Texas Leg. to gay - NO KIDS FOR YOU!

USIncognito · Post by **USIncognito** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:56 am

(please forgive the Seinfeld Soup Nazi pithyness, this is a serious topic)

The Texas house in a larger bill concerning an overhall of Child Protective Services passed it with a last minute amendment forbidding allowing gay couples from being foster parents. The amendment even has provisions for the questioning of potential foster parents about their sexual orientation, and taking away foster children if it's later found out the gay foster parent misrepresented themselves as straight.

Gay issues aren't big on my agenda, but this action outrages me. From a purely practical point, the more foster households there are in Texas the better. Eliminating any portion of them, except for those with sex offenders, drug addics, etc. can only hurt the children of Texas who are determined to need foster care. From a pragmatic point, as was saliently pointed out by Howard Stern (of all people), gay couples would, knowing the public eye was on them, would be extra careful and caring while being foster parents.

But the one thing that really outraged me about this amendment is that the apparent basis for adding it by the representative who did so, was an effort to keep children from being - and I parodically paraphrase - "to prevent them from recruiting children into the homosexual lifestyle choice." I have to wonder if people like said representative get their information from the American Psychological Association or from James Dobson when I read things like that...

DanMRaymond · Post by **DanMRaymond** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:35 pm

So basically what you're saying is that when Christianity decides that a tradition should be changed its all good, but when anybody else tries to change tradition they're selfish and self-centered. And when anybody thats Christian changes things for the worse, they're not considered real Christians.

And you say that we're trying to redefine marriage into chaos, what exactly does that mean? I hardly think chaos is the right word to use there. And the word marriage is being assaulted? Come on.

You talk about how progressives ruined the environment, although I doubt you're out there on any forums like this one, trying to convince people to save the environment. You could care less about the environment; you're too busy worrying about the meaning of a word! Clearly this is a more important issue to Christians in the USA.

And this stupid compromise that the Republicans are trying to offer - "two legally adult people can form a legal bond of responsibility for each other" - If I were gay I would take that kind of legislation as an insult.... actually....as a matter of fact I do take it as an insult as a human being. Give them the right to marry like they deserve as equal human beings. These half-assed ideas are nothing but a failed attempt at keeping gays from pushing for the legalization of marriage, but its not going to work. They're going to achieve the goal and it will be legal. 50 years from then, when all of the sheltered, ignorant people get over it, nobody will care and we'll move on to the next issue.

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:58 pm

Denominations prove the willingness of Christianty to allow for "free thinking." But absolutes are also absolutes.

Are you saying that because a person is a Christian that they have no right to a social and political voice???

When does redefining marriage stop? That is 100% fair to ask. Very logical. When it fits who's agenda?

Whereas, you defy and deny empiricism to fit your personal views. So perfectly typical of a Humanist. Absolutes are expunged by an ad hoc Grant by any hypothetical fantasy. As long as "whomever" has a doctorate.

Darwin's finches are still all birds after all the theories go round and round.

What I mentioned about Progressives is the desire to see that there is really good and evil. And NOT just on a religious level. Do you fight against the ubiquity of editorialists and entertainers degrading of Christians in every form of media in society? Every single day?

Seems like those who think about the homosexual agenda (as there really being one), aren't as hysterical as they're made out to be. Civil unions of any two adults is exactly the rights they desire, yet, they somehow need and want the word "marriage." Purely for legitamacy. Purely agenda-based. And to have caution on this subject is rational.

Like I mentioned, where does the chaos stop? I know you somehow believe we "started" that way but how the justification for its continuing? There is no evolutionary support for homosexuality as not being an aberration of the natural condition. They should wise up and make its practice a religion.

Read this:http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/takeover.asp

Although I don't like batting example back and forth and would rather reason as individuals, the url is interesting.

DanMRaymond · Post by **DanMRaymond** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:56 pm

I never said a thing about Christians not being able to have a social or political voice. You are just on the defensive, and aren't even reading and understanding my posts accurately. You still haven't answered my question - What is chaotic about it? Who will be physically harmed by a legislation to legalize gay marriage? How does being gay harm anyone in the first place? What the hell chaos are you talking about?

Thanks for showing me that website but it doesn't really prove anything to me. I like the section where they call O'Reilly a sellout for supporting gay rights. These people are heartless.

Marriage is not about a man and a woman. It's about love. It's about a certain kind of love that you have for another person that you want to bring to a new level. (i dont even agree that marriage is worth anything other than financial benefits, but apparently most people do) These people love each other and want to get married. Gay people can love each other too. It's the same situation except they're the same sex. What does marriage have to do with? LOVE. Nothing more.

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:19 pm

"I never said a thing about Christians not being able to have a social or political voice. You are just on the defensive, and aren't even reading and understanding my posts accurately. You still haven't answered my question - What is chaotic about it? Who will be physically harmed by a legislation to legalize gay marriage? How does being gay harm anyone in the first place? What the hell chaos are you talking about."

///

Do the math. How does a populace where everyone does what they want remain a managable society? Even the Caesar, Augustus tried to reign in your kind of rationality.

NOW, opposition to homosexuality is always blamed on specifically the Christians. Yet American Christians supposedly have the same right to vote as everyone else unless it goes against the Progressives. It works both ways. Christians are belittled and degraded, like I said, everyday everywhere, whereas that is not allowed and outlawed to every other people. I am defensive about a fact of discrimination?

Why aren't evolutionary voices opposing what's empirically unnatural? (They certainly do on Christ.) How are not the loudest voices on this topic subject from our scientists? Because, their personal belief system clouds their judgment that's how. How can you be "homosexual" and have a desire towards rearing children? That's somehow a bigoted statement? It's a rationally based question that has already been answered by anatomy. Genitals declare sexual orientation. Which book of science disproves this? Psychology? Which book written by which psychologist? Still, parts are parts.

I doubt highly that you value the voice of anyone who claims a belief in absolutes. Yet, you yourself are defined by it as an "atheist." An absolute assertion. On what basis do you choose right from wrong? I'll bet Darwinian. But before I categorize homosexuality by that position . . .

The chaos is obvious. One little individual faction attacks the institution of marriage and wants to redefines it by using the political process. And when that won't work they redefine the process and demand acceptance over the democratic majority by some judge somewhere going against the law. Why not Pederasts? What about Polygamy? What about animal marriages to humans? These are fair and logical questions.

Relativism is as much a disease to makind as a panacea. I cannot see how you cannot see the logic in that. I once thought that atheists were openminded. They appeal to logic and scientific empiricism until logic and observable facts forces them to see they are wrong.

Texas state legislators did what was their right to do. Why not accept it? Isn't that what you demand of me?

As you point out, the historic insanity of relativism will rule society again some day and at that point "I" will have to accept it. For now natural law will have a voice.

DanMRaymond · Post by **DanMRaymond** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:49 pm

AlAyeti wrote: Do the math. How does a populace where everyone does what they want remain a managable society? Even the Caesar, Augustus tried to reign in your kind of rationality.

What kind of thing is that to say? The constitution of our country is based on the allowance of everybody to do what they want, with the exception of things that HARM OTHER PEOPLE.

AlAyeti wrote: NOW, opposition to homosexuality is always blamed on specifically the Christians. Yet American Christians supposedly have the same right to vote as everyone else unless it goes against the Progressives. It works both ways. Christians are belittled and degraded, like I said, everyday everywhere, whereas that is not allowed and outlawed to every other people. I am defensive about a fact of discrimination?

No you're being defensive about a subject that I hadn't even touched on. You continue to defend yourself against comments that I have not made.

AlAyeti wrote: Why aren't evolutionary voices opposing what's empirically unnatural? (They certainly do on Christ.) How are not the loudest voices on this topic subject from our scientists? Because, their personal belief system clouds their judgment that's how. How can you be "homosexual" and have a desire towards rearing children? That's somehow a bigoted statement? It's a rationally based question that has already been answered by anatomy. Genitals declare sexual orientation. Which book of science disproves this? Psychology? Which book written by which psychologist? Still, parts are parts.

How is it BIGOTED to want to raise children if you're gay. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. I think you mean that if you're gay that it automatically means you don't want to raise a child because you can't naturally have a child of your own with a member of the same sex.

The reason why the loudest voices on this topic arent coming from scientists could be that there may be scientific proof around the corner of homosexuality being natural, and they are going to be the ones that discover it. I'm sure that most scientists don't believe that allowing gay marriage will create "chaos" either.

AlAyeti wrote: I doubt highly that you value the voice of anyone who claims a belief in absolutes. Yet, you yourself are defined by it as an "atheist." An absolute assertion. On what basis do you choose right from wrong? I'll bet Darwinian.

I choose right and wrong by using my own experiences and knowledge. I figure out what the best decision is and then I act. I don't consider things that wont physically effect somebody in a negative manner to be wrong. Being gay doesn't fit in the "wrong" category. It is harmless, and so is gay marriage.

AlAyeti wrote: The chaos is obvious. One little individual faction attacks the institution of marriage and wants to redefines it by using the political process. And when that won't work they redefine the process and demand acceptance over the democratic majority by some judge somewhere going against the law. Why not Pederasts? What about Polygamy? What about animal marriages to humans? These are fair and logical questions.

They're not attacking an institution, they're merely asking for acceptance and want to be included. Look at the definition of the word "attack" before you use it like that. They're not attacking anything.

The problem with pedophiles is that they are having sex with people who may not be mature enough to consent. In most cases they are forced into it. That's a different story, for it is a matter of rape.

Polygamy? I have absolutely no problem with polygamy. I'm in no position to judge someone else's way of life if it isn't harming me at all. Actually I wouldn't mind taking part in polygamy. It sounds like a good idea to me.

Animal marriages to humans? I doubt animals can understand what marriage is, so that's kind of pointless to bring up. Honestly I couldn't care less if people wanted to marry animals. Who cares?

AlAyeti wrote: Relativism is as much a disease to makind as a panacea. I cannot see how you cannot see the logic in that. I once thought that atheists were openminded. They appeal to logic and scientific empiricism until logic and observable facts forces them to see they are wrong.

I love how you categorize atheists as if we have some sort of belief system that we all live by. That is a false assumption. The only thing every atheist has in common is that they do not believe in a God. There may be an atheist who agrees with absolutely everything that you believe in, with the exception of God. You must not understand that. OR you're basically stereotyping atheists, which does nothing but make you look more ignorant. I hope you weren't doing that.

AlAyeti wrote: Texas state legislators did what was their right to do. Why not accept it? Isn't that what you demand of me?

Why not accept it? Do you think blacks and women should have accepted not being able to vote? Do you think that blacks should have accepted not being able to go to a white school? They don't accept it because as human beings they are entitled equal rights, and they have no reason to give up until they achieve that goal. I will continue to assist them and fight on their side.

AlAyeti wrote: As you point out, the historic insanity of relativism will rule society again some day and at that point "I" will have to accept it. For now natural law will have a voice.

Well I hope you live in Texas, where natural law is in effect. I will continue living in NY and going to college in MA, where chaos and insanity might soon be upon us!

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:06 pm

Your last two sentences say it all.

Orthodox Jews and any Muslim, would be highly offended if someone tried to force them to accept eating pork or tolerating pork eating in their synagouges and mosques, OR, in their private social lives.

Why is there such a powerful agenda forcing Biblically based Christians to accept something that they find so offensive? Paul was clear on how he felt about both male and female homosexuality. And the Old Testament is absolute. Paul lived in a society where it was utterly accepted.

Why can't homosexuals simply start their own religion and call it a day. Everything about the belief of homosexuality is faith-based by definition anyway.

Why the acceptance of offending Christians?

DanMRaymond · Post by **DanMRaymond** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:49 am

This is hardly comparable to having people eat pork that aren't supposed to eat pork. This has nothing to do with anybody else other than homosexuals. And no, the Old Testament is not absolute because our country's laws are secular. If they're getting married by a judge, and not by the church, then it has absolutely nothing to do with religion at all, and the church should stay out of it. If you want to keep gay marriage away from the church, by all means do it.

Homosexuality is not faith-based. Homosexuals do not need scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is real. They know it is real because they are homosexuals. Why would they start their own religoin?

Once again, the main point here is that it doesn't matter if Christians find this offensive, because if done by the courts, marriage has nothing to do with the Christian religion. The church has absolutely no business taking part in secular affairs. This has nothing to do with the church. If Christians wish to debate this topic, they should come up with non-bible references and facts that prove gay marriage will be harmful, but they can't do it in the name of God becuase that is not how our country is run and it never will be.

President Bush said it best last night (By no means do I support him or his administration) - "As I said, I think faith is a personal issue. And I take great strength from my faith. But I don't condemn somebody in the political process because they may not agree with me on religion."

So religion all set aside, what are the true reasons why homosexuality and homosexual marriage can hurt society? And don't forget homosexuality has existed for a long time, so you should try to use some historical examples.

LillSnopp · Post by **LillSnopp** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:55 pm

Why is there such a powerful agenda forcing Biblically based Christians to accept something that they find so offensive? Paul was clear on how he felt about both male and female homosexuality. And the Old Testament is absolute. Paul lived in a society where it was utterly accepted.

However much i dont agree with AlAyeti thoughts about most things, the Bible states it very clearly. And i would have to agree that if you claim to be Christian, you need to follow the Christian Doctrine, homosexuality goes against this.

Why can't homosexuals simply start their own religion and call it a day. Everything about the belief of homosexuality is faith-based by definition anyway.

Now you start sounding like certain Creationists, trying to combine athiesm with religion. As i tell them, Homosexuality (nor atheism) is a religion, so i dont understand your comment here. I never heard such a ludicrous comment. You need to find out what ´religion´ means.

Here are some links for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

The two that popped up in my head. Homosexuality has to do with the Sexuality of someone, not faith in some sort of devine power or similar. Im sorry.

Why the acceptance of offending Christians?

Once again, Pardon? Christians claim to be offended by most things, why would anyone bother with caring for the ´acceptance´ of it. Its Christians whom lack respect for other people.

The Homosexual Christians i met are mostly far pleasant and less of a hypocrite then most Christians i met. Think about that.

LillSnopp · Post by **LillSnopp** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:59 pm

I. President Bush said it best last night (By no means do I support him or his administration) - "As I said, I think faith is a personal issue. And I take great strength from my faith. But I don't condemn somebody in the political process because they may not agree with me on religion."

George W Bush is lying. He stated in an earlier speech or whatever that is, that atheists should not be counted as a citizen (see quote II). Not only ignorant and discriminatory, he also shows that he has no problems lying (see quote I)).

II.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

"Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

I must presume he knew Shermans stance(?)

Dilettante · Post by **Dilettante** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:48 pm

LillSnopp wrote:

George W Bush is lying. He stated in an earlier speech or whatever that is, that atheists should not be counted as a citizen (see quote II).

Actually it was George H W Bush (Bush senior) who said that, not George W Bush. You're mixing up two different presidents.