religious rights

[paul]

Originally Posted by wil

Christians used the bible for quite a while in the US to enslave black people...it is part of our Christian and American history we'd love to forget....but we never should...especially in the current debate.

In less than 100 years we will be denying that Christians or Americans ever had this argument and claim we were always so enlightened as to know that homosexuals had equal rights not to be denied by gov't or church...

Come on, as i've already said, if they had any interest in what the Bible said and Christian history then they couldn't find an excuse for racism in the Bible or Christianity.

Whether Americans perverted what a religion said for their own means maybe one thing, but what i said i beleive is evidently true, if people were racist it's not the blame of the Bible or Christianity.

What are you suggesting that in 100 years Catholic, Orthodox Churches will change their beleifs about homosexuality?

I don't see that possible, considering throughout it's history all over the world of many different races Christianity has managed to survive to this very day and still not altering it's doctrines.

I don't think you'll ever see a woman Bishop, or woman Pope in the Orthodox or Catholic Church, not in another 2000 years.
But are you suggesting such Churches will change it's ever held beleif on homosexuality that they would have homosexual weddings, gay Bishops and Popes?

I don't beleive so.

I think as all throughout history those who seek enlightenment will enter that path, and it's one that will never change not in a 100 years or ever.
And really there's nothing anyone can do to change that.

I think many people are being led to the more traditional roots of their faith and want such, and find answers.

Homosexuality is such in nature that it speaks eternally to peoples nature.
I don't think 100 years is going to change how people feel as people have felt all throughout history.
I think it's a nature thing, and even a Spiritual thing, and whether you agree with it or not, i don't think that will ever change.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by wil

Christians used the bible for quite a while in the US to enslave black people...it is part of our Christian and American history we'd love to forget....but we never should...especially in the current debate.

In less than 100 years we will be denying that Christians or Americans ever had this argument and claim we were always so enlightened as to know that homosexuals had equal rights not to be denied by gov't or church...

I agree with you Wil but how will this be achieved. Was the bible changed in order for society to accept coloured people? I am assuming the Bible never said coloured people are lesser people, yet it does say homosexuality is wrong. So how are Christians going to deal with the teaching of G-d, as opposed to their modern moral ethics?


As for the issue of coloured people and homosexuality being the same issue, I have to disagree. Coloured people were abused based on ethnicity alone, nothing to do with lifestyle or cultural practices, purely on skin colour. As women throughout history have at times been oppressed purely on gender, not lifestyle. Homosexuals are not accepted by some because of their lifestyle, what they choose or are biologically drawn toward doing.

May I throw something else into the cooking pot. The issue of sexual freedom. Have we caused this issue in the west by bringing our sexuality out of our homes and into everyday life (advertising, sex education in schools, films, etc)? In my home town in Egypt, we have homosexuals and nobody bothers them. One reason is because they keep this private side of their life private. If they choose to bring it into the street then yes there will be trouble, however, if a hetrosexual couple bring their private life into the public eye there would also be trouble. There was a court case a while back in egypt because of inheritence laws (which are different for men and women). A young man received a brothers share of his fathers estate and then changed his sex to female. His brother went to court to reduce his inheritence to a females share. The court decided that inheritence must be according to the sex of the person at the time the inheritence is handed out. I bore you with this story for a reason, to show that homosexuality exists in all societies but in some it remains a private matter and therefore does not become a 'big issue'.

[Impqueen]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

It is my own innate sense of what is or is not natural.

Animals display homosexual behaviours. So what are they being culturally driven to it?

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You notably failed to address the issue of gay rights activists seeking to go into schools and educate kids that its ok to be gay. At a time when most kids are struggling with the physical effects of puberty.

And when those of them who are feeling attracted to their own sex are likely to become traumatised by those feelings and bullied by their peers.

Originally Posted by paul

What i find is there seems to be a trying to force on people to have to condone homosexual acts, when they deeply don't.

I agree we should respect the freedom of speech of those we disagree with. That doesn't mean we shouldn't disagree with them though.

Originally Posted by paul

I can see ther being chairties having money taken off them and put in a homosexual pocket who just wants to cause a bit of trouble and maybe line their pocket.

Any basis for this allegation? How do you know they just want to line their own pockets or is that an assumption based on the fact they're gay?

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Homosexuals are not accepted by some because of their lifestyle, what they choose or are biologically drawn toward doing.

So what is the gay lifestyle? Plenty of gays don't run around screaming 'I'm Queer! Deal with it!' they go about their lives quietly, they don't tell everyone the details of their sex lives, they don't harass boys or try to 'convert' people. They just go about life as normal people and happen to go to bed with someone they love who is of the same sex as them. Not all (or probably even most by the standards of alot of straight people these days) gays are promiscuous. So some gays make a big deal of it? That doesn't make them representative, just loudest.

[InLove]

I think what many people often overlook when they see gays involved in politics which seeks to change legislation is that there are some real issues at stake. For instance, if I'm not mistaken, in the U.S. it does not matter how long a gay couple has been together in a steady relationship, exercising good citizenship and exhibiting productive lives--if one of them dies, the other does not gain custody of the child that came into the marriage or relationship as a result of a previous attempt at heterosexuality. Even if the child has not been well-acquainted with the biological parent or grandparents from that previous relationship, they may easily gain custody. And in many cases, homosexuals do have problems with their families accepting them, and so are estranged. In cases such as this, the child is frequently taken away from the only other loving parent he or she has ever known and thrown into a completely unfamiliar situation while in mourning for the death of someone they knew as a caring, loving parent. I mean, how cruel is this? If this was happening to your child, wouldn’t you have to speak up and suggest that the laws in this regard should change?

There are many other issues like this. In a democratic process, everyone is supposed to have a voice if they so desire. It is supposed to protect the interests of all good citizens, including you and I. To deny a good citizen reasonable freedom and equal treatment under the law is to laugh in the face of one’s own freedom, and it is to eventually shoot one’s self in the foot, because, as the saying goes, "Everything that goes ‘round, comes ‘round."

Unless what we really want is a theocracy, we cannot (nor do I believe we should) treat our citizens unevenly. If we do this, we should be prepared when it happens to us as well.

InPeace,

InLove

[Postmaster]

Although I'm against homosexuality.. Or shall I say disagree with it. I can't help but brush off that some of the world’s greats were gay, from Leonardo Di Vinci to Sir Isaac Newton. As I have said before BETA males are not gay by nature they are just beta males! In fact they are if anything higher in the food chain then alpha males because they have extraordinary Homosapien minds which ends up turning against them.

[paul]

Originally Posted by Impqueen

Any basis for this allegation? How do you know they just want to line their own pockets or is that an assumption based on the fact they're gay?

I'm sorry i may not have made it easy to understand
What I meant by:

" I can see there being chairties having money taken off them and put in a homosexual pocket who just wants to cause a bit of trouble and maybe line their pocket."

Is the potential for this.
And why would a homosexual join an organization which is built on morals that clearly oppose homosexuality.

As i mentioned why would they do this if to not cause trouble, and these organizations they would sue, would be charitable organization, and who would they be taking money from.

I just can't see how you can justify this.

InLove, you raise another debatable issue which i don't agree with.

I don't agree with gay adoption, i think it takes away the childs greatest right of nature.

I don't think it the best situation to place children with single parents, i think it can be foolish and careless.
I don't oppose single parents or in any way think that they should have their children taken off them, i was brought up by a single mother, and the situation is not the best for parent or child.
But there are many other issue that bring about this situation in many cases.
But for adoption agencies to put children in such enviroments i find thoughtless to the child.

the issue you raise with homosexuals and their biological children.
I think in the best interest of the children to have a more natural upbringing.
I think with any parent, they have to put the best interest of the child before their own lifestyle.
I believe all parents lifestyles should be a model for their child, but this maybe a deep subject.

Parenthood is a very deep subject, i think it would be very hard to discuss such a subject here.

On this subject I do very much think there is a need for a right for people to live lives to a natural dislike of homosexuality, it's a very deep part of peoples humanity

I've no doubt there should be laws of tolerance, and love and kindness always practiced.

But the way i see things, I think there is trying to be forced on people not to beable to live their lives the way they deeply feel is right.

[InLove]

Originally Posted by paul

But the way i see things, I think there is trying to be forced on people not to beable to live their lives the way they deeply feel is right.

I am sure that not only the parent left behind, but also the child in the scenario I presented feel the same way. What do you think?

Originally Posted by paul

I don't agree with gay adoption, i think it takes away the childs greatest right of nature.

I don't think it the best situation to place children with single parents, i think it can be foolish and careless.
I don't oppose single parents or in any way think that they should have their children taken off them, i was brought up by a single mother, and the situation is not the best for parent or child.
But there are many other issue that bring about this situation in many cases.
But for adoption agencies to put children in such enviroments i find thoughtless to the child.

Well, I was not talking about adoption agencies, even though that is another problem. I was talking about a child who had, up to that point, been raised in a responsible, caring home with two parents until one of them died. Then they are ripped away from that home in the fallout from this situation, and shipped off to live with people who do not willingly have contact with the the parent the child has to leave behind. Can you put yourself in the position of either the child or the grieving parent?

Regarding single-parent families, I can only offer you what I know from my own experience. I was widowed at the age of 37, and we had two children, one fifteen and the other nine at the time. I continued to raise my girls by myself for several years. Sure, there was an empty spot, but we did just fine, and my girls are well-adjusted, intelligent adults now, and we are still close. Would you really suggest that if my husband's parents had wanted to take my children that they would have had a better life because there were two people who were not their parents, instead of just me, the parent they had left? I don't understand, not even for a moment!

So are you an advocate of theocracy, paul, as opposed to democracy? I am just curious.

InPeace,
InLove

[Impqueen]

Paul,

I agree with you that people should be able to express dislike for Homosexuality if they feel it, because I believe in freedom of speech.

The idea that organisations, particularly religious ones, should be allowed to decide who they allow in, is a complex one. I do feel that churches with a religious objection to homosexuality should be allowed to not to give them membership. However this is problematic, because if you allow discrimination on one characteristic, how about others, such as race or sex? Also those organisations that discriminate shouldn't be surprised when they are criticsised by those who feel disgusted by discrimination.

Originally Posted by paul

I'm sorry i may not have made it easy to understand
What I meant by:

" I can see there being chairties having money taken off them and put in a homosexual pocket who just wants to cause a bit of trouble and maybe line their pocket."

Is the potential for this.
And why would a homosexual join an organization which is built on morals that clearly oppose homosexuality.

As i mentioned why would they do this if to not cause trouble, and these organizations they would sue, would be charitable organization, and who would they be taking money from.

Have you any actual examples of this happening? Not gays joining churches, obviously that happens, and almost certainly they join because they believe in the majority of the teachings. But examples of people then attempting to sue? If they join as an employee then the organisation, like all organisations, has to obey the law and not discriminate on sexuality. If they joined as a member with this sole purpose, then that would almost certainly be wrong.

Originally Posted by paul

But the way i see things, I think there is trying to be forced on people not to beable to live their lives the way they deeply feel is right.

In the case of the Catholic churches adoption agencies being forced to consider gay couples then yes, I think it is wrong (though I have no problem with gay couples adopting). But you haven't mentioned this example, so I still don't see where you think people are being forced to live their lives in a way they consider immoral. No-one is making anyone else be gay.

[paul]

Originally Posted by InLove

I am sure that not only the parent left behind, but also the child in the scenario I presented feel the same way. What do you think?



Well, I was not talking about adoption agencies, even though that is another problem. I was talking about a child who had, up to that point, been raised in a responsible, caring home with two parents until one of them died. Then they are ripped away from that home in the fallout from this situation, and shipped off to live with people who do not willingly have contact with the the parent the child has to leave behind. Can you put yourself in the position of either the child or the grieving parent?

Regarding single-parent families, I can only offer you what I know from my own experience. I was widowed at the age of 37, and we had two children, one fifteen and the other nine at the time. I continued to raise my girls by myself for several years. Sure, there was an empty spot, but we did just fine, and my girls are well-adjusted, intelligent adults now, and we are still close. Would you really suggest that if my husband's parents had wanted to take my children that they would have had a better life because there were two people who were not their parents, instead of just me, the parent they had left? I don't understand, not even for a moment!

So are you an advocate of theocracy, paul, as opposed to democracy? I am just curious.

InPeace,
InLove

I'm assuming your talking about a child losing their parent, and we know what relationship children are reproduced from.
But then your talking of the other parent having left the family home and living with a new partner now of the same sex?

Not a very nice thing to happen to a child is it?

That child has already lost that one parent from their family as a whole family, for we would now call this a broken home.
Still their parent but damage has been done.

But now they lose the parent they may have felt safer with, for we are talking of the home the child lived in, and the other having left for a homosexual relationship right?

Personally I'd like to see some kind of social services involved, that the other parent would be putting the childs welfare first, and i would think that would include not being brought up in a homosexual enviroment.

I'm sorry i see i misunderstood the situation, but will leave the above in as it may save me having to write it again later.

What you are talking about is two homosexuals bringing a child up in the first place.
That i don't agree with.

The laws you talk of i'm sure will change, for if homosexuals are allowed to bring up children in the first place then laws will to change to accomidate that.

Such a thing i don't agree with, which i hope my above writing may somehow explain.

I never said what you said regarding single parents, i quite clearly said
" I don't oppose single parents or in any way think that they should have their children taken off them."

I'm just saying in the case of adoption i don't think it a thoughtful thing to place children with a single parent, but with a loving father and mother enviroment.

Yes situations happen such as yours, I think it good in such to have a lot of support.
But you wouldn't wish that situation on anyone would you.
I'm sure you would have rathered had your husband there and your children their father.

I'm just saying i think with adoption as ideally if your choose in any family enviroment, you would have them to have a loving mother and father, wouldn't you agree?

I would be an advocate of theocracy, but only if the ruler submitted to divine counsel from God Himself.

[paul]

Originally Posted by Impqueen

Paul,

I agree with you that people should be able to express dislike for Homosexuality if they feel it, because I believe in freedom of speech.

The idea that organisations, particularly religious ones, should be allowed to decide who they allow in, is a complex one. I do feel that churches with a religious objection to homosexuality should be allowed to not to give them membership. However this is problematic, because if you allow discrimination on one characteristic, how about others, such as race or sex? Also those organisations that discriminate shouldn't be surprised when they are criticsised by those who feel disgusted by discrimination.




Have you any actual examples of this happening? Not gays joining churches, obviously that happens, and almost certainly they join because they believe in the majority of the teachings. But examples of people then attempting to sue? If they join as an employee then the organisation, like all organisations, has to obey the law and not discriminate on sexuality. If they joined as a member with this sole purpose, then that would almost certainly be wrong.



In the case of the Catholic churches adoption agencies being forced to consider gay couples then yes, I think it is wrong (though I have no problem with gay couples adopting). But you haven't mentioned this example, so I still don't see where you think people are being forced to live their lives in a way they consider immoral. No-one is making anyone else be gay.

You've already given one example of Charities being forced to change the moral way they run their adoption agencies.

I'm not sure what other law are being or trying to be changed in this manner, but i feel there obviously is a trying to make people live their lives in a way they consider immoral, and by this example even run charities, and adoption agencies which can be so deeply morally and even religiously inspired.

You even admit you think it wrong, so the case is it has happened already, how much further is it going to go, and shouldn't this damage be stopped.

[Impqueen]

Originally Posted by paul

I would be an advocate of theocracy, but only if the ruler submitted to divine counsel from God Himself.

How do you ensure that the ruler actually has divine counsel from God and they're not just saying they do?

What about people in the country of other religions? Do they have to submit to your leader?

[paul]

Originally Posted by Impqueen

How do you ensure that the ruler actually has divine counsel from God and they're not just saying they do?

What about people in the country of other religions? Do they have to submit to your leader?

I don't know, i just answered the question the best i could.

If a ruler did have divine counsel from God, then we could wish for no better rule.

It would be great if there were people with divine counsel from God everywhere, not just as rulers, but in every situation in life.

How do we know them so.
"No one has seen God at any time, but if we love one another God in us abides and His love is accomplished in us."

One of the epistles of Saint John.

Of course everyone may say this about every decision they make.
I doubt very much it's always true though.

People seem to be all for democracy today, even if there was a person capable of ruling us under the divine counsel of God, i don't think the poeple would except such.

I think everyone of us whether in politics or anywhere, i think everyone of us is capable of living by the love of God, and we have to submit to His counsel.

How do we know it so.

I don't know.
I think maybe it takes prayer, it takes focussing on love and the good of all, not just physically, but the spiritual good and healing of our person.

I think it takes a lot for us to grow Spiritually, i think we are usually more concerned with worldly means.
But if we submit our hearts to it, i beleive it's possible for us to grow, heal and hear and see.

[Tao_Equus]

InLove,

I saw a film recently starring Whoopi Goldberg that was based on actual events. If memory has not deserted me I believe that the movie was about the fight to change the law in the last state in the US, Florida, that did not recognise the rights of a Gay partner and step-parent to continue to care for a child when it was the express wish of the biological mother who died of a terminal disease. I was in agreement with the final decision of the court in that movie but not because the step-parent was gay. The real issue in that case had nothing to to with the sexuality of the adults involved but with what was in the best interests of the girl.

And this is key. The rights of the child to determine its future are key. Someone who is Gay should not be given custody for reasons of political correctness but because it is to the benefit and wishes of all parties, especially the child(ren). Today we do indeed see Gay people seeking positions without disclosure of their sexuality and then 'coming out' with the express intention of raising legal action. Especially within the Churches. Or in other ways using their sexuality to abuse loopholes in the law or to ram their agenda down the throats of people who do find gay sexuality incompatible with their values. This is wrong.

Just as there have always been gays there have always been far more people that find such choices go against their deepest core values. This majority also have the right to their beliefs and to have groups and institutions where gays are not allowed. I would not stand a chance of winning the right in court of joining the Womans Institute and I can accept that. In the same way gays cannot expect institutions that are centuries old to relinquish core values to accommodate the wishes of a few radicals who are not welcome by the many.

In England last year there were at least 2 cases where Gay foster parents were jailed for sexually abusing children. An independent report cited that despite concerns of the suitability of these men,(they were all men), that authorities were reluctant (afraid), to take action, or to even perform the same monitoring that would be normal for a heterosexual couple, because of the fear of discriminatory legal action being lodged. I am not so stupid to think that all gay men are paedophiles but lets face facts. Look at gay humour. So many jokes that revolve around young boys. You can hide a lot behind humour but the fact is for a sizeable proportion of gay men their sexual ideal is indeed a young boy. This is a fact even tho many people are afraid to say it in this era of pc gone crazy. There are long waiting lists of heterosexuals waiting to adopt they should always be given preference. Being gay is a personal choice, choosing it means certain sacrifices. Sometimes in life we just do not get everything just the way we would like them. No minority has the right to demand to ride roughshod of the morality of the many.

Tao

[Virtual_Cliff]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I am not so stupid to think that all gay men are paedophiles but lets face facts. Look at gay humour. So many jokes that revolve around young boys. Tao

That is exactly what you do think though. I am surprised to find you repeating the same old prejudiced "facts" without a shred of evidence. So two homosexuals abused their charges. How many heterosexuals? I would guess a couple of hundred. Paedophilia is no more common in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. This is just a scare story put about by people who just don't understand.

I myself can't stand watching homosexual scenes in films (except with women of course!) yet at the same time, one of the most admirable people I have ever had the pleasure of working with was a total out and out homosexual. What we find natural or not is just a result of our upbringing.

Also don't forget, that there are not just the two types: there is a whole spectrum from completely hetero to completely homo, and there are very many who find themselves in the difficult position of not knowing what they are.

In the end though, you should ask yourself, if it doesn't affect you, why are you so worked up about it? That might perhaps tell you something about yourself.

[Virtual_Cliff]

frances - loved your post