Topic : Homosexuality Debate and Discussion

I knew it was a tounge in cheek comment but still thought it was frickin funny!  HAHA  :D 

I gotta run.  Catch you all later!    :)

Okay Momsie...looking forward to chatting with you later!

 

So I've read back a bit and saw where Cheryl stated that if the law was changed then she could accept gay marriage.  Am I interpreting that correctly? 

 

There is one state that has changed the law to include Gay marriage, Massachusetts.  Was it passed by a majority, no, but our laws are not typically voted on by the general public.  So I must say that I am proud of my fellow New England state for leading the way.  It is my belief that with time more will follow. 

 

Now in regards to previous posts on the issue of marriage and procreation.  I'm sure that at one time this was the one of the reason for marriage but way back when marriages were also arranged by families for economic reasons.  Love wasn't part of it, the bride and groom usually had no say in the matter and were stuck together for life because their elders said so.  Personally I am pretty darned happy that we have evolved to a point where that is not the case in this country.  I know that in some corners of our world this still occurs but we don't do that here.  We have also evolved to the point that procreation is not the main reason for marriage.  The typical couple in our society gets married because they love each other and want to commit to spend the rest of their lives together. 

 

Many things change with time, we don't stone women for adultery or burn them at the stake for practicing witchcraft.  We no longer ban inter-racial marriages.  Time does change things and the perception of what is right and wrong also changes.  And sometimes society has been very wrong in their treatment of those who are outside the norm.  Just plain wrong.

"Just out of curiosity, do you consider the marriages of non- Christians to not really be a marriage? Athiests, agnostics, Pagans. Buddhists, etc......do they need a new term too?"

 

Cheryl's Response

 

All the above that you mention are "legal" marriages...don't have a problem with that because they are what the LAW allows.

 

So, maybe "accept" wasn't the right word and I am really trying to understand your point.  The above statement would lead me to believe that you "don't have a problem with that because they are what the LAW allows."  And so, since there are many gay couples in the fine state of Massachusetts that have been married legally under the LAW,  does that mean you "don't have a problem with that"?  

 

If you are fine with "legal" marriages then you should be fine with the gay marriages in Mass.

 

To me it comes down consent...animals have no way to consent to a sex act with a human.

Some info on Constitutional Republics from Wikipedia

 

"In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power, makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.

Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law.[1] Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.[2] The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote having legislative power itself."

 

Okay, deep breath, to the question of why if the country is 80% Christian shouldn't it be law?   Our founders purposely set it up so that wouldn't be the case.  To do so would be one step closer to a Theocracy and now that would be a heck of a lot of fun wouldn't it.  Works great for Iran. 

Years ago I knew a homosexual couple (ladies) that had been together for years and they lived in a beautiful home that they both paid for and owned.  As life will have it one of them died and you would think the other half of the home would go to the living spouse but unfortunately it didn't work out like that.

 

The lady that died had children and they came after the living spouse with a vengeance.  They sued for half the house (among other things) that belonged to their mother and they won.  My friend was forced to sell her home and give one half of the profit to the children.  And...here's the corker...the mother had a will drawn up before she died leaving her half to the living spouse but the courts didn't see it like that.  I don't remember (or perhaps never knew) all the particulars but it was sad.

 

Homosexuals are the way they are because they are the way they are.  For my friend to live a heterosexual life would have been self defeating and miserable.  She would have just been going through the motions of a mundane existence without any real excitement or even interest in her own life.  IMO that would have been a tragedy, a wasted life.

 

I know it's hard to understand homosexuality if you are repulsed by it and combine that with a deep rooted religious belief it can and will bring about a contempt for these type of people that would deny them of any rights.  However, they are people and they truly are hurting no one.  They want the same rights as a married couple, the same rights as other people....other then that they just want to be left alone to pursue a life where they can obtain a little happiness and not to have to live a lonely, baron life without any hope for joy.

whoooops......"without a binding legal document".

I get what you're saying about them wanting to be "right".  I work with a man that throws God into everything from homosexuality to how the community coffee is being made.  I grow quite weary of him because if he thinks he's losing an argument (about anything) he connects his imaginary straight line to God and professes that God is on "his side" so therefore he is "right."

 

However, I'm not sure this is the case with all fundamentals. (I could be wrong about this) I'm inclined to believe that their religious beliefs are so deeply rooted, that every decision they make revolves around the bible and it's "teachings"  it shakes them to the core to stray from it especially in matters involving sex.  If they were to admit the bible may be wrong about something like homosexuality they would start wondering what else is wrong in the bible which may likely blow their entire belief system, possibly sending them into a melt down they may never recover from.

 

Unfortunately, this belief system makes them appear rigid and cruel when in reality they are only afraid.

 

Your thoughts?

Im not sure its the case with every fundamental, either.  Which is why I asked that question of Cheryl. 

However, all I can go by is my personal experiences to date.  I was raised in a family of fundamentals, brought up in a fundamental church, sent off to a fundamental type school, and im telling you, those people were some of the most cruel, judgemental, pious type people ive ever encountered in all my life.

I do think its fear, along with shame and guilt, which makes them appear rigid and cruel.  But again, this is just MY personal experiences. In my religious upbringing, the use of guilt shame and fear to instruct in religious doctorine, was absolutley appaling. Of course, I didnt realzie that at the time, but in hindsight, it truley sickens me.

 I am willing and open to being shown that isnt the case with all fundamental believers.  That in fact, what I experienced was a fluke(though it was a HUGE congregation)and my perceptions of all of this are very skewed.

Someone is gonna have to SHOW me that or else im afraid I wont be changing my mind any time soon.