The ethics of homosexuality.

[jayleew]

Odd, such a narrow view of Christianity. Given what you say here, do you really feel that the slave owning/raping pot smoking (even the constitution is written on cannabis hemp) war making blasphemers we call the founding fathers were Christians? I mean I guess they're exonerated by the bible when it comes to owning slaves, but everything else is pretty questionable.

I acknowledge the sins of everyone in the world, myself included. Does that mean I'm not Christian? Not if Jesus has any say about it.

Also, I've noticed that you refer to "The Church" quite often. Are you trying to express a bias toward Catholicism, or are protestant denominations acceptable as well? What about Mormons, out of curiosity? And where does all of this leave your espoused "personal acceptance of Christ"? I'm a little confused.

Mormons? You want to talk about a religion who doesn't know all that is in their book...goodness! You can become a god just like God, and rule a planet. Watch out if you are female though, because a male has to name you in the afterlife, or you cannot enter. And the golden tablets that the founder said he found in New York, but aren't there and just so happen to echo the King James bible word for word. Mormonism is a cult, biblically speaking.

 

[Asguard]

god is a myth. so taking your morals from "him" is worse than usless. Think about this, what if scientology rose to be the prodominate religion? why not? now as the top dog sociaity looks to it for its guidence ok? now look what the founder said before he created it "the best way to get ritch is to create a religion" so we should take our morals from a guy who was just trying to get ritch should we?

HELL NO. We should take our morals from what is best for our PEOPLE. The best way to do this is to say "whatever doesnt harm anyone else and is entered willingly is permited"

 

[Baron Max]

We should take our morals from what is best for our PEOPLE.

All of the people or just a few of the people? And who decides? All of the people or just a few of the people?

The best way to do this is to say "whatever doesnt harm anyone else and is entered willingly is permited"

And who decides the issue of "harm"? All of the people or just a few of the people? By popular vote or representative voting methods? By strict interpretation of the nation's constitution or by changing the constitution with amendments, which is done all the time?

What I find interesting in that view is that UNTIL a murder or rape is committed, no one has been harmed. So how do we separate out that intent versus the ACTUAL harm? So doesn't that mean that we should be highly suspicious of everyone all the time?

Baron Max

 

[jayleew]

god is a myth. so taking your morals from "him" is worse than usless. Think about this, what if scientology rose to be the prodominate religion? why not? now as the top dog sociaity looks to it for its guidence ok? now look what the founder said before he created it "the best way to get ritch is to create a religion" so we should take our morals from a guy who was just trying to get ritch should we?

HELL NO. We should take our morals from what is best for our PEOPLE. The best way to do this is to say "whatever doesnt harm anyone else and is entered willingly is permited"

You are allowed your opinion of God.

You speak of God as if Christianity were classified as a religion. In your mind it is because of the experience you have with it, and the people you see who follow it. Unfortunately, Christians are a minority in the religious sect of Christianity and chances are you have never met a Friend of God. There are a lot of good "Christians," but there are few Friend's of God: Real Christians who would be real Christians, even if the world wasn't watching.

Homosexuality is already permitted, and I don't have a problem with anyone's lifestyle. But, they want endorsement from me. I will not give my endorsement, and I am the People, just like every other American.

This thread will not accomplish anything because people are no longer willing to have God as the ultimate authority. Now the individual speaks for what is moral and immoral in his own mind. Therefore, we will accomplish nothing here. Even I am biased to Christian ethics.

 

[SpyMoose]

I'm sorry that I have mislead you. The founding fathers were Christian men, and they wanted a government that is governed by the people that is free from all persecutions to minority groups and religions. They modeled the government after Jesus Christ who opens his arms to everyone. Before you get your panties in a knot, I mean they inadvertantly modeled the government after Jesus Christ.

They molded the government after the social contract theory of <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke'>John Locke</a>. Locke was among other things, an empiricist, a secular humanist, and a prominant man in the enlightenment, which revolutionized the way the western world thinks (for most of us save for some sects of American Christians) about the role of reason in the world.

This was the man who our founding fathers looked to when crafting their theories of government, writing our constitution, and writing our first laws, not <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ'>Jesus Christ</a>.

I have provided informational links in the form of each mans name so that you might scrutinize these two encyclopedia entries and attempt to determine which one may have had a more direct influence on the formation of the American government. While I'm at it, I'll link <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith'>Adam Smith</a> another secular philosopher who had a large impact on the minds of our founding fathers.

If you have never heard these names before then I despair for the quality of your education, which no doubt has suffered due to your religious indoctrination.

 

[Mystech]

What I find interesting in that view is that UNTIL a murder or rape is committed, no one has been harmed. So how do we separate out that intent versus the ACTUAL harm?

I have no idea how that question fits into this discussion. Are you trying to make an argument for your position that homosexuality is immoral, or an argument for "Minority Report"?

So doesn't that mean that we should be highly suspicious of everyone all the time?

Well that's the NRA's stance, isn't it - their idea of a perfect society? Heh.

 

[Mystech]

You speak of God as if Christianity were classified as a religion.

Please explain why Asguard may have been in error in this semtiment, as I share it. Christianity is a religion in every sence that I can think of. I haven't got the slightest clue what you might be trying to imply here.

Unfortunately, Christians are a minority in the religious sect of Christianity and chances are you have never met a Friend of God. There are a lot of good "Christians," but there are few Friend's of God: Real Christians . . .

Alright, so it is your view that "real Christians" account for a small minority in the general population, then? Would you count the founding fathers as "Real Christians" despite many of them having professed a lack of interest in their generally held faith, if not disavowing it entirely. How also does their lack of any mention of Jesus or the Bible in the constitution reflect on their supposed intent to create a "Christian Nation"? How does their specific statement that no branch or any part of the federal or state governments shall establish religion reflect on the generally held concept that the founding fathers wanted to create a secular government?

I hope that doesn't make me sound too much like a middle school American Government teacher.

Homosexuality is already permitted, and I don't have a problem with anyone's lifestyle. But, they want endorsement from me. I will not give my endorsement, and I am the People, just like every other American.

Hmm so in your own personal opinion why should one minority group's theological opinion have a controlling influence over the practical secular rights and legal limitations imposed on another minority group? From where does that authority come? What ever happened to live and let live? Maybe to even things out we could have homosexuals put a ban on crucifixes in public - or maybe we could all mind our own business and let our government work for all of the people, rather than trying to use it against those whom have done us no harm, yet we hate anyhow.

This thread will not accomplish anything because people are no longer willing to have God as the ultimate authority. Now the individual speaks for what is moral and immoral in his own mind. Therefore, we will accomplish nothing here.

Yes, certainly, because reason and debate have never accomplished anything, and no organization which was working on any other premise than the supposed word of God has ever made any difference in the world.

This is a relatively small issue, and I'm fairly sure that once more people wise up to it (IE we don't just have the extremists on both sides shouting at each other - those who want their friggin' rights already, and those who just can't let some people live in peace because God told them not to) it'll just blow over. You're right, of course that this discussion on this forum will likely accomplish little, but that's for different reasons all together.

 

[Asguard]

jayleew i dont think very many (if ANY) homosexuals give a TOSS what you want to do in your church. Its when your church says that "this is wrong so we want LAWS to stop it" that you put yourselves in conflict with other groups.

I doubt that Mystech wants to be a christan in your church, what he DOES want is the right to have a legal contract with his partner alowed under the GOVERMENTAL system of the country he lives in. Im sure that is what ALL the homosexuals, lesbians ect want. You keep saying that goverment and religion should be seprate and i agree with you but your next sentance is that the goverments should take there morals from god. When was the last time god voted??????????????

WHO CARES WHAT GOD WANTS, i dont, i care that the goverment works for ME and the greater good. The greater good is not served by restricting legal rights to select groups

 

[§outh§tar]

Dear Mr. Asguard

You say:

i care that the goverment works for ME and the greater good. The greater good is not served by restricting legal rights to select groups

I think that's a rather arbitrary description of what the greater good is, don't you agree?

 

[Mystech]

I think that's a rather arbitrary description of what the greater good is, don't you agree?

I don't believe that he was trying to define or describe what constitutes the greater good, simply that fairly random restrictions of the rights of certain individuals which seems to serve no valid purpose is not a part of it.

 

[Baron Max]

The greater good is not served by restricting legal rights to select groups

Ahh, but who determines this "greater good"? And what if they determine that gays shouldn't be permitted to marry? Would you go along with it? Why not?

Baron Max

 

[Asguard]

because it fails the harm test, if it does no harm and is consentual it should be alowed

 

[SpyMoose]

Ahh, but who determines this "greater good"? And what if they determine that gays shouldn't be permitted to marry? Would you go along with it? Why not?

Baron Max

What in gods name do you mean "What if"?

 

[Baron Max]

because it fails the harm test, if it does no harm and is consentual it should be alowed

And who determines whether it "harms" or not? Many people make claims of homosexuality as "harmful" to their society ...are you saying that they're wrong?! ...and so it's YOU who makes the determination of "harm"?

Baron Max

 

[jayleew]

jayleew i dont think very many (if ANY) homosexuals give a TOSS what you want to do in your church. Its when your church says that "this is wrong so we want LAWS to stop it" that you put yourselves in conflict with other groups.

I doubt that Mystech wants to be a christan in your church, what he DOES want is the right to have a legal contract with his partner alowed under the GOVERMENTAL system of the country he lives in. Im sure that is what ALL the homosexuals, lesbians ect want. You keep saying that goverment and religion should be seprate and i agree with you but your next sentance is that the goverments should take there morals from god. When was the last time god voted??????????????

WHO CARES WHAT GOD WANTS, i dont, i care that the goverment works for ME and the greater good. The greater good is not served by restricting legal rights to select groups

Alright, I'll buy into that.

The thing is, "Marriage" is a Christian institution, so Christians have a problem with them being classified as the same union. First of all, homosexuals need to push to call it something else by law. Otherwise they are attacking the Christian's view of Marriage which would break the fabric of what Christians believe as the family unit and moral foundation.

I see your point, that from the government's view, they need to treat everyone equally who define themselves as partners for life. Then, we need to go back find out why Marriage laws and benefits were put into place, and possibly get rid of any special treatment of the Married status if the benefits do not correspond to the need. Treatment of joined couples need equal rights in the eyes of the law, but if there are laws in place to benefit raising children, it makes little sense to allow those benefits for homosexuals who do not procreate.

 

[Mystech]

The thing is, "Marriage" is a Christian institution, so Christians have a problem with them being classified as the same union.

This is news to me, and I'm fairly certain it must be equally shocking to every other culture around the world which have had marriage or exclusive pair-bond contracts incorporated into both their religious and civil lives since the beginning of recorded history.

Christianity, as with nearly every other culture both secular and spiritual, incorporates marriage as one if it's rites, but I don't think that you could make the claim that marriage is a Christian institution. It's not true in the world, and certainly not true in America where people are allowed to marry regardless of religion, and even despite a lack of religion; this being largely due to marriage’s traditionally civic nature which through out history has generally been even more prevalent than it’s religious aspects.

First of all, homosexuals need to push to call it something else by law. Otherwise they are attacking the Christian's view of Marriage which would break the fabric of what Christians believe as the family unit and moral foundation.

You're behaving as if Christians invented the institution. Why should this be necessary? Do our laws define marriage as a Christian institution? Are only Christians allowed to partake in it? Is any heed even really given by our laws as to whether or not a couple wishing to marry is Christian?

I don't see how this issue has to be seen as an attack on anyone. What ever happened to live and let live? I can have mine and you can have yours, and we can both be happy. We don't have to approve of each other’s beliefs or with whom the other is living, or where we go on Sunday mornings, but in the end it doesn't really make much difference in our own lives, and we should at least have enough civility to realize that it would be supremely arrogant of us to think that we have some sort of moral imperative or sacred right to tell the other how to live his life.

Let's be clear, this is not a battle to try and get any Church or place of worship, Christian or otherwise to perform religious ceremonies for same-sex couples, nor is it a battle to make any religion to change it's doctrine to accept homosexuals. That's entirely outside the government's power, and were anyone seeking legislation to that effect I'd call them a loony and have words just as harsh for them as I have for any of the varying strange ideas which I sometimes see presented on these forums. This is about the rights of same-sex couples to enter into a civil contract defined and protected by federal law which is already afforded to other non-immedatelly-related consenting adults.

Then, we need to go back find out why Marriage laws and benefits were put into place, and possibly get rid of any special treatment of the Married status if the benefits do not correspond to the need.

Generally agreed, though we don't necessarily need to go back and look at the original intent of these laws. I believe that an assessment of how such laws fit into our society today and what roll they play would be equally as valid. I think there have been a few threads along these lines. Personally I think that getting government out of the business of marriage all together is a silly and impractical idea, but that's another topic all together.

Treatment of joined couples need equal rights in the eyes of the law, but if there are laws in place to benefit raising children, it makes little sense to allow those benefits for homosexuals who do not procreate.

I see where you're coming from with this, and many many people have bought up similar points on these forums in the past. However it's not a valid assertion that homosexuals have no need of any status designed to deal with raising children. Homosexuals do, rather frequently procreate, be it through artificial insemination, from a previous heterosexual marriage (there are many homosexuals who don't really end up coming out even to themselves until some time fairly late in life), and then of course there's always adoption. People often seem to overlook the reality of families headed by same-sex partners, but there are many of them out there, and the lack of a legally binding marriage contract can cause them all sorts of unnecessary grief.

What do you suppose would happen to Rosie O'donnel's several adopted children if she were to die suddenly? Would custody be automatically held by her wife? They may have been able to work out their own contract to solve that problem, but it's not necessarily a given as to whether such a contract will even be honored, and then again can we trust all same-sex adoptive parents to have the proper forethought, time, and money to sit down with a lawyer and try to work out all of these little things on their own.

And of course then there are the certain things that come with a marriage license which can't really be given or really guaranteed by other contracts. Living wills are often turned over by judges - there are plenty of cases of one member of a same-sex union dieing and his or her entire estate going to the family that disowned him/her years ago rather than the partner they'd been with for years. Hospital visitations and health-care-coverage are two other things that couldn't necessarily be worked out this way either. I could go on about them, but I think instead I'll just let it drop here as I think the point that this is about real matters which really are effecting people's lives in negative ways, not just some nebulous moralistic concept.

 

[jayleew]

This is news to me, and I'm fairly certain it must be equally shocking to every other culture around the world which have had marriage or exclusive pair-bond contracts incorporated into both their religious and civil lives since the beginning of recorded history.

Christianity, as with nearly every other culture both secular and spiritual, incorporates marriage as one if it's rites, but I don't think that you could make the claim that marriage is a Christian institution. It's not true in the world, and certainly not true in America where people are allowed to marry regardless of religion, and even despite a lack of religion; this being largely due to marriage’s traditionally civic nature which through out history has generally been even more prevalent than it’s religious aspects.



You're behaving as if Christians invented the institution. Why should this be necessary? Do our laws define marriage as a Christian institution? Are only Christians allowed to partake in it? Is any heed even really given by our laws as to whether or not a couple wishing to marry is Christian?

I don't see how this issue has to be seen as an attack on anyone. What ever happened to live and let live? I can have mine and you can have yours, and we can both be happy. We don't have to approve of each other’s beliefs or with whom the other is living, or where we go on Sunday mornings, but in the end it doesn't really make much difference in our own lives, and we should at least have enough civility to realize that it would be supremely arrogant of us to think that we have some sort of moral imperative or sacred right to tell the other how to live his life.

Let's be clear, this is not a battle to try and get any Church or place of worship, Christian or otherwise to perform religious ceremonies for same-sex couples, nor is it a battle to make any religion to change it's doctrine to accept homosexuals. That's entirely outside the government's power, and were anyone seeking legislation to that effect I'd call them a loony and have words just as harsh for them as I have for any of the varying strange ideas which I sometimes see presented on these forums. This is about the rights of same-sex couples to enter into a civil contract defined and protected by federal law which is already afforded to other non-immedatelly-related consenting adults.



Generally agreed, though we don't necessarily need to go back and look at the original intent of these laws. I believe that an assessment of how such laws fit into our society today and what roll they play would be equally as valid. I think there have been a few threads along these lines. Personally I think that getting government out of the business of marriage all together is a silly and impractical idea, but that's another topic all together.



I see where you're coming from with this, and many many people have bought up similar points on these forums in the past. However it's not a valid assertion that homosexuals have no need of any status designed to deal with raising children. Homosexuals do, rather frequently procreate, be it through artificial insemination, from a previous heterosexual marriage (there are many homosexuals who don't really end up coming out even to themselves until some time fairly late in life), and then of course there's always adoption. People often seem to overlook the reality of families headed by same-sex partners, but there are many of them out there, and the lack of a legally binding marriage contract can cause them all sorts of unnecessary grief.

What do you suppose would happen to Rosie O'donnel's several adopted children if she were to die suddenly? Would custody be automatically held by her wife? They may have been able to work out their own contract to solve that problem, but it's not necessarily a given as to whether such a contract will even be honored, and then again can we trust all same-sex adoptive parents to have the proper forethought, time, and money to sit down with a lawyer and try to work out all of these little things on their own.

And of course then there are the certain things that come with a marriage license which can't really be given or really guaranteed by other contracts. Living wills are often turned over by judges - there are plenty of cases of one member of a same-sex union dieing and his or her entire estate going to the family that disowned him/her years ago rather than the partner they'd been with for years. Hospital visitations and health-care-coverage are two other things that couldn't necessarily be worked out this way either. I could go on about them, but I think instead I'll just let it drop here as I think the point that this is about real matters which really are effecting people's lives in negative ways, not just some nebulous moralistic concept.

My vote aside, you are right. I would not complain if same-sex partners for life had a legal obligation to care for things that are left behind in the unfortunate event of death. It is only right that it should be so.

I would not complain if the states allowed some sort of legal married status. I might vote against it, but at least I sympathize.

In this country today, when someone mentions marriage, what do we think? Do we not think of church bells and white dresses?

Today's society has a perception that marriage should be a white dress and church bells. It is difficult to change the perception when they are taught to disagree with homosexuality, be it from scripture, or from their family and friends. You have an uphill battle to fight.

It would be an easier tread if you went another way up the hill, than public perception of marriage. Push for legal rights for same-sex unions and detach the word marriage and you might have an easier case. I would vote against it on principal, but I would reluctantly agree to giving same-sex unions most rights that married couples today have.

The reason why other religions do not get grief by Christians is that it is not a negligent sin against God to not accept Christ (instead they get empathy), and the natural order of the body, which is designed to procreate naturally. It is these combined with lack of understanding that makes a harsh view of homosexuality in a Christian's eye.

We are here to discuss the ethics of homosexuality, and the dilema is that today's society perceives it as unethical. You object to the perception.

So, who is right? Religion aside, who is right? Without God, we are left with Philosophy to determine ethics. Of course, we have our own philosophies, so who is right? Logic says the majority rules, in that it is a better solution if most people are pleased with the result. So, if the majority of America is for homosexuality, why has America not given equal rights yet? Why not take a poll and have it done with?

 

[jayleew]

I started a poll:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47207

 

[SpyMoose]

The thing is, "Marriage" is a Christian institution, so Christians have a problem with them being classified as the same union.

Does this mean that once the gay marriag issue cools down you will begin to crusade against Hindu marriage, or atheist marriage, or Native American marriage? Arn't they making a mockery of this nations values, by your stated standards that we are a Christian nation and that Marriage belongs to Christians?

 

[Mystech]

So, who is right? Religion aside, who is right? Without God, we are left with Philosophy to determine ethics. Of course, we have our own philosophies, so who is right? Logic says the majority rules, in that it is a better solution if most people are pleased with the result. So, if the majority of America is for homosexuality, why has America not given equal rights yet? Why not take a poll and have it done with?

Uum well there is the constitution, and quite notably the 14th amendment which is designed to keep silly things like this from happening. Aside from that there's the spirit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness which certainly is betrayed when one group is arbitrarily denied rights simply to serve a popular prejudice.

The difference between democracy and mob-rule is protection of rights and opinions of minority groups. In this case democracy is certainly failing homosexuals. People forget that the government is supposed to work for us as well.