[quote]Do you want me to tell you all that I think homosexuality is right? I can't and won't do that, because I know better.<hr></blockquote>
A person's sexual orientation is their private and personal business. Or it should be. It has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else except his/her partner (and maybe family). You may feel that homosexuality is wrong, and you are totally entitled to that thought and opinion. (I personally have no real take on it, as regards "right" or "wrong"; it is just the way some people are). But your business is your business, and really should be nobody else's. So long as people are not harming others, then let them live their lives. I see little purpose in getting down on people because they "think different" (to use a popular phrase); is that not one of main causes of warfare, strife and misery? It certainly isn't in the teachings of Jesus Christ who exhorted that we love one another unconditionally
[quote]Other comments:
1) Even I as a Christian don't support most stances that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell take on issues.<hr></blockquote>
If you are a Christian then I sincerely hope and trust that you don't. Robertson and Falwell's take on the teachings of Christianity is as distorted and twisted as what the Taliban is to Islam. And if America was a medieval and repressive society like, say, Afghanistan then it is scary to imagine what kind of regime the likes of Falwell and Robertson would establish in the name of their supposed savior. Fortunately, America is the the most open and free society on this earth, and remains so, despite the recent attacks on our Nation (and Constitution and Bill of Rights). America's freedom of (and from) religion is what stops the likes of Robertson et al from becoming as powerful as they might under some ugly, repressive, theocratic regime.
[quote]It's unfortunate that a lot of people turn away from Christianity because they think everyone who believes in Jesus Christ think the same way those two men do. The truth is, they're just more visible than the majority.<hr></blockquote>
Anybody who has studied the words of Jesus Christ, can see a yawning chasm between his teachings and the cheap manipulative rantings of these two peddlars of hate. If it is these two who are the most representative of "Christianity" in the USA, together with the C.C. and Focus on the Family etc. etc., then Jesus Christ must be observing this sad state of affairs and wondering "why did I ever bother".
[quote]2) In no way, shape, or form do I condone or agree with violence or criminal activity against gays. Like I've said in previous posts, I love the person, not the act of homosexuality. No person deserves to go through the abuse that homosexuals
often have to face.<hr></blockquote>
Another way of saying "Love the sinner, hate the sin". A nice easy and convenient soundbite designed to make bigotry sound socially acceptable. That one doesnt wash with me, apologies.
[quote]That said:
3) Just because homosexuality is becoming the politically correct thing to accept and accomodate, doesn't mean I agree with it. From a religious perspective, I can back up my beliefs with scripture references out the yahzoo. I won't do that, because most of you probably believe in the Bible as much as you can throw it, and wouldn't listen anyway.<hr></blockquote>
The pitfall with quoting scripture is that anyone can quote a set of arbitrary scriptural references to put a point over, and then another person could quote another set to put over an entirely opposite viewpoint. The Bible (or any spiritual document) is so open to a variety of interpretation; there is no group who can claim absolute authority to its meaning.
And btw, 'political correctness' is rife on both sides of the ideological divide, its not something confined to liberals. I dislike it as much as anyone.
[quote]4) Again, the accusation of hatred and intolerance. I DO NOT understand how I can be accused of hatred by standing up for one of my fundamental Christian beliefs. If anything, I should be accused of too much love! I don't want gays to have to face the hatred, violence, persecution, and intolerance that they face; because I see there is a better life in store if they make the CHOICE to turn their lives around. I have personally found happiness and comfort in believing in a God who wants what is right and just. Because of this belief, I cannot dilute myself to what society (in all it's amazing wisdom ) says I should believe, accept, and take as right.<hr></blockquote>
Oh dear. This one keeps cropping up with monotonous regularity. I live in the L.A. area where there is a very large gay community; I know a number of gay men. (I will probably go to hell and damnnation from association ) I have heard so many horror stories of people attempting to 'go straight' often as a result of contact with, and coercion by "Christian" organizations (often the evangelical/born-again/charismatic variety), who feel that there is something fundamentally "wrong" with these people and then impose a huge guilt trip. This belief is founded on the assumption that gay people are the way they are solely on account of personal CHOICE, rather than the more likely combination of biological, environmental etc. etc. factors which determine people's sexual orientation, often before they are old enough to think for themselves. Many gay people acknowledghe some "difference" well before the emergence of puberty and sexuality. Am I left-handed because I choose to be? So many of these 'converted' people end up in a totally confused state, many end up on medication, counseling, a few even resort to suicide. Guilt is an incredibly powerful and manipulative tool, and when used for these manipulative and ultimately destructive ends, this is in my book, evil, and definitely *not* Christian. I know a man who long ago (outwardly) gave up his 'gayness' on account of contact with a "born-again" organization in Anaheim; he got married and now has has a business with 300 employees. He appears the model citizen but deep inside he is becoming more tortured with each day and he keeps saying that at some point he will break down and go back to his old ways because *that is who he is*. Poor man, dammit, I feel for him.
Regarding 'choice': I agree that yes, many people do CHOOSE to experiment in that fashion, often on account of easily obtainable sex. But promiscuity is not limited to gay people; there are many gays who are in stable monogamous relationships, and as a group they contribute to society in a very positive fashion.
[quote]5) God-fearing: adj. - Doing my best to screw up as little as possible here on earth because I know I'm going to have to answer for it later. Hardly Taliban or extremist.<hr></blockquote>
It's good you have that interpretation. I have heard many far more negative ones.
[quote]Oh, and Samantha, I'm going to disregard that last comment.<hr></blockquote>
I do take back my last comment, a bit hasty and ill-thought on my part; However it is a comment similar to one which keeps popping up from time to time on this board and I thought my bit of (badly) applied 'frat-boy humor' would be well understood in these parts. Obviously not.
<strong>Whatever folks. If you don't like them then have your tantrum. It is not going to change their way of doing business. So maybe you might destroy one of the better charitable organizations in the US. I am sure it will be worth it. BTW, what they are doing is both legal and moral. You trying to force them to accept something they don't want to accept is immoral. "you have to let them in because otherwise you are all bad people" BAH!!! Get over it, some people don't like the gay and lesbian lifestyle, and just because you accept it does not mean that they have to. And what is funniest of all is how intolerant you are being in the name of tolerance. Of course tolerance only applies to minorities and alternative lifestyles though... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Give that man a cigar. I see this a lot with people that claim tolerance.
Regarding your dislike of the statement, "Love the sinner, hate the sin," the first rebuttal I think of is the idea that doctors are embracing more and more with patients:
Treat the patient, not just their condition.
To me, those two terms are synonymous. I know gays are people, and they deserve the respect that everyone deserves.
As far as the issue of choice goes, I wholeheartedly agree that many outside factors can influence a person's sexual orientation at an early age. I truly don't believe every gay person woke up one morning and said to themselves, "Hmm, I think I want to be a homosexual." I also think that if a gay person truly believes they want to change, they can. I doubt it would be easy, but (back to religion, sorry) with God on their side they can get through it eventually -- and be happier for it. Outside pressures or guilt are not appropriate or healthy reasons to attempt it, though.
I just want you to know, too, that I appreciated your last post very much. It sounds like on several fronts we're in agreement, but we're counting it up as six of one, half a dozen of the other.
The SA is a religious organization and theologically a fairly conservative Christian one at that. If people don't support their mission, they shouldn't give money to them. I would point out however that their problem isn't just related to practicing homosexuals. Those of us inclined to debauche ourselves in exclusively heterosexual ways would also encounter discrimination by the SA (see Romans 1:18-32). Big deal.
I boycott them simply because they ruin my holiday shopping experience by clanging those damn bells!
As for the whole homosexual angle- yes they are free to discriminate against homosexuals because they believe an omnipotent being commands such. And yes, we are free to boycott them for this single reason alone even if they do other nice things.
As for the science- I suppose I should find it amusing that the same people who believe there can be no possible error in interpreting multi-millennia old documents that have been edited and translated over and over again are also the same people who think scientific conclusions are completely subjective. I'll grant that interpretation can predominate at the early stages of any scientific investigation, but ultimately resolving a matter comes down to a question of fact. I could go through the facts, even present an example where the most staunch homophobe would have to reconsider their position.
Unfortunately, for those who believe homosexuality is evil, facts are irrelevant. Is there anyone out there who believes homosexuality is evil who would stipulate that if it could be shown that homosexuality is an inborn trait then it should be considered as valid as heterosexuality? If there isn't, then why should I waste my time?
<strong>IAs for the science I suppose I should find it amusing that the same people who believe there can be no possible error in interpreting multi-millennia old documents that have been edited and translated over and over again are also the same people who think scientific conclusions are completely subjective.</strong><hr></blockquote> Small differences in words between different interpretations DO NOT take away from the main teachings in the Bible. I see people making this point all the time. It just shows that they really don't know about the Bible and it's history. And what scientific conclusions are you talking about?
[quote]<strong>
I'll grant that interpretation can predominate at the early stages of any scientific investigation, but ultimately resolving a matter comes down to a question of fact. I could go through the facts, even present an example where the most staunch homophobe would have to reconsider their position. <hr></blockquote></strong>
Please state such facts. BTW thinking homosexuality is a deviant behavior does not make one a homophobe. Only when there is a irrational fear of homosexual can you use the homophobe label.
[quote]<strong>
Unfortunately, for those who believe homosexuality is evil, facts are irrelevant.<hr></blockquote></strong> Being a homosexual isn't evil. Practicing homosexual sexual practices is however a sin (according the the Christian beliefs) Just as having premarital sex, Using the Lord's name in vain.. etc. Everyone is a sinner.
[quote]<strong>
Is there anyone out there who believes homosexuality is evil who would stipulate that if it could be shown that homosexuality is an inborn trait then it should be considered as valid as heterosexuality? If there isn't, then why should I waste my time?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No one knows how homosexuality comes in ones life. There is no proof that people are born this way. There isn't any homosexual gene that gets passed on. But if there was proof that homosexuality was something someone could be born with this doesn't make it a valid or non-deviant sexual practice. I guess the same could be said about people who like to have sex with young kids. They have feeling towards them.. they lust after them .. should we then say their thoughts are equal with the norm? No. This is based on our moral beings. Having sex with kids is immoral. Yet I don't see (many) people trying to argue this point. If you want to speak scientifically .. homosexuality is a genetic dead end.
Small differences in words between different interpretations DO NOT take away from the main teachings in the Bible. I see people making this point all the time. It just shows that they really don't know about the Bible and it's history. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So your stipulating to the bible being dependent on interpretation then? Or are you, instead, counting yourself as one of the people I alluded too who think that the bible was chiseled into stone by lightning and despite all the compilation, editing, and translations they are able to interpret it without error? I'm guessing you fall more into the second category because of your backhanded inference that only people who don't correctly interpret the bible may find fault with it (circular reasoning at it's best). I don't have time, or desire, to explore the twisted loops of reasoning that always come up in explaining away biblical inconsistencies (I've road that ride before). I'd suggest you might try exploring the web for better examples than the strawman arguments xian sites present.
[quote]<strong>
BTW thinking homosexuality is a deviant behavior does not make one a homophobe. Only when there is a irrational fear of homosexual can you use the homophobe label.</strong><hr></blockquote>
First off, can you suggest a better label for whatever you would call yourself as a person who thinks homosexuality is deviant (anti-homic, homo-sensitive, homo-impaired- really I don't care as long as it's short). PC is employed by conservatives and liberals and it's equally annoying. Second, if you carefully read my post you will notice that I'm not casting all people of your ilk as homophobes, but instead specifically sighted the most extreme case to highlight how convincing a thoughtful examination of medical science can be with respect to the matter. Third, given that most objections to homosexuality are based on erroneous connections made to pedophilia, aides, rape, and child abuse it would seem that most -insert your label here- fit your definition of homophobes.
[quote]<strong>Being a homosexual isn't evil. Practicing homosexual sexual practices is however a sin (according the the Christian beliefs) Just as having premarital sex, Using the Lord's name in vain.. etc. Everyone is a sinner. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Evil, sinful, yucky- use whatever subjective term you like. I don't subscribe to your theology so I only judge people on whether they help or harm other people. Fortunately, I live in a country where "sin" has no force in law, so it's really quite irrelevant to me.
[quote]<strong>
No one knows how homosexuality comes in ones life. There is no proof that people are born this way. There isn't any homosexual gene that gets passed on. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, first you say no-one knows and then you say that there definitely isn't a gene. No doubt your proceeding on a shallow understanding of nature selection, neglecting kin-selection models and the simple fact that homosexuals tend to have as much kids as heterosexuals.
[quote]<strong>
But if there was proof that homosexuality was something someone could be born with this doesn't make it a valid or non-deviant sexual practice. I guess the same could be said about people who like to have sex with young kids. They have feeling towards them.. they lust after them .. should we then say their thoughts are equal with the norm?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just drop the pedophile thing, you're making yourself look silly and uninformed. There's no connection between the two and you can't possibly compare the rape of a child to the sexual activities of two consenting adults. Given your position that even if homosexuality were inborn it would still be wrong, why should any reasonable person waste their time arguing the point? Too bad, it's an interesting discussion especially if you frame it in terms of your own loved ones.
Now come on kids, the simple fact is, each of us who posts to this forum does so in the hopes that our post will cause everyone on the opposite side of the fence to simultaneously drop to their knees and proclaim "I am defeated, I am sorry I ever doubted your judgment, and I agree with you wholly and irrefutably, why was I so stupid?"
Of course, this will never happen. At least not here.
My advice, for anyone who is even slightly interested in expanding their horizons and range of experience, try to see what the other side is going for... get know your 'enemy.'
AntiGay kids, make some new friends, seriously. Know some one who's gay? Great! Get to know them, hang out with them and their friends, try to avoid screaming YOU'RE GOING TO HELL! repeatedly. Just treat them as if they were any other normal human being, and enjoy the experience. Talk about movies, life, love, books, go for coffee and talk for hours about nothing, go to the super walmart at 2am just for the sake of going. Just, you know, get to know them.
The value of this? Well, you'll get to see us gay people for what, despite our flaws, we are... people, just like you, Yes, e x a c t l y like you, even as far as sex goes. We, like you, do what works for us. Everything is consensual, no one gets hurt, and everybody's happy in the end.
This, and undeniably superior fashion sense, is what separates us from pedophiles, a group of sick fu cks who suffer from an actual psychological disease and to whom homos are often compared. Not all gay people are pedophiles, and not all pedophiles are gay, but, yes, some pedophiles happen to prey on little boys. It's like an SAT question, only much simpler... Like hetero coupling, gay sex is born of mutual attraction, not taking advantage of a weaker party and then scaring them into never-ever-ever telling anyone about it EVER.
Pedophiles force themselves onto kids or trick the kids into cooperating, offering them candy if they do them a "favor" but failing to mention that their "favor" involves violating their bodies, and as for fu cks like NAMBLA (the north american man-boy love association ICK!), who insist that it is "love," well... I have no clue what they're smoking, it's a one-sided relationship built on fear, that ain't love, that's just sick.
ICK ICK ICK ICK ICK, on to other subjects
As far as life goes, We don't want anything too special, just the same government protected rights (and responsibilities) that you and your hetero friends enjoy. Yes, as a gay man, I could very well go about my life without causing a ruckus, just happy to be alive, and happy that I live in a culture where it's fairly unlikely that I will be killed simply because I am gay, though it does still happen, (nice huh?), and I can pretty much do what I want. But then, things come up, like, well, I fall in love.
This, coincidentally did happen to me about two years ago. And naturally, when you fall in love, like the real "love" love, the "I want to spend the rest of my life with you" love, you want to get married! Whoops, no-go, sorry. I won't get too preachy here, I feel that no one can define what "love" is, or what it feels like, but I think each of us knows it when we feel it. So damned be he that says gay "love" is just uncontrollable lust.
Now, for the gay kids, and, as that lovable oaf Fred Phelps calls fag hags and PFLAG moms, "Gay Enablers," get to know some of the kids in the "being gay is very uncool" camp. NOTE: this may be difficult. Kids in this camp tend to be a little touchy, and if you're obviously batting for the other team, some will run for the border as soon as they find out you're "not quite normal." And then some of the kids in this camp, those with rifle racks and pro-life bumper stickers on their pickup trucks (not to mention nasty chemical imbalances) will bash your brains in, so choose your new friends carefully.
So, what are the right-wingers after? That's an excellent question, it's particularly odd since they are in a very different position than us queers. They are in power, no white-bread religious zealot lives in fear of being beaten up and killed by a gang of bleach-blond circuit bois wearing mascara, pet shop boys t-shirts and pink nail polish. So why, why on earth do they seek the disqualification of homosexuals as human beings, thus negating our rights as people and citizens of these united states?
Because... drum roll please... they feel we threaten the very moral fabric of the nation, the world, and, yes, even the universe! Yes, that's right, by being gay, I could single-handedly cause an intergalactic catastrophe that would blink human kind out of existence! Or at least that's how they play it out. While my lifestyle doesn't directly effect their quality of life, they'd just as soon stamp us out, or lock us up in cages and throw peanuts at us. We are not humans capable of love, we are mere animals, controlled by our lust and deviant thoughts.
Deviant... funny word... I am, by all counts a deviant, my life deviates from the norm, I am a gay art student, you just can't get much more deviant than that. But does the fact that my life differs from yours make me immoral? Exactly what part of my life is immoral? When between the time I wake up and the time I go to sleep am I living "the gay lifestyle" and thus exhibiting these corrupted morals? I go to school, I go to work, I have a loving relationship, and I go to bed, some naughty things are done, I fall asleep, wake up, and the whole process starts all over again. So where are those corrupted morals? Is it what happens between the time I go to bed and the time I fall asleep? Is that "the gay lifestyle" that threatens the very future of our way of life? No, that's called "sex" and everybody does it, the details are different, but the outcome is mostly the same.
As Dan Savage says in his book about his adoption experience with his boyfriend, "When two straight people have sex, they can make a baby, all that two gay people can make, is a mess." Yes, homosexuality is, as sinewave so distastefully put it, a "genetic dead end," but so what? What good is procreation in a world that's already over populated? Why should I contribute to the exhaustion of the world's natural resources and start a family, that will start more families, which will lead to more families, ad infitum until there's no air left to breath or food left to eat? We can adopt (in most states), and there are plenty of ways besides popping out babies to leave a legacy. The fact here is that I could very well father a child, I am theoretically fertile, but I choose not to.
Most of my cousins are around my age, and, when I went home last year for winter break, I found that most of them, at the ripe old age of 18-22, were either engaged, pregnant, or both. Obviously, for the most part, these pregnancies where not planned, and caused a severe disruption in the "grammar school -> middle school -> high school -> college -> career -> marriage and then finally -> baby" progression of events they and their parents had expected. So I'm to take the fact that straight people are capable of getting pregnant and severely screwing up their lives as a 'good thing,' and makes them morally superior to me? hmmmmm... not buying it, sorry.
So, if two straight people have sex, not to have a baby, but just for the sake of having sex, and for the fact that is a very enjoyable experience, aren't they just as bad as gay people? The catholic church seems to think so, given its stance on premarital sex and post marital birth control, good god-fearing christians and catholics shouldn't be having sex unless they're married and intent on having a child. If you're trying to skirt the rules by having sex before you're married or using a condom with your wife, you're going straight to hell to join us queers. The pope said it, so it must be true. And any straight people who have indulged in sodomy, which even includes oral sex, again, just as bad as gay kids, you're going to hell.
So. tell me, how many of you straight kids out there are without sin? who among you is truly morally superior? How many of you are good celibate kids who just sit at home reading your bible, making rosaries, and masturbating.
Ha ha! Tricked you, if you masturbate, you're going to hell too!!! Naughty Naughty Naughty!
I've strayed abit, so let me conclude. The "moral majority," is out to foist its ideals onto the masses. They're trying to paint gays as evil twisted people who steal your children, burn down your churches, and make everybody listen to barbara streisand records (ick!). But all I want is to marry the person I love, settle down in the suburbs in a cute little two story house, with two cars in the garage, 3.5 kids in the back yard, a cat, a dog, and a picket fence, and go to sleep everynight knowing, that if anything awful happens to me, the same laws that protect your family will protect mine. Is that so wrong?
So your stipulating to the bible being dependent on interpretation then? Or are you, instead, counting yourself as one of the people I alluded too who think that the bible was chiseled into stone by lightning and despite all the compilation, editing, and translations they are able to interpret it without error? I'm guessing you fall more into the second category because of your backhanded inference that only people who don't correctly interpret the bible may find fault with it (circular reasoning at it's best). I don't have time, or desire, to explore the twisted loops of reasoning that always come up in explaining away biblical inconsistencies (I've road that ride before). I'd suggest you might try exploring the web for better examples than the strawman arguments xian sites present.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Its hard to understand the Bible when looking through wordly eyes. Esp when trying to use Wordly logic. The Bible even says as much. But seeing how you really don't know what the Bible says.. I find it funny you seem to think your in the know about such things. NO ONE knows what the original Bible said.. no one knows how old it is. Saying it's meanings have changed is just a guess and indeed a strawman's argument.
[quote]<strong>
First off, can you suggest a better label for whatever you would call yourself as a person who thinks homosexuality is deviant (anti-homic, homo-sensitive, homo-impaired- really I don't care as long as it's short).
<hr></blockquote></strong>
First off it's not what I think. Homosexual sexIS a deviant sexual behavior. Being deviant means not from the norm. And homosexual sex is not the normal sexual behavior of this world. It deviates from the norm therefore it's deviant. Yes I know calling homosexual sex deviant isn't politically correct. But I tend not to sugar coat things.
[quote]<strong>
PC is employed by conservatives and liberals and it's equally annoying. Second, if you carefully read my post you will notice that I'm not casting all people of your ilk as homophobes, but instead specifically sighted the most extreme case to highlight how convincing a thoughtful examination of medical science can be with respect to the matter. Third, given that most objections to homosexuality are based on erroneous connections made to pedophilia, aides, rape, and child abuse it would seem that most -insert your label here- fit your definition of homophobes.
[quote][qb]
Evil, sinful, yucky- use whatever subjective term you like. I don't subscribe to your theology so I only judge people on whether they help or harm other people. Fortunately, I live in a country where "sin" has no force in law, so it's really quite irrelevant to me.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well good for you! That is why I put in parenthesis (According to the Christian Beliefs) But many of our countries laws are based on moral christian values
[quote]<strong>
Hmm, first you say no-one knows and then you say that there definitely isn't a gene. No doubt your proceeding on a shallow understanding of nature selection,<hr></blockquote></strong>
I wasn't contradicting myself son.. No one does know how one turns out homosexual. But they DO know there isn't a "homosexual gene" that gets passed on.
[quote]<strong>
neglecting kin-selection models and the simple fact that homosexuals tend to have as much kids as heterosexuals.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
They do? That would mean that they had heterosexual sex! Or they didn't get them naturally. And no homosexuals do not tend to have as much kids as heterosexuals. Please show me some un-biased proof of this.
[quote]<strong>
Just drop the pedophile thing, you're making yourself look silly and uninformed.
There's no connection between the two and you can't possibly compare the rape of a child to the sexual activities of two consenting adults.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well sure I can they are both deviant sexual behaviors that differ from the norm. That was my point. Both homosexuals and child molesters claim they where just born like that. You claiming cause homosexuals are born that way somehow makes it normal acceptable behavior. I proved you wrong.
[quote]<strong>
Given your position that even if homosexuality were inborn it would still be wrong, why should any reasonable person waste their time arguing the point? Too bad, it's an interesting discussion especially if you frame it in terms of your own loved ones.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I also noticed you didn't respond to my comment about homosexuality being a genetic dead end either. No arguing that. Humans are not asexual beings.
[quote]Well sure I can they are both deviant sexual behaviors that differ from the norm. That was my point. Both homosexuals and child molesters claim they where just born like that. You claiming cause homosexuals are born that way somehow makes it normal acceptable behavior. I proved you wrong. <hr></blockquote>
Oh my gosh. This is the funniest logic I've ever seen. You and someone bad share some common trait, therefore I can lump you together. That's ridiculous. Just because two groups of peoples sexual practices aren't common doesn't mean anything about them is remotely similar.
Bull. Face it, pedophiles prey on helpless kids by manipulating and raping them. Homosexuals have consenting sex with other adults. There IS no comparison. Just because you want it to be true doesn't make it so.
Look, the issue here is boycotting the salvation army. I believe what they do is wrong, just like you think what gay people do is wrong. I'm not trying to change any minds here, but don't turn things around to make yourself sound more justified. Associating pedophiles with homosexuals is a time-honored tradition of conservative Christians, in an attempt to evoke a knee-jerk reaction by all "God-fearing people" against homosexuals. Don't use a copout like that.
<strong>They are both sexually deviant acts therefore can be compared </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm done with you. You obviously can't step outside the circular logic of your theology. At least you talked long enough to prove my point which is that for people like you, no amount of evidence would matter.
You get the last word, I'm not wasting my time on this anymore.
I'm done with you. You obviously can't step outside the circular logic of your theology.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well damn.. I could say the same thing about you. I've seen it from both sides. I just don't sugar coat things. I see them for what they are. I am not going to delusion myself just to adapt to your views.
[quote]<strong>
At least you talked long enough to prove my point which is that for people like you, no amount of evidence would matter.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Evidence of what? I've asked for it.. and no one gave me any.
The whole Christian view on homosexuality as being dictated by the Bible seems to be quite a peculiar take on the matter, and in contrast with the way much of the rest of the religion was adapted from the Jews. To support their position, the usually-cited passages are Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. To help avoid errors in translation, I'll start with the original texts:
Thou shall not lie down with a man as one lies down with a woman. It is detestable.
The last word is alternately translated as "an abomination."
If a man lies down with a man as one lies down with a woman, both has done an abomination. They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them.
So then, the first thing that pops into my mind is simply: what do religious people have against lesbians? There is no mention of any law governing such activities on the part of a woman. For that matter, could you really state that a gay man lies down with another man in the same manner that a straight man lies with a woman? Seems to me the mechanisms are different between the two.
That aside, why pick on this one Mosaic law as to be applicable when almost all others were discarded? Specifically, the Torah forbids work on Saturday, clothing worn of two different fibers, meat from a mammal that does not chew its cud and have cloven feet, women from wearing pants, men from clipping their beards, and wearing mildew-ridden clothes without inspection by a priest. The fact that this single law is upheld when so many others are violated routinely just smacks of a convenient excuse for discrimination.
It could be argued that this law bears extra weight because of the use of the rather strong word toevah, or abomination. If that is the case, one should also pay extra scrutiny to other toevah laws: sex with menstruating women, rabbit, pig, shellfish, psychics, a man who remarries his divorced wife, and any person who disobeys the law.
Another way to single out the law is to cite its proposed punishment -- death -- as an example of its extremity. Other offenses punishable by death: children who curse their parents, anyone who does any work on Saturday, adherents to other religions, contempt of court, and refusal to obey one's parents.
Food for thought.
-- ShadyG
P.S. -- This is a summation of the discussion located at <a href="http://members.aol.com/hansss/"; target="_blank">this site</a>. You'll find a more thorough treatment there.
Anyone who suggests boycotting an organization like the Salvation Army is mentally fuked. Why don't you get over your politically correct personal agendas and recognize the SA for what it is and what it does to help people in need?! Are your personal sensibilities more important than feeding homeless people???? Wake up.
They have the right to run their organization however they damn well please. The term "Salvation" in Salvation Army pretty much implies there is some Christian heritage behind their values and their mission. And many Christian sects have legitimate reasons for not condoning homosexuality. They believe that practicing such lifestyles is not consistent with their particular teachings, or brand of Christianity.
That DOES NOT mean, they HATE gays, or want to see gays imprisoned, or anything else like that. It merely means they reserve the right to hire people they believe to have values consistent with their own. Companies do this all the time, and rightly so. DUH.
Get over yourself. How anyone can utter the phrase "boycott the Salvation Army" during the holiday season - when their services are needed most by the needy people in this country is beyond me. It's sickening. Sorry for the flame, but you deserve it. Please, Fuk off.
<strong>Anyone who suggests boycotting an organization like the Salvation Army is mentally fuked. Why don't you get over your politically correct personal agendas and recognize the SA for what it is and what it does to help people in need?! Are your personal sensibilities more important than feeding homeless people???? Wake up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think anyone was advocating the abandonment of charity. The Salvation Army is but one player. There are plenty of other avenues for a person to contribute without compromising his principles.
[quote]Anyone who suggests boycotting an organization like the Salvation Army is mentally fuked. Why don't you get over your politically correct personal agendas and recognize the SA for what it is and what it does to help people in need?! Are your personal sensibilities more important than feeding homeless people???? Wake up.<hr></blockquote>
You know what's more important than feeding homeless people? Not compromising ones own morals. You say that the Salvation Army has the right to hire or fire people based on their moral beliefs ? so why doesn't anyone else have the right to boycott the Salvation Army based on their moral beliefs? I feel like a broken record here ? there ARE charities that help people in need that don't practice discrimination. Because I'm not dropping my spare change in the kettle doesn't mean I'm a heartless bastard. It means that the rights of gay and lesbian people are just as important to me as the needs of the poor.
[quote]Get over yourself.<hr></blockquote>
This is hardly about me. If anyone needs to get over themselves, it's the self-righteous Salvation Army. An organization purporting to be in the business of helping those in need don't seem to give much thought to the needs of their own employees.
[quote]How anyone can utter the phrase "boycott the Salvation Army" during the holiday season - when their services are needed most by the needy people in this country is beyond me. It's sickening. <hr></blockquote>
It's very simple. Just because people are in need of help doesn't mean that anyone has to - or should give to the Salvation Army. They market themselves to be synonymous with all holiday giving, but that's simply not the case.
[quote]Sorry for the flame, but you deserve it. Please, Fuk off.<hr></blockquote>
And I'm the one whose sick for what he utters during the holiday season?
This thread has sure passed through the gambit. You don't like the SA, fine. Then you don't give to them. What you are talking about though is mounting an attack on the SA to teach them a lesson not to mess with gay peoples rights. Whatever those are (why should gay people have special rights? Getting to that point now). Gay people cannot be legally married in the US except maybe in certain states. (Please feel free to post those here if you like) So they cannot be covered under spousal insurance anyhow. My question, does the SA cover Domestic partners if they are heterosexual? I don't believe so, many organizations do not. It is a way to save money for one (health care is expensive) and for the SA it is against part of their charter. So why should they bend this rule just for gay people? Special rights?
(there I kept religious bickering out of it so you can answer me like I am a human being, instead of treating me like I am some sort of stupid monster who cannot think for himself because I read the Bible )
Comments
A person's sexual orientation is their private and personal business. Or it should be. It has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else except his/her partner (and maybe family). You may feel that homosexuality is wrong, and you are totally entitled to that thought and opinion. (I personally have no real take on it, as regards "right" or "wrong"; it is just the way some people are). But your business is your business, and really should be nobody else's. So long as people are not harming others, then let them live their lives. I see little purpose in getting down on people because they "think different" (to use a popular phrase); is that not one of main causes of warfare, strife and misery? It certainly isn't in the teachings of Jesus Christ who exhorted that we love one another unconditionally
[quote]Other comments:
1) Even I as a Christian don't support most stances that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell take on issues.<hr></blockquote>
If you are a Christian then I sincerely hope and trust that you don't. Robertson and Falwell's take on the teachings of Christianity is as distorted and twisted as what the Taliban is to Islam. And if America was a medieval and repressive society like, say, Afghanistan then it is scary to imagine what kind of regime the likes of Falwell and Robertson would establish in the name of their supposed savior. Fortunately, America is the the most open and free society on this earth, and remains so, despite the recent attacks on our Nation (and Constitution and Bill of Rights). America's freedom of (and from) religion is what stops the likes of Robertson et al from becoming as powerful as they might under some ugly, repressive, theocratic regime.
[quote]It's unfortunate that a lot of people turn away from Christianity because they think everyone who believes in Jesus Christ think the same way those two men do. The truth is, they're just more visible than the majority.<hr></blockquote>
Anybody who has studied the words of Jesus Christ, can see a yawning chasm between his teachings and the cheap manipulative rantings of these two peddlars of hate. If it is these two who are the most representative of "Christianity" in the USA, together with the C.C. and Focus on the Family etc. etc., then Jesus Christ must be observing this sad state of affairs and wondering "why did I ever bother".
[quote]2) In no way, shape, or form do I condone or agree with violence or criminal activity against gays. Like I've said in previous posts, I love the person, not the act of homosexuality. No person deserves to go through the abuse that homosexuals
often have to face.<hr></blockquote>
Another way of saying "Love the sinner, hate the sin". A nice easy and convenient soundbite designed to make bigotry sound socially acceptable. That one doesnt wash with me, apologies.
[quote]That said:
3) Just because homosexuality is becoming the politically correct thing to accept and accomodate, doesn't mean I agree with it. From a religious perspective, I can back up my beliefs with scripture references out the yahzoo. I won't do that, because most of you probably believe in the Bible as much as you can throw it, and wouldn't listen anyway.<hr></blockquote>
The pitfall with quoting scripture is that anyone can quote a set of arbitrary scriptural references to put a point over, and then another person could quote another set to put over an entirely opposite viewpoint. The Bible (or any spiritual document) is so open to a variety of interpretation; there is no group who can claim absolute authority to its meaning.
And btw, 'political correctness' is rife on both sides of the ideological divide, its not something confined to liberals. I dislike it as much as anyone.
[quote]4) Again, the accusation of hatred and intolerance. I DO NOT understand how I can be accused of hatred by standing up for one of my fundamental Christian beliefs. If anything, I should be accused of too much love! I don't want gays to have to face the hatred, violence, persecution, and intolerance that they face; because I see there is a better life in store if they make the CHOICE to turn their lives around. I have personally found happiness and comfort in believing in a God who wants what is right and just. Because of this belief, I cannot dilute myself to what society (in all it's amazing wisdom ) says I should believe, accept, and take as right.<hr></blockquote>
Oh dear. This one keeps cropping up with monotonous regularity. I live in the L.A. area where there is a very large gay community; I know a number of gay men. (I will probably go to hell and damnnation from association
Regarding 'choice': I agree that yes, many people do CHOOSE to experiment in that fashion, often on account of easily obtainable sex. But promiscuity is not limited to gay people; there are many gays who are in stable monogamous relationships, and as a group they contribute to society in a very positive fashion.
[quote]5) God-fearing: adj. - Doing my best to screw up as little as possible here on earth because I know I'm going to have to answer for it later. Hardly Taliban or extremist.<hr></blockquote>
It's good you have that interpretation. I have heard many far more negative ones.
[quote]Oh, and Samantha, I'm going to disregard that last comment.<hr></blockquote>
I do take back my last comment, a bit hasty and ill-thought on my part; However it is a comment similar to one which keeps popping up from time to time on this board and I thought my bit of (badly) applied 'frat-boy humor' would be well understood in these parts. Obviously not.
<strong>Whatever folks. If you don't like them then have your tantrum. It is not going to change their way of doing business. So maybe you might destroy one of the better charitable organizations in the US. I am sure it will be worth it. BTW, what they are doing is both legal and moral. You trying to force them to accept something they don't want to accept is immoral. "you have to let them in because otherwise you are all bad people" BAH!!! Get over it, some people don't like the gay and lesbian lifestyle, and just because you accept it does not mean that they have to. And what is funniest of all is how intolerant you are being in the name of tolerance. Of course tolerance only applies to minorities and alternative lifestyles though...
Give that man a cigar. I see this a lot with people that claim tolerance.
Regarding your dislike of the statement, "Love the sinner, hate the sin," the first rebuttal I think of is the idea that doctors are embracing more and more with patients:
Treat the patient, not just their condition.
To me, those two terms are synonymous. I know gays are people, and they deserve the respect that everyone deserves.
As far as the issue of choice goes, I wholeheartedly agree that many outside factors can influence a person's sexual orientation at an early age. I truly don't believe every gay person woke up one morning and said to themselves, "Hmm, I think I want to be a homosexual." I also think that if a gay person truly believes they want to change, they can. I doubt it would be easy, but (back to religion, sorry) with God on their side they can get through it eventually -- and be happier for it. Outside pressures or guilt are not appropriate or healthy reasons to attempt it, though.
I just want you to know, too, that I appreciated your last post very much. It sounds like on several fronts we're in agreement, but we're counting it up as six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Edit: Realizing proper usage of to, too, and two.
[ 12-14-2001: Message edited by: CosmoNut ]</p>
[ 12-15-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
As for the whole homosexual angle- yes they are free to discriminate against homosexuals because they believe an omnipotent being commands such. And yes, we are free to boycott them for this single reason alone even if they do other nice things.
As for the science- I suppose I should find it amusing that the same people who believe there can be no possible error in interpreting multi-millennia old documents that have been edited and translated over and over again are also the same people who think scientific conclusions are completely subjective. I'll grant that interpretation can predominate at the early stages of any scientific investigation, but ultimately resolving a matter comes down to a question of fact. I could go through the facts, even present an example where the most staunch homophobe would have to reconsider their position.
Unfortunately, for those who believe homosexuality is evil, facts are irrelevant. Is there anyone out there who believes homosexuality is evil who would stipulate that if it could be shown that homosexuality is an inborn trait then it should be considered as valid as heterosexuality? If there isn't, then why should I waste my time?
[ 12-15-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>
<strong>IAs for the science I suppose I should find it amusing that the same people who believe there can be no possible error in interpreting multi-millennia old documents that have been edited and translated over and over again are also the same people who think scientific conclusions are completely subjective.</strong><hr></blockquote> Small differences in words between different interpretations DO NOT take away from the main teachings in the Bible. I see people making this point all the time. It just shows that they really don't know about the Bible and it's history. And what scientific conclusions are you talking about?
[quote]<strong>
I'll grant that interpretation can predominate at the early stages of any scientific investigation, but ultimately resolving a matter comes down to a question of fact. I could go through the facts, even present an example where the most staunch homophobe would have to reconsider their position. <hr></blockquote></strong>
Please state such facts. BTW thinking homosexuality is a deviant behavior does not make one a homophobe. Only when there is a irrational fear of homosexual can you use the homophobe label.
[quote]<strong>
Unfortunately, for those who believe homosexuality is evil, facts are irrelevant.<hr></blockquote></strong> Being a homosexual isn't evil. Practicing homosexual sexual practices is however a sin (according the the Christian beliefs) Just as having premarital sex, Using the Lord's name in vain.. etc. Everyone is a sinner.
[quote]<strong>
Is there anyone out there who believes homosexuality is evil who would stipulate that if it could be shown that homosexuality is an inborn trait then it should be considered as valid as heterosexuality? If there isn't, then why should I waste my time?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No one knows how homosexuality comes in ones life. There is no proof that people are born this way. There isn't any homosexual gene that gets passed on. But if there was proof that homosexuality was something someone could be born with this doesn't make it a valid or non-deviant sexual practice. I guess the same could be said about people who like to have sex with young kids. They have feeling towards them.. they lust after them .. should we then say their thoughts are equal with the norm? No. This is based on our moral beings. Having sex with kids is immoral. Yet I don't see (many) people trying to argue this point. If you want to speak scientifically .. homosexuality is a genetic dead end.
<strong>
Small differences in words between different interpretations DO NOT take away from the main teachings in the Bible. I see people making this point all the time. It just shows that they really don't know about the Bible and it's history. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So your stipulating to the bible being dependent on interpretation then? Or are you, instead, counting yourself as one of the people I alluded too who think that the bible was chiseled into stone by lightning and despite all the compilation, editing, and translations they are able to interpret it without error? I'm guessing you fall more into the second category because of your backhanded inference that only people who don't correctly interpret the bible may find fault with it (circular reasoning at it's best). I don't have time, or desire, to explore the twisted loops of reasoning that always come up in explaining away biblical inconsistencies (I've road that ride before). I'd suggest you might try exploring the web for better examples than the strawman arguments xian sites present.
[quote]<strong>
BTW thinking homosexuality is a deviant behavior does not make one a homophobe. Only when there is a irrational fear of homosexual can you use the homophobe label.</strong><hr></blockquote>
First off, can you suggest a better label for whatever you would call yourself as a person who thinks homosexuality is deviant (anti-homic, homo-sensitive, homo-impaired- really I don't care as long as it's short). PC is employed by conservatives and liberals and it's equally annoying. Second, if you carefully read my post you will notice that I'm not casting all people of your ilk as homophobes, but instead specifically sighted the most extreme case to highlight how convincing a thoughtful examination of medical science can be with respect to the matter. Third, given that most objections to homosexuality are based on erroneous connections made to pedophilia, aides, rape, and child abuse it would seem that most -insert your label here- fit your definition of homophobes.
[quote]<strong>Being a homosexual isn't evil. Practicing homosexual sexual practices is however a sin (according the the Christian beliefs) Just as having premarital sex, Using the Lord's name in vain.. etc. Everyone is a sinner. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Evil, sinful, yucky- use whatever subjective term you like. I don't subscribe to your theology so I only judge people on whether they help or harm other people. Fortunately, I live in a country where "sin" has no force in law, so it's really quite irrelevant to me.
[quote]<strong>
No one knows how homosexuality comes in ones life. There is no proof that people are born this way. There isn't any homosexual gene that gets passed on. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, first you say no-one knows and then you say that there definitely isn't a gene. No doubt your proceeding on a shallow understanding of nature selection, neglecting kin-selection models and the simple fact that homosexuals tend to have as much kids as heterosexuals.
[quote]<strong>
But if there was proof that homosexuality was something someone could be born with this doesn't make it a valid or non-deviant sexual practice. I guess the same could be said about people who like to have sex with young kids. They have feeling towards them.. they lust after them .. should we then say their thoughts are equal with the norm?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just drop the pedophile thing, you're making yourself look silly and uninformed. There's no connection between the two and you can't possibly compare the rape of a child to the sexual activities of two consenting adults. Given your position that even if homosexuality were inborn it would still be wrong, why should any reasonable person waste their time arguing the point? Too bad, it's an interesting discussion especially if you frame it in terms of your own loved ones.
[ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>
Of course, this will never happen. At least not here.
My advice, for anyone who is even slightly interested in expanding their horizons and range of experience, try to see what the other side is going for... get know your 'enemy.'
AntiGay kids, make some new friends, seriously. Know some one who's gay? Great! Get to know them, hang out with them and their friends, try to avoid screaming YOU'RE GOING TO HELL! repeatedly. Just treat them as if they were any other normal human being, and enjoy the experience. Talk about movies, life, love, books, go for coffee and talk for hours about nothing, go to the super walmart at 2am just for the sake of going. Just, you know, get to know them.
The value of this? Well, you'll get to see us gay people for what, despite our flaws, we are... people, just like you, Yes, e x a c t l y like you, even as far as sex goes. We, like you, do what works for us. Everything is consensual, no one gets hurt, and everybody's happy in the end.
This, and undeniably superior fashion sense, is what separates us from pedophiles, a group of sick fu cks who suffer from an actual psychological disease and to whom homos are often compared. Not all gay people are pedophiles, and not all pedophiles are gay, but, yes, some pedophiles happen to prey on little boys. It's like an SAT question, only much simpler... Like hetero coupling, gay sex is born of mutual attraction, not taking advantage of a weaker party and then scaring them into never-ever-ever telling anyone about it EVER.
Pedophiles force themselves onto kids or trick the kids into cooperating, offering them candy if they do them a "favor" but failing to mention that their "favor" involves violating their bodies, and as for fu cks like NAMBLA (the north american man-boy love association ICK!), who insist that it is "love," well... I have no clue what they're smoking, it's a one-sided relationship built on fear, that ain't love, that's just sick.
ICK ICK ICK ICK ICK, on to other subjects
As far as life goes, We don't want anything too special, just the same government protected rights (and responsibilities) that you and your hetero friends enjoy. Yes, as a gay man, I could very well go about my life without causing a ruckus, just happy to be alive, and happy that I live in a culture where it's fairly unlikely that I will be killed simply because I am gay, though it does still happen, (nice huh?), and I can pretty much do what I want. But then, things come up, like, well, I fall in love.
This, coincidentally did happen to me about two years ago. And naturally, when you fall in love, like the real "love" love, the "I want to spend the rest of my life with you" love, you want to get married! Whoops, no-go, sorry. I won't get too preachy here, I feel that no one can define what "love" is, or what it feels like, but I think each of us knows it when we feel it. So damned be he that says gay "love" is just uncontrollable lust.
Now, for the gay kids, and, as that lovable oaf Fred Phelps calls fag hags and PFLAG moms, "Gay Enablers," get to know some of the kids in the "being gay is very uncool" camp. NOTE: this may be difficult. Kids in this camp tend to be a little touchy, and if you're obviously batting for the other team, some will run for the border as soon as they find out you're "not quite normal." And then some of the kids in this camp, those with rifle racks and pro-life bumper stickers on their pickup trucks (not to mention nasty chemical imbalances) will bash your brains in, so choose your new friends carefully.
So, what are the right-wingers after? That's an excellent question, it's particularly odd since they are in a very different position than us queers. They are in power, no white-bread religious zealot lives in fear of being beaten up and killed by a gang of bleach-blond circuit bois wearing mascara, pet shop boys t-shirts and pink nail polish. So why, why on earth do they seek the disqualification of homosexuals as human beings, thus negating our rights as people and citizens of these united states?
Because... drum roll please... they feel we threaten the very moral fabric of the nation, the world, and, yes, even the universe! Yes, that's right, by being gay, I could single-handedly cause an intergalactic catastrophe that would blink human kind out of existence! Or at least that's how they play it out. While my lifestyle doesn't directly effect their quality of life, they'd just as soon stamp us out, or lock us up in cages and throw peanuts at us. We are not humans capable of love, we are mere animals, controlled by our lust and deviant thoughts.
Deviant... funny word... I am, by all counts a deviant, my life deviates from the norm, I am a gay art student, you just can't get much more deviant than that. But does the fact that my life differs from yours make me immoral? Exactly what part of my life is immoral? When between the time I wake up and the time I go to sleep am I living "the gay lifestyle" and thus exhibiting these corrupted morals? I go to school, I go to work, I have a loving relationship, and I go to bed, some naughty things are done, I fall asleep, wake up, and the whole process starts all over again. So where are those corrupted morals? Is it what happens between the time I go to bed and the time I fall asleep? Is that "the gay lifestyle" that threatens the very future of our way of life? No, that's called "sex" and everybody does it, the details are different, but the outcome is mostly the same.
As Dan Savage says in his book about his adoption experience with his boyfriend, "When two straight people have sex, they can make a baby, all that two gay people can make, is a mess." Yes, homosexuality is, as sinewave so distastefully put it, a "genetic dead end," but so what? What good is procreation in a world that's already over populated? Why should I contribute to the exhaustion of the world's natural resources and start a family, that will start more families, which will lead to more families, ad infitum until there's no air left to breath or food left to eat? We can adopt (in most states), and there are plenty of ways besides popping out babies to leave a legacy. The fact here is that I could very well father a child, I am theoretically fertile, but I choose not to.
Most of my cousins are around my age, and, when I went home last year for winter break, I found that most of them, at the ripe old age of 18-22, were either engaged, pregnant, or both. Obviously, for the most part, these pregnancies where not planned, and caused a severe disruption in the "grammar school -> middle school -> high school -> college -> career -> marriage and then finally -> baby" progression of events they and their parents had expected. So I'm to take the fact that straight people are capable of getting pregnant and severely screwing up their lives as a 'good thing,' and makes them morally superior to me? hmmmmm... not buying it, sorry.
So, if two straight people have sex, not to have a baby, but just for the sake of having sex, and for the fact that is a very enjoyable experience, aren't they just as bad as gay people? The catholic church seems to think so, given its stance on premarital sex and post marital birth control, good god-fearing christians and catholics shouldn't be having sex unless they're married and intent on having a child. If you're trying to skirt the rules by having sex before you're married or using a condom with your wife, you're going straight to hell to join us queers. The pope said it, so it must be true. And any straight people who have indulged in sodomy, which even includes oral sex, again, just as bad as gay kids, you're going to hell.
So. tell me, how many of you straight kids out there are without sin? who among you is truly morally superior? How many of you are good celibate kids who just sit at home reading your bible, making rosaries, and masturbating.
Ha ha! Tricked you, if you masturbate, you're going to hell too!!! Naughty Naughty Naughty!
I've strayed abit, so let me conclude. The "moral majority," is out to foist its ideals onto the masses. They're trying to paint gays as evil twisted people who steal your children, burn down your churches, and make everybody listen to barbara streisand records (ick!). But all I want is to marry the person I love, settle down in the suburbs in a cute little two story house, with two cars in the garage, 3.5 kids in the back yard, a cat, a dog, and a picket fence, and go to sleep everynight knowing, that if anything awful happens to me, the same laws that protect your family will protect mine. Is that so wrong?
ciao,
michael
<strong>
So your stipulating to the bible being dependent on interpretation then? Or are you, instead, counting yourself as one of the people I alluded too who think that the bible was chiseled into stone by lightning and despite all the compilation, editing, and translations they are able to interpret it without error? I'm guessing you fall more into the second category because of your backhanded inference that only people who don't correctly interpret the bible may find fault with it (circular reasoning at it's best). I don't have time, or desire, to explore the twisted loops of reasoning that always come up in explaining away biblical inconsistencies (I've road that ride before). I'd suggest you might try exploring the web for better examples than the strawman arguments xian sites present.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Its hard to understand the Bible when looking through wordly eyes. Esp when trying to use Wordly logic. The Bible even says as much. But seeing how you really don't know what the Bible says.. I find it funny you seem to think your in the know about such things. NO ONE knows what the original Bible said.. no one knows how old it is. Saying it's meanings have changed is just a guess and indeed a strawman's argument.
[quote]<strong>
First off, can you suggest a better label for whatever you would call yourself as a person who thinks homosexuality is deviant (anti-homic, homo-sensitive, homo-impaired- really I don't care as long as it's short).
<hr></blockquote></strong>
First off it's not what I think. Homosexual sexIS a deviant sexual behavior. Being deviant means not from the norm. And homosexual sex is not the normal sexual behavior of this world. It deviates from the norm therefore it's deviant. Yes I know calling homosexual sex deviant isn't politically correct. But I tend not to sugar coat things.
[quote]<strong>
PC is employed by conservatives and liberals and it's equally annoying. Second, if you carefully read my post you will notice that I'm not casting all people of your ilk as homophobes, but instead specifically sighted the most extreme case to highlight how convincing a thoughtful examination of medical science can be with respect to the matter. Third, given that most objections to homosexuality are based on erroneous connections made to pedophilia, aides, rape, and child abuse it would seem that most -insert your label here- fit your definition of homophobes.
[quote][qb]
Evil, sinful, yucky- use whatever subjective term you like. I don't subscribe to your theology so I only judge people on whether they help or harm other people. Fortunately, I live in a country where "sin" has no force in law, so it's really quite irrelevant to me.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well good for you! That is why I put in parenthesis (According to the Christian Beliefs) But many of our countries laws are based on moral christian values
[quote]<strong>
Hmm, first you say no-one knows and then you say that there definitely isn't a gene. No doubt your proceeding on a shallow understanding of nature selection,<hr></blockquote></strong>
I wasn't contradicting myself son.. No one does know how one turns out homosexual. But they DO know there isn't a "homosexual gene" that gets passed on.
[quote]<strong>
neglecting kin-selection models and the simple fact that homosexuals tend to have as much kids as heterosexuals.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
They do? That would mean that they had heterosexual sex! Or they didn't get them naturally. And no homosexuals do not tend to have as much kids as heterosexuals. Please show me some un-biased proof of this.
[quote]<strong>
Just drop the pedophile thing, you're making yourself look silly and uninformed.
There's no connection between the two and you can't possibly compare the rape of a child to the sexual activities of two consenting adults.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well sure I can they are both deviant sexual behaviors that differ from the norm. That was my point. Both homosexuals and child molesters claim they where just born like that. You claiming cause homosexuals are born that way somehow makes it normal acceptable behavior. I proved you wrong.
[quote]<strong>
Given your position that even if homosexuality were inborn it would still be wrong, why should any reasonable person waste their time arguing the point? Too bad, it's an interesting discussion especially if you frame it in terms of your own loved ones.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I also noticed you didn't respond to my comment about homosexuality being a genetic dead end either. No arguing that. Humans are not asexual beings.
[ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
Oh my gosh. This is the funniest logic I've ever seen. You and someone bad share some common trait, therefore I can lump you together. That's ridiculous. Just because two groups of peoples sexual practices aren't common doesn't mean anything about them is remotely similar.
Bull. Face it, pedophiles prey on helpless kids by manipulating and raping them. Homosexuals have consenting sex with other adults. There IS no comparison. Just because you want it to be true doesn't make it so.
Look, the issue here is boycotting the salvation army. I believe what they do is wrong, just like you think what gay people do is wrong. I'm not trying to change any minds here, but don't turn things around to make yourself sound more justified. Associating pedophiles with homosexuals is a time-honored tradition of conservative Christians, in an attempt to evoke a knee-jerk reaction by all "God-fearing people" against homosexuals. Don't use a copout like that.
<strong>They are both sexually deviant acts therefore can be compared
I'm done with you. You obviously can't step outside the circular logic of your theology. At least you talked long enough to prove my point which is that for people like you, no amount of evidence would matter.
You get the last word, I'm not wasting my time on this anymore.
<strong>
I'm done with you. You obviously can't step outside the circular logic of your theology.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well damn.. I could say the same thing about you. I've seen it from both sides. I just don't sugar coat things. I see them for what they are. I am not going to delusion myself just to adapt to your views.
[quote]<strong>
At least you talked long enough to prove my point which is that for people like you, no amount of evidence would matter.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Evidence of what? I've asked for it.. and no one gave me any.
Thou shall not lie down with a man as one lies down with a woman. It is detestable.
The last word is alternately translated as "an abomination."
If a man lies down with a man as one lies down with a woman, both has done an abomination. They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them.
So then, the first thing that pops into my mind is simply: what do religious people have against lesbians? There is no mention of any law governing such activities on the part of a woman. For that matter, could you really state that a gay man lies down with another man in the same manner that a straight man lies with a woman? Seems to me the mechanisms are different between the two.
That aside, why pick on this one Mosaic law as to be applicable when almost all others were discarded? Specifically, the Torah forbids work on Saturday, clothing worn of two different fibers, meat from a mammal that does not chew its cud and have cloven feet, women from wearing pants, men from clipping their beards, and wearing mildew-ridden clothes without inspection by a priest. The fact that this single law is upheld when so many others are violated routinely just smacks of a convenient excuse for discrimination.
It could be argued that this law bears extra weight because of the use of the rather strong word toevah, or abomination. If that is the case, one should also pay extra scrutiny to other toevah laws: sex with menstruating women, rabbit, pig, shellfish, psychics, a man who remarries his divorced wife, and any person who disobeys the law.
Another way to single out the law is to cite its proposed punishment -- death -- as an example of its extremity. Other offenses punishable by death: children who curse their parents, anyone who does any work on Saturday, adherents to other religions, contempt of court, and refusal to obey one's parents.
Food for thought.
-- ShadyG
P.S. -- This is a summation of the discussion located at <a href="http://members.aol.com/hansss/"; target="_blank">this site</a>. You'll find a more thorough treatment there.
[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: ShadyG ]</p>
They have the right to run their organization however they damn well please. The term "Salvation" in Salvation Army pretty much implies there is some Christian heritage behind their values and their mission. And many Christian sects have legitimate reasons for not condoning homosexuality. They believe that practicing such lifestyles is not consistent with their particular teachings, or brand of Christianity.
That DOES NOT mean, they HATE gays, or want to see gays imprisoned, or anything else like that. It merely means they reserve the right to hire people they believe to have values consistent with their own. Companies do this all the time, and rightly so. DUH.
Get over yourself. How anyone can utter the phrase "boycott the Salvation Army" during the holiday season - when their services are needed most by the needy people in this country is beyond me. It's sickening. Sorry for the flame, but you deserve it. Please, Fuk off.
[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
<strong>Anyone who suggests boycotting an organization like the Salvation Army is mentally fuked. Why don't you get over your politically correct personal agendas and recognize the SA for what it is and what it does to help people in need?! Are your personal sensibilities more important than feeding homeless people???? Wake up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think anyone was advocating the abandonment of charity. The Salvation Army is but one player. There are plenty of other avenues for a person to contribute without compromising his principles.
-- ShadyG
You know what's more important than feeding homeless people? Not compromising ones own morals. You say that the Salvation Army has the right to hire or fire people based on their moral beliefs ? so why doesn't anyone else have the right to boycott the Salvation Army based on their moral beliefs? I feel like a broken record here ? there ARE charities that help people in need that don't practice discrimination. Because I'm not dropping my spare change in the kettle doesn't mean I'm a heartless bastard. It means that the rights of gay and lesbian people are just as important to me as the needs of the poor.
[quote]Get over yourself.<hr></blockquote>
This is hardly about me. If anyone needs to get over themselves, it's the self-righteous Salvation Army. An organization purporting to be in the business of helping those in need don't seem to give much thought to the needs of their own employees.
[quote]How anyone can utter the phrase "boycott the Salvation Army" during the holiday season - when their services are needed most by the needy people in this country is beyond me. It's sickening. <hr></blockquote>
It's very simple. Just because people are in need of help doesn't mean that anyone has to - or should give to the Salvation Army. They market themselves to be synonymous with all holiday giving, but that's simply not the case.
[quote]Sorry for the flame, but you deserve it. Please, Fuk off.<hr></blockquote>
And I'm the one whose sick for what he utters during the holiday season?
(there I kept religious bickering out of it so you can answer me like I am a human being, instead of treating me like I am some sort of stupid monster who cannot think for himself because I read the Bible