EricBess said:
Oversoul - I acknowledge that I have a religious background and I realize that homosexuality being "unnatural" to me is based on this background. It is counter to the nature of God. You can respond to that if you want, but I don't expect you to because I think we already have to agree to disagree on that point without starting a whole different subject.
Yeah, I think that colloquially, "nature of God" or something along those lines isn't really part of the discussion when it comes to the usage and meaning of "nature" and "natural." But I must acknowledge that it sounds a lot like something that might be used in a theological context, rather than a colloquial one. And theology really seems beyond the scope of this discussion.
I've observed things change over time and it has been my experience that when the vocal minority get an inch, they tend to take a mile. You don't want me to say "mark my words", so I won't, but if I am right, then mine isn't the slippery slope.
So like, when blacks were blocked from voting in the southern states and, and they got past that and now only blacks can vote in those states? Okay seriously though, I'm not seeing it. What do you even think is going to happen? Do you think that opposite-sex marriage will be banned?
Greed and selfishness are going to continue to cause problems for society. The current economic crisis is an example of the former and the homosexuality an example of the later. I expect criticism of that last assertion, but I believe it goes back to the fact that we have become gluttonous enough as society, leading to a pleasure-seeking generation. Homosexuality isn't the largest problem facing us, but the deterioration of family that it will cause might be. BTW - I also feel that Clinton and his intern did far more damage to the nation than anything either Bush has done.
Nope, no criticism of that assertion. I doubt that you could produce real evidence for it, but I also imagine that if you were right, you still wouldn't be able to produce evidence, because it's the sort of claim that doesn't lend itself much to evidence either way.
I believe that even if Clinton had performed of sex acts on a legion of interns in public, on national television on top of an American flag, it would still not be as bad as killing people.
Seriously, BB, I'm not sure what you mean with your question about differenced that Government shouldn't be allowed to acknowledge. To be honest, I'm not sure there is anything in the constitution that protects lifestyle. But regardless, the majority of the population is not homosexual. There exists a conflict and we are catering to the minority, but the issue becomes that not everyone sees it as a conflict.
The majority of the population isn't black, either. I don't consider, say, the Thirteenth Amendment, catering to the minority.
I do have a question, though - there seems to be an attitude of "either you are homosexual, or you are not". I'm curious as to how everyone else views on this.
Quite the opposite. I think the data for decades has supported a spectrum of sorts. People who are close to one end or the other tend to self-identify as completely heterosexual or completely homosexual. People who are close to the middle will be more likely to self-identify as bisexual. Really, a spectrum is just a way of looking at this, of course. It's not a real, tangible thing. But it seems to make sense.
For example, if someone has a predisposition to become an alchoholic, but never drinks, he won't become an alchoholic.
So if someone has a predisposition to engage in sexual acts with those of the opposite sex, but never actually does so, is that person not actually heterosexual? Maybe you'd say that s/he isn't, but that's not the way sexual orientation is usually thought of. Alcoholism is different. It involves chemical dependency. There's no chemical dependency to sex. Apples and oranges, I guess.
Likewise, if someone drinks to excess, they can become an alchoholic even if they are not genetically predisposed. Talk of homosexuality being "natural" in these terms leads me to wonder if you believe someone could "become" homosexual or if you just believe that either you are or you aren't.
Well, I'm fairly confident that it's going to be more complicated than this, but I'm not sure how. Is sexual orientation latent and fixed during childhood, or do environmental factors influence it to a considerable extent? No one knows for sure. And the answer could be somewhere in between or there could be variance between individuals. What I do know is that some people, during adolescence, discover that they are homosexual and are horrified because they've been brought up in a religion where it's a big taboo. They often pray to have the affliction removed or try to force themselves to be heterosexual and it just doesn't work. I don't know what all of the factors are that cause this to happen, nor do I know if the factors are always the same. I suspect that they are not. What I do know is that they didn't indulge in homosexual intercourse and become dependent on it. So it's not like an addiction. Neither is heterosexuality, for that matter.
If someone can become homosexual, then why wouldn't I be justified in trying to protect my children, just as I teach my children that drinking and smoking aren't good for them, either?
Well, yeah. I don't see how "if someone can become a homosexual" has anything to do with it. I'm a bit hesitant about saying it, but I do think you should have the right to indoctrinate you children.
If schools start teaching that homosexual relationships are just as normal as hetrosexual ones, does that mean I was right to be concerned? Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Normal is a strange word to use there. And I don't even see it as a meaningful one. What's normal? No one has 2.3 kids. No one has slightly more than one ovary and slightly less than one testicle. But you have a right to be concerned about anything you want to be concerned about. Go for it.
BigBlue said:
Oh, and I completely agree with you on Sloth, Gluttony, and Lust being the three deadliest sins which seem "acceptable" by society. When will people wake up? We need to stop overindulging to improve our lives, our environment, and our communities.
If you're saying that people SHOULD do this, then I agree. If you're saying that people should HAVE TO do this, then I disagree.
DarthFerret said:
I did see the post before, and did read them, yet I disagree with the assesments that many people come up with concerning that topic. I also think it is almost impossible to know what the founding fathers "really meant" when they wrote those words (and the other parts of the Bill of Rights as well).
The phrase "wall of separation between church and state" originated from Thomas Jefferson. I don't think it's such a big mystery. The Establishment Clause meant what said. Now, from history, it is pretty clear that it was only intended, at least by some of the founders, to apply to the federal government. Thomas Jefferson himself, for example, was a Democratic-Republican (founder of the party and they were basically the successors to the Anti-Federalists). But that has since changed.
If you look at it purely from a historic aspect (not saying you necessarily should), one of the main reasons the founders of this nation had the Decleration of Independence, and the Constitution, was because they were under foreign rule. That foreign rule, at the time, was partly religious based. They did not feel that this was right and thus the US of A was born. If they really meant "seperation of church and state" as most people try to use it now, why does our money say "In God we Trust"? Why does the Declaration say that we are "endowed by our Creator" (yes creator is capitalized in the Declaration)?
Money didn't say "In God we Trust" back then. That's an artifact of the Civil War. Personally, I'm opposed to it. But this has gone to court before. See Aronow v. United States. The justification given by the Supreme Court at that time wasn't that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment doesn't exist. It was that "In God we Trust" was supposedly just a patriotic statement and didn't actually have anything to do with religion, necessarily. I find that to be a load of crap. But supposing that it's right, the motto in no way contradicts separation of church and state.
As for the Declaration of Independence...
Firstly, it's not a legal document and never has been. Secondly, the guy who wrote the thing was a deist. I doubt that his "Creator" was the same as yours.
Another side note, and this comes from a comment that EricBess made. If we are all for giving homosexuals equal rights and equal treatment because of thier lifestyle choice, then why can't we give a smoker (cigarette, pipe, or cigar of course) equal rights too?
Yes. I'm with you on this one.
Therefore, what I am getting at is the double standard of the left wing minorities that want to tell a person that since you are homosexual, you still can be treated like a normal person with extra benefits, but if you light up a cigarette then you should be stripped of all human freedoms and cast down into the pit of some place like hell (since they also want to keep religion out of things, do it all the way, no devil, no hell).
Extra benefits?
So, do we protect our kids from smoking and homosexuality, or do we allow both to go on unhampered by any restrictions? You Decide '08
Huh?
Hope for the Future (what hope?)
Change! (what change?)
<snicker> (who's laughing right now?)
Huh?
