Homosexuality and Religion

Remove all ads!

That is rape, and outside of what I was talking about.

What about where an underaged person WANTS to have sex with someone older. Like these cases of 12 to 14 year old boys that get lucky with their teacher who's in their mid 20's. These were consenting relationships, but illegal because of the age of the boy and the fact that she was his teacher. By your logic, these things, which are clearly illegal but mutually consenting and likely victimless, are none of anyone else's business. That's the cases I'm referring to. Some groups will try to reduce age of consent and challenge laws involving such relationships.

Such conflicts are a lot more common that you would believe. One group wants something that would desecrate that which we consider to be sacred. Traditionally, laws enacted by our democratically elected leaders defended such a concept. One group wants to challenge that. It is within the framework around the sacred ordinance of marriage is how homosexuals will be accommodated, but leave the ordinance of marriage in the hands of religion.

Basically, they did by challenging the status quo and demanding that the state intervene in religious matters to accommodate them too.

Once the fight starts, both sides attack. While I don't agree with Pat Robertson and his God Hates Fags movement, I also don't think they should have the right to expect the state to redefine a religious ordinance to suit their desires.

Whenever any of us shows any affiliation one way or another on any issue, we open ourselves to the scrutiny of any who see us. The more contentious the issue, the greater the degree of reaction. In the days of "don't ask, don't tell," they lived their lives away from the public eye, and avoided such judgement. They don't want to be judged, get back in the closet. And I hold myself to that too. I know I'm being judged by posting here. If I don't feel like being judged, then I would sit down, shut up and not post here.

 

Answer my question if you wish to continue this laughably absurd line of debate, Gnarff. There isn't any real, legitimate support for pedophilia coming from any real, legitimate lobby in this country (and there never has been)......and if the few kooks out there publicly advocating pedophilia who haven't been arrested yet use rhetoric that sounds similar to what homosexuals use, I'd like to point out one huge and fundamental difference.

When a pedophile states that there is no exploitation, no victim, when he has consensual sex with a minor, he is lying.....or just has a screw loose. A minor** is too young to give consent and too young to understand to what he is consenting. When a homosexual states that there is no exploitation, no victim, when he engages in consensual sex with another homosexual of the legal age, there really is no victim. You may want to consider looking up "slippery slope" in the dictionary before continuing this faulty line of reasoning.

**Minor isn't quite an articulate enough word here. By minor, I mean to say "someone who hasn't reached puberty yet". Remember, if the minor in question has already reached sexual maturity, then the offender is not a pedophile. He may be (and usually is) in violation of the law (statutory rape), but pedophilia is, by definition, sex with someone who has not yet hit puberty. The proper term for an adult obsessed with having relations with a young teen who has been through (or is going through) puberty to the exclusion of relations with adults would probably be "ephebophile".

[ November 12, 2006, 06:53: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Why is anyone givin the right to decide what age you can consent to sex with complete understanding. I mean, damn, it's not as if at age 18 people suddenly realize "S***, if you have sex you might have kids... THERE'S NO STORK INVOLVED!!!


EDIT: well seeing as Drew made clear his intention... disregard this post.

 

This isn't what they want. They want civil unions. A civil union is performed by the state. It has no effect on marriage, since it has no common ground with it except the legal benefits.

 

That is absolutely not the same thing. 'Coming out' is an act of liberation and the refusal to continue living a lie. I'll admit that some gay people are a little overzealous about who they come out to, and some even throw it in peoples' faces, but the vast majority just go about their lives as normal. How many gay people do you think you walk past every day on the way to work without realising it?
The right is not given to straight people to tell them 'Fit in or shut up'

 

What if the person is over 18 and hasn't reached puberty ... or won't ever.

 

Ah, puberty...I hope to reach that one day..

 

Ok, Drew for yet another time: I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT RAPE. I guess that was mentioned in the part where I don't give you ammunition to mock me with.

I was asking about that age between start of puberty and age of consent. These kids know what they are consenting to (and in some cases pursue this). This is the 15 year old girl that uses a fake ID to attempt to get into a bar, meets a couple guys in the line up, neglects to mention that she's under age and has sex with them as mentioned in a previous thread. This is the 12 year old boy that hits on his teacher and gets lucky. I still consider something to be wrong with these cases, but is society going to abdicate the right to such indignation with the none of anyone else's business arguement?

If you're looking for flowery logic, you're not going to find it here. Fancy logic is fine for a fantasy world, where there is no religion or no conflict in what people want/believe, but this is the real world. I see a slippery slope, that's what I'm going to warn you about. I've shown that my writing is anything but fancy here...

AS well he should be. To my mind, that is pedophilia. That is also what I see being challenged.

Then the first thing they need to do is remove the word marriage entirely from their arguements. They are hitting nerves all over the place with the religious community by seeking validation of things that the religious can't validate.

But they seem to come out too far. Is there no middle ground for them? Can they not, as someone earlier put it, swordfight in peace, and leave that in private where it belongs? I presume that the relations between a man and wife are private and none of my damned business. Why should the relationships between homosexuals be any different?

That's the way it should be. Sex is a very private and personal thing. But when I'm asked for my opinion, I'm not shy in sharing it. When it's thrown in my face I'll give my opinion on that too.

 

I still think that when your religion is against natural things such as homosexuality then it's time to step out of the 2000 BCE mindset...or allow your religion to evolve and adapt.

 

Okay, what this is, is Gnarf being completely anal about the use of the word "marriage". Did it ever cross your mind for a second that maybe they're using this word because it's been the commonly defined word for a bonding ceremony between two people for the last, say, forever? It takes a while to get into the habit of using a clunky word like "civil union" to appease religious pedants.

Also, he basically wants anyone who doesn't agree with his view of the world to keep themselves in complete seclusion. Sorry, but if people are being treated unequally for a trivial reason, they WILL fight for their rights, and that's just the way it is. You're perfectly capable of ignoring it and sticking to your own thing, but I get the feeling that you like to indulge your persecution complex.

 

agreed, another reason i think they use the word marriage is that in some insurence companies a married couple get certain advantages, so either the companies should alther the word, or gnarrf and the rest of does christians should get into thier heads that marriage, dosn't imply christian.
Since all other aknowledge religions bonding is called marriage to.

 

If gays want a secular marriage, then what exactly is the problem? I fail to see how 2 guys or girls getting married by a government official (like many straight couples) can cause offense to religious zealots? There is no suggestion of forcing a christian church to marry 2 guys/girls.

 

Can't argue with that cause I actually agree. Some gay people do (It grates me to say it) have a bit of a chip on their shoulder about being the minority.

Sorry

 

Yeah, SOME do. But they're the only ones you hear about, since the ones who are just trying to live their lives aren't going to get on the news.

 

But I have never conceded the point that it is natural. Secondly, natural does not equal morally acceptable. In a faith that teaches that we ought to rise above what we would otherwise be, by putting the laws and desires of God above our own, it logically follows that such temptations would never be accepted as okay to do.

Religion ahs the word covenent, the state has the word contract. They basically mean the same thing, but Covenent implies sacred, while Contract implies legal or secular. That's what I want to get across. Marriage is religious, while some other term would apply to secular unions. The laws involving marriage are simply a framework to accommodate this religious ordinance, and within that framework any such accomodation can occur. Leave the state out of that religious matters.

How about simply to stop trying to change religious doctrine and legal relations to religion? How about living their lives and not shoving it in our face?

That works for me. These companies should adjust such wordings to accommodate other alternatives, and I think that companies that do will get more business from the gay community...

And these are the ones that piss me off.

Those I don't have a problem with as long as they keep such personal details out of my face. I'll never agree with their choice, but I won't fight them as long as they mind their own business.

 

@ Gnarff:

Pardon me for asking, but is fighting not what you're doing now?

I fail to see how marriage remains a "holy matrimony" to this day. These days it is not at all uncommon to be wed at any place other than a church, and the "priest" who performs the marriage doesn't exactly need an M.D...an active internet connection and a printer is more like it . And as you seem very adamant about shoving your beliefs down other people's throats, I find it extremely ironic that you would take such offense over homosexuals "shoving their lifestyles in your face." You don't seem to mind throwing caution to the wind and blantantly chucking misinformed opinions at people, yet you seem to take considerable offense when other (mostly) well-intentioned people attempt to do the same. A tough review meets a river-horse, perhaps?

 

ok, look Gnarff:

It's obvious that you aren't going to be persuaded to change your views, no matter how much dispute takes place. It's also obvious that those advocating gay rights aren't going to give up their cause either. So, seeing as how niether you nor the other side is going to give up, it is also obvious that some sort of compromise must be made in order for us all to be happy.

So i am proposing this compromise for both sides of this debate:

1. acknowledge that the vast majority of gay people and conservative people keep to themselves and don't actively "shove their views" in each other's faces.

2. Acknowledge that neither side has the right to shove their views in each other's faces.

3. Acknowledge that each side has a right to their views/opinions and doesn't want to fight each other, and that neither side can really be considered "right" as long as the other side holds their convictions.

4. Acknowledge and accept that there is a need for both the sanctity marriage and for some sort of civil union for gay people that gives the same legal benefits as marriage.

5. Agree from this point forth to not fight one another but instead to work together to try and heal the divide that has been created and try to reconcile our differences, because after all we're all human and should love one another instead of hating one another. I think we can all agree that love is a much more powerful force than hate. If you think about it, love is really the most important thing we have... so why do we waiste our time on hate?? Just think of how different the world would be if we all felt the love just a little bit more in our day to day lives...
..............................................................................................


Ok, so does this sound reasonable to you? Perhaps i'm just being overly optomistic in writing this, but it is clear to me that in an issue which emotionally polarizes people as much as this that some common ground must be found in order to work together. After all we can all agree that non-partisanship works much better for getting things done...

hows that for being proactive, eh?

[ November 14, 2006, 09:30: Message edited by: Phone_Tools ]

 

Hmm. Okay. well, if you put it that way...

I ****ing HATE Christians. Every time I go into my city center they're always preaching their self-righteous crap and trying to force their beliefs down my throat. And I keep getting Christians at my door trying to convert me to their religion. To be honest, I think we should ban Christianity, since this is obviously what all Christians are like.

I just LOVE blanket statements!

Are you even listening to ANYTHING anyone is saying? They want a legal procedure that grants them rights equivalent to that of a married couple. They don't want anyone to change their doctrine, and they're not trying to shove their beliefs down anyone's throat. The REASON they are getting so much coverage is because religious bigots are trying to stop them from being allowed this right (DESPITE the fact that it would have no effect on religious doctrine or ordinance), and, if possible, ban homosexuality altogether, because, like you, they want to force everyone else to live their lives THEIR way.

[ November 14, 2006, 17:29: Message edited by: Clixby ]

 

.....

What's wrong with you people?

I mean any of you?

I thought we had this worked out, and Phone_Tools pretty much summed it up above. Religious peole get marriage as a sacred covenant, homosexuals get civil-union as a legal contract. Both grant the same rights and responsabilities (subject to the group involved wanting to change things on their end, like some homosexuals may want to include a temporary nature to their contract, etc) and everyone's happy. The Christians get their marriages and sacred ceremony, the homosexuals get their unions and legal recognition and whatever ceremony or symbology they want. Neither forces the other to be involved in any way.

SO WHY ARE WE STILL ARGUING ABOUT THIS?? What's wrong with the above?

And Clixby, what's wrong with you? Gnarff said it was the self-absorbed homosexuals that MUST make EVERYONE see that they are BLATANTLY homosexual and if ANYONE doesn't like it they're a bigot type people that piss him off (and many others, gay and straight) and you start talking about blanket statements and attacking all christians because you've run into some pushy ones?

 

Just pointing out that I can complain about a group based on their worst members as well. I guess I might have tried a bit too hard. Nevermind.

Oh yeah, and Phone_Tools has a good point. I think we should listen to him.