Who said anything about punishment? And that would be contradictory to what the politicians and yellow journalism are apparently supporting. All I see on TV is support for gay lifestyles and that is about all I read in the news. I haven't seen any propaganda for punishment. If anyone's opinion has been influenced by the media it is your's.
That isn't all that you see on TV, but perhaps it drowns out everything else for you. That's a pity. I don't believe that these people pose any threat at all to you, but you pose a threat to them. Whether you choose to recognize it or not, depriving these people of their right to pursuit of happiness is punishment for them.
that reasoning could be used to discriminate against any marital unions that you think undermine your values--interracial marriages, marriages between people with big age differences, marriages between people with different religious values.
Yes it could. But I don't oppose marriage between any man and woman. Just between homesexuals. You have yet again assumed my beleifs beyond what they really are. Just because I don't support homesexual marriage does not make me an extremist. Nor anyone else that opposes it.
It doesn't matter to me whether you approve of civil unions between such people, only that you oppose civil recognition of their right to enjoy the same legal rights as heterosexuals. I don't believe that I ever called you an extremist or any other name. Unfortunately, your anti-gay attitude is very much in the mainstream.
We should not pass laws to punish people just because their private choices offend our moral values, especially if their choices do not directly affect our lives.
Again, I don't see where you are getting this punishment stuff from. I don't see disallowing marriage as punishment. Unless you are asserting that there is more to marriage than legal mumbo jumbo. You are either very nieve or just plain dumb if you think someone's choices don't effect your life in some manner.
I would appreciate it if you wouldn't call me names. We can disagree respectfully. If people of the same gender love each other enough to enter into a lifetime commitment, then they deserve the same rights as married couples. I don't see how that choice to commit affects your life in any way. But let's be clear that homosexuality itself is not quite the same. Nobody chooses to be a homosexual any more than they choose to be a heterosexual. Why punish them for what they are?
If Jesus could preach love of one's enemies, then surely we can teach our children to understand why society allows behavior that you personally consider disagreeable and immoral.
Ah, but Jesus was no pacifist. You may recall that he turned the money changers out of the Temple. I think he found them most disagreeable and immoral for doing what they were doing. There are instances when people must stand for what they believe in.
Actually, Jesus was a pacifist, and that comes out clearly in many of the gospel stories. He was a real extremist when it came to refusing a fight. He advocated "turning one's cheek" and going the "extra mile" to show love and tolerance of those who would be one's enemy. How many times did he lose his temper in the Bible? It is difficult to reconcile that Temple scene with his other behavior. Anyway, it frequently gets trotted out whenever someone tries to argue that Jesus advocated tolerance and nonviolence--by atheists as well as Christians. Did Jesus ever say anything on the subject of homosexuality? He defended a prostitute from being stoned. I don't recall him saying anything about homosexuality, although it was quite common in both the Greek and Roman empires. There seem to be no small number of gays among the clergy.
All you are doing is depriving them of the same civil benefits that heterosexual citizens enjoy.
Tell me exactly what benefits they are being deprived of? You too noted that they are being married outside of legal norms and that there are legal means for providing for a loved one. So what are they being deprived of?
Commonlaw marriage rights. Occupancy, property and inheritance protections that automatically accrue to heterosexual unions. Health and other employee benefits. They pay taxes to support civil marriages and tax benefits to heterosexual couples, but they cannot enjoy the same tax privileges. Their private sexual conduct is banned in many states. They can be dismissed from the military and deprived of their rightful benefits. The list goes on.
When it is somebody else's religion being imposed on people, we can immediately see the problem with theocracies. Too many Americans seem to think that that kind of government is OK, as long as the crap is Christian crap.
You seem blind to the possiblity that it isn't Christians forcing their values on people it is Homesexuals. Historically, American values have eroded tremendously over the past 100 years. Doesn't sound like Christians have much clout in the moral forcing as you seem to think. Otherwise, we would probably still be watching Leave it to Beaver and Doris Day would be the feminine icon not Madonna.
It isn't only Christians who oppose civil unions for gays, but the rationale for the opposition is almost exclusively religious in nature. And I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the majority of those who treat Madonna as an icon and rejected the values of the 50's ARE Christians. The vast majority of Americans have been Christian over the past 100 years. Gays have won new rights from a society that has been dominated by Christians. The problem that I have with religion is that it often deprives people of their natural sense of ethics and morality. Just as Christians came down on both sides of the slavery issue, they come down on both sides of the homosexual debate. The arguments against bias can be both Christian and secular. The arguments for bias are almost exclusively based on religious authoritarian morality.
Author
Topic: Homosexuality Debate (Read 6094 times)