people who are against the homosexual lifstyle b/c of their faith are wrong to tell others they can't have the same rights as straights do b/c that is assuming your religion and beliefs are the right one. no one has the right to force others to adhere to their lifestyle. and, homosexuals are not making straight/christians adhere to their lifestly, they just want to live their life.

I'm an atheist.

Just how are rights being handled differently?

Homosexuals cannot declare themselves to be married any more than I can declare myself to be a 4 star General or a professional basketball player. Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. Always has been, and always will be. Man has no right to change God's rules, and the US motto is "In God we trust", not "In man we trust".

Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. Just like heterosexuals, they are free to marry anyone they choose, so long as they are of the opposite sex. So, heterosexuals cannot mary people of the same sex either. Heterosexuals have no more rights or restrictions than do homosexuals.

[Blacks] have the same rights as [whites]. Just like [whites], they are free to marry anyone they choose, so long as they are of the [same color]. So, [whites] cannot mary people of the [opposite color] either. [Whites] have no more rights or restrictions than do [blacks].

Unfortunately, folks forget that marriage isn't a right.

You cannot compare being black with being homosexual. That is a totally false comparison.

What am I describing?

"It's a genetically based but socially constructed identity that's used as the basis for a group of stereotypes. Those stereotypes are in turn used as justification for the claim that members of the group are morally inferior, as well as the rightful targets of violence. Despite putatively neutral legal codes, group members do not receive the full protection of the law."

quote:

---

What am I describing?

"It's a genetically based but socially constructed identity that's used as the basis for a group of stereotypes. Those stereotypes are in turn used as justification for the claim that members of the group are morally inferior, as well as the rightful targets of violence. Despite putatively neutral legal codes, group members do not receive the full protection of the law."

---

There is no proof whatsoever that homosexuality in genetic. It is also not a physical characteristic like race is. Homosexuals are attracted to their own sex. Nobody is saying that we should outlaw homosexual attraction. However, it is not an inherrent right that you should be able to marry anyone or anything that you are attracted to. I'm not even opposed in principle to allowing homosexuals to marry eachother. However, I am opposed to the Government sanctioning homosexual marriage. There is no legal or moral interest in doing so anymore than there would be a governmental interest in sanctioning or licensing friendships for example.

And let it not be forgotten that the homosexual rights movement is not satisfied with civil unions. Why marriage and not just civil unions? Because they really aren't so concerned about rights, they want legitimacy. And legitimacy is exactly what I want to the government to deny them.

quote:

---

Aggie4Life02

There is no legal or moral interest in doing so anymore than there would be a governmental interest in sanctioning or licensing friendships for example.

---

That is absolutely false. One of the major issues with homosexuals is that they can not cover their partner on their health plan, with a few exceptions. That's just one example of a legal issue.

quote:

---

texasag73

Homosexuals cannot declare themselves to be married any more than I can declare myself to be a 4 star General or a professional basketball player. Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. Always has been, and always will be. Man has no right to change God's rules, and the US motto is "In God we trust", not "In man we trust".

---

Huh?

Anyone else here think that is a profoundly absurd statement?

Well, not from his worldview.

From other perspectives, it sounds incredibly foolish.

Yeah, I think that might be the dumbest thing I have ever read.

quote:

---

That is absolutely false. One of the major issues with homosexuals is that they can not cover their partner on their health plan, with a few exceptions. That's just one example of a legal issue.

---

I can't cover my best friend on my health plan either. Why is that a government interest?

It is not any more of a government interest than allowing you to cover your wife.

quote:

---

It is not any more of a government interest than allowing you to cover your wife.

---

There is a governmental interest in sanctioning marriage between a man and a woman. But, lets assume for a second you are correct. Then your argument logically leads to all marriage or relationships are no buisness of Government, so they should not be in the business of regulating or sanctioning any of them.

Correct

Funny it leads there, because that is my position on the matter.

quote:

---

Funny it leads there, because that is my position on the matter.

---

I'll go with you on that. But, that means that if I happen to be a private health insurance company, I can decide that I want gay couples to be covered or not. The government has no interest in that decission one way or the other. Also, all property & estate rights between couples, gay or straight, would have to be established by a written contract between the two private parties.

I agree with that within limitations. A private insurer who operates in interstate commerce would not be able to discriminate against a protected class. I don't think homosexuals are or should be a protected class, but I think they will be eventually.

I do not think a written contract defining property rights would be any more necessary than it is now, but it is generally a good idea. If people are unable to agree on a property division when they split up a court can decide who gets what whether they are married or not.

I think the system we have now, in which the courts are involved whether people need them to be or not, is a waste of government resources and in improper invasion of privacy.

You know what the sticky thing is for me? Not marriage. Adoption! I am absolutely opposed to gay unions receiving the right to adopt children, and they would achieve that right through legal marriage.


[This message has been edited by NavajoJim (edited 6/27/2005 11:52p).]

yea, i'd rather a kid live in foster care for many years than have them live in a loving family

Even Saddam loved His kids. Should a "loving family" be the only ultimate goal? Sexual deviance is a serious social problem. People who define themselves simply by what sexually arouses them seem so consumed with sex that they don’t really seem stable enough to be good parents, but are controlled by certain base desires. I mean, what about a guy that gets turned on by doing it with his pet dog? Should he be a dad to a foster child? What about guys who admit that they are sexually attracted to children, should they be allowed to be the loving parent?

Don’t the gay people use arguments like, they can’t control their desires, and that they were made that way (gay genes and such)? If the nature of man is that he is simply a bundle of uncontrollable desires dictated by random genetics, then how can we say any particular desire is any more right or wrong than another? Also, how can we say that if one man strongly desires to dink alcohol all the time, or if another is controlled by compulsive desires to shop and spend money continually, how can we say “Hey, you should stop that drinking”, or “Hey, get control of your spending urges”?

Personally I think the whole gay agenda has come up with this very reduced view of the nature of man, being a “controlled by desires”, or “at the mercy of desires” entity. I believe that the fact that we have not only the power but often the responsibility to say ‘NO’ to certain desires is part of what makes us human beings.

A man can say: “No I am not going to give into the desire to steal”! “No I am not going to commit adultery with my secretary”! “No I am not going to indulge in sex with another man”!

It is in fact the little taboo turn on thing that I believe is what drives much of the whole deviant sexual mindset. The thought of “ooh, I am being naughty”, or that something crosses the line often excites and arouses people.

In short, a man is greater than his base desires. He is a free moral agent, able to choose, and even responsible to choose what is right, and good. What turns someone on sexually is no reason to give them a special social class, or special rights. Certainly not those who are aroused by deviant sex.


[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 6/28/2005 12:55a).]

Well, I don't know about the whole dog thing, I really think it is unnecessary to compare homosexuality to beastiality.

The "they're going to be in foster care anyway" is the same logic behind "the embryos are going to be wasted anyway" and "your kids are going to be doing it anyway". It's a logic of defeatism. I reject it. We do not lower our standards or allow morally repugnant decisions just because we do not have confidence that people will choose the morally preferable option.

quote:

---

A man can say: “No I am not going to give into the desire to steal”! “No I am not going to commit adultery with my secretary”! “No I am not going to indulge in sex with another man”!

---

There are several key things to look at here. In the first situation, someone is being hurt. Whoever owned the object being stolen is having their right to property violated, and thus the government should step in and stop it. And the gov. does, there are numerous laws in the books regarding robbery.

In the second, it may be morally reprehensible, but if two consenting adults engage in adultery, why should the government get involved? Various churches should (and do) condemn adultery, but we don't expect the FBI to arrest someone for fooling around with their secretary, do we? They have more important things to do.

In the final case, once again, if two consenting adults are having sex, why is it the government's business? No one is asking that churches recognize homosexual relationships. It's the exact same category as someone who fools around with their secretary, divorces their wife, and marries their mistress. The church can condemn it all they want, and not recognize the new marraige, but why should the government condemn it as well?

Hate to jump in late, but Ocean Ag is incorrect:

quote:

---

Unfortunately, folks forget that marriage isn't a right.

---

The right to marry is long-standing right that predates our constitution and has been recognized by the Supreme Court.

quote:

---

There are several key things to look at here. In the first situation, someone is being hurt. Whoever owned the object being stolen is having their right to property violated, and thus the government should step in and stop it. And the gov. does, there are numerous laws in the books regarding robbery.

In the second, it may be morally reprehensible, but if two consenting adults engage in adultery, why should the government get involved? Various churches should (and do) condemn adultery, but we don't expect the FBI to arrest someone for fooling around with their secretary, do we? They have more important things to do.

In the final case, once again, if two consenting adults are having sex, why is it the government's business? No one is asking that churches recognize homosexual relationships. It's the exact same category as someone who fools around with their secretary, divorces their wife, and marries their mistress. The church can condemn it all they want, and not recognize the new marraige, but why should the government condemn it as well?

---

So if the guy wanted to keep his current wife, and also marry the secretary, according to your view, the government should stay out of that as well, right?

Also, if a dog seemed to consent to the man having sex with it, that’s ok as well in your view, right?

NavajoJim

quote:

---

Well, I don't know about the whole dog thing, I really think it is unnecessary to compare homosexuality to beastiality.

---

Why not, it’s a sexual impulse… That is the single characteristic that gay people define themselves by, demand rights for, seeks to normalize, etc… It’s simply a minority group that defines it’s self singularly by sexual desires. The comparison to a bestialitist is not only valid, but even clarifying of just exactly what it is we are talking about here.

quote:

---

Notafraid

Even Saddam loved His kids. Should a "loving family" be the only ultimate goal? Sexual deviance is a serious social problem. People who define themselves simply by what sexually arouses them seem so consumed with sex that they don’t really seem stable enough to be good parents, but are controlled by certain base desires. I mean, what about a guy that gets turned on by doing it with his pet dog? Should he be a dad to a foster child? What about guys who admit that they are sexually attracted to children, should they be allowed to be the loving parent?

---

I think the problem with your logic is that these are not problems that are exclusive to homosexuals. Hetero's have these same problems.

quote:

---

Don’t the gay people use arguments like, they can’t control their desires, and that they were made that way (gay genes and such)? If the nature of man is that he is simply a bundle of uncontrollable desires dictated by random genetics, then how can we say any particular desire is any more right or wrong than another? Also, how can we say that if one man strongly desires to dink alcohol all the time, or if another is controlled by compulsive desires to shop and spend money continually, how can we say “Hey, you should stop that drinking”, or “Hey, get control of your spending urges”?

---

Again, not just a gay issue.

quote:

---

It is in fact the little taboo turn on thing that I believe is what drives much of the whole deviant sexual mindset. The thought of “ooh, I am being naughty”, or that something crosses the line often excites and arouses people.

---

I'm sounding like a broken record, but why are you taking these threads that have been common among all people throughout history and saddling them primarily upon homosexuals. Your comments sound very dated and simple-minded.

I am on record as saying there is no such thing as homosexual marriage, but I do want to say that when people compare it to polygamy, they lose a little bit of their credibility. When they compare it to beastiality, they show themselves to be total morons.

quote:

---

Notafraid

NavajoJim


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I don't know about the whole dog thing, I really think it is unnecessary to compare homosexuality to beastiality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why not, it’s a sexual impulse…

---

That's simply not true. You are assuming that a homosexual can not "reasonably" want to be gay. And that is just flat out false.

quote:

---

That is the single characteristic that gay people define themselves by, demand rights for, seeks to normalize, etc… It’s simply a minority group that defines it’s self singularly by sexual desires.

---

That is a generalization that is not true in all cases.

quote:

---

The comparison to a bestialitist is not only valid, but even clarifying of just exactly what it is we are talking about here.

---

Wrong and ignorant.

I think it's impossible to ask a dog whether or not it consents, therefore consent is impossible.

I think that marraige as a legal institution is defined between two people. Legally, marraige has a lot to do with benefits, inheritences, etc. Opening up spousal benefits to more than one person would be horrifically complex, and open up endless legal battles.

The question is, why does the government's definition of marraige have to include the caveat, "between a man and a woman?" That restriction is certainly fine for churches, and if the government tried to force the churches to change their position, it would be wrong. But why should the government impose that same restriction on those who don't agree with the church?

Notafraid

I wonder what your views would have been if we were discussing civil rights 50 years ago.

Macarthur,

quote:

---

I'm sounding like a broken record, but why are you taking these threads that have been common among all people throughout history and saddling them primarily upon homosexuals. Your comments sound very dated and simple-minded.

---

I am simply taking a critical look at their own arguments… Call it whatever you like…

quote:

---

That's simply not true. You are assuming that a homosexual can not "reasonably" want to be gay. And that is just flat out false.

---

No, I am sure that he can reason all about it, but their ultimate appeal is that they are Gay, because they simply desire sexual contact with people of the same sex. In the end, being Gay is all just based on sexual desires.