Thread: Freedom of choice and the Law

The trouble with the gay marriage issue is that it goes far beyond simple freedom issues. Scientifically homosexuality is considered "destructive" to human survival because it is a lifestyle that contradicts the survival of the species.

I beg to differ with this point. The Earth is already overpopulated and generally speaking, areas with high natality rates are the ones with lower QOL. Therefore, extreme multiplication is what's being detrimental to the survival of the species. I am not saying that we should stop making babies, but that we should tone it down on the global scale and bring our numbers down to about 5,000,000,000. (Unless you can come up with another planet for us and easy transport to it )

Religiously speaking, for centuries homosexuality has been considered an offense to the very being of God.

That's because at that time the Earth wasn't all that populated and nobles needed men to work their lands and fight in their wars. That is why older religions are in almost every case all about reproduction and against anything that will hinder it.

Some may view this as a good thing but history has shown that a godless society is more often worse than the available alternatives.

But if the religious institutions are too rigid in "preserving the traditional values" they don't respond to real changes in conditions (like aids and overpopulation) and instead of being in a symbiotic relationship, they become a cancer afflicting their believers.

So, while I don't judge anyone's legal activities in this arena, I don't support a "family structure" that has any potential to hinder, ruin, or otherwise prevent the survival of the species, no mater how miniscule the chance of that may be.

So according to you, if a heterosexual couple decided to get married and not have children (have the husband get vasectomy) that marriage should not be legal?

I'm personally sick and tired of a person's sexuality being worn as a banner. At a job site a few years back 3 of the people just had to make sure that every new person on the project knew that they were "gay".

You won't hear any arguments from me. And I'd respond with "nice to meet you. I'm heterosexual"

Veering off sexuality I'm also tired of the double standards in racism. I'm sick of watching networks like MTV, HBO and others promote groups and programs that encourage racism in minorities at the same time condemning the same racisom for caucasians. We have a "Black awareness" month and "Black Entertainment" and all sorts of programs, shows, activities, rules, regulations, laws, etc. etc.etc. that all promote racial pride of whichever minority it's dealing with. Latino and black entertainers are encouraged to go onto talk shows and talk about "white neighborhoods" they live in and mock caucasians. When a caucasian brings up these points the minorities typically say "now you know how it feels". EXCUSE ME! Are we trying to promote racial equality or racial revenge?

Another point we agree on. I am absolutely against affirmative action. It creates division and animosity between ethnic groups. As a true multiculturalist, I prefer total equality and that is based on skill not on whether you're a woman, gay, disabled or belong to a certain ethnic minority.

Originally Posted by FUD

The trouble with the gay marriage issue is that it goes far beyond simple freedom issues. Scientifically homosexuality is considered "destructive" to human survival because it is a lifestyle that contradicts the survival of the species.

Lots of things do, that's called 'evolution' and it's nature's way to try and create more diverse beings to ensure survival. It's nothing more than random bittoggling on a genetic level and some changes seem to stick and/or reoccur more frequently, like the fact that we have 5 digits no each limb with one of them being an opposoble thumb.

Thus gay rights activists champion it as rights of "an evolved species". This is done under the assumption that we'll never have a major catastrophe that will eliminate all advanced science techniques that would enable reproduction for homosexual couples. It's a fair assumption but it cannot be completely guaranteed.

Procreation isn't about survival of the individual, it's about survival of the species, if some people can't/won't procreate due to their genetic programming then that's, very brutally put, nature's way of saying/deciding that they weren't meant to be and their genetic line dies out. (Not trying to be offensive here, it's just reality that nature in its randomness condems certain individual genetic lines, for example people born sterile)

Religiously speaking, for centuries homosexuality has been considered an offense to the very being of God.

And He came down from the heavens and told you that personally or did he upload a video to youtube that I might have missed?

Since we have freedom of religion and the constitution was originally amended to ensure protection of individual and group religious rights, we now have a problem of morality versus individuality. Religious texts of many faiths have taught for thousands of years that homosexuality is immoral and sinful. Now all of the sudden everyone wants to squelch a person's religious right to decide what's moral or immoral.

That's because morals on a society's level is determined by general consensus, not by an individual, pedofiles think it's morally right to sleep with children, do you think their moral rights are being violated? Furthermore, you still have the right to your own views and moral stance in your own house and own decisions, it may be that you may not always act upon them in public though, if said moral view would cause another person harm either physically or emotionally/mentally. Just because you don't agree with what they think is ok, doesn't give you the right to condemn them publically in word and actions, this still does not impede the moral freedom of your mind that you're allowed to enjoy.

So now we have the problem of gay marriage not only causing a conflict on the rights of the masses to teach religious moralities we also have the conflict of gay marriage requiring the masses to teach children that their religious immoralities are socially ok and this leads to society trumping God.

Gay marriage does not conflict with your rights to teach children religion at all, should society have evolved into a different set of rules that aren't fully compatible with your religion anymore than maybe your religion should try adapting? Still you haven't been told "since we've now discovered and recognise homosexual people exist, you're now forbidden to teach religion at all", so it doesn't hurt religion one bit. Unless your religion is one of those they practice in Bumfuck, Egypt, complete with stonings, backward views on women and their rights and a general hypocrisy in chosing which rules to apply. As far as the trumping of 'God' goes: if the majority of people in your society thinks that that's ok (and thus probably isn't religious anymore) then that's how it is and it means that while you, as a religious person, are now the minority, you graciously still get the right to practice and teach your belief.

Some may view this as a good thing but history has shown that a godless society is more often worse than the available alternatives.

Proof?

My personal belief is this:
1) you have the right to bone who or what you want if it's not illegal.
2) you are responsible for your decisions and actions so bone responsibly.
3) don't try to force me to raise my children to accept your lifestyle decisions.
4) don't squelch my rights to disagree with your lifestyle decisions.
5) If biological design prevents reproduction then it's not protected by societies interests and should not be protected by societies rules.

3) Nobody forces you to 'accept' anything, you are however to coöperate with other people in your society, regardless of how their views may clash with yours, as long as both parties don't harm each other, so that way you need to be 'accepting'. After all, you still want people to interact with you, right, even though they might think of you as a christian and hence may find your own lifestyle not to be their own?
4) Nobody ever does, you still get the right to politely voice your opinion and give notice to your representaties who make up the laws that regulate your society. You just don't get to act on convictions anymore, these aren't the dark ages, witch burning is over.

So, while I don't judge anyone's legal activities in this arena, I don't support a "family structure" that has any potential to hinder, ruin, or otherwise prevent the survival of the species, no mater how miniscule the chance of that may be.

In that case you don't support regular mariage/being faithful: Nature's preferred way of procreation is females getting impregnated by as many possible men as possible to create multiple genetic lines, furthering chances of a better subtype of the species emerging. It's all about killing off the weak and in a certain sense moral convictions can make you very weak/vulnerable. So off you go, to live in a commune somewhere, do let us know if that works out for you, the rest of us are fairly confident that 'survival' isn't that much of an issue anymore, so we'll continue to look for just one partner.

These last point sets are very controversial. Youv'e been warned. I'm personally sick and tired of a person's sexuality being worn as a banner. At a job site a few years back 3 of the people just had to make sure that every new person on the project knew that they were "gay". If a heterosexual were to go around chanting mantras and declaring his/her sexuality that person would be considered insecure and possibly mentally unstable, yet homosexuality is something to be declared proudly. Give me a break. How you have sex or with whom or what has no bearing on your job. If it does then you ARE in need of therapy, regardless of your sexual orientation or gender, unless of course your a porn star. If a heterosexual male were to go around declaring his heterosexuality at work he'd be fired for fear of potential sexual harrasment issues.

+ the other thing you posted +

I tend to agree with that, although I find it convenient to know who's gay, so that I can evade certain situations, like showering with them in the gym. But I don't agree with gay pride parade and whatever: either you want to be 'normal' and accepted or you can walk in the gay pride parade and be 'different', pick one.


BTW 1) here in Belgum we have gay marriage, it's a civil union, just like regular marriage used to be. We even have adoption possibilities for gay couples now, which is something I personally don't agree with, but like I said before: the majority does (though we here in .be seem to have a dysfunction when it comes to congresmen doing the will of the people and I find the result on this issue; adoption; to be an example of that schism if I'm to believe polls done by various organisations).
2) I'm a hetero male of 29 but I'm in love with a woman that's 10 years older than me, naturally speaking that's not very good, since that will more or less eliminate my chances of procreation if I don't get a lucky break. Should I have the luck and happiness to be allowed to start a relationship with this woman, whom I love, would you find me immoral? If not, what's the beef with homosexuals, sometimes you really can't help who makes you smile.

Originally Posted by harold

Religiously speaking, for centuries homosexuality has been considered an offense to the very being of God.

And He came down from the heavens and told you that personally or did he upload a video to youtube that I might have missed?

And THAT is why I refuse to believe in 'God given rights' or authority from people claiming to represent God or knowing what He meant.

There are a dozen major religions, and all are convinced that THEY are the one true faith. Why should yours be 'the one'?

Originally Posted by Bruno

And THAT is why I refuse to believe in 'God given rights' or authority from people claiming to represent God or knowing what He meant.

There are a dozen major religions, and all are convinced that THEY are the one true faith. Why should yours be 'the one'?

I'll field this one. Fud never specified any one religion, because he didn't have to to make his point. Homosexuality is a sin in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, it is also against the will of the Gods if you are a Hindu as well, I'm not sure about Buddhism, or any of the other eastern religions generally speaking any religion that favors the family is against gays. The only "religion" I can think of that favors gay relationships is Wicca(sp?) and it is of modern origin with still evolving rituals and beliefs.

Which brings us back that those prohibitions from the older religions come from the time where the Earth's population was only a fraction of what it is now and people were needed for labor and fighting. The problem is that big established religions do not change with times and they hold onto obsolete views.

Ilija

Your argument for aloowing gay marriage is easily nullified by the fact that I know several gay couples with one or more children, so no population savings. This throws the whole argument back to religion, oh boy!

Personally I have no problem with a gay "union" just don't call it marriage, it can have every privilege, requirement, and penalty marriage does under secular law, just don't call it marriage. Marriage is a very important part of many religions and it has significance in church law, something the government doesn't have any buainess messing with, and may not have the ability depending on how you interpret the first amendment.

Church marriage still isn't being messed with is it? Not that it has any actual value in many parts of this world, anyway. (it's the actual state-marriage or union that counts, nothing else here, as it should, we're secular) and you don't want to go the history route because the concept of marriage/matrimony existed before many religions such as christianity.

Tim, my argument is not nullified at all. Gay marriage isn't about avoiding to have children. They are just less likely to do so. That is why homosexuality was frowned on by religious heads in the early days.
Marriage can also exist without that religious mumbo-jumbo, which caused some fairly violent opposition from both Christian and Islamic fundamentalists when it became popularized. Even if no church would marry gay people, they should still be able to get married and have a family under the civil law. Otherwise they're not human by law.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

I'll field this one. Fud never specified any one religion, because he didn't have to to make his point. Homosexuality is a sin in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, it is also against the will of the Gods if you are a Hindu as well, I'm not sure about Buddhism, or any of the other eastern religions generally speaking any religion that favors the family is against gays. The only "religion" I can think of that favors gay relationships is Wicca(sp?) and it is of modern origin with still evolving rituals and beliefs.

Buddhism has propents on both sides of this argument. The Buddha never really lectured on homosexuality. As Buddhism is geared more toward if an action is helpful, and the actions based on best intentions. Buddhists are told to honor their body and not misuse sex.

Originally Posted by sensei_kyle

Buddhism has propents on both sides of this argument. The Buddha never really lectured on homosexuality. As Buddhism is geared more toward if an action is helpful, and the actions based on best intentions. Buddhists are told to honor their body and not misuse sex.

thank you, interesting.