Why do humans use oppression(Homosexual marrage)?

[Biochemist]

...Its flat out wrong in most people's book for some 30 year old to take advantage of a five year old.

Yes, but perhaps the core of the problem is that most people's "books" are changing. If anyone had asked in 1960 whether the US would consider homosexuality "normal" in 40 years, most would have laughed. Now those folks are are laughed at.

Personally, if they are a solid couple I think they should have the same rights everyone else does and the same protection, so to speak. But then again I tend to apply that to hetrosexuals as well.

The "rights" issues is a convenient straw man argument. Any two people in this country (the US) can arrange a private contract that will give them nearly all of the rights that are granted under law to married couples (possibly excepting some health insurance rules). The epic battle in the public forum is whether gays are to be equally regarded, not equally righted.

One issue, and one that can be backed up with a bit of honest research into this is there are people that from birth display traits and attractions different from say the hetrosexual crowd.

This is oft quoted, but the actual core research is remakably thin on this.

...How can some God be giving them over to something when they show these traits at far too early an age to be accountable by anyone's book?

God makes folks different. My personal evil proclivities (and I have many) are not the same as my children's or even my friends. That the proclivities are different does not make then acceptable. I could choose to label my tendencies that are "common" as "normal" and therefore make them socially acceptable. I think that processs in inherently unreasonable. Children, for example. tend to be inherently selfish, and we spend a lot of time as parents to give children a basis to consider others first, at least upon occasion. The fact that children are nearly ubiquitously selfish does not make it right. The fact that nearly 100% of men are lust-driven at some times in their lives does not make it right. Focusing these tendencies toward positive outcomes is work, and it is that work that most of us consider personal growth.

 

My gay friends (I have many) are not more sinful than I am. That does not mean that I approve of gay behavior, any more than I approve of my own heterosexual promiscuity. It is useful as a mature human to recognize that some behaviors and attitudes are actually wrong. Without such considerations, we will readily accept (in 40 years time) that it is perfectly acceptable that 30 year old men live with a harem of five year old children to care for them in exchange for sex. After all, who established genetically that humans are adults at 18......

Face it people, not all hetrosexuals like everything the same when it comes to sex.

I don't think a discussion of morality has much to do with what people "like". It has to do with whether immature people (of any age) can make decisions that results in a negative outcome for themselves or others. The assessment of a negative outcome is certainly a worthwhile debate. But the fact that a behavior is commonly practiced or commonly desired certainly does not make it right.

[paultrr]

I think the next proper question would be upon what do you define such as right or wrong. Discounting the Bible, which most of us who are not believers would not consider a basis for anything one is left with majority opinion. As to majority opinion most of those laws out there are not in tune with the majority at all. Majority opinion granted has to be weighed with what's actually good for society in general. But when the actual majority out there tends to favor change in our laws the question must be asked who is actually dictating these laws and upon what do they base these laws?

 

What I am getting at is some of the laws we have out there stem from a Bible basis of morality. The question then becomes how does seperation of church and state enter in here.

[Biochemist]

I think the next proper question would be upon what do you define such as right or wrong.

I agree this is the likely sequential question.

Discounting the Bible, which most of us who are not believers would not consider a basis for anything one is left with majority opinion.

I contend that in the absence of an external reference (such as the Bible) there is really no such thing as morality. I agree that there is only majority opinion, or local opinion, and that is not morality.

As to majority opinion most of those laws out there are not in tune with the majority at all. Majority opinion granted has to be weighed with what's actually good for society in general.

But there is no basis to establish what is "good for society in general" without an external reference standard of "good".

But when the actual majority out there tends to favor change in our laws the question must be asked who is actually dictating these laws and upon what do they base these laws?

Or more importantly, how is a minority is able to get their views expressed in law for the "good" of the majority. How can a minority view of "good" ever be good? The US abortion political debate is perhaps the most intersting in this regard. Most pro-choice activists in the US acknowledge that they could never get an amendment to the US constitution passed to make abortion on demand legal. They acknowledge that a majority of states would not back the amendment. They also acknowledge that a majority of states would actually make abortion illegal if given the opportunity to vote on it. The Roe v Wade decision was and is at odds with the majority opinion of the US (not just those nettlesome religious extremists). It is also at odds with most folk's view of the Bible (although I suspect some disagree). But it is the law of the land because 5 justices supported it in the early '70s. The example of abortion law is only one of many cases where the majority opinion is not the law of the land.

 

There is little evidence that the Bible per se is creating laws that are at odds with the majority. In the cases where the majority if "outvoted" by the minority, the Bible is typically the loser as well.

The question then becomes how does seperation of church and state enter in here.

Lastly, the constitution does not advocate separation of church and state. It advocates that the state cannot establish religion. It assumes integration of preferences a population (that is often theistic) with the representative democratic process. US citizens should be allowed to represent religious views (or any view) through the democratic process.

[C1ay]

My gay friends (I have many) are not more sinful than I am. That does not mean that I approve of gay behavior, any more than I approve of my own heterosexual promiscuity. It is useful as a mature human to recognize that some behaviors and attitudes are actually wrong.

And there's the crux of the issue. You have decided it is a choice for them by labeling it as a behavior. Did it ever occur to you that some women could be naturally born with the same sexual orientation as men or that some men may be born with the same sexual orientation as women? Can you prove that none of them are born this way? If they aborn this way then how can you advocate that something they are born with should be held against them? That doen't sound very christian to me, is that what your faith teaches you?

[Biochemist]

And there's the crux of the issue. You have decided it is a choice for them by labeling it as a behavior.

Or course it is a choice to behave a certain way. It does not matter what your underlying tendency is. Any behavior is a choice, unless you are a determinist that elects so disbelieve in free will. Underlying tendencies, even if different, do not obviate the choice to comply with the underlying tendency.

Did it ever occur to you that some women could be naturally born with the same sexual orientation as men or that some men may be born with the same sexual orientation as women?

Sure it has occurred to me. Almost all men are born with a reasonably strong drive for sex. That doesn't make it right to indiscriminantly comply with the tendency.

If they are born this way then how can you advocate that something they are born with should be held against them?

It has nothing to do with being held against them. It is a question of right and wrong. Heterosexual folks are no less sinful than homosexual folks. They just have different proclivities. I have lots of tendencies that are wrong. I can choose to let them go because they are "natural" and pretend they are good, or I can decide that unbridled "natural" behavior is not always good. I am in the latter camp.

[C1ay]

Or course it is a choice to behave a certain way. It does not matter what your underlying tendency is. Any behavior is a choice, unless you are a determinist that elects so disbelieve in free will. Underlying tendencies, even if different, do not obviate the choice to comply with the underlying tendency. Sure it has occurred to me. Almost all men are born with a reasonably strong drive for sex. That doesn't make it right to indiscriminantly comply with the tendency. It has nothing to do with being held against them. It is a question of right and wrong. Heterosexual folks are no less sinful than homosexual folks. They just have different proclivities. I have lots of tendencies that are wrong. I can choose to let them go because they are "natural" and pretend they are good, or I can decide that unbridled "natural" behavior is not always good. I am in the latter camp.

You miss the point. It is not a matter of whether or not they choose to follow their tendencies, what matters is that they have no choice in what tendencies they are born with. You seem to think that there is something wrong with them for following their preference. Who is anyone to judge what is right and wrong for them? Tell us, what makes it wrong for to homosexual adults to follow their natural born compulsion?

[Fishteacher73]

My gay friends (I have many) are not more sinful than I am. That does not mean that I approve of gay behavior, any more than I approve of my own heterosexual promiscuity. It is useful as a mature human to recognize that some behaviors and attitudes are actually wrong.

 

Perhaps it is just a semantics issue, but in this statement you seem to equate homosexuality with promiscuity. This IMO is unfounded.

 

There are studies that imply that standard homosexual behavior is promiscuous, but one look at how society has marginalized this group. This tabooing will drive the culture underground and lend it self to anonymous incounters in non-descript localities for the safety of the individual.

 

One of the biggest "moral" issues brought up against homosexuality is the "promiscuous" nature of the culture. This, havng just explained it, is a symptom of the "moral standard" being imposed on different people. This being said, how would marriage, which is the polar opposite of promiscuity, be any more immoral?

 

My best friend has had the same boyfriend for over 6 years. This is the longest lasting relationship out of my group of peers. He has bought a house and two cars with his boyfriend. Luckily the company his boyfreind works for is past the dark ages and allows him to put a "partner" on the med. insurance.

 

This is no different than inter-faith marriages. Is it an affront to the moral fabric of society if a Jew and a Christian mary? How about a Catholic and a Methodist? This is just pure closeminded bigotry draped in the guise of morality. This is what is wrong with religion IMO. It is used as a tool to oppress those that do not fall in line with the agenda.

[Fishteacher73]

Or course it is a choice to behave a certain way. It does not matter what your underlying tendency is. Any behavior is a choice, unless you are a determinist that elects so disbelieve in free will. Underlying tendencies, even if different, do not obviate the choice to comply with the underlying tendency.

 

Given if free will exists, what is wrong with a tendency? I have a tendency to like to breath. Gllileo liked to look at the sun. Should I shirk off that peculiar habbit because some dusty tome has decided that it is wrong? What is harmed in homosexuality besides the "damnation" of Yahwea of their "soul"?

 

The only half legitimate rebuttal was "what do I tell my daughter?" Tell her what you tell her when she askes about an interracial couple, or for that matter any couple. Or you can go ahead and start to build her prejudice by filling her mind with the evil and lurid activities of the so called "sodomites" and how god will give them theirs..... :eek:

[ledbassest]

The "rights" issues is a convenient straw man argument. Any two people in this country (the US) can arrange a private contract that will give them nearly all of the rights that are granted under law to married couples (possibly excepting some health insurance rules). The epic battle in the public forum is whether gays are to be equally regarded, not equally righted.

this is not completely true. this matter really depends upon where you live. where i live in missouri, our local comunity center (this is where the local pool is) does not allow for HOMOSEXUAL couples to have a family pass, or for that matter will not do anything about homosexual sexual-harassment. although they will not do anything about homosexuals they will ban one who sexually-harasses a heterosexual. this angers me. although i am not homosexual, i am a person who questions the role of religion in this matter.

 

the real question is when will people either forget about their role of religion on others, or

when will people relize what their religion really means? people allow for them to be apart of a religion, but the while the religion says that one shall treat one as his/her sibling or spouse one goes about harassing the people that they do not understand.

 

another factor is that people follow past generations. or they only change when it benefits them and do not care who else it may or may not effect. the word religion comes from the latin word religare meaning to tie. this may be used as to tie down to something.

 

yet another factor is that marraige is from two religions (christainity and judism). this is just more proof that tradition is rooted to religion (refering to above). but you must marry to gain many rights that other couples have. this US tradition is over used.

 

the marrage thing is over used, but i am not saying that marrage itself is what is wrong. the problem is how we go about it. we use religions that not all people use. this upsets me a great deal.

 

SORRY ABOUT THE RANTING :rant:

[rockytriton]

I think your problem is that you live in Missouri, right smack in the middle of the bible belt. If you don't like their religious right mentality, then I would suggest moving to one of the "blue" states. You aren't going to win a battle like this in the place where you live, you are going against the majority. It's like going to Iran and trying to change the laws to allow christians to convert muslims, it just won't happen, too many people are against it and feel that it is morally degrading. Are they right? Probably not, but that doesn't mean anything.

 

Also, remember that all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

[Qfwfq]

One can say that if we can allow two consenting men to marry, why not a consenting man and a consenting 8 year old child (boy or girl)?

I agree to any consent between adults but children are a different matter. How can you expect a child to fully understand before making choices? That's what parents are for. At least, they're supposed to be for that but not all parents are good parents.

 

Adults have the right to screw up their own lives but they don't have as much right to screw up children, whether their own offspring or other children. It would be all too easy for a pedophile to persuade a child to marry them. Would you call that OK?

[Biochemist]

You miss the point. It is not a matter of whether or not they choose to follow their tendencies, what matters is that they have no choice in what tendencies they are born with.

I don't think I did miss the point. My point is that everyone has tendencies. Tendencies vary from person to person. Further, everyone has tendencies to do things that are immoral. That fact that some people have different tendencies than others does not make any specific tendencies acceptable.

You seem to think that there is something wrong with them for following their preference.

Now we are mixing tendencies with preferences. These may or may not be related. People may have tendencies toward a high-fat diet, drug use or a sedentary lifestyle, but prefer to act otherwise. People may have a tendency to act in a promiscuous manner. They may prefer not to.

Who is anyone to judge what is right and wrong for them?

We seem to be talking in circles here. Yes, I do think there is something wrong with specific behaviors, and specific attitides. The main argument is that morality only is defined in the presence of an external standard. Otherwise, NOTHING can be argued as "right" or "wrong".

[Biochemist]

Perhaps it is just a semantics issue, but in this statement you seem to equate homosexuality with promiscuity. This IMO is unfounded.

Actuially, I did not mean to do that, although I could see how you saw the association. None of my gay friends are promiscuous either. My only intent in the previous post is to suggest that everyone has tendencies that ought to be managed against a framework of "right" and "wrong". Having a tendency to behave a certain way does not make it right.

One of the biggest "moral" issues brought up against homosexuality is the "promiscuous" nature of the culture.

I agree that promiscuity is wrong as well, but that is unrelated to homosexuality. Anybody can be promiscuous.

This is what is wrong with religion IMO. It is used as a tool to oppress those that do not fall in line with the agenda.

I don't really understand this argument. Religion is not some external force. People believe things. It motivates them to do things because they believe things. I would be motivated to call the police if I believed my house was being burlarized. I might even call the police if I thought YOUR house was being burglarized. You might think that was being invasive. I might think it was being thoughtful.

 

It is certainly true that some folks are manipulated in thier beliefs, but that is a separate topic.

[Biochemist]

Given if free will exists, what is wrong with a tendency?

Goodness, we are going in circles here. The point is that that the existence of a "natural" tendency has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong. Morality is an external reference standard. Without an external referencs standard, the majority opinion of propriety varies substantially over time.

[Biochemist]

I agree to any consent between adults but children are a different matter. How can you expect a child to fully understand before making choices? That's what parents are for. At least, they're supposed to be for that but not all parents are good parents.

There is no such thing as a "good" parent or even an "adult" in the absence of a moral reference. The notion of the "rights" of children has moved significantly over the last 50 years. I suspect that we will consider sexual freedom for 10 year olds as a normal discusison in 30 years. Some discuss it now.

[ledbassest]

I think your problem is that you live in Missouri, right smack in the middle of the bible belt.

this is oh so true my friend. for a long time people had problems with how looked. what crap. quote unquote christians. :eek:

Also, remember that all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

again oh so true. :eek:

[C1ay]

Religion is not some external force. People believe things. It motivates them to do things because they believe things.

In this case it looks like religion is calling to oppress thy neighbor instead of love thy neighbor. Such a great lesson in the hypocrisy of religion.