C
Cosworth
Guest
I agree that there are very few (if any) societies that do/did not have some sort of belief structure but to that I answer "so what?". I am not being rude to you but just asking "so what?". A majority of this country thought the Jim Crow laws were a swell idea but clearly in hind sight by our 'enlightened' society they were wrong. Seperate but equal was not equal at all. My point is that just because nearly all societies were based on some sort of faith/dogma does not in my view justify they continence. Was it not Galileo who informed the church that, sadly we were not the center of the universe? Just because a majority (or even 100%) of a certain group believe in something does not make it so (I do not think you were implying that but I just wanted to make the point.
I am not labor attorney so I do not know what is allowed by law and what is not but your points seem valid to me. Although I do not think I brought up the issue of labor so not sure what your point was.
As far as enlightenment is concerned, yes you are correct that jews do not proselytizes and I guess I was not clear on what I meant. I was commenting more on the concept that most/all religions think they are right and everyone else is misguided (wrong). They seem to be under the impression that if you come to them, they will enlighten you and all will be good now and in the hear after.
I am sorry but I disagree with you on the bigot issue. If one seeks to block the rights of others due to a comfort level issue then I believe that falls under the category of being a bigot. I understand that we all have issues with something. We all have sappretereotypes in our mind and we all are disgusted (or what ever term you want to use) by someone or something. I have them we all do. They are cultural, environmental (taught), social etc. We are all affected. The issue for me is if it does not directly affect me (discomfort is not a valid claim IMO) then I have no right to prevent the action. You smoking in your home does not affect me in mine. You smoking in a plane next to me affects the air I am required to breath in order to live. Preventing you from smoking on a plane is a valid law in my opinion.
I do not know if this is a valid argument or not (still debating with my self) but heterosexual relationships are part of every day life. Couples hold hands, kiss, hug or what ever. Sexual content is displayed on TV and in movies at all levels and typically (95% WAG) are hetero. Now, homosexual relationships are becoming a bit more common place more accepted, more public at least in the more open minded parts of the country. I do not see 'coming out of the closet' as an advertisement to the likes of "look at me .. I'm gay .....". I see it more as a "I'm sick of hiding who I am so I am gay, if you don't like it I don't care ..... deal with it or leave." type thing. I have several gay friends and none of them flaunt it. It is who they are. I am sure there are those who do flaunt it and use it just as there are Htero's who do the same.
I am sure the gay community appreciates the fact that you do not care if they have sex but as I said to UAL , who cares? Again I do not mean to be rude but the law should not/is not based on what you or I are OK with. Laws are to treat all people equally. Right now, there is a segment of our society that does not have the same access to a contract that another part of society has. I see it as a civil rights violation. The only argument against it is a religious one. There is no other argument, not a health issue, no safety issue, nothing. Religion has no basis for influencing public law. The first amendment is very clear on that issue. Unfortunately, religion has woven it's tentacles into our government so tight that it still has enough power to bypass the USC and get away with it.
As I say earlier. Similar arguments have been used against giving women equal rights. Yet they have had equal rights and society is none the worse for wear. Similar arguments were given to prevent black from having equal rights in the US and yet, they have been legally equals since the 60's and were are a better society for it and none the worse for wear. At some point in our future, gays will also be treated as equals under the law and I know our society will endure that tragic event as well. I am sure Pat and all of his religious wacko friends will throw a hissy fit. I am sure Jerry will turn over in his grave but the world will continue to turn on it's axis, the sun will rise in the east and life will go on.
Edit:
Faith is blindly following something. Faith cannot be scientifically proven. You believe it it so.
I am not labor attorney so I do not know what is allowed by law and what is not but your points seem valid to me. Although I do not think I brought up the issue of labor so not sure what your point was.
As far as enlightenment is concerned, yes you are correct that jews do not proselytizes and I guess I was not clear on what I meant. I was commenting more on the concept that most/all religions think they are right and everyone else is misguided (wrong). They seem to be under the impression that if you come to them, they will enlighten you and all will be good now and in the hear after.
I am sorry but I disagree with you on the bigot issue. If one seeks to block the rights of others due to a comfort level issue then I believe that falls under the category of being a bigot. I understand that we all have issues with something. We all have sappretereotypes in our mind and we all are disgusted (or what ever term you want to use) by someone or something. I have them we all do. They are cultural, environmental (taught), social etc. We are all affected. The issue for me is if it does not directly affect me (discomfort is not a valid claim IMO) then I have no right to prevent the action. You smoking in your home does not affect me in mine. You smoking in a plane next to me affects the air I am required to breath in order to live. Preventing you from smoking on a plane is a valid law in my opinion.
I do not know if this is a valid argument or not (still debating with my self) but heterosexual relationships are part of every day life. Couples hold hands, kiss, hug or what ever. Sexual content is displayed on TV and in movies at all levels and typically (95% WAG) are hetero. Now, homosexual relationships are becoming a bit more common place more accepted, more public at least in the more open minded parts of the country. I do not see 'coming out of the closet' as an advertisement to the likes of "look at me .. I'm gay .....". I see it more as a "I'm sick of hiding who I am so I am gay, if you don't like it I don't care ..... deal with it or leave." type thing. I have several gay friends and none of them flaunt it. It is who they are. I am sure there are those who do flaunt it and use it just as there are Htero's who do the same.
I am sure the gay community appreciates the fact that you do not care if they have sex but as I said to UAL , who cares? Again I do not mean to be rude but the law should not/is not based on what you or I are OK with. Laws are to treat all people equally. Right now, there is a segment of our society that does not have the same access to a contract that another part of society has. I see it as a civil rights violation. The only argument against it is a religious one. There is no other argument, not a health issue, no safety issue, nothing. Religion has no basis for influencing public law. The first amendment is very clear on that issue. Unfortunately, religion has woven it's tentacles into our government so tight that it still has enough power to bypass the USC and get away with it.
As I say earlier. Similar arguments have been used against giving women equal rights. Yet they have had equal rights and society is none the worse for wear. Similar arguments were given to prevent black from having equal rights in the US and yet, they have been legally equals since the 60's and were are a better society for it and none the worse for wear. At some point in our future, gays will also be treated as equals under the law and I know our society will endure that tragic event as well. I am sure Pat and all of his religious wacko friends will throw a hissy fit. I am sure Jerry will turn over in his grave but the world will continue to turn on it's axis, the sun will rise in the east and life will go on.
Edit:
Faith is blindly following something. Faith cannot be scientifically proven. You believe it it so.
C
Cosworth
Guest
whatkindoffreshhell
Veteran
Chopped up your post because the solid paragraph made my head hurt. Others too I'm sure.
Homosexual is not a natural act. Where else in nature do you find homosexuals except for human race? And how we do ensure survival of the species? I'm not against deviant sexual behavior 🙄 I just don't want my tax dollars to pay for your insecurities.
Oh yeah, I don't ever care if your feelings are hurt. Just as you told Piney. Deal with it.
Bob,check out the plurality from the book of Genesis:
Does this indicate we have more than one God then? 😱
C
Cosworth
Guest
Whether you find it deviant or not is irrelevant. Some find Wicca to be deviant, should that be banned by law? Some find Baseball deviant, should that be banned? Were we to pass laws on what anyone finds to be deviant, it would be a very boring place. Rock and Roll was considered border line porn (Elvis and his hips), should that have been banned as well? The USC was designed to protect the minority (no matter how distasteful it may be to some) from the tyranny of the majority. How is asking for equal rights wrong?
Where/how is the gay community seeking public funding? As far as I am aware, the gay community is seeking equal treatment under the law. Nothing more, nothing less.
My feelings do not get hurt over an argument. Had you bothered to read the post you would have understood that you missed the point. Point being that feelings, when referring to the law do not matter. Laws are not determined by whether or not someones feelings are hurt.
Gilding the Lily
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,466
- Reaction score
- 2
Your answer lies in the 1st Chapter of John.
MapleLeaf
Member
How I was trained is that the "us" in Genesis is an initial reference to the Trinity. We know of God in 3 forms and this passage is the beginning of the definition of what God is.
Judaism has a different take on this; according to midrash (the verbal tradition that goes along with written scripture) the us is referring to God including the angels who also play a role in the world - God was trying to set an example that all are part of the equation, not just some.
MapleLeaf
Member
Actually homosexuality occurs in other species as well, not just the human race. Isn't it the London zoo where 2 male penguins are in a relationship?
Survival of the species is found in the 90% of the human race who are not homosexual. If survival of the species is what this is about, and denying equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians is ensuring that survival, can we then deny marriage rights to heterosexual couples who are infertile, decide not to have children, have had vasectomies or hysterectomies, or where the woman has gone through menopause?
How does your tax dollars pay for my insecurity? I am not insecure at all, the only thing I am is discriminated against; I cannot get equal protection under the law because of someone else's bigoted beliefs.
This is all well and fine but at the moment I refer to in Genesis...the Holy Trinity did not exist as man was in the process of creation,and Jesus hadn't walked the earth to become part of the Trinity.
Gilding the Lily wrote:
Talks basically about one 'Deity' if you will....
All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.
Singular now but plural in the first book and writing.....somewhat of a discrepancy.
I expect a bolt of lightning at any moment.... :blink:
Gilding the Lily
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,466
- Reaction score
- 2
Read closer, Dell. I see the plural in Genesis; I also see plural in John. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." So, even though you think that because Jesus hadn't walked the earth yet and, thus, wasn't around yet, the Bible clearly indicates that He was around (with God and was God) from the beginning of time and had a significant part of the creation. I don't see a discrepancy.
MapleLeaf
Member
What does Jesus walking the earth have to do with the Trinity? Isn't it possible that Jesus existed before he came to earth?
What about the Holy Spirit? Could it not have existed prior to her first mention in the Bible?
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
In reality, homosexuality is not a natural occurrence. If you would bother to read up on the penguins (not just in London but at the SF Zoo as well) you will find that they are asexual (not having sex) and just good friends. It has also been proven that if you isolate two male rats together ‘and’ give them certain chemicals that they will try to ride each other. Hardly a ‘natural occurrence in either case.
Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is as common as a two headed snake.
However, even if this were true, I believe homo sapiens are a few steps above rats (at least for some posters in this thread). If you feel comfortable justifying deviant behavior because ‘animals do it’ then let us not bar the door at homosexuality and we can all revert back to simple primitive emotions; throwing reasoning and self control out the window.
If you are confused of your ‘sex’, just look between your legs. You are either a man or a woman (if you do not know the difference then you need more help than anyone here can provide). In whatever manner that you ‘choose’ to use your equipment is a personal decision that I do not care about until you make it my business. But you make it my business every day that you tell me I have to accept your loose morals, deviant behavior and lack of self control.
It is clear that some of you will never accept my position and by now you should realize that I will never accept yours.
View attachment 8032
You and I have a ‘choice’ and I will not justify deviant behavior to make 'everyone' feel good!
B) xUT
C
Cosworth
Guest
This is a nation of laws. Do you have any legal argument for denying a segment of society equal rights?
Similar threads
