GeoTheo

Re: Bree
I never attacked anyone personally, so don't start with that. I have a general belief that homosexual sex is a sin based on my religious beliefs of which I have a right to provided by the constitution. My beliefs make perfect sense to me.
I don't think everyone else has to share them.
I don't think I have a right for people top agree with me or even like me.
For me to say all non Christians are bigots because they don't share my moral beliefs would be foolish.

scigirl

Heh I also like how you make up a pretend dialogue with me to argue with, instead of quoting what I actually write.

Is that because you don't have a rebuttal to what I actually wrote?

scigirl

GeoTheo

I know lots of gays. I have talked to lots of gays. I have yet to see evidence that they are just as monagamous as heterosexuals. I would like some statistics.
Though that would not change my moral beliefs on the subject. I think the picture in reality is much different than the one you paint.
I also think a person can believe they are in love with more than one person at a time and have sex with both and two time them I also think people can love each other and live together and not be married.
All our engaging in immoral behavior according to how I believe.
There is no difference.

PopeInTheWoods

Your "summary" has nothing to do with scigirl's points. You can think whatever you want about homosexuals, just don't act to discriminate against them.

Andy

edited to add part of the "summary" I was referring to, since the posts are flying fast and furious

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: PopeInTheWoods ]</p>

scigirl

You never answered my question - if gay marriage was put to a vote, would you say yes, no, or abstain? Once again I'm assuming you would say "no" until you claim otherwise. So with that assumption. . .
So you would just prevent hypothetical people from getting married, but real people - they are different.

Yet you seem to be against me fighting for the rights of people to get married.

GeoTheo, I would not support legislation forcing you to marry a man. You act like that's what I am doing.

I do however, think that using religious beliefs to prevent people from getting married (whether it's a jew marrying a protestant, or a gay couple, or even a republican and a democrat) is a bad precedent that we have set in our society.

Forcing someone to do something (like forcing people into a religion), and not allowing them to do something (like not getting married) are a bit different in my mind. Laws which either force behavior, or prevent freedoms, should have more justification than religious beliefs. Stealing, for example is against your religion. However, there are many other, secular and common sense, reasons to have laws about stealing.

I believe that the government should grant us freedoms as a default, until it is proven that the freedom should be taken away. Reasons to take a freedom away (or in this case to grant the previously denied freedom): it hurts society in some way.

Allowing gay people to marry - would it increase their freedom and give them more respect as human beings? I think so. Would it hurt society in measurable ways? I fail to see how.

Now, we differ on many things. You, I think, do not see any problem with the status quo. I do. Until that changes, we will never agree.

But play along with me here (I urge you to read that list from GodhatesStraights again, or to imagine that your relationship with your wife was considered a sin by many). Let's say we agree that denying gays the right to marry should be changed. Can you just play along for a bit?

Now, how are we going to do that? Well, we need to examine the reasons that gays aren't allowed to marry in the first place. Any discussion about homosexual freedoms, or lack thereof, which did not include religion, would be missing something, wouldn't you agree?

Like with slavery - people used the Bible to promote slavery, and of course they used it to abolish it. But the religious issues had to be addressed.

You also talk about churches as if they are some floating entity out there that has nothing to do with the gay rights issue. But don't most churches think they are helping provide the moral fabric? If that's true, than they are obliged to look at the issues of homosexuality, and they are obliged to decide whether they are being bigots or not.

If you think that Christian churches don't have to lift a finger to help oppressed gays, than either you think that A) they aren't being oppressed or B) churches shouldn't play a role in helping people that are oppressed, or C) it's good that gays are oppressed because they are immoral.

Instead of attacking straw men, why don't you try answering my questions for a change?

scigirl

Autonemesis

I never even said any such thing. All I implied was that I thought it was a misnomer to call the current administration "conservative", and I suggested that you rethink your application of the term.

Autonemesis

Won't you need to find some monogamous heterosexuals first? I don't know any monogamous heterosexuals. Every heterosexual I know has had sex with more than one person in the course of their lifetime.

(Hint: serial monogamy is an oxymoron. Only a few animals manage to practice widespread monogamy. Among humans, it is very unusual.)

scigirl

I doubt they are. May be even more promiscous. However, they can't be not promiscuous accd to your def'n, because they can't get married. I wonder how much more monogamous gays and lesbians would be if they were accepted by society?
Of course it wouldn't, and I'm glad you at least admit that your beliefs on gays are not based in statistics or reality.
What picture do I paint? I never said that gay people are better, or more likely to be monogamous. I just think they should have the same freedoms I have. Yes even the assholes, or the flamers, or even. . . richard simmons. (shudder)
Well if gays were allowed to get married, than they wouldn't be committing adultery than would they?

Also, what bible verses specifically talk about sex before marriage? And which parts of the 4 gospels from Jesus's words (I.E. the words in red in MML or J, not from Paulianity) condemned homosexuality or sex before marriage? You say your beliefs aren't from statistics. What are they from? IIRC, Jesus was fairly silent on both topics.

Thanks,

scigirl

GeoTheo

Scigirl:
If I don't call a transvestite Ma'am. I am not opressing him.
If my definition of marriage can involve only a man and a women I am not opressing anyone with a different definition.
There is no precedent for homosexual marriage.
You want to change the meaning of the word and force all others to adopt it.
You are an intolerant bigot.

scigirl

Where did I ask you to?
It clearly does.

from dictionary.com:
oppress: To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority: a people who were oppressed by tyranny.
To weigh heavily on: Poverty oppresses the spirit.

op·pres·sion Pronunciation Key (-prshn)
n.

The act of oppressing; arbitrary and cruel exercise of power: “There can be no really pervasive system of oppression... without the consent of the oppressed” (Florynce R. Kennedy).
The state of being oppressed.
Something that oppresses.
A feeling of being heavily weighed down in mind or body.

GeoTheo, please please please I'm begging you - even though you repeatedly call me names I continue to plead with you - think about your own marriage. Write down a list of the joys it has brought you - and how those joys would be gone if society told you that a) your marriage wasn't legal and b) your marriage (and the sex therein) is immoral.

Please, please do this - not necessarily here, but somewhere, sometime.

Wouldn't you feel oppressed? Yet you would deny those rights to someone else, and I'm a bigot. I believe in the rights of all people, unless those rights infringe on other rights.

You have the right to marry a woman, and to be happy with that marriage, and to obtain all the legal rights that go along with marriage. I also think that people who are gay should have that right. Like I mentioned before, I feel that the gov't should give rights by default until we can prove just cause that these rights are infringing on other rights.

ALSO realize - don't you and I both agree that being gay is not really a choice? Yet those 10% of the population, who were born to fall in love with members of their same sex, should just suffer in silence while their co-workers plaster up pictures of their marriage all over, and get to have all the benefits? WHY???

So? Women didn't vote before they voted, now did they? Should we repeal the 19th amendment?
What would you personally be forced to do if gays were allowed to get married?

There are probably already a lot of marriages you don't approve of - a christian to a non-christian, two atheists getting married without mentioning God, etc, etc. . but yet the gov't recognizes those marriages and allows them to have the tax breaks, insurance, medical permissions, etc etc.

scigirl

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>