On denying rights to LGB groups

[Dana Sheets]

Here's a fundamental point: I don't want my civil rights up for a goddamned vote.

The only reason we have civil rights is because they are always up for a vote. The constitution was adopted - and because of the amendment process it can be altered at any time enough people agree. That's the process we all buy into. That's how women and racial minorities got more rights in this country.

Am I terrified by the notion that an amendment is being put forward that would limit the rights of American citizens? Yes! But we've got to hold onto the process that allows this to happen because it is the same process that has granted greater freedom to women and racial minorities.

It takes zealousy to push for change - but please don't disparage the process. Humans are living process - the lightbulb goes on at a different time for each person. Abe Lincoln got the lightbulb for racial equality very early - unfortunately there are still many folks in America whose racial equality light bulb is still off. Same for the status of gay rights. I happen to believe that gays should have the right to marry or have a civil union with full tax, estate, healthcare, and leagel benefits (pick your language) So if this "protection of marriage" thing ever comes to a vote you'll see me out there pushing hard for people to vote against it.

Dana

[Panther]

As for the whining majority, unfortunately it is the silent majority that is allowing the special interest groups to dictate their version of 'PC' upon us.

I agree with this sentiment...

The default in this country is freedom. You want to limit someone's freedom? Have a simple, rational, important reason. The price you pay for YOUR ability to live life as you please is giving up the right to restrict everyone else's right to live the way THEY please.

Yes, Yes, YES!!! This is where we should be across the board! This is why we should all be able to agree on the fundamental issues! We may disagree on which candidate, party, method, etc. will do the best job of following this supreme and sole guideline, but we should ALL be able to agree that this is the main, fundamental guideline to follow on every issue! When anyone thinks about lobbying for or against any issue, they must ask who gains and who is harmed. When it comes to Freedom, it should be about the gains to civil liberties and never about restricting them. With all due credit to L. Neil Smith, when you think of where you stand on any given issue, ask yourself:

Would you agree to halt the “War on Drugs”, to leave others alone even if it means they ruin their own lives with whatever “drug of choice” they desire (alcohol, nicotine, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD, codeine, or any other substance) -- if they agreed to leave your and everyone else's Freedoms, Liberties and Rights alone?

Would you agree to allow people their own sexual preference, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, poly-sexual, trans-sexual, and allow them to marry any damn consenting adult they wish -- if they agreed to leave your and everyone else's Freedoms, Liberties and Rights alone?

Would you agree to allow people to run their own personal affairs and lives, even if it means they chose to exchange sexual favors for money -- if they agreed to leave your and everyone else's Freedoms, Liberties and Rights alone?

Would you agree to let women control their own reproductive process and have abortions (at their own expense) -- if they agreed to leave your and everyone else's Freedoms, Liberties and Rights alone?

Would you agree to permit adults to buy, sell, read, write, make, listen to, or watch whatever books, magazines, records, tapes, or movies that they want no matter how "pornographic" -- if they agreed to leave your and everyone else's Freedoms, Liberties and Rights alone?

Would you agree to tolerate Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Moslems, Wiccans, Taoists, Scientologists, Satanists, atheists, agnostics -- if they agreed to leave your and everyone else's Freedoms, Liberties and Rights alone?

Would you agree to respect the rights of others to do as they wish, on or with their own property, regardless of whether they decide to post “no trespassing” or “no hunting” or if they decide to cut down the trees or paint their house purple with pink polka-dots -- if they agreed to leave your and everyone else's Freedoms, Liberties and Rights alone?

Would you agree to respect the rights of anyone, no matter their race or national origin -- if they agreed to leave your and everyone else's Freedoms, Liberties and Rights alone?

It is simply insane to sacrifice your own precious Rights just for the ability to impose your beliefs, tastes or opinions on others. But that is the way most people think. They have something they believe, perhaps they support banning gay marriages, perhaps they support banning abortions, perhaps they support banning guns, perhaps they support forcing you to give up part of the property that you have worked so hard for, perhaps they support forcing property to be evenly distributed regardless of one's input, etc. etc. "Causes" abound, but look at those "causes" and ask yourself: Does the position you support increase or restrict someone else's freedom, liberty and rights? If it doesn't increase, the answer is that it restricts. In other words, maintaining the status quo which already restricts someone's freedom, liberty or rights is the same as restricting their freedom, liberty or rights. In addition (if the answer to the first question is that it restricts), ask yourself if your desire to restrict someone's freedom, liberty or rights is valid or a rationalization?

Another thing to consider is the introduction of television to our society. Surely this has helped shape our countries mores.

Or the decline thereof...

if this "protection of marriage" thing ever comes to a vote you'll see me out there pushing hard for people to vote against it.

Ask the questions... Does it increase or restrict someone else's freedom, liberty and rights? In this case, the answer is that it restricts. So... since it restricts, ask the second question... Is this restriction valid or a rationalization?

Before answering that, let me give an example where a restriction can be supported. In the case of convicted, violent felons who have been released from prison, they are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms of any type. This is a restriction. AND it is valid, since there is strong proof that these individuals have a high rate of commiting another offence. Now, back to our question...

Is the "protection of marriage" proposal valid or a rationalization? The evidence indicates that allowing gay marriage will not cause any harm to any other marriage. It seems that if there is a concern over the spread of HIV in that community, allowing the commitment of marriage will lead to the support of a monogamous lifestyle (as much as it does in any other marriage) and reduce any concerns in that regard. The "benefits" associated with marriage do not hurt others because they are given to someone else from a legal standpoint. Therefore this just doesn't pass the "validity" test. Therefore, it appears that any reasons for this proposal are based mainly in rationalizations to allow a group to restrict the rights of another group.

Final result: Bzzzzzzzt! Doesn't meet the criteria for consideration, thanks for playing... this should not be supported.

Now... I just wish that more people would follow the same rules and leave others alone. And that, unfortunately, goes for the gay community as well... who want support for increases in their freedoms, liberties and Rights, while at the same time are pushing to have freedoms, liberties and Rights of others restricted. (Most BGLT groups are anti-gun... even members of the Pink Pistols are shunned by some in the gay community. )

[benzocaine]

goes for the gay community as well... who want support for increases in their freedoms, liberties and Rights, while at the same time are pushing to have freedoms, liberties and Rights of others restricted. (Most BGLT groups are anti-gun... even members of the Pink Pistols are shunned by some in the gay community. )

I have a hypothesis as to why this above statement may be true. Perhaps they percieve that groups like the NRA or many other groups that support gun ownership are made up mainly of people who lean to the political right. Perhaps the assumption that gun enthusiasts are lock in step with certain groups that shun.. or persecute them. (complete ban on gay marraige) Maybee all of that has left a sour taste in their mouths, and they found solace among groups of people that who want to ban guns, or heavily restrict them. It's amazing how a little kindness can make a person sympathetic to a cause.

if they agreed to leave your and everyone else's Freedoms, Liberties and Rights alone?

Hell yeah! Do what you want to your own body. As long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone else. Especially if they are minors.

[IJ]

I haven't run into the antigun thing in any of my travels, but then, I haven't felt driven to be closely involved with the "scene." To the extent that it's there, I'd wager it goes along with leftleaning as a package deal. The lefties hang out together, they hear bad things about guns, and they don't hang out with many responsible gun owners to know otherwise.

Sound familiar? It's easy to dislike a group when you don't know much about them.

Oh, and here's my theory why this "leave me alone, I'll leave you alone" theory isn't catching on much: the people who make most of the rules in this country are empowered, white, educated, well to do, heterosexual and not generally members of looked down upon social groups or religions. They don't feel that twinge of doubt others might feel when they're about to vote to restrict someone else's rights, because they haven't felt the pain of having their messed with. They believe in the OTHER golden rule.

Guess who helped defeat the antigay Ballot Measure 9 in Oregon a few years back? Catholics. Voted strongly against. Why? They remembered what it felt like when others, especially the Klan, went after them.

[Panther]

I can't argue with you on that Ian...

However, I will point out that if anyone truly believes in the "live and let live" ideal, then they should check out the Libertarian party. (No, I'm not a member, but I do find myself agreeing with them a lot. )

[sarosenc]

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

[sarosenc]

for those of you offended by a christain professing his faith here is a more secular arguement ...

‘Gay Marriage’ Is Not Only Wrong; It’s Socially Destructive 12/17/2003
By Robert Knight

CWA Commentary: Facts contradict the claim that redefining the institution would harm no one.






On December 9, Hoover Institution Research Fellow Tod Lindberg penned a column in The Washington Times (“The case against same-sex ‘marriage’”) in which he correctly noted that the most powerful argument against state-sanctioned homosexual “marriage” is the belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. But he dismissed the “sociological” case against “gay marriage” too quickly. Below is a slightly longer version of my letter that the Times printed in response on December 13:



Polls indicate broad support for marriage that transcends religious affiliation, race and socio-economic status, and that Americans are becoming increasingly concerned about the social fallout of homosexuality, especially on children.

By saying that sociological arguments against “gay marriage” suffer from “weakness,” Mr. Lindberg might consider that the best arguments are rarely heard. Media consistently ignore well-documented evidence that children do best in intact, married homes, and that homosexuality carries enormous physical and mental health risks, even in places where governments promote homosexual unions.


In the Netherlands, “gay marriage” hasn’t stopped AIDS


A study in the journal AIDS reported that in Holland, where “gay marriage” has been legal since 2001, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases are soaring among homosexual men. The study notes that “partnered” homosexuals have “outside” lovers, although fewer than the “unpartnered,” and that men in these relationships are still contracting the AIDS virus at alarming rates. This is progress?


As for the moral argument, it’s easy to make to those who have not shut their ears to self-evident truth. But even if marriage were not created by God Himself as the fountainhead of human life, a powerful case can be made on purely sociological grounds. Sanctioning “gay marriage” would, among other things:



Further weaken the family, the first and best defense against an ever-encroaching government.


Encourage children to experiment with homosexuality. This will put more kids at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, “gay bowel syndrome,” human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases.


Homosexual households are also more prone to domestic violence. For example: “The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population,” according to D. Island and P. Letellier in Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991).

A study in the Journal of Social Service Research reported that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians surveyed] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner.” (G. Lie and S. Gentlewarrior, “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications,” No. 15, 1991.) More cites can be found in Tim Dailey, The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality, Insight paper, Family Research Council, 2001.



Put more children at risk as adoption agencies abandon the crrent practice of favoring married households and begin placing more children in motherless or fatherless households.


Encourage more people to remain trapped in homosexuality rather than seek to re-channel their desires toward normal sexuality.


Pit the law and our government against the beliefs of tens of millions of people who believe homosexuality is wrong.


Create grounds for further attacks on the freedoms of speech, religion and association.

California is Exhibit A, where “domestic partnerships” are part of an overall homosexual agenda. Golden State employers must subsidize homosexual relationships or give up state contracts. Employers must promote transsexuality as a civil right or risk a $150,000 fine. All foster care parents must take “diversity” training that orders them to affirm a child’s sexual behavior, including “cross-dressing.”


If you’re a Californian who believes in traditional morality, your government regards you as an enemy of the state. If “gay marriage” becomes legal nationally, all Americans will be subject to the tender mercies of pro-homosexual bureaucrats.


The new “McCarthyism”


Mr. Lindberg himself alludes to the fact that many people think homosexuality is wrong but are embarrassed to say so. It’s not because of the “weakness of the argument” but rather the unceasing media campaign to portray anyone who disagrees with homosexual activism as a “bigot” or a “hater.” During the Vietnam War, liberals invoked the ghost of Joe McCarthy to silence anti-communist opinion. Today, sexual libertines are using stigma to strangle honest discussion about homosexuality.


When the traditionalist Rev. Earle Fox was accorded three minutes for dissent at the consecration ceremony for New Hampshire’s homosexual Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson, the Rev. Fox began listing the practices in which homosexuals typically engage. “I wanted them to know what they were blessing in God’s name,” he said. The chairman cut off the Rev. Fox in mid-presentation. Even three minutes of truth is too much for those who pretend that homosexuality is normal and harmless.


Until the realities of homosexual behavior are examined publicly, Mr. Lindberg may be right that only moral arguments will carry any weight. But it’s not because the social arguments are weak; it is because the public is being kept in the dark about the real costs of homosexuality.


Robert Knight is director of the Culture & Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America.

[Dana Sheets]

The text from Romans I is written by Paul. I think it always important to remember that each book in the Bible is one person's interpretation of a religion and it's ideologies.

Dana

[benzocaine]

It is interesting to note that the Apostle Paul never actually met Jesus in Person.. just had a vision of him one day. Another interesting thing to note is that Paul was a Pharasee (the very people Jesus spoke out against) and had helped kill early christians. But lets take some letters he wrote to some churches and take them as a direct connect from God

[IJ]

sarosenc suggests a "secular" article was written by Robert Knight of the Family Research Council. Here's the text from "About FRC" on their own website:

"The Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. (snip) Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society. Principles:

God exists and is sovereign over all creation. He created human beings in His image. Human life is, therefore, sacred and the right to life is the most fundamental of political rights.
Life and love are inextricably linked and find their natural expression in the institutions of marriage and the family.
The American system of law and justice was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic.
American democracy depends upon a vibrant civil society composed of families, churches, schools, and voluntary associations."

Ok, so if that's our promised secular viewpoint, we're in big trouble. In more detail:

"Media consistently ignore well-documented evidence that children do best in intact, married homes, and that homosexuality carries enormous physical and mental health risks, even in places where governments promote homosexual unions."

Great. Cite the evidence, then we'll talk. One of the things I'll say if this evidence surfaces is that duh, of course there's harm in being a discriminated against minority group. That's why we're complaining. If it didn't affect us, hell, why would we bother with all the fuss?? Where I grew up (zero progay anything; not a gayneutral comment from friends or school or family; countless taunts of fag, queer, homo (though not knowingly directed at me because no one had any idea), invitations to play "smear the queer," and "capture the fag,") it was miserable. The level of intolerance precluded me from having more than a few friends I could really trust with my identity, and that leaves a mark. Adolescence is hard enough.

The presence of harm, however, does little to identify the source. The black community has problems, but most of us know that blaming them on blackness is racist. Some are external, some are clearly internal. But the problem faced by a black person with stereotypically "black," problems is NOT that he or she is black.

So try growing up gay some place where they beat up young gay men and leave them tied to a fence in the cold (not that I did, but a well-teased classmate slit his wrists), then come back here and snoot about how gay people have flaws.

--Note is made that HIV transmission is increasing where civil unions are recognized. They're also rising here where the unions are not recognized. What is your point? Unfortunately, many gay people don't have the memory of watching their friends die and many are making stupid decisions (I'm not--have an anniversary coming up in 2 weeks--anyone coming to the party?). This really has nothing to do with their--or my--civil rights however.

--How does gay marriage weaken the family?
--How does it turn kids gay?
--What were the details of the 13 YEAR OLD data on domestic violence? How did they recruit subjects and define relationships?
--Who cares about the moral objections of those who believe homosexuals shouldn't get married? They may have moral objections to Judaism too, should we prevent them from being Jewish?
--Would you care to elaborate on any of the essentially unsubstantiated points you've made here through Mr. Knight's secular piece citing his own center's research?

As for the Old Testament... I'm sorry, I don't read it. It's not my book. It says same gendered sex is bad, but it also says every species on the earth in duplicate fit in a small rectangular craft. There are, however, a whole lot of gay and lesbian christians, and they have good explanations for making their faith compatible with biblical teachings. Quite frequently they point out that the teachings of Jesus supersede and replace the Old Testament rules. This is why most conservative christians, cite as they will the old testament against LGBs when it suits them, eat bacon cheeseburgers, and wear clothes made out of more than one kind of cloth. Searching google for such a site, I first came across this one:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

I think it's handy because it offers BOTH conservative and liberal views on the events. It also points out that in corresponding with hundreds of people, no one has ever changed their mind. That concludes my discussion of religious opinions of homosexuality.

In sum, sarosenc (sacrosanct?) you're entitled to your opinions (and your right to marry) as much as I am. It'd be worth hearing if you've ever violated any of the laws of the old testament, and if so, why.

[benzocaine]

the Rev. Fox began listing the practices in which homosexuals typically engage. “I wanted them to know what they were blessing in God’s name,” he said. The chairman cut off the Rev. Fox in mid-presentation. Even three minutes of truth is too much for those who pretend that homosexuality is normal and harmless.

[sarcasm]Ohhh I get it! But it would be totally ok for him to start listing off various straight couples do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?? Like it is any more appropriate![/sarcasm]

Do you not see the double standard and hippocracy??

Drives me nuts.

[sarosenc]

yes I have violated some of the laws of the old testament ... all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Understand that these are the words of God and not mine, I do not have that kind of wisdom or authority, I am just a believer and a follower.
I believe I said 'more secular' in that a human sociological study and statistics were quoted. As for abuse of gay men and women or the abuse of one person by another or others we all agree that is wrong and there is no excuse... love your neighbor as yourself ( the second greatest commandment) ... even unbelievers understand this as no man hates himself but cares for and feeds himself... As for Paul and the Epistles he wrote and his knowledge of Jewish law isn't that all the more proof of God's glory to choose someone sworn to kill christians( he held the coats of those who stoned Stephen and approved) and convert him to one of the greatest evangelists ever? I believe that homosexuality is a sin, like any other, love the sinner but hate the sin. sarosenc = Scott Allen Rosencrants, and no i am not inviolably sacred

[benzocaine]

As for Paul and the Epistles he wrote and his knowledge of Jewish law isn't that all the more proof of God's glory to choose someone sworn to kill christians( he held the coats of those who stoned Stephen and approved) and convert him to one of the greatest evangelists ever?

Yes Stephen.. the first Martyr.

Do any of the Apostles who were with Jesus when he walked the earth adress Homosexuality?

Didn't Jesus go among the publicans and the sinners and show compassion to them?

How many times did Jesus cal the religious extremeists of his time Hippocrites?

sarosenc = Scott Allen Rosencrants, and no i am not inviolably sacred

I don't know if you are refering to my [sarcasm][/sarcasm] thing or not. I was refering to the HTML language we do to get a point across. The real code is invisible when the post is posted. [sarcasm][/sarcasm] is not real HTML.

[Panther]

Debate is great,
but play nice...
otherwise the fate,
will be to pay the price.



Now...

Interesting counterpoint. I find it curious that Paul is used as the basis for these positions given the belief by some theologians that Paul was a homosexual.

(Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, 1991, Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong, Newark, N.J.)



That doesn't invalidate the writings of Paul, I just found it curious in this discussion/debate...

[sarosenc]

Do any of the Apostles who were with Jesus when he walked the earth adress Homosexuality?

I will have to research that one, but in the words of Jesus Christ (Mark 10:6-9) ... at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not seperate.

Didn't Jesus go among the publicans and the sinners and show compassion to them?

Yes, Jesus came to save that which is lost. Do not mistake compassion for sinners with tolerance of sin. "If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."(Mark 8:38)
How many times did Jesus cal the religious extremeists of his time Hippocrites?

I believe the proper spelling is hypocrites, and he did it quite often and always when they were testing him. Their rationalizations did not meet the standard of truth, and we can easily fall into the same trap of rationalizing to quiet our conscience(the Holy Spirit) in order to follow our selfish desires.