Discrimination against homosexuals carried into the 21st century

Yes, Ringo. Our ability to understand how things 'should be' is an ongoing process. What should be is the natural order. If something IS, that does not mean it should be that way. What once WAS, does not mean it should have been. That is a point no one should debate. If what SHOULD be is open to debate, then we would have to say that slavery is an option for the future as it was for the past. They didn't change. They were ignored.

I put "inalienable rights" in quotes for a reason. "Inalienable rights" means what were perceived as inalienable rights at the time. Which is precisely why concepts such as "inalienable rights" do change. Maybe so. And when we are fully appraised as to what should be, we will understand the natural order. Until that time, we are left with our changing ideas of what "should be" and "natural order".So, to aim in the general direction of the topic: What "should be", with regard to discrimination against homosexuals? What is the "natural order" with respect to homosexuals? What "inalienable rights" do homosexuals have?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That is an interesting observation, but I am not sure that we should determine our actions based on insects To go with the analogy, these insects are not enslaving their own species. Some insects are opportunistic cannibals, many have an obvious heirarchy. Queens however are born to be queens, and drones to be drones. They are directly dependent on each other, and that IS the natural order. Translate it to mankind, you have the concepts of being born to be 'king', and the caste system, where we are all born 'unequal' by nature. These ideas of 'natural order' were accepted for centuries, by our modern standard they are silly.

Obviously they have the same rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They have the right to vote, to hold office, to gain access to any job they would choose. If it is sinful, that is an opinion...but even if it were, being free of sin is not a criteria for any resume or right to exist peacefully. If 'sinners' were allowed to be discriminated against by those who consider them such, we would have to go after masturbators as well Having a right to marriage is a bit more tricky, only because that right is denied to other folks based on the same reasoning. Relatives, for example, can't marry legally. We aren't legally allowed to marry more than one person, even if there is love and commitment and child-rearing going on.Of course, being allowed to take Holy Orders as a priest is not an inalienable right.

But the reasoning isn't really the same, is it?Relatives can't marry mostly for biological reasons. Since homosexuals can't have children (together), the biological resoning is moot. If anything, homosexuals should be allowed incestuous marriages too. As for plural marriages, there's no "natural" reason to eliminate them. Many societies have gotten along just fine for centuries with them.Bottom line: there doesn't seem to be any "reason" for discriminating against homosexuals except plain, old, ugly discrimination.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I didn't yet mention homosexuality. I am only proposing a difference between the natural order and the temporary diversions from it such as slavery. Would it be unnatural for me to marry my brother even if I didn't have sex? Just a question. Every human being is equal, in the eyes of the Lord especially. I firmly believe that. I also do not believe that everything we want to do makes the same amount of sense. Do I have the right to two husbands, if it makes me happy, or is somehow productive to me? Psssst...I'm not Rob.

There is always that wierd misconception that christians must have a list of 'sins' in their back pocket to refer to before they take action. God actually put a list in your back-pocket too, but He didn't sign it.

It would be very natural for you to marry your brother, even if you did have sex.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, and now they throw you in prison for it.

That is mostly a direct result of western colonialism and imperialism, which happened to be one of the most unjust periods of history. Ana, are you sure you know a thing or two about marriage?Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

---

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

According to the bible, it is perfectly natural for you to marry your brother. Considering the children of Adam and Eve, marrying your brother is the most basic natural order of things. Marrying anyone other than your brother is unnatural. Adam and Eve's children did do it. Therefore, it must be unnatural.

---

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

Nope, not the first clue. I can't even figure out my own. I just wanted to mention some other types of marital discrimination, see what came up.

I don't play 'the Bible says'. If a thing seems unnatural to me, there are two choices. Either it is, or I have been led to believe it is. I would not feel right marrying my bro. Even in saying that I know that my idea of marriage is intrinsically tied to 'sex', for maybe I could marry him if that were not an issue. In that case, why can't people have civil unions as brother and sister? Benefits, the whole nine?Edited by anastasia, : missing letters

Why not scrap the whole "civil union" and base benefits on what the beneficiaries want?If somebody lives with his father, why can't his father be a part of his dental plan? If somebody lives with his brother, why can't he get time off to take care of him when he's sick? (For that matter, why do they even have to live together?)Why not divorce the whole concept of "benefits" from marriage?Then "traditionalists" wouldn't have to boo-hoo about not being allowed to discriminate.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

Of course not.

---

Huh? Well, what does this passage from the Bible that you quoted mean, if it doesn't mean that women should think of men the way that men think of God. I mean, isn't that exactly what it says?