Christian converts on trial in Turkey

[GenMarshall]

But you are more than happy to oppress homosexuals and any group you dont like. A most un Christian Christian you are.

Well its the homosexual's fault for being in an immoral lifestyle . And I am sorry but I am still a Christian no matter how you spin things around to force Christianity, expecially Roman Catholicism to accept homosexuality .

Allow me to quote you with a couple of modifications:

Sorry, but it does NOT work like that. The Government should stay out of the affairs on what is blasphemy or not. I have the right to insult Islam and I dont want to be imprisoned because I am a Christian. I am sorry, but this does not apply to homosexuals because they are a different people.

 

[Trajan12]

Originally Posted by El_Machinae
Yes they can.
I'm friends with a lesbian couple that just had children. They took eggs from one woman, fertilised them, and implanted them in the other.

Personally I'd never do that. Just seems to impersonal. I'd rather adopt or just not have children at all.

 

[Mathilda]

I am sorry, but this does not apply to homosexuals because they are a different people.

Precisely what is it CivGeneral that makes you so special?

 

[warpus]

Sex education where I live is very aggressive, especially since Arnold just signed in the new law. Why do you mention biology and sociology? Why not in the sex education class?

Because sex ed where I grew up was done in biology class.

How is it aggressive?

If there were vouchers given so that Christian parents could use their property tax money to go to schools that handle sex education the way they want it approached, I would have no problem with whatever they want to teach kids in public school.

I agree, as long as these schools you speak of covered all required material as approved by the ministry of education, or whoever is responsible for such a thing in the U.S.

You cannot remove sex education from morality. You cannot separate them.

Sure you can. Teach the kids all the facts of how their reproductive organs work, why things happen the way to do, and what they can expect in the future, without even touching morality.

And you are right, the 'traditional family' is very much in trouble, the worst of which is the divorce rate. Perhaps if they taught how to run a home (ie financial matters for families) and how to get along as a husband/wife with as much diligence as they teach kids about sex, the divorce rate might go down.

And history shows us that when our birth rate goes down (I think I read it was 1.4 per couple in Europe and 2.1 in the U.S.) below the level of reproduction decline ruthlessly follows.

I doubt you could support your "Traditional family is in decline" implies "decline in the birth rate" theory with any hard data.

Actually, I don't have a problem with associating with them. There are alot worse out there! Everyone has problems, don't they? Everyone has a fool in the closet that is ready to jump out every family reunion?

Everyone has problems, but I'm one not to willingfully associate myself with fools

Besides, my point that fundamentalist Christians aren't a tight group and often disagree on many points stands.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'fully accept'. I already have a family member who is gay and has been with the same partner for 20 years, I mentioned my brother-in-law already. I think the only difference between their 'civil union' and 'marriage' is the money taxpayers would have to shell out for benefits and I'm not sure that gays with no children should have the same benefits that families with (financially vulnerable) children should have.

You'd have a point if heterosexual families without kids didn't receive these financial benefits - but they do.

An excellent case for VOUCHERS my friend. An excellent case.

How so? Schools should be teaching material that will prepare your kids for college and university. If your kid ends up learning BS due to attending a religious institution of some sort and doesn't get into college or university as a result, who are you going to blame? No, such schools should not be supported by the state. The state should lay out guidelines for what should be taught in schools, so that kids can be properly prepared for college and university.

True, and no one is saying that gays are not born with a predisposition to attraction to same sex. However, some are born predisposed to multiple partners, to pedophilia, to sadism, to rapine, to oppression, some believe that it is OK to destroy a woman's sexual desire completely.

Well, obviously if the sexual act in question hurts someone then obviously I'd have a problem with it. But homosexual sex between two consenting adults does not hurt anyone, so your example doesn't make any sense.

that it is not good to completely lose oneself in hedonism. At some point, it becomes destructive to the community we must build.

Of course not. Homosexual marriage would reduce hedonism, not increase it, though. I don't see how you could argue otherwise.

 

[GenMarshall]

Besides, my point that fundamentalist Christians aren't a tight group and often disagree on many points stands.

Well, I am a Roman Catholic Christian and I agree with many of the stances that fundamentalist Christians have in regards to homosexuality, abortions, and embryonic stem cell research.

 

[warpus]

The point of the legislation is to keep the original family together. The man and woman who created the child, the father and mother of the child.

If that were true then only families in the "biological mother", "biological father" & "biological children" format would get the financial benefits of marriage. They're not.

 

[El_Machinae]

Personally I'd never do that. Just seems to impersonal. I'd rather adopt or just not have children at all.

You mean donate sperm?

Otherwise I don't know how you can describe it as impersonal. One wife had eggs extracted (a procedure that requires roughly 100 hours of paperwork and hormonal treatments), the other wife carried the twins to term. Those babies are very much both of theirs.

 

[GenMarshall]

You mean donate sperm?

Otherwise I don't know how you can describe it as impersonal. One wife had eggs extracted (a procedure that requires roughly 100 hours of paperwork and hormonal treatments), the other wife carried the twins to term. Those babies are very much both of theirs.

Unfortunately, many Christians who hold a conservative view on this manner such as Fundamentalist Christians and Catholics regard those kinds of actions as immoral.

I would side with Trajan12 and rather adopt, conceave my children naturally, or dont have children at all.

 

[Trajan12]

You mean donate sperm?

Otherwise I don't know how you can describe it as impersonal. One wife had eggs extracted, the other wife carried the twins to term. Those babies are very much both of theirs.

I was thinking you were talking about when they take your sperm out and her egg and mix it up. Then put it back in her. Then name escapes me right now. Wouldn't do it.
As for sperm donation, I wouldn't donate. And I wouldn't have anything like that with my family. No man is putting anything from his body into my woman's body. Heck no. And no doctor is having anything to do with her conception. Even when he is taking the baby out he had better watch himself!

 

[Chieftess]

I am sorry, but this does not apply to homosexuals because they are a different people.

Precisely what is it CivGeneral that makes you so special?

lurker's comment:
Somehow, I can just envision Mathilda and CivGeneral together in an empty, windowless room. Locked.

 

[El_Machinae]

I was thinking you were talking about when they take your sperm out and her egg and mix it up. Then put it back in her. Then name escapes me right now. Wouldn't do it.
As for sperm donation, I wouldn't donate. And I wouldn't have anything like that with my family. No man is putting anything from his body into my woman's body. Heck no. And no doctor is having anything to do with her conception. Even when he is taking the baby out he had better watch himself!

In vitro fertilisation is the term.

The one woman had that done to her egg (mixed with sperm outside of her body), but then the embryo was put into her wife.

 

[Peri]

And yes, sexual "liberation" (I would NOT call it that! Not at all! There is NO freedom to say NO, really! Not without being called terrible names or thought nuts like CivGeneral is)

Sorry to do this to you CG but you should really take note and re think your ideas.

 

[mangxema]

Actually, Christians would be happy as punch if EVERYONE, not just gays, but those of ALL sexual persuasions were D-I-S-C-R-E-T-E !!!

I assume that despite typing discrete in all caps, accented with hyphens, and followed by several exclamations, you mean "discreet." I have nothing against this. I actually agree until...

There is a HUGE difference between FAVORING traditional marriage, which has PROVEN to be the stabilizing force of any civilization and actively discriminating against homosexuals.

This is the huge jump in deduction that the 5-10% of the population (ie the gay community) takes that is totally unwarranted!

EXAMPLE: Gays demand that schools teach that homosexual feelings are natural and unchangable.

Christians and traditionals do not want this teaching given to our children. #1it is not true. #2 They have no business CONTRADICTING our religious views. This act is superceding our religion by the state, which is illegal.

See... I don't see this example as a large lecture/unit in instruction. I see this as an aside. "Hey, if you feel attracted to another guy, you aren't a terrible person." That's all. To which the typical male would respond "Attraction to other guys? That's not me..." and move on. Which is why I don't understand what your big stink is about.

Public schools have the obligation to present the facts as they are known. Whether those facts contradict your personal beliefs is not their concern. They are not there to reinforce or rebut anyone's religious beliefs. And there is some evidence that there is some sort of natural component to sexuality. And since I don't know a single homosexual who analytically decided it was advantageous to be gay, I'm inclined to give that some credence.

At any rate, I don't see how it is the gov't's job to pass any judgment on this issue, just state that it occurs. If that is too much for you, you are more than welcome to send your child to a religious school.

The question becomes: why do gays want this tax break?

My guess: Hetero couples w/out kids can still get it.

But this is the most shallow of examples... the big issues that I've heard are next of kin and things like that, where partners aren't automatically considered as the prime inheritor and have to go through a whole legal process.

 

[Katheryn]

Yes they can.
I'm friends with a lesbian couple that just had children. They took eggs from one woman, fertilised them, and implanted them in the other.

They didn't do this until they were legally married. Those twins are from each parent, and are born in wedlock. They might not have been conceived if the laws hadn't changed.

No they can't! C'mon you are being ridiculous. You know there is a father lurking out there somewhere. And there have been lawsuits galore about them, demanding child support.

 

[Katheryn]

I assume that despite typing discrete in all caps, accented with hyphens, and followed by several exclamations, you mean "discreet." I have nothing against this. I actually agree until...

You are perfectly right. My mind was thinking discreet and my hands were typing discretion. Excuse me. That will be the only time you find an error for another year. My spelling is 99% of the population. But then, no one is perfect!

See... I don't see this example as a large lecture/unit in instruction. I see this as an aside. "Hey, if you feel attracted to another guy, you aren't a terrible person." That's all. To which the typical male would respond "Attraction to other guys? That's not me..." and move on. Which is why I don't understand what your big stink is about.

Public schools have the obligation to present the facts as they are known. Whether those facts contradict your personal beliefs is not their concern.

You must be joking! There isn't a government person on earth that can indoctrinate my child against what I believe. Will never happen, not in America. The government only has as much authority as the people are willing to give it. That is called "the consent of the governed" here in these United States of America. Government is not a legal entity, no siree bob. The government is of the people, by the people, for the people.

Actually, we fought a revolution over that one, kiddo. Public schools, as an institution of the government has no authority except what we give them as citizens. And that is the facts.

 

[El_Machinae]

No they can't! C'mon you are being ridiculous. You know there is a father lurking out there somewhere. And there have been lawsuits galore about them, demanding child support.

Yes, there's a man's sperm involved; but there's no need to brush aside the effort these two women put into having a child (they got twins, though). One woman's seed was planted in her wife's womb.

 

[Trajan12]

Yes, there's a man's sperm involved; but there's no need to brush aside the effort these two women put into having a child (they got twins, though). One woman's seed was planted in her wife's womb.

What? Women don't have seed.

 

[El_Machinae]

What? Women don't have seed.

They do nowadays!
The rules of breeding have changed. My friend had some of her eggs taken out, they were fertilised in a dish, and then the embryo was implanted in her wife.

It very much was her seed in her wife's belly

 

[GenMarshall]

They do nowadays!
The rules of breeding have changed. My friend had some of her eggs taken out, they were fertilised in a dish, and then the embryo was implanted in her wife.

It very much was her seed in her wife's belly

I am sorry, but the seed that Trajan and I are refering to is the sperm. Women DONT have sperm!

 

[mangxema]

...no one is perfect!

Agreed!

You must be joking!....And that is the facts.

What is your opinion of schools not touching homosexuality altogether? Would you be ok with that? Or would you want to explicitly say that homosexuality is wrong? I personally object to the latter, but it just occurred to me that it was never mentioned in my school days. And the discretion dialog has made me think.

(I should note that I have plenty of other complaints about my sex ed experience, so this is in no way approval of GA sex education. )