Liberal Hypocrisy about Intelligent Design

Momma Angel wrote:

J_B,

I never said I would be denied any civil right because of same sex marriages.

I merely said it would effect me. Suppose I have a 12 year old child and live next door to Bette and Sue. What do I tell my child when she asks me about Bette and Sue being married?

And what are the chances of that? And what if you do say, "Yes, they are married?" How will that infringe on your rights to raise a child to be a Christian and an anti-homosexual Christian at that? (Anti-homosexual being defined in this post as a person who is against homosexuality).

You're not going to change your anti-homosexual stance so clearly you will state, "Yes, they are married." The child will then ask but doesn't that infringe on the Bible or something? (After all, you are raising said child as a Christian and teaching them that homosexuality is bad, Ten Commandments etc. etc.) You will then state, yes and state that there are people out there that reject God and do not wish to follow in his footsteps. Maybe not in those words, maybe not in that manner, but if you are truly as "Christian" and anti-homosexual as you state you are, then you will do something of a similar effect.

Does the existence of a homosexual infringe on your right to raise children to be anti-homosexual? No. Clearly not. Christian parents all over the world... Heck, not even just Christian parents. Conservative parents all over the world are raising their children to be straight and telling them that homosexuality is wrong.

The majority, if not all, of these children go on to become straight and either not accepting of homosexuals or tolerating them on a superficial level. They will not become homosexual, they will not convert other people to homosexuality.

Homosexuality is not a full fledged choice, no matter what you are told to believe.

The only choice about homosexuality is to submit to your own innate homosexuality or to not submit. Chances are, if you are to become a homosexual, you were probably one to begin with. If you were born straight, you will stay straight.

Believe me when I state that. I've always jokingly asked them to convert, but they only jokingly accept. When it comes down to actually becoming one, they will refuse, regardless of whether they were homophobic or not.

You cannot convert the majority of the human race into homosexuals. It is impossible. Those who are homosexuals were homosexuals to begin with and they are a small minority that will not be able to affect the morale decline of any civilisation.

Men on the other hand is another matter, which is probably why the earlier versions of the Bible prohibited male homosexuality. Let's face it, men, if you will pardon my oncoming French, are horny bastards. As a man I can vouch for this. But that's another argument entirely.

Quote:

Now, that is just a very small little thing, ok. And, I am not condemning anyone for what they are doing, please understand that. But yes, a small effect would be me having to explain it to my child.

As stated before, it won't make any difference. You're not going to change your stance. Your explanation for them being a married homosexual couple will be the exact same explanation for there being the existence of homosexuals in the first place.

Quote:

What about insurance rates? If same sex marriage becomes legal then it goes to follow that there will be insurance afforded these spouses? Who pays for the added costs?

Now I can't remember whether it was in these forums or not, but somebody argued against this very convincingly. What about insurance rates? Why would insurance rates increase if same sex marriage becomes legal?

This assumes that those who marry are going to be far more at risk at catching sexual diseases. If they are a married couple they will not fool around with other people, henceforth they will not gain anymore sexual diseases than a straight couple.

And frankly, no, homosexuals are not proven to have a shorter lifespan than normal human beings because Paul Cameron's research is flawed. Paul Cameron was booted out of every single association he was in because he manipulated data and misrepresented other researchers' data to argue his own biased, partisan agenda.

Quote:

J_B, I have two friends that are lesbians. Very good friends, indeed. They know full well how I feel about the act of homosexuality. While in my house they respect my views and act accordingly. While I am in their house, I respect their views and act accordingly.

They understand that I can not care for an act but still love the person. They both understand how I feel about the same sex marriage issue and we talk about it often. And, we talk about it with absolutely no rancor whatsoever. I respect their right to have the laws as they want them and they respect my right to have the laws as I want them.

So, I know there is a solution in here somewhere.

Well, if you refuse to let them have even a tiny bit of their way, what solution is there going to be?

They want a marriage. They want something more special than a civil union. They want something that straight people can enjoy. Frankly, I don't see a solution, if you insist that what they want will infringe on what you want.

EDIT: Hang on a minute! I just noticed something! This is the thread about Liberal Hypocrisy in Intelligent Design! How the Heck did I end up posting about homosexual marriage in a thread about ID?

0 Replies

Hehehehe!

0 Replies

Hehe! We do go off on tangents, don't we?

I'm perfectly willing to move this to a different thread, but the insurance excuse needs to be addressed.

Why should a homosexual couple be denied insurance coverage? Would the spouse expect coverage? Er, ah, unless they have coverage from their own employment then I guess they would? What not? If I'm entitled to insurance coverage through my husband and my children are entitled to coverage through their father, then why shouldn't a same-sex spouse be entitled to coverage through their partner? I'm really confused about this. I simply don't understand why insurance is an issue in this discussion at all. What does the sex of the insured's partner have to do with whether they should be insurable?

0 Replies

I think MA thinks that same sex couples will increase the cost of insurance for straight people too.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I merely said it would effect me. Suppose I have a 12 year old child and live next door to Bette and Sue. What do I tell my child when she asks me about Bette and Sue being married?

Now, that is just a very small little thing, ok. And, I am not condemning anyone for what they are doing, please understand that. But yes, a small effect would be me having to explain it to my child.

That would provide quite a dilema wouldn't it? Your child might see that Betty and Sue are really quite normal and do not have horns growing from their heads. They may not even howl at the moon.

Now if you really want to spice up that scenerio, just imagine if Betty or Sue came up pregnant. Oh, lord have mercy! How could such a thing happen? You would then be obligated to explain to your child about artificial insemination, or even in-vitro fertilization. Aye, carumba! Betty is not only pregnant, she is still a virgin!

Momma Angel wrote:

Anytime something is made legal that I believe is wrong, it is going to effect me. To me, making something I consider wrong legal means moral decline. I realize that's going to go over like a ton of bricks but I am being open and honest about this.

Yep, ton of bricks is about right. We have many times before gone over the source of your moral reference with all of its warts concerning morality.

Momma Angel wrote:

What about insurance rates? If same sex marriage becomes legal then it goes to follow that there will be insurance afforded these spouses? Who pays for the added costs?

There might possibly be some effect there, but I have not seen you express concern about the effect your position on abortion would have on insurance rates.

Momma Angel wrote:

I have two friends that are lesbians. Very good friends, indeed. They know full well how I feel about the act of homosexuality. While in my house they respect my views and act accordingly. While I am in their house, I respect their views and act accordingly.

Could you expand on this "act accordingly" stuff? Do you mean that they actually show some restraint and do not strip and "get it on" in front of you?

Momma Angel wrote:

They understand that I can not care for an act but still love the person. They both understand how I feel about the same sex marriage issue and we talk about it often. And, we talk about it with absolutely no rancor whatsoever. I respect their right to have the laws as they want them and they respect my right to have the laws as I want them.

They must truly be saints.

Momma Angel wrote:

So, I know there is a solution in here somewhere.

Careful, you are liable to trip over it.

0 Replies

Wolf,

Well, I would think the chances of a same sex couple living next door to someone that does not agree with it might be 50/50 just for argument sake. And please understand something about me, I am not against gays/lesbians, homosexuals. I am against the act itself. There is a huge difference to me. The problem would lie in having to explain to your child how you have taught them something is wrong and it is now legal. Now, who is right? Are you wrong in telling your child you believe the act is wrong if that is what you truly believe? Yes, the best thing to do is sit the child down and explain how you feel and then explain how others feel about it and the child will eventually make up their own mind., but it can cause a concern for a parent.

I haven't got the foggiest idea if homosexuality is a choice, if you are born that way, etc. I just cannot say I know that for a fact. To a Christian, and to plenty of non-believers also, the act of homosexuality is considered a perversion. So, you have to understand that it is something these people are not going to accept very readily.

And when I was talking about insurance, yes, I was speaking of will it cost everyone's insurance rates to go up? I don't know if it will or not. I mentioned it because I was hoping someone could enlighten me on it. I had heard it said somewhere that it would greatly effect insurance rates. And, it had absolutely nothing to do with any diseases anyone might relate to homosexuality. I think the days of AIDS being only a gay disease are pretty well past us. At least I hope they are.

As to my friends, the only solution here is they vote their conscience and I vote mine. The three of us understand that however the laws turn out, one of us doesn't get it the way we want it. We are willing to accept it as such. They understand that it won't change my feelings about it and I understand it won't change their feelings about it. We just understand each other's views and even though we vastly disagree, we respect each other's views.

And Wolf, I have no clue how we ended up in this thread! Laughing

So, if we don't get admonished for it, maybe we can finish up this bit of the discussion and let everyone get back to it. :wink:

Squinney,

I find you to have the most delightful sense of humor.

J_B,

I hope I covered the insurance point up in my post to Wolf. If not, let me know.

Mesquite,

Ah, my buddy. Though you and I vastly disagree, I do enjoy our little bouts. And there you go again, assigning homophobic meaning to my beliefs? I have never said anything like this about anyone who engages in homosexual activity.

My two friends, we will call them Bette and Sue for the sake of this conversation, are absolutely delightful women. They are kind, compassionate, work in the community, help others, etc. Gee, they sound pretty normal don't they? Well, they are. They just engage in an act that I don't believe in.

No need to poke fun (no pun intended there). :wink: about one of them ending up pregnant. Yes, it is something that would have to be explained to a child. I was asked what effects it would have, Mesquite. I only answered a question.

As for the issue of abortion, I think insurance rates are a lot less of a concern to me here than the lives of the aborted babies. Actually, I haven't really thought about the insurance issue there.

Yeah, knew the bricks were coming. That's ok. I am being honest. You see it one way and I see it another. Does that mean we should be at each other's throats? I have read many posters who think Christianity is responsible for the moral decline. Just differing views.

Ah, act accordingly. Ok, when Bette and Sue are at my house, they act in an appropriate manner. Just as anyone else would, just as you would I imagine, when you go to someone else's house. No, they display no behavior THEY consider what others might consider inappropriate. Just as most straight people don't stand on streetcorners frenchkissing and buttgrabbing each other, they don't either. When I go to their house, it is their house and if they want to kiss, etc., that is their right. They don't have a problem with it. Do you?

Saints? No Mesquite, and neither am I. We are just all adults that have respect for each other. We understand that everyone is different and has different views, opinions, beliefs. We recognize that we all have the same rights and do not waste our time arguing about who is right or who is wrong. We consider ourselves equals in this world and don't feel either of us are any more special than the other. We just kind of feel we are adults and can respect each other even if we don't like something the other says or does.

Actually, Mesquite, we pretty much feel we have reached our compromise. I just explained it above.

0 Replies

MA,
Opposing same sex marriage is not the same thing as opposing the sex act that bothers you so much. The way I see it marriage just seals the emotional bond and enables some legal benefits and responsibilities. Even without marriage you are just as likely to have such a couple as a neighbor and have to deal with informing your children about the real world.

On second thought, the insurance issue is a bit of a red herring in regards to the the SS marriage issue. Many employers now already provide insurance coverage to domestic partners, married or not, and most employers do charge extra for spouse/partner coverage. Also I cannot see the number of married same sex couples (whereby one would pick up medical coverage as a result of marriage) as being any sigificant portion of the workforce.

0 Replies

Mesquite,

Try to understand that to me if same sex marriage is legalized, then TO ME it is making a wrong a right. It reinforces the belief that it is ok. To some it is, and to some it isn't. So, I think it is perfectly reasonable for those that think it is ok to lobby for the law and those that think it is not ok to lobby against the law.

I just asked about the insurance thing because someone brought it up in a conversation once (not on A2K) and I was just trying to get some feedback.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Wolf,

Well, I would think the chances of a same sex couple living next door to someone that does not agree with it might be 50/50 just for argument sake. And please understand something about me, I am not against gays/lesbians, homosexuals. I am against the act itself. There is a huge difference to me.

The problem would lie in having to explain to your child how you have taught them something is wrong and it is now legal. Now, who is right? Are you wrong in telling your child you believe the act is wrong if that is what you truly believe? Yes, the best thing to do is sit the child down and explain how you feel and then explain how others feel about it and the child will eventually make up their own mind., but it can cause a concern for a parent.

I have a problem with you. It's a very direct problem and I don't like and I must tell you what this problem is.

You aren't being clear about yourself. You state, you aren't against the homosexual but you are against the act. Please, define what you mean by act. What is this act you speak of? Being homosexual? If the act you speak of is about being homosexual, then are you clearly against the homosexual. However, since you state that you are not against the homosexual, that cannot be it.

So what else could this act be? Please do tell me. Sex? Is that it?

Well, marriage does not have to lead to sex, so that can't be it.

What is this act you speak of that you are so against?

Quote:

I haven't got the foggiest idea if homosexuality is a choice, if you are born that way, etc. I just cannot say I know that for a fact. To a Christian, and to plenty of non-believers also, the act of homosexuality is considered a perversion. So, you have to understand that it is something these people are not going to accept very readily.

Exactly my point. So, you now agree with me that there isn't going to be a morale decline, because if non-believers are not going to be that readily accepting of homosexuality? So you now agree with me that your argument of morale decline is complete bunkum?

Quote:

And when I was talking about insurance, yes, I was speaking of will it cost everyone's insurance rates to go up? I don't know if it will or not. I mentioned it because I was hoping someone could enlighten me on it. I had heard it said somewhere that it would greatly effect insurance rates. And, it had absolutely nothing to do with any diseases anyone might relate to homosexuality. I think the days of AIDS being only a gay disease are pretty well past us. At least I hope they are.

Hm, okay. It's just that earlier on, you spoke as if you knew exactly what this insurance thing was about. So, why should it go up? Why do you think it would go up?

And yes, AIDS is not only a gay disease. Just speak to the women of Africa and you'll know for sure that it isn't just a gay disease.

Quote:

As to my friends, the only solution here is they vote their conscience and I vote mine. The three of us understand that however the laws turn out, one of us doesn't get it the way we want it. We are willing to accept it as such. They understand that it won't change my feelings about it and I understand it won't change their feelings about it. We just understand each other's views and even though we vastly disagree, we respect each other's views.

That's not a compromise. In a compromise, everybody from both sides gets something they would actually want.

0 Replies

Momma,

Your explanation about homosexuality wouldn't be much different from someone that takes the name of God in vain. You dissapprove but they are free to do it in their own house. If you visited them, you would still have to respect them. If they visited you, they should respect you. Why is the idea of homosexuality so offensive compared to other sins that people partake of even more openly then homosexuality?

How do you explain to your child that there isn't a law about one of the 10 commandments? Surely you must teach the 10 commandments as carrying more moral weight than other incidentals in the bible.

The insurance issue is silly. It would imply that gay people can't get insurance unless they marry. They can and do. In fact they are a pretty good risk compared to other activities that people do.

0 Replies

Ok, let me see if I can clear things up, ok?

Wolf,

I am sorry I wasn't clear on that and I don't have a problem with you having a problem with me on it. I have no doubt that there are plenty of times I am not very clear :wink: . So, just ask, and I will do my best to clarify always. I am sure you have heard "hate the sin but love the sinner?" Well, I can do that. I think everyone can do that. Just because someone commits an act (no matter what act that is), does not mean that they are morally bankrupt or anything like that. None of us walks through this world without committing sins (wrongs, etc.). Yes, it's the sex act itself that I find to be the sin. If you are going to ask about the "if you lust in your heart thing" I can only tell you that I just don't know in this case. Does God look at the sexual attraction to the same sex the same thing as actually committing the sexual act? I honestly do not know and won't even try to pretend I do.

The moral decline issue? Let me try to explain it this way. If, for instance, stealing was up to be made legal (I realize that is a stretch but keep in mind that a sin is a sin to me, ok?) and you did not want it to be legal because you believed it was wrong, wouldn't you consider it a decline in the morals of those that want it legal?

I didn't know if the insurance would go up or not. I had heard someone say that it would have to go up if spousal insurance would be offered in same sex marriage. I didn't know about this so I asked.

Wolf, I completely agree. It is not a compromise because someone is not going to get something they want. It's just the only solution I see. It is the legal solution.

And parados, if anyone uses God's name in vain and it's usually the GD word, I just tell them God's last name is not damn. Did what I post to Wolf answer the rest of your questions? If not, tell me and I will address them.

0 Replies

MA,
Love is wrong? Caring is wrong? Is marriage only about sex to you?

Re insurance. I was just providing feedback.

0 Replies

Mesquite,

I am not getting any further into this discussion. Ok? You know where I stand on it. You know that because the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, I believe it is a sin. I don't condemn those that are homosexual, liars, thieves, etc.

Gotcha on the insurance. Thanx.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Mesquite,

I am not getting any further into this discussion. Ok? You know where I stand on it. You know that because the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, I believe it is a sin. I don't condemn those that are homosexual, liars, thieves, etc.

Gotcha on the insurance. Thanx.

Well thank you for clarifying that, but then that doesn't explain the anti-gay marriage stance because marriage doesn't necessarily have to lead to sex.

0 Replies

Wolf,

Ok, let me answer that. When the Bible talks of marriage, it speaks of a man and a woman. Not a woman and a woman or a man and a man.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I just asked about the insurance thing because someone brought it up in a conversation once (not on A2K) and I was just trying to get some feedback.

The larger the group in a group insurance policy, the lower the rates can be expected to be (most of the time) for each individual participant in the group policy.

That's why we have insurance - to share risk over a larger group. The more people, the lower the individual cost of insuring the risk. It's basic common sense < and covered most thoroughly in Principles and Practices, known in my world as Insurance 101>. If a company grows from having 100 employees covered by a plan, to having 150 employees covered by the same plan - they can expect a per employee reduction in the rate.

It would actually benefit most people to have homosexual couples included in their plans - as premium rates would go down - and in some cases, coverage would increase.

0 Replies

Thank you, ehBeth. I appreciate you telling me. I really had no clue about it. I will be sure to show this to the person that mentioned it to me in the first place.

0 Replies

Try to get the person you're speaking to about this to explain their understanding of the basic principles of insurance to you.

It should take them about 30 seconds to recall that the more people in the group the better the individual premium rate and coverage will be.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Mesquite,

I am not getting any further into this discussion. Ok? You know where I stand on it. You know that because the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, I believe it is a sin. I don't condemn those that are homosexual, liars, thieves, etc.

Gotcha on the insurance. Thanx.

Suit your self about not getting any further into it. I will still comment. I wasn't aware that the bible said anything at all about homosexuality. If it indeed is against homosexuality, then what is all this bunk about hate the sin not the sinner?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Wolf,

Ok, let me answer that. When the Bible talks of marriage, it speaks of a man and a woman. Not a woman and a woman or a man and a man.

Ah, but you said you were against the act of homosexual sex and that was why you were against homosexual marriage. Or at least, that was the impression I got.

Now you're invoking a religious text for your argument. That is a religious argument against making homosexual marriage a legality. Therefore any changes to the law based solely on that argument is a violation of the Constitution.

0 Replies

Liberal Hypocrisy about Intelligent Design

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know