I'm comming out..

[wilkin250r]

Re: I'm comming out..

As the debate continues, let me point out again that I am not trying to incite anybody to riot, nor am I attempting to discredit anybody's morals or religion.<br /><br />Now, let me ask several questions, which may get some blood boiling, but that's not my intent. But let's take the slippery slope the other direction...<br /><br />For those against gay marriage because of your religious beliefs, that homosexuality is morally wrong and therefore should be discouraged, and also that your marriage is sanctified by God. Should athiests be allowed to marry? How about people of other faiths, can they get married? Why should your faith speak out against marriage of one sin, but allow marriage of another?<br /><br />For those argueing biology and procreation. Should all marriages be required to have children? Or, more closely related, should unable to concieve children be allowed to marry? Two men cannot procreate, neither can a woman who is barren. Why is one marriage allowed, but the other isn't?<br /><br />For those claiming that gay marriage will lead to abuse of the health-care and legal system, then should we not also ban cars? Somebody might use a car to intentionally hurt somebody. Or guns, or knives? They all have the potential for abuse.<br /><br />From what I've seen, on this board and many others, is most arguements against gay marriage are hypocritical or filled with holes. And personally, I have a problem basing laws on hypocrisy.<br /><br />Now again, I'm not trying to change anybody's morals. You are free to see homosexuality as morally objectionable, and to tell you the truth, I agree with you. But at the same time, aren't they also free to see it as morally acceptable? And as long as it doesn't interfere with your rights as an individual, can you really justify a ban?

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: I'm comming out..

 

[blacktie]

Re: I'm comming out..

For those argueing biology and procreation. Should all marriages be required to have children? Or, more closely related, should unable to concieve children be allowed to marry? Two men cannot procreate, neither can a woman who is barren. Why is one marriage allowed, but the other isn't?<br />

as far as biology goes...yes. pure and simple. (legally married is a different question). it is necessary for the survival of the species. animals mate for the purpose of perpetuating the species.

 

[blacktie]

Re: I'm comming out..

sorry bout that. dog caught me mid post for a "walk"...<br /><br />anyhow, <br /><br />again, I have no issue with what other do with one another (consenting adults and all that)...but legally and economically, there are reasons why homosexual marriage does not make sense. the reason why you get a tax break for man/woman marriage?...procreation. That is also why you get more and more tax breaks for each child that you have. basically we are building a future work force that can support us as we grow old (and even older as medicine advances). know why they keep jumping that tax break up..up..up in the last few years? to encourage people to have more kids. more workers = more gdp = better world economic standing. the government is very concerned about the decline in the US birth rate per couple. it has been declining since the baby boom. by sometime between 2012 and the 2030's there will not be enough workers to support retirees, and our social security system will be broke. we need to make more little workers now. same reason why older generations did. way back (roman, greek, middle ages, etc) they needed more soldiers.

 

[PatPatterson]

Re: I'm comming out..

My post was an opinion about my beliefs being called intolerant. The fact that I believe it is wrong (on a moral basis) makes me intolerant in the eyes of those who would tell the world that thier beliefs are valid, and mine are not. Why is it that someone who believes that morality has nothing to do with the issue aren't called intolerant to those who believe that it does? The issue is a question of beliefs, and mine are as valid as the next guy's. <br /><br />The legal system will, someday, recognize gay marriages. I believe that. <br />Do I agree? No, I do not. <br />Will I protest and rage against the system for allowing this? No, again, I will not. <br />Will my vote reflect my displeasure? Yes, It will.<br />My point, in the post that I made, was that my beliefs should govern my life. If I do not think something is right, I should have the right to say so. If you have the right to say it is OK, and normal, I should have the right to say that it is not. Freedom of speech, different points of view, and all that...remember?<br />If someone wants to participate in behavior that I feel and believe is immoral, they have that right. <br />I have the right not to.

 

[SCO]

Re: I'm comming out..

That's a good Post SW, and your story, brother, reminds me of a percentage of people that I grew up with. THose boys were clearly different from the get go, and I do also believe that they had absolutely no choice. I never made fun of those kids or any other gay people, they were our friends and at reunions today, I catch up with them though the obvious realities are not discussed, their choices , not mine. I also think that broad acceptance of homosexuality would introduce a great number of people to the lifestyle that wouldn't otherwise be introduced. People are faddish. If I believed that it was entirely innate, like for the kids I grew up with , I would think society should accept it. But, if normalized as an alternate and equal path, in my opinion it would be destructive for teens to experiment with the idea. Does at least some of our orientation come from our experiences?

 

[GradyBob]

Re: I'm comming out..

Skinny Water wrote - Now don't get your back up thinking I'm really gonna take what is written by strangers on a www board personally. I don't and I'm not.<br />I don't expect a change of minds and I'm not going to make moral judgements here on this thread. But I'll say in total confidence that most of what is written here in hate, is done with understandable ignorance. And any "unreasonable fears" are your own problem. <br />Not all people are born with generous amounts of understanding, compassion and goodwill.<br /><br />Skinny - I read what you wrote and I can only imagine what it is like to be gay in society, much less having relatives who are gay. It provides a perspective many of us do not have. Again, the power of using the word hate.<br /><br />With that said, I totally agree that not all people are born with generous amounts of undertsanding, compassion and goodwill. While gay people might feel this way, I can sincerely say this, unless you are a parent of a severely disabled kid, few, including gays, understand the need for compassion and goodwill as parents like me do. I have a hard time understanding this issue and the plight of the gay community, where people can lead productive lives , do things, travel and so forth. I run in circles with kids and parents who are forever dealing with the truly needy and people who's lives totally depdend on the kindess, trust and generosity of others from now till the time they die. I have little patience for people complaining about things in their lives, when I see my son and others like him struggle to just take a step or learn how to say a few basic words. But at the same time, I work hard to be compassionate toward everyone regardless of their abilities, race, sexual orientation or what ever banner they carry. <br /><br />At its core, raising a severely disabled kid makes one appreciate what is really important in life and its fragility. You are right words written here by people nobody knows really does not matter, not even my own.

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: I'm comming out..

PatPatterson: I certainly understand where you're coming from. I use the term "intolerant" strictly for lack of a better term. Much like abortion, you are either pro-choice or not, a person is either tolerant or intolerant. I'm certainly open to suggestions on terminology.<br /><br />Your very words "The issue is a question of beliefs, and mine are as valid as the next guy's." I agree with you completely. In fact, I would take it one step further and say that somebody else's beliefs are just as valid as my own, as long as they pass one very important criteria: that their beliefs do not infringe on the rights of anybody else. Obviously the beliefs of murderers and rapists would fail this criteria.<br /><br />This is the specific part that I find so incredible and hard to believe. How can people pass laws and restrictions based on their own morality? If an animal-rights advocasy group tried to pass a law that made it illegal to eat beef, because they believe it immoral, I wouldn't stand for it! If a group tried to pass a law banning or requiring baptism, I wouldn't stand for that either. There are groups of people that believe listening to heavy-metal music is a sin, can you imagine trying to pass a law on that? Sure, you can pass decency laws restricting sales of a certain content to minors, but pass laws banning tempo and style? The bible speaks against pre-marital sex, but I realize that two consenting adults are free to engage in sexual activity, regardless of their marital status. Would any of us vote for a law banning pre-marital sex?<br /><br />Let's take it to the extreme. Imagine a world where, by law, women must wear long dresses and are not allowed to expose their legs. Men, by law, cannot pierce their ears or have long hair. You cannot eat meat, all movies are rated G, and fishing is illegal because it's cruelty to animals. Talk about a slippery slope, I say legislating morality is a slippery slope.<br /><br />Yet here we are, denying homosexual couples the legal priviledges that heterosexual couples enjoy, based on our religion and morality. Sure, it's all well and fine when your morality and the legal morality are all the same, but what happens when they are not? What happens when somebody tells you that you can't watch your favorite western movie because it has a gunfight in it, and violence is no longer allowed on TV? Look at your life and all the things that somebody might say is immoral. A glass of wine with dinner, a cigarette, your gas-guzzling SUV. Do we really want to legislate morality?

 

[SCO]

Re: I'm comming out..

Good point Wilken, but the legislation of morality will occur when the definition of marriage is redefined. Your morality says that if you dont agree with gay marriage then you are intolerant, ignorant, and hatefull. Not a true conclusion. Again, I think it's going to happen sooner or later. I'll vote my opinion but accept the result.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: I'm comming out..

Edit, this is a dry well.

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: I'm comming out..

I don't mean to imply the issue is completely black and white. Just because you're not marching in a gay parade doesn't automatically make you a hateful, gay-bashing bigot. Perhaps I should use a better word than "intolerant". The problem is, I can't think of a better word. How can I convey "anti-gay, but not in a hateful, violent kind of way"?

 

[PatPatterson]

Re: I'm comming out..

Originally posted by wilkin250r:<br /> <br />....Your very words "The issue is a question of beliefs, and mine are as valid as the next guy's." I agree with you completely. In fact, I would take it one step further and say that somebody else's beliefs are just as valid as my own, as long as they pass one very important criteria: that their beliefs do not infringe on the rights of anybody else .....<br /><br />

As you stated, as long as they do not infringe. My rights end where yours begin, and yours end where mine begin. The problem is not that people are telling us what to do, on a moral basis, the problem is that people are telling me how to think, on a moral basis. This is what has my ire. You stated that you cannot legislate morality. But by telling me that I am a bigot, or that I am intolerant, or that I harbor hatred, or any of these other politically correct buzz phrases, by having a clear view of morality, based upon my beliefs, and that I have to accept and embrace what is, in my opinion, an unconsionable lifestyle, Morality is being legislated to me.<br /><br />The legislation of morality, as laws, has been happening since time began. There are two reasons that laws are made. For safety and morality. I feel there is nothing morally wrong with travelling 150 MPH on the interstate, but I am glad that there is a law against it. It is not safe. <br /><br />Along those lines, if morality is not legislated, pr0stitutes would be able to freely work your neighborhood streets. Is that acceptable? Or do we continue to have a law against a practice that, with the exception of those who participate in it, has absolutely no effect on anyone else in the entire universe? There is no other reason to prohibit prostitution except for the fact that most people consider it morally wrong. <br /><br />I agree, that it is a fine line, but sometimes, fine lines must be walked.<br /><br />As far as conveying Anti-Gay in a non hateful manner, I think that is what I have been doing throughout this thread. I guess I am just old and traditional, but to me Anti-Gay is just straight.

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: I'm comming out..

Excellent point, I was thinking that very same thing the other day, the similarities between prostitution and gay marriage. Both are legislating morality. It is a convenient arguement for me because I live in Nevada where prostitution is legal. I believe free-lance prostitution should be illegal for health reasons, but I see nothing wrong with regulated brothels.<br /><br />I try to reduce the issue as simple as I can. Group "A" has certain legal benifits and priviledges, while Group "B" does not. The reason is solely because of the sexual orientation of Group "B". To me, that seems to be discrimination. Last I checked in society, sexual orientation is a free and legal choice. While I am personally against it morally, I still recognize that people are free to make their own choices (as long as they don't infringe on the rights of somebody else), and should be afforded the same legal priviledges that I have. Anatomy and biology, procreation, religion, and morality are all issues external to the true issue.

 

[SCO]

Re: I'm comming out..

I'm tyring to enlighten you too Wilken, and Bob has spelled it out how your morality is being imposed on us. An obective look shows that bigotry in this case extends at least to those that cavalierly paint those that don't agree to their point of view as bigots, intolerant, hatefull, violent, red neck, stupid, ignorant.... Do you plead guilty as charged? It is a way of dismissing someones opinions at face value without having to do any work to understand the bases of those opinions.

 

[PatPatterson]

Re: I'm comming out..

SCO is right. If you do not agree with the viewpoint of any special interest group (and this does not just apply to gay marriage. It goes to animal rights activists, anti abortion protesters, anti tobacco activists, right to lifers, environmentalists, affirmative action activists...et al), then you are obviously some backward red neck, right wing religious zealot who is not enlightened enough to understand why you hate everybody, and not progressive enough to try to overcome your prejudices. <br /><br />Wilkin250, you are not being consistent in your own argument. There are those who want to disuade gay behaviour for the reason of diseases and health care costs, but you say they have the right to the same benifits as hetero-sexuals. Why couldn't pr0stitutes be covered under worker's comp for their work related health issues. <br /><br /><br />You also state " To me, that seems to be discrimination. Last I checked in society, sexual orientation is a free and legal choice." <br />Is it a choice, or a genetic certainty? Can't be both.

 

[NOSLEEP]

Re: I'm comming out..

WOW..<br />Crack smokers,and drug addicts. One foot in the grave,<br />will list all the same reasons for why they should not be discriminated against.<br />After all they are just regular people too. As<br />long as no one infringes on their rights. They<br />should be left alone to prey on young people.<br />Their beliefs should have as much merit as any one that has posted here.

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: I'm comming out..

Originally posted by PatPatterson:<br /> <br />You also state "To me, that seems to be discrimination. Last I checked in society, sexual orientation is a free and legal choice." <br />Is it a choice, or a genetic certainty? Can't be both.

First off, I don't think there is a definitive answer to that question. However, I will say that if it is a choice, then one could make the arguement "Choices have consequences. By choosing homosexuality, you are giving up the legal advantages of marriage." If it is genetic, then we are denying people certain legal privileges for reasons beyond their control! That would certainly be discrimination! In fact, isn't that the very definition of discrimination?

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: I'm comming out..

Originally posted by SCO:<br /> I'm tyring to enlighten you too Wilken, and Bob has spelled it out how your morality is being imposed on us. An obective look shows that bigotry in this case extends at least to those that cavalierly paint those that don't agree to their point of view as bigots, intolerant, hatefull, violent, red neck, stupid, ignorant.... Do you plead guilty as charged? It is a way of dismissing someones opinions at face value without having to do any work to understand the bases of those opinions.

Unfortunatly, I don't have a solid response to this. I agree with you, the special intrest groups paint a picture that if you are not enlightened to their point of view, then you are a back-woods ignorant, violent, gun-toting, gay-bashing, inbred, toothless redneck.<br /><br />I'm certainly not trying to paint that picture or make that connection. I've said it over and over, you are free to decide your own morals and values. You can still find homosexuality physically repulsive and morally objectionable. You are free to disagree with homosexuality all you want. But you should at least afford them the same legal privileges that you and I enjoy, because their activity and behavior is not illegal, nor does it infringe upon your own personal freedoms.

 

[PatPatterson]

Re: I'm comming out..

wilkin250r posted: Quote: ....You can still find homosexuality physically repulsive and morally objectionable. You are free to disagree with homosexuality all you want. But you should at least afford them the same legal privileges that you and I enjoy.... <br /><br />How can I find someone physically repulsive and morally objectionable, and act as if I don't? And why should I treat someone who I find physically repulsive and morally objectionable with the same respect as I would treat someone whom I respect and find to be a good person? This is what I meant when I said that morality was being dictiated to me. I must accept something that I find unacceptable, or I am being intolerant.<br /><br /> wilkin250r posted Quote: .....I will say that if it is a choice, then one could make the arguement "Choices have consequences. By choosing homosexuality, you are giving up the legal advantages of marriage." If it is genetic, then we are denying people certain legal privileges for reasons beyond their control..... <br /><br />You are correct. Nobody really can say, definitively, whether it is a choice or not. <br /><br />Therefore, we are left to our beliefs as to whether it is, or not, and whether it is morally right or wrong, and our beliefs are what dictate our behaviour.<br /><br />Isn't this where we started?

 

[SCO]

Re: I'm comming out..

Wilken, I'm not simply complaining about being called a redneck, I am pointing out that the redneck bashers are unenlightened and closeminded themselves, while simultaneously trying to prove their points with logic. Marriage is about family, and I think that is what this is all about. The lesbians primarily want to have children and technology is about to or has already provided the means for this with injection of DNA from one female into the egg of another. Our entire society will change from the man woman formula, a first in the whole of all human and most plant and animal history since the beginning...all in the name of discrimination. That is the plan allright, but forgive me if I need some time to consider the impact of it. Isn't some serious reflection required from you enlightened souls?