Maybe someone who is religious and accepts same sex marriage can explain how they resolve the seeming conflict.
The way I resolve the conflict is to recognize that the bible was written by man but inspired by God. The bible due to its power has been heavily politicized over 2000 years in the New Testament and 6000 years for the old testament.
I don't believe in creation, so why would I believe in other parts that don't make sense.
Essentially in the Gospels Jesus basically condems organized religion when he takes every oppurtunity to point out the hypocracy of the Pharsies and Saducies. Taking those sections of a guide Jesus wasn't big on doctorine and dogma. It is truely ironic that the Catholic church and other religions seem to ignore these fundamental teachings.
So the dogmatic church gains power by creating ingroups and outgroups but the spiritual church as the posters above put it is about loving others. Something the Catholic church regularly fails to do.
So in the end I don't really care if Gay's get married. They should be allowed access to the same rights and privilages as anyone else. In the bible Jesus preached and built his following with the outcasts of society. Hookers, Gentiles, Fisherman and preached equality and inclusion. In today's society he would likely attack the church for their treatment of Gay's.
Last edited by GGG; 06-29-2010 at 11:14 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
It's a human rights issue plain and simple. How is it any different than women being allowed to vote or people of African descent being allowed to use the same fountain?
If you set aside a group of people and give them a different set of rules, even if you feel it's just a TERM, it's prejudice plain and simple.
And the argument 'it's not the group, it's the act' doesn't fly either. Lots of straight couples do the same things as gay couples. (and yeah I'm feeling a bigger argument behind this point, but I can't figure out how to refine it without making the rest of the post suffer, so I'm going to leave it unless anyone challenges it)
Lastly, anyones religious beliefs are fine. They can feel whatever they want. But last time I checked, we don't base our society on one groups interpretation of morality. Nor do we base it on a 2000 year old book that is largely incorrect historically and scientifically.
We base our societies, and this goes for documents written on both sides of the border, on the equality of everyone.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Daradon For This Useful Post:
Some of the posters here seem to equate opposition to gay marriage as hatred of gays. I oppose gay marriage but do not hate gays. As Christians we're to hate the sin but love the sinner. I have business clients who are gay and it matters not to me. In fact, one pair of gay clients of mine told me later they were testing me to find out how I would treat them as a couple. I accept their relationship. They were very pleased to see that I treated them as I do my male-female relationship clients. If they asked me if I supported their ability to marry, I'd say I didn't, but I like and respect them.
I don't think posters are really claiming that you guys hate gays, people are just saying that your views are outdated, prejudice and ignorant, whether you think they are or not.
What you guys are basically saying is "I have nothing against gays, but they shouldn't have equal rights".
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
I don't think posters are really claiming that you guys hate gays, people are just saying that your views are outdated, prejudice and ignorant, whether you think they are or not.
What you guys are basically saying is "I have nothing against gays, but they shouldn't have equal rights".
yep, it's exactly along the lines of "I don't hate black people, i like and respect them. I just don't want to have them eating in my restaurant". a perfectly acceptable phrase 50 years ago, but now it's universally viewed as ugly and backwards. hopefully the same will be said about the "I don't hate gays, i just oppose gay marriage" line in a few decades
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Hemi-Cuda For This Useful Post:
The gheys are evil. They hate society. They should have zero rights and be subjugated to working the coal mines. They make me sick.
And the fact that almost 20% of you voted against this in the poll worries me. there are 73 (as of now) really scary people on here right now.
...and like Rubecube has been saying, there has yet to be one really good reason given for their viewpoint. It's mostly just "that's just the way it is and has always been", or "my religion tells me it's wrong, so it's wrong"
What do you base your belief on? Just a four word summary of human psychology and development? What about the research I posted earlier that suggests that there isn't a correlation?
They have done studies, and the numbers do speak for themselves.. there's no increased incident of people being homosexual after being raised in a homosexual environment.
Heres' a link to a link of a study saying otherwise.. http://current.com/news/89099751_chi...-bisexuals.htm . For any issue you'll find research supporting either side unless there is definitive proof for one side of the argument. Either way, if i was going to give a kid up for adoption i wouldn't want him to go to homosexuals for the same reason that i wouldn't want him to go to criminals.
Heres' a link to a link of a study saying otherwise.. http://current.com/news/89099751_chi...-bisexuals.htm . For any issue you'll find research supporting either side unless there is definitive proof for one side of the argument. Either way, if i was going to give a kid up for adoption i wouldn't want him to go to homosexuals for the same reason that i wouldn't want him to go to criminals.
...and that reason would be?
The Following User Says Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
There's been discussion in this thread about whether it even matters if being gay is a choice or not. Which is nice, because the people posing this notion are advocating equality for all. But here is why it matters, and why it's such a contentious issue to all parties involved.
For those who oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general, it matters because if homosexuality can be proven to be a result of upbringing, that is not part of the genetic make up of the individual, it offers a formula for the eventual eradication of homosexuality from society.
Working from this standpoint, the influences and composition of the gay individual can be studied and analyzed to create a systematic approach to ensure future children are steered clear of the same path.
For the homosexual, it matters because listening to pious harriers question the integrity of their word and their being is enough to make their blood boil. Growing up gay and religious you are faced with incredible confusion, hardships, guilt, remorse, and frustration. How some people have the audacity to proclaim their opinions and subsequent judgment with no experience of the unimaginable internal suffering a gay person can go through in their childhood and adolescence is beyond me.
Those that cried themselves to sleep on innumerable nights praying for God to change them, hiding their sexuality, abstaining from their desires of love and pleasure. What foolish people, didn't they know that their orientation was a choice, they consciously or subconsciously made? Some people just love taking the road less traveled dont-chu-know?
I have a theory that a lot of the most adamant homophobes are actually bisexual in nature. So in their viewpoint and understanding, the desire for same sex or opposite sex relations is actually a choice. To me that is the most probable explanation as to why some are so vehement that homosexuals are gay by choice. Because they themselves are actually straight by choice, by denying their homosexual desires and satisfying only their hetero ones.
Perhaps this theory is closeminded because it's unconscionable to me that some people would extrapolate their own self experience onto every single other human being. "I am a man and I am only attracted to woman, therefore all men must be only attracted to women."
It is common for homophobes to dodge the "when did you choose to become straight?" question. And their reluctance to answer actually fits the theory, as it was an actual choice but they wouldn't dare answer it truthfully. Either that or they must admit they're projecting their own life experiences and views among all humankind. But it's just a theory. And qualifying it as such is doing more than most homophobes do in their proclamations.
__________________ Would there even be no trade clauses if Edmonton was out of the NHL? - fotze
The Following User Says Thank You to Kidder For This Useful Post:
So in the end I don't really care if Gay's get married. They should be allowed access to the same rights and privilages as anyone else. In the bible Jesus preached and built his following with the outcasts of society. Hookers, Gentiles, Fisherman and preached equality and inclusion. In today's society he would likely attack the church for their treatment of Gay's.
Since homosexuality is nothing new, there were most likely gays that Jesus could have brought into his circle of inclusion. But instead Paul writes in the New Testament that "men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men with men" is a carnal sin worthy of being put to death.
It is passages like these that make me believe that there is no hope for the em-betterment of our species, the granting of equal rights towards all and a just and inclusive society until the bonds to religion are broken. There are similar passages in just about ever other religious tome. It's these hateful passages that people blindly take on faith that cause so many, many people to vote "No" when it comes to gay marriage.
Either way, if i was going to give a kid up for adoption i wouldn't want him to go to homosexuals for the same reason that i wouldn't want him to go to criminals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flameswin
...and that reason would be?
Must be because of this ? (this may be a fata in this thread, but it fits here anyway)....
The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.
Kids of lesbians have fewer behavioral problems, study suggests
A nearly 25-year study concluded that children raised in lesbian households were psychologically well-adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers.
Meanwhile in Iceland, after passing a law called equal marriage for all (gay marriage, straight marriage) the openly lesbian Prime Minister marries her partner whom she's been in a civil union with since 2002.
Iceland's gay prime minister weds partner
Wedding comes on day new same-sex marriage law took effect
Quote:
REYKJAVIK, Iceland — Icelandic Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir has married her long-term partner, her office said on Monday, making her the world's first national leader with a same-sex spouse.
Sigurdardottir, 67, married writer Jonina Leosdottir on Sunday, the day a new law took effect defining marriage as a union between two consenting adults regardless of sex.
The two had had a civil union for years and changed this into a marriage under the new law, which was approved by parliament earlier this month.
The new law was celebrated at a church service on Sunday, which was also the international day for homosexual rights.
The prime minister's office said Sigurdardottir had sent a message to the gathering saying the new law was a cause for celebration for all Icelanders and adding: "I have today taken advantage of this new legislation."
Heres' a link to a link of a study saying otherwise.. http://current.com/news/89099751_chi...-bisexuals.htm . For any issue you'll find research supporting either side unless there is definitive proof for one side of the argument.
Moving the goalposts? First you said that a study would be very clear, and now you're saying that there's support for either side...
The one I posted goes over 21 studies and is published in a scientific journal (American Sociological Review), the one you posted goes over 9, and I can't find any reference to her review being published in a scientific journal (post a link to where it's published if you know), so we can't be sure of her criticisms or conclusions, though one flaw I can see is they keep comparing to "the national average" and that doesn't seem like a valid criticism, as that assumes the natural average is accurate and representative of the same thing being looked at in the studies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhunt223
Either way, if i was going to give a kid up for adoption i wouldn't want him to go to homosexuals for the same reason that i wouldn't want him to go to criminals.
Because they might turn out to be teh ghay and that would be terrible!
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Because they might turn out to be teh ghay and that would be terrible!
No, because criminals have the right to marry.
Gays don't.
The traditional family is the only thing that matters when raising a child!
(snicker)
Considering how many kids are unloved in "traditional families", or are without families waiting to be adopted, I find it hysterical some would deny the right to raise children to couples who WANT to do it.
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.
Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
Romans 1:26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
However if you keep reading, the "indecent acts" are later listed: Romans 1: 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
It would appear "indecent acts with other men" mean doing one of the listed items done as a group. If I boat that the Flames won a hockey game with other men (which admittedly I have done) it doesn't mean I'm gay, however would technically be a sin.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
Well, if what religious people are claiming are true and the bible does indeed condemn people for being gay, then God and his boy Jeebus are sure intolerant pricks IMO. Why people want to worship such callous and vengeful deities is beyond me.
For those who oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general, it matters because if homosexuality can be proven to be a result of upbringing, that is not part of the genetic make up of the individual, it offers a formula for the eventual eradication of homosexuality from society.
I think the enthusiasm for some to label homosexuality a choice is because this scenario allows them to look at an individual who is homosexual and claim that they made a conscious choice to commit immoral behaviour. If someone chooses to be immoral, then you might feel more justified in condemning their behaviour. If it's not a choice, like eye colour, then you can't play the immorality card and you're kinda left with... not much.
I submit that this group of people really don't care if it is genetic / inherited, as they're not interested in genetics anyways.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Fan, Ph.D. For This Useful Post:
? (this may be a fata in this thread, but it fits here anyway)....
