linaloki
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Posted: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:46:38 +0000
Hey, there boys and girls. It's me again, the ever-lovable linaloki, making another post.
...and yes. It talks about homosexuality.
But, as many posts of mine, that is not its sole purpose. So let's talk, shall we?
Today is the Day of Truth. Created in a seeming retaliation to the Day of Silence, this day allows Christians of America to "speak up" about the "truth" of homosexuality. To quote the mission statement: "I am speaking the Truth to break the silence."
Now, this mission statement irks me a little. Let's break it down, shall we?
"I am speaking the Truth to break the silence."
This line shows me that people participating in this event believe they are omniscient. But, according to Christian doctrine, only God is omniscient... Hm. It could also be taken that God has told them the Truth. Perhaps.
"I believe in equal treatment for all, and not special rights for a few."
Can we say hypocrisy? They believe in equal rights, yet they are fighting against homosexual marriage. Marriage should not be excluded to certain people. Sure, they can have a heterosexual marriage. But to what point and purpose? Neither person would be happy, and would probably divorce. A great example of this dilemma is the Tennessee Williams play, "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof." The woman in the play discovers that her husband of five years is... homosexual. This distresses her greatly. As it would distress any straight person that married a homosexual.
"I believe in loving my neighbor, but part of that love means not condoning detrimental personal and social behavior."
Hm. I don't hear them speaking out against smokers, alcoholics, prostitutes, liars, murderers, thieves... And how is homosexuality detrimental, personally OR socially? Please, I'd like to know.
"I believe that by boldly proclaiming the Truth, hurts will be halted, hearts will be healed, and lives will be saved."
Hurts will be halted? We discussed that one already. By proclaiming the "Truth", homosexuals are hurt, and any heterosexual they marry out of necessity. Hearts healed? Not if you are banning homosexuals from their loved ones. And lives saved? Who the hell is dying over this?!
This is merely one of my concerns. As I got to pondering this Day of Truth, Day of Silence thing... I wondered. The Day of Silence was a peaceful demonstration for the rights of homosexuals. The Day of Truth is a loud proclamation of religion. Of course, they do have the freedom of speech.
However. I'd like to point something out here. The Christians that are voting against homosexual marriage are voting against it for one reason: their religion. What political reason do they have? The problem lies with this: The government is allowing Christian faith to overrule government and political decisions.
Perhaps I'm mistaken... unless the government can give me a damn good reason why it is politically correct to ban homosexual marriage, I'd have to say that this is purely a religious thing.
Your point is what, exactly? Some of them may have been. Maybe they all were, maybe none of them were. Perhaps, back in 1776, the government was supposed to be Christian oriented. Perhaps not. Back then, that's really all we had in this country. And we know how well that went, yes? Remember the Salem Witch Trials? Yeah. 'Nuff said. Whatever America was back then, America today is different. Believe it or not, things change over a period of over 225 years. The America today is filled with Atheists, Wiccans, Agnostics, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Star Wars Fans, Communists, Anarchists, Satanists, Fascists, Neo-Nazis, African-Americans, Caucasians, Hispanics, Asians, Football Fanatics, Nerds, Prom Queens, Otaku, Fangirls, even the French.
We can't just say, "Hey! White male heterosexual protestants are better than you!" Why? Because there's a lot more people than that in this country. And many of them could beat you up if you tried to say that.
Now. I tried to understand why this sort of thing was happening, why Christianity was proliferating our government.
...Wait a second. Did she tell me she voted for Bush solely because of his morals? Wow. Not only has much of America tried to integrate their religion, now they are completely disregarding the ability of leadership in presidential elections! It seems that now, whoever is more Saint-like wins! Even if they bring our country to ruin, as long as they had morals, it's okay. Soon, we'll have the new Pope, once elected, being asked to make commercials for which candidate he likes more. Now, this isn't a Bush vs. Kerry thing. What this is is a realization that America is slowly turning away from being a working country to a country that claims the Bible as our Constitution!
Wanna know something? I'm Christian! Most people in my other threads know this. Wanna know something else? No one religion is any higher than another. No one religion has any right to claim that it is better. No one PERSON has any right to claim that.
Perhaps you believe marriage not to be a right. Perhaps you think that the rights of homosexuals are still well in hand. Well, here's a little document I'm gonna give you. It's called the Hippocratic Oath. Heard of it? It's what doctors swear to follow when they go into their profession. Here it is.
Emphasis Added.
Now. Read this article really quickly.
Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays
(Lansing, Michigan) Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.
The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.
The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.
The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.
The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.
Three other three bills that could affect LGBT health care were also passed by the House Wednesday which would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.
Opponents of the bills said they're worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.
Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health care providers, it doesn't ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.
"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said.
"I think it's a terrible slippery slope upon which we embark," said Rep. Jack Minore (D-Flint) before voting against the bill.
Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.
"Individual and institutional health care providers can and should maintain their mission and their services without compromising faith-based teaching," he said in a written statement.
Well. Hot diggety damn. Looks like the Oath doesn't matter. Religion comes first. Not sick, infirm, dying people. Religion.
Think that's all? Nay, I say. Read this website for more.
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer
Many an article there speaks of Christian only jobs. Christian beliefs hurt by government decisions, so the Christians complain. Etcetera etcetera.
Does this mean I don't believe that the people participating in the Day of Truth don't have the right to do so? Nope. I believe that they have every right to express their beliefs.
Do I find it right? Morally right? No. I don't. In fact, I not that, despite its "good intentions", it is very much just a religious attack.
I've been told before that my posts are merely soapboxes. I prefer to think of them as open discussions, allowing people to discuss any point brought up in the post. However, out of necessity, I will leave you with a topic.
Is it right for the government to run on the morals taught by one religion? Or should that be stopped?
For Further Reading:
Day of Silence: http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1017899&tw=wn_wire_story
Day of Truth: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/actions/Default.aspx?mid=410&cid=3308
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A note to the regulars:
Okay. This will be put up on all of my threads, first post, and a new post. fubenkunai has been kind enough to clean up my threads of mess every time I've come to her. We must, in turn, follow the rules in respect and because they are the rules. Just because we believe them to be rude and unintelligent does not give the right for us to respond in kind. In fact, we must all remember to stay on topic, and to try not to spam. From now on, I will be much stricter. I don't want any of my threads being chatterboxed, guys. I still luv you all, but seriously. Let's try to cut it down, shall we?
Thanks, guys.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, an update pertaining to the subject.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/05/05/gay.donor.ap/index.html
Well... someone care to try and explain this?
...and yes. It talks about homosexuality.
But, as many posts of mine, that is not its sole purpose. So let's talk, shall we?
Today is the Day of Truth. Created in a seeming retaliation to the Day of Silence, this day allows Christians of America to "speak up" about the "truth" of homosexuality. To quote the mission statement: "I am speaking the Truth to break the silence."
DoT Mission Statement
I am speaking the Truth to break the silence. I believe in equal treatment for all, and not special rights for a few. I believe in loving my neighbor, but part of that love means not condoning detrimental personal and social behavior. I believe that by boldly proclaiming the Truth, hurts will be halted, hearts will be healed, and lives will be saved.
Now, this mission statement irks me a little. Let's break it down, shall we?
"I am speaking the Truth to break the silence."
This line shows me that people participating in this event believe they are omniscient. But, according to Christian doctrine, only God is omniscient... Hm. It could also be taken that God has told them the Truth. Perhaps.
"I believe in equal treatment for all, and not special rights for a few."
Can we say hypocrisy? They believe in equal rights, yet they are fighting against homosexual marriage. Marriage should not be excluded to certain people. Sure, they can have a heterosexual marriage. But to what point and purpose? Neither person would be happy, and would probably divorce. A great example of this dilemma is the Tennessee Williams play, "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof." The woman in the play discovers that her husband of five years is... homosexual. This distresses her greatly. As it would distress any straight person that married a homosexual.
"I believe in loving my neighbor, but part of that love means not condoning detrimental personal and social behavior."
Hm. I don't hear them speaking out against smokers, alcoholics, prostitutes, liars, murderers, thieves... And how is homosexuality detrimental, personally OR socially? Please, I'd like to know.
"I believe that by boldly proclaiming the Truth, hurts will be halted, hearts will be healed, and lives will be saved."
Hurts will be halted? We discussed that one already. By proclaiming the "Truth", homosexuals are hurt, and any heterosexual they marry out of necessity. Hearts healed? Not if you are banning homosexuals from their loved ones. And lives saved? Who the hell is dying over this?!
This is merely one of my concerns. As I got to pondering this Day of Truth, Day of Silence thing... I wondered. The Day of Silence was a peaceful demonstration for the rights of homosexuals. The Day of Truth is a loud proclamation of religion. Of course, they do have the freedom of speech.
However. I'd like to point something out here. The Christians that are voting against homosexual marriage are voting against it for one reason: their religion. What political reason do they have? The problem lies with this: The government is allowing Christian faith to overrule government and political decisions.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Perhaps I'm mistaken... unless the government can give me a damn good reason why it is politically correct to ban homosexual marriage, I'd have to say that this is purely a religious thing.
Whiny Idiot Christian
But the founding fathers were Christian!
Your point is what, exactly? Some of them may have been. Maybe they all were, maybe none of them were. Perhaps, back in 1776, the government was supposed to be Christian oriented. Perhaps not. Back then, that's really all we had in this country. And we know how well that went, yes? Remember the Salem Witch Trials? Yeah. 'Nuff said. Whatever America was back then, America today is different. Believe it or not, things change over a period of over 225 years. The America today is filled with Atheists, Wiccans, Agnostics, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Star Wars Fans, Communists, Anarchists, Satanists, Fascists, Neo-Nazis, African-Americans, Caucasians, Hispanics, Asians, Football Fanatics, Nerds, Prom Queens, Otaku, Fangirls, even the French.
We can't just say, "Hey! White male heterosexual protestants are better than you!" Why? Because there's a lot more people than that in this country. And many of them could beat you up if you tried to say that.
Now. I tried to understand why this sort of thing was happening, why Christianity was proliferating our government.
My Mom
Bush had better values, better morals then Kerry! He was the right vote!
...Wait a second. Did she tell me she voted for Bush solely because of his morals? Wow. Not only has much of America tried to integrate their religion, now they are completely disregarding the ability of leadership in presidential elections! It seems that now, whoever is more Saint-like wins! Even if they bring our country to ruin, as long as they had morals, it's okay. Soon, we'll have the new Pope, once elected, being asked to make commercials for which candidate he likes more. Now, this isn't a Bush vs. Kerry thing. What this is is a realization that America is slowly turning away from being a working country to a country that claims the Bible as our Constitution!
Wanna know something? I'm Christian! Most people in my other threads know this. Wanna know something else? No one religion is any higher than another. No one religion has any right to claim that it is better. No one PERSON has any right to claim that.
Perhaps you believe marriage not to be a right. Perhaps you think that the rights of homosexuals are still well in hand. Well, here's a little document I'm gonna give you. It's called the Hippocratic Oath. Heard of it? It's what doctors swear to follow when they go into their profession. Here it is.
Hippocratic Oath
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Emphasis Added.
Now. Read this article really quickly.
http://www.proudparenting.com/page.cfm?Sectionid=65&typeofsite=snippetdetail&ID=1204&snippetset=yes
Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays
(Lansing, Michigan) Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.
The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.
The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.
The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.
The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.
Three other three bills that could affect LGBT health care were also passed by the House Wednesday which would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.
Opponents of the bills said they're worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.
Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health care providers, it doesn't ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.
"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said.
"I think it's a terrible slippery slope upon which we embark," said Rep. Jack Minore (D-Flint) before voting against the bill.
Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.
"Individual and institutional health care providers can and should maintain their mission and their services without compromising faith-based teaching," he said in a written statement.
Well. Hot diggety damn. Looks like the Oath doesn't matter. Religion comes first. Not sick, infirm, dying people. Religion.
Think that's all? Nay, I say. Read this website for more.
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer
Many an article there speaks of Christian only jobs. Christian beliefs hurt by government decisions, so the Christians complain. Etcetera etcetera.
Does this mean I don't believe that the people participating in the Day of Truth don't have the right to do so? Nope. I believe that they have every right to express their beliefs.
Do I find it right? Morally right? No. I don't. In fact, I not that, despite its "good intentions", it is very much just a religious attack.
I've been told before that my posts are merely soapboxes. I prefer to think of them as open discussions, allowing people to discuss any point brought up in the post. However, out of necessity, I will leave you with a topic.
Is it right for the government to run on the morals taught by one religion? Or should that be stopped?
For Further Reading:
Day of Silence: http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1017899&tw=wn_wire_story
Day of Truth: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/actions/Default.aspx?mid=410&cid=3308
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fubenkunai
As a note to the "thread regulars," flaming someone like that or tossing out insults left and right is only going to produce warnings and make me delete more posts. I'll warn 'em, but as it's your thread, I thought it only fair to give you a heads-up that they'll be reined in if need be.
A note to the regulars:
Okay. This will be put up on all of my threads, first post, and a new post. fubenkunai has been kind enough to clean up my threads of mess every time I've come to her. We must, in turn, follow the rules in respect and because they are the rules. Just because we believe them to be rude and unintelligent does not give the right for us to respond in kind. In fact, we must all remember to stay on topic, and to try not to spam. From now on, I will be much stricter. I don't want any of my threads being chatterboxed, guys. I still luv you all, but seriously. Let's try to cut it down, shall we?
Thanks, guys.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, an update pertaining to the subject.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/05/05/gay.donor.ap/index.html
Well... someone care to try and explain this?
