S.F. Gives finger to Feds, Ok's same sex marriages...

[mythosx]

Originally posted by Chaos Turtle
Don't take it all so harshly, infidel. It was a gentle (I thought) verbal jab indicating that dogma, being an intangible, can't actually "found" anything. Something may be founded on the basis of it, but it in and of itself can't do any founding.

Of course I disagree that this country was founded on the basis of Christian dogma, or any other dogma, for that matter. The notion that any one idea or even closely related group of ideas was what this country was founded upon is patently absurd, in my opinion. The circumstances that led to the birth of the nation are far more complex than that, something that idealogues often overlook (willfully, I'm sure).

I would have to politely disagree chaos turtle. Although the speration from England was sparked upon economic and social issues, our founding laws, principles and even governmental structures were very much based on Christian ideas.

 

[train]

just my thoughts...

but the reason they were based on such was because they had no other model to go by...

and they didn't want to use the model they had just left...

They didn't make religion the center-point - it was just a model... the best they had at the time...

It has since been "separated" because it was deemed necessary for the principle beliefs the country was founded upon...

Freedom, and not just religious... the constitution, etc...

 

[conservative_infidel]

In God We Trust, One nation under God, etc., etc. . . . what I mean is that the core values of those who shaped the Constitution appear to be Judeo-Christian in nature . . . emphasized from Rousseau to the Declaration, to the writings of Thomas Paine, to the Gettysburg Address and beyond.

Turtle (and others), does this not seem to argue (if not frame) altogether that Judeo-Christian ideology was the primary influence in organizing/structuring our form of government? And not only in this regard, but also a sustaining and upholding influence of our government to this date?

 

[sickandtired2004]

God bless them and let them marry. In fact, anyone that interferes with someone else's life in my book is border line criminal. So all you anti-gay, anti-abortion folks in my eyes are criminals because you stop the pursuit of happiness.

The day I tell you to stop reading the bible, and going to church on sundays is the day you can tell gays to stop getting married, you evil dorks.

If "God" is all knowing and all powerful and being gay and having abortions is a sin, then let your master sort them out and stop doing his job for him.

[Language edited for appropriateness - TomB]

 

[conservative_infidel]

" . . . anyone that interferes with someone else's life in my book is border line criminal. So all you anti-gay, anti-abortion folks in my eyes are criminals because you stop the pursuit of happiness."

Primarily, I think Homosexual behavior is a choice and the Gay agenda IS interfering with my pursuit of happiness.

It seems as though once again, in your book, anything goes as long as Homosexuals fail to physically interfere with another's life.

So when the institution of family changes to two fathers or two mothers, and there they raise the next generation of children, leaders, teachers or whatever to identify with their same gender values and claims . . . yes it affects me and my children and grandchildren as well. My goodness, look at Canada as well as our own "Don't Ask, Don't" Tell insanity.

The Homosexual agenda IS attacking my country and I simply won't stand by and watch it happen, or, let the third term (or any term abortions for that matter) crowd argue successfully for the slaughter of unborn children because they made a choice to procreate irresponsibly.

How about just not getting pregnant. How about that as a method of responsible birth control instead of plunging a syringe into the skull of a 2rd or 3rd trimester baby to suck its brains out into the trash or sink?

 

[Oversoul]

Originally posted by mythosx
I would have to politely disagree chaos turtle. Although the speration from England was sparked upon economic and social issues, our founding laws, principles and even governmental structures were very much based on Christian ideas.

Nothing that I have read by Paine, Jefferson, or Franklin supports this conclusion. Where did you come across it?

 

[Chaos Turtle]

The only way that the founding of American government can be said to have been framed by Judeo-Christian ideals is that Western civilization itself can be said to have been founded upon Judeo-Christian ideals.

But culture and government are two different things.

And what is this "homosexeual agenda" I keep seeing and hearing about? I'm not aware of having any agenda myself that is related to my sexuality. Except, obviously, the drive to have sex, if that can be called an agenda.

I'm not bothered so much by anti-gay rhetoric or the feeling behind it, than I am by the generalizations and assumptions that there is some kind of consipiracy to overthrow American culture.

I don't want to force people to accept gays, per se. In fact, I don't care if any particular person "accepts" gays. I do care though that there are those who seek to have the government specifically condemn people based upon a genetic trait, or even a behavioral trait that does not realistically interfere with the lives and liberties of others.

The idea that homosexuals must necessarily be marginalized because a group of people (even if that group is the majority) feels uncomfortable with them flies in the face of of the principles that this country, to my understanding, was supposed to be about.

After all, I'm quite uncomfortable with the indoctrination of children with the mythologies of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, et al, but you won't find me protesting those people, demanding Constitutional Amendments to prevent such behavior. (And before anyone starts telling me I'm comparing apples to oranges, let me point out that those things are just as wrong as homosexuality if one is to argue from a genuinely Christian perspective. Also, my apologies if I have burst anyone's bubble regarding the existence of those characters...you know where to send the hate mail.)

Okay, now how on Earth does one make the jump from the "gay agenda" to third-term abortions? I hope you are not lumping those groups together under some imaginary "Evil Liberals" banner. I for one find the practice of abortion for the sake of birth control a violent and disturbing practice. I pretty much keep my thoughts to myself when the subject is first-term or pre-embryonic/embryonic abortions, but I find the practice of third-term or fetal abortion barbaric in the extreme. Is it murder? I don't know. But it's disgusting and I think we agree that it's a practice that should be outlawed except in the most extreme of circumstances where the health of the mother (or another fetus) is in serious jeopardy.

But the point remains that the two subjects of homosexuality and abortion rights are utterly separate. I hope your attempt to unite them was simply a passion-driven oversight and not what would amount to truly shabby rhetorical practice.

 

[conservative_infidel]

Turtle,

I have to compliment you on the tone, reasonableness, and well thought out position of your argument. I find it refreshing to see people basically talking to each other rather than going on as bitter adversaries.

Yes, you've understood to the seperate issues in fact to be to two seprate issues. But I'm crunched for time and will have to get back with you on another reply.

I thought it only decent to reply back (although limited at this point) because of your frank, well explained, polite reply to my post.

Sincerely,

Infidel

 

[conservative_infidel]

Turtle,

What are your views on Gay marriage and civil union?

What do see as the good and bad points of morphing the traditional parenting structure into two fathers or two mothers?

What (if any) do you see as the effects on the psyche of a child raised in this type of family context?


Infidel

 

[train]

What do see as the good and bad points of morphing the traditional parenting structure into two fathers or two mothers?
What (if any) do you see as the effects on the psyche of a child raised in this type of family context?

Ill interject here - only because I can... hope you all don't mind...

It isn't a morphing of the traditional... It is something created independently...

The parenting structure is actually devloped between the 0 and 7 ages... The critical period for imprinting usually occurs on the parent, by the child, within the first few weeks of life(of change in lifestyle), but it doesn't have to be upon a male or female... it occurs due to familiarity and during the learning process that brings about trust, distrust, and understanding of one's being in an environment... recognizable attributes of that environment, including parents, shape the person in all facets of human nature...

as for the psyche effects of a child raised in this context - believe it or not, but the child is more adept in society as a whole... As the later years prove, the child makes decisions that may or may not follow in the actual parent structure they took part in, and usually experience more support from the parental figures for making a decision of their own...

These children have been well adjusted compared to parents with a male and female figure as there were not as many instances of emotional, or physical abuse in the family... This basically stems from both parents in the structure being on the "same wave-length" - as in - there wasn't a battle of sexes going on... emotions didn't clash, and understanding was easier to achieve...

*I don't have the reports, scientific writings or other materials from Sociology anymore that presented this info - but with what I'm doing in Psychology now - everything has been as previously mentioned... from imprinting, to family results...

thanks...

 

[Spiderman]

I agree with Chaos Turtle and can't add much more but my own question:

Originally posted by c_i
Primarily, I think Homosexual behavior is a choice...

Despite scientific evidence leading to the contrary?

So when the institution of family changes to two fathers or two mothers, and there they raise the next generation of children, leaders, teachers or whatever to identify with their same gender values and claims . . . yes it affects me and my children and grandchildren as well.

And your view and how you raise your offspring doesn't affect their lives and happiness? What makes your view "correct" and not theirs?

 

[mythosx]

hey spiderman...their isn't scientific evidence supporting either side....reports funded by partisan groups have concluded both...go figure....

 

[Spiderman]

Oh yeah, I think you mentioned that before. The evidence saying that it is a choice didn't make it into the papers I read (which probably says something there )

 

[Oversoul]

This is WAY oudated, but...

"Between what are regarded as two ends of the human sexuality spectrum--exclusive heterosexuality and exclusive homosexuality--ther exists a continuous spectrum of bisexuality. Sexuality is determined by a person's sexual desires as well as his or her actual sexual behavior. Thus, the term bisexual includes those who supress homosexual desires and behave exclusively as heterosexuals.

Sexual preference may vary during a person's lifetime. Alfred Kinsey, who conducted a broad study of human sexual habits in the US during the 1940s, developed a scale that allowed him to rate the relative homosexual activity and/or responses during different periods in an individual's life. He concluded that, at some stage in their adult life, half the population engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activity, or reacted sexually to persons of both sexes."

Given that, I would think that homosexuality could be a choice for those closer to the middle of the spectrum...

 

[Spiderman]

How outdated is that and is his study still valid? Have current studies made his obsolete?

 

[Chaos Turtle]

I don't know how current it is, but Oversoul's post outlines the basis of my own beliefs about sexuality. This does not mean of course that I think the homosexual tendency is a choice, but the behavior obviously is, hence the continuum.

 

[Bobby_103]

Well,

I don't know all that much about homosexuals, or the arguments for or against it's hereditary nature, nor do I care all that much. But I do recall listening to a conversation between a local pastor who was in his late 70's and a young fellow who was arguing the heredity point to him. You got the sense that the young guy was attempting to teach the old preacher man a thing or two.

The young guy hit the pastor with every statistic and study he could muster about the hereditary nature of homosexuality, and the pastor just sat there and listened patiently with a smile on his face. Then, when it was his turn to talk, he said, "I know it's a little off the subject, but it's no secret that your father and grandfather were both a little to fond of the bottle. I was a pastor at this church when your grandma came to my house after your grandpa beat the dickens out of her while he was drunk. She told me that he drank all the time and if he wasn't drinking, he wanted to. I was also pastor here when your father came to me and asked me to help get him into a good A.A. program because he'd become an alcoholic just like his father."

The young guy just stared at the old pastor with a look that seemed to be a mixture of shock and anger at the same time. I just sat there, befuddled, but I could see where the old man was going, and waited to see the outcome.

"Tell me son, do you need me to reccomend a good A.A. group to you as well?" the pastor asked

"No, I don't drink. I know what they were like, and I'm not going to turn out like that. What does this have to do with genetic disposition of homosexuality, anyway?"

"Son, there are more studies out there confirming that alcoholism is a genetic trait than you can count. Even with the gene in you, you choose not to drink. As a man of God, I believe that the Lord gives us all trials and hardships in life to endure as a test of our willingness to follow His word. I believe that homosexuality is just as much a test as alcoholism is. Just because you have the gene in you, doesn't mean you have to partake of the sin. Genetic or not, it's as much a matter of free will when it comes down to whether you act on it as taking that first drink is. "

The young guy walked away with the strangest look on his face, but I think the old man got him thinking.

Part of that is paraphrased, but that is pretty close to how the conversation went. I laughed at it then, more because it's always fun watching older people depose wisdom on younger people who act arrogant because they think they know more than the "geezer" does. Now, I look back and agree with the old man. In life, we have choices, and whether it's genetic or not, you have the choice to not act on those feelings.

Don't get me wrong though. I don't know if it's a sin or if it's not, nor do I care. I believe that concept is up the individual to determine, not for someone else to tell them. And, if it is a sin in the eyes of God, that's between the individual and God, and the government has no place in the equasion.

 

[conservative_infidel]

And your view and how you raise your offspring doesn't affect their lives and happiness? What makes your view "correct" and not theirs?

Question 1: By my views are you referring to gender structure within the family unit regarding parental roles or just a father's influence in general?

Question 2: By "their's" are you referring to homosexuals or to my own offspring?

Infidel

 

[Chaos Turtle]

You parable is cute, as parables often are, but as usual this sort of argument grows from a religious (presumeably Judeo-Christian) background. That being the case, you are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I won't argue with you about Mosaic Law, or whether we are still bound by it, or whether Paul spoke with genuine authority in his condemnation of homosexual behavior. I will only argue that in this country we are not to be bound by the government based upon Christian dogma (and clearly we are not so bound).

At any rate, genetics accounts for a vast array of traits, not all of which are diseases, obviously. Certainly there is a genetic predisposition to cancer, addiction, and psychosis, just as there are genetic markers which determine which hand we prefer to use and the way our hair grows. People used to be regarded as "wrong" for being left-handed -- it's where we get the word "sinister," as you may know -- and they did so with scriptural justification (by their interpretation). So the parallel your parable attempts to draw betwenn genetic alcoholism and genetic homosexuality is not a good one. Such parallels rarely are.

But to continue with your example on-topic, I don't believe that in this country it is illegal to be an alcoholic. What rights are being denied alcoholics on the basis of their disease? Do you know of alcoholics that have been fired from their jobs for no reason other than being an alcholic? For being drunk at work, surely, but just for being an alcoholic? Well, I don't have gay sex at work, but I could be fired just for being gay and have no legal recourse whatsoever.

 

[mythosx]

what is your work? Unless its a bona fide work requirement, you do have legal recourse if you get fired for being a homosexual.