Stem-Cells, degenerate Gay Lesbo rights, Abortion, Janet Jackson's boob..what's the problem ??
POSTED BY: JaynezTown
UPDATED: Sunday, December 1, 2024 16:44
VIEWED: 31108
PAGE 2 of 20
I think using the Bible as a legal document gets you into trouble. You'd have to start killing children who disobeyed their parents and married women who were raped by somebody not their husbands.
Jesus turned a number of Old Testament teachings on their ear. He was, to my mind, the original long-haired hippy preaching love not war.
And even in the Hebrew Bible, the OT itself, there are deliberate contradictions in the text. Man and woman were created together, but no, first man was created and then woman later-- I don't think the people writing all this down were confused. These stories are meant to be metaphors for human experience. That's why, if you read say, Job or Ecclesiastes, you get a very different message than if you're reading Ruth or Kings. The book is supposed to capture diversity in order to appeal to all people the authors (people writing the word down) could think of.
As for rules set down in the Bible, the Bible has text that specifically condones slavery and specifically condemns wearing two kinds of material together. It has rules permitting things you and I would never cosider moral. I'm not saying the writers intended for people to be immoral.
I don't think they even wanted people to follow all of the rules and laws set forth in the Bible, at least, not in the OT; there are so many that are self-contradictory. I think the contradictions were meant to make people stop and think about what they were doing. I personally believe the hundreds of rules were meant to keep people busy so they wouldn't be getting into trouble. Those rules were meant to be impossible to follow, so that people were always working hard to be better. Trying to follow hundreds of rules will teach anybody humility pretty quickly, and it certainly forces anybody who cares about it to think long and deeply before acting.
The founding fathers of this country (arguably all of them, but certainly at least half) had very unconventional ideas about religion. Some were atheists. All of them agreed there must be a WALL between matters of church and state, to protect religion from the state and to protect people from the state and from religions other than their own. Of course the founders were born with a Judeo-Christian background. So what? You and I have a history of stealing from and murdering the native people of this land in our background, as citizens of this great country. That doesn't mean we love that aspect of our collective past. On the contrary, we defy our past. We struggle each day to be closer to the truth about that and other issues.
In governing ourselves, we are called upon to use our consciences and our minds in forming the laws of this country. As individuals, we may interpret things differently, but we may not impose our personal points of view on others. We are bound to create and enforce a code of law that tramples as little on individual freedom as possible, preserving equality and justice for all people.
The Bible is not and was never intended by the founders to be anything other than a religious text read freely by the people who wish to do so.
To address the question in the title: I don't understand it either, but people are just really threatened by what they don't understand, and they seem very resistant to learning about anybody different than they are. As Jon Stewart put it, "People are just really freaked out by the idea of dudes kissing." Even though dudes kissing (or getting married) don't affect anybody else at all. I don't get it.
People also would rather be sentimental than scientific about when human life begins and when a new life ceases to be a small clot of differentiated cells and begins to be a person.
Personally, for myself, I am very sentimental about that. I'm a mother of three and I've had a miscarriage and the second I knew I was pregnant, to me, it was a baby in there. But I don't have four babies. I have three, and I had one pregnancy that all of the wishing and wanting in the universe couldn't make into a baby. Science tru
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero:
Quote:
Even throwing the bible aside the pre-1800 common law that Jefferson is talking about would specifically prohibit abortion, medical experimentation at the expense of life, homosexuality, and lewd conduct.
http://www.singmind.com/singleminded/200301/choice.htm
The Roe v. Wade decision in effect restored American law to a condition more resembling the British common law, the ancient legal traditions that evolved over several centuries and that would ultimately form the basis for British statutory law. Under British common law, abortion of a fetus before ''quickening'' was not a crime. Quickening was the first recognizable movement of the fetus in the womb. Prior to that, the fetus was considered to be part of the mother, and its destruction therefore not a crime.
There is some debate as to whether abortion after quickening was also a crime under common law ...
http://www.btinternet.com/~DEvans_23/legislat.htm
Prior to 1803 English Common Law permitted abortion provided it was carried out before 'quickening', the point reached at about 20 -24 weeks when it was believed the soul entered the body. Abortions performed after quickening were an offence under British Common Law, but there were no fixed penalties and the woman having the abortion was not necessarily held responsible.
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic5.htm
Before the 19th century, most US states had no specific abortion laws. The provisions of British common law took precedence, and women had the right to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Gay Rights:
The problem with gay marriage is that the American people were basically given an ultimatum. Give up traditional marriage or else.
Ok, in a seriousness, I've never understood this. And when I ask no-one has given me an answer. It's like when I ask, a tumble-weed goes by. So, here it goes...
How? How does allowing gays/lesbians to marry force heterosexuals to give up traditional marriage. Because, as far as I know, heteros will still be able to marry as they have seen fit since records have existed.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Ok, in a seriousness, I've never understood this. And when I ask no-one has given me an answer. It's like when I ask, a tumble-weed goes by. So, here it goes...
How? How does allowing gays/lesbians to marry force heterosexuals to give up traditional marriage. Because, as far as I know, heteros will still be able to marry as they have seen fit since records have existed.
Okay. I'll take a stab at this. In my mind, a lot of the opposition came from the conflation of a lot of different things. For many people, marriage is a religious institution predominantly and a political institution only slightly. When they get married, it is by their minister or priest or rabbi or imam, etc. The political implications of marriage (in other words, the laws that apply to couples that are married) are less important than the fact that, to them, this is a union between them and the person they love blessed by their higher power.
So, to those people, when they hear homosexual marriage they think that their church will be forced to marry homosexuals. And so they feel that their own marriages will be diminished, especially if their church has a strong stance against homosexuality. (Part of it, from my perspective, is prejudice - "I don't want to have anything in common with those people."). They see this as an example of the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.
What they fail to take into account is that, from the other side of the aisle, this is a fight about civil rights. For people fighting to get government recognition of homosexual unions this is mainly about getting couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.
So the use of the word marriage is unfortunate because there are often both political and religious implications. From my point of view I think the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether. I have written this elsewhere but I'll repeat it here, I cringe inwardly every time I hear a minister or priest use the phrase, "By the power vested in me by the State of California, I now pronounce you man and wife." I would much rather see marriage as a religious institution ONLY - your marriage license is issued by your denomination and is symbolic - has no legal meaning whatsoever. Then you would also sign up for a civil union and register through the government to get the legal rights currently afforded to married couples. That way the push would be for homosexual civil unions.
Those in favor of homosexual unions are fighting for homosexual couples to have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, NOT to force religious denominations to marry homosexual couples against their beliefs (although I'm sure there are activists who would like to dick with organized religion in that manner - but I would hope they are marginalized within the overall movement and only represent a small minority - anhd I could've just invented a straw man anyway
). And it's not enough for it to be a state by state battle because there are federal laws that apply to married couples in addition to state laws.One of the many problems with the proposed Defense of Marriage amendment to the Constitution (aside from just the more general problem of legislating limits on the citizenry into the Constitution) was that the language was so vague that it could've been interpreted to forbid even civil unions to homosexual couples nationwide.
So I've run out of steam...
---------------------
"What sort of raw meat do you people feed your cruiser captains, Hamish?" - Queen Elizabeth III of Manticore
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@SoupCatcher:
Although I percive the same mentality in "them" as you do, my question still remains unanswered.
How does homosexual marriage tear apart "traditional" marriage?
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As far as you know. It’s the whole slippery slope thing. If you’re going to argue that the state must support marriage between opposite sexes, then how do you argue against state supported polygamy or incest? Gay marriage activists jump through hoops trying to avoid responding to this argument, but it is a valid concern. When marriage becomes no longer about the rearing of children, but rather becomes about affirming personal feelings then it becomes a failed institution. To a certain degree that is already happened. Already, heterosexuals attempt to eliminate from marriage aspects of responsibility and commitment, which has led to increases in divorce, but I would argue that it has also lead to increases in the crime rate, domestic violence and overall degradation of society. The institution of gay marriage is simply a continuation of that, the ultimate elimination of the responsibility factor. Marriage is no longer about family: an institution granted special privileges under the law in order to function to rear and support children and elderly, but rather has become a state honored certificate affirming sexual relationships, a right to fuck license, if you will.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
How? How does allowing gays/lesbians to marry force heterosexuals to give up traditional marriage. Because, as far as I know, heteros will still be able to marry as they have seen fit since records have existed.
But the real problem is not so much the marriage between gays and lesbians but rather the insensitive and aggressive manner in which the gay rights community dismissed the majority of Americans who take traditional marriage seriously. And in that, perhaps gay marriage is actually done society and traditional marriage some good, because people, angered by this arrogant manner in which gay rights activists seek to impose their way of life in the mainstream have begun to fight back using their right as the majority to impose law.
Ultimately, however, to save marriage, society will need more then laws, but to affirm the responsibility of family as the central focus of marriage and not the relationship between two individuals seeking conformation of their sexual gratification. And ironically, (and I feel hopefully) may actually pave the way for a more responsible emergence of gay marriage.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If you’re going to argue that the state must support marriage between opposite sexes, then how do you argue against state supported polygamy or incest?
Let me just put this troglodytic argument to rest.
Oh wait, I can't. Given the arguments for gay marriage, this is a logically inescapable conclusion.
Do I think people who are homosexual deserve all the rights and privileges of all human beings?
Yes
Do I think people who are homosexual should be granted special dispensation to alter language and institutions at their whim?
No.
There is not and never has been such a thing as a sacrament that sanctifies a matrimonial union between two members of the same sex.
So repeat after me:
There's no such thing as "gay marriage".
There's no such thing as an "unborn child".
These are what is known as oxymorons. People who use them are known as just plain old ordinary morons.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
How? How does allowing gays/lesbians to marry force heterosexuals to give up traditional marriage. Because, as far as I know, heteros will still be able to marry as they have seen fit since records have existed.
As far as you know. It’s the whole slippery slope thing.
No, not really. I'll explain below.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If you’re going to argue that the state must support marriage between opposite sexes, then how do you argue against state supported polygamy or incest?
This is the boggie-man that the anti-gay rights people have brought up time and time again. There is no slop here. No-one is trying to bring back polygamy (which is still practiced in many countries around the world by the way), nor is anyone even talking about incest.
Clearly, no western nation would go back to polygamy as all the people that live here (and in many others around the world) look to it as "not good" to say the least.
There are many other reasons besides the social "icky" of incease. Genetic deveristy being one of them. This isn't even going to be a possibility, so don't bring it up.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Gay marriage activists jump through hoops trying to avoid responding to this argument, but it is a valid concern.
Only in the paranoid dellusions of some peoples minds.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
When marriage becomes no longer about the rearing of children,
Pardon me, but it's been this way for many decades. And what about couples that can't have children or choose not to have children? Should they then not be able to be married? After all, they can't have a family or chooses not to, and if marriage is all about family then why allow them?
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
but rather becomes about affirming personal feelings then it becomes a failed institution.
This was always part of it. Or are you advocating people marrying people that they don't love. Marriage is about two people whoe love eachother, making the commitment to spend the rest of there lives together, period. So, what does it matter if they are gay or not?
When it comes to people that think this way, I really believe that they really don't see that this isn't a change in what marriage is, it an extention.
It takes nothing away from the institution of marriage.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
To a certain degree that is already happened. Already, heterosexuals attempt to eliminate from marriage aspects of responsibility and commitment, which has led to increases in divorce,
With this, you've just told me what a predujuce biggot you are. To even suggest this is pathetic. Have you even met a gay/lesbian?
The devorce rate in any country is not a function of homosexuality, but a function of the immaturity of the people who get married. I mean, how do you justify Joe and Jane getting devioced if they've never even met a gay/lesbian?
Why would deny even the right of a people to prove to you that they do have committed relationships?
I think that this is really a scape-goat for those that don't what to accept the responsibility of there own actions or the actions of people in there own sect of society. You must blame it all on "them" whoever "they" are.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
but I would argue that it has also lead to increases in the crime rate, domestic violence and overall degradation of society.
You have causality backwards. It isn't that increases in crime rate, etc contribute to the degradation of society. It's that the degradation of society has contributed to increased crime rate. There would of course be a feedback in there.
So, the problem now is, what is causing the degradation of society? I woul
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
As far as you know. It’s the whole slippery slope thing. If you’re going to argue that the state must support marriage between opposite sexes, then how do you argue against state supported polygamy or incest?
I have this crazy idea that says you should argue the pros and cons of the situation in front of you before you tackle the ones well in the future.
The slippery slope crap is a vastly overused dodge. First it's inter-racial marriages, then inter-faith, now homosexuals, but look out, polygamy, incest, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!! END OF THE EARTH - GAME OVER.
Pfeh.
Quote:
When marriage becomes no longer about the rearing of children, but rather becomes about affirming personal feelings then it becomes a failed institution.
Strange. I've seen marriages that uphold the raising of children over personal feelings. The results are not pretty, to spouses or children.
One enables the other. The feelings enable the rearing of children, well-kept and well-loved. To center marraige on children is a mistake that often leads to misery.
Quote:
To a certain degree that is already happened. Already, heterosexuals attempt to eliminate from marriage aspects of responsibility and commitment, which has led to increases in divorce, but I would argue that it has also lead to increases in the crime rate, domestic violence and overall degradation of society.
I would agree.
Quote:
The institution of gay marriage is simply a continuation of that, the ultimate elimination of the responsibility factor. Marriage is no longer about family: an institution granted special privileges under the law in order to function to rear and support children and elderly, but rather has become a state honored certificate affirming sexual relationships, a right to fuck license, if you will.
If heterosexuals have already begun to start the destruction of marriage, then you claiming that gay marriage is the ultimate ruin is laughable at best.
The statement also presumes that homosexuals have no capability to form a family, that the only relationship possible is that of sex bunnies. To my eye, that gives me far more insight into the demons of your real thoughts on this. You have a nice well-constructed rhetoric that I'm taking apart here, I do admire that. I have a hunch this is the gut, the source of your arguement though.
Quote:
But the real problem is not so much the marriage between gays and lesbians but rather the insensitive and aggressive manner in which the gay rights community dismissed the majority of Americans who take traditional marriage seriously.
The majority of Americans have divorces, last I checked. I don't know where your majority comes from. Imagination perhaps?
Quote:
And in that, perhaps gay marriage is actually done society and traditional marriage some good, because people, angered by this arrogant manner in which gay rights activists seek to impose their way of life in the mainstream have begun to fight back using their right as the majority to impose law.
You'll pardon my chuckle - it wasn't so long ago that the mainstream was "imposing their way of life" on this little minority. Turnabout is fair play, after all, and might of majority rarely makes right. Or have you forgotten the dozens of laws overturned that outlawed homosexuality? Fight *back*? Where did you think this little battle started?
Quote:
Ultimately, however, to save marriage, society will need more then laws, but to affirm the responsibility of family as the central focus of marriage and not the relationship between two individuals seeking conformation of their sexual gratification. And ironically, (and I feel hopefully) may actually pave the way for a more responsible emergence of gay marriage.
I agree with this, if not the condescending ending.
Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
This is the boggie-man that the anti-gay rights people have brought up time and time again. There is no slop here. No-one is trying to bring back polygamy (which is still practiced in many countries around the world by the way), nor is anyone even talking about incest.
Clearly, no western nation would go back to polygamy as all the people that live here (and in many others around the world) look to it as "not good" to say the least.
A sect practiced it recently in Canada and the US, actually. Some group clinging to Mormon orthodoxy. Not sure if they've been broken up yet.
Although, any reasonable person would call what they're doing "brainwashing", "abuse", and "rape" before they call it polygamy.
Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME