Comments on: My Thoughts on Gay Rights http://www.myrandomtangents.com/2008/11/24/my-thoughts-on-gay-rights/ Politics, Law, Humanity, Opinion, and Thoughts Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:05:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Amy http://www.myrandomtangents.com/2008/11/24/my-thoughts-on-gay-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-214 Amy Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:44:54 +0000 http://www.myrandomtangents.com/?p=10#comment-214 I normally don't get into debates on 'hot button' issues with strangers, but I find myself increasingly interested in politics and all things relating to them. I stumbled upon this site for a gun review, but as I browse I am seeing a lot of stuff I fundamentally disagree with. So, based on your invitation, I would like to take some time to give out my 2 cents. I am a 25 year old white male, Christian & college educated. My father is an attorney and I have the utmost respect for the law and those who chose to follow and enforce it - so kudos! But, I feel that not only is homosexuality wrong, but that our laws should not empower those who choose to participate in it. With that said, I'll try and keep my points quick and direct. I will base this point on 3 topics: Science, Religion, and Law. I normally don’t get into debates on ‘hot button’ issues with strangers, but I find myself increasingly interested in politics and all things relating to them. I stumbled upon this site for a gun review, but as I browse I am seeing a lot of stuff I fundamentally disagree with. So, based on your invitation, I would like to take some time to give out my 2 cents.

I am a 25 year old white male, Christian & college educated. My father is an attorney and I have the utmost respect for the law and those who chose to follow and enforce it – so kudos! But, I feel that not only is homosexuality wrong, but that our laws should not empower those who choose to participate in it. With that said, I’ll try and keep my points quick and direct. I will base this point on 3 topics: Science, Religion, and Law.

]]> By: Harry J Reeves http://www.myrandomtangents.com/2008/11/24/my-thoughts-on-gay-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-208 Harry J Reeves Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:28:04 +0000 http://www.myrandomtangents.com/?p=10#comment-208 That's interesting I did not know that the laws discriminated against homosexuals I thought they they had the same rights that all Americans have under the constitution. It always sounded to me like they wanted rights above and beyond what non homosexuals had.I do not really care about their sexual orientation but I kind of wish I had the right to not be constantly bombarded with their gayness. That’s interesting I did not know that the laws discriminated against homosexuals I thought they they had the same rights that all Americans have under the constitution. It always sounded to me like they wanted rights above and beyond what non homosexuals had.I do not really care about their sexual orientation but I kind of wish I had the right to not be constantly bombarded with their gayness.

]]> By: Wilton http://www.myrandomtangents.com/2008/11/24/my-thoughts-on-gay-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-164 Wilton Wed, 17 Feb 2010 04:32:22 +0000 http://www.myrandomtangents.com/?p=10#comment-164 I agree that you can't legislate morality. But "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. It cannot exist because of the definition of marriage, the union of a man and a woman. This definition goes back over 10,000 years and is established in almost every culture in recorded history! The reasons can vary but usually were practical as well as moral- resulting in social stability. So instead call it a civil union or whatever. But it isn't just a matter of semantics, it is completely facist to force us to accept a "revised" definition of marriage or else be labled as "the enemy" (in this case intolerant,backward,hate criminals,etc.) Using these Nazi tactics is worse than just irresponsible, it is like mass defamation of character. It just insults your intelligence. Imagine trying to get away with similar redefintions/bastardizations of key principles in academia. You wouldn't even make it to peer review. Yes laws are supposed to protect the minority but the minority has no right to use politics to enact laws that bludgeon the majority (again, just study the old "law firm"-Adolph, Herman and Heinrich). The selfish and facist gay special interest groups are guilty of perpetrating this falsely pious, progressive form of prejudice. (how DARE we disagree with them?) I also can't believe Corporate America isn't fighting this. I predict there will be a lot of "sham" civil unions just so gays can qualify for benefits. Which will be followed by a lot of gay divorces. And can you seriously say that children should be brought up in this type of environment? Where did you obtain your graduate degree in child psycholgy? I don't have one either but children need a mother and father. It doesn't always work out that way, but don't they at least deserve a chance at that? A little boy with two mommies, no father, ever. A little girl with two daddies, no mother-daughter relationship for her, too bad kid, but facist politics and gutless, thoughtless legislation put you in that spot. This goes beyond constitutional rights. Minors are to be protected under the law. They shouldn't be pawns in a political game. It is absolutley immoral. We had better think about the future. Morality doesn't matter? Ask any historian about the root cause of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire/Republic/Civilization. I agree that you can’t legislate morality. But “gay marriage” is an oxymoron. It cannot exist because of the definition of marriage, the union of a man and a woman. This definition goes back over 10,000 years and is established in almost every culture in recorded history! The reasons can vary but usually were practical as well as moral- resulting in social stability. So instead call it a civil union or whatever. But it isn’t just a matter of semantics, it is completely facist to force us to accept a “revised” definition of marriage or else be labled as “the enemy” (in this case intolerant,backward,hate criminals,etc.) Using these Nazi tactics is worse than just irresponsible, it is like mass defamation of character. It just insults your intelligence. Imagine trying to get away with similar redefintions/bastardizations of key principles in academia. You wouldn’t even make it to peer review. Yes laws are supposed to protect the minority but the minority has no right to use politics to enact laws that bludgeon the majority (again, just study the old “law firm”-Adolph, Herman and Heinrich).
The selfish and facist gay special interest groups are guilty of perpetrating this falsely pious, progressive form of prejudice. (how DARE we disagree with them?) I also can’t believe Corporate America isn’t fighting this. I predict there will be a lot of “sham” civil unions just so gays can qualify for benefits. Which will be followed by a lot of gay divorces. And can you seriously say that children should be brought up in this type of environment? Where did you obtain your graduate degree in child psycholgy? I don’t have one either but children need a mother and father. It doesn’t always work out that way, but don’t they at least deserve a chance at that? A little boy with two mommies, no father, ever. A little girl with two daddies, no mother-daughter relationship for her, too bad kid, but facist politics and gutless, thoughtless legislation put you in that spot. This goes beyond constitutional rights. Minors are to be protected under the law. They shouldn’t be pawns in a political game. It is absolutley immoral. We had better think about the future. Morality doesn’t matter? Ask any historian about the root cause of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire/Republic/Civilization.

]]> By: MyRandomTangents.com Author http://www.myrandomtangents.com/2008/11/24/my-thoughts-on-gay-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-40 MyRandomTangents.com Author Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:34:50 +0000 http://www.myrandomtangents.com/?p=10#comment-40 Maloney, Regarding your science argument, you seem to focus on the ability to reproduce as being key to marriage. Does that mean that sterile people shouldn't be able to marry? What about the elderly - should we bar an 80 year old woman from marrying, on the grounds that no children will come from that union? What about those heterosexual couples who choose not to have children? I would also note that our world is generally overpopulated, so it is not like we need every person who can reproduce to do so. Finally, note that gay people can adopt or otherwise produce children and care for them. Regarding your religion arguments, I would note that our Constitution separates church and state. This is a secular country, not a theocracy. As such, religion really has no role to play in informing our laws. As a supporter of gun rights, I would urge you to reconsider your goal of using our legal system to enforce your moral beliefs. Those who support gun control do the exact same thing, to the detriment of gun owners such as you and I. Laws should protect an individual's liberty, rather than be the vehicle through which a politically powerful majority seeks to harm a politically weak majority. Maloney,

Regarding your science argument, you seem to focus on the ability to reproduce as being key to marriage. Does that mean that sterile people shouldn’t be able to marry? What about the elderly – should we bar an 80 year old woman from marrying, on the grounds that no children will come from that union? What about those heterosexual couples who choose not to have children? I would also note that our world is generally overpopulated, so it is not like we need every person who can reproduce to do so. Finally, note that gay people can adopt or otherwise produce children and care for them.

Regarding your religion arguments, I would note that our Constitution separates church and state. This is a secular country, not a theocracy. As such, religion really has no role to play in informing our laws.

As a supporter of gun rights, I would urge you to reconsider your goal of using our legal system to enforce your moral beliefs. Those who support gun control do the exact same thing, to the detriment of gun owners such as you and I. Laws should protect an individual’s liberty, rather than be the vehicle through which a politically powerful majority seeks to harm a politically weak majority.

]]> By: maloney http://www.myrandomtangents.com/2008/11/24/my-thoughts-on-gay-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-39 maloney Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:26:27 +0000 http://www.myrandomtangents.com/?p=10#comment-39 Law Admittedly, you know more about the law than I do, but from what I understand, our country is founded on the constitution, it's amendments, and precedents set by previous interpretations. Seeing that our country operates extremely successfully based on a democratic system, law makers are chosen by the masses to best represent the views of their constituents. The mere fact that an overwhelming majority are opposed to the validity of a homosexual's "right" to marriage, it only makes sense that our national government would not recognize the union. Some state's have changed their views, but the core of America doesn't agree with the values, lifestyles, and actions of homosexuals. My 2 Cents To me, it is unnatural and uneasy for me to see men play the role of women and vise-versa. This has nothing to do with religion, and I am definitely not gay. I will never say gays don't have a place in America, but I don't think they have a place to say they deserve to be recognized in the privileged (not a "right") state of marriage. America promises "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Where do we start and stop in the modification of law on these principles to include everyone with a different viewpoint and lifestyle? Homosexuality is just wrong (morally, ethically, biologically, religiously, principally, and most other -lly's) on the majority radar. Its a odd, unnatural lifestyle that doesn't fit LIFE, literally. That is why we shouldn't modify centuries old law to suit this minority, their ways of thinking, or anyone who feels they deserve what is not theirs to have. Law
Admittedly, you know more about the law than I do, but from what I understand, our country is founded on the constitution, it’s amendments, and precedents set by previous interpretations. Seeing that our country operates extremely successfully based on a democratic system, law makers are chosen by the masses to best represent the views of their constituents. The mere fact that an overwhelming majority are opposed to the validity of a homosexual’s “right” to marriage, it only makes sense that our national government would not recognize the union.

Some state’s have changed their views, but the core of America doesn’t agree with the values, lifestyles, and actions of homosexuals.

My 2 Cents
To me, it is unnatural and uneasy for me to see men play the role of women and vise-versa. This has nothing to do with religion, and I am definitely not gay. I will never say gays don’t have a place in America, but I don’t think they have a place to say they deserve to be recognized in the privileged (not a “right”) state of marriage.

America promises “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Where do we start and stop in the modification of law on these principles to include everyone with a different viewpoint and lifestyle?

Homosexuality is just wrong (morally, ethically, biologically, religiously, principally, and most other -lly’s) on the majority radar. Its a odd, unnatural lifestyle that doesn’t fit LIFE, literally. That is why we shouldn’t modify centuries old law to suit this minority, their ways of thinking, or anyone who feels they deserve what is not theirs to have.

]]> By: maloney http://www.myrandomtangents.com/2008/11/24/my-thoughts-on-gay-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-38 maloney Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:25:51 +0000 http://www.myrandomtangents.com/?p=10#comment-38 Religion Marriage, between a man and woman, represents a Holy union between God & the Church. This and baptism are the most sacred of acts in Christianity. In a ceremony ordained by God, a man and woman join in marriage for life and move forward to help each other to grow themselves collectively in Spirit, but also in family. Through this creation of the bond of family, parents pass on their love of Christ to their children, who grow in the Spirit as they continue on into adulthood, where they cycle continually repeats itself. In the Bible, several scriptures call out the immoral actions of homosexuality, and the perversion and corruption of this act on the beauty of the Lord's creation in human beings. In one story, The Lord destroys a city who has turned to many impure and perverse actions, most notably: homosexuality. He picks one family who has remained pure to the Lord's teachings, to escape the destruction and to reward obedience. Now regardless of whether you think this is a silly story in some book, this Book has an awful lot of followers. Being a Christian, I represent around 69% of America's population (according to Wikipedia). Our country was founded on Christian principles, one of which is the sacred bond of marriage between a man and a woman. So, via the transitive property, by and large our country doesn't agree with the morals or ethics of homosexuality, which brings me to... Religion
Marriage, between a man and woman, represents a Holy union between God & the Church. This and baptism are the most sacred of acts in Christianity. In a ceremony ordained by God, a man and woman join in marriage for life and move forward to help each other to grow themselves collectively in Spirit, but also in family. Through this creation of the bond of family, parents pass on their love of Christ to their children, who grow in the Spirit as they continue on into adulthood, where they cycle continually repeats itself.

In the Bible, several scriptures call out the immoral actions of homosexuality, and the perversion and corruption of this act on the beauty of the Lord’s creation in human beings. In one story, The Lord destroys a city who has turned to many impure and perverse actions, most notably: homosexuality. He picks one family who has remained pure to the Lord’s teachings, to escape the destruction and to reward obedience. Now regardless of whether you think this is a silly story in some book, this Book has an awful lot of followers.

Being a Christian, I represent around 69% of America’s population (according to Wikipedia). Our country was founded on Christian principles, one of which is the sacred bond of marriage between a man and a woman. So, via the transitive property, by and large our country doesn’t agree with the morals or ethics of homosexuality, which brings me to…

]]> By: maloney http://www.myrandomtangents.com/2008/11/24/my-thoughts-on-gay-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-37 maloney Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:24:58 +0000 http://www.myrandomtangents.com/?p=10#comment-37 Science At its core, I feel the fundamental argument against homosexuality is located in our (and all other animals') biology. The very fact that a species cannot reproduce between like sexes speaks volumes to not only religious view points on wrongness, but nature's as well. This leads me to one of two conclusions. (1)Either homosexuality is a corruption of the mind, or (2) nature, religion, and science are just wrong; that 2,000+ years of heterosexual reproduction is just a fluke of science. There are those who argue that the essence of attraction to a person is not bound by the limitations of our physical bodies, that they feel a connection to a person's mind and heart, aka their soul. The mere recognition to the existence of the soul would point not only to the recognition of a higher power of creation, but that the Creator has made our world with rules and boundaries for a reason, which brings me to... Science
At its core, I feel the fundamental argument against homosexuality is located in our (and all other animals’) biology. The very fact that a species cannot reproduce between like sexes speaks volumes to not only religious view points on wrongness, but nature’s as well.

This leads me to one of two conclusions. (1)Either homosexuality is a corruption of the mind, or (2) nature, religion, and science are just wrong; that 2,000+ years of heterosexual reproduction is just a fluke of science.

There are those who argue that the essence of attraction to a person is not bound by the limitations of our physical bodies, that they feel a connection to a person’s mind and heart, aka their soul. The mere recognition to the existence of the soul would point not only to the recognition of a higher power of creation, but that the Creator has made our world with rules and boundaries for a reason, which brings me to…

]]> By: maloney http://www.myrandomtangents.com/2008/11/24/my-thoughts-on-gay-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-36 maloney Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:24:16 +0000 http://www.myrandomtangents.com/?p=10#comment-36 I normally don't get into debates on 'hot button' issues with strangers, but I find myself increasingly interested in politics and all things relating to them. I stumbled upon this site for a gun review, but as I browse I am seeing a lot of stuff I fundamentally disagree with. So, based on your invitation, I would like to take some time to give out my 2 cents. I am a 25 year old white male, Christian & college educated. My father is an attorney and I have the utmost respect for the law and those who chose to follow and enforce it - so kudos! But, I feel that not only is homosexuality wrong, but that our laws should not empower those who choose to participate in it. With that said, I'll try and keep my points quick and direct. I will base this point on 3 topics: Science, Religion, and Law. I normally don’t get into debates on ‘hot button’ issues with strangers, but I find myself increasingly interested in politics and all things relating to them. I stumbled upon this site for a gun review, but as I browse I am seeing a lot of stuff I fundamentally disagree with. So, based on your invitation, I would like to take some time to give out my 2 cents.

I am a 25 year old white male, Christian & college educated. My father is an attorney and I have the utmost respect for the law and those who chose to follow and enforce it – so kudos! But, I feel that not only is homosexuality wrong, but that our laws should not empower those who choose to participate in it. With that said, I’ll try and keep my points quick and direct. I will base this point on 3 topics: Science, Religion, and Law.

]]> By: Johannes http://www.myrandomtangents.com/2008/11/24/my-thoughts-on-gay-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-25 Johannes Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:48:52 +0000 http://www.myrandomtangents.com/?p=10#comment-25 Thank you for that wonderful article. I'm gay and when I heard about NARTH yesterday I felt sick - this article was good for me. Thank you for that wonderful article. I’m gay and when I heard about NARTH yesterday I felt sick – this article was good for me.

]]> By: Anders http://www.myrandomtangents.com/2008/11/24/my-thoughts-on-gay-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-23 Anders Sat, 03 Jan 2009 21:56:01 +0000 http://www.myrandomtangents.com/?p=10#comment-23 I second Anonymous on that, it is not my place to question rights that I may not personally enjoy. But it is my place to defend them. I second Anonymous on that, it is not my place to question rights that I may not personally enjoy. But it is my place to defend them.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.myrandomtangents.com/2008/11/24/my-thoughts-on-gay-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-20 Anonymous Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:06:20 +0000 http://www.myrandomtangents.com/?p=10#comment-20 I'm glad to see that you support gay rights, gun rights, abortion rights and all our rights. Too many ppl pick and choose instead of supporting all rights. I’m glad to see that you support gay rights, gun rights, abortion rights and all our rights. Too many ppl pick and choose instead of supporting all rights.

]]>