Busta

Re: post 1019 by Technocratic_Utilitarian, from "gay 'marriage";

"Note* Jefferson's Declaration that all men are created equal. This is an Enlightenment concept derived from Deism and Secular Humanism. During the Enlightenment, philosophers believed that man's reason was a unifying trait, and via this trait, all men were morally equal. Their "creator" gave them this "reason" by which they could live their own, independent lives from him.

"Creator is used instead of God because they were not Christians, nor did they believe in any active God. Creator = Nature. Deists believed in a God of Nature. They were not Theists. In fact, myriad Founding Fathers decried organized religion, especially Christianity"

I find myself in agreement with these beliefs.
* A man's reason may be the equivalent of what the bible refers to as "knowledge of good and evil";
* The Creator giving Man reason so that Man could live his own unique life for Him;
* I have allways considered "God" to be the English defalt word which is equivalent to "Creator", "Creating Force", "Universal Force", "Universal Being", "Great Spirit", "Allah"...etc.... It is all to easy to fall into the pit trap of personifying such a force.
* "Creator = Nature." I have always considered the universe, its self, to be the literal body of "God". Again, it is all to easy to personify such a Force.
* A God of Nature is exactly to what I refer. I concider "God" to be a natural force that is still well beyond our comprehension.
* I, also, abore organized religion. My faith is my own. You do this conversation a grave dis-service when you throe me, or anyone ells, into the stereo typical group of Christians.
* The Church today is a far cry from what it originally was: Just a few people getting together to discuss ideas. Speaking about God was never suppose to be institutionalized into the bureaucracy that it is today. I could only describe the Church as a work of the Adversary.

My objection to gay 'marriage is based on my understanding of Natural Law, not the literal text of Positive Law.

I do not believe that just because one is born with an abnormality, that they are allowed to participate in an institution without being able to fulfill the nature of that institution. Nor do I believe that simply by virtue of the fact that one is born with an abnormality, that this person has some kind of assumed birthright to change the rules of existing institutions in order to suit their needs.

I would say that an abnormality is a variation from a normal structure or function of the mind or body.

The male gender was designed to join with the female gender. The male psychology was designed to compliment the female psychology. And vica-versa.

I would imagine that to the individual homosexual person, their sexuality fells completely normal. However, when that individual's sexuality is compaired to the sexuality of the rest of that individual's species, we can see that homosexuality, being a variation, is abnormal.

As it realates to marriage:
Marriage is not just another standered issue right like breathing, voting or protesting. It is an elevated promotion of a heterosexual union that encourages the practice of forming and maintaining a nuclear family.

The core of a nuclear family is a Husband and his Wife.

Since a man can not be a wife and woman can not be a husband, if a family is formed who's core is composed of 2 men or 2 women, then this family, being a variation from the normal nuclear family, would be an abnormality.

I disagree with elevating and promoting a homosexual union which encourages the practice of forming and maintaining an abnormal family.

Try talking to me about unions which do not promote the practice of forming and maintaining any family at all (don't even try it with "civil unions" aka gay 'marriage, I know better).

I'll sterilize this as much as I can: It seems un-natural to promote and elevate behavior which is contrary to the purpose of our design.

__________________
Rest in peace, Ramona Bell.

Duke

There are these things in exisitence called "facts of life". They are not things that work, that make sense, and you usually dislike them. But you can hate them and disregard them all you want and they do not go away. Homosexuality seems to be like that. It must be acknowledged, even if it doesn't fit.


Duke

__________________
The big majority of Americans, who are comparatively well off, have developed an ability to have enclaves of people living in the greatest misery without almost noticing them.
-- Gunnar Myrdal

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
-- Henry Kissinger

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no
account be allowed to do the job.
-- Douglas Adams

Busta

Homosexuality exists, not just in Humans but in @ 450 species on the Earth. Yes, it is a "Fact of life".

That is acknowledgment.

Homosexual people should be able to go to school, get a job, vote and be able to live out their lives without being harassed or attacked for who they are.

That is tolerance.

Homosexuality should not be reflected in the elevated union of marriage.

That would be acceptance.

I WILL acknowledge and tolerate homosexuality.

I will NOT accept homosexuality.

I draw the line at marriage. This far, and no further.

Duke

So, what do you have against gay people, huh? What, do you not think that they are acceptable? Do you think gay poeple are inferior, like Hitler did? Could it possibly be about religion? If so, then you must not think that church and state should be kept apart.


Duke

jallman

well busta, when your acceptance particularly is required to elevate my status, I will be sure to let you know first.

__________________
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/d...amaSigcopy.jpg

Busta

I spelled that out in my first post. It is not the people, it is the behavior.

Busta

Isn't the point of all of this discussion to convince people like me to support gay 'marriage? My acceptance of homosexuality is required in order for me to vote in favor of it, sign a petition, or send a letter or e-mail of support to a congressman, yes.

leejosepho

Praphrasing and applying those same principles to alcoholism:

Just because one is born with an abnormality does not give that individual some kind of assumed birthright to drink himself or herself to death free of the objections of others.

An abnormality is a variation from a normal structure or function of the mind or body, and a real alcoholic has both:
1) a mental obsession for the effects of alcohol;
2) a physical "phenomenon of craving" that is set off by alcohol.

To the alcoholic, their indulgence feels completely normal. However, when that individual's drinking is compared to the drinking of the rest of that individual's species, we can see that the real alcoholic, being a variation, is abnormal.

It seems un-natural to promote and elevate behavior which is contrary to life itself.

Personally, my point here is a simple one:

Yes, both the alcoholic and the homosexual might truly be predisposed (I believe) toward their particular and respective abnormal behaviours - I was toward mine (alcoholism) - and yes, each has a dubious "right", so to speak, to do as s/he pleases. However, neither has any right to expect society's acceptance and/or approval of his or her chosen-or-not abnormal behaviour, and society is actually obligated to offer each sufferer a condemnation-free opportunity to recover.

__________________
"Please begin at the basic truths and work forward instead of beginning at problematic passages [or situations] and working backwards" (varnishke).

Columbusite

Let's just apply some REASON here and think about how dumb this really is.

Atheism should not be reflected in the elevated union of marriage.

That would be acceptance.

I WILL acknowledge and tolerate Atheism.

I will NOT accept Atheism.

I draw the line at marriage. This far, and no further.[/quote]

So following your logic you, and everyone else opposed to Atheism have to accept Atheism because they can get married, not merely tolerate it. Yeah...right...

Duke

As much as you may hate to admit it, homosexual behavior is normal. It is much less common then heterosexual behavior, but since there are millions of gay people living in the world today, it is very normal.


Duke