Redefining Marriage

[Laudate_Dominum]

And something that bothers me is that by todays standards we aren't allowed to "impose" our morality on others, but they can impose their morality on us. What I mean is that you can't talk about the ten commandments and all of that in school, but our children are being taught that homosexuality and masturbation are good. It's hardly fair. To say that homosexuality and masturbation are evil is a terrible thing because you might offend people who disagree. But if you say they are cool it's commendable despite the fact that you certainly will offend people. It's a double standard.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Without a foundational philosophical ethics there can be no meaningful ground for our laws. They would become something like an arbitrary expression of the majority's opinion, or the opinion of those who assert the most power.

Someone who wants to prevent civil unions etc. are the ones trying to exert their opinions by majority rule. Instead of voting what you think is moral and not moral, why not vote for what is democratic? The homosexuals are not hurting anyone, they just have different faiths. Even if society falls to moral ruins, the Church will not, so why does what society teaches? What's wrong with society catering to all faiths instead of whichever one has the majority vote, like preventing homosexual marriage would cause?

Many people on both sides try to appeal to tradition saying that this country was founded upon certain values that must not be compromised (for example fundamental human equality) but disagree on what these uncompromisable values are. Some would say God is included (one nation under God, etc) while others say that God is contrary to these values (you can't impose God or God-based principles on the masses because of freedom of belief).

You are right that this is what it comes down to, I agree. I believe the majority should realize they have to consider other people's morals. What's wrong with society catering to all faiths instead of whichever one has the majority moral vote, like preventing homosexual marriage would cause?

Basing it on the majority's moral vote would itself be immoral when you could base it on the moral majority vote to be democratic and considerate of other faiths.

Edited February 12, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Laudate_Dominum]

Someone who wants to prevent civil unions etc. are the ones trying to exert their opinions by majority rule. Instead of voting what you think is moral and not moral, why not vote for what is democratic? The homosexuals are not hurting anyone, they just have different faiths. Even if society falls to moral ruins, the Church will not, so why does what society teaches? What's wrong with society catering to all faiths instead of whichever one has the majority vote, like preventing homosexual marriage would cause?

I think you missed the point of my post.

I'm sure most people who oppose the homosexual agenda do so for ideological reasons that go beyond "because it's the majority opinion". They may play this card but that's incidental. And the homosexual agenda is not a "faith", its an ideology. And those who oppose it, I would say, generally do so because they perceive it's values as a threat to the common good.

You over simplify the issues. And the responsibilities of our government go far beyond the scope of a simple, reductionism or merely catering to the strongest lobbying forces.

[hyperdulia again]

for many people who support homosexual marriages it is a paart of their faith. they see evil in the opposition to it--they feel convicted by almighty god for not raising their voices against what they percieve as a closedminded bigoted and dangerous prejudice. some people who support homosexual marriages see god battling with them for the right of his children to love whoever they choose to love and fear the loss of their immortal souls if they sit back silently and do nothing.

[hyperdulia again]

some people think the "heterosexual agenda" crawled out of the pit of hell.

[hyperdulia again]

And no my posts aren't apologia pro gay marriages. They are simple statements that everyone who supports them is not crazy athiest secularist idealogue. But for many people this is a belief as deeply held as any other. To many Gay and Lesbian Christians the historic teaching seems like a betrayal of the Gospel.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Yes, and some people think Kentucky Fried Chicken is the same as Auschwitz. Some people think Michael Jackson is god. Some people think that aliens created the planet earth and have come to a NASCAR driver to setup an embassy.

Get real hyper, in the political sphere the question is ideological, not "religious".

I'm talking about the "agenda", the lobbies, etc. Not individual homosexuals, I know that there is a vast variety.

[Laudate_Dominum]

And no my posts aren't apologia pro gay marriages. They are simple statements that everyone who supports them is not crazy athiest secularist idealogue. But for many people this is a belief as deeply held as any other. To many Gay and Lesbian Christians the historic teaching seems like a betrayal of the Gospel.

I am aware of gay theology and gay hermeneutics. But seriously, I think that is a different discussion. And I don't think I can have that discussion and maintain a healthy level of tact.

[hyperdulia again]

but you can have tact whhen protestants call your eucharistic lord a cracker? interesting.

Edited February 12, 2004 by hyperdulia again

[Laudate_Dominum]

but you can have tact whhen protestants call your eucharist lord a cracker? interesting.

Actually I often regret what I write in response to protestants (especially Larry). Tact is not one of my strong points to begin with, but this is a particularly charged issue. And I must admit, I spent most of my early years as a street kid so my attitude toward the homosexual lifestyle is coloured by that experience. Many of my friends were junkies who were horrifically abuses by those who keep child prostitution flourishing on our streets. My experience of our cities gay districts was anything but wholesome and charming.

[hyperdulia again]

ok..i was raped by a couple of heterosexual seniors when i was fourteen to punish me for coming out...i'm really not to fond of homophobic straight men...

[Laudate_Dominum]

And don't misunderstand me. I have had many friends who are gay and I have been very close with people who are gay, it's not about that. My problem is with legitimizing the gay lifestyle. I think the fruits are quite evident in areas where this is largely the case (ie., san fran, seattle, etc).

I'm tempted to say more, but we really shouldn't get into it. I've been drinking.

[Laudate_Dominum]

ok..i was raped by a couple of heterosexual seniors when i was fourteen to punish me for coming out...i'm really not to fond of homophobic straight men...

hyper!! :weep: please! :weep: I love you too much to get into this. I too have been assaulted, except by twisted perverts of the homosexual persuasion. But I have also known homosexual persons with very beautiful souls. It's not about that, there are evil people of practically every class. dude... :weep:

[hyperdulia again]

but you seem to want to base your argument on the myth of the predatory homosexual male...i find it offensive...it is a lie spawned by the father of lies. you were victimized, your victimizers were gay. i was victimized, mine were straight. most child prostitute are female, most victims of sexual molestation are female...most perpetrators are male...logic would thereby say that if you're going to base an argument on statistics and anecdotes heterosexual males and the systems of oppression and privilege they have built around themselves are what should be decried.

i'm taking a week off i think this place is getting dirty and mean spirited again.

[Laudate_Dominum]

but you seem to want to base your argument on the myth of the predatory homosexual male...i find it offensive...it is a lie spawned by the father of lies. you were victimized, your victimizers were gay. i was victimized, mine were straight. most child prostitute are female, most victims of sexual molestation are female...most perpetrators are male...logic would thereby say that if you're going to base an argument on statistics and anecdotes heterosexual males and the systems of oppression and privilege they have built around themselves are what should be decried.

i'm taking a week off i think this place is getting dirty and mean spirited again.

It was not intended as an argument. It was meant to elucidate my reasons for being weary of discussing these matters (the status of same-sex unions). My fear that I be wanting in tact. My first reason was that it's already a fault toward which I am predisposed. My second point was to indicate the emotional baggage factor. And I certainly realize the things you just said.

I was in no way intending to come off as mean spirited, quite the contrary in fact.