|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Focus on the Family Will Keep your Kid from Being Gay | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Oh, then same thing with you. How can ya'll use the bible to argue your case when you don't believe it? Oh, I believe in the Bible. I think it's one of the greatest works man ever created. More cut & paste. As usual, totally wrong. Let's look at what your preacher said.
Making it legally possible for same-sex couples to get "married" in America will forever alter the meaning of marriage for everybody. It is a much more profound change than modifying the wording in a few laws. Marriage is more fundamental to the human experience than the laws regulating it because it was around long before there were laws; marriage statutes merely recognize and regulate an institution that has always existed. How does a same-sex mariage alter a different-sex marriage? It doesn't much matter if it's been around before the laws (if that's even fact and no one has ever provided any evidence of that), what we're dealing with is the laws today.
Redesigning those laws to reinvent that institution - the foundational unit of society - is a genuinely groundbreaking concept. No civilization in the history of mankind has ever done it. Never in human history has there been a society, advanced or primitive, in which same-sex marriage was embraced as an ordinary family form and a normal part of everyday life. Certainly, a few societies have experimented with such unions, but they were anomalies even at the time. A nonsense statement. Of course social institutions have been redesigned. Not all that long ago different-racial marriages were illegal and the same arguments were used then.
Every major world religion - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism - have for millennia defined marriage as the union of man and woman. Why is it reasonable to believe that a small, vocal minority pushing a totally self-serving agenda, have suddenly discovered some profound truth that the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind somehow missed? Well, that's called change. It happens.
There is one plain truth that has gotten mangled almost beyond recognition in the cat fight over same-sex marriage. It is simple and clear. Man cannot redefine marriage because he didn't define it in the first place; man can't change the nature of the marriage unit because he didn't invent it. God did. That might be true or even pertinent if marriage was a religious institution, but it's not. Can you get married without first getting a license? Nope. It's a social contract. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Here is the full passage:
(Genesis) 9:18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. 9:19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. Now this does appear to suggest that the nakedness of one's father is something that should not be seen by one's sons. Ham saw his father's nakedness and did not turn away, rather telling others. The other sons went to rather great lengths to not view their dad, as they covered him up. Now it is true that the problem could have been Ham's telling others what he saw which embarasses the father and sons (so snitching being the moral rule here), but it could also be having seen his father's nakedness rather than avoiding seeing him (such that he could tell others). Ideas? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
It's cut and paste because I can't say it any better.
A nonsense statement. Of course social institutions have been redesigned. Not all that long ago different-racial marriages were illegal and the same arguments were used then. But they were still between a man and a woman.
How does a same-sex mariage alter a different-sex marriage? It doesn't much matter if it's been around before the laws (if that's even fact and no one has ever provided any evidence of that), what we're dealing with is the laws today. The results of hundreds of scientific studies and years of sociological research is undisputable. There's a mountain of evidence demonstrating the rewards to society as well as to individual families of marriage. Marriage uniquely provides to men and women a level of health, happiness and financial security that cannot be replicated by any other human relationship, including same-sex unions or live-in boyfriends. It is the building block of society that the minority is attempting to force down the majority's throat.
Well, that's called change. It happens. Good come back. "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
I answered that in message 97.
9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. That suggests that Noah's sone did something to him, otherwise it would say, "knew that his younger son saw him naked." "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Tal writes: Uhhuh....so do I just walk around with a "gay gene" cattle prod and just pop straight people to make them gay? Or can I use it to make gay people straight? Maybe people that get hit by lightning have their gay gene turned on? Stupidest thing I've ever heard. You know, there was a cardinal back in the days of Galileo who said just that: "Stupidest thing I've ever heard." The issue was something Galileo had said, namely that, contrary to what everybody knew, the sun wasn't revolving around the earth, but it was in fact the other way around. In those days, many people, if not most, thought it the stupidest thing they'd ever heard. Everybody could clearly observe the sun going around the earth, every day, like clockwork. Yet, as we now know, Galileo had it right. But we can hardly blame those people for not accepting it right away. After all, science was still in its infancy, and people were generally more concerned with the astrological consequences of the motions of the heavenly bodies, than with astronomy. Not so today. Science has become an institution, and modern technology allows even the common man to be informed about its progress. And if you put a real effort into it, you can even take part in it. One of the tenets of modern science is the repeatability of research. No self-respecting scientist is going to publish anything if they're not fairly sure other scientists can repeat their experiments and results. So you can bet on it that when someone publishes a research paper that reports the finding of a genetic factor in homosexual behaviour in animals, there is probably not only smoke, but fire too. Simply dismissing it with "Stupidest thing I've ever heard" is, to put it mildly, a bit of a medieval attitude. The least you could do is put some effort into finding out about it. This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 19-Aug-2005 10:58 PM We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The results of hundreds of scientific studies and years of sociological research is undisputable. There's a mountain of evidence demonstrating the rewards to society as well as to individual families of marriage. Marriage uniquely provides to men and women a level of health, happiness and financial security that cannot be replicated by any other human relationship, including same-sex unions or live-in boyfriends. It is the building block of society that the minority is attempting to force down the majority's throat. Assume for a second that any of the above is true (I am not saying it is true but for the sake of this discussion we can work from that assumption). How does a same-sex marriage have any effect on a hetero-sexual marriage? AbE: It should also be noted that your quote is yet another simply cut & pasted from another place, likely Southeast Christian Church. This message has been edited by jar, 08-19-2005 03:00 PM This message has been edited by jar, 08-19-2005 03:03 PM Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Once again, provide a link to some proof. Here you go. It's even a religious source.
quote: This part, I think, is particularly interesting:
quote: Now to the part pertaining to religion:
quote: According to a Sports Illustrated poll: quote: It would appear that both of our views could be considered mainstream - there is a near 50/50 split on the issue. I think it's interesting that better educated individuals have a more favorable opinion.
Everyone at my church thinks it is. Everyone in my family but 2 people thinks it is. All my neighbors think it is. Everyone in my work building thinks it is. Everyone I know thinks it's not a sin.
Uhhuh....so do I just walk around with a "gay gene" cattle prod and just pop straight people to make them gay? Or can I use it to make gay people straight? Maybe people that get hit by lightning have their gay gene turned on? Stupidest thing I've ever heard. Yeah, that's pretty stupid. You're right. Good thing that's not what I said. I said that the study observably PROVES that homosexuality is at least partially caused by genetics. I didn't say that genes are the only factor, and that you can flip a switch in a human being. But the fact that you can flip a switch in a fly shows that genes are a factor, if not the only one.
As to the rest of your post, you are getting into the theology. If you don't believe the bible is written by God, how can you use it to attempt to defend your position??? When did I ever try to use the Bible to prove my position? I don't take the Bible literally - I only hold to what I consider the root message - love thy neighbor. As far as Dobson goes - he steps further than most. He believes homosexuality is a choice, and is preventable. Popular opinion aside, this is blatantly false and contrary to modern psychiatry. If sexuality is a choice, when did you decide to be heterosexual? I know I remember the day I came home from elementary school and told my parents "Gee whiz Mom and Dad, I've decided I like girls." ...oh, wait, that's not the way it works. Perhaps he's not as "radical" in his views as I previously believed - he simply seems to represent roughly half of the population (of the US anyway. Worldwide may be very different). It's difficult to make a call on how divergent a person's view is from the norm when there is such an even split in popular opinion. I will retract my accusations of radicalism unless and until I find additional statements made by Dobson that step further outside the norm. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
quote: Do you really want to get into what marriage has been, traditionally? Marriage for love is a recent development. For millenia, marriage was simply a legal contract to legitimize children and make clear lines for succession and inheritance. The wife was considered property, and had no rights. Commoners would frequently not marry until their prospective mate became pregnant - to ensure that they could have children. After all, children were a viable workforce back then. "Traditional marriage" as we know it today has only been around for a few decades, not millenia. If you oppose change only becuase "that's the way it's always been," then you'd better suggest that women be stripped of their rights and made the property of their husbands. Marriage shoukld then be a legal convenience, and have nothing to do with the deeply significant bond that it is today. Otherwise you are being inconsistant. It's a simple appeal to tradition fallacy. Just because something has been done a certain way for a while, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Blacks were considered subhuman, and interracial marriage was against tradition - but those traditions were wrong, too. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
No, I mean Clerics. No, you mean Muslim clerics. I never claimed that Dobson was a muslim. Look, he's a religious leader and figure, but he's not, to my knowledge, an ordained priest. Nonetheless he possesses a degree of authority among Christians. Thus, he is a cleric. I'm sorry that you find the connotations of my precise and accurate word choices so troublesome. Maybe you should inspect what you know of Dobson instead of going off on these irrelevant diatribes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Conservative political views ARE the traditional, constitutional views that has existed in America since the 1700s. But he doesn't hold conservative, traditionalist views. He holds radical views. Thus, he's a radical. Try again, Tal.
So how does Dobsin's idea that a man's son seeing his penis eqivocate to an Islam Cleric telling children to go blow people up? Where did I say that it did? I merely, and accurately, described Dobson as both a "cleric" (which he is) and a "radical" (which he is.) You've yet to dispute either of those claims successfully. And your constant attempts to point out that he's not as bad as certain Muslims is irrelevant, because I didn't say that he was.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
They are traditional conservative values. No, they're not. Dobson's vision of the American government is not one that has a basis in American tradition. His views are radically different from our established government; thus, he is a radical.
That's the way it is done in America, except with the case of abortion, which was legislated from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not a legislature, so this is obviously not the case.
Dobsin, or any muslic cleric, has the right to voice their opinion on social issues in this country. Who said that he didn't? Honestly, Tal, you're getting all worked up about things we're not even saying. Let Dobson say what he likes. Who said he couldn't?
Just because lefties think he is a radical cleric doesn't make him so No. But because he advocates radical views, and because he's a religious figure, does make him so. You've yet to successfully challenge these key points.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 508 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Rahvin writes:
Might I comment that I was this close to marrying someone I had never met before because of arrange marriage... or more like a promise between two families.
Marriage for love is a recent development. For millenia, marriage was simply a legal contract to legitimize children and make clear lines for succession and inheritance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
First of all Dobson specifically mentions sharing a shower with one's own son. Didn't you read? A shower specifically for the purpose of the display of genitals. But, oh, right. It's not child molestation if it's not the only thing you're doing. It's not kiddie rape when you (insert disgusting sex act here) the kid so long as you wash him behind the ears afterwards.
My position has been repeatedly to acknowledge the display of genitals, but then show it is context and not act itself which determines propriety or even potentiality for abuse. For many acts, yes, this is true. For some, it is not. Is the purposeful act of displaying an adult's genitals to a child such an act? I don't know. As a child I saw both my parents' genitals and I don't feel that constituted molestation.
Dobson's suggestion doesn't even come close to that, and neither did my discussion which was strictly related to family care and cases not involving sexual gratification. Dobson's suggestion doesn't even mention sexual gratification. He doesn't, apparently, even consider that it would be possible for a dad to want to display his penis for sexual gratification, despite the fact that he's normally so hyper-sensitive to sexual "deviancy". That's the surprising thing of Dobson's newsletter. Apparently we agree that there's a context where the display of a penis to a child is a sexual act of molestation. Dobson doesn't seem to think so, or else he would have mentioned it. Or actually not mentioned it - he wouldn't have said anything about the showers at all.
Two major strawmen. Shame. Maybe you should consider the fact that your posts are long and difficult to understand before you start accusing me of strawmen. Here's a hint - if your post is longer than one entire computer screen top-to-bottom then we're not going to read all of it. And I do mean none of us. Oh, and point me to the "no harm in child sex" thread you were talking about. I hadn't planned to take part, and I know it's somewhat dead right now, but I'm gathering resources to take you on in it. I'll get caught up and try to post my input this weekend.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
Tal:
quote: Hi, Tal. Meaning is not a zero sum game. The meaning of your life and relationships does not change the meaning of mine, or vice versa. The notion that it is otherwise leads to pogroms and crusades. And I am skeptical of the mountain of evidence you conjure. If a correlation is, in fact, demonstrated between marriage and good health and happiness, it may as likely be that the healthy and happy are more likely to attract a mate, while the sickly and miserable go begging. Neither you nor your preacher has presented any convincing argument that gay marriage has any deleterious effect on heterosexual marriage. True, you both find it offense: so what? "the minority is attempting to force down the majority's throat"--Sigmund, Tal; Tal, Sigmund My wife and I are full partners. Some marriages are dominated by a male husband, some by a female wife; some marriages are a sham, characterized by pretense and adultery: has the meaning of your marriage taken a hit from that? Do wife beaters cheapen and demean the meaning of traditional marriages everywhere? I can hardly wait for the campaign against domestic violence to emerge with the same fury as the religious right's indignation at the notion of gay marriage. Marriage has taken many forms around the world and through time: which one is the sacred building block? The arranged marriages of our Indo-European ancestors? Women as chattel? Polygyny? Polyandry? Is it better with or without dowry? Is it only a building block of society if it happens in a church? Are we secularists truly married? If there is a true relationship building block to society, it is friendship, not marriage. Even among contemporary, so-called traditional marriages, as many fail in acrimony and divorce as succeed in the long term. If marriage is a building block in our own society, and if conservatives believe it is, why do we pay a tax penalty for it? Why haven't the Republicans, champions of traditional marriage, removed that tax penalty? Why haven't they done away with the Alternative Minimum Tax, passed to insure the wealthy pay at least some taxes, but now hitting the middle class almost exclusively, particularly dual-income married folk? Bush has charged a commission to consider that and other issues--with the caveat that any lost revenue has to made up elsewhere in the commission's recommendations--do you recall that requirement applying to tax cuts for the wealthy? It seems that the benison of matrimony is more celebrated in the breech than the observance. Finally, if their is a salutary effect to health and happiness from being married, why should that benison be denied to same sex couples? I don't like marriages where the husband fancies himself lord of both the manor and his timid little wifey: it is a waste of humanity, a distortion of healthy relations. But I don't try to stop them from occurring--I just don't hang with them. If you don't like gay marriage, Tal, don't marry a gay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Fully agree with you! see? it happens. ok, maybe not:
However, Corinthians 6:9,10 still says no homosexuality. Corinthians isn't apart of the old covenant, it is a letter directed towards christians. paul also appears to be using a word that pretty strictly defines older men having relations with younger boys, as was customary in some parts of the greek-speaking world at the time. although, undoubtably paul would have ALSO have been against a consentual relationship between men of the same age. i just suspect pretty strongly that such relationships were not exactly common in the 1st centuray ad in middle east and greek world. except maybe in sparta.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024