interesting new angle on the gay marriage debate - 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 07-12-2006, 01:28 PM   #76
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

Jesus does accept us exactly where we are. Then the Holy Spirit enters into us and begins to mold us into the image of Christ. It is my contention that as a homosexual person, as they became more Christlike, would no longer have a homosexual orientation.


If I were you, I'd ask your seminary school for your money back.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 01:41 PM   #77
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
and that's a lie. because as everyone in the "ex-gay" movement knows, and as all of the leaders of the movement who have "relapsed" or left the movement altogether and now denounce it, sexual orientation is unchangeable.


as soon as 1 gay person manages to change his or her sexual orientation I will do the same and become gay
just to be a rebel!

I am sure that with a couple years of training I can denie with almost a straight face that I'm attracted to women
maybe in an other decade or so I can even beat myself into denial and start proclaiming that I actually do find men attractive


then again, there really is no point for me to change my orientations
as is the case for every other human being on this planet
__________________

__________________
Salome is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 01:49 PM   #78
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
[B]I am not asking you to pray and not be gay – I am asking you to focus on Christ, the rest will take care of itself (I am not referring to being gay, I am referring to EVERYTHING)

i suppose this is where we're at an impasse -- i guess i don't see being gay as any sort of fall from Grace from which i need to be redeemed, or at least no more so than your average straight person. it does seem like you're prepared to make a judgement that i cannot -- heterosexuality is always better than homosexuality.



[q]Irvine, I really would like to thank you for your sincerity, honesty, and intelligence in these posts. You handle yourself well for such an emotional topic. You seem like a wonderful person and I am blessed to have had our paths cross. I am quite certain the people God has placed around you are also equally blessed.[/q]


and thank you as well. while this is an emotional topic for me, and we do disagree, you have been 100% respectful and willing to engage in productive dialogue. and you seem like a very nice guy, too.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-12-2006, 02:12 PM   #79
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 02:00 PM
while this thread has had some interesting digressions, i'd like to pull it back to the original questions i posed in regards to the NY State ruling about gay marriage. what i am most interested in is the idea that marriage can be logically understood as a safeguard against irrepsponsible heterosexuality and the potential harm to society that straight sex can do as it often results in unwanted pregnancies. as someone under 30 who's never known a world without AIDS, i've always assumed that homosexual sex was the riskier activity and as such i take a series of precautions (above and beyond rigorous condom useage) that would probably never occur to my heterosexual friends (and which is why i'm actually not as sympathetic as i might be to the one or two unwanted pregnancies that have happened over the past year or so).

i'm also taken by the court's refusal to acknowledge the existence of same-sex couples with children.

here's a piece from The Advocate that's (obviously) very pro-gay marrirage, but also very interesting. some excerpts:



[q]Just five weeks after oral arguments in the freedom-to-marry cases brought by 44 couples and their children, the New York court of appeals (the state’s highest court) ruled, 4-2, that it is not necessarily “irrational” for the law to exclude same-sex couples and their loved ones from marriage. Applying a toothlessly minimal scrutiny to the denial of something as important as the freedom to marry, the plurality held that the limitation of marriage to different-sex couples could be arguably justified on the basis of either of two possible rationales. First, heterosexuals, who can conceive children by accident, need the stability that marriage brings (whereas gay couples, whether or not raising children, do not). Second, the denial of marriage, in the court’s words, could relate to the “intuition” that a “child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like,” even though, the judges conceded, there is no actual evidence that this is so or that children raised in other homes, including by gay parents, are at all harmed.

Put aside for the moment, as the dissent explained, that “marriage is about much more than producing children, yet same-sex couples are excluded from the entire spectrum of protections that come with civil marriage-—purportedly to encourage other people to procreate.” In fact, the plurality’s strained rationalizing of the discriminatory exclusion fails on its own terms.

New York’s ruling came just a week after the Arkansas supreme court unanimously rejected precisely the same proffered rationale; unlike the four-member majority of New York’s highest court, the judges in Arkansas (!) instead relied on the evidence provided by experts in child welfare. That evidence was, of course, available to the New York judges. Institutions such as the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Psychiatric Association, the Association to Benefit Children, and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, among other authorities, submitted briefs to the court calling for an end to marriage discrimination in the interest of children and families.

And the very week of the New York decision, the American Academy of Pediatrics weighed in once again with an authoritative statement titled “The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children” (see the academy’s full analysis on www.freedomtomarry.org). The nation’s kids’ doctors know best—and here’s what they said:

“There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.”

Not only was this evidence, this kind of careful consideration of what truly helps couples and kids missing from the New York plurality opinion, so was any actual logical connection between the ends ostensibly sought (promoting stability, helping children) and the means chosen (denying that stability and help to others). As Chief Judge Judith Kaye explained in her powerful and persuasive dissent (required reading for all Americans who want to understand why our nation needs marriage equality: www.freedomtomarry.org), “it is not enough that the State have a legitimate interest in recognizing or supporting opposite-sex marriages. The relevant question here is whether there exists a rational basis for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, and, in fact, whether the State’s interests in recognizing or supporting opposite-sex marriages are rationally furthered by the exclusion.”

Under proper equal protection analysis, neither the “accidental procreation” rationale for heterosexual “stability through marriage” nor the “best interests of the children” rationale for favoring one kind of family holds up as a justification for the denial of gay people’s freedom to marry.

As the dissent pointed out, “Defendants primarily assert an interest in encouraging procreation within marriage. But while encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry before they have children is certainly a legitimate interest of the State, the exclusion of gay men and lesbians from marriage in no way furthers this interest. There are enough marriage licenses to go around for everyone.… [After all,] no one rationally decides to have children because gays and lesbians are excluded from marriage.”

The plurality’s failure to even consider the lived realities of the 44 plaintiff couples, their kids, and the hundreds of thousands of gay New Yorkers and their families injured by the denial of marriage undoubtedly contributed to the retrograde and astonishing suggestion that the different-sex restriction on marriage somehow helps kids. In fact, as Judge Kaye noted, “the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal protections incident to marriage exposes their children to the precise risks that the State argues the marriage laws are designed to secure against.” That would be so even if the “intuition” that there is one “best kind of family” were true-—irrelevant as that is to kids who, after all, have the families they have, and don’t deserve the laws making their family’s life any harder.

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_de...d=33556&page=1

[/q]



i guess i don't understand how excluding gays from marriage rights supports and affirms heterosexual marriage.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-12-2006, 02:19 PM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar




If I were you, I'd ask your seminary school for your money back.
Actually, the National Guard pays for it.

The most beautiful promise God makes us to change us into the image of His Son, Jesus Christ.

He Tore Down the Wall
It wasn't so long ago that you were mired in that old stagnant life of sin. You let the world, which doesn't know the first thing about living, tell you how to live. You filled your lungs with polluted unbelief, and then exhaled disobedience. We all did it, all of us doing what we felt like doing, when we felt like doing it, all of us in the same boat. It's a wonder God didn't lose his temper and do away with the whole lot of us. Instead, immense in mercy and with an incredible love, he embraced us. He took our sin-dead lives and made us alive in Christ. He did all this on his own, with no help from us! Then he picked us up and set us down in highest heaven in company with Jesus, our Messiah.

Now God has us where he wants us, with all the time in this world and the next to shower grace and kindness upon us in Christ Jesus. Saving is all his idea, and all his work. All we do is trust him enough to let him do it. It's God's gift from start to finish! We don't play the major role. If we did, we'd probably go around bragging that we'd done the whole thing! No, we neither make nor save ourselves. God does both the making and saving. He creates each of us by Christ Jesus to join him in the work he does, the good work he has gotten ready for us to do, work we had better be doing.

But don't take any of this for granted. It was only yesterday that you outsiders to God's ways had no idea of any of this, didn't know the first thing about the way God works, hadn't the faintest idea of Christ. You knew nothing of that rich history of God's covenants and promises in Israel, hadn't a clue about what God was doing in the world at large. Now because of Christ—dying that death, shedding that blood—you who were once out of it altogether are in on everything.

The Messiah has made things up between us so that we're now together on this, both non-Jewish outsiders and Jewish insiders. He tore down the wall we used to keep each other at a distance. He repealed the law code that had become so clogged with fine print and footnotes that it hindered more than it helped. Then he started over. Instead of continuing with two groups of people separated by centuries of animosity and suspicion, he created a new kind of human being, a fresh start for everybody.

Christ brought us together through his death on the cross. The Cross got us to embrace, and that was the end of the hostility. Christ came and preached peace to you outsiders and peace to us insiders. He treated us as equals, and so made us equals. Through him we both share the same Spirit and have equal access to the Father.

That's plain enough, isn't it? You're no longer wandering exiles. This kingdom of faith is now your home country. You're no longer strangers or outsiders. You belong here, with as much right to the name Christian as anyone. God is building a home. He's using us all—irrespective of how we got here—in what he is building. He used the apostles and prophets for the foundation. Now he's using you, fitting you in brick by brick, stone by stone, with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone that holds all the parts together. We see it taking shape day after day—a holy temple built by God, all of us built into it, a temple in which God is quite at home. (Ephesians 2 – the Message)
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 02:30 PM   #81
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:00 PM
Yeah, it's too bad Jesus didn't care about homosexuality...

He seemed to talk about everything else he thought was important.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 02:51 PM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


i guess i don't understand how excluding gays from marriage rights supports and affirms heterosexual marriage.
I seriously do not think that the lawgivers and lawmakers throughout the centuries even considered that marriage would be anything other than between a man and a woman.

At its pure logical level - healthy heterosexual marriage is the best chance to ensure a stable, lasting society. They are the relationships that have the best chance of producing a future (i.e. kids).

The breakdown of the family has had horrible consequences in Western Civilization. Even my liberal friends agree with that.

Supporting healthy heterosexual marriage seems the best way to build a foundation upon which to build a lasting society.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 03:07 PM   #83
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 02:00 PM
Well my heterosexual parents have/had a very unhealthy relationship which in turn has resulted in many problems for me-but I humbly say it has also made me a better person in many ways because of my struggle in dealing with that fact. Still I would have preferred to have gay parents who had a healthy relationship.

Gay parents and gay relationships doesn't equal the breakdown of the family-even straight people in healthy relationships are doing a fine job on their own of breaking down the family and western civilization. And of making it very unstable.

Who defines that the future = kids? People without kids have wonderful relationships and contribute so much to this world. I think the future that holds the most promise ever possible is one in which people are free to be who they are and are healthy themselves mentally and emotionally as a result, and engage in healthy relationships because of that freedom and health.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 03:08 PM   #84
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


At its pure logical level - healthy heterosexual marriage is the best chance to ensure a stable, lasting society. They are the relationships that have the best chance of producing a future (i.e. kids).
Reproduction doesn't = stable.
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

The breakdown of the family has had horrible consequences in Western Civilization. Even my liberal friends agree with that.

Supporting healthy heterosexual marriage seems the best way to build a foundation upon which to build a lasting society.
Do you honestly think supporting homosexual marriage will decrease reproduction? This makes no sense.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 03:16 PM   #85
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 07:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

Supporting healthy heterosexual marriage seems the best way to build a foundation upon which to build a lasting society.
So, can't enlightened societies support healthy heterosexual marriages AND healthy homosexual marriages? Or is your point that only the one kind of marriage keeps a strong foundation? Is your point that homosexual marriage will weaken this foundation? If so, what evidence do you base this on?

[I just have to restate again how logically weak and waffling this court decision is...even to a lay person with an average IQ as me.]
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 03:20 PM   #86
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:00 PM
You have a gay aunt...

I have a gay aunt....

My Aunt is married with the same partner for about 30 years now.
They raised a child together. He turned out all right. He has a wonderful wife. They are expecting a child.

-------------------------

My parents have a total of 10 marriages between them.

My Aunts are my role models for relationships. Period. My wife and I now have been married longer than 9 of my parents marriages.

---------------------------

Explain to me how stopping homosexual marriage will help the future? Will suddenly you or I and other straight people wake up and say...gee I think I want to marry him? The percentage of people who are homosexual will not change....By denying them marriage licenses....you are preventing what from happening?
--------------------------------

My grandparents have been married for 68 years. They have not had a kid in their house for many many moons. Marriage is more than the ability to produce a stable society (ie Kids).
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 03:23 PM   #87
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:00 PM
Jesus-30 year old, lives with mother, hangs around with 12 boys....

hmmm.....
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 03:23 PM   #88
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Judah


So, can't enlightened societies support healthy heterosexual marriages AND healthy homosexual marriages? Or is your point that only the one kind of marriage keeps a strong foundation? Is your point that homosexual marriage will weaken this foundation?

The key word would be 'enlightened'. The majority isn't there yet. And why?

Quote:
Originally posted by Judah

If so, what evidence do you base this on?
Because of this...the majority doesn't need evidence to feed their bigotry.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 03:25 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Reproduction doesn't = stable.
non-reproduction = extinction

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Do you honestly think supporting homosexual marriage will decrease reproduction? This makes no sense.
No human society, not a single one, has ever declared “marriage” between members of the same sex as a norm for family life. It was not until very recently have we believed that we can improve upon this ancient and universal institution.

This public meaning of marriage is not something that each new generation is free to redefine. Marriage is defined by God and nature—and a wise society will protect marriage as it has always been understood. Marriage is the way our culture promotes stability by insuring that every child has a mother and father.

The fact that some heterosexual couples cannot have children is the exception and not the rule. Many of these childless couples adopt, and their adoptive children receive the benefits of both father and mother this way. It is impossible for a homosexual couple to bestow that benefit—the presence of a father and a mother— on any child, even if that couple adopts or uses artificial insemination.

Some here argue that what kids need most are loving parents, regardless of whether or not it’s a mother or father. What a child needs most are a loving father and mother. A wealth of secular research over the past 30 years has shown us this. Yet, same-sex marriage and parenting intentionally deprive children of a mother or father. The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man. Likewise, the most loving man cannot teach a little girl how to be a woman. A gay man cannot teach his son how to love and care for a woman. A lesbian cannot teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a good husband. Is love enough to help two gay dads guide their daughter through her first menstrual cycle? Like a mom, they cannot comfort her by sharing their first experience. Little boys and girls need the loving daily influence of both male and female parents to become who they are meant to be.

Denying gay marriage only seems cruel because of the times in which we live. Our society prizes what seems fair, more than what is true. Children truly need both a mom and a dad. The cruelty is in intentionally denying them this. The research supporting this is both substantial and unequivocal. (mostly cut and pasted from an argument made by Glenn T. Stanton)
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 03:28 PM   #90
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


I seriously do not think that the lawgivers and lawmakers throughout the centuries even considered that marriage would be anything other than between a man and a woman.

At its pure logical level - healthy heterosexual marriage is the best chance to ensure a stable, lasting society. They are the relationships that have the best chance of producing a future (i.e. kids).

The breakdown of the family has had horrible consequences in Western Civilization. Even my liberal friends agree with that.

Supporting healthy heterosexual marriage seems the best way to build a foundation upon which to build a lasting society.

as the product of a healthy heterosexual marriage, i think heterosexual marriage is a great thing, but i don't see how the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage harms heterosexual marriage.

tell me, exactly, how it does that.

are we not a part of the family tradition? are we not allowed to start families of our own? why would you deny us the tools to participate?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

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 02:00 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