1 2 17 18 19 21 23 24 25 49 50
Topic: Do you think that....
no photo
Sun 01/09/11 08:00 PM


Getting back to the OP question though.

Christians have to be disingenuous or restrictive in their relationships with gay folks because there is no way they can approve and not say anything derogatory about the gay person's life.

To truly love someone you have to be able to respect them and give them the right to make the choices that make them happy within the law of course.




I'm callin BullChit!!! on this statement.

creativesoul's photo
Sun 01/09/11 08:04 PM
Edited by creativesoul on Sun 01/09/11 08:06 PM
It may make some headway here, if we should now look a little closer at what constitutes being hypocrisy, since the word is flung about so carelessly.I suspect that the meaning is not understood, being misapplied, or perhaps some combination of both.To all involved...

Do you think that denying the privelege of marriage to mentally challenged people requires denying the marriage of gays or vice-versa? I mean, does it have to be both. If so, why? If not, why?


msharmony's photo
Sun 01/09/11 09:54 PM
Edited by msharmony on Sun 01/09/11 09:55 PM

It may make some headway here, if we should now look a little closer at what constitutes being hypocrisy, since the word is flung about so carelessly.I suspect that the meaning is not understood, being misapplied, or perhaps some combination of both.To all involved...

Do you think that denying the privelege of marriage to mentally challenged people requires denying the marriage of gays or vice-versa? I mean, does it have to be both. If so, why? If not, why?





no. but speaking consistently, to argue that any adult should marry so long as they consent should mean ANY adult, without exception. I feel it is hypocrisy to argue the point of EQUAL privilege for all unless one truly means ALL.


which means if BIOLOGY (gender) shouldnt be a factor, than BIOLOGY(dna) should also not be a factor.

Dragoness's photo
Sun 01/09/11 09:57 PM



Getting back to the OP question though.

Christians have to be disingenuous or restrictive in their relationships with gay folks because there is no way they can approve and not say anything derogatory about the gay person's life.

To truly love someone you have to be able to respect them and give them the right to make the choices that make them happy within the law of course.




I'm callin BullChit!!! on this statement.


Of course.


Milesoftheusa's photo
Sun 01/09/11 09:57 PM







You all really do not get what I have always said.. its a devide and conquer subject and we are the butt end of it..haha.. sorry could not resistlaugh

If you look at everything as a hole in our society we are led just where they want us.. its way more than homosexual thing.. just llok around at these boards and its an attack on all of us not in real power.. just look outside the box.. Shalom..Miles


I'm sorry Miles, I don't understand what you are saying. (except for the pun - I got that, haha)

I'm in on this thing, I live it every day, I read about it from all sides, every angle every day. I lobby my representitives, I have even written letters to the Supreme Court Justices (never answered of course). I have been aware of this issue for 26 years and I have been ivolved for the last 12 years. That's a lot of sessions of Congress, more than a few Presidents, and a lot of media.

Who exactly do you think is behind this move to divide society? I can tell you, THAT has NEVER been the goal of those I work with. Our mission is to become an equitable, responsible, accepted, and valued part of society.

So where is the division idea coming from?






The division comes from all the Press certain things get.

The sexual nature of the country is to teach division and Hatred.

Why do you think all of a sudden at the same time Homosexual issues come into focus that Sex offenders are all over the news also?

Bait and switch. on one hand those who go against the homosexual lifestyle are Bigots and Haters.. This is an Attack on the morals of the history of the church.

Then at the same time we have a Villian,.. The sex offender who our Govt. preachs legalized Hate. No more Hate than thier Red. nomatter what you think of them.

They lie with stastics and use Hollywood for thier agenda parading around children trying to make them think thier is a Boogie man on every corner.

You know when the last time a Govt. promoted legalized hate and told the people to spy on a certain people?

It was Hitler. Exactly the same tactics as he was proposing a Supreme Race. Some people do not deserve to live.. Does that rederic sound familiar?

With the religious people or the old school you might say religious movement at odds with the Homosexual and what happens?

War a Lieing war that killed and is still killing thousands and blaming Religious zealots for our Attack.

Many do not believe it but do you know why we could not get a Coalition to go to war with us against Irack this time like we did in Desert Storm?

France got experts the ones who actually designed the world trade Center and the film on the pentegon and made a Documentary in 2002 and showed it on European Television that by thier experts showed we killed our own people.

Now I know people will thin k i am crazy but I am stating facts of what happened.

What did we do?

We made fun of France.. Remember the French Fry Jokes.

Remember Colin Powell going Before the United Nations saying they had absolute Proof from 2 expert chemists defectors.

ABC did a special on these 2 defectors years later and they had to run for thier lives and thier families did to because of this lie.

Colin Powell did not like what they had to say that they knew of no chemicals being produced for warfare so he made it up.

Do you see him being held accountable?

Do you know that President Bushs father who is on the board of the Federal Reserve who is the agency that loans money to banks at 1 dollar for 10?

What does that mean? that when you see something is Federally insured that is saying when the banks loan money they are allowed to loan on Paper 10x the amount they actually have on hand. Thats why they are always worried about a run on the banks.

What the heck does all this have to do with the subject matter?

Its like i said we can not see the trees for the Forest.

When congress handed out 787+ billion to the banks to bail them out they were not bailing out the banks.

The banks are insured by the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve borrows its money from many countries that are communists and Arab.

Some of the biggestest investors are 12 of the Richests families in America.

Now very little was ever said but when this Bail out was going on a The New York Times

reporter did some checking on the federal reserves books.

What did he find out?

Thier was 2 Trillion dollars unaccounted for. So he filed for the books under the freedom of Information act. They refused.

So he Filed in The Federal Courts for them and won. The Federal court served a supena to the Federal Reserve.

Thier answer?

Excutive Privilage.. No way was anyone seeing thier books who really is who we gave all the bailout money to that was insuring the banks against Bad Loans.

Remember when Bush and cheney was to turn over documents to the senate Means committee.

What did they say?

Exucutive privelege and they got by with it but President Clinton gets a BJ by an intern and they want to impeach him when the country was in the best shape it had been in for decades.

The big 3 auto manufactures wanted 25 Billion in loans to keep 2 million families at work.

&87 Billion was no problem for the rich but 25 for the working class was outrages.

WE just saw it again in Dec. 700+ Billion for the rich or Millions of People will go without.

We are fed by the news what they want.

We argue on here about religious Bigots and Homosexuals and everything else and forget where all this Hatred comes from.

Our Leadership.. The people follow what the top tells us.

In the 90's Hollywood put out wilol and Grace made the Gays Cool and those who apposed Bigots. A well thoughtout show.

They feed us deception and we argue about stuff when behind the scenes they are getting ready for something BIG.

You look at the History of Germany before they broke out into WW@ and then look at us and thier not much difference. The play is the same just with differnt actors and different words.

Then we fight each other while they kick back and make us to where we will not beable to have a Voice because we will not have the money to fight them and without it they can make the laws say whatever they want them to say when they want to.

If you have been petitioning Capital Hill then you should know this is true. No money no voice thats the Real world we live in.

Our struggles for equality is a misdirection to take all our rights away . EVERYONes but The ELITE CLASS/.. Blessings. of Shalom and May Yahweh have Mercy on us ALL....Miles


Miles,
can you narrow the scope of all the material above to issurs regarding Homosexuality only? Or maybe you are just attempting to show why there is so much hatred and discrimination against homosexuals - could that be it?




Shalom Red.

I believe the Hostility between Homosexuality and many other things are a cause and effected that has not come about by chance.

Lot is said to be righteous yet he lived in Sodom and Gommorrah by choice.

Thier is the substance of being unhospitable to each other also as we see how Lot responded to the strangers/Angels.

The gay issue has been around for a long time and we are told it will be worse for us than then but we will be living among each other.

we have different beliefs but knowledge and compassion go hand in hand.

we all have choices what we all do not have is esp. To know anothers Heart. Blessings of Shalom..Miles


Thanks for your patience and responces. Our world, today, is FULL of noise. The noise is everywhere and it's like reading the minds of a million poeple a day. THAT's how I see media - from billboards, to radio, TV, Cable, the world wide web and the hand-held technology that keeps us connected 24/7.

The problem, you seem to have identified, is that people lack the ability to discern validity in the endless, numerous streams of information that flood our senses every day.

There ARE monsters out there, and even though it's ingrained in my personality to be skeptical of people I don't know very well, I STILL believe there is a human there with fears, doubts, cares, and concerns and precious few answers to life's questions, even when they don't admit to such frailty.

We are LED to believe many things, but have relatively few personal experiences to support those beliefs. We take so much on faith that we forget or perhaps have never been taught that we are capable of 'knowing' so much more.

Equality and justice, dispensed with the least possible encumbrance to freedom, levels the playing field in which we conduct our daily lifes.

In that kind of level playing field, we would all be fighting the same kinds of monsters (together) instead of making monsters where none exist.


First off Red, I don't hate homosexuals. I despise hypocrisy though.
They can't say I'm descriminatory when they would descrimate also.

Here's something you might like to read:
Ezekiel 16:55 (King James Version)

55 When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate.


It's better to take it in full context, you will appreciate it me thinks.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+16&version=KJV



Thanks for the link.. That is very deep. The Amorite is some strong language.

"your mother was an Hittite, and your father an Amorite."

Do you think that is speaking of our day as I need to study this more. But is this why sodom and Gommorrah would of repented because of the Amorite type lifestyle that is or is to come?

I know the Amorite is as about as bad as it gets because they killed women and children attacking them with thier backs turned.

very intersting stuff. Thanks.. Blessings..Miles

Dragoness's photo
Sun 01/09/11 10:01 PM
Edited by Dragoness on Sun 01/09/11 10:02 PM

It may make some headway here, if we should now look a little closer at what constitutes being hypocrisy, since the word is flung about so carelessly.I suspect that the meaning is not understood, being misapplied, or perhaps some combination of both.To all involved...

Do you think that denying the privelege of marriage to mentally challenged people requires denying the marriage of gays or vice-versa? I mean, does it have to be both. If so, why? If not, why?




Mentally challenged people do marry if they have the mental capacity deemed by the state to be of consent.

Some mentally challenged are like children in their consent and responsibility capability so essentially it would be like letting a four year old marry. Not cool.

As to the constant comparison to incest in the thread. I really think some people have some familial issues going on or something.

Incest is unhealthy both mentally and biologically. There is no comparison to gay marriage and incest or gay marriage and age consent.

msharmony's photo
Sun 01/09/11 10:02 PM


Getting back to the OP question though.

Christians have to be disingenuous or restrictive in their relationships with gay folks because there is no way they can approve and not say anything derogatory about the gay person's life.

To truly love someone you have to be able to respect them and give them the right to make the choices that make them happy within the law of course.




but love does not require anyone to agree with everything you DO and manners doesnt require anyone to be 'disingenuous' if they choose instead to focus on those things they do agree with and enjoy


I know people who get fall over drunk. I dont hang out with them when they do. But being DRUNK is not all they are or all they do and not something I have to do WITH them. When they dont drink , they do other things which I also enjoy doing, and I dont have to be 'disingenous' at all to hang out with them so long as they arent engaged in activity I disagree with while we are hanging out.

likewise, homosexual and heterosexual activities are not anyones WHOLE life or the full extent of who they are. I dont have to agree with someones sexual preference so long as Im not involved sexually with them. I dont have to spend time with someone while they are engaged in activity I dont agree with. But I can still find plenty of OTHER activities to share with that same person and enjoy. Nothing disingenuous about it.

msharmony's photo
Sun 01/09/11 10:04 PM


It may make some headway here, if we should now look a little closer at what constitutes being hypocrisy, since the word is flung about so carelessly.I suspect that the meaning is not understood, being misapplied, or perhaps some combination of both.To all involved...

Do you think that denying the privelege of marriage to mentally challenged people requires denying the marriage of gays or vice-versa? I mean, does it have to be both. If so, why? If not, why?




Mentally challenged people do marry if they have the mental capacity deemed by the state to be of consent.

Some mentally challenged are like children in their consent and responsibility capability so essentially it would be like letting a four year old marry. Not cool.

As to the constant comparison to incest in the thread. I really think some people have some familial issues going on or something.

Incest is unhealthy both mentally and biologically. There is no comparison to gay marriage and incest or gay marriage and age consent.



there is as much 'proof' of the 'mental and biological' unhealthiness of homosexuality as there is proof of how 'unhealthy' incest is.

Dragoness's photo
Sun 01/09/11 10:07 PM
I disagree.

Being gay is not like drinking too much.

Gay is all over their life. They want to talk about their partner and their life together and have support in their life.

Religious cannot do that without being disingenuous to themselves and the gay person.

creativesoul's photo
Sun 01/09/11 10:12 PM
Edited by creativesoul on Sun 01/09/11 10:23 PM
Ms.

You answered "No." but did not explain why not.

'Biology' does not satisfy the reasons given for denying the priveleges to mentally challenged. Dragoness expanded those thoughts rather nicely though. What do you think about those considerations? I mean, don't you agree that those are reasonable things which should be considered, based upon the facts at hand?

Surely we can all agree that those reasons are not just 'biology', and that they do not apply to gays.

Revisit this post in particular...

Sun 01/09/11 03:54 PM

creativesoul's photo
Sun 01/09/11 10:15 PM
We cannot justify applying those facts to gays any more than we can for applying them to straights.

creativesoul's photo
Sun 01/09/11 10:18 PM
Dragoness,

The road to being reasonable is better walked without throwing the religious stones around. It is not necessary to bring religion up unless it is being openly claimed as support for the discrimination.

msharmony's photo
Sun 01/09/11 10:21 PM
It turns out that two siblings are 50% related. This means that for any given gene there is a 1 in 4 chance that they have the same copy as each other.


Carriers of recessive genes can
pass them on to their children.
Say their dad (but not their mom) is a carrier for a harmful disease such as cystic fibrosis (CF). So dad has one broken copy of CFTR, the CF gene. This means that the brother and sister have a 25% chance of both also being carriers.

If the brother and sister are both carriers and have a child together, then each of their children would have a 1 in 4 chance of ending up with CF by getting a disease copy of CFTR from each parent. So the odds of this brother and sister having a child with the disease is (1/4)(1/4) or 1 in 16.


from http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=243


Your random likelihood of also carrying any cystic fibrosis mutation is probably about one in 50. In the US, one in 25 caucasians carry a cystic fibrosis gene mutation. So, your risks of having a child with cystic fibrosis are approximately one in 400.

from http://www.babyzone.com/askanexpert/cystic-fibrosis-odds


Thats a rate of 25 times the risk for incestuous couples compared to mainstream



now lets hear from the cdc

While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).

MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.


from http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf


and this is an activity the government needs to put their stamp of approval on,,? why?


MY POINT IS, there is a huge similarity between incest and homosexuality in terms of the arguments used to support or oppose either

both could be considered unhealthy choices and both have been social taboos because of it


likewise, both groups could argue a thousand reasons why their treatment is unequal and unfair




msharmony's photo
Sun 01/09/11 10:26 PM

I disagree.

Being gay is not like drinking too much.

Gay is all over their life. They want to talk about their partner and their life together and have support in their life.

Religious cannot do that without being disingenuous to themselves and the gay person.



I disagree. Engaging in HOMoSEXUAL activity (or heterosexual) is like drinking too much or any other choice. It is an activity that is not a topic which is mandatory to discuss with anyone in order to enjoy their company or be enjoyed. There have been heterosexual friends who have partners I disapprove of and partners my friends have disapproved of but we are not disingenous in continuing to enjoy all the other WONDERFUL parts of each others lives and we dont have an issue with leaving that topic off the table when we are not in agreement about it.

I am not my sexual preference. My sexual preference is but one SMALL part of my life. It is a private matter that I dont wish to DISCUSS with people on any regular or mandatory basis. There are many other things to discuss with those whose company I enjoy and many other things I prefer them to speak with me about. Its not a huge loss to avoid that one topic when there are so many others to discuss.

creativesoul's photo
Sun 01/09/11 10:28 PM
"Huge similarities" does not mean things that do not apply to gays. Calling gay relationships "unhealthy" does not satisfy being justification for discrimination.


As already noted...

All of your 'reasons' thus far for calling gay lifestyles "unhealthy" also apply to straight relationships. Do you have any that do not?

Accepting gay marriage also does not necessitate later accepting incestuous marriage.

creativesoul's photo
Sun 01/09/11 10:31 PM
Ms.

You're failing to recognize that these things that you call "wonderful" apply to gays as well. Likwise with the things you are rejecting. They also apply to straights.

msharmony's photo
Sun 01/09/11 10:33 PM

"Huge similarities" does not mean things that do not apply to gays. Calling gay relationships "unhealthy" does not satisfy being justification for discrimination.


As already noted...

All of your 'reasons' thus far for calling gay lifestyles "unhealthy" also apply to straight relationships. Do you have any that do not?

Accepting gay marriage also does not necessitate later accepting incestuous marriage.




there are no absolutes, of course noone has to support or oppose ANYTHING,,,

but my point is that the bulk of this debate lies in a subjective standard of what is a 'substantial' or 'reasonable' cause for denying the privilege of marriage

my observation about the matter is that people seem to REFUTE arguments against gay marriage with such principles as

'homosexuals arent the only ones who have anal sex'

'homosexuals arent the only ones to get AIDS'

,,the refutal seems to usually rest on the philosophy that unless the reason can be applied SPECIFICALLY and EXCLUSIVELY to homosexuals , the objection is biased and not substantial


my continued examples are to show that , by that standard, incestuous marriage should also be considered a privilege that should not be prevented as all the 'risks' and 'substantial' reasons given to oppose it are not things that are EXCLUSIVELY or SPECIFICALLY tied to incest,,,,but that also exist in heterosexual couplings

If marriage is to be about legal age of consent alone, than in fact it would be just as bigoted to disallow the marriage of a brother and sister as it would be to disallow the marriage of a man and a man

creativesoul's photo
Sun 01/09/11 10:36 PM
Your assertions here are not true. I could offer reasons against incest that are true, based upon fact gained from the last hundred years' worth of psychological study, that do not apply to gays. Likwise, I can offer reasons for gay mariage that do not apply to the mentally challenged nor incestual cases.

msharmony's photo
Sun 01/09/11 10:37 PM

Ms.

You're failing to recognize that these things that you call "wonderful" apply to gays as well. Likwise with the things you are rejecting. They also apply to straights.




really? homosexual relationship are the foundation of life too?

msharmony's photo
Sun 01/09/11 10:39 PM
Edited by msharmony on Sun 01/09/11 10:41 PM

Your assertions here are not true. I could offer reasons against incest that are true, based upon fact gained from the last hundred years' worth of psychological study, that do not apply to gays. Likwise, I can offer reasons for gay mariage that do not apply to the mentally challenged nor incestual cases.



what was not true, those were from cdc ?

and we could go back and forth, for sure, with random facts from random ranges of years and random sources to both things that appear to apply to all and those that appear to apply to some more than others,,,that is my point


these same argument styles could be used to oppose and support incest


information is vast in the internet age,

but none that proves any other relationship has the power to create the foundation for life that heterosexual relations does (accept incest, ironically,,lol)

or as significant a reason to be promoted and encouraged

1 2 17 18 19 21 23 24 25 49 50