|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/4/2008 10:03:07 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1021
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: zamdad
Who's to say that some legislators will not propose legislation to lower the age of consent?
Maybe they will. But they could do so whether or not same-sex marriage is legalized. Your argument is as sensible as "I don't support the Congress lowering taxes, because who's to say that some legislators will not propose legislation to lower the age of consent?"
I was chided before for bringing up the ridiculousness of slippery slope arguments, but that's about all I see here.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/5/2008 3:45:55 AM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1666
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: zamdad
Who's to say that some legislators will not propose legislation to lower the age of consent?
Maybe they will. But they could do so whether or not same-sex marriage is legalized. Your argument is as sensible as "I don't support the Congress lowering taxes, because who's to say that some legislators will not propose legislation to lower the age of consent?"
I was chided before for bringing up the ridiculousness of slippery slope arguments, but that's about all I see here.
Well, it appears for now that some states have changed their constitutions to recognize marrage as only between a man and a woman. So, according to the "if it is legal, it is right" standard, only marrage between a man and a woman is right for now. No slippery slope here. Is there another standard we should be using?
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/5/2008 9:57:02 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1021
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: zamdad
Who's to say that some legislators will not propose legislation to lower the age of consent?
Maybe they will. But they could do so whether or not same-sex marriage is legalized. Your argument is as sensible as "I don't support the Congress lowering taxes, because who's to say that some legislators will not propose legislation to lower the age of consent?"
I was chided before for bringing up the ridiculousness of slippery slope arguments, but that's about all I see here.
Well, it appears for now that some states have changed their constitutions to recognize marrage as only between a man and a woman. So, according to the "if it is legal, it is right" standard, only marrage between a man and a woman is right for now. No slippery slope here. Is there another standard we should be using?
I never suggested "if it is legal, it is right" as a standard. Legalizing abortion did not change its moral status in most people's eyes; legalizing same-sex marriage will not change its moral status either. But these changes reflect the general opinion of a majority of the people, which is something we must respect in a democratic society, even if we disagree with the specific results. The result in California was a great disappointment to me, and devastating to my gay friends and my married gay friends. But the similar prop 22 passed by 61% 8 years ago, and prop 8 is passing with around 52% of the vote. I think we can anticipate that same-sex marriage will be legalized in California within five years.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/5/2008 10:24:12 AM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7713
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
As long as I am a believer that won't be possible. I cannot approve of something God calls evil.
Do you approve of adultery? Most states have decriminalized adultery, but I don't hear much outrage about that. Just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to approve of it.
The topic of this thread is homosexuality.
Trying to insert adultery is considered off-topic.
Please get on topic or find a thread more suited to your desire to discuss the topic of adultery.
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
Messages which disregard the words in red will be removed without warning and the poster may also be banned.
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://budurl.com/CWonFacebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/5/2008 11:19:12 AM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2495
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: zamdad
Who's to say that some legislators will not propose legislation to lower the age of consent?
Maybe they will. But they could do so whether or not same-sex marriage is legalized. Your argument is as sensible as "I don't support the Congress lowering taxes, because who's to say that some legislators will not propose legislation to lower the age of consent?"
I was chided before for bringing up the ridiculousness of slippery slope arguments, but that's about all I see here.
Well, it appears for now that some states have changed their constitutions to recognize marrage as only between a man and a woman. So, according to the "if it is legal, it is right" standard, only marrage between a man and a woman is right for now. No slippery slope here. Is there another standard we should be using?
I never suggested "if it is legal, it is right" as a standard. Legalizing abortion did not change its moral status in most people's eyes; legalizing same-sex marriage will not change its moral status either. But these changes reflect the general opinion of a majority of the people, which is something we must respect in a democratic society, even if we disagree with the specific results. The result in California was a great disappointment to me, and devastating to my gay friends and my married gay friends. But the similar prop 22 passed by 61% 8 years ago, and prop 8 is passing with around 52% of the vote. I think we can anticipate that same-sex marriage will be legalized in California within five years.
quote:
Legalizing abortion did not change its moral status in most people's eyes;
Not yet...
quote:
I think we can anticipate that same-sex marriage will be legalized in California within five years.
How is that since it is now going to be a part of the constitution?
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/5/2008 11:35:38 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1021
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
How is that since it is now going to be a part of the constitution?
For reasons known only to our pioneer ancestors who founded California, it takes a simple majority vote to amend the state constitution. Prop 8 amended the constitution with 52% of the vote. A similar proposition in a few years will amend it to allow same-sex marriage.
A friend noted some exit poll data:
"the under-30s voted against it by 67 to31 percent. The over-65s voted for it by 57 to 43 percent."
If this demographic trend stays roughly constant, another five years should easily achieve a majority in favor of same-sex marriage.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/5/2008 11:52:21 AM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
How is that since it is now going to be a part of the constitution?
For reasons known only to our pioneer ancestors who founded California, it takes a simple majority vote to amend the state constitution. Prop 8 amended the constitution with 52% of the vote. A similar proposition in a few years will amend it to allow same-sex marriage.
A friend noted some exit poll data:
"the under-30s voted against it by 67 to31 percent. The over-65s voted for it by 57 to 43 percent."
If this demographic trend stays roughly constant, another five years should easily achieve a majority in favor of same-sex marriage.
And what would be the point of legalizing it?
It's still wrong according to scripture.
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/5/2008 12:22:19 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1021
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
And what would be the point of legalizing it?
That the law should be in accordance with the will of the people. That's democracy.
quote:
It's still wrong according to scripture.
Some churches disagree. I don't really care. The First Amendment gives churches the right to believe either way on that matter. Nobody wants to change that.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/5/2008 12:26:00 PM
|
|
|
zamdad
Posts: 1749
Joined: 4/8/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I was chided before for bringing up the ridiculousness of slippery slope arguments, but that's about all I see here.
It seems that as a nation we're too busy enjoying the ride down the slope to see what's at the bottom of the hill.
_____________________________
The two hardest things to handle: failure and success.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/5/2008 1:43:50 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2495
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
How is that since it is now going to be a part of the constitution?
For reasons known only to our pioneer ancestors who founded California, it takes a simple majority vote to amend the state constitution. Prop 8 amended the constitution with 52% of the vote. A similar proposition in a few years will amend it to allow same-sex marriage.
A friend noted some exit poll data:
"the under-30s voted against it by 67 to31 percent. The over-65s voted for it by 57 to 43 percent."
If this demographic trend stays roughly constant, another five years should easily achieve a majority in favor of same-sex marriage.
quote:
For reasons known only to our pioneer ancestors who founded California,
There were called Christians; and they implied a very simple principal of weights and measures..
Meaning to define a majority the majority is defined as 1 vote above the other …and that is it.
The same thing implied in the Senate. 51 is a majority… very simple!
quote:
it takes a simple majority vote to amend the state constitution. Prop 8 amended the constitution with 52% of the vote.
A similar proposition in a few years will amend it to allow same-sex marriage.
If there is none % … then there can not be another vote on it….
Then what percent is considered to be a majority in California?
Each State is different…like for example… in Florida… I believe the % is 60 ….so 60% of the vote is necessary for it to be a “permanent” amendment…
Which means it can not be changed nor voted on again!
DO you know what percent is considered to be a majority in California?
LG
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/5/2008 1:56:06 PM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
And what would be the point of legalizing it?
That the law should be in accordance with the will of the people. That's democracy.
Which is why marriage should not be a state institution. It's always been established from the church.
quote:
quote:
It's still wrong according to scripture.
Some churches disagree. I don't really care. The First Amendment gives churches the right to believe either way on that matter. Nobody wants to change that.
And those churches are wrong. They allow culture to dictate to them what they should believe.
The apostle Paul equates homosexuality with adultery, murder, and lying.
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/5/2008 2:18:22 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2495
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
And what would be the point of legalizing it?
That the law should be in accordance with the will of the people. That's democracy.
Some churches disagree. I don't really care. The First Amendment gives churches the right to believe either way on that matter. Nobody wants to change that.
The Church saw that the will of the people in Cali was already spoken... and then overturned by a judge..
Correct me if I am wrong… but
in Connecticut it was allowed “before it even came up for a proposition...” because of some outdated and misinterpreted law for that occasion in the 1800,s? ….which was passed under a "totally different"… circumstance
….and was never a part of the State constitutions to begin with… and went rather unnoticed…. (Teddy was digging deep for that one)..
Are those examples above… your interpretation of democracy?
Sounds like a bunch of uncontrolled Democrats that have been in the office for way too long!!
And if those examples above are your interpretation of democracy…Then you seem to be placing unlegislated legalism over democracy…. In which will not stand in the long run.
LG
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/5/2008 2:21:49 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1021
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
Each State is different…like for example… in Florida… I believe the % is 60 ….so 60% of the vote is necessary for it to be a “permanent” amendment…
Which means it can not be changed nor voted on again!
There's no such thing as a permanent amendment. You can amend an amendment, just as Prohibition was first enacted (18th Amendment), then repealed (21st Amendment).
quote:
DO you know what percent is considered to be a majority in California?
50% + 1.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/5/2008 2:42:05 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1021
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
And if those examples above are your interpretation of democracy…Then you seem to be placing unlegislated legalism over democracy…. In which will not stand in the long run.
It's true we don't have direct democracy. Our various existing constitutions and laws constrain what can and can't be done by the vote of the people.
The judiciary has the job of seeing that all of these rules get followed.
Yes, I can see how it upset people that the judiciary decided that the equal protection clause of the California constitution required the acceptance of same-sex marriage (striking down the earlier prop 22 vote (which was only a law, not a constitutional amendment)).
So I welcomed prop 8 as a way for the people to again voice their opinion. Sadly, the majority did not agree with my opinion.
But, as you say "in the long run" I think the people of California will favor same-sex marriage, and will vote to support it in a future election.
I almost hate to mention it, but I think the judiciary will still have to look this over. Prop 8 didn't change the equal protection clause in the CA consitution, it only added its definition of marriage. Both are now parts of the constitution, and the judges have to figure out how they can both be true simultaneously. A few people seem to think that, now that same-sex marriage is illegal, but we are also not allowed to discriminate, the court will be forced to make opposite-sex marriage illegal as well. I think that's a long-shot, but it would make for interesting news.
The courts will also have to decide what to do (if anything) about the many same-sex couples who have already married. The proposition didn't mention it, and probably those marriages will remain valid (since you generally can't do things ex post facto).
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/5/2008 2:56:26 PM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7713
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
essentialsaltes,
An email has been sent to your account.
Please be sure you read it before participating further.
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://budurl.com/CWonFacebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/5/2008 5:34:47 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2495
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
And if those examples above are your interpretation of democracy…Then you seem to be placing unlegislated legalism over democracy…. In which will not stand in the long run.
It's true we don't have direct democracy. Our various existing constitutions and laws constrain what can and can't be done by the vote of the people.
The judiciary has the job of seeing that all of these rules get followed.
Yes, I can see how it upset people that the judiciary decided that the equal protection clause of the California constitution required the acceptance of same-sex marriage (striking down the earlier prop 22 vote (which was only a law, not a constitutional amendment)).
So I welcomed prop 8 as a way for the people to again voice their opinion. Sadly, the majority did not agree with my opinion.
But, as you say "in the long run" I think the people of California will favor same-sex marriage, and will vote to support it in a future election.
I almost hate to mention it, but I think the judiciary will still have to look this over. Prop 8 didn't change the equal protection clause in the CA consitution, it only added its definition of marriage. Both are now parts of the constitution, and the judges have to figure out how they can both be true simultaneously. A few people seem to think that, now that same-sex marriage is illegal, but we are also not allowed to discriminate, the court will be forced to make opposite-sex marriage illegal as well. I think that's a long-shot, but it would make for interesting news.
The courts will also have to decide what to do (if anything) about the many same-sex couples who have already married. The proposition didn't mention it, and probably those marriages will remain valid (since you generally can't do things ex post facto).
Greetings
quote:
But, as you say "in the long run" I think the people of California will favor same-sex marriage, and will vote to support it in a future election.
That's what I am trying to express ..is they can no longer use the word "marriage" because the wording says in Prop 8 ...as it defined "Marriage".... as between a man and a women
quote:
the court will be forced to make opposite-sex marriage illegal as well.
How?
Your speaking a double standard here when the amendment itself is clear to the point
...think of it like a Patton or a logo... I can not use that company’s logo as a symbol for my business, its illegal
Marriage has just been amended as that symbol... between a man and women,
It can not be duplicated and it can not be taken away because someone else wants to use it
....In any legal sense homosexuals have a problem with the State.. Not Christians...
The State has to redefine the system to accommodate what ever relationship Gays feel they have a right to... that’s why its there!
…It's a free country and no one seems to be stopping them from taking that angle;
But it can no longer be called by the name of “marriage"
If it is as they suggest... that they are not trying to cause harm... I don't understand why they refuse to take that angle??
LG
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/5/2008 6:30:37 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1666
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
I never suggested "if it is legal, it is right" as a standard. Legalizing abortion did not change its moral status in most people's eyes; legalizing same-sex marriage will not change its moral status either. But these changes reflect the general opinion of a majority of the people, which is something we must respect in a democratic society, even if we disagree with the specific results. The result in California was a great disappointment to me, and devastating to my gay friends and my married gay friends. But the similar prop 22 passed by 61% 8 years ago, and prop 8 is passing with around 52% of the vote. I think we can anticipate that same-sex marriage will be legalized in California within five years.
Emphasis Mine
So is this your prorposed standard, "moral status in most people's eyes". This is what James Madison refered to as the tyranny of the majority. This is why he faught for a federalist system. That said, nearly all, if not all, of the founding fathers were constitutionalists. That is they believed in an overarching moral code. They included a rather cumbersome amendment process as a concession to the fact that we may not get it right the first time. Not because they believed that standard should shift based on the whims of the general population.
Thus, morality needs to based on something more substantial than mob rule. Could you be clear regarding what we should use as a moral standard, or at least underlying principles.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/7/2008 1:17:42 AM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 1169
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
quote:
But, as you say "in the long run" I think the people of California will favor same-sex marriage, and will vote to support it in a future election.
That's what I am trying to express ..is they can no longer use the word "marriage" because the wording says in Prop 8 ...as it defined "Marriage".... as between a man and a women
I think you are misunderstanding how amending the constitution works. While it is now in the CA constitution that the law will not be able to use the word "marriage" to define gay unions, as an ammendment it can be repealed if the people vote on another amendment at a later date. Thus, while it is in the constitution, this does not necessarily mean that it is permanent.
So, for example, if in 5 or 10 years people put forth a proposition that would amend the constitution again to recognize "gay marriage," it is voted on, and passes by at least a 51% margin, then proposition 8 will be repealed. Just because it is an ammendment does not mean it's forever set in stone.
Given that there's such a huge gay lobby in California, I suspect there will be another vote of this nature within the next ten years or so, if not every time an election comes around (although I think there might be rules governing how often something like that can be voted on). And for the reasons that essentialsaltes sites (i.e. changing demographics, with younger pro gay marriage people taking the place of the 60+ set as they die off), I think there's a good chance that California could be the first state to pass a reverse ammendment of this sort. Especially given that unlike many states that require a 60% majority, California only requires a 51% majority to pass such things.
_____________________________
Hell is other Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/7/2008 7:34:22 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5771
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
A friend noted some exit poll data:
"the under-30s voted against it by 67 to31 percent. The over-65s voted for it by 57 to 43 percent."
If this demographic trend stays roughly constant, another five years should easily achieve a majority in favor of same-sex marriage.
This line of thinking will not hold true, for as folks age and mature their morals and values change.
The vast majority of the free love dope smoking young folks of the 60s and 70s traded in their beads and pot for more traditional values when they matured, married, and started families.
The same will be true for the 2/3 majority mentioned above that support gay marriage at the present.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/8/2008 11:12:25 PM
|
|
|
zamdad
Posts: 1749
Joined: 4/8/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
This line of thinking will not hold true, for as folks age and mature their morals and values change.
The vast majority of the free love dope smoking young folks of the 60s and 70s traded in their beads and pot for more traditional values when they matured, married, and started families.
The same will be true for the 2/3 majority mentioned above that support gay marriage at the present.
Oh how true! Good point RC. There is something about actually having children and raising them that changes the viewpoints of people. Suddenly those values we rebelled against begin to make sense. When we finally begin to understand why our parents always used the "Because I said so" argument.
_____________________________
The two hardest things to handle: failure and success.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/9/2008 8:41:26 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5771
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: zamdad
Oh how true! Good point RC. There is something about actually having children and raising them that changes the viewpoints of people. Suddenly those values we rebelled against begin to make sense. When we finally begin to understand why our parents always used the "Because I said so" argument.
Ain't it the truth zamdad, the older we get the smarter our parents become.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/10/2008 11:27:59 PM
|
|
|
SlipperyWhenWet
Posts: 57
Joined: 11/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
The same will be true for the 2/3 majority mentioned above that support gay marriage at the present.
I hope what you say turns-out to be true, but I have reason to believe it won't. Although I'd rather not admit it, the orchestrators of the homosexual movement are extremely intelligent and extremely well funded. Beyond forcing changes to laws through activist judges and politicians, they plan to permanently change society's opinions about homosexuality through social engineering. I don't like it, but I firmly believe that they will get their way in society eventually... it's just a matter of time and continued effort.
They know that in order to change society's views on their deeply held convictions, you need to start with the children. Teach the children that homosexuality is 'normal'. Bombard children with so many messages about homosexuality before they even understand sexuality that they don't even have a choice but to think it's acceptable. Expose kids at an early age to homosexuality through all forms of media ('Harry Potter' for example), through their schools, and through peer groups so that by the time they start thinking on their own, their acceptance of homosexuality will already be ingrained. Teach kids to rebel against their parent's "hatred" of homosexuals (as though kids need another reason to rebel.) Win the minds of the children, and you win the minds of the next generation and every generation after that.
There are reasons why home schooling was nearly banned in California and reasons why parents in Massachusetts aren't even allowed to have their kids opt-out of classes that teach homosexuality. Your kids will be indoctrinated to believe that homosexuality is 'normal' and there is becoming less and less anyone can do about it.
I've worked as a Sheppard in my church's youth ministry for 3 years and pretty much all the people I worked with had their heads-in-the-sand regarding this topic. By the time people of faith realize what's happening to their children and decide to do something about, it'll be too late... if it isn't already. I'm sorry to be painting such a dooms-day scenario, but I really don't see many signs of hope in this battle.
_____________________________
Sincerely,
Todd
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/11/2008 12:49:24 AM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 1338
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
That actually fits in with the prophecies of good being called evil and evil being called good in the end times.
_____________________________
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.
Hosea Project
Care Net
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/12/2008 10:53:22 PM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 1169
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: zamdad
quote:
This line of thinking will not hold true, for as folks age and mature their morals and values change.
The vast majority of the free love dope smoking young folks of the 60s and 70s traded in their beads and pot for more traditional values when they matured, married, and started families.
The same will be true for the 2/3 majority mentioned above that support gay marriage at the present.
Oh how true! Good point RC. There is something about actually having children and raising them that changes the viewpoints of people. Suddenly those values we rebelled against begin to make sense. When we finally begin to understand why our parents always used the "Because I said so" argument.
Perhaps you are right, but I doubt it.
The difference between the 1960s and today is that, like it or not, today homosexuality has been de-radicalized. For a large part, gay rights was not on the political agenda for most in the 1960s. It only emerged as a political movement in the 1970s, and even then it was mostly confined to a few fringe, and mostly academic, movements. The important thing about this isn't, however, the politics of the situation. The political arm of the gay rights movement is probably stronger today than it ever was, but at the same time it isn't politics that will ultimately make them win. Rather, it's the fact that homosexuality has become largely de-politicized in the last 10 or 15 years. Children growing up today are living in a post-"Will and Grace" society in which they are very familiar with homosexuals, not as protesters, or scary, exotic, feminine "others," but as just average people. They see them on TV, in the movies, and probably know (or will meet) many personally as people, as oppossed to just the political idea of homosexuality. In contrast, such things never existed 20, 30, or 40 years ago. Despite how radical the 1960s supposedly were, that generation grew up in a time when homosexuality was still very much in the closet. There were no gays on TV, in the movies, etc, etc, gay bashing was pretty much still accepted (in movies and in life), and quite frankly unless you lived in San Francisco or something, it would have been foolish to "come out" at school or work in most places in the USA until the mid 1990s, or so. Many people just didn't know homosexuals on a personal level back then, and most knowledge of them was for a large part limited to the political arm of the gay rights movement. In contrast, it's an entirely different world for people born in the late 1980s or 1990s.
I actually agree that people often become more politically conservative as they age, so again, you might be right, but I think the difference when it comes to this issue is that I don't think the majority of young people view homosexuality as a political issue in the same way that their parents did. In fact, I don't think most young people view homosexuality period, in the same way that their parents do, as the different generations really grew up in different worlds when it comes to this issue. They just see it as a people issue, and given that they are so much more comfortable with the idea of homosexuality because its much more open now, I don't think they see it as such a big deal anymore. At my college, for example, the College Republicans, who you would think would be more apt to oppose the issue, were all really pro gay. It just wasn't an issue for them in the same way that it is for the elderly in the party.
So I think this is one issue that will change as the older generations die off. There will be pockets of resistance for a longer time, and probably always will be, amongst certain demographics (the south, evangelicals, etc, etc), but I think if California were to run this same ammendment again in 5 or 10 years, it wouldn't pass.
_____________________________
Hell is other Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality Article - 11/13/2008 7:53:17 PM
|
|
|
flyboy2610
Posts: 142
Joined: 5/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
That actually fits in with the prophecies of good being called evil and evil being called good in the end t | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
