Eh, I don't see it much differently. Mommy and Daddy kiss each other because they love each other. Adam and Steve kiss each other because they love each other. To be honest, I don't see the big deal with kissing anyways. Maybe it's a difference in upbringing; for us dirty latinos, kissing is an incredibly common act, used as a greeting or departure. I grew up believing that two people kissing each other is a beautiful display of love, not something be ashamed of or reviled by. We're incredibly open folks, so seeing kissing isn't anything out of the ordinary.
Actually, that's exactly what I do (or try to do). It's the best I can do, really. I'm thankful that my neighbors (both the lesbians and the gay men) don't display a lot of intimacy in front of the kids (theirs and mine). It's really amazing how much my kid picks up, even without them doing much kissing or anything. The lesbians have two sons (one of the lesbians was in a previous marriage, had the kids and then divorced).... and, no. They're not hottie lesbians. And I don't want to be misunderstood: I WILL teach my kids about all this stuff (including, but not limited to homosexuality). And I WON'T be teaching my kids that it's wrong to be gay. I just want to control the flow of information and education that enters my kids head (for as long as I can control it, at least - I'm sure it's gonna get tougher as she gets older) Once again, I can't argue with that. ... and by the way.... ... I never said I voted FOR prop 2. I had a response typedm, but lost it. Re-typing it now
Eh, don't bother. I see where you're coming from, and I understand. I may have a different point of view, but I understand yours better now.
You're right, in a way. What I'm avoiding (for now) is having to explain to my kid (until she's ready) the adult imtimacy that occurs behind the kiss of two lovers (hetero or homo). Since my kid sees Mommy and Daddy kiss every day, she thinks nothing of it. When she sees two men kiss, she's gonna start asking questions, and it'll be difficult for me to keep it as simple as just a simple display of love. I tell her that, and the next day at school she's gonna be mackin' on every kid there.
wow. cool! thanks! Honestly, I never cared squat about this until I had a kid. When I was in my 20's, my g/f and I macked heavily in public, and I didn't care at all about that, or gays kissing, or anything like that. Becoming a parent really has a way of f**king up how you view things.
You know, it's interesting that you say this. I sometimes talk to really intense Bible-thumpers who talk fire-and-brimstone and how the country is being destroyed because they're removing God from everything... blah blah blah... and in part, I agree with them. I think this country would be a whole lot better if we all were Christians or followed Christian morals. But the fact of the matter is... though we may be a Christian majority, and we may have been founded by Christians, this not an officially Christian country. America is meant to be about equality: for blacks... Jews... gays... and it's meant for people to be free to be as immoral as they want (as long as it's legal). Do I like it? No. But that's what we're about. If I dislike it so much, I should move to a country that has Christianity as its official religion (Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Argentina, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Finland, Greece, etc.)
Yeah, I know. No breaks. Sorry I flew off the handler earlier. I really should stay out of D&D, but the hangout and GARM just haven't been very interesting recently.
Heh, I don't plan on having kids. I was a real dick when I was growing up, so I don't think I would want to have little surrenders running around. I want to adopt a kid from somewhere like Africa or South America, though. The way I see it, there's plenty of hungry mouths out there, so I'll try my best to feed one or two.
These kind of debates really center on the God of the Bible. The issues of sodomy go much deeper than 'can people of the same sex love each other.' Love has to be defined. God has to be defined. The Bible has to be defined. Morals have to be defined. We over simplify so that we can defend positions. The love of the Bible is called 'agape' in the Greek. It means disinterested benevolence- or unselfish motives of the moral good- ethically and responsibly giving what is right without a motive of personal gain. It is the kind of love God has and is. 1 Corinthians chapter 13 gives the expanded definition. It is central to the Christian faith. The God of the Bible is a moral being. There are rights and wrongs. Choices are moral choices based upon justice, love and truth. This is why the creation vs. evolution debate is so important. If God created moral human beings- moral conscience -then right and wrong for God and humans must conform to justice, love and truth. A created man was designed by God to marry a woman. Woman was created with that design. This is the story of Adam and Eve. God later revealed that when this design is violated and a man has sexual relations with another man it is an abomination. In other words it is a perversity of the design that was just, loving and in truth. There are tremendous reason, logic and rationale for this. In the beginning God commanded mankind to be fruitful and multiply. In other words when man was innocent of sin God commanded him to have many children. Later in the Psalms it is written that children are God's reward and greatest blessing. When God's image of justice, love and truth is multiplied in children He experiences blessing and reward. God loves children. He even calls Himself a Heavenly Father. The Bible definition of Father is the true and unique expression of God's love to a son or daughter. Most people who have a bad experience with an earthly father have a very hard time relating to God. That father/child formula was created in us. God designed marriage in the beginning to be the perfect reproductive means of expressing His love, character, and knowledge to children correctly and as they matured under the wise hands of a father and mother who could correctly reflect God. This was God's design, but we know that the sins of mankind have perversed and destroyed these purposes. In the book of Malichi God even says that He hates divorce because of the damage it inflicts upon children. Jesus expressed this important esteem and purpose for children many times even saying that if someone damaged a child it would be better that he never lived because of how serious this offense is. God designed family. His intent and purpose was to have a male and female, in this purpose His character, authority and nature would be revealed in every generation. God's design for sex was for the purpose of reproduction. Any medical Dr. can testify that this is the purpose of the reproductive organs. God's design for reproduction included a male and a female. Any medical Dr. can testify that is how it works. God's design for marriage was for reproduction. When God's design for marriage is violated children are damaged. When God's design for sex is violated the human heart is damaged. When God's design for children is violated the world is damaged. When we look at the world today it is not hard to see all the damage man has done. We can keep ignoring God, but we can't ignore the consequences. God's love means doing what is morally right, will be the best for others and please God. It is choosing the highest good in a situation. The sins of mankind have left the human nature ill equipped for this purest love. We mistake empathy for love, sympathy for love, mutual pleasure for love, kindness for love, anything that doesn't hurt others for love. But all of these human definitions fall short- they are ultimately selfish. Selfishness will always breed personal control, prejudice and deception. Evil lurks in the selfish heart- its motives are not pure, righteous or just. When God's design for mankind is violated it may seem harmless but the multiplied affects upon the conscience of man, the children and the love God commands is destructive. Slippery slope is a very weak description of where sin leads. God knows what is truly just and loving. That is His character and that is how He designed mankind. We are moral beings. Sins may have altered our moral compass, but God has not changed. The questions of Sodomy today go far beyond can two males love one another. The real question is who is God and why did He design us male and female, what is His purpose and should we violate these purposes with our own will. Should we take a propensity in the human heart that is sin influenced and accept it without considering the long term consequences. Or should we consider the purpose for which we are created and restore that which is already damaged. How many hearts, consciences, and character will be damaged further as we drift around each of us deciding for ourselves what is morally right and wrong. I still have only scratched the surface here, over simplified- defending a position. If there is no God of the Bible, please ignore this post; Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?"
No, in the beginning of creation, in a pure world it was not even an issue. That came much later after mankind sinned, the physical consequences and damage increased in both the human body and spirit because of sin. God addressed it when He began to deal with the Jewish people group. Many issues came up later after man's wickedness increased- rape, theft, incest, bestiality, idolatry, adultery, betrayal, greed, swindles, fornication etc (that could be a very very long list). If not for immoral choices incest would have been a different issue with God. Because of God's love for mankind He has many commands to bring long term health and well being both physically, emotionally and morally. So no, God did not design incest. What we view today was different at the origin.
It's religious then. What business does the state have regulating a religious function? If the state should be ambivalent to which church a citizen attends, why should the state care who a church marries? So, what you're really saying is that you don't agree with their lifestyle, so you are restricting it. That's called bigotry. In the name of "god" no less. I feel sorry for you.
Hooray for honesty. I don't think this thread would be half as long as it is if the bigots would just flippin' admit that's what they are. What a great country. I don't like you - so here is some legislated hate. Land of the free*. *unless you're gay. Let's pass an amendment to ban smoking then. And let's equate everything I don't like with killing someone, because you know, gay people really are like murderers or something. I mean, how evil can they be to love someone! The nerve! All this post does is demonstrate how scared ****less you are of things you can't control. Let me guess - you're religious? Kickass! So the constitution and the bill of rights only apply when conveniant? That's so... ...patriotic of you. Droxford - I can't reconcile the "I agree with the bill o' rights protecting minorities" and "I don't like gay people in public". But I can understand the consternation this can cause a parent. I would not appraoch it the way you have necessarily, but it's completely not my place to tell you how to live and think. Thanks for the discussion. No hard feelings - I hope. EDIT the 4322nd: Sorry for the harsh tone of the above comments. However, I don't feel like editing them - it is bigotry, and it is fear. But I don't mean to be a d!ck about it.
No, the religious right of today wants to make it so, but it doesn't fit with the text. At no point in the Bible does Jesus try to make sin illegal or to disallow sin. Legislating morality is not anywhere in the Bible.
Did God foresee all these? According to Bible, human beings as we know today were procreated in the beginning via incest (what other choices you can have if you don't mate with one of your kins), which, according to you, is fine only in perfect world. However, the mankind sinned the moment Eve ate that apple. So if we reasonably conclude (I sure can imgaine reasoning ability is also a gift of God) that the world became imperfect before the first couple had any offsprings, then why God still allowed incest to go forward?
I think I answered that, It wasn't incest in the beginning (we only view it that way because that is the perspective we have today). So in the beginning they were not procreated via incest. Incest came later after man's sin reached a point that the problems of procreation among relatives was a damaging issue. God chose to address it with the people group He was working with at the time. Part of defining incense had to do with the purposes God had with that people group. He never gave that law to other people groups at the time. The marital relationships God instituted before sin and the 'adjustments' due to sin are separate issues. God allowed the original design to proceed forward just like everything else proceeded forward after sin until further actions or commands or interventions became necessary. It is reasonable to expect God to introduce incest at a later date if at a later date it was harmful or damaging to His purposes and plans. What God forsees doesn't always impact what choices we make. If God who executes perfect justice and truth stepped in to the world and corrected everything wrong today... well I guess we would have the end of the world. Don't mistake God's patience for His permission.
BTW- wnes- I appreciate your questions they are honest and logical. I wish I had more time to answer, I would like to elaborate more. Thanks
i dont like midgets. midgets are a minority in this country. midgets should be banned. jesus hates midgets.
My intent was not to lump homosexuality into being as 'wrong or right' as smoking or murder. Please try not to read it that way. My intent was to indicate that I feel that, as my kid's parent, I should be the one who controls the flow of adult-oriented info into her mind, including when and how she receives such information. Am I religious? eh... slightly. We go to church about 3 times every 2 months. We say a prayer before we eat dinner. We're not preachy Bible-thumpers at all. I did spend the first 10 years of my childhood education in private Lutheran school (thus my knowledge of the Bible). Later, I left Christianity and became atheist. I went back to Christianity, but I'm not as 'gung-ho' as other 'born-agains' (I don't even like the idea that I may be considered a 'born-again' but I guess it's true). You mean, "that's so patriotic of us (as a nation)". I'm not the sole writer of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I never even said whether I voted FOR or AGAINST prop 2. And I never said that it's 'right' for the state to not recognize gay marriage. thacabbage asked, 'what right to people have...' and I answered as honestly as possible. No hard feelings at all, man. I know that almost all of my posts sound much more angry than I intend them to. Also, sometimes it takes a good argument for people to re-think about their views. There have been many occassions when I've come to change my views because of a heated discussion (hell, I learned quite a bit from MadMax and others earlier in this thread about existing laws regarding gay spouses, and I had to re-think my vote. That's a good thing!). I try to listen. I try to be honest.I certainly share my point of view. And I try to understand others, even if I disagree with them.
