Moderator: Nicole Marie
jamiebk wrote:OperaTenor wrote:Yes indeed, California just created a second class of society. Maybe we can just start calling them niggers.....
At one of Altoid's dance classes the other day, I spoke with a mother of another member of her class about it. she says she's a teacher, and she explained why she voted for Prop 8. she said she was afraid a "homosexual agenda" would be rammed down school children's throats if 8 passed. IOW, she bought the ad line of 8 proponents, hook, line and sinker. To top it off, she didn't know 8 would deny same sex couples the right to marry, or that they would be denied the same civil liberties enjoyed by straight couples, or that they could now be discriminated against in the workplace, or that existing same sex marriages performed in California could now be nullified. She didn't know any of that.
The other mother there is a Hungarian woman who is refreshingly outspoken. I began to wonder if I was going to have to sit between them as she got so agitated at the other woman's idiocy.
Her response? "Well, if it's that bad, we can just vote it out next year, right?" She doesn't even understand that it's a constitutional amendment(or revision, if you follow the lawsuits).
I refrained from asking her where she teaches, so I'd know where not to take my child....
Just to be clear OT...teaching (or at least exposure/orientation to) gay marriage did take place in San Fran. right before the elections. It seemed like a bonehead move to me when the issue was being so hotly debated...and the proposition on the ballot. It played right into the supporter's hands. What happened was this. A gay teacher and her parter were getting married under the, then legal, ruling. They decided that it would be a good idea to take the class to city hall in SF to watch. The trip was set up as a class field trip and parents were given a chance to "opt out". This was a Charter School BTW. Most of the class went. Anyway, it did seem an inappropriate use of classroom time and I think that the treachers could have accomplished the same thing if they had held a Saturday (or after school) wedding and invited the class. Oh...also, they used school $$ to pay for the transportation.
Serenity wrote:Practice your religion freely but don't try to push it on me when I tell you that I don't want to hear it. Don't try to infuse our laws with your religious beliefs so that it negates the beliefs of other citizens or forces us to hear an equal amount of time of listening to sermons of your faith. I want a society that allows us to practice our own secular or non-secular faiths/beliefs without having to deal with yours in a manner that is cumbersome to either of us. Hmmm.....let me believe what I want without you trying to convince me that your position is better or that mine is flawed. Is this simple enough?
OperaTenor wrote:Yo Shap, show where in the Bible homosexuality is wrong.
Here's a hint: Be careful traipsing through Leviticus.
OperaTenor wrote: It wasn't about homosexuality, it was about inhospitality.
OperaTenor wrote: I keep forgetting you're a fundamentalist, Shap.
Serenity wrote:I know there are several instances of controversy in our society such as homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, creationism, etc. Let's discuss this proposition in California but let me point out my ignorance on the issue. I don't know specific history on the proposition and I am a casual observer, which means, I don't particularly have strong feelings on either side of the issue. But, I feel that it is unfair to deny benefits to people that consider themselves a couple even though the majority of society does not consider them a couple based on their religious beliefs. I feel it is unfair to deny a gay couple the right to adopt a child based on their sexual orientation because my religious views tell me their relationship is weird or wrong or "not right". I think it is wrong to deny "death benefits" to the surviving half of "a couple" when the other half has passed away. I, personally, am not gay nor do I understand what it means to be gay, but when someone points their finger at me and declares me "wrong" I point the finger back at them and say "No, I think you are wrong. Please explain why my existence is wrong and if we disagree then leave me be and let's co-exist as best we can because I believe my existence is right."
OperaTenor wrote:I get it. You need to reread that story. It wasn't about homosexuality, it was about inhospitality.
OperaTenor wrote:Are you arguing the Bible is a literal document?
And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither, that we may know them:
vocaveruntque Loth et dixerunt ei ubi sunt viri qui introierunt ad te nocte educ illos huc ut cognoscamus eos
Lot went out to them, and shut the door after him, and said:
egressus ad eos Loth post tergum adcludens ostium ait
Do not so, I beseech you, my brethren, do not commit this evil.
[i[nolite quaeso fratres mei nolite malum hoc facere[/i]
I have two daughters who, as yet, have not known man; I will bring them out to you, and abuse you them as it shall please you, so that you do no evil to these men, because they are come in under the shadow of my roof.
habeo duas filias quae necdum cognoverunt virum educam eas ad vos et abutimini eis sicut placuerit vobis dummodo viris istis nihil faciatis mali quia ingressi sunt sub umbraculum tegminis mei
OperaTenor wrote:Anal rape has a long history as a tool of subjugation of the vanquished. It is credibly argued that that is the case in this passage. Additionally, it was Hebrew law at the time to admit strangers and give them food or lodging as they require. Sodom had made a law to end this practice as a means of hoarding their wealth. Lot was acting in defiance of that law, and the soldiers were there to exercise their authority, in so doing intended to anally rape the visitors.
Hence, this is not about homosexuality, at least as not as much as it is about inhospitality.
It's all there, in the context of that passage.
OperaTenor wrote:We also believed the Earth was flat for centuries.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users