The Future of the Republican Party

Remove all ads!

Ziad, your assumptions are blinding you. First and foremost, even above homophobia being a mental illness, it is a fear mental illness. You are irrationally afraid of something in phobia. Now, phobias can result in hatred response, but this is generally a blindly violent reaction to immediate and drastic exposure. Trying to rationally and carefully persuade someone of something doesn't even fall close to this. The above activity is not homophobia in anything other than a 5-year-old's name-calling.

Secondly, it isn't a 'personal belief system', it's a religion which, by it's very nature, acts to define a universal system of good and evil, and set out punishments for evil and rewards for good. Acts to try and gently move people away from evil and toward good are not out of hatred of anything but the evil itself. They are out of love for the one being moved.

Thirdly, bringing something up during voluntary conversations on the topic are not harassment, not even close. You and I are not harassing each other right now because we are both voluntarily agreeing to be involved in the discussion. If he's banging on the guy's door or preaching through a megaphone at 2:00 AM, then that's harassment. If he's randomly calling the person at work and home, then it's harassment. If he casually invites the guy to church, if he talks about his beliefs over lunch, that's not harassment, not even close.

Actually, if it's a genuine conversion (and not that pressured/forced crap), the I think it is a real solution. The solution has to be societal/cultural, and religion is that.

Here you're just wrong, and here you're assumptions are really showing through. Logic and religion are not synonymous, but they are not opposites, either. Historically speaking, almost all your greatest logicians and philosophers, as well as the vast majority of the greatest scientists, have been devoutly religious, and have rationally questioned their religions and found them well grounded. You blindly claim that all religion is 'irrational', yet you seem to ignore all the wonderfully rational logic that has been applied by some of the best minds of today and the past several thousand years. Who's really being irrational here?

 

NOG and Gnarff dealt with the rationality issue, so I won't bother.

What I see here is two (or more) groups attempting to influence society. People are allowed to take part in the decisions that affect the society as a whole, decisions like what constitutes marriage. No one group is allowed to have a stranglehold over those decisions, and ideally no group is supposed to engage in illegal/terroristic actions that strike fear into the other group. That's what the whole "separation of church and state" thing means, IMHO -- one religious group cannot achieve a deadlock over the policies of the state, but all religious groups -- and other groups too, like the gay rights groups -- have a right to speak out on issues and try to influence the society in which both groups exists.

I think both groups should be listened to and allowed to forward their positions, without attempts to stifle them with PC silliness or attempts to catagorize mere statements of belief as "hate speech".

As for the homophobe thing, it strikes me as merely an erudite way of saying "I'm not going to listen to what you say because basically, you don't agree with me, and that makes you retarded (mentally ill)." Not exactly a mature debating style.

 

It is funny to see people first loudly claim: I am not a homophobe! And then in detail express homophobic opinions, like Martaug wrote, it just feels wrong to give them the right to marry. It is like a person saying that he is no racist but everyone is happier if black people only mix with black people and white people with white people.

There might be a reason why you guys and people of your opinions are so often called homophobes, bigots or racists, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck it probably is a duck even if someone taped on a sign on it where it says: Cat.

 

No, it has more to do with people who are so flabbergasted that someone may not agree with an opinion/point of view, that somehow there must be something wrong with the dissenter. Rather then accepting an alternative point of view, it is easier to call the person a homophobe or a racist and then dismiss them.

To put the shoe on the other foot (as conservatives are not blameless) it is similar to when conservatives call anti-war advocates "Anti-American" and therefore they can be dismissed as they obviously don't have the best interests of the country at heart.

I hope this helps, if not I give up.

 

Let's see how many we can come up with:
Anti-American
Communist
Anti-Choice
Anti-Life
Homophobe
Anti-Marriage
Anyone want to add?

Joacqin, the problem with your arguement is that you quite obviously don't even try to understand the other side of the arguement, you just call them irrational, homophobic, etc. The others have at least tried to understand the sides of the arguements, even if they still disagree with them.

 

BTA,
don't you understand? It's because marriage is between a man and a woman and ...

 

I'm dying to know how you think that sentence should be finished. "and..." what? Their goat? Their neighbor? Their turkey baster? Their three cousins?

 

Blackthorne, that's why I advocate the cesation of the legal term 'marriage' altogether. Henceforth, they should all be called 'civil unions' in legal documentation. If the couple wants to refer to themselves as married, that's ok. If they want to have a ceremony in a church (or Mosque, or Temple, or whatever), that's fine, but the courts see it as a civil union, with all the legal rights and responsabilities pertaining thereunto.

 

The ones you speak of in the first group are the ones that maintain their perspective on the issue. Look at the protests in California to see the worst. I saw a segment on CNN where they showed some protesters, and the one sign that showed up was very offensive to the Mormons in particular (at least it was meant to be. I envy the ones that can just ignore such things).

That's one thing I think too many heterosexual couples forget, but they would do well to remember. If they viewed themselves as partners rather than adversaries when conflict arises, would that not reduce the fighting? Further, 'till death do us part really hasn't changed. Divorce happens, but a man still have to see the ex when you visit the kids and you're still paying alimonty and child support...

But genuine conversions don't happen in large groups. It's a very personal experience. I do agree that if Christianity is followed, the world would be a better place however.

So regardless of how you present yourself, if someone holds a negtive opinion of you it's true? I don't want to buy that, no matter how hard you sell yourself in such an undesirble manner.

---------- Added 0 hours, 8 minutes and 40 seconds later... ----------

Then the government should never have stuck their nose into marriage in the first place. By legislating marriage, they set their hands in an arguement of morality, ultimately for the public good. It is that reason that the law was upheld in 1878 despite a violation of the First ammendment. That precident itself makes Same Sex Marriage illegal.

That said, these 1000 plus rights are not gender specific, and thus should apply to married, common law or domestic partnerships equally. This does not demand the redefinition of marriage. Therefore, any attempt to demand this is an act of hatred against religious organizations that consider heterosexual marriage sacred.

The 1878 Supreme court ruling basically cut that off after the word woman. Sorry to disappoint you Splunge, but there is nothing added after the Man and a Woman. No matter how hot her friend is...

 

It's not exactly difficult to understand why some, many, or even most gays in CA might be just a little upset with the Mormon church. If you don't understand why, imagine what your reaction would be if gays from across the country worked--successfully--to make it impossible for Mormons in Ontario to marry.

I suspect you'd be infuriated.

 

Upset, yes. Infuriated, some would be. But I doubt the members would go to such extremes of hatred and bigotry as these protesters did. If a radical member or group of members were to advocate that gays be given the choice to "go straight or be destroyed" they would likely be excommunicated! Even overt acts of intolerance, hatred or violence would lead to Church Diciplinary Council to review the conduct. Further, the action by the gays in your example would be deliberately targetting a religious organization. This was not the intent with Proposition 8.

The fact remains that the people of California voted to defend that which they consider sacred. This was not done arbitrarily, or out of hatred for the gay community. It was done to preserve traditional morality. The people have spoken, and rather than act like a bunch of hate filled savages, the gay community and their supporters need to instead focus on gay rights as opposed to forcing a change in religious mores.

People here get up in arms when I advocate a law in line with my religious belief, accusing me of trying to force my beliefs ont he rest of you, but where are those voices when another group is trying to force their values on those that not only do not agree, but rigidly disapprove of the proposed change? I've said before that the Gay Marriage debate was less about gay rights and more about picking a fight with religious people.

Further, the monies raised towards Proposition 8 was not done by the church itself, but donated by individual members. That's right, individual members donated $20 million to various groups trying to promote Proposition 8. No Church funds (also donated by the members) were used in this campaign. But because the General Authorities actually spoke in this issue specifically, the Church itself is demonized.

But what the Church itself has done is no different now than it has been since the beginning. Joseph Smith taught that our time, talents and resources belong to the Lord, and that we are accountable to Him for how they are used. Members have, since the beginning, been exhorted to support worthy causes with whatever time and money they could spare. Check the news reports after many natural disasters, and you may see reports of Mormons pitching in to help people rebuild and to supply the people in need after these disasters.

In 1995, the Church declared that Heterosexual Marriage and the Family were sacred and called upon all responsible Citizens to support measures to preserve these things. All we've done is excercise our constitutional rights, and we are villified? No, that's not bigotry...

 

And

And also

Can someone explain this to me? I think this is the disconnect for me in the arguement against homosexual marriages. How do two gay people getting married force their morality on people who are not gay? How do two gay people getting married force others to accomodate them? How do two gay people getting married force a change in religious mores?

To me, it seems that your belief system is very weak (or you are of very weak faith) if two people of the same sex getting married causes your belief system to change. I know there are those that will say that they view marriage as sacred and homosexual marriage is against their belief system. I get that. What I don't get is how two gay people getting married at a courthouse changes the Mormon definition of marriage. Or the Catholic definition of marriage. Or the Jewish definition of marriage. Or [fill in the blank belief system] definition of marriage. People getting married at a courthouse - regardless of their gender - should have zero impact on your belief system, should not force you to change your morality, force you to accomodate them in any way, or force you to change your religious mores, because... wait for it... a marriage at a courthouse has nothing to do with religion.

 

Blackthorne, spot on except it isn't Christianity. Christianity is a pretty new development. If you want to look for origins you have to look at the religions that show evidence of development before writting, things like Judaism, the Chaldean beliefs, etc. All these define marriage as a heterosexual matter and all that I know of (with is not all by any means) present it as originating from God or the gods. Now, you may be able to make an arguement of original definition if you were going for multiple marriages, but not homosexuality. The question then is, do we care? Obviously some of us do.

The real issue, though, has to boil down to our system of government. We've redefined plenty of terms in the past few hundred years, so there's a precident for marriage. As our system works, the majority, or the people that the majority elect, tend to hold most of the power and make most of the definitions and decisions. You can call this the President, Congress, the state legislature, whatever. The exception here in America is the courts, which are mostly appointed by those elected, not elected themselves. Now, the people in many places have spoken and said they don't want gay marriage. In some of those places, the issue has gone to courts and either is doing so again, or will do so again. We'll see how things go.

 

BTA - All of this over the definition of a word? That defies belief - to the point that I think it is a convenient excuse more than a valid reason. As NOG correctly points out, terms get redefined through the years - it is not an uncommon occurance. I was really hoping the anti-homosexual marriage crowd could do better than clinging to a definition that was introduced several millenia ago.

 

Please explain to me why it is so important to homosexuals to be able to use the word marriage?

 

Because a civil (ie non-religious) union is called "marriage", and because (at least in a non-religious context) non-discrimination laws prohibit differentiating on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

For the same reason you would want to call yours a marriage. Because when they meet someone they love enough to spend the rest of their lives with, to start a family with, to grow old with...they want to marry that person. It is every bit as sacred, important and meaningful to them as it is to you. That's why it's important, and that's why they want it so badly. Calling it something less means that it is something less.

Imagine someone told you you couldn't marry because you were a Jew. Think about how that would make you feel. Now imagine you're gay, and told that you aren't allowed to marry the person you choose, and if you insist on moving forward, you won't be allowed to call it a marriage like everyone else in our society gets to, hence, it won't really BE a marriage. It will be inherently less than a marriage, not because of what it is, but because of how other people feel about it. How do you feel now?

It's easy to see why it's so important if you take a minute and put yourself in their shoes. Too few opponents of gay marriage are ever willing to do that.

 

DR, you said basically what I started to type in my response, but I was doing a crappy job of putting it into words, so I went in a somewhat different direction. I figured somebody like you would come along and do a better job of it than I would have done. Thanks for proving me right.