Drawing a Line In the Sand

In our modern age, a saying has led to confusion. This saying is - be yourself. What does this saying mean? Today we take it as meaning: do you what you feel like doing. The subject of homosexuality today, I feel, has been distorted into some sort of civil rights movement. I think that with that kind of a distortion we lose track of what is really at stake here. Will allowing the marriage of homosexual pairs begin a landslide in an already teetering moral environment? My fear is that it may.
I have always attempted in my life to judge actions and not people. I believe that homosexuality is wrong. That is my opinion. However, just because someone is a homosexual, that doesn't necessarily make him a bad person. On the contrary, I know many people who do things which many people consider wrong but are still good people. I think we lose out on the discussion when we automatically categorize everyone as either a homophobe or a homolover.
I must abandon the fear of being politically correct and, most likely, greatly offending others to state things bluntly. Homosexuality is a deviancy from a the accepted social network of humanity. I don't mean this as a insult, but as a statement of fact - homosexuals are sexual deviants.
Perhaps I can stay any alarm or demand for retribution by explaining that many people in the world are sexual deviants. Technically speaking anyone who deviates from sexual and familial norms are sexual deviants. A person who has sex outside of marriage is a sexual deviant. Someone who views pornography is a sexual deviant.
Whether you agree or disagree with whether these actions are wrong it cannot be denied that these things deviate from the norm sexually.
The danger, I think, is that we are not being careful which sexual deviations in our society cease to be deviations and become the new norm. Because as soon as any level of morality is lost, we begin a snowball effect of decreasing morality in society.
Right now we cannot protect children from pornography, abstinence has become as antiquated as black and white television, and our society is increasingly falling into a very deep bit of social and moral decay.
They say that they were born that way. Who are we to deny them the ability to act how they feel to act. Where will that thinking lead us? Will it lead us to "true equality" as they profess. I fear that it will lead to a continuation of that line of thought to other sexual deviants. Will we allow marriage to animals next? Beastiality exists, and those kind of people "feel" that way. What about pedophiles? Will we see a time in the future where, so long as the parents consent and the child is okay with it, that a pedophile can marry a child? Revolt if you will at such an idea. But eighty years ago people would have equally revolted at the idea of a government recognizing a homosexual pair in marriage.
I will be called a homophobe. I will be ranted and raged at. But I fear for the moral decay of human society. I choose to make my stand now. I choose to draw a line in the sand here.

 

No one is suggesting that people be able to marry animals.

It is a strawman to justify your own bigotry and denial of rights to a social minority.

The slippery slope is rarely relevant, and certainly does not apply here.

 

Writing off someone's opinion as irrelevant is never a way to start a true discussion. A discussion requires a response, not a write off. It's true, no one is suggesting marriage to animals NOW. I'm suggesting that moral decay is a natural slippery slope that may lead to that, that can lead to other forms of moral decay. So please, discuss with me, give me some feedback. Declaring my opinion is irrelevant is not going to make me go away. It's not going to make my feelings go away.

 

You must start with your own life; honor the values you would impose upon others, yourself.

You will never have absolute control over mankind or the society in which you reside. So, it is up to you to set an example (as you see fit) with your own life. Yes, stem the moral decay within yourself and don't presume that you could do more than influence others by the real, living example you set.

If you think you're going to use WORDS (only) to make the point it seems you desire to, then yes... many will have little choice but to challenge/oppose what you are saying. For not all you are saying is necessarily true, though you may 'believe' that it is. What you say above is based very much in something akin to 'faith', and as you probably know already... human beings do not always have the same version of 'faith'.

Even so, many will welcome your input, if you are reasonable, compassionate and respectful. And beyond the shadow of any doubt... how you approach and treat people overall, determines your success and how you yourself will be treated in return.

 

Amen to that!

 

I strive to follow my values. Nothing sounds more hollow than the words of a hypocrite.
Interesting comment of yours though. Which values are the social norm currently and which values are being imposed on others? I value marriage as the basic unit of society, a unit consisting of a husband and wife raising children. That is the norm in society today. The idea of accepting homosexual pairs as a lawful union is a value that others are attempting to impose on me, an idea that others are attempting to impose on the government. People have a right to do things in their private life. It would be wrong for me to impose those rights on them merely because i disagree with what they are doing. I will not, and will never do that. What I am opposing is what I see as the moral decay and degenerate values that they are trying to impose on me.

 

A discussion requires abstinence from fallacies, the slippery slope is a fallacy.

What are morals anyways? What parts of the country are morally decayed? How can you tell if they are morally decayed? How can granting people rights be immoral?

 

You believe it is a fallacy. I believe you writing my opinion off as a fallacy is a fallacy. It's called differing opinions.

 

A moral is the idea that certain belief or way of living has beneficial consequences to you and society. Every action has consequences. A system of morals is a system one follows which they believe will lead them to good consequences for themselves and others around them.
I hold as a moral the belief that the family is the most important unit in society and that the family as a unit in society is defined as a husband, a wife, and children. This is a time tested unit and the morals which guide this unit, i believe, or morals which the whole world in one way or another have adopted. Every major religion has adopted these morals. Most governments have adopted these morals.
By declaring and demanding that homosexuals should be given the ability to marry and be recognized as family you are attempting to entirely rewrite the morals, or the guiding principles of living, for all of society. I do not feel that this is wise. i agree with these morals, both from a religious AND a logical basis.
Saying that there isn't any morals or that there shouldn't be any morals is like saying there doesn't need to be government. It leads to anarchy. In this case it is moral anarchy instead of governmental anarchy.
Also if you don't believe in morals, than what, in your opinion, is the point of marriage at all?
Once again, this is not simply a civil rights issue like gay activists would have us believe. There are more implications in allowing homosexuals the ability to marry each other than just extending rights. You are trying to re-write the entire moral playing field and trying to redefine marriage in a way that I and most Americans do not want it defined.

 

No, its actually a fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

It is not the governments job to enforce your religiously based morals. Aside from your faith, what exactly will homosexual marriage lead to? The only thing it will lead to is consenting adults enjoying the same legal benefits as heterosexuals.

That is all marriage is on the governmental level, a legal benefit.

By allowing gay marriage the government is not rewriting your or anyone's moral code, that is completely dependent on the individual as to what they do and do not find moral or repulsive. If you allow the state to dictate your morals, you have none. If that is the case you have no morals of your own, your morals are indistinguishable from the governments.

Remove religion from the equation and what arguments are there against granting homosexuals the right to marry? None.

 

I put the advice 'be yourself' in the same category as 'follow your heart'. Only people with an overblown opinion of their own self-worth would ever believe either one of those bits of advice is the key to a happy life. True happiness comes from what you do for others... not what you do for yourself.

Slogans like this have given us a whole generation of self-centered brats who think the world should revolve around what they want. Bad news is... it doesn't.

 

....... so what is wrong with being your self or following your heart? Where do you draw the line between doing what others want to do and want you want to do?

More so, what does this have to do with civil rights?

 

Interesting. I could understand how the use of a slippery slope example could deny and/or disallow the finding of common ground. The question that i have for you then, Wolverine, is what is our common ground, what is our compromise. I believe that society cannot exist without morals and principles to guide it, regardless of whether those principles come from religion or not, and that destruction of the morals can lead to the destruction of society. You believe that homosexuality naturally occurs and they should be given the "right" to marry each other. I don't know that there is a compromise, but I'm open to suggestions if anybody has any. If there is no compromise, if there is no common ground than calling a slippery slope a fallacy cannot work because if society proceeds to allow their morals to be eroded without compromise, without common ground, then that is in fact a slippery slope, a very slippery slope.

 

Great post. All very true. I see this country as being at a crossroads right now. One of two things will eventually happen from here on. We will either reverse course and slowly begin the climb back to healthy morals, self-restraint, and respectability. Or we will continue on our current downhill slide until we reach the bottom again where we are back to living like animals which will drag on for awhile until people are finally so unhappy with what they've brought on themselves that they begin trying to rebuild again from a position of morality and restraint.

I don't even take it that personally anymore since it appears to be part of a natural cycle. Man lives like an animal. Man learns restraint. Restraint leads to improvement of circumstances. Improvement of circumstances creates comfort. Comfort creates boredom. Boredom leads to self-destruction. And self-destruction leads back to animalism. And then the cycle repeats itself.

 

I am not sure if we can share common ground.

My idea of morals, ethics, "sin" are far removed from what most theists consider to be morals, ethics, "sin". I fully support the right for a couple to obtain a legal benefit. Marriage is not a Christian institution, it is not a religious institution, it is a legal benefit.
Non-Christians and non-theists are married everyday without incident.

I do not believe that homosexuality is inherently immoral. If both parties are consenting it is a non-issue, it is no different then the relationships they possess now, they will simply be able to enjoy the same legal benefits as heterosexuals. I support the gay rights movement even though the end result whether it be the denial or giving of rights does not physically effect me in any way shape or form. I have no tangible stake in this particular argument, I'm a guy, and I will continue to chase light eyed brunettes regardless of the outcome of the gay rights movement.

However, what does bother me though, is the denial of rights on illegitimate grounds. There simply are not arguments to be brought against gay marriage that hold any water. Many are simply religiously based, religious people coming up with silly arguments to attempt to cover their true feelings, or all of the above with a fallacy or two mixed in.

No one is suggesting that people marry dogs, cats, or underage children (however, the marriage to underage children was societally acceptable not too long ago), nothing more than granting the same legal benefits to one type of couples to the next.

Denieing people rights on those grounds is simply inexcusable.

 

1. In a representative government it is the job of the government to represent the people. If the people feel that morals and principles belong in society than the government will mirror that sentiment while still allowing freedom of conscience. If the people feel that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman and they feel that that principle is necessary for the good of society then the government WILL mirror that sentiment, because WE THE PEOPLE are the collective boss of the government.

2. If gay activists see marriage as a legal contract only, then why are they not satisfied in states where they are not granted the status of marriage but are granted all the legal rights of marriage? This debate is not about civil rights, it is about civil acceptance. The Gay Rights movement doesn't want legal benefits. They want to systematically change the social structure and order of Western Society.

3. Americans moral code has and always will be reflected in the government. We are a moral nation and most of us have a desire to be led by moral leaders (would to God that it could happen). I vote by my principles and by my morals, if we don't have principles and morals than what guides us? Therefore if we allow the moral code of the nation to be rewritten than as a collective we all stand responsible for that change. The government has changed morals for good often in the past (anti-discrimination law, civil rights laws) and sometimes has changed morals for the worse (Supreme Court decision to allow Digital Child Porn so long as no child is actually involved). A government reflects the people who lead, if the moral code of the government changes it means we have changed.

4. If you read my attempts at civil discussion in the beginning I made no mention to God, Religion, or the Bible. I talked about morals and principles. You assumed my morals and principles came from religion. Are you suggesting that an Atheist or Agnostic cannot have morals and principles? Yes I am a Christian and yes many of my professed morals and principles originate from an honest and comprehensive study of scripture and earnest prayer. But my morals and principles have basis in logic and fact as well. I have attempted to present these morals and principles in a non-religious manner. YOU, I repeat, YOU brought the topic of religion into this conversation. YOU assumed that my principles and values were merely religiously based. YOU are the one acting the bigot who refuses to listen anything, however based in logic or fact, that appears "tainted" by religious influence.

How about instead of seeking to nullify what I have said, someone present some concrete data (not some definition on wikipedia) that would to attempt allay my fears of moral anarchy?

 

It means: "you only live once so do your best and be yourself, don't try to pretend you're something you're not".

And why shouldn't you do just that? As long as you mean and do no harm then what the heck?

Nope, it's been recognized as a legitimate civil rights movement. Your feelings are irrelevant.

Why, what terrible fate will befall us if the rights of a minority are recognised?

Only if you view homosexuals as particularly immoral, why not ask if eating meat on Friday will mean the end for us all?

Don't take this the wrong way but your feelings and your fear are already saying an awful lot about you.

Now you're just lying.

How about red hair or left-handedness?

.

Not according to what you've said so far: if homosexuality is wrong then by your own definition homosexuals are "bad" people.

A homosexual is still a homosexual even if he just eats biscuits and goes to the library.

Well then, we must learn to be clear in our distinctions.

So in other words you do hate gays you'd just rather people would think you're being nice about it?

Yup! I was right.

Oh! you so sodding do!

Nope, pure opinion.

And more opinion.

Well that makes you sound like an apologist, why not just enjoy your your hatred. You'll probably make more friends if you're honest.

No "technically" you have no idea what "technically" means.

My wife and I are deeply insulted.

It has an "off" button!

This is a debating forum, you don't get to decide what "cannot be denied" unless you are talking provable absolutes which this isn't.

Provable harm to the consenting participants is a good way to treat tax-paying adults.

Outside provable harm, morality is subjective. I think society is actually getting better not worse. No doubt some 15th century soothsayer who poured his own crap-bucket on the writhing masses below his "apartment" thought the end was nigh too but, thankfully, I have central heating, cold beer and a pension plan so I guess we can ignore some of the wilder predictions of those beholden to doom?

I saw my first tit-mag when I was 12 in 1974 so what's new?

Despite what they tell you that was true in 1974 too and probably 1794 as well. Humans have always enjoyed doing the nasty, it's just that, these days, there's so many new ways to find out about it but you don't have to look!

Nope, you're just a bit more miserable than most. Cheer up, it'll do you good.

Maybe they believe they were?

A real problem if you're their mum or their dad.

You won't be invited to the kennel and you won't see the puppies.

That seems to be the case where it's already in effect (legally at leat).

Yep there's that "fear" again, that's why they call it homo"phobia".

Well maybe when they can work, open a bank account and pay taxes, if they really want to marry humans we might have to say yes.

Have the beasts told you how they feel?

Seven years of posting on this subject and still NOBODY has any original, logical ideas!

200 years ago that was, in fact, the case so perhaps we're going forward and not backward and you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

We did, you're not allowed to marry children any more, sorry.

Except we've realised it's not an equal revolt.

Which you clearly are so don't be too surprised.

So far you seem to be doing most of the ranting and raging.

Well then cover the windows in brown paper and duct tape and tune the wireless into something harmless and non-threatening. Leave a note for the milkman and ask a local volunteer group to intercept your mail and remove any non-solicited offers.

Jolly good then!

 

Dittos!! Great response!

 

There is no relation between homosexuality and beastility. If you allow one, it doesn't mean the other must follow. Besides, animals cannot consent, and such a thing would never, ever meet with the approval of the masses.

 

I see nothing new here. Just the usual framing of homosexuality as immoral behavior/lifestyle.

Until we get to a point where people can agree that this behavior is for many an expression of their orientation and that both contribute to personal identity, the discussion will go nowhere and people will continue to talk past each other. Even then, I doubt the discussion will progress beyond "I'm right" and "No you're not" because neither side is going to budge. Moralists feel they have the right to impose their morality on others, while gay people are fed up with exactly that. For moralists to claim victim status as their defense is most appalling.

The side debate is whether the purpose of government is to enforce morality, and then whose idea of morality, which naturally leads to the debate over majority rule vs. the civil rights of individuals. Which leads us in a circle right back to the "homosexuality is a behavior, not a right" schtick of the anti-gay.

In other words, debating the issue has become an exercise in futility. It's time for gay people and their allies to stop legitimizing the complaints of moralists by giving them more attention than they deserve. I advise keeping an eye on what they're up to but spend your time engaging the people you can persuade.

Which is why I won't be responding to replies to this post.

 

All very well-said! It does help me to focus on the more important things, even pronto.

Thanks!!

 

Marginalize, discredit, ignore. You been reading liberal strategy guides lately? Sorry though, I'm not going away. Don't Tread On Me!

 

I'll tread on your 'lies', not you per se.

 

No discussion can be had when we call everyone who disagrees with us liars or bigots or religious nuts. A discussion involves not 'treading' on someones opinions or beliefs but an attempt to understand each other and then, and here's the word of the day, persuade people to your point of view by attempting to understand each other and having logical and respectful debate.
So far in several of these posts I have been lumped into larger categories, such as bigot, homophobe, hater, religious nut, misinformed, out of touch. Who's stereotyping who here?
These are my opinions, if you disagree with them, fine. Lets have a conversation. But to call someone a liar and throwing them into a category so you don't have to deal with them - that's not gonna accomplish anything. It sure as heck isn't gonna change my opinion at all. A lot of Americans feel the way I do. Are you gonna ignore us or deal with us. Marginalizing, discrediting, and all the other things you guys are doing isn't changing the fact that we are here. You can either try to, and here it is again, persuade me to change my opinion or if you can't change my opinion, put forward a compromise on the table we can work with.

 

The big problem is I don't think there is anything I could say to persuade you.

If you have been following this subject at all you'll know that there are basically two sides to this argument. There's the secular side which is backed up by a mountain of research which claims that homosexuality is a naturally occurring and repetitive state of being. Nobody knows exactly what causes it just as nobody knows exactly what causes left-handedness but studies have indicated that it is statistically normal for a percentage of the population to be homosexual and that this is true across all generations.

This is backed up by the APA the AMA and many others in the US. It's also the position of the British Medical Association and the same for equivalent bodies in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

That list just includes English speaking nations but you can find the same conclusions written in German, French, Belgian, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian & Finnish.

Basically they all say a gay is a gay is a gay and there's nothing that can be done to change their sexual orientation so they should be treated to all the same rights and protections in law as anyone else as being gay is not a choice and is not intrinsically harmful.

Basically what they are saying is "this is the way it is" but for some the faith-based religious viewpoint (in fact it doesn't even have to be religious, some people just believe homosexuality is "wrong" for no other reason than the fact that they do) is more interested in "this is the way it should be"!

The arguments have been done to death on this and many other forums. There's really not that much more that can be added to persuade you if you're not persuaded already.

I'm sure you know what the arguments are and you've chosen to adopt a moralistic rather than fatalistic stance. I can't see there's any room for compromise without someone thinking their position has been infringed.

That's why some people don't want to have this argument anymore. Not because they don't think there is an argument to be had but because they're bored with making the same points day after day, year after year. Do you honestly think you're the first poster to come on here and make the points and observations you've made? Sorry to say but you're about the 515th and the only one I've EVER seen change his mind was one who turned round and admitted that he was gay all along and just couldn't bring himself to admit it.