What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- gnocchi1442, on 11/20/2008, -30/+344You don't have to be gay to love this ass-kicking commentary. Well done.
- AWBoy666, on 11/21/2008, -68/+18And you don't have to be Christian to see that the behavior in these videos is intolerant and despicable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRxFoBSPng&eurl=ht ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD1AITHS2Wc
The evidence points to a lot of violence sparked by angry homosexuals in California. Whether you are for or against the issue, this kind of violation of basic rights such as free speech and the right to assembly is disgusting.- wphj, on 11/21/2008, -10/+45http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard
- gnocchi1442, on 11/21/2008, -15/+56Yes, your poor little 1-billion-member-strong religion is sooo persecuted. I really feel for you.
You guys have been ***** up the world for over 2000 years. Don't you think it's time to rest on your laurels and give the smart people a shot for once? - ashfish, on 11/21/2008, -11/+34Alright, so I watched the videos you linked. The first one I thought was hilarious. So, you're mad at the glbt members of this community (to which they seem to be the majority) are telling unwanted peoples to vacate their community. No one was accosted, no one was hurt. A few people got in the police's face but I expect that. There is always at least one no matter what group is protesting. To the second video, one you were walking into an obviously heated protest. While I do think it wasn't in the best taste to knock down that woman's cross, again, no one was actually hurt. Except maybe her feelings for the disrespect. But when you look at how the right has been vocal about Prop. 8...Well, not a lot of respect was given on that front. As this article states, this kind of thing has been a long time coming, you keep abusing a specific sect of people and they will fight back.
- singingsox, on 11/21/2008, -9/+31Yes because, all gay people act that way.
And furthermore, all Christians act like saints!
No. - tehknotte, on 11/21/2008, -13/+6they sound like gay people in south park.
- gnocchi1442, on 11/21/2008, -3/+18AWBoy's all in favor of the majority taking away minority rights, unless the majority are gay and the minority are Christian. Then he's HORRIFIED that the majority of people in a community would let a hateful group of outsiders know that they aren't wanted.
Make up your mind AWBoy. Does the majority rule or not? - boot20, on 11/21/2008, -2/+12@AWBoy666 so what you are saying is all the attacks and violent acts against the No on Prop 8 people were ok, but the minor incidents that occurred in what you post are not? You must work for Fox News.
- homercles337, on 11/21/2008, -2/+10Repug icon of intolerance? Check.
Hateful comments toward a minority of the population in America? Check.
General ignorance of social issues? Check.
Currently resides in a backwards red state that is at the top of the list of recipients of welfare from blue states? Check. - Wagnerian, on 11/21/2008, -1/+9Honestly, what's wrong with kicking obnoxious christians out of the Castro when they have come to gloat in yr face the week after you have had yr civil rights taken away?
Why do you insist on calling the mere expression of gay anger 'violence'? - AWBoy666, on 11/21/2008, -10/+2@homercles337-
Has two degrees from a top 10 institution....Check.
Is a proud member of the top 1% of income bracket due to his hard work....Check.
Will not tolerate violations of rights guaranteed by the constitution.....Check.
Yeah, I'm pretty proud of who I am. - mllawso, on 11/21/2008, -1/+8So it's ok to deny other their rights, so long as no one takes yours away?
You're a hypocrite. - CaptOblivious, on 11/21/2008, -0/+10GBLT people finally start to fight back after all the oppression they have taken from the religious right and NOW you complain?
Where was your indignation when their rights were being violated? When they were being shamed and persecuted? Even beaten and killed for nothing more than sexual preference?
I figure you've got about 50 years of abuse you've heaped on em, man up and take your lumps just like they had to.
I'll start feeling sorry for your group in about 50 years. - bugsy187, on 11/21/2008, -1/+10@AWBoy666
Where's the "violence" you're accusing the gays of? They knock the lady's sign down. That's not violence, it's just a dick move.
Isn't it one of the commandments not to bear false witness? - ThaBBoyWannaB, on 11/21/2008, -1/+7Both videos are crap. The first a group of Christians go to an area known to be where many homosexual are and start preaching and singing (I assume from what I read in commentaries), did they expect people to suddenly see the Light? In the second an old woman brings a BIG cross out with her to a No Prop 8 rally. Seriously? Would you be surprised if a black man brought out a Malcom X poster to a KKK rally and was not allowed to peacefully demonstrate? Or if an Pro-Abortion doctor started handing out business cards at a Pro-Life rally and he was not chased out? I disagree with how the crowds reacted, but if the instigators didn't know something like that was going to happen then they are ignorant idiots.
- gnocchi1442, on 11/21/2008, -1/+5They not only knew something like this would happen, they WANT something like this to happen. It's the standard Christianist martyr scam: provoke the other side with increasingly outrageous behavior until someone finally has enough of your *****. Then start crying about persecution.
- mrsteveman1, on 11/21/2008, -23/+7Don't have to be, but after reading that i might consider switching for a while :D
- Cuchanu, on 11/21/2008, -12/+37The problems is that I don't think the leaders of the religious right do a lot of reading. Cough *PALIN*.
- SourBreastMilk, on 11/21/2008, -2/+12There is much truth to that. It's not that there are no smart people among them, there is just this sense of anti-intellectualism as evident with Palin. Religious fundamentalism (Falwell, Graham, Dobson, and others) which gave rise to Reagan and the religious right is a modern movement that fights against modernity. Much of the reason for this prevailing idea of anti-intellectualism was a backlash against feminism, pro-choice rights, homosexual rights, and what they see as a total decay of American culture. There are a number of interesting books on this subject: Bruce Bawer's "Stealing Jesus" and Chris Mooney's "The Republican War on Science"
- grando205, on 11/21/2008, -11/+51Intolerant??? Intolerant???? Are you ***** kidding me?????
The "religious" right has the corner on the market when it comes to intolerance.
She exercised her free speech when she voted yes on 8.. It's our turn to exercise our free speech.
Also, I'm sick of people saying that that old woman was a victim of violence. PUUUUUHHHHLLLLEEEAAASEE. She had a Styrofoam cross
knocked out her hand. While I disagree with whoever did that, that can HARDLY be called violence!- boot20, on 11/21/2008, -2/+8Honestly, how hard is it to knock a styrofoam cross out of someones hands? She was just pissed that she "might have caught teh ghey."
- AWBoy666, on 11/21/2008, -11/+5I didn't say it was violent. I said it violated her rights. And guess what? That's a crime. And here it is on video and here you are defending it.
You should be ashamed. - Noxxten, on 11/21/2008, -1/+9actually Grando205 clearly stated he/she did not agree with whomever knocked that cross out of the elderly lady's hands. Maybe you should be ashamed you didnt make it past year 2 reading class ***** XD.
- leatherscot, on 11/21/2008, -2/+5@Noxxten
People like AWBoy666 only see the words they want to see - All they want to do is preach - comprehension and understanding are not concepts people like that understand ;-) - Elranzer, on 11/21/2008, -2/+6Prop 8 violates* the rights of millions of people. You should be ashamed.
*It's a violation of the 14th Amendment. No wonder it's at the supreme court. It will fail. And rightfully so.
- maz2331, on 11/21/2008, -7/+3
- mrsteveman1, on 11/21/2008, -4/+6Well at least you aren't hiding behind mythological beliefs, and are just a jackass
- Batfishy, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2jackasses maybe easier to deal with, but I don't like his tone. Maybe there isn't that much of a difference?
What is it about ***** you don't like, maz?
- rokklobster, on 11/21/2008, -5/+27Well done indeed. I'm surprised Fred Phelps/the Westboro Baptist Church --http://www.godhatesfags.com -- wasn't mentioned. The ridiculous lies they spew about "the fag lifestyle of soul-damning, nation-destroying filth" make me sick to my stomach.
- Dauntless1, on 11/21/2008, -3/+15I notice you got a negative digg. Whoever that was should go to www.godhatesfags.com and check out WBC's little manifesto. They claim to be Christians, but hate the whole damn world. They are a pure, unabashed hate-group, and anybody that can support them get get the ***** off my planet, cause you ain't welcome here. And you never will be.
- KirbyMeister, on 11/21/2008, -11/+5@ Dauntless1: Wow. Never before have I seen such blatant hypocracy... Just because they're a hate group doesn't mean it's okay to hate them. The paradox of free speech is to accept things you don't like, including speech against free speech. If you cannot satisfy this you cannot have free speech.
While others may be voting you up, I'm burying you since, while their speech is highly bigoted and unnessesary, saying you want them off your planet is akin to what they want. - RoninMoro, on 11/21/2008, -1/+6You wouldn't be saying that if they hated you as passionately as they hate everyone else... oh wait, they do.
Imagine them picketing your parent's or kid's funeral because they were sinners. Westboro is really ridiculous, and they DO need to fall off the planet. - Elranzer, on 11/21/2008, -1/+3Wow, KirbyMeister did you just honestly defend the Westboro Baptist church?
Buried. Reported. Blocked.
- noprtyaff3, on 11/21/2008, -15/+0I posted this link:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111816. ...
..the other day and stated that more people should be deeply concerned given the civil rights of these Christians were clearly violated by homofascists. And then I was promptly kicked off of Digg by online fascists.
I'm pleased to know that at least the homosexual blogger here is not a fascist.
And as the article states: "If you do a little logic test and flip it around and if you had a video of a bunch of Christians or let's just say conservatives, sexually molesting and chasing some gays out of a city, you'd better believe there would be a national outcry," he added.
BTW, the phony conservative Newt is not enough of leader to use the word fascist in describing these homosexuals. I'm not buying it. If he did in fact use the word, it was purely coincidence. - homercles337, on 11/21/2008, -0/+14As Dan Savage put it, "No more Mr Nice Gay."
- stickyman, on 11/21/2008, -0/+5That was so eloquently put.
Perhaps we should all stop and think about how the average gay person is treated. The are, more than often, second class citizens.
Taunted in childhood, and marginalised in adulthood.
In the UK, and most of Europe, there are at least some laws to protect gay people, but when I think about it, the attitude of the general populace is still not what it should be.
We all need to do what we can to help. Equality means equality. - ansatsu29, on 11/21/2008, -0/+4I applaud the writer for the excellent article.
These so-called "MORAL, RELIGIOUS AND BIBLE ABIDING PEOPLE" are the ones who are aggressive and instigate hate to any one that appear different to their so called "godly" principles - gays, lesbians, atheists and agnostics alike. - aduzik, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1Yeah, it would be nice if more straight people loved this ass-kicking commentary.
- AWBoy666, on 11/21/2008, -68/+18And you don't have to be Christian to see that the behavior in these videos is intolerant and despicable:
- johnnr2, on 11/20/2008, -29/+158BRAVO!!!
- Elranzer, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3That's the channel that airs Queer Eye and Boy Meets Boy
- thepoliticalcat, on 11/20/2008, -24/+118Excellent, I say.
- EarlOfLade, on 11/21/2008, -8/+19Indeed!
What these morons on the right seems to forget is that 40 years ago, it was illegal for a white person to marry a black person. The same arguments used today, were used 40 years ago,m just substitute "gay" with "ni**er" and you have the same arguments.
So, in the past 40 years, their "sacred' marriage has at least been redefined ONE time.
And so far, not a single opponent has been able to tell me how letting gays marry will ruin their so called "sacred" marriage.- NeptuneZen, on 11/21/2008, -9/+8Hammurabi's code, one of the oldest set of laws in the world clearly implied that marriage was between a man and a woman. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, for the purpose of making a family. Most people I've argued about over this seem to gloss over the significance of this. Marriage is older then written history.
Now you want to come along and change it all. First it was divorces, making it easier for two people to divorce. Then it will be letting gays get married. Then a morman or an islamic, will use the same arguments you are using and apply it to polygamy. Then some other wierdo will want to marry a dog, or a rock, or his sister. Every little bit erodes the meaning of the word marriage until it means nothing.
To quote Gandhi "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." To call others intolerant, bigots, and homophobes is not the way to win over people to your side.
The only argument I've seen for gay marriage has been the separate but equal one. So why don't you tell me why should we have gay marriage instead of civil unions. What reasons do you have? - jsmu, on 11/21/2008, -10/+4No. Heterosexual marriage, for your information, originated with the woman as the CHATTEL and SLAVE of the man; if you are so ignorant of the mythology of the VIRGIN that you are not even aware of marriage as a vehicle for enslavement, sadism, completely unequal roles for men and women, and if you are so stupid that you do not even know why brides STILL wear WHITE...lol. That's your sacred 'marriage'-- which gay marriage would make huge strides towards changing. No wonder you are so defensive and illogical; you haven't a leg to stand on. "Marriage" is not older than written history, you MORON, SLAVERY is older than written history. Get a ride and an education.
- boot20, on 11/21/2008, -1/+1@EarlOfLade you spelled Mormon wrong...
- KirbyMeister, on 11/21/2008, -2/+1@boot20: because mormons are the only people for prop 8, AMIRITE?
- KirbyMeister, on 11/21/2008, -1/+4@jsmu so if marridge is slavery now, why are we letting gays enslave themselves?
- Larsonal777, on 11/21/2008, -8/+3Thank you neptune... see... this is why people are upset at gays... because they are trying to push their agenda through as the SAME as another issue. When it has NOTHING to do with it. Marriage has ALWAYs been between a man an a woman... the racism was interjected into this later... and was later corrected.
I don't care what you do in your own home... i don't care if you want to have a civil union. But forcing churches to accept gay marriage... is NOT an option. If the government says gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage, then churches will be forced to recognize this... which is religious intolerence in itself.
Its not rule one of marriage: "there must be a man and woman". No there is a deeper meaning... that its 2 people who come together and become one flesh and procreate. Marriage has always been about more than the love between two people. You can't tell me people won't want to get married in some church (which all the beliefs of the church in what marriage fully mean logically FOLLOW that it must be between a man an a woman) that when this church refuses to marry them that they won't get sued.
It is a complete strawman falicy to compare racism to what churches have ALWAYs defined marriage as... and have good reason for defining it in such a way. Not only churches but cultures throughout history. Procreation... people used to and still do in some parts of the world have arranged marriages, not being able to procreate in many cultures is a valid reason for divorce. Marriage wouldn't me so family centered where two completely different families will cometogether and join in blood if it were just the love between two people. The bond between these families would fade the minute a gay couples marriage ended in death. Procreation is not something you can just ignore... and just not consider an arguement as you try and relate your arguements to those opressed by racism. In fact its the ONLY arguement I've ever heard of against gay marriage! So your comment that people have been using the SAME aguements is just bogus.
Oh and if you think procreation is not a good arguement for marriage just take a look at evolution... and the REST of the animal kingdom. The strongest bond between ANY animal is the bond between two animals that MATE. - Acre, on 11/21/2008, -2/+0@NeptuneZenNeptuneZen: Mormans aren't polygamists...
- TheMoniker, on 11/21/2008, -1/+4NeptuneZen: People marrying rocks doesn't follow from GLBT being allowed to marry, that's purely a slippery slope argument.
- Larsonal777, on 11/21/2008, -3/+1I think you missed the main point moniker... really missed it.
that or you're trying to distract from the main point...which with all the strawmen on digg i wouldn't put it past you. - BritishPhoenix, on 11/21/2008, -1/+1"No. Heterosexual marriage, for your information, originated with the woman as the CHATTEL and SLAVE of the man; if you are so ignorant of the mythology of the VIRGIN that you are not even aware of marriage as a vehicle for enslavement, sadism, completely unequal roles for men and women, and if you are so stupid that you do not even know why brides STILL wear WHITE...lol. That's your sacred 'marriage'-- which gay marriage would make huge strides towards changing. No wonder you are so defensive and illogical; you haven't a leg to stand on. "Marriage" is not older than written history, you MORON, SLAVERY is older than written history. Get a ride and an education."
If that's true, and you're pissed and indignant about it, then why the flying camel's scrotum would you be supporting the queer community adopting such an abominable ritual... they should be 'respecting' each other and asking for civil union arrangements instead, in order to make sure they get 'equality' in principle, in tradition, in history as well as in practice...
Another well thought out leftist diatribe.
Incidentally, if SLAVERY as you put it is older than written history, then so must 'marriage' be, idiot... In small population groups arranged marriages weren't the first thought for natural human procreative relationships... therefore the sexual marital union of male and female for the purposes of procreation MUST have come before 'so-called' slavery, and by extension the institution of 'marriage' MUST have been instituted in order to protect a beloved wife from being 'fair game' by the local tribesmen looking for a bang or a spouse - a legal entitlement for the purposes of protection in a primitive system, eh?
God, if you ever used your brains you could possibly be dangerous. Then again, you're pretty dangerous enough without using your brains. - BritishPhoenix, on 11/21/2008, -4/+1I think that Earl of Lade missed the fundamental point, and merely demonstrated that most of the cheerleaders for poofter 'rights' are simply 'activist' my nature, and could be rallied to protest just about anything that someone chooses to invent an issue with.
Unfortunately, gay does not equal 'race', it does not equal 'colour', instead it equals 'creed' - a lifestyle adopted, with full consent and the right to choice, by an individual defining him or herself as they choose to be defined. All men are born men, all women are born women. Anything else is occurring either as a medical defect, or a psychological dysfunction. It is not 'written' in genetic code (stone) as a 'variable', it is simply objective biological fact. Confusing an issue of choice with an issue of biological destiny is neither helpful, nor factual. - EarlOfLade, on 11/21/2008, -0/+4Not a single person has explained how letting gays marry will ruin YOUR marriage or anyone elses marriage.
Anyone? Please?
And quite frankly, I don't care if you are personally disgusted. nobody has asked you to marry someone of your own sex, and no gays do not have the same options as you do. That would be true only if you, a straight man, had to marry a man and not the woman you really loved. THAT would be the same.
The opposition to letting gays marry is only promoted from a MYTHOLOGICAL perspective and by assholes who can not present any EVIDENCE for their favorite mythology, no matter which christian or islamic cult they come from.
I will start to listen to any of you cult members once you have presented evidence for your myth, until you do so, you are a crackpot, no matter which cult you belong to. - Larsonal777, on 11/21/2008, -3/+1Earl of Lade... before i answer your question i want you to answer mine... it's been claimed over and over that homosexuality is genetic that you are born gay... How the hell does evolution allow such a trait to exist genetically? I'll tell you why... because it doesn't... its your life experiences that shape who you are and the choices you make.
Second of all... let me ask you this... if i were to use your name... a name im sure you hold certain meaning for that most people of that same name don't take away from. If i were to use your name... but then change its meaning and get everyone to use it for something compleeetely different such as... failing anytime anyone failed i they would say man you "youre name" you would not be happy about it. Trust me you wouldn't. Names have power... words have power... marriage is the union between to people so that they may share their love between eachother AND procreate AND raise a family all while growing more in love. Homosexual unions DON'T fit under this description. It's NOT the same. Having the governement legally say it is would force everyone to say it was. It would not be long before someone sued some church for not marrying them. Pick a different name... cus this one is taken changing its meaning to suit your will is just wrong! - TheMoniker, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2@Larsonal: I most certainly wasn't addressing a straw man. He explicitly made the claim that allowing the GLBT community to marry would allow for further changes in the definition of marriage, including: polygamy, people trying to marry their sisters and rocks, etc. That argument is clearly a slippery slope argument and doesn't follow.
As for your argument: "How the hell does evolution allow such a trait to exist genetically?"
1) Although homosexuality probably has a genetic component, much of its cause, perhaps most of it, appears to be nongenetic (Haynes 1995; Kendler et al. 2000; Kirk et al. 2000). To the extent it is not genetic, selection would not affect it.
2) Homosexuals still have children. Sexual orientation is not an either-or trait but exists as a continuum (Haynes 1995). Those with some heterosexual orientation can still contribute homosexual genes (to the extent it is genetic; see above). And even the most extreme homosexuals sometimes have children.
3) The most manifest heterosexuals may have homosexual tendencies, too. Homophobic male heterosexuals showed more arousal to homosexual images than did nonhomophobic heterosexuals (Adams et al. 1996). Societal condemnation of homosexuality may contribute to its genes being propagated by causing latent homosexuals to behave heterosexually.
4) Genes for homosexuality could be beneficial on the whole. In bonobo chimpanzees, homosexual interactions are a form of social cement. It is possible that homosexuality evolved to serve social functions in humans, too (Kirkpatrick 2000). After all, social cohesion is still a main function of sex in humans.
5) The genetic etiology of homosexuality may come from a collection of traits that, when expressed strongly and in concert, result in homosexuality; expressed less strongly or without supporting traits, these traits contribute to the robust nature of our species. The genes for these traits persist because they usually combine to make us better at survival and reproduction.
6) Genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men apparently boost fertility in women. Female relatives of gay men, on their mother's side of the family, had more children than female relatives of heterosexual men. (Corna et al. 2004)
7) It should be noted that the question of explaining homosexuality is not limited to humans. Homosexuality exists in hundreds of animal species (Bagemihl 1998).
References:
Adams, H. E., L. W. Wright Jr. and B. A. Lohr, 1996. Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology 105(3): 440-445.
Bagemihl, Bruce, 1998. Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. New York: St. Martin Press.
Corna, F., A. Camperio-Ciani and C. Capiluppi, 2004. Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Proceedings: Biological Sciences 271: 2217-2221.
Haynes, J. D., 1995. A critique of the possibility of genetic inheritance of homosexual orientation. Journal of Homosexuality 28(1-2): 91-113.
Kendler, K. S., L. M. Thornton, S. E. Gilman and R. C. Kessler, 2000. Sexual orientation in a U.S. national sample of twin and nontwin sibling pairs. American Journal of Psychiatry 157(11): 1843-1846.
Kirk, K. M., J. M. Bailey, M. P. Dunne and N. G. Martin, 2000. Measurement models for sexual orientation in a community twin sample. Behavior Genetics 30(4): 345-356.
Kirkpatrick, R. C., 2000.
- NeptuneZen, on 11/21/2008, -9/+8Hammurabi's code, one of the oldest set of laws in the world clearly implied that marriage was between a man and a woman. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, for the purpose of making a family. Most people I've argued about over this seem to gloss over the significance of this. Marriage is older then written history.
- EarlOfLade, on 11/21/2008, -8/+19Indeed!
- angeladtao, on 11/20/2008, -28/+126I learned in a 12 step program that we see in other people those character defects that we don't like about ourselves. I have always thought that this saying applies so well to those people who criticize other people's behavior so mercilessly. We have seen many examples of this lately, too. I think that God created us all just the way we are, and He doesn't make mistakes. Although I am straight, I have never been able to understand this type of discrimination. One of my friends told me she could tell one of her twin sons was different - and she suspected he was going to be gay - at 5 months old. Five months old!! Nobody chooses their sexuality at 5 months old! This was obviously something that was present at birth. I'm glad to see that the GLBT community is finally going to stand up and speak up for themselves. There is so much ignorance out there that perhaps a little education might be a useful part of the movement, too. I'll keep your movement in my prayers. (God listens to liberal's prayers, too, btw.)
- IKORKYI, on 11/20/2008, -31/+11its all good cause no matter what sexuality preference you have, boobies are great.
- GhostyBoy, on 11/21/2008, -0/+5Why is this getting buried?
The damn things feed babies, for *****'s sake!
- GhostyBoy, on 11/21/2008, -0/+5Why is this getting buried?
- oldhick, on 11/20/2008, -5/+57I have a similar story. One of my dearest friends, who is a die hard conservative macho kind of guy that works in the trucking industry, has a brother who is gay. While he loves his brother with all his heart and accepts him I know that he's struggled due to his industry and friends and the jokes they make.
But I remember him telling me that he knew when his brother was about 3 years old that he was going to be gay.
Anyway, we're all just people trying to get by in this world and it would be a lot easier if people would worry more about themselves and their lives then everyone around them! - wishninja, on 11/20/2008, -12/+9I digg some of what you are saying but I would like to point out that I think we are at the time when you do not have to say "even though I am straight". Instead maybe it's time to start recusing yourself of any religious preconceptions you hold.
- Paranor01, on 11/21/2008, -3/+14well said!
I always demand to be dealt with as a person.
not a male
not a heterosexual
not my job
not my family
but me, who i am... what i am in any fashion is secondary. And I perform the same respect and honor to whomever I am talking to. - BritishPhoenix, on 11/21/2008, -1/+1I've never heard a more strange comment put together in the interests of pseudo-intellectual political correctness.
You demand to be dealt with as a 'person'? But you don't want people to see your gender, your conformity to biological normality, what you do for a living, who you are related to...
You say its all about who 'you' are, not 'what' you are...
You've got it the wrong way round.
If I'm to take you seriously, you are merely a biological being of no defining characteristics which could be considered to have any bearing, made up of chemicals in various states as a result of laws of physics, defined by DNA in a specific pattern yielding a specific, and strangely unique result... You are, in essence, a biological 'blank', not yet realised as a human having human experiences, and therefore not defined by those experiences. It sounds like, in that sense, you are ashamed that you are defined at all.
The interesting thing is, when we strip you back to your core essence, your defining source, your DNA, defines you in a manner you do not want to be defined. You are, presumably, a male human being, you are genetically heterosexually reproductive, and your 'relation' to others will be traceable and somewhat inevitable, as is the nature of biological genetically defined beings with heritage and an instinct for survival and procreation... - wishninja, on 11/21/2008, -1/+2You are so dense B.
P doesn't want to be a stereotype is what he is saying. - BritishPhoenix, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1Oh, right... I get it... he wants to be different like everyone else. He wants to be the same like everyone else. He doesn't want to be known for his defining characteristics....
So I was right, then, to consider that he wishes to be treated as a 'generic'... merely a member of the human species who's likes, dislikes, beliefs, preferences, predilections are without consequence and not worthy of consideration.
OK.
I just love it when these attempts at 'higher philosophical thinking' and pseudo-intellectualism crash and burn because they are vacuous, nonsensical and paradoxical. - oldhick, on 11/23/2008, -0/+1@wishninja, I think all BritishPhoenix is saying is that worrying about something like that is silly and ridiculous. Who cares? Why would you care? Worry about yourself and NOT how other people view you.
- Paranor01, on 12/21/2008, -0/+1@britishphoenix
And what I meant was who I am at the core of my person, not the physical vessel. I have a personality, and yes it is structured by my experiences, knowledge, and biology... but the core is the important part. That is the root of everything else. I am a person first, everything else second.
- Paranor01, on 11/21/2008, -3/+14well said!
- kenhatesemos, on 11/21/2008, -15/+712 step programs are another retarded religious institution. but however you arrive at the conclusion that any form of discrimination is wrong, is ok by me i suppose.
- subterfuge, on 11/21/2008, -11/+6while the message of your comment was good, there were two problems with it:
"Nobody chooses their sexuality at 5 months old!"
nobody CHOOSES their sexuality, period. also, in the future we will probably be able to predict the future of a child's sexuality based on their brain structure.
"I think that God created us all just the way we are, and He doesn't make mistakes."
You should read Geneis - the part when god destroys sodom and gomorrah when some of their men were committing acts of male-male sodomy. your god hates homosexuals. you need to reconsider whether that's the kind of religion you want to represent, because your religion says a lot about you to the people you meet.- moffie, on 11/21/2008, -0/+6How do you know that Angela's god is the god of the Tanakh, who destroyed sodom and gomorrah for homosexual behaviour?
If she's Jewish - you may have an argument. If she claims to be Christian - she likely believes that Jesus abolished the old law of Moses so that people could be forgiven for any sins, and I would assume that homosexuality wouldn't be an exception.
Or she could be of another religious background. - joshmoney, on 11/21/2008, -0/+4I think people misunderstood what angeladtao was saying in regards to "Nobody chooses their sexuality at 5 months old!" Did you read the next sentence? "This was obviously something that was present at birth." I think what she was saying is that obviously people DON'T choose to be gay because how could a 5 month old even understand something like that. I understood to her to be arguing against the idea that people "choose" to be gay, not agreeing with it...
- BritishPhoenix, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2"in the future we will probably be able to predict the future of a child's sexuality based on their brain structure."
Not remotely. It has nothing to do with anything. For something to become a scientifically observable rule it must be inviolable, it must be predictable, it must be reproducible, it must, in essence, be an invariable absolute. This means you must be able to say 'ah... the brain is this shape, must be gay' and then find that EVERY gay person has the same shaped brain, and NO straight people have the same shaped brain.
Your cited 'evidence' is utter mythology... the queer lobby clutching at straws and waving badly researched, non-quantified, poor quality anecdotal evidence as a gospel truth to justify themselves... again.
"I think that God created us all just the way we are, and He doesn't make mistakes."
I hope whoever wrote this is actually more intelligent than to take what they said literally and seriously...
"your god hates homosexuals. you need to reconsider whether that's the kind of religion you want to represent, because your religion says a lot about you to the people you meet."
Utterly irrelevent. Objective scientific reality 'hates' homosexuals. It has dictated that they cannot, and should not, survive by virtue of the fact that reproduction is exclusively heterosexual in our species, and indeed, in pretty much all species in which male and female genders are clearly defined. The question isn't whether humanity wants to be so 'rigid' as to be 'represented' by rigid objective science. The question is what kind of idiots want to be 'variable' so as to defy objective science, imagining that their will, their alternative psychology on the subject makes the slightest iota of difference to objective science?
Think about your statement... If God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because he had warned the sodomites repeatedly to cease and desist in their perversion, and then he destroyed them because they refused, it shouldn't even be a question as to whether or not anyone would 'want' to be representative of such an 'intolerant' God... the question is, if those are God's rules, and he destroys people over them, why would you want to provoke his special interest by rebelling in the first place? When you're dead, your standing up for a 'point of principle' looks pretty bloody stupid. No one sits around and says 'look at all those homosexuals that have died of AIDS... good on them for standing up against that nasty anti-Gay disease and living how they wanted to live.' Rational people say 'what a bloody stupid way to live, when you know the great risks of doing so.'
As for my religion saying a lot about me to the people I meet, then great... I hope it says 'sinner, saved by Grace through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.' But its a two way street, isn't it... we all become representatives of our way of life... consider the homosexual stereotype, with his mincing walk, his false voice, his strange pronounciation that he only seems to get when he wants to project his gayness... take his risky sexual practices, and his endless demands for society to accept him, and his outbursts of anger and emotion when they don't...
What do you see?
I see a male who doesn't really know what gender he is, who is insecure and needs to play act a whole new persona in order to gain acceptance amongst a group of people just like him, who seeks to be different to other men, while wanting to be accepted as if he had made no distinction, who cannot abide sound scientific and medical advice when it contradicts with the manner in which he derives his sexual gratification, who is incapable of being objective or rational about science and about his biological identity, who will behave in a manner which is wilfully contrary to what is generally socially acceptable, and then tries to move society and restructure social and moral order around his proclivities so that he can be self-justifying.
What do I see in a 'Christian'? Someone who has seen sufficient evidence to convince them that the opinions of an all-powerful God found in a compelling book called the Bible are to be taken seriously, to be followed, because somehow that God knows better than the rest of us, being the creative architect of the Universe and the world we live in.
By that token, you've got the gay man who refuses to follow the manufacturer's instructions which are hard coded into the construction and mechanics of the finished product, or you've got the Christian who believes that the entire operation of the finished product should be based on the appropriate use of the manifacturers instructions.
You might not like the opinions that come out and the challenges that are raised, but you can't dispute the objective logic of one approach over the other.
"If she claims to be Christian - she likely believes that Jesus abolished the old law of Moses so that people could be forgiven for any sins, and I would assume that homosexuality wouldn't be an exception."
Forgiveness, and 'licence to commit whatever sin you like' are two very different things. Be careful with that one. According to the Christian Gospel, Jesus said that he had NOT come to 'abolish' the old law of Moses, but to fulfil it. That 'old law' at no point in the New Testament was cast down or removed. A way around the prescription of the old law was presented - those who are convicted of their sin, repent, and put their faith in Jesus Christ's sacrifice as having paid for their sin on their behalf, and who follow Jesus in a new, regenerate, reformed way of thinking and way of living, have the penalty for sin commuted. Those who do not will still face the charges of all their crimes against God, all their sin, paying and giving an account for all of them, and their entry into judgement will be based on the answer to one question: whether they believed what Jesus said, repented and put their faith wholly in Him as being sufficient and able to commute their sentences. With Jesus you have forgiveness but not free licence. Without Jesus, you give an account for all your sin, having no advocate on your behalf to take the blame and commute the sentence. - angeladtao, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1@subterfuge You are making a mighty big leap when you assume that I am talking about a God that would destroy a city because of the sexuality of its inhabitants. There was nothing in my comment at all that specified whose God I was talking about. The God of my understanding doesn't make mistakes AND doesn't destroy cities for their sexuality.
- moffie, on 11/21/2008, -0/+6How do you know that Angela's god is the god of the Tanakh, who destroyed sodom and gomorrah for homosexual behaviour?
- theokandroid, on 11/21/2008, -1/+6While I agree with what you said above, sexuality is not "chosen" it's something one discovers in themselves. It is something that one is born with and cannot decide on. Our country needs to be more acceptable of these determinations. We do not need to worry about gay marriage when their are so much more prevalent issues.
- homercles337, on 11/21/2008, -2/+6Mostly i agree with you, but the creation part i holistically disagree with.
- BritishPhoenix, on 11/21/2008, -1/+2"One of my friends told me she could tell one of her twin sons was different - and she suspected he was going to be gay - at 5 months old. Five months old!! Nobody chooses their sexuality at 5 months old! This was obviously something that was present at birth."
Actually, that's not 'obvious' at all. It's a leap to an erroneous conclusion. Biological 'sexual identity' is not ratified until puberty. Unless this five month old baby was born without testicles, there was nothing either 'inevitably different' or 'necessarily different' about his biological identity in relation to his gender (and therefore 'sexuality') whatsoever. What his mother experienced was a different 'feeling' about that child to another, and since there is NO evidence that five month old babies have profoundly different 'sexual definitions' to any other, there must inevitably be EVERY evidence that the mother wrongly interpreted a character trait, or a nurtured submissiveness to a sibling, or some other such nuance of formative identity, and quite possibly responded to it in such a fashion that made a profound distinction between the treatment of the two, the attention that the two got, the smothering in mothering that one of the two got, or indeed it could have had a knock-on effect in the manner with which the father treated the child, having 'rubbed off' as an influence. In short, a five month old baby, in terms of 'sexual identity', is an island out at sea... it is devoid of any sexual identity other than the one it was biologically born with, and will not display signs of sexual attraction in ANY form until puberty, manifesting otherwise only that which it has learned... if at five months old the mother interpreted 'homosexuality', its because the mother considered 'homosexuality' as a variable, and quite possibly as a result of this confused and strange way of thinking about a five month old baby, she nurtured a self-fulfilling prophecy, albeit subconsciously. Like the island, unless it always existed and was always manifest (and something so profound as biologically deviant sexuality would not exist merely in the mind or the personality, but in the genes, in the physical biology, as a significant noticeable DNA marker) then for it to exist, someone must take it there from outside the island.
He clearly would not be the first, nor last infant to have a 'character trait' wrongly interpreted and then compensated for or overcompensated for by a parent or relative, which promotes a skewing and an exaggeration of nuances and behavioural traits, rather than the 'normalisation' which more objective parenting promotes, based on the absolutes of human biological identity.
I am sure that if a parent considered their five month old baby to be 'cat-like', they have every potential of nurturing something of an identity crisis in a growing child just by the repetition of what might seem to be 'cuteness' to the parent... I know of friends of mine who adopted less traditional, very liberal, very casual upbringings for their children... One called his son 'shorty' all of his life, and now the kid thinks that 'shorty' is his name, and that its because he's 'short'. It may well be true that he is small, not yet fully grown, but this now, instead of being a circumstantial and irrelevent characteristic within his biological realisation, it has BECOME his identity, a gross exaggeration of a feature arising from lazy parenting, which will stick with the kid forever, now, in some form or another. Another, a relative of mine, lost a baby girl shortly before the birth of her first son, and became convinced that her son 'knew' his sister, and could 'feel' her presence, and sure enough, as well as constantly bombarding the kid with enough idealised and emotional hangover from the infant mortality to give her son (and another to follow) the impression that his stillborn sister had a whole personality, and a whole existence with the parents that he was not privy to, and that he had definite female shoes to fill, mom overcompensated with paranoid fear in smothering her son half to death, wrapping him in cotton wool, and treating him like he would break, in essentially projecting her will to be mothering a girl onto the mothering of a son and effectively dominating his life and, you guessed it, he has no interest in girls sexually or romantically, doesn't have a paternal desire, is screamingly effeminate, is precious to the nth degree, is almost obsessive compulsive when it comes to cleanliness and tidiness, can't hold a conversation with any other men unless they're as screamingly effeminate as he is, and goes on frequent holiday with one particular male friend and/or 'galpals' where they specialise in particularly childish or 'girlie' activities and don't do a single thing, it seems, which would identify them in general with the typical males of their age... The family would also tell you that they know what they're expecting one day...
A human is no more likely to biologically have an innate 'alternate' sexuality than he is to have an innate 'alternative mammalian identity.' If those things manifest, it is a result of nurture, not biology.- angeladtao, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1You are so wrong. Where did you get your information? Freud is dead. Haven't you heard?
- BritishPhoenix, on 11/22/2008, -0/+0I'm not remotely wrong. And Freud can be as dead as you like, it doesn't depend on him either.
It depends on scientific proof.
It is PROVEN that subliminal and subtle influences can make indelible marks on the human psyche. Billions of dollars have been spent this century not only proving it, but utilising it, capitalising upon it.
It is PROVEN that nurtured traits from infancy can make indelible marks on the human psyche. Billions of dollars have been spent this century not only demonstrating it, but attempting to reverse or compensate for the effects of it.
It is PROVEN that the psychology of the human being is infinitely more complex, and far more easily influenced than most people would like to admit, because no one is prepared to accept that they themselves might be the product not of autonomous and informed rational decisions, but of involuntarily absorbed and subtle nuances which they have had little influence over, but can indeed make choices to accept or, if they are perturbed at what they find in themselves, can endeavour to overcome.
By contrast, it is NOT proven that homosexuality is genetic. It is not proven that certain brain shapes or sizes make homosexuality inevitable. It is not proven that homosexuality is biochemically predetermined. It is not proven that homosexuality can be remotely considered to be biologically naturally occuring and 'normal.'
Quite the opposite, in fact.
Heterosexuality as a mechanism for procreation based on distinct genders is biologically determined. Proven fact. Subtly, non-profound differences in brain shape or size has no consequence on a human being manifesting biologically deviant sexual behavior unless you're talking about observable defects in brain formation which cause psychological instability and lead to compulsive behavioural reactions and neurosis as a medical condition. Biochemical differences can not even be reasonably considered to account for even 1% of the instances of homosexuality, because the exceptions to the attempts to establish 'rules' are so profound and numerous.
On the other hand, psychologists and psychiatrists can, when they think independently and outside the box established by the politicised APA, identify psychological factors and contributing characteristics which vastly increase the likelihood of the manifestation of deviant sexual behaviour and identity dysfunction not only by retrospective analysis to draw conclusions, but they can also reasonably establish with a noteworthy accuracy patterns and clusters of influences which establish fairly crude 'profiles' to which a significant majority of the homosexual community conform.
Ultimately, you can do what you like with homosexuality in itself - be queer, don't be queer, say yes, say no, screw whatever you like in the privacy of your own home, or completely abstain. But don't try to invent fraudulent science to justify regarding biologically deviant behavior as anything other than biologically deviant behavior by not only trying to wrap the activity in a lifestyle, and trying to make it appear to be a barely distinguishable 'clone' of normal biologically sound human experience, but by trying to make it appear 'scientifically' (and thus 'biologically') justifiable.
- IKORKYI, on 11/20/2008, -31/+11its all good cause no matter what sexuality preference you have, boobies are great.
- uncleosbert, on 11/20/2008, -20/+64i will always remember reading these blogs. it's powerful to see this movement come together and i'm glad to see it.
- PabloMac, on 11/21/2008, -5/+3It reminds me of a movement that came together for me a few hours ago.
- BritishPhoenix, on 11/21/2008, -4/+1I second that motion.
- cmp1966, on 11/20/2008, -32/+331I am not gay. I am religious. And I have something to say, both in my own defense and to the religious community that I am often thought to share offensive viewpoints with simply because I am a heterosexual, Christian American.
I am suppose to be one of them; I was raised to be one of them. And, I have thought much about this issue. I am ashamed! I was taught to respect people who are different than I for whatever reason. I was taught that no one ever had the right to impose a religious belief upon another. That a church was meant to guide and teach you, but it could not, under any circumstances, coerce or impose its beliefs upon anyone. Not even my own religion has that right! I was raised to believe that the separation of church and state must never be bridged.
I was taught that the purpose of government was to establish ways for people to live together in peace. To make it possible for a wide variety of people with many different religions, customs, and beliefs to live and work together with respect for each other so that an economy could be established. That the state could never, ever, impose a religious belief unless the security and safety of that society and economy would clearly benefit.
We have here a group of people who have become an established segment of our community. A group of people who have the support of business as well as established religious organizations which support their rights, including the right to marry. Religious institutions which say they support gay marriage and wish to perform such ceremonies. Are we suppose to impose our religious beliefs upon them? If so, I don't want to hear any snivelling when another religion's beliefs are imposed upon yours. The separation of church and state must not be circumvented! Not even by vote, but most certainly not by a vote which is based upon religious beliefs which have no clear benefit to the state! Indeed, the state is harmed by this as all it does is cause misery and harm to a large minority segment of its own citizenry. This is the perversion!
Or, am I just suppose to ignore those people, those companies, those religious institutions? As if they don't count? I will not be a part of this!
My Sunday School teachers taught me about separation of church and state. And they taught me that as a citizen, it was my Christian duty to find ways to work with people who are different than I, independent of my religious beliefs (except that I, myself, must live by them) in a manner which is courteous, respectful, and promoted peace. As a citizen of the United States, I was to conduct myself in a way that best promoted the welfare of my state and federal government with respect toward all the citizens in it. We were to live our Christian beliefs ourselves, but we weren't suppose to shove those beliefs down another's throat, nor to coerce anyone into living them, nor to impose those beliefs on anyone! Shame on you!
They also taught me that God made me, just the way I am. They told me that God loves me just the way I am. They told me that this was true of every single person in this world, even those who were different than I, even those who didn't believe in God at all. They told me that God is compassionate, merciful, and that all love comes from God. That He wanted us to do our best to be like Him. To try and do what He would want. To forgive others the way we want Him to forgive us. To not judge others. To love one another.
I don't see my churches acting the way they told me to. I don't know if homosexuality is a sin. I know what the Bible says. I'm missing something, clearly. But I have friends who are gay. They are good people and I will not condemn them. That's between them and God. I believe in a merciful God and I will trust Him to know what He's doing because He made them, too, just the way they are and I figure that's how He loves them.
I don't know why my religion is becoming one of intolerance and hate. Or being represented so. I don't know why gay people are having to bear this. I just know: I don't want to be a part of it. And I don't want people to think that just because I am a heterosexual Christian American, that I support what is being done to our gay community in any way at all. And I beg everyone, please reconsider what you are doing.
To the gay community: I am very ashamed. I am sorry from the bottom of my heart.- jodimcmullen, on 11/20/2008, -5/+95Well said.
- paintgrl, on 11/20/2008, -5/+113Well we need more people like you. Don't be afraid to speak out.
- kismetropolis, on 11/20/2008, -5/+85That was beautifully spoken. Thank you for saying it.
- zenbud, on 11/20/2008, -5/+144The fundamentalists are ruining the 'Christian' reputation. You are a shining example of what Christian really means - you rock.
- Lazydriver, on 11/21/2008, -3/+24As an Atheist, it's not the Christian in you that makes you a good person as we all know from those Fundy *****.
It's the common ***** sense and respect towards others you disagree with. - ziffel, on 11/21/2008, -5/+8"Christian" "really means" thousands of different things to thousands of different subsets of Christianity. The fundies think they are dead on right, as do the moderates, and the liberal christians do too. "God" remains silent & hidden and does nothing to authenticate any of the 30,000 or so divisions of Christianity.
And in my opinion, it's the fundies that live closest to what the bible *actually teaches*. The bible teaches that homosexuality is not just a sin, it calls it "an abomination" in several different places.
I'm an atheist, and am in no way endorsing fundamentalism, but I know the bible inside out and backwards, and it's a terrible, terrible book that teaches some hideous things (including children ordered by God to be stoned to death for sassing their parents).
There are definitely some good Christians out there. Nice folks who treat others decently, dont' shove their religious beliefs down others' throats. However, these people are simply not doing what the bible tells them to do. - moffie, on 11/21/2008, -0/+5I really like a quote from "Hannah and her Sisters" by Woody Allen: "If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in his name, he'd never stop throwing up."
Truly, so many hordes of people claim to be "christians"; claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christus - a man who lived with the sick, the prostitutes, the diseased, the downtrodden, forgotten and cast away members of society. He spent his life healing and preaching to the less-fortunate. I cannot fathom how any hypocritical band of greedy arrogant pricks can preach some of the things that they do...that you see condoned and glorified - pissing on the less fortunate, derision of prostitutes, of the sick (esp. those with drug addictions, etc.), the 'holier than thou' attitude, etc... It's absolutely despicable! Whether you believe that Jesus was a deity or simply a loving, caring, humble man - you've got to feel outraged with the spattering of his name and legacy with the moral sewage that errupts from the churches of so many modern day hypocritical reprobates! - arvvvs, on 11/21/2008, -0/+4There are few people like you cmp that actually speak up. Sadly as always the more extremist factions always makes you people who are more true to the word of Jesus, who is admired by even Gandhi, make you look bad and intolerant.
- BritishPhoenix, on 11/21/2008, -5/+1"claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christus - a man who lived with the sick, the prostitutes, the diseased, the downtrodden, forgotten and cast away members of society. He spent his life healing and preaching to the less-fortunate."
First up, if you're going to try to use a clever sounding academically authoritative name for 'Jesus', then please be accurate at least...
If you're going to use the Greek, then Iesous Christos will suffice. If you're going to use the Hebrew, the Yeshua Ha Meshiach is probably closer to the mark. I accept that the name 'Jesus' as we now translate it is broadly representative, but if you're going to be specific and pedantic, his Name is closer to 'Joshua' than it is to the 'invented' translation of his Name as 'Jesus.'
Second, you're right, he did live with the sick. And he healed them. He did encounter prostitutes. And he said 'go and sin no more.' He did minister to the downtrodden, and offered them hope through the Gospel. And he saw the 'cast away' members of society, and he said 'your sin needs to be dealt with... you can be redeemed.' Jesus was NOT a social activist, he was NOT found condoning sin or encouraging it, nor excusing it, he WAS found constantly challenging men and women in how they lived their lives, to the point that large crowds of them gathered to try to kill him. He preached on a message of sin, the wages of sin, hell and damnation, and the need to be made right with God seven times more frequently than he spoke on love, and he never, never used the term 'tolerance'. That's what we know about Jesus. Anything outside of that is made up and speculative. I can only go on the actions and comments that he made which are on record, not those which we imagine he would have said if he'd been politically correct.
He affirmed the Old Law of Moses at all times in his life, and admitted that he was not overturning the law, nor replacing it, but expanding upon it, fulfilling it. Contrary to popular opinion, he did not excuse and pardon a woman caught in adultery... he started specifying what he knew about the people who had set her up in order to set him up, brought their hypocrisy out in the open, challenged them with their own sin, until one by one they left. The law at the time stated that the accusation must be brought by witnesses in order to obtain a sentence, and with no witnesses present, Jesus said 'neither do I accuse you', since he had not been a witness, the irony being, of course, that as he demonstrated to the crowd of men there, he HAD been a witness, an impossible witness, and he knew EXACTLY what was being said and done, and by extension, he knew the heart of a woman who had been caught doing something she knew there was law against, who knew that she deserved a justified penalty under the law, and who was brought before the final authority judge and was cast on his mercy - repentant and wishing like mad she'd never done it (death sentence seems to have that effect on rational minds) and swearing to herself that if she survived, she'd never do it again, and Jesus used it as one of the first pictures of the forgiveness through repentance and throwing ourselves on his mercy as the final authority, with a change of heart and mind about how we view our standing under the law, the first picture of his grace, a picture that would be made complete a short while later, when He himself was substituted for Bar Abbas.
And yes, some of what comes out of Christendom is hypocritical, and some of it is vile (in the Bible, there is linguistic precedent for God himself using the term 'it makes me so physically ill, I want to vomit'... it is a term reserved almost exclusively for homosexuality, oddly enough). But the failing of so-called 'Christians' is in no way a mitigating justification for the failure of those who do not claim to be 'Christians.' We would all be found morally responsible for our own actions, and God's rules, God's word is not applicable only to those who believe it, but to all, whether they live in ignorance or not.
And the atheist above was actually right, objectively... the Biblical fundamentalists are the closest to the authentic and accurate 'Bible believers' that Christians can be. This means that the question is not one of whether or not you like what the Bible (and therefore the fundamentalists) says, whether or not it is nice and life affirming enough for you, whether it is what you want to hear... but rather whether there is the vaguest, remotest possibility that it could be accurate, that it could be supportable, that it could be authentic, and therefore that it SHOULD be taken seriously.
Only you can decide that, but moral equivalency and placation and tolerance between every person of a different world view is not something you're asked to be responsible for, or even to consider. Jesus himself said 'I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.' He challenges... He divides... He sets opinions, views and people against each other, because fundamentally there is NOTHING we can do, or say, or think which does not in some form have to pass his scrutiny, and we must decide in general whether we will position ourselves with him, or contrary to him, and we must decide this inevitably, whether we give intellectual assent to his existence or not - even in principle, as the Bible says, we must choose who we're serving, whether we do so informed, or whether we take our chances that the Biblical position is of no consequence or consideration, is entirely up to us. But we will choose, even when we think there is no choice to be made.
And as Ziffel rightly identified, what cmp1966 elaborated is NOT Biblical 'fundamental' Christianity - it is humanised, politicised, 'tolerant' passive moralist Christ-interest established as religiosity, 'Christ-ianity' for religion's sake, as a creed and a nice ethic, and is not on the challenging cutting edge on which Jesus Himself, and His apostles lived.
What Ziffel wrongly attributed was the nuance of Mosaic Law which was designed for moral order (totalitarianism promotes the most stringent adherence to morality than any other form of government) to the New Testament Gospel. There's a lot in the Old Testament of extremes, of desperate measures, of tough love, of survivalism, or difficult decisions, and painful instructions which, in effect, the New Testament says 'it doesn't have to be this way - it CAN be different.' Usually atheists aren't good at dividing between God's prescription for the establishment of a nation in a sea of pagan. chaotic cultures which were in a near state of anarchy both internally and externally, nor indeed of dividing between principle and practice, model and material instruction, and indeed objective history and prescription (nor prophecy and prescription). They often like to cite the 'stoning of children for sassing their parents' and in doing so they demonstrate the reason for the law in its own right...
In a culture in which children are raised to ardently honour their parents, their elders, to be obedient, to follow instruction, as is the case in some of the Islamic communities, the idea of such a violation is unthinkable. In such a society, such a crime can be considered one of the worst things a person can do, a fundamental failing. We recoil at the very thought. Why? Its because we're so used to children sassing their parents, that we've accepted it... we don't educate them against it, we don't demand higher standards, we're terrified to exert authoritarian parental requirements, we don't expect more of them, and the lack of respect is so inherent in the culture, that we can reasonably expect to be disappointed if we expect any more. So we see a law like this and we imagine a world in which 99% of children are stoned to death, because we call this rebellion and disrespect 'teenage' or nowadays 'childhood and growing up' and we write it off, and psychologise it. But if we were indeed to start stoning kids for doing it, it would take less than a year to send such a message that a reinstitution of the most basic moral order and respect for authority would be very rapid indeed.
There's another misconception and omission in this law... that God somehow wanted to crush the children for fun. How ridiculous to go to the extent of creating laws for the safe survival of the nation if you were instituting the death sentence on the inevitable behaviour of children from the point of issuance of the law. Instead, the existence of the law anticipated what we do not - that children can be raised properly and respectfully, that we as parents can exercise our discretion, and that we take our role seriously. And that's the other part of what the law was designed to do.........
See, no parent in their right mind would raise a child and then go....'hey... he back talked me... lets drag him to the elders and stone him to death.' Parental love doesn't go there... This law was to be enacted, as it were, by witnesses... the moral of the story was that the parents could cover a multitude of sins in their houses, but not in public, where it was most important that respect and authority was maintained.
We also assume that the Hebrews took the law lightly, as a 'justification' to stone a few kids, rather than being as a last resort, conducted with a heavy heart, for serious crimes. We tend to translate the concept of 'honouring' or 'respecting' parents as 'no sass' because its the most minor violation of such a law that we can think of, allowing us to be petty in our interpretation. We fail to see the gravity of the ancient concepts of 'dishonouring' parents, which could continue throughout life, and I am reminded of the Biblical crime of conducting an affair with your father's concubine, or indeed of daughters committing incest with a drunk father....
As always, we take the most churlish approach to 'discrediting' the Bible, and in reality we only discredit our own churlish interpretation of the Bible.
It goes without saying that I will not be following cmp1966 in his apology for being Biblically adherent. - moffie, on 11/21/2008, -0/+4@ BritishPhoenix
Don't you find it a bit hypocritical of yourself to patronisingly accuse me of trying to sound somehow artificially "clever" and "academically authoritative"? As far as I know "Jesus Christus" is a perfectly acceptable and identifiable name to use - after all, there is no question whom we are discussing. Just because you prefer the English or Greek names doesn't make you the authority on how one should refer to the man.
Furthermore, I respect your fervour. However, since my point was merely that I find hypocrisies committed in Jesus' good name to be appalling - and think anyone should, whether religious or not, Christian or not. I have no intention to argue that the misdeeds of any group should somehow legitimise the misdeeds of any other group; nor do I intend to argue here what should constitute a misdeed - other than the hypocrisies done in the good name of Jesus. Therefore, the 1735 word theology lecture was a bit superfluous.
As much as I enjoy a good thoughtful debate, I really feel you saw more into my post than I had intended for anyone to conclude and thus I feel that your haughty response was a bit unprovoked.
Nonetheless - Cheers for the thoughtful response! - BritishPhoenix, on 11/22/2008, -1/+1"As far as I know "Jesus Christus" is a perfectly acceptable and identifiable name to use"
And I can't dispute that if it makes sense to you. If you were simply tossing off a few random thoughts then I'd have had nothing to say about it. But your comments seemed to imply that you were speaking with some kind of informed authority, and yet you referred to your subject as arbitrarily as if you had referred to him as 'Bill Jones.' I half expected you to use the words 'a man who's called', as if 'Christ' is Jesus' surname.
You say 'as far as I know'... you probably should know more if you're going to speak with critical authority, so that there is no degree of uncertainty, and the authority appears authentic.
As far as the 'authority' goes for how 'the man' should be referred to, you're right, I'm not the authority. The authority is found in the Bible which says that one day every knee will bow before him, and every tongue will be compelled to confess that He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. I anticipate a lot of personal disappointment and horror on that day, since it will be too late for many to even alter the outcome of their eternal futures.
As you point out, you were talking about hypocrisies, as you interpret them, committed in 'Christ's name.' I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy in the fact that you don't actually 'know' Christ's 'name', or why he is called by it. It may seem pedantic to you, but I wonder how you can even remotely claim to be a judge of what defines a hypocrisy (which by nature is to act contrary to a claimed principle) if you clearly are not paying sufficient attention to detail to actually understand WHAT those principles are, and how they were intended to apply, when uttered by someone who's name is sufficiently unimportant to you to have to generalise and make statements about which appear uninformed and unresearched.
"However, since my point was merely that I find hypocrisies committed in Jesus' good name to be appalling"
I hear you repeating what bothers you. I'm at a loss as to why it bothers you. You've not cited how specifically what Jesus taught and what is claimed by Christians (a vast generalisation you appear to use indiscriminately), which they are hypocritical about. So far, I can only identify in your post what amount to assertions based on your own subjectivism, emotionalism and your subjective interpretation which seems to bear more resemblance to how sympathetically or empathetically YOU feel toward people, which you then project into the interpretation of the New Testament and use as judgement against Christians. I find this a difficult concept for someone who is clearly not that familiar with seriously comprehending the Bible and its messages or instructions or implications, and I'm not sure, assuming as Christians do, that the Bible speaks for God, that your subjective emotionalised interpretation of how people's actions should be regarded by others and whether they should be required to take responsibility for them in a morally absolute order (the Bible is not morally relativistic like humanists are) can be remotely equated with how God perceives matters from outside the realm of subjective emotionalism, human imagination, and short sighted, short-term pleasure centric moral relativity.
You raise the subject of 'misdeeds' without specifying what you mean, and then just when there was promise that you might actually specify these 'hypocries', you resort back to generalisng them and leading others to believe that you know what they are, and the fact that you're prepared to 'call' them is enough to accept that you have authority. You could be imagining 'hypocrisies' and one day, potentially, you may get to ask Jesus why he allowed the hypocrisies and be told 'there were no hypocrisies... you simply imagined what you'd have liked me to have said, then imagined that I did say it, imagined that you understood why I said it, and then held everyone to YOUR standards, before criticising them for failing MY standards... you had it all wrong.'
It would seem to make sense that those who want to speak about hypocrisy should know exactly what the foundational principle is, and why, with some authority, in order to be able to accurately pinpoint 'hypocritical' deviation or compromise of said principle.
"As much as I enjoy a good thoughtful debate, I really feel you saw more into my post than I had intended for anyone to conclude and thus I feel that your haughty response was a bit unprovoked."
I'm sorry. I read what you said at face value, and challenged it believing that since you seemed authoritative in your opinions, you would be informed and rational in them too. I took that to a specifically material level in order to challenge the generalisations and judgements you made further, and now you're not only offended by the challenge, but you're reading subjective emotionalism into my response on my behalf. Strange.
- Lazydriver, on 11/21/2008, -3/+24As an Atheist, it's not the Christian in you that makes you a good person as we all know from those Fundy *****.
- flamingchorizo, on 11/20/2008, -5/+89Too bad 75% of the "Christians" in my community weren't more like you when they went to Vote yes on Prop 8. I stood on street corners holding up NO on 8 signs to make my community aware of the rights they were about to take away from a group of people and it was sad to see the amount of so called Christians drive by and spit at us, throw eggs at us, telling us to go back in the closet, calling us some very unchristian things. Its good to know there are real Christians still out there. Thank you
- oldhick, on 11/20/2008, -3/+37That is so sad. Digg is full of these "Christians" as well. I understand how believing Jesus leads to hate and intolerance, but it is certainly happening.
Apologies. - Elranzer, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3Funny how "real" Christians and "real" Republicans (the kind that believe in smaller government and personal freedoms) are now the minority in both groups.
- oldhick, on 11/20/2008, -3/+37That is so sad. Digg is full of these "Christians" as well. I understand how believing Jesus leads to hate and intolerance, but it is certainly happening.
- oldhick, on 11/20/2008, -4/+45Excellent comment. I couldn't agree with you more. Thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts down. I think you did an excellent job of communicating some ideas that are hard for many people to understand.
- kinneys, on 11/20/2008, -11/+17God loves everyone! He died for everyone. Come just as you are, he will take of the rest. I should know, I am the biggest of all sinners. Just believe, it's a free gift, better than winning the lottery, just accept the free gift.
- ziffel, on 11/21/2008, -4/+4..... and if you don't, he'll set your ass on fire.
- CRCulver, on 11/21/2008, -1/+2Jesus offered forgiveness and love to the people he encountered and the sinners he befriended, but he also preached a strong message of repentance. Forgiveness doesn't come unless one vows to completely amend one's ways reshape one's life toward the will of God. That you are OK just as you are has never been a Christian teaching. It is true that Christian salvation is open to all, but demands a commitment from the believer.
This has been well understood for a couple of thousand years, and the thought that we don't need to change anything of what we're doing with our lives only came on the scene in the last century or so. - sparsely, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1@CRC: orly?! did jesus ask the whore whose stoning he interrupted if she would change her ways before he pleaded her case to the Jews, or afterward?
Do not be mistaken. Her "repentance" was an effect of her salvation, not a cause. - BritishPhoenix, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1sparsely, do you get all your Biblical information by making it up. Where does it say in the Bible that 'Jesus pleaded her case to the Jews?' How can you possibly understand what something means, if you insert your own fiction into it to create an imaginary scenario.
And 'repentance' is not an effect of salvation. Salvation is not possible without repentance. You're the one who is mistaken. Jesus didn't need to ask her if she would change her ways. He already knew what was in her heart - he already knew that having the living crap frightened out of her having been caught in her sin, and now facing the penalty, she was busy trying to make peace with God before she bought the farm... she was already casting all her hopes on what Jesus - who was famous for uttering the words 'go and sin no more' in the most depraved communities in Israel - would say having become aware that she was being presented to him as a final authority, a final judge.
I think people like you who talk about repentance and forgiveness so casually, as if it is a kind of ten second conversation between two people that ends in both of them saying 'cool' and nodding in agreement, don't actually understand what was taking place. You've been caught in a crime that not only your society, but your 'god' says is worthy of punishment. You're being dragged off by unhearing, unsympathetic legalists who are about to bury you up to your shoulders probably, and start throwing rocks at your head so that you die a painful death. You're about to meet with the reality of whether God exists or not. I can't imagine that you're going to your death with a spring in your step thinking 'oh well, I'm dying having done what I loved.' I would imagine that the thought process was more like: 'what have I done... I knew the law... I knew the risks... I knew the penalty... how could I let myself lose control like that... how could cheat on my husband, or let another man cheat on his wife... the law told me not to... God told me not to... it wasn't like I didn't know... and now I'm getting what I deserve for what I did... if only I hadn't... if I had another chance, I'll never do it again... why don't I tell them that?' - BritishPhoenix, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1Ziffel... I can assure you with absolute authority that Jesus will not be setting anyone's ass on fire. Any fire you find yourself in will be solely and entirely your own responsibility. So you can sleep safe at night knowing that. When emergency services try to rescue you, you CAN refuse their help and stay right where you are. It is your right as a free thinking intelligent (so-called) being.
- cmp1966, on 11/20/2008, -1/+42 All I know is, I want to feel safe and secure in my home and as I go about my own business within my community. I want to be free to choose my own beliefs and religious convictions. I want to be free to choose what books I read, what clothes I wear, and what I teach my children. I want to be free to choose whom I'll spend my life with. I want a place to live, enough money to pay my bills, have a little fun, and help my friends with. I want the best possible medical care for myself and my family. I want a good education for my children. I want to choose who I am and what it means to be me. That's all I really need.
And I think most people want pretty much the same things. I don't think I'm that much different than anyone else.
One thing I'm sure of is that to get it, you have to give it.- BritishPhoenix, on 11/21/2008, -1/+1So. Will you 'give it' to pederasts, to bestials, and to those who want to promote incest and polygamy? You can't denounce all forms of discrimination based on personal proclivities and preferences, without denouncing those prejudices too.
- ObamAmerican48, on 11/20/2008, -4/+32Kudos to all of you for your comments. I would digg all of you in this thread a thousand times if I could.
- algaeturd, on 11/21/2008, -3/+35Very well stated. It's a shame that mainstream 'christianity' has very little to say about love and acceptance and a whole lot to say about hate and disrespect. Not with simply gay issues, but with all kinds of issues concerning us as Americans.
I was raised a Christian. But I can say with 100% sincerity if the religious right we saw during the 2008 election cycle is what Heaven is full of, I'll rightfully take my place in Hell. I wouldn't want to be anywhere that those people full of hatred and bile and hypocrisy are rewarded.- Dauntless1, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3I've been saying pretty much the same thing for awhile now. I'm trying to picture how a place full of hatred towards others is supposed to be better than hell, or in some way desirable.
- BritishPhoenix, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1I suspect there wouldn't be enough sin in heaven to keep you happy, and you'd hate the fact that everything that happens there is actually everything that's best for you. Better to rebel now, and get your handful of years of 'larging it up' and living like depraved and thoughtless animals, than to spend eternity somewhere where you won't be suffering in endless torments, right?
- AncientNewborn, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1Do you even understand what Hell is? You honestly expect me to believe that you would choose to NOT spend eternity with whatever people you may have encountered in the 2008 election cycle, and that you WOULD choose a life of eternal fire, a life of eternal torture, where demons prod you day and night, but you don't know what is day or night because everything is just one big bland experience of pain? Imagine your very worse pain, physical or emotional, and you magnify that infinitely? You would seriously choose Hell over people? Friend, I hope for your sake that you do not ever choose Hell, because if you do, you will very quickly regret it
- usrlocalbin, on 11/21/2008, -2/+20Damn I wish I could digg you up more than once.
Very well said and much respect! - saqer, on 11/21/2008, -36/+4You either have changed your religion or denying the facts. All major monotheistic religions condemn homosexuality. It is not a ruling that changes with the times. It's a principle of sexuality and shall remain as such till the end of day. Lot was God's prophet. He came to his people with a message strictly condemning homosexuality. He even went as far as offering his daughter to marriage. Some Christians twist this story and present a different story claiming that Lot condoned the rape of his daughters. This is not the case. If Lot, a Prophet of God was immoral than God would've made a mistake choosing him as a Prophet. This is not the case. What ended up happening was Lot's people rejected him, and God ordered Lot to leave. Upon his departure God sent down an abomination. If you don't believe in Lot in a sense you are saying you don't respect God or his Prophets. Say whatever you want but at the end you just seek approval by the non-religious community.
- zip000, on 11/21/2008, -3/+19Modern society violates a great deal of what the bible says. We do it everyday, and I'm sure most Christians and maybe even most Christian fundamentalists violate something in the bible everyday. Choosing to pull out the gay issue and obsess about it is a choice. You could just as easily pull out the not eating pork issue and obsess about that. Or the circumcision issue and obsess about that. Or the graven image issue and obsess about that.
But for some reason, the Christian right obsesses about the gay issue to the detriment of all of the other issues like compassion and forgiveness and poverty. - ploop, on 11/21/2008, -3/+7Judge not, that ye be not judged.
- gnocchi1442, on 11/21/2008, -3/+21A few points.
1) Christianity is not a monotheistic religion, no matter how much you want to pretend it is. You've got Jesus, Yahweh, Casper the Holy Ghost, Lucifer (+ minions), nine choirs of Angels, and over 10,000 saints -- all of whom have enough superpowers to qualify as a god in any religion. "Monotheism" is just a marketing term used to separate yourselves from the heathens.
2) Not even all Christians condemn homosexuality, so how can you say all major religions do?
3) "Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them."
Sounds pretty clear to me. Of course, your god is a big fan of rape and sexual slavery. Just ask the Midianites.
4) I don't respect your god or his prophets. Deal with it.
5) If we're going to go by what your god's prophets approved or disapproved of, you've got a lot of 'splainin to do. You may wish to review Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
6) It's call "religious insanity". Please seek help. - saqer, on 11/21/2008, -21/+1Right. Let's not judge anyone. Including murders, sexual aggressors and thiefs. Homosexuals fall exactly under the category of sexual aggressors.
- ashfish, on 11/21/2008, -2/+12And therein lies the problem with basing your LAWS on the Bible. There are so many different interpretations how are you to know which is correct? When I read the passage you're referring to I thought it was quite clear. The citizens of Lot's community were obviously straying from the right path, they were a war-torn community, distrusting, and mean spirited. They didn't care for their poor, orphans, or widows. They tried to show dominance over God's angels by anally rapping them in the middle of the town. If these citizens were in fact gay, what would the point of giving them his daughters be? Obviously it'd have no effect as they were never attracted to women in the first place.
And before you go on about how this stance has never changed, I implore you to read this article: http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html - saqer, on 11/21/2008, -12/+1Changing the subject, gnocchi. Christianity formally is known as a monotheistic religion. The trinity blunder, which isn't even referenced anywhere in the Bible is not shared by all sects and denominations of Christianity. Those christians who don't condmen homosexuality either ignore Lot's story or think that it only applies to his time.
3. Islam doesn't say this at all. Lot offered his daughters for marriage, but never for sexual aggression.
4. Well I don't respect your views on homosexuality either. Deal with it.
5. Right because 88% of the world is religiously insane. If you know the first thing about abnormal psychology you know that it's occurrence is like any other - modeled by a bell shaped curve. So, I have a better argument that those minorities who don't believe in God are the insane seeing that they're a minority of the population. - saqer, on 11/21/2008, -10/+1@ashfish. Lot's story was in the Hebrew scripts and also in the Quran. That should be enough evidence to strengthen the christian position. I also don't buy anything that article you posted ashfish.
- ashfish, on 11/21/2008, -2/+12Oh oh oh, so wait, NOW the Hebrew scripts and the Quran are valid when they support your position but Muslims and Jews all are false believers and need to come to Jesus and the one true "God" right? Yeah sorry, I don't buy that one.
- saqer, on 11/21/2008, -5/+1I'm Muslim you dimwit, and for your FYI, Christians and Jews are honored in the Quran and Muslims are not allowed to pass explicit judgments on them as long as they're not transgressing their own laws. Get with the program. Your constant change of the subject is a strong indication you argue solely based on personal views. Similar like religious people. You are at not greater advantage arguing on those terms.
- 64bitllama, on 11/21/2008, -2/+4Well I don't believe in god at all, so none of that means anything to me.
- saqer, on 11/21/2008, -5/+1i don't care if you don't believe in god and none of this means anything to you. Whatever you "believe" in means nothing to me. You see how easy that was for me to say?
- gnocchi1442, on 11/21/2008, -1/+10"Right because 88% of the world is religiously insane. If you know the first thing about abnormal psychology you know that it's occurrence is like any other - modeled by a bell shaped curve. So, I have a better argument that those minorities who don't believe in God are the insane seeing that they're a minority of the population."
No, 88% of the world may be religious, but only a small minority are sexually repressed freaks obsessed with other people's genitalia. You are using your religion to justify your underlying sexual pathology. That's what makes you religiously insane. - RoflCoptah, on 11/21/2008, -1/+15wtf? how exactly does being homosexual fall under sexual aggression? its not like every gay person goes out and rapes someone. probably a greater percentage of heterosexuals are sexual aggressors than homosexuals.
- saqer, on 11/21/2008, -11/+1I'm as normal as they come anything biosocially abnormal like homosexuality is insane. I'm not sexually repressed, thank you very much for the ad hominem.
@roflcoptah. Just like asking...hmmmm how are adult/minor relationships sexual aggression if both parties want it? Hmmm. - eir574, on 11/21/2008, -1/+14"Homosexuals fall exactly under the category of sexual aggressors."
And there's what separates bigotry from a difference of opinion. - saqer, on 11/21/2008, -11/+1Difference of opinion exists in almost everything eir574. What makes your opinion any stronger seeing that it's still a personal one? Bigotry? So you're telling me you're accepting of pedophiles and bestials? Don't even get me started on bigotry. We all express varying forms of bigotry.
- eir574, on 11/21/2008, -1/+12" So you're telling me you're accepting of pedophiles and bestials? "
Are you telling me that you don't understand the concept of informed consent?
I'm not referring to your belief that homosexuality is wrong as bigotry. I'm referring to your statements that homosexuals are somehow aggressors and that there is no fundamental difference between raping a child and sex between adults who have freely given informed consent as bigotry. - saqer, on 11/21/2008, -10/+1I understand informed consent very well, but that's still a moral argument. What if both the adult and the teen were approving of the relationship? What if the adult was giving the child lots of money?
And there isn't a difference. Just because the two adults are "consenting" doesn't mean I acknowledge the consent. Any two adults can consent to do something but the act itself is still wrong. We all know very well by know that just because an individual is an adult doesn't mean they're making proper or acceptable decisions. - eir574, on 11/21/2008, -2/+11"We all know very well by know that just because an individual is an adult doesn't mean they're making proper or acceptable decisions."
The question, then, is whether the government should have the right to step in and say, "No, you can't do this. We're going to outlaw it because we don't trust you to make good decisions on your own." I think not. I don't need the government to do that for me, and I don't want it to. One of my rights as an adult is to make my own mistakes.
"I understand informed consent very well, but that's still a moral argument"
It's both a moral argument and a legal one. As described above, we start with the assumption that adults have the capacity to make their own decisions and to either give or withhold their consent. This is vital to protecting personal liberty. If the government decides that it can't trust us to be wise about giving and withholding consent and instead enacts laws to tell us what we can and cannot do, then we have lost a great deal of liberty.
If we're going to use that as a defining legal principle, though, then, well, we have to define it. Some adults don't have the capacity to give consent (e.g. mental illness), and we have procedures in place where it can be demonstrated in a court of law that a person does not have the mental capacity, acuity, or capability to understand that to which he is consenting. If you can't understand it, then you can't consent, whether the activity in question is having sex, entering into a legal contract, or something else entirely.
We know that newborns don't have the capacity to give informed consent. That's trivially obvious. Defining exactly when the line should be drawn is a difficult question, but we have to draw it somewhere so that everyone knows where it is. Otherwise, you'd have things like rape cases (and contract law cases) in court where the whole argument centers on whether someone was mentally capable of giving informed consent and on whether the other party should have known that. That's too complicated.
That is is difficult to draw the line, though, doesn't mean that the concept of informed consent is completely irrelevant in distinguishing between pedophilia and homosexual acts between consenting adults. You can argue about whether a particular person in a particular case has actually raped a child, but it is patently unreasonable to argue that homosexual sex between consenting adults is morally and legally equivalent to raping a child who is not mature enough to give informed consent.
"Just because the two adults are "consenting" doesn't mean I acknowledge the consent."
Again, there is a difference between a case where someone did not consent to sex and a case where someone did consent, but you think he should not have. - saqer, on 11/21/2008, -10/+1Where is the government stepping in and saying no you can't do this? Last I checked gay couples can still hold hands in public and they are protected by employment laws in all public sectors. If you want them to have the same benefits as heterosexual couples in regards to marriage then forget about it. Some states don't even acknowledge cousin marriages let alone heterosexual marriage amongst minors so you want the government to extend a hand of benefits to gay couples? You know where those benefits are coming from some of the time? Our tax money. The tax money that people don't want spent in ways they don't approve. As long as the majority stronghold holds a position against gay marriage it won't exist. Then why do homosexuals almost express this "religious zeal" for marriage rights? It appears to me at least that they can only self actualize if they can marry and their current situation is one bordering on insecurity because of social alienation. If I were gay, I wouldn't need a piece of paper telling me it was O.K.
You beat around the bush in your second argument and it's hard to follow sometimes. If you accuse religious people of making a bigamous argument against homosexual marriage then I can as easily accuse homosexuals of making a moral argument against minors not being able to have the power of consent. Seeing that you bring law into the matter I can also very easily say that law protects the institution of marriage as a heterosexual arrangement and thus I see an expression of double standards when you say that the law is wrong when it comes to drawing the line on heterosexual marriage only, but is somehow ok when it draws the line on age of consent, though, most minors are having sex at middle school age anyways.
Since we're on the topic of line drawing, who died and made homosexuals the new bearers of the marker? Everyone has some different opinion of where the line should be drawn. Most heterosexuals want it drawn at heterosexuality, homosexuals want it drawn at homosexuality, incestuous couples want it drawn at incestuous couples, so on and so forth. Why should minorities get to choose that line? Because homosexuals aren't hurting anyone? Well I'd beg to differ. I would argue that homosexuals are so caught up in their own passion they fail to see how they're hurting themselves and society in the moral sense. The strongest argument in my case is that history shows no society that has survived the test of time and currently b
- zip000, on 11/21/2008, -3/+19Modern society violates a great deal of what the bible says. We do it everyday, and I'm sure most Christians and maybe even most Christian fundamentalists violate something in the bible everyday. Choosing to pull out the gay issue and obsess about it is a choice. You could just as easily pull out the not eating pork issue and obsess about that. Or the circumcision issue and obsess about that. Or the graven image issue and obsess about that.