Homosexuality

[hoosier]

I couldn't care less about allowing or banning gay marriage (civil unions is another matter), but I am curious about why everyone seems to assume that marriage was originally--and is still fundamentally--a religious institution that only later became coopted by the state. Historically speaking that's not quite accurate. It's true that religion has played a part in marriage for a long time, but so has government since at least the 16th century, when marriages in most European countries had to be sanctioned by both state and church in order to be legal. As far as I'm aware, there is no good evidence that says that marriage was a religious invention. Marriage easily predates Christianity, so it would seem that both Christianity and modern government have glommed onto a practice whose origins are much older. So why does religion now get credit for something it didn't invent?

[Harlan Huckleby]

at some point religion took over marriage.

religions didn't invent sex, and they sure try to control that too.

[hoosier]

at some point religion took over marriage.

religions didn't invent sex, and they sure try to control that too.

Well that's my point. If religion can take over something, it stands to reason that it can also lose control of it and the world won't come to a screeching halt. I know, I'm preaching to the...nevermind.

[Harlan Huckleby]

according to AynRand, the coming rule of Obama shall usher-in a new secular dynasty. So keep your fingers crossed.

[MJZiggy]

I have wondered a great deal whether the way to go is to get the government out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious sacrement...let the government issue only civil union licenses and let the different churches/religions etc. decide whether to marry a couple. It seems so simple to me, but obviously it must not be.

This is my idea too. But it will never happen, and the reason is that people like having their own religious standards reflected in the government. So the fight goes on. The acceptance of marriage between gays in a legal sense will happen the same time that acceptance of marriage between gays occurs in a majority of churches.

Civil unions are the easy solution to the conflict, but there is zero chance this will be the resolution path, so its not worth discussing. Too many people on both sides of the issue see civil unions as a surrender. So we will waste a decade or two arguing, until enough older people die.

Hey don't forget I was on this bandwagon too. Either they marry everyone or they don't marry anyone and let the churches handle it.

PIPL, It's hard to shoot the messenger when you don't have an answer for the question. It was an interesting statement, though wasn't it?

[packinpatland]

I sometimes watch Olberman for the 'comedic' value............but in this case, there was no comedy.......he was right on.

And I have noticed that no one has answered his question.

[HowardRoark]

I sometimes watch Olberman for the 'comedic' value............but in this case, there was no comedy.......he was right on.

And I have noticed that no one has answered his question.

I shot the messenger after 15 seconds.

[packinpatland]

I sometimes watch Olberman for the 'comedic' value............but in this case, there was no comedy.......he was right on.

And I have noticed that no one has answered his question.

I shot the messenger after 15 seconds.

That's exactly what I said would happen:

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:47 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, most here will shoot the messenger and not listen to the message.......

[HowardRoark]

I sometimes watch Olberman for the 'comedic' value............but in this case, there was no comedy.......he was right on.

And I have noticed that no one has answered his question.

I shot the messenger after 15 seconds.

That's exactly what I said would happen:

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:47 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, most here will shoot the messenger and not listen to the message.......

I know.

[texaspackerbacker]

As for the reason behind my making these polls, I have asked repeatedly--and not gotten an answer: WHY is it always the leftists defending homosexuality--

Tex,

Do you even have to ask?

It's because...jesus christ...it's because historically with the rightie fag slanging...you guys seem to be in the closet. Blues seem to be unfaithful, but reds are unfaithful with the same gender. How the f does that work?

I say this jokingly...I actually appreciated that you responded..but you have such a hatred towards blue people. I'm a registered as an Independent btw.

But I do give you credit for responding.

Mateo, no offense, but that is a downright lame answer to the question of WHY leftists incessantly defend homosexuality.

First of all, Barney Frank and the other flaming fag former Dem Congressman more than balance out Craig and the guy from Florida. Secondly, and more importantly, though, I'm referring to lefties in this forum and elsewhere--all or most of which I will give credit for NOT actually being fags--defending homosexuality and the gay agenda of promoting homosexuality as a morally equivalent lifestyle. You would think that somewhere out there would be a liberal who is for all the crap liberals are for, but is disgusted by same sex ass-fucking--and the teaching of kids in schools that it is a fine thing to do. I guess if such a liberal exists, he (or she) doesn't have the balls to speak up.

Actually, I like TH87's explanation for lefties defending homosexuality (which I will discuss in the next post) better.

BTW, what I REALLY hate with regard to this blue/red thing is the fact that the God damned leftist saturated mainstream media CHANGED it from the early days of color TV. It used to be, very logically, red for Democrats and blue for Republicans. However, the God damned media assholes were concerned that people would make the very valid connection between Democrats and red as in Communist red--so they made the switch--somewhere in the early 70s, I think.

[texaspackerbacker]

As for the reason behind my making these polls, I have asked repeatedly--and not gotten an answer: WHY is it always the leftists defending homosexuality--those of us on the good side of everything else are also virtually 100% on the good side of the homosexuality issue too. I'd STILL like to get an answer to that--why in the hell does somebody who favors higher taxes, government as a solution, de-emphasis of defense and security, etc.--all the other leftist shit--necessarily have to defend same sex ass-fucking?

Liberals are generally sympathetic to people of all kinds and believe in .

Conservatives are generally more into preserving society and traditionally established constructs.

In sum, Liberals focus more on making the individual person happy, and Conservatives focus more on making the existing society happy.

THIS explanation definitely DOES make sense as far as it goes. Sympathizing with "letting everyone do whatever floats their boat, as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights"--including the unobtrusive practice of homosexuality in private--basically embodies the very limited good side of liberalism. However, that explanation does NOT address the so-called "gay agenda" of promoting homosexuality as a morally equivalent alternative to heterosexual behavior. Poisoning the minds of kids in school that way, as well as moving society in general in that direction by way of the news media and entertainment community indeed DOES do a lot of infringing on the rights of others.

You also state the viewpoint of conservatives pretty well. I have to ask, though, if that's what conservatives are all about, how could anyone other than a few all out extremist left wingers possibly NOT be in the conservative camp?

[th87]

As for the reason behind my making these polls, I have asked repeatedly--and not gotten an answer: WHY is it always the leftists defending homosexuality--those of us on the good side of everything else are also virtually 100% on the good side of the homosexuality issue too. I'd STILL like to get an answer to that--why in the hell does somebody who favors higher taxes, government as a solution, de-emphasis of defense and security, etc.--all the other leftist shit--necessarily have to defend same sex ass-fucking?

Liberals are generally sympathetic to people of all kinds and believe in .

Conservatives are generally more into preserving society and traditionally established constructs.

In sum, Liberals focus more on making the individual person happy, and Conservatives focus more on making the existing society happy.

THIS explanation definitely DOES make sense as far as it goes. Sympathizing with "letting everyone do whatever floats their boat, as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights"--including the unobtrusive practice of homosexuality in private--basically embodies the very limited good side of liberalism. However, that explanation does NOT address the so-called "gay agenda" of promoting homosexuality as a morally equivalent alternative to heterosexual behavior. Poisoning the minds of kids in school that way, as well as moving society in general in that direction by way of the news media and entertainment community indeed DOES do a lot of infringing on the rights of others.

You also state the viewpoint of conservatives pretty well. I have to ask, though, if that's what conservatives are all about, how could anyone other than a few all out extremist left wingers possibly NOT be in the conservative camp?

Your definition of the "gay agenda" is what liberals would disagree with. Liberals don't think homosexuality is promoted. Promotion and then partaking in the lifestyle implies that people choose to be homosexual. I don't believe sexual preference is a choice. Conservatives apparently do. Liberals view the "gay agenda" as an awareness (rather than a promotion) that there are gay people out there, and they're humans just like everyone else. Therein lies the difference.

Why is everybody not in the conservative camp? Because there are people out there that question whether what's "traditional" and "accepted" is really right or necessary. For example, take me and marriage (an accepted and traditional fate for young people). I see people getting married, and they all seem numb to it. Like they just kind of accepted it as something they eventually have to do, rather than being excited about it and really wanting to do it. Many seem miserable and tired. So it made me wonder why I'd ever get married. At this age, it just seems a little dumb and 50% end in divorce anyway (which really screws you over), so what's the point, and what's the rush? This would be a "liberal" viewpoint - questioning the validity and merit of the institution of the traditional concept of marriage.

I think there is merit to both approaches. Conservatism works to preserve societal concepts. For example, defense is a largely conservative concept. This serves to preserve our borders and preserve our national identity and personality. A strong two-parent family is also a conservative concept, and studies show that kids turn out the best when this is present.

However, conservatism has its bad sides too. Because it preserves tradition, it can preserve unjust institutions as well. For example, slavery. Slavery had been established for hundreds of years and conservatives wanted to preserve this institution, because they saw nothing wrong with it. However, it was the liberals of the time that said that keeping Black people in captivity wouldn't be right, and eventually rallied for their release. This is where liberalism has been necessary - to overthrow outdated and unjust concepts.

And of course, liberalism has its bad sides. Too much liberalism results in too much happiness in the moment, and no responsibility and thought of consequences. The arch-liberal wants to do away with government altogether because it's believed to be oppressive and structured. But if that happens, who's going to build the roads to get him where he might need to go, for example?

So the point is, balance is necessary. Too much conservatism makes one rigid and closed-minded, and too much liberalism makes one selfish and irresponsible.

[texaspackerbacker]

There has never been even one shred of scientific evidence to support the idea of homosexuality being inherited, as opposed to the obvious idea that it is a CHOICE. Indeed, I've heard, homosexuals are scared shitless that science will find a "gay gene" because it would lead to abortions of the great majority of fetuses with that gene.

As for the "gay agenda", did I say "promotion of homosexuality" in schools, etc.? No. I said "promotion of homosexuality as a morally equivalent lifestyle"--in other words, the idea that it is OK to practice same sex ass-fucking.

I obviously don't speak for ALL conservatives--just ask Howard and Aynrand about that, but I, for one, for better or worse, do a lot of picking and choosing which traditions and even moral concepts are worth preserving. I tend to be a lot more of a PRAGMATIST when it comes to politics and economics, and a live and let live kind of guy on social issues--even including homosexuality. But that ends when they get all evangelical about it and try to inflict the idea that their sick behavior is OK on others.

I remind you, TH87, it is not only the true teachings of MY religion that vilifies homosexuality, but YOURS too--as well as those of almost every other religion and culture in the world.

[sheepshead]

hey a holes a hole a mouths a mouth-who cares??

[Zool]

hey a holes a hole a mouths a mouth-who cares??

who you callin an a hole