Full Version: Homosexuality
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Jun 27 2003, 11:54 AM)
As for your personal situation Wertz, noone suggested you toss your foster sons into the street, that's a bit melodramatic dontcha think? I would suggest though that you should not have been able to take them in in the first place.
Well, I'm sure glad we were able. If people like you had had their way, David and Paul would both probably be dead by now. When we took David in, he was extremely self-destructive and suicidally depressed; Paul was a heroin addict supporting his habit through prostitution (and had been doing so since he was twelve). No "real" mommies and daddies wanted them. We did - and I've learned more about love, commitment, family, and morality through raising them than from all your posts combined.
QUOTE
Personally, I think the whole homo lifestyle is abnormal. And since we are all products of our environment, at least to some degree, I wouldn't want children reared in such an abnormal setting, particularly in their formative years.
Funny, then, that homosexuality exists at all, isn't it? My parents are both heterosexual - and I was a product of my "normal" environment. I don't have any statistics at hand, but I'd be willing to wager that both parents of a good 95% of gay men and lesbians are also heterosexual. I expect they, too, are products of their "normal" environments. What do you think all those heterosexual parents are doing, Passion, to produce so many queer kids? By the way, 100% of the children that my partner and I raised are straight. What should we conclude from that?
QUOTE
Teaching tolerance doesn't require living the life.
What?? You mean we shouldn't have brought our sons to all those gay tea dances and taught them fellatio and dressed them in drag? What were we thinking! I guess we shouldn't have encouraged them to become hairdressers or florists or choreographers, either, huh? Or even to have good taste? Oh my God, if only we hadn't encouraged them to "live the life", they might've turned out heterosexual! Oh, wait - they did.
That has to be the most ridiculous argument I've heard yet, P51. What makes you think that same sex couples approach parenting any differently from opposite sex couples? Okay, maybe because it's that much more difficult for them to have kids, they might care about them that much more - they sure as hell aren't the result of unwanted accidents - but otherwise? Absurd.
I can neither speak for nor judge any other gay parents - or any straight parents (except my own, who did a helluva job); neither can I speak for nor judge any non-parents. But I know that my partner and I probably saved two lives and brought two "problem kids" up to be relatively well-adjusted, healthy, and, yes, tolerant young adults. I certainly can't assume that your heterosexuality is wrong, P51, but I firmly believe - due to our success at parenting, if nothing else - that the homosexuality of my lover and I resulted in something right.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
DaytonRocker: So much for not wanting to resort to right-wing Christian sources to support your argument, eh?
I had a feeling that's why you were previously so reluctant to provide any references. I'm glad you finally "came out". 
And, oh yeah, you get high marks for mentioning that someone else made a point "without sources"!!! 
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
beladonna: Thanks for bringing some civility and sense to the debate - and a credible source! We could all stand to follow your example a bit more.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jun 27 2003, 11:12 PM)
I would hope that everyone in the GLBT community and those that are supportive of their fight for dignity and their rights has a wonderful Gay Pride weekend.
Thanks, NT. For the past several years, I've observed Gay Pride by staying at home and renting a coupla videos or something. I guess I've become a bit complacent. After reading some of the opinions expressed here, though, I've been thinking "My God, the intolerance of some in this country is as serious as it ever was." So I think I might dig out a few of those old badges, meet up with a couple of friends (who have been bugging me all week anyway), and march in this year's parade. At least these threads have had some positive impact.
QUOTE
I would hope that everyone in the GLBT community and those that are supportive of their fight for diginity and their rights has a wonderful Gay Pride weekend.
Thankyou Nighttimmer!
UBilly Jean IS your lover!!!!!!
This was quite a thread to wade through! Is homosexuality right or wrong? I don't know.
Would I be upset if one of my children turned out to be homosexual? Yeah. Guess that makes me homophobic. In the strictest sense of the word, I would be afraid for my child, but not of my child.
I know the scripture references cited. It's understandable that many Christians consider homosexuality wrong based on the writings of the Old and New Testaments and their interpretations. And it's also true that Christians commit sins every day that Old Testament priests and present-day orthodox Jews would consider scandalous and dangerous.
Since we can't agree on the validity of these Bible verses, can we at least try to agree on the principles behind them?
It's just a guess, but maybe God was saying in the Scriptures, enjoy the things that I created for you, be fruitful and multiply, but don't put anybody or anything ahead of Me in your affections: not your spouse, not your son or brother or best friend or possessions or your bodily desires, etc.
The Old Testament deals with the development of one family into a nation who enjoyed God's favor as long as they obeyed God. So a lot of the directives specifically had to do with building up a group of healthy people who bore children and did not adopt the practices of the people around them who worshipped other gods. Perhaps some of the practices of the heathen people had to do with homosexuality, possibly in the context of worshipping their gods.
What the Bible says has as much or as little to do with your sexual orientation and preferences as you allow it to. It certainly says more about heterosexual immorality than it does about homosexuality.
Perhaps the best directive of the Bible is twofold as Jesus put it: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...and thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments rest all of the law and the prophets. (Paraphrased) It is still within our power to accept or despise the people around us.
Though I'm homophobic, I do like the gays I know. I would not desire a "gay" life for myself or my family.
And the Bible verses are worrisome.
Would I be upset if one of my children turned out to be homosexual? Yeah. Guess that makes me homophobic. In the strictest sense of the word, I would be afraid for my child, but not of my child.
I know the scripture references cited. It's understandable that many Christians consider homosexuality wrong based on the writings of the Old and New Testaments and their interpretations. And it's also true that Christians commit sins every day that Old Testament priests and present-day orthodox Jews would consider scandalous and dangerous.
Since we can't agree on the validity of these Bible verses, can we at least try to agree on the principles behind them?
It's just a guess, but maybe God was saying in the Scriptures, enjoy the things that I created for you, be fruitful and multiply, but don't put anybody or anything ahead of Me in your affections: not your spouse, not your son or brother or best friend or possessions or your bodily desires, etc.
The Old Testament deals with the development of one family into a nation who enjoyed God's favor as long as they obeyed God. So a lot of the directives specifically had to do with building up a group of healthy people who bore children and did not adopt the practices of the people around them who worshipped other gods. Perhaps some of the practices of the heathen people had to do with homosexuality, possibly in the context of worshipping their gods.
What the Bible says has as much or as little to do with your sexual orientation and preferences as you allow it to. It certainly says more about heterosexual immorality than it does about homosexuality.
Perhaps the best directive of the Bible is twofold as Jesus put it: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...and thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments rest all of the law and the prophets. (Paraphrased) It is still within our power to accept or despise the people around us.
Though I'm homophobic, I do like the gays I know. I would not desire a "gay" life for myself or my family.
And the Bible verses are worrisome.
In regards to the links provided earlier by DaytonRocker, it's taken me some time to look through them. Upon reading the first link (any religious bias aside), I've noticed the authors have distorted a great deal of information to piece together the picture they want. Researchers who have found no trouble with homosexual parenting can find qualifiers to their research twisted and manipulated to serve a purpose here. In trying to discredit Charlotte Patterson, for example, they manipulate her statements...
Among other twists and manipulations the report seeks to continue labelling homosexual sex between monogamous same sex couples as harmful and dangerous because:
The list goes on and on with this article, both prior to those I mention and after. The authors and publishers also seem to fear some active "gay agenda" from the homosexual community, going on to say the pursuit of gay marriage is one to "remove precisely the aspects of fidelity and chastity that promote stability in the relationship and the home." Nevermind they have had to distort reports and information throughout trying to show changes in the institution would be an inherently bad thing.
To close out their argument the authors appeal to an argument that "children need a mom and dad" and ridiculously contine to cite the importance of "marriage-based families" when their entire goal is to make a case for forbidding a particular kind of marriage-based family. Part of their reasoning for this?
I wouldn't stake too much claim in this source.
Reviewing the second link revealed it was not from the Australian Family Association (source of the link), but from a controversial organization (Festival of Light). Besides the group advocating the presence of a "gay agenda" in the homosexual community and vehemently opposing Australian anti-discrimination laws that would restrict their condemnation of homosexuals, their authors cite work conducted by researchers (Cameron) expelled from the American Psychological Association for manipulating and falsifying research. Oddly enough, they use their research in an attempt to refute none other than the American Psychological Association.
They carry on in the spirit of things again distorting evidence and attempt making connections that can not be shown to negatively reflect on homosexual parenting.
The third link, from FOX News, does not appear to say anything against homosexual parenting, but addresses the need for more and better studies.
The fifth link is an editorial written by a lay person expressing nothing more than an opinion. Perhaps you could link us to the transcripts of the Primetime Thursday program the writer has an issue with.
Your final link is titled:
Wow! Did she really say they would be better off with a mother and father and that she hoped they wouldn't engage in homosexual behavior?
The article goes on to address disorders and health concerns for homosexual individuals, but it fails to discuss the requirements of adoption agencies to begin with. Whatever questionable statistics they may offer about the psychological well being of homosexuals, adoption agencies would no more be expected to relinquish children into the care of a psychotic homosexual than a psychotic heterosexual, into the care of a disease ravaged homosexual or a disease ravaged heterosexual.
Stereotyping homosexuals is not an excuse for barring homosexual parenting. Being blind, black, male or female all have their own statistical considerations for adoption agencies to look at, but prospective parents are looked at personally, not stereotypically. Just as statistics related to race, disability and gender do not alone factor into heterosexual adoption practices, sexual persuasion similarly should not.
I'm still reading the fourth link, though I haven't yet seen anything different from the other five. I'll be happy to comment on it upon completion, though
QUOTE
"research in this area has presented a variety of methodological challenges," and that "questions have been raised with regard to sampling issues, statistical power, and other technical matters (e.g., Belcastro, Gramlich, Nicholson, Price, & Wilson, 1993)."
"Research in this area has also been criticized for using poorly matched or no control groups in designs that call for such controls. . . . Other criticisms have been that most studies have involved relatively small samples [and] that there have been inadequacies in assessment procedures employed in some studies.5"
She addresses challenges faced and the criticisms from those opposed to research, but she does not, as the authors try to suggest, "admit to serious methodological and design errors that would call into question the findings of any study.""Research in this area has also been criticized for using poorly matched or no control groups in designs that call for such controls. . . . Other criticisms have been that most studies have involved relatively small samples [and] that there have been inadequacies in assessment procedures employed in some studies.5"
Among other twists and manipulations the report seeks to continue labelling homosexual sex between monogamous same sex couples as harmful and dangerous because:
QUOTE
The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than did those without a steady partner. Anal intercourse has been linked with a host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.
The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of AIDS concurred, finding that most "unsafe" sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.
Nevermind that if a homosexual couple is STD free and monogamous they run no heightened risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases from one another. As they have less to fear in a trusting, committed relationship, why shouldn't they feel comfortable to engage more freely in sexual expression?The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of AIDS concurred, finding that most "unsafe" sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.
QUOTE
In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that "slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse."
Verbal, emotional, psychological abuse. A pretty broad and vague net being cast here, and I'm sure we'll find the similar results in heterosexual relationships if we keep the options as generalized.QUOTE
Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage. A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households...
It's absurd of them to even include this comparison when homosexual marriages are outlawed. They are legally forbidden from trying to establish a healthy family environment bound in matrimony.QUOTE
High Incidence of Mental Health Problems among Homosexuals and Lesbians. A national survey of lesbians published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology found that 75 percent of the nearly two-thousand respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness:
"Psychological counseling of some kind... another generalization we're asked to accept. Beyond this, though, who wouldn't expect a group of people routinely persecuted not to suffer from sadness or long-term depression? They have comparable studies intimating African Americans suffer more from stress and heart disease because of elevated stress levels rooted in their societal treatment.The list goes on and on with this article, both prior to those I mention and after. The authors and publishers also seem to fear some active "gay agenda" from the homosexual community, going on to say the pursuit of gay marriage is one to "remove precisely the aspects of fidelity and chastity that promote stability in the relationship and the home." Nevermind they have had to distort reports and information throughout trying to show changes in the institution would be an inherently bad thing.
To close out their argument the authors appeal to an argument that "children need a mom and dad" and ridiculously contine to cite the importance of "marriage-based families" when their entire goal is to make a case for forbidding a particular kind of marriage-based family. Part of their reasoning for this?
QUOTE
In the 1981 Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, Pope John Paul II summarized the importance of marriage-based families:
The family has vital and organic links with society since it is its foundation and nourishes it continually through its role of service to life: It is from the family that citizens come to birth and it is within the family that they find the first school of the social virtues that are the animating principle of the existence and development of society itself.
None of this is possible in homosexual or lesbian households, which are by definition incapable of creating progeny and contributing to the "procreation of the human race." Any children found in such households are of necessity obtained either from married couples or otherwise through the sexual union of male and female, artificially or otherwise. Thus such households are ironically dependent upon the very womb of society—the union of male and female—that they wish so fervently to deny.
An appeal to religion rather than facts, which would inadvertantly also serve as an argument against sterile couples adopting; something the authors and publishers do not seem opposed to. To try and apply this exclusively to homosexual couples appears to be bias.The family has vital and organic links with society since it is its foundation and nourishes it continually through its role of service to life: It is from the family that citizens come to birth and it is within the family that they find the first school of the social virtues that are the animating principle of the existence and development of society itself.
None of this is possible in homosexual or lesbian households, which are by definition incapable of creating progeny and contributing to the "procreation of the human race." Any children found in such households are of necessity obtained either from married couples or otherwise through the sexual union of male and female, artificially or otherwise. Thus such households are ironically dependent upon the very womb of society—the union of male and female—that they wish so fervently to deny.
I wouldn't stake too much claim in this source.
Reviewing the second link revealed it was not from the Australian Family Association (source of the link), but from a controversial organization (Festival of Light). Besides the group advocating the presence of a "gay agenda" in the homosexual community and vehemently opposing Australian anti-discrimination laws that would restrict their condemnation of homosexuals, their authors cite work conducted by researchers (Cameron) expelled from the American Psychological Association for manipulating and falsifying research. Oddly enough, they use their research in an attempt to refute none other than the American Psychological Association.
They carry on in the spirit of things again distorting evidence and attempt making connections that can not be shown to negatively reflect on homosexual parenting.
The third link, from FOX News, does not appear to say anything against homosexual parenting, but addresses the need for more and better studies.
The fifth link is an editorial written by a lay person expressing nothing more than an opinion. Perhaps you could link us to the transcripts of the Primetime Thursday program the writer has an issue with.
Your final link is titled:
QUOTE
Rosie O'Donnell Knows Better
"Even Rosie Knows Homosexual Adoption Puts Children at Risk"
and claims..."Even Rosie Knows Homosexual Adoption Puts Children at Risk"
QUOTE
The media glorified Rosie O’Donnell’s public announcement that she has sex with other women. But it glossed over these startling contradictions: O’Donnell’s frank admission that she believes her own adopted children would be better off being raised by a married mother and father, bolstered by the hope that they won’t follow her example of choosing to engage in homosexual behavior.
Wow! Did she really say they would be better off with a mother and father and that she hoped they wouldn't engage in homosexual behavior?
QUOTE
“Would it be easier for [my kids] if I were married to a man? It probably would,” O’Donnell told ABC Primetime Thursday reporter Diane Sawyer.
And when asked if she hopes her adopted children will grow up to be “straight”…
“Yes, I do,” Rosie said. “I think life is easier if you’re straight. … If I were to pick, would I rather have my children have to go through the struggles of being gay in America, or being heterosexual, I would say heterosexual.”
She did not say they would be "better off," but rather life would be easier. Not because of homosexual parenting, mind you, but because of the discrimination and contempt being associated with homosexual family members can earn a child in our society. Did she say she hoped her children grew up to be straight? She did, but again only because she doesn't want them to have to face the struggles of discrimination and hate in America and the world. And when asked if she hopes her adopted children will grow up to be “straight”…
“Yes, I do,” Rosie said. “I think life is easier if you’re straight. … If I were to pick, would I rather have my children have to go through the struggles of being gay in America, or being heterosexual, I would say heterosexual.”
The article goes on to address disorders and health concerns for homosexual individuals, but it fails to discuss the requirements of adoption agencies to begin with. Whatever questionable statistics they may offer about the psychological well being of homosexuals, adoption agencies would no more be expected to relinquish children into the care of a psychotic homosexual than a psychotic heterosexual, into the care of a disease ravaged homosexual or a disease ravaged heterosexual.
Stereotyping homosexuals is not an excuse for barring homosexual parenting. Being blind, black, male or female all have their own statistical considerations for adoption agencies to look at, but prospective parents are looked at personally, not stereotypically. Just as statistics related to race, disability and gender do not alone factor into heterosexual adoption practices, sexual persuasion similarly should not.
I'm still reading the fourth link, though I haven't yet seen anything different from the other five. I'll be happy to comment on it upon completion, though
Billy Jean, you are terribly misguided about what is expected in this forum.
Wertz, your personal life-story is not the subject of debate. In the words of someone near and dear to me, 'it aint always about you babe!'.
After spending some time reflecting on this subject I've solidified my opinion. Homosexuality is wrong. Wrong because;
Man and woman were created to procreate.
Gay couples can not procreate together.
Ergo, gay couples should not be permitted to
raise children.
Wertz, your personal life-story is not the subject of debate. In the words of someone near and dear to me, 'it aint always about you babe!'.
After spending some time reflecting on this subject I've solidified my opinion. Homosexuality is wrong. Wrong because;
Man and woman were created to procreate.
Gay couples can not procreate together.
Ergo, gay couples should not be permitted to
raise children.
Now for another clincher, P51. There are lots of gay people raising their own genetic children in false hetero marriages. A girlfriend of mine has 3 children of her own and is still married to the father who knows full well shes a lesbian. Go figure. Does that qualify under, 'gay people should not be allowed to raise children?'
If its not accepted, it will be well hidden, but doesnt go away.
I also think you are writing off Wertz personal experience with little thought to what has been said.
Can we save one child from loneliness and despair? Would that be worth it?
If its not accepted, it will be well hidden, but doesnt go away.
I also think you are writing off Wertz personal experience with little thought to what has been said.
Can we save one child from loneliness and despair? Would that be worth it?
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Jun 28 2003, 07:37 AM)
Billy Jean, you are terribly misguided about what is expected in this forum.
Wertz, your personal life-story is not the subject of debate. In the words of someone near and dear to me, 'it aint always about you babe!'.
Wertz, your personal life-story is not the subject of debate. In the words of someone near and dear to me, 'it aint always about you babe!'.
Billy Jean is "right on" about what this thread is about. Who better to discuss how anti-homosexual behavior has affected a person who is homosexual.
Wertz's personal story about raising children is a wonderful example of "what it's all about" and I personally am thankful to him and more respectful of him for opening up his home to help two children in need. How you can think this subject isn't about Wertz is beyond me, Passion.
This thread is about whether homosexuality is right or wrong and I am thrilled that all the different aspects of homosexality are being discussed here instead of being broke down on separate threads.
QUOTE
After spending some time reflecting on this subject I've solidified my opinion. Homosexuality is wrong. Wrong because;
Man and woman were created to procreate.
Gay couples can not procreate together.
Ergo, gay couples should not be permitted to
raise children.
Man and woman were created to procreate.
Gay couples can not procreate together.
Ergo, gay couples should not be permitted to
raise children.
Passion, I can't procreate either. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to have children? Does it make me abnormal?
Homosexual men and women CAN procreate. Being homosexual doesn't mean the body doesn't produce sperm and an egg.
Many heterosexual men and women can't procreate "together." Does this automotically disqualify them from being good parents? They have to seek assistance from the medical community. The same applies to homosexual couples.
What if the man can't produce sperm? Is he abnormal and therefore unfit to be a father? What if the heterosexual couple brings in a sperm donor? Do you consider this a normal part of procreation? What if that donor is - gay?
There is absolutely no difference between a heterosexual couple who wants to adopt a child and a homosexual couple who wishes to adopt a child. That anyone would rather children live in a foster home than place them in the loving home of a homosexual couple just blows my mind. What kind of compassionate conservativism is that?
I'm not trying to debate through question, but I think we have to be able to answer these questions reasonably before forming an opinion.
QUOTE
Man and woman were created to procreate.
Gay couples can not procreate together.
Ergo, gay couples should not be permitted to
raise children.
Gay couples can not procreate together.
Ergo, gay couples should not be permitted to
raise children.
Oh please! Since straight couples ARE permitted to raise children, try this one:
Guns were created to kill people.
People without guns cannot kill people.
Ergo, people without guns should not be permitted to kill people, and people with guns SHOULD be permitted to kill people.
Or alternatively, since gay people can have children (just not with their gay partner - maybe they have them from a past relationship) and since single people, gay or straight, can adopt:
Cookies are created to be eaten.
People without cookies cannot eat them.
Ergo, people without cookies should not be permitted to eat them, even if they go out and buy some or are offered them by their friends.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Jun 28 2003 @ 07:37 AM)
After spending some time reflecting on this subject I've solidified my opinion. Homosexuality is wrong. Wrong because;
Man and woman were created to procreate.
Gay couples can not procreate together.
Ergo, gay couples should not be permitted to
raise children.
Man and woman were created to procreate.
Gay couples can not procreate together.
Ergo, gay couples should not be permitted to
raise children.
Fertility in America
Mayo Clinic - Treatment of Male Infertility
According to these sites infertility can affect anywhere between 10-20% of couples in America. Apparently not every man or woman was "created" to procreate.
Besides even this, not even every couple chooses to procreate. Some women might prefer adoption to pregnancy or their skeletal structure (pelvic) may not be adequate for birthing children. There are many other health problems that may stand in the way of a fertile heterosexual couple reproducing.
The inability to reproduce or the choice not to, for whatever reasons, should have nothing to do with whether people are suitable to adopt children. Besides this, I believe Julian has already adequately dispelled the "logic" being used in that argument.
I guess women who have passed the fertile life stage should no longer marry.
A couple blurbs from a PRO gay source:
The 10% number is bogus (as I've stated before)
And from table 1, there's a significantly higher chance:
1) Young adult child has considered same-sex sexual relationship(s); has had same-sex sexual relationship
2) Boys’ likelihood of having a gay sexual orientation in adulthood, by sexual orientation of father
And from table 2, there's a significantly higher chance:
1) Child believes that mother would prefer that she/he has lesbigay sexual orientation
2) Mother has received psychiatric care in adult life
Of course, this study shows what some may see as positive aspects, but it does not take away from the fact that there is a difference in gay parenting. This source has pretty much stated that almost all studies showing "no difference" are bogus because NONE were based off random samples.
Statistically, it is clear there are differences. Statistically, it is clear children of same sex relationships have a higher chance of being gay also. Some of us being labled as homophobes have every right to question the wisdom of letting gays raise our children.
We are selfishly subjecting children to a grand social experiment.
The 10% number is bogus (as I've stated before)
QUOTE
In fact, the 10 percent number is fundamentally flawed: Kinsey found that of the 37 percent of the white men in his sample who had at least one sexual experience with another man in their lifetime, only 10 percent of them (i.e., 3.7 percent of the entire white male sample) had exclusively samesex sexual experiences for any three-year period between ages 16 and 55.
And from table 1, there's a significantly higher chance:
1) Young adult child has considered same-sex sexual relationship(s); has had same-sex sexual relationship
2) Boys’ likelihood of having a gay sexual orientation in adulthood, by sexual orientation of father
And from table 2, there's a significantly higher chance:
1) Child believes that mother would prefer that she/he has lesbigay sexual orientation
2) Mother has received psychiatric care in adult life
Of course, this study shows what some may see as positive aspects, but it does not take away from the fact that there is a difference in gay parenting. This source has pretty much stated that almost all studies showing "no difference" are bogus because NONE were based off random samples.
Statistically, it is clear there are differences. Statistically, it is clear children of same sex relationships have a higher chance of being gay also. Some of us being labled as homophobes have every right to question the wisdom of letting gays raise our children.
We are selfishly subjecting children to a grand social experiment.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Jun 28 2003 @ 01:01 PM)
Some of us being labled as homophobes have every right to question the wisdom of letting gays raise our children.
We are selfishly subjecting children to a grand social experiment.
As opposed to willfully and knowingly condemning them to a life of abandon, devoid of quality care and attention in state run institutions. It seems to me that restricting or prohibiting homosexual couples from adopting and parenting is significantly more selfish, opting to subject children to a social program already failing them. We are selfishly subjecting children to a grand social experiment.
QUOTE
As opposed to willfully and knowingly condemning them to a life of abandon, devoid of quality care and attention in state run institutions
That is absurd. You make our adoption system sound like state sponsored child abuse.
As if dealing with all the adoption issues aren't bad enough (abandonment, etc), now we throw them into a home with homosexuals and the issues that surround that.
Now, the children get "punished" because of much of society's attitudes about gay parenting. So now, you get to tell your kids "It's society's fault. Not mine. Go blame them". Feel better?
QUOTE
You're from South Carolina, huh? Sorry about Strom Thurmond. But that does explain alot about your views on the world... Sen. Thurmonds was a member of the Segregationist Party at one time and lets not forget his famous 24 hour filibuster against the intergration law.
Pardon me, but I too am from South Carolina, and I take offense to the fact that you assume that being a South Carolinian automatically makes one similar to Senator Thurmond (as he was some SIXTY years ago) in their beliefs. My God, and you say you don't like to be judged by your sexuality...
One more thing, just wanted to post this. It's from Dayton Rocker's first source website on why homosexual raisings of children are detrimental, in case anyone missed it. It's a great quote and I think it explains my views perfectly.
QUOTE
Homosexuals . . . model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good ‘marital’ relationship.
Someone will probably come back and say "not all homosexuals do that" or something like that, but as I have tried to say before, it can't be helped. ALL homosexual sex, as well as homosexual marriages, are based on the pleasure gained from sex, not for procreation. There's no third direction. It's one or the other.
I have three children, aged 12, 10, and 6.
If I raise them to believe homosexuality is wrong and abnormal, there can only be negative results.
1. If they are heterosexual, they will be continuing the cycle of discrimination and hatred - or they will wake up one day and realize their own parents are narrow-minded bigots, and our relationship will suffer.
2. If one of my children is homosexual, they will either be repressed and troubled, and/or end up having a horrible relationship with me, because they will think that I hate what they are.
When my kids have asked me about it, I have told them, "some boys love girls, some boys love boys, some girls love boys, some girls love girls. The key word is love, because that's what matters."
To reiterate and simplify the stuff on this thread:
1. It seems that for those who are opposed to homosexuality, there must be a reason, a basis for their opposition.
2. If your basis for opposing homosexuality is the Bible, and you interpret the verses presented as a true condemnation of homosexuality, why would you not also believe that homosexuals be put to death? It says it pretty clearly in Leviticus.
3. If your basis is that the homosexual "act" is unnatural, because sex is meant to be procreative, then to avoid hopeless hypocricy, you must NOT: masturbate, engage in oral sex, engage in anal sex, or use birth control.
I would like to ask a question of those here who oppose homosexuality.
How many of you were taught that homosexuality is wrong by your parents, when you were a child?
The only thing legalizing homosexual marriage harms is some peoples' preconceived notion of what "marriage" means.
If I raise them to believe homosexuality is wrong and abnormal, there can only be negative results.
1. If they are heterosexual, they will be continuing the cycle of discrimination and hatred - or they will wake up one day and realize their own parents are narrow-minded bigots, and our relationship will suffer.
2. If one of my children is homosexual, they will either be repressed and troubled, and/or end up having a horrible relationship with me, because they will think that I hate what they are.
When my kids have asked me about it, I have told them, "some boys love girls, some boys love boys, some girls love boys, some girls love girls. The key word is love, because that's what matters."
To reiterate and simplify the stuff on this thread:
1. It seems that for those who are opposed to homosexuality, there must be a reason, a basis for their opposition.
2. If your basis for opposing homosexuality is the Bible, and you interpret the verses presented as a true condemnation of homosexuality, why would you not also believe that homosexuals be put to death? It says it pretty clearly in Leviticus.
3. If your basis is that the homosexual "act" is unnatural, because sex is meant to be procreative, then to avoid hopeless hypocricy, you must NOT: masturbate, engage in oral sex, engage in anal sex, or use birth control.
I would like to ask a question of those here who oppose homosexuality.
How many of you were taught that homosexuality is wrong by your parents, when you were a child?
The only thing legalizing homosexual marriage harms is some peoples' preconceived notion of what "marriage" means.
QUOTE
If I raise them to believe homosexuality is wrong and abnormal, there can only be negative results.
There's only one word for it: bullcrap.
You have to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong to save them from getting into trouble. Using your method, that's kind of like saying "Well, some people kill other people when they get mad at them, and some people don't." You're leaving the decision up to them, as if either choice is right and acceptable. Now, of course, this is absurdity even to the ears of the most liberal among us. But, think about it, if you said "Some girls like girls, some like boys; some boys like boys, some like girls" about 50 years ago (maybe more), it would have sounded just as absurd because of the general societal consensus on the subject. Who's to say that views on murder won't become more and more liberal-ized that in 50 years, it's acceptable? It could happen. Liberal politicians would just say, "It's not your fault...It's Hollywood or some evil corporation that's MADE you do it, so we'll sue them".
There's a fine line between teaching kids what's wrong and teaching kids TO HATE what's wrong.
QUOTE(ConservativeTeenExtraordinaire @ Jun 28 2003, 02:23 PM)
QUOTE
If I raise them to believe homosexuality is wrong and abnormal, there can only be negative results.
There's only one word for it: bullcrap.
You have to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong to save them from getting into trouble. Using your method, that's kind of like saying "Well, some people kill other people when they get mad at them, and some people don't." You're leaving the decision up to them, as if either choice is right and acceptable. Now, of course, this is absurdity even to the ears of the most liberal among us. But, think about it, if you said "Some girls like girls, some like boys; some boys like boys, some like girls" about 50 years ago (maybe more), it would have sounded just as absurd because of the general societal consensus on the subject. Who's to say that views on murder won't become more and more liberal-ized that in 50 years, it's acceptable? It could happen. Liberal politicians would just say, "It's not your fault...It's Hollywood or some evil corporation that's MADE you do it, so we'll sue them".
There's a fine line between teaching kids what's wrong and teaching kids TO HATE what's wrong.
It's irrelevant and disingenuous to compare what I said with teaching my kids that murder is OK. You might believe that being a homosexual is on par with commiting murder, but most people don't.
200 years ago, the general consensus was that slavery was acceptable. Fortunately, there were Quakers and Mennonites (among others) who disagreed with that consensus.
What would you say if your son came up to you and said, "mom, I like boys."
There is a word for your argument, I'm just too polite to use it.
QUOTE
Using your method, that's kind of like saying "Well, some people kill other people when they get mad at them, and some people don't." You're leaving the decision up to them, as if either choice is right and acceptable.
*The Lurker emerges from the shadows*
That is one of the most transparent comparisons I have ever seen.
Let's put this simply:
-Murder violates the rights of an innocent victim. (Violating their right to live)
-Homosexuality (or, if you will, Homosexual sex) violates no one. Both "Homosexual Participants," if you will, are consenting.
Let's make bondage an example.
First situation: Person A is kidnapped by Person B, stripped of their clothing, strapped to a bed and whipped against their will. This is a violation of someone's rights and is, as I think any sane person would agree, wrong.
Second situation: Person C says to Person D, "Tie me up and whip me." So, Person D ties Person C to a bed and whips them.
Most people would have an aversion to this kind of sex (or foreplay, you know what I mean) and find the act wrong but would anyone say that in the second situation someone's rights are being violated? In both instances someone is being tied to a bed and whipped yet the difference is in the situation. Whether or not you think bondage is immoral is irrelevant because the factor still remains that the people willingly participating are not victims.
The only way homosexuality could compare to murder would be if every single homosexual on this planet was a rapist. This is not the case.
Who, in regards to homosexuality, is the victim, Daytona? And, no, people indirectly disgruntled due to their own prejudice don't count.
How does John B. Homosexual in Montana hurt YOU? How has he made YOU a victim?
QUOTE(ConservativeTeenExtraordinaire @ Jun 28 2003, 04:23 PM)
QUOTE
If I raise them to believe homosexuality is wrong and abnormal, there can only be negative results.
There's only one word for it: bullcrap.
Actually it is two words....moral equivalency.
And belladonna, much as I respect your views and the manner in which you express them, speeches and monologues are not acceptable postings here. That's the post by BJ that I mentioned. It was something that would have been more appropriate being delivered at a gay pride event. There was no inkling of debate or discussion in it at all.
QUOTE
Pardon me, but I too am from South Carolina, and I take offense to the fact that you assume that being a South Carolinian automatically makes one similar to Senator Thurmond (as he was some SIXTY years ago) in their beliefs. My God, and you say you don't like to be judged by your sexuality...
Pardon me, but I THOUGHT that I made it clear on my follow-up to that particular post I was being FACETIOUS about that comment. Regardless to the intensity of the debate going on about this subject, I was trying to keep some sense of humor about my self.
That Sen Thurmond was re-ellected NUMEROUS times is a testament to the ULTRA conservative beliefs of the citizens of South Carolina. And since the MAJORITY of the anti-gay posters here are making GENERALIZATIONS about homosexuals, I saw an opportunity to take a jab and make an over the top generalization in return to make a point. Since I've never taken the time to get to know anyone from South Carolina I just ASSUMED that South Carolinians were all racist and homophobes....
Now, do you see how asinine of a retort that I just made? That is how YOU sound to me when you speak in generalizations about the gay community. You more than likely have no gay friends and obviously have no intentions to attempt to get to know any of us or our TRUE reasons or passion behind our fight for equality.
QUOTE
And belladonna, much as I respect your views and the manner in which you express them, speeches and monologues are not acceptable postings here. That's the post by BJ that I mentioned. It was something that would have been more appropriate being delivered at a gay pride event. There was no inkling of debate or discussion in it at all.
No there wasn't. I was making a statement because again this is a...
QUOTE
discussion board for arguing the issues, and making your point. You can come here any time and voice your opinion on politics, the news, and social issues.
... and I wanted to make it perfectly clear on where I stand on this discussion between the NORMAL(you) and the ABNORMAL people(me).
Again, I'm being facetious of course, because everyone knows that NO ONE IS NORMAL.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Jun 28 2003, 07:34 PM)
And belladonna, much as I respect your views and the manner in which you express them, speeches and monologues are not acceptable postings here.
Passion51 - if you have a problem with someone's post please report it. Otherwise, it's distracting from the actual topic.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Jun 28 2003, 01:55 PM)
QUOTE
As opposed to willfully and knowingly condemning them to a life of abandon, devoid of quality care and attention in state run institutions
That is absurd. You make our adoption system sound like state sponsored child abuse.
As if dealing with all the adoption issues aren't bad enough (abandonment, etc), now we throw them into a home with homosexuals and the issues that surround that.
Now, the children get "punished" because of much of society's attitudes about gay parenting. So now, you get to tell your kids "It's society's fault. Not mine. Go blame them". Feel better?
The issues that would surround it, and presumably the "punishment" you speak of, comes not from the care of a same sex couple but from the prejudice and contempt espoused by the intolerance of some. Why should children being lost in the system be denied the chance at having loving parents because they society won't tolerate something different?
Loving parents, be they heterosexual or homosexual, would not be "punishing" a child. It's the intolerant people wiling to stoop as low to deny them a chance and then condemn them when one finally arrives.
QUOTE(ConservativeTeenExtraordinaire @ Jun 28 2003 @ 04:23 PM)
QUOTE
If I raise them to believe homosexuality is wrong and abnormal, there can only be negative results.
There's only one word for it: bullcrap.
And the link you quoted about homosexuals and marriage? If you missed it several posts back, I discussed at length how that article and others distorted information to present their argument. The argument you quote is particularly irrelevant considering we prohibit homosexuals from marrying and married American heterosexuals do no little to demonstrate marriage is not "transitory or sexual in nature," as the divorce rate is at 50% or more and climbing.
[quote=Wertz,Jun 24 2003, 10:39 PM]Anything I have to say on this topic, I've probably already said - if not here in one of the other threads cited above. For that reason, I am going to withdraw from this current debate.[/quote]Okay, I was wrong.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Abs: Thanks for taking on DaytonRocker's sources - I started looking into them, but the amount of spin was making me dizzy - and the distortion was making me sick.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
[quote=Passion51,Jun 27 2003, 06:40 PM]Billy Jean, it's obvious that you care about your lifestyle and causes associated with it. But please save your speeches for some other place.[/quote][quote=cyan,Jun 27 2003, 06:47 PM]I can't think of a better place for it than a thread devoted to homosexuality.
[/quote][quote=Passion51,Jun 28 2003, 07:37 AM]Billy Jean, you are terribly misguided about what is expected in this forum.[/quote]I guess one of the fairest, most equanimous moderators on the worldwide web is also "terribly misguided" - and one of the most confrontational participants on this entire board is not.
[quote=beladonna,Jun 28 2003, 09:29 AM]Billy Jean is "right on" about what this thread is about. Who better to discuss how anti-homosexual behavior has affected a person who is homosexual.[/quote][quote=Passion51,Jun 28 2003, 07:34 PM]Speeches and monologues are not acceptable postings here.[/quote]And perhaps the most civil participant we've got here knows less than the most contentious about what's "acceptable". Where were you when DaytonRocker was repeatedly posting his sermons? I guess monologues are acceptable when you agree with them, yeah? As I stated previously, I had no problem with DR stating his opinion at length. As a matter of fact, I didn't quite agree with Billy Jean's posting either - which is not relevent. The difference between DR's posts and hers is that he was claiming that his opinion was backed up by all kinds of authoritative sources whose statistics and conclusions he was allegedly posting ad nauseam without once citing a source - and she was not. I guess I'm wrong, but I thought that posting one's unadorned opinions was one of the things that this place was all about. Maybe we should change the name of this board to Passion51-Approved Debate...
[quote=Passion51,Jun 28 2003, 07:34 PM]Wertz, your personal life-story is not the subject of debate. In the words of someone near and dear to me, 'it aint always about you babe!'.[/quote]
Yes, I expect you get that a lot. However, I was mentioning my own experience for two reasons. First, I am one of the few - if not only - participants here with first-hand experience of gay parenting and, while my "personal life-story" is anecdotal, it is nevertheless true - and, for that matter, typical of the other gay parents with whom I am familiar. You may wish to disregard all positive evidence relating to gay parenting, P51; others here may not. Is that okay with the arbiter of what's misguided? Second, my "personal life-story" provides some of the foundation for my opinion on this matter. As a rule, foundation for one's opinions is rather welcomed here at America's Debate - at least, until you started setting the standard for what is misguided or not. It would be helpful, though, if you initiated a thread, P51, letting us all know what your new rules are.
[quote=Passion51,Jun 28 2003, 07:34 PM]After spending some time reflecting on this subject I've solidified my opinion. [So I guess it is about you, babe.] Homosexuality is wrong. Wrong because:
Man and woman were created to procreate.[/quote]
Ah - well, we need look no further. You opinion is based on some unnamed creation mythology and we can't really debate someone's faith here. Given that basis, your opinion is fair and valid, however execrable I may find it. You are welcome to your beliefs and I respect them as a foundation for your opinion - so long as you never attempt to impose those beliefs on anyone else - or imagine for one second that your beliefs are any more valid than anyone else's. I get where your prejudices are coming from now, P51 - (more than) enough said.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
[quote=Passion51,Jun 28 2003, 07:34 PM][quote=ConservativeTeenExtraordinaire,Jun 28 2003, 04:23 PM] [quote=quarkhead,Jun 28 2003, 05:06 PM]If I raise them to believe homosexuality is wrong and abnormal, there can only be negative results.[/quote]There's only one word for it: bullcrap.[/quote]Actually it is two words... moral equivalency.[/quote]
Quarkhead was discussing love, Passion. Someone who uses the "some are more equal than others" argument - it's okay for some people to love each other, but not others (or, indeed, it's okay for some people to be parents, but not others) - strikes me as the one who is exercising "moral equivalency". I could be mistaken, though - I haven't checked this week's definition of "moral equivalency" in the Buzzword Glossary.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
[quote=Jaime,Jun 28 2003, 08:15 PM]Passion51 - if you have a problem with someone's post please report it. Otherwise, it's distracting from the actual topic.[/quote]
I guess, you're "terribly misguided" now, too, Jaime!
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Abs: Thanks for taking on DaytonRocker's sources - I started looking into them, but the amount of spin was making me dizzy - and the distortion was making me sick.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
[quote=Passion51,Jun 27 2003, 06:40 PM]Billy Jean, it's obvious that you care about your lifestyle and causes associated with it. But please save your speeches for some other place.[/quote][quote=cyan,Jun 27 2003, 06:47 PM]I can't think of a better place for it than a thread devoted to homosexuality.
[/quote][quote=Passion51,Jun 28 2003, 07:37 AM]Billy Jean, you are terribly misguided about what is expected in this forum.[/quote]I guess one of the fairest, most equanimous moderators on the worldwide web is also "terribly misguided" - and one of the most confrontational participants on this entire board is not. [quote=beladonna,Jun 28 2003, 09:29 AM]Billy Jean is "right on" about what this thread is about. Who better to discuss how anti-homosexual behavior has affected a person who is homosexual.[/quote][quote=Passion51,Jun 28 2003, 07:34 PM]Speeches and monologues are not acceptable postings here.[/quote]And perhaps the most civil participant we've got here knows less than the most contentious about what's "acceptable".
Where were you when DaytonRocker was repeatedly posting his sermons? I guess monologues are acceptable when you agree with them, yeah? As I stated previously, I had no problem with DR stating his opinion at length. As a matter of fact, I didn't quite agree with Billy Jean's posting either - which is not relevent. The difference between DR's posts and hers is that he was claiming that his opinion was backed up by all kinds of authoritative sources whose statistics and conclusions he was allegedly posting ad nauseam without once citing a source - and she was not. I guess I'm wrong, but I thought that posting one's unadorned opinions was one of the things that this place was all about. Maybe we should change the name of this board to Passion51-Approved Debate...[quote=Passion51,Jun 28 2003, 07:34 PM]Wertz, your personal life-story is not the subject of debate. In the words of someone near and dear to me, 'it aint always about you babe!'.[/quote]
Yes, I expect you get that a lot. However, I was mentioning my own experience for two reasons. First, I am one of the few - if not only - participants here with first-hand experience of gay parenting and, while my "personal life-story" is anecdotal, it is nevertheless true - and, for that matter, typical of the other gay parents with whom I am familiar. You may wish to disregard all positive evidence relating to gay parenting, P51; others here may not. Is that okay with the arbiter of what's misguided? Second, my "personal life-story" provides some of the foundation for my opinion on this matter. As a rule, foundation for one's opinions is rather welcomed here at America's Debate - at least, until you started setting the standard for what is misguided or not. It would be helpful, though, if you initiated a thread, P51, letting us all know what your new rules are.
[quote=Passion51,Jun 28 2003, 07:34 PM]After spending some time reflecting on this subject I've solidified my opinion. [So I guess it is about you, babe.] Homosexuality is wrong. Wrong because:
Man and woman were created to procreate.[/quote]
Ah - well, we need look no further. You opinion is based on some unnamed creation mythology and we can't really debate someone's faith here. Given that basis, your opinion is fair and valid, however execrable I may find it. You are welcome to your beliefs and I respect them as a foundation for your opinion - so long as you never attempt to impose those beliefs on anyone else - or imagine for one second that your beliefs are any more valid than anyone else's. I get where your prejudices are coming from now, P51 - (more than) enough said.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
[quote=Passion51,Jun 28 2003, 07:34 PM][quote=ConservativeTeenExtraordinaire,Jun 28 2003, 04:23 PM] [quote=quarkhead,Jun 28 2003, 05:06 PM]If I raise them to believe homosexuality is wrong and abnormal, there can only be negative results.[/quote]There's only one word for it: bullcrap.[/quote]Actually it is two words... moral equivalency.[/quote]
Quarkhead was discussing love, Passion. Someone who uses the "some are more equal than others" argument - it's okay for some people to love each other, but not others (or, indeed, it's okay for some people to be parents, but not others) - strikes me as the one who is exercising "moral equivalency". I could be mistaken, though - I haven't checked this week's definition of "moral equivalency" in the Buzzword Glossary.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
[quote=Jaime,Jun 28 2003, 08:15 PM]Passion51 - if you have a problem with someone's post please report it. Otherwise, it's distracting from the actual topic.[/quote]
I guess, you're "terribly misguided" now, too, Jaime!
FINAL WARNING
This thread has gotten repeated warnings from various moderators and I about mean, personal comments to each other. ONE more and this thread is closed permanently.
And this includes mean personal comments made by Committee members
This thread has gotten repeated warnings from various moderators and I about mean, personal comments to each other. ONE more and this thread is closed permanently.
And this includes mean personal comments made by Committee members
Many opinions about homosexuality are based on the Bible. That’s why it’s really important to understand the Bible lost of lot of it’s initial meaning through interpretation. It’s also very important to understand who was writing the books of the Bible.
It is thought that Jesus was born roughly around 5 B.C. The books of the New Testament were written from 60 – 90 A.D. Several years after Christ's death.
Paul wrote 16 books of the Bible to include Romans and Timothy, two books of which some verses appear to be about homosexuality. The problem is Paul's own writings show he didn’t even know Jesus directly. He didn’t go to the original apostles to learn Jesus teachings. He claims to know Jesus’ teachings through a “revelation.”
Below are the two verses people use to make the argument that homosexuality is an abomination. I hope that armed with the knowledge that Paul never knew Jesus, wasn’t taught by any original apostle and that the words used in the original version have been translated numerous times we will all open our minds to a different possibility.
Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Vile affections:
In the original Greek, the phrase probably does not mean "passions" or "lust" as people experienced in normal, day-to-day living -- the type of emotion that one encounters in a marriage or sexually active relationship. It seems to refer to the "frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music." It seems to describe the results of ritual sexual orgies as performed in many Pagan settings at the time. Paul seems to be referring here to Pagan "fertility cult worship prevalent in Rome" at the time. Vestiges of this type of sex magic are still seen today in some Neopagan religious traditions. The Wiccan "Great Rite" is one example. However, in modern times, such rituals are restricted to committed couples in private.
About the words "exchanged," "leaving," "change," and "abandoned:
These words are important, because they precisely describe the people about whom Paul is talking. From the text, he is obviously writing about women with a heterosexual orientation, who had previously engaged in only heterosexual sex, who had "exchanged" their normal/inborn behaviors for same-sex activities. That is, they deviated from their heterosexual orientation and engaged in sexual behavior with other women. Similarly, he describes men with a heterosexual orientation who had "abandoned" their normal/inborn behaviors and engaged in same-sex activities. In both cases, he is describing individuals with a heterosexual orientation, who were engaging in same-sex behavior -- in violation of their natural desires. In normal life, these are very unusual activities, because heterosexuals typically have a strong aversion to engaging in same-sex behavior. However, with the peer pressure, expectations, drugs, alcohol and other stimulants present in Pagan sex rituals at the time, they appear to have abandoned their normal feelings of abhorrence and tried same-sex behavior.
About the word "against nature," "unnatural," etc:
The Greek phrase "para physin" is commonly translated into the English as: "unnatural and abnormal" (Amplified Bible)
"contrary to nature" (English Standard Version)
"against nature" (King James Version, Rheims New Testament)
"sin with each other" (Living Bible)
"unnatural" (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version)
This does not seem to be an accurate translation. It may demonstrate prejudice on the part of the translators. "Unnatural" implies that the act is something that is to be morally condemned. M. Nissinen defines "para physin" as "Deviating from the ordinary order either in a good or a bad sense, as something that goes beyond the ordinary realm of experience." The word "unconventional" would have been a more precise word for translators to use. The phrase "Para physin" appears elsewhere in the Bible:
In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul uses the phrase to refer to long hair on men as unusual and not ordinary.
In Romans 11:24, Paul used it to describe God's positive actions to bring Jews and Gentiles together.
About the phrase "just reward:"
Romans 1:27 refers to the idolaters receiving a recompense or penalty for "their error which was due." (NKJ, ASV, etc). This appears to be a reference to the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) which was epidemic among such Pagan fertility cults at the time.
There is so much more available at the link provided that may help us understand better the intention of the passage above.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc3.htm
It is thought that Jesus was born roughly around 5 B.C. The books of the New Testament were written from 60 – 90 A.D. Several years after Christ's death.
Paul wrote 16 books of the Bible to include Romans and Timothy, two books of which some verses appear to be about homosexuality. The problem is Paul's own writings show he didn’t even know Jesus directly. He didn’t go to the original apostles to learn Jesus teachings. He claims to know Jesus’ teachings through a “revelation.”
Below are the two verses people use to make the argument that homosexuality is an abomination. I hope that armed with the knowledge that Paul never knew Jesus, wasn’t taught by any original apostle and that the words used in the original version have been translated numerous times we will all open our minds to a different possibility.
Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Vile affections:
In the original Greek, the phrase probably does not mean "passions" or "lust" as people experienced in normal, day-to-day living -- the type of emotion that one encounters in a marriage or sexually active relationship. It seems to refer to the "frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music." It seems to describe the results of ritual sexual orgies as performed in many Pagan settings at the time. Paul seems to be referring here to Pagan "fertility cult worship prevalent in Rome" at the time. Vestiges of this type of sex magic are still seen today in some Neopagan religious traditions. The Wiccan "Great Rite" is one example. However, in modern times, such rituals are restricted to committed couples in private.
About the words "exchanged," "leaving," "change," and "abandoned:
These words are important, because they precisely describe the people about whom Paul is talking. From the text, he is obviously writing about women with a heterosexual orientation, who had previously engaged in only heterosexual sex, who had "exchanged" their normal/inborn behaviors for same-sex activities. That is, they deviated from their heterosexual orientation and engaged in sexual behavior with other women. Similarly, he describes men with a heterosexual orientation who had "abandoned" their normal/inborn behaviors and engaged in same-sex activities. In both cases, he is describing individuals with a heterosexual orientation, who were engaging in same-sex behavior -- in violation of their natural desires. In normal life, these are very unusual activities, because heterosexuals typically have a strong aversion to engaging in same-sex behavior. However, with the peer pressure, expectations, drugs, alcohol and other stimulants present in Pagan sex rituals at the time, they appear to have abandoned their normal feelings of abhorrence and tried same-sex behavior.
About the word "against nature," "unnatural," etc:
The Greek phrase "para physin" is commonly translated into the English as: "unnatural and abnormal" (Amplified Bible)
"contrary to nature" (English Standard Version)
"against nature" (King James Version, Rheims New Testament)
"sin with each other" (Living Bible)
"unnatural" (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version)
This does not seem to be an accurate translation. It may demonstrate prejudice on the part of the translators. "Unnatural" implies that the act is something that is to be morally condemned. M. Nissinen defines "para physin" as "Deviating from the ordinary order either in a good or a bad sense, as something that goes beyond the ordinary realm of experience." The word "unconventional" would have been a more precise word for translators to use. The phrase "Para physin" appears elsewhere in the Bible:
In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul uses the phrase to refer to long hair on men as unusual and not ordinary.
In Romans 11:24, Paul used it to describe God's positive actions to bring Jews and Gentiles together.
About the phrase "just reward:"
Romans 1:27 refers to the idolaters receiving a recompense or penalty for "their error which was due." (NKJ, ASV, etc). This appears to be a reference to the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) which was epidemic among such Pagan fertility cults at the time.
There is so much more available at the link provided that may help us understand better the intention of the passage above.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc3.htm
When God created Adam and Eve why didn't he toss in a Mark for Adam too? Or a Mary for Eve? Or maybe even a Bob and Sue to satisfy any bi urges? How about a little Jimmy in case a pedophilial urge needed satisfaction?
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Jun 29 2003, 06:43 AM)
When God created Adam and Eve why didn't he toss in a Mark for Adam too? Or a Mary for Eve? Or maybe even a Bob and Sue to satisfy any bi urges? How about a little Jimmy in case a pedophilial urge needed satisfaction?
Passion,
Around 1445 B.C., Moses wrote one story about what appears to be the creation of two people. IF we interpret the Bible to say that God only created one couple and that we all come from them, we must accept that God believes incest is not a sin. How else can you explain it? Was Eve the mother of Cain's children? Was it one of his sisters? Or did God create many people and spread them throughout the region, throughout the world.
Perhaps some people accept that God allowed Cain and Eve or his sister to commit incest to procreate, but I don't.
The Bible says, Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. [Genesis 4:16,17]
QUOTE
This indicates that Cain found a wife east of Eden. In other words, there were other people located east of Eden, so there had to be other people on the planet at the time of Adam and Eve.
Adam was not the first man, but the first God conscious man. Therefore the creation story of God making Adam from the dust of the earth and being put in the Garden of Eden is not a literally true story, but a parable.
http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm
Adam was not the first man, but the first God conscious man. Therefore the creation story of God making Adam from the dust of the earth and being put in the Garden of Eden is not a literally true story, but a parable.
http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm
So now that we understand there were more people on the earth, who are we to say that there wasn’t a Mark and a Mary.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Let’s talk about the other two verses Paul writes that are mistakenly used to argue against homosexuality.
I Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
QUOTE
The word effeminate was originally malakoi.
"Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. [John] Wesley's Bible Notes defines "Malakoi" as those "Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship." One knowledgeable but anonymous reviewer of our web site said that the word translated here as "effeminate" really "means men not working or advancing ideas so as to concern themselves with love only. Not working for the good of the whole....Our present culture has all sorts of connotations associated with the word 'effeminate' that simply don't apply" to Paul's era. It would seem that the word "effeminate" can only be regarded as a mistranslation.
1 Timothy 1: 9-10
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai), for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine [KJV, 1 Timothy 1: 9-10]
Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire. One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex)." Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm
"Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. [John] Wesley's Bible Notes defines "Malakoi" as those "Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship." One knowledgeable but anonymous reviewer of our web site said that the word translated here as "effeminate" really "means men not working or advancing ideas so as to concern themselves with love only. Not working for the good of the whole....Our present culture has all sorts of connotations associated with the word 'effeminate' that simply don't apply" to Paul's era. It would seem that the word "effeminate" can only be regarded as a mistranslation.
1 Timothy 1: 9-10
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai), for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine [KJV, 1 Timothy 1: 9-10]
Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire. One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex)." Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm
So again, more information indicating Paul, whose writings are used as a basis for objection to homosexuality, was not writing about homosexuality.
Would anyone care to counter these aurguments?
6 days ago, after a rant about my sources
2 days ago:
Yesterday:
How can we even debate this topic? I get threatened with strikes for not breaking down my source further (a source I provided included 15-20 sources. Anything I stated would have been redundant. But I did it anyhow) and have been tore apart by where they sources came from.
Now, it looks like it doesn't matter. This is not about debating the issues of why homosexuality is right or wrong. This is about people being right and wrong. Somehow, the few gays on here to take this issue as a personal attack against them and their lifestyle choice. So, to oppose these views, we're set up for failure. We can't use biased sources (as if pro-gay sources are not biased). We get labeled as homophobes, compared to Hitler, compared to an anti-semite, called insecure fools, and bigots. Now the term "homophobe" has been bastardized into a new meaning. It's turned into meaning that if you don't agree with gay issues, you're a homophobe. Fear is not a factor anymore. Even the term has been twisted to serve another purpose.
And why? because we disagree and some of us can find SCIENCE to justify our feelings on this. So, the tactics turn to discrediting sources or not even bother reading them after we've been threatened punishment for not providing them.
I will contribute to this debate as long as I'm able, but I think this thread is cooked. We can't constructively debate this issue because some of the pro-gay posters very active in this slugfest (it's not a debate any longer) refuse to debate opinions and science.
I think it will be a mistake to shut this thread down because it proves we are not adult enough to debate important, sensitive, and controversial issues. Do we start shutting down threads because they are too controversial, or do we remedy the reasons the threads get out of hand?
Heck, I'm just getting primed for the gay marriage debate after the SCOTUS ruling (which was a huge victory for gay supporters no matter how anyone tries to spin it). Do, we shut that thread down now because we know we are not mature enough to debate the issue?
QUOTE
The GUIDELINES suggest that you "Cite your sources, and be prepared to back-up your argument." You have been asked to do that countless times on both of these threads - by both participants and members of the staff - and have adamantly refused. If you submit one more post in this fashion, I will be lobbying strenuously for you to be given at least one strike.
2 days ago:
QUOTE
DaytonRocker: So much for not wanting to resort to right-wing Christian sources to support your argument, eh? I had a feeling that's why you were previously so reluctant to provide any references. I'm glad you finally "came out". And, oh yeah, you get high marks for mentioning that someone else made a point "without sources"!!!
Yesterday:
QUOTE
Abs: Thanks for taking on DaytonRocker's sources - I started looking into them, but the amount of spin was making me dizzy - and the distortion was making me sick
How can we even debate this topic? I get threatened with strikes for not breaking down my source further (a source I provided included 15-20 sources. Anything I stated would have been redundant. But I did it anyhow) and have been tore apart by where they sources came from.
Now, it looks like it doesn't matter. This is not about debating the issues of why homosexuality is right or wrong. This is about people being right and wrong. Somehow, the few gays on here to take this issue as a personal attack against them and their lifestyle choice. So, to oppose these views, we're set up for failure. We can't use biased sources (as if pro-gay sources are not biased). We get labeled as homophobes, compared to Hitler, compared to an anti-semite, called insecure fools, and bigots. Now the term "homophobe" has been bastardized into a new meaning. It's turned into meaning that if you don't agree with gay issues, you're a homophobe. Fear is not a factor anymore. Even the term has been twisted to serve another purpose.
And why? because we disagree and some of us can find SCIENCE to justify our feelings on this. So, the tactics turn to discrediting sources or not even bother reading them after we've been threatened punishment for not providing them.
I will contribute to this debate as long as I'm able, but I think this thread is cooked. We can't constructively debate this issue because some of the pro-gay posters very active in this slugfest (it's not a debate any longer) refuse to debate opinions and science.
I think it will be a mistake to shut this thread down because it proves we are not adult enough to debate important, sensitive, and controversial issues. Do we start shutting down threads because they are too controversial, or do we remedy the reasons the threads get out of hand?
Heck, I'm just getting primed for the gay marriage debate after the SCOTUS ruling (which was a huge victory for gay supporters no matter how anyone tries to spin it). Do, we shut that thread down now because we know we are not mature enough to debate the issue?
Allow me to correct once again a willfull misinterpreation which DaytonRocker has been applying to one of my previous posts. To place the quote he lifted in its proper context:
To make this perfectly clear one more time, strikes are not issued here for ignorance of the Guidelines. They are issued for violations of the Rules.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
As some have been using the word far too literally to mean nothing more than "an irrational fear", I thought it might be wise to look at the actual dictionary definition (itself probably a decade or so behind usage):
ho·mo·pho·bi·a n.
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
homophobia
n : prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality
WordNet
To amplify the above, apparently, we also need to look at the following:
con·tempt n.
The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
contempt
n : lack of respect accompanied by a feeling of intense dislike
WordNet
and
prej·u·dice n.
1. a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
prejudice
n 1: a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation 2: an opinion that is preconceived and (usually) unfavorable
WordNet
I have seen no objective or reasonable arguments against homosexualtiy here with knowledge and examination of the facts - at least none that could not be applied to less "disgusting" groups, including heterosexuals. It strikes me that, where the term "homophobia" has been applied, even by those using it to describe themselves, that it has been with absolute accuracy.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
There are six passages in the Bible which are used to condemn homosexuality: a total of eight verses. There are, by the way, 31,173 verses in that book. All six of those passages are open to interpretation, three can only be taken to encompass homosexuality if intentionally mistranslated, and one only if totally removed from its context. Jesus Christ, whom some of you may recall, himself never once made any reference to anything that could be remotely construed to refer to homosexuality - never mind condemning it.
Some of these passages have been discussed here already - they can be discussed in more detail, as can the remaining passages. I suspect, though, that for many who use the Bible to justify their own prejudices, that Christ himself could appear and tell them they were wrong and they still wouldn't believe it. Some peoples' "faith" extends beyond their religion.
Further to this, I though one quote by the Rev. Rembert Truluck (from a link which I posted - and which all the Bible proponents seem to be ignoring) was particularly apt:
Amen.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jun 23 2003, 06:44 PM)
The RULES state that it is PROHIBITED to submit the same post to multiple topics, DR. That is exactly what you have done here and in the Gay Marriage thread... If you submit one more post in this fashion, I will be lobbying strenuously for you to be given at least one strike.
To make this perfectly clear one more time, strikes are not issued here for ignorance of the Guidelines. They are issued for violations of the Rules.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
As some have been using the word far too literally to mean nothing more than "an irrational fear", I thought it might be wise to look at the actual dictionary definition (itself probably a decade or so behind usage):
ho·mo·pho·bi·a n.
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
homophobia
n : prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality
WordNet
To amplify the above, apparently, we also need to look at the following:
con·tempt n.
The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
contempt
n : lack of respect accompanied by a feeling of intense dislike
WordNet
and
prej·u·dice n.
1. a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
prejudice
n 1: a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation 2: an opinion that is preconceived and (usually) unfavorable
WordNet
I have seen no objective or reasonable arguments against homosexualtiy here with knowledge and examination of the facts - at least none that could not be applied to less "disgusting" groups, including heterosexuals. It strikes me that, where the term "homophobia" has been applied, even by those using it to describe themselves, that it has been with absolute accuracy.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
There are six passages in the Bible which are used to condemn homosexuality: a total of eight verses. There are, by the way, 31,173 verses in that book. All six of those passages are open to interpretation, three can only be taken to encompass homosexuality if intentionally mistranslated, and one only if totally removed from its context. Jesus Christ, whom some of you may recall, himself never once made any reference to anything that could be remotely construed to refer to homosexuality - never mind condemning it.
Some of these passages have been discussed here already - they can be discussed in more detail, as can the remaining passages. I suspect, though, that for many who use the Bible to justify their own prejudices, that Christ himself could appear and tell them they were wrong and they still wouldn't believe it. Some peoples' "faith" extends beyond their religion.
Further to this, I though one quote by the Rev. Rembert Truluck (from a link which I posted - and which all the Bible proponents seem to be ignoring) was particularly apt:
QUOTE
To me personally, the message of Jesus Christ always has been good news for everyone. Personal evangelism has been my basic emphasis in the ministry since I became pastor of a small rural church in South Carolina in 1952 when I was nineteen years old. Our little church led the Baptist Churches of South Carolina one year in per capita baptisms. In all of my churches, both Baptist and MCC, my emphasis has been personal evangelism. What is your emphasis in your ministry? I personally have led hundreds of people to Christ and taught other hundreds of people to become effective in sharing Christ with others. During all of this time I have been homosexual. I have realized that I was gay since I was a about 10 years old. God loves me just as I am and uses me in ministry that fits me and my life as an individual. I pray that you find the same thing for yourself.
Amen.
QUOTE
The RULES state that it is PROHIBITED to submit the same post to multiple topics, DR. That is exactly what you have done here and in the Gay Marriage thread... If you submit one more post in this fashion, I will be lobbying strenuously for you to be given at least one strike.
I haven't looked, but if I copied and pasted the same post to multiple threads, I should get a strike. If that has happened, please make the administrators are aware of this so I can pay my penance. But if the rules state I can't talk about the same issue in more than one thread, I should get a strike as well. And I am willing to accept that punishment to get this topic back on track. You've accused me of a message board crime. I await my punishment. If I am wrong, I will help you lobby for that strike.
But while we're looking at it Mr. committee Member, please review these:
QUOTE
The following are PROHIBITED:
(one strike per infraction)
The use or profanity at any time.
Inflammatory or hateful comments related to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or age.
Personal attacks or name calling against another member.
(one strike per infraction)
The use or profanity at any time.
Inflammatory or hateful comments related to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or age.
Personal attacks or name calling against another member.
QUOTE
You are an ignorant, bigoted monologist - and, therefore, a waste of everyone's time
QUOTE
You are apparently too damn lazy, period
QUOTE
>The following are also PROHIBITED:
(one strike at Admin's discretion)
Telling other members to shut up or be quiet.
Posting full texts of copyrighted materials. Please link to these items
Submitting the same post to multiple topics.
Sending harassing correspondence to any member. This includes PMs, email, etc.
(one strike at Admin's discretion)
Telling other members to shut up or be quiet.
Posting full texts of copyrighted materials. Please link to these items
Submitting the same post to multiple topics.
Sending harassing correspondence to any member. This includes PMs, email, etc.
QUOTE
Back here on planet earth, Ultimatejoe is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. He is not telling you to shut up (though I'd sure as hell second it, if he were),
QUOTE
then perhaps you should do us all a favor - yourself included - and just withdraw from the debate.
Let's get back to issues. I will accept my punishment to help make this happen.
QUOTE
When God created Adam and Eve why didn't he toss in a Mark for Adam too? Or a Mary for Eve? Or maybe even a Bob and Sue to satisfy any bi urges? How about a little Jimmy in case a pedophilial urge needed satisfaction?
Like Jerry Lee Lewis(straight), Edgar Allen Poe(straight), Woody Allen(straight) and lets not forget about R. Kelly(straight).
COME ON!!! Stop making generalizations about homosexuals! Stop putting us in the same catagory as child abusers because they do not speak or represent ME or my community!
DaytonRocker: I stand chastised. Please report any offending posts and I will receive further discipline as required. If objective observations of ignorance and bigotry were taken as attacks, I publicly apologize. Nothing else in your post (in its proper context) merits response or retraction.
Regarding your own infraction, I accept your explanation that your postings weren't receiving what you felt was the appropriate response and/or were off-topic in the Gay Marriage thread and so you decided to post them here. No further action is required at this time. Though, for future reference, you could have requested that they be removed from the first place you posted them. You would also have had the option of linking to those posts from here. Some people do follow links and respond to them.
In the future, if you have such complaints as those outlined in your last post, please report them to the Administration or request clarification from the contributor. Thanks.
Regarding your own infraction, I accept your explanation that your postings weren't receiving what you felt was the appropriate response and/or were off-topic in the Gay Marriage thread and so you decided to post them here. No further action is required at this time. Though, for future reference, you could have requested that they be removed from the first place you posted them. You would also have had the option of linking to those posts from here. Some people do follow links and respond to them.
In the future, if you have such complaints as those outlined in your last post, please report them to the Administration or request clarification from the contributor. Thanks.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Jun 29 2003 @ 10:45 AM)
This is not about debating the issues of why homosexuality is right or wrong. This is about people being right and wrong. Somehow, the few gays on here to take this issue as a personal attack against them and their lifestyle choice... We can't use biased sources (as if pro-gay sources are not biased)... Now the term "homophobe" has been bastardized into a new meaning. It's turned into meaning that if you don't agree with gay issues, you're a homophobe.
And why? because we disagree and some of us can find SCIENCE to justify our feelings on this. So, the tactics turn to discrediting sources or not even bother reading them after we've been threatened punishment for not providing them.
And why? because we disagree and some of us can find SCIENCE to justify our feelings on this. So, the tactics turn to discrediting sources or not even bother reading them after we've been threatened punishment for not providing them.
I read through your sources and they either said nothing against same sex parenting, distorted evidence, or used already discredited researchers for their studies. Other statistics used were nothing more than stereotyping in regards to homosexuals being good or bad parents. That homosexuals have a higher incidence of AIDS or that lesbians seek more psychological counseling (for virtually anything) has nothing to do with whether or not those homosexuals seeking to be parents are qualified for the job.
African Americans run a higher risk of congestive heart failure, but surely we wouldn't argue that they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because of this. Yet somehow the arguments you've provided suggest that because homosexuals run a higher risk of AIDS (or anything else) they would be unsuitable as parents. They're stereotyping homosexuals rather than accepting that adoption agencies look at the particular circumstances of those homosexuals actually seeking to adopt.
You're more than welcome to present bias sources, or sources which distort and falsify the information, but don't expect it to go unnoticed if you choose to do so.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Jun 29 2003 @ 06:43 AM)
When God created Adam and Eve why didn't he toss in a Mark for Adam too? Or a Mary for Eve? Or maybe even a Bob and Sue to satisfy any bi urges? How about a little Jimmy in case a pedophilial urge needed satisfaction?
As already mentioned, if you're willing to accept the Biblical creation story as literal, you're opening yourself up to accepting incest. If, on the other hand, you believe there were other people created elsewhere without mention, you have no way of knowing whether or not those people were given a Mark, Mary, Bob or Sue to satisfy other desires.
Edited to add: In regards to beliefs that others here are redefining the term "homophobe," it seems to me there are others participating who would likewise like to make homosexual synonymous with promiscuity, irresponsibility and abnormality. Perhaps both parties could -- and should -- make every attempt to refrain from doing so in the future.
QUOTE
You're from South Carolina, huh? Sorry about Strom Thurmond. But that does explain alot about your views on the world... Sen. Thurmonds was a member of the Segregationist Party at one time and lets not forget his famous 24 hour filibuster against the intergration law.
I tend to fall somewhere to the right of Pat Buchanan, but anyway...
I never actually had the chance to vote for (or against) ol' Strom, since I was still registered to vote in another state when he was last up for re-election. He may have been far-right at one point but he'd moved a bit to the center as time went on.
Yes, Ms. Moderator, I know I'm off topic. Moving along now...
QUOTE
We're influential in the world because we ARE uniting and we have money. This is a capitalist society and we're tired of not having programing on tv that caters to us, so if SHOWTIME or any other network wants to tap in to our wallets, we'll be more than happy to spend. This is AMERICA and if enough people unite and want something to happen, it will happen.
Now you're getting back to another point: where is the line between your right to be accepted and my right not to accept you? At least where the premium TV services are concerned it is easy for me to keep it out of my home.
I wonder where you'd stand on a new series depicting the lives of, say, a Klansman and his Skinhead sons...
QUOTE
I'm TIRED of having to be passive and beg for the "table scraps" of the rights that you toss down to me for being a homosexual. If I want to put my life partner on my health insurance, I see no problem with taking care of the woman I lOVE.
Why can't she work and provide her own benefits? Look at where the idea of one party more or less supporting the other originated: the traditional family. For generations, the man worked while the woman stayed home and raised the kids. She did not have the time to earn a salary or benefits for herself or for the kids, so the husband was her only source. With a gay couple, that is not a problem (putting aside gay adoption for another thread since it is still rather uncommon,) so there is no reason why both people should not be self-sufficient.
QUOTE
Sorry to be so militant, but you ULTRA conservatives aren't always going to be the majority in this country. African Americans fought hard for their rights and to not be persecuted and they've won. Now it's the gay communities turn
As long as you still agree that ultra-conservatives, racialists, heterosexuals, and others whose views you find repugnant still have those same rights.
QUOTE
At least where the premium TV services are concerned it is easy for me to keep it out of my home.
I totaly agree! The homosexual community only makes up an estimated 10% of the population, we are obviously a minority, I see no problem having "gay programming" on a premium channel. I work for the cable company and a premium channel goes for an average $10 a month. I would payfor it (if I didn't already get digital cable for free
) as I'm sure the rest of us would! QUOTE
I wonder where you'd stand on a new series depicting the lives of, say, a Klansman and his Skinhead sons...
If there was a large enough population of Americans that wanted it and if the Producers or Networks were stupid enough to put it on the air. Sure! It is a free country. Though, I'm sure a show that's central issue is HATE would honestly not go over very well.
QUOTE
Why can't she work and provide her own benefits?
Now we ALL know that not every employer provides PREMIUM insurance coverage some don't carry it at all! Not every person has a college degree and a $20,000 + job. I know many couples where one's job has the better insurance and so they go with their coverage, especially when it comes to dental insurance!
QUOTE
As long as you still agree that ultra-conservatives, racialists, heterosexuals, and others whose views you find repugnant still have those same rights.
OFCOURSE!!!
I believe in freedom for everyone who is a responsible, moral human being!
QUOTE
Why can't she work and provide her own benefits?
This is Billy Jean's partner, and just for the record, I DO work very hard, and I have my own benefits. That has nothing to do with the right to be covered under a gay partner's benefits. Would it be right for a housewife to not be covered under her husband's plan? But of course, that's a normal relationship, right? Husband and wife, right? Would it still be right for a black man who married a white woman to insure his love? Of course it would. Would it be right for a Jewish man who married a Catholic woman to insure his wife? Yes. It wasn't so long ago that these sorts of relationship were perceived with the same disdain and disgust as homosexual relationships. As I think it was Billy Jean who said in an earlier post, just give us time. . .
Love conquers all.
QUOTE(shelleyfanatic @ Jun 29 2003, 08:49 PM)
Would it still be right for a black man who married a white woman to insure his love? Of course it would. Would it be right for a Jewish man who married a Catholic woman to insure his wife? Yes. It wasn't so long ago that these sorts of relationship were perceived with the same disdain and disgust as homosexual relationships.
I've seen this argument offered before and I don't believe it's valid. The depth of disdain is far greater for homosexual relationships than it ever was for 'mixed marriages'.
QUOTE
I've seen this argument offered before and I don't believe it's valid. The depth of disdain is far greater for homosexual relationships than it ever was for 'mixed marriages'.
And WHAT part of the country are you from?! I'm sure if you lived in the south and were subjected to some of the blatant racism that still rears it's head here, you wouldn't have said that. I guess segregation and discrimination was a 'walk in the park' for the African American Community? How do YOU know the extent that inter-racial marriages are refuted and looked at in disgust among the bigoted people in our country?
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Jun 29 2003, 10:00 PM)
QUOTE(shelleyfanatic @ Jun 29 2003, 08:49 PM)
Would it still be right for a black man who married a white woman to insure his love? Of course it would. Would it be right for a Jewish man who married a Catholic woman to insure his wife? Yes. It wasn't so long ago that these sorts of relationship were perceived with the same disdain and disgust as homosexual relationships.
I've seen this argument offered before and I don't believe it's valid. The depth of disdain is far greater for homosexual relationships than it ever was for 'mixed marriages'.
Is there a fight to preserve prejudice I'm not aware of? I wasn't aware the "depth" of prejudice was a factor in whether or not it should be accepted by the general public. The relationships mentioned by Shelley were discriminated against because of nothing short of prejudice, but once in practice they turned out okay. Interracial children are no different than other children, unless of course somebody chooses to express feelings of hatred or disgust toward them -- and that certainly isn't the fault of the parents or children.
Ah... but people didn't hate them as much as they do the homosexuals. As long as there's hate left to fuel the fire, keep that baby burning! Please.
I think it's a sad indication when an argument turns to the depth of hate and intolerance to justify a prejudice or political stance.
Homosexuality isn't right or wrong. It just is. That was the question.
Throughout history there have been gays who have made positive contributions to society. Two I can think of are Socrates (who maybe was bi) and Leonardo da Vinci. Other contributors, I am sure, can come up with scores of names.
Homosexuals are the same as heteros in that there are people you would like to know and people you would rather not know.
I think that gays would like to be considered on their individual merits rather than their sexual orientation.
And therein lies the problem. They have to go public and fight for rights to have state-recognized marriages and to have the same legal protections as heterosexual couples. Because they have to go public, they incur the animosity of many people. It is a road that is not without pain.
Although I cannot ringingly endorse the gay lifestyle, I accept you as individuals and couples, and I acknowledge your rights to the same entitlements as the state grants me in my marriage.
Peace!
(Edited for grammar)
Throughout history there have been gays who have made positive contributions to society. Two I can think of are Socrates (who maybe was bi) and Leonardo da Vinci. Other contributors, I am sure, can come up with scores of names.
Homosexuals are the same as heteros in that there are people you would like to know and people you would rather not know.
I think that gays would like to be considered on their individual merits rather than their sexual orientation.
And therein lies the problem. They have to go public and fight for rights to have state-recognized marriages and to have the same legal protections as heterosexual couples. Because they have to go public, they incur the animosity of many people. It is a road that is not without pain.
Although I cannot ringingly endorse the gay lifestyle, I accept you as individuals and couples, and I acknowledge your rights to the same entitlements as the state grants me in my marriage.
Peace!
(Edited for grammar)
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Jun 29 2003, 10:00 PM)
QUOTE(shelleyfanatic @ Jun 29 2003, 08:49 PM)
Would it still be right for a black man who married a white woman to insure his love? Of course it would. Would it be right for a Jewish man who married a Catholic woman to insure his wife? Yes. It wasn't so long ago that these sorts of relationship were perceived with the same disdain and disgust as homosexual relationships.
I've seen this argument offered before and I don't believe it's valid. The depth of disdain is far greater for homosexual relationships than it ever was for 'mixed marriages'.
Even if yours were a valid argument of some sort, Passion, you're talking about the depth of whose disdain? Have you taken a poll? Better question: are you at all aware of the history of the United States?? I don't wish to minimize the level of hatred for gays in this country, but for you to minimize the racial hatred in the US in order to make a specious point is outrageous.
Between 1882 and 1930, there were 462 lynchings in Mississippi, 423 in Georgia, 283 in Louisiana, 262 in Alabama, 212 in Florida, 143 in South Carolina, 174 in Tennessee, 162 in Arkansas, 118 in Kentucky, and 75 in North Carolina. Only 300 of these 2314 lynchings were of white men and women. I can't find an exact breakdown of reaons for the lynching of over 2000 blacks, but among reasons listed are "courting a white woman", "living with a white woman", "miscegenation", "eloping with a white woman", and "entering a white woman's room". As bad as violence against gays has sometimes been, have we ever seen mobs of people systematically organizing to drag homosexuals out of their homes and murder them?
In 1903, Gov. James K. Vardaman of Mississippi wrote that mob violence in some form was often the only "adequate punishment" for a black "two legged monster" who defiled "the exalted virtue, the vestal purity and superlative qualities of Southern womanhood". In 1938, Senator Theodore Bilbo of the same state observed that lynching was often the only "immediate and proper and suitable punishment" to redress certain offenses. When effected in defense of a white woman's virtue, lynching represented not merely the public will, but rather the "highest form of justice known in this world or the next." As bad as anti-gay prejudice has been in this country, have we seen similar statements from elected officials? Apart from televangelists, have we heard similar sentiments expressed by any public fugures regarding homosexuals?
The public reaction to films like A Taste of Honey, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?, and Love Is a Many Splendored Thing - even that they were billed as breaking "taboos" - demonstrated that such disdain was still fairly prominent throughout our society well into the sixties. My own personal experience living in the south has demonstrated that disdain for interracial marriage is still alive and well.
You may personally have deeper disdain for gay relationships than anyone in this country has ever had for interracial relationships, P51, but I can't say that you are much of a barometer. Even if you were, God forbid, is the argument that one group has been somewhat more hated than another a justification for continuing to hate anyone?
Is being black right or wrong? Many throughout our history would have answered wrong - they are inferior, bestial, savage, evil. Those people have proved to be idiots. Is being gay right or wrong? Some are still answering wrong - they are sinful, disgusting, diseased, evil. shelleyfanatic is right: history will show what those people prove to be.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Uh, Elspeth, I don't think you're supposed to be rational in this thread.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
As the term has been rearing its ugly head pretty consistently throughout this thread, allow me to draw everyone's attention to my first couple of postings in the Gay Marriage thread, which read, in part:
QUOTE
What the hell is a "homosexual lifestyle"? Forgive me for being crude, but are you claiming that I've got eight inches of lifestyle?? Homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice". In my experience - and the experience of every gay man and lesbian that I've ever met (which has been quite a few), sexual orientation is inborn, genetic, God-given, predetermined, whatever you wanna call it - it is there from birth. Did any of you heterosexuals out there make a "choice" to be affectionally attracted to the opposite sex? Did you contemplate your "lifestyle options" before deciding to which sex you physically respond? If a single one of you has, I'll accept your use of this "lifestyle" nonsense.
More important, are any of you wondering why homosexuality is so qualified? To me, it seems that this rhetorical trick simply makes discrimination easier. "Those choosing this lifestyle should not be treated with equality" sounds a lot better than "Homosexuals should not be treated with equality". Even something like "Those who adopt the African-American lifestyle may practice being black in privacy, but they shouldn't expect to be accepted as equal" is a bit more palatable than saying "Those born black are inferior." People can get away with the distancing effect of dismissing sexual orientation as a "lifestyle choice" because, unlike most other inborn minority traits, homosexuality isn't as apparent as say gender, race, or physical disability. But that does not mean that minimizing the minority status of homosexuals is any more fair than writing off the disabled as "those who choose the wheelchair lifestyle".
More important, are any of you wondering why homosexuality is so qualified? To me, it seems that this rhetorical trick simply makes discrimination easier. "Those choosing this lifestyle should not be treated with equality" sounds a lot better than "Homosexuals should not be treated with equality". Even something like "Those who adopt the African-American lifestyle may practice being black in privacy, but they shouldn't expect to be accepted as equal" is a bit more palatable than saying "Those born black are inferior." People can get away with the distancing effect of dismissing sexual orientation as a "lifestyle choice" because, unlike most other inborn minority traits, homosexuality isn't as apparent as say gender, race, or physical disability. But that does not mean that minimizing the minority status of homosexuals is any more fair than writing off the disabled as "those who choose the wheelchair lifestyle".
Even if, against all evidence, you do believe that homosexuality is a "choice", why insist on using the term "lifestyle"? Does it make you feel better to dismiss a "lifestyle" than to dismiss a person? Well, it shouldn't. Treating a core and defining element of our very being as some kind of fashion choice is just as dismissive - and even more disrespectful. To me, using "lifestyle" is far more offensive than using "queer" or "faggot" - at least those terms more honestly express your opinion. As a courtesy to those of us here who are gay, I would ask you to refer to us as gay or homosexual, not as people leading or choosing a "lifestyle". And out of respect for your beliefs - even though I'd have much better grounds - I won't refer to you as "people choosing the intolerant bigotry lifestyle".
All you folks using the Bible as your only source of knowledge need to understand that the Bible itself is full of contradictions and is pretty damn inaccurate (bullcrap, to use someone's term).
For instance, "... for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." (Jeremiah 3:12)
Then later, in the same book, "Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever. Thus saith the Lord." (Jeremiah 17:4) There's hundreds more.
I mean going back to the days of Adam and Eve (which didn't exist, might I add) and throwing in a Steve or Mark, is like digging a grave for your argument, simply because it is based on an obsolete fairy tale (no pun intended).
The whole argument against homosexuality as a lifestyle is just a religious argument based on subjective religious values, values that many people simply do not adhere to. Besides, trying to base mythological morality on a modern day issue (which ought not be an issue) can hold no merit in the real world around us. There is no justice, just us.
For instance, "... for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." (Jeremiah 3:12)
Then later, in the same book, "Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever. Thus saith the Lord." (Jeremiah 17:4) There's hundreds more.
I mean going back to the days of Adam and Eve (which didn't exist, might I add) and throwing in a Steve or Mark, is like digging a grave for your argument, simply because it is based on an obsolete fairy tale (no pun intended).
The whole argument against homosexuality as a lifestyle is just a religious argument based on subjective religious values, values that many people simply do not adhere to. Besides, trying to base mythological morality on a modern day issue (which ought not be an issue) can hold no merit in the real world around us. There is no justice, just us.
Rumblestrip:
You are misunderstanding this a bit. You are free to accept or not accept anyone or anything. But your personal acceptance or nonacceptance of someone is limited to your private life. I think the American people are fairly clear in supporting the idea of a government which does not institutionally discriminate against law-abiding citizens for their beliefs. You don't have to "accept" blacks, but that has little to do with whether or not they deserve equal treatment under the law. You will never be barred from your beliefs. You can make up a sign protesting gay marriage, or gay lifestyles, and march with it. You will be subject to the same laws as those who march in support of those things.
QUOTE
where is the line between your right to be accepted and my right not to accept you?
You are misunderstanding this a bit. You are free to accept or not accept anyone or anything. But your personal acceptance or nonacceptance of someone is limited to your private life. I think the American people are fairly clear in supporting the idea of a government which does not institutionally discriminate against law-abiding citizens for their beliefs. You don't have to "accept" blacks, but that has little to do with whether or not they deserve equal treatment under the law. You will never be barred from your beliefs. You can make up a sign protesting gay marriage, or gay lifestyles, and march with it. You will be subject to the same laws as those who march in support of those things.
Once upon a time I thought...no...I knew white conservatives hated black people. They went out of their way to make our lives miserable and do us dirt at every opportunity. I felt white conservatives came in just two flavors:
1. The white conservatives that wanted to eradicate blacks from the face of the earth.
2. The white conservatives that wanted to deport all blacks back to Africa.
There was no third flavor.
I really was paranoid about how Richard Nixon was going to start the Tuskegee syphilis experiments all over again and the CIA had introduced AIDS in this country to kill blacks and Reagan was supporting the destruction of blacks by sending potent crack cocaine into the inner city.
That's the funny thing about paranoia. It doesn't have to be based on anything that has actually happened to you personally for it to seem plausible and possible.
My paranoia was making me sick. I got better. I actually can count a few conservatives as my friends. They don't even bite.
So, with all the invective, scorn, mean-spiritness, stereotyping and just plan bigotry I've seen in this thread directed against gay and lesbians, I have to ask this question.
With all the crap that comes your way with being gay, what sentient person would "decide" to be gay?
And I thought being a black man in America was no walk in the park! I can imagine what kind of hell a GAY black man in America has to deal with.
For all their invective against homosexuals, has Dayton Rocker, Passion 51, Conservative Teen Extraordinaire or anyone else can provide us with a personal example of how homosexuality has harmed them?
Not what a gay or lesbian MIGHT do to them.
What a gay or lesbian HAS done to them.
Inquiring minds want to know.
1. The white conservatives that wanted to eradicate blacks from the face of the earth.
2. The white conservatives that wanted to deport all blacks back to Africa.
There was no third flavor.
I really was paranoid about how Richard Nixon was going to start the Tuskegee syphilis experiments all over again and the CIA had introduced AIDS in this country to kill blacks and Reagan was supporting the destruction of blacks by sending potent crack cocaine into the inner city.
That's the funny thing about paranoia. It doesn't have to be based on anything that has actually happened to you personally for it to seem plausible and possible.
My paranoia was making me sick. I got better. I actually can count a few conservatives as my friends. They don't even bite.
So, with all the invective, scorn, mean-spiritness, stereotyping and just plan bigotry I've seen in this thread directed against gay and lesbians, I have to ask this question.
With all the crap that comes your way with being gay, what sentient person would "decide" to be gay?
And I thought being a black man in America was no walk in the park! I can imagine what kind of hell a GAY black man in America has to deal with.
For all their invective against homosexuals, has Dayton Rocker, Passion 51, Conservative Teen Extraordinaire or anyone else can provide us with a personal example of how homosexuality has harmed them?
Not what a gay or lesbian MIGHT do to them.
What a gay or lesbian HAS done to them.
Inquiring minds want to know.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jun 30 2003, 01:08 AM)
For all their invective against homosexuals, has Dayton Rocker, Passion 51, Conservative Teen Extraordinaire or anyone else can provide us with a personal example of how homosexuality has harmed them?
Interesting spin on the thread. Please point out anything I said that could be construed as 'invective'. Or anywhere I said homosexuality was harmful to me, or that I expected it would be.
Your paranoia may not yet be cured. I have taken an opposing position to those who favor a homosexual life. No attacks. No venom. No name-calling. Nothing but a discussion of POV.
QUOTE
Your paranoia may not yet be cured. I have taken an opposing position to those who favor a homosexual life. No attacks. No venom. No name-calling. Nothing but a discussion of POV.
really?
QUOTE
I don't like men who swish, sway and swoon. I think it is all for effect. Effect being to 'put it in your face'. I don't like women who carry themselves in a way that makes me think they can kick my *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***, and seem to want to do it. Same reason.
The image of two men having sex is repulsive to me. Two women? Only if they're both feminine. I think the term is 'lipstick lesbian'. Why the difference? Best I can figure is that I secretly hope the women might ask me to either watch or join in.
The image of two men having sex is repulsive to me. Two women? Only if they're both feminine. I think the term is 'lipstick lesbian'. Why the difference? Best I can figure is that I secretly hope the women might ask me to either watch or join in.
I think someone has a short memory...
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Jun 30 2003, 08:03 AM)
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jun 30 2003, 01:08 AM)
For all their invective against homosexuals, has Dayton Rocker, Passion 51, Conservative Teen Extraordinaire or anyone else can provide us with a personal example of how homosexuality has harmed them?
Interesting spin on the thread. Please point out anything I said that could be construed as 'invective'. Or anywhere I said homosexuality was harmful to me, or that I expected it would be.
Your paranoia may not yet be cured. I have taken an opposing position to those who favor a homosexual life. No attacks.