DOMA: Obama invokes incest and people marrying children

or have it labeled 'child abuse' which is illegal amirite.

 

Regarding homosexuality as a sin before God is at the heart of this bigotry. The parent of a gay child "loving" the child but regarding who he is in essence to be sinful is unacceptable.

 

the basis of christianity views everyone as inherently sinful. hetero or not.

 

BJ:

First of all, what you state above is not what you said originally. Stating that society has already swept past the racists is different from saying "I accept that since it is not teaching the children to hate themselves."

No issue from me, I'm glad you have cleared it up. Your latest speech is far more ethically honorable.

Secondly, you are far from alone in your advocation.

 

Sure, but it doesn't consider hetero love or sex sinful; many christians do teach that homo love and sex are sinful. And so children who are raised with religion and are gay grow up believing that to love who they love is to commit a sin. That's sick and hateful and wrong.

 

well. a lot of 'liberal' christians i know don't view hetero love/sex as sinful, but Jesus did himself say that if you look at a woman lustfully [paraphrasing] then you have committed adultery. so, i'm not sure you're entirely correct. It could be argued that the only legitimate "christian" expression of sexuality is in the context of marriage [man-woman].

 

I shouldn't have said the first thing I said. I guess I said I accept it because it's easier to accept now that its such a taboo, now that society so clearly rejects it. I've not made this argument before. I'm still working out how to articulate it.

To be clear, all of my feelings about civil rights come from my experience in elementary school when I first learned of racism toward blacks and where almost all of my friends were black (we were bussed to a gifted students program together). I couldn't believe what we were being taught. I couldn't believe there was ever a time that slavery and associated things were accepted. And I vowed then, at the age of 10 or whatever, to keep my eyes open for what was accepted now that later generations would find utterly unacceptable. First it turned me vegan and next it turned me into a radical supporter of equal rights for gays and lesbians.

But you're absolutely right that I could and should be more articulate. And the post you criticized was very clumsy and did not clearly explain my feelings.

 

The bible is immaterial. We are discussing one's rights as an american.

I've said this before a million times on this site. If a marriage is a "church function", and not a "right" then the state should be utterly ambivalent - any church can marry whoever they want. If, however, marriage is a civil function, the state must be equitable - anyone adult can marry any other consenting adult. If it's both (hint: it is), then the state should stay out of the church's business, and the church-goers should stop trying to pretend that whatever bigoted nonsense some of them abide by is necessary for the state.

Regarding the approach - I hardly think questioning one's parenting as abusive constitutes something gratuitously insulting. And this from a guy with kids. These are words only - not a demand or requirement, regardless what idiots like kokopuff pretend to believe.

 

Society is already changing in regard to homophobia. Even the debate regarding Gay Marriage has shifted to the term "marriage" from a question of whether homosexuals should even be granted civil unions.

On the contrary I agree with your position and believe homosexuals should have all of the rights as others including marriage. I also happen to believe though that parents have a right to teach children their philosophical and religious values. You might see those in conflict I do not.

With all due respect you seem to be self-agrandizing yourself. Many people believe that homophobia is wrong and say so. Speaking for myself while parents might teach that we live in a marketplace of ideas so while I might respect that a parent has the right to teach his kids that homosexuality is wrong I can argue against the parents view and do what I can to change his mind and hopefully when the kids are out of the home teach them a different mesage.

As I noted earlier parents are very important but children will have many more influences and experiences on their lives than their parents.

 

DOMA -> man-woman marriages. Therefore the law is equitable. Homosexuals aren't prohibited from entering into a heterosexual marriage. Heterosexuals aren't allowed to enter into a same-sex marriage. Your argument is flat.

You know the funny thing is that standards change with time. The way we treat our kids these days would be looked upon with horror and dismay in the past...After all, spare the rod/spoil the child. And now we're mandated to spare the rod. What constitutes 'abuse' is ever-shifting ground. 50 years ago it wouldn't be a big deal to leave kids alone for hours at a time; now you'd get CPS on your ass for it. IMO this is precisely the kind of legislative morality that government should be avoiding. And you know, somewhere, sometime someone will say 'well, teaching kids your moral beliefs constitutes abuse' and will try to get it passed into law. Rocketsjudoka is correct that the right avenue to approach "bigotry" is through social and societal means, not through government intervention, which is what posturing about abuse is tantamount to.

 

Judoka:

I assume then that you would also be cool with parents teaching their children that it is wrong for blacks and whites to associate with or date each other. And that, if someone posted here saying that they teach their children that because that's what God wants, you would consider that to be totally cool.

If so, I couldn't disagree with you more -- this is a debate forum; and if I'm not going to stand up against that, I'm not going to stand up against anything.

If not, you're a hypocrite.

 

This may surprise you, cuckoo, but I don't work for the government so I'm hardly capable of government intervention.

I'll let the rest of your ignorant arguments speak for themselves.

 

Oh, i didn't say that you made the laws. I'm saying I'm glad you don't. hurr.

 

Then if we are just sticking to rights as an American citizen someone under the First Ammendment is certainly entitled to teach their children even hateful and bigotted things. Teaching someone to hate gays as unsavory as that may be isn't a violation of Constitutional rights and doesn't meet any current legal standard of child abuse.

Bringing up the Bible is tangential to an argument about rights but just pointing out how a parent who might strongly dissaprove of homosexuality might still be a very loving parent to a gay child.

But if it is none of the state's business and a matter of someone and their church's beliefs why would it be abusive for a parent to teach a child his or her church's belief?

I agree these are only words and Landford Landry has already stated he is not offended but we as posters exist only in a realm of words. Some might take that as a license to be as harsh and critical as they want I don't and still believe that the same standards of decorum that we apply to in real life we should apply to here. That is not a demand or requirement but my opinion.

 

And yet it's wrong for me to argue against the parents' view. We clearly have different opinions about what's appropriate. On a debate forum, I expect it's okay for me to tell someone I disagree with the practice of teaching hate (and shame) to children. You feel it's more polite to wait until the parents aren't around and try to subvert their teachings. Different approaches. I think yours is a sissy way and you think I'm a boor. That's cool. Different strokes for different folks.

 

Bull. You said that "posturing about abuse" (what you accuse me of) was "tantamount to government intervention." Maybe you just don't understand the definitions of the words you're using.

 

Thanks.

 

my bad. should have inserted an 'asking for' between 'tantamount to' and 'government intervention.'

 

This might be your stupidest pseudo-point yet.

My argument would be that DOMA is a ridiculously unamerican piece of legislation. Duh.

 

Cool no, but I without knowing them personally and knowing more about their families I wouldn't consider it child abuse. I would tell them their beliefs were wrong but that is a different matter than saying they are abusing their children.

It is only hypocritical if you believe that respecting that parents have a right to teach their values to their children and that challenging those values are in conflict. You can challenge someone's views whille also respecting they have a right to pass those views on to their children. The children will grow up and have an opportunity to hear opposing viewpoints.

Just as you didn't confront the women beating the crap out of her kids even though you felt that was wrong. Even you yourself recognized that she had a right to discipline her kids while you would disagree with such harsh methods.