Oracle of Utah
Truth rings hollow in empty heads.
Most Christians consider homosexuality an abomination as is stated many places in the Bible even though minor numbers do not or don't care. They don't want their children to see or become so, in fact they don't want the people they personally socialize with from being so. They don't want it taught as an acceptable even alternative of choice in schools. They do not want to see it acted out in public places the way heterosexuality has in recent decades been allowed. And indeed that is inequality but in this case one that actions by the minority would offend the majority. Most heterosexuals do not want to see two people of the same sex groping, grinding, kissing etc each other. It is revolting to them. Many would readily eliminate much of the heterosexuality content of such in the media and public display if that were put to vote so it is not really an issue of accepted inequality but more the result of a balance between freedoms in a liberal society where power is often in the hands of corporations and politicians that is somewhat tolerant of other lifestyles and behaviors even if they don't agree with theirs. But that tolerance has limits and tends to mean out of sight and out of mind. Do as you wish in private, in your own bedrooms, in your own private social venues, but please don't start to push it into the eyes of the general public. Yes we allow many minority sexual behaviors today in modern society like sadomasochism so, but those are not culturally acceptable when pushed in front of us.
Some of you advocates will twist what the Bible says in ways you feel invalidates what I stated, but such is not a position ever to be embraced by the majority of Christians because the logic doesn't hold up with most conservative scholars that dribbles down into the rest of those denomination's argumentation. Some of you regularly try to draw some of us here into that line of debate and most of the time we refuse to wade in to that morass simply because the argument has long since been sized anyone can easily research. The only usual objective seems to be for you to drag your opponent through the argumentive minefield of your choosing and try and make some inconsequential point as though it is a game. Not points that will change any minds with those reading these web board posts and will likely only result in name calling and frustration. So lets not debate that issue here as I am simply stating the standoff situation.
So back to your statement, why should simply allowing gays to call their unions marriage be a big deal? Well you people can call your unions marriage or whatever else you want even if such is not legally sanctioned as such. So I'm putting the shoe back on the foot of your own statement. It works both ways. Well the answer to that dilemna is that behind all the public blabbering are the lawyers, judges, professors, politicians, and gay radicals and for them that legal issue is the hidden agenda that this is all about. Otherwise you might simply be satisfied to call yourself married and all that have civil unions start doing so. The legal rights are nearly all there.
But that isn't going to satisfy the above hidden agenda side of your group and that is all too apparent to we on the other side trying to block your continual backdoor legal assault. For many years we on this side have been aware of some of your ultimate objectives. They have been gleefully proclaimed at times within your own communities and taken note of by the rest of us. The creeping continual advance towards your objective that removes all the issues and many more I outlined above has been all too obvious despite the fact the general public tends to keep their head in the sand and take the ever so slowing cultural change in stride without notice.
Within the pragmatism of some level of tolerance in our society we offer a foot and a week later you want a leg. You don't say anything about the waist connected to the leg but after we concede the leg a month later you clammor for the waist. And on and on it goes. In the mean time back at the time we offered the leg, we heard some talking about getting all the way up to the head. We asked what is this talk about the head and you all clam up and giggle.
Last edited by 70s_guy; 11-08-08 at 01:53 PM.
And,Most PEOPLE don't want to see two people of ANY gender gropinga nd grinding and kissing each other.Most heterosexuals do not want to see two people of the same sex groping, grinding, kissing etc each other. It is revolting to them
Unless they're two hot women.
But I sure don't want to see a man and a woman doing it. So, does that mean I should advocate discrimination for those dirty heteros?
As for your two women exception, that is true only for most of the sleazy hetero porno crowd. For we more conservative socially it is indeed utterly revolting.
Next, look in the NT only for what Chrisitanity should be, and even there christians should place the words of CHRIST on the top of the pile. Jesus Christ never addressed the issue, so as far as I am concerned, it is a non-issue for us. If it is a sin, it is up to Christ to judge, not us mere mortals. And also if it is a moral issue, bear in mind that legislating morals has never worked.
Until judgement day, we should at least be tolerant if we can't find it within our "christian" hearts to demonstrate acceptance of our many differences.
Oracle of Utah
Truth rings hollow in empty heads.
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
As for your logic, make an argument in which the word "women" can be substituted out for "gays" without changing the basic premise of the argument.
I found Jon Stewart's comment of how "oppressed blacks" at the same moment of winning the presidency became the "oppressors of gays" interesting. I'm against gay rights because gay rights activists aren't for my rights and therefore are one of the enemies. Easy to understand.
Last edited by Bonnie1988; 11-08-08 at 02:46 PM.