life is my 20 year old nephew that is my son’s age.They grew up together & I love him as much as my own son. I just recently found out (last week) that he is (gay)& moving to San Francisco to live with his friend & his partner. Do I love him any less, a resounding NO! Though I don’t agree with his lifestyle choice. His dad died a couple years ago & his mom now gets to deal with this joyous comeing out. Keyes & Chaney love their kids,they just don’t agree with their lifestyle choice. It goes against their belief.

Bob Hope said:

Joe, I know it wasn’t the main thrust of your post, but I can’t let your belief that homosexuality is a sin go unchallenged.

As you said, adultery could be considered to be a sin, and it is precisely because it, by definition, involves “lying, cheating, hurting others etc”.

Homosexuality does not, by definition, involve “lying, cheating, hurting others etc”.
It causes no harm, and I feel confident in suggesting, that if an act causes no harm it cannot be considered sinful. Any sin worth it’s salt should cause damage to the society or the world at large, homosexuality fails this test. That is why, all but the most close-minded, refrain from “lumping” it in with “adultery, promiscuity”.

Are you serious?? You must be from Californee. It doesn’t involve lying, cheating, or hurting others? Ask 100 homosexuals if they have lied,cheated,or hurt anyone by their lifestyle choice. I’m not a gambling man but I’d bet the farm that you are Wrong. As much as it hurt me that my nephew chose this lifestyle, I could only imagine how hurt I’d be if it would have been my son. Can anyone on this thread honestly say that they would be happy if their son brought home another man & told you he was in love with him & that they planned to get married. And then proceeded to plant a big ole sloppy kiss on the mouth on him,that you would just jump up and down and be so happy for them & start planning a big wedding for them? Politically correct is one thing but when it hits too close to home it’s another.
I do agree with it not being a political issue though. (nor a judicial one). It is a moral issue. Just as the other choices we are confronted with.Everyone is free to choose to believe what they like. Someone above questioned the people 2,000 years ago being able to make as good of decisions for todays world as todays scholars. Todays scholars may have access to many tools of learning and all the knowledge that has been written, but are lacking in wisdom & common sense.

Several have questioned homosexuality being a sin.By sin, I assume you are talking about a sin against God? If you don’t believe in God then what is your issue? It shouldn’t matter. Not believing in God gives you a license to sin. If you do believe in God, then why mince words or decide for yourself what is sin. (the I believe that God wouldn’t let good people go to hell theory) Go to what is “supposedly” this “supposed” Gods words. Leviticus 18:22; Thou shall not lie with mankind,as with womankind:it is abonimation.Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith:neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto:it it confusion.Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things:for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:and the land is defiled: etc etc etc
That’s why us, I mean those right wing extremists feel it effects us.Throughout history,many nations have fallen when they relenquished their morality & turned their backs on God. If you don’t believe that our country was founded on faith, just go to our capital & read the inscriptions on all of the monuments.Quotes from our founding fathers.

Funny you should mention “any sin worth it’s salt” Kinda brings to mind Sodom & Gomorrah? As God was raining down fire & brimstone to utterly destroy the twin cities for their total lack of sexual morality (sodomites) Lotts’ wife looked back & turned into a pillar of salt!

By the way,I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be allowed to make their own choices.I respect their right to do what they choose,believe what they choose to believe. I won’t try to force them to live by my beliefs,but by the same token I don’t want to be forced to live by theirs.But what do I know,I’m just the average Joe!

To anyone who cares to read it:

There ARE sins out there. I know many want to see the world in relative terms, and suggest that there really is no such thing as a “sin”. But in my opinion, that is just plain wrong. Let’s look at that issue.

Should lying be illegal? Well, in a court of law, when you have agreed not to lie, then lying is illegal. If I tell a lie in the course of my regular day, its certainly not illegal in most contexts. But it is a sin nonetheless.

It is my OPINION that homosexual acts are sinful. I don’t believe they should be considered illegal, ergo, I am not advocating that homosexuals should be jailed or fined etc.

A homosexual act, after all, is a sexual act. That is why I lumped it in with other sexual acts, like adultery and promiscuity. I happen to be of the opinion that adultery is wrong. And so is promiscuity, though no one in the above posts has chosen to discuss it. Neither act is illegal but both are sinful. I cant see a parent being pleased to know their daughter just got “trained” by 10 frat boys at a party the night before, no matter how liberal minded they are.

We already consider some sexual acts to be immoral or sinful. I dont see anyone condoning bestiality, which is technically simply a sexual act. I’m not relating homosexual acts to bestiality in any other way than to say that both are sexual actions.

In my opinion, there are certain sexual actions that are sinful. Homosexuality is one of those acts.

You may disagree with my opinion…that is your right. I’m not a hypocrite, nor am I a bigot simply because of my opinion. I do not hate homosexuals, I am not homophobic, I am not intolerant of people. But I think its fair to say that Im intolerant of certain actions, as we all are.

averagejoe:

I am the “someone” you quoted about bigotry, but obviously you didn’t read all of my posts, nor have you looked up “bigot” in the dictionary lately. Being a bigot doesn’t mean you hate anyone, it simply means you’re intolerantly biased towards your own opinions, and given the fact that you think that simply being gay makes someone a liar and a cheater I think you fit the bill.

JBOD —

Here we are again. I won’t go into your lumping homosexuality with bestiality (why not throw in necrophilia and pedophilia too?), but I do have a question for you: What do you mean by “sinful?” Are we talking religion or simply morality?

jbod, I hate to bust your absolute sins bubble, but by your own examples, the war in Iraq is an immoral war. Thou shallt not kill. Period, end of commandment. Hence, if lying is always a sin, then certainly killing is always a sin. And therefore the war in Iraq is an immoral endeavor.

Would you agree with the logical consequence of your premises?

Alejo: The real meaning of the word bigot and what the people think it means are two different things. To most people, being a bigot means you hate someone because of race, sexual preference, religion etc… especially when one is running for office or trying to scare up support for their cause.

jbod: I know it was just your opinion, but what is immoral or sinful to you does not mean it is immoral or sinful to someone else. Just because a person chooses to be gay does not mean they are immoral in the eyes of the whole world. However, a gay person must also respect “your” views on this issue. If not, then they are the one who is a hypocrite.

kctim —

Sorry, I’m going to stick with what words actually mean instead of what people think they mean. Everybody who has access to this blog also has free access to www.merriamwebster.com/

Alejo: I understand that, I try to do that also. What I am getting at is, words such as bigot are “spun” to mean far worse than they really are. If called a bigot on the street, other people will think you “hate” someone, not that your “opinion” is different.

kctim —

Agreed — but I’d still rather not think I was a bigot, even in the strictest sense of the word. To me, the person who is most open to ideas is most thoughtful.

Alejo:

I’d agree that necrophilia, bestiality, promiscuity, pedophilia and homosexuality all have one thing in common: they all involve a sexual act. That’s the point I made.

As to your question about religion or morality, I’ll have to say I’m not sure of the difference you are looking for. I truly dont know which I would consider it. Seems to me it would be both, but perhaps you can help me understand how you see those two issues as different.

David:

I dont agree with the conclusion you have arrived at, by the logic you employed. The commandment in many versions of the Bible says “Thou shalt not murder” as opposed to “Thou shalt not kill”.

I’m sure you can see the logical difference between murder and killing. Our legal system certainly does, which is the reason for such degrees as manslaughter, murder 1,2 or 3, depraved indifference etc.

I think you’d agree that you would need to understand the context of the phrase to truly understand its meaning. I’d suggest that the context is in regard to murder, rather than killing. I don’t see the Bible, or our legal system for that matter, condemning someone for killing another person in self-defense. This is a vast difference from murdering someone out of jealousy, greed or rage.

I hope that explains the difference to you adequately. Not being any kind of a scholar, its the best I can do.

Alego said:

averagejoe:

I am the “someone” you quoted about bigotry, but obviously you didn’t read all of my posts, nor have you looked up “bigot” in the dictionary lately. Being a bigot doesn’t mean you hate anyone, it simply means you’re intolerantly biased towards your own opinions, and given the fact that you think that simply being gay makes someone a liar and a cheater I think you fit the bill.

I am impressed, not only can you look up definitions, you can even look into my written words (your statement & my actual response below)
and somehow interpret them as saying that simply being “gay” makes someone a liar & cheater (you forgot hurting people in this misquote) enough to warrant calling me a bigot.Pardon me for a moment while I let my hurt feelings mend.

Homosexuality does not, by definition, involve “lying, cheating, hurting others etc”.
It causes no harm, and I feel confident in suggesting, that if an act causes no harm it cannot be considered sinful. Any sin worth it’s salt should cause damage to the society or the world at large, homosexuality fails this test. That is why, all but the most close-minded, refrain from “lumping” it in with “adultery, promiscuity”.

Are you serious?? You must be from Californee. It doesn’t involve lying, cheating, or hurting others? Ask 100 homosexuals if they have lied,cheated,or hurt anyone by their lifestyle choice. I’m not a gambling man but I’d bet the farm that you are Wrong.

If you will allow me to give you my interpretation of my statement.All the interviews I have seen with homosexuals involves them saying that they have lived much of their lives in a lie,hiding their lifestyle from family and friends and to protect their jobs. As not to hurt their loved ones or get fired & be ridiculed.Then they “come out” and hurt them anyway. My statement is to take a survey and you will more than likely find out that your opinion is just wrong. Plain and simple. As for “lumping” beastiality in with homosexuality, your own statement allows anything to be thrown in. I believe you said something like, no, I think I’ll give you the courtesy of quoting you.

“I feel confident in suggesting, that if an act causes no harm it cannot be considered sinful.”
Boy does that ever open up the floodgates!

“Being a bigot doesn’t mean you hate anyone, it simply means you’re intolerantly biased towards your own opinions,”

By the way, the opinions I gave were not my own, they are quotes out of the Bible. Which just happened to “lump” the homosexuals with the animal lovers.

Leviticus 18:22; Thou shall not lie with mankind,as with womankind:it is abonimation.Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith:neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

As far as tolerance, would you care to know what the punishment for them both were? I think we have been extremely tolerant. How much does tv cram the alternative lifestyle down our throats? Doing their best to glamourize it. Why do they avoid putting the gay pride parades on tv??

I am the “someone” you quoted about bigotry, but obviously you didn’t read all of my posts.

Oh by the way, I read all the posts. I just didn’t comment on them, because, I’m sure much to your suprise, that I agree with much of what you said.I believe everyone has freedom to make their choices and reap the rewards & suffer the consequences of them.It is a free country. :)

> Can anyone on this thread honestly say that
> they would be happy if their son brought home
> another man & told you he was in love with him
> & that they planned to get married.

Yes. Me.

-Cf

kctim wrote:

Why then, is it ok to preach intolerance and hate towards people who do not approve of such a lifestyle?

Please provide where in my post, I advocate such behavior?

Misha wrote:

The problem, as I see it, is that much of the left is not content with just attacking the faulty logic of bigots, but want to muzzle them whenever they have the power to do it.

Please provide an example where we’ve been successful in this area? Would this identical to when Bill O’Reilly barks ‘shut up’?

On the subject of the morality or ‘sinful’ nature of homosexuality, I always find it baffling to have such a debate, when legalized prostitution is the law in one U.S. state.

Finally, maybe my use of the term ‘hypocrisy’ does not accurately describe the relationship between those who believe homosexuality to be “an act of selfish hedonism”, and the unashamed behavior of their own 19 year old daughter.

I see that no one here, who either condemned Keyes words, or conversely, justified them on community standards or biblical grounds, would dare apply their thesis to the common ritual of parents passing on moral teachings.

What has also escaped your collective notice, is that Maya is a fiercely independent minded, educated, savvy, spirited young Black woman - and, not the least bit ashamed of who and what she is!

If Alan Keyes does not know who is daughter really is, then his public comments are not surprising. If he preaches such ignorance, not knowing who his daughter truly is, it is not all that surprising. If he preaches such hate, all the while knowing the real Maya, that makes him a true Conservative Republican.

Bert:

On the subject of the morality or ‘sinful’ nature of homosexuality, I always find it baffling to have such a debate, when legalized prostitution is the law in one U.S. state.

My opinion is that prostitution is a bad thing for society and that it is a sin. I dont know if it counts as a religious or a moral sin. The fact that it is legal in Nevada doesn’t change my opinion. That some people claim prostitution is a “victimless” crime does not change my opinion.

Bert, I’ve stayed on track that certain sexually based acts are, in my opinion, sinful in nature. We can disagree on how we view that.

As far as Keyes is concerned, he is on solid ground if he says that he both loves his daughter but dislikes homosexuality. To me it would be the same as a father saying he loves his daughter but dislikes the fact that she is promiscuous.

It is not hard to love a person, yet still dislike some of their actions. We do it with our family, children and friends each and every day.

I dont know the context or the full statements that Keyes has made. I can only comment that he can be truthful in taking a position to love his daughter yet not love homosexuality. This is very different from saying he does not love his daughter.

averagejoe —

I’m sorry I called you a bigot. It was uncalled for and impolite, and I probably should have gotten a reprimand from the blog editors for it.

I must have misinterpreted something you said, and when I went back here’s the line that prompted me to speak inappropriately:

“It doesn’t involve lying, cheating, or hurting others? Ask 100 homosexuals if they have lied,cheated,or hurt anyone by their lifestyle choice. I’m not a gambling man but I’d bet the farm that you are Wrong.”

That’s what made me think you were saying all gays were liars and cheats. As I read closer I guess you could simply be saying that all gays had hurt someone by being gay, not that they had necessarily lied or cheated, but it’s not clear from your words.

Regardless, I should not have said what I did.

jbod —

Let’s be candid here — you can say you’re just making a list of acts that involve sex in some way, but when the discussion involves the morality of those acts you’re also drawing a morality connection between them. The key difference — and it is significant even if you never mentioned it — between bestiality (or pedophilia) and homosexuality is that one is not an act of consent and the other is. The parallel between promiscuity and homosexuality makes more sense and is more accurate, since both are consenting acts that some people find distateful but are not illegal.

As for the difference between religious morality and conventional morality, religious morality is rules handed down by God, whereas conventional morality is rules devised by man for the benefit of society. For example, there are rules in the Bible about not eating hooven animals on certain days and not eating scaled fish on others, which made sense at the time of the Bible due to environmental factors but have little relevance (or attention) today. There are other rules, like a taboo against murder, that make sense from both a religious and a conventional morality viewpoint.

Hey Bert: You asked- Please provide where in my post, I advocate such behavior?
In your initial post, your lump all Repubs together as being intolerant and hateful towards gay lifestyle. My question you referred to was exactly about that. Why is it ok for “you” to be against those who disagree with being gay and to cast disparaging and harmful words at them, but it is wrong for someone to be against the gay lifestyle and speak out about it?

Apply their thesis? I had not seen it before then either. I only know what I have had to deal with and it wasnt fun. As a parent and an atheist, this was a hard thing to explain to my kids.

Escaped us? Maybe we don’t care who or what she is. She’s black? Big deal! She’s gay? So what! You are the only one so far that has cared about that.

“If he preaches such hate, all the while knowing the real Maya, that makes him a true Conservative Republican.”
Keyes preaches being gay is wrong.
You preach that “everyone” who supports Keyes, hates, are Repubs and wrong.

Is it not real “Hypocrisy” to say one should be allowed to state their views and the other should not?

Alejo:

I initially used the comparison of adultery and homosexuality, since both are sexual acts and both are wrong, in my opinion. They also are consensual acts. I only included other types of sexual acts in order to indicate that sexual acts can be seen as “sinful”.

Thanks for your explanation on religious morality and conventional morality. Allow me to point out an interesting impact:

The negative viewpoint of promiscuity, I think, started as a religious issue. The Bible speaks against promiscuity. But it has evolved into a conventional moral issue as well as a health issue. Promiscuity can lead to emotional committment issues as well as health issues (herpes, AIDS etc).

Despite many people claiming that promiscuity is simply a choice and one that is “victimless”, it is fact that promiscuity DOES have pitfalls, and can cause great harm. Seems to me that religous and conventional morality in this issue, just like your example of murder, intertwine rather closely.

jbod:

Absolutely. And engaging in gay sex carries its own additional risks to others as well as oneself. There’s no doubt there is a societal preservation element in the taboo against gay sex. The question boils down, as it always does, to whether being gay is a choice or not.

I really have to wonder about the philosophy of “you can’t be intolerant of intolerant people without being hypocritical”…

Anyone care to tell Jews or Blacks that they can’t be intolerant or hateful towards Neo-Nazis or the KKK/White Supremacists when they go around preaching about how bad the Jews and Blacks are?

There are, frankly, just some points of view where people’s intolerance causes direct harm to others. Intolerance towards gay individuals causes more than just emotional harm, it disenfranchises them from having their committed relationships recognized in the eyes of the law. It spreads further intolerance and even a desire for violence in some cases.

By contrast, the reciprocal “intolerance towards people who do not approve of such a lifestyle” doesn’t deprive those people from having anything recognized under the law. It doesn’t cause violence. It may cause intolerance towards those groups in that those who disagree with their message or the way they are expressing it will shun them; but it is not likely to cause the kind of intolerance that may get one fired, publicly harassed for holding hands or kissing one’s partner, or even physically attacked.

Gay bashing, in the literal sense, is a reality not a myth. I’ve been on the receiving end of it once before with a group of people who had a very distorted view of gay men, and earned some respect from them by giving as good as I got and not backing down. I used that chance (and the fact that I was kind of stuck in the daily company of this group for a month) to break more of their misconceptions by talking with them about myself and what being gay was like for me. Most gay people don’t get that chance. I got lucky, I very easily could have been hurt severely if they had ganged up on me more in the beginning, rather than fighting more or less one-on-one while the others watched.

For all those on the right who go on and on about how Kerry’s assessment of the situation in Iraq gives “aid and comfort to our enemies”, how is it that you don’t see a similar situation here… where the intolerant words spoken against homosexuality and the denial of homosexual unions under the law gives aid and comfort to those who would fire homosexuals simply for who they date in their off hours, who would harass them in public if seen with their partner, or who would even cause them physical harm?

From this side of the issue, it appears to me not only as giving aid and comfort to them, but making common cause with them. Especially when gay men are singled out for “sinful acts”, but if we go by a strict interpretation of the laws of the christian religion it is no less sinful to be hindu, buddhist, pagan, or any of a host of other religions that we have guaranteed free expression in this country. Possibly more sinful, in fact, since being of another faith violates both the first of the ten commandments the christian god gave Moses and the first of the two commandments Jesus gave his followers. Why is the prohibition against homosexuality constantly pulled out of a section of laws and dietary restrictions that are no longer followed and treated as if it should dictate modern secular laws? It seems, from my perspective, merely a rationalization for treating homosexuals as second class citizens or less.

Well said, Jarin.

Jarin:

I’d suggest that nothing in my statements gives anyone the ability to treat homosexuals as “second class citizens”. I’d also suggest that nothing in my statements condones the mistreatment of anyone for their sexual preference. I’m not suggesting that you lumped me into the kinds of groups you mention in your post, but you do seem to lump all those who disagree with homosexuality into a negative stereotype.

For the record, I think homosexuality is wrong. I do not condone “gaybashing” nor any harassment of gays. I also do not condone changing the laws specifically to benefit gays. Marriage for example has been defined both legally and generally as between a man and a woman. I don’t see fit to change that.

There are those who say that such a change will allow others to use similar arguments to condone marrying a pet or polygamy. I’d say that’s already the case—-there is a current legal case in which a polygamist is using the same logic to question whether we should be intolerant as to the NUMBER of people involved in a marriage.

Jarin, if a friend of yours were utterly promiscuous, I’d say you had a right to tell him/her you disagree with her “lifestyle”. Its your right to hold your own opinions. Now, if you slapped him/her silly while saying you disagree with the lifestyle, that’s abuse and legally punishable.
The same should go for someone’s opinion about homosexuality.

Is not refusing to recognize our committed relationships under the law, while recognizing heterosexual committed relationships legally, making us second class citizens? Is not allowing employers to fire us for being homosexual, while prosecuting similar control of who heterosexuals date by their employers as a form of sexual harassment, making us second class citizens? Is not going around preaching our sinfulness while ignoring the fact that in the view of the christian religion all non-christians are sinning by definition singling us out for such second-class treatment?

There is a difference between not agreeing with something and trying to make your way the one true way for all.

Jarin: “I really have to wonder about the philosophy of “you can’t be intolerant of intolerant people without being hypocritical”…
Why are people who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle considered “intolerant?” If people can say how right it is to them, shouldn’t others be entitled to say how bad it is to them?

Neo-nazi’s, the klan or the nation of islam groups don’t even equate to the anti gay issue. Those groups are extreme wings, prone to violence. The majority of anti-gay groups are non-violent. Sure there is still too much violence against gay males out there, but it can mostly be traced to drunk males acting like fools. Straight people have violent encounters from gays also.
Gay bashing is very real, but when you slander a person with words like bigot, simply because the y are against homosexuality, you are no better than those who gay bash.

I am not trying to defend any view here. I don’t care who a person choses to love. I just know that calling a person a bigot simply because they have the view that being gay is wrong, is just as bad as calling a gay person immoral.

Kctim:

I’m sorry, but I think they do equate. We live in a society where religious groups picket against the funerals of gay individuals who were murdered for being gay. Where religious groups call for the re-criminalization of homosexual acts and the imposition of the death penalty in accordance with biblical law. Saying that these groups are alright simply because they did not do the killing, and have a right to express their views, is the essence of aiding and comforting those who do perform the violence.

Anyone who is so sure of their religion that they wish to make its laws the basis of secular marriage law in a country which embraces a plurality of religions with vastly different views on marriage and sexuality is, frankly, a bigot. They are tacitly demonstrating their intolerance of other stances on the issue by trying to make their view carry the weight of law. No amount of equivocation will change that fact.

joe:

One other thing, in reply to your post:

For the record, I think homosexuality is wrong. I do not condone “gaybashing” nor any harassment of gays. I also do not condone changing the laws specifically to benefit gays. Marriage for example has been defined both legally and generally as between a man and a woman. I don’t see fit to change that.

What if that were the statement of someone else, reformulated just a little bit?

“For the record, I think that men are superior to women. I do not condone “wifebeating” nor any cruelty to women. I also do not condone changing the laws specifically to benefit women. Voting, for example, is something that has been defined both legally and generally as being done by the male of the species. I don’t see fit to change that.”

Changing the statement slightly to fit with someone else’s brand of intolerance, rather than your own, makes the intolerance inherent to the position stand out a bit more starkly… does it not?

Jarin: I support you and your fight. But the topic was of “Republican Gay Hypocrisy.” A person cannot label all Republicans as bigots simply because they disagree with being gay. Even if extreme groups, in the minority, advocate bad things.

“They are tacitly demonstrating their intolerance of other stances on the issue by trying to make their view carry the weight of law.”

It could also be said:
“Gays are tacitly demonstrating their intolerance of other beliefs on the issue, by trying to force their views onto anti-gay supporters by making their view carry the weight of the law.”

I am an atheist and I believe both sides are wrong in how they are handling the issue. And both sides have valid points. But even I don’t believe that all religious groups are as extreme as you say.

kctim:

Sorry, but it just doesn’t work in reverse the way you seem to want it to. Homosexuals want the right to marry each other, they are not and never have been advocating the removal of heterosexual couple’s right to marry. There is no intolerance inherent to their position, nor are they forcing their views to be applied to other people in any way.

I have yet to hear anyone give a good argument against gay marriage, other than “the Bible says it’s wrong.” As Jarin pointed out, we don’t get all our laws from the Bible, nor do we make all biblical admonishments into law. Why this one?

Jarin: I do not want anything to work in a certain way. I see valid points from both sides of the issue.
I know homosexuals deserve the right to marry, I know homosexuals have never advocated the removal of straight couples. You are correct in that “there is no intolerance inherent to their position.” But I do believe many people feel that gays are forcing their views to be accepted with total disregard of a persons belief.

Creating a law which violates someones beliefs is a hard thing to do. Their belief that being gay is wrong is no less valid in your belief that it is right.
Bert was suggesting that this is totally a Republican view which was hypocritical. Missouri recently pass an anti-gay marriage amendment by 70%, Bush won Missouri by a margin like 52-49 or something close. Now, if all Dems believed in gay marriage, this bill would not have passed.

This is not a political issue. It is a personal belief issue. Both sides need to take the time, respect and listen to the other, without “either” side making false generalizations of each other.

And why exactly should they not disregard others beliefs on this issue? They are not trying to affect others lives, they are trying to affect their own. Other’s religious beliefs on the rightness or wrongness of their choice should in no way factor into it, any more than islamic beliefs should factor into the legal recognition of christian wedding ceremonies (or vice versa).

Not tolerating the interference of others in their own lives and choices does not equate to being intolerant of the beliefs of others.

And you’re right, this issue doesn’t divide strictly along party lines. Nothing ever does. There are gay-friendly (and even gay!) republicans , and homophobic democrats. There are also pro-life democrats (I tend to be one of them, in general) and pro-choice republicans. That doesn’t change which party supports which, officially. Nor does it change the fact that it seems like it is commonly republican leaders who claim to love their children while supporting legislation that will keep their gay or lesbian children from ever having their committed relationships with the people they love legally recognized. It is this claim of love, while acting against the best interests of their gay and lesbian children, which spawns the charge of hypocrisy.

Jarin: “And why exactly should they not disregard others beliefs on this issue?”
That is the gist of what I am saying. By disregarding their beliefs, you do nothing more than create a bigger wall to get over.
Understanding and respecting the others views, from BOTH sides, will help chip away at that wall.

I don’t feel that your reason for the charge of hypocrisy is valid. I believe their claim of love is sincere. To those who are religious, being gay is a sin. Is it not acting in their childs best interests to help them avoid sin, thereby being able to go to heaven?

Jarin:

Thanks for your comments. You are obviously very interested in this topic, since it affects you so directly.

Your point about intolerance is well taken, and I enjoyed how you took a different situation and used it well. However, you dont seem willing to see the lack of tolerance of other’s viewpoints as being bad.

You seem to be saying that I should be forced to accept gay marriage. That you cannot understand why I think it is detrimental to society makes you feel that you can be intolerant of MY opinion. Since your opinion is so obviously right, it makes MY opinion so obviously wrong to you.

The real issue is whether we can, as a society, put any limits at all on marriage. Currently one such limit is that only opposite sexes may marry. Other such limitations are age, number of people being married (polygamy), family members marrying (incest) and species (we’ve all heard the bit about how someone is gonna want to marry their pet).

These are all limitations on marriage. My question to you is should there be any limits at all on marriage. After all, none of the above limits really infringes on other members of society. In that vein, should all the above limits be removed from marriage, in order to make it fair for all?

I know this is a loaded question—-its intended to be. But when you look at the issue for what it is—-limits or no limits on marriage—you have to be willing to answer to these aspects of limits as well.

kctim:

That is like saying that women should have respected the views of those who said they should not vote, rather than rightly accusing them of chauvinism. That blacks should have respected the views of those who saw them as an inferior race, rather than rightly pointing out their racism. Disregarding the idea that the religious beliefs of others should be applied to you with the force of law does not create a bigger wall to get over, it merely brings one right up against the wall that already exists. Everything looks bigger when you’re right up against it.

As for their claim of love: you’re saying it’s tough love, then? Denying them their loved ones in this life in order to secure a place for them in paradise? Of course, someone who actually is gay might have a very different idea of paradise from someone who is straight. For a gay man, the idea of a paradise full of virgin girls waiting for him might not exactly appeal, for example. And I rather doubt that a god who finds homosexual acts to be a sin would provide faithful, celibate gay men with male companions in the afterlife. It would kind of negate the point of not allowing it in this one.

But to answer you more directly, is it not hypocrisy to claim to love someone while utterly disregarding their views and experience of an issue? How do you love someone if you do not respect them enough to listen to their thoughts, their experiences, their desires, and their emotional needs? Hurting someone “for their own good”, or “out of love” is a common position taken by those who abuse others, both emotionally and physically. It is no more valid in this instance than in those.

Would you suggest that it would also not be hypocritical to claim to love one’s child, while working to make their chosen religion illegal, if it differed from one’s own?

Joe:

No, frankly I don’t think being intolerant of the viewpoints of others when they want them applied to me and my boyfriend rather than to themselves, is bad.

As for whether or not you should be forced to accept gay marriage? Yes, I do, IN THE CONTEXT OF LAW. I also think that christians should be forced to accept islamic marriage as legally binding, pagan marriage as legally binding, and hindu marriage as legally binding. Regardless of their own beliefs. This doesn’t require you to have one of your own. It doesn’t require you to even attend one. It doesn’t affect you or society as a whole in any way save in forcing you to acknowledge the already-present reality that your viewpoint is NOT the only one held by the everyone and that the committed relationships entered into by those who disagree with you are just as valid as your own and should receive the same recognition, rights, and protections under the law.

As for limitations on marriage? Maybe we can’t have them, or at least not as many as we currently have. Of the ones you list, only limits against age and bestiality can remain as limits in all cases. The former because children cannot enter into contracts, they cannot provide informed consent on such matters. Unless someone finds a way to counter that basic fact, pedophilia will never be legal, though I submit there is perhaps some question of the exact age or level of education at which they gain this capacity to provide informed consent. The latter, bestiality, will remain as a limit for a similar lack of informed consent by non-sentient beings unless someone can provide proof of animal sentience and a means to communicate with them at a human level. As for the questions of both polygamy and adult consensual incest, I don’t see any such rational justification, though I submit that polygamous relationships among large enough networks of people might pose a logistical problem for both government and business if granted identical rights to monogamous couples. If that argument alone is justification for preventing polygamous civil marriage, or for reducing the rights granted to monogamous couples, I do not know.

Bad news JBOD. We already lost, & with me it went unnoticed!

Alejo: The real meaning of the word bigot and what the people think it means are two different things. To most people, being a bigot means you hate someone because of race, sexual preference,
religion etc
Posted by: kctim at September 29, 2004 10:26 AM
kctim —

Sorry, I’m going to stick with what words actually mean instead of what people think they mean. Everybody who has access to this blog also has free access to www.merriamwebster.com/

Posted by: Alejo at September 29, 2004 10:35 AM

I agree with kctim on this statement.I’ve never really thought about it that way,but what people think something means is what they form their opinion on.Since what many words have always been perceived to mean (such as bigot or predjudiced) really is what counts.Profound statement! Since most people don’t hit the websters!

Now to the point I was going to make.While everyone has been talking about changing the meaning of marriage which even the most liberal concede to the fact that it has always been defined as a union between a man & a woman. I decided to go to Alejo’s suggested www.merriamwebster.com/ and hold him to his “stick with what words actually mean”
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH :-O ?????????????

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: ‘mer-ij, ‘ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

When did that happen JBOD? They dun gon an changed the dictionary!!! Can they do that?
I’ve heard of Webster, but who is this Merriam?
Could it be that webster also has a gay daughter?
hmmmmmmm (just kidding)

If you don’t like what something means,heck,just change or amend the definition! Why can’t conservatives get away with stuff like that?

averagejoe:

Not really a huge change in definition, since Church doctrine has always included the marriage of Jesus Christ to the Church. Since the Church is not, by definition, a biological female let alone a singular entity, framing all marriage as unions between one biological male and one biological female by definition is in fact inherently flawed.

Also the archbishop put it, “alongside Christ, the whole Church is ‘feminine’.” If femininity (or its converse) is a state that transcends physical gender in the case of the Church, why can it not transcend physical gender in the case of individual human beings as well?

(Figuratively)

Main Entry: fig·u·ra·tive
Pronunciation: ‘fi-g(y)&-r&-tiv
Function: adjective
1 a : representing by a figure or resemblance : EMBLEMATIC b : of or relating to representation of form or figure in art
2 a : expressing one thing in terms normally denoting another with which it may be regarded as analogous : METAPHORICAL b : characterized by figures of speech

(As opposed to)

(literally.)

Main Entry: lit·er·al·ly
Pronunciation: ‘li-t&-r&-lE, ‘li-tr&-lE, ‘li-t&r-lE
Function: adverb
1 : in a literal sense or manner : ACTUALLY
2 : in effect : VIRTUALLY
usage Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposite of sense 1, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse. Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.

averagejoe:

Christian doctrine sees physical marriage as itself a symbol of the everlasting marriage between christ and his church. In that context, it is earthly marriage that is a figurative marriage, and the union of christ and his church that is literal marriage. My argument stands.

Marriage between man & woman as stated in the link you put up, I could agree as far as interchangable. We do however still have the: “Thou shall not lie with mankind,as with womankind:it is abonimation” thing. There are many more scriptures refering to this.I can post them all if you like. On the worldly realm your your arguement will probably stand. As laws & rules change like a ship tossed to & fro in the wind. With political correctness and compromise and not wanting to hurt anyones feelings, lack of correction,etc. Undoubtedly as far as things have moved already, all the things you are looking for will come probably to pass.
On the Godly realm however, your “stand” is like a house built on the sand. You’ll have a much harder time changing his statutes.

averagejoe:

I’m not about to debate theology with you on this. The question is not what God does or does not condone. This nation is not a theocracy, it does not matter what the Judeo-Christian god does or does not condone. My points on church doctrine were merely to show that even Christian doctrine itself has not uniformly used the word marriage in such a way that it has had the meaning of one biological man and one biological woman throughout history. Frankly, I don’t give a damn what your god does or does not condone in the laws he gave to his followers, I’m not Christian. Not everyone in this country is. And this country’s laws should not be based on Christian theology as if we were.

Does anyone from the anti-Gay crowd honestly, truly believe that Gay marriage won’t be legal within the next 20-50 years (if not sooner)?

Every single progressive social issue has eventually gained acceptance, despite initial resistence stemming from long-held prejudices.

Let me save you all the trouble and tell you how this story ends. Public sentiment slowly begins to turn in favor of FULL Gay rights, the movement gains steam, the publicity and exposure eventually topples the anti-Gay movement and Gay marriage becomes legalized. Just like the Woman’s movement, the Civil Rights movement and any other social justice movement.

Now KNOWING this outcome will occur (to think oppositely would be to believe that a long line of historical precedence is meaningless) do you really want to be remembered for harboring the discriminatory stance on this issue? Do you want to leave a legacy like Gov. Wallace? Because that’s where you’re headed right now.

Andrew:

I take mild exception to your characterization of the “anti-gay” crowd. Seems to me using that kind of term is simply a method to portray a certain way of thinking in a negative outlook.

It reminds me of the abortion debate and how both sides try to position themselves. One side says the two sides are pro-choice and anti-choice. The other side says pro-life and anti-life. Its simply marketing an idea trying to make it sound popular or better.

While I disagree with homosexuality, for all the reasons I’ve discussed earlier in this thread, I dont see myself as a homophobe, an “anti-gay” crowd member, or anything of the like.

I see myself disagreeing with a specific action that some people espouse. Just as I disagree with the action of being promiscuous, I also disagree with the action of homosexuality. It doesn’t mean anything more than that.

I’m also secure enough in my thought process to feel comfortable being on the “losing” side of an issue. To change a core belief or a value system simply to be on the more popular side would be the height of hypocrisy, dont you think?

joe:

So, just to be clear, you take the stance that homosexuality is an action, like promiscuity… essentially, a behavior or choice rather than an orientation?

If that is correct, what leads you to this view?

joe:

Also, if you view homosexuality as a behavior or action, and are opposed to the practice on moral grounds, how is anti-gay in any way an inaccurate description of your stance?

It appears that you are trying to draw a distinction between being against homosexual actions and being against homosexuals themselves, but from your statements it would appear that you do not actually believe in homosexuality as an orientation, only as a behavior. Therefor, saying that you are against homosexual actions but not against homosexuals is roughly equivalent to saying you are against the action of lying, but are not anti-liar. It’s contradictory.

Perhaps I misunderstand your stance, however?

Like I said before, I don’t care about the semantics of this issue. Anti-gay, pro-family… call it whatever you want. Talking about semantics distracts from the issue.

Joe, no matter how you look at the issue, it is clear that “your side” is trying to deny others equal rights. This isn’t something new. It’s happened all throughout history. And we all know how the story ends — the socially progressive movement wins out. We make PROGRESS. Not such a bad thing, eh?

I’m sure there were very reasonable arguments back in the day about why whites were genetically superior to blacks, or why men were physically or mentally superior to women. I’m sure that within the context of the day, when those attitudes were still prevalent, those arguments actually sounded rationale to a lot of people.

Fast forward to today. We only see those viewpoints as racist or misogynistic. We have a greater context and a more enlightened view of these issues. Not far in the future, the same will be said for gay rights. I guarantee you will be embarrassed and ashamed to one day tell your grandkids you actually felt this way. In fact, YOUR grandparents are probably ashamed to tell you that they hated blacks (or at the very least considered them 2nd class citizens).

Joe, I just don’t think that your viewpoint is intellectually honest. It seems much more derived from upbringing and inculcated religious/moral values rather than taking an open minded look at the issue and deciding for yourself. I hope you’ll answer Jarin’s question: Do you think homosexuality is a choice or an orientation? If you think it’s an orientation (as the scientific evidence points to) than how can you see fit to discriminate?

Joe, I just don’t think that your viewpoint is intellectually honest. It seems much more derived from upbringing and inculcated religious/moral values rather than taking an open minded look at the issue and deciding for yourself. I hope you’ll answer Jarin’s question: Do you think homosexuality is a choice or an orientation? If you think it’s an orientation (as the scientific evidence points to) than how can you see fit to discriminate?

Andrew, I’m not the Joe you were addressing,but if you don’t mind I’d like to respond. As you seem to want to understand why the conservatives feel the way we do. We (or at least I)don’t see it as orientation because being born black or female there is no choice,that is just what you are. Created or evolved, all species have a male and a female,no inbetween. They were put together diferently for reproductive purposes. In every species that I’m aware of they pair up male and female.That is why I feel that it is ones choice.To me it just goes against nature.
That being said I do believe that people have the right to make these choices,like I said before.You say you don’t care about the semantics (pro family) distracting from the issue. To us that is the issue.If it was just descrimination due to something out of an individuals control,there wouldn’t be the opposition.

“the socially progressive movement wins out. We make PROGRESS. Not such a bad thing, eh?”

By being a choice movement vs an orientation movement with most it remains a moral issue.The socially progressive movement has yet to PROGRESS into legalizing prostitution. That is for the most part illegal.

averagejoe:

How does being created male and female, by itself, make homosexuality a choice? If one is created male, but has an inborn attraction to other males rather than to females, how is that a choice?

One thing I always like to ask straight men who claim being gay is a choice: do any of you remember making a choice to desire females? Do you regularly feel attracted to men and make a choice to turn away from this desire? What is it that makes you feel a human being… any human being… has an actual choice about who they desire or even who they love?

Jarin,

averagejoe doesn’t know any gay people personally, otherwise he would realize that homosexuality is clearly not a choice but an orientation.

Averagejoe,

You say that homosexuality is just not “natural,” but that clearly reflects a bias of what you’ve been told or taught your entire life. As I’ve pointed out in a previous post, the science DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR VIEWPOINT.

What about the theory that homosexuality evolved in order to promote natural selection and survival of the “fittest” human traits? If you were to assume that theory to be true, would you still find homosexuality wrong? If so, please distinguish it from less “fit” human traits like short stature or slow footspeed.

On second thought, why even bring science into the debate? I’m sure you believe evolution is a myth too. I guess ignorance is bliss….

Andrew:

averagejoe doesn’t know any gay people personally, otherwise he would realize that homosexuality is clearly not a choice but an orientation.

If that is true, would we not be better served by talking with him, letting him get to know us, and trying to explain our own experiences and feelings in such a manner that he could understand them and relate them to his own? Insulting him hardly seems like it would change his opinion of homosexuals in a positive way.

Scientific proof is a wonderful thing, but man is not motivated to action by logic alone. Both the way a speaker makes him feel, and his impression of the speaker’s character, also play a part in convincing him. Empathy cannot be fostered by the blunt force of reason.

Jarin,
That post I put up last night was originslly twice as long.I went back & reread previous posts over again. I told a couple stories that happened in my personal life,but detecting the anger in some posts I deleted it. I was goung to just say whatever, and move on to other less intense threads that aren’t so personal.
On this thread I’ve said several times that I believe in everyones right to make their own decisions.It just intrests me to hear the other side of the issue, just as you seem to want to know why the other side feels the way we do.(civil debate) Being called names really doesn’t bother me in the least,(though I choose not to stoop to calling names) but in trying to hear your side and reavealing my beliefs I’ve been called a bigot & ignorant.I was done with this conversation until I read your post.
Andrew said that I don’t know any gay people personally. Let me tell you a little story about the ones I knew best.(by the way,he is wrong) My parents have been antique dealers for many years.At one point they bought from a couple of guys named George and David.They became friends of our family for about ten years.They would come over at least once a week to show mom glassware & lamps & stuff. They always cut up & clowned around kidding around about me coming over to their house & I’d never go back to women. I’d joke right back calling them names & get away from me, etc. We laughed so hard we cried. It was fuuunny! I didn’t understand or agree with their lifestyle, but you had to love them.They died from aids in the early 90’s.I’ve known several gay couples personally male & female. But if someone doesn’t want to hear why or what you believe they should not ask.
What you said to Andrew is exactly right. Extremists on both sides create to much antimosity(sp). I don’t try to get nor expect anyone to change their beliefs to meet my beliefs, nor should they expect me to change mine.But if they ask what they are I’ll tell them.If the descrimination being discussed is about acceptance, I think the ones crying the most about it are the ones who just plain ole have bad approaches or attitudes.Most people choose to accept others by if they like them or not. (to have friends, one must show himself friendly)
I don’t condemn anyone personally,I give scriptures showing why I believe the way I do.If someone isn’t a “believer” then why do they care what I think? People who don’t believe in God aren’t subject to the laws of God.

Scripture says:
“for we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”

I’m glad you’ve decided to stick with the conversation.

I don’t condemn anyone personally,I give scriptures showing why I believe the way I do.If someone isn’t a “believer” then why do they care what I think? People who don’t believe in God aren’t subject to the laws of God.

The reason what you think matters to me, as someone who has left the Christian faith to follow a different path, is because what you think affects the way you vote on the issue of gay marriage in the united states, and thus directly affects me and my boyfriend and our ability to have our relationship legally recognized. I strongly suspect other gay men feel similarly.

Civil Marriage laws have to do with the laws of man, not the laws of your God, since they apply equally to persons of all religions and even to persons who are not religious. If you are truly tolerant of gay individuals, as your story about past experiences with them makes me think you are, can you not temper your beliefs when it comes to the matter of human law? Can you not allow us the legal freedom to make our own choices in such a personal matter?

Perhaps I misunderstand your position on the legality of gay marriage, but it is hard for me to reconcile your statement that you think people should be allowed to make their own decisions with your previous characterization of legalizing gay marriage as forcing you to live by the beliefs of others.

My frustration on this topic stems from the lack of intellectual honesty I see in the debate.

Averagejoe, why not answer my questions about the science/nature of homosexuality? Is it just more convenient for you to turn a blind eye to the facts? Have you ever even considered the notion that, maybe, homosexuality is both natural and derived from God. Is it inconceivable that God would produce species with a range of sexual orientation?

Please answer the question posed to you on numerous instances…. Why do you believe homosexuality is a choice and not an orientation? If you have Gay friends and you’ve spoken with them in depth about their sexuality, I don’t see how you can possibly think it is a choice…

It’s not exactly intellectual dishonesty, it is a somewhat logical extrapolation of one of their core axioms: Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, as personified by God and Satan respectively. Specifically, Absolute Evil.

If a being of absolute evil exists that is responsible for all mortal temptation, all improper thoughts, all lusts, all desire to sin, then any homosexual urges (seemingly inborn or not) in any given individual can be rationalized. They are not the work of god, but of Satan, and the person afflicted with such temptation has the choice to give into temptation or live his life according to God’s commandments. Comparisons are commonly drawn with Alcoholism, another temptation that people may be born more susceptible to than others but which they can turn away from.

There are at least two flaws in this reasoning, I believe, even strictly adhering to christian beliefs: 1) Mere temptation by Satan would not explain the *lack* of attraction gay individuals feel towards members of the opposite sex, which according to Christian theory should be hardwired into them by the hand of God himself. 2) While “sinful” physical desire for members of the same sex is easy to explain away in this manner (and indeed, for members of the opposite sex as well) it does not even begin to explain true feelings of love between homosexual partners. If God is love, as scripture says, surely Satan would not foster any sort of love in mortal men for this would be a way for them to know God in their lives.

I may not be Christian anymore, but I pride myself on having a decent understanding of the religion and left it only after being able to make an informed decision on its tenets as a whole.

I’ve been busy the last couple of days.I see you’re still on this topic.It’s getting late but I’ll post tomorrow if you’re still interested.

Certainly, I remain interested.

Jarin:
Civil Marriage laws have to do with the laws of man, not the laws of your God, since they apply equally to persons of all religions and even to persons who are not religious.

Jarin, I don’t disagree with your argument about the laws of man vs the laws of God. Loosening them to protect individuals rights. As a matter of fact,after talking with you,I would probably support legaly recogonized civil unions.Whereas before I probably wouldn’t even vote on it.
I don’t however have any desire to change how marriage is defined in the Bible. The Biblical description of marriage will always stand unchanged in my eyes. As far as gays feeling that there is no room for them in “my” Gods kingdom. I just don’t believe that.You talk about His love,but more important than that is His grace.I obviously don’t agree with absolute right & evil.Like I quoted before “we have ALL sinned & fallen short of the glory of God”The people that shun gays and don’t believe that there is room for them in church,need to examine themselves first.I don’t agree with them either. As I closed my last post with, we are all sinners & the church has it’s share of every sin under the sun perched in it’s pews. The misconception among most people is that sin is what sends you to hell. Not believing in Jesus Christ & Him crucified is what the Bible says sends people to hell.Once you have accepted Christ into your heart the only “sin unto death” is blasphamy against the Holy Spirit.

Averagejoe, why not answer my questions about the science/nature of homosexuality? Is it just more convenient for you to turn a blind eye to the facts?

What about the theory that homosexuality evolved in order to promote natural selection and survival of the “fittest” human traits? If you were to assume that theory to be true,

What facts? I believe your theory of evolution just as you believe my theory of creation.Are there facts in the Bible that you choose to turn a blind eye to? It goes beyond facts and into faith.

Please answer the question posed to you on numerous instances…. Why do you believe homosexuality is a choice and not an orientation?

What about the theory that homosexuality evolved in order to promote natural selection and survival of the “fittest” human traits? If you were to assume that theory to be true,

How does being created male and female, by itself, make homosexuality a choice? If one is created male, but has an inborn attraction to other males rather than to females, how is that a choice?

One thing I always like to ask straight men who claim being gay is a choice: do any of you remember making a choice to desire females? Do you regularly feel attracted to men and make a choice to turn away from this desire? What is it that makes you feel a human being… any human being… has an actual choice about who they desire or even who they love?

Why this remains to me (and always will) a choice and not sexual orientation is simply the sexual aspect. We are all drawn to people of both sexes in our lives. We love people of both sexes in our journey through life. We love some much more than others. There are some men that I have been closer to than some women. The choice comes in when picking the person you CHOOSE to be intimate with,and thus taking it to the next level & getting married, then in most cases you or your spouse CHOOSE that special someome else,divorcing & repeating the process of CHOOSING another mate.

“Do you regularly feel attracted to men and make a choice to turn away from this desire?”

Everyone has desires that they Choose to give into or choose to not.