equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[BVS]

You really misunderstood Frank's quote.

And now apparently you don't know what namecalling actually is...

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Both you and I know that what you chose to respond to was not in any way the real question that Irvine was posing to you. Hence the conclusion that you're dodging the real question, which has been asked numerous times this thread, and which you've yet to directly answer.

I still do not understand the nature of this "one real question" being asked, as it appears there were many questions - and more often than not, it seems when I address a question- I get a response that indicates that this is in fact, not the question being asked.

For example, there was a time in this thread where I thought Irvine was indicating there was no difference whatsoever between homosexual couples and heterosexual ones. Pointing out there is at minimum a biological difference seems elemental, but somehow it was not being conceded. Therefore, it was necessary to demonstrate this difference before we could go on to the comparison portion of the question.

Another question floating around is about choice - whether human beings have the choice to be homosexual or engage in homosexual acts. I think I've made it obvious that I subscribe to a translation of the Bible that indicates that homosexual acts are immoral (i.e., bad choices). Combined with my interpretation of natural law, biology, and physical health - I have sufficient cause to think that homosexual acts are "wrong". Additionally, like most human activities, sexual acts are choices and I don't view "orientation" differently than any individual's battle to lead a moral life. We all have burdens and inclinations, some have more - some have less. However, out of respect for those that have called for a "secular" discussion - and the fact it has been covered already by both sides of the argument - I would like to table my personal opinion about homosexual activity (but if people are determined to have a religious-based discussion, there should probably be a separate thread for that).

The main reason I would like to "table" my personal opposition is that I do realize that my opinion is only one in a sea of opinions. And more often than not, when we are discussing activity between two consenting adults, my opinions end where their freedom begins. Because of this, among other things, I have taken a rather libertarian view that the state should no longer be involved in the marriage process.

The state should not have the burden\privilege of granting or denying marriages - especially when our society presently has no real consensus as to what marriage is (legal union of convenience, spiritual union for life, political arrangement, for as long as passion lasts...etc?). While I understand several of you think this is ridiculous and it could never be reversed - that doesn't mean I can't express the opinion that this is how it "ought" to be. Isn't that one of the main things we do in here - discuss the way things ought to be?

Regarding the question about the current laws on marriage, and should they be extended to homosexual couples or polygamous arrangements - I oppose almost anything that would extend the state's grasp on our personal lives, included extending the umbrella of "marriage" further than it already has been extended.

I hope this addresses the question(s) you are asking. In forums like this, or in any debate - it is far easier to ask the questions than to answer them. It seems that there is a bit of trend of people unwilling to post a full, well thought out opinion - choosing to deride the opposition instead of supporting their own ideas which of course, would open their stance to questions and scrutiny.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by AEON

I think I've made it obvious that I subscribe to a translation of the Bible that indicates that homosexual acts are immoral (i.e., bad choices). Combined with my interpretation of natural law, biology, and physical health - I have sufficient cause to think that homosexual acts are "wrong".

Actually, no, in this thread you had not made that obvious at all, and did everything to avoid stating your beliefs on why homosexuals don't deserve marriage. I am glad that you have finally directly answered the question, but it does sadden me that you believe people are homosexual by choice. Or worse yet (at least in my eyes), that their homosexuality may not be a choice, but that choosing to express their sexuality in the same way that heterosexuals express theirs is a sin.

[diamond]

Originally Posted by BVS

You really misunderstood Frank's quote.

...

Ok, enlighten us then, explain what Barney really meant by this:

Don't call people bigots just because you disagree with them
~Barney Frank

<>

[BVS]

Originally Posted by diamond

Ok, enlighten us then, explain what Barney really meant by this:



<>

Don't call people bigots just because you disagree with them
~Barney Frank

I already have, you just chose to ignore it.

I do not call David Duke a bigot because I disagree with him, I call him a bigot because he is one...

Surely you can see the difference? No? If not, no one can help you.

[martha]

Originally Posted by Diemen

but it does sadden me that you believe people are homosexual by choice.

The trick part to this is: when did anyone choose to be straight?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Actually, no, in this thread you had not made that obvious at all, and did everything to avoid stating your beliefs on why homosexuals don't deserve marriage.

I beg to differ…

Originally Posted by AEON

I happen to agree with the Catholic Church's view that being a homosexual is not a sin, but acting it out is. I don't fully understand why God creates the desire - then forbids it. But I can say that about a great many desires. It goes all the way to the beginning of mankind's relationship with God - desiring what is forbidden.

It has been my observation - that over time - God's wisdom prevails both personally, and socially. I concede that Melon's interpretations regarding the Bible's stance on homosexuality may be correct, and I always pray that the Holy Spirit will open my eyes and heart to the actual meaning of any passage, not just the ones concerning homosexuality.

As it stands now, it just seems that if the Bible genuinely wanted to make an exception for homosexuality (and as many have pointed out, there were certainly homosexuals in Biblical times) then there would be more written about it. Every instance of homosexuality written in the Bible is portrayed in a negative light. It would seem - that if God did intend to permit loving gay marriages - there would be at least one example and just a tad bit of wisdom thrown their way on how to be a good loving gay married couple.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by martha

The trick part to this is: when did anyone choose to be straight?

I think I addressed this...

Additionally, like most human activities, sexual acts are choices and I don't view "orientation" differently than any individual's battle to lead a moral life. We all have burdens and inclinations, some have more - some have less

[BVS]

AEON, do you think there are other sins that do not have any standing in logic, well besides the levitical laws? Why do you think this is the only one?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by BVS

AEON, do you think there are other sins that do not have any standing in logic, well besides the levitical laws? Why do you think this is the only one?

So, we are going the Biblical route?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by melon

I'm thinking he regrets abolishing indentured servitude...

One could argue that's still around - it's called debt.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by AEON

Combined with my interpretation of natural law, biology, and physical health - I have sufficient cause to think that homosexual acts are "wrong".

Could you elaborate on this?

[diamond]

Originally Posted by BVS

I do not call David Duke a bigot because I disagree with him, I call him a bigot because he is one...

So people who favor Gay Civil Unions but also favor traditional marriage are similar to David Duke-bigots?
And what do you call folks who oppose both Gay Marriage and Gay Civil Unions?

<>

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by diamond

So people who favor Gay Civil Unions but also favor traditional marriage are similar to David Duke-bigots?

<>

Indeed. And that's the main problem with the left. If one holds certain points of view, one is automatically, de facto, a bigot.

[diamond]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Indeed. And that's the main problem with the left. If one holds certain points of view, one is automatically, de facto, a bigot.

Yeah, but I'm with Barney Frank here, I don't think one should do that.

It's too bad many on the left in FYM didn't get the same memo Barney got.

<>

[AEON]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Could you elaborate on this?

I would rather not “go down that path” because I do care for the feelings of people in here. Getting into a “nitty gritty” list of why I think homosexual acts are wrong will only hurt people and would be unproductive. I think it is sufficient to say that the information is out there – and you either accept it or reject it.

That being said – I do realize my conclusions are different from others and this matter involves two consenting adults. That is why I propose the state not be involved.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by AEON

I would rather not “go down that path” because I do care for the feelings of people in here. Getting into a “nitty gritty” list of why I think homosexual acts are wrong will only hurt people and would be unproductive. I think it is sufficient to say that the information is out there – and you either accept it or reject it.

That being said – I do realize my conclusions are different from others and this matter involves two consenting adults. That is why I propose the state not be involved.

A lot of people seemingly are revolted by the thought of 'what de gays get up to'. I don't particularly identify with this frame of thought. I don't like soccer - I don't find it revolting either, it just doesn't interest me.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by AEON

I think I addressed this...

The way you addressed it bothers me.

Imagine if someone told you this:

"AEON, it is not wrong to be heterosexual. In fact, God made you that way, so it can't be wrong. But if you decide to act on it, if you decide to pursue someone you're interested in, fall in love with that person and want to spend the rest of your life with that person, you are actively choosing to live in sin. So rather than try and find happiness in the companionship of a partner like most of us do, you must live the rest of your life resisting any urges to express your sexuality the way the rest of us do, because your sexuality may not be a sin, but expressing it is."

Does that not, on any level at all, register to you as extremely irrational? As extremely unfair?

Now imagine if someone used that justification to bar you from getting the same protections under the law for a committed, monogamous union between you and the love of your life.

Now imagine if you did not believe in God and people still used that justification to deny you legal rights.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by martha

Oh, and is anyone keeping a score of the questions AEON had dodged?

Martha, you seem rather upset most of the time. Perhaps it just the way you express yourself in this forum. I'm not making a value judgment, you can be angry - it just makes it more challenging to have a dialogue with you.

Originally Posted by AEON

In forums like this, or in any debate - it is far easier to ask the questions than to answer them. It seems that there is a bit of trend of people unwilling to post a full, well thought out opinion - choosing to deride the opposition instead of supporting their own ideas which of course, would open their stance to questions and scrutiny.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by AEON

So, we are going the Biblical route?

You brought it up.