Okay, so this just made me very sad.......

[WishboneDawn]

and that something is that homosexuality is normal and we should all accept it as normal, that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, that what they are doing isn't at all wrong. That is why it is in our faces all the time - it's to get us to the point of agreeing that it is perfectly okay, to not see it as an objectionable lifestyle.

 

I don't see how this is an issue here. The point was a mother and her daughter displaying some extremely rude and unacceptable behavior. To start making it about discrimination against Christians or about the fact that some people find homosexuality objectionable should really be beside the point and begins to look like some kind of justification.

 

A person is perfectly able to treat a person whose choice and lifestyle they disagree with in a respectful and kind manner. In fact, Christians have even more of an obligation to do just that then others if they truly feel bound by the teachings of Jesus. What that woman and her daughter did was deeply un-Christian and is the kind of thing that does more to discredit and damage Christianity then any of the anti-Christian discrimination people like to claim is rampant. It should be condemned. Full stop. Period.

[stripe]

To me, comparisons between homosexuals and African Americans are irrelevant, especially in this case; I think what's amazing, particularly if for those with a religious opposition to homosexuality and/or "gay pride" movements, is that a child (or anyone) would be given the green light to glare at people and assume someone is doing something morally wrong based on merely walking down the street (unless I missed something and the original poster was engaged in X-rated behavior). By the child's own assumption, her mother is a lesbian just for being on the train.

[Impish]

Marrying someone outside your race is a choice and one that I was told in the church was wrong from a Biblical standpoint. Many people *are* still offended by bi-racial couples. Therefore, I find the comparison accurate.

 

I'm also Native American and Irish, it was yeeeeeeears before my grandmother would tell my mom and I her mother's name because her mother was Sioux and had name that wasn't a typical white name. My other grandmother sued the government on behalf of Native Americans and won. Just so you understand I know about minorities and oppression.

We didn't know that my g-grandfather's mother was First Nations until my mother was helping clear out his apartment (he was in a care facility) and found a picture of her in false bottom of a drawer. There was absolutely no doubt as to her heritage, and my g-grandfather finally admitted that his mother wasn't Portuguese, and told us her (very First Nations) name. What really blew minds was the reaction of different family members :glare:

[Ibbygirl]

We didn't know that my g-grandfather's mother was First Nations until my mother was helping clear out his apartment (he was in a care facility) and found a picture of her in false bottom of a drawer. There was absolutely no doubt as to her heritage, and my g-grandfather finally admitted that his mother wasn't Portuguese, and told us her (very First Nations) name. What really blew minds was the reaction of different family members :glare:

 

Forgive my ignorance here, but what does "First Nations" mean?? Does that mean Native American?? It is a shame that race still seems to be such an issue here in the US. My husband is from the Dominican Republic and the people there are so mixed between black, white, indian and asian that nobody even sees a distinction anymore. They are all just Dominicans. Sure some are whiter than others, some look more Indian or more African, but nobody cares. I guess in South Florida it's not such an issue as other places in the States. At least I have never experienced any racism or strange looks when I go out with my husband somewhere. To many I'm sure we would be a "bi-racial" couple because I look more caucasian (I'm Spanish and Cuban) and my husband is actually a dead ringer for President Obama. But to me we are the same because we are both from a Carribean culture. I'm a mutt and so is he. Race isn't even an issue for us. To me it's always been a ridiculous thing anyway. People are people whether they are black, white, indian, asian or whatever.

[HeatherLynn]

There is a big difference with being offended by someone trying to convince you of something and being offended by someone simply existing. The parallel here isn't "Christianity being pushed upon them," it is "being surrounded by Christians."

 

I understand that many people think homosexuality is a choice, so let's compare it to another choice--bi-racial marriage.

 

There are people who are offended by bi-racial marriage. Bi-racial marriage is a choice. Should people in a bi-racial hetero relationship not act married in public because it might offend people?

 

Good post

 

 

And let me just say, there are MANY people who would be disgusted sitting on a bus with a bunch of Christians. Let's not pretend there isn't intolerance and hatred for Christians all around the globe.

 

And by saying this it makes what this woman did acceptable? Do unto others...

 

It's hard for me to argue with you because I believe there are an increasingly large number of studies strongly suggesting that homosexuality is not a choice-- that people are simply born that way. Frankly, given how hard it can be to be homosexual in our society--and we seem to agree that homophobia does exist--I don't know why anyone would choose to be homosexual any more than one would choose to be a leper. Given my strong conviction that homosexuality is innate, I don't think discrimination based on someone's sexual orientation is any different from discrimination based on someone's race or religious beliefs. Obviously, we're probably not going to reach agreement here. I'm just stating how I see it. Whether the particular woman is question was acting in a discriminatory manner or not is an argument I think I don't want to get into.

 

Exactly...this is the difference. Some of *us* believe it is not a choice, and others believe it is a choice. However, I don't know how any one could justify hatred even if they themselves do not support a particular group. I do my best to be kind to everyone and let the love of Christ shine through me. If I were on a bus full of traditionally garbed Middle Easterners, I would smile and try to talk with them and learn from them, also letting them learn from me. For me to glare at them because of what some people that resembled them had done and teach my children that they are all bad is inexcusable. They are human's worthy of my love and kindness. Just as Christ views them.

 

 

To me, comparisons between homosexuals and African Americans are irrelevant, especially in this case; I think what's amazing, particularly if for those with a religious opposition to homosexuality and/or "gay pride" movements, is that a child (or anyone) would be given the green light to glare at people and assume someone is doing something morally wrong based on merely walking down the street (unless I missed something and the original poster was engaged in X-rated behavior). By the child's own assumption, her mother is a lesbian just for being on the train.

 

I don't think so. I wasn't trying to say this was the only comparison, I was just using an example we could all wrap our minds around. I just am floored that people think certain types of hatred are okay, and then look themselves in the mirror and think it is okay. If it is not okay in one instance, it is not okay in another.

[StaceyinLA]

In fact, I think I specifically said that it wasn't. However, I don't think we can expect that people are going to be comfortable and accepting of everything they encounter.

 

And this comment that was quoted:

 

>>and that something is that homosexuality is normal and we should all accept it as normal, that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, that what they are doing isn't at all wrong. That is why it is in our faces all the time - it's to get us to the point of agreeing that it is perfectly okay, to not see it as an objectionable lifestyle.<<

 

and then responded to here:

 

>>I don't see how this is an issue here. The point was a mother and her daughter displaying some extremely rude and unacceptable behavior. To start making it about discrimination against Christians or about the fact that some people find homosexuality objectionable should really be beside the point and begins to look like some kind of justification.<<

 

was directed at another post in the discussion, not at the OP.

[pqr]

another ITA :)

 

 

I will agree that homophobia does exist, but I wouldn't be too quick to translate an intense dislike for a particular sin as a phobia across the board --there is a difference. I hear a lot of people call Christians who speak out against the homosexual lifestyle "homophobic" --that's a gross misunderstanding of the issue.

 

Well put Peek.

 

You have hit on a major issue here.

 

Those who support homosexual rights, who would see them allowed to marry, who oppose the traditional definition of families, traditional values and traditional morality attempt to marginalize those who disagree with them.

 

They call such individuals bigoted, intolerant and homophobes. Individuals that I know who strenuously oppose special privileges for homosexuals have no phobia of homosexuals. They may find the behavior of homosexuals to be deviant, morally repugnant and simply wrong but their opinions are thought out. Regardless of if one agrees or not it must be admitted that their opinions frequently are not based on any irrational fear, indeed one could argue that their opposition to special rights for homosexuals is rational.

 

Nevertheless in an effort to dismiss the concerns of the more traditional it is easy for supporters of special rights for homosexuals to label their opponents homophobes. Unfortunately this is the level of debate. Few posters have attempted to answer the legitimate concerns of the traditionalists, when challenged they avoid the issue, devolve into name calling or simply tell people that they are wrong. It is an interesting form of debate that while sometimes effective is hardly cerebral.

[Impish]

Canada tends to use the term, "First Nations" as opposed to "Native____" I've been told in no uncertain terms by some of dh's birth family that anything other than 'First Nations' is unacceptable, so that's the term I use.

[Ibbygirl]

Canada tends to use the term, "First Nations" as opposed to "Native____" I've been told in no uncertain terms by some of dh's birth family that anything other than 'First Nations' is unacceptable, so that's the term I use.

 

 

Thank you for the clarification. :)

[Impish]

Well put Peek.

 

You have hit on a major issue here.

 

Those who support homosexual rights, who would see them allowed to marry, who oppose the traditional definition of families, traditional values and traditional morality attempt to marginalize those who disagree with them.

 

They call such individuals bigoted, intolerant and homophobes. Individuals that I know who strenuously oppose special privileges for homosexuals have no phobia of homosexuals. They may find the behavior of homosexuals to be deviant, morally repugnant and simply wrong but their opinions are thought out. Regardless of if one agrees or not it must be admitted that their opinions frequently are not based on any irrational fear, indeed one could argue that their opposition to special rights for homosexuals is rational.

 

Nevertheless in an effort to dismiss the concerns of the more traditional it is easy for supporters of special rights for homosexuals to label their opponents homophobes. Unfortunately this is the level of debate. Few posters have attempted to answer the legitimate concerns of the traditionalists, when challenged they avoid the issue, devolve into name calling or simply tell people that they are wrong. It is an interesting form of debate that while sometimes effective is hardly cerebral.

I hardly think that those who believe in equal rights for all citizens are AGAINST those things bolded and underlined.

 

That being said, I'd say that the heterosexual faction of society has already made a mockery of traditional marriage, values and morality. Witness the divorce rate for a start. Those who already have the right to marry haven't done such a great job of upholding 'traditional values' so I find it difficult not to snort when I hear politicians yapping about it. The whole plank in the eye thing comes to mind.

 

I'm not saying ALL people, btw. But when the divorce rate is 50% or greater, its hard to stand on 'traditional morals and values' as being a foundation.

[HeatherLynn]

Nevertheless in an effort to dismiss the concerns of the more traditional it is easy for supporters of special rights for homosexuals to label their opponents homophobes. Unfortunately this is the level of debate. Few posters have attempted to answer the legitimate concerns of the traditionalists, when challenged they avoid the issue, devolve into name calling or simply tell people that they are wrong. It is an interesting form of debate that while sometimes effective is hardly cerebral.

 

What challenges do you speak of? What concerns were not addressed? Like I said, this thread has come down to "choice vs. biology" and there will be no answers for those who believe differently. I am a traditionalist who happens to believe that the majority of homosexuals are born that way. I believe their brains to be a different gender than their bodies.

[Jenny in Atl]

 

 

 

Nevertheless in an effort to dismiss the concerns of the more traditional it is easy for supporters of special rights for homosexuals to label their opponents homophobes. Unfortunately this is the level of debate. Few posters have attempted to answer the legitimate concerns of the traditionalists, when challenged they avoid the issue, devolve into name calling or simply tell people that they are wrong. It is an interesting form of debate that while sometimes effective is hardly cerebral.

 

Problem is... if one sees homosexuality as biologically based and the other does not, then where is the debate? You think it's a choice, I don't. Nothing I can say or do will change your mind, so why bother.

 

People do all sorts of ugly things towards others based on the silliest of things, their hair, clothes, car they drive, what team they support... We should any of us be surprised that someone would be ugly towards some one they see as "evil".

[pqr]

pqr stated "Those who support homosexual rights, who would see them allowed to marry, who oppose the traditional definition of families, traditional values and traditional morality"

 

I hardly think that those who believe in equal rights for all citizens are AGAINST those things bolded and underlined.

 

 

 

 

You are actually arguing that those who support homosexuals being able to marry are not against the traditional definition of family?

 

I would love to hear that explanation.

[Heather in Neverland]

Problem is... if one sees homosexuality as biologically based and the other does not, then where is the debate? You think it's a choice, I don't. Nothing I can say or do will change your mind, so why bother.

 

 

:iagree: Therein lies the root of the problem and why it may never be solved. For someone who thinks homosexuality is choice, and an immoral and sinful one, riding on a subway full of openly gay adults when you have small children with you, children who may not have been exposed to that yet, could be a very uncomfortable situation. If you do NOT believe that homosexuality is a choice and/or a sin, then this might not be a problem for you.

 

OF COURSE what these people said was rude. How can ANYONE argue that? Rude words are rude words no matter the situation. But we cannot judge her level of comfort with the situation because we cannot all even agree on the root of the issue.

[Jenny in Atl]

pqr stated "Those who support homosexual rights, who would see them allowed to marry, who oppose the traditional definition of families, traditional values and traditional morality"

 

 

 

 

You are actually arguing that those who support homosexuals being able to marry are not against the traditional definition of family?

 

I would love to hear that explanation.

 

I gather you have not been around many "gay" families. They are pretty boring, very much like my own "traditional" family. Kids, a dog, possible a cat or two. Nothing weird or scary.

[Impish]

I don't find it to be a 'one or the other' issue, sorry. I don't feel that a married homosexual couple (I'm in Canada, its legal) takes anything away from my own traditional marriage. It doesn't invalidate my tradtional marriage, how I feel about my vows.

 

Frankly, a growing number of children are in 'non traditional families'. The 50% divorce rate proves that one. Single parents, remarried blended families, etc. I don't see how not being traditional invalidates THEIR familiy at all...esp considering that we are a blended family, and I come from one. Dh was adopted by a single woman. So, my children are 2nd generation non traditionals. Does that invalidate anyone else's family? Of course not. Does it make us any LESS of a family? Heck no!! So why would equal rights for all people suddenly make my marriage or any other hetero marriage 'less'?

 

I don't understand that argument at all. Perhaps because I already live in a country where its legal, and nothing horrifying has happened as a result.

 

There are a LOT of things I disagree with, personally. There are many things that while legal, I personally don't agree with, and would never partake in. That's my right as a citizen. I don't have to agree, condone, or even support certain laws that are passed, but abide by them, yes.

 

I'm busy getting the plank out of my eye and working on my own marriage and family.

[theresatwist]

The problem with your argument is that, if I am not mistaken, you are defining what family is, what proper values are, and what defines traditional morality based on Christian beliefs (or the beliefs of a large number of Christian denominations.) That's fine within the church. But this is a diverse society made up of people of many different belief systems. As I understand it we aim to endow everyone with certain basic rights regardless of what group they belong to. I don't think everyone needs to conform to the traditional definition of a family. That's your preference, but it's not the law. There are all sorts of wonderful families out there.

 

I have not called all people opposed to gay marriage homophobes, nor would I. Sure that's easy to do and sometimes people do so unjustifiably. But that doesn't mean it's inaccurate in every case either.

 

pqr stated "Those who support homosexual rights, who would see them allowed to marry, who oppose the traditional definition of families, traditional values and traditional morality"

 

 

 

 

You are actually arguing that those who support homosexuals being able to marry are not against the traditional definition of family?

 

I would love to hear that explanation.

Edited May 21, 2009 by theresatwist

[pqr]

Problem is... if one sees homosexuality as biologically based and the other does not, then where is the debate? You think it's a choice, I don't. Nothing I can say or do will change your mind, so why bother.

 

There Jenny is where you are so wrong. I never said that I think it is a choice.

You also make my point, those who support special rights for homosexuals pay no attention to what traditionalists say or do. You have a preconceived opinion of what we think and "nothing" we "say or do will change your mind." We will "bother" because in an open debate those who are unconvinced by either side may come to believe as traditionalists do.

[pqr]

I gather you have not been around many "gay" families. They are pretty boring, very much like my own "traditional" family. Kids, a dog, possible a cat or two. Nothing weird or scary.

 

 

Just 2 females and no male or 2 males and no female.....

[Spy Car]

Since when did "equal rights" mean special rights?

 

What special rights have been afforded to homosexuals? I can't think of a single one. Where I can point to a slew of basic rights that have been denied them.

 

Talk about hardly cerebral.

 

Bill

[theresatwist]

How about just two people who love each other?

 

Just 2 females and no male or 2 males and no female.....

[pqr]

Since when did "equal rights" mean "special rights"?

 

What special rights have been afforded to homosexuals? I can't think of a single one. Where I can point to a slew of basic rights that have been denied them.

 

Talk about "hardly cerebral".

 

Bill

 

 

Except the special right to change the definition of family and marriage. A definition that has been held in the Western world for millennia.

Further,the fact that "hate crime" legislation is being proposed which makes an assault on a homosexual (because of his homosexuality) more offensive, in the eyes of the law, than an equally violent assault on a heterosexual (because of the size of his wallet). But of course these are not special rights. I suppose that all men are equal but some are more equal than others.

 

[Impish]

Since when did "equal rights" mean special rights?

 

What special rights have been afforded to homosexuals? I can't think of a single one. Where I can point to a slew of basic rights that have been denied them.

 

Talk about hardly cerebral.

 

Bill

:iagree:

[Impish]

Except the special right to change the definition of family and marriage. A definition that has been held in the Western world for millennia.

 

Further,the fact that "hate crime" legislation is being proposed which makes an assault on a homosexual (because of his homosexuality) more offensive, in the eyes of the law, than an equally violent assault on a heterosexual (because of the size of his wallet). But of course these are not special rights. I suppose that all men are equal but some are more equal than others.

 

 

While completely over looking that hate crime applies to race, religion, etc. Its not all about homosexuality.

[Michelle My Bell]

I see your point, but I would be very upset to be on that train as well. I don't think I would have acted as overt as that mother, but I would have found a way to get off.

 

This type of thing reminds me the way blacks used to be treated, which I think is horrible and sad and it breaks my heart. That said, I believe homosexuality is sin as stated in the Word of God and flaunting sin is wrong and sickening.

 

Michelle

[pqr]

How about just two people who love each other?

 

 

How about 8 people? When does it become weird? When is it not a family? How about brother and sister, father and daughter, father and son? Come on tell me just how far you will twist the definition?

 

What world would you have me raise my children in? What must I be forced to accept as normal?

 

In the Western world it has been a man and a woman since before the time of Christ. Why must I grant homosexuals the right to change that definition? What makes their views so important and mine so unimportant?

[pqr]

While completely over looking that hate crime applies to race, religion, etc. Its not all about homosexuality.

 

 

I am not overlooking that, but race etc are not part of this discussion.

[Spy Car]

Except the special right to change the definition of family and marriage. A definition that has been held in the Western world for millennia.

 

That's not a special right. That's simply extending basic rights to all. It wasn't long ago that blacks and whites couldn't legally marry in parts of this country. Was ending that "anti-traditionalist" too. Did we give "race-mixers" special rights?

 

Further,the fact that "hate crime" legislation is being proposed which makes an assault on a homosexual (because of his homosexuality) more offensive, in the eyes of the law, than an equally violent assault on a heterosexual (because of the size of his wallet). But of course these are not special rights. I suppose that all men are equal but some are more equal than others.

 

 

Hate crime legislation protects people from being attacked because of who they are. If gangs of homosexuals start attacking heterosexuals because of their sexual preferences that would be a "hate crime" too.

[theresatwist]

"What makes their views so important and mine so unimportant?" I think they could ask the same question. Also, is it your business if there's a brother and a sister and a father and a daughter living together? I'm sorry if that bothers you, but I really don't think it's any of your business any more than it's anyone's business whether you choose to homeschool your children. That's a lifestyle choice too. I thank God that we live in a society where we are free to make those choices. You don't have to accept anything you don't want to as normal. Frankly, I wish I didn't have to raise my children in a world where so many people see my brother as nothing but a sinner. But life's like that.

 

How about 8 people? When does it become weird? When is it not a family? How about brother and sister, father and daughter, father and son? Come on tell me just how far you will twist the definition?

 

What world would you have me raise my children in? What must I be forced to accept as normal?

 

In the Western world it has been a man and a woman since before the time of Christ. Why must I grant homosexuals the right to change that definition? What makes their views so important and mine so unimportant?

[HeatherLynn]

"What makes their views so important and mine so unimportant?" I think they could ask the same question. Also, is it your business if there's a brother and a sister and a father and a daughter living together? I'm sorry if that bothers you, but I really don't think it's any of your business any more than it's anyone's business whether you choose to homeschool your children. That's a lifestyle choice too. I thank God that we live in a society where we are free to make those choices. You don't have to accept anything you don't want to as normal. Frankly, I wish I didn't have to raise my children in a world where so many people see my brother as nothing but a sinner. But life's like that.

 

AMEN!

[pqr]

That's not a special right. That's simply extending basic rights to all. It wasn't long ago that blacks and whites couldn't legally marry in parts of this country. Was ending that "anti-traditionalist" too. Did we give "race-mixers" special rights? .

 

You completely miss the point allowing interracial marriages did not change the definition of a family as a man and a woman. Allowing homosexual marriages does.

 

 

Hate crime legislation protects people from being attacked because of who they are. If gangs of homosexuals start attacking heterosexuals because of their sexual preferences that would be a "hate crime" too.

 

But much legislation is intended to provide homosexuals with special protections. You may spout anything you want about theoretical cases but it will not change the fact that this legislation was proposed and passed in order to provide special rights, or if you like special protections, to what are percieved as minority groups. As I said under this law all men are equal but some are more equal than others.

[Mekanamom]

How about 8 people? When does it become weird? When is it not a family? How about brother and sister, father and daughter, father and son? Come on tell me just how far you will twist the definition?

 

What world would you have me raise my children in? What must I be forced to accept as normal?

 

In the Western world it has been a man and a woman since before the time of Christ. Why must I grant homosexuals the right to change that definition? What makes their views so important and mine so unimportant?

 

Well, hold on. You just said:

I am not overlooking that, but race etc are not part of this discussion.

 

So why are you bringing polygamy and incest into it? Those things have nothing to do with gay rights or gay relationships or gay marriage.

 

BTW, I DO see very strong parallels between racial civil rights and gay civil rights. Wasn't "traditional" marriage changed a bit when inter-racial marriage became legal? It wasn't legal. Then it was. There was a change. (And for the better, IMO.)

[pqr]

 

So why are you bringing polygamy and incest into it? Those things have nothing to do with gay rights or gay relationships or gay marriage.

 

 

 

But they have everything to do with changing the definition of marriage.

[Impish]

How about 8 people? When does it become weird? When is it not a family? How about brother and sister, father and daughter, father and son? Come on tell me just how far you will twist the definition?

 

What world would you have me raise my children in? What must I be forced to accept as normal?

 

In the Western world it has been a man and a woman since before the time of Christ. Why must I grant homosexuals the right to change that definition? What makes their views so important and mine so unimportant?

I don't see anyone 'forcing' you to change and accept anything. How is a lack of hatred and the government deciding that people deserve equal rights forcing you to accept it? You are free to believe as you wish, nobody is 'forcing' you to change your mind.

 

What bothers me is that as a Christian, I know everyone, EVERYONE but Christ is a sinner. The Bible also says that all sins are equal to God. So why are homosexuals looked at with such intolerance and hatred when everyone has sin? If Christians believe all sins are equal, then how can one sin be constantly derided? Those that lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery are permitted to marry. They sin. So why is it that others who are sinning should be excluded?

 

Since the one without sin shall cast the first stone, I'm not throwing any, thanks...and still working on that plank.

[unsinkable]

"What makes their views so important and mine so unimportant?" I think they could ask the same question. Also, is it your business if there's a brother and a sister and a father and a daughter living together? I'm sorry if that bothers you, but I really don't think it's any of your business any more than it's anyone's business whether you choose to homeschool your children. That's a lifestyle choice too. I thank God that we live in a society where we are free to make those choices. You don't have to accept anything you don't want to as normal. Frankly, I wish I didn't have to raise my children in a world where so many people see my brother as nothing but a sinner. But life's like that.

 

Are you saying that incest is none of your business?

[pqr]

". Also, is it your business if there's a brother and a sister and a father and a daughter living together? I'm sorry if that bothers you, but I really don't think it's any of your business any more than it's anyone's business whether you choose to homeschool your children. That's a lifestyle choice too. I thank God that we live in a society where we are free to make those choices. .

 

You thank God that people are free to choose incest???

 

I must be missing something here.

[Spy Car]

You completely miss the point allowing interracial marriages did not change the definition of a family as a man and a woman. Allowing homosexual marriages does.

 

How so?

 

I'm married to a woman. We have a son. We will still be a "family" if homosexuals are allowed to wed.

 

But much legislation is intended to provide homosexuals with special protections. You may spout anything you want about theoretical cases but it will not change the fact that this legislation was proposed and passed in order to provide special rights, or if you like special protections, to what are percieved as minority groups. As I said under this law all men are equal but some are more equal than others.

 

It doesn't say some people are more equal than others. it says no one should be attacked because of their sexual preferences. Or their religious preferences. Or the color of their skin.

[pqr]

How so?

 

I'm married to a woman. We have a son. We will still be a "family" if homosexuals are allowed to wed.

 

But family will mean something different. Surely you see that.

 

It doesn't say some people are more equal than others. it says no one should be attacked because of their sexual preferences. Or their religious preferences. Or the color of their skin.

It says that the PUNISHMENT for attacking someone because of sexual preferences is greater. In essence that putting them in the hospital is a more egregious crime than putting you in the hospital. That is hardly equality.

 

Nobady should be attacked, but it happens and when it does I want the victim to be treated with the same concern regardless of who he is. This means that the punishment meted out must fit the crime not the motivation.

Edited May 21, 2009 by pqr

[Audrey]

I don't find it to be a 'one or the other' issue, sorry. I don't feel that a married homosexual couple (I'm in Canada, its legal) takes anything away from my own traditional marriage. It doesn't invalidate my tradtional marriage, how I feel about my vows.

 

Frankly, a growing number of children are in 'non traditional families'. The 50% divorce rate proves that one. Single parents, remarried blended families, etc. I don't see how not being traditional invalidates THEIR familiy at all...esp considering that we are a blended family, and I come from one. Dh was adopted by a single woman. So, my children are 2nd generation non traditionals. Does that invalidate anyone else's family? Of course not. Does it make us any LESS of a family? Heck no!! So why would equal rights for all people suddenly make my marriage or any other hetero marriage 'less'?

 

I don't understand that argument at all. Perhaps because I already live in a country where its legal, and nothing horrifying has happened as a result.

 

There are a LOT of things I disagree with, personally. There are many things that while legal, I personally don't agree with, and would never partake in. That's my right as a citizen. I don't have to agree, condone, or even support certain laws that are passed, but abide by them, yes.

 

I'm busy getting the plank out of my eye and working on my own marriage and family.

 

 

 

Well said! You know... when my province okayed same-sex marriages, I didn't wake up the next morning and say "so long hubby! I'm off to marry a woman now!" I'm not wired that way, but there's no reason why someone else shouldn't be entitled to be themselves in that regard. I don't see it as one negating the other at all.

 

Co-existence is happening already, which I think is a wonderful, long-overdue thing. It's no threat to anyone secure in who they are, and what their marriage is.

[6packofun]

You just love someone or you don't, you're not some amazing person because you can love them despite some perceived flaw.

 

If you come from the perspective that ALL people are perfect just the way they are, and quite possibly don't believe that any life choices are wrong ("just different!") then of course you would see love that way.

 

I love many people who are just human and do stupid things, including my own husband and children. Loving "in spite of" IS what love is all about, IMO, and some of us don't think that the gay "in spite of" is much different than any of the less-than-best choices that human beings make. Can you love a republican (or democrat) in spite of their ideological and political differences? Of course, because it's how you TREAT them with respect and love them with your actions, not the backing down of your own ideology so that no one feels bad and we can all be the happy same same. That's disrespectful to *both* people, IMO.

 

Now, making a big deal of loving someone as if from on high is wrong and as a Christian I don't think that's God's view of love, either. God loves the depressed person, the bi-polar person, the psychotic person, the alcoholic, the cheating husband or wife (hey, I just "LOVE" someone else now!), the liar, the selfish, the polygamist (whole new category) but that doesn't mean he wants them to stay that way just because they were born with certain weaknesses, which we all are. He offers to help us overcome those things. I don't see how that's a poor example to follow because we ALL need it.

Edited May 21, 2009 by 6packofun
...

[Impish]

But family will mean something different. Surely you see that.

 

 

It says that the PUNISHMENT for attacking someone because of sexual preferences is greater. In essence that putting them in the hospital is a more egregious crime than putting you in the hospital. That is hardly equality.

 

Nobady should be attacked, but it happens and when it does I want the victim to be treated with the same concern regardless of who he is. This means that the punishment meted out must fit the crime not the motivation.

As I've already said, I'm in Canada, and same sex marriages are legal here. It hasn't changed my family one whit.

 

And gay couples have been allowed to adopt for many years. None of the horrible predictions about allowing gay couples to adopt has come true either.

[Spy Car]

But family will mean something different. Surely you see that.

 

No, I don't see that at all. "Gay marriage" was briefly legal here in California. It didn't undermine my family in any way. In fact it only brought us joy that friends who had so long been denied the right were able to wed. And we were quite happy for them.

 

It says that the PUNISHMENT for attacking someone because of sexual preferences is greater. In essence that putting them in the hospital is a more egregious crime than putting you in the hospital. That is hardly equality.

 

But the law differentiates all kinds of penalties based on the frame of mind of the perpetrator.

 

"Murder" is a more egregious crime than "manslaughter", even though in either case the victim is dead. It's a long standing part of Anglo-American jurisprudence.

 

Nobady should be attacked, but it happens and when it does I want the victim to be treated with the same concern regardless of who he is. This means that the punishment meted out must fit the crime not the motivation.

 

Your understanding of the law runs counter to our legal tradition. "Motivation" has alway been a component of determining degrees of legal culpability. And here I thought you were a "traditionalist" :D

 

Bill

[specialmama]

As I've already said, I'm in Canada, and same sex marriages are legal here. It hasn't changed my family one whit.

 

And gay couples have been allowed to adopt for many years. None of the horrible predictions about allowing gay couples to adopt has come true either.

 

 

Actually, perhaps we should all read the articles here. http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/marriage/ssuap/

 

There is more at stake than one would think.

[pqr]

No, I don't see that at all. "Gay marriage" was briefly legal here in California. It didn't undermine my family in any way. In fact it only brought us joy that friends who had so long been denied the right were able to wed. And we were quite happy for them.

 

 

 

But the law differentiates all kinds of penalties based on the frame of mind of the perpetrator.

 

"Murder" is a more egregious crime than "manslaughter", even though in either case the victim is dead. It's a long standing part of Anglo-American jurisprudence.

 

 

 

Your understanding of the law runs counter to our legal tradition. "Motivation" has alway been a component of determining degrees of legal culpability. And here I thought you were a "traditionalist" :D

 

Bill

 

I fully understand our legal tradition and my comment, perhaps not as clearly worded as it should have been, was to imply that your protection from felonious assault on you for your wallet should see the same punishment as felonious assault on a homosexual. The crime was felonious assault, not ameliorated by exigent circumstances, and I care not a whit for the motivation being to take your wallet or to hurt a homosexual.

 

 

It is after midnight here so I will continue tomorrow.

Edited May 21, 2009 by pqr

[Impish]

Reading through some of that article, it would seem as though this author is against adoption and blended families as well: Children do best when raised by opposite-sex parents who gave them their DNA. One study indicates that “it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support child development.

All of the arguments used against same sex parenting in that article are easily applied to single parenting as well. I did find it interesting that they focused on a family lacking a father, but nothing on lacking a mother.

[Mekanamom]

No, I don't see that at all. "Gay marriage" was briefly legal here in California. It didn't undermine my family in any way. In fact it only brought us joy that friends who had so long been denied the right were able to wed. And we were quite happy for them.

 

:iagree: And furthermore, gay marriage was briefly legal in California because nothing in the state constitution's definition of marriage prevented it. It was a change in the definition of marriage (in California) that made it illegal.

 

I just found it terribly ironic that the whole thing was presented as preserving traditional marriage when it took changing/amending the definition of marriage to accomplish it.

[Mama Bear]

Sin IS sin, period. Why should we tolerate it at all?

 

..............

 

We are also forced to expose our youngest children to sin because others lack the shame to hide it.

 

 

With all due respect, I'm thinking that perhaps what you're thinking about is more the manifestation of evil and that we ought not tolerate that at all. I agree. Sin and it's effects cannot much be avoided in our lives, really. And I don't know that that is such a bad thing, given that we really do deal with it. We can then choose to allow those experiences to render us grateful, point us back to our Creator, keep us humble and earnest in our dealings with our loved ones and our neighbors.

 

While there are certain conversations that I prefer to delay with my young ones, we will be having them all, simply because I prefer that they get their information from me and we have the opportunity to really digest and discuss it. This applies equally to the flailing heterosexual pile of blankets in the park at least as well as to two persons of the same gender we might see holding hands in the city. (And how do we know that those two people are gay? Maybe they're just affectionate old friends. If we do not call attention to it, the couple in a clench in the park is often not even on a small child's radar.)

 

There's a quantum difference between living on a fallen planet, dealing with the legacy of sin, and being sort of detached and dismissive when having to attend to our very real neighbors. They're people, created in God's image. Some believe that Adam and Eve were likely giants compared to us modern humans and that our shrinkage (giggle) is due to the increasingly bad food supply (nutrients in the same foods have dropped approximately 30% over the last 60 years, having a huge and measurable impact on brain function), the crud in our air, and the impact that both of those things, plus the more literal fall of humanity has had on the gene pool. With a very basic grasp of genetics, I believe one could make a solid case for the truth in the above supposition. With that in mind, if, as you say, sin is sin, then we're going to need to redraw the lines of what is and is not acceptable in human behavior and presentation: short people are not to be tolerated.

 

Whether or not we buy that homosexuality is as simple as genetics, eventually, should this fallen world last long enough, science will be able to tell us what the story really is. Does this mean that there's no place for God's grace in the story? Heck no. Does it mean that I can presume to insert myself into people's very complicated decision-making processes and morally-framed choices? Not much.

 

Remember the story of the Children of Israel in the desert with the quail God provided? How eating too much would kill them, but just enough would sustain them and save them from starvation? Did you know that there's a certain type of quail that migrates from Italy to North Africa, stopping on a small island to eat. There's a particular bush (berry?) that they stock up on before completing their arduous journey. When people eat the flesh of that bird after it's made it's stop at that island, they ingest a compound created by the bush/berry that if eaten in excessive amounts will kill a human. We don't have the necessary system to break down those compunds, so if we have enough of them, they'll cause us to bleed out.*

 

Does knowing this obscure fact now somehow change the miracle that the Israelites experienced? Not for me it doesn't. In fact, I tend to view these things (there are so many examples of modern science enlightening the Bible stories) as further evidence of God at work in the world. What an incredible thing he did! He used this bird, these conditions, to show that cranky, arrogant bunch their hubris and bring them back to a place of humble® faith, once again. And in a way that they would hear. Wow.

 

I suspect that many of us will have the opportunity to enjoy similar experiences as science continues to reveal His handiwork.

 

*Hope I remembered the details correctly. Feel free to Google.

[Spy Car]

I fully understand our legal tradition and my comment, perhaps not as clearly worded as it should have been, was to imply that your protection from felonious assault on you for your wallet should see the same punishment as felonious assault on a homosexual. The crime was felonious assault, not ameliorated by exigent circumstances, and I care not a whit for the motivation being to take your wallet or to hurt a homosexual.

 

 

It is after midnight here so I will continue tomorrow.

 

But you are entirely missing the point. Homosexuals, heterosexuals, blacks, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, (need I go on?) all run the risk of being attacked for the money they may (or may not) be carrying on their persons.

 

You are asking some of these people to carry an additional risk of being attacked because some person (or group) doesn't like their color, faith or sexual preference.

 

As we have made categories for different homicides, so our legislatures have made crimes motivated by group hated punishable by greater penalties in order to protect those who are vulnerable in our society from the greater risk they face in just being themselves.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

:iagree: And furthermore, gay marriage was briefly legal in California because nothing in the state constitution's definition of marriage prevented it. It was a change in the definition of marriage (in California) that made it illegal.

 

I just found it terribly ironic that the whole thing was presented as preserving traditional marriage when it took changing/amending the definition of marriage to accomplish it.

 

:iagree: And not only did the language of our State Constitution not "prevent" gay marriage, it guaranteed equal rights in this area.

 

Further, you can not remove a persons constitutional rights by majority vote. Prop 8 will not stand. It is patently illegal.

 

Bill

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I do believe that gay people and straight people are born that way. I know that I have always been boy crazy so to speak:001_wub:;) I also know that many of my gay friends have always been attracted to the same sex. In fact, many of my friends experienced great sadness and even felt suicidal in the past over being gay. My gay friends would have given anything to be straight when they went through this angst as teenagers/young adults.

 

I also know that no one can make me gay, since it is in my very being to be attracted to men:001_smile: I also believe that no one can make a gay person straight. God does not make mistakes in my opinion and loves all of us.

 

In terms of gay marriage, I do not believe that it threatens traditional marriage. In addition, I also think that it is always better to encourage loving, committed relationships in the context of marriage.

 

I also do not think that gay marriage would lead to the legalization of polygamy. Polygamy, in my opinion, always involves an abusive situation with someone in an position of power taking advantage of others in submission. Therefore, I think that polygamy and incest need to be illegal.

 

I am not afraid that gay people will make my son gay. Again, I believe that either he is or he is not born that way. I know my position is possibly a little over-simplified since there is probably a percentage of people who fall in between gay and straight and hence make some choices. All in all though, I think that it is ok as long as people do not abuse one another and act lovingly towards one another. Ideally, I do believe in committed, loving relationships in the context of marriage:)

 

Again, just my 2 cents:)