Wednesday, 23 January 2008

Today's Battle

A very civilised one, with a courteous opposition, over at The Opine Editorials.
Well, it makes a change from arguing medieval canon law.


Fannie Wolfe said...

I commend your ability to have a civil conversation with some of the folks from Opine Editorials.

At the same time, I don't know your feelings about gay people, but for the sake the record, Opiner Jose Solano frequently makes statements such as this:

"It must be understood that to ennoble acts of moral turpitude, to teach children that it is right and good to engage in perverse sexual activities, to deliberately subject children to fatherless or motherless homes to be raised by people who wish to corrupt the meaning of marriage is a terrible, even criminal activity in a rational society, as it indeed corrupts the morals of children and society. Homosexuals do not wish to see this because it goes contrary to their desires, their urges which they do not wish to control. Rather than control their perverse urges, their concupiscence, they would like everyone to affirm and bless them by awarding them marriage privileges and benefits.

Anyone pushing such an agenda acts against the family and the dignity of the human being, and as such is not merely an enemy of America but an enemy of humanity itself, because the acts that he/she wants society to affirm and condone are clearly “acts of grave depravity.”

Homosexuals need to understand that we do not oppose them as human beings but only their efforts to enshrine their perverse activities through societal privileges and benefits in marriage-like arrangements. What a great hoax on humanity they are trying to pull, consciously or unconsciously, in demanding marriage privileges. We see this as an enormously serious assault on human decency, and so does the vast majority of humanity."

Zoe Brain said...

Here's what he said more recently :

All sorts of partnership relationships that are not marriage may also be instituted by government to suit any number of people who wish to cohabit. I think we are moving in this direction and Hawaii’s reciprocal beneficiary approach may be the way to go.

People can grow. They can learn. They can even hold strong religious beliefs about what is moral and immoral, and still recognise that there is a human rights issue here.

Approval is not necessary: basic human decency is. Same-sex relationship rights will not be won by convincing everyone that being GLB is normal. They will be won by showing that to deny GLBs rights is inhuman. The acceptance will come in time. I used to be far more homophobic than I am now, but associating with GLB people has largely cured me of that nasty little prejudice.

Fannie Wolfe said...

Yes, some people can change and their opinions can evolve. I just don't know that Jose will ever change his deeply-held belief that gay people are perverse, depraved, immoral, and out to pull a great hoax on humanity.

Ultimately, perhaps he would change his mind if he, like you, were to associate with more GLB people...?

Anyway, bravo to you again.

Take care.

Anonymous said...

They can even hold strong religious beliefs about what is moral and immoral, and still recognise that there is a human rights issue here.

That would be me, I guess.
I wouldn't want churches to be forced to perform wedding ceremonies for gays or to hire gay pastors (nor would I would want the National Organization for Women to have to hire a male executive, NAACP to hire a white leader, a Moslem group to hire a Hindu, etc). If I were confident that wasn't going to happen--which I'm not--then I wouldn't mind a civil marriage deal.
Although I have grave doubts about the ability of legislatures to competently enact it.