Homosexuality: What's the Big Deal?

[MerlinsByte]

excerped from George Smiley's post...I don't want to go to off topic here, but slavery was not a result of majority rule. It was created and sustained by1. Ecnomic factors2. Racism3. A political and social minority in the US-the South........The main reason why slavery is only briefly mentioned in the US Constitution is because the framers wanted to prevent the country from dissolving into factions.In order to do this, they had to appease on faction (the South) with slavery. (Something that most of the framers found repugnant)

Merlin writes..I feel the civil war was fought because of states rights not slavery. The south used the issue of slavery only to break away from the union. The cost of slaves could not be amortized because at the time of the Civil war the cotton gin and other mechanization was making slaves unprofitable.


mb

[Osborn F Enready]

Seeker of Sins said:
Tiny suggested that a referendum would be a way to solve this debate as it would let the community at large decide the way they wished to proceed.

Why does this suggestion offend you?

I say:
Well, quite simply because we are not a democracy as Mia stated in her few recent posts.
America was designed as a Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Republic. The Constitution clearly enumerates and recognizes several of the rights a citizen has that CANNOT be infringed in any way (human rights) and which ones are rights of RESPONSIBLE individuals, and can be removed AFTER being found guilty by a jury of your peers for a capital crime. The current practice of civil case law is unconstitutional in many ways, but most people can't find lawyers that will take the case, for a fee they can afford. (you would be after all, fighting the governments lawyers, and they have a lot resting on past decisions if it involves mistrials of several previous cases.) There are many ways our government in the United States is operating outside the U.S. Constitution right now, which is technically illegal and should be stopped and damage reversed immediately, but since its been happening since about 1933, and most people are ignorant of their own rights let alone the governments constitutional limitations and processes, I see no fix in the near future short of public unrest and possible revolt. That is of course, unless I hit the Mega-Millions jackpot, and can afford some of those legal fees, or ammunition, whichever is most suitable at the time.


Mia said:
Seriously, that is what is wrong with a pure democracy, and why our country was built on a different principal. The majority cannot take away rights from the minority.

I say:
Well said Mia, and exactly true.

Mia said:
It is the basis of pure democracy. Majority rule either through a vote of all the people, or by their representatives, as in Britain. We use the term 'democracy' all the time to describe the US, and in a broad sense that has come to also mean simply the ability to choose your government and have freedoms. But the US is actually a Constitutional Republic. It was of primary importance in the drafting that majority rule NOT to be enforced, but rather the protection of the rights of all, including minorities, be recognized and protected.

After all, any of us could find ourselves being in the minority. Escape from mob rule was a primary motivator in coming here and gaining our independence in the first place.

I can't state is as well and eloquently as Osborn, but that's the basic idea

I say:
Well thanks for the compliment, but I think you covered the points quite eloquently youself!



Tinybear said:
Well Osborn said in another thread:" I have, and am entitled to my preferences as a free man." Well if the majority prefer not be compelled by law to recognize a domestic institution, why should they be ? Don't they have a right not to be so compelled?

I say:
When I said that above statement, I was referring to my ability as a free man, to choose what type of person I PREFER to date. I have the right as a individual to choose if want to date, a particular race, a particular sex, a particular weight, a particular height, etc. person.
Nobody has a right to DICTATE to me what I prefer or crave.

Gays and Lesbians are crying out to be recognized as equals under the eyes of the law.

The law allows certain privlidges to be given to married couples, taxes, ability to adopt or be recognized as a "couple".

There is no reason a "couple" that has a sanction of a religious ceremony or a church should get extra privlidges under the law! If that were the case, it would be blatantly un-constitutional. This is a test of U.S. policy, and the way U.S. policy has been reported and accepted for the history of our nation. It is the time when the U.S. has to put the proverbial money where their mouth is. Individual rights, or adoption of a New Constitution? That would be the only option. While our constitution exists, nothing could be done to grant people exclusive privlidges other than a (un-constitutional) executive order.

Our nation is built on the concept that every individual, every citizen, has the right to live, believe, and exist as they see fit, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of another. Each one of those citizens are EQUAL under the eyes of the law. If that is the case, how then could ANYBODY, be given special treatment under the law due to the PARTICIPATION in a NON-GOVERNMENTAL private business?

Yes, you may be offended by gays and lesbians, because you have the right to believe differently than they do. Yes, you have the right to march, and petition, and gather and converse, to gain support, to further your agenda, to form your own community. However, you cannot, I repeat CANNOT, remove the liberty or the rights of another because it doesn't fit into YOUR belief system. Also, know that those who disagree with you in every way, have the same rights to gather, to gain support and to fight you every inch of the way.
And this is why we say, God Bless America, because I believe IF there is a God, he/she/it would damn well have to respect a place where all people can have their freedom to live as they see fit and speak out against that which compels them to do so. (If not, he's no God I would ever see fit to justify with my beliefs.)

It comes down to the simple interpretation of a single phrase.

"You can't understand a mans toil, until you've walked a mile in his shoes."

Basicly, no man can competently make judgements on how is best to live for another man.
People have recognized that all men are equal, and all have equal right to define their concept of societal structure and where they fit in to it, if at all. Every person has their own unique level of intrest in things that provide the "drive" for them to live, the motivation to live. We used to hunt and gather, therefore our old drive was to survive. Now that people have had the luxury of education, and the access to the spoils of capitalist invention, and society, peoples drives and motivations are at a wider expanse than ever before.

It is not so bad to sleep in a bed of thorns, if it is the only bed one has ever known. It when you know other people have beds of cotton and feathers that thorns seem so damn irritating. In other words, people are easily excited over the smallest problems when all they have to deal with are small problems. Now, we have a severe "problem" according to christians in this country. Christians have been enjoying special privlidges in this nation since it was founded, since at the time, and up until recently, it was the far clear majority of people within the nation. Now that the U.S. has allowed so many different cultures in, and so many have embraced the concept of true freedom of belief, the christians are starting to be called on some of their up till now "commonly accepted" privlidges, that TECHNICALLY should not exist.

Examples:
God being ADDED to the pledge of allegiance.
Religious documents hanging in PUBLIC places as if to signify PUBLIC endorsement.
Tax breaks for couples married under "traditional" methods.(in other words, man & woman)
God on our money.
Religious statements and proclamations by political leaders.


I believe all people have the right to believe as they see fit. I do not believe my government has the right to take all peoples tax money without prejudice, yet they exude prejudice when being questioned as to whether or not my tax money is being spent on religious articles, documents, statues, icons, art, are being purchased with my money WITHOUT my permission.

Tax exists because the government provides a service, usually that service is insurance of some type.
Military(insurance your home won't be attacked)
Fire(insures your home won't burn down due to lack of water or bodies to help extinguish it)
Police(insures any crime reported, will be investigated and followed up)
Government(insures people who work in the system are compensated, and agencies are supplied with funding)

Any tax that is not being used for a service, to the people, is a blatant misappropriation of money. Beautification is acceptable, but to purchase ONLY one type of religious article for beautification is rather prejudicial isn't it?

Church and state are seperate, and the government has no place in any religious ceremonies or procedures.

Tax money is to be used for services provided by the government by taxation of peoples income. There is no right for the government to use that money as it sees fit unless first approved by the taxpayers. I never had the opprotunity to vote on whether or not tax dollars could be spent on religious items for PUBLIC display.

The people trying to deny gays and lesbians their rights, have NO ground to stand on in the United States, according to the Constitution.

[MerlinsByte]

We are a Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Republic. I don’t care for it. I think the electoral method of counting votes should be abolished and popular vote installed in its place. The constitution is riddled with amendments, judges set policy (or might as well) , and the ballot vote is a fallacy. Yes, I believe this even though I voted for Bush. I think Gore should of won. The next time I voted for Bush again (rather than the wimpy Kerry) . The election process reeks of fraud and manipulation .

mb

[Osborn F Enready]

Merlin, I couldn't agree more. Let's say that we, as good citizens start a campaign for those who agree with us, to set dates to gather and march on washington for a DEMAND for redress of public grievance?

Better yet, how about we pick up arms, and enforce the Constitutional Limitations?

[Chris the Chees]

You know, there's nothing more dangerous or unjust than the tyranny of the minority in the name of liberalism.

Oh the irony! Personal liberty the foundation of the American dream! The disgust of centralisation! The right to be left alone! Laissez faire! The foundation of American society, all thrown away all because Christians don't like gay people!

If Washington and Jefferson could hear you now, what would they say? Well being from the 18th century and having 18th century Christian values, I doubt they would support gay rights. But it says quite a lot about Christian conservatives, and how they are still trapped in 1776.

A real shame to abandon ones core values... but then again has individualism and liberty ever been a core value of Christian conservatives?

A most interesting question don't you think?

[GeorgeSmiley]

If Washington and Jefferson could hear you now, what would they say? Well being from the 18th century and having 18th century Christian values, I doubt they would support gay rights. But it says quite a lot about Christian conservatives, and how they are still trapped in 1776.-Chris the Chees

"trapped in 1776"-that's really interesting. For most people, the "spirit of 1776" was not religion, but enlightenment principles-political equality. Washington was a deist, and Jefferson liked JJ Rousseau's phrase that "he would be glad when the last king was strangled with the entrails of the last priest." (that quote may not be quite right, its been a while since I've heard it). Washington and Jefferson might be against "gay rights", but it would probably not be on religious grounds.

I personally would oppose religious sponsorhip of gay marriage, but I also don't think that its the government's business.

[MerlinsByte]

::::By Osborn F Enready:::: Merlin, I couldn't agree more. Let's say that we, as good citizens start a campaign for those who agree with us, to set dates to gather and march on washington for a DEMAND for redress of public grievance?Better yet, how about we pick up arms, and enforce the Constitution.....

merlin writes...I am taking the easy way out,bought some land , becoming self sufficient getting off the grid and learning to educate, and am furthering my education hopefully to the day I die, to teach , there are other ways to produce change in a system, and that is teaching truth.

Below is something I wrote this morning...its rough but the idea comes through (i hope)

By merlin....Our government is a child of rebellion and righteous treason against our king. Bullets or ballots, today's ballots are articles of enslavement, bullets are effective short term, and are the devils work.The mind of god is the way and the key. A wise man said give fish and feed for a day, teach to fish and feed the man for a lifetime, install government by bullets in a day, plant seeds of love and make change to forever. Plant truth by a waxing moon, and the place the seed of questions in the fertile soil of minds, my friend, to grow new citizens, capture freely, the mind ,and then the souls, Gandhi had the key to the universe here on earth, and he unlocked human potential with a voice, we can too, and more! We can unlock the spiritual potential and free the destiny of man, to his natural ability and need to love.

mb

[Mia]

Well Osborn said in another thread:" I have, and am entitled to my preferences as a free man." Well if the majority prefer not be compelled by law to recognize a domestic institution, why should they be ? Don't they have a right not to be so compelled?

I haven't completely formulation my position on this - so what I say is intended to discuss, not debate. What, really, is there to recognize that places any kind of burden on, or even affects anyone?

Anything governmental is a no-brainer, IMO. They PAY taxes like anyone else, so I don't see why they shouldn't be afforded the same benefits when they marry as anyone else.

The other main issues are pretty simple - legal rights when one of the pair is in a hospital, or insurance benefits typically given to spouses, and legal custody rights.

None of these require anything of anyone any more than in a heterosexual marriage - no special rights are being asked for. To deny them these things is based on nothing other than many of us don't like their choice. We're not compelled to do anything except mind our own business.

The only thing that nags at me is the premise that this level of acceptance tells society that this is a perfectly natural and acceptable alternate lifestyle, and my moral compass says otherwise, but I have to force myself to remember that freedom is not freedom only for those we agree with, and if I want mine I have to grant everyone else theirs.

[MerlinsByte]

The only thing that nags at me is the premise that this level of acceptance tells society that this is a perfectly natural and acceptable alternate lifestyle, and my moral compass says otherwise, but I have to force myself to remember that freedom is not freedom only for those we agree with, and if I want mine I have to grant everyone else theirs.

merlin writes........That's the reason I'm taking the easy way out getting by off the grid, and into the wood while learning to teach, and (oh my) Minster by love, which is proving more difficult than I have ever imagined (the teaching by love part) This republic is becoming socialist (not an all bad thing) evil (bad for me).So see me on the net, church [if you come), at your local school or university (oh my God! and much hand wringing by seculars, and Christian fundamentalists alike) and maybe on the bookshelf at Amazon (yes we all dream)....

mb

[tinybear]

Mia>What 'benefits' are you talking about that married couples enjoy and which homosexual couples are denied and, more importantly, who foots the bill for these benefits when it's time to pay it?

[Mia]

I answered that - to my knowledge, it comes down to tax benefits, and we 'foot the bill' for heterosexual married couples right now, if that's the way you look at it, but the way I look at it, homosexuals pay the same tax rates we do, so you could say they foot the bill for theirs and we foot the bill for ours), rights in hospital settings (nothing to foot the bil for there), custody rights (they foot their own bill for their lawyers and court costs) and health insurance benefits (again, in group coverage, they are paying the same premiums as us so footing the bill thmeselves as we do).

If there are others, someone please alert me to what they are.

[tinybear]

So basically, it's not predominantly a financial benefits issue. It's mainly about 'recognition'. It's the gay minority community trying to obtain legal recognition for their lifestyle, isn't it?