Consequences of Gay Marriage Thread

[Woodruff]

There quite literally is NO difference in arguments between homosexuality and polygamy. Both SHOULD be legal in a free world, because both have the ability to consent involved.

What would be the difference between heterosexuality and polygamy?

None that are relevant to arguments in favor/out of favor.

[Woodruff]

If you've had a kind of legalisation- have the fears come true? Are you now close to legalising animal abuse and incest? Have marriages been weakened?

What fears specifically? The people that are against gay marriage are against gay marriage because they think it's immoral. I'm not sure they expected some sort of tangible negative result.

also... while homosexuality has nothing to do with polygamy in that they are not the same, the arguments against polygamy are quite similar to the arguments against homosexuality...

Tgd has a point here. It's not that anybody is saying that those other things will inevitably follow. The point is that if you're going to say that marriage is whatever you want it to be, you've got to come up with a better argument because that includes these things and more.

"Consent" doesn't apply to beastiality nor in most cases to incest.

Well right, if you include the term "consenting adults", that eliminates some or most of them, but my point is that I think the premise of the opening question is wrong in that it's not that anybody is saying that legalizing gay marriage will result in these things, they are just brought up to point out a flaw in the idea that marriage is whatever one wants to define it as. (Couldn't find a reasonable way to avoid ending with a preposition there.)

But it's a red herring, a logical fallacy.

[Symmetry]

No, a lot of people very much claim homosexuality or legalizing homosexual marriages causes those other things.

I don't.

What have you seen as the consequences of gay marriage in a practical sense? Or what do you feel have been the consequences in places where it has become legal? Do you see any difference between countries and states that have granted equal marriage rights to homosexual partners and those countries or states that have not done so? Or, to add to the mix, countries and states that have altered their laws and/or constitutions to specifically redefine marriage so that it now can never allow gay marriage?

It sometimes seems strange to me to see a certain kind of conservative poster (and I don't include you necessarily), talk about redefining marriage while advocating laws that redefine marriage as between one man and one woman.

[PLAYER57832]

No, a lot of people very much claim homosexuality or legalizing homosexual marriages causes those other things.

I don't.

What have you seen as the consequences of gay marriage in a practical sense? Or what do you feel have been the consequences in places where it has become legal? Do you see any difference between countries and states that have granted equal marriage rights to homosexual partners and those countries or states that have not done so? Or, to add to the mix, countries and states that have altered their laws and/or constitutions to specifically redefine marriage so that it now can never allow gay marriage?

It sometimes seems strange to me to see a certain kind of conservative poster (and I don't include you necessarily), talk about redefining marriage while advocating laws that redefine marriage as between one man and one woman.

You don't see rashes of polygamy in countries that have approved homosexual unions.

Ironically, you DO still see polygamy in some very conservative societies... which leads us back to "yes, there is a difference".

[daddy1gringo]

No, a lot of people very much claim homosexuality or legalizing homosexual marriages causes those other things.

I don't.

What have you seen as the consequences of gay marriage in a practical sense? Or what do you feel have been the consequences in places where it has become legal? Do you see any difference between countries and states that have granted equal marriage rights to homosexual partners and those countries or states that have not done so? Or, to add to the mix, countries and states that have altered their laws and/or constitutions to specifically redefine marriage so that it now can never allow gay marriage?

It sometimes seems strange to me to see a certain kind of conservative poster (and I don't include you necessarily), talk about redefining marriage while advocating laws that redefine marriage as between one man and one woman.

I’ll do my best to answer your questions, but a lot of it will seem off-topic, because there are a number of assumptions about the nature of homosexuality and about what a fundamentalist like me believes about it, that are false assumptions, making any question kind of like “When did you stop beating your wife?” so I’ve got to present a different way of looking at things in a “big-picture” kind of sense.

First, Here’s a little background to the subject of homosexuality and sexuality in general from what I believe to be the Biblical point of view, which I posted in another thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=81611

I don’t expect what I wrote there to prove to anyone that it is true or correct. The context was the thread question which presupposed God’s existence and that he had indeed made it “a sin”. I answered according to my beliefs about God and the Bible as premises; I am aware that not everyone shares those beliefs. The only thing I hoped to prove is that people like me who are of the opinion that homosexuality is something that can and should be avoided can have other reasons than “I think it’s icky so I hate people who do it.”

I also hope it is clear that I don’t hate anyone.

I also hope that it is clear that I do not fail to think through my opinions, nor do I just parrot what I was taught in Sunday school. I came to these conclusions honestly as an adult after having spent my teen years as a kind of transcendentalist syncretist, believing the liberal position on this and many other issues.

Second, I don’t see homosexuality so much as the problem as I do a symptom. I don’t see it as a cause of the other things, but as another effect of the same cause: as people, individually and as a society, reject and turn away from God and his standards, and as they try to be their own God, they make a lot of mistakes which are not healthy for them in one way or another.

Third, Believe it or not, I am not in favor of using the law and the government to cause people not to practice homosexuality. That has to be dealt with on a personal level. The negative result that I expect from the passing of laws declaring same-sex unions legally equal to marriage is of a totally different nature

The gay lobby is already trying to silence any voice that disagrees with them: Dr. Laura Schlessinger dared to give her opinion as a psychologist and an orthodox Jew that homosexuality “is a perversion” They threatened the radio and television stations with boycotts of their sponsors if they did not remove her from the air. The CEO of Starbucks who has written a book on leadership was going to speak at a conference sponsored by Willow Creek Church, which has had some dealings with Operation Exodus. “Change.org” launched and online petition and threat of boycott which succeeded in scaring him off from speaking there. (http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliv ... ls_on.html ) Lawyers in a case of a gay man murdered by redneck idiots tried to get Dr James Dobson indicted as a co-defendant simply because he expressed his opinion on the air that homosexuals can change. These are just a few of many examples.

If you think these same people will not use a federal law declaring that same-sex unions are the equal to marriage as legal precedent for arguments that beliefs not the same as their own constitute bigotry and hate speech in order to silence them, then you are extremely naïve.

Fourth, I don’t think it is government’s role to decide the definition of marriage. What government needs to do, and has been doing up until now is just recognizing what is. “Family” is a basic unit on which society is founded, and various laws have to take that into account. Kids go to school and their parents have to sign the papers. A wife is not required to testify against her husband as he is not required to testify against himself. Tax laws are based on “family” or “household”. A minor does damage, and the parents are liable. “Family” is presumed as a unit that various laws have to deal with.

Contrary to what some have said, look anywhere in the world, anywhere in human history, and you see some kind of marriage. The specifics differ,: how many wives, (or less frequently, how many husbands) one may have, or what is necessary to enter or exit the marriage, but with very little exception, a man and a woman enter into some kind of commitment to one another and raise children, and this is the foundational unit of society. I’m not falling into the trap here of saying that producing children is somehow, morally better, just that it is part of the normal structure, of what people do, that government is simply recognizing and accounting for.

Of course there are exceptions. One spouse dies, or the parents divorce, or the biological father never sticks around to marry the mother and raise the kids, and you have a one-parent family. A couple may not have children either by choice or by infertility and that is another kind of family. A child has irresponsible parents or some other situation, and gets emancipated. These are variations and are recognized in the law. That doesn’t change the fact that the family is the basic unit.

Take that same survey through the world and through history and you will see that those covenants are between a man and a woman. The exceptions to this are for short periods in the history of various cultures. (Also almost invariably it is in their period of decline after becoming overly successful, rich and decadent, but that is another topic.) The point is that what marriage IS, historically and sociologically, is between a man and a woman. It is the laws sought by the gay lobby to declare same-sex unions to be the same thing, that are seeking to “re-define marriage”.

You could argue, as some do, that it has always been this way because of ignorance, and that we need to change it because we as a society have progressed beyond it, but once again, that is a different question.

I have repeatedly issued the challenge: “Ignorant of what?” Show me the compelling scientific proof that same-sex attraction is an inherent, unchangeable thing like race. Justify your labeling me as a bigot or my opinions as “hate”. Justify your copping out from discussing this by saying “that’s just ignorant.” Show me the things of which I am supposedly ignorant. I am still waiting. (The last few comments were not aimed at you, Sym. The guilty parties know who they are.)

I hope I have answered your questions. Feel free to ask more. By the way I am still working on the other thing; I haven’t forgotten.

[Symmetry]

I'll try to answer in more detail, but the first thing that really struck me about your post was that you saw the "gay lobby" as primarily threatening opponents of equal rights through boycotts, threats of boycotts, or petitions. None of these things seem particularly bad to me. They seem eminently democratic ways of opposing a corporation. Just don't buy their stuff. Write a letter, or sign your name at the bottom of a letter to show your support. Pure consumer power, and mostly grass roots stuff.

I don't have any particular problem with seeing the legalization of same sex marriage as being religiously wrong, I have a problem when it's associated with unrelated things in order to foster a kind of disgust with homosexuality, or to pander to an established disgust.

[PLAYER57832]

I took up some of the broader issues in ink's "don't use homosexual" thread
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=151382&start=180

page 13

[daddy1gringo]

I'm not running away, I intend to answer you, but there's a lot to say and things are a little crazy here right now. Btw, I'm enjoying fencing with polite and intelligent opposition from you, Player, Sym and Woody, as we do some honest truth-seeking.

I agree with you, player, that it's getting hard to keep these 2 threads separate.

[anonymus]

If everyone were gay and married, the world population would be 0 in no time flat

you go scotty, you are as stubborn as an ass.
but lets break it down.. if everyone were gay, the population would decrease.. correct
but what the hell does marriage has to do with that?

that is like being against kittens because if everyone had a kitten and committed suicide the whole planet would be extinct.. really try to hide your propaganda a bit better?

just though your reasoning was funny..

sincerely yours
/

[Metsfanmax]

you go scotty, you are as stubborn as an ass.
but lets break it down.. if everyone were gay, the population would decrease.. correct
but what the hell does marriage has to do with that?

The logic is that we don't want to make it more beneficial to be gay, because that might tempt people to become gay. Since being gay is a choice, that is a bad thing.

In fact, most of the logical responses to gay marriage are based on the assumption that being gay is a choice, which most or all gay people would disagree with.

[Woodruff]

you go scotty, you are as stubborn as an ass.
but lets break it down.. if everyone were gay, the population would decrease.. correct
but what the hell does marriage has to do with that?

The logic is that we don't want to make it more beneficial to be gay, because that might tempt people to become gay. Since being gay is a choice, that is a bad thing.

In fact, most of the logical responses to gay marriage are based on the assumption that being gay is a choice, which most or all gay people would disagree with.

For SOME FEW people, I do believe a choice is involved, those being the ones who have gone through some severe abusive situations as children and that screwed them up enough that they started questioning their sexuality. But for the largest part (I would put it at well over the 99% percentile), I would agree it's not choice.

[PLAYER57832]

you go scotty, you are as stubborn as an ass.
but lets break it down.. if everyone were gay, the population would decrease.. correct
but what the hell does marriage has to do with that?

The logic is that we don't want to make it more beneficial to be gay, because that might tempt people to become gay. Since being gay is a choice, that is a bad thing.

In fact, most of the logical responses to gay marriage are based on the assumption that being gay is a choice, which most or all gay people would disagree with.

For SOME FEW people, I do believe a choice is involved, those being the ones who have gone through some severe abusive situations as children and that screwed them up enough that they started questioning their sexuality. But for the largest part (I would put it at well over the 99% percentile), I would agree it's not choice.

And it really doesn't matter in a free society. What matter is whether it is harmful.

Oh, one thing.. there are countries that do have legalized homosexual marriages or unions. There is not huge rush to homosexual unions in those countries, except that some might see more "tourism" from homosexuals who just want to have a place where they are welcome.

In many countries they don't combine the religious and the state recognition. You go in to an office to get your official marriage certification (however it is done), any religious ceremony is completely separate.

[natty dread]

http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... x-scandal/

[PLAYER57832]

http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/anti-gay-indiana-lawmaker-caught-in-rent-boy-sex-scandal/

Sounds pretty condemning. Even so, I don't want to jump on ANY bandwagon based on one report. Its certainly possible the whole thing was fraudulant. (and quite possible its all legitimate!).

That said, those who show extreme hatred toward a particular group are often somehow associated with it. It is as though their internal fight is pushed out onto others.. they cannot fight it within themselves, so they condemn it in others. That, and fighting can be good "cover".

EDIT -- I tried finding more articles, but did not find much.

This report is slightly more detailed, more willing to give Hinkle the benefit of the doubt, but it does seem that the basic facts reported to date are consistant:
http://www.indystar.com/article/2011081 ... dyStar.com

I predict we will hear more shortly.

[Timminz]

http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/anti-gay-indiana-lawmaker-caught-in-rent-boy-sex-scandal/

Gee, another one? Colour me surprised.

[Insperatus]

No, a lot of people very much claim homosexuality or legalizing homosexual marriages causes those other things.

I don't.

What have you seen as the consequences of gay marriage in a practical sense? Or what do you feel have been the consequences in places where it has become legal? Do you see any difference between countries and states that have granted equal marriage rights to homosexual partners and those countries or states that have not done so? Or, to add to the mix, countries and states that have altered their laws and/or constitutions to specifically redefine marriage so that it now can never allow gay marriage?

It sometimes seems strange to me to see a certain kind of conservative poster (and I don't include you necessarily), talk about redefining marriage while advocating laws that redefine marriage as between one man and one woman.

I’ll do my best to answer your questions, but a lot of it will seem off-topic, because there are a number of assumptions about the nature of homosexuality and about what a fundamentalist like me believes about it, that are false assumptions, making any question kind of like “When did you stop beating your wife?” so I’ve got to present a different way of looking at things in a “big-picture” kind of sense.

First, Here’s a little background to the subject of homosexuality and sexuality in general from what I believe to be the Biblical point of view, which I posted in another thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=81611

I don’t expect what I wrote there to prove to anyone that it is true or correct. The context was the thread question which presupposed God’s existence and that he had indeed made it “a sin”. I answered according to my beliefs about God and the Bible as premises; I am aware that not everyone shares those beliefs. The only thing I hoped to prove is that people like me who are of the opinion that homosexuality is something that can and should be avoided can have other reasons than “I think it’s icky so I hate people who do it.”

I also hope it is clear that I don’t hate anyone.

I also hope that it is clear that I do not fail to think through my opinions, nor do I just parrot what I was taught in Sunday school. I came to these conclusions honestly as an adult after having spent my teen years as a kind of transcendentalist syncretist, believing the liberal position on this and many other issues.

Second, I don’t see homosexuality so much as the problem as I do a symptom. I don’t see it as a cause of the other things, but as another effect of the same cause: as people, individually and as a society, reject and turn away from God and his standards, and as they try to be their own God, they make a lot of mistakes which are not healthy for them in one way or another.

Third, Believe it or not, I am not in favor of using the law and the government to cause people not to practice homosexuality. That has to be dealt with on a personal level. The negative result that I expect from the passing of laws declaring same-sex unions legally equal to marriage is of a totally different nature

The gay lobby is already trying to silence any voice that disagrees with them: Dr. Laura Schlessinger dared to give her opinion as a psychologist and an orthodox Jew that homosexuality “is a perversion” They threatened the radio and television stations with boycotts of their sponsors if they did not remove her from the air. The CEO of Starbucks who has written a book on leadership was going to speak at a conference sponsored by Willow Creek Church, which has had some dealings with Operation Exodus. “Change.org” launched and online petition and threat of boycott which succeeded in scaring him off from speaking there. (http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliv ... ls_on.html ) Lawyers in a case of a gay man murdered by redneck idiots tried to get Dr James Dobson indicted as a co-defendant simply because he expressed his opinion on the air that homosexuals can change. These are just a few of many examples.

If you think these same people will not use a federal law declaring that same-sex unions are the equal to marriage as legal precedent for arguments that beliefs not the same as their own constitute bigotry and hate speech in order to silence them, then you are extremely naïve.

Fourth, I don’t think it is government’s role to decide the definition of marriage. What government needs to do, and has been doing up until now is just recognizing what is. “Family” is a basic unit on which society is founded, and various laws have to take that into account. Kids go to school and their parents have to sign the papers. A wife is not required to testify against her husband as he is not required to testify against himself. Tax laws are based on “family” or “household”. A minor does damage, and the parents are liable. “Family” is presumed as a unit that various laws have to deal with.

Contrary to what some have said, look anywhere in the world, anywhere in human history, and you see some kind of marriage. The specifics differ,: how many wives, (or less frequently, how many husbands) one may have, or what is necessary to enter or exit the marriage, but with very little exception, a man and a woman enter into some kind of commitment to one another and raise children, and this is the foundational unit of society. I’m not falling into the trap here of saying that producing children is somehow, morally better, just that it is part of the normal structure, of what people do, that government is simply recognizing and accounting for.

Of course there are exceptions. One spouse dies, or the parents divorce, or the biological father never sticks around to marry the mother and raise the kids, and you have a one-parent family. A couple may not have children either by choice or by infertility and that is another kind of family. A child has irresponsible parents or some other situation, and gets emancipated. These are variations and are recognized in the law. That doesn’t change the fact that the family is the basic unit.

Take that same survey through the world and through history and you will see that those covenants are between a man and a woman. The exceptions to this are for short periods in the history of various cultures. (Also almost invariably it is in their period of decline after becoming overly successful, rich and decadent, but that is another topic.) The point is that what marriage IS, historically and sociologically, is between a man and a woman. It is the laws sought by the gay lobby to declare same-sex unions to be the same thing, that are seeking to “re-define marriage”.

You could argue, as some do, that it has always been this way because of ignorance, and that we need to change it because we as a society have progressed beyond it, but once again, that is a different question.

I have repeatedly issued the challenge: “Ignorant of what?” Show me the compelling scientific proof that same-sex attraction is an inherent, unchangeable thing like race. Justify your labeling me as a bigot or my opinions as “hate”. Justify your copping out from discussing this by saying “that’s just ignorant.” Show me the things of which I am supposedly ignorant. I am still waiting. (The last few comments were not aimed at you, Sym. The guilty parties know who they are.)

I hope I have answered your questions. Feel free to ask more. By the way I am still working on the other thing; I haven’t forgotten.

Excuse me for jumping in, you said, "part of the normal structure, of what people do" in reference to opposite sex people getting married and having children. Some people want to live together and raise children, and they're of the same sex, and they want the same benefits opposite sex couples receive. There are millions of people like this, and you imply its not a normal thing. This is what you are ignorant of, that it is a normal thing and it is what people do. Same sex people live together, and raise children. They do it, so its normal. Why would you prevent them from living a normal life? Normally people who live together in a family unit are allowed to get married. Seems like an interference of the pursuit of happiness if you ask me.

Personally I think homosexuality is a natural biological coping mechanism. The carrying capacity of the Earth has been exceeded. Homosexuals help reduce this overpopulation by not reproducing children of their own. Simple.

No offence intended, I hope none was taken!

Kind regards,

James

[Symmetry]

No, a lot of people very much claim homosexuality or legalizing homosexual marriages causes those other things.

I don't.

What have you seen as the consequences of gay marriage in a practical sense? Or what do you feel have been the consequences in places where it has become legal? Do you see any difference between countries and states that have granted equal marriage rights to homosexual partners and those countries or states that have not done so? Or, to add to the mix, countries and states that have altered their laws and/or constitutions to specifically redefine marriage so that it now can never allow gay marriage?

It sometimes seems strange to me to see a certain kind of conservative poster (and I don't include you necessarily), talk about redefining marriage while advocating laws that redefine marriage as between one man and one woman.

I’ll do my best to answer your questions, but a lot of it will seem off-topic, because there are a number of assumptions about the nature of homosexuality and about what a fundamentalist like me believes about it, that are false assumptions, making any question kind of like “When did you stop beating your wife?” so I’ve got to present a different way of looking at things in a “big-picture” kind of sense.

First, Here’s a little background to the subject of homosexuality and sexuality in general from what I believe to be the Biblical point of view, which I posted in another thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=81611

I don’t expect what I wrote there to prove to anyone that it is true or correct. The context was the thread question which presupposed God’s existence and that he had indeed made it “a sin”. I answered according to my beliefs about God and the Bible as premises; I am aware that not everyone shares those beliefs. The only thing I hoped to prove is that people like me who are of the opinion that homosexuality is something that can and should be avoided can have other reasons than “I think it’s icky so I hate people who do it.”

I also hope it is clear that I don’t hate anyone.

I also hope that it is clear that I do not fail to think through my opinions, nor do I just parrot what I was taught in Sunday school. I came to these conclusions honestly as an adult after having spent my teen years as a kind of transcendentalist syncretist, believing the liberal position on this and many other issues.

Second, I don’t see homosexuality so much as the problem as I do a symptom. I don’t see it as a cause of the other things, but as another effect of the same cause: as people, individually and as a society, reject and turn away from God and his standards, and as they try to be their own God, they make a lot of mistakes which are not healthy for them in one way or another.

Third, Believe it or not, I am not in favor of using the law and the government to cause people not to practice homosexuality. That has to be dealt with on a personal level. The negative result that I expect from the passing of laws declaring same-sex unions legally equal to marriage is of a totally different nature

The gay lobby is already trying to silence any voice that disagrees with them: Dr. Laura Schlessinger dared to give her opinion as a psychologist and an orthodox Jew that homosexuality “is a perversion” They threatened the radio and television stations with boycotts of their sponsors if they did not remove her from the air. The CEO of Starbucks who has written a book on leadership was going to speak at a conference sponsored by Willow Creek Church, which has had some dealings with Operation Exodus. “Change.org” launched and online petition and threat of boycott which succeeded in scaring him off from speaking there. (http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliv ... ls_on.html ) Lawyers in a case of a gay man murdered by redneck idiots tried to get Dr James Dobson indicted as a co-defendant simply because he expressed his opinion on the air that homosexuals can change. These are just a few of many examples.

If you think these same people will not use a federal law declaring that same-sex unions are the equal to marriage as legal precedent for arguments that beliefs not the same as their own constitute bigotry and hate speech in order to silence them, then you are extremely naïve.

Fourth, I don’t think it is government’s role to decide the definition of marriage. What government needs to do, and has been doing up until now is just recognizing what is. “Family” is a basic unit on which society is founded, and various laws have to take that into account. Kids go to school and their parents have to sign the papers. A wife is not required to testify against her husband as he is not required to testify against himself. Tax laws are based on “family” or “household”. A minor does damage, and the parents are liable. “Family” is presumed as a unit that various laws have to deal with.

Contrary to what some have said, look anywhere in the world, anywhere in human history, and you see some kind of marriage. The specifics differ,: how many wives, (or less frequently, how many husbands) one may have, or what is necessary to enter or exit the marriage, but with very little exception, a man and a woman enter into some kind of commitment to one another and raise children, and this is the foundational unit of society. I’m not falling into the trap here of saying that producing children is somehow, morally better, just that it is part of the normal structure, of what people do, that government is simply recognizing and accounting for.

Of course there are exceptions. One spouse dies, or the parents divorce, or the biological father never sticks around to marry the mother and raise the kids, and you have a one-parent family. A couple may not have children either by choice or by infertility and that is another kind of family. A child has irresponsible parents or some other situation, and gets emancipated. These are variations and are recognized in the law. That doesn’t change the fact that the family is the basic unit.

Take that same survey through the world and through history and you will see that those covenants are between a man and a woman. The exceptions to this are for short periods in the history of various cultures. (Also almost invariably it is in their period of decline after becoming overly successful, rich and decadent, but that is another topic.) The point is that what marriage IS, historically and sociologically, is between a man and a woman. It is the laws sought by the gay lobby to declare same-sex unions to be the same thing, that are seeking to “re-define marriage”.

You could argue, as some do, that it has always been this way because of ignorance, and that we need to change it because we as a society have progressed beyond it, but once again, that is a different question.

I have repeatedly issued the challenge: “Ignorant of what?” Show me the compelling scientific proof that same-sex attraction is an inherent, unchangeable thing like race. Justify your labeling me as a bigot or my opinions as “hate”. Justify your copping out from discussing this by saying “that’s just ignorant.” Show me the things of which I am supposedly ignorant. I am still waiting. (The last few comments were not aimed at you, Sym. The guilty parties know who they are.)

I hope I have answered your questions. Feel free to ask more. By the way I am still working on the other thing; I haven’t forgotten.

I guess I'd like to start with the question that wasn't directed at me- Ignorant of what?

I think you're pretty aware of all the arguments in play around this issue, so I don't think there's anything I can employ that would be new to you, and I and I appreciate that you see that I'm not labelling you as hateful. I would ask you how many gay people you know though. Or more roughly if you undeerstand why your beliefs could be deeply hurtful to gay people on a practical level.

I understand that that you're primarily looking at this on a religious level, but what I'm asking is whether you have any personal level of relationship (non-sexual of course) with homosexuals- friends, family, acquaintances. colleagues... and whether you see your engagements with those people as positive.

Cards clean, I tend to find that evangelicals either drive away homosexuals, or have a bit of a problem with dealing with their own homosexuality. Neither of these points constitute big news. Basically, my point is that particularly orthodox people aren't really going to have much of a channel to talk to gay people.

I don't throw around the word bigot easily, and I differenciate it from hate. My grandfather isn't a hateful person, but he is a bigot when it comes to Pakistanis, and I still love him. I think that you dismiss the ideas and opinions of homosexuals as delusions, and I suspect you don't know many homosexuals.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't throw around the word bigot easily, and I differenciate it from hate. My grandfather isn't a hateful person, but he is a bigot when it comes to Pakistanis, and I still love him.

This is a whole topic in and of itself. I repeat that my father underwent WWII in an occupied country. I know many people on all sides of that conflict. And here is the thing. NAZIS were not dispicable people. Germans were no worse than any of us. We like to paint them that way, because we see the result.

AND, having lived in Mississippi, I know some affirmed racists who, if you overlook that (granted, pretty big) failing, are nice people.

The REAL lesson is not that bigots are bad people or that only bad people do evil, commit harm. The lesson is that each and every one of us has that capacity unless we work hard to subvert it, through education.

[BigBallinStalin]

I guess I'd like to start with the question that wasn't directed at me- Ignorant of what?

I think you're pretty aware of all the arguments in play around this issue, so I don't think there's anything I can employ that would be new to you, and I and I appreciate that you see that I'm not labelling you as hateful. I would ask you how many gay people you know though. Or more roughly if you undeerstand why your beliefs could be deeply hurtful to gay people on a practical level.

I understand that that you're primarily looking at this on a religious level, but what I'm asking is whether you have any personal level of relationship (non-sexual of course) with homosexuals- friends, family, acquaintances. colleagues... and whether you see your engagements with those people as positive.

Cards clean, I tend to find that evangelicals either drive away homosexuals, or have a bit of a problem with dealing with their own homosexuality. Neither of these points constitute big news. Basically, my point is that particularly orthodox people aren't really going to have much of a channel to talk to gay people.

I don't throw around the word bigot easily, and I differenciate it from hate. My grandfather isn't a hateful person, but he is a bigot when it comes to Pakistanis, and I still love him. I think that you dismiss the ideas and opinions of homosexuals as delusions, and I suspect you don't know many homosexuals.

I and I like the way you type, mon!

[daddy1gringo]

I guess I'd like to start with the question that wasn't directed at me- Ignorant of what?

I think you're pretty aware of all the arguments in play around this issue, so I don't think there's anything I can employ that would be new to you, and I and I appreciate that you see that I'm not labelling you as hateful. I would ask you how many gay people you know though. Or more roughly if you undeerstand why your beliefs could be deeply hurtful to gay people on a practical level.

I understand that that you're primarily looking at this on a religious level, but what I'm asking is whether you have any personal level of relationship (non-sexual of course) with homosexuals- friends, family, acquaintances. colleagues... and whether you see your engagements with those people as positive.

Cards clean, I tend to find that evangelicals either drive away homosexuals, or have a bit of a problem with dealing with their own homosexuality. Neither of these points constitute big news. Basically, my point is that particularly orthodox people aren't really going to have much of a channel to talk to gay people.

I don't throw around the word bigot easily, and I differenciate it from hate. My grandfather isn't a hateful person, but he is a bigot when it comes to Pakistanis, and I still love him. I think that you dismiss the ideas and opinions of homosexuals as delusions, and I suspect you don't know many homosexuals.

Thanks for an excellent, thoughtful question. I intend to give you an answer, but a lot is going on here and I don't have time to give it the attention it deserves (I'm having someone "sit" my game). I will get back to you though. Hasta luego.

[PLAYER57832]

Cards clean, I tend to find that evangelicals either drive away homosexuals, or have a bit of a problem with dealing with their own homosexuality. Neither of these points constitute big news. Basically, my point is that particularly orthodox people aren't really going to have much of a channel to talk to gay people.

This is true and not true. It is true because, even today, it is relatively rare for a child to grow up within the overwhelming majority of Christian churches and have casual or close connection to any homosexual individuals. It is not true because most of those children, including myself and most of those I grew up with (in my church and others in the community) actually were in contact with homosexuals, we just did not know it.

That said, this issue itself has divided many churches. In some ways, its like a family.. when you are divided amongst yourselves, you tend to still rally around, not want to "air the dirty laundry". To some extent, Christian churches have each needed to wrangle with this issue on their own before dealing with it in society. And, of course, some have simply avoided dealing with it. Now many more churches have at least established how they themselves feel, or at least the "parameters" . M y church, for example, does not truly condone homosexuality -- no homosexual marriages will be performed there, for example. However, we also don't take pains to exclude those in the congregation we know to be homosexual. It is not a matter that comes up in common coversation. This is an absolute change over just 15 years ago, when the local church had an absolute anti-homosexual policy and therefore it has not necessarily gone over well with the entire congregation (some people did leave). However, most of us feel that these are simply matters that are to be dealt with individually, with God. We are not to judge others, and that includes this.

I realize that is not a true endorsement. It is not intended to be. However, when such a somewhat mild change has taken so long in even a moderate, mainline church... well, it takes time for people to change their thinking from "this is completely evil" to "perhaps not the way I wish to live, but not harmful, either".

[Symmetry]

Cards clean, I tend to find that evangelicals either drive away homosexuals, or have a bit of a problem with dealing with their own homosexuality. Neither of these points constitute big news. Basically, my point is that particularly orthodox people aren't really going to have much of a channel to talk to gay people.

This is true and not true. It is true because, even today, it is relatively rare for a child to grow up within the overwhelming majority of Christian churches and have casual or close connection to any homosexual individuals. It is not true because most of those children, including myself and most of those I grew up with (in my church and others in the community) actually were in contact with homosexuals, we just did not know it.

That said, this issue itself has divided many churches. In some ways, its like a family.. when you are divided amongst yourselves, you tend to still rally around, not want to "air the dirty laundry". To some extent, Christian churches have each needed to wrangle with this issue on their own before dealing with it in society. And, of course, some have simply avoided dealing with it. Now many more churches have at least established how they themselves feel, or at least the "parameters" . M y church, for example, does not truly condone homosexuality -- no homosexual marriages will be performed there, for example. However, we also don't take pains to exclude those in the congregation we know to be homosexual. It is not a matter that comes up in common coversation. This is an absolute change over just 15 years ago, when the local church had an absolute anti-homosexual policy and therefore it has not necessarily gone over well with the entire congregation (some people did leave). However, most of us feel that these are simply matters that are to be dealt with individually, with God. We are not to judge others, and that includes this.

I realize that is not a true endorsement. It is not intended to be. However, when such a somewhat mild change has taken so long in even a moderate, mainline church... well, it takes time for people to change their thinking from "this is completely evil" to "perhaps not the way I wish to live, but not harmful, either".

I think while it's not exactly an endorsement it's a decent step towards a compromise which seems inevitable, and that seems like a good thing to me.

[PLAYER57832]

Cards clean, I tend to find that evangelicals either drive away homosexuals, or have a bit of a problem with dealing with their own homosexuality. Neither of these points constitute big news. Basically, my point is that particularly orthodox people aren't really going to have much of a channel to talk to gay people.

This is true and not true. It is true because, even today, it is relatively rare for a child to grow up within the overwhelming majority of Christian churches and have casual or close connection to any homosexual individuals. It is not true because most of those children, including myself and most of those I grew up with (in my church and others in the community) actually were in contact with homosexuals, we just did not know it.

That said, this issue itself has divided many churches. In some ways, its like a family.. when you are divided amongst yourselves, you tend to still rally around, not want to "air the dirty laundry". To some extent, Christian churches have each needed to wrangle with this issue on their own before dealing with it in society. And, of course, some have simply avoided dealing with it. Now many more churches have at least established how they themselves feel, or at least the "parameters" . M y church, for example, does not truly condone homosexuality -- no homosexual marriages will be performed there, for example. However, we also don't take pains to exclude those in the congregation we know to be homosexual. It is not a matter that comes up in common coversation. This is an absolute change over just 15 years ago, when the local church had an absolute anti-homosexual policy and therefore it has not necessarily gone over well with the entire congregation (some people did leave). However, most of us feel that these are simply matters that are to be dealt with individually, with God. We are not to judge others, and that includes this.

I realize that is not a true endorsement. It is not intended to be. However, when such a somewhat mild change has taken so long in even a moderate, mainline church... well, it takes time for people to change their thinking from "this is completely evil" to "perhaps not the way I wish to live, but not harmful, either".

I think while it's not exactly an endorsement it's a decent step towards a compromise which seems inevitable, and that seems like a good thing to me.

A keystone of our country is not that everyone has to think and believe the same. We just have to be able to generally live and work next to each other in relative peace.

After all, I am not so sure I would be happy if my kids became Repubs (just kidding.. in fact, my husband IS a registered Republican).

[daddy1gringo]

I guess I'd like to start with the question that wasn't directed at me- Ignorant of what?

I think you're pretty aware of all the arguments in play around this issue, so I don't think there's anything I can employ that would be new to you, and I and I appreciate that you see that I'm not labelling you as hateful. I would ask you how many gay people you know though. Or more roughly if you undeerstand why your beliefs could be deeply hurtful to gay people on a practical level.

I understand that that you're primarily looking at this on a religious level, but what I'm asking is whether you have any personal level of relationship (non-sexual of course) with homosexuals- friends, family, acquaintances. colleagues... and whether you see your engagements with those people as positive.

Cards clean, I tend to find that evangelicals either drive away homosexuals, or have a bit of a problem with dealing with their own homosexuality. Neither of these points constitute big news. Basically, my point is that particularly orthodox people aren't really going to have much of a channel to talk to gay people.

I don't throw around the word bigot easily, and I differenciate it from hate. My grandfather isn't a hateful person, but he is a bigot when it comes to Pakistanis, and I still love him. I think that you dismiss the ideas and opinions of homosexuals as delusions, and I suspect you don't know many homosexuals.

Actually, I probably know more homosexuals than you think. Now it’s not going to be too many; best estimates are that they are between 1% and 7% of the population, and many are still “in the closet” or at least don’t advertise it, so you may know the gay person but not know that they are gay. Also, although I have worked with a reasonable number of people who are openly gay, the subject doesn’t come up a lot for a reason that you may find ironic.

Since I don’t believe that homosexuality is an inherent part of who a person is, I don’t consider them a different kind of person from me or anybody else that I interact with. If a person is gay, there’s a lot more to them than the fact that they are gay. We are all human beings, made in the image of God, fallen into sin, beaten up by the world to various degrees, and having our own quirks, issues, and baggage. So I wouldn’t refer to my “engagements” with them as particularly positive or negative, but as no different in most cases than with anybody else.

A good number of the gay people that I know are ex-gay people. (There are thousands more, but I know several personally) You hear a lot of people stating the opinion that this doesn’t happen, that if a person is gay, it is an inherent part of who they are and they can’t change. They are guessing. These people know otherwise. It’s not that I am summarily throwing out anyone’s opinions as delusions, but “a person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an opinion.” I choose to believe those with an experience.

Of those, both ex- and still-gay who have talked to me about how they feel, the biggest hurts in their lives are those that led them to become gay. A common scenario is this: sensitive, creative, non-aggressive boys, who like things like poetry or cooking, are bullied mercilessly by the “tough kids”, both the athletic type and the thug type. They are also mocked and belittled by most of the girls. Unfortunately, often the only place that “different” boys find understanding, acceptance and peace is among the gays.

I understand that because I was one of those guys. In my little eastern Connecticut town the students and teachers in the high school worshipped the members of the football and wrestling teams. As a hippie-type who wrote poetry and had contempt for machismo and aggression, I was pretty much a bully magnet. In that little town in the mid 70’s there wasn’t really a gay community, but my friends were the other outcasts.

Let me tell you about Junior. He was the nephew of a deaconess at our church here to whom my wife is very close. He was gay, and dying of AIDS, and had come to stay with her for his last days. My wife and I met him several times, and she had the opportunity to spend a good deal of time with him and grew very fond of him. He had been a sensitive child who liked cooking more than sports. His macho father derided and beat him and called him “maricon”. He became homosexual because of deep emotional wounds, and it resulted in his early death. His situation didn’t need to be “celebrated and affirmed.” It needed to be healed.

Before Junior died, he asked Jesus into his heart, and I know that he is in heaven. Did he “repent” of being homosexual? I don’t know, none of us asked him.

Speaking of my wife, I showed her your question as I was thinking about my answer and she said she wanted to post something.


Mrs. d1g:

If I understand your question correctly you are asking 1) if we know any homosexual people at all, and if so 2) if we know them well enough to have a friendship with them, not just say Hi and bye, 3) if we treated them differently because they were gay, and4) if this friendship had a positive impact in our lives.

Basically I understand your questions to be if I know homosexuals, both men and women, well enough to have an opinion from personal experience and not just stereotypical information from the extreme conservative right. I am going to give you a very brief description of some of my experience and my conclusions due to that experience.

While working at a high end fashion department store over 20 years ago I had the opportunity to work with about 10 to 20 openly gay men for about 18+ months.

Looking back what I found positive about the experience is that I got to know them as individuals and see how they acted as a group.

It took me a while to get used to the atmosphere there, but once adjusted, I was able to look past the homosexuality of my coworkers. What I saw was a sad group of people who were deeply wounded, trying their darnedest to act happy by putting others down, being catty and flirting with everyone in sight all in the name of liberty, fun & exclusivity (High fashion breeds contempt). What I saw was hurting people looking to ease the pain from their own lives by choosing destructive behavior. While yes there is some of this kind of behavior in every office, it was a lot worse here. I have worked in many types of offices and truth is I have never seen the kind of sadness and despair in a heterosexual workplace as I did in that department store.

One young man in particular made a comment that made me realize how hurt he was by his father and the lack of interest his father had shown him all his life. Immediately I sensed that maybe if this man’s father had shown an interest in and had bonded with his son, this man would not be looking for young men/older teen boys to have a relationship with. Someone else who I got to know a lot closer in a more social setting also became gay because of the abusive homosexually insulting words and beatings his father showered him with. In both cases being homosexual or choosing that lifestyle was a result of wanting and needing a close relationship with their fathers. The most positive thing that came out of knowing both these men is the realization of how important and powerful is a father’s love in the life of any child.

As far as I can tell of gay women I find that in a lot of cases it is because of abusive or just hurtful relationships with the male authority figures in their lives. If a man that they have loved and trusted can turn around and hurt them then maybe they do not want to risk having a relationship with a man. I know of 3 women who after their divorce, had a gay relationship and later went back to a heterosexual relationship or straight lifestyle. I know of a fourth who struggled with homosexual feelings on & off until she met the right man. One of the three and this fourth women were definitely due to being hurt by their fathers; again the importance, the power of, a good loving Father image in the life of any child.

I do not hate people who practice the gay life style, I feel for them. But as much as I feel for the first man I mentioned who was neglected by his father, I cannot condone his interest in seeking a relationship with young men/maybe teen boys still developing their identity. I have a real problem with the idea of the equivalent of statutory rape or pedophilia.

I wish that the person I am now was the person who worked at that store 20 years ago. I would have taken more time to get to know each person individually and maybe gotten each of their backstory. Maybe within the context of a caring friendship I would have offered an introduction to the ONE who has helped me with all my hurts, all my wounds and who has taken all my choices good or bad and made them into something good that can actually be of help to others.

We are all sinners in need of salvation; we all make bad choices trying to cover the deep hurts of our past. The problem comes when instead of admitting we are making bad choices, instead of admitting that we are deeply wounded we self-medicate with booze drugs, sex, gossip, greed, power, etc. Homosexually is a symptom of deeper issues that can only be healed within a close loving relationship with the one who created us, loves us, wants to heal us and is more than willing to walk the long road to recovery with us from the very destructive lifestyle choices we make. Ask anyone in any of the anonymous groups, the road is hard, but the goal of a real relationship w/HIM is well worth it. I should know I have been on that road for more than 30 years.

PS: In writing this I did not read or discuss what my husband wrote, neither did he with me. This is what each of us believes due to our own experience and conclusions. I write this because skimming through his work I saw some very similar wording.

[KernowWarrior]

The Consequences of not having Gay Marriage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZU-HQ_c ... ure=colike