By whatever means...
That must surely be the motto of homosexual activists.
They'll try democracy and the will of the people if they think they've deluded society's moral compass enough to fool them into advancing the homosexual agenda.
If that fails, use the imperial courts to advance their agenda.
If the people try to regain control of their own government, smash them and force the agenda on the people.
That's the strategy being played out across America and in California.
In 2000, the people of California said they agreed with the historical understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Homosexuals fought that through the court system until they got the Imperial Court of California (aka the California Supreme Court) to grant them the "right" to call their unions "marriage."
The people of California were already planning to put a state constitutional amendment on the ballot in November to protect marriage from the Imperial Court, but the Court struck first. Still, the amendment initiative is going forward.
Now homosexual activists want to rob the people of their right to participate in their own government, claiming the amendment (which simply states what humanity has understood for thousands of years, and is already in California law) so fundamentally alters the social fabric of California that it constitutes a "revision" which would require a constitutional convention. And they're asking the Imperial Court to block the vote.
From WorldNetDaily:
Liberty Counsel founder Mathew Staver told WND that if there was any radical reconstruction of California's social fabric, it was done last month when the state Supreme Court ignored over a century of precedent in the its definition of marriage with a 4-3 ruling that deemed a law defining marriage between one man and one woman unconstitutional.
"They're suggesting the Supreme Court can rewrite the entire institution of marriage, but people can't amend the Constitution to go back to its historical definition," Staver said. "It's absolutely ridiculous to argue that courts can turn society upside down in 30 days, but the people have no right to define it."
Criticizing homosexual marriage's legal advocates, Staver said, "Their agenda is to trample the will of the people and elevate by force the will of four individuals on the Supreme Court over the will of millions of voters."
I think I've seen more of this "pot calling the kettle black" brazenness in the past month than I've seen in my entire life.
Homosexual activists and their allies in the Imperial Court institute by judicial fiat what the people have rejected--something which goes against the Bible, against nature, and against thousands of years of common understanding--and they have the gall to claim that defenders of marriage want to alter the social fabric of California?
That's doublespeak propaganda on a level that would amaze even George Orwell.
56 comments:
I think it's a travesty when the courts decide the law. Look at what happened with Loving v. Virginia. Keeping marriage safe from integration was clearly the will of the people before those nine arrogant judges in Washington ruled against a ban on interracial marriage. How dare they! Have they no respect for democracy?
It was the will of the people expressed via there legislators for gay marriage. Mr Schwarzenegger defied the will of the people and vetoed the bill.
Mildred Loving and Richard Perry Loving were a man and a woman; all that's needed to constitute a marriage. There was never a basis to deny a man and a woman of different skin color to marry; constitutional, legal, Biblical or natural.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a behavior, not a biological characteristic. Unlike heterosexuality, it not only is impermissible Biblically, but also serves no useful or valid biological function.
Bob,
All that's needed to constitute a marriage is a man and a woman? I think you're missing some important things, like love, commitment, fidelity, emotional maturity, financial stability, long-term goals, psychological wellbeing, the list goes on.
Homosexuality is an orientation, manifested by behavior. If you had ever spoken to a gay person (with an open mind, of course, not an obstinate refusal to understand another's point of view) you would know this. Does something have to have a biological function in order to be permissible?
And regardless of the basis to outlaw interracial marriage, it still stands that it WAS outlawed at one time, and in accordance with the will of the people. At the time of Loving v. Virginia, most Americans were against interracial marriage. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the minority who wanted the ban overturned, and in doing so, they went against the majority. The judges believed that a ban against interracial marriage was unconstitutional, just as the nine in California ruled that a ban against same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
Now tell me, is your problem with the issue, or the process?
Question 1) Religion is a behavior, not a biological characteristic. Should people be protected from discrimination based on their religious beliefs?
Question 2) Apparently you respect George Orwell as a cultural observer and critic. Are you aware that he was a committed socialist?
- Spike
You are correct, Anonymous, that there also needs to be a formal commitment to constitute a marriage; I was speaking of the physical elements necessary to constitute a marriage.
Something doesn't necessarily have to have a biological function to be permissible. But it needs one to have recognized legitimacy.
When the Supreme Court went against the segregationists, the court went with the Constitution, which articulates and guarantees rights for all human beings, regardless of the color of their skin.
Homosexuals, incidentally, already have these exact same rights. Homosexuals can marry anyone they want as long as they're of the opposite sex, just as heterosexuals can.
They do not have the right to call their unions "marriage" because they lack one key and fundamental element necessary for marriage: a man or a woman.
In manufacturing this "right," the Imperial Court of California has undermined the institution of marriage. They might as well have allowed people to pass oak leaves in place of $20 bills, because allowing something which cannot be a "marriage" to be called a "marriage" is counterfeiting the genuine article and devalues it.
Marriage is the most basic organizational structure and institution of our society. It is far too important, especially for the nurture and development of children, to be undermined by allowing something immoral, unhealthy, unnatural and illegitimate to go by the same name.
If such a travesty was to be allowed in the first place, the proper avenue would be through the legislative process. The court has no power to create law or "amend" the constitution; in this case, it has essentially done both, in creating a "right" to something unnatural, something destructive to society, and something which the people have explicitly said they reject.
I don't understand why you keep harping on gay people's right to marry someone of the opposite sex. It's irrelevant. A gay man doesn't WANT to marry a woman. That's what makes him a GAY MAN. That defense is as tiresome as your oak leaf money analogy.
I understand that you don't like either of those things that I keep saying, but they don't change. When homosexual activists quit trying to force everyone to legitimize their behavior and quit trying to hijack marriage, then I'll shut up.
If homosexuals want to marry, they have to marry someone of the opposite sex; that's the only option for any of us. Calling anything else "marriage" is counterfeiting the genuine article.
No one is trying to force you to accept or legitimize anything. Do you think all those racist hicks out in South Dakota don't cringe when they see a black man marry a white woman? They don't have to like it or accept it, but the law says that that couple is protected. Do you think that homophobes are a thing of the past in the six countries and two states that have legalized same-sex marriage? Of course not.
Frankly, I don't give a damn whether you accept gay people or not. You can continue being as homophobic as you want. I just care that the law says that our relationships have equal protection under the law, which at this point they do not.
I'm sure there are some people who hate homosexuals (the Fred Phelps bunch are proof of that, though they're from Kansas, not South Dakota). There might even be some people who are afraid of homosexuals.
But I'm not one of either set, and most of the people I know aren't either.
When you know someone is engaged in a behavior which is immoral and unhealthy, there isn't anything loving or caring in encouraging that person in said behavior; quite the opposite, really.
Your legitimate relationships are already protected under law, such as parental and so on.
What is not and should not be recognized by law are illegitimate relationships such as a sexual relationship between two men or two women; just as an unmarried relationship between a man and a woman shouldn't be recognized by law.
Morality aside, none of such relationships perform the service to society and the state than only the married union of a man and woman does.
"Something doesn't necessarily have to have a biological function to be permissible. But it needs one to have recognized legitimacy."
Which literally means that the sex life of an infertile or post-childbearing-age couple is illegitimate. Your generalizations are starting to wear thin, Bob. Maybe you shouldn't generalize at all.
Its use still has legitimate biological function, even if there is a problem that renders the equipment ineffective.
The plumbing in a house still has legitimate function, even if no water is currently running through it.
A set of plumbing put together with pieces having all male or all female ends, however, would have no legitimate use, and no legitimate function...if it could even be said to function at all.
Your protests against logic, nature and reality are starting to wear thin. Maybe you shouldn't protest at all, and just get with the program.
I see, so heterosexual married couples are actually the ones with special rights. They choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, and then receive preferential treatment from the state based on their behavior.
Also, saying that someone is homophobic, as I believe you to be, doesn't have to mean that he's afraid of gay people, just as "agorophobia" doesn't necessarily mean "fear of the marketplace." The meaning of language goes beyond root words.
But gosh Bob, if I stop protesting, that means I won't be an activist anymore. And since you think all gay people are activists, will I just cease to exist? What a happy day for you!
A man and a woman who marry are choosing to do something that has benefit (unparalleled benefit) to society, so their contribution is honored and recognized accordingly.
Just as unmarried heterosexual unions fail to provide this benefit to society, so do homosexual unions. We should not undermine the irreplaceable contribution married couples provide to society by affording the same official recognition to something that does not constitute this union or provide this service.
By the way, words mean things, and we should say what we mean; if words don't say what we mean, they are useless.
If you want to say "Bob is disapproving of homosexuality" that would be accurate. But "Bob is afraid of sameness" would be inaccurate.
Alright then: "Bob has a blinding distaste and antipathy for homosexuals." Happy?
If you wish. :-) (Though it still doesn't accurately describe my position).
This has been fun, but I have some serious work to get to now. Can we call a truce on barb trading for a while?
Have a good day!
Aw sure. Flag of truce.
1) Your argument against equal rights for gays and lesbians includes the erroneous idea that it's a "lifestyle" choice. Religion is a choice, yet we protect people from discrimination based on their religion. Why?
2) I'm totally not understanding how two gay or lesbian people getting married damages or in any way affects the marriage of two straight people. Could you please explain?
3) Mary and Sue have been a couple for eighteen years and are raising three children together. Sue has a horrible accident and is hospitalized. The hospital staff won't let Mary see Sue or participate in discussion's about Sue's health care, because they aren't "family". How is this fair?
4) Mark and Bob were together for thirty-seven years, During this time they bought a large ranch outside of Spearfish, which they worked hard to restore to native prairie, including buffalo. When Mark died of a heart attack, a nephew of his from Cincinnati, with whom he'd barely been in contact over the last twenty years, came in with a lawyer and was able to gain possession as the nearest blood relative. Bob now lives in a small trailer park. Does this seem fair to you? What would Jesus do?
- Spike
I haven't been following this conversation, but I do have a comment in response to #3 & #4.
There are such things as "Power of Attorney" and the like. If Sue had given Mary the Power of Attorney should such an event occur, Mary would be the decision-maker.
As for #4... A business contract could solve this problem. The surviving business partner inherits whatever is covered in the agreement.
Point being... there are already laws in place that cover these issues.
Carrie,
Your solutions to these problems don't always work, nor are they accessible to everyone. Further examples include the fact that surviving partners of 9/11 victims were given workers compensation, as long as their relationship was a legally recognized marriage. Many gay people lost their partners in the World Trade Center that day, yet they were not entitled to any benefits or compensation because their relationships were not legally recognized. And since gay partners are not considered next-of-kin by the state, I doubt the survivors were even the first to know that their partners had died.
I'm sure these people would have obtained the federal protection of marriage if they'd had the choice. But people like you denied them that opportunity. People like you deny gay couples the 1,000+ federal benefits, rights, and privileges of marriage. Don't they deserve the right to visit their partners in the hospital, make medical decisions for their incapacitated loved ones, receive life insurance, have parental rights as adoptive parents, qualify for their partner's health care, and do so many of the other things that married couples take for granted?
Carrie, it's a shame you will never experience the heartache of having someone tell you that your relationship with your partner is illegitimate, immoral, unhealthy, irresponsible, illegal, perverse, and destructive to the foundation of society. It's really a shame.
Well, Carrie, I'm not making these things up. They happen to real people. It's reassuring that you implicitly acknowledge the inherent unfairness. So our disagreement is on the solution.
It's true that there are some legal structures that accommodate these circumstances. Gay and lesbian people have to anticipate every possible situation, and go through the time and legal expense of addressing each one. Do you know how many local, state, and federal rights, privileges, and obligations are involved? Straight people can simply get married (by Elvis on Saturday, if they like, and get divorced on Monday, which, somehow, does not threaten the dignity and integrity of heterosexual marriage.)
Furthermore, they'd have to carry their 'power of attorney' legal documents with them at all times, in case anyone doesn't like gays or for whatever other reason chooses not to believe them. (see below)
It's an insult and a lack of Christian love and charity to say, oh, we can let those people have some of the same rights, through the back door, if they jump through these hoops that we straight people don't have to jump through.
This isn't about sexuality. It's about human rights, and being decent and respectful to our fellow human beings.
- Spike
------------
Mission born out of grief
Nicole Brodeur, Seattle Times staff columnist
Charlene Strong revisits the home she shared with her partner, Kate Fleming. "There isn't a day that goes by that I don't think of her and what happened that night," Strong said.
Kate Fleming died last year after a surge of water flooded her basement.
There will be no going inside the house. Too sad. Too much.
You understand, but then, you really can't imagine that night. The rain. The panic.
The loss.
One year later, Charlene Strong still wears all that, like the bracelet on her wrist that bears a photo of her late partner, Kate Fleming.
"There isn't a day that goes by that I don't think of her and what happened that night," Strong, 44, said recently. "I pretty much relive it over and over."
Fleming died after relentless rain sent a surge of water into the deep, windowless basement of their house on 30th Avenue East in Seattle's Madison Valley.
Fleming, an award-winning audio-book narrator, was trying to save her studio equipment when she was overcome. She was 41.
It was a cruel, unimaginable fate.
But will there be a lawsuit? Strong declined to comment.
It's been a long struggle, considering her ordeal that night.
Strong was denied access to Fleming by Harborview Medical Center staff until Fleming's family gave permission by phone. The episode put a face on the argument for same-sex couples and unmarried seniors being given the same rights of married people.
Especially in hospitals. Especially there.
A month after Fleming's death, Strong testified before the state Senate on a bill seeking those rights, and was there when Gov. Christine Gregoire signed the bill into law in April.
Strong, who owns a design company, hopes to take her story to the federal level, seeking protection for same-sex and unmarried-senior couples in crisis — and eventually, legalizing gay marriage.
"I could have gone to that place of complete pity, but I get more aggravated than anything," she said. "This is a dignity issue."
To that end, Strong agreed to be the subject of "For My Wife," an independent film being made by Seattle native David Rothmiller and L.D. Thompson, his partner in Trick Dog Films.
"For My Wife" tells the story of Strong and Fleming, then uses them to explore the issue of marriage equality and the current national debate on gay marriage. The film's funding is coming in through donations to Three Dollar Bill Cinema, and donations are welcome. (www.formywife.info)
"Our intention is to present a threatening subject in a nonthreatening way," Rothmiller said Thursday. "Once people meet Kate and Charlene through the film, they will understand our common-sense, common-decency approach to the topic of marriage equality."
Strong is perfect for the film, Rothmiller said, because of what she went through and her ability to put her emotions to words.
"Through her, people will get it," he said. "Once people understand the human element, their hearts open."
Strong would love if that happened. Fleming deserves that much.
"I didn't expect to be in this position," she said. "But it has pretty much consumed my life. The hardest part is learning to be patient.
"I want to listen more instead of popping off," Strong said. "You learn a lot when you listen."
She has also learned to be kind to herself, and let go of the belief that Fleming died because Strong failed to get her out of the basement that night.
Strong, who lives in a studio apartment in the Cascade neighborhood, walked through the 30th Avenue house with a therapist.
"I went in when they opened the studio and saw where Kate died," she recalled. "It's very difficult to go back there. I can't even open the front door. Too many memories.
"But I had to go through the steps of that night and talk it out," she said. "To see that there was nothing I could have done."
Did it work? I asked.
She sighed.
"How much room do you have?"
Anonymous 8:30 - Religious belief is probably the single must fundamental human right there is (perhaps right after life itself). All human beings recognize a need to connect with something greater than themselves; even so-called atheists have this need, though they usually couch it in talk of "dedication to science" or "ideas" or "intellect" or some such thing. So yes, there should be protections from discrimination based on religion, and there have been since the birth of this nation.
At the same time, those protections do not and should not extend to forcing unwilling associations on people. In other words, a Catholic church or organization should not be force to hire a Muslim or Buddhist, nor should a Hindu organization be forced to hire a Christian Protestant, and so on.
To your second question, yes I'm aware. It's quite an irony, isn't it? That Orwell aligned himself with Marxism (though in varying and often back-and-forth degrees), even while writing so much about the evils which spring from it because of its fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. Maybe he wrote 1984 and Animal Farm during bouts of sanity.
Spike (Anonymous 10:27) -
1) It IS a choice. You can choose to have sex with the opposite sex, or with the same sex. As for religion, I'll repeat what I said in response to another comment: Religious belief is probably the single must fundamental human right there is (perhaps right after life itself). All human beings recognize a need to connect with something greater than themselves; even so-called atheists have this need, though they usually couch it in talk of "dedication to science" or "ideas" or "intellect" or some such thing. So yes, there should be protections from discrimination based on religion, and there have been since the birth of this nation. At the same time, those protections do not and should not extend to forcing unwilling associations on people. In other words, a Catholic church or organization should not be force to hire a Muslim or Buddhist, nor should a Hindu organization be forced to hire a Christian Protestant, and so on.
2) Two homosexuals calling their union "marriage" undermines marriage in the same way passing a fake $20 bill undermines legitimate currency: it is something illegitimate passing itself off as something legitimate. It undermines the value of the original; the original is no longer unique, thus no longer retaining its value. In addition to its religious and moral significance, marriage provides a valuable service to society and the state, in that it creates the next generation of human beings to carry on civilization, and nurtures them in a stable environment with people who are emotionally and biologically connected to them. Even though adoptions can provide an alternate method of providing this service, it is not the primary method nor is it the ideal method. And given the lack of longevity in homosexual relationships, the lack of monogamy even in committed homosexual relationships, the reduced lifespan of the average homosexual, the drastically elevated health risks of homosexuals (STDs, AIDS, anal cancer, depression, substance abuse, suicide, etc.), and the increased risk of domestic violence in homosexual relationships, this is FAR from a suitable place even to raise adopted children.
3) Because they aren't a family. It takes a man and a woman to create a family. It is "fair" because a family and a home needs a father and a mother to provide the best environment for children to grow up in. Two men or two women robs the child of the opportunity to interact closely with an adult of the opposite sex, and to see two adults of opposite sexes to interact with one another in a close setting. This in addition to the negative factors I mentioned in #2.
4) Since Mark and Bob do not meet the requirement to marry (neither of them is a woman), they should have taken steps to provide for joint ownership and transfer of property in the event of death, i.e. a will. Those are the same risks any two people not joined in marriage may take in sharing property; it is incumbent on them to prepare legally for such eventualities.
By the way, when I say that homosexual unions are illegitimate, it isn't said to hurt or insult; it is merely a statement of fact. Just as a heterosexual union outside of marriage is often called a "shackup." Just as someone who habitually abuses alcohol is often called a "drunk" or "alcoholic" (as I used to be). It is said to describe a bad behavior. The appropriate response to avoid unpleasant designations would be to change the bad behavior.
What would Jesus do? I suppose he'd tell homosexuals what he's already told them in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible in multiple references: that marriage between a man and a woman for life is his design and intent for the expression of human sexuality (Matthew 19:4-6) and that homosexuality is a violation of his design which he strongly disapproves of (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10).
Any time we depart from God's design and instructions, we run into problems God wants us to avoid. He loved us enough to warn us about this. If we exercise the free will he's given us and do it anyway, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
"You can choose to have sex with the opposite sex, or with the same sex."
Bob, we both know it's more than a matter of choice. If you really believe there's no underlying psychological basis for sexual orientation, I guess you could choose to have sex with a man? To kiss him, run your fingers through his hair, and make sweaty, passionate love to him? If God said it was ok, you'd have no reason not to do it, right? But then again, God's command against drinking didn't stop you from becoming a drunk, so I'm sure you could easily have sex with a man.
Notice that nauseous feeling rising in your throat, that's your body telling you that homosexuality is not a choice! Homosexual behavior is, of course, but it's driven by an innate homosexual orientation.
Bob, I agree that people should be protected from discrimination motivated by their religion. I even agree that religious organizations should not have to hire people in positions that have religious functions. (However, I think any organization taking government funds as a "faith-based initiative" should not be able to discriminate in any position not directly performing religious duties).
Your arguments always come back to either "it's in the Bible" (the Bob reading of the Bible, of course), or "it's always been that way." Certainly even you could find many examples of things that in the past had "always been that way" but we decided that they needed to change, so we changed them. Slavery, for example.
You need to recognize that "it's always been that way" is not a rational argument, there's nothing inherently fair or decent in it, and that you prioritize one's right to their religious beliefs over one's right to a loving relationship with the person of one's choice is only your priority. It doesn't automatically override everyone else's priorities just because you get red in the face and pound your fists on the table.
On your metaphor of someone passing fake $20 bills - that's interesting to see here, because you actually have a logic of sorts. But it's deeply flawed. The central flaw is that we get to decide what's legal. The only reason that the piece of paper we call a $20 bill has any value is because as a society we've decided to give it that value. So if gay people can get married legally, then their marriages aren't fake. An ancillary flaw to your argument is that it says nothing about the primary threat to the institution of heterosexual marriage: heterosexuals.
But, actually, I don't see how a heterosexual getting married and divorced six times, or being adulterous, or whatever, has any effect on the quality of your relationship with your spouse. And whether a gay couple gets married or not has no effect on your relationship, either.
The stuff you say about the necessity for children to grow up in a Mommy-Daddy heterosexual relationship is demonstrably false, but I won't trouble you with the facts.
What I wonder is, do you imagine that if gay people aren't allowed to marry each other, then they'll say "aw, dang!", and go marry someone of the other sex? Do you imagine that that would turn out well, that that would be a credit and an honor to the dignity and integrity of heterosexual marriage? Or are you just saying "stiff bickies for you, chump, you'll have to live your life alone"?
What they will, in fact, do, outside of Bobland-in-you-mind, is what they've always done: go about their lives, have relationships and families, including children, but without the legal protections and obligations that you feel are the privilege of heterosexuals. What about the children of these relationships, Bob?
I know that you'd prefer that these relationships stop. Would you like to wave a magic wand that would cause all gay people to stop loving each other? Would that make your world, and your marriage, better? But it's not going to happen. So don't you think we should be practical and at least ensure that the parents in these relationships have the same responsibilities and obligations that other parents do, and that the children have the same protections that other children do?
- Spike
Anonymous 12:58, So you have no choice but to have sex with the same sex? Someone is holding a gun to your head? Your "instincts" to have sex with the same sex are beyond your power to overcome? I didn't think so. You're not an animal, a slave to your passions; don't degrade yourself so by implying you're animal-like.
I could indeed choose to have sex with another man. I choose not to. And I have not only the motivation that God said it's wrong, but also the tremendous health risks associated with it. So it doesn't make sense from any angle.
I have an "orientation" to drink too much, one that I indulged for a number of years. I no longer indulge that "orientation" because I have the power to overcome my "inclinations" or "orientations." I am not an animal who is a slave to instinct or passion, and neither are you. Homosexuals can (and have) overcome their inclinations, just as drunks can overcome their inclination to drink, or drug addicts can overcome their inclination to use drugs, or adulterers can overcome their inclination to be unfaithful, or whatever the sinful behavior may be.
To say we cannot control our behavior not only debases our human dignity, it's a cop-out. And it's one God isn't going to buy on Judgment Day. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "Don't get drunk...unless you REALLY want to" or "Don't have sex with the same sex...unless you REALLY want to."
God gave us an intellect, a will, and the truth. He expects us to bring the first two into conformity with the latter.
Spike, the Bible does not justify slavery. You might recall from history that it was Christians who started and led the abolitionist movement to end slavery. And it was Christians who led the civil rights efforts to ensure that the freedoms of all men were extended to everyone, regardless of color.
You are incorrect in your criticism of my analogy of the counterfeit $20 bill. Currency is backed by something of value; we don't just get to "make it up." Marriage is an institution backed by something valuable: a union which is blessed and sanctioned by God, a union which can produce children and the next generation, a union which provides a safe and stable environment for the nurture and development of that next generation, a union which provides role models from both sexes and an environment where children can observe and learn about people of both sexes working together and interacting together. Homosexual unions can provide none of those things with any reliability, and some not at all.
You say the necessity and benefit of a mother-father environment is "demonstrably false," but you are utterly incorrect. It is demonstrably true, and the evidence is around us in a flood. Children of broken homes where the father is not present have much more trouble with the law, more academic problems, struggle emotionally, and are something on the order of 7 times more likely to experience poverty. Homes where a man is present but is not the biological father also experience a greater incidence of child abuse.
You also imply that because some homosexuals will refuse to do the right thing and have a sexual relationship as God intended (between a man and a woman in marriage), that society should just surrender and accept it--or even "celebrate" it. Don't get your hopes up.
Society should no more surrender and sanction an immoral and unhealthy sexual practice than society should surrender and sanction drug use, or sanction drunk driving, or prostitution, or any other behavior destructive to the individual and to society. Some people will always do these things, as some people will always murder and steal, but it defies common sense as well as logic to contend that we should open wide the gates because 100% compliance cannot be achieved.
We should instead work to make those numbers as small as possible, so as few people as possible will be hurt. Those who selfishly and stubbornly refuse to do the right thing will have to pay the consequences, but the amount of collateral damage (primarily the children) will hopefully be as small as possible.
I could indeed choose to have sex with another man. I choose not to. [...] it doesn't make sense from any angle.
So your intimate relationships are based on logic, not loving? You don't mean to imply that you don't love your wife, do you, Bob? You don't mean to imply that you could just as well be with a man instead, but you're not, out of fear of disease?
And if you do love your wife, Bob, do you love her when you're not having sex with her? Do you love her as she is, as a person? Do you love her for her sense of humor, for her kindness, for the little things she does that make your life easier and more enjoyable? For her values and interests, and the way that you feel you can help support the project that is her life?
It's really insulting, Bob, that you reduce other people's lives to your puerile obsession with appendages and orifices. Gay people love each other as people, Bob, but apparently you can't understand that.
- Spike
That means I don't get to love, in a sexual way, whoever I want. I don't get to "love" my daughter, I don't get to "love" my mother, I don't get to "love" another man's wife, I don't get to "love" an underage girl, I don't get to "love" an animal. There are parameters that everyone has to follow, for moral and health reason, and for the good of everyone involved, including society.
If you want to love another man in a friendly way, there's nothing wrong with that. I love a number of men that way. But loving another man in a sexual way is immoral and unhealthy.
I'm not obsessed with appendages and orifices. I'd love to never discuss them again. And I could have that wish if homosexual activists would quit trying to force society to accept their behavior as legitimate, and trying to force society to recognize their unions as "marriage."
Until such time as they do, someone has to speak the truth in the public square. I and others will be here to do that.
Anonymous (11:23), so now everything is my fault (and the fault of those like me)? How interesting!
And...
Since when is a Power of Attorney or contract not available to everyone?
And you said...
"Carrie, it's a shame you will never experience the heartache of having someone tell you that your relationship with your partner is illegitimate, immoral, unhealthy, irresponsible, illegal, perverse, and destructive to the foundation of society. It's really a shame."
Why do you feel it is a shame? Is it something you wish on me? Something you wish on me because I pointed out the law does provide a means of picking who has a say about our health care, business matters and so forth?
Spike, I use to carry paperwork in my billfold that showed I had authority over, and authorization to sign for, my kid brother when my mom wasn't around. I never had a problem with it being honored and it didn't take up much room at all.
As for "marriage"...
Until recent years, marriage was always considered a union between a man and a woman. "Activists" can't leave it alone though. They have to take it for their own and change the entire meaning of what it has always stood for. Why?
What do you propose for men and women that want to live together without the obligations of marriage, but with all the privileges of it?
Carrie - because it worked for you in a particular situation does not mean that it will work for everyone in all situations. Consider the situation of Charlene Strong and Kate Fleming, above.
There are hundreds of rights and obligations for married couples encoded in the law, and it's a burden of time and expense to require some people to jump through those hoops when other people don't have to.
Marriage equality is about equality - no one is asking for rights and privileges without obligations, and they're not asking for rights and privileges that other people don't already have for their relationships.
Fundamentally, it's about whether we consider gay and lesbian people to be fully human in the same sense as anyone else. To argue with you on this is to play the wrong game.
The question isn't, why should we treat gay people as people but, why shouldn't we? The answer is that there is no reason not to recognize the full humanity of people who are gay and lesbian.
You and Bob in effect claim that the Bible tells you that gay people aren't fully human, and therefore that's how the law should treat them. If that's what the Bible said, it's wrong. And in any case, we have separation of church and state in this country, and the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, or the Upanishads, or whatever, are not the law of the land.
- Spike
Homosexuals are fully human, both in Biblical and legal regard. They have the same rights and limitations as heterosexuals. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but not to call a union with the same sex "marriage."
Homosexual sex is improper from a moral, natural and health sense. That will never change.
Your "moral" argument comes only from your religion, and therefore has no legal standing in this country.
Uninfected sexual partners cannot transmit disease, infected partners can, regardless of whether it's same-sex or other-sex. If a partner is infected, some acts are more likely to transmit disease than others, again, regardless of the sex of the partners. See how Bob likes to discuss appendages and orifices?
But, most important -- do you understand that for gay people, their relationships are as natural for them as your relationship with your spouse is for you?
Until you can answer yes to that question, you don't see gays as fully human.
When you can enter yes to that question, the only humane, caring, responsible thing to do is to agree that they have the same rights as anyone to a socially, legally recognized life with the person they love.
Having a close emotional bond with another person, and having that bond be recognized and supported by society, is a natural, fundamental part of most people's lives. You're telling gay and lesbian people to cut off that part of themselves, to kill it, to throw it away, to live as something less than a whole human being.
That's cruel and small-minded Bob, and I don't think it's what Jesus wants you to do.
- Spike
Spike,
Marriage equality? Are we going by the definition of marriage throughout the centuries or the new definition? My point being, you aren't suggesting "marriage equality", you are suggesting that the definition should be changed to fit what you want. There is a big difference there.
You can never give an example of me suggesting that homosexuals aren't fully human. Good try though. It seems you MUST make me look as though I hate homosexuals and want to punish them by not allowing them legitimacy (by redefining the term "marriage" to fit their specific agenda), if you are to make my "reasonable comments" look irrational and unworthy of consideration.
There are laws that cover many of your concerns. There are benefits that can be received by a domestic partner, if not all. So, why is "marriage" so important? It seems that it is because you feel that will make the union one in good moral standing. That it will automatically make the union normal and accepted. You seem to feel it is your right to take the definition of "marriage" and rewrite it to fit what you want, without regard to what that term has always meant and continues to mean for so many. It just has to be "marriage", it couldn't be a different term because you want what married couples have -- acceptance and respect. I hate to tell you, but you can't force acceptance or respect. Those are things a person has to earn no matter who they are.
As I said, I never made any suggestion that homosexuals are not fully human, nor did I claim the Bible says so, but that didn't stop you from falsely accusing me. So, when you give me examples of how people or the law treat the gay community, how do I know you aren't likewise making wrongful assumptions and accusations?
Spike, I just read what you wrote to Bob. So, I am right. You do think "marriage" will automatically give you respect and acceptance. No law is going to do that for you or anyone else.
Carrie, when you write of gay people "redefining the term "marriage" to fit their specific agenda", what you're calling their specific agenda is in fact their lives.
And of course you're right that "No law is going to do that for you or anyone else", any more than Brown v. Board of Education brought equal educational opportunity. Beyond the law, it's necessary that people see other people as humans, as people fully and exactly in the sense that they themselves are. The law is only a start, a minimum but necessary change. The bigger change needs to come in the hearts of people like you.
Don't you see how much you're hurting other people? Don't you care? Are we not supposed to treat other people as we ourselves would like to be treated?
Historically in western civilization, marriage has been about property, taxation, and political alliances. We wouldn't be having this conversation otherwise, because that's why there are rights and obligations that go with being married.
I'm not saying you're a bad person Carrie, I don't know you. I would imagine that you're nice to a lot of people who are around you and close to you, and you and I could probably sit down and make pleasant conversation about a wide range of topics.
But you're really, really wrong on this one.
And the nasty things, whether you mean them that way or not, that you and Bob and others say about gay people's relationships and families help maintain a legal and social environment that deprives them of basic rights and exposes them to violence and murder. This information is readily available without relying on me (see, for example http://tinyurl.com/68bjko), and without calling me a liar.
I'm not calling you names. I'm not passing judgment on you. I'm talking about the things you say, and the consequences of the policies that you support. If I said (and claimed Biblical support for the idea) that your primary relationship, and Bob's, were unnatural, immoral, and unhealthy, would you not feel that by my negation of so central a part of your identity, I was refusing to recognize you for whom you are, and denying you the right to be your whole self?
Look, Connie, I'm not in relationship, gay or otherwise, I haven't been for a long time, and it's quite likely that I never will be again. I'm not arguing this on my behalf.
I have a lesbian acquaintance who married her partner several years ago when a number of jurisdictions around the country were doing that. They are raising a daughter together. I saw her shortly after their marriage, and asked how she felt about it. She thought a moment, and said "safe, protected... now if something happens..." Her words trailed off as she chose not to think the unthinkable.
A couple of months later a judge, by what you might call "judicial activism", annulled my friend's marriage. She was crushed.
I wish you, and that judge, and Bob, and a lot of other people, could meet people such as my friend, and see what her marriage had meant to her, and have to explain to her face why it was right and good that this be taken away from her, her partner, and their child.
That's why I'm in this discussion.
- Spike
I don't know how many ways I can say this Spike; in fact, I think I ran out of different ways some time ago.
Orifices and appendages get used when we have sex; if we're going to have to discuss this topic because homosexual activists refuse to do the semi-decent thing and keep it in private, then they're going to be implicit in any discussion.
And every law we have springs from morality. If you want to remove any and every law that has a moral foundation, we'll have anarchy. You can't have law without a moral foundation. You can try, but at best it will be based on who ever is strong enough to enforce their legal preference. I don't think any of us is insane to want that (unless you believe you're powerful enough to be top dog). That's why there is and has to be a set of transcendent moral values.
It also doesn't matter whether homosexual relationships are "natural for them." Feelings are irrelevant in the face of reality. A person might feel like Napoleon...but they aren't. Homosexual relationships are not natural because they serve no useful biological function, and even the very nature of our sex organs illustrate that male parts were not meant to go with male parts and female parts are not meant to go with female parts. A man's parts and a woman's parts were obviously meant to function together in complimentary fashion to effect sexual intercourse and reproduction.
Homosexuals are free to have close emotional bonds with other people, even others of the same sex. What is immoral, unnatural and unhealthY is to have a SEXUAL relationship with someone of the same sex.
As for what Jesus wants me to do, he's made that very plain and very clear. As his follower, I am to tell other people about his truth and his commands, including the ones where he defined human sexuality to be expressed between a man and a woman in marriage for life, and explicitly stated that homosexual behavior is immoral and something he does not approve of.
So I'm doing what Jesus wants me to do. If you're so concerned about what Jesus wants me to do, why don't you listen to Him?
Bob, your world depresses me. All about punishment, don't this, and no that, and these people are evil, and those people are bad. If I have to insult, judge, and condemn other people in order to gain "eternal life", then count me out. If that's the life that your religion brings, I'll keep clear of it, and oppose its insertion into the public discourse as vigorously as I can and at every opportunity.
yours,
Napoleon
There is tremendous freedom in Jesus Christ, with the greatest freedom being no longer a slave to sin.
It's the worldview that created the greatest and most free nation on earth, the birthday of which we celebrate today.
There are only a few things God says not to do. Unfortunately, if you're a homosexual, you've chosen one of those things.
Why not give up slavery to sexual sin and embrace the great freedom and eternal life that Christ offers? I guarantee you wont' regret it.
"There are only a few things God says not to do."
Haha wow. Re-read Leviticus, Bob. And before you trump me with "The ritual laws are irrelevant!" just think about this: why would an intelligent deity EVER say that eating shrimp is an abomination, and that you should be executed for coveting your neighbor's livestock?
And why would your omniscient God change his mind?
Since you apparently know the ritual and dietary laws are no longer applicable under the new covenant established by Jesus Christ, that's less I have to explain.
As for the shrimp, I don't know for sure. Some of the restrictions in the Mosaic Law were intended to teach Israel about holiness and the need to be pure and clean before God, so some animals that for a variety of reasons might be considered unclean were restricted.
Livestock could be the livelihood of a person and family, and if their livestock were stolen, it might mean life or death for them. In frontier America, a man could be killed for stealing a horse for the same reason; for someone to lose their horse might mean their death because they couldn't hunt, travel for supplies, farm their land, etc.
God didn't change his mind; as I said, the lessons had been taught in the Old Covenant, and a new one was established by Christ, who paid the final sacrificial price for all mankind, replacing the ones required by animals in the old one.
The moral requirements have not changed; it's still immoral to kill, steal, commit adultery, commit homosexuality, and so on. Things that have always been harmful to humanity and disrespectful to God remain harmful and disrespectful and always will be harmful and disrespectful.
But thanks to Christ, we have the freedom to choose not to be enslaved to sin, and have the freedom to do good and live as God intends us to do.
And that freedom can be yours, if you just surrender your will to God's.
Bob,
God had set one penalty, death, for the violation of certain rules, and then sent his son as a sacrifice to do away with said penalty. A thought process must have been involved; God changed his mind.
Doesn't really jibe with the notion of a perfect, omniscient being, does it?
I know it's scary to accept, but open your mind and I think you'll see that the example above, and many other contradictions in the Bible, suggest that Christianity is a man-made fabrication. Freedom can be yours from the mind-numbing dogma of this cult, if you just surrender to common sense.
Bob, I'm confused. I understand the part about Jesus re-writing the rules. But in Deuteronomy 14, I read
6) You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud. 7) However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you.
I understand from your explanation that it's now ok to eat rabbit. What confuses me is that rabbits don't chew cud.
I understand your explanation that God created everything, and that God wrote the Bible, but it appears that the Creator of Rabbits got confused about their biology. Or something.
Please help.
Carole
Penalties can change for valid reasons that have nothing to do with a "mistake" or and "oversight."
As I mentioned earlier, in ancient times and even relatively recent frontier days, if a horse was stolen, that could essentially kill the victim of the theft, so a death sentence could easily be considered appropriate for horse theft. However, stealing a horse today almost certainly wouldn't kill someone, and likely wouldn't even affect them in a serious way. It's still theft and should still be punished commensurate to the harm done, but it wouldn't be appropriate to impose a death sentence because no life-or-death harm would have been done.
You see, God was smart enough to figure this stuff out thousands of years ago, before problems even arose.
He was also merciful enough to allow his own son to die vicariously for our sins, to pay the penalty we deserved for our sins. Now we no longer have to do the animal sacrifices to atone for sin, and we can have our sins forgiven and receive eternal life if we'll just surrender our will to His will. He could do that for you today, if you're willing.
That's a good question, Carol. There were a lot of things that I'm sure made sense to the people living in the Middle East 3,000 years ago that we simply don't understand today, being culturally and geographically, as well as temporally, removed from their situation. Also, most of us aren't animal experts, either.
I did some quick research and found that rabbits have a fermentation-type digestive system similar to (but not the same as) cows. Rabbits apparently have a fore-stomach that performs some of the fermentation their digestive systems require. They also re-ingest 50% or more of their feces in that digestive process.
That was probably the reason God put rabbits off limits. They do chew their cud as cows do, though they actually do it in a dirtier way, through the ingestion of their feces.
It seems likely that many of the animals that God put off-limits in the Old Testament Jews' diet was because health problems could arise from their consumption, especially in desert environments where sanitation and food preservation was challenging.
And based on a lot of documentary evidence from books from the Pentateuch, it seems likely that God was also trying to illustrate and send a message to his chosen people the Jews that cleanliness was important--not just for health reasons, but also to illustrate a spiritual truth. That God is a holy and clean God with no dirtiness, filth or evil in him or his nature, and that God expects holiness and cleanliness of us. So he didn't want his chosen people doing things that had the appearance of dirtiness, so that cleanliness would always be on their minds.
Leviticus and some of the other law books of the Old Testament can be difficult to read your way through. I did it a few years ago, however, and found them to be tremendously enlightening, even though there were still a lot of things I didn't understand at the end. But I understood a lot more than before I did it, and in doing so, I learned a lot about the character and nature of God, and believe it or not, I found out a lot about God's love--even in a "dry" legal book.
I hope this helps.
Spike, you said...
"Carrie, when you write of gay people "redefining the term "marriage" to fit their specific agenda", what you're calling their specific agenda is in fact their lives."
No, it isn't. It is an agenda within their lives.
You also said...
"Don't you see how much you're hurting other people? Don't you care? Are we not supposed to treat other people as we ourselves would like to be treated?"
Just exactly how am "I" hurting other people and what nasty things have I said? Some specifics will do.
In the meantime...
Spike, a father and daughter may not get married. A brother and a sister may not get married. First cousins may not get married. In your opinion, are they also being denied the right to be their whole selves? Do you feel they are being discriminated against as well, or do you accept the restriction in these situations?
Yes, Carrie, a father and a daughter can't get married. Do you have any idea how insulting it is that you even make that comparison?
You hurt people with direct insults, by calling their primary relationships unnatural and immoral, by creating and maintaining legal, social, and economic conditions that make it difficult for them to support each other and to care for their families... how many specifics do you need? By dehumanizing people you help create a climate in which violence against them is considered appropriate and acceptable, and it happens all the time, including at the hands of the police (see the link I already posted above).
So, I repeat, do you care? Does it bother you at all that this is the world you're creating? Not long ago, a gay person I know was walking down the street, and was hit in the back of the head with a bottle thrown from a passing vehicle -- because he was holding hands with his boyfriend.
Now I'll watch this website for vitriol revealing that his holding hands with someone he cared about upsets you more than his getting hit in the head with a thrown bottle. Please prove me wrong about this.
Maybe gay people will go back to being secretive about their personal relationships when heterosexuals stop playing sucky-face and groping in public, in films, on television, in advertising. Maybe gay people will keep it private when heterosexuals do, too -- when heterosexuals stop granting themselves exclusive privileges, flaunting their sexuality in public, and expecting their relationships to be subsidized at the taxpayer's expense.
- Spike
Spike, I don't think I'll ever get through to you that homosexual behavior is illegitimate. It is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy. I don't say that with intent to insult (if I wanted to insult you, there are a lot of other names and things I could say), just a factual statement about the behavior.
As an immoral, illegitimate behavior, it's not something that should be seen in public. Even heterosexuals who grope and sucky-face in public are misusing and abusing something that God created for a man and a woman to do together in private.
Of course hitting the guy with a bottle was uncalled for; it was also immoral and criminal. The perpetrator should have been charged with assault.
I don't condone violence against homosexuals and I don't know of anyone who does.
I hope that my sincere pledge of the truth of that statement will give you some comfort, because I simply cannot say that homosexual behavior is appropriate in any way. There's just no way you can slice it: morally, naturally, or with regard to health.
I believe this conversation has become cyclically futile. There's simply no way you're going to change my mind, and I doubt I'm going to change yours...though I will pray that God's Spirit may give you understanding that my words can't.
So I'm going to wish you a good night, and hope that we can move on from here, agreeing to disagree for now.
Sorry, I didn't mean to shut down any debate you and Carrie might want to continue. If you want, the two of you can continue to have at it. But I doubt you'll change Carrie's mind, either. :-)
Spike, you said...
"Yes, Carrie, a father and a daughter can't get married. Do you have any idea how insulting it is that you even make that comparison?"
I asked you a question. Rather than answer the question -- you suggest that it is insulting and simply don't answer.
You said...
"You hurt people with direct insults, by calling their primary relationships unnatural and immoral, by creating and maintaining legal, social, and economic conditions that make it difficult for them to support each other and to care for their families... how many specifics do you need?"
When I did I do this? Quote me, please.
You said...
"By dehumanizing people you help create a climate in which violence against them is considered appropriate and acceptable, and it happens all the time, including at the hands of the police (see the link I already posted above)."
When did I ever dehumanize anyone?
You said...
"So, I repeat, do you care? Does it bother you at all that this is the world you're creating?"
I ask again just exactly what you are talking about.
Then you said...
"Maybe gay people will go back to being secretive about their personal relationships when heterosexuals stop playing sucky-face and groping in public..."
So... tell me... when did I ever once say that I thought it was okay for ANYONE to be groping anyone in public? That's been one of my points! I don't believe ANYONE should be!
"I asked you a question. Rather than answer the question -- you suggest that it is insulting and simply don't answer."
carrie, i try not to waste time on smokescreens and irrelevant distractions. if you don't ask me why you shouldn't be allowed to marry your son, or your pet beagle, i won't ask you whether you and your husband participate in religiously encouraged wife-beating (see christiandomesticdiscipline.com for information and suggestions). let's keep the discussion on topic.
obviously you have not said explicitly that you think that gays are less than fully human. but you deny them basic legal rights around personal relationships and child raising, and claim that you, not they, have the privilege of deciding these aspects of their lives. that is in effect to assert that they are less human than you.
i was taking your remarks as implied acquiescence to the ideas that bob has repeatedly expressed. please correct me if i'm wrong; let me read you say, "i think that same-sex intimate relations are normal, legitimate, and healthy."
i'm glad we agree that groping and sucky-face in public is rude. please put out the word in the heterosexual communities. i never see gay people doing this in public. the most i've seen is hand-holding (you know, just like the pictures of george w bush and the king of saudi arabia; http://tinyurl.com/6ekfet). and i've noted above how hand-holding can turn out, even in this mostly gay-friendly town where i live.
aside to bob - as far as that "perpetrator should be charged with assault", yes, he should. but unless you've been gay, or poor, or black, or homeless, you wouldn't know how the police respond. sometimes they handle such events properly, but sometimes you get a "what were you doing to bring that on?" response. they'll guffaw and tell you that queers shouldn't be holding hands in public. it only takes one event like this to learn that the police aren't on your side, and that such perpetrators can act with impunity.
what i really object to, though, is tax subsidies and other economic privileges based on the sexuality of the people involved. shouldn't what people do in private be left out of it?
tell you what, if you folks do away with the economic and legal benefits that are conferred on people because of heterosexual marriage, then the people you've excluded will have no reason to want to be included.
I'm still waiting for Bob to explain how it's not hateful or dehumanizing to insist that gay people never speak of their sex lives or romantic relationships and essentially keep them a secret.
Anonymous (11:19 AM),
You said...
"carrie, i try not to waste time on smokescreens and irrelevant distractions. if you don't ask me why you shouldn't be allowed to marry your son, or your pet beagle, i won't ask you whether you and your husband participate in religiously encouraged wife-beating (see christiandomesticdiscipline.com for information and suggestions). let's keep the discussion on topic."
I guess you over-looked the fact that my involvement in this conversation was addressing benefits, laws that are in place and the marriage issue. With that in mind, I have stayed on topic. Furthermore, you continue to avoid my question, which was a legitimate one. I don't expect you to answer after reading your last post. The post that is trying to dismiss the question and call it off-topic and so forth.
Those groups of people (father & daughter; brother & sister; and, first cousins) can give all the same arguments that have been presented in this thread alone. They, too, can claim their relation is natural and that you are wrong to suggest otherwise. So what makes your argument right and their argument wrong? Or, are you suggesting that there should be no restrictions on who may get "married"? (Remember, that once marriage is redefined, everyone can insist that it be redefined to include them or it is discrimination against the union of their choice.)
You said...
"obviously you have not said explicitly that you think that gays are less than fully human. but you deny them basic legal rights around personal relationships and child raising, and claim that you, not they, have the privilege of deciding these aspects of their lives. that is in effect to assert that they are less human than you."
Yes, it is obvious that I have not said that gays are less than fully human. I've never said it, nor would I. Nor have I denied them anything. You are a little too free at throwing accusations (without basis) around. I don't play such games, nor am I impressed by them.
Whether you have or not... I have seen gays make-out hot and heavy in public, so you'll not be able to convince me that some don't.
You said...
"what i really object to, though, is tax subsidies and other economic privileges based on the sexuality of the people involved. shouldn't what people do in private be left out of it?
tell you what, if you folks do away with the economic and legal benefits that are conferred on people because of heterosexual marriage, then the people you've excluded will have no reason to want to be included."
This can all be done without redefining "marriage". And, as for keeping things in private -- I couldn't agree more. That's one of my other points. I don't want to hear about anyone's sex life. I don't want anyone putting their sex life in my face and insisting that I must hear about it or see it happening otherwise I have somehow insulted them and am treating them as though they are not fully human.
You have spent most of the conversation accusing me of saying and doing things that you finally admit I didn't say or do. However, in the next breath, you started doing it again. So, it looks to me like you want to play politics and throw crap out there and hope that something sticks, so people will then assume if you said it about me (or anyone else) and my (their) opinions that it must be true so they won't bother to check it out.
One thing is obvious -- you are guilty of things you accuse others of. You strive to create hate and harm to any who do not agree that "marriage" should be changed from it's long-standing definition. On the other hand, you are so focused on only what you want... you don't see the door that definition change could open. You even think it is insulting when asked about your feelings on the restrictions that forbid father & daughter, brother & sister, and first cousins from marrying. I guess you do think some sexual relationships are taboo. What gives you that right to think that about their relationship, while demanding people don't think it about a gay relationship?
With that said... I'm done with this conversation.
Anonymous 2:25, homosexual behavior is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy. It's not something that should be displayed in public because it is an improper exercise of human sexuality; for that matter, even heterosexual activity which is lascivious is improper in public.
There is nothing hateful in that statement because there is no hate involved; simply a moral and ethical analysis. It isn't dehumanizing for the same reason. If anything, the behavior itself is dehumanizing since humans were, by the witness of God and nature, not designed to express their sexuality in such a manner.
With that said, I, too, am done with this conversation. If someone can't grasp this elementary truth about human sexuality after a chain of about 55 comments, they never will.
Post a Comment