OK, I'll do my best to respond to your points and your post.
If there is not a universal civil partnership then that's a shame, there is in the UK, why are civil partnerships insufficent? Why is it necessary to change the entire nature or concept of marriage?
Seperate but equal, yeah, I know that idea is unpopular because people, wrongly, make immediate analogies with black civil rights and the south african apartheid struggle, I would suggest equal but different because, you know, homosexuals and heterosexuals are not the same, one is an unquestionable minority, they experience a distinct and different sexuality, one develops in one fashion and another in another and heterosexuals will not share the reported confusion or distress of homosexuals coming to terms with their sexuality, they are not the same. I have never been a fan of ideas of equality as sameness and uniformity and instead support ideas of complex equality which acknowledge or support difference. I dont see any disrespect, discrimination or oppression in acknowleding difference, I see no harm, I do however believe there would be a great deal of harm in trying to overturn heteronormativity, basically the norms of the majority, and this is what I suspect the gay agenda aims at.
Extreme examples the continued deployment of examples like the Westbro baptists or continued referencing of violence against homosexuals is interesting, I dont believe it serves any purpose to consider all opposition to homosexual campaigns to be one and the same and synomyous because it is evidently not the case. I might think that a tattoo with a favourite passage from the bible is interesting, it doesnt mean I'm interesting in beating someone up and that the story of the tattoo can be related to that doesnt change my opinion of the tattoo itself, its two different things or topics entirely. While you say explicitly that you dont think westbro and mainstream Christian opposition are related, continually mentioning them in the same breath successfully conflates them. Even if you dont make the link there are many who do.
Gays and Nazis Homosexual behaviour, if perhaps not homosexuality, has a long history of being associated in the minds of many with cruelty, domination, power and violence. Most of the laws against buggery were in their first instance crafted to protect children and the vulnerable, not out of any hatred for gays, the story in leviticus (spelling), as I've said before, describes the practice of male rape, including strangers, and as far back as the wars between the celts and romans there are reports that capitulations or surrender to invading forces were sealed or assured by tribal chiefs being raped, sometimes publically, and I would guess there's no surer evidence of complete capitulation than that. I would suggest it is not surprising then that there is a history of ideologies or regimes which are necrophilic, wedded to cruelty and violence, having followers which engage in this sort of homosexual behaviour. Now the suggestion that this homosexual behaviour can be entirely divorced from homosexuality, which is likely to be the affronted response to the points I've made, is a little like suggesting that heterosexual rape has not correlate with heterosexuality, rape is an act of power and violence first and foremost but its not entirely divorceable from sexuality or sexual preference.
Christianity and Law I dont argue against the homosexual agenda from a strictly religious or Christian perspective, I suspect that if any of the groups you mentioned were in the majority and choose to impose their religious laws that homosexuals would fare no better, and perhaps would fare a lot worse, than they presently do under nominally Christian legal frameworks. I dont believe that most secular societies could or would claim to have Christian legal frameworks and I dont really think that a religious framework is desireable, the temporal and the spiritual do not mix well, one is subject to fads and fashions while the other is something much more enduring. I would not wish to live under Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Athiest, Agnostic or any other explicitly ideological framework and its part of the reason I oppose moves for government to legislate changes to cultural norms such as the meaning of marriage.
the debate of this is silly, really in my opinion, let who ever get married if they want and let others be in civil partnerships. Because if i lived in the states i would want the option to get married to a lovely lady, like anyone else.
and on a final note: a civil right is civil right is a civil right is a civil right....
Wow, I just saw these so I'll reply quickly to them before I get to everything else.
You've called me delusional so why are you merely implying that I'm evil and not just saying it outright? I mean, equality and rights are so important we should be calling people who want to take them away evil. Plantation owners were evil, Hitler was Evil, Apartheid was evil.
The problem is that if you say it outright you can't simply say: "Beefeater is evil." Because you won't be consistent with your own world view. Instead you must say: "Beefeater is evil... or not... ya know... whatever works for you."
I don't have to allow for someone else's opinion in every statement lol..... I just have my opinions and thoughts and say them. And then someone else can have theirs and say theirs, and that works. Doesn't really make any sense. I think what you might be trying to say, is that I am detail-oriented in my descriptions and with my thoughts? LoL..... that's the way it was meant to be. Type-bashing ......
Originally Posted by Beefeater
It kind of loses it's weight.
And yet you desperately want to make passionate pleas to others, but the truth is within you and so it seems just exasperating trying to convince the world to your own personal truth. You must huff and puff, but at the bottom your truth and your good is just yours and so you are alone and isolated.
Whereas my truth is outside of myself. When I call out evil I don't need to convince anyone of the validity of my own beliefs and the burden is not on me. Evil is not a construct within myself it is something that is really there in the world. So I just need to call attention to the evil that is there. When I do so I can be at rest that I have done all that is necessary. I do not need others to agree with me for self-validation.
LMFAO..... No, I don't care to convince anyone of my own truths; I was merely showing you WHY some people are going to think your ideas are untrue and extremely unempathetic (my "truth" is pretty much well-known to many, btw; millions have had similar experiences at some point in time, so why would I need validation on it lol)...... I'm just having fun. (istp 6w5's are defenders, and I'm simply enjoying doing my thang =) I'm happy to be alone and isolated to a certain degree..... istp 6w5's pretty much want that. Projection much? (I was just-playing around about you being a psychopath, btw, although I admit it did cross my mind , I don't know if it's true or not, so I decided not to say it; plus I thought not since the mods wouldn't be too happy with me). (I become what others call paranoid easily, as an istp 6w5....so... I wonder these things about most people at one time or another). Your ideas DO seem VERY rigid and anti-female, and controlling to a frightening degree). It's like you never step into anyone else's shoes before deciding what rules everyone should live by. There are many societal ills that can stem from your decisions, that other people have suffered at the hands of. If you don't want a passionate answer, don't introduce overly-passionate "love and community" concepts into your arguments. (It's a consequence to an action......) Many people following the churches have never even read the Bible but like to think they know the answers and what it's all about. Have you read it and tried to figure it out for yourself? Because I admitted, I have not. If we are getting our answers from outside sources or just "going with the flow", but believing we know the answers, how could we be so sure?
At some point, I had to learn to get along with others and learn that my ideas were not for everyone, and I had to learn to consider the other. That's one reason I turned to mbti/enneagrams. (People have always stumped me up until then; they still do in a way).
(Note to self: Why have I read postings echoing these same ideas before, on other forums? Seems kinda creepy....lol....) Truth is, California is probably a different place than you have ever experienced, and I certainly have never experienced England. So that's why it's difficult for us to understand one another. It truly does sound like you COULD be evil because I know the direction you are going is TOWARDS taking away freedoms and controlling people, which IS what evil people do. Get it? And when people have experienced your way and it sucked, well, they aren't going to be too happy about going back there again.
While it may seem to you I am "wishy washy", I simply empathize with many, and I see many sides. I put myself in other's shoes, which is what good Christians I thought did also. It seems somehow, you don't think that's the case. I promote understanding through showing other people how it is to walk in other's shoes, since they fail to see for themselves (it's 9 coming through). The way to peace and clarity is through understanding. Additionally, you think in absolutes, and I think hardly anything is 100%. That can also cause a lot of misunderstanding, and it's due to type. istp's in general don't think in absolutes, so when you accuse me of not being consistent with my own world view, it's natural (although it's a pretty cheap shot coming from a christian, I probably deserve it for making that joke about you being a psychopath lmao; and "let's attack the type, because I've got nothing better to say"). I can be pretty consistent with nuances and slight changes based on incoming information, on values, but when nothing is ever 100%, we aren't going to be absolute about most things, which is one small reason why I can't fathom deciding the things you can for everyone. That doesn't work, and this time I will say "ever" lol........people need the freedom to choose for themselves. Yes, equality and rights ARE THAT IMPORTANT to many Americans......lol. Wow is right. It's because many of us have experienced the difference freedoms make. Furthermore, I don't want that kind of "weight". I don't want it placed on me, and I don't want to dish it out. I'll leave that up to the military folks. I'm not meant for that; I have another purpose to serve. I do what I want and choose, and that makes me happy.
At the end of the day: I don't see how you can know that the beliefs you are claiming are true for you, when you have never tried the opposite. Don't knock it 'til you've tried it.
I also find it hypocritical that in one sentence, you say how you don't like "hedonism" because it isn't loving and it doesn't create community, and the next, you say you don't need any validation. So which is it? Not needing validation is more of an individualistic idea, but you mostly spew ideas that are very non-individualistic, so it appears you say that just to keep any new ideas from taking hold, so you can maintain your sense of "community and love", and therefore, validation.
(I'll give ya' a hint: it's not validation I'm looking for. istp 6w5's generally don't like to be disliked. we're too paranoid for that lol!)
Kind of shocking... not even one of four people I know (as a gay man) are gay or lesbian. The last fairly convincing poll estimated that less than 4% identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual.
Word. It would be interesting to know why people are creating this false picture. Possibly alot of media exposure? Fears? Some need to believe that in order to retain their beliefs? (in the case of believing the results of the poll) I was going to say that maybe they conducted the poll only in SF, but only 16% of the residents there are lol...... this poll is unbelievable.
Yeah I think a lot of the hostility toward homosexuals is exacerbated by paranoid Christian propaganda that "they're taking over!!!!"
Also see: "the socialissssss are coming!!!" and "Our president is not an American citizen."
It seems to be a much more complicated dynamic than that:
"Americans with lower incomes and less education give the highest estimates, on average, of the U.S. gay and lesbian population, and far higher estimates than those with higher incomes and more education. Americans aged 18 to 29 give a higher average estimate than older Americans, and women give a far higher average estimate than men.
Democrats, liberals, and those who say they are socially liberal are also more likely to give higher estimates than those at the other end of the spectrum. However, the differences by political or ideological leanings are in most cases not as wide as those seen by demographic group."