are we really that naive?

@andy31,

Only way to do this realistically, Andy…is to take things piece by piece.

Let’s start with:

Quote:

Before I respond, I will emfisize that no God or religion has a roll in my argument. I'm driven by concerns about this nations sanity, heritage, and our future with unintended consequences, generated by our actions, dictated by our passion, reather than common sense.

Would you describe yourself as an atheist or agnostic…or are you more a theist with a particular religion?

I ask this because despite your protestations to the contrary, there sounds to me to be motivation occasioned by a theistic agenda to what you are saying. The concerns about this nation’s sanity, heritage and the impact of unintended consequences seem to me to be rationalizations rather than reasons…and I want to be reasonably sure I am not pissing into the wind here by treating this as something less than a religion inspired position.

If you are a theist…what religion do you follow?

When we finish with this aspect…we can move on.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I had the same concern, Frank. Personalizing nature indicates theism, I believe.

But he says no . . . . .

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

I had the same concern, Frank. Personalizing nature indicates theism, I believe.

But he says no . . . . .

I am not sure if he is saying...

...I am not a religious person...and I do not have a "belief" in a GOD who informs us of things that please or offend IT...

...or if he is saying that he is religious...has a "belief" in a GOD...has a "belief" that the GOD has informed us of what pleases and offends IT...

...but that the "beliefs" are not being used in the arguments he is presenting.

Both interpretations seem to be possible...and I am just attempting to find out which is correct...or closer to correct.

I am hoping his answer will inform us which it is.

1 Reply

@neologist,

I do get it, and I see your point. You say that, in the context I referred to nature as "intelligent entity" because of the word "intended". Well, no, as I said, no God or religion drive me to express my believes. I have inpersonalized the nature (as we all widely practice) for sake of argument.

Yes, there are those, defending hetero-monogamy as will of God, and there are those, who justifying polygamy as their God's will. I'm neither.

Principles and believes are not necessarily build on religious fundation, as we all know.

Actions create consequences. Few would see "red flags" popping all over the place", as others unknowingly but enthusiastically entering to a "butterfly effect". It already happen in a past history and not just ones. But I will not go there now.

It maybe the fact that I'm sensitive to certain events, that I see it alarming. I'm sorry, but I can't changed my covictions. That's what brought me here in the first place. I thought America stands for something. But than again, I came in the Reagan Era.

1 Reply

@andy31,

Andy, earlier, I asked:

Quote:

Would you describe yourself as an atheist or agnostic…or are you more a theist with a particular religion?

I ask this because despite your protestations to the contrary, there sounds to me to be motivation occasioned by a theistic agenda to what you are saying. The concerns about this nation’s sanity, heritage and the impact of unintended consequences seem to me to be rationalizations rather than reasons…and I want to be reasonably sure I am not pissing into the wind here by treating this as something less than a religion inspired position.

If you are a theist…what religion do you follow?

I further clarified why I am asking in a reply to Neo:

Quote:

I am not sure if he is saying...

...I am not a religious person...and I do not have a "belief" in a GOD who informs us of things that please or offend IT...

...or if he is saying that he is religious...has a "belief" in a GOD...has a "belief" that the GOD has informed us of what pleases and offends IT...

...but that the "beliefs" are not being used in the arguments he is presenting.

Both interpretations seem to be possible...and I am just attempting to find out which is correct...or closer to correct.

Could you help me with the answers to those questions.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

In response to yours and neologist question, I was brought up in a Catholic family. But now I am Agnostic, just like you Frank. I have my own views about good and bad and no religion reflect on my principles.
I have great respect to most religions for being a driving factor in controlling, in a positive way, the human behaviour. I despise others for doing just the oposite. But that's the subject for other time, let just leave it at that. Please, don't ask me details. I like to avoid a flurry of haters.

I hope I have satisfy your curiosity.

1 Reply

@andy31,

Yeah, you have, Andy…and I will accept the answer as offered.

I would have bet otherwise.

I can easily see arriving where you are with religion (especially Catholicism) as a motivator…whether overtly or in an unconscious way. But getting to where you are purely from the “nature of the beast” seems over the top.

As far as I can see, there is nothing about the nature of homosexuality that is not completely understandable on a variety of levels. It certainly is not exclusively a human trait…and throughout history has enjoyed strong cultural acceptance in many societies.

Someone from ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome would wonder what on Earth you are raging on about. Sexuality was sexuality…some are stimulated by other sex input…and others by same sex.

You are suggesting that society in general will “suffer” in some way from modern day acceptance of homosexuality…and of the desire for homosexuals to be accepted fully into society.

I honestly do not see how. In fact, if anything, I see such acceptance as being a positive growth element for society.

Your comments regarding what is “normal” are probably further from normal than the behavior upon which you are commenting.

Not sure where to go from here.

Give me a question or two you think I ought to be addressing.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Here are some issues I'd have with what you said :

Quote:

[/As far as I can see, there is nothing about the nature of homosexuality that is not completely understandable on a variety of levels]
Please elaborate. On what levels? How about medical level? Do we really understand exactly, precisely why gay is a gey? What happened that drive them to be a gay? Perhaps genetics has something to do with it...
Just wondering... because that would prove my starting point.

Next is this:

Quote:
You are suggesting that society in general will “suffer” in some way from modern day acceptance of homosexuality…and of the desire for homosexuals to be accepted fully into society/quote]

First of all, we are way pass the point of their "desire..." . They've been accepted long ago. And I AM with it.
Now they want to get legally married . And I say NO!
The reason is simple: we are opening a "Pandora box" here.
Once we open this door all the others will try to get in. But I made this argument several times before and not see you comments on that.
If you believe gays are normal, you should not object to incest, or zoophilia, and list goes on.. being normal. I didn't see you commenting on that either. And I would love to see your opinion on one of those groups start asking for marriage licenses. Would you not treat them equally?

I hope I brought some more light on my concerns.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Sorry Frank, I think I've screw up those quote marks, but I hope you can still figure it out, and get my point.

0 Replies

@andy31,

andy31 wrote:

I wrote:

As far as I can see, there is nothing about the nature of homosexuality that is not completely understandable on a variety of levels

You responded:

Quote:

Please elaborate. On what levels? How about medical level? Do we really understand exactly, precisely why gay is a gey? What happened that drive them to be a gay? Perhaps genetics has something to do with it...
Just wondering... because that would prove my starting point.

Every level, Andy.

Some people are simply not turned on by people of the opposite sex...but rather are turned on by people of the same sex. So they satisfy their desire for sexual enjoyment using same sex partner.

Sorta like some people prefer steak and potatoes...and some prefer vegetables and salads...so they satisfy their desire for foods using what they prefer.

I honestly do not see what problem you have with that...or why you seem to think that it will injure society in some way. How does some guy having sex with another guy...or some woman having sex with another woman injure society in any way?

You wrote:

Quote:

First of all, we are way pass the point of their "desire..." . They've been accepted long ago. And I AM with it.
Now they want to get legally married . And I say NO!

No, they haven't been accepted. Not by folk like you. You want to restrict them from some of the activities available to other members of society...like marriage, for instance.

If they want to marry, why do you "say NO?"

You certainly have a right to that opinion...but you ought not to be surprised if many people see it as both short-sighted and "bigoted."

Quote:

The reason is simple: we are opening a "Pandora box" here. Once we open this door all the others will try to get in. But I made this argument several times before and not see you comments on that.
If you believe gays are normal, you should not object to incest, or zoophilia, and list goes on.. being normal.

Well...marriage between consenting heterosexual partners is allowed...and that doesn't seem to be a danger to society? Why would marriage between consenting homosexual partners? I cannot think why marriage between same sex individuals would be a danger.

The fact that we allow legal access to certain recreational drugs does not mean that we have to allow access to all recreational drugs. And the fact that we allow same sex partners to marry does not mean that we have to allow people who want to marry a monkey wrench to marry.

We allow adults to marry…that does not mean that we must allow four year olds to marry. It is okay to allow consenting adults privileges that do not extend to others if there are compelling reasons for withholding that privilege.

Other than this (what I consider bizarre) notion that allowing same sex couples to marry will harm society...what other price do you see being paid in allowing it.

I repeat something I said earlier. Your notion of normal, Andy...IS ITSELF further from normal than some of the stuff you rail against.

Quote:

I didn't see you commenting on that either. And I would love to see your opinion on one of those groups start asking for marriage licenses. Would you not treat them equally?

If there are compelling reasons for withholding a privilege, Andy...I have no problem with that. I just do not see any compelling reason (from you or anyone else) as to why gays should not be allowed to marry.

I also see no reason to consider someone who is homosexual to be considered in quite the negative light you seem to view them. Do it if you must, but as I said before, rightly or wrongly, people are going to consider you to be a bigot.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

How does some guy having sex with another guy...or some woman having sex with another woman injure society in any way?

Is not the fact that they have sex what bothers me, but other things; to list some of them: business being closed down over gay issue (the pizza place as one example), people loosing jobs for unintentionally offend gays, costly lawsuits being file against free speech (for refusing to serve gays couple). That's some of the "injury". Also I do have a problem with gay marriage.
I wish you could distinguish above objections from the fact that as far as what anyone is doing in privacy of their bedroom I don't have and never had any problem with. I think THAT is nobody's business as long as is not coliding with our law.

Quote:

I also see no reason to consider someone who is homosexual to be considered in quite the negative light you seem to view them

I seriously think I'm either being grossly misunderstood or I simply fail to make myself clear, or... both.
Here is what I support.
1. I am accepting gays as part of our society.
2. I have nothing against gay community nor against their sexual habits and preferences (normal or not).
3 . I don't see gays in a bad light and I would defend them if I see harm being done to them.

Here is what I opose:
1. I think marriage is between one man and one women so I opose gay marriage just like I opose man entering ladies bathroom or vice versa. Or like I opose people walking naked in the streets. Why? Because we have accepted certain rules and norms in this society that we live by. Are you saying they have no meaning anymore? Please answer this question. And forget what harm or not will it do, or all the "injury" nonsense. Just answer it for me, please in such a way that it will still make me feel living in a stable society. Because right now I see we are changing rules as we go.
2. This lead me to 2nd and only other thing I opose. We, are trying to protect already protected (gays). Using intimidations, harrasments and litigations some fanatics, often called gay activists, using the movement to stir friction among rest of us. Some of it might have adverse effects and spew hate.

Did I make myself clear enough so we could compromise and actually agree on something here? I hope any misunderstandings were swept away. I will even agree that by viwing from a higher spectrum on this, it is normal to expect having gays and lesbians among us, so I can say that from this perspective they are normal. And I will go further to prove I'm NOT against gays: they are needed here to take care of some of the parentless or rejected kids.
I can't believe I'm arguing for you against myself.

1 Reply

I don't know if this bothers anybody else, but since most rapists and child molesters aren't required to wear a sign on their heads, they will not be denied service anywhere!!!!!!! But consenting adults who wish to mingle with or marry other consenting adults offend the living crap out of believers. However, fondling 3 year olds doesn't offend God? Please, mofos, is that what you want to believe. What's worse, unwelcome inappropriate sexual handling of toddlers or 2 same sex people setting up a household, and getting married. If gay couples move in next door to me, all I care about is that they keep their lawn mowed. And people should never molest small girls and boys. That's the honest to god truth.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

The thing is, that child molesters or pedophiles and rapists offending EVERYBODY, no exception. So that's why you won't find any disagreements here or elsewhere. As far as denying service goes - calm down, all sex offenders are required by the law, to register anywhere they go, and identify themself who they are. It is under penalty of jeil time if they don't.

0 Replies

@andy31,

Specific:

You think gays should be denied the right to marry, because you think "marriage is between one man and one women."

Why?

What is there about the human condition that causes you to "think" that way?

What is there in "nature" that causes you to come to that conclusion?

By the way...we already are compromising, Andy. We both agree that each of us is entitled to have an opinion on this matter. What we are doing here is to discuss the reasons we have our individual opinions...what it is that motivates our opinions.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You think gays should be denied the right to marry, because you think "marriage is between one man and one women."

Let's pause right here. You said "I think..."?; NO! This is what all of us were at one time thinking! I took my ideas from no where else but YOU as Americans, when I first came to this country, inspired by AMERICAN VALUES, AMERICAN PRINCIPLES, AND AMERICAN SPIRIT!!!! America was my mentor, leading by exemples. Those very ideas that you criticize me for today, originate from the fundation of this nation of which I became part of! I've learned it here, I did not bring them with me! Now, with grotesque disbelief I have to witness how left and American haters are dismantling piece by piece, brick by brick the core on which this country was built on. You chose to ignore it or you plain don't see it or can't see it. That's why you are plugging religion in here, me being bigot, troll... everything but the kitchen sink. You thinking of anything but the truth! The truth that brought me to this point. This is why you didn't and simply can't answer my question, if our values have some meaning anymore. Certainly not for you, and not for American left here.

Let me make it clear, it is not against gays, or what kind of damage their marriage will bring, but it is about abolishing, for lack of better word, our values ( not religious, and please don't throw religion in here).

No offense Frank, but some people's minds set, you included, I would compared to a book that was allready published: no more editing. I can talk until I turn blue on my face and it want change a squad of the way you thinking.
There is nothing more for me here to say.
As Neo would say: " any further discussion of the matter is fruitless.

1 Reply

@andy31,

andy31 wrote:

Quote:

You think gays should be denied the right to marry, because you think "marriage is between one man and one women."

Let's pause right here. You said "I think..."?; NO! This is what all of us were at one time thinking! I took my ideas from no where else but YOU as Americans, when I first came to this country, inspired by AMERICAN VALUES, AMERICAN PRINCIPLES, AND AMERICAN SPIRIT!!!!

Well...if you had come to America back in the mid-19th century...you would have learned that slavery was okay in some states.

But things change, Andy...unless you have a closed mind.

Quote:

America was my mentor, leading by exemples. Those very ideas that you criticize me for today, originate from the fundation of this nation of which I became part of! I've learned it here, I did not bring them with me! Now, with grotesque disbelief I have to witness how left and American haters are dismantling piece by piece, brick by brick the core on which this country was built on. You chose to ignore it or you plain don't see it or can't see it. That's why you are plugging religion in here, me being bigot, troll... everything but the kitchen sink. You thinking of anything but the truth! The truth that brought me to this point. This is why you didn't and simply can't answer my question, if our values have some meaning anymore. Certainly not for you, and not for American left here.

Once again, you think gays should be denied the right to marry, because you think "marriage is between one man and one women."

Where do you get that from?

Right now there are more Americans who think that piece of wisdom is worthless...than who think it makes sense.

So where do you get it from?

Quote:

Let me make it clear, it is not against gays, or what kind of damage their marriage will bring, but it is about abolishing, for lack of better word, our values ( not religious, and please don't throw religion in here).

Okay...let me see you perform that particular piece of magic.

Tell me why marriage is between one man and one woman...but do not use religion.

Quote:

No offense Frank, but some people's minds set, you included, I would compared to a book that was allready published: no more editing. I can talk until I turn blue on my face and it want change a squad of the way you thinking.

No offense taken, Andy. But perhaps it is not my mind that is set in stone...but yours.

Quote:

There is nothing more for me here to say.
As Neo would say: " any further discussion of the matter is fruitless.

Was that "fruitless" a play on words?

Anyway...if you are gone...you are gone.

But if you are not gone...I'd love for you to handle that question above:

Why just one man and one women...WITHOUT USING RELIGION?

Why can our government not make it one man and three women; or one woman and six men? Without religion coming into the fray.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I will respond to you this evening or tonight. Sorry Frank but I'm still a working man and today I have to handle some things at the office.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Well...if you had come to America back in the mid-19th century...you would have learned that slavery was okay in some states

Well.. if I had come to America in 17th century... there was no America.
And if my grandmom would have mustache than she would be a grandpa.
Frank, I came when I came here, during perhaps undeniably the best days this nation had ever seen - Reagan era. The word meant something. The world loved us and respected us for our values, desency and stability.
You know, and I'm not trying to patronize you, when on July 4, 1776 declaration of independence was signed, George Washington was stopped and asked outside the building: "...what are we, republic or monarchy? ". He replied: "constitutional republic... if you can keep it". Those famous words are echoing today stronger than ever.

I can't believe that you, who I consider intelligent, can't distinguish abolishing slavery from legalizing gay marriage, and you said poligamy wold be ok too...? One is bringing morals, the other demoralizing our nation. Two oposite things.

Quote:

Right now there are more Americans who think that piece of wisdom is worthless...than who think it makes sense

Did I'm reading this right?? So if something is right, it is still wrong???? Another words let's turn world upside down?
And what "more Americans"? Maybe those among you and who you were raised with (judging from your covictions).

Where do YOU get that from? - is the real question, because I have my ideas from our Constitution, from our law and from American etics. If I had to quess, you got yours from street protesters, American hipis.

Quote:

Tell me why marriage is between one man and one woman...but do not use religion

.

Frank, did you ever read US Constitution? Do you own one?
I strongly urge you to read it again, you'll find all the answers there. It is not a bible, but our nation and this Constitution were created based on Christianity and IT'S principles, in case you didn't know that. It does not mean that you or I have to be christians, and we are not, we are Agnostics.

But why are you so obsessed about religion being part of it?
Are you suggesting that if my thinking was in any part taken from Christian guidelines, than that would make my argument invalid?

2 Replies

@andy31,

I have to add, I'm not defending any religious beliefs here, but our Constitution and our etics. Those words might be absent in democrats vocabulary. That will explain difficulties communicating with people on certain topics here, as well as all the attacks from everybody.

0 Replies

@andy31,

Couple of things:

One...my point is that things change...and one of the things that has changed is the American attitude toward what marriage is.

I still defy you to give a reason for your stand that you consider marriage should be between one man and one woman...WITHOUT USING A RELIGIOUS SOURCE.

We are changing in that regard...slowly...and on a state by state basis.

Get with today.

Two...if your reasons for this stance of yours are from religion...it would not make them invalid. It would make them from religion...which you have said they are not.

So...which is it?

Three...it was not at the signing of the Declaration of Independence and it wasn't George Washington in that quote. If you are going to use something like that...get it right. (Adoption of the Constitution and Ben Franklin.)

1 Reply

are we really that naive?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know