Questo sito fa un ampio uso di JavaScript.
Per favore, abilitare JavaScript nel tuo browser.
[Classico Theme]
[Thottbot Theme]
Should people be able to vote away civil rights for minorities?
Invia risposta
Ritorna all'indice del forum
Messaggio di
Malgayne
My closest friend is a highly conservative evangelical Christian. He also firmly believes that gay marriage should be legalized in the United States. He wrote a blog about it some time ago which I found very moving, and I am reproducing it (in part) here:
I should be clear: I am not the guy you want at your gay pride rally. My views of homosexual sex are strictly "conservative" and, I hope, strictly textual. That's an uncomfortable fact, and I admit that, but I'm not Christian because it's
comfortable
.
But what, I wonder, do the opponents of gay marriage fear? I can only conclude that it's one of two things: they can't bring themselves to willingly grant rights to something they think is morally wrong, or they fear that the dignity of their
own
marriages will be impugned by giving rights to something that they think is morally wrong.
The latter is, I think, just bigotry, and suffers as well from a serious defect of understanding as to whence comes the dignity of marriage. That topic needs no more discussion.
The former possibility I think is not bigoted so much as narrow-minded. The fact of the matter is that we
already
grant affirmative rights to things I (they, we) think are morally wrong. That is precisely what American religious toleration is - and frankly I think a person's religion is a far larger moral issue than a person's sex life. And yet here I am (here, presumably, we are), holding simultaneously to our views that Christ is the one and only savior of mankind and supporting freedom of religion. Why? How?
This is a question I wish America's politically active (and inactive) conservative Christians would give considerably more thought to before they speak another word against the cause of gay marriage. For me, I can hold the views that I do about religious toleration because I don't think establishing Christianity as the state religion of the USA would advance the Kingdom of God. In fact, I'm convinced that doing so would be extraordinarily counter-productive to that goal. People do not fall in love with Jesus Christ because his church has more rights than other churches.
Similarly, I am at a complete loss to describe how prohibiting gay marriage is going to cause people of any sexual orientation to fall in love with Jesus Christ. Given that, I am in favor of the option which grants the most dignity to the most people, which in this case means being in favor of gay marriage as a legal institution (I'm also, in case you're interested, in favor of gay marriage for a variety of social policy reasons, but all of those are secondary to the Christ issue).
As I said, I'm not the guy you want speaking at your gay pride rallies. But I hope I am an important demographic - a conservative Christian who may disagree with the content of gay marriage but is nevertheless ideologically wedded to the idea that it must be allowed. If my co-religionists want to oppose legalizing gay marriage, well, that's fine by me - so long as they can tell me how doing so causes people to fall in love with Jesus Christ.
I was really pleased with this. A good, solid, well-founded reason why even the most conservative Christian I know is
still
in favor of gay marriage.
Messaggio di
buzz3070
what i find funny about this situation is that a lot of it stems from the religeous aspects of marrige being between a man and a women. but we have a seperation of church and state in our government. so why is this being ignored?
Messaggio di
blademeld
That was part of the arguments made here.
Messaggio di
buzz3070
That was part of the arguments made here.
oh yeah............its 4am here so yeah.
Messaggio di
342791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Messaggio di
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Messaggio di
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Messaggio di
MyTie
That said, democracy isn't fair, and neither is republicanism. Sometimes the people screw up, and so it takes a bit of wonkery to fix that. From what I can tell, the States are working to do so.
That's a relief that the government is fixing what the voters don't seem to understand. Terrific that we have a government that doesn't have to rely on its people.
Messaggio di
Skyfire
That said, democracy isn't fair, and neither is republicanism. Sometimes the people screw up, and so it takes a bit of wonkery to fix that. From what I can tell, the States are working to do so.
That's a relief that the government is fixing what the voters don't seem to understand. Terrific that we have a government that doesn't have to rely on its people.
Someone should protect us from ourselves, no?
Messaggio di
MyTie
That said, democracy isn't fair, and neither is republicanism. Sometimes the people screw up, and so it takes a bit of wonkery to fix that. From what I can tell, the States are working to do so.
That's a relief that the government is fixing what the voters don't seem to understand. Terrific that we have a government that doesn't have to rely on its people.
Someone should protect us from ourselves, no?
Who better than our trustworthy government? I'm sure they have the best intentions. Society already trusts government with heathcare, kids, transportation, money, etc... why not a measly little thing like our religions and social traditions?
Idiocy? Maybe. Naive? Definately.
Messaggio di
MyTie
A good, solid, well-founded reason why even the most conservative Christian I know is
still
in favor of gay marriage.
I believe gays should be allowed to get married. I just don't want to see it in law. Just like I don't want laws made that give gays the right to eat, breath, walk down the street, go to the movies, make PBJ sandwiches, and most other aspects of life. It is none of the government's business. Do I think being gay is morally wrong? Yep. Do I think it is my place to punish gays be telling them what they CAN and CANNOT do? No.
Messaggio di
309832
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Messaggio di
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Messaggio di
Deepthought
Let's admit it,being gay is not exactly positive influence.Really no offense but imo positive influence is anything 'normal' and being gay is acceptable and by no means wrong,but it isn't 'normal'
What's funny, is that if I were to replace "gay" with any other minority in this sentance string, you would call me a bigot.
Messaggio di
MyTie
Let's admit it,being gay is not exactly positive influence.Really no offense but imo positive influence is anything 'normal' and being gay is acceptable and by no means wrong,but it isn't 'normal'
What's funny, is that if I were to replace "gay" with any other minority in this sentance string, you would call me a bigot.
Child molesters are a minority group. You are a biggot if you think they can't raise a child properly.
Messaggio di
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Messaggio di
Deepthought
Child molesters are a minority group. You are a biggot if you think they can't raise a child properly.
I will play Devil's Advocate here and agree.
What now, MyTie? What now?
Messaggio di
MyTie
What's funny, is that if I were to replace "gay" with any other minority in this sentance string, you would call me a bigot.
Just because someone belongs to a minority group, doesn't mean they should be extended some sort of 'civil rights' pass. Not everyone is equal. Everyone is born equal though. It is what you do after you are born that degrades or exemplifies your charachter.
Don't just throw the word 'bigot' at someone who disagrees with you. Use some 'deep thought' to come up with a good arguement. For instance, you could have said:
An article in Pediatrics pronounced that "a growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual."
In essence, I agree that gays can raise kids as effectively. I don't think legal action should be taken either way, because (guess what I'm going to say),
IT'S NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUISINESS.
Messaggio di
Random0214
Wow, it is hardly believable that nobody has mentioned sources like
this
,
this
, and
this
.
Homosexuality and bisexuality are normal parts of nature in many species. It keeps the population growth down, it can be viewed as a limiting factor. Macaques and baboons have been noted frequently to have same-sex coupling and to engage in sexual behavior with the same gender. Being homosexual is not something that you decide, but an adaptation evolved to further prosper a species.
With less individuals mating to reproduce, there are less resources being consumed for offspring, as well as a lower strain on the environment in which the population of the species live. The point at which a population reaches genetic equilibrium or the maximum population the environment can sustain will likely be the point when homosexuality becomes more prominent.
Messaggio di
Deepthought
Just because someone belongs to a minority group, doesn't mean they should be extended some sort of 'civil rights' pass.
No. Everyone, belonging to any minority, should have a "civil rights pass", or no one should. Any other way is discrimination.
Not everyone is equal.
Aaannnnddd....there it is!
Don't just throw the word 'bigot' at someone who disagrees with you.
A bigot is a prejudiced person, no?
Use some 'deep thought' to come up with a good arguement. For instance, you could have said:
An article in Pediatrics pronounced that "a growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual."
If someone can't be bothered to put forward a well thought out arguement ("
it's not normal
" is NOT a well thought out arguement), I don't see why I should have to counter with one.
IT'S NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUISINESS.
Whether or not it should be the goverment's buisiness or not is a totally different issue.
They have MADE it there buisness.
Hell, in an ideal world, there would be no need for a government at all. But this isn't an ideal world, I'm afraid.
Invia risposta
Non hai effettuato l'accesso. Per favore,
accedi
per inviare una risposta o
registrati
se non hai ancora un account.
