AIDS: Approaches and Funding

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lizra

It seems to me, Rian and Leif are saying even though their "worldveiw" is discriminatory (against homosexual marriage) it is their right as Americans to vote for discriminatory laws that support their discriminatory "worldveiw".

And it seems to me that you're not reading our posts!

We are NOT proposing anything that is discriminatory, unless you want to call EVERY description of what makes up a marriage (age, gender, relatedness, etc) discriminatory.

[Rían]

I'd like to ask people to pause for a minute and consider this statement by IRex:

Originally Posted by IRex

At best the strongest feeling I get when responding to you has been “my god! Why cant she understand this!�

I think this is the crux of the current disagreement.

IRex, you obviously have the opinion that I can't understand what you're saying.

You're entirely wrong. I TOTALLY understand what you're saying. In fact, I understand it so well that I AGREE that you're right, if in fact your underlying worldview beliefs are right.

Please re-read that statement

You have presented evidence to me to consider. I've considered it, and I have concluded it's invalid. It's NOT a matter of me NOT understanding your evidence. It IS a matter of underlying worldviews, which is the way people INTERPRET evidence.

Now I've presented lots of evidence that homosexuality is harmful. Do I say "Why doesn't IRex understand it?!" No, I don't. I realize that I've given you the evidence, and also the freedom to evaluate it and reject it if it doesn't make sense according to how you interpret it via your worldview. I'm very openminded

Now the same thing goes on with me. You give me evidence, but can't seem to realize that I can fully understand it and yet conclude that it's false.

IF you believed, like I do, that Christianity is true, THEN you would accept my evidence. IF I believed, like you do, the various things you believe, THEN I would accept YOUR evidence.

It's NOT a matter of understanding. We both understand each other's evidence. It's a matter of how we evaluate and interpret evidence.

Again, I am just mystified how an agnostic like you cannot assent to my statement that IF Christianity (the standard brand, not the fringe ones) is true, THEN homosexuality is harmful.

I'm a strong believer in Christianity, and yet I can easily assent to the statement that IF your worldview beliefs are true, THEN homosexuality is not harmful.

Do you guys see what I'm saying? Can people have the openmindedness to realize that not everyone has the same worldview beliefs, and the courtesy to assume that people arrive at different worldview beliefs sincerely? I can.

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And it seems to me that you're not reading our posts!

We are NOT proposing anything that is discriminatory, unless you want to call EVERY description of what makes up a marriage (age, gender, relatedness, etc) discriminatory.

I've read your posts Rian. I've given the subject much careful thought and consideration. And I firmly believe not allowing homosexuals marriage benefits is VERY discriminatory.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, as long as you admit that if you ARE angry at people, that they don't actually DESERVE it, then I'll say that your position is consistent

um what?

I don't want to "bait" you, and the accusation makes me sad (along with your disrespectful use of "silly"). I wanted to bring up an entirely valid and relevant question. And you don't need to "go over it again" with me, because you already presented your explanations, and I thought about them, and IMO they were not valid. You never explained to my satisfaction. So unless you have any other information to present, we should probably not bother to discuss it.

then why did YOU bring it up out of the clear blue exactly? it doesnt have anything to do with aids or sex education or gay marriage or anything we were just talking about. seemed like just an opportunity to jab at me with another topic we disagree on.

I know that I have free will, and I need a lot more evidence than someone saying I don't have it, to believe otherwise But I'll grant you that you don't have free will, since you seem to believe that

and i know that your thinking that you have complete free will on all things is a product of what your genes allow. ah irony...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You're entirely wrong. I TOTALLY understand what you're saying.

apparently not. because if you truly understood what i was saying you would agree with me.

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That's all correct, except I'd exchange the word "though" for "if" . I don't think it's discriminatory to argue against homosexuals being allowed to marry. It's about the definition of marriage. That definition is undermined and changed to become virtually meaningless if homosexual coupling is allowed to be defined as marriage.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by Lief Erickson

Your right if you're assuming there is a divine standard . Amazing it is to hear you so emphatically taking a ardent Christian position .

"Divine" standard! Very amusing. I'm assuming a standard of fairness.

Originally Posted by Leif Erickson

(Sorry, there isn't anything for bug eyes except something that looks like it's vomiting)

Freedom of religion and freedom to hold differing worldviews is what the country's about!

Sure, as long as you don't attempt to force the differing "worldveiws" and religions unfairly (in a way that is discriminatory) on others. I believe the idea was freedom to worship as you please, without being persecuted....not the freedom to dictate that others live their lives according to a certain groups "worldviews".

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
If my worldview tells me that homosexuality is wrong to have called marriage, I should have the same right to keep it from being called marriage as you have the right to implement laws against a woman marrying her brother. You do that because from your worldview, it's wrong. I do the other because I believe from my worldview, it's wrong. Our beliefs are equally valid to be implemented in law.


you just aren’t getting my point though. That when you tell a group of citizens that they CANT do what everyone else can do you are discriminating against them.

We aren't telling a singling out particular men and telling them they can't marry women, or the other way around. THAT is what everyone else can do. What NO ONE can do (now . . . or before Massachusets, anyway ) is engage in homosexual wedlock. Therefore it's something new you're creating.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
And that in this country at least that goes against our founding ideals. The right to liberty and pursuit of happiness and the freedom to not have ones civil liberties arbitrarily restricted because other people don’t like the very idea of what you do with your own life. You CANT make laws that DO that.

I disagree with the portrait you paint of what we're trying to accomplish. To me the colors look different. (my worldview ) But anyway, I disagree with your last sentence. I should be allowed to try making laws that do that.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
They would be wrong from the inception.

That's for the courts to determine.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
We used to have amendments to the constitution that were enacted to allow discrimination against race to be legal. They were just as wrong. And they were determined to be so ultimately once the country had the balls to face up to the fact that they went against the rest of the constitution.

Thank goodness.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
It seems very much to me like you're saying your worldview should be the basis from which discrimination should be defined. Something's only discrimination if you say it is, and it isn't if you say it's not.

give me your definition of discrimination.

I haven't thought about it very deeply. However, I think that my definition of it is probably pretty similar to yours. The restriction of liberties everyone enjoys from a particular group of people.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
There are plenty of laws protecting minorities. Those should be appealed to in such a case, and the judgment is for the courts.

wait are you saying you know its wrong

No. But even if it were, let our legal system deal with it. Laws that are wrong should be stopped by our court system, not by some discriminatory law that keeps religious people from using the rights everyone has.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
but you still want the right to impose it anyway and that I shouldn’t worry because the courts will throw it out?

You can worry about it and fight it. And I still have the right to try to impose it. If it really is wrong, hopefully the legal system will defeat the law before it's established.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
I have to divorce before marrying! How unfair!

yeah sorry fraid you do. Because your wife may not WANT you marrying while she is married to you. Therefore you are undermining her legal rights by doing that.

That doesn't sound like too strong a point. I'm sure it would be possible to work around it. People being kept from marrying more then one person at once seems largely cultural, social and religious. Those reasons would be vastly weakened if homosexual coupling was allowed to be defined as marriage.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
I'm not planning to have any children! How unfair!

GREAT POINT!

Dropping this one for now, then. Something to keep in the back of my mind .

Originally posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Marriage doesn't have to be permanent! It's not like the decision's going to impact me all my life. Let me marry if I want now, and then be free of it as soon or as long later on as I wish.

nope. Sorry. If you aren’t legal age to give consent NOW then you cant marry NOW. Because we don’t recognize that your child brain and childhood emotions can deal with the adult requirements of making a marriage decision according to the scientific data to date regarding development that our country recognizes as factual. If you cant give consent the state shouldn’t be bound to recognize your relationship legally.

Many people are mature enough to give consent at earlier ages.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
On a sidenote: In plenty of other cultures even in modern days people are allowed to marry earlier.

ah but not HERE. And only the law applies HERE. Not in Bangladesh or those last few places on earth where you can marry off your 8 year old and exchange her for property. Want to know where I would stand on that one?

Do I want to know where you stand on forced marriage? Mm, not particularly. What has that to do with this discussion?

Obviously according to current laws we're not allowed to marry younger. What I'm discussing is not whether I should be able to act IGNORING those laws , but whether those laws are just in the first place.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
are you making the argument here that there are 8 year olds who are developmentally ready for marriage? By the way isn’t it true that the age of consent for MARRIAGE is younger then the age of consent for SEX? So we aren’t talking about if like 15 year olds can marry. Im pretty sure they can. I believe I just read something about a 13 year old marrying. We are talking about really young children. Single digits. Is that your argument?

I'm not sure. I don't really know why you put the ability to have sex in as something to be considered, though. That's a Christian perspective, particularly strongly held by Catholics. Homosexuals can't have sex, yet you are in favor of their being allowed to marry.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Inbreeding is not always harmful to the child.

but its MUCH MUCH more likely to be harmful! And sometimes deadly. Shooting someone in the leg isn’t necessarily always fatal but hey you know what its probably dangerous enough that it should be illegal to do.

You probably are right.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Harm is also caused to children that grow up in poor families, because of lack of opportunity. Parents have the right to marry and bring up kids in those bad, impoverished situations, though.

absolutely. Because the threshold for harm to the child is much lower then when you cross breed purposefully. Therefore we cant base marrying on the simple fact that you aren’t rich. You can still raise your child ok even if you are poor. And you can raise your child like crap if you are rich. JUST as you can raise your child great if you are homosexual and raise them like crap if you are heterosexual. You seem to be arguing my ultimate point here…

Likelihood of harm is what you discussed in the inbreeding example. Couldn't I reverse your argument there and use it to respond to what you just now said? Sure kids can be raised poorly in any of those situations. It's likelihood of harm. Also you seem to be making a distinction between mental harm and physical harm and upbringing disadvantages. Why do you make that distinction? If kids are brought up in the hunger in the U.S. (as some do), shouldn't there be a state law against marriage between such poverty stricken couples unless they agree not to have children?

Originally posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Of course, RÃ*an, you may wish to respond to Insidious Rex in a very different way then I have . I don't know. I'm hopeless. I just love to argue.

and that makes you ok in my book. Debate is what its all about.

Pleasure is one of the three major things for me, anyway .

Originally posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
But I think the different issues I brought up are not only concluded upon in the way that they are for genetic and social reasons, like Insidious Rex suggests. It's because marriage is defined in one particular way, in a Christian way.

maybe in church. But marriage is NOT owned by a certain sect of Christianity. So this kind of reasoning is faulty from the start. Even some Christians will marry gays. I never understand causing such a huge uproar over a silly word.

Marriage is not only a word. It's the union of two people in property and in being. It is supposed to be a union in love and forever (till recently; nowadays the wording sometimes is changed from "till death do us part" to "till love do us part" ). Not all Christians adhere to the teachings of the scriptures, unfortunately.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
But marriage is NOT owned by a certain sect of Christianity.

Homosexual relationships are not the same as heterosexual ones, in my opinion and the opinions of many others. I have several reasons why I don't believe that homosexual relationships should be defined as marriage. I went into those some in the gay/lesbian thread once, and I'm not very interested in going there again now.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Believe it or not people were actually marrying each other WELL before the bible was written. Hard to believe huh.

Wow! There's a new thought! (Smacks self on head )

Though actually, Christian teachings of marriage were installed in the very beginning of Creation. The Christian definition of marriage was the first one.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And by the way do you support the LEGAL means that the folks from the Christian Exodus movement want to engage in? seems like its right up your alley. Apparently they are sick and tired of all the sinners and fornicators and the politicians who talk and never do anything about it so they are taking advantage of our democratic system to mass likeminded people in one location thereby heavily favoring the representation toward their agenda. Then their city council members and school board members will change things to what they want. From there they will move on to a county level and then a state level and if they succeed they can (and they have run the numbers) seceed from the union and have their own Christian state that god intended. Nothing wrong there that I see. All following the rules carefully so that they can ram their agenda down the throats of normal south Carolinians who don’t agree with them based on the democratic concept of SHEER NUMBERS which is your signature argument. So what are your thoughts on that? More power to them? Disturbing? Are you packing your bags to join them? I find it rather terrifying myself.

Understandably.

There are Muslims trying to do the same thing in the U.S., and that really scares Christians that have fled from persecution in Muslim countries to the U.S. I don't know what to do about things like that.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Lizra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That's all correct, except I'd exchange the word "though" for "if" . I don't think it's discriminatory to argue against homosexuals being allowed to marry. It's about the definition of marriage. That definition is undermined and changed to become virtually meaningless if homosexual coupling is allowed to be defined as marriage.


I disagree.

Okay. I'm very glad you've thought about this a lot, by the way .

Originally posted by Lizra

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erickson
Your right if you're assuming there is a divine standard . Amazing it is to hear you so emphatically taking a ardent Christian position .


"Divine" standard! Very amusing.

'twas meant to be amusing . Glad you found it so.

I'm assuming a standard of fairness.

Okay. I won't bother with stating again that I disagree with your conclusion here, of course . That would be a point made pointlessly.

Originally posted by Lizra

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leif Erickson
(Sorry, there isn't anything for bug eyes except something that looks like it's vomiting)

Freedom of religion and freedom to hold differing worldviews is what the country's about!



Sure, as long as you don't attempt to force the differing "worldveiws" and religions unfairly (in a way that is discriminatory) on others. I believe the idea was freedom to worship as you please, without being persecuted....not the freedom to dictate that others live their lives according to a certain groups "worldviews".

Everyone decides everything they decide based upon their own personal worldviews. You'll always have people who are discontented with certain laws, laws that were placed by other people's worldviews. So those people's worldviews have power over the lives of other people with different worldviews. So we're always going to be stuck in a situation of some people's worldviews dictating in lives of other people that don't share those worldviews. We aren't all like-minded. That's the way it is. (Shrugs)

[Lizra]

I do not want to trade *fairness* in for *most popular worldveiw*. I agree with IR on this issue, and note that many christians DO support homosexual marriage. May I suggest the book "Stealing Jesus....How Fundamentalalism betrays Christianity", by Bruce Bawer. It's the book I read AFTER "THe Case for Christ"!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lizra

I do not want to trade *fairness* in for *most popular worldveiw*.

Most of those that espouse a certain worldview believe it is fair, or at least right.

Originally Posted by Lizra

I agree with IR on this issue, and note that many christians DO support homosexual marriage. May I suggest the book "Stealing Jesus....How Fundamentalalism betrays Christianity", by Bruce Bawer. It's the book I read AFTER "THe Case for Christ"!

No need. I go regularly to a church full of Episcopalians that believe homosexuality is right. Many of them are homosexuals or lesbians themselves. Being in a leadership position in the youth group there, with so many differing views between myself and the rest of the church, is not always easy. It'll only get harder, I predict, as time passes.

So I could use the occasional prayer, RÃ*an.

But Lizra, this isn't nearly a majority of Christians. The Episcopal church of America has alienated itself with its worldwide Anglican brethren for taking an accepting stance of homosexuality. Two churches in the diocese I'm involved with split off from the main body because off this issue, splitting off because the diocese of Los Angeles is in support of homosexuality.

The Bible, according to Christians, is the Word of God. It expressly and in several places comes down hard on homosexuality, calling it a sin and a perversion. This new, liberal view of Christianity that's being espoused is clearly against the teachings of the earliest Christian saints and God himself, in the Old Testament. It's a subject I'm capable of talking about at a good deal of length, because of the environment I live in. But this really is not the thread for such a big off-topic discussion. Also, I doubt that you or Insidious Rex are in much of a position to debate the "correct" interpretations of Christian teachings .

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lizra

I've read your posts Rian. I've given the subject much careful thought and consideration. And I firmly believe not allowing homosexuals marriage benefits is VERY discriminatory.

You go, girl! Fight for what you believe to be right! And I'll do the same, and point out altho you might think my position is discriminatory, I sincerely don't. I've explained why, and you don't accept it, so you and I are at an impasse here, but that's ok with me because I understand that you have different beliefs.

It's exactly like how I think that your beliefs about evolution are insulting to humans, and you believe they are NOT insulting to humans, because of your worldview.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

apparently not. because if you truly understood what i was saying you would agree with me.

And I'll turn around and say the exact same thing to you - If YOU truly understood what I was saying, you would agree with me

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lizra

I do not want to trade *fairness* in for *most popular worldveiw*. I agree with IR on this issue, and note that many christians DO support homosexual marriage. May I suggest the book "Stealing Jesus....How Fundamentalalism betrays Christianity", by Bruce Bawer. It's the book I read AFTER "THe Case for Christ"!

I'll check it out, and I imagine I will agree with some of their points, BTW.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So I could use the occasional prayer, RÃ*an.

I'd love to and I would love yours!

I'd like to toss in a quote from C.S. Lewis here that I think is very relevant:

from Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis
When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view.

I imagine this statement will get laughed at, but I laugh back and point to the evidence that I am the one that has said here that alternate worldviews could very well be correct, and that if they are, then their views on homosexuality are right.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Rian

Well, as long as you admit that if you ARE angry at people, that they don't actually DESERVE it, then I'll say that your position is consistent

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

um what?

What don't you understand?

then why did YOU bring it up out of the clear blue exactly? it doesnt have anything to do with aids or sex education or gay marriage or anything we were just talking about. seemed like just an opportunity to jab at me with another topic we disagree on.

I brought it up because I have free will and I wanted to bring it up because IMO, as I said, it DOES have a LOT to do with this issue. You hold your beliefs on homosexuality based on your worldview, part of which is that our behavior is entirely dictated by genes and environment, right? (please correct me if I"m wrong) And I'm pointing out a logical inconsistency in your worldview, which will hopefully make you reconsider your worldview. If it's true that our behavior is entirely dictated by genes and environment, then I'm pointing out that a logical conclusion is that the people that you get mad at because you think they're discriminating can't help their behavior and therefore they don't deserve your anger, right?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Pleasure is one of the three major things for me, anyway .

Check out Psalm 16:11.

Most people, esp. non-Christians, are too easily pleased ... our desires are not strong enough ... as Lewis says, we turn down a trip to the beach because we're content to splash in the mud ...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I urge you to relax and not take everything personally. Ive told the same thing to rian but shes very easily offended and bruised unfortunately. If you want to debate with me (especially about topics like gay marriage and evolution and such) then yer gonna have to deal with that fact that I play rough. Its just how I am. I do the same thing with my friends in real life. Im always informal and I don’t hold back on the words I use or the tone of my phrasing. Think of me as a big bear who when he wants to play with his friends bats them around with a big paw. Don’t get offended or frightened if I send you head over heals. Its just how I play. Now if that’s too rough for you then that’s understandable and don’t get into debates with me. But if yer ok with it then great. Don’t take it personally and in fact do the same back. I enjoy that. Makes me feel like things aren’t so formal and that im accepted as part of the group. I would have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with you giving me a hard time when you get the opportunity to. Id probably get a good chuckle out of it. Others do and it amuses me. In fact I feel closer to them when they do. So don’t worry about hurting my feelings at all. its how I play the game.

So can I use the word "nigger", and as long as I do it in an informal manner, like a big bear who wants to play, it's ok with you?

I ask this seriously, because from what you said, I think you might need to reconsider things a bit.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Check out Psalm 16:11.

Most people, esp. non-Christians, are too easily pleased ... our desires are not strong enough ... as Lewis says, we turn down a trip to the beach because we're content to splash in the mud ...

(Reads it)

I've thought about it a little and I'm not completely 100% positive what your point is. Could you tell me over PM?