It is time for Jamaica to answer for its barbaric human rights record.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@jtgain

It was considered depravity in this country for most of the past 200 years. It was punishable by death in the middle ages.

A lot of what we do would be considered depravity by our medieval ancestors, just as a lot of what they did is considered depravity now (drawing and quartering, for example, is pretty much frowned upon). Do you really want to use them as a standard?

Now, again, just because YOU say it is no longer an act of depravity doesn’t make it so.

Well, what made it so in the first place? If somebody saying something is not a depravity is objectively meaningless, then how does someone saying something is a depravity have meaning?

The flames that I have received only reiterate my point. If you have a traditional belief, just like almost everyone had since this country’s inception, you are called names.

I personally have not and will not call you any names, so I hope you’re not taking my questions as evidence of bias.

If you wish to live a traditional Christian life, follow the Bible, and expect a traditional sense of order in society, you are an outcast.

Please describe what you mean by “traditional sense of order”. Of course, nobody gets everything they want (i.e. nobody is living in what they personally would consider a perfect society, meaning they have to tolerate and compromise on some issues) but your statement implies there was an objective standard that is being abandoned. It’s unclear to me that those who follow “traditional Christian” lifestyles agree (or have ever agreed) on how society should be ordered, hence schisms and denominationalism. Just how many sects of traditional Christianity exist in the U.S.?

Whether or not you agree with Pat Buchanan (obviously you all don’t) you have to admit that he was right in that we ARE in a cultural war.

The statement is meaningless, though. Certainly there are cultural conflicts (personally, I think calling it a “war” is hyperbolic) but those have existed anywhere humans have disagreed about culture, which is pretty much everywhere humans have ever existed. Certainly the advent of Christianity in the first place qualified as a cultural conflict, displacing as it did long-standing traditions and beliefs, and in many cases they did use war, with actual soldiers and cavalry and mass slaughters and whatnot. Buchanan’s statement is no more meaningful than saying “Capitalism relies on money!” Well, of course it does.

But when he said it, everyone said that the very idea that there was a cultural war was ridiculous. From the responses I get, how can it be otherwise?

Do you think the respondents here are actually declaring war on you, or are they simply expressing disagreement? On the spectrum of response, with “I think you’re wrong” (disagreement) at one end and “I’ve sent my bombers to level your country” (war) at the other, where does this discussion fall?

I mean, if we’re going to have a serious conversation (and I’m open to the idea), why not start by defining our terms?

[UltraVires]

This seems to be one of those debates like abortion, in that both sides are coming from such opposite original points, that the arguments are always circular and never resolved. So, I’m out of here for now.

I mean no disrespect to any people, homosexual or not. Have a great Saturday…

[Miller]

@jtgain

I mean no disrespect to any people, homosexual or not.

You do not make a good witness for your faith when you are this transparently dishonest.

[SnakesCatLady]

@jtgain

This seems to be one of those debates like abortion, in that both sides are coming from such opposite original points, that the arguments are always circular and never resolved. So, I’m out of here for now.

I mean no disrespect to any people, homosexual or not. Have a great Saturday…

I do wish you had answered my question. It wasn’t intended to be snarky - I really do want to know what is taken away from heterosexuals if homosexuals are allowed to marry.

[UltraVires]

@Miller

You do not make a good witness for your faith when you are this transparently dishonest.

I’m sorry you feel I’m dishonest. I may not like homosexual behavior, but I can respect a person who engages in homosexual behavior.

I’m sure I do many things in my life that you may disapprove of, but could like me nonetheless (hopefully).

[jayjay]

@jtgain

The flames that I have received only reiterate my point. If you have a traditional belief, just like almost everyone had since this country’s inception, you are called names.

And the curious phenomenon of Christian persecution in a First-World nation which has demonstrably the most actively Christian population is once again demonstrated.

My point being, in case explication is needed, that people who hold this sort of viewpoint apparently consider it persecution when people simply disagree with them. How is it that you are not calling names when you call homosexuals depraved, vulgar, obscene, and unnatural (how “natural” is typing on a computer keyboard and sending those words thousands of miles so that thousands of people can read them? For that matter, how “natural” is even having words?)?

[Kalhoun]

@jtgain

I’m sorry you feel I’m dishonest. I may not like homosexual behavior, but I can respect a person who engages in homosexual behavior.

I’m sure I do many things in my life that you may disapprove of, but could like me nonetheless (hopefully).

If you respected them, you’d support equality in all walks of life. Sounds dishonest to me.

[UltraVires]

@SnakesCatLady

I do wish you had answered my question. It wasn’t intended to be snarky - I really do want to know what is taken away from heterosexuals if homosexuals are allowed to marry.

This question is asked a lot. It doesn’t affect ME or MY MARRIAGE in any way at all. I agree with that 100%.

It is just that, in my belief, and again, I mean no disrespect, that homosexuality is immoral, and if we legitimise that immorality by recognizing a same-sex marriage as an equal to a heterosexual marriage, then we are cheapening the latter.

I, personally, don’t care what you do in private. Just as I believe homosexuality is immoral, there are things in my life that I am not proud of. I don’t look down upon anyone.

But, here we go again. I can see this flaring back up. I really am out of here. Have a great day…

[Miller]

@jtgain

I’m sorry you feel I’m dishonest. I may not like homosexual behavior, but I can respect a person who engages in homosexual behavior.

I’m sure I do many things in my life that you may disapprove of, but could like me nonetheless (hopefully).

That would be difficult to do when you insist on calling me depraved, vulgar, obscene, immoral, and unnatural. That’s an odd way of demonstrating respect, to say the least.

[Valteron]

Has it occurred to JTgain and others that when a Klansman goes on TV to say that he does not hate anyone for the colour of their skin, he is being perfectly sincre? Seriously. I believe he is technically correct to make that claim.

You would have to be insane to hate someone ONLY because of the amount of melanin pigment in their skin. (Indeed, am I the only one who always thought George Wallace was very olive-skinned for someone of Scottish origin? I swear there must have been people who are officially “black” in Alabama who had lighter skin than he did .)

But I digress. If Klansmen genuinely do not hate people based on their skin colour, what IS their problem with African-Americans and civil rights?

Why, it is the BEHAVIOR of these people, who are demanding that whites change the society and societal values they are used to.

First, there was slavery, which is VERY, VERY easy for a good Christian to justify from Scripture. For hundreds of years it was the norm. White slave owners did not HATE blacks. Indeed, foreign observers noted that if anyone had an automatic hatred of black skin near them on trains and such, it was most often northern whites.

Southerners may have hated “uppity” blacks like Frederick Douglas, but not their own slaves, especially if they were servile and obedient.

Then came a northern army that forced them to abolish slavery per se, against the wishes of the white population.

Even then, whites did not HATE blacks if the former slaves and sons of slaves accepted the inferior position carved out for them.

But when the BEHAVIOR and attitudes of those blacks changed, when they began to demand the same bus seats, the same schools, and began loudly to proclaim that they were equal to whites. . . . . then did that behavior throw conservative whites into fits of rage. Because the value system they had lived by for hundreds of years was being challenged and called upon to change.

In the same vein, I have spoken to Conservative Christians who have sincerely protested that not only do they not hate gays, but that one or two members of their church have openly admitted they are gay. The others surround them with love and help them to try to live lives of chastity. When they admit “backsliding” (i.e. they had gay sex) they are immediately forgiven and welcomed back with hugs and solace.

But now gays are asking JTgain and other “traditionalists” to accept changes to the social order and values of our society. I am loudly proclaiming that my sex life is of equal value and dignity as his and my sexuality deserves the same respect. Nobody is asking conservatives to change personally or forcing them to change their personal beliefs mind you. (For that matter, no civil rights advocate ever said anyone had to marry a black person, or even be friends with one).

I suspect, JT, that what you hate and fear is NOT gays. It is the societal change implied by the gay rights movement that terrifies you.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@jtgain

This question is asked a lot. It doesn’t affect ME or MY MARRIAGE in any way at all. I agree with that 100%.

…
by recognizing a same-sex marriage as an equal to a heterosexual marriage, then we are cheapening the latter.

Does cheapening something affect it?

[SnakesCatLady]

@jtgain

This question is asked a lot. It doesn’t affect ME or MY MARRIAGE in any way at all. I agree with that 100%.

This is the part I don’t understand about those who don’t want homosexuals to be allowed to marry. I can have it, but you can’t, because I don’t approve of you.

It is just that, in my belief, and again, I mean no disrespect, that homosexuality is immoral, and if we legitimise that immorality by recognizing a same-sex marriage as an equal to a heterosexual marriage, then we are cheapening the latter.

Allowing homosexuals to marry cheapens marriage, but people who marry and divorce like it is a merry go round really make it sacred, huh?

How can you say “you mean no disrespect” and in the same breath tell someone they are immoral? And that they are immoral not because you have a problem with them, but because you are TOLD to have a problem with them.

You are right - we will never agree. And it is sad that such a large portion of this country won’t think for themselves, but do (and vote) as they are told.

[DocCathode]

Considering the armed government response to an attempted pride demonstration (short version- the police allowed counterprotesters to beat gays, made it easier for the mob to beat gays, and then arrested the gays) in Russia, I’m guessing the Soviet block has a similarly poor record on gay rights.

What about Latin America? From what I’ve heard from expatriates, I doubt it has a good record either.

I was unaware of how bad things are in Jamaica until this thread.

Why don’t we hear more about it? Obviously nobody cares. Then again, nobody really seems to care about Darfur or the ongoing persecution of the Romani either. So is it that nobody cares because the victims are gay? Or is it just general apathy? Either way, what can be done?

[Der_Trihs]

@jtgain

It was considered depravity in this country for most of the past 200 years. It was punishable by death in the middle ages.

That’s because they were worse than we are. What other evils from the past are you willing to support ? Forbidding interracial marriage ? The execution of rape victims for fornication ? Slavery ? The “right” of a man to rape his wife ?

Even a casual study of the past shows that just because a belief is old doesn’t mean that it’s right.

@jtgain

Now, again, just because YOU say it is no longer an act of depravity doesn’t make it so.

And just because you say it is doesn’t make it so. I regard religion as evil; should religious people be forbidden to marry, then ? Or is it only YOUR bigotry that should be written into law ?

@jtgain

The flames that I have received only reiterate my point. If you have a traditional belief, just like almost everyone had since this country’s inception, you are called names.

If you wish to live a traditional Christian life, follow the Bible, and expect a traditional sense of order in society, you are an outcast.

Define “traditional Christian life”. The Bible is barbaric, and anyone who really tried to follow it would end up in prison for stoning heretics or beating their children. And once again, the people of the past were bad people. Slavers and genocidal killers. “They did it in the past” is not an excuse.

And the majority of people right now are Christian and are in power. This constant whining from christians about how persecuted you are is disgusting. You Christians are the persecutors, not the victims.

@jtgain

I don’t look down upon anyone.

Do you even listen to yourself ?

[tomndebb]

@Der Trihs

You Christians are the persecutors, not the victims.

Do not make this a personal attack.

[ /Moderating ]

[Der_Trihs]

@tomndebb

Do not make this a personal attack.

[ /Moderating ]

Didn’t intend it to be. Apologies if I overstepped the rules.

[Der_Trihs]

@Der Trihs

Didn’t intend it to be. Apologies if I overstepped the rules.

Although now that I think of it, it’s hardly fair that it’s OK to call the gays on this board collective names in this thread, but not Christians.

[tomndebb]

@Der Trihs

Although now that I think of it, it’s hardly fair that it’s OK to call the gays on this board collective names in this thread, but not Christians.

You have called Christians vile names for years without any reprimand from me.
In this case, you prefaced your opinion with the word “you,” making it a personal matter. To that I object, (pr’fessionally speaking).

[diggleblop]

Honestly, I can’t really argue with you. I do, however, think that it is rather difficult to protest a country (and it’s citizens) way of thinking. It would be like protesting the south because the majority of them like country music, or protesting England because they drink tea. See what I’m getting at?

Unfortunately, this is built into their culture, it’s part of their belief system, it’s who (not all of them) they are. You’re not going to make them not hate gays any less than you’re gonna make a straight man not like women.

And you’re ESPECIALLY going to have a difficult time if the Government sanctions this wicked way of thinking. But good luck either way, my friend.

[Miller]

@diggleblop

Honestly, I can’t really argue with you. I do, however, think that it is rather difficult to protest a country (and it’s citizens) way of thinking. It would be like protesting the south because the majority of them like country music, or protesting England because they drink tea. See what I’m getting at?

That’s a good example. I mean, it’s not like the South ever had a system of oppressive, prejudicial laws and a culture of violence towards a disliked minority, that was gradually changed through protest, political action, and social pressure.

Unfortunately, this is built into their culture, it’s part of their belief system, it’s who (not all of them) they are. You’re not going to make them not hate gays any less than you’re gonna make a straight man not like women.

It’s true what you say. Societies are what they are, and can’t ever change, so there’s no point in even trying. I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky that, since the founding of the US, gays have always had the level of legal protection and social acceptance that they currently enjoy, because we all know it would be impossible for any society’s attitude towards gays to improve.