Southern Baptists - 'Same Sex Marriage is Not a Civil Rights Issue'

reply to post by FlyersFan


(beezzer stirring the pot, poking the hornets nest, whizzing in the oatmeal. . . . . )

Sexual preference is a behaviour.

Race, gender are not.

Let's look at behaviours.

Do we apply civil rights for ALL behaviours that are "outside" the mean?

Originally posted by beezzer

Sexual preference is a behaviour.

Sexual orientation is not a behavior.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

(beezzer stirring the pot, poking the hornets nest, whizzing in the oatmeal. . . . . )

Sexual preference is a behaviour.

Race, gender are not.

Let's look at behaviours.

Do we apply civil rights for ALL behaviours that are "outside" the mean?

edit on 23-6-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

Sexual orientation is not a behavior - you are hard-wired to either be gay or straight.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

(beezzer stirring the pot, poking the hornets nest, whizzing in the oatmeal. . . . . )

Sexual preference is a behaviour.

Race, gender are not.

Let's look at behaviours.

Do we apply civil rights for ALL behaviours that are "outside" the mean?

edit on 23-6-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

Not necessarily. Newly published research suggest otherwise.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

The theory holds that the same genetic factors that induce gayness in males also promote fecundity (high reproductive success) in those males' female maternal relatives. Through this trade-off, the maternal relatives' "gay man genes," though they aren't expressed as such, tend to get passed to future generations in spite of their tendency to make their male inheritors gay.

If proven to be genetic, there is no argument. It becomes a civil rights matter, no less than skin color or any other genetic trait.

reply to post by OpsSpecialist

Some behaviours are "hard-wired", others are learned.

Should we differentiate between the two and just apply rights to ANY behaviour that can be identified genotypically?

Originally posted by Annee

Again, I think we should ban marriage for all ugly and stupid and poor people. I mean really, only the beautiful, smart, successful people should be allowed to get married for obvious reasons, right? Their weddings are fabulous, and their kids have the best chances for success.

Exactly! It is that idiotic.

ridiculous......
Why not just undefine the meaning of marriage...any two people can marry...brother,sister,mother,father...nobody should be told what to do!

Marriage is and has always been defined as the union between a man and woman.
It is not a right, but a "privelage" granted to hetero couples that can possibly can generate
and educate offspring.
For the interpretaion of the law to be refined would be a huge slap in the face of tradition
The social engineers pushing this agenda have failed repeatedly with this issue because it is just plain stupid to redefine definitions to fit politically correct causes.

The whole issue a moot point anyways.
Because regardless of whether "marriage" is defined as a woman and a man, all other forms of the union will always be defined with a hyphen.
Gay marriage will always be an equivalency to the proverbial marriage. It will never be equated to a regular marriage simply because it is by self evidence" different".
The words Husband and Wife will always mean what they mean...should those be redefined as well?

I have ZERO tolerance for any one - - for whatever reason - - fighting against Equal Rights for Homosexuals.

The Government hands out "rights" like candy corn on Halloween, and they are just as substantive.
When everything's a right, nothing's wrong and there's a "valid" interpretation for all of it

homosexuals have all the "equal rights" as any other person in this nation
What they do not have is the right to redefine the meaning of marriage

Sexual orientation is not.

well thats debatable....

The fact is, humans do choose. humans make choices about thousands of things, big and small, every day. Choice is what sets us apart from plants and animals. Choice gives us a certain dignity, and allows us to shape our lives, our characters, our destinies
Likewise, a gay or lesbian couple who decide to have a loving, monogamous relationship are not operating blindly off natural dynamics. They CHOOSE to live together that way.

Originally posted by truthseeker808

Originally posted by Annee

Again, I think we should ban marriage for all ugly and stupid and poor people. I mean really, only the beautiful, smart, successful people should be allowed to get married for obvious reasons, right? Their weddings are fabulous, and their kids have the best chances for success.

Exactly! It is that idiotic.

ridiculous......
Why not just undefine the meaning of marriage...any two people can marry...brother,sister,mother,father...nobody should be told what to do!

Marriage is and has always been defined as the union between a man and woman.
It is not a right, but a "privelage" granted to hetero couples that can possibly can generate
and educate offspring.
For the interpretaion of the law to be refined would be a huge slap in the face of tradition
The social engineers pushing this agenda have failed repeatedly with this issue because it is just plain stupid to redefine definitions to fit politically correct causes.

The whole issue a moot point anyways.
Because regardless of whether "marriage" is defined as a woman and a man, all other forms of the union will always be defined with a hyphen.
Gay marriage will always be an equivalency to the proverbial marriage. It will never be equated to a regular marriage simply because it is by self evidence" different".
The words Husband and Wife will always mean what they mean...should those be redefined as well?

I have ZERO tolerance for any one - - for whatever reason - - fighting against Equal Rights for Homosexuals.

The Government hands out "rights" like candy corn on Halloween, and they are just as substantive.
When everything's a right, nothing's wrong and there's a "valid" interpretation for all of it

homosexuals have all the "equal rights" as any other person in this nation
What they do not have is the right to redefine the meaning of marriage

Sexual orientation is not.

well thats debatable....

The fact is, humans do choose. humans make choices about thousands of things, big and small, every day. Choice is what sets us apart from plants and animals. Choice gives us a certain dignity, and allows us to shape our lives, our characters, our destinies
Likewise, a gay or lesbian couple who decide to have a loving, monogamous relationship are not operating blindly off natural dynamics. They CHOOSE to live together that way.

edit on 23-6-2012 by truthseeker808 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-6-2012 by truthseeker808 because: (no reason given)

Your reasoning is null. Marriage is not a Christian concept, and the definition of it has changed countless times over thousands of years. As with the definition of husband and wife. Some marriages are arranged, some are for money, some are for love. It varies with the culture. It was never defined in the first place.

As more research is done, evidence is mounting that being homosexual is not a behavior or choice. It is a specific gene in our DNA. If it is eventually scientifically proven, there is no debate. All counter arguments become void. It is a civil rights issue that would be impossible to ignore.

Unless you want to outlaw biology?

reply to post by OpsSpecialist
Then I have to ask, does that mean that ANY genetically identifiable behaviour has civil rights?

To add, schizophrenia can be traced genetically.

Is it a violation of a schizophrenic's civil rights to medicate and treat the condition?

How much does society play into what is considered normal versus abnormal?

Should it determine the basis for an individual's civil rights?

Schizophrenic's can pose a danger to others or their self. How can you compare it to homosexuality?

Civil rights were granted to minorities due to a genetic trait that harms no one, skin color. Civil rights were granted to women due to a genetic trait which harms no one, gender. The rights granted to women and minorities encompasses interracial marriage as well.

If homosexuality is proven to be a genetic trait, that harms no one, how can you say it doesn't fall in to civil rights?

Originally posted by OpsSpecialist
If homosexuality is proven to be a genetic trait, that harms no one, how can you say it doesn't fall in to civil rights?

I don't believe that gay advocates can be trusted to have any integrity whatsoever, where the claim of homosexuality having a genetic basis is concerned. They will try and claim that with as much adamance as they can muster, whether it is in fact scientifically verifiable or not. They need it for acceptance, or they think they do; so they will not let it go, regardless of whether or not it is actually true.

As for the second point; if homosexuality itself is harmless, AIDS most certainly is not. There is a higher level of correlation between disease transmission and anal penetration, than other forms of intercourse. The greater incidence of disease related to homosexual promiscuity, is the single main reason why, in pragmatic terms, I support the idea of gay marriage.

If homosexuality is going to exist within human society at all, then it must be monogamous. That is a medical requirement, not a purely moral or religious one.

reply to post by petrus4

Lol, "homosexuality must be monogamous" seriously? Heterosexuality is not monogamous, so why would you expect that from gays? The spread of HIV/AIDS isnt so much a problem because of sexual promiscuity but because people are not protecting themselves. That can be fixed with more education and more testing. When gay marriage becomes legal people will still have multiple sexual partners, such is humanity.

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
reply to post by petrus4

 

Lol, "homosexuality must be monogamous" seriously? Heterosexuality is not monogamous, so why would you expect that from gays? The spread of HIV/AIDS isnt so much a problem because of sexual promiscuity but because people are not protecting themselves. That can be fixed with more education and more testing. When gay marriage becomes legal people will still have multiple sexual partners, such is humanity.

This is another part of the problem. Dangerous behaviour, if it has the will of the majority behind it, is accepted and even defended as inevitable.

reply to post by petrus4

Its not about the will of the majority so much as its just how we're wired, its what kept humanity from going extinct, we like to have sex. You can try to tell people not to do, but that wont work. I mean look at Texas, abstinence only education, highest teen pregnancy rate in the country. Its better in some cases to accept and educate.

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
reply to post by petrus4

 

Its not about the will of the majority so much as its just how we're wired, its what kept humanity from going extinct, we like to have sex. You can try to tell people not to do, but that wont work. I mean look at Texas, abstinence only education, highest teen pregnancy rate in the country. Its better in some cases to accept and educate.

Given the nature of contemporary society in all other respects, I would largely agree. The problem, however, is the attitude that celibacy is unthinkable. Another problem (in America's case more than virtually any other civilisation in human history) is the false association of systemic social degeneracy with freedom.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by OpsSpecialist
If homosexuality is proven to be a genetic trait, that harms no one, how can you say it doesn't fall in to civil rights?

I don't believe that gay advocates can be trusted to have any integrity whatsoever, where the claim of homosexuality having a genetic basis is concerned. They will try and claim that with as much adamance as they can muster, whether it is in fact scientifically verifiable or not. They need it for acceptance, or they think they do; so they will not let it go, regardless of whether or not it is actually true.

As for the second point; if homosexuality itself is harmless, AIDS most certainly is not. There is a higher level of correlation between disease transmission and anal penetration, than other forms of intercourse. The greater incidence of disease related to homosexual promiscuity, is the single main reason why, in pragmatic terms, I support the idea of gay marriage.

If homosexuality is going to exist within human society at all, then it must be monogamous. That is a medical requirement, not a purely moral or religious one.

edit on 23-6-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

Your post comes off as extremely biased and hints that homosexuals are deviant in nature. Worldwide, AID's is more prevalent in heterosexual than homosexual. Arguing mandatory monogamy for homosexuals is absurd due to disease spread via anal sex. Perhaps you should read statistics regarding it, and how widespread it has become in hetero relationships.



www.marieclaire.com...

The precis: We're all having more sex, and more kinds of sex than ever before, and we're getting sexually active at younger ages. But the "big story," as Slate writer William Saletan puts it, is anal sex! In 1992, a similar survey found that 16 percent of women aged 18-24 had tried it. Now the number is more like 40 percent. And in 1992, the highest percentage of women in any age group who admitted to anal sex was 33 percent. Now it's 46.

If you're using that as an argument, then surely hetero's are the largest culprit behind the spread of disease, as they vastly outnumber homosexuals.

I'll admit I don't know the statistics behind promiscuity in gay culture, but when you lose the ultimate culmination of love between two people, marriage, where can a relationship progress to? It's almost as if they're being intentionally railroaded, and the ends are being used against them.

Originally posted by beezzer
Sexual preference is a behaviour.
Race, gender are not.

Did you see my previous post about how autopsies on gay men have revealed that the brains are different than straight men? It's not a choice or a behavior .. it's simply who they are physically.

Originally posted by beezzer
Some behaviours are "hard-wired", others are learned.

Either way, it's who they are. It's part of their makeup both physically and psychologically. Just as being 'straight' is part of your physical and psychological makeup. if someone said to you that you couldn't get married because you are straight ... would you be telling them that it's okay because being straight is 'just a behavior'?? No. It's part of your biology. It's who you are.

Originally posted by truthseeker808
Why not just undefine the meaning of marriage...any two people can marry...brother,sister,mother,father...nobody should be told what to do!

There are authentic genetic reasons for the prohibition of close relatives marrying. There is no medical reason why two consenting non-related gay people can't be married.

Marriage is and has always been defined as the union between a man and woman.

That simply isn't true. Many cultures, including the native american indian culture, had gay marriage. In fact, in the native american culture it was considered 'good luck' for a man to have both a woman-wife and a male-wife. Gay men were considered to be specially touched by the creator.

It is not a right, but a "privelage" granted to hetero couples that can possibly can generate
and educate offspring.

Poppycock! People get married all the time and don't have kids either by choice or because they physically can't. Are you saying that people who can't have kids shouldn't be allowed get married? That's absurd.

For the interpretaion of the law to be refined would be a huge slap in the face of tradition

YOUR version of tradition. As I said, in many cultures through the centuries this was just fine.
Change is the only constant in the world. Cultures change all the time. That's a fact.

homosexuals have all the "equal rights" as any other person in this nation

No they don't. If they did, they'd be allowed to be married. Marriage is a civil right.

What they do not have is the right to redefine the meaning of marriage

Of course they have a right to redefine the western meaning of marriage.
Who do you think you are to say that they don't have that right?


Besides .. what do you care anyways? If two guys who love each other get married it doesn't have anything to do with you. You still live your life and they live theirs. What business is it of yours or anyone elses on who people marry?

Originally posted by beezzer
Then I have to ask, does that mean that ANY genetically identifiable behaviour has civil rights?

Being straight. That's genetic. That's behavior. It has civil rights.

Originally posted by petrus4
I don't believe that gay advocates can be trusted to have any integrity whatsoever, where the claim of homosexuality having a genetic basis is concerned.

Then you missed the reports that have been posted here. Autopsies on gay men vs straight men. Their brains are different. That's just a fact.

if homosexuality itself is harmless, AIDS most certainly is not.

If being straight itself is harmless then cervical cancer most certainly is not. Women get a virus from having sex with men and that virus causes cervical cancer.
If being straight itself is harmless then catching an STD is most certainly not. Men and women get STDs from having sex with each other.
I could keep going on and on ... but you get the idea.

If homosexuality is going to exist within human society at all, then it must be monogamous.

- homoesexuality exists. there is no choice in the matter. it's there if the people are monogamous or not.

- if you say that homosexuality MUST be monogamous, then the same must be said for 'straight' people. Afterall, there are just as many deadly diseases out there that 'straight' people can catch. Right?