Your Opinion on Marriage

[Apiphobic]

See, my contention is he wouldn't be gay until he started having sex with other men.

 

I'm trying to wrap my head around this statement. You're saying s/he's not gay until s/he acts upon these desires. The action defines the person, nothing else. You are what you do and nothing else.

 

So "I think therefore I am" is just some mumbo jumbo, huh?

 

Do you truly, honestly believe this or are you just saying it to get a reaction? :confused:

[Melinda in VT]

See, my contention is he wouldn't be gay until he started having sex with other men. Might he for some reason develop an attraction for men? Sure. I bet it happens. He doesn't have to act on it though. Surely, you have not acted on every desire you've ever had. I know I haven't.

 

So according to your logic, I wasn't heterosexual until I got married at age 22. Who knew?

[Jenny in Atl]

Well, maybe we need a definition of sexual activity? Are we talking home base or is first base included too?

[Jenny in Atl]

I'm lost - what does this mean? I assume that I understand 'home base', but I can't make the rest of the analogy make sense... is this a standard euphemism?

 

And, if so, is there one for the other specific acts being discussed here? I am mortified by the things I have said here - despite all the asterisks I am using! - and wish there were a way to be clear without being so (from my standpoint) inappropriately explicit...

 

LOL, The is old school yard slang for sexual activity by teens; first is kissing, second is touching in the upper part (usually female), third is touching in the privates, and home base or home run is intercourse. I was just being silly. Sorry, bad joke for not only an international board, but for many who may not be exposed to societies lesser uplifting terms. :tongue_smilie:

[Phred]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this statement. You're saying s/he's not gay until s/he acts upon these desires. The action defines the person, nothing else. You are what you do and nothing else.

 

So "I think therefore I am" is just some mumbo jumbo, huh?

 

Do you truly, honestly believe this or are you just saying it to get a reaction? :confused:

Ok... now that's interesting. So Jesus, when up on the cross took upon himself our sins. In order to do this... (Google is our friend)... got it. "propitiation" For a moment, while up on the cross, in order to absolve us of our sins, Jesus became all of us and took upon himself our sins. For a moment he was a thief, a murderer, a rapist and yes, a homosexual. But he never "did" any of these things... so he didn't really take on our sins according to you.

 

Hmmmm.....

[Phred]

LOL, The is old school yard slang for sexual activity by teens; first is kissing, second is touching in the upper part (usually female), third is touching in the privates, and home base or home run is intercourse. I was just being silly. Sorry, bad joke for not only an international board, but for many who may not be exposed to societies lesser uplifting terms. :tongue_smilie:

And fifth base is an*eek*l inter*youknow*course. Ok, now we all have secret code.

[genie]

And fifth base is an*eek*l inter*youknow*course. Ok, now we all have secret code.

 

I'm sure some would consider it more of a "foul ball". :D

[Jenny in Atl]

:smash::lol::lol:

I'm sure some would consider it more of a "foul ball". :D

[beansprouts]

Long ago the Supreme Court determined that the right to marry was a fundamental human right and the government had no right to block or hinder this right.

 

 

By what authority can they claim this as a "fundamental human right"?

[nmoira]

 

I'm sure some would consider it more of a "foul ball". :D

I'd think it would be a bunt, but that's just because of the punning potential (not that "foul ball" also doesn't have potential).

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Deleted.

[Mrs Mungo]

By what authority can they claim this as a "fundamental human right"?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "they" but the California Supreme Court used the California Constitution to make their decision:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

[Jenny in Atl]

I'm not sure what you mean by "they" but the California Supreme Court used the California Constitution to make their decision:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

I think she is looking for you to think of the Dec of Independence...

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[Scarlett]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this statement. You're saying s/he's not gay until s/he acts upon these desires. The action defines the person, nothing else. You are what you do and nothing else.

 

So "I think therefore I am" is just some mumbo jumbo, huh?

 

Do you truly, honestly believe this or are you just saying it to get a reaction? :confused:

 

I didn't say action defines the person, nothing else. However, this is a fundamental element to our differences in this area. You (the general you) believe a homosexual (either by feelings or actions) is no different than a heterosexual. I don't agree. I think attraction to same sex is an improper and perverted desire which does not have to be acted upon.

 

My point was just because someone desires something doesn't mean they must act upon it. This was in response to those who were saying that gay men who destroy families wouldn't have created that family in the first place if they could have just 'been themselves'. I don't agree with that. I think they a) could have refrained from marriage /sex altogether or b) if after having commited to marriage with the opposite sex, honored that marriage and remained faithful.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think she is looking for you to think of the Dec of Independence...

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

Ah, well, that just goes back to my former argument that God gave us free will. Why do some people think they have the authority to take it away?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I think she is looking for you to think of the Dec of Independence...

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

OH! It was a trick question? I wouldn't have seen it coming from Beansprouts. Ok. My bad.

[Scarlett]

So according to your logic, I wasn't heterosexual until I got married at age 22. Who knew?

 

My logic is that homosexuality is a perversion. That is my logic. So my real logic is that a homosexual is a very very confused heterosexual. A flawed human as all of us are flawed in one way or another.

 

I'm curious if you would say an alcoholic is just born that way. Do we excuse and in fact embrace practicing alcoholics? No. We strongly strongly suggest they get control of themselves and stop drinking.

 

We do not have to act upon every desire we have. (have I said that once or twice already?)

[Peek a Boo]

This too is not an argument against same-sex marriage - it is another argument against a specific act. You are saying that a specific act profanes marriage, no matter who performs it.

 

Is this a standard Xtian position?

 

I had not thought there was a blanket prohibition on backdoor-intimacy (where's a handy euphemism like booKs when we need one?) for married heterosexual couples... Could some other Xtians help me out here with a range of viewpoints? Peek? PariSarah? Aubrey? Pam? Mrs Mungo?

I'm getting used to be wrong about my assumptions about Xitan halachah - do you have a term for that? It's halacha for me and sha'aria for Kate.... - but this one really threw me.

 

{{aside from the fact that I am snickering up a storm at the euphemisms and jokes in this thread...}}

 

I disagree w/ the catholic take on sex. I think Quiver had it right when she mentioned previously that the point of SEX is to enjoy each other and not fret about fertility. But we tend to take matters into our...um... own hands ...anyway ;)

 

and one more repetitive statement [in general]: I don't have to insist that my gvt rule a certain way, but we are certainly granted the freedom to make our own voting decisions and communications to our representatives using whatever logic or faith we want. It will be up to our judges here on earth to decide whether our faith/logic will dictate what happens legally. The majority can't rule by tyrrany unless the judges allow it. So yes, if [general] you believe strongly that same-sex marriage should be made legal, you need to rally your supporters and push pretty hard for it to happen, because there are many of us that will feel obligated based on faith to NOT support such legislation.

 

back to Eliana--

 

It is MY understanding that there is no scriptural prohibition against any specific acts --as long as they are done by mutual consent, in love, w/in the confines of the one-man-one-woman marriage bed. Or marriage dining room table. Or marriage kitchen counter. Or marriage bed-of-the-truck...... Even if you are wearing your DH-approved catwoman costume. And the whip is optional. But recommended. Meow. Where's dh?!?...... i'll be back in five minutes.....

 

:D

[Joanne]

I'm curious if you would say an alcoholic is just born that way. Do we excuse and in fact embrace practicing alcoholics? No. We strongly strongly suggest they get control of themselves and stop drinking.

 

Actually, science has proven that alcoholics ARE born that way. Their (our) bodies process alcoholic differently, manifesting in an actual craving for more alcohol. This craving does not occur in non alcoholic bodies; though non alcoholics can abuse/misuse alcohol for a variety of reasons.

 

Also, experience shows that alcoholics are unable to "get control of themselves" which is why the only real, contented, long term sobriety I've observed in 17 years is in people who have surrendered and given control up to God.

[Scarlett]

Ok... now that's interesting. So Jesus, when up on the cross took upon himself our sins. In order to do this... (Google is our friend)... got it. "propitiation" For a moment, while up on the cross, in order to absolve us of our sins, Jesus became all of us and took upon himself our sins. For a moment he was a thief, a murderer, a rapist and yes, a homosexual. But he never "did" any of these things... so he didn't really take on our sins according to you.

 

Hmmmm.....

 

Well, bless your heart. This makes absolutely no sense.

[genie]

I'm curious if you would say an alcoholic is just born that way. Do we excuse and in fact embrace practicing alcoholics? No. We strongly strongly suggest they get control of themselves and stop drinking.

 

 

Well, I'm very glad you aren't a counselor for alcoholics! There is most certainly a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. And the "cure" isn't simply to tell the person to get control of themselves and stop drinking.

[Scarlett]

Actually, science has proven that alcoholics ARE born that way. Their (our) bodies process alcoholic differently, manifesting in an actual craving for more alcohol. This craving does not occur in non alcoholic bodies; though non alcoholics can abuse/misuse alcohol for a variety of reasons.

 

Also, experience shows that alcoholics are unable to "get control of themselves" which is why the only real, contented, long term sobriety I've observed in 17 years is in people who have surrendered and given control up to God.

 

I agree. And thus my point. We can 'be' a way and yet control ourselves. So it really doesn't matter whether we say the definition of a homosexual is one of feelings or actions. Either way they have the ability to control their actions.

[Scarlett]

Well, I'm very glad you aren't a counselor for alcoholics! There is most certainly a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. And the "cure" isn't simply to tell the person to get control of themselves and stop drinking.

 

You misunderstood me. *I* agree that alcoholics do have a genetic predispostion to alcoholism. So why do we not just tell them, 'oh go on and drink because that is just how you are?' And I never said alcoholism was 'cured' by being told to 'get control of themselves'. I did say that an alcoholic does have the ability (some need help others do not) to control themselves.

[nmoira]

I agree. And thus my point. We can 'be' a way and yet control ourselves. So it really doesn't matter whether we say the definition of a homosexual is one of feelings or actions. Either way they have the ability to control their actions.

But you know that we're all agreeing that alcoholism is pathological, and you also know that not all here or elsewhere agree with your like characterization of homosexuality.

 

Alcoholism can kill. It can ruin careers, families, friendships. It is an addiction that will destroy the body and the mind.

[Mrs Mungo]

Scarlett-I don't think we have enough common ground to have a reasonable debate.

[Joanne]

I did say that an alcoholic does have the ability (some need help others do not) to control themselves.

__________________

 

The cure for alcoholism (and there isn't one, actually) isn't self control. By definition, they/we *can't* control ourselves. I've never met a sober alcoholic who was sober, content, productive and recovering who did it themselves. I've met plenty who didn't drink anymore, but that is the beginning of recovery, not the end.

 

 

See, my contention is he wouldn't be gay until he started having sex with other men.

 

I was heterosexual before I had sex/sexual activity. You define gay by the sexual act and not by the gender to which a person is attracted? I *am* heterosexual. If I never had sex again, I'd still be heterosexual. A gay person is only so by sexual activity with the same gender?

 

I *think* that this may fall under some conservative Christian thought that orientation is not sin, but acting on a same sex orientation is. But it seems to be a bit "more".

[SusanG]

Why?

 

I have spent the past several days really happy about the legal changes in CA. I now realize that now's not a time to sit back and be happy about this new law; it's a time to keep working for the rights of same sex couples to marry. The backlash will be strong, and hopefully, in some small way, I can work to combat it. Whether it's through a monetary donation to the Human Rights Campaign, writing letters, etc., I feel I need to do my part.

[Scarlett]

Scarlett-I don't think we have enough common ground to have a reasonable debate.

 

Probably not.

[Scarlett]

The cure for alcoholism (and there isn't one, actually) isn't self control. By definition, they/we *can't* control ourselves. I've never met a sober alcoholic who was sober, content, productive and recovering who did it themselves. I've met plenty who didn't drink anymore, but that is the beginning of recovery, not the end.

 

 

 

 

I was heterosexual before I had sex/sexual activity. You define gay by the sexual act and not by the gender to which a person is attracted? I *am* heterosexual. If I never had sex again, I'd still be heterosexual. A gay person is only so by sexual activity with the same gender?

 

I *think* that this may fall under some conservative Christian thought that orientation is not sin, but acting on a same sex orientation is. But it seems to be a bit "more".

 

My dictionary gives 2 definitions of homosexuality...one is attraction to the same sex and the other is sexual activity with a person of the same sex. Either way...it has no bearing on my point which is that homosexuality is a perversion and therefore it isn't accurate to compare it to heterosexuality. My belief of course.

 

The beginning of this point was that a person does not have to act upon every desire they have. However, if you believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, that it isn't a perversion...then I can certainly see where you would have no reason to NOT act upon the desire.

[Melinda in VT]

My logic is that homosexuality is a perversion. That is my logic. So my real logic is that a homosexual is a very very confused heterosexual. A flawed human as all of us are flawed in one way or another.

 

I'm curious if you would say an alcoholic is just born that way. Do we excuse and in fact embrace practicing alcoholics? No. We strongly strongly suggest they get control of themselves and stop drinking.

 

We do not have to act upon every desire we have. (have I said that once or twice already?)

 

Yes, I believe alcoholics are born that way. Unlike homosexuality, however, alcoholism harms the alcoholic, his or her family, and society. And we can document that without resorting to religion.

 

You know, almost no one acts on every desire they have. Homosexuals aren't asking to act on every desire they have. They are asking for the right to have the same legal relationship with the person they love and are committed to that you and I are able to enjoy with our spouses. Let's not trivialize it by speaking of their deeply felt love for their partner by making it sound like they just need to grow up and control themselves.

[Scarlett]

You know, almost no one acts on every desire they have. Homosexuals aren't asking to act on every desire they have. They are asking for the right to have the same legal relationship with the person they love and are committed to that you and I are able to enjoy with our spouses. Let's not trivialize it by speaking of their deeply felt love for their partner by making it sound like they just need to grow up and control themselves.

 

I'm not trying to trivialize it. :confused: I don't know why you would say that. I also never said they are asking to act on every desire they have. I did say they don't have to act on the desire to have sex with someone of the same sex. I imagine that would be a difficult thing to accomplish. I also never said they just need to 'grow up'. That is you putting a tone to my words.

 

I do not doubt for a minute it would be difficult for a homosexual to not do what they want to do. I have much sympathy for them. As I do for anyone struggling with doing right when doing wrong might feel good.

[Jenny in Atl]

{{aside from the fact that I am snickering up a storm at the euphemisms and jokes in this thread...}}

 

I disagree w/ the catholic take on sex. I think Quiver had it right when she mentioned previously that the point of SEX is to enjoy each other and not fret about fertility.

:D

 

I still find this bothersome. I have no problem if a family wants to have as many children as the woman's body can carry and birth. But they sure better be able to pay for those children. In the old days, if there was not enough food, they died, pure and simple. Our fertility actually changes given our diet. Now because we have a caring society, many are having kids that they can't afford to have. I don't mean a family that has fallen on hard times, but those who continue to have children when they know they can't afford them. I'm struggling to care for my own two, and did not have more knowing that "morally" it would be wrong to take by force money from others to pay for my children. To me this is stealing (therefor a sin)

 

I know this will not be a popular view here... but it's how I feel. That said, I still would never pass a law to limit family size.

[genie]

I'm not trying to trivialize it. :confused: I don't know why you would say that. I also never said they are asking to act on every desire they have. I did say they don't have to act on the desire to have sex with someone of the same sex. I imagine that would be a difficult thing to accomplish. I also never said they just need to 'grow up'. That is you putting a tone to my words.

 

I do not doubt for a minute it would be difficult for a homosexual to not do what they want to do. I have much sympathy for them. As I do for anyone struggling with doing right when doing wrong might feel good.

 

I think you have such a ginormous misunderstanding of what homosexuality is and who homosexuals are that you are incapable of discussing it in a way that comes across as anything but homophobic. You trivialize homosexuality by defining it as nothing but a (perverse) sexual desire for someone of the same sex. Is your heterosexuality nothing more than a sexual desire for someone of the opposite sex? That is how the dictionary defines it, after all. Is that all that your marriage is based on? A desire for sex? No love at all in the picture? You are so completely obsessed with the sexual aspect of it, and you refuse to admit there could be anything beyond a perverted sexual desire. No one need put any tone to your posts that you haven't already supplied full force.

[Scarlett]

I think you have such a ginormous misunderstanding of what homosexuality is and who homosexuals are that you are incapable of discussing it in a way that comes across as anything but homophobic. You trivialize homosexuality by defining it as nothing but a (perverse) sexual desire for someone of the same sex. Is your heterosexuality nothing more than a sexual desire for someone of the opposite sex? That is how the dictionary defines it, after all. Is that all that your marriage is based on? A desire for sex? No love at all in the picture? You are so completely obsessed with the sexual aspect of it, and you refuse to admit there could be anything beyond a perverted sexual desire. No one need put any tone to your posts that you haven't already supplied full force.

 

I'm not afraid of homosexuals.

 

Homosexuality is what it is. I don't think I misunderstand it. I think you and I disagree on whether it is right or wrong.

 

Sex is not ALL there is to marriage, but it certainly is a part of it. I'm not obessesed with the sex...but to ME it IS the sex that makes it homosexuality. Without the sex, you have people who love each other. I love lots of women, none of which I have ever had sex with. And that isn't forbidden by the Bible.

 

I do believe that a practicing homosexual is more than just that--I get that they are people...people who love and want to be loved and who want children and friendships and all of that. I don't wish them harm. I just will never condone a lifestyle of homosexuality.

[genie]

 

I love lots of women, none of which I have ever had sex with.

 

Do you love them the same way you love your husband? Do you love any of them enough that you would want to spend the rest of your life living with them in a committed relationship?

[Phred]

By what authority can they claim this as a "fundamental human right"?

Until some power comes along higher than they are.

[Phred]

I have spent the past several days really happy about the legal changes in CA. I now realize that now's not a time to sit back and be happy about this new law; it's a time to keep working for the rights of same sex couples to marry. The backlash will be strong, and hopefully, in some small way, I can work to combat it. Whether it's through a monetary donation to the Human Rights Campaign, writing letters, etc., I feel I need to do my part.

You go girl!

[Phred]

I'm not afraid of homosexuals.

 

Homosexuality is what it is. I don't think I misunderstand it.

Oh.... I think you do misunderstand it. I think you believe it's a choice people make, like whether or not to drink Pepsi or Coke. Am I wrong? I think you believe that if homosexuals would only *choose* to pick a person of the opposite sex they could live a normal life and there wouldn't be any of this nonsense going on. Am I wrong?

 

But here's the thing, when I look at my wife I feel something deep down inside. My teeth tingle. She's my woman. Sure, I feel attractions to other women but not like the way I feel for my wife. I'm sure you feel the same way for your husband. Could you pick a woman and feel the same way for her? If I put you in a room and held a gun to your head could you feel an attraction for a woman? A deep abiding sexual attraction for a woman?

 

Then how do you expect a person who feels attractions for one sex or the other to switch just because it doesn't fit with your definition of what should be?

 

I think you do misunderstand... I think you misunderstand how hard many homosexuals try to fit into the societal norms and just can't. I think you've read here... good god the guy even got married trying to live up to what he thought everyone else wanted. So I think you do misunderstand it. Having said that, how can you pass judgment on whether it's right or wrong? Being gay isn't right or wrong, it just IS.

 

I think you and I disagree on whether it is right or wrong.

 

Sex is not ALL there is to marriage, but it certainly is a part of it. I'm not obessesed with the sex...but to ME it IS the sex that makes it homosexuality. Without the sex, you have people who love each other. I love lots of women, none of which I have ever had sex with. And that isn't forbidden by the Bible.

 

I do believe that a practicing homosexual is more than just that--I get that they are people...people who love and want to be loved and who want children and friendships and all of that. I don't wish them harm. I just will never condone a lifestyle of homosexuality.

But really... is it up to you? A lifestyle of homosexuality would basically be exactly the same as your life, just with a partner of the same sex. Our constitution guarantees individuals the right to equal protection under the law. I can't see how it won't happen that homosexuals will be married under the law.

[Storm Bay]

Well, I'm very glad you aren't a counselor for alcoholics! There is most certainly a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. And the "cure" isn't simply to tell the person to get control of themselves and stop drinking.

 

This is correct. My aunt was an alcoholic for 30 years. She's been dry for nearly 20 years. But it didn't come easily, and telling her to get control of herself did nothing to help her. It destroyed her first marriage, eventually cost her her career. She would lie and tell her dh she was going to AA and then go drinking with her friends. My family had to stop picking her up. What changed it all? She was beat up on skid row and put into a strict rehab centre where AA was just one part of her treatment. The only visitor she was allowed was her dh, once a week. But it "woke her up" (getting beat up, etc) and she hasn't had a drink since. She speaks freely of all this now, although we never dwell on the topic.

 

We don't have many alcoholics in the family I know, but her father (my grandfather) used to get very drunk once a month when they were growing up, which isn't alcoholism, just and example she saw of someone drinking. Somewhere there have probably been other alcoholics.

[Storm Bay]

Actually, science has proven that alcoholics ARE born that way. Their (our) bodies process alcoholic differently, manifesting in an actual craving for more alcohol. This craving does not occur in non alcoholic bodies; though non alcoholics can abuse/misuse alcohol for a variety of reasons.

 

Also, experience shows that alcoholics are unable to "get control of themselves" which is why the only real, contented, long term sobriety I've observed in 17 years is in people who have surrendered and given control up to God.

 

I'd love to agree with you, since I'm a Christian, but my aunt has been dry for nearly 20 years and didn't do this.

 

Deleting part of this because I posted it to Genie, but the server told me it was too busy and, surprise, surprise, it posted anyway.

[Peek a Boo]

I still find this bothersome. I have no problem if a family wants to have as many children as the woman's body can carry and birth. But they sure better be able to pay for those children. ...... "morally" it would be wrong to take by force money from others to pay for my children. To me this is stealing (therefor a sin)

 

I know this will not be a popular view here... but it's how I feel. That said, I still would never pass a law to limit family size.

 

I can understand that. Being a laissez faire capitalist/ conservative I have LOTS of problems w/ the gvt deciding to dole out money for decisions i don't wish to support financially. But that's fodder for another thread :)

 

and strictly speaking, no one person can pass a law to effect anything.

People can vote and communicate their desires, but even if a legislature passes a law, judges can overturn it. If there is enough legal, constitutional reason to overturn "the will of the people", then it matters not how many of us vote for/against the legislation. And that is why I feel comfortable acting and voting my conscience w/in the context of my faith, but realizing that the actual outcome of this legislation will likely be quite different. My disagreement w/ the law [and that happens in more areas than just this one, lol] does not mean i need to persecute those who benefit from it.

[Scarlett]

Oh.... I think you do misunderstand it. I think you believe it's a choice people make, like whether or not to drink Pepsi or Coke. Am I wrong? I think you believe that if homosexuals would only *choose* to pick a person of the opposite sex they could live a normal life and there wouldn't be any of this nonsense going on. Am I wrong?

 

 

Yes you are wrong. I do not see it in the way you have described above. It is late....I have company...and I do not have time to reply now. If you would bother to read my posts you would not be thinking I see it the way you flippantly described above.

 

That is a tactic people use to bolster their position. Make it seem as if the oppostition is being ridiculous and just 'doesn't understand'. I do understand. I just don't agree.

[genie]

If you would bother to read my posts you would not be thinking I see it the way you flippantly described above.

 

That is a tactic people use to bolster their position.

 

I do understand. I just don't agree.

 

But we have read your posts. You say you are not trivializing it, so I pointed out how I saw your words as trivializing it. You say someone was putting a tone to your posts, and I pointed out how your tone is quite clear in your posts.

 

You try to equate the love you have for your female friends to the type of love a homosexual person has for a member of the same sex, stating that you, however, choose not to have sex with your friends. That trivializes homosexuality and shows, through your own words, that you do not understand what it really is.

 

We need use no tactics to bolster our position. Your posts are doing that just fine.

[Phred]

Yes you are wrong. I do not see it in the way you have described above. It is late....I have company...and I do not have time to reply now. If you would bother to read my posts you would not be thinking I see it the way you flippantly described above.

 

That is a tactic people use to bolster their position. Make it seem as if the oppostition is being ridiculous and just 'doesn't understand'. I do understand. I just don't agree.

Well, Genie got to it before I did. exactly right... I do read your posts and you do say exactly that. You can't see that a homosexual love is exactly the same as your heterosexual love. If you could I can't imagine you would be able to discriminate against it... You have to make a leap of imagination here. You have to try and walk a mile in someone else's loafers.

[Peek a Boo]

You can't see that a homosexual love is exactly the same as your heterosexual love. If you could I can't imagine you would be able to discriminate against it...

 

and THIS is the crux of the communication problem--

you want to ignore everything we've said, dismiss it, and use your imagination :)

 

 

I am absolutely convinced that the kind of love one has for another person does not change what scripture says about that kind of love.

 

If one is married and ends up feeling they "married the wrong person" because they meet someone else to whom they have a stronger attraction, scripture still says they have an obligation to their spouse, and exhorts others to "teach them to love." Acting on that deep attraction is simply not scriptural.

 

If a homosexual person truly feels a deep attraction and love for another person of the same-sex, scripture is still clear about that too.

 

So while you "can't imagine [we'd] be able to discriminate against it," you are showing by YOUR words that you simply -still- do NOT understand our position at all. regardless the 400 posts we've had trying to communicate our beliefs and intentions.

[Scarlett]

and THIS is the crux of the communication problem--

you want to ignore everything we've said, dismiss it, and use your imagination :)

 

 

I am absolutely convinced that the kind of love one has for another person does not change what scripture says about that kind of love.

 

If one is married and ends up feeling they "married the wrong person" because they meet someone else to whom they have a stronger attraction, scripture still says they have an obligation to their spouse, and exhorts others to "teach them to love." Acting on that deep attraction is simply not scriptural.

 

If a homosexual person truly feels a deep attraction and love for another person of the same-sex, scripture is still clear about that too.

 

So while you "can't imagine [we'd] be able to discriminate against it," you are showing by YOUR words that you simply -still- do NOT understand our position at all. regardless the 400 posts we've had trying to communicate our beliefs and intentions.

 

:iagree: Thanks Peek for typing out my thoughts so well. :)

[Scarlett]

I think you do misunderstand... I think you misunderstand how hard many homosexuals try to fit into the societal norms and just can't. I think you've read here... good god the guy even got married trying to live up to what he thought everyone else wanted. So I think you do misunderstand it. Having said that, how can you pass judgment on whether it's right or wrong? Being gay isn't right or wrong, it just IS.

 

I'm not passing judgment. I am pointing to a standard set by God---a God in which you apparently do not believe. And I'm not sure why you keep saying I can't possibly understand how difficult it must be for them. I DO understand as much as any other heterosexual can.

 

There are more choices than 'fitting into societal norms' or becoming a practicing homosexual. You could be outside societal norms without violating God's law. Not everyone gets a spouse and children and white picket fence and yet they find happiness and meaning in their life.

 

Am I wrong? I think you believe that if homosexuals would only *choose* to pick a person of the opposite sex they could live a normal life and there wouldn't be any of this nonsense going on. Am I wrong?

 

Yes you are wrong. I never said anything even remotely like that. I understand, and I believe that some people have a sexual attraction to their own sex. I don't view it as 'nonsense'. I view it as tragedy. I feel very deeply for their struggles. And I imagine that some will never ever, in this imperfect state, feel that same attraction for the opposite sex. I would never suggest that all that is required is that they choose a person of the opposite sex and all will be well. All I am saying is that according to scripture acting upon that desire by having sex (inside or outside of a legal marriage under any government) with someone of the same sex is wrong. When we have wrong desires we can refuse to act upon them.

[Scarlett]

You try to equate the love you have for your female friends to the type of love a homosexual person has for a member of the same sex, stating that you, however, choose not to have sex with your friends. That trivializes homosexuality and shows, through your own words, that you do not understand what it really is.

 

I wasn't comparing or equating homosexual love to what I feel for my friends. You (I think it was you) said I was obsessing about the sex of it. I said without the sex it isn't homosexuality...and I thought we were discussing homosexuality.

[nmoira]

If one is married and ends up feeling they "married the wrong person" because they meet someone else to whom they have a stronger attraction, scripture still says they have an obligation to their spouse, and exhorts others to "teach them to love." Acting on that deep attraction is simply not scriptural.

 

If a homosexual person truly feels a deep attraction and love for another person of the same-sex, scripture is still clear about that too.

Divorce is legal in the United States. It's a fact you may not like, but it's still a fact. I don't see how scripture in this context is relevant to the topic of marriage (any marriage) as recognized by the state.

[Scarlett]

Left anonymously for me

"You might agree with Peek's words, but they do not at all reflect what you have been saying over and over."

 

Sigh. I give up. I agree with every single sentence in Peeks post and yet someone thinks I have been saying something else. :confused: