tvashtarkatena Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 (edited) OK, let's here it: how many of you are planning a nuptual sojourn to California in the near future? The groundswell to legalize gay marriage has resulted in a number of court cases pitting religious organizations against gays; often regarding the use of their public facilities. So far, religion has been losing case after case. I applaud this. The establishment clause of the constitution was never meant to give religion cart blanche to descriminate or violate basic civil liberties. Believers may dissapprove of gays all they want for (ostensibly) religious reasons (fabricated bullshit, if you know your bible), but when this translates into public action in the form of discrimination, these churches are now breaking the law. The days when society accepted religion as an excuse to abuse children, practice racial and sexual descrimination, and violate the equal protection clause are now, thankfully, numbered. If your religious doctrine violates the basic civil liberties of others, either work to change your doctrine, or move it on down the road. There are plenty of countries where that kind of discimination is still OK. This one is no longer one of them. Edited June 17, 2008 by tvashtarkatena Quote
ashw_justin Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 It is easy to argue that marriage itself is a specifically religious ritual. This is a good way to explain why a lot of people have a problem with 'marriage' occurring in terms that don't fit inside the original framework under which the concept of marriage developed. A logically correct solution to all of this is for the government to remove the word 'marriage' from its vocabulary. Religious fundamentalists can call it whatever they want. 'Gays' can call it whatever they want. The government recognizes only what it will call a civil union, with eligibility to anyone interested in a domestic partnership. Anything beyond this is not the government's business. The people are free to call their civil unions anything they want, and the classically religious no longer have to feel that 'their' marriage is being desanctified. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted June 17, 2008 Author Posted June 17, 2008 It is easy to argue that marriage itself is a specifically religious ritual. This is a good way to explain why a lot of people have a problem with 'marriage' occurring in terms that don't fit inside the original framework under which the concept of marriage developed. A logically correct solution to all of this is for the government to remove the word 'marriage' from its vocabulary. Religious fundamentalists can call it whatever they want. 'Gays' can call it whatever they want. The government recognizes only what it will call a civil union, with eligibility to anyone interested in a domestic partnership. Anything beyond this is not the government's business. The people are free to call their civil unions anything they want, and the classically religious no longer have to feel that 'their' marriage is being desanctified. The nomenclature is a side issue; changing the wording in such a way would do nothing the resolve most of the conflicts between sexual orientation and religion. Most of the court cases have involved the denying to gay congregation members the use of church facilities that are otherwise open to the rest of the public. It has been argued successfully that this is akin to a restaurant (also a privately owned facility that is open to the general public) denying service due to race, gender, or sexual orientation, which in most states is illegal. Quote
sirwoofalot Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 (edited) .... Most of the court cases have involved the denying to gay congregation members the use of church facilities that are otherwise open to the rest of the public. It has been argued successfully that this is akin to a restaurant (also a privately owned facility that is open to the general public) denying service due to race, gender, or sexual orientation, which in most states is illegal. I think the question needs to be asked is homosexuality a learned behavior or is it in the genes of the person. I highly doubt you will find any church that truly follows the teaching of Jesus to deny fellowship to anyone based on race or gender. These are characteristic that the person has not chosen. Homosexuality on the other hand is a choice of the individual. Edited June 17, 2008 by sirwoofalot Quote
RuMR Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 hey sirwoofalot... When did you make your decision, or are you still deciding? What was your decision? Was it consciuos? Quote
sirwoofalot Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 hey sirwoofalot... When did you make your decision, or are you still deciding? What was your decision? Was it consciuos? Answer my question. To answer your question there was no decision for me. I am normal. I love my wife. I am male and she is female. 99.999% of all homosexuality is an abnormal learned behavior. I will concede the smallest percentage that might actually be genetically messed up. But for the most part homosexuality is an abnormal learned behavior. Quote
rob Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 99.999% of all homosexuality is an abnormal learned behavior. I will concede the smallest percentage that might actually be genetically messed up. But for the most part homosexuality is an abnormal learned behavior. Wow. I haven't seen that article yet. Can you please give me your source? Quote
joshs Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 You're contradicting yourself. Is it a choice, or not? Are you saying homosexuals have a choice, but heterosexuals do not? Doesn't that imply that, given a choice, 100% of people choose to become homosexual? Does that make sense? I think not. Regarding your "99.999%" figure -- I take it you interviewed 100,000 gay people and 99,999 of them told you they made a conscious choice to become gay? Riiiiight. In fact, have you ever talked to a single gay person who told you this? Quote
sirwoofalot Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 99.999% of all homosexuality is an abnormal learned behavior. I will concede the smallest percentage that might actually be genetically messed up. But for the most part homosexuality is an abnormal learned behavior. Wow. I haven't seen that article yet. Can you please give me your source? It was from my Psychology 101 in about 1980, but I know the “experts” have changed their minds about this, again, based on nothing other than the idea, “well that can’t be right”. There is no gene that shows people are genetically predisposed to be normal or homosexual. Therefore it must be a learned behavior, and therefore a choice. Quote
Bug Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 hey sirwoofalot... When did you make your decision, or are you still deciding? What was your decision? Was it consciuos? Answer my question. To answer your question there was no decision for me. I am normal. I love my wife. I am male and she is female. 99.999% of all homosexuality is an abnormal learned behavior. I will concede the smallest percentage that might actually be genetically messed up. But for the most part homosexuality is an abnormal learned behavior. This seems like mis information. I have lived and worked amoung the "stricken" and without exception, they suffer almost daily for their sexual orientation. I do not beleive it is a choice. Count your blessings that you are in the majority persuasion. I would be interested to hear what your source for the 99.999% figure is. Quote
sirwoofalot Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 You're contradicting yourself. Is it a choice, or not? Are you saying homosexuals have a choice, but heterosexuals do not? Doesn't that imply that, given a choice, 100% of people choose to become homosexual? Does that make sense? I think not. Regarding your "99.999%" figure -- I take it you interviewed 100,000 gay people and 99,999 of them told you they made a conscious choice to become gay? Riiiiight. In fact, have you ever talked to a single gay person who told you this? W.E. Quote
G-spotter Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 There is no gene that shows people are genetically predisposed to be normal or homosexual. Therefore it must be a learned behavior, and therefore a choice. This just shows you are 30 years out of date. Do you know what the epigenome is? Quote
sirwoofalot Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 hey sirwoofalot... When did you make your decision, or are you still deciding? What was your decision? Was it consciuos? Answer my question. To answer your question there was no decision for me. I am normal. I love my wife. I am male and she is female. 99.999% of all homosexuality is an abnormal learned behavior. I will concede the smallest percentage that might actually be genetically messed up. But for the most part homosexuality is an abnormal learned behavior. This seems like mis information. I have lived and worked amoung the "stricken" and without exception, they suffer almost daily for their sexual orientation. I do not beleive it is a choice. Count your blessings that you are in the majority persuasion. I would be interested to hear what your source for the 99.999% figure is. It is hyperbole. My point is I will concede that some of those who are homosexual might not truly had a choice, but the overwhelming majority made a choice in their lifestyle. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 I would be interested to hear what your source for the 99.999% figure is. his ass Quote
sirwoofalot Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 I would be interested to hear what your source for the 99.999% figure is. his ass Again it is hyperbole in order to make my point. It is obvious there is no tolerance here for someone to think different from the popular belief system. Oh and just for the record it is one big fat butt hole! Quote
ashw_justin Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 The nomenclature is a side issue; changing the wording in such a way would do nothing the resolve most of the conflicts between sexual orientation and religion.My point is that the government shouldn't be involved in conflicts between sexual orientation and religion in the first place, as long as the religious have their freedom of religion, and those with alternative sexual orientation can have the same legal status and rights in regard to civil union/domestic partnership as anyone else. As long the government is treating people equally and guaranteeing them the same rights I don't really care what it is called, and neither should the government. Most of the court cases have involved the denying to gay congregation members the use of church facilities that are otherwise open to the rest of the public. It has been argued successfully that this is akin to a restaurant (also a privately owned facility that is open to the general public) denying service due to race, gender, or sexual orientation, which in most states is illegal.I guess it is a bit like the smoking ban here: many people argued (and voted) that they would prefer to go to a non-smoking establishment, but that this was impossible because few if any establishments would voluntarily accommodate nonsmokers in any meaningful way. Although in a perfect world, there would be enough tolerant churches around that few would feel the need to legally force an intolerant one to accommodate them. After all, this is another example of taking freedoms/rights away from private establishments by declaring them public. Doesn't this erode the churchs' freedom of religion? And should the government really concern itself with whether or where two people legally join on private property, as long as the legal status of the union is the same? Quote
kevbone Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 If your religious doctrine violates the basic civil liberties of others, either work to change your doctrine, or move it on down the road. Well spoken..... Quote
Bug Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 I think yours is the popular beleif system over the broader society. Hetero males, especially hetero christian males who respect gays and lesbians are probably way outnumbered by those who do not. I cannot imagine those gays I have known, willingly going through the taunting and humiliation our society subjects them to. It just is not something I can beleive. No science here. Just my observation. Quote
G-spotter Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 But think of the business implications! California is just trying to steal our tourists. Don't worry, be happy VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980) 6/17/2008 With gay marriage now legal in California, how will it affect tourists that often came to BC for the honour? Ever since BC approved same-sex marriages in 2003, the gay tourism sector has grown to represent a significant percentage of our tourism dollars. So will the option of more wedding destinations, like California, cut down on wedding plans north of the 49th? Not really, according to Tourism Vancouver's Paul Vallee, "You know, Vancouver has a long and well-deserved reputation in this market and we expect that to continue into the future." Vallee says gay and lesbian travelers particularly like visiting Canada because they feel comfortable here. Whew. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 Vallee says gay and lesbian travelers particularly like visiting Canada because they feel comfortable here. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.