Thursday, March 29, 2007

Stop Thought Crimes Laws

A message from Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council:

"The liberal majority in Congress is now working to pass so-called "hate crimes" legislation. Such thought crimes laws represent a dangerous threat to your religious freedom.
Please visit Family Research Council's new website dedicated exclusively to this issue, www.stopthoughtcrimeslaws.com. You'll learn what you can do to stop homosexual activists and liberal Congressmen from further eroding religious liberty in America--especially by signing our Public Declaration of Opposition to Thought Crimes Laws."
Thank you,
Tony Perkins

30 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone out there know where I could find articles about the Swedish priest and the Canadian protesters? I want more information.

Ken Weaver

10:44 PM, March 29, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would seem that the societies in Sweden and Canada have deemed that speaking negatively about homosexuality is immoral. So from the logic I have read here it seems that the punishments received by the priest in Sweden and the anti-gay protesters in Canada were due in their respective societies. So what’s the problem?

Ken Weaver

11:48 PM, March 29, 2007  
Anonymous omd said...

Ken, I have been re-reading your posts and it seems, to me, that you are all over the map. I am in the process of re-reading your posts and trying to map them out so I have a better understanding.

My early perception is that your rudder is broken and you are just floating in and out with the tide with no clear direction or philosophy to grab & hold onto.

I'm not saying this as a criticism but rather an observation and I am impressed that you have committed yourself to the discussion on this blog. At least you have put yourself in the arena as opposed to those that sit on the sidelines and watch.

It seems to me that, on one hand you are communicating that you believe the only truth that is true is in the eye of the beholder. Thus saying, there are no absolutes. On the other hand you say people and even animals setup moral codes, which you are in agreement with????? Then, did I understand right, you beleive totalitarianism is a better system of governance?

You say you agree with laws against murder yet you do not mention the legalized murder taking place in our country, nevermind the world. Do you think the act of sticking a pair of scissors in the base of the skull of a partially born baby is ok because a misguided law says that form of murder is ok? I mean, murder is murder no matter what fancy name someone can come up for it so it disguises the word and action of murder.

Then you asked me to NOT use God or history or traditions or myths (your word) to base why I believe the sexual behavior of homosexuals is actually immoral and/or amoral and who determines that. The only answer that would fit, using your criterion, was... "society determined it". Then it seemed you immediately jumped on that as an ah ha for justification for that type of behavior "IF" society said it was acceptable.

The problem is we cannot ignore that history DOES exist and tradition DOES exist and religion DOES exist and all have existed since humans were created.

I'm afraid John Lennons "Imagine" just doesn't fit with the truth of reality. Great song though. Brings back memories.

On another subject, I cannot express to you how excited I am that you ordered Strobel's "Case for Faith" book. Ken, as I am just a man, as are you, and not classically trained in theology or any other ology I don't know if what I share with you really ever strikes a nerve with you or stretches you.

Strobel is a trained journalist as well as having law school training and was an award winning investigative journalist with the Chicago Trib (I think).

He uses evidentiary law procedures to formulate his books. I'm hoping those writings will help you in your exploration for answers. I also pray that I am stretching you as you are stretching me.

God Bless

10:28 PM, April 01, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Then, did I understand right, you beleive totalitarianism is a better system of governance?”

I think you misunderstood. I do not believe totalitarianism is better than democracy. I put that quote up to show that if we wish to live in a country where everyone’s morals are at the very least similar, totalitarianism is the only way to ensure that outcome. In a democracy or a representative republic morals are decided by individuals. Those morals can be influenced at the pulpit and at home but to enforce them by law that government will be forced to turn to totalitarianism. In our system of governance there are some basic morals to ensure everyone is able to fulfill there lives in a manner they see fit. Those morals include legislation against murder, theft and other crimes that create victims. However someone got the idea that other morals should be included when there are no victims. Most of those morals are biblically induced, but I’ll wait to address those when Scia is able to get the post “God is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution and has nothing to do with this document” up and running.

“You say you agree with laws against murder yet you do not mention the legalized murder taking place in our country, nevermind the world. Do you think the act of sticking a pair of scissors in the base of the skull of a partially born baby is ok because a misguided law says that form of murder is ok? I mean, murder is murder no matter what fancy name someone can come up for it so it disguises the word and action of murder.”

I’m sorry but I don’t even think murder can be an absolute either. I would love to agree with a ban on abortion but I can’t. If we were to ban abortion right now, what would be the result? It certainly wouldn’t be no more abortions. The results would look more like women wanting abortions and then being forced into back-alley doctor’s offices awaiting conditions bordering on 3rd world. If the women didn’t die from the procedure itself it becomes likely an infection will result. Maybe they would deserve it for committing murder, but I would still hate for someone I care about to be in that position. If we are to make a significant difference in ending or at least reducing abortions we must make it unthinkable through ad-campaigns and education rather than an absolute ban. Education will do more than holding signs at an abortion clinic; we must put together a commercial or something to grab the attention of others. Putting out a ban only turns people into renegades much like the ban on alcohol did.

Murder is still ambiguous in other aspects of life disregarding abortion. I’m not going to try and guess how you feel in the other parts of murder so please don’t misunderstand my points as being directed at you. Remember Terry Schiavo? I can only hope that it was her wishes that were carried out but we’ll never know. Is it murder to “mercy kill’ people who are unable to live without extraordinary medical procedures? My wife is Catholic, but she also wants it understood that if she can’t respond by talking or writing I am to end her life. I am so torn in that prospect it terrifies me. I don’t know if I’ll have the strength to end her life even knowing it is what she wishes; hopefully I’ll never be confronted with that problem. If I was to carry out her wishes is that murder? My Mother-in-law used to be a nurse at St. Luke’s Hospital in Phoenix. She told me once how a woman refused to let the hospital treat her son because of her religious beliefs. Her son died from a ruptured appendix. Was that murder? I think that it was, but I also know my morals are not to be imposed on others. They are mine to follow, she has her own. There are other ambiguous aspects of murder but I think you will likely understand my point.

“Then you asked me to NOT use God or history or traditions or myths (your word) to base why I believe the sexual behavior of homosexuals is actually immoral and/or amoral and who determines that. The only answer that would fit, using your criterion, was... "society determined it". Then it seemed you immediately jumped on that as an ah ha for justification for that type of behavior "IF" society said it was acceptable.”

If society determines that “A” is unacceptable does that automatically make it so? The reason you gave me for homosexuality being called immoral suggests so. And if that is how you believe, the actions taken against the anti-gay protesters in Canada and the priest in Sweden are getting their just desserts correct? I’m looking for some consistency here.

“The problem is we cannot ignore that history DOES exist and tradition DOES exist and religion DOES exist and all have existed since humans were created.”

Only if you are correct in you assertion in creation (by the way I just got the book you suggested.)

“I also pray that I am stretching you as you are stretching me.”

You’re forcing me to think.

“God Bless”

Good luck
LOL

Ken Weaver

7:24 PM, April 02, 2007  
Anonymous omd said...

Consistency is not a human trait. The only constant is a God who is the same today as He was yesterday and will be tomorrow.

Even with no religion i.e. God we still have history and tradition.

I never said homosexuality is immoral. What I have said is that homosexual "sexual" behavior i.e practices have been determined immoral or amoral, not only by religious standards but by human standards and by traditional standards as recorded by history. It is a practice that has been held in disregard by the majority of humanity since recorded history. Depravity [impairment of virtue and moral principles] is dangerous because it lowers resistance to other depraved practices.

Now this is not intended to just single out the homosexual community because our world culture is steeped in other depraved practices regarding sexual behavior. So, let's be clear about that. Homosexual sexual behavior just happens to be 1 (one) of those depraved practices.

The philosophical questions you ask are truly questions that seem to be beyond human understanding. It is impossible to arrive at a definitive answer to the medical termination of life question. I have written instructions that are to be followed should I not be able to function ~ except suicide, assisted or by my hand.

But to answer your question. I believe all murder is wrong. That is, murder by another hand. Religious beliefs should be honored.

We are free to live as we please as long as we are willing to accept the consequences of our actions when or if our actions stray from generally accepted norms. Homosexual sexual behavior is not a generally accepted norm as determined by the majority. If someone chooses to participate in homosexual sexual acts... that is their choice but at least be discreet about it and don't try to make it an accepted behavior to elicit government benefits or civil rights status.

Glad to see you do not promote a totalitarian form of government. The current Massachusetts governmental leadership DOES though. This is evidenced in Gov. "Cadillac Deveal" Patrick and new Senate President Sen. Theresa Murray's announcement that they will seek to repel a 1913 law, which does not allow marriages to take place in Massachusetts that are disallowed in a couple's home state. If Gov. Patrick and Sen. Murray and the state legislature are successful in repeling this law THEN Massachusetts will have IMPOSED THEIR WILL on other sovereign states that have laws on their books against homosexual marriage or any other disallowed marriage.

THIS my friend IS totalitarianism AND is a very dangerous place that we are in should this attempt to override other sovereign states existing laws prevail.

8:33 AM, April 06, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“I never said homosexuality is immoral. What I have said is that homosexual "sexual" behavior i.e practices have been determined immoral or amoral, not only by religious standards but by human standards and by traditional standards as recorded by history. It is a practice that has been held in disregard by the majority of humanity since recorded history.”

Some of the most prevalent cultures in the world not only tolerated homosexuality but in fact encouraged it. The advance of Christianity brought about the distaste for homosexuality through most parts of the world. Prior to that religion, many cultures embraced homosexuality as part of the balance of life.

“Depravity [impairment of virtue and moral principles] is dangerous because it lowers resistance to other depraved practices.”

Oh so homosexuality can lead a person to stealing and then to murder?

“We are free to live as we please as long as we are willing to accept the consequences of our actions when or if our actions stray from generally accepted norms. Homosexual sexual behavior is not a generally accepted norm as determined by the majority.”

What are the consequences of homosexual sexual behavior?

“If someone chooses to participate in homosexual sexual acts... that is their choice but at least be discreet about it and don't try to make it an accepted behavior to elicit government benefits or civil rights status”

Some people have tried to keep their choices discreet and lived what was seen as a “moral” life during the day but at night they changed their persona. Overwhelmingly the government would step in and expose their activities. Then laws would come about in an attempt to close adult oriented businesses, laws that were generally put out by Christian organizations looking for publicity.

“THIS my friend IS totalitarianism AND is a very dangerous place that we are in should this attempt to override other sovereign states existing laws prevail.”

Once again, we have history repeating itself. How many states argued that same point when the issue was inter-racial marriage?

Ken Weaver

7:29 PM, April 07, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Omd, you had said something akin to Jesus Christ being god. I’m not sure how to comprehend that. Numerous times Jesus is referred to as the son of god, and Jesus gets mad at some merchants and tells them to get out of his father’s house, and even asks why god has forsaken him while on the cross. With all the evidence stating Jesus as the son of god; how can he also be god?

I’m not trying to be demeaning in any way; I’m just trying to understand your beliefs.

By the way, the book you recommended is excellent. I don’t know if it will make me Christian or not, but I am getting answers to some of the main questions I’ve had about Christianity and religion.

Ken Weaver

9:43 PM, April 08, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"Some of the most prevalent cultures in the world not only tolerated homosexuality but in fact encouraged it. The advance of Christianity brought about the distaste for homosexuality through most parts of the world. Prior to that religion, many cultures embraced homosexuality as part of the balance of life."

The advance of Christianity brought about the distaste for homosexuality? Where are your citations for this fact?

There is not one human society, advanced or primitive, civilized or uncivilized, where homosexual "marriage" has existed as a normative part of family life. Homosexual "marriages" in particular hasn't emerged in ANY human culture until the last few years. It was early in 2001 that the first country on earth legally recognized marriage between same-sex couples. (Edward Westermarck, The History of Human Marriage)

You asked:

"What are the consequences of homosexual sexual behavior?"

1. Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne Source: Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA..

2. 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs. Source: Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.

3. Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries. Source: Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.

4. The median death age for homosexual males is 42 years old. The median death age for homosexual women is 49 years old. Less than 2 percent of homosexual males live until age 65. Source: Cameron, Playfair, Wellum, “The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the Aids Epidemic,” Omega Journal of Death and Dying,” 1994.

Ect, ect.

In regards to the 1913 law: I need to research that more before commenting on it.

9:12 PM, April 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who is this Dr. E. Fields? I've tried to look him/her up, but have only found this person as a reference. I have yet to find the actual Dr. Fields, and/or this study.

10:11 AM, April 10, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“The advance of Christianity brought about the distaste for homosexuality? Where are your citations for this fact?”

I thought it was fairly common knowledge. Rome was a country that saw sexuality in general a positive light. Promiscuity was generally acceptable, even promiscuity for the same gender. Once the politics in Rome switched their religious beliefs to Christianity those beliefs began to wane. After a time of indoctrination, the general public started to see the “supposed” evil of their sexual ways and then homosexuality diminished. This didn’t just happen in Rome, it happened in many places.

“There is not one human society, advanced or primitive, civilized or uncivilized, where homosexual "marriage" has existed as a normative part of family life.”

Incorrect. The Catholic Church prior to the council at Nicaea did perform ceremonies that bonded homosexual lovers together. The American Indians also had unions between homosexuals. Look it up Scia, it’s not hard to find that these and other cultures would have a ceremony to bless the unions of homosexuals. Most were not marriage as we know it, but similar.

“Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases”

What about syphilis? Did you know that there is one state that has a higher rate of syphilis than California, Massachusetts, Washington State and New York combined? It’s Texas!! Not exactly a gay friendly state now is it? http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends2004-map.gif

“41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs.”

Darn aren’t they lucky. Do you think that those numbers might vary between homosexual men and homosexual women? I would bet so. Women generally curb men’s general behavior to sleep with whoever they want. Men know if they are to be so promiscuous, they could stand to lose the most valuable of their partners. Homosexual men would not have the want to stay so monogamous because their partners are also likely to wish to have other partners as well. At least until they find someone special.

“Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites”
“The median death age for homosexual males is 42 years old. The median death age for homosexual women is 49 years old.”

I guess homosexuals are comfortable with their shorter life spans. But if these are the consequences to being a homosexual, it seems that solidifying a union between them would be good for their respective communities. If we are to allow them marriage wouldn’t it only go to help to curb promiscuity, hence healthier, longer living people?

Ken Weaver

7:44 PM, April 10, 2007  
Blogger John Hosty said...

You can quote all the statistics you want, it still does not change the fact that this issue is about liberty. Aside from "Dr." Camerons massaging of the figures, one should see the wisdom of supporting liberty at all times. Simply put, the Christian right want to impose their will upon an unwilling minority without proper justification.

I challenge anyone to tell me how gay equality has harmed them personally. Don't cite David Parker, don't say that gay marriage will bring our society to ruin, simply tell me how it effected you. I can most certainly tell you how being discriminated against has effected my personal life.

These points aside, it is my life, and even if it were bad for my health, it is my right to choose my own path. This is America, or at least is was once....

The critics of equality have failed in their responsibility to prove any of the fears they present as justification to deny gay marriage. This is why we now see the opponents of equality simply shouting "Let The People Vote!" This mantra gives people who are not knowledged in this subject a new fear they can easily grasp. The attention is diverted, and the need to prove their accusations true is tabled. Obviously someone has read the Art of War.

5:44 PM, April 12, 2007  
Anonymous omd said...

Interesting viewpoint, John.

You think this is viewed as a war?

Describe your view of the America you reference.

It seems to me the homosexual community continues to think that people fear them? This is simply not true. It also seems to me that the homosexual community presents themselves as victims. How can you be a victim when you experience the consequences of your actions.

You are correct, you CAN choose your path and nobody is stopping you from following that path BUT the homosexual community thinks that they need to force the rest of society to approve of their chosen sexual behavior and chosen path.

That is just plain wrong.

I have no problem with you and what you do in private but when you bring it into the public arena you open yourself to reaction from those that find the practice of homosexual behavior [not orientation] repugnant.

So, you are correct again. You, personally, are not harming anyone. On the other hand you do injure the very fabric of society when you attempt to force the majority to accept behavior that runs contrary to commenly held views of morality.

We have all been discriminated against at some time in our lives. Maybe because we had big ears, a learning disability, weren't considered handsome or pretty, had freckles, were geekish, a goodie two shoes and so on and so on. The homosexual community is not being discriminated against because mainstream society does not recognise male/male & female/female marriage as meeting the established standards. BUT the homosexual community WOULD and intends to victimize the rest of society until they get the government to write laws saying their chosen sexual behavior is given civil rights status and take the right to vote away from those that oppose your worldview. If that succeeds then we will have scuttled the American representative republic just for your sexual preference.

Do what you will with your life, John, but don't jam it down everyone else's throat.

6:18 AM, April 21, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I won’t try to answer for John he’s quite capable; however I wish to make a few comments.

“Describe your view of the America you reference.”

Land of the free and the home of the brave.

Such a patriotic statement don’t you think? However some have tried to diminish its true meaning (or at least the meaning I get from it.)

Land of the free: Freedom (or liberties) is the attributes America has for distinguishing it from any other nations. Some may think our freedoms end at the constitution; not so. Our freedoms go far beyond comprehension. So many little freedoms no one gives a second thought to; holding a lovers hand in public, wearing outlandish clothes, behaving strangely, etc. etc. Even those insignificant freedoms show a truth in overall civil liberties. One of our most incredible freedoms is innocence until proven guilty. No other culture in history ever conceived such an attribute to a system of governance. Solomon wasn’t even wise enough to promote that ideal. Even with all of their faults, the Founding Fathers showed a morality beyond comprehension in history. That is where home of the brave comes in.

Home of the brave: Some may think that bravery is only shown on a field of battle; no way. Bravery (or courage) must be in us daily. When we walk in public, when watching television, listening to the radio, all the little things we do takes an amount of courage. It was fear that caused the Germans to end freedom for the Jews. Are we going to grab the mantle from them and embrace that fear? The terrorists fear America, not for its strength but for its freedoms. They fear for their children not being forced down their Islamic path. They see America as the great Satan because we allow all to live and worship of their own will. Many people fear a supposed “homosexual agenda” is going to change the minds of their children; turning those children into “perverts” and a generation without morality. Perhaps their fear is that their children will view those parents as ignorant; I don’t know. Bravery is what allows us to live next door to people with opposing values and still be civil, it allows us to see people walking down the street that just look weird and smile to ourselves and move on. Bravery permits us to sleep when we know our neighbors don’t see sex as we do.

This is the land of the free and home of the brave that I see. No one should be able to vote on that.

Ken Weaver

12:55 PM, April 21, 2007  
Anonymous omd said...

I agree with 90% of what you have just stated so eloquently.

America was founded on Christian principles. You can reference the beginnings in the Mayflower Compact. You can read about it in the writings of our founding fathers. If you have no laws regarding morality you have the beginnings of anarchy. Homosexual sexual behavior has, since the earliest of times, been considered to be an abhorrent behavior. It still is.

The mistaken belief among people is that we have somehow become more sophisticated or more evolved than our predecessors. The truth of the matter is that we HAVE NOT progressed one bit. We still have ALL the same morality issues today that have existed since the fall from grace.

Giving disease civil rights status, giving alternative sexual behavior civil rights status and legalizing homosexual marriage are just the beginning. What other chosen sexual behavior will be next to gain civil rights status?

9:22 PM, April 24, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“America was founded on Christian principles. You can reference the beginnings in the Mayflower Compact.”

America as a territory under English rule; yes. America as a sovereign nation; no. Our nation was built around one concept more than any other; freedom. Freedom from tyranny, freedom of thought, freedom of belief and freedom from oppression. Our Declaration of Independence states that a creator gives all people freedom. To deny any people rights based on the will of the majority is oppression. Just because a majority of Americans identify themselves as Christian, does not grant them the ability to judge other’s victimless actions and act as god to deny them rights that are “creator” produced.

“Homosexual sexual behavior has, since the earliest of times, been considered to be an abhorrent behavior.”

Not the Greeks, not the Romans, not the American Indians, not the Bulgarians and not the Pagans. All of which have roots that go back farther than Christianity. As far as I know it was mainly the Jews that saw homosexuality immoral, not most other people.

“The mistaken belief among people is that we have somehow become more sophisticated or more evolved than our predecessors. The truth of the matter is that we HAVE NOT progressed one bit. We still have ALL the same morality issues today that have existed since the fall from grace.”

I couldn’t disagree more. Slavery was considered moral, multiple partner marriages were acceptable, spousal abuse acceptable, and murder was even acceptable if a wife had sexual relations with another man. Our morality is far evolved than even 100 years ago where if you stole a horse or cheated at a card game would grant you a quick hanging without a trial.

“Giving disease civil rights status, giving alternative sexual behavior civil rights status and legalizing homosexual marriage are just the beginning. What other chosen sexual behavior will be next to gain civil rights status?”

People choose their own religion and they are granted civil rights status. So what basis would you decide for granting anyone civil rights status and the protections such status grants?

Ken Weaver

10:14 PM, April 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I ask again....

Who is this Dr. E. Fields? I've tried to look him/her up, but have only found this person as a reference. I have yet to find the actual Dr. Fields, and/or this study.

If you are going to quote statistics and site a sourse, you should be able to back it up, and point to the original sourse material.

6:53 AM, April 30, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Sorry for being away for so long. I miss reading what my readers are posting.

O.K., you said:

"To deny any people rights based on the will of the majority is oppression."

I see and to deny Massachusetts residents, who either agree or disagree with same-sex "marriage", the right to vote on marriage is O.K.?

In our government, Ken, the majority do rule. This is what you call a democratic nation where the majority rules. We, as a country, are not ruled by the few, the select, the minority. America is ruled by the many, the strong, the majority. This fact is written all over the Constitution and our very laws that most of us abide by. You ought to read the constitution and its history more carefully before making such silly statements.

You continue with...

"Just because a majority of Americans identify themselves as Christian, does not grant them the ability to judge other’s victimless actions and act as god to deny them rights that are “creator” produced."

Again, Ken, you have a right to marry anyone you want. I have these same rights except we BOTH can not marry anyone of the same-sex. We are both on the same page here then. My/anyone elses "right"/"privilage" to marry a women/man is "creator" produced because it is a divine right granted by Christ and not by man. Your/anyone's "right"/"privilage" to marry a same-sex partner is not granted anywhere in legal justification,scripture, or in the history of society as we know it. I challenge you to document anywhere in a civilized or uncivilized society where it is written as law or considered a normal behavior pattern accepted by all of mankind that man/women has a "right" to marry anyone or anything they want. You will find this nowhere.

You said in response to such a statement from OMD:

"Not the Greeks, not the Romans, not the American Indians, not the Bulgarians and not the Pagans. All of which have roots that go back farther than Christianity. As far as I know it was mainly the Jews that saw homosexuality immoral, not most other people."

This is opinion passed off as a final fact. Not one of these societies have accepted homosexuality as a normal part of their societies today!! Never mind what they thought of it before. It, homosexuality, has not been accepted as a normal part of ANY of these societies TODAY because it does not work in the normal upbringing of a society. If this behavior was truely accepted as a part of these societies than they would not have of survived up to this day. Show me where you get your "facts".

You ask:

"People choose their own religion and they are granted civil rights status. So what basis would you decide for granting anyone civil rights status and the protections such status grants?"

The minute someone from another country walks on America soil is immediately protected by the bill of rights. So...coming to America grants you civil rights. Your question is to broad to juxtapose it to the marriage issue.

8:43 PM, April 30, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a question, Scia. Should the civil rights of any person or group ever be put up to a vote? I'm not talking marriage here, since I know you do not consider SSM a civil right.

You said...

"In our government, Ken, the majority do rule. This is what you call a democratic nation where the majority rules. We, as a country, are not ruled by the few, the select, the minority. America is ruled by the many, the strong, the majority. This fact is written all over the Constitution and our very laws that most of us abide by. You ought to read the constitution and its history more carefully before making such silly statements."

So, the ban on slavery, should that have been put up to a popular vote? The rights of blacks and women to vote, should that have been voted on by the people? Should the right for blacks and whites to marry have been put up for a vote?

It certainly sounds like this is what you are saying. Can you clarify?

Thank You,

Rufus

5:44 AM, May 01, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Show me where you get your "facts"."

Yes, please Scia, show us where you get you facts. Who is Dr. Fields of Marietta, Ga??

5:46 AM, May 01, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“I see and to deny Massachusetts residents, who either agree or disagree with same-sex "marriage", the right to vote on marriage is O.K.?”

Yes.

“In our government, Ken, the majority do rule. This is what you call a democratic nation where the majority rules.”

To a certain extent; yes, but the rights of individuals should never be up for a vote. Thomas Jefferson said as much in his 1st inaugural address: “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”

“I challenge you to document anywhere in a civilized or uncivilized society where it is written as law or considered a normal behavior pattern accepted by all of mankind that man/women has a "right" to marry anyone or anything they want. You will find this nowhere.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

“If this behavior was truely accepted as a part of these societies than they would not have of survived up to this day.”

Prove it! Show me where you get your facts.

“Show me where you get your "facts".”

I don’t think I actually could. I didn’t find those facts recently at all but through the years of being alive. I leaned some in my history classes in school, I got some from history books, even got some through word of mouth. Can you prove me wrong?

“Your question is to broad to juxtapose it to the marriage issue.”

My apologies, I got caught up using an incorrect term. What I was getting at is hate crimes legislation.

Ken Weaver

1:56 PM, May 09, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Rufus,

Thanks for stopping by on my blog. How did you here about it?

You said:

"So, the ban on slavery, should that have been put up to a popular vote? The rights of blacks and women to vote, should that have been voted on by the people? Should the right for blacks and whites to marry have been put up for a vote?"

Someone's freedom, the ban on slavery, was struck down due to its inhumaneness, the rights of women to vote WAS put up to a popular vote and the "right" to marry for whites and blacks...I even do not have a "right" to marry.

I do not have any more "rights" to marry than a homosexual does. Both sexual orientations have a "right" to marry as long as it does not involve a partner of the same-sex. We BOTH are on equal ground here.

The issue of "rights" is non-sensical when it comes to Same-Sex Marriage (SSM). Traditional marriage is a divine right granted to everyone by Christ, not by man whom is the "inventor" of SSM. The rules are, as stated in the Bible in which this countries laws are based upon,is that marriage has always been and will always be strictly between one MAN and one WOMAN. Like I said before to Ken, there is not one society in the history of life on planet earth that has accepted homosexuality as a normal part of life.

Does this mean that I do not advocate for more rights for the homosexual community? NO, it does not. I think the Benefits Fairness Act of 2007 is a wonderful way for the homosexual community to gain more rights and to be recognized by society as a part of our society.

If there was a petition to put this Act on the ballot to be made into law I would sign it 100 times over if I could.

I do not NOT accept the homosexual community, I just do not think they need to take part in an institution, marriage, in order to be accepted by society. There are other means to engage in their behavior without disturbing sacred institutions that are precious to many.

Thanks for commenting Rufus. I look forward to a civil discoursed discussion with you on this matter.

Scia

8:15 PM, May 11, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Where is it said that marriage is a civil right or any sort of right for anyone including you and me?

I asked you:

“I challenge you to document anywhere in a civilized or uncivilized society where it is written as law or considered a normal behavior pattern accepted by all of mankind that man/women has a "right" to marry anyone or anything they want. You will find this nowhere.”

You came up with:

wikipedia.org.

Ken, I mean legitimate, peer-reviewed medical journals/stats/studies,ect, not some website where people can edit "facts" and save them for others to see. This website is not even recognized by major universities across the world as a place to cite because it is so bogus. Come on Ken, you can do better than that.

I said, and I admit I need to clarify my statement:

“If this behavior was truely accepted as a part of these societies than they would not have of survived up to this day.”

Well...that sounds stupid. Now, I can see why your looking for answers. I should of said: If homosexuality was predominately part of a society, that society would not survive because they would have to depend on heterosexual behaviors in order to procreate.

Does this mean I am FEARFUL of our society becoming predominately homosexual with no future for the continuation of human life..boy, that sounds funny...if homosexuals continue to "marry"? No, but I am fearful about the fate of democracy if people can not be a part of it.

8:39 PM, May 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“I challenge you to document anywhere in a civilized or uncivilized society where it is written as law or considered a normal behavior pattern accepted by all of mankind that man/women has a "right" to marry anyone or anything they want. You will find this nowhere.”

That would be awfully difficult. Do the law books of ancient societies exist in a readable text today? The answer to most ancient societies is no. We have no real evidence in their law books one way or the other; however if we look at some of the art on vases from Greece and China we can easily tell that there was at least a notable number of homosexuals within their societies. I can send you a few links on that if you like. Or we can look to the writings of the early Catholic missionaries that came upon a number of older societies and were appalled at how prevalent homosexuality was. Would those writings satisfy your hunger for evidence regarding my statements?

“If homosexuality was predominately part of a society, that society would not survive because they would have to depend on heterosexual behaviors in order to procreate.”

I think we can both agree that no society was predominantly homosexual. I don’t think anyone really knows what percentage of the population consider themselves “homosexual.” Most of the studies I’ve read say the homosexual populous is around 1 to 3%; would you concur? If that is at least fairly accurate no society would be forced to be dominantly homosexual. Heterosexuals will likely always be dominant, but there will always be a few that follow a different path, so to speak.

“…I am fearful about the fate of democracy if people can not be a part of it.”

The rights of individuals should not be put on a ballot by the general public, for that would not be Democracy.

You said to Rufus:
“the rights of women to vote WAS put up to a popular vote”

Not in the United States it wasn’t. It was put up to a vote in Utah prior to their statehood, so they don’t count.

Ken Weaver

7:52 PM, May 13, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"...however if we look at some of the art on vases from Greece and China we can easily tell that there was at least a notable number of homosexuals within their societies."

Great, but acceptance does not mean integration of a particular lifestyle into a societies/cultures law. This goes especially with same-sex marriages which are found nowhere in humanity as a part of any lifestyle of any society that has existed on this planet. This is what I am trying to convey to you Ken.

You said:

"Most of the studies I’ve read say the homosexual populous is around 1 to 3%; would you concur?"

Yes, I would concur.

You said:

"The rights of individuals should not be put on a ballot by the general public, for that would not be Democracy."

Those who want same-sex marriage to be treated as a civil right and its opponents to be punished as bigots lack democracy's backing. The people never voted to make same-sex marriage a civil right in the first place. Civil rights come from the democratic process, not the court system Ken.

8:02 PM, June 04, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“This goes especially with same-sex marriages which are found nowhere in humanity as a part of any lifestyle of any society that has existed on this planet.”

Alright Scia, I’ll play your card now; what’s your evidence regarding that statement? And so what if you are correct? Do we want to play this was not allowed a long time ago so we shouldn’t allow it now game? Polygamy was endorsed by law a long time ago so why haven’t those been legal? Do you give up your right to bear arms because no other society allowed its citizenry that right? Maybe you’d like to give up your right of privacy, or the right to not be tortured or, dare I say it; the right to choose your own religion? You can choose to release all of those rights for yourself because of what ancient societies would or would not have allowed, but even that choice would have been unthinkable not so long ago.

“The people never voted to make same-sex marriage a civil right in the first place.”

Just as the people never voted on any of the other rights we now enjoy.

“Civil rights come from the democratic process, not the court system Ken.”

Really? I thought our rights were endowed by a supposed “creator”.

“Those who want same-sex marriage to be treated as a civil right and its opponents to be punished as bigots lack democracy's backing.”

I respond to this with a quote from Thomas Jefferson: “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”


Ken Weaver

7:16 AM, June 07, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"Alright Scia, I’ll play your card now; what’s your evidence regarding that statement?

In the early 1990s, Columbia University researchers William Byne and Brice Parsons carefully analyzed all the major biological studies on homosexuality. Finding no studies that supported a purely biological cause for homosexuality, they found the origins of homosexuality identification rooted in a "complex mosaic of biologic, psychological and social/cultural factors." (William Byne and Bruce Parsons, "Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reapraised," Archives of General Psychiatry 50 (1993): 228-39.)

Therefore, it is wrong to assert that heterosexuality and homosexuality orientations are essentially the same and should therefore be treated equally. One is firmly rooted in nature and as a result is manifest as the foundation of all human civilations. The other is fare less common and the result of influences that are little understood and not intrinsic to human nature.

You said:

"Just as the people never voted on any of the other rights we now enjoy."

Completely and utterely incorrect. Women's rights were voted upon by the people.

You quoted:

Thomas Jefferson: “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny” Thomas Jefferson.

We can go back and forth in using quotes and making them fit our argument.

9:13 PM, June 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“One is firmly rooted in nature and as a result is manifest as the foundation of all human civilations.”

So, how do we explain the fact that there are number of non-human species on the planet that have a small amount of homosexuals in their midst? Even when a willing mate of opposite gender is available, some just won’t “go for it.”

“The other is fare less common and the result of influences that are little understood and not intrinsic to human nature.”

So William Byne and Bruce Parsons proved beyond doubt that homosexuality is not some part of life that some people are born to? No one has found a gene or cause for being left or right handed beyond doubt either but some identical twins will come out of the womb favoring one side or the other.

“Completely and utterely incorrect. Women's rights were voted upon by the people.”

By United States citizens? You’ll have to educate me then because from what I was taught is that no U.S. citizen in the general public was permitted a vote on the rights of women. Before Utah was a part of the United States their populous did vote on the rights of women, but as far as I know, no where else did this occur and by no U.S. citizen. So please send me something to back that statement up.

“We can go back and forth in using quotes and making them fit our argument.”

My quote stated that it would be better to allow more freedoms than not enough. Yours stated that after time governments turned to tyranny. What’s the correlation?

Ken Weaver

12:22 PM, June 12, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"So, how do we explain the fact that there are number of non-human species on the planet that have a small amount of homosexuals in their midst? Even when a willing mate of opposite gender is available, some just won’t “go for it.”

How should I respond to this?? Your comparing non-human sexual orientations to human sexual orientations? (I am just shaking my head.) Where is the comparison? Any citations to back up your claim that human sexuality is similar with non-human sexuality? My brain hurts!!!

You asked:

"So William Byne and Bruce Parsons proved beyond doubt that homosexuality is not some part of life that some people are born to?"

No, that is NOT the case at all, but there is more evidence to SUGGEST, and only suggest, that homosexuality is a choice and not an innate characteristic.

In regards to U.S. citizens voting on women's rights: I stand corrected, your statement about Utah is factual and that was what I was thinking about. The statement of "U.S. citizens" voting on women's rights is INCORRECT. My appologies.

7:40 PM, July 07, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Any citations to back up your claim that human sexuality is similar with non-human sexuality?”

Scia if you like I can put up several articles that show how human sexuality is very similar to the sexuality of many other species, but I need your assurance that I will not be offending you or your readers to an extent that would cause you to ask me to not come here any longer as some of those articles will have the actual names of body parts that the mention of make some people feel uncomfortable.

“No, that is NOT the case at all, but there is more evidence to SUGGEST, and only suggest, that homosexuality is a choice and not an innate characteristic.”

Excellent Scia, which leaves open the possibility that homosexuality is not chosen, as all of the homosexuals I’ve talked to express how they feel they were born that way.

“In regards to U.S. citizens voting on women's rights: I stand corrected, your statement about Utah is factual and that was what I was thinking about. The statement of "U.S. citizens" voting on women's rights is INCORRECT. My appologies.”

No apologies required Scia, I’ve made similar mistakes myself.

Ken Weaver

9:51 PM, July 07, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Send me the info regarding the sexuality stuff via my blog's e-mail address, which is knowthyfacts@yahoo.com. I will check out the contents and then respond to you. A lot of young folks do read my blog as well and I do not want something that will offend them either.

Thanks for asking first.

You said:

"Excellent Scia, which leaves open the possibility that homosexuality is not chosen, as all of the homosexuals I’ve talked to express how they feel they were born that way."

So, they FEEL they were "born" that way does not mean it is fact, as you have agreed to.

There is not enough evidence to prove either one of our theories. Wow, look at that we agree on something...lets take a moment and take a deep breath in appreciation of this moment. LOL, LOL!!!!

8:02 PM, July 09, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com