Gays serving openly in the military

[stoneman]

Thinking for ones self can be the REASON one becomes a follower of Christ. Following the way of the World, that looks like not thinking for yourself.

Well, we'll all know for absolutely sure, in a few years. Probably less than 50 for most of us.


I'm certain that there are no dead atheists.

[Jesse B 707]

glad you can take a little ribbing is stride, no real harm meant, just different strokes for different folks

[discspeed]

When someone tells me they are a Christian, it tells me absolutely nothing about them. People have claimed such to various ends, good and terrible. Because we live in a society that grants us freedom of religion, it could mean any host of different things. Because humans are self interested, it could be used to manipulate. You cannot know Christians, no more than you can know homosexuals. You can only know people. Be leery of people who label themselves too quickly, as they are trying to align your mind to certain assumptions in an attempt to veil some truth. (once again, a disclaimer that I'm not saying anything about the people in this thread, I think all things said have been very pertinent to the discussion at hand).

[Jerrod]

^^truth^^

[Beable]

I think this is sort of a slippery slope. If there is no definition of what marriage should be, then who's to say that a person can't marry their teddy bear?

What's your point here? A teddy bear isn't an of-age person and as far as I know, can't sign or agree to a contract. That would be the minimal requirement for marriage, I'd guess.

[sunspot]

Their excuses/rationalizations are absurd because we all know that they were about to do serious and irreparable harm to a young person. Children do not possess the ability to protect themselves from this sort of predation and have no idea of the implications of these sort of acts on their futures. The perpetrators know this is wrong, if they lack morality, they at least know it is a societal taboo. This is not really comparable to homosexuals. Once again, they are not hurting or preying on anyone. Unless they are conflicted because of specific personal religious or moral beliefs that they hold true, then they are not rationalizing their behavior because it is not wrong to them. Once again, the pedophile comparison is undeserved and is hugely different because of the predator/victim roles and because there is no recognized moral structure that allows for this sort of thing (unless perhaps you're a member of NAMBLA ).

My point is that people will justify anything for the sake of their pleasure, not a comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia.

This line of reasoning seems very judgmental to me. It seems like an easy way to point out the perceived filth of "others" who are not hurting anyone rather than dealing with the darkness inside of one's self. I think religion should be about being the best you can be personally in God's eyes rather than tarring and feathering those who choose to live/believe a different way, once again causing harm to no one. I believe people have the right to the freedom of pursuit of happiness (even if it is outside of someone else's religious/moral beliefs) if they are not antisocial (causing harm). Live and let live, deal with that in which you have the most control (yourself), and trust God to be the judge. That's just my opinion.

The point in my example was not judging others but realizing that we all are a part of the "tank" living in a place that seems clean when it's really dirty. Due to that perspective everything appears right in our lives and we are comfortable with our own mistakes and sin. We justify it and don't realize that there is another standard that we are to go by.

I think this is very obviously different from a committed homosexual couple who wish wish to publicly be acknowledged and be afforded the same benefits as straight couples. Comparing a human to a stuffed animal seems to make light of the issue.

I'm not trying to make light of the issue. If we don't have certain standards for things then the natural progression is not for the better but for the worse. The fact that it could come to the point where someone could look at their teddy bear and want to marry it is the kind of result we are left with when we have no gauge to go by, no standard to uphold.

I think you recognized the limited validity of your examples in that last paragraph. I think what it comes down to here is the separation of church and state and the allowance of people a pursuit of happiness that does not infringe on the rights of others. I believe our founding fathers recognized these things as critical to a long lived and prosperous state. I do not believe that a single institution such as a single religion should be controlling how people in our country live. If you look at governments around the world that are not secular and allowing of different beliefs they stifle freedom and it always ends ugly as this is the one thing people are willing to fight and die for. If our country were ruled by a single group's vision of what God wanted then even slightly different denominations of the same basic religion would be at war with the institution (protestants vs catholics, sunnis vs shiites). This is why governments' must try and forge some common ground and basic prosocial moral principles aside from strict religious and moral codes. From this perspective I think it makes sense to allow homosexuals the pursuit of happiness through fighting openly for their country and being included in state recognized unions rather than allowing those who believe in a specific religious principle to deny them these freedoms. Allowing this freedom will not change the quality of life of those who seek to deny this, however, it will greatly improve the quality of life of homosexuals. Once again, these are just my opinions.

From your perspective who or what would define marriage?

[Beable]

Their excuses/rationalizations are absurd because we all know that they were about to do serious and irreparable harm to a young person. Children do not possess the ability to protect themselves from this sort of predation and have no idea of the implications of these sort of acts on their futures. The perpetrators know this is wrong, if they lack morality, they at least know it is a societal taboo. This is not really comparable to homosexuals. Once again, they are not hurting or preying on anyone. Unless they are conflicted because of specific personal religious or moral beliefs that they hold true, then they are not rationalizing their behavior because it is not wrong to them. Once again, the pedophile comparison is undeserved and is hugely different because of the predator/victim roles and because there is no recognized moral structure that allows for this sort of thing (unless perhaps you're a member of NAMBLA ).

My point is that people will justify anything for the sake of their pleasure, not a comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Your point was ill considered, because there are many people who directly compare homosexuality and pedophilia. Rick Santorum and the BSA come to mind. If you want to have a reasonable discussion with people who have different views, you should distance yourself from arguments that come from bigotry. This is something that homosexuals have had to combat directly.

[BearDin]

what about someone that has relations with animals? Does that affect other people or society negatively? Should we tolerate it?

If it's not okay, why?

[Jesse B 707]

what about someone that has relations with animals? Does that affect other people or society negatively? Should we tolerate it?

If it's not okay, why?

the animal has no say in this.......kinda like rape, at the same time you can kill the shit out of the same animal and eat it and its perfectly legal maybe we should allow bestiality either way this has nothing to do with homosexuality or the conversation at hand

[BearDin]

it does have to do with what sunspot was saying. What's seen as acceptable behavior by society.. by humanity! It definitely DOES have to do with what's being discussed. Sorry if you missed that.


It's rape? of an animal? What if it's a woman with a male animal?

"Well Ms. Johnson..See, she likes those dogs. I mean, she REALLY likes those dogs. She's a fine citizen. She pays her taxes, has a job, but LOVES those dogs."

Is that acceptable? Are you a bigot to disagree with Ms. Johnson's behavior? Are you a bad person if you think what Ms Johnsn does is immoral, unnatural, and/or disgusting?

[Beable]

it does have to do with what sunspot was saying. What's seen as acceptable behavior by society.. by humanity! It definitely DOES have to do with what's being discussed. Sorry if you missed that.


It's rape? of an animal? What if it's a woman with a male animal?

"Well Ms. Johnson..See, she likes those dogs. I mean, she REALLY likes those dogs. She's a fine citizen. She pays her taxes, has a job, but LOVES those dogs."

Is that acceptable? Are you a bigot to disagree with Ms. Johnson's behavior? Are you a bad person if you think what Ms Johnsn does is immoral, unnatural, and/or disgusting?

You pretty much jumped the shark here. Jesse already addressed your question. Animals cannot consent to sex. Sex without consent is rape. Bestiality and homosexuality are not comparable for this reason, unless you think all homosexuals are rapists.

[some call me...tim?]

I don't know it it's still in effect, but not too long ago, Texas made sodomy (buttsecks) illegal while sex with animals was still legal.

[Roy]

When did the thread become about marriage and not the military?

don't know it it's still in effect, but not too long ago, Texas made sodomy (buttsecks) illegal while sex with animals was still legal.

There are/was a lot of states that had sodomy laws. Oral sex is illegal in 17 states. You cant sell sex toys in certain states.

[Frank Delicious]

I'm certain that there are no dead atheists.

George Carlin

Also people really need to stop comparing homosexuality to things that aren't the same at all like animals (stuffed or not), Children, and adultery.


As for gays serving in the military, I think having to keep your sexuality hidden because of other people's belief kinda crosses the line between the separation of church and state. The only reason the people can't come out is because of other people's religious beliefs.

[riverboy]

When someone tells me they are a Christian, it tells me absolutely nothing about them. People have claimed such to various ends, good and terrible. Because we live in a society that grants us freedom of religion, it could mean any host of different things. Because humans are self interested, it could be used to manipulate. You cannot know Christians, no more than you can know homosexuals. You can only know people. Be leery of people who label themselves too quickly, as they are trying to align your mind to certain assumptions in an attempt to veil some truth. (once again, a disclaimer that I'm not saying anything about the people in this thread, I think all things said have been very pertinent to the discussion at hand).

This is correct. I am Christian and I have no problem with homosexuality. It varies from person to person. I have been following this thread closely and think it has been kept mostly civil and is a wealth of information. Reasonable debate is healthy and I would like to see this thread get back on track.