The other thread was getting too long. This is a continuation of the previous thread. Please read that before posting here.
Printable View
The other thread was getting too long. This is a continuation of the previous thread. Please read that before posting here.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't find the concept very funny at all, and I certainly didn't intend it to be a mockery. What scares me the most is that I truly believe there are people out there who will advocate these types of actions to preserve a fetus's "right to life." After all, you can make abortion illegal, but you still can't prevent women from having back-alley abortions. The only way to truly preserve the lives of fetuses everywhere is to exercise complete and total control over mothers-to-be. [img]eek.gif[/img]Quote:
Very funny, Kitschywoman.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 19, 2005 10:40 PM: Message edited by: kitschywoman ]</font>
We just ask for the bare bones of common decency. A simple law. People will break the law. They will then be locked up. Same as with any other law. No one is going to take away anyone's rights (except you who take away the baby's) just put the woman in jail like they would put a common murderer in jail. That's all I'm asking. Your thing is not only improbable, but wrong.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But you just advocated locking up women and taking away their rights to control what happens to their own bodies. [img]eek.gif[/img] What if they choose other means to force a miscarriage instead of a back-alley abortion? Should they be arrested then?Quote:
No one is going to take away anyone's rights.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 20, 2005 08:07 AM: Message edited by: kitschywoman ]</font>
kitschywoman, if a woman chooses to kill her baby she has committed murder and should go to jail for murder. Simple as that. Otehr people who kill children go to jail. But I guess if your the mother then its ok to kill your kid...before they're born, of course.
But this all goes back to if you define a fetus as a baby and a life. And the law does not. Therefore, it is NOT murder. Scientists do not consider a fetus to be a life and since we thankfully do not live in a theocracy, you cannot say that god says it is life and use that as the basis of the law.
Anne, that is a really interesting point! An abortion as a sort of medical procedure is what some want to make illegal. But where do you draw the line as to what should be an illegal termination of pregnancy? Definitely something I have to ponder. (Not that I want any of it to be illegal, but it is an interesting "what if?" thought.)
All I ask is that the baby be given the same rights as any other human. We don't lock people up for feeding their children junk food...why would we lock someone up for eating junk food while pregnant? That's just silly.
Whether or not something is legal, we should all do what is right. It is good to do what is right for others. A preborn baby IS another human being. Thus, it is good to do what is right for him or her, just as it would be good for a mother to do what is right for her born child.
Tra, I wasn't thinking junk food. I was think more along the lines of herbs that could enduce a miscarriage. I am wondering where that would fit into the laws.
Abortion wasn't always legal. It was illegal in the US before Roe v. Wade (and she wasn't even pregnant, mind). Did we have all of these problems you fear (of the mother having no rights, etc.)?
What democrats what to is make it legal for only one state or two to have abortions and gay marriages- ALL states if possible. But I Have always known that to treat every one individually is to treat everyone unequally. And the democrats are trying to make every thing as individual as possible. I just CAN'T support that blasphemy though. Gay/lesbian marriages are WRONG WRONG WRONG also!
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 25, 2006 11:30 PM: Message edited by: MissCurlyCat ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why do you think that? Why do you also think it's okay for heterosexual people to find happiness with another person but not homosexual people?Quote:
Gay/lesbian marriages are WRONG WRONG WRONG also!
In regards to the ICan thing? I hope you all realize that other national companies (Coca-cola for instance) also have supported Girls, Inc and unless you boycotted each and every company that was ever affiliated with them, then you're being hypocritical.
As to why it is wrong, read the previous thread.
Romans 1:18-32. Specifically verses 26-27.
Also: I don't think you can truly be happy while sinning. Thus, homosexuals cannot really be happy with each other like heterosexual couples can.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 26, 2006 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Tra ]</font>
In a previous comment, you mentioned that being homosexual is a choice and is wrong. If you think that sexuality is a choice, when did you choose to be straight?
Being straight is natural. Being homosexual is not. You do not have to chose to be natural, but you have to choose and delibarately try to be unnatural.
Sexuality is not a choice. You do not decide who you are and are not attracted to. Other animals, dolphins for instance, exhibit homosexual tendencies at times. You can't tell me they choose to be with the same sex. Since they aren't rational animals with the ability to make choices, homosexuality may be natural.
You also can't just quote the Bible as being true. Someone sat down and wrote it himself. How do you even know it was created by "God"? Isn't it "divinely inspired," which just suggests that someone felt inclined to write because God willed him to?
Also, just with every sentence that's written, many different people can interpret it differently. How do you know your interpretation is correct? What if you're simply wrong?
I guess it's really all about faith. I have faith that the Bible is God's one true Word and is right. [img]smile.gif[/img]
I suppose I should add my two cents here. I don't believe in abortion. I believe that a fetus is a living being with a beating heart. However, I do believe that there are certain circumstances in which abortion would be necessary. For example if a 10 year old little girl was raped and got pregnant I would not expect her to carry the baby to full-term. Would I consider it murder? Yes, but if it endangers another persons life it would be necessary. My best friend chose to have an abortion last year and while I didn't agree with it I was there for her and I did not judge her but respected her decision. Now about the gay/lesbian marriage issue. I think it is not only acceptable but I also think it should be a right. I believe that it would encourage homosexual and lesbians to commit to one person. I agree with kitschywoman that there is not enough love in this world. I think that to deny gay/lesbian marriages would be to discriminate against them and don't we have too much of that already?
Edited to add: I do believe in the Bible. I also believe that God loves EVERYONE including gays and sinners. We are all sinners and the Bible says there is no greater sin.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 26, 2006 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Ashley's Mommy ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why do you think that? Why do you also think it's okay for heterosexual people to find happiness with another person but not homosexual people?In regards to the ICan thing? I hope you all realize that other national companies (Coca-cola for instance) also have supported Girls, Inc and unless you boycotted each and every company that was ever affiliated with them, then you're being hypocritical.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't at all care if some one is a homosexual, or desires to live with their gay/ lesbian boyfriend/girlfriend. That's a-okay with me. I just don't belive they need to be married. Marriage is a holy thing, not a homosexual thing.Quote:
Originally posted by lacherig: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Gay/lesbian marriages are WRONG WRONG WRONG also!
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 26, 2006 08:26 PM: Message edited by: MissCurlyCat ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's what?s wrong in this country. If we keep this up maybe just some 30 or more years from now anyone who mentions Jesus? name- or reads from the holy bible will become an outcast. Look at how the media has chosen to exclude Christians. Why? Because, Christians are the just about the only group that will stand ageist the medias blasphemy. Sorry if this is a bit off topic but I just had to add it.Quote:
Originally posted by The Handmaid:
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but our country is founded on the principle of separation of church and state. The fourteenth amendment also precludes the creation of a 2nd class of citizens. By denying the right to marriage to an entire class of people, we are violating the constitution. Basing political decisions solely on a religion not espoused by everyone is a gross violation of what it means to be American.
Oh, and another thing. I have debated the Gay marriage debate a few times with democrats. All they can say to justify what they believe is, "Not giving Gay people the right to be married is like telling a colour person they can't marry a white person."
THIS IS NOT A RACE ISSUE!!!!!
No offence, please. I'm just stating my opinion.
Actually, the news media is almost exclusively controlled by Christians. Christians aren't excluded from the media at all!!
I also take offense at that analogy. I am a person of color. So, Miss Curly Cat, let me tell you that race is part of the issue. I am a gay person of color and race definitely plays a factor. Marriage bans, however, are marriage bans. Making marriage illegal between races restricts the rights of some. Making marriage illegal between men/men and women/women also restricts the rights of some. This is in gross violation of the 14th amendment.
Do you agree that, under the present constititution, which mandates equality for all, that marriage bans are unconstitutional?
Gay men and lesbians (using the word "homosexual" instead gay men and lesbians is a bit offensive. It's a bit like me saying "holy rollers" instead of Christians) have no deserve to infringe upon the rights of Christians. We are not demanding that homophobic churchs begin marrying us. We are asking for full equality under *secular* law.
MissCurlyCat,
I agree with you that marriage is a holy thing. However, it's not JUST a holy thing. It's a civic thing. The United States government awards rights to married couples- important rights such as hospital visitation, the right to inherit, and the right to make medical decisions.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but our country is founded on the principle of separation of church and state. The fourteenth amendment also precludes the creation of a 2nd class of citizens. By denying the right to marriage to an entire class of people, we are violating the constitution. Basing political decisions solely on a religion not espoused by everyone is a gross violation of what it means to be American.
(By the way- I have no problem with individual churches banning gay marriage. The legalization of marriage equality won't stop churches from bigotry; I just won't join any church that advocates hypocrisy- that Christ's call to love applies only to heterosexuals.)
I don't think banning gay marriage is unconstitutional at all. Firts of all, the fourteenth ammendment applies to people who were made a certain way naturally by God. Gay people have a choice whether or not they want to be gay and they choose to do the unnatural thing. Secondly, where does the constitution garuntee separation of church and state? I want a direct quote from the constitution to cite this. Don't just say the first ammendment says it. I want the exact words. Thanks.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is absolutely nothing wrong AT ALL with being gay or lesbian. Just because someone thinks differently than you, you can't automatically say that it is wrong.Quote:
Originally posted by MissCurlyCat:
Gay/lesbian marriages are WRONG WRONG WRONG also!
<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ February 25, 2006 11:30 PM: Message edited by: MissCurlyCat ]</font></font>
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 27, 2006 06:26 PM: Message edited by: O.C./AGfanatic ]</font>
I'm not saying anything's wrong just because someone thinks different than me. I'm saying it's wrong because the Bible says so. Romans 1:18-32.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Handmade, I agree with you completely. I also did not realize that the term homosexual was offensive. Thank you for educating me on this. Tra, I understand that it says in the Bible that being gay is wrong but so is a lot of things that people do everyday, like lying. If your friend asks you if she looks fat and you think she does but don't want to hurt her feelings do you tell her the truth or not? The Bible says there is no greater sin. Sin is simply sin. It also says that God loves all of his children. I'm not gay and I think if two people of the same sex have found love with each other they should be able to have that and if they want to get married, so much the better. I am completely Pro-commitment(just made that term up!).Quote:
Originally posted by The Handmaid:
Actually, the news media is almost exclusively controlled by Christians. Christians aren't excluded from the media at all!!
I also take offense at that analogy. I am a person of color. So, Miss Curly Cat, let me tell you that race is part of the issue. I am a gay person of color and race definitely plays a factor. Marriage bans, however, are marriage bans. Making marriage illegal between races restricts the rights of some. Making marriage illegal between men/men and women/women also restricts the rights of some. This is in gross violation of the 14th amendment.
Do you agree that, under the present constititution, which mandates equality for all, that marriage bans are unconstitutional?
Gay men and lesbians (using the word "homosexual" instead gay men and lesbians is a bit offensive. It's a bit like me saying "holy rollers" instead of Christians) have no deserve to infringe upon the rights of Christians. We are not demanding that homophobic churchs begin marrying us. We are asking for full equality under *secular* law.
No, no sin is worse than any other sin. Yes, God loves homosexuals. That was never in dispute. God loves all sinners. Still, if we use the logic that a white lie is ok so any other kind of sin must be ok, too...well...sin will run rampant. All sin hurts people, white lies and homosexuality included. That doesn't mean God doesn't love the sinners and really want them to stop sinning. Just because everyone else is sinning doesn't mean it's ok to do it. That's the same logic as "If Billy jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?"
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm sorry. I didn't know that using that term was offensive to you, I'll stop. Thank you for sharing you POV with me. And I must admit I was a little wrong. Please forgive me, if I have offended you- which I can see I have. [img]redface.gif[/img] [img]redface.gif[/img]Quote:
Originally posted by The Handmaid:
Actually, the news media is almost exclusively controlled by Christians. Christians aren't excluded from the media at all!!
I also take offense at that analogy. I am a person of color. So, Miss Curly Cat, let me tell you that race is part of the issue. I am a gay person of color and race definitely plays a factor. Marriage bans, however, are marriage bans. Making marriage illegal between races restricts the rights of some. Making marriage illegal between men/men and women/women also restricts the rights of some. This is in gross violation of the 14th amendment.
Do you agree that, under the present constititution, which mandates equality for all, that marriage bans are unconstitutional?
Gay men and lesbians (using the word "homosexual" instead gay men and lesbians is a bit offensive. It's a bit like me saying "holy rollers" instead of Christians) have no deserve to infringe upon the rights of Christians. We are not demanding that homophobic churchs begin marrying us. We are asking for full equality under *secular* law.
SORRY AGAIN! No hard feelings? [img]wink.gif[/img] [img]biggrin.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 27, 2006 07:59 PM: Message edited by: MissCurlyCat ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why is "homosexual" offensive? I use the word gay in normal discourse with friends and the like. However when discussing sexuality, I use homosexual/heterosexual. It's never offended any of my gay friends. Just curious.Quote:
Gay men and lesbians (using the word "homosexual" instead gay men and lesbians is a bit offensive. It's a bit like me saying "holy rollers" instead of Christians)
Also, your analogy is a bit off (which is why I don't understand the offensive nature of "homosexual"). Homosexual is the politically correct term when discussing sexuality. As is Christian when discussing religion. However, "holy roller" is a slang term. I don't understand the comparision between the p.c. word and a religious slang... If you wanted to talk about real offensive terms, I can come up with plenty inappropriate slang terms for gay men and lesbians. But as it stands, I really don't understand the comparision you're trying to make.
<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ February 27, 2006 09:40 PM: Message edited by: lacherig ]</font></font>
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 27, 2006 09:41 PM: Message edited by: lacherig ]</font>
lacherig, it's not exactly offensive, it's just... uncomfortable. That's the best way I can describe it. The best analogy I can come up with is saying males and females in vernacular instead of men and women. It just sounds a little off. The word is so scientific. Another example would be saying "**** sapiens" instead of people in everyday conversation.
"Offensive" was a bit of strong word choice, thanks for calling me on that.
Homosexual is not the correct term for gay men and lesbians. "Gay men and lesbians" is, according to the APA.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
There, the Constitution prevents "the establishment of religion."
I always took that to mean there could be no set state religion. It does NOT say that there can be absolutely no religion at all in connection with the state. We're not asking for a state religion, just some basic common decency laws that may have a basis in religion.
You'll note that nowhere in there does it say "separation of church and state."
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Common decency" implies most everyone would agree with the law. That is very much not the case with laws against gay and lesbian marriage. Those laws would only please conservatives.Quote:
Originally posted by Tra:
We're not asking for a state religion, just some basic common decency laws that may have a basis in religion.
Right- a basis in CHRISTIAN religion, if I read you properly. Not everyone is Christian and the few values that are common to nearly all religions (taboos upon murder and incest, pretty much the only universal taboos) already exist in our laws.
I have no problem with laws that pertain to common decency- but laws that impede a person's right to love (their "pursuit of happiness") and that harm no one certainly do not full under that category.
I am still waiting for you to explicate the ways in which civic marriage equality is detrimental to "the sanctity of marriage."
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tra, I don't want to go read the Biblical quotes. Could you please quote them yourself when you cite them?Quote:
Originally posted by Tra:
Read Genesis 2. Man and woman were made for each other. They are supposed to be together. Specifically read Genesis 2:24.
Also: If I think having a man/man or woman/woman relationship AT ALL is wrong, why would I think we should validate these actions by allowing a religious and civil ceremony to take place?
I know you think that homosexuality is wrong- however, this is not a Christian nation. It's not ethical or constitutional to impose the religious doctrine of one religion (and not even all Christians think homosexuality is wrong by any means) upon an entire nation.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't get it. What's the difference between the Christian religion and Truths of God that Christians now?Quote:
Originally posted by Tra:
I don't want laws based solely on the Christian religion...I want them based on the universal Truths of God that Christians know.
Murder is defined differently in different religions. Some religions say "mercy killings" are ok, other that revenge killings are fine. They're wrong!
I don't want laws based solely on the Christian religion...I want them based on the universal Truths of God that Christians know.
As to the sanctity of marriage thing...I posted in the "Divorce..." thread and will restate here...
Read Genesis 2. Man and woman were made for each other. They are supposed to be together. Specifically read Genesis 2:24.
Also: If I think having a man/man or woman/woman relationship AT ALL is wrong, why would I think we should validate these actions by allowing a religious and civil ceremony to take place?
I'm just saying that the beliefs that most Christians hold dear are universal truths.
Tra, can you elaborate? Maybe tell us what some of those beliefs are?
The beliefs of most Christians... some of these include:
1) Everything in the Bible is true and right and good and the Word of God. (Thus, Romans 1:18-32 is right).
2) Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God. (This is also in the Bible).