S/O, why is it unacceptable to be against homosexuality?

[Anonymous]

It's not an argument, it's a statement. When you die, you are on your own. The opinions of the NY Times and the gay pride parade thong float members no longer hold any weight. Talking b.s. when you feel safe and in control has no meaning. I would like to see a poll taken among terminal adult patients as to their opinion on the santification of gay marriage.

Although I'm reluctant to try engage you in rational debate, no one's talking about the "sanctification of gay marriage." Sanctification is a religious concept, and relilgions are free to rcognize gay marriage, or not, to their collective hearts' content. No one's trying to change that (and any attempts to change it wouldn't be successful, anyway). What is important, though, is granting same-sex couples the same legal rights and responsibilities as opposite-sex couples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's not an argument, it's a statement. When you die, you are on your own. The opinions of the NY Times and the gay pride parade thong float members no longer hold any weight. Talking b.s. when you feel safe and in control has no meaning. I would like to see a poll taken among terminal adult patients as to their opinion on the santification of gay marriage.

Although I'm reluctant to try engage you in rational debate, no one's talking about the "sanctification of gay marriage." Sanctification is a religious concept, and relilgions are free to rcognize gay marriage, or not, to their collective hearts' content. No one's trying to change that (and any attempts to change it wouldn't be successful, anyway). What is important, though, is granting same-sex couples the same legal rights and responsibilities as opposite-sex couples.

Marriage is a religious concept, so it should also be up to the churches. Not the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I will agree that no one has the right to discriminate, say offensive things, or give haircuts, but they are entitled to their beliefs and their vote..

Setting aside whether it's ok to hold discriminatory beliefs, but I have a problem with the concept of it eing ok to have a vote on whether it's ok to discriminate against a particular class of people. And, I have a problem with people voting to discriminate. But the biggest thing I don't understand is how people who have lived and breathed discrimination can vote to discriminate against others.

Excellent point. I agree. That is why we need to take the marriage question for all OFF the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there any secular homophobes? I've never heard of or met any.

There are. I know many men and women who are just plain uncomfortable with the idea. One woman who leans very left and who is agnostic was traumatized by her first husband. He was gay, she walked in on him. She was 22. She felt like she was being used. Up to this date she wants nothing to do with gays. Odd b/c in every other aspectb she is waaay liberal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the 'wrong' aspect may stem from the fact that two men or two women do not have genitals that are designed for each other. Obviously they can improvise but the penis and vagina were designed to sexually fit together. Additionally two men or two women can't bear children without the participation of a person of a member of the opposite sex. Therefore the natural design of the body both for pleasure and procreation was for man/woman.

Homosexuality can be awkward for children. DD was in class in elementary school with a girl who was crushing on her. Tried to kiss her, stroke her, said was going to marry her. DD is straight .

What is probably akward for your child is that, she has picked up a vibe from YOU that same sex love is wrong and oogie and evil and gross. So she is put in a very difficult position by a gay classmate crushing on her.

If you didn't teach your child intolerance and hate and disgust, maybe she could have just shrugged it off. Or how about when she tells you "Susie is in love with me and it makes me feel uncomfortable" you just teach her, "Well, I can't blame Susie for being in love with you! You are so wonderful that of course I bet half your class probably feels that way about you! But you are right that another child shouldn't be trying to kiss or touch you, so I will talk to your teacher so they can remind Susie about appropriate behavior". You don't need to make a big deal out of it. It shouldn't be the gayness that makes it so objectionable. No kid should be kissing our touching your child in school. I bet it is your attitude that is making your child feel freaked.

We had a little boy in elementary school SHOW HIS PENIS to a little girl while IN CLASS. Talk about awkward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not an argument, it's a statement. When you die, you are on your own. The opinions of the NY Times and the gay pride parade thong float members no longer hold any weight. Talking b.s. when you feel safe and in control has no meaning. I would like to see a poll taken among terminal adult patients as to their opinion on the santification of gay marriage.

Although I'm reluctant to try engage you in rational debate, no one's talking about the "sanctification of gay marriage." Sanctification is a religious concept, and relilgions are free to rcognize gay marriage, or not, to their collective hearts' content. No one's trying to change that (and any attempts to change it wouldn't be successful, anyway). What is important, though, is granting same-sex couples the same legal rights and responsibilities as opposite-sex couples.

Marriage is a religious concept, so it should also be up to the churches. Not the government.

Marriage is a religious concept AND a civil one, and there are plenty of non-religious couples of all orientations who choose to get married (for love, as a sign of their commitment to one another, to share health benefits, etc. etc.). I think churches should be free to put their own rules on who can and cannot marry in their churches - I'm heterosexual but not at all religious, and there are plenty of churches in which I cannot get married. But no church should have the power to dictate who is and isn't allowed to get married in general - what gives any particular religion the right to dictate what those outside their faith or beliefs do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there any secular homophobes? I've never heard of or met any.

I think there are also a lot of people who are only nominally religious, but when asked to justify their homophobia, they will say it goes against the bible. A bible they don't take too seriously, but it is a convenient justification for their bigotry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not an argument, it's a statement. When you die, you are on your own. The opinions of the NY Times and the gay pride parade thong float members no longer hold any weight. Talking b.s. when you feel safe and in control has no meaning. I would like to see a poll taken among terminal adult patients as to their opinion on the santification of gay marriage.

Although I'm reluctant to try engage you in rational debate, no one's talking about the "sanctification of gay marriage." Sanctification is a religious concept, and relilgions are free to rcognize gay marriage, or not, to their collective hearts' content. No one's trying to change that (and any attempts to change it wouldn't be successful, anyway). What is important, though, is granting same-sex couples the same legal rights and responsibilities as opposite-sex couples.

Marriage is a religious concept, so it should also be up to the churches. Not the government.

Marriage is a religious concept AND a civil one, and there are plenty of non-religious couples of all orientations who choose to get married (for love, as a sign of their commitment to one another, to share health benefits, etc. etc.). I think churches should be free to put their own rules on who can and cannot marry in their churches - I'm heterosexual but not at all religious, and there are plenty of churches in which I cannot get married. But no church should have the power to dictate who is and isn't allowed to get married in general - what gives any particular religion the right to dictate what those outside their faith or beliefs do?

No one is saying that the churches can't do what they want.
Would anyone be offended if the government started saying that everyone gets a civil union, if you want a mrriage find a church or something like that. Marriage should never have become "civil". There are still many little aspects of religion still in our society that need to go, like swearing on the Bible. Wacky!

[Anonymous]

No one is finding your own religious beliefs unacceptable but what is unacceptable in this country is your attempt to make laws that force your beliefs on others. Marriage is no solely a religious union it is also a legal contract and legal union. If I am married by a Catholic priest in church, I still need to get a marriage license from the state in order to benefit from the multiple laws that stem from the legal union of of marriage rather than the religious union of marriage. Same sex marriage is about the legal union of marriage and the definition of who should be eligible should not be defined by any one group's religion, it must be secular as this is a secular union. Same sex marriage in no way requires a priest to marry same sex couples in their church anymore than a priest would be required to marry a Jewish couple in their couple.

The extension of insurance benefits is another aspects where religious non-profits have an inappropriate and illegal positions. Many religious non-profits hire employees outside the organization's faith yet they do not restrict family benefits only to those who are married in their religious ceremonies. Many large religious non profits already extend same sex partner benefits anyway.

Again, the objection is not that your own belief defines who you can marry, its your desire to force these beliefs onto others who do not follow your faith

[Anonymous]

some who oppose same sex marriage have not one issue supporting and even fighting for other gay rights (adoption, civil union, discrimination etc).

i think it all boils down to the whole stigma of seeing a same sex couple as "married" on the tame end of the spectrum and concerned about opening the flood gates for other forms of marriage on the extreme end.

there is also a fear that religious institutions will have to accept and recognize same sex marriage despite their teachings. i find this argument legit because states who tried to pass same sex laws failed to address this issue.

ive stated before that proponents of same sex marriage arent going to convince blacks to their side by throwing up the civil rights era. marriage is one issue compared to a host of rights that were being fought for during that time. as i mentioned in the first paragraph, folks dont take issue with extending protections and rights for gays in other areas. its the marriage issue where everyone gets hung up on.

[Anonymous]

OP I find it morally objectionable that some people in this day and age ar Catholics. (I am a former Catholic). Would it be OK with you if I taught my child to hate Catholics? If I agitated for laws limiting the civil rights of Catholics? What if I find it disgusting and unnatural that Catholic Mass includes a representation of canibalism? Is it OK for me to try to pass laws limiting your right to eat your bread and wine as you see fit because I think it's disgusting? Or maybe I can find some statement in the Bible that says that it violates some Old Testament rule?

I realize comparing religious freedom with sexual freedom is not an exact comparison. My point is, why does my hate and bigotry get to dictate the way you live your life? Your Catholicism doesn't harm me so why should I be free to limit you? Similarly, homosexuality doesn't harm anyone. It only impacts the people engaging in homosexuality. So why must you spend even one minute of your time obsessing about what gay people do, or not?

[Anonymous]

Dear OP -

Obviously you have a religous stance against homosexuality. Please read this response that was sent to Dr. Laura when she pointed out the homosexuality being wrong in the bible. I'm looking forward to your response to the other things in the bible and how they should be addressed.

Thanks -

http://www.ariel.com.au/jokes/Dr_Laura_and_Leviticus.html

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.

Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

Homer Simpson-Caldwell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dear OP -

Obviously you have a religous stance against homosexuality. Please read this response that was sent to Dr. Laura when she pointed out the homosexuality being wrong in the bible. I'm looking forward to your response to the other things in the bible and how they should be addressed.

Thanks -

http://www.ariel.com.au/jokes/Dr_Laura_and_Leviticus.html

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.

Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

Homer Simpson-Caldwell

I have never read the Bible. I have never been to church, even as a child. I just think that every dam social issue is so polarized. Black or white, never gray.

[Anonymous]

OP here. In a way I am playing devil's advocate.
However, I am not religious at all.
Just think this debate is so emotional that few are thinking rationally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are religious, say ultra Catholic, or Mormon, or any other deeply religious person, who is to say that their beliefs are wrong?
These people say that they have read the Bible and in the end, their decision is final...no support of homosexuality.
The Pope is not going to change on this issue. The Amish still have the same opinion. The list goes on. We all know that these families have gay children like anyone else, but at the end of the day, to them it is wrong.

I will agree that no one has the right to discriminate, say offensive things, or give haircuts, but they are entitled to their beliefs and their vote.

These arguments remind me of a woman at a day care center where I worked (co-op). She disciplined a child for a racist remark, telling the child that the comment was "wrong". I asked her in the future to tell the child that that kind of behavior would not be tolerated at such and such facility. There is a difference. I am not into the business of telling anyone or their family how to think. It is more about what they DO that matters.

Yes, having a clean heart matters too, but it is not my right to reach into the inner workings of individuals, families, and their religions to confront them on these issues.

You can be against homosexuality - I don't care what you believe. I do care when you seek to impose your beliefs on others. If you don't like homosexuality, then don't be homosexual. Don't go around telling other people they can't be homosexual. But "boo-hoo," you say, "that just means that if you want to fuck children, I should shut up about that too, and we all know that's wrong." No, that is not an similar situation - children are not capable of giving consent - it's a medical fact that young brains do not have the ability to make competent judgments all the time. No one is advocating pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, cult-dictated polygamy, or any other non-consensual relationship - these are all, in essence, forms of rape. But what two rational adults consent to do in the bedroom is no one else's business. There is no moral relativism whatsoever.

As for gay marriage - you don't want to marry gays in your church, then don't. Gay marriage laws do not force churches to marry gay people. The laws force state governments to give the same legal rights to gay couples as to straight couples.

A nice African-American couple came to my door this weekend asking me to oppose MD's gay marriage law because the Bible says gay is bad. You know what? The Bible also condones slavery, I told them. Nothing in the Bible prohibits slavery and much of the Bible could be read to support the enslavement on the basis of race alone. Believe that, if you want. The Bible also says you should stone to death anyone with a tattoo, anyone who eats bacon, anyone who works on Sunday. Go ahead, believe whatever you want. Just keep it to yourself or in your church.