Homosexual Liberal Atheists ~ What's UP with that?

lisah25 · March 17, 2007

Okay, following this logic, liberals want to force everyone else to recognize gay marriage as a legal wedded union between husband and husband or wife and wife. Why should I be okay with that just because someone else says it's their lifestyle choice?

In cases like this, I look at who will be harmed most. Is it a couple who can't have the legal relationship that straights get, meaning they don't get the legal benefits, many of which can't be duplicated? Or the people who may not like their lifestyle, but otherwise really aren't affected by it?

A common line I hear from conservatives to liberals is about how no one has a right to not be offended. That applies here. No one has to Celebrate gay marriages if they don't want to, but why does their right to not have to see things they may not like override other people's?

marjon9 · March 17, 2007

Originally Posted by Lap_dancer

Okay, following this logic, liberals want to force everyone else to recognize gay marriage as a legal wedded union between husband and husband or wife and wife. Why should I be okay with that just because someone else says it's their lifestyle choice?

My answer to that is that marriage has two components, a secular component and a religious component. The secular component is extremely important to all members of society. This component of marriage determines inheritance rights, rights in relation to children, the right to make decisions for a spouse who is in the hospital, tax ramifications, etc. In addition to that, marriage has secular social benefits. People need to feel included in the society in which they live. This is crucially important to human psychological well-being. And remember, all of these are secular issues. This has nothing to do with religion.

There are also religious components to marriage. Each religion has its own traditions and beliefs about marriage. Obviously, no one from outside the particular religion has any right to dictate what is believed in someone else's religion.

But the problem comes in when people with certain religious beliefs decide to dictate to other members of society just exactly which secular benefits of society that person is allowed to enjoy. No one has the right to do that. No one has the right to say, " I don't 'accept' homosexuality, therefore your domestic partner who you have shared your life with for 25 years has to die totally unnecessarily because I do not recognize your right to sign the medical authorization." Exactly this has happened many times.

Sorry, Lap Dancer, you don't have that right. This is a secular society. There is a separation of Church and State. Even though Christians (of one sort or another) may be in the majority in this society, that does not give them the right to make determinations for how other members of society enjoy the secular benefits available in that society.

No one is asking you to "accept" a homosexual marriage. Feel free to reject it in your mind and heart and in the eyes of your God. But you have absolutely no right whatsoever to cross the boundaries of your religion and tell, or worse, legislate, how other people live their lives.

Tired_Old_Man · March 17, 2007

In cases like this, I look at who will be harmed most. Is it a couple who can't have the legal relationship that straights get, meaning they don't get the legal benefits, many of which can't be duplicated? Or the people who may not like their lifestyle, but otherwise really aren't affected by it?
A common line I hear from conservatives to liberals is about how no one has a right to not be offended. That applies here. No one has to Celebrate gay marriages if they don't want to, but why does their right to not have to see things they may not like override other people's?

If I am sick and dying in the hospital, Tina can decide when to pull the plug, Tina can visit me in ICU and if we had adopted a child, Tina would still be the parent.

If I had spent the last 40 years of my life with Larry, Larry could not decide when to pull the plug, Larry could not visit me in ICU and if I had adopted a child, Larry could not be the parent. In fact, in the state where I live, Larry and I would not be eligible to adopt.

How does that make the lives of people who are offended by same-gender unions any better?

How does that offend people who are against same-gender unions?

Tina has never worked since we got married, because we decided to have one parent home to raise the children. I worked extra overtime and a part time job to pay the bills. Tina can collect on my Social Security when she gets old enough and is entitled to Medicare at 65. The rational for that is that we always filed joint income tax returns so we are treated as a family.

If Larry and I had been together for 40 years and had raised 10 children (either adopted or from my sperm with female surrogates) under the same circumstances as Tina and I, Larry could not collect on my Social Security when he gets old enough and is not entitled to Medicare at 65. The rational for that is that were not allowed to file joint income tax returns so we are not treated as a family.

How does that make the lives of people who are offended by same-gender unions any better?

How does that offend people who are against same-gender unions?

Compassion!!

Tired_Old_Man · March 17, 2007

Originally Posted by Lap_dancer
Okay, following this logic, liberals want to force everyone else to recognize gay marriage as a legal wedded union between husband and husband or wife and wife. Why should I be okay with that just because someone else says it's their lifestyle choice?

My answer to that is that marriage has two components, a secular component and a religious component. The secular component is extremely important to all members of society. This component of marriage determines inheritance rights, rights in relation to children, the right to make decisions for a spouse who is in the hospital, tax ramifications, etc. In addition to that, marriage has secular social benefits. People need to feel included in the society in which they live. This is crucially important to human psychological well-being. And remember, all of these are secular issues. This has nothing to do with religion.

There are also religious components to marriage. Each religion has its own traditions and beliefs about marriage. Obviously, no one from outside the particular religion has any right to dictate what is believed in someone else's religion.

But the problem comes in when people with certain religious beliefs decide to dictate to other members of society just exactly which secular benefits of society that person is allowed to enjoy. No one has the right to do that. No one has the right to say, " I don't 'accept' homosexuality, therefore your domestic partner who you have shared your life with for 25 years has to die totally unnecessarily because I do not recognize your right to sign the medical authorization." Exactly this has happened many times.

Sorry, Lap Dancer, you don't have that right. This is a secular society. There is a separation of Church and State. Even though Christians (of one sort or another) may be in the majority in this society, that does not give them the right to make determinations for how other members of society enjoy the secular benefits available in that society.

No one is asking you to "accept" a homosexual marriage. Feel free to reject it in your mind and heart and in the eyes of your God. But you have absolutely no right whatsoever to cross the boundaries of your religion and tell, or worse, legislate, how other people live their lives.

Either in this thread or another similar one, we discussed members who were divorced, but their church did not recognize the divorce

I think the only solution is to separate "legal civil unions" and marriage

If a couple wants to be married in his church/religion, they must also be joined in a "legal civil union", to get the benefits of the legal and tax system. If a couple wants get the same benefits of the legal and tax system, but without religious overtones, they must be also joined in a "legal civil union", but they would not be married.

All laws should then replace the word "marriage" with "legal civil union". Of course the state could (and should) allow clergy the right to perform the marriage and "legal civil union" simultaneously.

Also, of course the American public will never go for that, because it is easier to discriminate than to try to be fair.

There will eventually be a crisis in this country as some states follow a policy similar to what I suggest, while other states refuse to recognize these "legal civil unions" or whatever the state where the ceremony was performed calls it. I could just see the headlines, “Gay couple arrested though they were legally joined in another state”. I can also see the tourism problems as married Gays from other countries are made to feel unwelcome in some states. That's what might eventually turn things around:

Compassion – NO!

Profit Margin and Tax Revenues - Yes!!

lisah25 · March 17, 2007

I know, but I don't think their motives were suspect. I thought it was a bizarre power struggle - the husband against the parents. He (the husband) had already moved on with his life. What would it have cost him to just let those people spend their days taking care of their daughter, if that's what they wanted to do?

If he truely knew/believed she wouldn't have wanted to live in the state she was in, it would be hard to not be able to fufill her wishes.

WASaBubbleButt · March 17, 2007

I guess this was missed or people just refused to comment on it. As anyone can see, it was posted in this thread quite a few pages back.
It offers a (possible) explanation of why (some) males are Gay.

I have read similar studies but not that one specifically.

There is no doubt in my mind that homosexuality is not a choice people make and stick with it. It just is. We simply need to narrow down all the information we have and discover why. Not so that we can change anything, gays don't want to be changed regardless of how others believe they should be living their lives.

There are brain structure differences, hormonal differences, lots of things.

Many of the hard core Christian types don't want to read the scientific evidence because it will mess with their theory that gays just want to have kinky sex. They don't want facts and truth, they want to push their agenda. They can't even prove their own God exists yet they expect others to live according to their beliefs anyway and life just doesn't work like that. These are the same people that know "a" person that isn't gay anymore thus they have proof, the heck with the other 99.99999% of the gay population, they know one person that "changed" thus everyone can.

Tired_Old_Man · March 17, 2007

If he truely knew/believed she wouldn't have wanted to live in the state she was in, it would be hard to not be able to fufill her wishes.

She killed herself (not on purpose) trying to "look good" by dieting. Does anyone think that she would want to look like she did in that condition?

What really got me most annoyed were people like FOX program host Sean Hannity. He had a woman on his show more than once who claimed to be Terri Schiavo's nurse (before she left the facility) and that Ms. Schiavo was lucid and would wheel(chair) herself to the nurse's station and hang out greeting the visitors, plus Ms. Schiavo would call the nurses when she needed her diapers to be changed. People who I would talk to would relate these tales to me (which I saw first hand watching FOX) and they believed the nurse and Sean Hannity.

In this day of cell-phone cameras, no one in the Schindler family had a cell-phone with a camera and none of the nurses would smuggle a camera or cell-phone camera in to save Terri Schiavo's life? Where the nurses and all the doctors paid off to help execute Terri Schiavo?

GIVE ME A BREAK!!

Tired_Old_Man · March 17, 2007

Church leaders in Tobago want Elton John banned from headlining a music festival on the Caribbean island amid fears he will turn locals gay.

Maybe they are right. Every time I hear Elton sing "Candle In The Wind", I want to suck a

WASaBubbleButt · March 17, 2007

Church leaders in Tobago want Elton John banned from headlining a music festival on the Caribbean island amid fears he will turn locals gay.

LOL! Priceless!!!

From the article:

>>He explains: "The artist is one of God's children and while his lifestyle is questionable, he needs to be ministered onto."<<

Perhaps this dude needs to work on the issues of his own people before worrying about the lifestyle of another.

marjon9 · March 17, 2007

Below is a link to an article by a Christian fundamentalist who argues that even if science eventually proves that people are born gay, homosexuality is still just as much a sin, and that Christians should work on finding pre-natal anti-homosexuality treatments.

Here is a quote from the article:

"Homosexual activists have claimed that sexual orientation cannot be changed. What if a hormone patch during pregnancy will do the job?"

Here's another:

In a culture that encourages us to customize everything from our Nikes to our venti skinny lattes, perhaps it is only a matter of time before baby-making becomes just another consumer transaction. Already have a girl? Make this one a boy! Want to impress your boho friends? Make a real statement with lesbian twins!

Before offering words of advice, Mr. Mohler explains:

"Christians who are committed to think in genuinely Christian terms should think carefully about these points:" [sage advice follows]

You can't make this stuff up folks.

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891

WASaBubbleButt · March 17, 2007

Amazing, it's always some brand of Christianity promoting this thinking. Others just allow people to be themselves.

Tired_Old_Man · March 17, 2007

When I read the Linking article by R. Albert Mohler, I thought that it was a satire.

It was not until I did some googling that I realized that it was real.:help:

And they call me whacky!!:faint:

Tired_Old_Man · March 17, 2007

Christians Gather to Protest War

From the linked article:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Thousands of people gathered for a Christian anti-war worship service Friday night at the Washington National Cathedral, kicking off a weekend of protests around the country to mark the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq.

"Millions of people around the world sadly believe this is a Christian war," said the Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners/Call to Renewal, one of the groups sponsoring the event. "We have to clear up the confusion."

Civil rights historian Taylor Branch, who planned to participate, said it is important for churches to be leaders in the anti-war movement.

"It seems to me sad that Christians so easily have put aside our core beliefs, that we love our enemies and we do not believe in violence," said Branch, a Presbyterian elder.

green · March 17, 2007

My real estate tax is less than $4000 per year on a house valued at $175,000. That's with a homestead exemption and my DH's over 65 exemption. How does that compare to other areas of the country?

My property taxes are just shy of 3 grand on a house valued at approximately $450,000. Property taxes can really vary for some reason on houses which cost about the same amount. We have been looking for a new house and I have disqualified a few because the taxes were over $4,000 - sometimes well over that figure!:phanvan

We pay both provincial and federal sales taxes which together amount to 14%. food is exempt from sales tax unless it comes in the form of a restaurant meal.:cry

mini_me · March 17, 2007

BJEAN!

i was not trying to change the topic, and i certainly was NOT offended...lol! i just started reading the thread and thought the movie quote game was fun...and i did not get to play, so i thought i would take my turn anyway...for those who care...

the quote is from urban cowboy. it is after sissy and bud have the fight in the cafe and they fight in the parking lot. she decides to hitchhike home, thus, "i gotta thumb, i gotta middle finger."