Homosexual Marriage

[PatrickHenry]

Gee, Osborn, what's with the CAPS?

Traditionalism isn't wrong. It's the Gov that intruded long ago that is causing problems.

And Starboy, tradition isn't "dictated." It is historical. We live in a mileu that we found ourselves in when we became conscious as children. There is no "dictating" going on. Except maybe homos trying to dictate to America that they can be married. And America is saying, "It isn't marriage!"

[Starboy]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, And Starboy, tradition isn't "dictated." It is historical. We live in a mileu that we found ourselves in when we became conscious as children. There is no "dictating" going on.

How do you think tradition gets to be historical. It is dictated from one generation to another. Parents do it to their children constantly. Telling them what they should do and what they shouldn't do and why. This is how traditions are passed on.

Except maybe homos trying to dictate to America that they can be married. And America is saying, "It isn't marriage!"

So homo's can't start their own set of beliefs and practice them as they wish. They must adopt your traditions? That is a very funny thing for a person with the handle PatrickHenry to say. It doesn't go at all with the phrase "Give me liberty or give me death". No one is stopping you from practicing or creating your own traditions, why do you oppose others for doing the same? Why must everyone practice your traditions? Where is the liberty in that? Or is this the standard Christian liberty? You are free to practice tradition any way you want as long as it is the Christian tradition. Keep it up Christians and soon no one will want to be a Christian.

Starboy

[Suburbanite]

It is an unjustifiable position riddled with dogma and other nonsense.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Suburbanite, It is an unjustifiable position riddled with dogma and other nonsense.

And you're a mod now? WTF are you talking about?

And Starboy, homos can commit themselves to one another in formal ceremony, call it "marriage" among themselves and socially liberal sympathizers, and yet it doesn't stand as marriage to a majority of Americans.

I am attempting to explain why. My view is that tradition is the foundation for the concept of marriage and that tradition disallows homosexual unions. This is my opinion.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, And Starboy, homos can commit themselves to one another in formal ceremony, call it "marriage" among themselves and socially liberal sympathizers, and yet it doesn't stand as marriage to a majority of Americans. I am attempting to explain why. My view is that tradition is the foundation for the concept of marriage and that tradition disallows homosexual unions. This is my opinion.

I understand that you are stating your view of your traditions. I have no argument with that. I rejoice that you have the freedom to practice your traditions and hope that your family will be able to do so for as many generations as it wishes to. Please explain to me why you wouldn't want others to do the same even if they do not share your particular traditions. And I fail to see why this has anything to do with what traditions are practiced by the majority and those that are not. In a land of freedom it shouldn't matter a bit as long as there is freedom for everyone. But as I see it you are not content to have freedom for yourself, you will not be happy unless you deny it to those that do not share your particular traditions, majority or no majority. You do your handle a great dishonor.

Starboy

[PatrickHenry]

That is a personal insult, Starboy. Not very nice. While you accuse me, I am not accusing anyone, simply attempting to explain WHAT IS...

Do not confuse me with others who hold objectionable opinions. I am not a generic debater. I have sympathy for the circumstances homosexuals find themselves in. It is not I who refuse them the "freedom" to marry. In my opinion, marriage is a traditional concept and that tradition does not include homosexuals marrying a same-sex partner. In my view, what I am doing here is "seeking first to understand."

You demand freedom for everyone? That is quite a slippery road. Freedom to do what? Rename behavior? Redefine anything we so choose, causing all common ground to disappear from beneath our feet?

[Starboy]

PatrickHenry, it is very simple. You are covinced that your traditions are somehow entitled to be the only traditions allowed. If you did not think this then the thought of gays getting married wouldn't bother you at all. After all, those religious sects that do not allow it are not required to do it. If gays must create their own churches and religions then that should be fine with anyone that supports freedom of religion. I do not think that anyone is saying the allowing gays to marry forces heteros to marry the same sex or forces them to marry gays. Your objections make no sense unless you do not understand what your namesake stood for. Freedom doesn't work unless it is freedom for everyone.

Starboy

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Suburbanite, It is an unjustifiable position riddled with dogma and other nonsense.

And you're a mod now? WTF are you talking about?
[/b][/quote]

Your position, it can't be judtified with logic, it requires dogmatic thinking to spread the concept and it is based on feelings against homosexuals. That is what I am talking about.

[PatrickHenry]

Suburbanite:
My position is eminently logical. I have no feeling of antipathy towards homosexuals, only their radical agenda. And your previous cryptic post had no referent.

My position is an attempt to understand the current REALITY of America's opposition to the "marriage" of homosexuals. It is not dogma.

How do you explain the current rejection of homosexuals marrying? There aren't enough religious dogmatists in America to constitute a majority of voters. There is something else at work here. What is it?

[mlauriston]

I think that homosexual marriage is morally wrong. Majority of our society believes that the same sex should not be married because of the effects that it will have on others, such as family friends, and children.

I think the kids will be effected the most if they were stuck between a homosexual marriage. They would grow up puzzled because what they see in their house is not what they see in the real world. That can cause a lot of mental problems while growing up.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, How do you explain the current rejection of homosexuals marrying? There aren't enough religious dogmatists in America to constitute a majority of voters. There is something else at work here. What is it?

I don't know where you live but in the US about 85% of the population routinely engages in magical thinking. Also the religious leaders of this country very effectively conflated gay marriage as an assault on god. It doesn't take much in the way of religious fervor to vote against the rights of gays if you are being taught that god doesn't like it. What has happened is that religious voters were encouraged to vote their religion in a political matter and completely ignore the values of America. They were encouraged to ignore the values that your namesake fought for. It was very much a war of values and American values lost. We cannot keep the republic. As Madison and Jefferson feared, it is being torn down by the religious.

Starboy

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Starboy, We cannot keep the republic. As Madison and Jefferson feared, it is being torn down by the religious. Starboy

I tend to agree with you on loss of the republic, for somewhat different reasons. And I view large majorities of the religious as having their head up their ass. Even though I am a man of faith myself, I see the gullible religious confused by the hypocrisy of Bush and his ilk. Into believing Satanic lies.

OTOH, I don't think the original Mr. Henry would have voted to allow homosexual marriage had it been on the ballot of his time...

[Starboy]

Originally posted by mlauriston, I think that homosexual marriage is morally wrong. Majority of our society believes that the same sex should not be married because of the effects that it will have on others, such as family friends, and children. I think the kids will be effected the most if they were stuck between a homosexual marriage. They would grow up puzzled because what they see in their house is not what they see in the real world. That can cause a lot of mental problems while growing up.

What evidence do you have for this? Whatever you can point at, heterosexual behavior has been as bad or worse. Bad behavior has never been an issue of sexual orientation, just a problem with bad people. I know gay couples that are far better citizens than many hetero couples. What all you bigots are saying is that just because a person is homosexual they are not only bad but will make everyone bad. It is as bad as saying that all religious people are complete idiots and allowing them to teach their religion will destroy our nation.

Starboy

[Osborn F Enready]

Starboy said:
I understand that you are stating your view of your traditions. I have no argument with that. I rejoice that you have the freedom to practice your traditions and hope that your family will be able to do so for as many generations as it wishes to. Please explain to me why you wouldn't want others to do the same even if they do not share your particular traditions. And I fail to see why this has anything to do with what traditions are practiced by the majority and those that are not. In a land of freedom it shouldn't matter a bit as long as there is freedom for everyone. But as I see it you are not content to have freedom for yourself, you will not be happy unless you deny it to those that do not share your particular traditions, majority or no majority.

I say: Though it is going against one of my buddies on this site, I have to agree here 100%. This is an issue Pat and I have never seen eye to eye on, and though he knows I absolutely respect him and his opinions I feel he is 180 degrees out on the right thing to do.

If we remove government from all religion, we have true freedom of religion, and the ability to practice traditional values with the exception being represented in a local, county, state or federal government property.
The way Patrick is advocating, it supresses the rights of some, to prosper the majority. This is unacceptable, and clearly against the original founders of this systems intentions, regardless of their personal beliefs in religion.

There is clearly supposed to be a seperation of church and state.

Patrick Henry said: Gee, Osborn, what's with the CAPS?


I say: As I usually do, just using the caps to highlight the topic point, not to incinuat yelling or shouting. Sorry if it seemed that way.

Patrick Henry said:
Traditionalism isn't wrong. It's the Gov that intruded long ago that is causing problems.

I say: I couldn't agree more. Homosexual marriage is an issue for the church to sort out, and issue a declaration on. The churchs, all religious people, libertarians, athiests, and all people should unite to remove religion from government, and then true freedom or religion could be practiced, and the state or fed will not be ASKING the church to marry people based on THEIR advisement.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, OTOH, I don't think the original Mr. Henry would have voted to allow homosexual marriage had it been on the ballot of his time...

You may be right if you had said that Mr. Henry would not have liked gay marriage but I think you sell him short when you think he would have voted against it. I don't think that Mr. Henry would have ever allowed the rights of his fellow man to come to a vote. He would have said that we have our rights not because of the will of the majority but because we were born with them and they are ours and cannot be taken away by the will of the people. The fact that taking away rights of people was on the ballot at all and is even being considered as a constitutional amendment is just an indication of how little regarded American values are held in this day. Mr. Henry would be appauled. I am not sure he would think much of you either.

Starboy

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Starboy, I am not sure he would think much of you either.

Why do you have to make things so personal, Starboy? I am not the enemy; just a debater here with a different point of view.

I am not saying that homosexuals may not marry. I am simply saying that this "marriage" will be regarded askance by a majority of Americans for reasons of TRADITION.

"Taking away rights of people?" Who decides what is a right?

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, Suburbanite: My position is eminently logical. I have no feeling of antipathy towards homosexuals, only their radical agenda. And your previous cryptic post had no referent. My position is an attempt to understand the current REALITY of America's opposition to the "marriage" of homosexuals. It is not dogma. How do you explain the current rejection of homosexuals marrying? There aren't enough religious dogmatists in America to constitute a majority of voters. There is something else at work here. What is it?

If it has no quotes, it is to the person right above me, that is how it kind of works....
I can explain the current rejection of homosexual marriage very simply, it disgusts people, gay sex, it makes people gag. They don't want to give rights to people who gross them out. They are homophobes. There justification for that, though hardly a good one, is the Bible, which lucky for them is anti-homosexual (of course it is mostly anti-sexual, but they like to ignore that aspect). Personally, I think homophobia comes first, then religion in the "rejection" of homosexual marriage.
And I am not much different, I think gay sex is pretty gross too, I just don't think it is right to do anything about it. I think a lot of things are gross. Plus I don't want to support banning gay marriages because it will impower Christians, which sickens me more than homosexuality ever could.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Starboy,@ I am not sure he would think much of you either. Why do you have to make things so personal, Starboy? I am not the enemy; just a debater here with a different point of view.[/b]

Why do you argue that people’s rights should be denied simply because of their preference of sexual partners?

I am not saying that homosexuals may not marry. I am simply saying that this "marriage" will be regarded askance by a majority of Americans for reasons of TRADITION.

And I say to that, so what? I am an atheist. I think that most of the people are nuts for believing in an invisible creator. That does not mean that I think that you should be stopped from doing it. If atheists were in the majority and magical thinkers were in the minority I would still oppose anyone that would try to stop you from believing as you wish. For me this was never an issue of majority opinion. This has always been an issue of American values. And in particular the principles of freedom. It is not what people think that bothers me, it is what they do about it. And people are voting to restrict the freedoms of others. This is very much a matter of principle, not Christian principles, but American principles.

"Taking away rights of people?" Who decides what is a right?

It's in the constitution. It is called the "Bill of Rights". It contains the first amendment, which says very short and sweet,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If your argument is that there should be laws to ban gay marriage simply because the majority religion opposes it then read that first sentence of the first amendment very carefully. For Congress to pass any such law is unconstitutional. And to amend the constitution to separate out a particular group to exempt them from the constitution is beyond comprehension for a people who claim to love freedom so much. As Jefferson said in his inaugural speech –

<!--QuoteBegin-Thomas Jefferson
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.[/quote]

The majority in this country should be ashamed of themselves. In voting their Christian values they have made a mockery of American values.

Starboy

[Osborn F Enready]

Amen

[PatrickHenry]

Osborn, you and Starboy are both mistaken in thinking that "American" values have been made mockery of by majorities saying "No" to homosexual marriage.

Would you say, "I want to marry my daughter, I want to marry my mother, I want to marry my dog, I want to marry 47 wimmen. I want to marry my friend's two year-old daughter, and I WILL have sex with my wife. You may not violate my right to do so?"

Is there any line you would draw, beyond which marriage is not acceptable?

My argument is not based upon religion, but upon tradition. If you still haven't deduced this important distinction, then we are arguing past one another, and no further discussion is necessary or possible. You may continue to mischaracterize my argument to your heart's content. But you need to understand that you are engaging in a STRAWMAN argument, not directly responding to what I argue.