adam & steve

[Pestneb]

In an ideal world, everyone would be the same.

 

do you seriously think that? seriously, that if you walked out tomorrow, and everyone looked, acted, spoke in everyway just like you, that the world would be ideal?

personally, I'd be insanely bored if that was the case. and if you disagree with me I challenge you to spend a year on your own in a room with mirrors for walls and plenty of food and water supplies. see how long your reflection entertains you. (closest I can think of a same person simulation).

 

I think the World is pretty ideal as it is, just its going in the wrong direction.

[CooInTheZoo]

thats what i mean, the world isnt perfect so why try to make it that way?

 

(in my perfect world, it would rain cadburys chocolate buttons and pretty people would be naked by law)

[Mr_Odwin]

Imperfect as it is the line has to be drawn somewhere. There has to be standards, especially in the adoption procedure. Some people here obviously think that line is homosexuality, you clearly don't. But I expect you wouldn't want a muderer to adopt with no problems.

[Jon]

One thing some people have to learn is that evryone has different opinions on this matter. Just because one persons' opinion is against this does not make it wrong.

[CooInTheZoo]

I dont really know how a murderer comes into it. Who you have sex with doesnt really have anything to do with a child you are raising. Why shouldnt gays be allowed to adopt? Its a silly world...

[mike-zim]

The reasons have been stated. but i will re-state them for you.

 

1) We still live in a world were homosexuality is a controversial issue. hence i come to the conclusion that is it not totally accepted in the general society.

 

2)children get bullied for wearing differents shoes from other kids. so imagine if they had gay parents?

 

i am not saying they would be bad parents. what i am saying is it fair to the child to be put through that torment? in my opinion it is not. not until the general view of the public has accepted the "gay" issues. that is the direction it is heading now but we are not there yet.

 

So at this point in time I THINK it would be irresponsible for gay couples to adopt.

[BlueStar]

Couldn't you have used the same argument against mixed race couples having kids in the 50s/60s? Would it have been irresponsible for mixed race couples to have children, because it would be unfair on the kid if kids at school bullied them saying "Your Dad's a xxxxxxx" or whatever?

[mike-zim]

Couldn't you have used the same argument against mixed race couples having kids in the 50s/60s? Would it have been irresponsible for mixed race couples to have children, because it would be unfair on the kid if kids at school bullied them saying "Your Dad's a xxxxxxx" or whatever?

 

yes i would. that is a perfect example thank you. we are talking about adoption. there is an added subtilty needed there as not only are they adopted (pretty hard on the kid in the first place) but also have the social prejudeces against them.

 

i would ask you to find people from the 50s & 60s in that situation and i bet 90% of them would say they had a really tough childhood.

[Haver]

Yep and in England we have protests. While your dry sarcasm and highlighting of Western and Christian (two words that strike fear and loathing into any good political student) seems to invalidate your point. I assume you are talking then of the KKK's actions against homosexuals and blacks and Jews and just about anyone who wasn't a WASP. Yes of course this should be regonised and an element of this still exists in America. However it isn't condoned by the State (you can say whatever you want about George Bush but he certianly isn't a racist note the influnece Miss Rice has). Nor is it the dominant culture to be extreme in ones actions. Do not be confused that I am saying that it is not dominant in the culture for people to favour homosexual marrige or not (as in America you could point out they don't) but that is neither here nor there. It doesn't make them extremists it just makes them Christians of a different view. The nature of feeling and expression of it are totally different things and in both cases I think it would be naive and showing partisan political favour to Muslim extremists to compare the East and West in this insitance.

 

I'm pretty sure Kanye West would disagree.

 

A Christian fundamentalist who is pro-life, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-anyone-who's-not-a-WASP is just as abhorrent as an Islamic suicide bomber. And that Christian agenda is something that Bush has no choice but to endorse. The Bush dynasty falls without the Christian right.

[Haden]

I'm pretty sure Kanye West would disagree.

 

A Christian fundamentalist who is pro-life, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-anyone-who's-not-a-WASP is just as abhorrent as an Islamic suicide bomber. And that Christian agenda is something that Bush has no choice but to endorse. The Bush dynasty falls without the Christian right.

 

So one musicians highly emotional opinion at a tragic time is meant to tell us the factual state of a government?

 

Also your use of the word fundementalist puzzles me. I am a Christian myself and would cite that to be one its fundemental that you aren't a racist and you don't cast judgement and certianly dont act against people even if you disagree with them.

 

I think while Christianity in America is more right wing than in this country it isn't anything like the reactionary form of Islam seen in some states. Again you bring up the Bush government and his reliance on the Christian Right. I agree with you that there is a massive link however can you give me some legilslation that falls within your view that the Christian Right are dictating policies to Bush. Now when you do (and I am sure you wil find some things) and they turn out to be the promotion of faith schools and a half hearted attempt to define marrige as between a man and a woman in the constitution. The Supreme Court disaster was a fiasco though I give you that. Can you genuianlly compare this to a government that kills people for being gay or of a differing religion?

 

While some Christians may act in a extreme way. Abortion Clinic Killings are a case in point, this is a minority not a majority. The way you bring up pro life pressure groups and then say they are as "abhorrent" as Islamic suicide bombers is ridiclous to the point of contempt. If you meant the Murders that I just referred to then your point stands. But to label pressure groups with such hatred is a very dangerous and undemocratic stance.

[Haver]

So one musicians highly emotional opinion at a tragic time is meant to tell us the factual state of a government?

 

No, it really isn't.

 

Also your use of the word fundementalist puzzles me. I am a Christian myself and would cite that to be one its fundemental that you aren't a racist and you don't cast judgement and certianly dont act against people even if you disagree with them.

 

"Those that involve themselves in political campaigns to, for example, remove the separation of church and state in countries like the United States, outlaw abortion, premarital sex, gay marriage or reduce gay rights, are often more widely considered fundamentalists."

 

I compare Christian Fundamentalists and Islamic Fundamentalists in that they are, to my mind, fucking horrible concepts. Direct action, or not. I do not want to argue semantics, however.

 

I think while Christianity in America is more right wing than in this country it isn't anything like the reactionary form of Islam seen in some states. Again you bring up the Bush government and his reliance on the Christian Right. I agree with you that there is a massive link however can you give me some legilslation that falls within your view that the Christian Right are dictating policies to Bush. Now when you do (and I am sure you wil find some things) and they turn out to be the promotion of faith schools and a half hearted attempt to define marrige as between a man and a woman in the constitution. The Supreme Court disaster was a fiasco though I give you that. Can you genuianlly compare this to a government that kills people for being gay or of a differing religion?

 

No, and I don't intend to. However, the values held by the Christian Right are just as threatening to our society as the ones held by Islamic suicide bombers.

 

Of course the Christian Right doesn't 'dictate' policy, but they have a significant influence. After all, they handed Bush his second term.

 

Responding to Right-Wing Pressure, Bush Renews Call to Write Discrimination into the Constitution

In the 2005 State of the Union address on Feb. 2, Bush called for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, only weeks after saying in a January Washington Post interview that there was no need to keep pushing the issue, with the Defense of Marriage Act still in place. Bush reversed his position, presumably after groups of ultra-conservative supporters applied pressure.

 

http://www.ontheissues.org/George_W__Bush.htm

 

While some Christians may act in a extreme way. Abortion Clinic Killings are a case in point, this is a minority not a majority. The way you bring up pro life pressure groups and then say they are as "abhorrent" as Islamic suicide bombers is ridiclous to the point of contempt. If you meant the Murders that I just referred to then your point stands. But to label pressure groups with such hatred is a very dangerous and undemocratic stance.

 

Again, the values held by both groups are pretty sickening. Both would choose to inflict an agenda that will strip human beings of their freedoms.

 

(Obviously, these are the issues - that's not to say that all members of the Christian faith are anti-gay or anti-abortion or racist (which is less of an issue, I think) or whatever. The issues are on the table, however.)

 

Also, I'd rather this discussion drift away from George Bush, thanks. I'd rather forget.

[Haden]

"Those that involve themselves in political campaigns to, for example, remove the separation of church and state in countries like the United States, outlaw abortion, premarital sex, gay marriage or reduce gay rights, are often more widely considered fundamentalists."

 

I compare Christian Fundamentalists and Islamic Fundamentalists in that they are, to my mind, fucking horrible concepts. Direct action, or not. I do not want to argue semantics, however.

 

My point is that this is far from the true message of Christianity and thus I see the term "fundemental" as misleading. And I am afraid semantics is what is being argued as its tied into ideology and way of thinking. Right Wing Christian groups however much you disagree with them use democracy to try and change the law. While Islamic groups use force. While you may despise both ideologies. One will let you vote aginst it while the other requires you to fight against it. Which one sets a better example?

 

Again, the values held by both groups are pretty sickening. Both would choose to inflict an agenda that will strip human beings of their freedoms.

 

Freedoms are always kept in check by morality. Now while I don't agree with banning abortions, I'm not a big fan of the concept of an abortion. To some Christians its viewed as murder thus while you may see it as 'sickening' that freedoms are being attacked. To some not stopping abortion would be like leagalsing murder.

[LukeLee]

Yeah, its like saying, if you murdered people "I was born with murder genes, its not my fault!"

 

And i don't think they should addpot, it'll be really bad for the child and they'd get bullied and such.

 

Okay, this discussion has gone all over the place, so i feel i have alot to comment on. First i would say that there is currently no evidence of either a homosexual or 'murder' gene, so it's not an argument that can be sensibily taken given the lack of evidence.

 

I have mixed feelings about gay people adopting, i dont doubt there ability to parent, single mothers can do a fine job, there is no evidence to show that the lack of a male or female model has terrible effects, only evidence to the contray. I do agree that it could put the children in a position of severe bullying, which isnt fair on the child, however if we were to blame the gay parents then we should also blame coloured parents, parents with poor eyesight (genetics leading to glass wearing) for bring their children into a society where they will experience a difficult childhood. Instead it is society attitudes that should change and schools which should have a much tougher attitude on all bullying.

 

Someone said earlier they didnt like gay people because of campness and such. Well that's really buying into a media image, there are some people like that, however the media turning that 'some' into all. I have known gay people who are not the slightest bit camp, dont wear pink, mince, or speak with a lisp. Many gay people hate the images coming from gay pride and the tv characters like Julian Cliary or Shaun from Coronation Street, because those images are false and unrepresentative from many of people. I know some people may come back at me and say "well i've met camp gay people, they exist". I dont dispute that, but you've probably met plenty of people you didnt know were gay and you didnt know they were gay because they didnt make it visable to you. As Gamers this is something we should know quite well, before playstation gamers were portrayed as nerdy, spotty people who locked themselves away (same stereotype as star trek fans), since playstation and GTA we're seen as being a few steps away from brainwashed murderers.

 

About the christian extremism, it does exist, but it is not publicised like Islamic fundamentalism, partly because it is not in the interest of our society to show it in detail, and it is also given the excuse of being fundamental, not extreme. Try look up cases like Jim Jones and Jonestown, David Koresh as two highly extreme cases, mini-societies christian societies like these still exist. Also smaller cases like the attacks on abortion clinics and doctors, and earlier this year a small amount publicity surrounded an institution called 'Love In Action', who imprisoned gay youths, to try and turn them straight through brainwashing techniques. It wasnt given the focus it should of been and the organisation still exists. Also, look at the Pope and Vatican, because of his view of contraceptives millions of people are dying in Africa (would his views be the same if it was America or Europe?) - to me that is one of the worst examples ever.

 

Anyway, i should get to the topic title. I don't see any harm in it, i believe this is a great step forward, particularly for legal reasons concerning inheritance and illness. As for marrying in church, i think it doesnt really matter, priests who are okay are with marrying gay couples will do it now and who are not, would the couple really want their special day conducted by an unhappy, biggot of a priest who's been forced into it? I personally don't see how it has anything to do with the religious establishment, by large we dont live on many religious principles, we dont wait to be married before we have sex. We pick and choose what we listen to, just as they pick and choose what they preach, nowhere in the bible does Jesus speak about homosexuality and the establishment dont speak about who rich people can't get into heaven "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24). That's because the establish is rich and has alot of greed within it's own walls. At the end of the day, its just different interpretations of the same text, nothing is to say their interpretation is anymore correct, only they have elevated themselves and have some unjustified influence.

 

One thing i do find funny is that common quote "God made adam and eve, not adam and steve", theory is evolution has been widely accepted so any reference to adam and eve is redundant, it just illustrates the unoriginality and thoughtlessness of the speaker. I understand it is said in reference to what is "natural", however homosexuality also exists in animals (who live more naturally).

 

Anyway, that was a long post, i joined the thread a bit later on and wanted to comment on many areas.

[mike-zim]

i applaude you for the very well written post. i have some qualms though.

 

1) when talking about parents being irresponsible for bad gene's. there is no comparison there as they have children through natural means. we are talking about adoption that is a different matter.

 

2) you state that the preachings of the pope is a contributing factor to the aids epidemic in africa. that could not be further from the truth. they preach no sex before marrage. marrage is for life. therefor only 1 partners for a lifetime. well if they went by these teachings there would be no aids epidemic at all. but instead they decide to blame faith for saying it is a sin to use protection and go and mate like wild animals.

[Haver]

My point is that this is far from the true message of Christianity and thus I see the term "fundemental" as misleading. And I am afraid semantics is what is being argued as its tied into ideology and way of thinking.

 

I guess your argument is with Chaucer or somebody.

 

Right Wing Christian groups however much you disagree with them use democracy to try and change the law. While Islamic groups use force. While you may despise both ideologies. One will let you vote aginst it while the other requires you to fight against it. Which one sets a better example?

 

You're right. Nevertheless, both concepts are terrifying 'in my opinion'.

 

Freedoms are always kept in check by morality. Now while I don't agree with banning abortions, I'm not a big fan of the concept of an abortion. To some Christians its viewed as murder thus while you may see it as 'sickening' that freedoms are being attacked. To some not stopping abortion would be like leagalsing murder.

 

Sure. It's an issue. In contrast, I'd take a woman's right to choose over back-street abortions, abandoned kids and broken homes/marriages/lives anyday.

[Pestneb]

Sure. It's an issue. In contrast, I'd take a woman's right to choose over back-street abortions, abandoned kids and broken homes/marriages/lives anyday.

 

I think a part of the worry is over sliding morals.

sure morals can slide to a more positive stance, but they can also slide to a more negative position.

 

for example, how many people would say the following scenario is good having a baby born, waiting a couple of weeks, and then, if you decide you don't like the baby, just pop down to the abortion clinic, explain you don't feel ready for a baby yet, and you don't want the poor thing to grow up feeling rejected. they do checks to make sure you are the parent and the other parent agrees, kill the kid (smash the skull, lethal injection etc etc.) then pop the corpse in an incinerator.

 

 

now add a day to that babies age, and another day etc etc.

the age can creep up.

there are people who would be perfectly cool with the concept of having death booths, were either unwanted dependents can be disposed of, or those seeking suicide can cleanly and efficiently fulfill their wish.

 

then there are those who would find such a concept sick and twisted.

if you fall in the "thats sick and twisted" category, then I'm with you.

but everyone has different boundaries, and they justify them in different ways.

 

some are anti abortion because abortion crosses their boundaries, others are anti abortion because they are concerned that it may cross their boundaries in the future.

[LukeLee]

i applaude you for the very well written post. i have some qualms though.

 

1) when talking about parents being irresponsible for bad gene's. there is no comparison there as they have children through natural means. we are talking about adoption that is a different matter.

 

It was an extreme example of how we can worry about what we are bringing children into, parents with certain physical defects know if they have children they will also suffer from the disease/deffect. Also some people who are having a baby now worry about how their world will be when their an adult (concerning pollution). I can understand the difference with adoption and that choice of putting children in potentially high amounts of bullying, which is why i have mixed feelings on it. I do think much more should be done about bullying in general. Anyway, my point was that many people in society are bring kis into potentially harmful situations.

 

2) you state that the preachings of the pope is a contributing factor to the aids epidemic in africa. that could not be further from the truth. they preach no sex before marrage. marrage is for life. therefor only 1 partners for a lifetime. well if they went by these teachings there would be no aids epidemic at all. but instead they decide to blame faith for saying it is a sin to use protection and go and mate like wild animals.

 

I agree that it would be safer if everyone stuck to only one partner, however that doesnt happen and the church should be more lenient on the use of condoms to help prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS.

[Pestneb]

I agree that it would be safer if everyone stuck to only one partner, however that doesnt happen and the church should be more lenient on the use of condoms to help prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS.

 

Sorry, but if they don't use condoms because the church says not to, then they also have one partner, as the church says.

 

If they don't listen to the church about having a single partner, they don't listen to the church about condoms.

 

conclusion?

they don't LIKE condoms. or they can't afford them.

They feel that they need an excuse not to use them, so they claim its because the Catholic Church is against their use.

[Haver]

I'm pretty sure a lot of them don't have a choice in regards to multiple partners.

[Pestneb]

I'm pretty sure a lot of them don't have a choice in regards to multiple partners.

maybe so, but a lot do have a choice.

I saw a documentary, and this man interviewed some african guys who were infected. interview went along the lines of

"you know you have HIV. why don't you use condoms?"

"I'm going to die, why do I care about anyone else?"

 

with attitudes like that, to be totally frank, I'm surprised the HIV infection rates aren't even higher.

[Sarka]

Well... uuuh.. I'm completely lost on the argument you guysd are having and it's alot to read, so I'll just state some stuff that may not have to much realavence to what your tlaking about.

 

I think gay marriages are a fantastic thing! It's brilliant and hopefully some more people may take gay couples more seriously. I can't believ some people at school, such jerks. Saying that they hate all gay people. There was a fake election thingy in Modern Stuides and one of the parties campaigns was to killall gay people, well it was for a while anyway. I hae people like that.

 

I think gay people should be able to adopt, maybe not older 13/14 year olds, but if they apodted younger chikdren I think that they would get used to the idea and find ways to counter-act bullying and stuff... if that makes sence.

 

My mother thinks gay marriage is a good thing as "married people have many tax benefits".

[LukeLee]

The condom problem in Africa is very deep, the vatican has previously described condoms as completely useless and pointless. Also the supply of condoms in many communities have been influenced by religious leaders and the bush administration.

 

I agree Sarka, there are alot of morons out there. My brother says he has a friend who refuses to be in the same room as someone who is gay - i find it funny in a way, because it is incredibly niave to think you have ability to be aware of such situations.

[CooInTheZoo]

My brother says he has a friend who refuses to be in the same room as someone who is gay - i find it funny in a way, because it is incredibly niave to think you have ability to be aware of such situations.

 

There were some statistics i read a few years ago that said one in six people are gay. So in a classroom at school of 30odd...

 

It is an incredibly silly thing to say indeed

[dukkadukka]

sorry coo, but it's closer to one in fifty, last i heard the figure's around 2% of the population(in britain at least). if the figure were closer to one in six i doubt homophobia would even exist.

[LukeLee]

sorry coo, but it's closer to one in fifty, last i heard the figure's around 2% of the population(in britain at least). if the figure were closer to one in six i doubt homophobia would even exist.

 

The figure i often heard was 1 in 10. The problem is, it's near impossible to measure. If you ask people, many will lie, so how else can you measure it? There isnt an accurate method, so we cant really get an accurate perception on what the ratio is. Also, who would you include in the ratio? people who are bisexual? straight people who admit to once having gay sex but still consider themselves straight?

 

Like i said before, unlike people of various skin colour, it is by large an invisible minority group. Some choose to use that invisbility, going as far as marrying and dating women (elton was married to a woman before). Also because of the invisibility there is a decreased amount of unity, making it a minority group more vulnerable to prejudices.