More GAY discussion....

  • Thread starter Sheik Abdul Bin Fallafel
  • Start date
S

Sheik Abdul Bin Fallafel

Guest
Please read this whole thing if you're going to reply to this thread, thank you:

I think everyone will agree with me that originally, Americans never accepted homosexuality in their culture. The constitution was written by white Christian men originating from Europe who had no intention of adopting homosexuality as an accepted norm in their new country.

It was the American media who later on glorified the gay lifestyle and pushed us to accept them. Some of us do, some of us do not.

I often wonder, will it stop at homosexuality?

1. Why don't they make nudity in public legal? Other cultures such as African cultures allow their people to roam around nude.

2. Why don't they allow a man or woman to have 10 different spouses? Muslim law allows men to have several wives. Why can't we?

3. Why don't they ammed the constition so I can marry my dog? Many other cultures glorify animals, some as gods, etc. You know what I mean.

4. Why don't they let grown men have sex with 12 year old girls? There is no lower age limit for girls to be married or have sex with certain cultures like Muslim, or some asian countries. Once they have had their period they're good to go.


Why not? Because somewhere, somehow they had a certain level of decency they felt they had to uphold. What was this "morality" based on? Well it was largely based on Christianity, and also by European culture at the time, which they brought over some traditions here (including slavery for example, which is not Christian)

Everyone with me so far? I don't think any of you dispute this yet right?

OK So now that Christian/Euro based code of morality our forefathers chose to adopt when creating this country is now being CHANGED to include people of ALL DIFFERENT moral codes.

Still with me?


OK.


So here is the million dollar question:

What happens when all these codes of morality everyone feels they want to have this country adopt CLASH?

Answer: CHAOS!

Christians say you can only have one spouse. Muslisms say you can have multipe spouses. Christians say you can not be homosexual, liberals say you can. You get my point?

IT DOES IT NOT MAKE SENSE TO CHANGE THE MORAL CODE OF THIS COUNTRY TO ACCEPT OTHER CODES OF MORALITY ADOPTED BY OTHER CULTURES.

Agree? Disagree?
 
I'd rather not see a naked 45yr old man walking around making out with his dog or a 9yr old girl, and have him go home to 11 wives. I say we draw the line right before the homosexuals, and call it a day.
 
Unfortunately America is stemming more towards a secular society. Of course there are plenty of Evangelical states left and people who still have morals. The law has to change with an ever changing society. Of course adopting such laws that are deemed immoral is something long debated since the Constitution was wriiten. However, this is far from marrying a dog. You have a serious distaste for people who are not like you. I feel that it is personal and that you are homophobic. I hate to attack you, but you're attacking people, doesn't matter if they are homosexual or not. If you are a God fearing human being, then allow the Almighty to deal with them. Of course, let me repeat that this is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But frankly, sheikh, born, whoever you are, it's wrong. I personally don't agree with the idea homosexuality and some of the things they do, but they are human beings, much are Muslims, Arabs, Chinese, and Assyrians with their own beliefs and morals. You make every Assyrian look bad when you call yourself one, yet have no respect for other's personal lives. I am saddened and disgusted.
 
African Americans are human too, even though at one point in our history they were accounted for as 1/3 of a human being?! Outrageous! -- We changed society and our laws to give them the right to vote, but most importantly equality under the Constitution.

Women are human as well! They were not mentioned in the Constitution, nor were they even considered to be a man's equal when this nation was created. We changed society in that sense, as well. Women can do the same jobs as men, are entitled to equal pay and equal rights, and can become powerful figures in the world today.

Sexual orientation, in comparison to the other fallacies of our country in the past, is such a MINOR issue. I myself do not agree with the whole concept of homosexuality, but to each his own. You are entitled to your own opinion, but to keep people from their Constitutional right of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is beyond the scope of your influence.
 
radrides.... this has nothing to do with what i believe as a single peron.

I am simply saying, that the constitution was written with a moral code that was adopted from a combined Christian/European sense of morality.

It is impossible to have a constitution that is based on MULTIPLE codes of morality --- you can never make everyone happy. Agree or Disagree?

I am simply stating, that it is wrong to change the moral structure of this country to fit a SELECT GROUP of people, just because they don't agree with it... because it is SELFISH and WRONG and there are others who are perfectly happy with how things are and have always been.

It's like a Jewish group lobbying and passing a law that sas "American's can no longer work on Saturdays, it is the Saboth, let them pray."

We'd be like who the hell are these jewish people and why are they telling us what to do?

Maybe that's the way it works in Israel, but not here.

It's the same thing with Gays. Gay right groups lobby the government to see things there way, but our forefathers never intended for homosexuality to be accepted into this culture.

I don't think we should change our moral code for anyone. Because the minute we start changing our morality, the more and more everyone wants to change it to be THEIR way, and that is an endless cycle where no one is ever happy.

You either just have to accept the morality of this country or go somewhere else that best fits your personal code of morals. You get what I am saying?
 
Morals stem from right and wrong. Basics of all philosophers teachings and understandings. But there has to be a limit to what a society can "prescribe" for its people. Homosexuality, just like african americans and women have to be accepted. Of course the separation of church and state would allow homosexuals the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They aren't to an extent. Allowing religion to rule over human law is a tough issue. One I can't discuss since I agree with religion. But not everyone does, and hence secular laws are set in place to govern all peoples. Chaos would happen if neither religion or human laws were set in place. At least with the two, one balancing the other, things won't turn out to be crazy. What a confusing topic.
 
Sheik Abdul Bin Fallafel said:
It's the same thing with Gays. Gay right groups lobby the government to see things there way, but our forefathers never intended for homosexuality to be accepted into this culture.

I don't think we should change our moral code for anyone. Because the minute we start changing our morality, the more and more everyone wants to change it to be THEIR way, and that is an endless cycle where no one is ever happy.
Click to expand...

Were women or african americans written or mentioned in the Constitution? I don't think so. It was written by men for men to be ruled and governed by men. Yes the laws that were written 200 yrs ago were for the betterment of the people of these United States, but the neglected to allow minorities and gender to be included. Im not well versed in the constitution, but im sure that amendments were made to accomodate ever changing societies and their views. Womens right, civil rights, womens suffrage, black suffrage, etc etc. If it is so hard for the government to allow homosexuals rights of typical married couples, then i say its wrong and the law should be changed. that doesnt mean however, that everyone will get their way. there is a limit to that. that is based on our own beliefs and morals i do believe even dog marrying fools have some sort of morals left in them.
 
Thank you.... See now here we go:

Morals stem from right and wrong.
Click to expand...
This is my point. What is right, what is wrong? It's all relative! Relative to what? Our forefathers chose it to be relative to Christianity and European culture circa 1787.

You use these terms: "secular law" and "human law" but what do these really mean???

Let me ask you this. Say this country becomes 51% Muslim some day and it's decided that we can have more than 1 wife, and that we can marry girls as young as 13.

What does "secular law" or "human law" say about this? Does it say it's right or wrong??
 
I think polygomy was abolished and not allowed. So I honestly don't think it has any relevance to this discussion. Besides, we as a nation do not reside under Muslim law. Reason for separation of church and state. Then those human laws can be set up to not allow or allow such acts as polygomy.
 
Were women or african americans written or mentioned in the Constitution? I don't think so. It was written by men for men to be ruled and governed by men. Yes the laws that were written 200 yrs ago were for the betterment of the people of these United States, but the neglected to allow minorities and gender to be included.
Click to expand...

YES you and David are 100% correct in this. But see back then, they even contridicted themselves. On the one hand they said life, liberty and freedom were granted towards every American, and on the other hand they allowed slavery and poor women's rights. So ammendments were made to basically correct their own wording.

But by giving gays rights OR by allowing them to become a married couple, these are 2 totally different things. You can give gays all the rights that Americans get without calling them a married couple. Our forefathers defined marriage as between a man and wife. Why does that have to change now just because another group of individuals disagree with their defintion of marriage (based on their moral code)?
 
What I'm saying is "human law" and "secular law" have no basis of anything. They are lawless. There is no defined law. They are ever changing with whatever society deems to be correct today.

If you told people 200 yrs ago you were letting men and men wed in marriage, that would be as foriegn to them as seeing a man and dog become married.

But now the gay lifestyle is accepted in our culture. Maybe soon public nudity will be accepted? Clothing is getting more and more scarce. You get my point? Somewhere we have to draw the line and say "OUR LAWS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE".
 
sadly, we cannot do anything about it. we have to accept the fact that families across this nation still hold some idea of what is right and what is wrong. we must leave it up to them and their future generations to decide that, regardless of how the law is managed. if chaos is to errupt, then i say let it. we can make laws for today, but for tomorrow, only time will tell.
 
I am 100% in agreeance with the resident Sheik. It has nothng to do with homophobia. The issue that Sheik has raised is how far do we go as a society? I asked the same question a few months ago when the Gay issue came up (yet again), as to what next? Paedophilia? Trust me, it will be either that or beastiality that will be considered normal and to be tolerated. After all, those who practice these acts are humans too, right?

Right now, the western countries are in chaos because people have totally lost sight of what is right and what is wrong. Nothing is considered wrong nowadays because there is too much emphasis on, "nobody can tell me what to do, I live in a free country". There are no more rules and with no more rules, it is going to get chaotic.

Now before you start calling me names and putting words in my mouth, I work with 3 pillow biters and I get along really well with 2 of them (the 3rd one doesn't get along with anyone by choice). I have nothing against them as people. Pillow Biting aside, they are great guys. They don't hurt me though one of them openly tells me when he thinks some guy looks cute. Yes Radrides, I am not the judge, only God is the judge, but where does the downgrading of moral standards end in our society? In beastiality, both human and animal may be concenting. Does this make it right? They aren't hurting anyone afterall.

Sheik, I don't alwas agree with you but I am right behind you on this one (no pun intended).
 
Moja I respect both yours and Sheikh's comments. I do agree that western countries have this idea that they can do whatever they want all in the name of freedom. Secular socities have this mentality. I want to try to defend human rights but of course I don't agree with instituting "rights" to allow sinful acts of nature such as ones you gentleman mentioned. All I am saying is homosexuality is wrong, as is beastiality, polygomy, etc etc, but I am for rights of the individuals. Of course what may ensue is mass chaos and demonstrations for everything else that is considered wrong. As for a nation, there is never a separation of church and state even though it is written as is. We have those who entill in city, state, national laws that my include indirect references to religious related material for the betterment of society. This is such a tough issue. But I am beginning to see your points. I do apologize to Sheikh though for my comments towards him even though I don't agree with the Assyrian pride thing and gay issue. That much is true. Good day. Moja we could use your help at church on Sunday for Mar Bawai, it will be interesting.

Narsai
 
hey no problem man all is cool, i'm glad you're seeing where i'm coming from, and understand its really not my personal beliefs against gays but its much more than that.

Without the law there is chaos. there has to be law. and the law can not be changed by special interest groups... whether they be gay lobbyists, oil companies, or even christian evangelican leaders.... if they don't like the rules our forefathers established, let them go somewhere else.

It's one thing to REALLY STRETCH the interpretation of legal documents to establish new law (like they did with a woman's right to abortion for example, which i am somewhat neutral on) ... but to DESTROY and REWRITE existing law to suit some special interests of a select group is wrong.

Gays deserve every right we do. But they should not be allowed to change the definition of marriage.

Personally, I am very excited that George Bush has the opportunity to elect 2 supreme court judges, both very conservative so they can INTERPRET the laws that exist and enforce them, NOT re-write laws like liberal democrats would like them to. And maybe if we're lucky another supreme court judge will retire (or god forbid pass on) and Bush will be given another opportunity to put another conservative in there.
 
Sheik Abdul Bin Fallafel said:
hey no problem man all is cool, i'm glad you're seeing where i'm coming from, and understand its really not my personal beliefs against gays but its much more than that.

Without the law there is chaos. there has to be law. and the law can not be changed by special interest groups... whether they be gay lobbyists, oil companies, or even christian evangelican leaders.... if they don't like the rules our forefathers established, let them go somewhere else.

It's one thing to REALLY STRETCH the interpretation of legal documents to establish new law (like they did with a woman's right to abortion for example, which i am somewhat neutral on) ... but to DESTROY and REWRITE existing law to suit some special interests of a select group is wrong.

Gays deserve every right we do. But they should not be allowed to change the definition of marriage.

Personally, I am very excited that George Bush has the opportunity to elect 2 supreme court judges, both very conservative so they can INTERPRET the laws that exist and enforce them, NOT re-write laws like liberal democrats would like them to. And maybe if we're lucky another supreme court judge will retire (or god forbid pass on) and Bush will be given another opportunity to put another conservative in there.
Click to expand...

i await moja's reply on that one haha.
 
LOL@Radrides. Domestic policies of George Bush don't affect me. As long as the judge that he appoints is not corrupt or carryin baggage from somewhere else, good luck to him.

I am sorry my reply was an anti-climax. I will try better next time.
 
Moja Moja said:
LOL@Radrides. Domestic policies of George Bush don't affect me. As long as the judge that he appoints is not corrupt or carryin baggage from somewhere else, good luck to him.

I am sorry my reply was an anti-climax. I will try better next time.
Click to expand...

by all means continue. i enjoy readin your replies. keeps this section and the history/politics/religion areas fun and interesting. besides your distaste of lil ol mr. w cracks me up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top