Gay Marriage Opponents Fear Conn. Bill Will Promote Homosexuality

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:38 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

I'd like to add my two cents on this issue (if the moderator so allows).

I find the comments about SJ fear-mongering quite ironic. It's equally matched by the comments coming out against gay marriage. It will "have effects no one could ever imagine..." and so on. When will all of you learn that it is not your place to force your beliefs on society at large. Homosexuals are citizens just like you and are entitled to the same protections and rights which you all enjoy.

And as far as the details of the article are concerned it's rationally absurd that anyone should be up in arms over the removal of the language from the anti-discrimination law. Clearly, no one is going to have quotas. Even in the absence of such language in the bill there would be enough cause to hold such practices illegal. As for the language regarding "condoning" gay marriage or allowing it to be taught in schools I have a similar response the flies in the face of your assertions. It's not a salient issue of if a state "condones" any practice of its citizens. There are only permitted and prohibited practices. You could make the argument that with permission there is condoning; however, by those standards marriage itself is being condoned and merely the definition of who may participate in the practice is being expanded. As for the school point, it would stand to reason that if the state is allowing same sex couples to marry there should be some mention that the lifestyle exists. That is not to say that the mechanics of sex of any kind should be taught to children before middle school but the simple premise of a family coming in different forms is more than acceptable. If you want to raise your kids in a bubble move to an isolated community somewhere that the population density is less than 10 people per square mile and make sure that you have no television or other form of communication. Same sex couples exist. Come October 2010 they will be recognized as married under CT state law and as such should not be relegated to the shadows or the fringes of society.

Calif. Legislature Goes on Record Opposing Prop. 8

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Chaplain, while that may be the case, that in no way is dispositive on the issue of if same-sex should be allowed under California law. That's the fatal error that you and all other devout Christians are making in this debacle.

First, the tenets of your bible may be binding on you and your fellow Christians but they have absolutely no bearing on those outside your faith. I have more use for your bible as a paperweight or doorstop than I do as a moral compass.

Second, your own religious sentiments are not a valid basis for crafting law. Courtesy of the constitutions of the fine state of California and the United States of America individuals have certain rights afforded to them. Said rights may not be revoked simply based upon a popular vote.

Third, and this is related to the second point, it is both obscene and fiendishly selfish of the Christian community to enforce their religious dogma on those outside their faith, in effect bringing about an abridgment of fundamental rights of citizens. The California supreme court has previously explicitly held marriage to be a fundamental right, and subsequently interpreted the term to include same-sex unions. The US Supreme Court has also held that marriage is a fundamental right. As such, just because it conflicts with your beliefs you have pushed through a proposition that revokes fundamental rights from citizens in contravention of the state and federal constitutions.

Calif. Legislature Goes on Record Opposing Prop. 8

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Chaplain, while that may be the case, that in no way is dispositive on the issue of if same-sex should be allowed under California law. That's the fatal error that you and all other devout Christians are making in this debacle.

First, the tenets of your bible may be binding on you and your fellow Christians but they have absolutely no bearing on those outside your faith. I have more use for your bible as a paperweight or doorstop than I do as a moral compass.

Second, your own religious sentiments are not a valid basis for crafting law. Courtesy of the constitutions of the fine state of California and the United States of America individuals have certain rights afforded to them. Said rights may not be revoked simply based upon a popular vote.

Third, and this is related to the second point, it is both obscene and fiendishly selfish of the Christian community to enforce their religious dogma on those outside their faith, in effect bringing about an abridgment of fundamental rights of citizens. The California supreme court has previously explicitly held marriage to be a fundamental right, and subsequently interpreted the term to include same-sex unions. The US Supreme Court has also held that marriage is a fundamental right. As such, just because it conflicts with your beliefs you have pushed through a proposition that revokes fundamental rights from citizens in contravention of the state and federal constitutions.

7 States Sue Over Rule on Health Workers

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

That was my very point. Allowing these poor excuses for doctors, who incidentally took the hypocratic oath, to make the decision to decline to perform abortions and the like paves the way for an influx of like minded (and I use the term "minded" loosely)into that particular practice to stonewall anyone who is pursuing that option.

Moreover, what place do these individuals have working in places where they clearly are unwilling and unable to perform their professional responsibilities? I don't take a job that requires me to work at night if I have to be home at sundown...

Why Israel Must Finish the Fight in Gaza

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

For the record, I am against the settlements and truth be told it's rarely the native Israelis who are the settlers, rather it's immigrants from the US who feel that they have been called by the Lord to do so. Meanwhile they, in general, refuse to participate in the military (including their children) and thereby require other Israelis to do their fighting and risk life and limb to protect their obviously provocative behavior.

That being said, it still wouldn't matter if the Israelis got rid of all the settlements, pulled back to the 67 borders (which they expanded both as a result of a mass attack by their neighbors and to create a secure perimeter, like in the golan heights which otherwise would be ripe for launching mortars) and lifted the embargo in toto the Palestinians still would not be interested in peace. They have too much to lose by doing so. If they did that they would lose all their support from Iran. Moreover, it is one of the founding principles of the Palestinian Authority that Israel must be eradicated.

How many chances must be given to Hamas and the Palestinians before they agree to a long term peace? No doubt there will be another cease fire soon and within months if not weeks Hamas will resume its rocket attacks. No doubt the rest of the world will once again look the other way and excuse their deplorable actions. Instead they will lament their poor treatment and living conditions, never once stopping to wonder why their brothers and sisters in the surrounding Arab nations never once invited them into their nation to settle permanently.

The Palestinians are an artificially maintained black sheep to garner hatred and animosity towards the Israelis. They are brainwashed into giving their lives, acting as human shields and dying of poverty, simply for purposes of propaganda.

The Idol of Our Many Understandings - Bishop Robinson at Prayer

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:19 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Cowboy and Feet, you are both disgustingly narrow viewed on this matter. I find it utterly amazing that you can be disgusted at an attempt by an incoming president to make sure that all Americans are represented, respected and blessed during the impending inauguration. Surely you're not going to claim that Warren is an "inclusive" figure. It's quite telling that you're seeing Robinson's participation as potentially offensive because he dares to maintain a relationship with the Lord despite being a homosexual and will provide a prayer that is inclusive of the entire citizenry of the US regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation whereas a strictly Christian prayer from an individual who mounted a campaign to revoke fundamental rights from California state citizens is "inclusive" and not offensive?

If we left things to people like you we'd be the Christian equivalent of the Taliban.

7 States Sue Over Rule on Health Workers

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:11 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

I applaud these lawsuits. It is asinine that individuals within the medical profession would take it upon themselves to shirk the responsibilities they assumed upon entering the profession. If people want religious guidance they go to Church or what have you. If people are interested in medical treatment they go to a hospital, doctor's office or a clinic. Frankly, if your conscience prevents you from doing anything that relates to abortion or some other "morally repugnant" medical procedure then just don't take that job. Individuals who do not and have no reason to ascribe to your moral code should not be refused treatment based upon your beliefs. This would unfairly open the door to a mass influx into these medical establishments of individuals who will institute a de facto policy of no emergency contraceptives, and no abortion, taking the decision away from the legislature and courts.

Is Israel Always Right?

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Thu Jan 15, 2009 6:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

What the columnist fails to appreciate is that proportionality is no a viable option here. The fact of the matter is that Hamas' strategy is specifically designed to frustrate any attempt at proportionality. They dress as civilians, and operate out of homes, hospitals, schools and mosques. They use their fellow citizens as human shields so that any attempt to fight back, which is undoubtedly the right of the Israelis, is couched in the choice between utter inaction or action with the inevitable effect of harming and/or killing civilians.

One cannot blame the Israelis for wanting to protect their nation.

Additionally, it is pointless to rely on any of the casualty data coming out of gaza. Outside media access is highly restricted and the Palestinians have on many occasions grossly inflated their casualty numbers in order to further their propaganda campaign. Lest we not forget Jenin where the Palestinians exaggerated their death count by at least a factor of 10, so that the actual 50 or so deaths were magically transformed into at least 500-1000. So considering that the news is reporting a ratio of 7 Palestinian deaths to every 1 Israeli one, there's a significant chance that in reality there have indeed been more Israeli casualties.

Regardless of the death toll, the blame for the civilian casualties should and must be laid squarely on the shoulders of Hamas. When you put your civilians in danger, both by provoking a military response through thousands of rocket attacks and by using them as shields, they will undoubtedly die.

Why Israel Must Finish the Fight in Gaza

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Thu Jan 15, 2009 6:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

I whole heartedly agree.

Israel has no choice but to see this through and do what it takes to ensure its people's safety. It cannot be blamed for the fact that the cowardly Hamas fighters use their own citizens as human shields, intentionally placing them in the line of fire to ensure maximum propaganda.

How quickly people forget 2 things. First, in 1948, the UN was all ready to provide the Palestinians with their own state along side Israel and they refused. Second, it is a basic tenet of Palestinian society that Israel must be eradicated.

Not much chance for sitting at the table and negotiating a peace.

Fight the good fight Israel!

Christian Counselor was 'Wrongfully Dismissed'

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Believer, as is our custom we tend to branch off and have our own sub-discussion.

I'll concede that there are probably some in the gay community that see their quest as "recruiting." In any group of people there will be outliers from the norms. Putting them aside for the moment and focusing on the majority of the gay community, I have a different light to cast on your "being natural" argument. It it more the issue that significant portions of society do not see homosexuality as normal or natural that in their eyes necessitates the teaching and celebration. Just as the proselytizing comes from a good place (most of the time) for the most part (conceding the existence of the aforementioned outliers) the celebration and teaching comes from a desire to afford younger individuals, who in their own soul searching may discover that they are homosexual, an easier time adjusting and being accepted by their peers. By no means is it a perfect system and perhaps as larger society becomes more accepting and accustomed to homosexuals and homosexual relationships such intrusive presentations will not be necessary.

Christian Counselor was 'Wrongfully Dismissed'

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Believer, I was never insinuating that your son has homophobic tendencies. I was merely expressing my doubt that the incident occurred exactly as you describe. If it did then there's no question that it was inappropriate and unacceptable. However, as I suspect, if they were merely suggesting that people do their own soul searching and providing personal anecdotes about how they came to their own realizations to facilitate the soul searching of the students then there is really no problem with that. As you mentioned, it is a long process to find oneself. This is a lifelong journey and my guess is that they trying to help the students along, gay or straight.

The thing that I will never understand about the Christians on this board is why they assume that everyone is so easily indoctrinated. The fact that someone says that homosexuality is acceptable doesn't mean that by listening and perhaps even becoming tolerant leads to homosexuality.

Gay NH Bishop to Offer Prayer at Inaugural Event

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:43 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

First of all, Fifth Seal, despite what many of the fundamentalists are saying, you are quite sharp and spot on in your rational approach towards understanding the significance of religious texts rather than taking them as snippets and parroting a priest or other religious teacher.

Second, it is quite telling about the rest of you who are decrying Robinson's decision to say a prayer for the ENTIRE NATION. You all are so self centered and un-American it makes me sick. An inauguration prayer should be inclusive of all Americans. To do otherwise is to wholly discount non-Christians across this nation.

Christian Counselor was 'Wrongfully Dismissed'

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Believer, not to call you out on your anecdote I still think that something got lost in translation here. Clearly you weren't there and are relying upon second hand information. The most likely fact pattern is that the group of advocates came to your son's school, laid out those signs and then encouraged the students who exhibited those signs to consider if they were indeed gay, and if so come out of the closet. There is a world of difference between encouraging soul searching to find your identity and declaring that if you demonstrate these signs (other than an enjoyment of sexual intercourse with someone of your own gender) you are homosexual.

Christian Counselor was 'Wrongfully Dismissed'

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:06 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Star2, it is amazing how quickly you can descend from the reasonable to the absurd.

"There are gay organizations, and liberal school administrators/lawmakers that are wanting to exposed young children in kindegarden and the early years in elementary school that gay behavior is an acceptable lifestyle without parental consent."

So far pretty reasonable. I can understand that some misguided and ignorant parents might not want their kids to learn tolerance. However, by your own words they are merely teaching that such lifestyles are acceptable. At the end of the day, as the MA Supreme Court stated the goal of schools is to produce healthy and well adjusted children who can be productive members of society. Considering that there are gay Americans and that they will not be going anywhere any time soon, it is in the state's interest to foster ACCEPTANCE of gays. Early childhood is actually the most appropriate time to teach these things because it is before the children have any concept of sexualized behavior and rather just learn to understand the loving relationship aspect of homosexuality (which I have no doubt some plebeians here will refute).

"Some even have taught the children that if they possess some trait that is considered a trait that is considered more suitable to the opposite sex than that means that they are gay and they should pursue that orientation."

Here is where you delve into the absurd. This is likely based on anecdotal evidence from someone with an agenda of their own. No question that if that actually occurred that teacher should be fired for overstepping his or her bounds; however, you surely can't believe that this is the norm. In any case, please provide documentary proof as to this claim if you expect anyone who doesn't believe everything the bible says to lend it any credence.

Christian Counselor was 'Wrongfully Dismissed'

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:40 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Star2 I still don't understand the whole "force their lifestyle" argument works. Is it to be claimed that by their very existence in public that the gays are trying to convert heterosexuals? Or is it that by seeking to be free of persecution they are trying to force that conversion? This "indoctrination" of which you speak is geared towards tolerance of a lifestyle that is not often included in traditional discussions of family structure. How is it that you and the rest of your community can't distinguish tolerance from conversion? I tolerate the existence of Christians and am accepting towards them privately practicing their beliefs, but that certainly doesn't mean that I have any motivation to convert to Christianity. In the same vein, how is it then impossible to acknowledge that you can be tolerant of and respectful towards gays, their personhood and privacy, without risking conversion of yourself or your children to homosexuality?

Christian Counselor was 'Wrongfully Dismissed'

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Let's see:
1. I am not gay. Many of my friends and family are and as such I fight fiercely to defend them against the ignorant and misinformed.

2. Am I biased? I suppose you could say that I am. Granted, I wasn't claiming that my opinions were infallible studies or proof of a vast conspiracy.

Christian Counselor was 'Wrongfully Dismissed'

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Star2, for lack of a better word your "citation" of the gay agenda is RETARDED. As a preliminary matter, it really doesn't make sense to cite a highly biased source as authoritative. I'm quite certain that there is no independent peer review for anything coming out of family.org. I would like this to referring to the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to demonstrate the tenets of the vast Zionist Conspiracy.

So let's walk through these 7 aforementioned goals:
1. I think you're confusing tolerance with indoctrination. Granted to you all who are mired in dogma they may appear the same but showing that gay couples exist and that it's ok is a far cry from indoctrinating, which would be more along the lines of YOU ALL SHOULD BECOME GAY.

2. Or they could just be trying to raise awareness of the situation in the hope of actually bringing about some change. Anyway, don't you Christians take the same tactic when spreading the gospel to everyone and anyone within earshot?

3. Maybe they're talking about tragedies inflicted on gays because...they actually do happen? No one, regardless of race, creed, or religion should be physically abused on account of law abiding behavior and legally protected personal choices.

4. Again, a demonstration of the low intelligence level of people involved with making these conspiracy theories, considering that disenfranchised means deprived of the rights of citizenship (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=disenfranchised), gays are indeed disenfranchised. While the below average intelligence layperson will connect disenfranchisement solely with voting it actually applies to all rights connected to citizenship. Marriage is a fundamental right according to both the US and CA Supreme Courts and in CA that fundamental right applies regardless of the genders of the participants in the marriage.

5. Gays are normal and stable people. They hold down jobs, pay their taxes, obey the law, love their significant others & children and all those other things that "normal people" do.

6. The Christians can hold to their biblical beliefs all they want. The problem is that you're not confining that belief to yourselves. It has to be pushed on everyone else, with the expectation of adherence. This is closer to my definition of indoctrination. The gays just want to be able to do their own thing without outside interference or harassment; whereas the Christian community wants everyone to do things strictly according to their own moral code and injects itself into spheres uninvited and unwanted.

7. Lobbying costs money. Not everyone has the massively loaded church on its side.

I'll concede that there are certainly activists in the gay community who are more in line with the original conspiracy theory than my explanation but by and large the statements Star2 "cited" are rubbish and inapplicable to the gay community.

Ill. Court Revives Suit Over 'Morning-After' Pill

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

As I have said elsewhere this is an absurd argument. You become a pharmacist to serve the patients who come in not to impress your moral code upon them. If you come into the job knowing that you are unable to carry out your full responsibilities start looking for another job. Allowing such behavior leads to a clandestine ability to skirt the legal system as it applies to reproductive rights. Theoretically, were pharmacists allowed to shirk their responsibilities, a mass influx of dogmatic individuals could descend on pharmacology with the intent to permeate every pharmacy in a given area such that birth control becomes wholly inaccessible.

Prop. 8 Backers Blast Calif. Attorney General

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Prophet, insomuch as my life revolves around writing clearly and unambiguously, I think your statement is best put as this:

But one thing is for certain. CHRISTIANS BELIEVE Homosexuality is a sin. And CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT those who choose to continue in it will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

When you're dealing with religious BELIEFS it's not a mater of facts. BELIEFS are just that. You have to account for the fact that people out there believe differently from you and that someone else believing other than you do does not affect your ability to hold onto and abide by your beliefs.

Prop. 8 Backers Blast Calif. Attorney General

Yes_I_am_a_Jew »

Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Tom, I don't know why you're grouping me in with anyone who's using or referring to the bible. I don't think it's useful for much of anything beyond a paperweight. My entire point was one about law and society. I could really care less what you believe so long as you keep it to yourself and out of my and everyone else's affairs. Your particular notion of sin should not inform the laws of society, many of whom do not follow your belief system, but rather inform your own personal conduct. If the "sinners" want to "sin" let them do so. Prescribing morality means that it's meaningless to do good because you have no other choice.