This is the next to last week. Any thoughts on Civil Rights and Gay Marriage should be posted here.
Here is an interesting and useful website for the debate on Friday: Gay Quiz
Here is a great site that more or less accurately reports the results of some studies on genetic influences on sexual orientation, but gives the exactly wrong definition of a "p-value": Gay Gene?
I have been looking for direct links to the studies of identical twins and sexual orientation but I have had no luck. I only know how to find political science articles. If anyone has any suggestions let me know or, better yet, post them yourself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Journal Response #5
What is happening to our civil rights? Under the guise of preventing another "9/11" many Americans willingly give up their most basic of rights. the patriot act and the extension of some of its most controversial sections is proof that it's ok if the government treats us all like criminals in order to find the real ones. and i don't know why i feel this way, but the cops have too much power. especially here in jackson, they act so entitled. and who oversees them? is there any kind of public accountability for cops abusing their power?
Michael: I appreciate your strong and clearly stated opinion, but I would appreciate even more some sort of argument to back it up. What freedom have you lost since the Patriot Act? And were the cops in Jackson any less obnoxious before 9/11?
By the way, my own experiences with the Jackson Police have been uniformly pleasant, but then, that may reflect my age more than their conduct.
Justin Huckaby
10th Response
Homosexuality is a big issue for many people. For most people the issue is based on moral beliefs. Some not all Christians feel as though homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. People like to reference the occurance of Sodom and Gomorra and how it was destroyed for the sins that were taking place there. Some people also like to reference the laws for the early Israelites that a man should not lay with another man like he would his wife. If someone continues to read from this chapter in the Bible, it also says we should not eat pigs and should men should wear our hair long, etc. Obviously times have changed since then. These laws were written by men who, yes, were divinely inspried, but they were still men. Man can ultimately do what he wants to. This is a God given right among itself. These laws were written so that people could keep from doing bad things before the eyes of God. If they did do these things, they had to burn a dove or lamb. Those laws were struck down the day Jesus died on the cross. I truly feel as though if homosexuality was a sin, which by the way I do not feel this way, then gay people who accept Christ are forgiven. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion so anyone who disagrees with me please feel free to respond. I'm getting off of my soap box now.
I lost the freedom to rent a book from the library without the government deciding whether or not it was a red flag book. i lost the freedom to be notified of whether or not i was under surveillance. i lost the security of knowing that if i was under surveillance, at least a judge signed off on it. and most importantly, regarding the cops in jackson, i lost my right to free speech. apparently telling a group of cops that they serve a worthless purpose is enough to get someone sent to jail on felony charges these days.
-michael mcgehee
to justin: i appreciate your candor and honesty. i too believe that in the grand scheme of things, the omnipotent God does not care about sexual preference. and if the religious are truly to believe what they preach, then it's all god's plan anyway. and if homosexuality is an abomination, why would God make it so in the first place. God creating "abominations" against himself seems like a pretty stupid thing to do. and if god's anything, it's probably not stupid.
also a warning: the gay quiz link posted in the parent comment is no good. it redirected me to about 10,000 different spam pages. maybe it works for others; i am using firefox on windows xp sp2.
You can ask just about anyone and they'll all tell you they're in favor of equal rights for homosexuals. Just name the situation, they'll all say, yes, gays should have the same rights in housing, jobs, public accommodations, and should have equal access to government benefits, and equal protection of the law. Then you get to gay marriage and that's when all this talk of equality stops dead cold. More than half of all people in the United States oppose gay marriage, even though the majority are otherwise supportive of gay rights, which means that many of the same people who are passionately in favor of gay rights oppose gays on this one issue. But why is this? I think that it is like this because there is a lot of misunderstanding about what homosexuality really is, as well as the assumption that gay people enjoy the same civil rights protections as everyone else. There are also a lot of stereotypes about gay relationships, and even a great deal of misunderstanding of what marriage itself is all about and what its purpose is.
the only argument i've ever heard that seems credible in favor of anti-gay-marriage is that the word marriage was defined 3,000 years ago and was clearly meant to describe the union between a man and a woman. as we've discussed and realized in our class, the definition of a word is never permanent. so what if they want to call it a civil union. now for a counterpoint: why should a civil america tolerate a hedonistic life style? Gays live life enjoying only what they can experience through the flesh. there is no chance for procreation. at some point in the discussion, i hope AIDS gets brought up, as well as the extremely high percentage of people living a homosexual lifestyle that are involved in hard drugs, particularly methamphetamine.
I agree with David in saying that people want to give homosexuals equal rights on everything except marriage. I believe that many people who are against gay marriage have never had a gay friend or really ever been in contact with a homosexual. I believe that should be brought up such as aids, drugs, morality, and so on. This is a subject that I am not very fond of and at time find myself saying that it does not effect me and as long as it continues to not be a huge part of my life I don’t care. With saying this I thinking it over a little it does affect me and I should try to inform myself more on this subject and that is what I hope happens tomorrow in the debate is that I become better informed to make a educated decision.
In reaction to the discussion we had in class on Wednesday, I would like to say that I find it strange that over the years, many important documents on government have changed the way they have been written.
Back when the Constitution was written, it gave the government negative rights. This seems to fit with the time because many people were fearful of a strong government. The rights were to protect the citizens and make certain abilities of the government inactive. However, the written constitutions or law bodies of more recent times give citizens positive rights. This is very apparent with the UN Resolution. It protects world citizens rather than limiting its power, (it has no power anyway). This seems to almost do the same thing, but the way each document is written seems to fit with the mindset of the times. As the 20th century began, many people were being taught to have pride in their country and to have nationalist values. This carried on after World War 1 and World War 2 until about the 1980s and/or 1990s. This explains why the UN Resolution is worded the way it is (even though it did not represent a national body, but rather and international body). It gives citizens many rights, which is expected after we began to value individualism after the Enlightenment took place, but it does not take rights from the government as the American Constitution does. It grants citizens rights, but reflecting the mindset of the late 1940s, it does not take privileges from the UN. The only reason the UN is not effective is that it has no standing military force, not because its resolution hinders it from having power.
I just thought that it is interesting that as mindsets change, not only do values change, but the way they are expressed changes as well.
In response to the debate today, I believe that as long as homosexuals are not bothering anonyone that we should just let them be. Even though some may not enjoy seeing these typeof things out in public who are you to stop someone from being happy. The constitution states that we have the right to the pursuit of happiness and if this makes them happy well who the hell are we to stop them. We can nit pick all we want at these doucuments that tell us what right we do and dont have, however, one fact still remains that not everyone is gonna do it. Life is about choices even though they didnt make one that the rest of us are comfortable with so what. They are their own person and we are our own responsibility. I say let them be and until the day when they affet your life on a daily basis then you say something, but until then shut the hell up and stop complaining. Your right are not being infringed on as a person but you want to infringe on theirs, now how much sense does that make.
Post a Comment