Gay Equality on TV Controversy...
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 46

Thread: Gay Equality on TV Controversy...

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    229

    Post Gay Equality on TV Controversy...

    I got this in an e-mail today and thought that it was pretty interesting. Given the fact that I haven't been around to post here in a great while, I figured I'd slap this up here and see what you think...


    ABC TV - A MUST READ

    If more of us took a stand maybe we could have some decent TV programs.
    -- Jim Neugent is a coach in Childress, Texas.

    Jim writes:
    My name is Jim Neugent. I wrote to ABC (on-line) concerning a program
    called "THE PRACTICE." In last nights episode, one of the lawyer's
    mothers decided she is gay and wanted her son to go to court and help
    her get a marriage license so she could marry her 'partner.' ! I sent
    the following letter to ABC yesterday and really did not expect a reply,
    but I did get one.

    My original message was:
    ABC is obsessed (or should I say abscessed) with the subject of
    homosexuality. I will no longer watch any of your attempts to convince
    the world that homosexuality is OK. THE PRACTICE can be a fairly good
    show, but last night's program was so typical of your agenda. You picked
    the 'dufus' of the office to be the one who was against the idea of his
    mother being gay and made him look like a whiner because he had
    convictions. This type of mentality calls people like me a "gay basher."
    Read the first chapter of Romans (that's in the Bible) and see what the
    apostle Paul had to say! about it.... He, God and Jesus were all 'gay
    bashers'. What if she'd fallen in love with her cocker spaniel? Is that
    an alternative lifestyle? (By the way, the Bible speaks against that,
    too.)
    --Jim Neugent

    Here is ABC's reply from the ABC on-line webmaster:
    How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of
    stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and
    read the declaration of independence (what our nation is built on),
    where it says "All Men are Created equal," and try treating them that
    way for a change! Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop
    using an archaic book of stories as your lame crutch for your existence.
    You are in minority in this country and your boycott will not affect us
    or our freedom of statement.

    Jim Neugent's second response to ABC:
    Thanks for your reply. From your harsh reply, evidently I hit a nerve. I
    will share it with all with whom I come in contact. Hopefully,the
    Arkansas Democrat Newspaper! will include it in one of their columns and
    I will be praying for you.
    --Jim Neugent

    Note: Wouldn't Satan just love it if people stopped using the Bible for
    a crutch? Please resend this to everyone in your mailbox.
    -- Thanks, Jim Neugent

    I wonder if the person from ABC considered how many people would read
    this e-mail! This is one we should definitely pass on.
    I hate throwing religious aspects into a debate because that is a debate in itself. Even though, as most of you know I am a christian, and proud of it. Reguardless, looking at this from an objective point of view I can still easily find myself in the same spot as this 'Jim' guy. I, in all aspects, fully respect the choices of sexual preference that another person makes. However, has anyone ever felt like they were being labled a 'homophobe' for just simply not condoning it? I have.

    It seems like everyday I hear, tolerance!, respect!, awareness!, diversity!, all these concepts are fine but they are being drilled into my head so much that I now am starting to feel resentment towards these people.

    Does anyone else here feel targeted because they just don't happen to condone this activity?

    What do you think of ABC's reply too? Heh, it obviously really hit a nerve.

    It's almost as if some of these people that are pushing all these 'gay-rights' and 'tolerance' issues should get a lesson in tolerance themselves, and if someone doesn't happen to 'like' what you do, but still 'respects' it, that does NOT make you a bad person. That makes you a human being, welcome to earth.

    --Peace
    The real question is not whether peace can be obtained, but whether or not mankind is mature enough for it...

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    Question on marraige, is it a religious instatution or a secular one? if it is a religious one, why do Ihave t obuy a licenese, and why do I get special advantages under tax and insurance laws. If it is religious all legal advantages and disadvantages (includeing legal devorice) should go away.

    On the other hand if it is a purly legal contract between two adults then why can't two gay people get married, restricting marraige by gender (if it is a social/legal contract) is discrimination and illigal.

    If it is both, well then the US instatution of marrige is unconstitutional as it breakes the seperation of church and state.
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  3. #3
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716
    Question on marraige, is it a religious instatution or a secular one?
    Good question. I think marriage is more ancient than either Government or Religion.

    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
    And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
    And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
    And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
    And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
    This event predates the existence of any State, or any organized Religion.
    It is why I believe that God recognizes the validity of any marriage,
    regardless of the religion, or lack thereof in the married partners.

    Marriage is not strictly a religious institution, otherwise, I would conclude
    that your marriage is not valid unless you are a member of my denomination
    or faith.

    It is also not just a state institution, otherwise, my state would not recognize the
    marriages of foreigners who move here from other lands.

    I have a question for those who think that gay marriage should be allowed.
    What is there is your philosophy that would prohibit polygamy?
    If marriage is any sexual union between consenting adults, why
    did the US gov't refuse to allow Utah to join the union until the Mormon
    church changed its teaching on polygamy?
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    405
    Originally posted here by rcgreen
    I have a question for those who think that gay marriage should be allowed.
    What is there is your philosophy that would prohibit polygamy?
    Damn that is a good question. I'm trying to articulate why I think polygamy is wrong and homosexual marriage is ok. I think it boils down to the two people thing; the people in the marriage should be committed to each other. Also, children which are borne as part of a marriage should have the full attention of both parents. I would also say that it doesn't set a great example to kids when their dad is off knocking up other women all the time.

    However, these three opinions are just that; opinions, not based on solid logic or proven fact. If every participant in a polygamous marrisage was consenting, I can't think of any reason to prohibit it. It would be hypocritical to advocate homosexual marriage and simultaneously disparage polygamy, if your arguments against polygamy were not based on real world evidence. Even though I feel that polygamy is inappropriate, if people consent to participate in that lifestyle, it's not my business - in much the same way that if a Christian feels that homosexual marriage is wrong, it's still none of his or her business if other people consent to a single-sex marriage.

    What if she'd fallen in love with her cocker spaniel? Is that
    an alternative lifestyle? (By the way, the Bible speaks against that,
    too.)
    What a tool.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    38
    This Jim Neugent is another example of what I like to call an idiot.

    Point A) ABC is a free channel. You do not pay for the priviledge to watch it

    Point B) Since you do not pay for it, don't bitch about what's on it

    Now, this man, Jim Neugent... watches a secular TV show, and demands that it conform to his religious viewpoint. This religious viewpoint is obviously not shared by the station, which he did not pay for, and therefore has no say whatsoever in what is placed on it.

    Now, according to his own bible, he should not have been watching this show. "Come out from among them, and be ye separate"... he is supposed to abstain from worldly things "Abstain from all appearance of evil"...

    According to his doctrine, the show he was watching was evil, and he was sinning by watching it, so it would be suggested to "pull the beam from thine own eye before attempting to pluck the mote from thy brother's".



    As for the subject of gay marriage, I have this to say. I myself am homosexual. I have been homosexual since I was 11. Over the course of the 9 years since then, I have fallen in love with someone that I would love to spend the rest of my life with, someone that I hold at night in the exact same way that any heterosexual holds their partner. Now, why should I not be allowed to have legal validation of this love?

    Is it not my constitutional right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"???

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    As a contract between two people (and an exclusive one) poligamy would be in violation of that contract. Again if it is a none state issue I sugest we abolish all legal (and tax) benifets of marrige. Personaly I see two seperate structures, a legal one and a religious one that share a name. So it would be ok for your church to refuse to marry a gay cuple but not a justice of the peace.
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  7. #7
    Old Fart
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,658
    Is it not my constitutional right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"???
    Does that constitutional "right" allow you to (pardon the pun) force your opinion down the throats of those who do not agree with it? I think not.

    Before you go too far in forming your opinion of me, you should know that I have several relatives who are gay that I love and respect very much. I have yet to see them get "up in arms" over the "gay rights" issue because like rest of us, they realize that they have to play the hand that life has dealt them. You live in a country that was founded on BIBLICAL principles. DEAL WITH IT.
    Al
    It isn't paranoia when you KNOW they're out to get you...

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    amazingly we live in a country taht wasn't founded on christian valuse. In fact while the consitution is somewhat quiet on religion (besides that whole seperation of church and state bit that fundies like to ignore.) some of our early treties signed by our first president explicitly state that the US is not a christian country and was not founded on christians ideals. Add that to the fact tath a lot of the founding faters where deists and black massist and you have a country that absolutly wasn't founded on biblical principles.


    This country was founded on rational beleifs taht stemed from the enlightenment period, which in part where a rejection of organized religion and christian beleifes. Deal with it.
    Also note that this is a capitalistic country, if we look at societies founded on biblical principles (Shakers, Quakers, the ultra orthidox jewish comunities in the US and Isrial, puritains, Mennonites, ect. ) you find decidedly socialist comunities.
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    229
    amazingly we live in a country taht wasn't founded on christian valuse
    Amazingly your wrong, back in the day when religion wasn't looked upon as a threat by democrats and other members of the left it was embraced as a standard or guideline in which to live by. It states clearly that we are founded as...

    'one nation, under god'

    Now the problem that I think so many church and state sepratists have with this is that they think in thier own heads that this is an example of religion being pushed on the masses. When it is not, concepts of God go beyond that of the all powerful being that is recognised by many different religions. God was once a unit that unified our country and served as a role model for the ideal citizen. Even though you may not have believed in God, you still respected the teachings and lived by the codes of which the religion preached. (Such as love thy neighbor, no killing, no stealing, etc...) You get what I'm saying? There was still an element of respect because our very laws and ethics that have been instilled in this country were founded by the principals of religion. As much as Athieism has tried to push, scream, rant, rave, cry, and whine it's ideology into our government by taking down historical religious icons, taking 'under god' out of the pledge, and taking out 'in god we trust' out of our currency, it simply can't.

    Why? Because when you take away the ideals that our government was founded under, you don't have a US democracy anymore. You have an oppressive regime that takes away hope and belief from its citizens.

    Surely you will of course claim that these laws of kindness are not soley religious and we're founded under common principle and ethics. But then why was there such a great admiration for God and country when this country was founded? Why do we have such a problem with religious ideals that were incorperated into our government when it was founded? The constitution calls for a separation between church and state. But NOT the principals in which it was founded under! Simply put...

    You live in a country that was founded on BIBLICAL principles. DEAL WITH IT.
    --Peace
    The real question is not whether peace can be obtained, but whether or not mankind is mature enough for it...

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    "one nation under god" was added t othe pledge in teh 1950's in attempt to keep the populace under control.

    In god we trust was added to our mony in the 1860's by a lincon apointee (secratary of the tresury) lincon was desperatly trying t ostem off civil war so he appointed a radical fundi southerner to this post. The mans stated goals was to abolish the constitution and replace it with a cristian thocracy.

    Humm so if we look at the origional documents (constitution, bill of rights.) no mention of god or religion (except to exclude it). The referances t ogod where all put into this country by fundies who wanted ot abolish the constitution and replace it with totalitarian goverments. So ya i guess we are based on biblical law after all, well as long as we ignore pesky things like history and the law.
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •