Gays and the St Patricks Day Parade

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I don't think this is accurate Jim...the agenda from the militant activists is to force society to submit to the idea(maybe it's a theory) that men having sex with other men, marrying and perhaps raising children and women having sex with other women,... marrying and perhaps raising children (not to mention the many possible combinations once you get to bi, tri and whatever comes after that) is the same or "equal to" men and women having sex, marrying and perhaps raising children ....I think the science is settled on this one ...I think it's widely understood and yes, accepted, that many people are gay or have some other sexual preference different than that which nature's laws have laid out, some of which are increasingly accepted and others more or less to varying degrees and some are found unacceptable(for now), didn't Google or Facebook recently come out with 50 different ways to identify your sexual being recently? seems like a lot, must require a REALLY open mind.. If the parade, and all of society for that matter, is to be truly tolerant of an individual's sexual orientation, shouldn't they(parade organizers) and we(society) be forced to accept and deem equal ALL sexual orientations and not just the most vocal few militant activists, in the interest of fairness?....everyone deserves a float it would be a helluva parade!

also, the constant attempt to frame this as a Gays versus Christians argument is really weak.....there are many gay Christians, there are many non-Christians that do not support gay marriage, there are many gays that don't support gay marriage, there are many Christians that support gay marriage and there are many very left-leaning "tolerant" states where gay marriage can not pass a referendum by the voters

"the constant attempt to frame this as a Gays versus Christians argument is really weak"

Tell that to the Christians being sued by gays, simply for being Christian. I don't see any cases of Christians suing gays for being gay.

Asking for acceptance and tolerance is one thing. Asking that everyone else abandon everything they hold dear, every time it conflicts with your own pursuits, is a bit different.

Nothing is ever that simple or consistent. But from where I sit, I don't see a lot of tolerance coming the the most vocal advocates of this group. I don't see them asking for basic acceptance, I see demands that we cater to every whim out of fear of being labeled a homophobe. And I see very little willingness for them to acquiesce to the beliefs of others.

It's a difficult situation, I have no answers. I just don't like being called a hate-monger for seeing both sides.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Tell that to the Christians being sued by gays, simply for being Christian. I don't see any cases of Christians suing gays for being gay.

I'm not familiar with this... any external references?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

I'm not familiar with this... any external references?

There are currebtly some high-profile cases of Christian bakers, photographers, etc being sued by gays, because they didn't want to provide their services at a gay wedding, for religious purposes. You can google it, if you can't find one, i can find it for you, I'm not making it up.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"the constant attempt to frame this as a Gays versus Christians argument is really weak"

Tell that to the Christians being sued by gays, simply for being Christian. I don't see any cases of Christians suing gays for being gay.

you missed my point, I'm aware of all of those cases, just making the observation that this argument is always framed as Christians(values) vs Gays(rights) (Christians being "told" by their religion to think the way that they do and Gays being the innocent victims of deluded Christian beliefs)...it's hardly the case but an easy perspective to digest especially for the (pot & gay marriage lobby)..there's a good joke there somewhere...

ouch.."the religion of peace"...WIKI

Islam's Views

Islamic Shari'ah law is extracted from both the Qur'an and Muhammad's Sunnah (found in the Hadith and Sira). Islamic jurisprudence are expansion of the laws contained within them by Islamic jurists. Therefore, they are seen as the laws of Allah. You need only look to the rulings under Shari'ah to see the accepted mainstream interpretation of Islam and its commandments to its followers. Homosexuality under this law, is not only a sin, but a punishable crime against God.

In the case of homosexuality, how it is dealt with differs between the four mainline schools of Sunni jurisprudence today, but what they all agree upon is that homosexuality is worthy of a severe penalty.
In the Hanafi school of thought, the homosexual is first punished through harsh beating, and if he/she repeats the act, the death penalty is to be applied.

As for the Shafi`i school of thought, the homosexual receives the same punishment as adultery (if he/she is married) or fornication (if not married). This means, that if the homosexual is married, he/she is stoned to death, while if single, he/she is whipped 100 times. Hence, the Shafi`i compares the punishment applied in the case of homosexuality with that of adultery and fornication.

The Hanafi differentiates between the two acts because in homosexuality, anal sex [something that is prohibited, regardless of orientation] may also be involved, while in adultery [and fornication], the penis/vagina (which are reproductive parts) are involved.
Some scholars, based on the Qur'an and various ahadith, hold the opinion that the homosexual should be thrown from a high building or stoned to death[1] as a punishment for their crime, but other scholars maintain that they should be imprisoned until death. [2]

Another view is that between two males, the active partner is to be lashed a hundred times if he is unmarried, and killed if he is married; whereas the passive partner is to be killed regardless of his marital status.[3]

[scottw]

since Spence has declared the next couple of election cycles to be about pot and gay marriage i guess i'm out, as care less and less about either with each passing day...i'll do what the president is doing and focus on college basketball, bad humor and my next vacation rather than these and other important issues in the world...

I do think that if we're to legalize pot and make permanent gay marriage throughout the land it would be highly discriminatory to not make legal all drugs and not be accepting and accommodating of all sexual orientations....I'm not a pot guy necessarily...it always put me to sleep...but mushrooms and opium sound like fun and I don't see what's so wrong with those...and since the gay lobby includes LGBT under the umbrella it would be wrong to leave anyone out...the bi's should be able to marry one of each...shouldn't they? or as many as required to achieve happiness.....the trans.....well, i'm going to get more confused as we work through the 50 ways to describe your sexual being but it would be easiest to just accept everything....give everyone a float..and their favorite drug...take the gender signs off the bathroom doors at the middle schools so the little girls won't complain that there's a little boy peeing in their bathroom, they'll get used to it.....life would be so much easier...I don't want to discriminate against anyone and I don't want to force anyone to do something that they don't want to do.....shouldn't be hard to reconcile...right?

[Ian]

Originally Posted by scottw

well, i'm going to get more confused as we work through the 50 ways to describe your sexual being but it would be easiest to just accept everything

It would be, and I don't think it would hurt anyone in the process. If someone decides to love someone, and that makes them happy.... then who the hell cares? People live with enough misery and stress from a bunch of other stuff in this world, if they can find happiness and comfort in a relationship with someone other than a member of the opposite sex, I fully support it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

It would be, and I don't think it would hurt anyone in the process. If someone decides to love someone, and that makes them happy.... then who the hell cares? People live with enough misery and stress from a bunch of other stuff in this world, if they can find happiness and comfort in a relationship with someone other than a member of the opposite sex, I fully support it.

But Scott said we should accept everything.

The tradiitonal definition of marriage is 2 people of opposite sex. The notion of gay marriage supposes that there is no reason to limit the definition to "of opposite sex". If you believe that, then why would you limit it two "two"? Why not let three men get married, or twelve men? What's so magical about the number "two"?

I heard someone say once, "to believe in everything, is to believe in nothing". There is some logic to this.

This is complicated stuff...

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Why not let three men get married, or twelve men? What's so magical about the number "two"?

Good question

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The tradiitonal definition of marriage is 2 people of opposite sex. The notion of gay marriage supposes that there is no reason to limit the definition to "of opposite sex". If you believe that, then why would you limit it two "two"? Why not let three men get married, or twelve men? What's so magical about the number "two"?

This is usually the line of thinking that ends up with people screwing sheep.

I've never heard in my life a gay person advocate for polygamy.

Once again, you fail to separate behavior from being.

-spence

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by spence

I've never heard in my life a gay person advocte for polygamy.

-spence

Never been to P-town to the Ace of Spades Club, hav ya?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Once again, you fail to separate behavior from being.

-spence

Spence is right Jim, but it's understandable that you probably aren't as intellectually evolved as Spence and therefore struggle with the separations of who we are and how we behave and the nuances of deciphering being from behavior and behavior from being...here's a good example...this guy/girl needs Spence as his lawyer....

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/transge...ry?id=22959423

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Ian

It would be, and I don't think it would hurt anyone in the process.

If it would be easiest to accept everything, wouldn't that include it being easiest to accept a person's, Christian or otherwise, desire not to participate in someone else's personal "process"? And wouldn't it hurt that person, Christian or otherwise, if his process was not accepted and he was forced, instead, to subject himself to someone else's process?

If someone decides to love someone, and that makes them happy.... then who the hell cares? People live with enough misery and stress from a bunch of other stuff in this world, if they can find happiness and comfort in a relationship with someone other than a member of the opposite sex, I fully support it.

Do you fully support some, if it makes them happy, to reject being a part of somebody else's happiness, and not being forced or coerced to participate? Do you fully support ALL who wish to be happy in their own way so long as it doesn't prevent other's their choice? Do you have that "who the hell cares?" perspective in all cases, or just in those that fit a view which makes YOU happy?

[Ian]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Do you fully support some, if it makes them happy, to reject being a part of somebody else's happiness, and not being forced or coerced to participate? Do you fully support ALL who wish to be happy in their own way so long as it doesn't prevent other's their choice? Do you have that "who the hell cares?" perspective in all cases, or just in those that fit a view which makes YOU happy?

Slippery slope, but I believe business is different. I don't support a business's right to discriminate based on the personal preferences of their patrons when those personal preferences are not criminal.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Ian

Slippery slope, but I believe business is different. I don't support a business's right to discriminate based on the personal preferences of their patrons when those personal preferences are not criminal.

It is interesting how we treat "business." If it suits our argument, we view business as a living, breathing entity having human attributes(similar to how progressives view the Constitution), and therefor must be beholden to the same strictures as individual human beings. But when we punish business for transgressing human values we personally hold sacred, or legally we deem criminal, we don't put "business" in jail, we incarcerate specific, actual, human beings.

It is convenient to centralize individual human "rights" into a general category of business "rights," and, so, overlook any individual rights that actual humans possess when they interface with other actual humans and their individual rights when they are engaged in "business." Notwithstanding that all human interaction is a form of "business." So, is it only in those "business" interactions which involve a transfer of money that actual humans must relinquish their personal rights?

What is the magical distinction that allows us to have individual unalienable rights so long as no money is involved? Do you believe we do, as individuals, have unalienable rights? Or that we have only those rights which the government allows us to have?

Is it not a "slippery slope" when we begin to say you have unalienable rights . . . except . . . ?

And if we do actually have individual unalienable rights, even when those are actually specified in the Constitution, and when the practice of those rights don't deny others the practice of theirs, must we subject ours to theirs if they offer money for our services? Are we not allowed to say, no thanks.