Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:
eta: I'm not aware that his position has changed.

I had forgotten about that interview, though its still a pretty shaky commitment to marriage in the sense its normaly considered. This outlines the position more thoroughly:




Basically, marriage without the m word for everyone.

There's also been some recent noise about his position on gay marriage "evolving" prior to the election.

Piston Honda wrote:You can marry and boink your cousin, but wanting to marry boink someone who is the same sex, dat just nasty.



http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=states

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx


Cue the banjos.

Hmpph..

Which is more disturbing to me? fething a bloke or fething my cousin..

That's a tough one!

mattyrm wrote:
Hmpph..

Which is more disturbing to me? fething a bloke or fething my cousin..

That's a tough one!

Your cousin the bloke......

biccat wrote:

Wyrmalla wrote:I mean you'd think that allowing gay mariage would have been up there on his list of priorities

The President is opposed to gay marriage, but he supports "equality." The progressive movement apparently maintains that the latter requires the former.

One might think that this would discourage progressives from supporting the President.

Not really. He's still exponentially better on the issue than the average offering from the other side.

Though many progressives have been disappointed by Obama, so they may be less inclined to show up at the polls. Though, really, I don't think that's likely considering polarization, and certain things that Obama can run on.

Rabtorian wrote:I for one believe homosexual practice is wrong; I am Christian.

Out of curiosity, you being a Christian, you believe God created everything, correct?

Studies lean towards that homosexuality is not a choice but genetic, something they are born with.

When the day comes where it is a fact that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice would you change your mind? If God did create everything he had to have created that gene... correct?

Piston Honda wrote:
Studies lean towards that homosexuality is not a choice but genetic, something they are born with.

I don't know of many, if any, credible studies that consider homosexuality to be genetic alone.

Even on an ephemeral level it doesn't make sense. Though that doesn't mean its a choice, or that wrong or right.

Piston Honda wrote:

Rabtorian wrote:I for one believe homosexual practice is wrong; I am Christian.

Out of curiosity, you being a Christian, you believe God created everything, correct?

Studies lean towards that homosexuality is not a choice but genetic, something they are born with.

When the day comes where it is a fact that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice would you change your mind? If God did create everything he had to have created that gene... correct?

Careful what you wish for. The other option is to eliminate the gene disposition.

I can hear the goose steps now.

dogma wrote:Though many progressives have been disappointed by Obama, so they may be less inclined to show up at the polls. Though, really, I don't think that's likely considering polarization, and certain things that Obama can run on.

Yeah, as I said, he's done quite a bit for homosexuals already, and he's still fethtons better than the opposition, whom generally oppose gay marraige.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I don't know of many, if any, credible studies that consider homosexuality to be genetic alone.

Alone, no. But it is a big part of it for many people. After all, we are driven to some extent by genetics, otherwise many people wouldn't ever choose to have children, something that is genetically satisfying to have.

Also there's the fact that most people think of sexuality as an on-off switch when it's more like a sliding scale or even a graph...

dogma wrote:Basically, marriage without the m word for everyone.

Which is basically the "domestic partnership" position. Which gay marriage proponents apparently hated in California. So much that they had it ruled unconstitutional.

The problem with Obama, well, one of many, is that he doesn't really take explicit positions on things. He does the "this, but on the other hand that..." routine so well that you can really attribute almost any position you want to him. So people broadcast their own preferences onto him, and then vote for him because he represents everything they want.

As we've found out, he really doesn't have strong positions on anything, and this doesn't really make for a good president.

dogma wrote:There's also been some recent noise about his position on gay marriage "evolving" prior to the election.

Which election? There is a Nov. 2, 2008 video of him reinforcing his "equality, but not marriage" position. At least as of 2010 he still 'opposes same-sex marriage.'

Seaward wrote:Not really. He's still exponentially better on the issue than the average offering from the other side.

Well, then hypothetically so is Romney:

"I'm in favor of traditional marriage. I oppose same-sex marriage. At the same time, I don't believe in discriminating in employment or opportunity for gay individuals. So I favor gay rights; I do not favor same-sex marriage. That has been my position all along."

Piston Honda wrote:When the day comes where it is a fact that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice would you change your mind? If God did create everything he had to have created that gene... correct?

I, for one, hope that we never determine that homosexuality is genetic.

However, Christians have already accepted the fact that God created the genes that lead to a host of diseases and abnormalities. I'm not sure why you expect they would have a problem with a "gay gene".

biccat wrote:

Seaward wrote:Not really. He's still exponentially better on the issue than the average offering from the other side.

Well, then hypothetically so is Romney:

"I'm in favor of traditional marriage. I oppose same-sex marriage. At the same time, I don't believe in discriminating in employment or opportunity for gay individuals. So I favor gay rights; I do not favor same-sex marriage. That has been my position all along."

Yes. Part of Romney's primary troubles stem from the fact that he doesn't appear to be a raving Santorum-style social conservative lunatic.

biccat wrote:Well, then hypothetically so is Romney

Romney didn't spearhead the opposition to DADT, nor did Romney appoint a record number of homosexual officials to positions in his term . Obama also signed in several other laws to this effect, such as laws stating that extended benefits normally associated with spouses to same sex partners of federal employees.

Essentially-- Hypothetically yes, Romney might be a good candidate.. and yet... Obama, despite having a shorter time serving the nation, has more accomplishments in terms of civil rights (and not just for homosexuals either, he's signed in plenty of bills for women as well for example as well as for the handicapped) than Romney does despite Romney's extended service.

So unless Romney takes a REAL stance on the issue, it's unlikely he'll garner much of the vote from this particular part of the constituency.

Rabtorian wrote:I wouldn't look down on anybody for being gay, though I would certainly urge them not to practice homosexual relationships-how a person feels and how they behave shouldn't be the same thing as far as I am concerned.

It's not really any of your business to 'urge' anyone to carry out certain sexual practices or not. How would you like someone telling you never to have sex with your partner because you are 'wrong'?

Anyway, people opposing homosexuality because of the bible should try reading it and explaining why theytake some bits literally and not others. Do they also wear clothes of mixed fibres, eat shell fish or share a house with a women on her period? It's not all Leviticus either, can we stone a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night? Are women allowed to speak in church?

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Rabtorian wrote:I wouldn't look down on anybody for being gay, though I would certainly urge them not to practice homosexual relationships-how a person feels and how they behave shouldn't be the same thing as far as I am concerned.

It's not really any of your business to 'urge' anyone to carry out certain sexual practices or not. How would you like someone telling you never to have sex with your partner because you are 'wrong'?

Anyway, people opposing homosexuality because of the bible should try reading it and explaining why theytake some bits literally and not others. Do they also wear clothes of mixed fibres, eat shell fish or share a house with a women on her period? It's not all Leviticus either, can we stone a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night? Are women allowed to speak in church?

Dont forget that one passage about killing someone who works on the sabbath or selling you daughter into slavery.
Yeah, Strangly those who use the bible like that support the republican paty, The party of big money. And people should act how they feel aslong as it doesnt hurt others(unless they are into that sorta stuff)

biccat wrote:

Piston Honda wrote:When the day comes where it is a fact that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice would you change your mind? If God did create everything he had to have created that gene... correct?

I, for one, hope that we never determine that homosexuality is genetic.

However, Christians have already accepted the fact that God created the genes that lead to a host of diseases and abnormalities. I'm not sure why you expect they would have a problem with a "gay gene".

There is a problem with those that equate homosexuality with disease though, especially by those that try to 'cure' it. Homosexuality is likely a combination of genetic and environmental factors, there's nothing particularly radical about that IMO. Also the suggestion that there is a 'gay gene' doesn't make sense to me, there are so many differently nuanced types of sexuality and its expression that it has to be a complex genetic-chemical construct. People personalities are not controlled by a single gene to make them a nice or nasty person.

biccat wrote:
I, for one, hope that we never determine that homosexuality is genetic.

However, Christians have already accepted the fact that God created the genes that lead to a host of diseases and abnormalities. I'm not sure why you expect they would have a problem with a "gay gene".

Many Christians do acknowledge scientific findings.

The comment did not direct that all Christians live in the 13th century.

There are still many that reject or deny findings, there are even some who believe dinosaurs never existed. Their bones were placed their by the devil or something like that.

I brought up the question because he claimed he is Christian and therefore homosexuality is wrong.

Fine, whatever.

But if God created everything, and if there is a "gay gene" which would mean god created the gene.

Would Christians reject God's creation?

Historically speaking shouldn't really have to ask that question. But people have gotten a lot better.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Dont forget that one passage about killing someone who works on the sabbath or selling you daughter into slavery.

Forgot Deuteronomy's guidance on rape. If your virgin daughter is raped, the rapist should pay you 50 shekels and marry her.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Rabtorian wrote:I wouldn't look down on anybody for being gay, though I would certainly urge them not to practice homosexual relationships-how a person feels and how they behave shouldn't be the same thing as far as I am concerned.

It's not really any of your business to 'urge' anyone to carry out certain sexual practices or not. How would you like someone telling you never to have sex with your partner because you are 'wrong'?

Anyway, people opposing homosexuality because of the bible should try reading it and explaining why theytake some bits literally and not others. Do they also wear clothes of mixed fibres, eat shell fish or share a house with a women on her period? It's not all Leviticus either, can we stone a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night? Are women allowed to speak in church?

Isn't there something about not touching a woman during their period for a week? In the bible that is.

Forever unclean!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Dont forget that one passage about killing someone who works on the sabbath or selling you daughter into slavery.

Forgot Deuteronomy's guidance on rape. If your virgin daughter is raped, the rapist should pay you 50 shekels and marry her.

WTF?

who would come with that?

Howard A Treesong wrote:Anyway, people opposing homosexuality because of the bible should try reading it and explaining why theytake some bits literally and not others. Do they also wear clothes of mixed fibres, eat shell fish or share a house with a women on her period? It's not all Leviticus either, can we stone a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night? Are women allowed to speak in church?

You should also ask if they murder people, steal, worship more than one god, and bear false witness.

While you shouldn't take the Bible literally, you also shouldn't disregard it entirely.

The question is, does the prohibition "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind" carry the same weight (for Christians) as "Thou shalt not kill" or "neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard"?

What about "Do not have sexual relations with your mother"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Piston Honda wrote:But if God created everything, and if there is a "gay gene" which would mean god created the gene.

Would Christians reject God's creation?

Historically speaking shouldn't really have to ask that question. But people have gotten a lot better.

Like I said, Christians have reconciled their beliefs with a lot of issues more profound than some hypothetical gay gene.

biccat wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Anyway, people opposing homosexuality because of the bible should try reading it and explaining why theytake some bits literally and not others. Do they also wear clothes of mixed fibres, eat shell fish or share a house with a women on her period? It's not all Leviticus either, can we stone a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night? Are women allowed to speak in church?

You should also ask if they murder people, steal, worship more than one god, and bear false witness.

While you shouldn't take the Bible literally, you also shouldn't disregard it entirely.

Do christians really only refuse to murder and steal because the bible says so? I think it's because of social norms and the law. Murder and theft are crimes common to all societies, I don't think the bible can take the credit for this.

What some do is claim the bible is their reasoning for certain views, but then they only pick and choose what they want from the bible to support those views and ignore the rest. So in actual fact, they are not following the bible as such, rather they have been educated in a certain way and beyond saying "it's my religion" they haven't got a coherent argument for their morality.

Ultimately, saying "it's my religion" is a smokescreen to avoid analysis of what is actually their opinion. They don't take the bible literally, they have chosen what to accept in it which matches their own prejudices, they are still responsible for their attitude on homosexuality. They can't shrug and say "it's my religion, can't help it". Plenty of christians have no issue with homosexuality, which says it all IMO.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Ultimately, saying "it's my religion" is a smokescreen to avoid analysis of what is actually their opinion. They don't take the bible literally, they have chosen what to accept in it which matches their own prejudices, they are still responsible for their attitude on homosexuality. They can't shrug and say "it's my religion, can't help it". Plenty of christians have no issue with homosexuality, which says it all IMO.

No its not.
1. Some sects view it differently than others. Some churches care, some don't.

2. People believe more deeply in their teachings than others.



As an aside I see we're moving into the weekly bashing Christian thread.

Piston Honda wrote:WTF?

who would come with that?

See! People should read the bible, it's a blast. Alternatively skip to the really bloody chapters like Judges, it's all killing and enslaving. Like when Moses ethnically cleansed the holy land that had been promised to them by god. He told his men to exterminate most of the Midianites, of the children they were to kill all the boys and any of the girls that weren't virgins, of the rest they were to "keep alive for yourselves".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
1. Some sects view it differently than others. Some churches care, some don't.

2. People believe more deeply in their teachings than others.

I agree on both counts... but it doesn't reason why they believe the particular bits of the bible that that they do and not other parts.

Unless they believe all parts of the Bible, equally.

Honestly, is a bill that only helps 10% of the population really worth spending time over fixing more major Economic and Social Problems? No, you can pass the bill and all other problems can go away as it's being passed. If it please/helps a minority what is the point of passing it? I want freedom over what I think. I have a problem with Same-Sex Marriage Activists that they force the thing down your throat. Usually it's "Vote Yes or you are a Homophobe." I have no need for it, so if a similar bill is put through referendum, I would vote no.

biccat wrote:

While you shouldn't take the Bible literally, you also shouldn't disregard it entirely.

The question is, does the prohibition "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind" carry the same weight (for Christians) as "Thou shalt not kill" or "neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard"?

What about "Do not have sexual relations with your mother"?

Many people who are not Christians or religious or who are Christians but fastidious with the bible see the whole argument of "homosexuality is immoral because the bible says so" is a tad bit silly because the bible displays a list of ridiculous laws and requirements.

That does not make everything in the bible aberrant. The bible has many good teachings in it, just not all laws in it originate from the bible.

Best thing is to be fair and practical about the whole issue. No one is forcing people to like same sex marriage or homosexuality. People can hate them as much as they want, we still have people who hate other races and religions.

I think it is only fair that gay people should be able to enjoy every right that straight people have. If it means 2 people are a little less lonely in this world why not? Allowing gays to get married is not going to murders, no one can catch "the gay", they will not raise gay children because they are gay, it will not destroy the traditional man and woman marriage.

Not asking anyone to accept homosexuality as something that is OK. Can't tell people they are not sinners and are not going to hell (not that I am the least bit religious). Hell, people can even think they are disgusting, I can't tell people what to think, not going to spend my time trying to convince otherwise.

I am asking that my fellow human beings and countrymen have the same rights as I do. This country, after all, is not a theocracy.

rockerbikie wrote:Honestly, is a bill that only helps 10% of the population really worth spending time over fixing more major Economic and Social Problems? No, you can pass the bill and all other problems can go away as it's being passed. If it please/helps a minority what is the point of passing it? I want freedom over what I think. I have a problem with Same-Sex Marriage Activists that they force the thing down your throat. Usually it's "Vote Yes or you are a Homophobe." I have no need for it, so if a similar bill is put through referendum, I would vote no.

That just sounds like pure selfishness. If it wasn't for the opposition to gay rights, then it could just pass and everyone could get on with their lives. Equality in society is an important thing that shouldn't be brushed aside just because there are other serious issues in the world. There are always serious issues in the world. And claiming that there's no point in passing something that only helps a minority is just a very sad, insular way of looking at society IMO.

So you'd vote 'no' just because you have "no need for it". Sigh. On that basis I guess you would have voted no for black and women's rights, assuming you are a white male, for example.

Many people who are not Christians or religious or who are Christians but fastidious with the bible see the whole argument of "homosexuality is immoral because the bible says so" is a tad bit silly because the bible displays a list of ridiculous laws and requirements.

Well if you're not a Christian we don't really give a what you think now do we?

Frazzled wrote:

Many people who are not Christians or religious or who are Christians but fastidious with the bible see the whole argument of "homosexuality is immoral because the bible says so" is a tad bit silly because the bible displays a list of ridiculous laws and requirements.

Well if you're not a Christian we don't really give a what you think now do we?

Does it help that I was once one?

Or are Catholics still not "true Christians"

Yes there are quite a few of them out there. I get them at my door from time to time.

I also change my religion from time to time when they come.

Last time I was Muslim. Before that I was a Priest in the Church of Satan. That time it was a mistake to say that.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:Honestly, is a bill that only helps 10% of the population really worth spending time over fixing more major Economic and Social Problems? No, you can pass the bill and all other problems can go away as it's being passed. If it please/helps a minority what is the point of passing it? I want freedom over what I think. I have a problem with Same-Sex Marriage Activists that they force the thing down your throat. Usually it's "Vote Yes or you are a Homophobe." I have no need for it, so if a similar bill is put through referendum, I would vote no.

That just sounds like pure selfishness. If it wasn't for the opposition to gay rights, then it could just pass and everyone could get on with their lives. Equality in society is an important thing that shouldn't be brushed aside just because there are other serious issues in the world. There are always serious issues in the world. And claiming that there's no point in passing something that only helps a minority is just a very sad, insular way of looking at society IMO.

So you'd vote 'no' just because you have "no need for it". Sigh. On that basis I guess you would have voted no for black and women's rights, assuming you are a white male, for example.

Women aren't a minority. They have their rights. Black have plenty of rights and in cases more than whites. I got in a fight with a black person at school, he started it, I got suspended, he did not because he is black. Except for Gay Rights, Gay seems to have alot of rights, I have never seen a Straight Pride festival. I have heard gay people insulting straight people because they are straight . I can't say Hetereophobic, can I? I also need incentive other than justice for Homosexuals, I would have a slightly higher tax rate for gays that funds Hospitals and Orphanages for Homsexual Couples who do not adopt or have kids. I personally think that White Hetereosexuals rights are going down and being censored at alarmingly high rates. There is near equality except for Marriage for Homosexuals.

rockerbikie wrote: I have never seen a Straight Pride festival.

Well we have football an event filled with heterosexual testosterone and and cheerleaders in tight skimpy clothing,

I personally think that White Hetereosexuals rights are going down and being censored at alarmingly high rates. There is near equality except for Marriage for Homosexuals.

Aww crap. Why didn't Micheal Savage warn me of this?