a conservative america in the context of global society and culture - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-15-2004, 08:06 AM   #76
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:05 AM
I agree, the real homophobes are the people who commit violent crimes against gays. I admit it, a strict interpretation of scripture is going to promote the concept that marriage is for procreation, thus condemning gay unions. However, as I've pointed out there is also a tradition, going back to the late Middle Ages, that marriage is also for companionship. Admittedly this is a more secular viewpoint. But I don't think that makes it completely invalid, it's just one that biblical conservatives don't care for.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-15-2004, 08:27 AM   #77
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
Irvine511,

I think you meant FizzingWizzbees, not MadelynIris.


So, if I say that I don't think that the gay lifestyle is something to be celebrated, based on my beliefs, derived from the Bible, am I a homophobe.

?

Mark

you're right, i meant FW, not MI. sorry about that.

your use of the phrase "gay lifestyle" strikes me as homophobic by definition. is there a white "lifestyle"? a deaf "lifestyle"? a left-handed "lifestyle"? and what do you mean by "celebrate"?

that phrase "gay lifestyle" is the basis of much justification of gay discrimination, because (and this is accurate), homosexuality necessarily implies a specific kind of behavior as opposed to being black, or red-headed. when the term "lifestyle" is combined with this "behavior" it is usually implies an urban lifestyle of clubs, bars, recreational drugs, promiscuous sex, and irresponsibility. but let's cut to the chase of what is at the core of this constructed (by heterosexuals, usually conservatives who don't live in cities ... because in our cities you'd see gay couples who have been together 30 years, pushing strollers, etc) "lifestyle": men having sex with men, and women having sex with women. buggery. bumpin' donuts. ass fucking. carpet munching. whatever slang you want to use.

let's set aside, for a moment, the both the insistence of a specific "lifestyle" and the reduction of that "lifestyle" to sex. if you view same-sex sex as a vice, you're perfectly free to do so. if you say it grosses you out, that's totally fair. but what you're not free to do is reduce human beings to "lifestyles" and sex acts based upon inferences, generalizations, and half-truths that are perpetated by people who would know least about them (heterosexuals). this, then, is homophobic -- the reduction of people in order to fit a constructed narrative that, in turn, forms the basis for and justification of legislation to control and curb what some deem as vices based upon a highly subjective moral code not shared by everyone.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-15-2004, 08:53 AM   #78
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Israel
Posts: 112
Local Time: 06:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
There is nothing we can say to terrorists that will make them stop what they're doing. It's like trying to tell your next door neighbor to stop smoking. If there were any other way to send a message to them, let me know. My ears are wide open. But one thought will always remain in my head: Radical Terror from Islamic Extremists enforce a hate system rather than preaching a faith, and respecting those who choose not to accept it.

On September 11, 2001, we all asked why anyone would do such a thing to America. I'd be interested in seeing other perspectives, but my belief is that we should promote a positive society rather than exposing the worst in us. I doubt that the porn industry will go out of business anytime soon, nor will they stop targeting minors. I doubt that TV producers will trade ratings with an uplifting message. Sadly, we anger terrorists, as well as many people in this country, when we overexpose sexuality on TV. Yet when we preach a positive message, we abandon it before long.

So yes, I would want to make an effort to calm the Middle East down altogether. Nobody wants terrorists to have anger toward their country. We need to show them another side of America, and why our freedom is a good thing.
Do you really think that gay marriage and a permissive schedule on TV are the things that make the extreme Islam want to abolish you? By their (and 'their' does not refer to entire Islam) method, unless you hold the faith of the Islam you should be diminished.

They targeted the US first because it's the strongest and most powerful democracy in the world. USA is THE symbol to everything they detest about the western culture. That's what "anger" them. If their hierarchy of targets in the western countries had been determent according to how permissive those countries are, it's only logical that 9/11 would have happened in Europe first, and surely not in Spain-the Scandinavian countries are much more permissive, just for example.

Turkey is an Islamic country. Its PM prays 5 times a day. By no means its TV even reaches the level of permissiveness that exists in the US. Still, terror attacks happened there just as well, and why? Because Turkey is a democracy. That alone threatens the doctrine of the extreme Islam.
__________________
sarit is offline  
Old 11-15-2004, 08:55 AM   #79
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
Would a discussion of whether Black people deserve the same rights be immune from accusations of racism if people claimed to base it on the Bible?
Immune? No.

Could you discuss this point without accusations of racism? You should be able to.

I would be interested to see just how someone can differentiate between Caucasians and blacks from Scripture.


Or is this just a straw man argument?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-15-2004, 08:58 AM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 12:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
I agree, the real homophobes are the people who commit violent crimes against gays. I admit it, a strict interpretation of scripture is going to promote the concept that marriage is for procreation, thus condemning gay unions. However, as I've pointed out there is also a tradition, going back to the late Middle Ages, that marriage is also for companionship. Admittedly this is a more secular viewpoint. But I don't think that makes it completely invalid, it's just one that biblical conservatives don't care for.
I am glad to see that you agree to my definition of what a real homophobe is. It bothers me that some people bring that label to biblical conservatives who disagree with the lifestyle. I will continue to respect a difference of opinion, and I will continue to appreciate your respect for mine. That's why FYM is a great forum that helps people understand their differences.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 11-15-2004, 09:01 AM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 12:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sarit


Do you really think that gay marriage and a permissive schedule on TV are the things that make the extreme Islam want to abolish you? By their (and 'their' does not refer to entire Islam) method, unless you hold the faith of the Islam you should be diminished.
I don't have any beef whatsoever with muslims who practice their religion and belief system in peace. However, I see flaws in some perceptions of freedom of expression. We are free to express ourselves, but we should also be responsible for how others will interpret it.

With great power comes great responsibility.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 11-15-2004, 09:23 AM   #82
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Israel
Posts: 112
Local Time: 06:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
We are free to express ourselves, but we should also be responsible for how others will interpret it.
You can't satisfy everybody. Part of the world would see laws against gay marriage as primitive and depriving of human rights. Other part of the world would be in favor of such laws. Which part of the world would you like to favor with you more-democracies or dictatorships?

It's not about how the world sees it, because the world sees it in many many different ways. At the end of the day it just comes down to how America wants to see itself.
__________________
sarit is offline  
Old 11-15-2004, 09:28 AM   #83
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 11:05 PM
Since it seems that I have to define my stance on homosexuality to support a dialog, here it is:


Some of my best friends are gay (LOL, this is sooo overused). Actually not anymore, because I'm pretty buried in family/work and don't have a lot of gay people where I work, or at home - but nonetheless, have family/friends who are gay, and for the most part, love being with them, talking with them and respect them completely.

If one of my children turn out to be gay (they are still to young), my reaction would be one of shock first (because I am a heterosexual male, I think it's natural), but I would love them will all my heart, just as I always have. They are still my child, and would do everything for them.

But I would not celebrate, or endorse their sexuality. I would not treat their lover/companion as my son/daughter-in-law. I would not buy them birthday gifts. I would not 'act like' it's a marriage. I would love them and respect them, but would not treat the union as right (righteous). I would treat it as sin, and let them know my feelings on it. But, that's as far as it would go. Otherwise, I would love them fully.

By celebrate, I mean, uphold it as good and righteous and support it. I would do the same if one of my children were having pre-marital sex. I would still love them, cherish them, and support them, but would not recognize their sexual relationship as right.

Mark
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 11-15-2004, 09:47 AM   #84
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 04:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Could you discuss this point without accusations of racism? You should be able to.

I would be interested to see just how someone can differentiate between Caucasians and blacks from Scripture.


Or is this just a straw man argument?
So you would say that someone could claim that Black people do not deserve the same rights as white people and not be accused of being a racist? Really?

I've heard people use the Bible as justification for opposing marriage between people of different 'races' so clearly they find some basis for making a distinction between 'races' from the Bible.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 11-15-2004, 09:49 AM   #85
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 04:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris


Am I making bigoted and homophobic statements?
As Irvine pointed out, I meant "you" collectively, not any particular individual. That said, given that you were concerned you'd be labelled homophobic if you stated your opinion of gay people, it's hardly unreasonable to suspect you might make the odd homophobic statement, otherwise you'd have no reason to fear being called homophobic.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 11-15-2004, 10:05 AM   #86
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
So you would say that someone could claim that Black people do not deserve the same rights as white people and not be accused of being a racist? Really?
No. I said if they make that claim based on Scripture, we should be able to discuss the claim without resorting to calling one side a racist. That is not to say that we would find any merit in such a claim.

Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
I've heard people use the Bible as justification for opposing marriage between people of different 'races' so clearly they find some basis for making a distinction between 'races' from the Bible.
If you want to spell out the argument for such a claim, then I would be interested in seeing it. From my understanding of Scripture, there is no such command or justification for such a claim.

I guess it would be helpful, when referencing claims based on Scripture, to back it up with the appropriate verses.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-15-2004, 10:16 AM   #87
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 12:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees

given that you were concerned you'd be labelled homophobic if you stated your opinion of gay people, it's hardly unreasonable to suspect you might make the odd homophobic statement, otherwise you'd have no reason to fear being called homophobic.
I disagree with you on this. For one thing, we should be concerned with the real homophobes who commit hate crimes rather than the "homophobes" who disagree with the lifestyle. We should also practice tolerance LEFT and RIGHT, by allowing viewpoints by both sides, as long as they are respectful and well-thought, although we are completely entitled to disagree.

Personally, I'm surprised that some people here get away with titling their threads such things as this:

Another reason for me to f*cking hate republicans
Those F-ing, Ignorant, Low IQ, Red States, Racist, Intolorant, Moral Lacking BASTARDS
I hate being American
Resign Your Senate Seat Senator Kerry!
Jaysus F*cking Christ

Titles such as these are sure to cause a stir, when the purpose of this forum is to debate and express opinions without aggravating people. Let's all try to be less and more and with each other.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 11-15-2004, 10:25 AM   #88
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
If one of my children turn out to be gay (they are still to young), my reaction would be one of shock first (because I am a heterosexual male, I think it's natural), but I would love them will all my heart, just as I always have. They are still my child, and would do everything for them.

But I would not celebrate, or endorse their sexuality. I would not treat their lover/companion as my son/daughter-in-law. I would not buy them birthday gifts. I would not 'act like' it's a marriage. I would love them and respect them, but would not treat the union as right (righteous). I would treat it as sin, and let them know my feelings on it. But, that's as far as it would go. Otherwise, I would love them fully.

By celebrate, I mean, uphold it as good and righteous and support it. I would do the same if one of my children were having pre-marital sex. I would still love them, cherish them, and support them, but would not recognize their sexual relationship as right.

Mark

first, thank you for your honesty. i think you probably speak for a lot of people, but i still find it homophobic, and here's why:

1. you will only find out if your children are gay when they are older, if they are gay, they're gay right now, and have been since brith, probably, and even if you think it's unnatural, it is not unnatural to your child.

2. if your child, hypothetically turns out to be gay, i think you'll find it hard NOT to treat their spouse as one of your family. you apparently love your children very much, doesn't it logically follow that you would love who they love? don't you owe it to your child to support their relationships, especially in a world that makes it so difficult to do so? wouldn't you want to encourage monogamy, commitment, and family? doesn't your child's needs outweigh whatever theoretical objections you might have?

to ignore your child's spouse and treat him like less of a member of the family -- and, therefore, as less of a human being -- might make you feel righteous or morally consistent, but i can guarantee you that you'll be causing untold psychological damage on your child.

example: this weekend, i spoke to a gay couple who had been together for 15 years. one point of frustration that came up (over a long, sprawling conversation) was that one member of the couple has a younger sister on her 2nd marriage. first marriage lasted 10 months, 2nd marriage is now going on 2 years. how can you possibly value a union that is strong enough to last 15 years less than one that lasted 10 months simply because it was a man/man union, and not a man/woman? shouldn't we value the worthiness of a relationship based upon the love and commitment of the members rather than their sexual orientation?

why would you force your child to choose between love and family, when the two should so easily compliment each other?

a quote from an essay in TIME by (the conservative, pro-war) Andrew Sullivan:

"When people talk about gay marriage, they miss the point. This isn't about gay marriage. It's about marriage. It's about family. It's about love. It isn't about religion. It's about civil marriage licenses. Churches can and should have the right to say no to marriage for gays in their congregations, just as Catholics say no to divorce, but divorce is still a civil option. These family values are not options for a happy and stable life. They are necessities. Putting gay relationships in some other category--civil unions, domestic partnerships, whatever--may alleviate real human needs, but by their very euphemism, by their very separateness, they actually build a wall between gay people and their families. They put back the barrier many of us have spent a lifetime trying to erase.

It's too late for me to undo my past. But I want above everything else to remember a young kid out there who may even be reading this now. I want to let him know that he doesn't have to choose between himself and his family anymore. I want him to know that his love has dignity, that he does indeed have a future as a full and equal part of the human race. Only marriage will do that. Only marriage can bring him home."
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-15-2004, 10:35 AM   #89
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
I agree, the real homophobes are the people who commit violent crimes against gays. I admit it, a strict interpretation of scripture is going to promote the concept that marriage is for procreation, thus condemning gay unions. However, as I've pointed out there is also a tradition, going back to the late Middle Ages, that marriage is also for companionship. Admittedly this is a more secular viewpoint. But I don't think that makes it completely invalid, it's just one that biblical conservatives don't care for.

actually, those who commit violent crimes against gays are criminals, or murderers. just like those who lynch black people are murders. they're also homophobes, and racists, but they are criminals first and foremost.

a racist doesn't, by definition, commit violent crimes against blacks (or whoever). the same thing is true of homophobia.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-15-2004, 10:42 AM   #90
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 12:05 AM
I don't think that too many of the members here understand why we have a separation of church and state. The reason is to protect us from a single belief system controlling our entire society. Bush's political agenda still promotes PLENTY of freedom in belief. He's said it a million times. I'm actually tired of him trying to convince his opponents that he's not trying to impose his beliefs on others.

Our founding fathers proposed this because old England alienated them with cruelty and punishment for their beliefs, which were in fact Christain. Cruelty and punishment should never be backed by a belief system that is controlled by the government. There was nothing in 1776 that didn't support this amendment if you see it for what it is. It does not mean that we can't have a moral and just society. It also doesn't mean that our leaders can't follow the gospel.

What it does mean is that the MIDDLE EAST will never be the future of the United States - governed by cruelty and punishment if they choose not to accept a belief system. We should stop using this amendment as an excuse to criticize "religious" beliefs, and stop using it to prevent us from promoting Judeo-Christian values that better our society. Our constitution has been misinterpreted by people who simply hate the idea of a creator. You're free to practice what you want, or nothing at all, but this amendment was never intended to kick God out of our country.
__________________

__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com