Vilification is over the top

[Jon Miller]

actually come to think about it, I am not sure what I think

either marriages for all, and state involved in marriages

or marriages for straights, and unions for gays, and state involved in it all

or unions for all, state involved (with marriages being someithng independent done for cultural/religious reasons)

Jon Miller
(I actually did not read much of anything in this thread except that gay marriage is involved)

[blackice]

that decision is just perpetuating the false view that women can't be gay, that a female-female relatinoship just can't satisfy and doesn't count as a relationship

I have never heard that one. Do tell more.

you see this often with guys, who would leave their girls in a second if they kissed another dude, but pressure their girls to have sex with women (they do this because they do not beleive that another woman is any challenge to them)

I am not sure these two things are related? I personally can relate to having a two woman in love with me an each other in a relationship. On the other hand I could not kiss a man.

I am sure their are women who think the same, but again societal teachings alter, or accentuate these natural instincts. Would you not agree?

[blackice]

(I actually did not read much of anything in this thread except that gay marriage is involved)

Nough said :0)

[blackice]

Well have it food for thought, I would hope without the retoric.

I was just folding socks and reading the social weather report. I figured it fit with my over all posting theme and had the impulse to post for opinions.

You know the feeling... come'on admit it Jon. From time to time you too see your reflection in the pond. :0)

Night all

[Ned]

Just screaming at each other is non productive. I think the issue of gays has to be taken up seriously by the various religions. I would hope that gays would get their local clergy involved to urge their respective churches to reexamine their dogma base on a new understanding that gays are born that way. Their condition simply cannot be a sin.

[Sikander]

Oh boy, conservative christians and homosexual activists. Two groups I love to hate. Neither should be given any weight whatsoever in the debate about this issue. Let real people who are capable of more than hyperbole and insult lead the debate.

[Cyclotron]

And Christianity, outside of Western liberal nations where it's in a slump, is the fastest-growing movement on the planet.

I was under the impression that the fastest growing religion was Islam.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


I was under the impression that the fastest growing religion was Islam.

Then it's true. We are losing the War on Terror.

[Ben Kenobi]

Conservative Christians, hiding behind their religious doctrine, get to call homosexuals sinners, hell-bound, abominations, sodomites, perverts, or any of the colorful euphemisms they want.

Do we now? Any quotes of supposedly conservative Christian politicians saying any of these things?

And BTW, the supposedly 'right-wing fringe party' of Harper canned these last remarks, saying that they don't reflect the beliefs of the party.

Now, if you want to go the route of Svend Robinson and tar the entire party of Conservatives for the comments of one deposed member then go right ahed. Obviously his party must favour the Palestinians over the Jews, and all of them endorse homosexuality.

Finally, let us suppose you found a politician saying all of these things, your haste lumps in some correct comments with incorrect ones.

Why is it wrong for a politician to say that as a Christian, he believes gay people who have not repented of their sins are going to go to hell? Why is it wrong for him to call them sodomites? Why is it wrong to call them sinners?

Freedom of religion has to include the right to speak what you believe, particularly when this opinion is unpopular. You can't just lock the believers away in their churches, and call that fair treatement.

Homosexuality is a sin. Nothing you say will change this, and nothing of what our government does to endorse this will change it either.

[Mr. Harley]

Villification is way over the top, and scary. Any of you historians out there correct me (I am biased towards military history - peace is a condition we infer by the abscence of war ) the last time it got this bad was in the 1850's, at least for the United States. This bad implies large groups of people, with opposed ideas, villifying the opposition on a large scale over a prolonged period. I'm interested in the spin for other countries.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Sikander
Then it's true. We are losing the War on Terror.

Not the first thing I thought of, but, there you go.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would hope that gays would get their local clergy involved to urge their respective churches to reexamine their dogma base on a new understanding that gays are born that way. Their condition simply cannot be a sin.

First off, there is no proof that homosexuals are born that way.

Secondly, suppose I were an alcoholic. Would it make it any less sinful for me to get drunk? No. So why should we treat practicing homosexuals differently? The key is not in the proclivities, but in their practice. It cannot be a sin to like men, but it is a sin to have sex with them.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by blackice
I think you have made his point rather well.

So when does it finish? You have made it clear THEY started it, who is person enough to finish it...

I don't see Moore or yourself stepping forward to finish anything. You think that "finishing it" for gays would be to roll over and accept legal restrictions on their relationships...where's the equity in that?

It is inevitable that the wheels of justice and government will rubber stamp a balance. But at what cost to society? They have such a wonderful track record. I wish people would stop and think about that...

This issue is akin to any other change enmass in any civilization, country, society, etc. So when are we as a planet, race, country, people, etc... Going to get it right?

Reflect on what you have said and read it again, then read the article again. You have rights and freedoms as do they, respect them, respect yourself.

Respecting someone else's freedom to believe something due to their relgious doctrine is a far cry from respecting their enforcing said beliefs on the rest of the populations. The gay rights battle isn't about forcing you to believe anything, it's about forcing public policy to treat gays equitably and end institutionalized discriminations.

Conservative Christians, however, are foisting their religious view of who is good and who is bad on everyone. Allowing gays to marry isn't saying Christians are somehow bad or lesser. Prohibiting it is doing that for gays. The same goes for all sorts of laws. I can't recall gays ever advocating laws to ban heterosexual sex. Social conservatives, on the other hand...

I read from your post that you are in a battle to disrespect them, religion in general and thier right to belief. I see your desire to be recognized in the legal aspect of marital rights. So be it no one I bet disagrees, take a poll...

Disagreeing with Christian beliefs in regards to homosexuality isn't disrepecting their right to believe anything. This is the mindset among Christians that is so mind-numbingly frustrating: "We can say whatever we want about YOU, because it's our religion. But if you challenge what we say, you're trampling our rights."

There's no right to have one's religious beliefs enshrined in public policy.

[QUOTE] But I see this war, this disrespect for those religious people who would want the word "marrage" kept close to thier heart, thier teachings, thier belief.QUOTE]

And for those gays who feel the same thing, love their partner and want to keep it close to their heart? Based on their belief? Considering the entire Christian objection here is that gay relationships aren't as valid as heterosexual ones, ergo not fit for "marriage," again--who is villifying whom?

So why not compromise? Why not come up with a distinct wording to recognize your individual status, Quebec did, so have other minorities. After all we are not all the same are we?

Seperate but equal...yes, we've heard that before.

Minorities in our rights and beliefs. The differance is some destroy others to have thier say and in turn they destroy them for thier own right. Who wins?

As I said, I don't like the villification. Extremists on both sides throw around too much rhetoric. However, the balance is still, IMO, heavily weighted towards social conservatives in this regard, so expecting gays to step up is simple hypocrisy.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Do we now? Any quotes of supposedly conservative Christian politicians saying any of these things?

I wasn't aware this was a "Canada Only" thread, and if it is I will leave it to Canadians. But I can find you tons of comments from American leaders.

Why is it wrong for a politician to say that as a Christian, he believes gay people who have not repented of their sins are going to go to hell? Why is it wrong for him to call them sodomites? Why is it wrong to call them sinners?

Freedom of religion has to include the right to speak
what you believe, particularly when this opinion is unpopular. You can't just lock the believers away in their churches, and call that fair treatement.

Religious beliefs are a right, but there is no right that they can't be criticized, nor is there a right to enshrine them in law. You're free to call gay people sinners and hell-bound, but I'm just as free to call you a bigot and immoral for saying such things. See how that works both ways?

Just because you can hide behind your beliefs being based in religion doesn't mean it isn't villifying rhetoric. Being in the Bible doesn't give any creed undue weight.

Homosexuality is a sin. Nothing you say will change this, and nothing of what our government does to endorse this will change it either.

This is your belief, and nothing you say will change the fact that many, many people disagree with you. And in a secular country, while you're entitled to the belief, you're not entitled to force it on others, or entitled to be free of criticism for the belief.

[Whaleboy]

Absolutely, attack the argument, not the arguer, and there are plenty of problems with the anti gay marriage argument that nobody with an ounce of critical analytic capability should feel the need to resort to childish name calling that helps no-one.