Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
New York Legalizes Same Sex Marriage
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="air_dr" data-source="post: 860322" data-attributes="member: 29929"><p>This post and others touch on a very tricky area and asks some good questions. I hope we can all agree that there is something very right about having convictions and being willing to stand by them, even when it involves personal sacrifice.</p><p></p><p>If I was in the place of those clerks, I would approach the situation with the view that I was only processing paperwork, even though, just for the record at this point, I am vehemently opposed to laws that in any way create any kind of legal equivilancy between the traditional family of one man and one woman united in marriage.</p><p></p><p>Any way, before I am given a beating from some people, I would like to offer some questions as food for thought:</p><p></p><p>How would those clerks feel they should have responded, had, while they were still employed, been faced with a request to issue a marriage license to a couple where one party clearly appeared unfit for marriage (eg keeps calling her "bitch") right there in the office. What stand if any should the clerk take?</p><p></p><p>Since this is Brown Cafe, as UPSers, does anyone among us feel, as a matter of conscience, that we could not serve a particular customer or handle a particular package and so would seek accomodation from our center manager. Perhaps there is an abortion clinic on one's route. How about a tobacco shop and you lost your father at a young age from cancer linked to smoking and sincerely believe tobacco to be evil? Would it be wrong for a loader to refuse to handle a package that he knew contained Nazi propaganda (eg. there's a swastika printed on the box)?</p><p></p><p>I know I can certainly respect different points of view in each of these hypothetical situations. I do think that it is a good practice to try and accomodate the consciences of others, though I realize that sometimes that cannot be done because it creates an excessive hardship.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Now I'll go out on a limb. I seek to challenge the thinking of some people here. I wish to take a stand against the momentum of thought in our day and say I believe that homosexuality is profoundly disordered and that we are undretaking a dangerous social experiment by viewing same sex couples the way we view heterosexual couples.</p><p></p><p>In my mind I separate homosexual desires from the person who has them. Some will say that is impossible and many supposed experts would share that view. I disagree and know that the experts have been wrong in the past. (In recent years some "experts" have thought there was no limit to the housing boom.) </p><p></p><p>That homosexuality is disordered, I believe should be obvious to everyone. I see no need to complicate the question with either religous dogma or modern psychology. It is a truth our bodies themselves proclaim. Even the simple minded among us can understand what parts are naturally designed to be brought together. There are compelling health reasons not to commit homosexual acts. The urinary tract is sterile. The rectum is filled with bacteria. Those are body parts that should never come in contact with each other!</p><p></p><p>I have no trouble saying that I believe a person who has feelings of same sex attraction is best off living chastely in singleness. </p><p></p><p>If someone is in a homosexual relationship and wants certain legal protections, he can have drafted powers of attorney for healthcare and property, and a will. </p><p></p><p>I don't know how so many people have come to believe the lie that deeply held feelings are the ultimate criterion of truth or goodness. While all analogies break down, but such flawed logic, we would have to affirm the destructive behavior of an anorexic because the person sincerely feels a desire to lose more weight and genuinely sees oneself as fat. Most people also realize that certain relationships between two people can be destructive. Consider an unhealthy codependency where two people cannot break free from one another because of unhealthy feelings and bonds.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, I always get mixed feelings when I see people wear t-shirts that say things like "I love my gay friends." I'm glad they do and i don't feel I have hatred in my heart toward anyone, but I would never I identify a friend by his disorder. I don't think it would build anyone up to say "I love my obese friends" for example.</p><p></p><p>Speaking of obesity, its obviously a terrible health problem, and many school age children are seriously overweight. Getting bullied over ones weight (or countless other things for that matter) is also an unfortunate fact of life for many school children. Many schools have begun to better address the issue of bullying and for that I am thankful. In the case of weight, the challenge is to both stop the bullying as well as exhort heavy children to watch what they eat. No sane person would condemn the bullying of the fat kid and then use that as a springboard to celebrate obesity! I am very concerned how some people go way beyond condemning bullying of children who defy gender stereotypes, and seek to encourage children to view positively, a life style which I believe is destructive.</p><p></p><p>While I don't want my life micromanged by others, I am troubled by what I see as a radical individualism. Its a troubling trend I see amongst both certain Christians as well as many conservatives. Society enables us to be part of something bigger than ourselves and I, for one, am glad to be party to the social contract. Poet John Donne was right, "No man is an island..." and we ARE our brothers keeper...</p><p></p><p>A man and a woman united in marriage and the children they are raising has for ages been understood as the basic family unit and the building block of society. It is entirely appropriate for our government to recognize and affirm in a special way this institution that even predates our government. Different arrangements such as two men simply do not and cannot form that unit. For that simple reason I don't believe they can marry, form a civil union, or whatever else we want to decieve ourselves into calling it. Yes, this is unfair to people who do not find the opposite gender romantically atrractive, but I am not convinced that the goal of good and wholesome societies should be to erradicate all unfairness. (Eg. Because Tom is naturally smarter than Joe, he got a higher paying job. That's not fair to Joe. Etc.)</p><p></p><p>The state of Illinois has recently passed civil unions legislation. As a result some adoption agencies who believe that the traditional family unit is the best environment in which to raise a child are now being forced to consider placing children in their guardianship with homosexual couples. I am outraged!</p><p></p><p>Lawyers who specialize in dad's rights in cases of divorce cite how the absence of a father leads to problems for many children and their conclusions don't seem to be at all controversial. I simply do not understand how this knowledge flies right out the window when the question is whether two lesbians should adopt!</p><p></p><p>Children need a mom and a dad. Not two moms or two dads. Mothers do not father and fathers do not mother. Men and women, while equal in value, are different. Even modern slang betrays what we know somewhere deep within. It is not by chance that we say we talked to someone "man to man and challenged him to man up." </p><p></p><p>While we shouldn't get too legalistic or uptight because some people defy stereotypes and there are heterosexual male hair dressers who get their UPS packages delivered by a heterosexual female driver, its best when men and boys are encouraged in their masculinity and women and girls in their femininity. What a radical idea for our day!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="air_dr, post: 860322, member: 29929"] This post and others touch on a very tricky area and asks some good questions. I hope we can all agree that there is something very right about having convictions and being willing to stand by them, even when it involves personal sacrifice. If I was in the place of those clerks, I would approach the situation with the view that I was only processing paperwork, even though, just for the record at this point, I am vehemently opposed to laws that in any way create any kind of legal equivilancy between the traditional family of one man and one woman united in marriage. Any way, before I am given a beating from some people, I would like to offer some questions as food for thought: How would those clerks feel they should have responded, had, while they were still employed, been faced with a request to issue a marriage license to a couple where one party clearly appeared unfit for marriage (eg keeps calling her "bitch") right there in the office. What stand if any should the clerk take? Since this is Brown Cafe, as UPSers, does anyone among us feel, as a matter of conscience, that we could not serve a particular customer or handle a particular package and so would seek accomodation from our center manager. Perhaps there is an abortion clinic on one's route. How about a tobacco shop and you lost your father at a young age from cancer linked to smoking and sincerely believe tobacco to be evil? Would it be wrong for a loader to refuse to handle a package that he knew contained Nazi propaganda (eg. there's a swastika printed on the box)? I know I can certainly respect different points of view in each of these hypothetical situations. I do think that it is a good practice to try and accomodate the consciences of others, though I realize that sometimes that cannot be done because it creates an excessive hardship. Now I'll go out on a limb. I seek to challenge the thinking of some people here. I wish to take a stand against the momentum of thought in our day and say I believe that homosexuality is profoundly disordered and that we are undretaking a dangerous social experiment by viewing same sex couples the way we view heterosexual couples. In my mind I separate homosexual desires from the person who has them. Some will say that is impossible and many supposed experts would share that view. I disagree and know that the experts have been wrong in the past. (In recent years some "experts" have thought there was no limit to the housing boom.) That homosexuality is disordered, I believe should be obvious to everyone. I see no need to complicate the question with either religous dogma or modern psychology. It is a truth our bodies themselves proclaim. Even the simple minded among us can understand what parts are naturally designed to be brought together. There are compelling health reasons not to commit homosexual acts. The urinary tract is sterile. The rectum is filled with bacteria. Those are body parts that should never come in contact with each other! I have no trouble saying that I believe a person who has feelings of same sex attraction is best off living chastely in singleness. If someone is in a homosexual relationship and wants certain legal protections, he can have drafted powers of attorney for healthcare and property, and a will. I don't know how so many people have come to believe the lie that deeply held feelings are the ultimate criterion of truth or goodness. While all analogies break down, but such flawed logic, we would have to affirm the destructive behavior of an anorexic because the person sincerely feels a desire to lose more weight and genuinely sees oneself as fat. Most people also realize that certain relationships between two people can be destructive. Consider an unhealthy codependency where two people cannot break free from one another because of unhealthy feelings and bonds. Anyway, I always get mixed feelings when I see people wear t-shirts that say things like "I love my gay friends." I'm glad they do and i don't feel I have hatred in my heart toward anyone, but I would never I identify a friend by his disorder. I don't think it would build anyone up to say "I love my obese friends" for example. Speaking of obesity, its obviously a terrible health problem, and many school age children are seriously overweight. Getting bullied over ones weight (or countless other things for that matter) is also an unfortunate fact of life for many school children. Many schools have begun to better address the issue of bullying and for that I am thankful. In the case of weight, the challenge is to both stop the bullying as well as exhort heavy children to watch what they eat. No sane person would condemn the bullying of the fat kid and then use that as a springboard to celebrate obesity! I am very concerned how some people go way beyond condemning bullying of children who defy gender stereotypes, and seek to encourage children to view positively, a life style which I believe is destructive. While I don't want my life micromanged by others, I am troubled by what I see as a radical individualism. Its a troubling trend I see amongst both certain Christians as well as many conservatives. Society enables us to be part of something bigger than ourselves and I, for one, am glad to be party to the social contract. Poet John Donne was right, "No man is an island..." and we ARE our brothers keeper... A man and a woman united in marriage and the children they are raising has for ages been understood as the basic family unit and the building block of society. It is entirely appropriate for our government to recognize and affirm in a special way this institution that even predates our government. Different arrangements such as two men simply do not and cannot form that unit. For that simple reason I don't believe they can marry, form a civil union, or whatever else we want to decieve ourselves into calling it. Yes, this is unfair to people who do not find the opposite gender romantically atrractive, but I am not convinced that the goal of good and wholesome societies should be to erradicate all unfairness. (Eg. Because Tom is naturally smarter than Joe, he got a higher paying job. That's not fair to Joe. Etc.) The state of Illinois has recently passed civil unions legislation. As a result some adoption agencies who believe that the traditional family unit is the best environment in which to raise a child are now being forced to consider placing children in their guardianship with homosexual couples. I am outraged! Lawyers who specialize in dad's rights in cases of divorce cite how the absence of a father leads to problems for many children and their conclusions don't seem to be at all controversial. I simply do not understand how this knowledge flies right out the window when the question is whether two lesbians should adopt! Children need a mom and a dad. Not two moms or two dads. Mothers do not father and fathers do not mother. Men and women, while equal in value, are different. Even modern slang betrays what we know somewhere deep within. It is not by chance that we say we talked to someone "man to man and challenged him to man up." While we shouldn't get too legalistic or uptight because some people defy stereotypes and there are heterosexual male hair dressers who get their UPS packages delivered by a heterosexual female driver, its best when men and boys are encouraged in their masculinity and women and girls in their femininity. What a radical idea for our day! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
New York Legalizes Same Sex Marriage
Top