Debate Gay and Lesbian Rights?

Thomas Jefferson (the third President of the United States)

Jefferson’s interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802):
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

From Jefferson’s biography:
“...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’”

Jefferson’s “The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom”:
“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

From Thomas Jefferson’s Bible:
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia:
“Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these free inquiry must be indulged; how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse ourselves? But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments?”

Additional quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”

“They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the alter of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

“I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”

“In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear....Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue on the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you.”

“Christianity...[has become] the most perverted system that ever shone on man....Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.”

“...that our civil rights have no dependence on religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry.”


James Madison (the fourth President of the United States)

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments:
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

Additional quote from James Madison:
“Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”


Benjamin Franklin

From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“My parents had given me betimes religious impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.”

From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“...Some books against Deism fell into my hands....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”


Thomas Paine

From The Age of Reason, pp. 8–9:
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of....Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them all.”

From The Age of Reason:
“All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

From The Age of Reason:
“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.”

From The Age of Reason:
“What is it the Bible teaches us? — rapine, cruelty, and murder.”

From The Age of Reason:
“Loving of enemies is another dogma of feigned morality, and has beside no meaning....Those who preach the doctrine of loving their enemies are in general the greatest prosecutors, and they act consistently by so doing; for the doctrine is hypocritical, and it is natural that hypocrisy should act the reverse of what it preaches.”

From The Age of Reason:
“The Bible was established altogether by the sword, and that in the worst use of it — not to terrify but to extirpate.”

Additional quote from Thomas Paine:
“It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.”


Ethan Allen

From Religion of the American Enlightenment:
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”

Taken from
http://religion.aynrand.org/quotes.html

By chance, do you live near or in the Bible Belt?

No, it says that there cannot be a state religion. In other words, the state is kept seperate from religion and is not controlled by religion.

I think you get tax reductions on a lot of donations...

Take your own advice, kid.

Which I don't, since not everyone is Christian. Really, how is this getting past you?

And if you're Catholic, there's a happy little Pope who basically declared that not only is hell not a real place but rather a state of mind, he also declared that you go to heaven even if you are part of a completely different religion provided you follow your heart.

Furthermore, I shuddered when I saw you comparing homosexuality to abuse.


(more to come, I hit the character limit again)

 

And I care why? How does this contribute to debate?

So?

I could care less how you get your jollies. This has nothing to do with the debate.

Yeah, to hell with tolerating others or valuing people for how they treat others instead of how they get off with a consenting adult.

This, coming from a Biblical fanatic? Don't make me laugh!

 

Uh, Okay everyone else was handling this in a mature way, you (Nephilim_X) seem to be going off track and in general picking on my post.

Throughout the whole time you posted irrelivent information from various books and authors that really have nothing to do with homosexuality in the first place. And you've stated that What I'm saying no one cares about because not everyone here is christian...Then how come you being "non-christian" have the right to post the first Bible quote in the whole thread? Don't I have the same right to respond? Just because I'm new doesn't mean I don't get the right to be listened to. I know what I'm talking about. Because I've been talking it and walking it for years now. Usually people go off on me like that because I've sparked something inside of them that challenges what they beleave.

Please calm down, stop getting into defense mode. I'm not here to attack what you beleave so please back off.

I spent all night typing my post, making it as constructive as i could. And all that you have done is post a giant reply with...

"Yes, so"
"I don't care"
"Take your own advise"
"Okay"

And a bunch of other one phrase replies that make no sense. I'm getting the idea that you're doing this just to have something to say. Or to have the last word.

That was extremely rude. And you seem to have interpretation problems. If you think that I ment you shouldn't follow God blindly then you're right. God himself says that. He mensions not to hinder or force people into beleiving in him without a reason. He gave us a chioce.

Are you using some kind of translator? I was simply talking about learning from your past and you put words into my mouth about condeming others???

Uh??? the thread is about homomosexuality, if you don't see the conection i'll nicely take you through the reason of my postings.

Please find where I said that... And please stop putting words into my mouth. I have yet to offend you yet you see me as the enemy already.

I will never back down from what I beleive and I never once said that Homosexuality would send you to hell. NOT ONCE. Yet that's what you're accusing me of.

So much for the warm welcome.

Well, that's like telling people what God says and doesn't say without looking into it. Don't feal bad though, I use to do it all the time.

Actually God early on said that "Using the male body in a way that it's not ment to be used (hint hint) is wrong and sinfull, and using the female body in a way it wasn't ment to be used is also wrong and sinfull.

Nephilim_X before you bash me again. I am refering to the Biblical Side of this. If you don't like it then...then just pretend I didn't say it *sigh*-_-. Others, both Christian and non-christian are listening to my posts so I do beleive that my posts are relivant.

I don't think making it illegal to be gay is a good idea either. Becuase of course if you're given a chioce to be gay then you also have the chioce to say no to it. I said no to it, after years of fighting. And that is my path, and my story. My ending is happy.

You can always choose to follow someone elses path, knowing that the trail is already mapped out, or you can make your path and venture off. But sometimes the path others take suits their abilities, what tempts them might not tempt you and vice versa.

Also the paths from others always have the chance of being traps, Telling you they lead somewhere but taking you to a completely differnent place.

Volt: -quitely awaiting critisism-

 

Good one, volt!

Thanks for your reply. I have been bashed and rebashed many times by Neph, in my opinion, just because he felt like it. Yes, not constructive criticism, but just blatantly rejection of all my statements. So thanks for the rebuke. (end of personal opinion)

*ahem* Now regarding homosexuality and laws...

Laws shouldn't dictate what one people's sexual preferrences should be. We still don't know if homosexuality is genetic, or what part of the human psyche is involved in it. And if it's a disease, there hasn't been found a cure.

So a law telling whether people should be gay or not, is simply ridiculous.

Now, from that to giving EXTRA rights to gay couples, there is a huge chasm. If gay people are denied their rights, then we should resort to the statement of human rights.

So far the only thing I'm against regarding homosexual unions is adoption. I have exposed my views elsewhere, and I won't go in that again. As for other stuff, we should rule out the rights that were given to the spouses because of family (i.e. children) related issues. I.e. tuition for the children, inheritance, etc etc.

The union between two homosexuals cannot be classified as "family" because it's in some way "antinatural". I know, sounds dirty, but i can't find a better term.

In that regard, I'm somewhat amused/bothered by the fact that a gay couple go to a "ceremony" and dress themselves for when they get "married". Marriage was meant between a man and a woman. If you don't like that, well invent your own term, but it's not marriage per se.

I also find it amusing that more gay people want marriages while more heterosexual people DON'T. They just want to live together, to split when they don't feel like it.

So, if a gay couple plan to live together and they love each other, sure, allow them to have inheritance and other "civil" rights. But don't call it marriage, much less a family.

SerenityX, I like you wanting your mother to be happy. We all want to be happy. But some people (including me) believe that a gay marriage doesn't necessarily bring you happiness.

God did not forbid gay people to love each other. Actually Jesus commanded us to LOVE each other.

Is sex really necessary to be happy? So, I think we shouldn't confuse love with sex. Doing so has gotten mankind in so many troubles.
And personally, if your mom feels unhappy, I don't think getting married will help her. Maybe going with a psychologist, or finding more friends, or that one special person, or approaching God, will help her.

But does marriage in itself bring happiness?
It hasn't. It's just another state of life. And what use is getting married if marriage can be dissolved? Does it change the love that two people feel for each other? Does it change their minds and souls for the better? Civil marriage, at least, doesn't. It's just a stupid worthless paper that doesn't do anything. Just a dumb ilussion of happiness that is nullified by another paper called divorce. Look, even Britney got married and unmarried the next day. How trivial has marriage become.

[EDIT]Oops. One thing I forgot to say.
The catholic teaching, which I accept, says there is a difference between having homosexual tendencies (i.e. "natural" homosexual) and ACTING UPON those tendencies (i.e. "engaging in homosexual acts"). So IMHO, God doesn't send homosexuals to hell. Specially if they're really confused in their minds (I recall reading some bible passage about people receiving a much lesser punishment for things they didn't know were wrong), and who knows what they've been living thru.
So, if you'd like to engage on a biblical debate, I think we should do it in private (or else Neph would start making our debates impossible ).

So, as I was saying... I could be gay, be attracted to men, and still obey God's commandment to live in chastity and be happy. If other people thought I was frustrated, well, that's THEIR opinion, not mine.

I certainly find it hard to believe that God would send commandments to us to make us unhappy, instead of the opposite. I believe that God loves us, and that whatever he commands us, is for our own good. I.e. happiness both in here and in heaven.

OK, re-edit done
[/EDIT]


Ok, my 2 cents And happy new year guys and girls!

 

...Have you even been in a debate before? One side typically picks apart the other sides argument, providing rebutals. It's not a personal thing; rather it is that you are in opposition of my position and henceforth deserve rebutals.

They were combating your points.

Freedom of information. Or do you believe that people who do not agree with a philosophy should not have access to information about that philosophy?

Do I have to be a German Nazi to read Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler?

You'll notice my sig image currently has a Buddhist quote. I'm not Buddhist, but I highly doubt a Buddhist is going to ask me to remove the image.

Of course you do. I never said you didn't.

And where did I say you never had that right?

That's nice, but I know what I'm talking about too, and marriage is NOT a rite that belongs only to Christianity. Henceforth, gays should be allowed, at the very least, civil union (in other words, marriage outside the church) or if they belong to a religion which allows gay marriage, an appropriate wedding. You can keep it out of your church if you want, if that is what your scripture dictates, but to ban it wholly is foolish.

I should hope people go off on you for believing that some people should not have the same rights as others.

You still don't get it, do you? My post was not a personal attack, it was a debate rebutal.

That's wonderful, but this is a debate forum. If you don't want your stance to be challenged, then kindly do not debate.

Yes, way to pick out the little bits and try to make me look bad.

No, I'm doing it because I believe homosexuals should have the right to civil union, just like "normal" people.

You certainly cast it in a negative light. And where on earth did I accuse you of saying that homosexuality is hell-worthy?

This is a debate forum. If you're expecting hugs and kisses, go away.

Zanza is talking about her religious views. As she is not trying to force her views on other people (simply stating what her religion teaches) I have no problem with this.

Perhaps in your religion, but why should everyone else suffer because of what you believe in?

If we lived in nations that were governed by religions, I would care. Elsewise, you have no right to force your religion on others by saying this is what they can and cannot do.

I never said your posts weren't relevant. However, as this is a debate, I'm supposed to refute your arguments if I find them in err, which I do.

Just so you know, not all gays are gay by choice. I know several who just are the way they are.

Yes, but why should gays not be allowed the right to civil union?

You know, that's all fine and dandy, but the way you've said it makes it seem as if being a Christian Heterosexual is like being a minority. I assure you, your path is just as mapped out as others.

How do you know you aren't in a trap yourself? The gays I know are typically well-adjusted, loving and kind individuals. Should a person say "Know what? You work as hard as the next guy, and you can do the same things I can do, but because you like getting it up the poop-chute, I'm not letting you marry Hank. Why? Because my religion says its wrong. No, I don't care what YOUR religion says."?

Neph: -quietly clicking the submit button-

 

This is a debate forum. We debate here. If my views happen to conflict with yours, and I have to form a rebutal, then it's just too bad if you think I'm trying to pick on you, because I'm not.

What extra rights are they getting?

What if studies showed there was no negative influence?

Perhaps in your eyes, but other people simply see marriage as another word for a union.

Why can't we call it marriage? It's the same thing, only a woman isn't involved.

Websites such as www.godhatesfags.com might disagree with you. As always, the Bible has a lot of interpretations. Ultimately, this is not about religion; it's about having the same rights as others.

Prove it. Actually...

Divorce rate: Is marriage strengthened by mutual faith in God? Are marriages weak without religion? The Barna Research Group conducted a poll of Americans in 1999 in an attempt to show that religious faith reduces the likelihood of divorce. The results shocked them: Atheists had the lowest average divorce rates (defined as the percentage of people who had been divorced at least once in their lives), at 21%. Christian divorce rates averaged about 24% (higher for "born-again" Christians, ie- fundamentalists, at 27%), and even higher for Jews, at 30%. They also collected racial and geographical data, which showed that the white Southern Baptist fundamentalists have no reason to crow about their "family values". Not only did the Southern Bible Belt have the highest divorce rate in the country, but whites as a race are the most likely to split: 27%, as compared to 22% for blacks, 20% for Hispanics, and only 8% for Asians.

(from http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Morality/CrimeAndDivorce.shtml )

Maybe to you, but to others its a symbol of commitment to each other.

 

Well it seems so. When you're not going in a specific direction in your debate/rebuttal/whatchamacallit, you're just disrupting the conversation flow. In the first place, I didn't write my statement to YOU, but to Volt, so you get in the middle of the conversation and ruin everything. Perhaps in TWO PEOPLE debates you could do whatever you want, but this is a multiperson debate, so there has to be an order. And no matter how ordered your responses are, your general behavior is, IMHO, chaotic. The debate forum was made so we could have constructive debates and gather information / exchange point of views. But IMHO, you have just turned it into "Neph bashes everyone who disagrees with him, becoming the star of the debates".

I was speaking theoretically.

OK, first, when I mentioned God and homosexuality, I was only replying to Volt, to give him an insight into another point of view. But again, you come in and bash me, disrupting the flow of the conversation with red herrings.

I never spoke of religion regarding marriage and divorce. My point was just to say "what's the big deal with marriage? People get divorced anyway". But nice insight into divorce rates But then again, off-topic.

So please, try to maintain an order and be the most friendly possible in your answers. Otherwise you make people (including me) think you're just getting even when you're shredding (pardon me, "quoting") other ppl's posts. Specially when you quote them out of context.

Also, I think that in general, replies in this forum should be relative in size to whatever they're answering - unless to provide a constructive insight. You could have said: "I have sources (link) that prove that divorce rates are higher in christians". But no, you had to put the whole stuff there. Now who knows if Volt will read what I typed in the first place? Your megahuge post gets in the way.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way, but given that the debate forum moderators have praised my style, I doubt I'll be changing any time soon. Besides, this is proper style for a forum debate.

Am I not allowed to show other religious points of view?

Actually, it implies that non-religious people can value marriage, while religious people do not necessarily value marriage.

I usually do, however, I'm not afraid to be blunt and brutally honest.

What out of context quotes? You mean when I extrapolate more of their position?

I doubt that. If anything, the size causes people to skim through my posts.

 

How about a big resounding WTF? It looks like you're describing Cowboy but lumped me in with him because I quoted from the bible (are only believers allowed to do that?) So I know it says something in 'that book.' The Wiccan Rede also says stuff. So? What better way to answer Neph's question about christian beliefs than by quoting the bible? If someone asked about Wiccan beliefs one should answer from their texts. And please point out the spot where I gave any sort of opinion at all on gays. I believe the relevant passage here is "judge not, that ye be not judged" Oops I quoted again. *Everybody points*: Zealot!

Nice ad hominem. Fortunately it doesn't apply to me.

You'll notice I quoted a passage that made that clear.

Right. I also pointed out that throwing around quotes from the bible is generally useless (though it can be an interesting exercise) since you can say anything you want by picking and choosing selected verses. But please, repeat my own arguments in your attempt to show how my thinking is flawed.

I think you assume a lot. You have no idea what I believe. If you cared to check you could see that my final argument was for seperation of church and state, due to the multitude of conflicting religious beliefs. Not sure how that makes me a bible lover who can't explain what I feel. But I have to fit into some category don't I, or your list wouldn't have been complete

_______________
Berry: I hope this doesn't bring out the rule nazi in you If it does, I understand.

 

that's what i'm talkin about mamiyaotaru... and for u nephilim x do not i repeat do not talk to me about atheists and gothic or whatever i have more atheists,and gothic friends than that u've seen :anger2: :anger2: :anger2: and who ever agrees with my state before post it down and if u don't post it down anyways

nephilim x u the one getting shot down :anime:ha ha

 

Stupid ad hominem attack. Besides, how do you know you have more aethiest friends anyway?

Nobody has refuted my argument, which is the important thing. They can nitpick about me all they want; my argument still stands. For the purpose of convenience, I shall summarize here.

Gays have the right to civil union, and if their religion permits it, religious marriage. If a religion says "no gays", then it can't be forced on that religion to allow gay marriages. However, religions are not permitted to speak out against others, as it is not in their sphere of control. (I would not, for example, see a Baptist preacher moaning about a civil union as a positive thing).

 

shoot i didn't mean to make this a freakin history and religion class people all i've seen is thomas pain did coman since,thomas jefferson did this so what page two of this debate was the largest page i've ever had to scroll down :glazed:

 

Why should I? Clearly you're in opposition to my stance, yet you have yet to refute it. Indeed, it is you who needs to either post a rebuttal or be quiet.

Edit: Enough with the ad hominem attacks via post edit. You may not like me but you've yet to prove I'm wrong. If you're going to complain about people, don't bother doing it here. Furthermore, I somehow doubt MO is on your side.

 

I somehow doubt MO is on your side.[/QUOTE]

u puttin words in my mouth i didn't say he was on my side i just said he understand me

 

Well, i am going kinda off topic of what your on right now and postin my feelings towards Gay/Lesiban rights.

I believe that denying Gays and Lesbians rights is unconstitutional. Has the government of US forgoten the great quote on which the foundation of this country was built upon? "ALL men are created equal." notice it says ALL. Meaning that everyone should be given an equal opportunity in this world, no matter their sexual prefrence, race, language spoken, etc.

I personally dont believe we should procecute/detach ourselves/deny basic human rights to homosexuals. Many homosexuals have been denyed the right to marry. There again, should not ever man and woman have equal rights?

Again, i go back to "All men are created equal." If that holds true, then havent all procecutions of homosexuals basicly proven our constitution is basicly a cover up???? I ask you.

Everyone was created equal, and forever are they equal. Meaning that whatever choices they make during their life (choice of homosexuality) can make them any greater or lesser of a person.

No human is better than another.

 

I'll play devil's advocate here because there are a couple of holes in your argument, Kamui.

I'm totally with you there.

The key word in that little paragraph is "basic." What is a "basic" right? We don't kill homosexuals, we don't enslave them, and the last draconian laws banning homosexual sex were finally outlawed last year. A lot of people will tell that you marriage is not a "basic" right, because it's certainly possible to live without it.

And as for the second part, it brings up the old slippery slope argument: Should we next allow a man to marry more than one woman if everyone is consenting, as was the case of the Mormon man in Utah? Or let a man marry a tree? Both of those examples hold the same basic connection: Every single person suing would say that because they're not hurting anyone and everyone involved agrees, it should be legal.

It should, but it really doesn't. Remember, in the very beginning only white men over 21 who owned property could even vote, and no one - Not women, leaders from other countries, the poor - even batted an eye at that. It's become more broad since then, but most everyone still feels to some degree that it's okay to limit some behavior.

It's like that quote at the end of Animal Farm: "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others." And we don't even know for sure if homosexuality is a choice or if it's genetic. If it turns out to be not genetic and an acquired perference, the anti-gay lobby would get a huge boost in banning gay marriage.

 

Then should religion be outlawed? It's certainly possible to live without it.

Sure, why not?

My housemate could marry his freakin' corkscrew and I could care less. It's not like it's affecting me. I'll think he's a weirdo but how is it my business?

So, since my great enjoyment (not a preference per se, but still...) of asian women is an acquired preference, the anti-racial mixture crowd gets a boost too? I don't see how gayness being an acquired taste would boost the agenda of anti-gays.