<p>I guess Barney Frank wouldn’t be allowed in any classrooms.</p>
<p>
OK, at least we’re a little bit more on topic. Mr. B, your examples would be interesting and appropriate in a biology class, ID or not; species mutating or evolving in order to continue the process of procreation. I like it. Teleology is at the heart of the theory of evolution. Now, when we move next door, to Miss dstark’s biology class, what does her special guest, Rep. Barney Frank, say to student questions about the evolution of homosexuality and its purpose in the secular tree of life?</p>
<p>kluge,</p>
<p>You apparently place “the formation of a lasting bond of love and mutual caring and responsibility between two adults” as the highest or most important virtue to which a couple can strive, independent of the gender of their partners. You also seem to believe that a long-term monogamous homosexual relationship is just as good as a long-term monogamous heterosexual marriage. My opinion differs from yours.</p>
<p>According to my religion, God designed marriage so that one man and one woman would be married for life (for those who do not remain single). Extra-marital heterosexual sex (pre-marital sex and adultery) and extra-marital homosexual sex are both contrary to the teaching of the Bible. Hence, all relationships that are not monogamous are certainly considered immoral. However, monogamy is not the sole criterion. God also specified that one man should be married to one woman.</p>
<p>I certainly have nothing against “the formation of a lasting bond of love and mutual caring and responsibility between two adults,” even independent of gender. Two men can love each other (for example, I love my brother) and care for each other and even share responsibility. However, that does not EXEMPT those two individuals from God’s command that sex is exclusively to be enjoyed within a marriage between a man and a woman. </p>
<p>Liberals tend to use the word “homophobe” in an attempt to scare off those who will not endorse homosexual sex as moral. I certainly am rational, and I have no fear or hatred of homosexuals. Similarly, I have no fear or hatred of heterosexuals. Nontheless, I would still tell my son who attends college that God intends for him to wait until marriage before he has sex. Does this mean that I am a “sonophobe”? Perhaps, according to a BOGUS non-definition similar to “homophobe”. But my son knows that I love him and that I would give my right arm for him. As a matter of fact, he probably knows that we have a “lasting bond of love and mutual caring and responsibility”.</p>
<p>Atheists follow the bible better than conservative Christians:
<a href=“http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm[/url]”>http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm</a></p>
<p>FountainSiren, Jews don’t do well either.</p>
<p>pafather, </p>
<p>How would a homosexual affect your son’s attitude toward sex?</p>
<p>dstark, at least one glaring problem with your poll:<br>
It does not ask the respondant when they became “born again” relative to their divorce. Many people going through a divorce find themselves doing spiritual soul searching. This can quite often be the stimulus that results in a renewed spiritual outlook and becoming “born again”. Hence, it is not at all surprising that a signicant number of born again Christians have been through a divorce - the divorce actually provides the impetus to begin the journey toward a closer relationship with God. But, to imply a negative cause and effect (i.e., being “born again” causes a higher divorce rate) can not be inferred from this data.</p>
<p>Pafather said: “According to my religion, God designed marriage so that one man and one woman would be married for life (for those who do not remain single).”</p>
<p>Please tell me what religion that is, where this is documented, and explain why other religions’ acceptance of gay marriage threatens your religious beliefs. My religion–Unitarianism–teaches tolerance of others’ beliefs. Yours doesn’t?</p>
<p>dstark: “How would a homosexual affect your son’s attitude toward sex?”</p>
<p>My son would be unlikely to look to a homosexual for moral guidance regarding sex, so I would expect that a homosexual would have very little effect on my son’s attitude toward sex. This is not to say that being forced to room with a homosexual would be no inconvenience. Just as on CC I would be characterized as a “homophobe” for merely stating Biblical positions, given the liberal bent of most college administrations, my son could easily be branded as a trouble-maker if he ever was ever asked and then verbally characterized homosexual sex as anything other than wonderful and moral. </p>
<p>“Atheists follow the bible better than conservative Christians.” </p>
<p>Your Bible must be slightly different than mine (i.e. it must leave out the first four of the ten commandments). The reference you cite certainly gives no information as to how they categorized the Christians, so I assume the information was self-reported. I guess if you throw out the first four of the ten commandments and judge from statistical basis, then atheists would stack up quite well with nominal Christians. Although I am not convinced that the numbers are accurate, I am hardly shocked. They should have asked additional questions. I have read many statistics where a significant percentage of “Christians”, even in some more conservative portions of the country, do not believe that Christ is God (which would disqualify them from my definition of Christian).</p>
<p>I don’t really see higher rather than lower. I just see people get divorced regardless of their religion. I don’t see being “born again” causing a lower divorce rate or a higher divorce rate.</p>
<p>It looks to me like finances are more important than religion as far as divorce goes.</p>
<p>What I don’t follow is the argument that Christians, because of their religious beliefs, are more likely to stay married than other religions or Athiests. </p>
<p>Fundingfather, or pafather, so what is your thinking about somebody like Dick Cheney’s daughter? If she went into a classroom with a girl friend and said to a class “this is my girl friend and this is how we spend our day”, with no mention about how they “do it” or anything sexual, you would have a problem with that?</p>
<p>If Barney Frank went into a classroom and just talked politics along with somebody on the right (Is Frist out of favor now?), would you have a problem with that?</p>
<p>My religion–Unitarianism–teaches tolerance of others’ beliefs.</p>
<p>Dmd77, does that include a tolerance of polygamy?</p>
<p>If not, how about Homosexual polygamy?</p>
<p>One out of 4 people in this world believe polygamy to be moral (Im not sure the statistic would be anywhere near as high for homosexualityshouldnt this give some pause to all you internationalists), are you and yours also advocating for more tolerance toward those in polygamous relationships in this head-first dive into no-strings-attached diversity?</p>
<p>I would ask the same of:</p>
<p>Kluge?
Dstark?
EK4?
MrB.?</p>
<p>How about some real tolerance and a great big hug for all those misunderstood polygamist?</p>
<p>dmd77,</p>
<p>“Please tell me what religion that is, where this is documented, and explain why other religions’ acceptance of gay marriage threatens your religious beliefs. My religion–Unitarianism–teaches tolerance of others’ beliefs. Yours doesn’t?”</p>
<p>The documentation for my religion can be found in the Bible (which is essentially the evangelical Christian’s users manual)</p>
<p>I never claimed that “other religions’ acceptance of gay marriage threatens [my] religious beliefs.” My religious beliefs are not based on a poll of other religions.</p>
<p>I absolutely tolerate anyone to have any beliefs they wish. However, I also reserve the right to my own beliefs, which may include believing that some actions, attitudes, and behaviors are morally wrong. Does your religion deem ANYTHING (besides “inflexible arrogant Christianity”)to be morally wrong, in an absolute sense? If so, on what basis?</p>
<p>FountainSiren, If I say polygamy is OK, then you will say homosexuality is OK? Why can’t you just focus on homosexuality? Maybe we get heterosexuality—then homosexuality—then polygamy. Does that mean heterosexuality is not OK? I don’t get this slippery slope. </p>
<p>I don’t get why we can’t focus on homosexuality. FountainSiren, how does a homosexual affect your life?</p>
<p>We get to discriminate against gays because we are not in favor of polygamists?</p>
<p>FountainSiren: I repeat, Unitarianism teaches tolerance. I would reply to you the question I ask myself: “Who am I to judge?”</p>
<p>No, my tolerance is not unlimited. I draw the line at actions that hurt others. Does polygamy hurt those involved? Perhaps–but is it the institution or the persons? Is it possible to have a committed loving polygamous family? Of course–there are thousands of Mormons who will happily tell you about their polygamous ancestors.</p>
<p>Do I support inter-species marriage (the boondoggle that I see coming immediately following polygamy)? No, of course not. Animals can’t give informed consent to marriage.</p>
<p>dstark writes:
And then points to an article which uses dubious data to indicate that atheists have a lower divorce rate than born again Christians. When confronted with a logical rationale for why this data is tainted, dstark replies with:
</p>
<p>It appears that you are in spin mode again.</p>
<p>No spin. That’s just an opinion. You can provide me with information that shows things differently.</p>
<p>How about answering my questions about Dick Cheney’s daughter and Barney Frank in post 109?</p>
<p>BTW, pafather, it’s been a while since I re-read the 10 Commandments (which are a small part of the Bible, after all), so I just went back and re-read them. While the “first four” do make reference to God, I notice that none of them say “you must believe in me”. It’s implied, certainly, but not stated. The Commandments govern <em>behavior</em>, it seems to me, NOT belief.</p>
<p>Well, polygamy is ultimately another way of raising and caring for children (as it is most commonly applied), while homosexuality is about 2 adults who for their own reasons need to engage in a sexual-emotional relationship with each other.</p>
<p>This, to me, goes back to the issue of bringing 7 year olds into the debate over the morality of homosexual relationships/sex. </p>
<p>Is it always about two hormone driven adults having to be granted special privileges and honored because they are attracted to each other and choose to have consensual sex with each other? </p>
<p>Im 17, so my historical scope is perhaps limited, but Im willing to bet that this generation of adults is the most self interested and selfish generation of adults who have ever lived. Not to mention the most in need of affirmation and respect and honoring and special privilege ad nauseum; from alternative lifestyles, to abortion, to no-fault divorce, to careerism, to a wondrous array of therapies, to materialism without end, etc. </p>
<p>All I hear about is how specific groups of adults are in need of approval, encouragement, love, and toleranceyet, where are the threads on how all of this have-it-your-way-lifestyle affects the children? Reading through the different threads on CC, it would be very easy for a stranger to assume that all that matters when we talk about family, marriage and culture is how lesbian/gay/transgender/bisexual adults are treated. Yet, the most vulnerable, the most insecure, the most in need of our love are the children. </p>
<p>When I walk through New York City with my friends, we always joke around about how couples in New York dont have kids, they have dogs. Obviously they wouldwhy would they have kids (who need to be taken care of and always placed ahead of the parents themselves and their interests, hobbies, lifestyles) when they can just have dogs that they can leave in their crates whenever they dont feel like taking them out. </p>
<p>Tom Brokow wrote a very popular book called The Greatest Generation about the World War 2 generation. If a future pundit decides to record and capture the essence of this generation, she may well title it The Selfish Generation because it seems the true value of this generation is pleasure and being honored for who you are.</p>
<p>Certainly no problem with Barney Frank talking politics.</p>
<p>Mary Cheney with girlfriend, however, is a bit different because once you identify them as lesbians and attempt to show them as normal, “moral” human beings I can see that some would view that as a form of proselytizing certain moral values. Given your views on proselytizing, I would think that you too would object.</p>
<p>I don’t want Mary Cheney sitting in a classroom and telling little kids that they should be gay. I have no problem with her sitting in a classrom and saying “I’m gay. I’m the vice president’s daughter. This is how my day goes.”</p>
<p>You wouldn’t have a problem with Barney Frank talking in the classroom about politics. That’s great. That’s how we end prejudice. We don’t end prejudice by having a gay person come into a classroom and tell everyone to join that lifestyle. We end prejudice by treating people like human beings and not something less.</p>
<p>FountainSiren, you went off topic. I agree. This is one selfish generation.</p>
<p>What do Sufis think about homosexuality?
So you think homosexuality is learned behavior?</p>