I NEVER would have guessed that....

[Colleen]

How do you not "agree" with homosexuality?

 

I, too, agree that we can have a civil discussion on this subject, but I'm nonetheless surprised at your question. Surprised because I would think you're well aware that some people do not condone actively engaging in homosexuality. To that end, they don't "agree" with homosexuality.

 

I might claim that white bread is just as good as whole wheat. On that we can disagree.

I could say those shoes are UGLY and there are many folks who are sure to disagree.

I think Rod and Staff is an excellent grammar program. You may not agree.

 

But that I am a brunette is not something about which you can agree or disagree. It is just the truth.

That I am 5'10" isn't up for debate.

That my friend is gay is simply a fact. How does one not agree with that?

What do you really mean when you say you don't agree with homosexuality?

 

And it's a fact that not everyone agrees homosexuality is a matter of biology. Others believe that while regardless of its origins, it should not be acted upon. I am not trying to speak for Kelly here, but trying to explain what I think are some common oppositional reactions to homosexuality.

[Jennifer3141]

This is one of the best posts I have read in a long time. Very well said.

 

 

 

And this one ..... again' date=' very well said.

 

I keep hanging on to the hope that 20 years from now we will look back on this and shake our heads, ashamed of our actions, wondering just what the heck we were thinking.

 

All this will be just as embarrasing as the insistence on seperate water fountains for "colored people", or being horrified over interracial marriages. Too bad we can't wake up and be ashamed of ourselves just a bit sooner and stop persecuting people.[/quote']

 

Then I going to quote you as well because I thought your post was pretty darn good too. :)

 

Jen

[Colleen]

Too bad we can't wake up and be ashamed of ourselves just a bit sooner and stop persecuting people.

 

It's easy to assume one's own nobility, isn't it? Easy to assume that those with whom you disagree are narrow-minded bigots engaging in persecution. Too easy. There are, without a doubt, those who abuse, either in word or deed, people who choose to engage in homosexuality. Then again, there are those ~ and we are legion ~ who are perfectly capable of withholding our approval of that choice without stooping to such levels.

[WTMindy]

I will very cautiously try and answer this, but please know that I have no judgement in my heart. I believe that God's plan was one man, one woman as spelled out in Genesis. The Bible does address homosexuality as a sin. I don't think it is any more a sin than any others (big or small!) I have struggled over whether it is a choice or not. If I am to remain consistent, I have to believe it is a choice, just as purity before or in marriage is a choice. But, I will be honest in saying that I really have problems with this personally. I have had good friends that are homosexual and we have discussed this issue. One friend told me that he begged God to take away his desires. My only response to that is compassion!! I don't understand this, so I choose to err on the side of love and acceptance. Not of the choice, but of the person. I can not bring myself to say that I think homosexuality is OK, nor can I bring myself to condemn those who live this life.

 

I don't know if this answers your question or not. I believe that is more complex than "accepting" homosexuality or not. I accept it that there are wonderful people (even those I love) who are gay. But, I don't accept it as God's plan. I accept gay people but not that part of their behavior. Once I had a very complicated conversation with a good friend about this. We had to agree that it was possible for me to accept him without saying that I think homosexuality is OK. It would be like him saying that he couldn't be my friend because I was a Christian and he didn't agree with my beliefs.

 

I will always choose to err on the side of being loving and accepting of all people.

 

 

I have been having a mental debate for days over whether or not to revive this thread, but I am convinced that we can have a civil discussion about the topic, so here it is.

 

It was Kelly's statement, "I personally don't agree with homosexuality," that confused me, but I've heard the same sort of thing many times, from many folks in the past. Please understand, Kelly, that my intent is not to single you out. When I say "you" in the post that follows, I am simply referring to the general population. I would just like to get a better understanding of this point of view.

 

How do you not "agree" with homosexuality?

 

I might claim that white bread is just as good as whole wheat. On that we can disagree.

I could say those shoes are UGLY and there are many folks who are sure to disagree.

I think Rod and Staff is an excellent grammar program. You may not agree.

 

But that I am a brunette is not something about which you can agree or disagree. It is just the truth.

That I am 5'10" isn't up for debate.

That my friend is gay is simply a fact. How does one not agree with that?

What do you really mean when you say you don't agree with homosexuality?

[Colleen]

Since something like 10% of the population is gay, I'm surprised it's still interesting enough to be news.

 

Yes, it is surprising. As surprising as the fact that anyone gives a rat's behind about a stranger's sexual preference, really.:tongue_smilie:

[ma23peas]

 

But that I am a brunette is not something about which you can agree or disagree. It is just the truth.

That I am 5'10" isn't up for debate.

That my friend is gay is simply a fact. How does one not agree with that?

What do you really mean when you say you don't agree with homosexuality?

 

 

I think a very valid question..I'll try my best to answer and not create fodder for flames.

 

I am a Christian, first and foremost. I have a God that I have put my life into His Hands, my life is not my own, I am committed to doing the will of God. He has condemned homosexuality and stated more than once that it does not Honor Him. He also has condemned blasphemy, serving more than one God, murder, gluttony..the list is long..I also believe that all sins are equal and that there is but one way for that sin to be reconciled.

 

Jesus went to eat in the home of the tax collectors and sinners and the Pharisees questioned him on how could he EAT with sinners??? Jesus' response was that it was not the healthy who need a doctor but the sick. Jesus did not say to condone their sin but to be sympathetic to their needing healing. There is NOT ONE without sin, but to take that sin and praise it and embrace it as being your choice or your natural state of being is not acceptable to God and therefore can not be acceptable to me. I can only serve one God, I can't take some things He says and discount them because society at that point has taken a different view...the Romans had many contrary views to Christianity...it would have been very difficult for some Romans to adapt having grown up serving many Gods...

 

Heck, the Catholic church was so against Galileo's support for a heliocentric view of the world that they forced him to choose between his beliefs (all founded on a scientific method) and his membership in the Church...Galileo chose the Church because his faith superceded any claim to the laws of nature he may have discovered...and although he died before the Catholic Church changed their view on the sun being the center, he now has been remembered and his work has been praised.

 

But, just because the society I live in may want to embrace homosexuality and their lifestyle..I can not..I can love them, I can pray for healing...but I can not support legislation that would legitimize their lifestyle, especially in a country that was founded on Christian principles and revered God.

 

Tara

[jamnkats]

#1 - I just don't think it is newsworthy, but then again, I don't really think celebs lives in general are newsworthy.

 

#2 - I'm not homophobic, and I would certainly NEVER treat any homosexual with disrespect, but I am not FOR homosexuality. I do think it is fundamentally wrong.

 

Finally, I, for one, am tired of it being shoved in my face on every magazine, tv show, movie or newspaper. If 10% of the population is gay, then EVERY SINGLE SHOW does not need to have homosexuals represented. It is just ridiculous.

 

And I'm sure there are many who won't like THAT response, but it is, after all, my right to have that opinion.

 

And I am tired of your own person heterosexuality being shoved in MY face! Look at your sigline! You are trumpeting your sexuality all over my monitor!

 

And I can't BELIEVE ALL THOSE SHOWS with ALL THOSE HETEROSEXUALS in them! THey are CONSTANTLY shoving their sexuality in my face with their hand-holding and their marriages and when I leave my home I see heterosexuals KISSING and HUGGING and HOLDING HANDS! They are CONSTANTLY shoving their sexuality in my face and I'm SICK of it!

 

(actually, I live in Mexico and haven't watched TV for over 4 years, but maybe you get my drift...)

[Crissy]

 

I'm surprised you have to ask, Crissy.

 

As I said in my post, I am looking for a better understanding of this particular point of view, since it is one I do not share.

 

Thank you for your input.

[dawn of ns]

I have not come across any recent tv shows that have not had someone gay on them, or at least a reference to homosexuality. Every movie has to have at least one. All the sitcoms have gays, if they aren't about gays. I'm not going to say I don't ever watch them, but I think sometimes they just have to force it in when it doesn't need to be (gosh, in the second Legally Blonde, they made the DOGS gay).

 

And why is it ridiculous?? Because it doesn't need to be shoved down people's throats anymore than it already is. If only 10% of people are gay, then they don't need to push the agenda in 90% (notice I dropped it from 100% just to be on the safe side) of the entertainment. THAT is ridiculous.

 

I'd bet 90% of the population has someone who's gay in their life. Having a gay character on most TV shows (if indeed that's true, sounds like selection bias to me) simply reflects that fact.

[Colleen]

You do know that some people don't consider homosexuality a matter of biology, right? Or was I wrong to make that assumption?

[Jenny in Atl]

As I said in my post, I am looking for a better understanding of this particular point of view, since it is one I do not share.

 

Thank you for your input.

 

I don't think you can find common ground. One either believes something written thousands of years ago by people who did not understand that sexual preference was not a choice, or one understands that the Bible is not a literal interpretation of God's will, but an inspired piece, again written by men who had no scientific understanding of genes, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Shoot, it was not so long ago that men finally discovered it was not the woman's fault when a girl baby was birthed instead of a male. ;)

[Home'scool]

It's easy to assume one's own nobility, isn't it? Easy to assume that those with whom you disagree are narrow-minded bigots engaging in persecution. Too easy. There are, without a doubt, those who abuse, either in word or deed, people who choose to engage in homosexuality. Then again, there are those ~ and we are legion ~ who are perfectly capable of withholding our approval of that choice without stooping to such levels.

 

Abuse takes many forms. Tacitly withholding your approval of something is a form of exclusion. Exclusion can only exist with oppression. How can I keep you out of my circles or off my T.V. shows without that?

 

To say that the legion is simply "withholding our approval" (try saying THAT without sniffing and holding your nose in the air -- can't you just picture it?!?) takes on a much larger assumption of nobility. "Oh, I would NEVER outwardly abuse a homosexual in word or deed. I just withhold my approval."

 

Well then ..... as long as no one throws rotten eggs we're good.

[WTMindy]

"Oh' date=' I would NEVER outwardly abuse a homosexual in word or deed. I just [i']withhold[/i] my approval."

 

 

 

Maybe your response was directed only to Colleen, but I would say that there are all shades of gray in between those two statements. I have anguished over finding this middle ground of approving of the person but "withholding my approval" of the behavior.

[dawn of ns]

I don't think you can find common ground. One either believes something written thousands of years ago by people who did not understand that sexual preference was not a choice, or one understands that the Bible is not a literal interpretation of God's will, but an inspired piece, again written by men who had no scientific understanding of genes, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Shoot, it was not so long ago that men finally discovered it was not the woman's fault when a girl baby was birthed instead of a male. ;)

 

I disagree. I think the common ground is that we can agree to treat gay people with love and respect. I've known a lot of people who were fundamentally opposed to homosexuality who still had deep relationships with gay people that they cherished. Their view didn't mean they were hateful.

[Greta]

 

But, just because the society I live in may want to embrace homosexuality and their lifestyle..I can not..I can love them, I can pray for healing...but I can not support legislation that would legitimize their lifestyle, especially in a country that was founded on Christian principles and revered God.

 

From what I know about the changes in law that are being advocated for gay rights, it's not like anyone is trying to say you have to "embrace homosexuality" or even approve of it, only that gay couples should have the same LEGAL rights and standing as straight couples.

 

I've heard many Christians say that they don't think homosexuality is any more or less "serious" than any other sin. But if you advocate treating homosexuals differently in the eyes of the law than you do heterosexuals, isn't that effectively saying that you think it's worse? I'm a sinner, in many ways, by the Christian definition of the word. For example, I have statues of Buddhas in every room of my home. Many would say that makes me an "idolater". I'm completely unapologetic for this "sin" and I have no intentions of changing my ways. But I doubt anyone would claim I'm not entitled to the same legal rights as non-idolaters. So that does make it seem like some people feel homosexuality is a more grievous sin than idolatry.

 

BTW, Tara, even though I used a quote from you as a jumping-off point for this discussion, it isn't aimed specifically at you. I would be interested in anyone's input on this. To me, the belief that "my religion teaches this is wrong" does not *necessarily* lead to "therefore it should be legislated as such". My religion teaches non-violence, and gun ownership is something I have a serious moral objection to. But I'm not sure that means guns should be outlawed. So I'm just saying, it's one thing to feel that homosexuality is wrong, it's another to claim that homosexuals should be treated differently by law.

Edited October 3, 2008 by GretaLynne
fixing some awkward phrasing

[Crissy]

You do know that some people don't consider homosexuality a matter of biology, right?

 

So I've heard.

It's part of the problem I have in understanding the opposing viewpoint.

 

I could not, no matter how hard I tried, be attracted to and fall in love with a woman. I certainly see the beauty in female form and femininity, but I couldn't spend my life pretending to be gay.

I didn't choose to be attracted to men. It is a simple matter of biology.

 

I can't see how any other human being is different. My friend did not decide that she would desire another woman. That it would be a female with whom she would be naturally inclined to share her life.

 

It seems to me that human attraction *is* a matter of biology.

Edited October 3, 2008 by Crissy

[Jenny in Atl]

I disagree. I think the common ground is that we can agree to treat gay people with love and respect. I've known a lot of people who were fundamentally opposed to homosexuality who still had deep relationships with gay people that they cherished. Their view didn't mean they were hateful.

 

But how do you truly love someone and support them if you believe an integral part of who they are is a choice, something they can change, when they can't change it anymore then their skin color or their height. Sure they can mask it and pretend, so as to please those around them, but that is not the same.

 

I saw this with my MIL and her sister. Yes, she made her sister and her long-time partner members of the family, but there was always the understanding that she had let the family down. Her path was not what my MIL wanted for her. I felt sorry for my MIL and her inability to love her sister for who she was. That same sister held her hand as she passed. I gather it was a death in more ways than one.

[Colleen]

Abuse takes many forms.

 

That's correct.

 

Tacitly withholding your approval of something is a form of exclusion.

 

No' date=' it isn't.

 

Exclusion can only exist with oppression.

 

I don't agree.

 

To say that the legion is simply "withholding our approval" (try saying THAT without sniffing and holding your nose in the air -- can't you just picture it?!?) takes on a much larger assumption of nobility. "Oh, I would NEVER outwardly abuse a homosexual in word or deed. I just withhold my approval."

 

You're mistakenly assuming there are merely two polarized reactions to this issue.

[Erica in PA]

But how do you truly love someone and support them if you believe an integral part of who they are is a choice, something they can change, when they can't change it anymore then their skin color or their height.

 

I don't agree with you that it is something "they can't change anymore than their skin color or their height." I find it interesting that you are so convinced that it is genetically determined, when in fact there is *no* evidence to that end. There are many groups who would be absolutely thrilled to have that kind of scientific evidence, and who would be sharing that evidence everywhere... and yet, there is none.

 

With the current scientific findings, there are really two choices: either believe that it is a choice, or believe that it is something genetic. Either way, you are *believing.* Nothing has been proven. My understanding leads me to believe that it is not genetically set in stone, yours leads you to believe that it is. That doesn't in itself make either of us kinder or more tolerant.

 

It is possible to believe that there is choice involved, and still treat people with dignity and love, which is where the common ground comes in. And it's also possible to believe that a person is doing something morally wrong, and still treat that person with dignity and love. It's only in today's society that the idea has come around that to truly be kind, you must approve of every moral action another person takes.

 

I could go on, but I'm not sure how useful it would be. I'll leave it there for now.

 

Erica

[Erica in PA]

I will very cautiously try and answer this, but please know that I have no judgement in my heart. I believe that God's plan was one man, one woman as spelled out in Genesis. The Bible does address homosexuality as a sin. I don't think it is any more a sin than any others (big or small!) I have struggled over whether it is a choice or not. If I am to remain consistent, I have to believe it is a choice, just as purity before or in marriage is a choice. But, I will be honest in saying that I really have problems with this personally. I have had good friends that are homosexual and we have discussed this issue. One friend told me that he begged God to take away his desires. My only response to that is compassion!! I don't understand this, so I choose to err on the side of love and acceptance. Not of the choice, but of the person. I can not bring myself to say that I think homosexuality is OK, nor can I bring myself to condemn those who live this life.

 

I don't know if this answers your question or not. I believe that is more complex than "accepting" homosexuality or not. I accept it that there are wonderful people (even those I love) who are gay. But, I don't accept it as God's plan. I accept gay people but not that part of their behavior. Once I had a very complicated conversation with a good friend about this. We had to agree that it was possible for me to accept him without saying that I think homosexuality is OK. It would be like him saying that he couldn't be my friend because I was a Christian and he didn't agree with my beliefs.

 

I will always choose to err on the side of being loving and accepting of all people.

 

:iagree: Great post, Mindy!

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I haven't read the article, and I can't stand Clay's music, but I am really happy for him and his new baby. He's from NC and around these parts you still have a lot of ignorance and discrimination. It is not an easy place to grow up gay. It's not an easy place to raise a child when you are gay. I hope Clay continues to be a good role model for young people.

[motherofjoy]

" I find it interesting that you are so convinced that it is genetically determined, when in fact there is *no* evidence to that end.

Erica

 

There's no hard scientific evidence that handedness is genetic or a behavior either, and again, it's prevalent in about 90% of the population. Would you agree that it's a choice and that anyone, if they so choose, could be right or left handed?

 

re: http://www.iched.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=iched&item_id=research_lefthandedness

 

And actually, there is scientific evidence emerging from the research: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3735668.stm

 

There's little research because funding dollars to go projects designed to discover and treat genetic diseases, not answer moral debates.

[ma23peas]

For example, I have statues of Buddhas in every room of my home. Many would say that makes me an "idolater". I'm completely unapologetic for this "sin" and I have no intentions of changing my ways. But I doubt anyone would claim I'm not entitled to the same legal rights as non-idolaters. So that does make it seem like some people feel homosexuality is a more grievous sin than idolatry.

 

BTW, Tara, even though I used a quote from you as a jumping-off point for this discussion, it isn't aimed specifically at you. I would be interested in anyone's input on this. To me, the belief that "my religion teaches this is wrong" does not *necessarily* lead to "therefore it should be legislated as such". My religion teaches non-violence, and gun ownership is something I have a serious moral objection to. But I'm not sure that means guns should be outlawed. So I'm just saying, it's one thing to feel that homosexuality is wrong, it's another to claim that homosexuals should be treated differently by law.

 

 

I am more than open to discussion on this issue and I feel it's important to have these exchanges...

 

Ten years ago there was a push to take pedophilia out of the DSM-III book as a deviant behavior. They can also make that claim that it's how they were born and it's only natural for them to be able to have a relationship with a child...it's not about one sin being greater than the other, it's about legitimizing a lifestyle...by giving them rights on a federal basis I believe your are forcing an acceptance on all people...I feel the same way about roe-v-wade..the lady the abortion rights initially used to get this to the courts is so against abortion and details her history with the proceedings, she never wanted abortion rights, an amazing story to read...but our country was founded on for the people by the people..and most of the laws were meant for each state to govern, I have no problem with California passing a law for gay marriage, IF the majority of people in that state call for it, not just one judge or one court...I have the freedom to move and not accept the law...

 

This is not scientific but I have found that those leading that lifestyle have been abused either emotionally or physically in the past...I firmly believe it is a nurture issue..I have yet to find a homosexual who did not have a very disprivileged life in the terms of affection and caring....an absent father, an emotionally distant or abusive father..an over critical mother....and there have been homosexuals who do change their lifestyle and embrace heterosexuality..they have a story to tell and it's not about pressure to fit it it's about a choice...their stories are never on the cover of People. How about a cover, I CAME OUT then I CHANGED....

 

Tara

[Erica in PA]

One more thing about choice being involved... I don't think that anyone is suggesting that one day a person wakes up and out of the blue thinks, "You know what? I'm going to be gay!" No one thinks that is how it happens. When people say that there is choice involved, at least some of us believe it is something that takes place over time, from a young age on up. A lot of little choices along the way, along with relationships, experiences, possibly genetic predisposition, etc, that all together eventually lead a person at puberty to develop sexual feelings for the same sex, rather than the opposite.

 

As a parallel, let's take weight. I did not wake up one morning and say, "I am going to be overweight!!! That is my plan." No one would willingly *choose* that. (Just as many people say, no one would actually choose to be gay.) And yet, even though it was not a conscious choice that I made, lots of factors, including some genetic predisposition, but most of all *choices* that I made along the way, have led me to the point where I am not overweight, and where I crave junky food. Is is morally right for me to binge on Ben and Jerry's, and gain more and more weight? No, it's not. Can I blame my DNA alone for my weight? No. It's may be partly that, partly habits I learned growing up, *and* choices that I've made, tastes that I've endulged over the years.

 

I am hoping that this will shed some light for people who don't understand how anyone could think that homosexuality could possibly have anything to do with choice. That's how I see it, anyway. In Bringing Up Boys, James Dobson has what I think is a good explanation of how this process takes place, if anyone wants to read his understanding it.

 

Erica

[PariSarah]

 

It seems to me that human attraction *is* a matter of biology.

 

Every thing about human action is a matter of biology. What you choose to do predisposes you to do it again. Or your genetic makeup determines a particular mix of hormones, which predispose you to respond to stimuli in a certain way. Or an experience so marks you that an entire set of behaviors is imprinted (or eliminated). Physical actions make structural changes in your brain, making it more or less likely that you'll do so-and-so or such-and-such.

 

But biology only partially illuminates our understanding of morality. We've long understood that some people are less in control of their actions than others. But except where the loss of control is severe and unusual, they are still generally held responsible for those actions.

 

If we held biology to be the determinative factor for morality, a lot of our moral codes would have to go. Monogamy is ludicrous, from a biological perspective. Unlike in other species, the human male seems not to be hardwired for it. Yet we (or some of us) still count adultery as a moral evil. Biology is not the end of the discussion. And in some cases, it's not even a very productive beginning of the discussion.

 

Never mind that some of the studies are less persuasive than others. Even if there were an unambiguous and irresistible biological component to sexual attraction, it doesn't end the discussion, because biology has never been more than a contributing factor in moral theology or philosophy. "But I'm hardwired that way" is only a very small part of the discussion.

[Jennifer3141]

I remember reading something in National Geographic a few years ago that answered the question FOR ME (my personal emphasis). Apparently, around 10% of any long-term studied animal population engaged in some form of homosexual activity.

 

Since I'm guessing that the xebras on the savannah aren't watching "The L Word" on HBO, I think that's just their nature. Not wrong. Not right. Just natural for that 10%.

 

Jen

[Greta]

I appreciate your reply, Tara, but whether it's a choice or it's natural isn't really the cornerstone of the issue to me personally. Now it's my opinion that homosexuality probably *is* natural or genetic, but my argument for equal treatment under the law doesn't depend on that, and I would feel the same about gay rights even if my suspicion were proven untrue. You brought up pedophilia, but that's apples and oranges. One issue is about peaceable actions between consenting adults, the other is about the worst kind of abuse of the powerless by the powerful. Maybe I'm just not "getting" what you meant by the comparison, so I'm certainly willing to listen if you want to try to explain it to me. Right now, I just don't see the relevance.

 

Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of the word "acceptance". I don't see how gays having equal rights under the law in any way forces anyone else to "accept" homosexuality. Tolerate maybe, but not accept. And there are just all kinds of ways in which we have to tolerate other people's choices in a civilized society. We don't have to like them, don't have to accept them, but we do have to tolerate them because they have rights too. In an effort to "pick on" myself and not anyone else, I'll use my own religion as an example again. The laws in the US allow me to practice my religion even though it may be deemed offensive or sinful by others. You don't have to accept my religion, but you do have to tolerate my right to practice it.

 

I'm sorry this was kind of rushed. Have to take my dd to Taekwondo practice. I will check in later, and I'm glad we can converse about this.

[Melinda in VT]

I don't agree with you that it is something "they can't change anymore than their skin color or their height." I find it interesting that you are so convinced that it is genetically determined, when in fact there is *no* evidence to that end. There are many groups who would be absolutely thrilled to have that kind of scientific evidence, and who would be sharing that evidence everywhere... and yet, there is none.

 

I am not aware of anyone having discovered a specific gene that determines homosexuality, but there are multiple studies whose findings indicate that there is a genetic component to homosexuality.

 

You can read about some of them here.

[Melinda in VT]

Never mind that some of the studies are less persuasive than others. Even if there were an unambiguous and irresistible biological component to sexual attraction, it doesn't end the discussion, because biology has never been more than a contributing factor in moral theology or philosophy. "But I'm hardwired that way" is only a very small part of the discussion.

 

I see where you are coming from, and I sort of agree. Certainly I don't think that everything people are predisposed to do is moral.

 

However, I know that for me the realization that for many people their attraction to a member of the same sex was as strong and as out of their control as my attraction to my husband that made me take a long look at whether I could justify denying their loving relationships the same rights under the law as my relationship with my husband.

 

Is there any evidence that committed homosexual relationships are damaging to society? I have never been able to find any.

 

Now, I understand that some people's religious beliefs teach them that homosexuality is damaging to the people practicing it. And I accept their right to believe that. But I don't think we can make laws based on that religious belief without favoring one religion over another for no reason that holds up in a nonreligious argument.

 

And frankly, I think that even if one believes homosexuality is harmful (I don't, but just supposing), a committed relationship is less harmful than a succession of temporary relationships.

[Mekanamom]

With the current scientific findings, there are really two choices: either believe that it is a choice, or believe that it is something genetic. Either way, you are *believing.* Nothing has been proven.

 

So... if you believe it is a choice, do you believe that all people are born bisexual?

[Mommy22alyns]

Is there any evidence that committed homosexual relationships are damaging to society? I have never been able to find any.

 

Now, I understand that some people's religious beliefs teach them that homosexuality is damaging to the people practicing it. And I accept their right to believe that. But I don't think we can make laws based on that religious belief without favoring one religion over another for no reason that holds up in a nonreligious argument.

 

And frankly, I think that even if one believes homosexuality is harmful (I don't, but just supposing), a committed relationship is less harmful than a succession of temporary relationships.

 

 

:iagree: And this is one of those moments where I miss having rep to give out.

[Home'scool]

Okay Colleen, let's try this analogy:

 

You and I run in the same circles. Maybe we belong to the same church, or are even part of the same book club.

 

We've always been nice to each other. Respectful, friendly and all that.

 

Then one day you find out that I disapprove of you marrying a "foreigner". It's unnatural to marry someone outside of your own country. I obviously have xenophobia, but I prefer to frame it as just a choice I make on how to live my life, and how I think others should live. You've heard that I have said that I don't agree with it, don't understand it, and that I have stated that I "withhold my approval of your marriage." I tell people that I like you as a person, just don't approve of you marriage.

 

Wouldn't your first reaction be "Well who the heck asked you for your approval anyways?" followed closely by feeling insulted and somehow ...... slighted? Disrespected?

 

What if I continued to be nice to you and welcoming whenever I saw you, but you knew I did not approve of your marriage choice. Would you be able to accept my version of friendship to you? Wouldn't you think less of me for thinking less of you?

[Erica in PA]

So... if you believe it is a choice, do you believe that all people are born bisexual?

 

I wouldn't use the word bisexual, but I guess I would say that anyone could have the capacity to have sexual contact with someone of the same sex. Just the same way that anyone could have the capacity to have a bad temper, or overeat, or become an alcoholic-- but some people, due to a combination of many factors, are more likely to fall into those patterns than others.

 

Erica

[Erica in PA]

From what I know about the changes in law that are being advocated for gay rights, it's not like anyone is trying to say you have to "embrace homosexuality" or even approve of it, only that gay couples should have the same LEGAL rights and standing as straight couples.

 

I've heard many Christians say that they don't think homosexuality is any more or less "serious" than any other sin. But if you advocate treating homosexuals differently in the eyes of the law than you do heterosexuals, isn't that effectively saying that you think it's worse? I'm a sinner, in many ways, by the Christian definition of the word. For example, I have statues of Buddhas in every room of my home. Many would say that makes me an "idolater". I'm completely unapologetic for this "sin" and I have no intentions of changing my ways. But I doubt anyone would claim I'm not entitled to the same legal rights as non-idolaters. So that does make it seem like some people feel homosexuality is a more grievous sin than idolatry.

 

BTW, Tara, even though I used a quote from you as a jumping-off point for this discussion, it isn't aimed specifically at you. I would be interested in anyone's input on this. To me, the belief that "my religion teaches this is wrong" does not *necessarily* lead to "therefore it should be legislated as such". My religion teaches non-violence, and gun ownership is something I have a serious moral objection to. But I'm not sure that means guns should be outlawed. So I'm just saying, it's one thing to feel that homosexuality is wrong, it's another to claim that homosexuals should be treated differently by law.

 

But isn't recognizing a legal marriage somewhat of a statement of approval by "the people?" That's why up until now, in the US marriage has been approved for only one man, one woman. There are many other ways that people can have relationships with one another, or even legal rights (i.e. civil unions), but I find it interesting that people want to push specifically for gay *marriages.* That makes it clear to me that in reality, there is a level of approval being sought, and that it's not merely about legal rights, because civil unions can provide those.

 

There are many other types of relationships that go on every day other than one-man, one-woman relationships, but none of them are recognized legally as marriage in our country. Homosexuals are not the only variation not legally recognized. That's why I don't view it as discriminatory.

 

There is nothing stopping a gay couple from spending their entire life together, and having legal rights to go along with that. It's not illegal.

No one is preventing them from doing so. It's only when it comes to calling it marriage, and thus *changing* the very definition of marriage so as to include them and show our approval of their relationship, that I cannot agree to it.

 

Erica

[nmoira]

 

There are many other ways that people can have relationships with one another, or even legal rights (i.e. civil unions), but I find it interesting that people want to push specifically for gay *marriages.* That makes it clear to me that in reality, there is a level of approval being sought, and that it's not merely about legal rights, because civil unions can provide those.

Now take this with a grain of salt, because I'm speaking as someone who doesn't feel at all this way about marriage (I view is as little more than a civil union): Isn't it possible that it could be about making a symbolic commitment to one's chosen life partner? This is what marriage represents to many, gay or straight, in our more secularized society, rather than merely seeking outside validation. How did you view your wedding? Were you thinking about how your relationship was about to be validated by society at large, or were you focused on a the commitment your were making to your soon-to-be spouse? Or was it something else?

[Greta]

Erica, I guess I am not sure about the difference in the terms "marriage" and "civil union". My impression was that while a "marriage" performed in one state is legally binding in all 49 of the others, a "civil union" is something that is granted in one state, but is not recognized in another. For example, Vermont passed a law to recognize "civil unions" between gay couples, but those unions would not be recognized or legally binding in other states, so it's not considered a marriage.

 

Am I completely misunderstanding the use of the term?

 

IF my understanding is correct, then it makes perfect sense to me that there would be a push for "marriage" that would be legally recognized if the couple moved to another state. If, however, my understanding of the term is totally off base, then, well, I need to find out what the terms really mean before I can have any kind of meaningful conversation about them! :)

[Audrey]

...I firmly believe it is a nurture issue..I have yet to find a homosexual who did not have a very disprivileged life in the terms of affection and caring....an absent father, an emotionally distant or abusive father..an over critical mother....and there have been homosexuals who do change their lifestyle and embrace heterosexuality..they have a story to tell and it's not about pressure to fit it it's about a choice...their stories are never on the cover of People. How about a cover, I CAME OUT then I CHANGED....

 

Tara

 

What you are saying is that you think people are gay because they were damaged by their parents???

 

I don't know if you realise that there are parents on this very board with gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered children who are deeply hurt by the implication you've made here.

 

There is one, specifically, of whom I am thinking, and she is nothing less than a deeply caring, loving and NUTURING parent.

[Zelda]

I will very cautiously try and answer this, but please know that I have no judgement in my heart. I believe that God's plan was one man, one woman as spelled out in Genesis. The Bible does address homosexuality as a sin. I don't think it is any more a sin than any others (big or small!) I have struggled over whether it is a choice or not. If I am to remain consistent, I have to believe it is a choice, just as purity before or in marriage is a choice. But, I will be honest in saying that I really have problems with this personally. I have had good friends that are homosexual and we have discussed this issue. One friend told me that he begged God to take away his desires. My only response to that is compassion!! I don't understand this, so I choose to err on the side of love and acceptance. Not of the choice, but of the person. I can not bring myself to say that I think homosexuality is OK, nor can I bring myself to condemn those who live this life.

 

I don't know if this answers your question or not. I believe that is more complex than "accepting" homosexuality or not. I accept it that there are wonderful people (even those I love) who are gay. But, I don't accept it as God's plan. I accept gay people but not that part of their behavior. Once I had a very complicated conversation with a good friend about this. We had to agree that it was possible for me to accept him without saying that I think homosexuality is OK. It would be like him saying that he couldn't be my friend because I was a Christian and he didn't agree with my beliefs.

 

I will always choose to err on the side of being loving and accepting of all people.

 

I think this is very well stated, if I can presume to be in a position to judge the wellness of any statement.

 

I do not share your religious views nor do I share your views of homosexuality as immoral. I do believe it is most often biological and that from an evolutionary standpoint it is a flaw. But not a flaw of character. Even if one acts upon it.

 

But even though I don't agree with you, I refuse to condemn you for your beliefs, even while that is the currently popular and accepted response to anyone who does not accept homosexual behavior (behavior and not orientation) as a moral choice. I refuse to treat your religion in a dismissive manner as crude and unrefined. If, in your actions you bring harm to no one, and treat those who oppose you with courtesy and respect then I would be ashamed to subject you to the kind of ridicule and slander that I too often hear directed toward people who share your beliefs.

[nmoira]

What you are saying is that you think people are gay because they were damaged by their parents???

 

I don't know if you realise that there are parents on this very board with gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered children who are deeply hurt by the implication you've made here.

 

There is one, specifically, of whom I am thinking, and she is nothing less than a deeply caring, loving and NUTURING parent.

Gosh, I missed that post entirely. :banghead:

 

I know some perfectly well adjusted gay people with supportive families, and some who at best received no support and at worst, well, much worse. I had a good friend in high school whose father beat him to a pulp when he came out. Do you think he has some issues? Yeah. Did his issues make him gay? No. He was already gay.

[Apiphobic]

I have been having a mental debate for days over whether or not to revive this thread, but I am convinced that we can have a civil discussion about the topic, so here it is.

 

Oh, nooo! *wailing and gnashing of the teeth* How could you, Crissy? You, you ... *sobs* rabble-rouser, you!

 

 

(I'm joking here. Please, no wet noodle lashing.)

[Greta]

Gosh, I missed that post entirely. :banghead:

 

 

 

Yeah, I didn't miss it (well, obviously, since I responded to part of it) but I refrained from addressing that part because I thought I might overreact (and because I was rushing). So all I'm going to say is that I know some very loving and kind parents, parents anyone would be lucky to call their own, who happen to have children who are gay. That is all.

[Peek a Boo]

What if I continued to be nice to you and welcoming whenever I saw you' date=' but you [i']knew[/i] I did not approve of your marriage choice. Would you be able to accept my version of friendship to you? Wouldn't you think less of me for thinking less of you?

 

i have an atheist friend. we both know the other doesn't "approve" of our beliefs, but we are still friends. Even when people make disparaging jokes about Christians, but then turn around and be nice to me, I can't hold that against them unless I want to be eaten up w/ bitterness. Someone else in another thread mentioned that it was "ok" to say and think things about people as long as you don't make it known to that other person. I disagree that that line of thinking is "ok" but it is seen a lot in secular/atheist circles too.

 

 

or as Jenny put it:

But how do you truly love someone and support them if you believe an integral part of who they are is a choice, something they can change, when they can't change it anymore then their skin color or their height.

 

lots of people think EXACTLY that about faith and religious issues. we are excluded by the statements made by others in jest and ridicule. This isn't just Christians doing this to homosexuals --it plays out in other areas of life too.

 

but back to me and my atheist friend: Who i am and what i think of YOU doesn't depend on what YOU think about ME. Friendship doesn't have to be a quid pro quo thing, altho many people make it out to be. I don't need to approve or agree with all aspects of a person in order to give --and receive-- legitimate friendship.

 

and yeah, homosexuality is just as Biblically wrong as lying, stealing, fornication outside marriage, etc etc.

 

and even if it fuels a strong urge [like sexual "love" outside marriage], that's still an urge that is explained as wrong. I'm not God, so i won't try to argue w/ Him ;)

 

 

BUT, i do agree that a secular society can benefit from allowing nationally-recognized civil unions for EVERYONE and leaving "marriages" up to the church.

So one could be married w/o being legally recognized.

One could be legally recognized w/o being married in a faith/church.

or neither, or both :D

[cathmom]

Now take this with a grain of salt, because I'm speaking as someone who doesn't feel at all this way about marriage (I view is as little more than a civil union): Isn't it possible that it could be about making a symbolic commitment to one's chosen life partner? This is what marriage represents to many, gay or straight, in our more secularized society, rather than merely seeking outside validation. How did you view your wedding? Were you thinking about how your relationship was about to be validated by society at large, or were you focused on a the commitment your were making to your soon-to-be spouse? Or was it something else?

 

I was thinking that I was entering into a sacrament that was for my whole entire life and required all of my being. I was entering into it in my church, with witnesses, and reflecting upon the honor we would (hopefully) have of accepting children lovingly from Him and raising them in His Church.

[CLHCO]

Since something like 10% of the population is gay, I'm surprised it's still interesting enough to be news.

 

It's been known for quite some time that it's not 10% but no one has changed those numbers when reporting for the general population. It's more like 2%, with a maximum of 7%, though most are 2-3% at best, give or take who looks at which study. Even a quick look at Wikipedia will show that with a long list of studies if you're reluctant to look at Wikipedia's claims or at the link above.

 

Now, I am fine with someone arguing that the percentage of people shouldn't in any way effect how gays or lesbians are treated in our society, but for the love of Pete, I just have to wonder why we are still using 10% and even the gay community seems to perpetuate these old statistics from the 40s and 50s? Clarity and honesty first, then let's discuss the issues and needs. Anything else makes credibility questionable.