Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Painful to write - painful to read - I must lack the literary skills???
empty_handed_painter -- this is an exceptional comment
I will respond but why do you not post this in one of your blogs? You are missing some traffic by leaving full fledged postings as comments. If you decide that you want to do this let me know and I will delete this comment for you. If not I may write a post in response. ...thanx.
posted by
gomedome
on July 28, 2005 at 11:23 AM
| link to this | reply
the comparison between gays and blacks is very common nowadays
so mightyholywarrior is off track in saying "how dare you"
I agree that he's off track in the "slippery slope" analogy.
The problem with the matter of gay marriage is that is has been brought up way too soon -- before there is general support for it. And it's halfway understandable that so many have problems with it.
A lot of the problem has to do with the history. It's only recently that homosexuality has begun to gain approval in any measurable numbers by heteros. The entire issue has been in the "dark ages" until just recently. Still, acceptance is widespread.
And yes, there is a bias, just as there is a continual racial bias.
The biggest opposition comes from those who read biblical proscriptions.
Here's the problem with that: Biblical writers spoke from what they knew at the time. We know so much more. Homosexuality has been observed in other animals, in various forms and for various reasons. Genetic research has shown that homosexuality is genetic. It has been argued that this is an aberrent genetic disorder and should be treated just as other genetic disorders are treated. They do not recognize homosexuality, then, as a genetic/hormonal aspect on a par with maleness or femaleness. But when you consider the numbers of homosexuals, you must stop to consider that this has to be normal, just as maleness and femaleness is. Otherwise you would confront a formidable task in "curing" the genetic disorder.
I would contend, then, that were the Apostle Paul alive today, he would not have a problem with the homosexuality that we see around us today in general, because what he saw and condemned was what anyone would consider abusive. Today's, in general, is not.
The process does need to begin in recognizing homosexuality as a normal thing -- and in recognizing that homosexual couples need the same legal protections, rights, etc., as hetrosexuals.
We can go back in history and see many parallels to this "domino principle" in opposition to many of the things we now take for granted -- womens rights, etc. Such is just a "straw man" set up for obvious inculcation of paranoia.
posted by
Xeno-x
on July 28, 2005 at 10:05 AM
| link to this | reply
mightyholywarrior -- you do seem to have a bit of knowledge about the
Canadian political system but did it ever occur to you that your detached observations as a resident of another country will never fully allow you to have the same comprehension of the issues as a well informed resident of this country? Spare me using the ebb and flow of the political process with all of it's backstabbing and intrigue as a means of detracting from the validity of the human rights issue at hand. What went on behind the scenes is irrelevant and mentioning it becomes just another weak attempt on your part to manufacture an argument. When all is said and done you have no arguments, not one worthy contention. What you do have however is typical, the heterosexual mind, not being able to comprehend same sex attraction develops an inherent natural prejudice. Societal attitudes instill a default system of homophobic response while religious influence adds an artificial credence to the notion of it being unnatural. The challenge for the heterosexual majority is to get past these influences to try to make the right determination for the betterment of society. Granted, it is not easy to do this, some are capable of seeing the issues clearly while others are intent on adhering to their basic influences. This isn't over. I have a post brewing.
posted by
gomedome
on July 28, 2005 at 8:00 AM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome, how dare you try to make a sneaky little attempt to compare the
the "homosexual experience" with the experience and history of American blacks. There are no similarities at all. Furthermore, the account that you gave about what led to the abolition of slavery in the US is inaccurate.
And I do not have the time to go into a lot a detail about it here, but that vote in the House of Commons was rigged. For one thing, various Canadian lawmakers contend that the adoption of the law lacks legitimacy because it relied on the support of the separatist Bloc Quebecois which is not the legitimate representatives of Quebec voters -- Most Canadians consider Bloc MP to be the legitimate representatives of that province, and for the most part, that bloc is opposed to the legislation that was passed.
In addition, with the exception of former Minister Joe Comuzzi of Northern Ontario who resigned from the cabinet so he could vote against the legislation, just about all of the cabinet ministers who remained were forced to vote with the government which, of course, was in favor legalizing same-sex marriage.
posted by
Feenix
on July 27, 2005 at 9:24 PM
| link to this | reply