JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Toby Keith Talks About Gay Marrige/DADT

What you ignore here Big Jim, is that all that is good about religion IS about God, all that is bad about religion is about the actions of followers..

Felt compelled to weigh in here.

The definition of marriage in our society has always been the union between one man and one woman.

Gay activists want to change that definition to ANY two people who love each other. It is their prerogative to want to change it, and it is my prerogative to fight to preserve it without being bashed unmercifully.

Those who wish to preserve it should not be persecuted -- here, or anywhere else.
We are not bad people for wishing to preserve marriage as a union between one man and one woman. And if someone wants to REDEFINE it, then yes -- they'll have to fight me to do it.

Marriage between one man and one woman arises from natural laws, related to a child. One man and one woman make a child. It's a fact. And raising that child together is, when all is said and done, the best situation for a child. Study after study after study confirms this. Yes, people are raised in all sorts of homes, and do well, and we all know stories about child abuse from natural parents, and great step parents, etc. However, statistically, nothing beats having your two natural parents.

And if life takes your two natural parents away, then a child deserves nothing less than their biological equivalents, if at all possible. Yes, kind, loving biological equivalents.

Marriage between one man and one woman is the standard that our society has chosen to hold up as a model for our children. In European societies that have abandoned the one woman/one man definition of marriage, marriage simply goes away -- to the detriment of children.

If you take natural laws and children out of the equation, and upholding a model for children, then why should marriage even include just two people? Why not three or four?

If two people of the same sex, or a mixture of three or four people or more, want to live together, have sex together, or do whatever they want --so be it. However, when they want to take over marriage and redefine it, then that means they're just out looking for a fight.

And when you're out looking for a fight...don't be surprised if you end up in a fight, and don't feign hurt and shock.

By the way, I've been in many a conversation with gay activists, and hear them use the term "breeders." It's not an endearing term. They say it with complete and utter derision. If heterosexuals used a term in this manner regarding gays, it would, most definitely, be categorized as "hate speech."

Lisa

In our modern society? So it's our modern society that decides what is right or wrong? I reject that. People of the middle east still stone people to death. It's their modern society way of dealing with things.

As far as the Bible and homosexuals goes... well I am no Bible expert but

there's about a dozen references to it in the bible. My studies in the past have led me to believe they were taken out of context or simply misinterpreted. Most in the old testament. Most, according to interpretation, have to deal with using same sex in idolatry, rape, and men keeping young boys as play things.

Jesus never even mentioned it, not once. And the apostles only mentioned it when referring to the common practice of rich guys keeping a young boy for their pleasure.
I don't think Lesbians were mentioned but the same sex stuff was mentioned when used in rituals to worship other Gods. Idolatry. So I reckon Lesbians are OK.

Now that's what I remember from my studies and that was a lot of years ago.
I may not be religious, I may not be convinced there is a God, But I have had religious affiliations in the past.

So I'll let other folks believe what they want and I'll just keep on keeping on letting Gays have whatever kind of relationship they care to have.
I think that's what Toby was trying to say.

Here are some things religions have brought you......an incomplete list:

1. Pot luck suppers at the church
2. The Wars of the Crusades
3. The Spanish Inquisition
4. The Hundred Years War led by Saint Joan of Arc
5. The Spanish Armada
6. World War II and the holocaust
7. The Troubles in Ireland
8. The Gulf War and various Jihads
9. 9/11 and billions of dollars spending on security
10. Al Qaida, the Taliban and other fun guys in the Middle East

I personally do not find the pot luck suppers to be a worthy tradeoff for the rest of it.

"I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us" ...Kinky Friedman

Sign Me Up as a Deist. I know there's a God, but know too much History to ever forgive Christians for The Inquisition, Hawaii, & What they Did to The Mayans.

I'm also a firm believer in Reincarnation..so all you Male Dominants out there were probably Women in a previous life.

And you Bitchy Chicks prolly had a bigg'n'...not all THAT long ago.

So BE NICE to each other, in the Meanwhile.

Best Wishes, & Big Ecumenical Hugs,
Stan

Toby Keith is a different kind of artist, so discussing this with the media could actually not be a bad thing. But if his publicist was with him during this interview... and they are with you at almost every interview, I bet he or she was freaking out. How you gonna ask Toby that? Toby answers the question with an intelligent answer, then the article made it sound like Toby is a supporter, when all he really said in a nutshell was, it doesn't bother me none. There is of course a big difference between not caring, and supporting. Reminds me of the Toby Keith/Ethan Hawke article in Rolling Stone about Kristofferson...The media has a way of making things sound the way they want it to.

Also, to anybody who may have questioned what Toby's political party is...with that whole Dixie Chicks thing back in '03 or so, it seemed like it was a Democrat/Republican thing, when really it was a Toby/Chicks thing, and even more America vs. those who weren't happy that George Bush was president. Bad timing on the Chicks part, (or lets say the lead singer's part) while the WTC disaster was still a fresh memory.

Musicians have to be very careful while discussing politics...because alot of your fans are democrat, and the alot are republican. You don't want to go too far one way because you don't want fans to dislike you or your music based on personal political beliefs. Apparently, someone forgot to tell the Chicks. Unfortunate too, because it hurt them, and they were great. Religion is another big one. Thanking god for something, or saying you believe in god is okay, although it's generally not to okay to elaborate on views much further than that, because there are so many religions. Unless for example you are religious recording artist or something, and you sing about it and talk about

Interesting take..... I have been in this industry for over 40 years... I have worked with folk of all colours, creeds, religious, sexual and political persuasions and differing views on most things including moral issues. None of these things have ever mattered to me especially in the context of music and friendship. I work with them regardless.
Now from time to time I have bought albums etc. I buy them cause I like the music.

Why can the general public not adopt a similar attitude.....
so folk will not work with a man/ cause he is a democrat or republican OR is black or white OR he is a Christian or a Muslim or American or British or a WOMAN....where will it end?

Musicians should be allowed to express opinions without it affecting record sales or respect from their fellows.
The only time I would ever criticise and censure someone is if they are openly offensive or show any form of bigotry or racism.

So what you're saying Ray is that in fact, the God of the universe is not capable of keeping His word true. That my friend is not the "god" I believe in. Sorry brother. My God is able to do that. We just have to agree that we believe in different (or don't believe at all) gods. Man, I did it again. Really I'm not going to say anymore without mentioning music.

Peace out

Steve

Big Jim that was well put. If a songwriter writes a good song I'm probably going to like it. And probably going to buy it. And going back to the OP I really respect Toby for his supporting the military and his many of his views on politics. And I really like his musical style.

Steve

Well, yeah....they should be able to. But it doesn't work that way, unfortunately. I wish it was like that. That's one of the first things they teach you in "Media Training". No politics, religion, or sensitive personal topics whatsoever. Any little thing you might say could make some people not buy your records, not call their radio stations to request, or not come to a show. Or even worse, when talking to program/music directors, dj's, to have them not play your records because of something you said. It's not that you are expected not to have religion or political views...it's just that when you are on a big platform, it can seem like you are pushing your views on others, regardless of whether or not you actually are. And also of course, media training will give you multiple ways to deflect such questions anyhow. Toby probably could have avoided the question all together if he wished. In the same flip of the token, interviewers also know not to ask these type questions. An aggressive interviewer might. The problem with interviews is, now there is all this "Toby Keith talking about don't ask don't tell". Well, it's not like was just sitting around having a conversation about it, he was asked a question, and he replied. I'm sure Toby didn't expect or want for that small question to become news-worthy.

Yes I remember when John Lennon said the "we are more popular than Jesus" thing.......what was meant as an innocent and basically factual throw away remark which was actually aimed at the kids who found the church stuffy and old fashioned sparked huge controversy and the burning of his images and records.....the only ones who looked foolish were the idiotic religious zealots who misinterpreted what he said and then with their stupid OTT reaction to it went too far.
I was disappointed when he apologised and sort of backed down....obviously on instructions from his PR team. He should have explained exactly what was meant and stood by it. He had nothing to be ashamed about nor should he have avoided the issue or been afraid to pass an honest opinion.
I have first hand seen the press try to get a famous musician to say something controversial or offensive...their modus operandi is nothing short of a form of entrapment.....We should not pass judgement on these people if they speak honestly but on the unscrupulous journalists. Incidentally the said rock star when asked for his comment on a certain subject told them to go forth and multiply (well something like that) He then got out his diary and started to reel off his tour schedule and said laughingly "you can print that if you like"....one of them did. LOL

Se,
I keep saying I should write a book. It is difficult to cover everything in a few posts. I suggest you write down every point I posted and take it to your Pastor and discuss it thouroughy. We will take up this subject in another time. Good luck.

Stevens119 ain't that the truth. Our reputation always either proceeds or follows us. Any time an artist takes a stand on a polarizing issue it effects their career in some way or another. Had Rock Hudson come out back then then his career would have probably tanked immediately. Had it been now maybe not so much. We see that in politics, especially now, if someone takes a stand they get vilified by one group and put on a pedestal by another. I remember when Pat Boone (dating myself?) came out as a "rocker" with leather and such his reputation tanked.

Here's another question that may or may not be related closely......

When one takes a politically or religiously polarized position on these forums does it effect one's career??

Steve

I agree with the beliefs of John, Steve, Everette, Lisa, Ray, and a few others, but it's not my place to judge and try'n change mankind!

It's my place to tell the truth, that's my callin'.

Those without sin cast the first stone!

Well I'll tell you all that I fall short, but I believe in Jesus Christ, and he calls everyone; he knocks and who so ever answers the door.......

(Gay or democrate LOL![ MEANT TO CRACK A FUNNY}) in Gods own timin'!

JESUS CHANGES LIVES IN HIS OWN TIMIN', NOT UP TO ME TO SAY LORD YA BETTER DO IT NOW!

Why try'n sop up spilled milk 'fore it got dropped off the high chair? At some point we're either all new babies in Christ with alot to learn or we're not... thats by choice.

I've been told, lectured, threatened, etc.... but i still smoke my cigarettes..
If it takes cancer to show me.. so be it. God will still see me through, weather I die at 55 or live to a ripe old age, well I made my bed, and I can't question the reason for his mercy..... I only know that it exists!!

I've seem folks change their lives in their 90's, others die in an accident and as far as I know, maybe they seen it commin' and maybe they didn't....Lord only knows their heart!

I think we all should let go and let God, mind our own business, we all got lotsa problems to account for,but thats just MHO!

Geneva

Thanks Ray but I don't need to do that. I believe I'm quite comfortable in my theology and beliefs. And I agree that we can't cover everything in a thread. It really never works out. But I have enjoyed the back and forth. Honestly.

Steve

Well, on a forum I vote no. Afterall, isn't that what a forum is designed for? To speak out? However, from a guy who may know a little something about interviewers asking inappropriate questions, you won't hear me discussing my political or religious beliefs on a forum, or anywhere else for that matter.
I'll leave that up to politicians, and priests. They know so much more about it than me anyhow.

My mom, who is a Republican, told me recently that she would never attend another concert by a well-known country performer who made disparaging remarks about President Obama during his concert. She also told me that many walked out.

This forum is more public and more permanent than remarks made at a concert. So, yeah, I'd say it could affect a career. These days, folks routinely google names of people they might hire, work for, or collaborate with.

Scott

See what you started around here Toby!!

I find the thought of loving another man sexually repulsive. So personally, I can definitely say; I have no choice at all. I can only love a woman sexually. It makes me understand that I’m wired this way. It also makes me understand that gay people are wired the way they are. If God gave me no sexual preferences and choices why should He give sexual preferences and choices to gay people?

I salute Toby Keith and my Florida friend Stan for their tolerance and Stan for his love for his son.

Jan
(btw I’m a male, it’s not short for Janice, Janet etc. etc., it a Scandinavian male name.)

I don't think it's surprising that Toby Keith doesn't care about DADT, gay marriage or homosexuality in general. His views match the attitudes of most Americans today. The majority of Americans either support gay equality, or don't care. Attitudes against gay equality are on the decline in America.

The surprising thing is how the press thinks we should be surprised in the first place. I guess because Toby Keith has been generally presented as a patriotic, pro-military, conservative artist, we're supposed to act shocked that the guy isn't also a homophobe, too. News flash: people aren't cartoons.

The two sentences here seem to be a contradiction but they may not.

I think if musicians express their opinions, they have to allow the fan their right to handle it however they want to. There are companies I don't allow because I don't/do agree with their positions/practices. For example, a restaurant once told me not to feed a homeless man who said he just wanted some food after admitting he'd probably lose a job if he had one. I didn't go to that restaurant for months. He wasn't on their property per se but on the sidewalk.

Also, a real estate company treated someone I knew in what I thought was a shabby unfair way. I've never dealt with that company again and don't plan to. To them, their actions were right and they explained them well and I understood where they were coming from but I just decided I didn't want to do business with them. It was my right.

So if he disagreed with it he'd be a homophobe?

To clarify...there is a big difference between being allowed to express opinions on various subjects and acting in an deeply offensive or bigotted fashion.
Now I might disagree with folks opinions on an issue but we are all entitled to express those opinions.....however when folk make racist remarks or cannot conduct themselves with dignity or show disrespect for others then they are open to criticism and censure. Remember folk in the public eye are considered role models by the young and impressionable.....so should not promote things like drugs, racism, violence or similar anti social behaviour or illegal pursuits.
The band Oasis are a classic example.....they behave like morons and show no respect for anything......but you cannot help liking their music.
There are certain companies I would not want to do business with because I disagree with their policies and ethics...that is my right. That said in order to survice I have to buy things from sources I may find unethical or disagree with politically. We have to make compromises.

Why don't you faggots go and write a song about it ?

Perhaps..... "The Ode of Ben Dover and Phil McCracken" ?

I'm sure Jim would take the Scottish part ..... I knew there was a reason to wear that kilt. !

cheers, niteshift

I just want to clarify the issues surrounding the definition of marriage.

As it happens, I know one of the lawyers who argued the issue in front of our Supreme Court and actually was instrumental in having Canadian law changed to allow gay marriage.

It all centers on having the same legal rights as heterosexual spouses, because laws are drafted using the legal term "spouse".

It was about being able to name your life partner in your will in the same fashion as a normal spouse...which is huge. Families would contest wills and leave surviving partners destitute because they had no legal standing. Families could hate and be estranged from their own siblings and children, and then simply take their estates for themselves when they died....legally. They could go against the legal wishes of the dead and dying...legally, even if they had no real relationship with them.

It was about gaining access to government and other benefits normal spouses could access, such as medical insurance, pension benefits etc

In short, it was about obtaining legal standing in lots of issues that legal spouses take for granted.

It was NOT about legalizing "unnatural sexual activity". In Canada, this went away when Pierre Elliot Trudeau famously stated that the government had no business being in the bedrooms of the nation. The US took a bit longer, but for practical purposes, "looks the other way"

Now, you can argue pros and cons, just be aware that legalizing these relationships is not about what the relationship looks like or what they do with each other, but in the legal standing their relationship has vis avis one that is between a man and a woman.

Note also that in Canada, and I presume in other jurisdictions, a church, priest, or minister cannot be forced to marry a gay couple. Only the civil authorities must do so. A church ceremony is voluntary, and always has been. In fact, in much of Europe, it is the civil ceremony that creates the legal union, not the church wedding. This is unlike Canada, and I presume the US, where a church ceremony is legally recognized on par with a civil ceremony.

thanks John-those were very good points you brought up......

full citizenship and equality are long overdue for gay and lesbian people......

I only wish they had all their rights now in every state....

Theres alot I love about Tennessee-but it will be a very long time before they have full rights in Tennessee.....Hopefully the music community will lead the way to their equality in our state.....

Tom

Bravo, John V. and Jan J.!

Funny, last night I started reading the biography of Bob Mould, the lead guitarist and singer of Husker Du (and later, in the 90s, Sugar). He mentioned that he realized he was homosexual as early as the age of five, before he even knew there was a word for it.

This pretty much echoes what every openly gay person I know has told me. They knew, from a very early age, that they were attracted to people of the same sex. There was no "choice" involved. The only choice was to decide how long to keep it hidden from everyone.

If we all want Liberty and Freedom, then we must let others ALSO have Liberty and Freedom, as long as the actions of 1 don't lead to harm or hardship of another, then leave them the hell alone!

I assure you MORE than 10% of JPF's members are gay/lesbian/other. Perhaps only 10% are OPENLY gay/lesbian though. We once did a showcase in a city not remotely known for being liberal or known for large gay population where 17 of 30 performers were openly gay. There were a nearly even split of males and females. I am not going to "out" anyone, but there are plenty of gay/lesbian members among us on the message boards as well and not all of them are liberal or democrats.

All that said, many people I dearly love are gay/lesbian. Many are parents to amazing kids. In fact I don't personally know of a single gay/lesbian couple who have children who are themselves dangerous, violent, criminal or bad parents to their kids, and of them many children they have which I have gotten to know, not a single one has exhibited any ill effects of having 1 or 2 loving parents that I have seen, in my small sample. On the other hand, sadly I know of countless abused and neglected kids of hetero parents both as current children I have spoken with as well as adults who have shared what happened to them as children and also as parents with abuse problems, violent episodes, sexual abuse (nearly 50% of women are "said" to have experienced some type of sexual abuse or inappropriate behavior towards them by an adult relative in their lives and I would say from my own discussions with hundreds of women, that number seems about right. Not one of those situations (nor violent abuse that was non sexual) ever came from a gay/lesbian parent or guardian. I've never personally heard of a story of a gay/lesbian guardian doing anything to boys/men, however, I have heard many stories of boys being molested by camp counselors, religious leaders, boy scout troop leaders or older male members of their family or extended heterosexual families (step-families in other words).

All that to say I've seen little evidence that Gay/Lesbians are less fit to be parents than heterosexuals and find that truth in talking to real people would confirm that quickly if anyone bothered to ask. There's little doubt (really ZERO doubt) that most truly awful abuse of all types come from heterosexual males in parental or elder family members and authority roles.

Why do I know so much? I made it my senior thesis as well as studied all forms of abuse in high school and college and volunteered for many years in women's and children's abuse shelters as well as senior facilities where the reasidents would all talk openly and graphically about their abuse. I also occasionally sat in when men gave statements about what they had done.

It is my opinion as a libertarian that marriage has no place in official government business to start with. It should solely be between your house of worship and you and your spouse. If you want protection for property etc. people should all be welcomed to form partnership agreements, available at the time of marriage or by request if you don't have any beliefs that require "marriage" to cover all of that. Taking government OUT of our lives in all areas possible is the way to prevent special interest groups from springing up.

We welcome everyone here. Sexual preferences differ in all humans. Rarely do two people have the same ones regardless of the combination of males or females. Let's keep government out of our bedrooms across the board, which includes marriage. As long as two parties of legal age agree and no harm is done to others, leave people the hell alone!

Brian

I'm not a Libertarian, but I agree with everything Brian just said. Don't tell me how to live my life and I won't tell you how to take care of yours.

Al

Wow. Based on your statistics Brian, the world would be a better place if everyone was gay and there were no heterosexuals. Then there would be no abuse of any kind. I'm not sure those statistics would stand up to scrutiny but it sure sounds like that's what your implying. Does liberty and freedom mean that pro-homosexuals get to teach my kids in school that it's ok to be homosexual? Wouldn't that mean that I can't teach my kids what I want them to learn they way I want them to learn it. Freedom goes both ways. Same goes for whether one believes in creationism or evolution. I don't have the creationism taught in public schools even when there are plenty of scientists who say there is evidence. I know I've gotten off on another tangent but if I'm forced to acknowledge homosexual behavior as normal and natural but I"m denied the right to have my kids get the "choice" of creationism or evolution then It's just not fair to me. Sorry I rambled.

Steve

I gotta weigh in on this because I have several friends who are gay---some who were childhood friends who were literally driven from their hometowns because of who they are. This is America--land of the free. The Declaration of Independence states "all men are created equal" and are GUARANTEED certain rights. It doesn't say "all men are created equal unless you're gay." If we truly believe in the values of this country, then let's put our money where are mouths are and start treating EVERYONE with respect, equality, and decency.

Statistics show that the teen suicide rate among gay and lesbian teens is 4-5 times higher than that of their heterosexual peers. If homosexuality is a choice, who would choose that kind of a life for themselves? And is denying them equal rights and expecting them to hide their true natures a sound solution to that problem? I think not.

And, personally, I think the "marriage" argument is just laughable. Gay marriage is gonna ruin the institution of marriage in a nation with a divorce rate over 50%? Get real. I totally think gay folks should be allowed to marry, and if they want to call it marriage, then that's their right. Ya know why? Cause they're Americans! And they have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I also find it ironic how quickly "Christians" forget the idea of "judge not lest ye be judged." Therefore, I'm not gonna judge someone else's lifestyle and tell them that it's wrong. I'd be infuriated if someone were to be so presumptuous as to make judgments about my lifestyle--and then, to top it off, fight to limit my personal freedoms. Sounds more like Nazi Germany than the USA. Furthermore, the Bible is a 2000 year old document that, while it may condemn homosexuality in some places, also says that it's ok for me to sell my daughter into slavery if she displeases me and that I should shun women when they're menstruating. Perhaps it would be better if I were to follow King David's example and start an adulterous affair with my neighbor's wife, then ship him off to war where I know he'll surely be killed. Yeah, that's moral behavior.

I was livid the other night when the audience at the Republican debates booed the soldier in Iraq who admitted he was gay. That guy is in a foreign nation risking his life for their right to boo. Ingrates.

As a high school teacher, I have a hard time accepting the argument that a man/woman marriage sets a good example for children. Over half of my students are being raised by a single mother--many of whom have a revolving door of men moving through their kids' lives. Is that a good example to set?

Sorry to be so long winded, but this topic really gets me riled. As I said earlier, I've had close friends live under the intolerance and hatred of homophobes, and I've watched what they went through--and still go through. Sorry, but that kind of thinking is more akin to the Taliban than to the USA. Don't care how you slice it, intolerance and hatred are far more dangerous and immoral than homosexuality any day.

I gained a new respect for Toby Keith today. Apparently, he's not only the Angry American but also the American who understands what America is supposed to be all about.

Eric

Nice post, Eric

Scott

Brian brings up a point that I hadn't see come up in this conversation yet. Most people get married twice, often simultaneously. You are married in your religion, in your house of worship, and you are also married in the eyes of the "state."

But that's two different things. The state has a definition of marriage and laws pertaining to it -- the state has to, in order to sort out questions of property, visitation, inheritance, etc. It's a legal status and has legal meaning. But that is *different* than the religious state of marriage, which is a sacrament and has meaning within the religion.

The state cannot and will not redefine what a marriage means within a religion. A religion has every right to deny the sacrament to anyone for whatever reason. Allowing a state-sanctioned marriage between two men or two women does not mean a church or synagogue will have to perform a ceremony or accept the union.

I'm not sure I agree with Brian that the solution is to get the government out of marriage. As I said, there are questions of property rights, insurance, etc. that have to be sorted out. But, you could call it 'civil unions' for everyone and reserve marriage for religious entities.

Zmulls,

I think we pretty much agree on the topic. You just did a better job of explaining the current system of double marriage. Linda and I got married by the local county clerk right after their lunch break so we could enjoy the government benefits of a civil union. She's a Catholic, my views are far more complicated than this post is appropriate for, but I do believe in "God" simply not in the same way most of you do.

To SE Hatfield: Liberty and Freedom perfectly applies to the situation you suggest. With school vouchers and the freedom to send your kid any brand of school you prefer, you'd never have to worry about who your kids were taught by lest YOU made the wrong decision where the blame would be entirely yours. THAT is freedom. And if you think you weren't ever educated by, or your children if you have any, a homosexual, you're in for a shock because the % who go into teaching are much higher than in other areas of the work world. So please open your mind a little. If someone came to you tomorrow and said the law of the land is that YOU MUST love only other men, you'd be pretty unhappy about it right? You are what you are. And God loves all his children equally, gay or straight or in between, open minded or bigoted. People who believe in Freedom and Liberty believe that no one else should be able to keep you from peacefully living your life as long as you activities do not prevent someone else's act of freedom or liberty. When they do, that is what courts should be for and how the few laws really needed should be written.

Oh, and it's the dumbest thing I've ever heard to suggest that all gay supportive people are liberal and all gay hating people are conservative or any view point in between. It's not true. It's a media and political myth concocted to drive us apart instead of together. If we worked together, we'd get rid of all the bums from all parties and start over on original principles. Remember, Lincoln was a Republican, Robert Byrd a Democrat. These folks are not tied to a single view, rather than form their views based on where and who they come from. If you're kept in ignorance, like a young terrorist might be, you may think blowing up yourself and innocents to be perfectly rational... it's all you know. People who really know anyone of any other viewpoint or life circumstances come to understand them and rarely hate them all 100% like some view expressed here. It's simply ignorance. No one is forcing heterosexuals to marry gays. Why should gays be forced to marry heterosexuals? Sadly, many have and often the results are life long sadness for all parties involved straight or gay. Not a single gay marriage will ever have any impact on my marriage to Linda. Nor will any heterosexual marriage. With a roughly 50% divorce rate among both types (now that some data is coming in) it seems there's more in common than people like to admit. There always is. Humans, in the end, are still humans. We're all in this together, like it or not.

Brian

I've always had a problem with gay marriage. I mean, how do you sort out the underwear draws ?

cheers, niteshift

Brian if everyone had the right to send their kids to the school they wanted then you might be correct but that's just simply not the case. And I'm talking about a school that I AM paying for. With my taxes. A school I have no say in how it's being managed. A school where the government somehow controls what I have to let my kids learn. A school that tells me I HAVE to let them teach my kids about evolution but will not LET my kids learn about creation science. A school that says I HAVE to allow my kids to be taught sheria (sp) law but refuses to acknowledge that our current set of laws came from a judeo christian influence. A school that is completely influenced by the ACLU and whatever squeeky wheel that's getting grease that day. Voucher smoucher, we're all paying for our kids education. And it's rarely ever the majority in this country who speak out. They simply look the other way. I know many people who are homosexual and they are wonderful people. I've sung in homosexual churches. Worked with homosexual Sheriffs Deputies. You can't find anywhere in any post I've ever made where I slam any homosexual. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it as a lifestyle and actively support it's growth in this country. This is some resemblance of a democracy. This is realized by the fact that this country was founded, in part, on judeo christian principles. It's in our system of laws, it's what founded (notice I say founded) our highest places of learning. It was interwoven into the very fabric of our lives. But you can see today. At least as far as biblical teaching is concerned. That God is systematically and vehemently being cut, sliced, removed and rejected by our culture. He's taken out of the courts, schools, homes etc. And this is all being done in the name of "equality" and fairness. Sexual orientation is a choice, yes it is. And if the majority of Americans want to support it then there will be nothing I can do about it. But to say that I have to allow my children to be taught that it is normal and acceptable is now taking away my freedom.
I think in the end. In any country. There will never be freedom for everyone. There will be "certain" inalienable rights in each country. But they won't be for everyone. There is not a country on this planet where every person, every position, every opinion is given equality. I think this is simply human nature.
We are as you say Brian, humans. Humans have frailties. Humans have weaknesses. Humans are imperfect. And to my knowledge, no society in known history has treated each other completely fairly.
That's my story and I'm stickin to it.
Steve

That what makes America great. We try to.

We have civil partnership.....that allows two people regardless of gender to declare their love for one another and to then proclaim that to the world.....when it comes to tax and legal issues etc then it would be very simple to extend those rights to civil marriages so that nobody is discriminated against on account of not being married.

I do not have much time for religion or churches etc but I do respect their right to exist and to have their own values, customs and ways of doing things provided that does not discriminate against others....well if a church refuses to accept or perform a gay marriage so be it...that does not prevent the law from accepting it or it being performed at a civil ceremony.

You cannot force a church to perform a marriage it does not want to. But on the other hand you cannot prevent a thing or not legally allow it just because the church does not like it.

I cannot see the problem....if I was gay and a church refused to perform, accept or recognise my marriage then they could not drag me through their doors.
Same applies to other things...like, abortion, contraception, blood transfusion, etc just because a certain church or faith dislikes it or feels it is wrong does not mean we all have to follow suit.

I refuse to have my rights taken away just because the church thinks different.

Exactly the point.

SE--As a high school teacher, I would suggest the following: teach your children the religious lessons you want them to learn at home---that's your right, if not your duty. Evolution is taught in science classes--creationism is a religious belief, not a scientific one; therefore, it should be taught in church and in the home. Evolution is a scientific theory, not unlike the theory of gravity or quantum theory; therefore, the place to teach it is the science classroom. Just because someone teaches your children evolution doesn't mean that they have to believe it. You mentioned being a taxpayer, well, there are also taxpaying Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. It would be unfair to them for public schools to teach Christian ideals to their children. That's one of the main reasons that religion is not taught in schools. You can also send your kids to a school that teaches a Christian-based curriculum.

I agree with you that in America religion has been on the decline. But I'd also suggest that that is a by-product of several church scandals over the past several years. When religious leaders are found guilty of molesting children (for years and years and years)--and then doing everything under the sun to cover it up and protect their own--well, you're going to have a crisis of faith. Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Waco, and the guy whose church consistently protests military funerals with their "God Hates Fags" signs have done far more to cast a negative light on Christianity in this country than homosexuals themselves have. I believe that's the cause for the backlash against Christianity in America. Or perhaps folks are just following the sentiment of the Avett Brothers' song that states, "My God and I don't need a middle man." Just because organized religion is on the decline doesn't necessarily indicate that Americans are becoming less spiritual.

However, I have to disagree that sexual orientation is a choice. Much of the scientific research today states that the cause in genetic. Obviously, there are people who experiment with it by choice; however, for the majority of gay folks, it's not a choice. In fact, human beings are not the only creatures on the planet who exhibit homosexuality---we are, however, the only creatures who persecute one another because of it. I have a very good friend whose high school years were a nightmare because he knew he was "different" and didn't know why or what it meant--that was not his choice. We grew up in small-town Appalachia which made things even worse for him. He lived in fear of being ridiculed and turned to alcohol to help him cope. I'm sorry, but if being gay was his choice, why didn't he simply choose not to be gay anymore? Would've have made his life far less painful.

Eric

Eric I appreciate your post, especially as a teacher. But I have to disagree that creationism is "purely" unscientific religious talk. There are plenty of scientists out there that are rethinking their system of belief. Not that I'm a scientist and can compete intellectually with them on this forum in writing but they are there. And I'm really not ready to believe that the "vast majority" of scientific evidence proves that homosexuality is simply a genetic thing. And if it was overwhelmingly scientifically proven, then I would wager to say it would be all over the news and become the norm, not the exception, which it still is. Proof is proof not matter where it comes from. And I would also wager that the sins of a few religious leaders is not the reason that people are leaning away from christian faith. If that were the reason, why aren't people feeling the same way about politicians. Oh there are surely lots of people who don't like politicians. But it is not because of scandal. It's because they're not doing what the people want. In fact, the president of the united states can have some sort of sordid affair in the oval office and the majority of people in america love him to death. So no I don't believe it's because a few church leaders fell. I believe that is an excuse. But that's my opinion. And I appreciate your comments Eric. Thanks
Steve

By the way a simple google of the subject will show that there are 40 MILLION entries into scandals involving professors at universities. So I think mankind can share pretty equally in the scandal realm.

JMO but I think the decline in religion is more to do with people questioning as the norm rather than the old fashioned way of simply accepting without question. Scandals have little to do with the churches unpopularity.
Science has made lots of discoveries that question age old beliefs and disprove so called factual evidence from the bible. So people are now saying well if that did not happen as per the bible stated what else did not happen.
Religions have tried to talk down and scoff at evolution despite the evidence being all around us. Heck Darwin was laughed at and it broke him...now his theories are accepted fact.

Hey Steve--oh yes, I totally agree that the church is certainly not the only institution to suffer from scandals--scandalous behavior is part of the human condition. Heck, there's a website called Badteacher.com that's devoted to exposing teachers who have affairs with their students, so there's plenty of scandal in my profession, too...unfortunately.

While there are scientists who are rethinking their position on creationism vs. evolution, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any who would state that the Book of Genesis is the exact way things happened. Don't forget, textbook companies control a great deal of the curriculum of public schools. I don't know that there are many science textbooks out there that also cover creationism. Personally, I believe in the Big Bang theory, but I also believe that the Big Bang had to have some kind of divine spark. But by the same token, I don't think a public school setting is the place for teaching that. Thankfully, I'm not a science teacher and don't have to navigate those waters. I will say, however, that I'm an English teacher and my senior literature anthology does include passages from the Psalms, and I often talk about Christian ideas in class. Heck, it's almost impossible not to when teaching the works of Shakespeare and other great writers. But, as I understand the law, I can talk about those ideas, I just can't tell the kids what to believe or not to believe. It's a rather fine line, I'd say.

I also think that political scandals have taken a toll in this country and turned people off of politics. More people voted on American Idol than they did in the last presidential election.

I'm sure you could find scientific research that falls on both sides of the coin regarding homosexuality as choice or genetic. However, based on my experience with my friend, I can assure you that it wasn't a choice for him---or for many other folks I know.

I'd also add that one of the things I like most about JPF is that you can debate with folks who have differing opinions in a civil and reasonable manner. So, thank you for that.

Have a good one,
Eric

Well,
Don't ya just love Toby Keith. Well pretend! Trying to explain the Universe takes more than even Superman can do.
Christiany began during the Astrological Age of Pisces some 2100 Years ago. Overall rulership of The Age of Pisces and the Sign Pisces is assigned to Neptune. Neptune is the Planet of Illusion, deliusion, fantasy, among other things. From time to time you see the Fish on people's cars. The Age of Pisces was also the Dark Ages. A lot of confusion in Religion is associated with the last 2100 years.

Today we are in the beginnings of the Age of Aquarius. The Age of Aquarius and the Sign Aquarius are ruled by Uranus, sometimes known as the Awakener. We are coming out of the Dark Ages and into the light. That is one reason Religion is getting a new hard look. People are not buying lots of things that just aren't true anymore. Call it growing pains. Morality isn't being ignored, it's just becoming more clear.

Most people could care less if it's Creationisim or Evolution. In fact if you examine it carefully, you will find the words are interchangable. No difference.

Now if Old Adam had said, "In the beginning, something happened and we all came into existance", think how this silly argument would be moot!

My compliments to all for the civility of this thread regarding what is normally a very volatile subject. It's nice to see heart-felt, diometrically opposed views discussed respectfully among my musical peers! Kudos to all!

And if homosexuality is a choice, why would anyone make a choice that could result in their own death or at a minimum extreme persecution?

I have some questions for anyone who believes that homosexuality is a choice:

1) Did you make a choice to be heterosexual or were you born that way?
2) Are you heterosexual because you inherently felt that is right for you, or are you heterosexual because society says that is the way you should be?
3) Can you picture yourself deciding to become homosexual or are you disgusted by that idea?

If being straight is the natural state for you, then why would you think the process is different for someone who is gay?

Kevin I thought about that very thing when I wrote what I did. I guess my only addition would be that I haven't seen thousands of homosexuals slaughtered, burned at the stake, hung on poles along roads and lit on fire, simply for their refusing to call ceasar a god and bow to him. A little different than being told you can't sit in the front of a bus or be afforded the ability to "marry". Other than that I agree with your statement. There are similarities.

Steve

I agree with all of the "live and let live" sentiments on this thread. I've had plenty of direct personal experience with religion, and I've had plenty of direct personal experience with homosexuality. My feeling is that both deserve respect. One can indeed choose or not choose to practice either one...but I also believe most people are either gay or not gay...so the gay person who reluctantly chooses to live a straight life will feel exactly like a straight person reluctantly choosing to living a gay life.

In reading this thread, I can't help but think about the framers of our Constitution. Imagine the ambition they had! So many sharp differences of opinion, on so many, many different issues. Some people demand certain things because they are simply willful and want them a certain way, while many others are informed by their religions, and strongly believe God has commanded certain laws. And of course, different religions command different laws.

How the heck did they ever agree to a Constitution?

The first impulse most anyone has is to make things exactly as we think they should be...so we suggest that others change their contradictory ways.

But the fledgling American government decided to try something revolutionary instead...they proceeded to create a system of government that allowed all these different beliefs to coexist somehow. It was a system of government remarkable for its embrace of tolerance.

I'm a big believer in tolerance. I think it's what makes America so remarkable and great. It takes a lot of strength to embrace tolerance, although the intolerant often appear to be stronger.

To me, the idea of disallowing gay marriage via a constitutional amendment is an example of intolerance. Because most constitutional amendments are adopted in order to expand our basic rights. When we amend the Constitution to restrict basic rights, as we did when we passed Prohibition, we do a disservice to the Constitution.

I do believe any state should be allowed to pass such a law, even though I strongly disagree with such a law. But to adopt it into our federal Constitution goes against the spirit of America's belief in the basic rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.