Category: LGBT Discussion
So, a christian pastor wrote a blog post talking about what he'll do if his children are gay.
The post has been covered in the news, I'll put a link to the news article and his original post.
This is the news article http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/read-what-christian-pastor-promises-do-if-his-children-are-gay270914
And here is his original blog post
http://johnpavlovitz.com/2014/09/17/if-i-have-gay-children-four-promises-from-a-christian-pastorparent/
I hope you like it as much as I did.
Wow, I wish everyone could have at least one parrent who was as accepting as this. It actually brought tears to my eyes.
I agree with Anthony. It was the kind of Christian response I would advocate for and hope
that any Christian would have towards their kids. I know it's how I would do things
myself, just better articulated than I could ever put into words.
Wow, I was not going to read the article because I thought it'd be a typical response, but so glad I changed my mind. What a refreshing thing to read. Well done to that pastor and may he get many good things coming his way, and perhaps teach others, through his writings.
Am I the only person who finds this incredibly sad? Think about it people.
You're celebrating the fact that a guy wrote a blog post saying, basically, "If my
children are gay, I'll treat them like they're my children". Are our moral
standards so low that someone who literally does the very least one should ever
expect of a parent is celebrated like this? How far down have we sunk that we
give people who are exactly at the expected level, basically mediocrity, press
coverage as if they did something wonderful? This guy hasn't done anything. All
he's saying is that he's going to act in the exact way every single human being
should act. Why are we celebrating such bland mediocrity?
Would you celebrate a guy who wrote a blog post saying that if his daughter
decided to date a black guy he wouldn't lynch him? Of course you wouldn't.
You'd read it and say, "Well, yeah, of course you wouldn't lynch him. You're not
a monster." So why aren't we holding everyone to higher standards than that?
Why is average suddenly a good thing?
Think of the meaning behind why you find this post so great. Its because you
know that the vast majority of the things you read hear and experience about
religion make your stomach turn. And yet none of you will do anything about it.
You are perfectly outlining with your reaction to this blog post exactly what the
problem is. We celebrate those who behave as even the basest human being
would act, and put them up on a pedestal as if they've done something special;
simply because they don't act like the dicks most christians do. Why don't you
see a problem with that?
I was with you up until the "most christians acting like dicks" comment, which is a purely subjective oppinion. In any case I mostly agree. It is mainly sad that this is even necessary at all. This is merely common human decency. But it is also a counterweight to all the intollerant and hate-filled anal leakage which has dribbled its way into many a discussion. This pastor is simply acting like a good parent. But it does stand out because of all the rediculous vocal minorities - in this case Christian minorities) spouting hatred and intolerance which misrepresent and give the rest of us a bad name. It's a man standing up and representing the other end of the spectrum. And as much as I hate to admit that, we need people like that. Because despite what some people might think, Christians are not monster dicks. There just happen to be some monster dicks dwelling behind a facade of Christian vertue, sperting their tainted oral spunk and moaning in self-fulfilling extacy.
Cody, I know Christians who, if they discovered this article via a Christian source or on their own, might have a change of mind.
You're right, it's sad. you're right, there's a lot of immorality when it comes to people putting their ideology ahead of their children. But as a humanist I must say, I'm really glad to see this. I don't know what kind of Christian he is, what brand, if you will. That matters only in that evangelicals will typically only listen to other evangelicals. He sounds like one of these, quoting the passage the pro-lifers use. Christians aren't necessarily going to listen to atheists, secular humanists, as I am. They will listen to each other, though, and if one of these gets their head straight on this issue, others will follow.
You know, during emergencies and disasters, churches - particularly Christian churches - are one source to be used to move people out of harm's way. Know why? The "flock" typically listens to the head person, they're very authority-centric. You can read about it on the Incident Command System courses available from FEMA to anyone who wants to take them. I say this, because for a lot of church people, their leader(s) are almost governmental in nature. So if one of these starts supporting gay kids, well, their followers - many of them - will come along.
Now as to your question about the interracial dating? How do you or I know such a blog would not have been written in the 1970s? There was no blogosphere then, and yet there were pamphlets and leaflets, people promoting stuff like that. Hell, one of my first books to read in school, which was new and innovative at the time, was "Black is Beautiful."
Oh, and I do relate to the pastor's description of when the kids are born and all that.
Sorry to break it to you BG, but christians who actually act nice and give true
equality are a minority, and from what you've displayed on other board posts,
you aren't one of that minority. The reason for that is simple, christianity in and
of itself is a system of separating. Its all fine and good to say, "I think gays
should be allowed to get married", but when you follow that up by saying,
"God'll sort them out". You're being just as judgmental as those who say they
shouldn't be allowed to get married. You're just doing it without getting your
hands dirty. And you can plug in anything you want. If you think that hell exists
and certain people are going to end up there for certain acts, you're being
judgmental, and you're just as guilty. And that is a base tenet of christianity.
Leo, yes, christians do listen to other christians, but infrequently does it work
out that they're pulled closer to rationality. usually, if a christian listens to
another christian, its to become more christian. Which, if you look at the
paragraph above, means to be more bigoted and divisive. Because, if you read
the tenets of christianity, bigotry and divisiveness are pretty much synonyms for
it.
I concur RE: its tenants, at least from what I read reading the Bible several times through. But they're no longer en masse supporting racial exclusivism or any number of other things their haith has supported in the past.
Whether they want to believe it or not, their faith is not fixed, it evolves. This is as true for the evangelicals as anyone else. It's true you usually don't see rational results but this one may be an exception.
I saw those who rejected it, however, all one needs to do is read through the comments to that blog post. Many supported it from a humanistic point of view, some attaching some Christian meaning to his words, and yes, there were plenty of others who think he is a "false prophet" among other ad hominem attacks. But for those that are influenced by his example, their kids will be far better off.
I agree that it's sad, that we shouldn't have to post this stuff, but the fact is, so many christians don't think like this. So, I think it was Leo who said there needs to be people who stand up and say this. Not for people like us, who already think this way, but for other christians, who likely don't. If this just shows one person how there current perspective is wrong then surely it's a good thing?
I hope there comes a day when this way of thinking is the norm, but right now it isn't, and if he can show other people that just because they have a religion doesn't mean they have to treat people badly...then he's done a good thing I think.
Let's compare this to a subject most of us are familiar with. Is it sad that we as blind people have to educate others, be they blind or sighted, that blind folks are regular people, who can be independent, hold down jobs, travel safely, etc? Yes, it's sad, but it's needed, because by and large the sighted public is pretty stupid when it comes to those issues. It's also needed because there are even blind people who, whether because they were sheltered, or told otherwise, don't know they can live their own life. Sometimes they need other blind people to tell, or more importantly show them that it's possible. Sometimes such people listen only to other blind people. Why"? Because we actually live it. We live what we're talking about, not just spouting something we don't understand. Maybe it shouldn't be needed, or be that way, but it is.
So back to the article and topic at hand. This shouldn't be needed either, and it's sad that it is, but I'm still glad the guy wrote it. Christians may listen to it, not so much because it's an authority thing, but because people groups tend to listen to others of that same group. That's the case whether we're talking about people who have a disability in common, someone who is the same race, works at the same place they do, or, in this case, the same religion. Why do so many of you think this phenomenon is unique to Christians? Confusing.
And, to whoever said faith evolves, of course it does, because people evolve.
As a Christian, and a preacher, and a family member of a cousin who is gay, I think this pastor is on point. It's not about agreeing with, or condoning a lifestyle, it's about loving somebody without boundary, which is the way Christ loved people on this earth. He forgave prostitutes, ate dinner with the lowest of the low, and generally had little use for the organized religion of the day. I think Jesus would love a gay person the same way. You don't need to see eye to eye with somebody 100 percent to love them unconditionally.
right on, Jesse.
life is not all about agreeing with the choices of others, but learning to put ones own feelings aside, when it comes to choices people make that we don't agree with.
Exactly! Personally I'm sick of the whole gay rites thing, not because it isn't important, but because I feel, Christian though I am that we live in an age where such things shouldn't even be an issue. But they are , and because they are , people need to be vocal about opposing the hate and biggotry. Frankly I'm bloody sick of being lumped in with all those against it just because I'm Christian. And I'm sorry, but in many ways people who automatically assume All Christians are like that are just part of the problem. Look to the individual, not the body and you'll find there are a great many people no different than this pastor.
Well, BG, it's probably the same reason people think all atheists are more antitheistic than humanistic, or you have the caricature of the "noisy atheist", propped up by folks like "The Amazing Atheist" on Youtube. It's the loudest ones who get heard. It's true of all groups of people.
Alicia and others have grought up good points. I guess I'm the odd one out here,, I'm not in the least bit sad this guy posted the article, nor that people are responding to it. In the marketplace of ideas, people reward some ideas with their approval and not others.
Alicia, you're right not only Christians have strong feelings about homosexuals and homosexuality. I'm on the Internet with some Muslim apostates quite frequently, and they have much the same tales to tell as do people who are brought up in Christian societies. It simply depends on what society you're in, and you're in a largely Christian one. Plus Christianity at 3.5 billion strong is the most predominant religion on the planet, with the greatest power and influence. I get that various sects feel more or less persecuted or disenfranchised, but I'm only talking raw statistical numbers here. The bottom line, the who-owns-what and the who-can-do-what-to-whom. So yes, Christians get all the criticism because theirs is the supermajority. That's the only reason. If we have some Wiccans that think the moon goddess or whoever doesn't like gays or homosexuality, you're not likely to hear about them. Where are they in the political process? What political party is primarily Wiccan? What guns, oil fields, countries, corporations, and governments do they own? Where are the Wiccan apologists, the flamboyant William Lane Craigs and Dinesh D'Souza's or the slightly plumby C. S. Lewises of that or any other tiny community? What I'm saying is, people point it out when it's Christians, because Christians are ubiquitous.
If you lived near Rosweld, you'd be surrounded by UFO believers. You'd think, all anyone did was "persecute" (in quotes) these UFO believers. Out here in Oregon, we have the Bigfoot followers, and some of them complain the skeptics only point out the unlikelihood of Bigfoot. It's the ubiquitous that gets all the attention. And that's the reason Christians get pointed out. I realize this turns some of the mythology upside down, but, well, the numbers are what they are. If you were in a Muslim country, all they'd be talking about (underground, perhaps) would be the Muslim opinion on this stuff. It all depends on where you are. That's the reason people point to the Christians on this.
Now when more like BG speak out and are recognized and respected by the Christian community at large, and their opinion becomes the dominant opinion, people will think differently.
Because it isn't a problem, and as you say we are not celebrating it. It's the fact that he is willing to accept his children the way they are. I fail to see what is wrong with writing a blog post about it. Would you rather only see depressing news / media coverage where all they talk about is killings, police brutality, etc? These sorts of things lead to changes in people's perspectives in society. This is how we learn from our history. It is much mor likely to learnfrom a person's account than it is from a history book, because when you ead a person's account and opinions, it is easer to relate.
although people are saying blog posts like this are important, I couldn’t disagree more.
this sort of thing is only an issue cause people choose to make it one, not cause it actually adds value to anyone’s life.
to quote the blog writer himself, his opening statement says, "sometimes I wonder if I’ll have gay children.
I’m not sure if other parents think about this, but I do; quite often."
he then goes on to say, "I won’t try to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes, and I won’t try to spare the feelings of those who may be older, or easily offended, or uncomfortable."
from both of these quotes, along with the article as a whole, it seems like he wants attention, the way gay people want attention when they advertise their sexuality.
it also seems like he’s using his kids to further his political agenda, by assuming something about them that may not even happen the way he’s aiming to prepare himself, and the world, for.
at one point in time, gay people accepted the fact that their lifestyle choice was no one’s business but theirs.
gone are the days when they kept their private lives private, and rarely made their sexuality anyone’s business but their own, and, to me, that's what’s truly sad about this whole thing.
More than that Chelsea, though you are absolutely spot on in that post, he's
thinking he's special. By calling christians like this "liberal christians" or giving
them any kind of adjective at all, we treat them as if they're something special.
We're giving them a lollypop for getting on the plane to fly to tibet to climb
mount everest. They haven't done anything yet. So you're beliefs have changed,
and you don't think gays should be stoned to death any more. Congratulations,
I'm sure you also took in a few breaths today and probably had a bowel
movement or two. Call me when you've done something that requires effort and
sacrifice. So far, this guy hasn't. He's posted a blog post saying, "look at me,
I've improved slightly over the backward and barbaric mythology that I've been
spewing from a pulpit for a decade or so. Yay for me". Sorry, but you don't get
points for returning to being a basic human being. You want points, try losing
your job because of your opinions or your search for knowledge. That's what
Ryan Bell did. That's a real sacrifice. Now, hands up, how many of you have
seen a blog or facebook post about Ryan Bell?
Anybody who writes a blog wants attention, one way or another. I don’t necessarily see how that’s always a bad thing. Anybody who writes on these board topics wants some degree of attention drawn to his or her views, so I’m not sure what the great deal is in that either. I read the blog, and I’ll agree that yes, he wants attention. But in my opinion, it’s not the narcissistic, masturbatory attention so many people seem to want to draw to themselves. I don’t think he’s saying hey, look at me, I want to show how great I am to the rest of the world. He wants us to be persuaded by his views. Many of us already are. But many so-called Christians are not. The late Jerry Fallwells of this world, the Pat Robertsons, the Westboro Baptists and many, many others of their ilk will never be persuaded. But what this guy is doing is attempting to get at least some of them to think, and I don’t see how that’s bad. And if for whatever reason he’s trying to further a political agenda, it seems to me we’re all of us doing that, even on these boards. I do it every time I even express an opinion about politics or religion or any other topic, for that matter. We often want to persuade each other to follow a point of view. We often want what we see as the furtherance of a better political agenda. Frankly, I applaud this guy’s agenda because it’s in opposition to the hate-filled, fear-ridden Christianity so many people fall victim to. I’m no major Christian; I don’t know what I am religiously, but ironically, I don’t think Christ would ever have countenanced such hate and fear, and I think that’s what this guy was attempting to point out. And, um, Christ was not a Christian, besides. As for gay people at one time accepting that “their lifestyle choice” was nobody else’s business, you have to remember what sparked the gay liberation movement in the first place. Can we say Stonewall? There were gay people who wanted to mind their business and do their jobs and live their lives without interference, but they were getting too much interference from society. In this particular instance, the police, who took it upon themselves to raid gay bars at that time. Remember that homosexuality was still criminalized in vast portions of this country, let alone the rest of the world. Many of us didn’t want to be outed, but we were found out and outed anyway. We were fired from our jobs. We were denied housing. We could not marry. We were disowned by our families, rejected by our friends. We were made to feel ashamed of what we are. Many of us committed suicide, took to substance abuse or married someone of the wrong gender just to fit into “normal” society. And most often that didn’t work. So, we rebelled. We outed ourselves. Sometimes you have to step into the light if you wanna be allowed to live your life and mind your own business in the long run. Sure, I’m out more than I’ve ever been in my life, and if that’s advertising, so what? Yeah, I’m advertising. I’m advertising that you can be gay and be an average human being with problems of your own, but one who happens to be gay. There was a time when I didn’t do that; when I was afraid to do that, and that’s because of the society I grew up in at the time. But you know what? I’ve got some pretty good redneck friends who’d defend me to the death because they respect who I am. Being gay isn’t a lifestyle choice anymore than being heterosexual is; it’s an orientation that’s every bit as valid as being straight is, and I think that’s what this guy, whether he was drawing attention to himself or not, was trying to point out. Whether you like it or not, it still has to be done today because gay teens are still encouraged to stay in the closet. Gay people are anathema in Putin’s Russian, in Uganda and in large portions of the Mideast. I have former friends in Oregon who decided to home-school their kids for fear of getting bitten by the gay bug if you can believe it or not. So, if we may be advertising our sexuality to some degree, you can pardon us a bit for doing so; straight people don’t have to advertise. They’re accepted as the norm, whereas even today in many instances, we’re still not.
Cody, before I continue from reading your post directly after mine; you're right, it is very sad but you yourself have gone on rants because this behaviour from christions, so we now see another side and that should be celebrated.
because of, sorry. This is a big step for the majority (sadly) of christions to read and learn.
Ok, Jondy first. I applaud you being out. It takes bravery and sacrifice and not
a little risk to do that. Even in the world today. As I said in my last post, call me
when you've done something that requires sacrifice. Johndy has done that. He's
done something that requires sacrifice and courage, and he should be
applauded.
Now, lets look at this blog post. All its saying is that he's not gonna change
how he treats his children. That's all well and good. Whoopdy do for him. Why is
that something to be applauded? Is he now going to go out and preach in a
megachurch that homosexuality is just fine? I doubt it because he'd lose his job.
Is he going to support the Rainbow House? Possibly, but where's that in his blog
post? Is he going to stand in the ring of human bodies between the westboro
baptists and whatever it is they are protesting that day? I doubt it. Is he going
to go to prison for his views like Pussy Riot did? Of course not, and I'm pretty
sure he'd take the blog post down if that was ever threatened.
So all we have here is a guy writing a blog post that happens to get shared a
lot on Facebook for a few days in which he says some nice things. Great. Now
what difference is that going to make? Is it going to get the law in Missouri
changed? Is it going to get less people beaten or dragged behind trucks? Is it
going to break up the KKK rallies and westboro protests? Is it going to prevent
laws like the one nearly passed in Arizona a few months ago? No, of course not,
and we all know that.
So let me see if I can be a bit more clear on why I have a problem with this. I
have a problem because people, probably him included, are going to think this
is going to make a difference. Its not. Its the equivalent, the exact equivalent,
of pouring ice water on your head for ALS. Its all well and good, and it has good
intentions behind it, and it makes for cute youtube videos of hot celebrities with
wet shirts. But ain't nobody gonna be healed of ALS by you dumping water on
your head. Just like ain't nobody gonna be healed of breast cancer by you
slapping a pink sticker on the bumper of your car. Ain't nobody gonna get
marriage equality because this guy wrote a blog post. And yet, by us celebrating
it as if its this great leap forward in social equality, we're treating it like we're
making progress. That's not progress people. That's stagnation in the disguise
of progress because it gives you the warm fuzzies. Don't be fooled by the warm
fuzzies. No civil rights movement has ever been achieved by warm fuzzies.
Women had starvation protests, blacks had german shepherds attacking them,
gays had beatings and murders and being dragged behind trucks, blind people
had firings and denial of protest rights, and the list goes on and on. Cute blog
posts are just a placebo to make people feel as if they're making a difference.
Now, some may argue that old tired line of "a long journey begins with a
single step", and that's technically true. But this isn't a step forward. This is just
another person joining the rest of the rational and non-bigoted portions of
society at the starting line of the journey. No forward progress has been made
here, and I seriously doubt that any christian has had their faith shaken by this
blog post. It takes a lot more than that to shake someone out of their faith.
Why do you think we have so many debates on that subject? If blogging were
all it took, we'd have perfect social equality by now. We don't.
And on a personal note. No people, jesus would not support gay rights. Read
the bible. He was not all about love and family. He said in his sermon on the
mount "not one iota of the law shall pass until all has been accomplished". What
is part of that law? Yes, the mistreatment of gays. Don't be fooled by that
overblown verse of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". It doesn't
apply to this situation because none of us are jewish pharacies. When you think
of Jesus, think of the guy who healed a slave so he could be a better slave for
his master. He didn't free the slave, or tell the master not to treat him better. He
healed him so that the slave could continue being a slave. Jesus was not all
about peace and love and getting along. He was very much about division and
hatred. He even said so himself.
Cody, I'm glad someone gets the point I was trying to make, which is that no matter how people wanna slice things, this blog post won't accomplish what many seem to think it will, or is accomplishing.
people likely won't change, just cause of something someone has written, whether it's a blog post, or a topic on these boards.
they may tell themselves that they feel like being part of X, Y, or Z thing, but in actuallity, they're sitting at their computers, which is convincing them that they're doing something to further a certain cause, or whatever.
I don't personally believe that being gay is not a lifestyle choice, but that isn't to say I treat gay people any differently than I treat anyone else.
as Jesse so accurately stated in an above post, life isn't about agreeing with every choice people make. it's about treating people well, regardless of their choices, even when you don't agree with what those choices happen to be.
Well, I'd like to go on record here by saying that you're belief is also wrong
Chelsea. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. If it is, please indicate the
moment in time when you decided not to be gay.
I would have thought as Chelsea and Cody do, even a few years ago. However, what we're forgetting, and I've all too often forgotten, is narrative. Like it or not, human beings are evolved relational animals. If Christians see a Christian doing this, that will perhaps motivate them. This isn't about politics, it's about human relationships. And it's not written to us who already treat homosexuals as human beings. It's written to people who are almost persuaded to do so. He is projecting on the possible future. But that is something a lot of parents do for any number of reasons, not always good or bad, sometimes indifferent. But it is narrative, and relatable to others in his circumstance.
The best architects of narrative were not always the best "take your stand" types. But the result is that humans, who like it or not, have an enormous appetite for narrative, respond to this stuff en masse. A few notable exceptions notwithstanding. Ifg somebody writes a narrative about how they used to believe vaccinations poisoned children, or that circumcision was a good thing, and now they've changed their minds, that narrative isn't for you or I who think circumcision is genital mutilation, or us who have gotten our kids vaccinated. That narrative is for those who believe the contrary, and that narrative will likely persuade some people who won't be persuaded by rational discourse.
Some in the Orwellian anti-sex league of various religions or brands of radical feminism may wish that human beings evolved with an entirely different set of drives, but they can't change that. Some of us engineering types have been tremendously guilty of the same thing: putting the chastity belt on the narrative, in favor of facts and figures. We can't deny the human evolved appetite for the narrative. I applaud this guy, not because of politics, and I don't compare him to Harvey Milk. But he's created a narrative to a target audience who will probably listen to it, from someone like him. Believe it or not, there is a growing number of Christians on the Internet who have written countless counterapologetics to the common dogma against homosexuality. They cite Scriptural references, indicate that the homosexual acts described in the Bible are not the loving relationships we all know of modern homosexuals today. I'm not a Christian, so I'm not weighing in on the veracity. But I've heard from several Christians who have said, "You know, I'll have to sit down and study all that at some point." These aren't your streetcorner gay-bashers, more your suburban types, 'concerned about the gay issue'. Of course they're not gonna listen to me, an atheist. And, I don't have a narrative. But this guy does. And you can't deny the human evolved response to narrative any more than you can deny the human evolved response to sexual activities, or certain foods, or relationships and bonding, or anything else we've evolved to respond to.
Of course there are exceptions, and I imagine Chelsea will be one of those to speak up and self-claim as one of the exceptions. But I'll admit, I was moved. I could picture holding that baby in my arms, because I've done just that. I confess that for years, I've been the type to repress this tendency, the same way that aforementioned groups wish people would repress sexual activity. I've been a total narrative prude for most of my life, to my daughter's detriment, and even my own, I think. There waqs a time I would have denied being "moved" by this narrative, because that's for silly irrational theistic types, right? Wrong. Being moved by narrative is human. And that doesn't have to subjugate rationalism, it can complement it.
Maybe it takes a preacher. Forget the religion part, but aren't preachers trained storytellers? Aren't they trained to communicate concepts in narrative form? I think we rationalists have been wrong on this front. To our detriment, and everyone else's.
So, I applaud his narrative.
Cody, if you've read other posts of mine, which I know you have, you'd see that I've made it very clear that I chose to act like I was attracted to people of my same sex cause I was rebelling against family members whose teachings I wanted to disassociate myself from.
I did everything I could to disassociate myself from things they believed, and acting like I supported gay rights was one thing, one of many, I might add.
Chelsea, acting as if you are attracted is not the same as being attracted. I
acted as if I was a christian for a long time to please my family. It didn't make
me a christian. You're conflating two separate issues. You were pretending to be
gay, but were actually straight. That actually proves your belief to be wrong.
You couldn't make yourself truly be gay. You had to act like it. So if that is true
for you, doesn't it stand to reason that it works in the opposite direction? Like I
said, when did you decide to be attracted to men?
Leo, yes, narrative is important, but the problem here is that this isn't really
going to change anything. Christians and nonchristians alike will look at this and
say "aw, how wonderful" if they are already predisposed to say "aw, how
wonderful". If your belief systems lead you to the same conclusion, then you
might agree with this. But humans just aren't wired to change their beliefs so
easily. If you think I'm wrong, go show the blog post to fundamentalist
christians. Read it outside their megachurch. Let me know when you convert
any.
How about read it to a pack of fence-sitting doubters in some of those places, people who need an extra shove, people who are doing their perceived duty by their family. I can think of several such people who I intend to show it to, actually. People to whom I've never outed myself as an atheist just yet, but people I know are doubters of the Evangelical persuasion they go along with for sake of the family. Evangelical churches have got as many closet nonconformists as there are closet homosexuals in there. Used to wash dishes and do other social community activities with quite a few. Kids not around? Great. Spouses absent? Would-be elder off doing something else? Then the checking out starts happening, and once people know they're safe to admit their nonconformity, the more than occasional comment supporting the rights of homosexuals, evolutionary theory, and other things, tend to surface.
Your point about Chelsea is spot on. But usually, once she finds something, her perception is that her new way is the only way, and her former way was wrong, your stereotypical "prodigal" narrative. She's young yet though. Give it time.
Meanwhile, I think I'll compile that list of doubters to send that article to. They'll look at it with privacy settings on so their evangelical wives won't see and perhaps get the 'concerned' (code word for goon squad) alert going.
You just have to be careful RE: the cognitive dissonance factor and the balancing act with families. I'm not gonna do anything to cause a divorce: when the shrill get going in those places, it's like a combination EPIRB in ice and a Geiger counter, all rolled into one.
But anyway, if one must associate with those kind of places, the front door's not the way to do it. And now I personally can't anymore. But for those that think they're still in, while "being reasonable," code word for serious doubt / deconversion, those are the ones this article will benefit. you're not gonna change the tiny mind of Ms. EPIRB Geiger counter radar 'Concerned' or mr. alpha looking for a project. Those ones will have to just grow old and die, in my opinion. Pessimistic, maybe. But, they like what they got, it's a seat of power. You want the doubters, the "reasonable" ones. It amazes me now, just how many of those there actually are. I used to think it was just me, running into a half dozen or so whenever we moved to a new place, usually we lot were around the edges, not in the inner circle. But from what I've read in recent months, there's even preachers on the fence with all this stuff. Many of the "reasonable" don't even know what it is they actually are. I didn't, not for years, not until I took the opportunity during a window of time to take actual stock of myself and do a bit of comparative analysis against the rest, and came away with the obvious conclusion of what I am.
You don't want that front door. You want the seething undercurrent of people that don't buy the narrative, but don't speak up for sake of family or spouse, or because they think they're the only one in the group, or their kids will get picked on by the others. I look back now on all those years, some of which were in quite a hotbed of that stuff. I can only compare what I observed to what a frozen river looks like at the beginning of spring: Looks all nice and glassy on top, but underneath it's seething silt and water, and eventually there's gonna be a break. Before that, you have all these little cracks appear where water bubbles up. it's that seething undercurrent this narrative reaches, that and the stuff you find on BeliefNet. The undercurrent knows it's the undercurrent, and not the top man, or the inner circle. Even Red China had an undercurrent, and had Orwell's 1984 existed as a government and not just a fundamentalist evangelical church, you'd find an undercurrent there. There's a forum I'm on now, where there's been quite a bit of discussion on signals given and received by people without even knowing it, "spot the doubter". You think big, I applaud that. But the engineering principle: You eat an alligator one bite at a time, kind of applies. You won't change the EPIRB / Geiger Counter sounding lemmings. Let them waste their time shrieking whenever they see a March Madness Swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated, and start website hunting. They do seem to know a lot about that particular recreational activity. Stick to the shadows and the ones not making a scene, or perhaps those who occasionally pop up with the occasional less-than-orthodox question or perspective. I predict an outsurbge of these in the next fifty years. Even some evangelical bloggers know it, though, ironically, they demonstrate they haven't the foggiest idea why. They lack a basic fundamental understanding of parity, and there is less and less parity between their Orwellian infrastructure / thoughtcrime analysis and the reality of modern society.
Just what I think, for better or worse.
Leo, for what it's worth, I believe you are spot on with posts 25 and 28. I would forward
this to my contemporaries, who I consider to be moderate but have been indoctrinated to
be anti-gay without really unerstanding why. The suburban, middle class parents with kids
who grapple with the question of what they would do if their child came out, feeling
trapped between their faith and what science is supporting in terms of gayness not being
a lifestyle choice. Cody, this WILL speak to some people I know, who are very much like
me, but who haven't taken the time to really figure out how they feel. This will speak to
people struggling between keeping their faith or leaving it. I can guarantee you that at
least one person will take his words to heart and change, and if that's all that ever
happens from the exporsure to the millions it has reached on Facebook, then to me it's
been worth it. And yes, I'm probably making it sound like Christians are a lazy bunch who
don't really ponder why they feel or believe the way they do, and to a large extent I
actually agree with that, but it is bridging the gap between two divides that your basic
Christian who isn't very educated will be struggling with in a useful, appropriate way.
Yes, many Christians are lazy people who don't really ponder why they believe what they do. But then, that's been my experience with people in general. I've said it before, I'll say it again. That particular phenomenon isn't unique to Christians, or to the issue of faith or lack thereof. If you ask people for their opinions on various topics, a lot of times those opinions exist simply because someone has been told something, not because they've thought it out. Some people stand a certain way on a blindness issue simply because either of the two consumer organizations takes that stance. Or, if it's an employment situation, because they're towing a company line, not because it's what they think. The broader concept there is that people should make up their own minds, whatever the decision or issue is.
While I suppose it is possible that one or two fence straddlers may be pushed
to one side or the other by this post, I'm equally sure that those same fence
straddlers can be pushed right back by the proliferation of justifications for
hating gays in the christian community. This blog post will only help to cure a
few tiny symptoms of the disease. what needs to be done is to fix the disease.
This isn't the way to do that.
It might not be the way to cure it, but I don't think he's doing any harm by writing this. Yes, in an ideal world he wouldn't, because it wouldn't be an issue. But it is, to some people. Also, a lot of Christians with moderate views fear coming out so to speak because of the way they will be treated by their community. So I think it is important, for the reasons Leo talked about. First, to get some of those on the fence to actually think, and secondly to encourage others with similar views to actually speak out.
Also, I have a lot of Christian family, my parents aren't but others are very heavily involved in the church. I'm not sure that all of them would support me if I was to come out. So if it encourages families to talk about these kinds of things then that's also good, I'd like to know that my family were going to support me. I'm straight, so maybe I don't understand how I would feel if I actually was gay, but there are other areas where I question the support I would receive. So I do believe it's important to get people thinking about this at the least.
No, he isn't doing any particular harm. Its just a social symptom that we're
praising him for doing what amounts to absolutely nothing.
The problem with what you said though Holly is that the vast majority of
people have already thought about this. Those who would not support your
homosexuality, already know why they wouldn't support your homosexuality,
and they can give reasons for it which are enough for them. A single blog post
isn't going to be enough to overpower the biblical teachings. Until you can get
people to ignore the bible, blog posts like this are just another version of cat
videos. Sure, they look nice, but they're essentially useless.
according to leo, since I'm young, people should give me time to change my mind.
that's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while, especially given the fact I've been honest about having acted a certain way cause I knew I'd get support from people who weren't my family.
Cody is a few years younger than me, but do you suggest giving him time, since he's young, leo?
no, you don't, cause he agrees with you on many things. he supports many of the same concepts that you do, just as many others on this site support many of the concepts that you do.
a difference in opinion doesn't mean one opinion is wrong, and one opinion is right. maybe you all will learn that truth, someday.
But what "truth?" Seems to me far too many people think they have a monopoly on the truth. As for your assessment that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, you're wrong. If it were a mere matter of being a lifestyle choice, then as a fifteen-year-old boy in high school, I could've turned off my feelings when after gym class I smelled another guy's sweat on me and got an instant hard-on. You don't choose that.
Chelsea, as I've explained to several people before, your opinion has nothing
to do with the truth. You can say, "my opinion is such and such", that doesn't
make that thing true. So, your opinion is that homosexuality is a choice. The
truth is your opinion is ignorant and not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
My opinion is that you don't know what you're talking about. Three different
things, only one of them is the truth.
Cody, my opinion is that your three proposals to Chelsea may not include one that is the
truth either. It is your opinion that one is the truth, even if you feel you have evidence to
support your opinion. So let's agree that yours is not the only valid one.
Just a slight correction. The word is Tenets, not Tenants.
johndy, I'm referring to the truth that people having differences of opinion, doesn't mean that one opinion is right, and all other opinions are wrong.
I would've thought that was easy to figure out, but I'm well aware that most people here can't stand to be strongly disagreed with.
that's why I said that maybe someday, you all will learn to see the truth I'm talking about.
So I tend to agree with Alicia, only I'll be a bit more extreme: We all have areas where we "go along" without forming our opinion because the issue doesn't impact us. I think what people like Alicia are getting at, not trying to put words in your mouth, is when push comes to shove, we really do have to think this stuff through.
Chelsea, you fail to read what I wrote, more reacted to it.
What I meant by you being young? Not what you think. Alicia is older than you, feels differently on many things than you, and I don't say these things towards her. What I meant, I'll spell out here, with a hard break for its own paragraph:
It's very youthful to make a change, and then decide that the only way to be is the way you have fchanged to. So, if I come out as an atheist, and then claim that all religious people are really atheists, and create a grand testimonial story including words about how rebellious I was, and everyone who is as I was is actually wrong and rebellious, this sounds like high school camps my daughter went to. We suffer it with relative dignity when it is teenagers acting this way. Not so much when you get to be an adult. The opinion difference never was the issue. The issue is: You experimented with homosexuality and so thereby everyone who calls themselves a homosexual must be doing it for attention or to rebel, as you now with your newfound beliefs claim has happened. We're taking it for granted that you're right: you're not just saying what happened in your situation. That is very juvenile, compared to understanding your own experience as best you can, and separating experience from what statistically happens most of the time.
You know what? There are things I have experienced in life, and choices I have made in life, that are statistically rare. I'm not a baby boy and so I don't have to get upset that statistically, on average, things don't work out for most people most of the time the way that my, sometimes powerful, personal experiences have worked out. And just because I made certain life choices, some constructive and some destructive, doesn't mean others in that situation will make those exact same choices. We're not carbon copies. The "young" part is the oversimplification part. Personal experience is only personal experience. Yours is unique to you alone, as mine is unique to me alone. But facts and how systems works, that comes from a whole different set of disciplines. You are actually not a whole lot different than you weree: you merely pancake flipped sides. Which is okay. But instead of having one group challenge you, it's another. It's not persecution, but a response to how you usually approach things. There are people on here who hold opinions as strongly as you do, in the camp you now foloow, some of whom you used to argue against. But read their posts, their manner is quite different.
Blunt and black-and-white thinking isn't a license. No doubt you have something to say, whether you think you do or not. But doing the defensive and testimonial / 'prodigal son" narrative is kind of redundant, and nobody ever really learns what is uniquely you.
You have a point Shades. There's no guarantee that my opinion is the truth
either. However, the scientific method, which has nothing to do with opinion,
finds truth. So, since the scientific method has concluded that homosexuality is
genetic, it can't be a choice. Thus, Chelsea's opinion doesn't square with the
truth.
if I believed that my experience was specific to me and me alone, I'd have no problem saying so. however, that isn't what I believe, and I'm not gonna say differently, which is the whole reason I've been honest about this in this topic, as well as in numerous other posts.
the bottom line is, if the guy who wrote this blog post were really a preacher, and believed God's word, he wouldn't find ways to praise homosexuality.
Ah, so you're a Evangelical Christian then, of one form or another. That explains your views entirely. There are of course the biological challenges. At what point did I decide to become straight? If you are a male, and a non-penetrating sexual partner, I guess you could try and make that claim though that can be invalidated. But biology is against you if you think a male's organ could remain at attention sufficiently to penetrate someone / something he doesn't find attractive. This is in the hindbrain. And for females, well, isn't it true all the sex books, even your Christian sex books, state that for women sex is not like a light switch? They need to be emotionally invested in this person, and find them attractive, or, putting it kindly, this produces an unwelcome, and potentially dangerous to her, for her.
You are, like any evangelical, pulling the belief card and that is fine. I can believe all day long that it is possible to divide by zero. I could claim it's in a god's word, even. However, that doesn't render division by 0 mathematically possible, and would crash a program if successfully implemented in one. There's some fruit loop new age schools out here who believe there shouldn't be any objective standardized testing, too. As an evangelical, in that situation, you would believe like most of us, that that is complete bunk. But whether you or I believe it or not, it is in fact complete bunk: no unit of measure = no useful measurement. There's a lot of things people believe. Belief in the end doesn't mater much except to the person who believes it, and all those who agree with them. What we know comes from objective analysis, available only through rational inquiry and the sciences. Those aren't beliefs, they're just tools. In other words, they aren't beliefs any more than the screwdriver I use on a semiregular basis is a belief. But, hey, now you're out, and now we understand where you're coming from. Context is everything. Now that people can know, you'll probably find yourself questioned less, not more, which sounds like what you want.
My reading of the pastor’s blog is that he wasn’t praising homosexuality. He was chastising what he believes is un-Christian behavior. I’ve said often enough that I’m no major biblical scholar, but isn’t there something in that book that says something about love thy neighbor as thyself and judge not lest ye be judged? Also, your experience may not be unique to you and you alone, and that’s fine. But it only shows that your particular experience is unique to you and as many others as who have experienced what you have experienced. If you’re truly straight, no matter what you do, you’re not gunna be attracted to people of the same gender as yourself. You can experiment with homosexuality, but then that only separates the act from the identity. A homosexual act is not the same as actually being gay. A heterosexual act is not the same as being heterosexual. I know. I was in a straight marriage for almost ten years. We had other problems, but the nail in the coffin was that she caught me emotionally cheating with a guy who left messages on our voicemail saying he loved me and wanted to be with me. My point? You have to be true to yourself, whatever that may mean to you, or you get yourself in trouble. But if you’re gay and you really wanna hurt someone of the opposite gender whom you love but not quite enough or in the way they want you to, here’s what you do. Marry them. Lie to them. Lie to yourself while lying to them. Cheat on them, whether emotionally or a full-on affair because you can’t stand it anymore. Then you get to feel guilty for being so screwed up and screwing up even the good parts about the marriage. And there’s also the really fun part. The benefit of the recriminations you get or don’t wanna hear from the family and friends of the injured party. You’ve got no other choice but to start the fuck over and move on and hopefully fix things as best you can. You have to keep things from some people because maybe they’re old and ailing and wouldn’t understand some of what you went through to keep them happy. All the while you’re wondering maybe they knew all the time. Maybe there’s that teeny voice in the back of your mind that says you’re a disappointment to some people. Then there’s that other voice that knows you may have missed out on love because you compromised, equivocated, ran away. Meanwhile you’ve wasted daylight because maybe this is really all there is and you’ve blown it. Want that sorta thing to happen to your potential child? Then throw the bible at them and tell them how degenerate they are. Want them to hate themselves? Want them to potentially commit suicide? Run away from home? End up in the wrong marriage? How about throwing substance abuse in there just to frost a bitter cake? If anyone hasn’t realized it by now, I’m sic of the bullshit! I can kick my own ass just fine without worrying about getting flak from the First Self-Righteous Church. And by the way, I'm really, really tired of kicking my own ass, just so we're clear on things.
Yes johndy, there is a verse that says to love thy neighbor as thyself.
However, just in the subject of homosexuality alone its outnumbered by verses
that say to kill or discriminate against them. I mean, you have a few mentions
of it in the books of Moses. Then you have Sodam and Gamora. Then you have
Paul's letters that reference it, I believe in Romans. So, yeah, there's one nice
verse that says we should all be friends, but its more of an outlying coincidence
than anything else. Its far outnumbered by hatred just in Jesus's teachings
alone.
Cody's right. If we used the same computer software to profile the god of the Bible that Homeland Security agencies have used to profile terrorists ...
...
...
Well, there ya go.
Not that unusual for a bronze-age and iron-age tribal desert deity, created by resource-restricted warring tribes in the Middle East. Where homosexuality is most frowned upon, so is a woman who cannot bear offspring, or a man who is sexually impotent, or the disabled. The reason is they cannot reproduce offspring, and offspring usually die off in high numbers in these situations, so offspring are a capital resource. One of the reasons Greece and Rome were relatively tolerant of homosexual relations was their relative prosperity. I say, "relatively" tolerant, because they were not as tolerant as we are today. Not of long-term relationships like the marital and common-law homosexual relationships we know today.
Again, if you want to follow the desert tribal motif, you would have to consider so-called 'barren' women to be cursed, and not allow men with injury to or defects in the testicles to be in any kind of powerful positions.
Cody mentioned the Romans passage. I think one of the Corinthian books either has a direct passage, or one that is cross-linked by Christians from other sections, as a counter-apologetic to homosexuality. Paul, although trained in Greek philosophy and the original apologetics guru, was first and foremost an Israeli citizen -- had dual citizenship with Israel and the Roman government at the time. His formative training was all Hebrew. So unlike Greek and Roman philosophers before and after him, he had no understanding of the sciences, such as they were, at the time. He didn't do as William Lane Craig and others do now, use bits of science to back his claims. He had no scientific understanding at all.
Now, of course, we have no Roman records proving Paul ever existed, but assuming that he did, and assuming he was the primary founder of non-Jewish Christendom as the text claims, he was still steeped in desert tradition. Consequently, his desert-tradition resource-restricted perspective would have shaped his view on the subject. That would be like someone today taking their views of women's equality from the likes of Osamu Bin Laden or ISIS, even though they have distanced themselves somewhat from those two sources.
It makes no rational sense, in other words.
evangelical christians force their beliefs on people, which is not what I'm doing.
I'm sharing what I know to be true, on a topic where homosexuality is being discussed.
the topic title, after all, is, "what a pastor promises to do if his children are gay."
this guy can't possibly know how he'd react, if he has children who choose to be gay.
he may think he knows how he'll react if that were to happen, just like someone who thinks they're gay is convinced that they know what their sexual preference is, even though they've never been in a relationship with anyone, or if they've only been in unhealthy relationships.
What about people who are straight who have never been in a relationship with anyone, or have only been in unhealthy relationships? Are they not straight then?
What is the practical difference here? It's coming off a bit like a rational short circuit.
This is just my oppinion spawned from my beliefs and those of my church, and I'm going to try not to be a preacher.
Christianity encumpasses so many differing viewpoints that it's both unfair and rather illogical to lump all of us (or our beliefs) into a single place - though many like to try. The bible alone is full of passages which require more than just the surface reading to fully grasp. Some are literal, others, particularly Isiah are symbolic, and made purposefully so for reasons I'll answer if anyone cares. While there are areas of the bible, particularly the new testament which apply to us today, there is also a lot especially in the old testament which was written for a bygone era. Even the new testament was written for a vastly different society. Certain things, such as paul's oppinions on women simply don't apply to us today. That particular bit of dogma isn't so much the word of God as Paul's writings to a particular culture regarding the word of God. it's also important to look at the context of things which happen. That means reading more than just the scene at hand. You don't read a chapter in a book and expect to understand everything you're reading. Did God destroy Sodam and Gamora? Sure. But why? What was the state of those two cities? Was everyone in the entire city a homosexual? No. There were broader issues at play. And god only destroys in that capacity after warning the enhabitents time and time again. And yes, on the surface it sounds like he's just being vengeful and smiting and killing for the heck of it. But from an eternal perspective, what would wickedness such as that which occurred in such cities do to the coming generations of innocents born there without a choice? or the surrounding cities assaulted or influenced by such places? You see your child being a bully on the playground, beating the crap out of another kid, you take him aside and tell him to stop. He keeps doing it, and eventually you remove him from the playground and attempt to figure out why he's doing it. God is our father, and in a sense, that is what he does in such circumstances.
The problem with all of this lies in the many branching interpretations of these passages, giving rise to a great many differing faiths all existing within a vast framework. That's not even taking into consideration the various translations which color passages differently. One thing which is important to remember is the Old Testament, the sacrificing and harshness we read about has been done away with. Christ fullfilled all of it through his suffering in the garden of Gethsemane, and his sacrifice on the cross. My church diverges from the mainstream Christian belief here as to the purpose of that, especially the Garden, but that's not really relevant here. The point I'm trying to make is there's so much more to the scriptures and Christianity than what we see on the surface. So many people stick to the letter of the law. This is where fundamentalist ideals come from. It's why this blog post was necessary. But there is another side, and that is the spirit of the law. It is what makes us humanists, for lack of a better word. The bible does indeed say we are not meant to judge others (unrighteously), and that we are to love them as we love ourselves. This means two things. We are to treat others with the same respect we would have them give us. It also means we are not to condemn others for the way they live. We are to be a peaceful people, slow to anger. In the case of homosexuality, that means yes, we do not need to agree with the practice. But it also means we are to treat people who are homosexual as anyone else. God is no respecter of persons. This is in the scriptures too, and it means he doesn't care whether you're rich, poor, mail, female, black, white, green or blue. He knows us, and knows our hearts. And he will take all of that into consideration at the final judgement. In my case, I couldn't give a hoot and a handjob whether you're gay or not. My feelings towards you are determined by who you are, and how you treat me and others I care about, not what you are and what you do. And yes, I will treat my daughter the same way whether she's a lesbian or not. She will be raised in a gospel-centered home, but should she choose to turn away, or anything else, that will not change my love for her. All of this isn't easy. We are human, and so forgiving, loving unconditionally and accepting everybody equally isn't always easy. I should probably also point out that there are times when we must judge in righteousness. What this means is being practical. you're not going to leave your son or daughter with a pedofile, and if people are actively doing harm to others, that is not okay. The problem here is perception. There are absolutely some who think just because you're gay you're going to hell. It isn't that simple. That beleif causes them to want to prevent that from happening, and I'm sad to say there are more than a few people who act very - to put it bluntly - unchristian-like in their attempts. Then there are those who just like power. Bottom line from a christian, that is absolutely NOT okay.
It's also something I've heard time after time after time. You don't know you're gay because you've never been in a gay relationship. Just for the record, I have been in a gay relationship, seven, in fact, of varying time lengths. Sometimes it was several months, sometimes a one-night stand. And I knew I was gay before I ever held that first dick in my hand that didn't belong to me. If you don't know you're gay unless you've been in a relationship then as Leo said, you don't know you're straight unless you've been in a straight relationship. Hence, you're a sexual neuter until your cherry gets busted, right? but then, if you're a sexual neuter until your cherry gets busted, how does it ever get busted if we're all running around being neuters? See the logic? Or lack thereof? I don't think you're gunna win on this. But it might be amusing to see you try. I'm up for it; I've done this all before. Wanna play?
Johndy, it's my opinion at this point, that Chelsea's claim of atheism out of so-called rebellion may be in fact true. She clearly has never understood the tools of rational inquiry and skepticism required to analyze the situation at hand here.
Now, here is another side to this whole thing: The pastor himself. He's not just a blogger, an anonymous parent. He is taking on enormous risk to have posted this. I was around those people when the Wife and I went to churches. Pretty close in to some of them, in fact. There is one thing I can say with absolute certainty, whether they deny it out of modesty, or not: To a person, they operate under very difficult conditions. The extremely unrealistic, superhuman, completely out of control, expectations they live under are only part of it: They are expected to tow the local political party line, tow the doctrinal line, make all the proper exceptions at just the right time for the right, usually connected, people. Their paparazzi is their own members, in particular the religious equivalent of the office rumor mill. They get threatening hate mail every time they step out of line: their sheeple want them towing that doctrinal line for them. Give a gay guy a break? Hate. Give someone on welfare a chance at something? Hate. The vitriol is pretty ubiquitous. They are made to live out others' fantasy of what one of theirs should look like, or they lose their job. Their system they call accountability, is something akin to a tax audit on steroids combined with a visit from Symme and the Thought Police from George Orwell's 1984.
Now, add to this, they usually don't get competitive benefits packages like health insurance, in many cases the kids getting whatever the state offers for Healthy Kids. this is bad enough for working people, but in a conservative environment causes even more trouble: something like eating a turkey leg at a vegan PETA rally. From what I've seen looking at spreadsheets of theirs they make somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of their commercial counterparts. I've never seen the stuff on people who rise out of that and get into administrative jobs running the conglomerates of churches, but seeing as how there's a steady drift upwards in the money situation, I'm guessing that's significantly more than the people on the ground.
The education they get does not in the least prepare them for other kinds of work. If the school is accredited, they still don't get any business management or finance classes the way most people do who are at senior level management / executive positions. I've seen firsthand the misfortune these people face when thrown out: they have no real skills they can get a job paying a competitive wage with. So they get stuck doing bag or stockroom duty at the local grocery store, or pumping gas, in states like Oregon where people still pump gas.
So yes, there is enormous risk when they take a position counter to the standard Christopolitical narrative. It's all well and good for people to talk about backbone. But when you've got kids at home? A spouse and kids who are part of that community also? Put it to you this way: There's a reason political activists looking for recruits avoid parents with children.
And again, these aren't people who've had the benefit of a public education, and years in the business world where there's no Orwellian demands for thought orthodoxy, and where push can be responded to by shove. If I countered the narrative of the company I work for, on some blog somewhere, without implicating the company or acknowledging I worked for them, they couldn't and wouldn't do anything about it. Not until their name and brand was affected by slander or misinformation from an alleged inside source. But for these people, they're under the gun 24/7.
I don't think it's possible for us who aren't operating in that cloister to fully appreciate the combination of limitations and expectations they're put under. And the ones I've known who have fallen out, dropped, out, burned out, or got booted out, have said to me they didn't have any idea of the risks involved when they first started getting into it. I've not known a great number, but a few; the Wife having been involved in women ministries and such. Take them out for a beer, or if they don't drink beer, a coffee and they'll tell ya, once they get to know you're not dog-sniffing or looking to squeeze an inch in on them somehow.
So yes, doing something like this is extremely risky. Could lose your community, your kids' schooling (which might in the end be a good thing, but a rough patch when they lose all their friends), the job, no skills they can go get a comparable-paying job with, and end up a mere shell of what they once were. When that dam breaks, it's a bit like people who have been inside Soviet Russia for years and finally come home. Only for some of them, it's not home, they've never been anything but inside the cloister. Especially, from what I've heard, those who are in some kind of a dynasty situation where the father was one, the grandfather, and so on. Any tight community like that, bound by ideology, is statistically likely to destroy the renegade, which this guy probably is, in the minds of more than a few of the crowd.
So yeah, I would say he's taking quite a risk. Something like the guy I knew who fled communist Cuba, and before he got out of there, he faced jail and a few other recriminations. After he left, it took time to get his wife out. There's just a lot of lingering effects a guy like this could deal with as a consequence for making a public statement like that. Can't compare this head bird in the chicken pen doing it, to some anonymous person in society outside the chicken pen doing it.
no one can know what their sexual orientation is unless they've had a healthy relationship, through the physical act of being with another person.
I'm not necessarily talking sexual contact, although I'd encourage it.
I'm mainly talking physically spending time in the company of people of the opposite sex, where everyone could learn about what they value in themselves/others, what they don't value in themselves/others, and go from there.
they'd have something concrete to go on then, rather than something they just think they know cause they're mostly spending time with someone, or multiple someones, of the same sex as they are.
I'm friends with someone who claims she's gay, yet, she has never been in a relationship with anyone, had any contact with someone of the opposite sex, outside of family, and hasn't had much life experience on her own.
yet, she thinks she's gay, cause she likes being in the company of the women she's around all the time.
Chelsea, how can you be friends with a girl whose never had contact with
anyone outside of her family? If your friends, you're not her family. Thus your
statement is logically impossible.
Ok. So I've been following this board and I do have my own thoughts on it which I will share at a later date due to time constraints, but I couldn't help myself after seeing Chelsea's last post.
At one point in time, Chelsea, I was positive you were capable of intelligent, thoughtful and certainly unique discourse. You ruffle a few feathers and certainly work to stand out, but I've learned a thing or two from reading your posts over the year.
That said, Chelsea -- and I mean this in the nicest way possible, that last post of yours made as much sense as would a crackpot's post. Seriously. Are you under some kind of incredibly mind-blowing chemical influences lately?
Because here's the deal: you have to be attracted to people of either sex to be able to date them or want to date them. Seriously. If you're attracted to both sexes, you're bisexual, therefore you may lean toward either sex. But really, if you're attracted to one sex and one sex alone, it's pretty painfully obvious. And so if you're gay, you're gay. You don't get turned on thinking about or looking at a girl if you're a guy. If you're a lesbian, you prefer to think of women when you masturbate... In fact, you probably find thinking of men as a turn-off. Seriously. Most of us have had crushes since approximately third or fourth grade... We know what we like, at least vaguely, and either we're allowed by our culture to express our likes or not. And we certainly know what we're attracted to -- what looks or sounds good -- way before we're ready to enter into a healthy, or even a pseudo-relationship.
At least that's most of us, Chelsea. Maybe you're different. Maybe you, as you'd said before, are attracted to people regardless of their sex. That, my friend, would make you technically bisexual.
And as for your friend there, she sounds like a really sheltered person. Do you think that everyone in the world that says their gay is sheltered? Hardly. I know that there are some people who will say they're gay because of a number of superficial reasons like, they cant' find someone to be with of the opposite sex that they like. They feel they aren't attractive enough to be with the people they find attractive. they feel intimidated, afraid or ashamed of wanting/and/or liking a man, so they say they're lesbian. But come on Chelsea. Most people know deep down what stirs their loins, what soothes them in terms of features. What makes them want to go up and ask that would-be partner to go out for that first time.
What you're describing is highly unusual and uncommon, so for you to say so strongly that this is the case, and for you to assume that that's how, by and large, people are whether straight or gay, is pretty foolish and small-minded. Makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. sorry.
Slight correction Bernadetta, being attracted to a person without influence of
gender, IE being attracted to anyone, is pansexual. Bisexual is being attracted
to men and women. Contrary to popular belief, there is more than just two
sexes.
The problem is that when we’re speaking of sex, we’re talking more biology, not thought. When I was anywhere from about eight to ten years old, I found myself having crushes on older boys from TV. This was backin the early to mid-70s, and I didn’t know what the term homosexual or gay meant back then; not until I was twelve. Up to that point, I didn’t know what I was feeling was supposed to be wrong. And at the age of twelve, when I learned what homosexual meant, I learned that no one wanted to be gay, a fag, queer, a homo, whatever. It was possibly the worst thing you could be. But I continued to have those emotional crushes. And in high school, probably around the age of thirteen, I discovered I thought an awful lot more about cock than was considered proper, so I hid from that. And I’m a bit of a natural sub, so I couldn’t get the image of a slightly older, stronger teen forcing me (willingly, of course) to enjoy being fucked. When I got done with gym class and smelled a boy’s sweat on me from wrestling, I got a raging hard-on every time. The vast, vast majority of the time I invented lovers who just happened to have penises, not vaginas. Yet the overwhelming majority of people in my high school never knew I was gay until I told them years later, and I haven’t told the majority of people. You have to understand something about the era we grew up in. Again, being gay was possibly the worst thing you could be at one time. You didn’t want to be. When I made my grand discovery, the first thing I thought was that I had to hide it. The second thing is that I wondered if it was a phase I was going through. Um, it wasn’t, kay? And another thought I had in the back of my mind was whether or not I’d have to commit suicide because no one would accept me. Well, that was easily solved at one time because everyone did accept me because they didn’t know I was a cocksucker. These were biological urges I had long before I ever gave my first blowjob. I wanted to be fucked by a guy long before I was ever fucked by one. Can you see how this is far beyond just thinking you’re gay? Consider your friend whom you say thinks she’s gay. Why does she think she’s gay? Have you asked her what stirs her? Does she love the smell of another female? Does she love that female personality that she can only be attracted to if the person she wants is truly female? Does she get really, really hot whenever she hears a sexy female voice? What does she fantasize about sexually? Does she want to feel another woman’s vagina with her fingers, her mouth? Does she want to rub against a female vagina with her own? What does she think about breasts? Does she like them small, medium or large? If all she thinks about when she thinks anything sexual are females, I got some bad news for you: She's gay, gay, gay. I’m asking very improper questions here and being so explicit because whenever we’re dealing with sex and thinking human beings, our supposed thought processes go right out the window. Being gay is still very, very improper in many, many circles to this day. That’s why I have to agree with Leo a bit here and disagree slightly with Cody about the pastor’s blog, because I do think that in some circles it does take a good deal of courage to go against the proper thing; the normal or righteous thing to do. Leo is right that in these small religious communities, particularly the really, really fundamentalist ones that think the pope is the next thing to the anti-Christ, people are largely ruled by fear. I’ve seen it in the interactions between parent and child. The pater familias is the authority figure; the one who must instill propriety in his children, the one who must be obeyed. The earth is six thousand years old, and that’s that, and that’ll be that, and that’s the end of that. Dinosaurs coexisted with man, and love is no excuse for wanting to be with someone of the same gender because God, who loves us all, hates fags. My ex and I went out to visit some former friends out on the West Coast, and believe me, it freaked us out because we saw this going on right in front of us. I can’t help but think that when the fear of hellfire and damnation is ever-present in the next world and the fear of ostracism in this one is also ever-present, the most of this ilk has to develop complexes of one form or another. In other words, there is only one true, straight and narrow path to salvation, and everyone must follow it or be lost. And in order to make sure that everyone follows this path, all hints of sin must be severely stamped out by those specially appointed by God to do it. So discipline is the rule of the day; it is the iron rod. When you’re a child, you fear punishment of a more corporal sort, but you also face punishment as an adult of a more emotional sort. You’re threatened with ridicule, hate, ostracism and banishment from the community. It must be a very hard thing to fight against that sort of thing when you’ve been conditioned to obey all your life. If you’ve been taught from a very early age that there is only one path and anything smacking of heterodoxy must be suppressed no matter what, but you break out of that mold and think your own thoughts, you’re probably gunna be punished for that by those who “know what’s best for you.” They literally throw the book at you. They beat you with it; at least they beat you with their interpretation of it. To face such temporal condemnation must take a great deal of courage that I don’t think most of us fully appreciate because we’re not conditioned to that lifestyle. Maybe Cody is right that this pastor isn’t at the point of waving a rainbow flag and standing with us right now, but I think it’s possible for him to move in that direction, because there’s no other way to go once he’s taken the critical step of rational thought. And I think that’s a big step for some people. So much of the fundamentalist ilk revolves around what being a “true man” or “true woman” is. Homosexuality defies those notions. In their minds, it’s the devil’s work and you always have to fight against it wherever you see it. And nothing but the harshest methods are used in that fight. If it causes families to break up, well, they weren’t godly families to begin with. If gay children are disowned or gay parents are not allowed ever to see their children again, well, they’re going to hell anyway for their truly ungodly ways, and so we’re protecting the rest of the flock from evil by disowning them or not allowing the parents to see their children. If some gay kids commit suicide, well, they’re double-damned because they’re gay and because they took their own lives. I think the pastor is fighting against these very real evils, and I still applaud him for doing it. His children are young, and I think in the past he’s seen what gay kids in these flocks go through. It wasn’t fun when I was growing up, and I didn’t come from a religious background. I can’t imagine what it must be like growing up in such an environment that I can only characterize as abuse, not love, but it must take a great deal more courage than we on this board can possibly appreciate to break away from it. And by standing against such evil, I think the pastor is encouraging others to follow his example. Hopefully othere people in his circle will do so.
And here we have the honest truth, and one I think a lot of people, including Christians need to understand. You can't really fathom what it means to be gay until you've experienced it. It's no different than the cliche "walk a mile in someone's shoes". How can anyone condemn it without understanding it? And how can anyone condemn it when they've experienced the termoil it can bring?
if you all had read my last post correctly, I said that my friend is around female family members most of the time.
I didn't say that she doesn't associate with anyone outside of her family.
the fact she's around females, and has female friends, still doesn't give her any reason to say that she's gay.
she has never physically been with anyone, man or woman, as I also said, in that post.
therefore, she can't possibly know what she's into, and what she isn't into, cause she hasn't given herself a chance to find out.
if someone were to ask me whether I like fish, for example, I couldn't answer that question, as the only thing I have to go off of is fishsticks.
I've never been a fan of fishsticks, but I've heard that they're a piss poor representation of what really good fish tastes like.
so, until I try a kind of fish that's deemed to be really tasty, I can't say whether I like it, or I don't, until I try it, cause at this point, I don't know.
johndy, you've said yourself that you were married to a woman, and that your marriage had other problems, before you even got to the sexual ones.
in that same post, you also said that your wife knew you were cheating on her.
cheating, no matter the sex of the person you're cheating with, is not usually considered something that people can work through.
some people take cheaters back, but that doesn't make the act okay, all of a sudden.
according to what you've said, things were already going bad in your marriage, without even adding sex into the mix.
small problems lead to bigger ones, especially when they aren't talked aboutt, and are swept under the rug, cause people don't wanna deal with them.
when people inter into a marriage, they're agreeing to be faithful to that one person, which it's clear was not the case with your marriage.
if people worked on things together, as the partners they committed to be, rather than running off with other people when there's trouble in paradise, there would likely be many happier couples in the world.
But you still haven’t addressed whether you’ve done a little bit more probing as to why she thinks she’s gay. When she daydreams, does she dream about pussy or dick? Have you asked her? Have you asked her whether she’s had even emotional crushes on females absent the physical intimacy of being with a female partner? I’ll tell you why I think your fish analogy doesn’t work. She has a vagina, so she knows enough about them to know whether or not she gets turned on by one. I have a penis, and I know I love the feel of another penis in my hand and elsewhere. I get turned on by the thought of being with a guy on intimate terms – very intimate terms. That goes deeper than wanting to experiment with homosexuality. In fact, it’s a lot different than experimenting with heterosexuality. In either instance, you’re saying hey, I wonder what it might be like. Maybe it feels good and maybe you like the other person, but I can guarantee you this: If you’re one way or the other, you’re not gunna find that deep connection by going the opposite way that you’re wired. Which brings me to my marriage. Yes, there were other problems. Temperamentally we were unsuited to one another even if I were straight. I tried, she tried, but it wasn’t working. Ultimately I think we would have torn one another apart. There are some things you just can’t work out. And then there was the added problem, the elephant in the room, of me being gay. I’ll admit something here. I did a monumentally stupid thing months before we became engaged. And this is a somewhat longish story, but I’ll try to pare it back a little. The guy who ended up leaving the message on our voicemail? He was someone I knew long before I became engaged to my ex. When I started going out with my ex, I thought I was more flexible than I ended up being. Months later I had the very strong feeling I was not, so I wanted to break up with her. A friend of mine persuaded me I should give it some more time. I flew out there one weekend determined I would break it off. I would’ve succeeded but for one thing. I was weak. When I saw her reaction and how hurt she was, I decided to stay. Several months later I proposed, thinking it was working. Big mistake ultimately. Because in all that time, I was thinking about guys. I performed the heterosexual act for a long time until I couldn’t even manage to do that. She felt neglected, wanted more intimacy, and I couldn’t give it and I wouldn’t say wy. One morning while I was lying next to her, I woke her up because guess what? I was tossing and turning, having a dream I was getting fucked by a male friend of mine. When she asked me what was wrong, I really had to lie and say I was just having a bad dream. We had a bad fight one day, and I said why didn’t we just break it off? I said sometimes I think I’d be better off with Tim (name inserted to protect real person). We were just hurting each other by my staying, and what did she want with me anyway? She convinced me to stay again. See how weak I ended up being? Months after we separated, she admitted she should’ve listened to me when I said that. And while I never physically cheated on her, I did emotionally cheat by getting back in touch with this guy again. I did that and I have to own it. And I cheated on her emotionally with a guy. I didn’t emotionally or physically cheat on her with a woman. And I called a gay hotline several months before we separated and talked it out with a female counselor who urged me to be honest with her and myself. Because one of the hardest things for me to have done was to live without honor, and that’s what I was doing at that time. It’s what I had been doing for a long, long time. Maybe that’s a quaint old-fashioned term, but it’s very big in my personal coda. You want another example? She’d gone back to school several months before our separation. I was hoping she would meet someone and ultimately cheat on me so we could both break it off and remain friends. That’s how desperate I was to get out of the situation. I was thinking about writing her a letter and leaving because I couldn’t bear to tell her in person. I was weak and dishonorable. And in all that time, I wanted to fly out to L.A. so I could get laid by this guy. What does that say? And here’s something else I’ll admit to. The biggest thing I regret about this whole mess is how I hurt her. Some of her friends that she’s told me about think I was sorry I got caught. Wrong! Telling the truth, I’m so relieved I got caught. I’m not sorry for that. I’m really, really sorry I hurt her, and that’s still why I’m willing to foot some of the bills more than three years after we parted. And my ex didn’t know I was cheating on her until that voicemail, and that’s when things ultimately blew apart. She said before I left that if I had cheated on her with a woman, she would’ve bent over backward to try to work things out, but this was a deal-breaker. She was right. It was a deal-breaker because she knew and I knew that there were things she just couldn’t be for me. And there were things I couldn’t be for her. In the long run, it was best for both of us not to be together because we’re able to be better for one another at a distance and stay friends. I really tried in the beginning, but it wasn’t good enough. Sometimes it just isn’t. All the vows in the world can’t make it work; they only make you feel guiltier, and a foundation of guilt is not strong enough to make for a workable marriage. You can’t fix gay. You shouldn’t, as I did, go back in the closet. I refuse to be that stupid again. I refuse to be that dishonorable again. So how about it? Anyone on here wanna kick my ass? Excoriate me? Wanna tell me what kind of a shit you think I am? That I’m the biggest loser on the face of this earth? I’ve already been there and back again. You can’t even come close; none of you can beat me up any worse than I’ve already done to myself. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Next?
I dated a girl all through highschool. Everyone thought we'd get married and have a family, but I felt like she deserved to find someone who would be sexually attracted to her. I wasn't comfortable with being gay then, but she does now know why the relationship ended. I was lucky. We ended it mutually, on good terms. I couldn't be totally honest with her at the time, but I did feel good in the fact that I was no longer living a lie and continually deceiving her. Yes, I've tried sex with women. There was no excitement in it for me, not at all.
I always knew I liked guys. Always. Before I lost my virginity I knew I wanted to lose it to a guy, for no reason other than it's guys that turn me on. So I totally disagree with what Chelsea is saying. I'm not gay, so I don't know what it's like to be gay, but I knew I was interested in guys before I actually became physically close to one.
Yes, in order to know what you really enjoy, experience does help. For example, do you want to be dominated, or be the dominant one. Which position is best for you. These things tend to come with experience, but at the route of it, you know who you are interested in before you have any sexual experiences.
I can talk about girls and say yeah, she's cute, I can understand why a guy would like her, but I don't personally feel sexually atracted to girls. And I'm assuming this is much the same as how someone who is gay just doesn't feel atracted to people of the opposite sex. Your true sexuality isn't a choice.
And understand this. My ex is a very, very beautiful woman. She has a cute nose, her skin is flawless, and she has that long, black Asian hair a lot of people, men and women, would die for. We had some good times during the marriage, and I won't forget those. She's smart, she's funny. She's a whole lot of positive things. She's even a wonderful cook. She's just not a guy though.
Yep; My sentiments exactly, holly. I always new I liked guys. And honestly, I even thought about whether I could be attracted to girls since I found out some time ago that a few girls had crushes on me. I also entertained that idea when a partner asked if I might be interested in a thresome with another girl some time. I thought about it because that is/was one of his fantacies and I wanted to see if I could do it. I probably wouldn't be repulsed by it, but it would far from turn me on . I can't say I care for breasts and a vagina other than my own. hahaha.
I'm completely baffled by Chelsea's sentiment. So how does the straight counterpoint work, Chelsea? I know you personally aren't into rational inquiry and much prefer opinion and anecdote, but c'mon. Surely you can tell us why we knew we were straight before having any kind of sexual experiences. If you're claiming gays don't know they're gay, then allegedly straights don't know they're straight. Otherwise, you need to logically demonstrate the difference between the two. Nonprocreating straights - males born with extremely low sperm counts, or females born with any number of infertility situations - aren't going to help you with this, as they have the same experience the rest of us straights do.
I think Chelsea’s opinions are based on the notion that says gay is bad, straight is good. To wit, post 42: “the bottom line is, if the guy who wrote this blog post were really a preacher, and believed God's word, he wouldn't find ways to praise homosexuality.” Those words suggest strongly that homosexuality is to be condemned. And in post 47: “I'm sharing what I know to be true, on a topic where homosexuality is being discussed. the topic title, after all, is, "what a pastor promises to do if his children are
gay."
this guy can't possibly know how he'd react, if he has children who choose to be gay.” Note that she said “choose.” I say this is language that suggests not only that being gay is a choice, but that the gay option is to be condemned. It is certainly not to be praised, as she suggests in post 42. But am I cherry-picking? Is my interpretation incorrect? And why would anyone “choose” a “lifestyle” that’s still looked upon with such disfavor in much of the world? It’s easier to be straight. That’s supposed to be the “norm.” Why would we “choose” to be ridiculed? Laughed at? Risk physical abuse at times and even murdered simply for having the temerity to exist? It makes absolutely no sense.
wow Cody, I'm pansexual then; I didn't know there was such a term. Thank you for enlightening us.
I read through the article and tend to agree with an earlier post, that the anonymous Christian Pastor has promised nothing more than to treat his children as a parent should. One of the more troubling items was while 'the pastor' said they would treat their children well, no such good will was extended to anyone else. I doubt the article/blog was written by a real Christian pastor at all.
I wonder of what Church they claim to be a member of? The only Bible reference the "pastor" used did not stand for what was represented in the article.
Also, why would a pastor be contemplating their own pre-pubescent childrens' future sexuality? that strikes me to be in the realm of more than a little weird. Why not wonder if they will grow up to be a doctor, lawyer or candle stick maker rather than wondering who they will be having sex with in the future.
Should not a parent, a self-proclaimed "Christian Pastor" at that) be thinking about teaching Christian principles to those children? This person seems to be inferring that once the child is in the womb, that is it, they can be taught nothing such as right from wrong because, "once-in-History souls, has already been uploaded into their very cells." The good pastor seems to be saying that once the child is out of the womb, they are on uninterruptable auto-pilot. What utter nonsense. Children can and should be taught right from wrong, and similarly, they should be known for who they are rather than by who they chose to have sex with in future. Personally, I found the article to be more along the line of simple grandstanding rather than inspirational.
The Pooka
If lesbianism is "so natural," why do lessbians have to try so hard to persuade others it is natural? Something seems unnatural about that. I don't have to try to convince others that heterosexuality is natural. What am I missing? BTW, I don't buy the "there are lots of others hiding in plain sight but are afraid." All the lesbians I have ever met are more than willing to shout out their views about how natural their sexual preference is; which in turn, seems unnatural in and of itself. My heterosexual friends do not seem to be having to try to persuade anyone that men and women belong together, not men with men and women with women. What am I missing here? Step forth and demonstrate how reasonable you are.
The Pooka
You're missing a basic understanding of the impact of cultural acceptance.
Ok, I think you grasped part of the point being made. Cultural acceptance would tend to rely on people accepting ideas that seem natural or normal to them. That is a huge part of why heterosexuals do not have to persuade people to be heterosexual; whereas, lesbians seem to be shouting and jumping up and down telling us about how natural/normal they think they are, which in and of itself is unnatural.
Heterosexuals are naturally accepted in society, reproduce naturally and do not have to convince or recruit anyone as it is a natural, normal and acceptable part of life. By definition, 2-men or 2-women in a relationship cannot reproduce and keep their lines going so they naturally have to recruit from heterosexuals, otherwise they would normally die out. So Cody, what am I missing? Please allucidate and educate us as to the errors of our thinking.
The Pooka
Recruit from heterosexuals? Seriously? Are you joking? Anyone who is unequivocally straight is not gunna be recruited to be gay. Just ain't done. The opposite, by the way, is also true. If you're that gay, you're gunna stay that way. If you're somewhere in between, that's a different story. But there's no gay conspiracy to effectively say red rover, red rover, come over, come over. It's stupid!
Let me see if I understand your argument correctly Johnby, you say, "anyone who is unequivocally straight is not gunna be recruited to be gay. Just ain't done," and your reasoning is, 'because I said so?' I am less than underwhelmed.
Furthermore, if you believe you and your lesbian lover are able to conceive a child without a heterosexual-type couple involved, that is scientifically impossible. What is "stupid" about that? Is there something you need to confess?
The Pooka
Well, let’s see. You’ve read my postings, I assume, so you know I’m gay. You also know I was once in a straight relationship with a female, so you know I’m male. As a gay male, I’m attracted to other males. I like dick. I like it better than pussy. But then,you know this already because you’ve obviously read my earlier postings. You already know that I made a big mistake in thinking I was more flexible than I ended up being, and that this wrong-headedness of mine hurt someone I was supposed to love. By inference, you can assume that if it were that simple for me to have changed my orientation, then barring any other problems, I’d still be with the woman I married today. And if I ended up getting divorced, which I did, I’d obviously be seeking out the company of another woman. That would happen if I were straight. Guess what? I’m not. But then, you already know this because you’ve read my postings. You’ve not only read my postings, but Cody’s, Leo’s and a whole host of others as well. So, since you’ve already been through everything related to this topic, why are you referring to my lesbian lover when you know I have a penis? Or maybe you haven’t done your homework. I dunno. Only you can answer that. You also want a confession? I love going down on other guys. I love hard, pulsing dick. I love a guy’s sweat. I love the sound of a cute guy. I wanna be ravished by a guy. There’s your confession. But then, it’s obviously old hat. You’ve read everything up to this point so you know I’ve got nothing to hide, right? You’ve obviously talked to other gay people, so you know exactly what turns us on, right? I can safely say what I said in my last postings because I have my own experience as well as the experience of my fellow guys and gals that are attracted to our own gender. And I don’t just limit my discussion to those like myself. Since I know more straight people than gay people because statistically there are just more of them, I also know that it works the opposite way. By and large my family is straight. By and large the majority of my friends just happen to be straight. I’ve been told by enough of them that they think that for them, gay sex is just something none of them wanna try. If you’re a guy and you don’t get turned on by a hard cock, if you prefer the energy or aura or whatever of the female of the species, then you’re straight. It’s just that simple. I mean, all you gotta do is listen to someone else, or barring that, ask them. And as for lesbians conceiving children, have you never heard of artificial insemination? Lesbian couples conceive this way all the time; if you’re a lesbian female, you don’t actually need a dick attached to a human male. You only need the substance that comes out of a dick. I should think that’s pretty obvious. Or is there something I’m missing? And even if a lesbian has a fling with a guy and gets pregnant, even if she’s married to a guy and may have several children with him, that doesn’t make her straight, especially if she goes off with a woman and builds a life with her and her children. To find out the answers, you actually have to ask this hypothetical woman. You have to ask her at what point in her life she knew, or thought she knew, she was gay. Did she know at a very early age? What does she find attractive about women? Is she a late-bloomer? Is she somewhat attracted to males and more overwhelmingly attracted to females? If so, she might be a 4 or 5 on the Kinsey scale, and perhaps not purely gay. You obviously know what I’m talking about, yes? She might in fact be bi. But if she’s a 4 or 5 on the Kinsey scale, then she’s more gay than straight. Either way, her orientation is just as valid as anyone who is purely straight or purely gay. But then, you’re obviously open-minded enough to meditate on that, right?
By the way, and I'm not usually in the habbit of making two postings in a row, you'd see that I already made my confession by reading my profile. I know this because I actually went back and checked it myself.
Ok Johnby, you are an admitted [and rather paranoid] homosexual who airs his dirty laundry which should have been kept private, on the public internet. You are admittedly inappropriate, a fraud, a cheat and a liar according to your own words in 'Hokay I'm in a jam,' as well as here. Your above post has nothing to do with my original question which was, "If lesbianism is "so natural," why do lessbians have to try so hard to persuade others it is natural?" Ref: 12/28/14 20:07:31 by the Pooka. Again, your reasoning does not cut the mustard. I ask why and you go into hysterics describing your abnormal purrient proclivities but never provide any cogent reason for your recent choice to change from heterosexuality to homosexuality.
As I read through a few of the referenced posts on the Zone for possible enlightenment, it was strikingly strange that your change to homosexuality coincided neatly with indebted to your ex-wife to pay her cash money. Appears you are rebelling against your ex-wife by saying you like men rather than her, simply because you are trying to rub her nose in it because you owe money. Clearly this was your choice. By the by, why would you need a scale to tell whether you like women or men? (Do I hear Twilight Zone music playing in the background)?
Also, did you really attend law school? If so, which law school and was it accredited? Ref: 'Hokay I'm in a jam' by Johnby, 11/24/14 23:30:42, "still paying student loans from law school."
In light of all that, it is doubtful you are really homosexual and more likely you are trying to get your ex wife back for making you pay her money, just like that guy on the show MASH that pretended to be homosexual to get out of being in the military.
The Pooka - softly whistling the theme from Twilight Zone. . .
Wow, okay, now this is just plain entertaining.
The Pooka - whistling "Let Me Entertain You. . ."
Pooka, I have to say that I think you are out of line with your comments on John D. You
may have a point in your opinion of homosexuality, but to personally attack John based
on your interpretation of prior posts hurts your credibility. I do not support homosexuality
at all, but I also am the type of Christian who understands we all have free will to pursue
our own desires and choices. I have seen John as a caring, thoughtful person concerned
about the impact he has had on his ex wife by his choice to acknowledge his strong
feelings towards the same sex. That's his choice, and I defend it whole heartedly, since he
is a human just like you and I who feels things strongly and has chosen to follow what is
important to him, even with my viewpoint being drastically different from his.
I think your writings provoke good thought, and there may even be validity to your
opinion, but it would be nice to back that up with fact, theological belief and comments
that do not directly attack one's character. You are free to do that, of course, in a society
where free speech is preserved, but you will find more acceptance and agreement when
your posts are based on more than your personal opinions of an individual. Just saying.
Eating with a knife and fork is not natural. But Kin gHenry VIII had a "table knife agenda"
to keep people from killing each other at the table with their weapons, providing
tablewear without points, at least for royal occasions.
Get it? Things that are unusual are promoted because for most people it is outsdie their
understanding. Most of us are heterosexual, so gays have to tell us how it is for them.
Most people are cisgendered, so trans people have to tell us how it is for them. But gay,
and even transgendered, occurs in nature. Frogs are universally trans, gays are in over
300 known species, not just humans, bighorn sheep and bonobonos. But since humans
and other primates are such social and cultural creatures, we have to be introduced to
things that are different from us. We're not only cultural, but also very tribal. This is a
product of over 6 million years' worth of evolution for us.
Oh and in 1990 I went to Japan. When I came back here, even to "progressive" Portland
Oregon, everyone asked if "I had tried that sushi stuff." They didn't even say "weird" or
"those people." There were misperceptions flying around like you could get Monteczuma's
Revenge from sushi, or that you would get paralyzed like with Fugu. They didn't even
know the difference between sushi and sashimi. This was before you saw sushi on every
corner in the city like now. Hell, even in Florida, even white wonderbread central known
as Publix, carried sushi by the year 2000. But not in 1990. In 1990, it was a "weird food"
and "not natural." Now, what you eat is considerably less complex than who you are
sexually attracted to. But even with something as opportunistic and simple as what you
eat, we are such cultural creatures that we will have long protracted conversations about
how unnatural and weird your food choices are. Hogs, who are also opportunistic
omnivores like many primates, don't have these convresations. Although, chimpanxees
seem to acculturate more closely like us.
So, because we're tribal, we "other" differences. We do this from infancy, racism and
"rhwein" othering is not a social construct, it's part of human evolution, but only a small
part. Another major part is the empathy we possess at birth but can cultivate willingly. So
yes, when we see things that are unusual, we tag it "unnatural," but as meaningfully
could tag it "blooper" since unnatural idn't even a concept. If it's there in nature it's
natural, and humans are part of nature. So gays and trans people are not only natural but
they are naturally stimulating our highly emergent property -- empathy for other groups -
- by telling us how it is for them.
shades, you say that The Pooka is out of line for commenting on Johndy's personal life,
but I completely disagree, as nothing has been said that Johndy has not aired in public
himself. so, if you're gonna say anyone is wrong here, you should encourage Johndy to be
more careful with the things he posts in public, if he doesn't want people to refer to them.
homosexuals do not need to explain to society how it is for them; no one cares, or should
care, who the world chooses to sleep with. I know I sure don't care to read about
Johndy's, or anyone else's sex life, and I know I'm not the only one who feels that way.
no one cares about people's personal drama either, such as the things Johndy has posted
about his ex-wife/other family members, yet, he assumed people would love to hear
about it, and posted anyway. that is one of many things that's wrong here.
just to clarify, the comment I made in my last post, regarding homosexuals not needing to tell us about their sexuality, was directed at leo, not shaydz.
I’ll start with post 75. First, my username. You got that wrong. I can prove it, or rather, you can. I’ll start with two assumptions. (a) You’re sighted. That means you can tell the difference between a lower-case B, as in Bob or Betty or brainless, and a lower-case D, as in David or Denise or dimwit. Which also means that if you look closely at my username, you’ll discover that the last letter before the Y in “Johndy” is a D, again as in David or Denise or dimwit. I had an Optacon at one time, so even I, a totally blind person, know the difference between the shapes of a lower-case B and a lower-case D. So, maybe you weren’t paying attention to what you were seeing. That means you didn’t pay attention to detail. (b) You’re blind. That can lead to about two more assumptions. (1) You use a Braille display. Obviously this means you read Braille, so you know that a B is composed of the dots 1 and 2 together. A D has three dots of 1, 4 and 5 together. If you have a Braille display and weren’t paying attention, then again, it goes back to not paying attention to detail. Wanna brush up on your Braille skills? I can help with that. (2) You have a screenreader of some sort. This means you can arrow through all the letters of my username. You misinterpreted the fifth letter of my username as a B because you either didn’t hear correctly and didn’t know how to make your screenreader pronounce that letter phonetically, or you simply didn’t care enough to arrow through all the letters. In said case, again this exhibits a lack of attention to detail. I can understand your not caring enough about me or what I have experienced or believe to bother, but it doesn’t speak very highly of your comprehension skills, to be frank.
Second, you say that I’m “an admitted [and rather paranoid] homosexual.” I’m disappointed in you. You only got it half-right. I’m an admitted homosexual. I’m not paranoid. If I were paranoid, I’d believe that either you or someone else was out to get me, according to what I know of the term. No one that I know of is out to get me. If it’s you, I don’t think I’ve got much to fear. I’d also suggest that you get a dictionary and/or start to read more if you want to use the term “paranoid” properly. I’m starting to sense a pattern with this lack of detail thing. Or maybe you just jumped to unfounded conclusions. Or maybe I’m just not getting you and you actually have a coherent reason for jumping to your conclusions. Maybe you can use my words against me. Please quote them. If you’re right and I’m wrong, I’ll admit it.
Third, you say that I am someone who “airs his dirty laundry which should have been kept private, on the public internet.” these are public boards. Lots of people air their so-called dirty laundry all over the place here; it’s called free speech. Maybe you’ve heard of that? You and everyone on these boards is entirely free to read or not read any of these words from me or anyone else. If you find me or anyone else inappropriate, you can simply ignore whomever you want to. Your definition of inappropriate may be different from someone else’s. I’m not gunna lose sleep over it.
Fourth, I’m honest enough to have admitted in the post that you referenced that in a weak moment, I tried to hide something. I got caught. That was why I posted what I did. I had done wrong, and I thought I needed some input into it all. See, that’s a part of why people post some of the things they do on these boards. They make mistakes in life, so sometimes they ask for help from neutral third parties. Live with it. So, fraud, liar, cheat? Those are your words. I prefer fuck-up. We’re all human on this board, and we all fuck up. I fucked up. But I admitted it and I didn’t make excuses. So, if you’re gunna excoriate me or anyone else on these boards for asking for help when they feel they need it, I’d rather drown at sea than accept a life-jacket from someone like you.
Fifth, I’ve never known a lesbian to try to preach to others that their sexuality is natural. Most of the lesbians I know of are just trying to live their lives the way straights do every day. Their taxes are too high. They pay too much rent. They deal with senile grandparents. My lesbian cousin had to deal with a mother who was dying of cancer. She didn’t have time to preach about how natural her orientation was because she was too busy dealing with life. Thus far, the only one I’ve ever seen who thinks that lesbians preach about how natural they are is you. Also, in post 72, you stated: “Furthermore, if you believe you and your lesbian lover are able to conceive a child without a heterosexual-type couple involved, that is scientifically impossible. What is "stupid" about that? Is there something you need to confess?” The way I interpreted this passage, you didn’t know what gender I was. You also challenged me by asking if there was something I needed to confess. So, I confessed. I confessed that I don’t have a lesbian lover because, not having the right genitalia, I’m not a lesbian. The only thing I have in common with a lesbian is that we both like our own gender. Maybe I went overboard in my response to you. Oh well. If you didn’t want such responses, maybe you should’ve written more clearly than you did. If you weren’t addressing me directly and yet you framed the question to me as though you thought I were a lesbian, that’s entirely your fault. See why I have a problem with your evident lack of attention to detail?
Sixth. Leo already demonstrated that homosexuality is natural. I’m not gunna belabor the point except to say that if you’re a BARD user, go onto that site and do your own research. Or google it. Frankly, I’ve been working all day, and I still have more of this to slog through. And yes, I understand that this is my choice, but you’ve also presented me with a challenge.
Seventh, if you read any of the posts I’ve submitted here and elsewhere, you’ll discover I didn’t “change” from heterosexuality to homosexuality. If this keeps up, I can continue the discussion by citing the specific posts and quoting myself, so I’m not gunna do it here right now. Suffice it to say that there is adequate evidence of my statements here that you can look up yourself. Or maybe you wanna use my words against me, or try to, and demonstrate how this miraculous change occurred.
Eighth, my so-called “change” to homosexuality doesn’t even relate to my indebtedness to my ex. It’s a separate and distinct issue. See, we still own a condo together. My name is on the mortgage. Ergo, I have what is called a responsibility to pay some part of that mortgage. Maybe you don’t know how mortgages work, but when you have one, you are in debt. And maybe you don’t know how some people’s minds work, so I’ll tel you how my mind works. And you can either accept this or not. I felt pretty damned guilty for what I did to my ex. But then again, if you’ve read and understood any of my postings, you already know that. So, I agreed in a separation agreement that I co-wrote myself that I was to give her nearly all my money for more than two years. That’s in writing. And you know what? She asked me for more help, so I extended what I didn’t have to do for another year. And then do you know what? I’m still doing it! And you say I’m rebelling against my ex-wife because I like men rather than her? Because I owe money? I have a secret for you. The only money I owe is my responsibility to pay the mortgage. I don’t owe her anything, not really, because I already did everything I was legally responsible to do. If I really wanted to be the biggest terd in the world, I’d just stop doing it, and legally I’d be in my rights. So, would you please point to anything that I have ever said that can even be remotely interpreted as rubbing her nose in anything? And I want you to put it in quotes. If you can read, you can do that.
Ninth. You ask why would you need a scale to tell whether you liked women or men. Because there are gay people, whom Kinsey described as sixes. They go exclusively with their own gender. There is everything else in between, and there are ones. Those are complete straights. Do the research yourself. Maybe it’ll get that music out of your head, which it seems to me you’re the only one that hears it.
Tenth. I really did attend law school. I’m not proud of it, but there it is. Fordham University School of Law is an accredited law school. Look it up. Also, it’s completely up to you whether or not you believe me on this.
Eleventh. Since you find my reasoning so wanting, I challenge you to use your own peerless reasoning skills to demonstrate how I am not really gay and just trying to get my ex-wife back because I still owe money, “just like that guy on the show MASH that pretended to be homosexual to get out of being in the military.” Point to anything I said or did to support your conclusions and then we’ll see how your reasoning stacks up. Quote me. I challenge you.
Now, post 80 in conjunction with post 78. Again, we’ve got a lack of attention to detail here. Shaydz was not commenting on The Pooka’s attack on my personal life. Shaydz was commenting on The Pooka’s attacking me personally based on prior interpretations of my posts. There’s a difference. Chelslicious, you are right in one respect in saying that I’ve said a lot of things in public. But accusing me of things that I am not and misinterpreting what I’ve said, that’s a different issue. My words are out there for everyone to see, right or wrong. Sometimes I’m right, sometimes I’m wrong. But I refuse to be afraid of saying something for fear that someone might refer to what I said earlier. And I’m not gunna be afraid to defend myself or my words if I think either they or I have been misinterpreted. If I’m a bit freer here than I might be elsewhere, it’s because I interpreted these forums as a place where we could discuss things freely. As for posting things because I “assumed people would love to hear about it, and posted anyway,” and it being “one of many things that's wrong here,” there’s this little thing called the ignore function. If your mind can’t handle what I or anyone else has to say, then use it.
I admit I probably could have turned the other cheek where Johnby was concerned; however, Chelselicious also made some very valid points including but not limited to the fact Johnby's private fantasies are inappropriate and should not have been posted. Additionally, Johnby put his private matters here on the Zone and has the nerve to call something said here stupid or maybe intended as a more personal attack. Johnby came out punching. Johnby gets what he deserves if he puts that he lies cheats and steals on the internet; then afterward has the nerve to call someone else stupid, all is fair game. If he was coming to a gun fight he shouldn't have came armed with a stick. When he gets shot down with return fire, he must learn to keep his mouth shut when he is in over his head or when he has nothing useful to add. This means think before he posts. I will offer the olive branch, if he will mend his ways. Otherwise, The Pooka qualifies as expert when returning fire.
Back to the subject at hand, I have read a lot of conclusory statements by the pro-homo clan so far, but not much by way of reason. I say explain and you [all] say that's the way it is and a bunch of irrelevant non-sense about eating unnatural food and evolving from monkeys but never directly get around to addressing my question. Leoguardian says we heterosexuals need the others to explain, but similar to the Bandar-log, they chase a bunch of shaggy dogs around but never get to the point. Step up to the plate, answer my questions and don't give me more of the same conclusory non-sense. I am beginning to suspect none of you really know the answer and that is why you go to such great lengths to avoid the question.
BTW, if you are among the few that believe we evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys? You probably believe that psycho-babble about big explosions create new life as well. (Ref: bib bang). Wonder what kind of life was created after the atom bomb was dropped on Japan? That was a very big bang. If you believe all that, I have a bridge I would like to sell you. . . (BTW, bring lots of lettuce). (that means cash).
The Pooka - sitting on the side of the bridge, softly whistling Anchors Away and perusing a travel magazine
Yeah, I came out punching. I admit that. Because I saw something in your post that I’ve seen time after time after time, over and over and over again. We don’t recruit people to be gay. No one recruited me. Believe it or not, until I accepted myself, I didn’t want to be something that at the time I was growing up, nearly everyone hated. But I rebelled against that. Any one of us who accept ourselves as natural rebel against the status quo. What we want is the right to be ourselves and for everyone else to be ourselves as well. And yes I think that anyone who thinks that gay people actively go out and seek to recruit others to be gay says something stupid. Not a personal attack. An attack against an idea? Yes. I’m not apologizing for that. And by the way, again you exhibit a lack of detail. There is no B in Johndy. Also, you say that I lie, cheat and steal. I’ll take the first accusation. Yes, I lied and felt badly for doing it. That’s why I asked for help – to get some input as to what to do. Yes, I admitted that I emotionally cheated on my ex. It’s out there for everybody to see. Not exactly proud of that, but I try to be a better person. So far, I lied. Past tense. Cheated? Again, past tense. Now, stealing? Where the fuck do you get that? From whom did I steal? At least I responded to what was there in your post. Accusing me of stealing is a really shitty thing to do when you have absolutely no proof of that. And if you did, you’d put it out there for people to see. I’m not extending an olive branch to you when you accuse me or anyone else of doing something they didn’t do, and I think I’m entirely capable of responding with more than a stick.
"If you are among the few that believe we evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?"
Why shouldn't we have monkeys?
If dogs evolved from wolves, then why are there still wolves?
speaking of not paying attention, Johndy, have you read my posts saying homosexuality
is unnatural? I know you have, so you know that there are people besides The Pooka, who
believe this truth.
also, here is something that hasn't been brought up: whenever a child is born, that child
is heterosexual, until such time that it chooses to announce otherwise to the world.
this means that, as The Pooka pointed out, homosexuality is a choice, because, as I said,
no one knows that anyone has chosen that lifestyle until someone opens their mouth and
says so.
Johndy, you admitted that you are not naturally homosexual, by saying that you fought
hard against it. does that not say something to you?
you say that you've heard arguments against homosexuality countless times, so then,
why aren't you prepared to give a logical answer for why you've chosen that lifestyle?
also, does it not mean anything to you that only four places have legalized gay marriage?
cause, that should be proof enough that homosexuality is wrong.
Wow Chelsea. Just to make sure I remembered correctly, I went back and looked at that anti-gay board... and I'll leave it at that.
Yes, I have paid attention. And I believe that you believe what you say is true. But if homosexuality were completely unnatural, then why does it exist in the animal kingdom? I still completely disagree with you, and it’s because of this post alone. Because first, you say that a child is heterosexual “until such time that it chooses to announce otherwise to the world.” Let me see if I’m understanding you. Every child is always straight. Therefore, they naturally trend toward the opposite gender until they choose to announce that they’re gay. So, I wasn’t gay until I said I was. Okay, let’s examine this.
Take the word announce. Let’s narrow it to that for a minute. By your definition, I did not announce I was gay until the age of 23. Therefore, I was straight until then, right? Okay. So, then, why did I fantasize about guys? Why did I invent lovers of my own gender? Why did I have a crush on a boy while I was in high school? Why did I have crushes on slightly older boys from the ages of eight till ten or twelve without even understanding what homosexual meant? Why did I biologically react to the scent of sweat from another guy after I was through wrestling? Never announced myself to anyone, remember, till I was 23. Why do you suppose that was? Or, did I already talk about that in other posts? Was announcing who and what I was to someone my big whopper of a mistake in life? I mean, all I had to do was shut up? Was my not saying anything to anyone really all it takes to make me straight? I must be stupid or there must really be something wrong with me if all I had to do was think I was going through a phase, grow up, not say anything and just find a cute little filly to breed lots of little colts with. I wonder why I didn’t ever think of that before. Maybe it’s because at some point in my life I finally grew up.
You also say that homosexuality is a choice because “no one knows that anyone has chosen that lifestyle until someone opens their mouth and says so.” Read what I said earlier in this post. Logic out what you’ve said and see if you can find anything lacking. How can someone not be gay until someone else hears him or her admit it? That would mean you can simply flip a switch and be anything you want. Shall I do that now? Let’s try it. Guys and gals, I’m straight. How many of you believe that? And if a single human being goes into the forest and says he or she is gay or straight and no one hears him or her, what sexual orientation is he or she?
Saying that I fought hard against it is only your interpretation that I admitted homosexuality was not natural. I fought against it because I did not want to disappoint my loved ones. But you know what? No matter how hard I fought my feelings, they were always there. For me, then, they are natural. And I can’t give you a logical answer as to why I “chose” that “lifestyle” because it was nothing I ever chose. There are feelings, urges involved here, that defy logic. Ask any straight person to tell you why they like the opposite gender. Tel them to be logical and present an objective viewpoint. Read my last posting and tell me how I was supposed to have logicked my way out of my feelings? That would make me a robot with a gay or a straight switch. And your analogy about the legalization of gay marriage? That’s like saying this is how we’ve always done things, so the way we’ve always done things is invariably right. Hokay. That would mean that we were wrong to have fought a civil war against slavery because slavery in one form or another was accepted in about half the country. We were wrong to fight the American revolution because nations have always been ruled by kings, at least the majority of the time. And we were wrong to have given women the right to vote because at least a sizable portion of people believed that women should not vote. Let’s talk about all the civil rights advances blacks made in the last century. A good portion of this country fought against those because in their mind, it was wrong that blacks be treated as equals. So, too, it is always wrong to treat gays as equals because it’s, well, just wrong, that’s what. I just don’t see the logic. Please explain to me.
Anthony, I posted to the anti-gay topic back when I was "acting" attracted to females.
I have no idea why you're trying to use that as leverage against me, when I've been honest about the fact that that attempt was in an effort to disassociate myself from some of the things I saw and experienced growing up. however, I can't say I'm surprised that all you all can come up with are supposed attacks of your own on The Pooka and myself, and a failure to answer the questions that have been posed to you by the two of us. I get it though, they're too hard for you to answer, and you'd rather not waste your time with people who disagree with your choices...but if you actually took the time to try and convince us, maybe you'd surprise yourselves and be successful at that.
No, my point being that you're exhibiting the same intolerance you used to look down on others for. Besides, as has already been stated, if you put something out here, then it's fair game for people to quote and interpret as they wish. I don't owe you any justifications, and especially after such a total turnaround. It's good that you can at least admit you were fake, but in a few years, will this be the fake you? Time will tell.
Plus, all I did was note the difference, so would you like to explain to me how you managed to perceive it as an attack? But I think I made my point. Why else would you get that defensive?
" Why shouldn't we have monkeys?
If dogs evolved from wolves, then why are there still wolves?"
Well reasoned logic voyager, that is exactly the point. We still have dogs and wolves, monkeys and humans because no evolution. For if there was evolution, we would not have apes and men for if apes evolved into men, there would only be men. Nicely done.
The Pooka - whistling The Birds and the Bees and doing a soft shoe routine
Johnby, you have convinced me. You are overly tangential and seem to think every question is about you. The truth is you have no answer to the direct question asked. Rather than provide an informed well reasoned reply you try to answer the question with a question, talk about all sorts of irrelevant tangents or go into your sordid and abnormal decision to like boys (which actually fits into the previously listed topic). You should keep that boy-liking-decision confidential and to yourself.
Did you quit or get kicked out of law school because you could not answer the instructor's direct questions or were they afraid you would be blabbing a client's confidences to whoever would listen? Sit down and let someone who knows the answer talk for a change. You are dismissed.
The Pooka - whistling Dixie BTW, I'll sell you the bridge "for a song"
This is by no means an attempt to go back on anything I’ve said, but I think part of the vitriol that’s going on here right now is a misinterpretation of what I said earlier. (Spanking noise because I was probably unclear.) But then again, it could be the lack of attention to detail. To wit, in post 71, I said in part: “***But there's no gay conspiracy to effectively say red rover, red rover, come over, come over. It's stupid!” I still believe that. We don’t recruit. And I said that it’s stupid to think that way. No personal attack. I also note that in post 73, I stated how it was possible for a lesbian couple to conceive a child absent the act of heterosexual intercourse by one of the partners. To wit: “ *** as for lesbians conceiving children, have you never heard of artificial insemination?” This is in response to a quote in post 72, which states, in part: “ *** if you believe you and your lesbian lover are able to conceive a child
without a heterosexual-type couple involved, that is scientifically impossible.” You could have frozen sperm in a turkey baster or whatever, so I think I’ve proven myself correct here. By the way, how would a heterosexual-type couple have any involvement in a lesbian couple's seeking to produce their own child? Would the heterosexual couple conceive a child of their own and then give it to the lesbian couple? Or maybe the heterosexual-type couple would conceive the child in vitro and then implant the embryo into one or the other partner? Or do it naturally and then have the straight woman have the embryo removed and implanted into one of the lesbian partners? Frankly, it seems easier to go with the turkey baster. You still have sperm, but the heterosexual couple stays out of the picture entirely because the heterosexual (or gay) male would simply make his contribution to a sperm bank. No other couple involved. Or did you mean coupling? If that’s what you meant, coupling ends with an “ing” sound, and indicates heterosexual copulation. Can we go back to the turkey baster again? See? Attention to detail. And by the way, I’m still joyously awaiting to be indicted for stealing. Anyone on here wanna tell me what’s up with that? Or tell me how The Pooka came up with some of those unsubstantiated allegations against me in post 75? I can go at this all night if necessary.
Really? I'm waiting. And it would be nice again if you quoted me directly the way I ust did now. Attention to deal anyone?
Replace the word "ust" with "just." And "deal" with "detail." Hey not perfect. And an eight- to ten-year-old's crushes on older boys at the ages of eight and ten is age-appropriate. Currently I like my own age group. That's what happens when you grow up. Since we're engaged in personal attacks, I still note you haven't substantiated your charge of my having stolen anything. If you're such an expert, prove it. And BTW, I note that your profile doesn't indicate what gender you are. Are you a female who gets hit on by other women all the time? Maybe you're secretly drawn to the dark side. Or are you a guy who keeps getting rejected by women because you're so abhorrent that they lie to you and tell you they're gay so they can get rid of you? I can play too, see?
Pooka, I wasn't arguing against evolution. The explanation is that humans and other apes evolved from a common ancestor that lived a long time ago. Groups of apes were isolated from each other, meaning they couldn't breed with one another, and they lived in very different environments, so they evolved into different apes. Some became chimps and others became us. That's how the process of evolution can produce both monkeys and people. Think of it like a tree. The common ancestor is the trunk, and the branches are us and chimps and bonobos and all the other species of ape around today.
I'm not an expert, but here's a bit of advice: try to understand what you're arguing against. How can you know you don't believe in some claim if you haven't taken the time to investigate what that claim is? Your opponents will never take your arguments seriously as long as your understanding of evolution is so deeply flawed. Hint: try googling the question you asked about humans and monkeys and you might get answers from actual scientists. I don't know much - I'm just a nerd who likes to read.
BTW, today's dogs didn't always exist. Us humans have bred them for the traits we like. That's how we have hamster-sized dogs and great danes and everything in between.
Johnby, you are boring me here. You admitted everything I said by your own postings on this public forum. If I prove it again that would not prove homosexuality was somehow mystically validated.
Pay very close attention and answer these two (2) yes or no questions:
1. are you divorced from your wife?
and
2. have you desired sex with another male (of any age group) since the time you married your wife?
The Pooka - slowly crosses his arms and whistles "As Time Goes By"
Yes to both. Your point? You still haven't substantiated your claim that I stole. So, answer these questions: (1) Can you substantiate your charge, and (2) Can you cite any words and quote them to support that charge? (Crickets chirping in the background.)
And before we get into another heated exercise in character assassination, whether by me or anyone else here, I’d like to commend the Pooka for setting the trap I pretty much fell into. He/she/it asked me two questions: (1) Whether I am now divorced from my wife, and (2) whether I desired sex with any male at any age since my divorce. Three truthful answers were possible. Yes to both questions, no to the second and yes and no to the second. I have to say that it was nicely devised because no matter the answer to the second question, I either was or would’ve been trapped. Worst still, I went back and looked at both his/her/its question and my answer just minutes ago and only now realize how cleverly the question was rigged. Never let it be said that I don’t give credit where credit is undoubtedly due. Because unequivocally answering yes to the second question with no reservations has just opened me up to an acusation of possible pedophilia. There are many,many things that I am and many, many things that I amnot. Being a pedophile is one thing that I am not. The last time I desired sex with a minor was when I was also a minor, and even then those minors were either my own age or slightly older than I. So, we can get rid of that possible charge post haste, although undoubtedly The Pooka can choose to believe or not believe me. He/she/it seems to have a penchant for fiction-writing. He/she/it can now use that post against me all he/she/it wants. Go for it, because I think I’ve pretty much pre-emptively addressed it. But if I unequivocally answered no to that question, I would be acused of lying that I was gay. Again, one of the things that I am is gay. But he/she/it could use my negative answer to the second question to bolster his/her/its charge that I consistently lie. Oh well. There are times that I have lied. I already came clean on one of my threads. But you’ll all note that I put it out there publicly and that I’m not sorry I did. Maybe The Pooka always tells the truth. If he/she/it always tells the truth no matter what, then he/she/it is probably the first and only truly honest person on the face of this world. Oh, how humble we all should be in his/her/its presence. And if I equivocated and truthfully answered yes and no to that second question, I would’ve been accused of not following instructions. Or of hedging. Or of being dishonest. But if I had refused to answer the second question and said that it was unfairly worded, I would’ve been accused of being a coward and probably a whining, complaining little bitch. No matter what, I would’ve lost and probably just now did. It happens in life sometimes. Now The Pooka can point to these three posts as a basis for crowing about how his/her/its reasoning skills are so much more superior to mine. Go for it. Merry Christmas and happy new year.
Disregarding the inconsistent responses. Still awaiting a well reasoned answer to the originally posed question, "If lesbianism is 'so natural,' why do lessbians have to try so hard to persuade others it is natural?"
The Pooka - whistling "Around the World in 80 Days" and casually moves his foot from Joani's prostrated neck, helps him up, dusts him off and shakes his hand - good as new. . .
Then here’s your answer. Your question, at least to me, is meaningless. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer it, honestly, because I can only go by my own experience. None of the lesbians that I have ever met go around trying to persuade others how natural their orientation is. I said that earlier. They lead their lives. They deal with every-day problems. My immediate supervisor at my job just happens to be a lesbian; I know this because she referred to her female partner at one time. But that’s all it amounted to. Otherwise, the very first thing she has on her mind when we do coaching for my job is telling me how I did during this or that particular two-week period. Her sexual orientation isn’t even on the radar screen in terms of how we interact with each other, or how she interacts with anyone else at work. My cousin is a lesbian. She doesn’t go around persuading others how natural her orientation is. Neither does her girlfriend. Neither have either one of my classmates from high school who happen to be lesbians. Neither did one of their girlfriends I once met. Neither did any other lesbian I’ve ever met. Seems to me the only thing that differentiates lesbians from anyone else is that they’re women who want to be with their own gender. And I’m realy, really sorry to have to do something that annoys you, but your question invites more questions. Like, for instance, why do you focus so heavily on lesbians? How many lesbians do you know? And really, are you a female that’s been hit on by a lesbian or two or three or ten? If so, does it bother you? Why does it bother you? Do you think you might be a lesbian, and maybe you’re afraid of that? What are some examples of experiences you had in which lesbians tried to persuade you how natural they were? Why did they try to persuade you, and what did you do to instigate the conversation? Or did these conversations, if any, just happen spontaneously without any provocation? Are you scared to answer these questions? Do you think them unfair? Does anyone else who might be reading this think these questions are unfair, or that my answer doesn’t somehow cut it? Am I the only one here who’s confused about The Pooka’s question? BTW, sorry for the double post.
no Johndy, your latest reply still fails to answer The Pooka's question.
do you not consider it to be recruitting, when lesbians and gays openly discuss their sexual preference, and talk about how wonderful they think it is, anytime they have an opportunity to do so publicly?
according to Merriam-Webster, the definition of the word recruit is: "to find suitable people, and get them to join."
so, as it relates to gays and lesbians, that means that they openly discuss their sexuality with people.
for example, you said that you know your boss is a lesbian; how could you know this if she does not openly advertise?
another example: at a doctor's office, in a waiting room, a patient loudly makes a comment, saying, "I can't get married in Texas," thereby informing everyone that she is homosexual.
what is her purpose for saying that, other than to recruit, or advertise her homosexuality?
she was by herself, she was not asked, and chose to break the silence by saying that to the entire waiting area of people. even you do that, Johndy, as indicated by several of the posts you've made, all across the zone boards...most times, when it is absolutely unnecessary, and adds no value whatsoever to discussions being had.
When straight folks have their wild orgies in public, are they not recruiting, then? What about all the sex on TV, even in comercials? It's straight sex, no?
I could not have said it better myself Chelslicious! From this point forward Johnby, ask Chelslicious if you fail to understand something I wrote. (She is now in charge of my light work).
The Pooka - humming "Another One Bites the Dust"
My my Devilish A, we do like to get off topic. . .
The Pooka - softly whistling "Strange(r) in the Night"
Develish A, I seriously doubt that there are heterosexuals having "wild orgies in public." What are you talking about specifically?
The Pooka - whistling the theme from the game show Jeopardy
*laughs so hard that he dies of pure shock and exhaustion* I simply rest my case right there.
It occurs to me you may have meant you rested your carcass. (I admit you did arrest a chuckle from The Pooka). . .
The Pooka - whistling the Lion Sleeps Tonight
Now go take a nap before I call the cops. resisting a rest is against the law.
I’m sorry, but this is really, really funny shit. I just can’t stand it! Just limiting myself to post 105, it’s laugh-out-loud funny. My boss casually mentions her girlfriend. To me! Know what’s wrong with that? We’re not even the same gender. So, by your definition, she’s recruiting me to be a lesbian! Or maybe she’s trying to get me to date women! Because she’s talking about her girlfriend. To me! Since I’m not a female and I’m not dating women, I guess her monumental efforts at getting me to be a lesbian or date women just haven’t worked very well, have they? And I thought George W. Bush was funny! What do you do for an encore? Please make me laugh again! Please? Oh, please? BTW, your statement that only four places have legalized gay marriage is flat-out wrong. Google it. And then learn how to count.
Perhaps more along the line of light amusement, when Johnboy micro-focuses on a word, spelling or another subject, attempting to avoid the real issue with which he is uncomfortable or does not know the answer. . .
The Pooka - softly humming the Jaws lead-in when the shark is swimming nearby
Good Lord, I didn't think it was possible for someone to be as stupid as some of these
people are demonstrating themselves to be and yet still have the mental capacity to
inhale and exhale.
Johnby, the definitions of both gay and lesbian include the word homosexual. What difference does it make if some is male or female if they are in fact referencing their homosexuality? The words mean the same thing and are therefore indistinguishable for all intents and purposes.
The point is homosexuality is abnormal behavior, as are the strange or "queer" behaviors they tend to exhibit, as in Chelslicious' example of someone walking into a physician's waiting room full of people and unbidden, announced to one and all her homosexuality. That is abnormal. My question is, why to they (you) do that? Example, and I quote, "As a gay male, I’m attracted to other males." See post 73 above by Johndy (spelled with a D for depraved, deleterious, delinquent. . .
The Pooka - scratching his head while whistling "Let it Go"
Of course with the exception of you and me Lightening, and sometimes I wonder about you.
The Pooka - yawning
To Devilish Anthony, your wit is quick and made me spit... when I unexpectedly laughed. Do you know the difference between unlawful and illegal? (Johnby should have learned this from when he attended law school). . .
Unlawful is against the law.
Illegal is a sick bird.
The Pooka - trying to keep a straight face - pun intended
Wow, this is getting way out of hand. Seems like the genital shaking should be a private affair at this point. Shame on the combatants for continuing this pointless circle jerk, shame on me for watching and commenting on the mess and shame on the world for making this unnecessary display of oral spunk an issue in the first place.
Does anybody else see an uncanny resemblance between this insufferable
moron and that Mark guy that got banned a couple months ago? I haven't
looked, but judging solely by memory the posting style and general idiocy
and lack of ability to say anything intelligent seem rather similar. Anyone
wanna take bets on whether he's real or not? I'm falling on the not side of
the coin.
Nah. Don't think he's Mark.
The Mark I saw wasn't quite like this. Mark was rather hurried and sloppy, while this one is more of a measured type, goading under the table so that only intended victims feel the bite.
He reminds me of someone who is still around, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was a doop.
The Blind Guardian is right, I’m afraid, and I have to apologize for my part in contributing to the stupidity and sometimes outright childishness to which this thread has degenerated. Frankly, I’ve demonstrated I’m better than that in the past, and I apologize personally to the Guardian, Leo, Cody, Anthony and others on here whom I respect. Unfortunately I let someone else’s stupidity get the best of me, and in some cases I sometimes responded to that stupidity with my own brand of stupidity, and in ways that have not done me credit. The bad part about that is that both my stupidity and that of others is right there for people to see it and comment on it. Oh well. We all have to own things sometimes. Ain’t gunna ever claim perfection. But I’m not gunna be ashamed for who and what I am, and I’m not gunna stop defending my beliefs or stop standing up for what I think is right. And in the doing, I won’t stop admitting I made mistakes along the way when I make them. As for some of the last several posts from 114 on, I simply won’t comment on them either way. The obviously dauntless wisdom that can be found in them is frankly just too overwhelming for this por, insignificant mind to appreciate right now. So, happy birthday, merry Christmas and happy new year. I’ve worked hard all week, I’m up early, and my morning coffee and computer games await me.
I’ve been reading this board, but not posting. Entertaining.
Let me put a different tryst on the natural, or unnatural debate.
We’ll use Chelsea’s example of the woman’s statement in the doctor’s office.
People, lesbians, straight, tend to talk about the things on their minds.
Facebook and Twitter, are great examples of how much information people are willing to tell others without being asked at all.
What is so different about other women opening up in a waiting room about there hair dresser, what, her boyfriend is, or isn’t doing, or the fact her car broke down, and she had a difficult time getting here today?
She’s not talking about her sexuality, but she is offering unasked for information.
Because the other woman offered unasked for information, isn’t grounds for saying all lesbians are not natural. This only shows that that particular woman has a need to tell people about her private business.
In my experience, I don’t notice lesbians trying to prove, or disprove its natural. Most do exactly as straight people do, go about there lives naturally, having lunch, shopping, doing laundry, and other activities with there lovers.
All the flag wearing, and such activities are no different from straights with other symbols of there feelings about issues.
This was where I was trying to go in the first instance, really. A casual mentioning of one’s girlfriend, whether by a straight male or by a lesbian female, is not flag-waving. But the differences between the two are obvious. Nobody freaks out when Grant talks about his girlfriend Marilyn because Grant is supposed to have a girlfriend. He’s acting in accordance with the notion that this is how things are always done. But, if Rachel talks about her girlfriend Susan in such a way that would suggest their relationship is a romantic partnership rather than a mere friendship, certain people do freak out. They can use Rachel and Susan’s relationship as a basis for condemnation and judgment. All common sense gets thrown completely out the window. So, too, the problem with a certain person’s question on here as to why lesbians have to try so hard to persuade others that their orientation is so natural is that in one sense it’s a loaded question. Maybe I should’ve framed my initial response that way, and the discussion would not have been so heated. But it seems to me that my response to the question will always be unsatisfactory to some. I think I’ve just proven that. Post 104, which was mine, and post 123, which was forereel’s, are substantially similar in some ways. We both ended up saying the same things, albeit with different phraseology. But I venture to say that neither response will be deemed acceptable to the one posing the initial question. Why? Because there is only one acceptable answer. To wit, lesbians have to work so hard to persuade their straight peers that their orientation is so natural because they already know it isn’t. Is that the basic gist? If all the author wanted was regurgitation, I can’t imagine why the question was posed in the first place. BTW, does the author not know that the term is “lesbian,” not “lessbian,” or was the author attempting to be clever? Maybe the author should get in touch with Rush Limbaugh so he can use it on his so-called talk show.
I'll add something to that.
Women can talk about there "girlfriend" and it is vary natural.
Our society thinks nothing about two women hugging, and kissing in public.
It is socially more difficult for men to do these things.
If we are comparing gay males to gay women, I'd say lesbians have even less motivation to prove there relationships are natural. I say this, because women living together, walking arm in arm, hugging, kissing in public, is just not thought un natural.
They sort of have to make these activities noticeable to be seen.
One must dress in a male fashion, the kissing has to be longer then a friendly kiss. They need to do many other things, like add, lover to the conversation, instead of girlfriend.
What fore?
It's true. If a woman uses the term "girlfriend," it can mean the obvious, but at least up to more present times, it was used to define a very good female friend. My mother, for instance, would say: "My girlfriend Patty" or "my girlfriend Shirley." The understanding was that these women were not her girlfriends in the romantic sense, but very old friends. My mother is completely straight as far as I knew, and she was married to my father for 57 years. Then again, I suppose we all have secrets, but I think it's pretty safe to say I know my mother. In contrast, if Mark, say, comments about his boyfriend Jim, it means literally that he and his boyfriend are an actual romantic male couple. If you're a straight male, you probably don't wanna be talking about your various boyfriends. Could get you some funny looks at best, and derision at worst. If you're a straight male, or even if you're a gay male who doesn't want anybody to know he has a literal boyfriend named Jim, you'll be pretty sure not to use the term "boyfriend" around people who don't understand, and who might cause you trouble.
Right. So, the question of lesbians having to prove it's natural is void. They don't at all.
I wonder if these last post have answered this question?
Not necessarily, especially if people insist that lesbians (or as the author calls them "lessbians") always do this. Then we get into a discussion that goes like this: "They do too!" "They do not!" "They do too!" "They do not!" "We're never gunna stop!" "Yes we will." "No we won't!" "Yes we will!" (Two Stupid Dogs, anyone?)
Homo sapiens are extremely social creatures, as are other primates. Add to this, homo sapiens are even more: we are storytelling, and story-listening machines. So it would make sense that homosexuals and othersexuals among the homo sapiens would be as likely to share their experiences as would heterosexuals. It also stands to reason that heterosexuals who are allies, friends, companions, colleagues, etc., of one or more homosexual humans would also listen with interest, because humans interact by sharing in one another's experiences.
The Pookah could also claim that video gamers are "not natural" either, since they frequently talk at length about their prowess on this or that game, making quite a fisherman's tale of it. Except, even then Pookah would be wrong for the aforementioned reasons, and also because homo sapiens and other primates are tournament species.
And what is "natural" anyway? Something that appears in nature?
Well then, the skyscraper built by a band of homo sapiens is every bit as natural as a dam built by a family of beavers.
There was this book I started reading a few years ago called Nature's Rainbow, I believe. I have to do a search on BARD for it so I can read it again. But it definitely refutes the idea that sexual diversity is unknown in nature. Talks about the gay bighorn sheep, the bisexual female monkeys and the bonobos. And everything else in between. Wonder if the bighorn sheep have this argument about whether homosexuality is or isn't natural. I can just hear the heated argument now. Probably goes something like this: "Baaaaaah!" "Baaaaaaah!" "Baaaaaah!" (Repeat ad nauseam infinito.)
John, I have to disagree with one thing you said in post 128? You said that a
discussion of this question, which is a disgustingly stupid question to begin
with, would dissolve into a "yes I did" "No you didn't" argument. While this
may be true for some, and I can't honestly say this board hasn't gone that
direction, I think you are forgetting two words which desperately needed to
be thrown in the pookie's face a long time ago. Side note, when I say thrown
in his face, in this instance I mean lasar etching them into anvils and literally
throwing them into his face. I have no time nor mercy nor consideration for
wastes of carbon and oxygen such as him and Chelsea. But I digress.
The two words I think you are failing to take into consideration John are as
follows, and I suggest using them as often as possible. "prove it". When
chelsea says that lesbians go into doctors offices and scream "i just ate a
girls pussy, who wants to join the lesbian elite?" Your next line should be,
"prove it". Then when Chelsea, as Chelsea always does, fails to prove it and
throws one of her childish little fits like the childish little bitch she is, you
laugh at her and pat her patronizingly on the head and tell her to go get
some warm milk and change into her Jammies cuz its time for beddy-bye.
When the Pookie-bear tries to say that lesbians and gays try to recruit,
you say "prove it". Then when he also fails to prove it and starts spouting off
like an arrogant little douche-guzzler who isn't smart enough to be arrogant
and simply hasn't had enough of his teeth knocked out by smarter and
generally better people, you laugh at him too. If there were any justice in
the world you'd follow that laugh up with a good kick in the balls so stupidity
like that wouldn't be able to reproduce, but alas, justice there is little of in
this world. Makes me wish there was a little blue button I could push that
would send hundreds of thousands of volts through someone's computer to
make them not want to touch it again. Kinda like a shock collar for dogs.
After all, people like the pookie-bear there make dogs look like oxford
scholars.
True in some respects. Like I said, I didn’t always respond the way I ordinarily would where this discussion is concerned. Plus, when I’ve asked some of the participants on here to prove some stuff, I probably did it in too discursive a fashion for them to understand that this is what I wanted. We get the accusation that we recruit thrown at us all the time. Doesn’t even make sense. It makes so little sense on so many levels that I felt like going ballistic, which as I said, probably did me very little credit. Because the truth is we don’t even have to recruit. No one recruited me. No one tried to convince me to be something I was not already. I can say the following because I was already there. The main reason you worry about being recruited to be gay is if you’re already dealing with your own issues of sexual identity to begin with. If you’re that afraid, as I was at one time, you’re likely to do and say anything and everything in your power to scream at the top of your lungs that no sir, I am NOT GAY! (Shift-caps used to make a point only.) But in the deepest part of your soul, you know you are. Otherwise you wouldn’t have the feelings, the longings, the desires that you have. When you’re in your teens, your hormones are naturally raging, but something’s wrong. Because they’re not raging for and about the opposite gender, like everyone else. They’re raging for your own gender, which everyone tells you is wrong, sick, perverted, degenerate. Especially when I was growing up. And some of the worst of it comes from the people you love; the people closest to you. You’ll do anything in your power to conceal your truth if you value your relationship with them. If it means being very vocally and publicly unkind and homophobic so no one finds out, you’ll do it. Or, at the very least, I did it, to my everlasting discredit. That’s part of why I get so vocal at times. That’s why some of the things I’ve read lately in this thread are so devastatingly stupid in my opinion. I don’t really understand where some people get some of their information from. How is everyone heterosexual until they admit they’re gay? I never did get a satisfactory answer to that one. I’m as out as I am partially because believe it or not, I do want to try to help. I want others who might be in a similar situation as I was to learn from my mistakes. But I’m also as out as I am partially because we’re still often told to get back in the closet so we won’t infect right-thinking people with the radical notion that we’re every bit as equal as they are. Not doing that again. Sorry if some of you don’t like it. But if I could’ve said things better than I did, guess what? I own that. If I said something the wrong way, I admit it. If I say something stupid, it’s right out there for everyone to see. Call me on it. Use my words against me. But be specific. I think certain people on here are afraid to do that because they don’t have a case. And if I think I goofed, I’ll say so. But I’m not gunna stop being me just because I run the same risks everybody else here runs.
Add to that, a recuriter is presenting something the other person wants. So someone recruiting community members to participate in an activity provides a response to the feeling of wanting to be involved with the community, or appeals to empathy. Employment recruiters promise, if not always deliver upon, higher salaries, better benefits, a better working environment. Sow what exactly does a gay person's gayness have to offer a straight person if they will merely "go gay?" Because by definition, if you're straight, you're only attracted to the opposite sex. And Lesbians in the 70s and 80s reported that they were "recruited," albeit crassly so, by some variant of straight males. The Lesbians were, quite naturally, very unimpressed and even violated. It didn't make them "go straight."
Johndy the only other thing besides what you mentioned, that upsets me about some of these posts, is the age range of the posters. Really? We shouldn't have been like that back in the 80s. If someone is 80 years old they have an excuse, though I know a few of that age range who are plenty rational enough to see reason and have a little empathy. But these younger ones, lashing out as though they were peckerwoods on Stormfront or Fox News: wow! Well, guess I'd have to say both peckerwoods and featherwoods, to be fair.
I suspect a gay person recruiting straight person is offering the same thing I offer when I am asking a woman out. If my recruiting is successful....
Ah but if you ask a Lesbian out, and she politely tells you no and qualifies by saying she's a lesbian, you didn't "recruit her straight." You just found out it wasn't your income, clothes or anything else we men get measured by, but it was she's attracted to women. Would be the same if a gay man asked me out. I've never been asked, and I've been told by a couple of gays they usually know if you're likely to be straight or not. And of course, like most humans, would rather ask where they're likely to get a positive response.
Well, recrutings a hard job you know.
I've been recruited a few times by gay men too.
Wayne, you've never been recruited by a gay man. People don't recruit for
sexuality. Its impossible to recruit for a genetic disposition. That would be
like me trying to recruit you to be a girl, or an asian, or a native american.
Its simply not possible. You may have been asked out by a gay man, that's
entirely possible, but that's not being recruited. You should pick your words
more carefully. Especially when gays are being accused of recruiting children
for sodomy.
Bingo re post 135! Because why would you wanna ask someone out if they don't already share your preference/orientation? Although I have to say this in all fairness. There may be fluidity between gay, straight and in-between, and there may be times when you will honestly experiment, but acting straight when you obviously aren't isn't being straight. Experimenting with homosexuality doesn't mean you're gay if you simply don't feel it. I say we sometimes have very, very strict ideas of what men and women quote end-quote ought to be that homosexuality of any degree really, really bothers some of us. My experience suggests that this is especially true of men and boys. Males are not supposed to be so-called recipients. It violates the so-called natural order. Also, while there are female perpetrators, the majority of rapists are male. The majority of their victims are female, but occasionally there are male victims of male rape. Often, but by no means always, when we're dealing with male-on-male rape, it's usually older males who rape young ones, mostly boys. Where the perp and the victim are at or near the same age, the stronger male overpowers the one who’s perceived as being the weaker one. I bring this up not as a digression, but because our detractors like to lump us in with pedos. You already saw some of this on this very thread. Plus, there seems to be this fear that we wanna jump the bones of every available person of the same gender; that we want to force ourselves on people. Effectively that we want to go around raping straight people. Like, all we think about is how to seduce straight people, and if we can’t seduce them, rape them. But I wish those people would get a grip. I might find a guy to be cute, but mostly that’s as far as it goes. I wouldn’t even say that most of the time to someone I didn’t know unless I knew I was in a comfortable setting where it might get me a date, or at least where my compliment might be appreciated. Each individual gay person is as multi-dimensional or even uni-dimensional as the average straight. I like guys, but I also like traditional country music. I also like a good book, engaging computer games, political discussions, great food, snowmobiling, skiing, gambling, hanging out with friends. And that’s only the tip of the iceberg. I hate homophobia, but I also hate hard-boiled eggs, endives, going to the opera or ballet, watching most sports on TV, rats, mice and cockroaches. And again, that’s only the tip of the iceberg. I’m a little afraid of deep water, a whole lot afraid of cancer, and as many of you know, I’m wrestling with why are we here and what’s it all about. But again, you can probably say this and more about everybody on here. There’s a lot more to each and every one of us than our sexual orientations. I think that’s where the pastor was going in the first instance. And in the evangelical community, it’s a big step forward for some.
Leo, I'm teasing.
John, As a pansexual (a term that I learnt in this very thread from Cody), I empathise with some of the crap you've got from this thread.
I think I would have started ignoring them by now. I'm soryr there are such ignorant people in this world.
I have read your stories and they've been interesting reading for me. Would I post such personal issues to these boards not on your nally because there are so many of these people who will put you down.
Anyway I tried to get in touch with you privately to tell you all this, but I couldn't so have it now. :)
I'm sorry but stupid people don't even deserve replies so I suggest if you want some peace, just don't bother.
Take care man.
Smile!
Sorry about that; I tend to ignore private quicknotes, which is a bad thing. I can be a bit lazy about things like that, but it's best to turn that feature off, which I'll get to. And yes, I thought about just up and ignoring them, but part of it is that I saw a challenge and went for it. Not always in the most mature way. My thought is that at least one of these people is probably gone by now because they really don't add anything constructive into the mix. Oddly enough, though, I think There is probably hope for the other person in question. Some people have to learn, and sometimes you can show them. Maybe. Time will tell. Rumor has it that the Republicans just may be moving in the appropriate direction where gay marriage is concerned, albeit not nearly fast enough for some, and definitely in the wrong direction in the opinion of the Mike Huckabees of this world. He's threatened in the past to quit the party if it ever happens. Brenda Lee put it best back in the 70s: Rock on baby, rock on.
guys, I know it likely hasn’t occurred to you that people such as myself, and probably even The Pooka, have jobs. or, perhaps there are just better things to do with one’s time than to sit around and wait for your next ridiculous and vulgar absurdities to be posted by you lightweights.
oh, and, by the way Johndy, how is your love life, since you can’t even get either girls or boys to give you the approval you so desperately seek?
Really Chelsea? That's the best you can do? Even a simpleton like you
should have been able to do better than that. Why don't you try coming back
when you have the ability to play with the big kids? Maybe if you're good
we'll stop for ice cream later. Now go snuggle with Mr. Teddy and I'll come
read you a bedtime story later, ok pumpkin?
Oh what wonders ananimity, time and the need to be heard can bring. There's so much squabbling going on I think the point of this thread was lost long ago. Honestly, is this really worth the time these posts are taking you to write? This isn't so much an exchange of ideas as mere badgering back and forth. And yes, totally aware of the irony of this post. Just hoping to be a vague voice of reason.
BG, you're right that the original point of this topic was lost, but that's no big surprise.
Called conversation? Smile.
I think that in large measure the nature of this conversation was already changing. Speaking just for me, I tried to do my part in bringing the noise level down to a dull roar here. At least I think it’s pretty evident from what I’ve written since 122. But then, post 143 did make me smile, because it brought back fond memories of how much time I also used to waste in study hall coming up with gems like that instead of doing my geometry homework or something. Thanks for that. Next?
BG, adding your voice in a way which does not serve a purpose, as I think
you knew you were doing when you made your post, is not being ironic. Its
being hypocritical. You're not being the voice of reason. The voice of reason
would have sided with anti-bigotry and rationality. You sided with us all just
abandoning the issue. That's not being the voice of reason, its just being a
voice. Reason is never on the side of abandoning an issue because reason is
the solution to issues. Solutions never need to abandon issues.
Oh jumping jesus jellybeans seriously! Bringing someone's love life or lack thereof into a discussion? So anyone who is swtraight, and work a shit ton of hours and can't get a partner for a time, maybe their claims to be straight are totally unfounded also? I have to quote Gunnery Sgt. Hartman from Full Metal Jacket on this one: "What the hell is this mickey mouse shit!"
And sorry, if you're using speech, that robotic voice just can't do the proper inflection. Or at least I don't know how to do the speech emoticons some people on here do to make synths eloquate more.
I do not believe myself to be hypocritical in this manner, Cody. That would imply saying one thing and doing something entirely different. Saying I support gay marriage and then condemning it to my Christian friends for instance, which I don't do. But then, perhaps I'm justifying that very hipocracy, right? Either way It was not the issue of bigotry I wished to address. I actually care very little about the subject of homosexuality or whether it is "natural". I have my own oppinions on that, and if they haven't been made clear by now it's because I just haven't wanted to argue the point. That isn't to say I don't care about gay people or issues surrounding them. Personally I feel whether you're gay or streight is really none of my business. Gay people want to get married and spend their lives together with someone they love? let them. They aren't hurting anyone. As for the issue of child baring, which no, two gay people can't do without some serious science, I'd rather see a child go to two gay people who will love and take care of that child than to a system where they are passed around. Or have them out on the street. Being gay doesn't make you any more evil or any less of a person than anyone else. it's all in how you treat others. And that's the real reason I chose to comment. Never mind that in this world you're either in full support of gay rights or a raging homophobe, but somehow so many of these forum topics inevitably devolve into petty squabbling, name calling, patronizing and overall demeaning behavior. People take offense so easily, and if they don't like what's said, they attack. it's simply annoying. People like the Pucca who are clearly only out to stir the pot end up drawing out the worst in others. I'm not saying we all have to be shiny happy people never contending or having a difference of oppinion. The sharing of differing perspectives is essential to society. But when the sharing of ideas becomes people oppinionating for the sake of contention, it ceases to be a constructive conversation for me. I just wish such devolution wasn't so often the rule among adults, and people who clearly are creatures of intelligence. The whole reason I joined this site was to interact with other visually impaired people and participate in intelligent and stimulating conversations. And yet somehow I end up ... in places like this. And yes, that probably says more about me than anyone else.
Ok BG, so you think gays should be allowed to get married because they
"aren't hurting anyone". So what are you going to do about the people, by
and large christian people and by and large in certain circumstances led by
the church to which you belong, who are standing between the gays and
equal rights? Believing they should be allowed to get married is all well and
good. I don't really give you points for that because it should be a default
setting, but I respect your opinion at the very least. However, you still give
ten percent, or are at least supposed to give ten percent, to one of the most
homophobic and bigoted organizations in the nation. That's the first way
you're being hypocritical.
The second way, and the way in which I was referring earlier, is that you
said lets stop squibbling by squibbling with those who were squibbling. Its
like saying that people should stop fighting by punching them in the face. Its
hypocritical.
I agree Cody that it should be a default setting. Just like I agree with what I believe you said way back in this thread about how this pastor is really just saying he'll treat his children like human beings if they're gay. In some ways this bares slight resemblence to the past - and present - issues of African American and women's rights, two issues which should also have default human being settings but don't. People like this pastor who stand against what the conventions of those two whom they belong - or which the media portray to be said convention - should get a bit more credit however as they are speaking out against it, even if it is just "treating someone as human beings." As for where I stand and how I would fight for gay rights, that's a good question. As I've said many times before, I am not gay, I will never, ever ever be gay. The whole idea of wanting men is as alien to me as ... well perhaps as a very gay man or woman wanting the opposite sex? Either way, it isn't going to happen. I can say that without the shadow of a doubt. Personally I also don't think it's "natural", no matter how many other animals might have a few gay representatives. I've believed this long before joining any church, despite being of a very very liberal minded family. Men and women need one another, even just to continue their existence. But all of that is my own "oppinion". And what's more my oppinion means nothing in the grand scheme of things. As I said earlier, Gay people are no better or worse than streight people from a sociological standpoint. Gay people aren't even evil from a religious standpoint so far as my church is concernned. Being gay isn't a sin. And while it's true acting on it is , that's between the person and God. yes that might cause some eternal problems for us down the line, but god isn't looking for reasons to condemn. He is a being of Love - despite what people might interpret from the Old testament or people who do things in his name. There may be consequences for acting on being gay, but I can't fathom a being condemning us for eternity for just wanting to be loved. It doesn't compute. But I don't want this turning into a religious debate if we can all help it, though I understand religion's perspective is part of the sociological issue. In my perfect world Gay people should be able to get married, but a church should not be forced to perform such unions if it goes against what they stand for. But this isn't a perfect world. I'm not active in gay rites I'll admit. It's not a social issue I feel particularly passionate about. But I don't hate people who are gay. I don't even vaguely dislike them. I am - gasp - even friends with a couple. So they like the same gender, so what? They're still fun to be around since we have - gasp - things in common! I stand firm in my beliefs on homosexuality, and will speak out against mistreatment of gay people as I will against anyone else, yes, even if my beliefs are unpopular among more ... strong-minded anti-gay people. I'm aware I don't represent Christianity as a whole on this, as my church only makes up a figure in the measly millions.
I also don't mean ignore the issue and pretend it will go away. But civility never hurt anyone either. Most of the reasons these things go on so long is because an attacked person's natural reaction is to strike back much of the time. So just don't belittle and attack as much!:)
As I look back at how heated things got in the past few days where this thread is concerned, it strikes me that there are several ironies. I know there were probably times when I responded more sharply than I arguably should have. I know I probably used language that was definitely raw. Witness post 73, for instance. But if you look at that post, raw language and all, even if I do say so myself, I made some pretty good points that were never really addressed, much less responded to rationally. I also said the Pooka’s claim that we have to recruit from heterosexuals because otherwise we “would normally die out” is just stupid. Witness post 71. I’m not backing down from that, and in the main I’m glad I phrased it the way I did. Right now I’m not gunna get into why I think it’s stupid. I think I made those points throughout my history on these boards. If I have to make them again in future, I will. The point is that when I went back and looked, I don’t think that even as raw as I might’ve been, I really engaged in personal attack initially. Attacking an idea as stupid is not a personal attack. At least I don’t think it is. The first one to really start that war was the Pooka, because he/she/it didn’t like it when I called his/her/its assertions for what I believed them to be. And he/she/it objected to my being as open as I am because he/she/it has proven conclusively that he/she/it is a blatant homophobe. Both he/she/it and Chelslicious have said that if I didn’t want to be subject to attack, I should not have put so much out on the public internet as I did, in so many words. In short, it is their conclusion that I should be ashamed of myself. But guess what? I’m not. What I spoke in the past was the truth whether you like it or not. My imperfections are out there for everybody to see, whether you like them or not. Do I object to being misrepresented? Yes. Anyone would. And I was misrepresented sometimes by them. But the irony is that those misrepresentations are also out there for anyone and everyone to see. If I’ve been petty at times, unfortunately that’s been right out there. But to my credit I’ve also apologized for that, and this has again been plain for everyone to see. What we all do here is a reflection on us to some degree, whether we like it or not. Overall, though, I’m glad some of the stuff has been brought to light. You can’t respond logically to illogic sometimes, not if someone already has pre-set, illogical ideas. When it comes to orientation that is anything but the orthodox, some people are just convinced that we are wrong and they are right. It doesn’t matter what our life experiences have been. It doesn’t matter that we didn’t choose to be the way we are. It doesn’t matter that many of us hated ourselves in the beginning before accepting ourselves. It doesn’t matter that at one time I hated myself when I was a teenager. It doesn’t matter that many of my gay friends hated themselves, while a fortunate few grew up in accepting families, even in my own generation, and so had a far better time of it than the most of us did. Chelslicious says that I admitted that I am not naturally homosexual by saying that I fought hard against it. I have to admit that sitting here trying to even come up with a way to counter this statement is difficult because it’s so stupefyingly illogical that it almost beggars my ability to come up with anything. I fought hard against my identity because I was told it was unnatural. We all were. Society constantly drummed it into us about how sick and perverted we were. Is it any wonder that so many of us fought against ourselves? So, why didn’t it ever work? Why wasn’t turning off the gay switch as easy as my closing this computer right now and causing it to go into hibernation? But if I’ve been taught anything over the past 80-odd postings, it’s that some people can’t wrap their minds around concepts like that. They’d rather condemn. They’d rather call us “homos.” The Pooka already did this. And it’s right there for everyone to see. All I can say is that if it makes them feel good and righteous, then so be it. Just glad I could be of service to them.
It's easier to condemn than understand. It's easier too to attack and Criticize, especially in an anonimous group conversation such as this where most of us probably don't know each other from a hole in the ground. I don't think I'd go so far as to call it a mob mentality, but I have to wonder if people are as quick to attack and criticize in person, and one on one. John I agree that what we say here is an extention of ourselves to some degree. I feel like you can actually learn a lot about a person from the way they behave when nobody's watching - or in this case when nobody knows who they are.
In the case of homosexuality, I find it so frustrating that all of this is even an issue, but it is. Like I say it's easier to condemn than take the time to understand. I can't speak for every streight moderately successful caucasian mail out there, but I myself have absolutely no idea what it's like to be ridiculed to the degree that the groups who have been targetted and condemnned can be. Such a thing is a double edged sword. On one hand, we can't really know what someone goes through until we've experienced it ourselves. The beautiful side is that inability to understand can be faught by one's natural empathy if they just stop and think. In the case of condemnation, i just don't think people stop to consider another's side enough, and that lack of empathy is a real problem. It's one of the reason inequality still exists. We live in a golden age of information, potential and possibility. But we ourselves are still a very flaud species.
And hopefully I don't need to blatently state this, but when I'm saying "people" I'm generalizing.
If we can get a little bit back toward what the pastor did and/or arguably didn’t do or should’ve done, it seems to me that some of the source of conflict between anyone who is pro-gay rights and anyone who is anti-gay rights is a misunderstanding between the words “abnormal” and “normal.” Also, the terms “natural” and “unnatural” have been thrown about here rather liberally as well. People use “natural” and “normal” interchangeably, but they’re really separate and distinct. Anything that is a part of nature is natural, as Leo pointed out several postings ago. My understanding of abnormal is that it’s simply unheard of, weird, practically impossible. Hurricanes are natural. If you live in Florida, especially near the coasts, you have to worry about hurricanes. If you live up here in cold central New York where I live, far away from any oceans, you’re not gunna worry about hurricanes. Storm tides associated with hurricanes are just not an issue here. Ergo, hurricanes in central New York, as someone understands them in Florida, are not normal. In fact, they’re pretty abnormal, aside from the tail-end effects. Homosexuality, I would argue, is natural because it occurs in many animal species. It is also not abnormal because it exists everywhere in the world. Many estimate that about ten percent of the world’s populace is homosexual. If the world’s populace is at about 7 billion, then the world’s population of gay people is 700 million. This is according to Kinsey. So, it strikes me that homosexuality throughout the world is more common than hurricanes are. But homosexuality is statistically not normal because the overwhelming majority of people are heterosexual. But statistically not normal is not the same as unheard of, sick, degenerate or perverted. Statistically not normal simply means that there is more of A than there is of B. Hell, there are more sighted people than blind people, but we as blind people want to be equal with the sighted in terms of being treated as first-class citizens. It’s also what we gay people want from our straight siblings. We know we’re not statistically in the majority. But we also know that we didn’t ask to be the way we are anymore than a straight person asked to be straight. Who would want to grow up being called queer, fag, homo, whatever term you wanna use? If you grew up in a world where being gay was not acceptable, if you knew you would possibly be teased in school, rejected by your friends or maybe disowned by your family, ostracized from your immediate society, wouldn’t you do anything and everything to deny your truth if accepting it might mean you’d be hurt, especially when you’re at your most vulnerable point in life? Someone on here asked me why I never presented a logical reason for why I “chose” that “lifestyle,” i.e, chose to be gay. Truth is I don’t have a logical reason. I’ve said that. But I’d ask a straight person why they “chose” to be straight. When did they decide? Or is it a matter of desire? If it’s not a matter of desire, if it’s a matter of choice, then why are there even gay people in the world at all, especially if homosexuality doesn’t even exist until someone announces that he or she is gay? This proposition is ridiculous because then the obvious question arises: Why are there even straight people? Using the logic that some have offered here, there should be no sex, realy, gay or straight. And if we have to recruit from straight society to keep our kind from dying off, I wonder who the first homosexual in the world was? If straight is good and gay is bad, and if homosexuality doesn’t exist unless we can recruit, how the hell did it all get started in the first place if it wasn’t natural? And if it arises from desire absent some form of sexual intercourse, then how do we get rid of that desire if it’s supposed to be so wrong? The Exodus movement disbanded, I believe, after pretty much acknowledging that reparative therapy to “cure” homosexuality simply doesn’t work. Yet people quote the bible, or the koran, or whatever, to support their supposedly legitimate claims. Still, homosexuality persists despite the admonitions of many religious leaders. Why is that? The only answer I can theorize is that it’s perhaps a check on population. Maybe it’s evolutionary that way. It’s definitely biological, else there wouldn’t even be heterosexuality. I think the pastor understands this and is dealing with it. And I think this is such a big step because many Christofascists are still living in a dream world where they think that if you pray hard enough, the gay will go away. The problem for such people is that it hasn’t. It won’t. At one point in my early teens, guess what? I tried that. And gues what else? It didn’t work. Meditate on it. I think the pastor understands all this, and I think the pastor is acting accordingly. And maybe that’s the confounding part of all this. People will say it’s no big deal; it’s what he should do. But people also say this is something he shouldn’t do because he should be teaching that homosexuality is wrong, period. But I promise you, there’s only just so far you can go with that and hope to succeed.
Johndo, this is not just a soft sciences thing: gay is technically natural, for those that understand the concept of secondary adaptations, and the selfish gene. So modern scientists understand that it isn't the species who survive by survival of the fittest, it's the genetic code that does. Darwin had it wrong, slightly, because there was no understanding of DNA during Darwin's time. I may be sometimes rather a moron when it comes to biology and psychology, but genetics I can understand: it's self-replicating software. So for me, a tech guy, it works.
Now, if you have a few gays in a tribe, they contribute to their genetic dissemination because they help strengthen and nurture other young members of the tribe, without the added responsibility of having their own particular offspring. Despite what some softheads claim about 'it takes a village' meaning parents' role doesn't matter, parents, anyone that reproduces, gay or straight, has a biological imperative to see that that particular offspring makes it to adulthood as fit as possible for survival in that context. For most of human history / prehistory, gays haven't reproduced directly. But their genes have, as they have contributed resources towards the fitness of their relatives' offspring.
This makes sense if you understand the 'fittest" imperative to be about genes and not individuals: self-reprlicating software that either directly reproduces itself or indirectly supports the reproduction of itself.
One note though BG: The church will never be required to marry gay people. I know there's a lot of legend out now that smacks of the contrary, but I can easily illustrate how, even though I have no real legal education:
- A church can simply refuse to marry a couple because they don't believe interracial dating is ok.
- A church can, and often does, refuse to marry a couple if they are "spiritually incompatible," both not of the same faith, one not having a faith at all, etc.
- a c church can refuse to marry a couple where one is "not filled with the Holy Spirit," or "doesn't have enough faith to be healed."
The list goes on. And lots of the items on that list would be very difficult for them to prove. How do you prove spiritual anything? How do you prove "compatibility?" After all, many couples who might come up as "incompatible" on some surveys stay together in a reasonably happy marriage, for decades. It's all softhead stuff, and anyone can say just about anything to deny a couple a reason to be married in their church. That's technically their prerogative, since for True Believers (TM) the clergy person is sanctioning the union, "blessing" it, if you will. Not just fulfilling an obligation to the couple and the State as a Justice of the Peace would do.
So this mythology coming out about gays making churches marry them is patently ridiculous and technically impossible.
Now, here's another thing: You have the family there, you have the bride and bride or groom and groom, I guess. You think they are interested in getting married in a hostile environment? An environment where, a few days ago there was a news story in which a woman's funeral was moved from a church because the pastor would have nothing to do with the woman's girlfriend, and wanted her being a Lesbian to be excluded from the premises? Would any blind person deliberately get married in a church where they believed people are blind because of lack of faitgh?
So the mythology about gays making churches marry them simply doesn't hold up. All one has to do to be denied services by a church or a pastor is not be together long enough, not be 'spiritually compatible', (try wetting your finger and holding it to the wind to figure that one out), or anything else.
In truth, we don't make churches do anything, including comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Many do, installing wheelchair etc. And sadly, many probably do it due to deception: someone told them they had to. Other probably do it out of their own sense of honor and fraternity. But they don't have to. They certainly don't have to make materials accessible to you or I in Braille. So if they don't have to install a wheelchair ramp, on what legal standing would they be required to accommodate gay people? Nobody on the religious side deigns to provide me with a rational explanation of how this "persecution" of the church actually works. And news flash: if you have less of a legal education than I do, that's pretty bad: I can look up a statute like anyone, have a copy of the U.S. Constitution and other governing documents on my phone as a reference, but that's it.
So as I did on Terrance's thread, I do so here: Anyone arguing the "persecution" side of this discussion, open debate: you and I: provide a rational explanation as to how the persecution under the law is actually happening, we'll give it a go, we can do a semi-formal debate in its own thread if you want. And coming from my background, I'll most likely get more of an education on how the legal system works by doing my research to back up my side. As an added bonus, as always, I'll completely concede the argument if you prove me wrong, Socratically, or some other rational means.
Oh BG I forgot, you're from Canada. I don't know anything to speak of about the laws in Canada or the British commonwealth in general. Church of England, right? Aren't they controlled by Parliament? If it's Canada or elsewhere I'll have to decline the offer of a debate on this issue, as my understanding is mainly U.S. law. Yeah, I'm 'Murican.
I don't think it would ever come down to churches being forced to marry gays if they didn't want to do so. Contrary to the free exercise clause an all that. Personally, I wouldn't want to be married in a hostile environment, so I wouldn't interfere with a particular church's views on the subject of gay marriage. It's the state that's the issue. It's supposed to be religiously neutral, so any attempts at justifying a gay marriage ban on the ground that America is a Christian nation would meet with my disapproval and opposition.
Well, churches have that law working for them religious freedom, and separation of church and state.
It is a bit murky, due to churches getting tax benefits, but okay.
Not only churches can get away with the things Leo states, but a racially different couple might have a difficult time renting a hotel room.
Yep, still iin this day.
Getting around that gay or mix is easy, because you let one person go get the room. The other person stays in the car or out of site.
Hotels don't flat say they'll not rent, they just tell you they have no vacantcies.
As to the bilogy argument, many lesbian women still have a desire to have kids, and do, so I'm not to sure on that one on the off spring deal.
You've heard of Jenna Wolf? She's one of the hosts of the Weekend Today show on NBC. She had a kid through artificial insemination and married her partner when it became legal in New York. She's pregnant again through artificial insemination, so gays do reproduce. Just not generally through heterosexual intercourse unless they were in a previous straight relationship.
Yes. There is another lady that writes technical articles for CNET. She calls her partner her wife all the time.
I thought she was a he until I read her profile.
Her wife wants kids. Smile.
Some even get them the natural way by asking a friend to help, but that is all he does.
Some couples are in a situation where one is bisexual, so in that case, the male helps with that as well.
Bay men have children as well from women all the time.
But, I think it is more likely for a lesbian couple to be raising children, over a gay male couple.
Is there a term for gay males that fits them as well as lesbian females?
I ask that, because the term gay fits both, but males don't seem to have a term.
Not sure what you're asking. Gay men who raise children are still gay; there's no special name for that. A lesbian is a gay woman; just a different name for a homosexual female.
Specificly this.
Men are called gay.
Women are also called gay, but have a specific term applied to them lesbian.
Do men that are gay have a specific term?
Only gay. There's no other special term that I know of. I think the term "Lesbian" arose several centuries ago, referring to a supposed colony of gay females that tended to reside on the Greek island of Lesbos. Which is really funny because I have a friend who met a greek guy from Lesbos. So, he was a Lesbian with a capital L.
I didn't think so.
I didn't know how lesbian came to be. Thanks for that.
the point The Pooka and I have been trying to make all along, is exactly what you all have finally admitted: lesbian women, and gay men, cannot have children without a male involved. heterosexual couples, on the other hand, are able to reproduce, and healthily care for, their own flesh and blood.
Except males still need a woman to reproduce. Neither men nor women can reproduce on their own. There might be a third party involved, but that sperm or that egg came from somewhere. Men and women need each other, even if there's a third party involved.
I've never disputed the male needing females or vice versa to reproduce, but they need not have sex, or be mentally interested sexually in the opposite sex to reproduce.
Now, as to the healthily raising, or upbringing, I can't see why 2 females, or 2 males can't do the raising job just fine.
Let’s look at the average heterosexual couple in terms of sexuality once they’ve been married for a while, or have kids.
I never saw my parents kiss, or do anything sexually intimate until they had an anniversary party. By that time I was grown.
They were affectionate, and sex wasn’t hidden due to the community, but between them as a child, I never thought about it at all.
Many couples hide this side of the relationship from their kids, so why wouldn’t that be the same between 2 same sex people?
If we are saying the sexuality might, or could be the unhealthy part, mentally messing up the offspring, we’d also have to accept that prudishness between a heterosexual couple might mentally make the offspring sexually inhibited, or backwards.
So, tell me, where does the unhealthy part play here?
Are you saying that a same sex couple is guaranteed to be more obvious about their sexual life in front of the kids over a heterosexual couple?
Next if the heterosexual and same sex couple were openly sexual in front of the child, are you saying it will guarantee a child will be heterosexual if the parents are, or homosexual if they are same sex?
For my part, I think same sex couples are just as likely to be great parents than anyone else. Or horrible parents for that matter. Sexual orientation is not a factor in the raising of offspring. Nor do I personally think it has anything to due with people being gay. I've known people who have grown up in a same sex environment and their just as streight as an unwanked erection. Certainly seeing two mothers or two fathers might make a slight contribution, but probably not enough of one to be significant. As I said before, I'd rather see a child raised by a loving gay couple than two disfunctional streight parents.
As for the issue of affection, I myself feel it is healthy for children to see affection expressed by parents, gay or otherwise. I have no scientific basis of this, and I myself saw little in my own life and still managed to be affectionate. Children do mimic what they see, and perhaps that does continue beyond childhood. I'm certainly going to be affectionate with my wife around our little girl - not sexually, but certainly in a loving way. My daughter will probably think it gross, but I'm just as sure she'll remember it fondly when she's older.
My cousin is a representation of precisely this point. It so happens that when she was young, she had a daughter through the usual means. But then she’s had two long-term gay relationships over the past nearly thirty years. The only thing straight about her was being a part of the act that gave rise to her daughter. Her daughter grew up and has been with her boyfriend for several years now. They have a son. The only thing that’s even arguably gay about her was the fact that she grew up with essentially two parents of the same gender. Not even sure she even knows who her father is. The point is that if homosexuality were as contagious as some people here have made it out to be, then my cousin’s daughter would be gay. And the obverse is true. If heterosexuality in and of itself was the only right and supposedly normal thing to do, my cousin would’ve been unequivocally straight and not had one single female partner. And if turning off the gay switch were as easy as some would like it to be, then I either wouldn’t be divorced today, or I’d be divorced for different reasons, and I’d want to replace my ex with an opposite-sex partner. Overwhelmingly, gay kids were raised in straight families. There’s no arguing this point. I therefore submit that genetic pre-dispositioning trumps moralizing any day, anytime.
I concur with the last post. It was Savage, I believe, the gay columnist, who was controversial in calling his son 'my straight son', because as he put it at the time, that's statistically the most likely. His kid was maybe seven at the time.
Anyhow, re: gays and reproduction, all I had intended to point to were pre-industrial evolutionary gays, and the reasoning now they claim it was a secondary adaptation.
As the parent of a now-20-year-old, I'll say with confidence that the actual fertilization of the egg is pretty far down the ladder in comparison to changing the diapers, helping them learn to do basic things, getting them off to school, helping with homework, making enough money to ensure they have the things they need, health insurance, the list is endless. And none of it has to do with sexual orientation, or sexual anything.
The reason I, as a straight white, am so dogged about the biological aspects of being gay is pretty simple from a humanistic standpoint. If it ever comes out that all the factors were to be environmental, then those from the biology camp could concede quietly --- happens all the time. But if it ever unequivocably comes out that it's an exclusively biological situation, then we are going to look back on ourselves the same way we did with blacks and other racial groups who were victims of eugenics. It's also true, albeit unspoken from the LGBT crowd, that the modern anti-gay stance has exclusive parallels in the 1930s eugenics movement. Almost to the point of acting from the same playbook, save for frenology. I'm surprised the LGBT activists haven't brought this up in their arguments. But this idea that gays are going to pollute the kids, or pollute the gene pool, or anything else, is straight out of the 1930s eugenics movement, whether LGBT activists are willing to use it in an argument or not.
I personally hadn’t thought to use the argument. Maybe it’s too obvious an argument so that I didn’t see it, or maybe to me it isn’t such an obvious point. I focus primarily on the ridiculousness of some of the anti-gay ideas expressed to the exclusion of eugenics. Maybe that’s because I don’t think the anti-gay camp necessarily uses eugenics because to them it’s not a matter of genetics or biology. Gay to them is wrong because it’s, well, gay. People choose it so there’s no genetic or biological component one way or the other. It may be easier to use eugenics where race is at issue because in the majority of instances race is so obvious. You can look at a person and in many instances distinguish black from white, Asian from Native American, etc. Someone thus steeped in eugenics can then spout theories about how black is inferior to white, etc., etc. But if you’re gay, you’re not always obvious. And I think that if you’re gay and disabled, you’re less obvious because people sometimes don’t think of us in sexual terms, so it’s easier for gay disabled people on some level to hide themselves. When you come out, you’re announcing yourself. And when you’re less obviously gay, people often say that’s what you chose to be as opposed to that’s how we always were in the first place. Thus, the polluting of straight society doesn’t stem from the eugenicist’s fear of genetic corruption so much as it stems from a fear that you’ll convert (read pervert) others to a supposedly unnatural “lifestyle.” Remember, you chose your orientation, so you can change if you want to. And if you chose to be gay, you might persuade others also to be gay. And that’s wrong. The lifestyle argument strikes me as an argument that homosexuality is an idea, not an orientation or natural condition. Kill the idea, and homosexuality dies out except for a very, very small population. Just like fascism or Nazism or communism. The problem is that Hitler was the prime Nazi. Marx was the prime communist. Mussolini, I guess, was the first fascist. Who was the first homosexual? I don’t think you can name him or her. And homosexuality persists across all races, colors, creeds, religious distinctions, ethnicities. The fact that it is so persistent throughout the human population suggests to me a genetic component, and that you can’t wipe us out no matter what you do. You can’t wipe out heterosexuality either, nor to be fair, would you want to. Sex and sexuality are part of what makes us human. Even this debate is a part of what makes us human.
I wonder, do you feel it is possible to choose to be gay/bisexual?
If not, why?
That question is open, but doesn't mean I believe all gay people choose it.
I can see, and have seen it being chosen as a lifestyle choice however.
I guess you'd have to define your language a bit better. Do you choose who you will find attractive> A straight man could "act the part", I suppose, in particular as the "woman" in the relationship. But in order for him to penetrate, he'd have to be able to "get it up," which you can't do for those you're not attracted to. But is that really "choosing to be gay?" I would say then that would be "acting gay," or something. Never seen this in real life, merely hypothetical. You can't choose crushes, or who you are attracted to, or what your mind immediately does with what imagery.
Reminds me of my mother's phrase "learn to like it" about certain foods, foods I've yet to like to this day. "learn to put up with it," would be a more accurate expression. So it's possible a straight man could put up with gay men's advances, and perform as the non-penetrating partner, but again, that would be "putting up with" rather than actual like or pleasure.
You hear from gays who were in straight marriages, and that is what the situation was like for them. I think they have your answer in truth.
Ultimately I’d say no. You can help what attracts you. If you’re a straight male, for instance, another human male body is not gunna excite you, nor will what I call the male aura. If you’re a gay male, it’s all you really want sexually speaking. Bisexuals are flexible in that there are aspects of the male and female they’re attracted to. They have a choice because both excite, but they don’t have a choice in having a choice, if that makes sense. But I’d argue that even with bisexuals, there’s a predominant side, whether it be a straight or gay side. Still, heterosexuality is admittedly the default setting. It’s the statistical norm. Otherwise the species wouldn’t continue.
So, it is possible to choose, but unless you remain completely same sex, you are not gay?
Even if you remain with a same sex partner for a long time, you are not gay?
But, can we say, you can choose to be gay for a time?
No, it’s not really as simple as that. Because in the end, the question is what attracts you, even if you’re bisexual. If you’re with a same-sex partner and you find the opposite sex attractive on some level, you’re bisexual, not strictly gay. If you’re with a same-sex partner for about five years and then with an opposite-sex partner for three, and then with another same-sex partner for another five years, you’re probably predominantly gay. That assumes you’re attracted to both genders, but one attraction trumps the other. If you’re with an opposite-sex partner and your attraction is to the same gender, you gotta work at being with that opposite-gender partner if you determine that’s what you should do for whatever reason. Being with that opposite-gender partner doesn’t make you a straight person. It only means you’re acting straight. If you will, you’re choosing a straight lifestyle. But if you fantasize about being with a same-sex partner, if all you think about is being with that potential partner, if you dream about same-gender intercourse with someone of the same sex, you’re most likely gay. Hypothetically speaking it can happen in the reverse. If you’re with a same-sex partner and you want to be with an opposite-sex partner, you’re most likely straight, and that’s your orientation. Choosing to act on one when you’re really the other, no matter what it is, doesn’t make you the one as opposed to the other. That’s where the people who claim homosexuality is a lifestyle choice get it wrong. They miss half the equation, and that’s your innermost desire. That innermost desire identifies you as straight or gay, not the act of sex in and of itself.
I know a couple bisexuals who are in long-term relationships. Well one says the term pansexual describes her better. But anyhow, the initial attraction can go both ways, but once you're with a partner, from what either of them have described, it's the same as us binary types, either straight or gay, where you're attracted to a lot of things but not all of them exist with one simgle partner. So, should you decide on the tradeoff to be with a single person, you forego certain things in order to be with them. It doesn't make the person "more gay" or "more straight" just because of length of time in a relationship. Now these are admittedly middle age people who as a group, we deal with these kinds of things differently than most younger people: we already have responsibilities, and due to the nature of our situations, tend to approach relationships or lack thereof differently than someone in college perhaps.
I understand what they're saying: I'm attracted to tall women. I'm with a tall woman, have been for almost 22 years now. However, there are other things that attract me that the person I'm with doesn't display. Nobody has everything, right? I know sure as hell my middle-aged average self sure doesn't. But that's just the tradeoff I happen to make in this situation, and most people do who are in long-term relationships.
I think the bi / pan / whatever other new words they come up with, isn't really hard to understand when put in this context.
I'm now what they would call a binary, I guess, in that I'm exclusively straight. I've had strong "brotherly" bonds with other men, where we've shared some difficult experiences together, and there was never any sexual attraction nor the thought of it. I should think that would be a pretty good test.
But that being said, I can still understand what those two were saying about relationships. I think anyone not sold to an ideology can.
Old topic, but I just stumbled across it and have a little to say.
First and foremost: this whole bloody thing makes me sad. I'm sad that the troll was fed. I'm sad to see people exercise such titanic stupidity as to say that gays have to "recruit", or to suggest that whether or not a child is raised by heterosexual vs. homosexual parents is healthy. I'm even sad that this pastor's action is seen as a wonderful step forward. Cody's right. It isn't. But in another way, I think Cody's wrong, because while it might not change the world and needn't be seen as a huge deal, it probably doesn't do any harm and might - key word, might - mobilize things in the right direction. It might get people going where they ought to go and thinking rationally.
I'm finding that the older I get, the gentler I become; I'm also finding that I have less and less time to try and wrestle with things I see as blatantly ridiculous.
If you say that gay is a choice, I see it as ridiculous;
If you say that it's unhealthy for gays (or lesbians, for that matter) to raise a child, no matter how that child was conceived, I see it as ridiculous;
If you resort to personal attacks and trolling to try and misdirect a topic, I see that as ridiculous;
If your best attempt at rational discourse is personal attack, that's also ridiculous;
Pooka, wherever you are, i'm glad you've gone silent.
Chelsea, I have frankly no idea what to think of you anymore, and I think I'm going to have to basically take everything you say with an enormous grain of salt from here on in.
Cody, I agree with about 90% of what you've said here, but I think you're probably about eight times harsher than is absolutely necessary sometimes.
Johndy, congrats for owning your mistakes. That's hard. You'll never fully get over it, I imagine, not when it's that big, but kudos for doing the right thing in the end. Don't worry too much about having responded to the bait earlier; I don't think you really attacked anyone. Lots of respect for you.
And the rest of you? Well, not a lot left.
Just remember that gay isn't a choice, and that even when we vehemently disagree we don't have to name-call and get in one another's faces.
And yes, I recognize the potential silliness of me sweeping in here and making all these pronouncements like this. But I did read the entire thread, and I don't intend to start any fires. It's just what I think and how I feel.
This afternoon The Pooka reviewed the postings since logging off back in January. A few items that seem to repeat:
1. It is improper to answer a question with a question. The Pooka does not suffer fools well; and you may find The Pooka ignores such nonsensical posts.
2. If The Pooka ignores your question/s, do not confuse nonsense with well reasoned debate. "Nonsense remains nonsense, even when taught by world-famous scientists." John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics and Fellow of Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at the University of Oxford, U.K. Also refer to number 1 above.
3. the age and sex of The Pooka (or anyone asking uncomfortable questions) makes no difference to you homosexuals for the purpose of discussing homosexuality. Look for flaws in the arguments rather than the person making the observation or posing the question. Some of you have demonstrated much difficulty comprehending and observing this .
4. Stating something repeatedly does not make it a fact. See numbers 1 and 2 above.
5. Homosexual relationships by definition cannot conceive children without a heterosexual situation in the mix. e.g. 2 homosexual women cannot produce sperm and 2 homosexual men cannot produce an egg or woman's womb to bear a child. Do not bore The Pooka with obvious and mundane intervention arguments about sperm donars or surrogate mothers, the Pooka probably knows more about this than you, not to mention you are making The Pooka's argument for her/him/it. See numbers 1, 2 and 4 above.
6. From the posts, it is abundantly clear that homosexuality is nothing more than perverted or queer behavior. If you claim to be a Christian (such as the 'good pastor' that commenced this nonsense, scripture and logic dictate avoiding and not condoning such atheistic and perverse practices.
7. Homosexuality is a choice not a science. If you believe otherwise, provide real imperical evidence (real scientific studies with specific findings) and links to the supposed studies, rather than anicdotal evidence. (Stories about "some animals have been observed. . ." will not cut it with the Pooka, or anyone else who is honest and looking for truth rather than mere opinion. (As we have seen much from the homosexual and homo-supporter crowd here).
8. If what The Pooka disturbs or offends you, walk away and think about it for an hour or two (or even sleep on it) before responding in anger. Trust me, angry outbursts will not fare well against The Pooka's God given talent for reason and logic.
The Pooka will look forward to any well reasoned debate from anyone. the Pooka will give latitude to those truly trying rather than restating the same tired worn out excuses.
the Pooka: humming "Back in black"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4EFddbHkRo
For those who "felt" the term "queer" was objectionable and for your edification, memorize the actual definition and synonyms: 1 . strange; odd.
synonyms:
odd, strange, unusual, funny, peculiar, curious, bizarre, weird, uncanny, freakish, eerie, unnatural; unconventional, unorthodox, unexpected, unfamiliar, abnormal, anomalous, atypical, untypical, out of the ordinary, incongruous, irregular; puzzling, perplexing, baffling, unaccountable; informal, fishy, spooky, bizarro, freaky.
"his diction is archaic and queer"
antonyms: normal
British informal: slightly ill.
2. informal: homosexual.
noun: queer; plural noun: queers
1. a homosexual man.
verb: queer.
spoil or ruin (an agreement, event, or situation).
"Brad didn't want someone meddling and queering the deal at the last minute"
Origin: early 16th century: considered to be from German quer ‘oblique, perverse.’
The Pooka applying the definition in an additional example: "It was uncanny how the definition of queer applied here. Undoubtedly they were unfamiliar with the definition. Now they are better informed and should avoid queering it up in future."
the Pooka - whistling "Its Howdy Doody time"
The fact that some animals on the planet exhibit homosexual behaviour is actually relevant.
There are all kinds of population control on this planet. famines, natural disasters, diseases, etc. Homosexuality is yet another. The fact of the matter is is that this planet is so crowded now that we do not need to breed in the numbers that we previously needed to.
Families are having less children, or choosing not to have them at all, and this is a great thing. Our species has adapted and changed what a relationship means. It's no longer about assuring the survival of our species. If we lose a few million potential humans because people decide not to breed, this is in fact a good thing for our planet.
Relationships are instead about attraction, love, companionship, and if that's what you are looking for, then good luck to you in whatever form you find it.
also, refering to yourself in the 3rd person does not make you sound more educated. it makes you sound like a pretentious wanker, in truth.
Just remember, Perestroika: The Pooka is a troll. Trolls do not need to be acknowledged, much less reasoned with. There is no reason in The Pooka's posts, so I strongly recommend not dignifying them with a response.
Put another way: don't feed the troll, and it will eventually choke on silence. I fear that in bringing this thread back I might well have awakened this particular troll again. For that, I apologize to the rest of you; I made the mistake of thinking it was gone.
it seems you all have comprehension trouble. if you read what the pooka said, he/she/it would be willing to have a debate with anyone who has reason and logic to add to this discussion. clearly you all have nothing to contribute since all you can do is pat each other on the back for a job that you consider well done but that is really as poorly done as you can get.
I'll add, The Pooka has a right to his say just like all.
He deserves a response, if you are so inclined to debate his thoughts, just like you do.
Feed the cold, if you are up to it. Avoid it, if not, this is your choice, but you can't say he doesn't deserve space, and a response.
As for the causes of homosexuality, you can google this term and google the term “gay gene” and you’ll find some interesting articles. I’m not a scientist, so there’s a lot about genetics and biology that I don’t understand, but the basic gist of at least a couple of articles that I have read is that while there is no single proven gay gene that can be pointed to as conclusively responsible for homosexuality, there are, or may be, several genetic and pre-natal factors that determine whether someone may be gay, straight or bisexual. These factors definitely point to an explanation of why homosexuality is so persistent despite all efforts to stamp it out over the millennia. But the other side of the coin is that there are just as many articles that tend to support the Christofascist viewpoint, so I doubt you’ll actually see a satisfactory end to the debate at this present time. I will say that since we’re all posting on these boards, we’ve conclusively demonstrated that we can all use computers, so we can all google the topic to death. I guess that means we’ll also have to all decide for ourselves what we’re willing to accept or not. The debate is already out there for all to see.
Chelsey:
Since you're not a troll, I'll respond to what you said and hopefully put your accusation to bed.
The Pooka is not actually seeking a debate. That's clear from his previous responses. The Pooka has a view and will stop at nothing to attack, attempt to discredit, twist or otherwise confuse the issue. The Pooka has been approached with logic from many different angles, and that didn't suffice. You are an intelligent person, I presume? Surely you have seen this? As such, you should be able to catch the distinct odor of troll. If you can't, then I'm sorry, but you've been conned.
Put another way: when a person says they're interested in debate and then proves themselves a troll, you can't blame the rest of us for going on their actions instead of their words. We aren't at fault because we refuse to take the bait; you aren't on the winning side because you happen to share The Pooka's stance. The onus is on folks like you to prove the validity of a "gay is wrong" stance before it's on us to prove that it's right, so go on, if you're going to. If you can't, or won't, then the point is conceded. Until then, just let the troll die his death.
Well written Johndy. However, searching for the term "homosexuality not a choice" turned up the following article. Since this thread was started with an article, I will include it (link is at the end if you want to read the article in its entirety):
The latest in scientific research: There is no gay gene
"A study of gay men in the US has found fresh evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by genes. Scientists tested the DNA of 400 gay men and found that genes on at least two chromosomes
affected
whether a man was gay or straight.
"A region of the X chromosome called Xq28 had
some impact
on men's sexual behaviour – though scientists have
no idea which of the many genes in the region are involved
, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome.
"Another stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also
played a role
in male sexual orientation – though again the precise mechanism is unclear...
"Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University in Illinois, set out the findings at a discussion event held in conjunction with the annual meeting of theAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicagoon Thursday. 'The study shows that there are genes
involved
in male sexual orientation,' he said."
The
Guardian
is hoping readers won't notice how deliberately and intentionally the paper has purposely avoided any word that might even suggest biological causation. "Influenced by, affected, some impact, played a role, involved." Not exactly a rousing case for the "born that way" crowd.
It even gets worse from there:
"The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a
limited and variable impact
. Not all of the gay men in Bailey's study inherited the same Xq28 region.
The genes were neither sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay
."
I'm not sure it gets any clearer and less ambiguous than that: "
The genes were neither sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay
."
One problem all along for gay activists is that even a cursory survey of sexual orientation among identical twins makes the "born that way" meme impossible to accept.
Identical twins have identical DNA, which is why they are called identical twins. If one has blue eyes, so will the other. If one has black hair, so will the other. If one is tall, so is the other.
If sexual orientation is genetically determined, then the concordance rate among identical twins should be 100%. If one twin is gay, so should be the other. Alas, the concordance rate, according to researchers Peter Bearman from Columbia and Hannah Bruckner from Yale, is somewhere between 5% and 7%. Oops.
The
Guardian
swallows hard, but notes this fact:
"The flawed thinking behind a genetic test for sexual orientation is clear from studies of twins, which show that
the identical twin
of a gay man, who carries an exact replica of his brother's DNA,
is more likely to be straight than gay
. That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up every gene linked to sexual orientation would still be less effective than
flipping a coin
."
In other words, the genetic evidence for biological causation is so poor you'd have better luck predicting orientation by throwing darts blindfolded.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2014/06/17/the-latest-in-scientific-research-there-is-no-gay-gene#.VSsLCWd0zIU
The Pooka - not just whistling Dixie
See, this is a good try. It attempts to validate B by invalidating A, and it doesn't quite work, but it's an attempt.
1. Okay. Science is incomplete. We don't know everything there is to know about genes and their effect on people. Based on that alone, we cannot say beyond all doubt that being gay is 100% up to your genes alone. I concede this much only.
2. HOWEVER: This does not mean that being gay is a choice. The simplification seems to be: "If it's not 100% up to your genes, then you can choose not to be gay". This is untrue. Other things like brain chemistry haven't been touched on, and the brain is so complex that we still don't understand a good bit of it. We also still don't have a satisfying reason why people would deliberately choose to be gay, even if it was up to them, given how difficult folks like you are making it for them.
3. Burden of proof is still on you to prove that it is a choice. You have shown us one study that demonstrates that being gay may not be entirely up to your genes. However, that self-same study did not prove that being gay is a choice. You're oversimplifying to suit your agenda.
4. Science still strongly suggests that being gay is not a choice even if it cannot definitively say that being gay is in your genes.
5. You have still yet to produce evidence that being gay is a choice. Remember, you cannot validate B by invalidating a, even assuming you could do that, which you can't entirely do at this point.
(To wit, the B camp basically says "Gay is a choice, because...reasons", or "Gay is a choice because God says it's wrong and we have free will to choose not to be gay". Either or. Pick your poison, but there won't be any empirical evidence to validate B. I practically guarantee it.
Nice try though.
You know what? I think we all spend too much time actually arguing over what causes people to be gay, rather than focusing on the fact that being gay actually doesn't hurt anyone.
The only arguments against being gay are religious ones, and even then, I would argue that they are too focused on being butthurt by the fact that gay people actually exist to realise that noone is actually forcing them into a relationship with the opposite sex. Let people who feel that being gay is fine be so. it doesn't harm you.
Greg, you sure are great at making assumptions. you have convinced yourself without a second thought that the pooka is a troll simply because you don't like or agree with what he/she/it has to say. that's clearly the case with anyone who shares a vastly differing viewpoint from yours; that's what is truly sad.
FYI: a troll is "a mythical, cave-dwelling being depicted in folklore as either a giant or a dwarf, typically having a very ugly appearance;" not a human being who wants to have an honest discussion as seems to be the case with the pooka.
another definition for you: a pooka is a "creature of irish folklore. a spirit or ghost. a shape changer which can take the appearance of black horses, goats and rabbits. malevolent or benevolent in nature." of these two creatures, I’d say you are the one who falls into the troll category and the pooka is just that, a pooka.
come to think of it, the pooka is probably at he/she/its benevolent stage, given its above statement regarding only wanting to continue this discussion if people were willing to be reasonable and logical.
you say your reason for claiming the pooka is a troll is because of its failure to accept what you deem to be logical arguments made by others. what is it that you believe has been logical in this discussion thus far? those of you saying, "I was born homosexual and therefore I am homosexual?" if that is what you consider to be a logical argument, I suggest you do your homework by looking things up instead of saying, "the majority of us feels this way so what we're saying is true."
after all, the burden of proof does fall on those of you who repeatedly insist that homosexuality is not a choice. given that you all are the ones who started this argument with such a claim, you (not those who think differently) need to own up to what you're saying and explain yourselves. you all have not had a problem shouting from rooftops that homosexuality is "normal," ETC, so why be a bunch of chicken shits when you're challenged to actually prove what you're saying instead of simply saying that it is so? that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee anywhere.
There is also this:
Study of gay brothers may confirm X chromosome link to homosexuality. This article is by Kelly Servick. I am going to largely paraphrase here because I seem to have trouble with the copy/paste function right now. But the article first points to a 1993 study by a molecular biologist, one Dean Hamer, that pointed to direct evidence of a gay gene – to wit, a stretch on the X chromosome that suggested a link to homosexuality. Studies since then had put this finding into question, but a recent study of 409 pairs of gay brothers tends to strengthen Hamer’s initial findings. Even so, given some limitations of the approach used by Hamer, this work also fails to provide something that behavioral geneticists crave, namely specific genes that might definitively explain homosexuality. Nonetheless, studies of both identical and fraternal twins suggests a heritable component to homosexuality, but admittedly no one believes that a single gene or genes is determinative on the matter. Still, the 1993 study suggested that a stretch on the X chromosome, namely X128, holds a gene or genes that predispose a man to being gay. Remember, though, that this was a 1993 study, and there were some doubts as to whether it could be replicated.
But in 2004, J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, IL, started recruiting families with at least two gay male siblings for a genetic linkage analysis. Apparently, when the study was completed, they found strong linkages on both Xq28 and a region of chromosome 8. This study was rejected by one journal for publication, and Neil Risch of the University of California San Francisco, disagrees. Apparently, now the emphasis is on genome-wide association studies. At this point, this current study is being used, for instance, along with a GWA study of about 1,--- gay men. In short, not a single gay gene has been found yet, but it looks promising for there being genes in both these regions that contribute to homosexuality.
In other words, here we have a study that points to genetic factors, but not conclusively. I submit that there may also be factors in neonatal chemistry that strongly point to a genetic or congenital factor in sexual orientation. In fact, a December 11, 2012 article by Elizabeth Norton, supports this viewpoint. You can go online and research/read it yourself. So, too, I wish I had saved one of my more recent issues of Analog Magazine, because there was an interesting article in one of them about how identical twins may not necessarily be 100 percent identical; there may be very subtle genetic differences between one twin and another. If anyone has it, I’d be interested to know what issue it’s in so that I can read it again. But to say that science is inconclusive on the matter is not to say that genes do not play a role, and/or that congenital, neonatal factors do not either. As the Norton article blatantly states, looking at things from a Darwinian point of view, homosexuality should not still be around. It’s not the best way to pass along genes, and if homosexuality were a mere meme, it would have gone as much out of fashion as the theory of the divine right of kings, communism or Nazism. For that matter, homosexuality doesn’t even make social sense either. Why? It goes against the grain with so many people. Males aren’t supposed to be attracted to males. Females aren’t supposed to be attracted to females. In the statistically and socially normal scheme of things, it’s not how things are done. There are still many, many times when gay teens are bullied by the so-called “normals.” This isn’t an idea; this is something you can read about online because it happens. It’s something you can even see on TV because it happens. Preachers still preach against us from the pulpits. Hitler tried to kill us. I think that in Iran several years ago, two gay teens were stoned to death. And yet, there are hundreds of millions of us all around the world, so you tell me how it happens. It’s not homosexuality that’s the meme here, it’s the idea that we have to recruit in order to increase our numbers. That does not make sense. Unfortunately though, in order to prove that it doesn’t make sense, you actually have to talk with gay people, and yes, straight people, to logic this out. A totally straight person is not gunna be recruited to be gay. A totally straight person is gunna find the idea of going to bed with someone of the same gender as themselves to be repulsive. A gay person knows from a pretty early age that he or she is different from their social peers. I’ve said this before at other times on these boards, and I’ll say it again. And, um, given the bullshit we have to put up with, a lot of which I mentioned earlier on, I’ll state categorically that being gay ain’t for sissies.
And instead of "X128", that should have said "Xq28." Sorry.
Chelsey,
Here's an informal definition of "troll" for you, since it appears you didn't get past the formal noun:
Troll (verb): To make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.
Furthermore, we on the internet have started using it as a noun, too. Someone who trolls in this manner is a troll.
The Pooka deliberately attempted to discredit Johndy by referencing his law school, and insinuated that he's homosexual not because he's truly homosexual but because he owes his wife money.
Deliberate, check; offensive, check; provocative, check; intention to elicit angry response, checkmate. The Pooka is a troll on that basis alone, and has demonstrated this sort of behaviour multiple times in multiple circumstances..
You, Chelsey, ignore rational argument, attack the credibility and integrity of those you disagree with, level personal insults when it suits you and are still not actually answering questions and challenges posed to you and your viewpoint. Deliberate, check; offensive, check; provocative, check; intention to elicit angry response, checkmate. You're not as blatant, mind you, but you're still a troll, at least some of the time.
As such, congratulations. You're now in the same pile as The Pooka. To wit: present rational evidence, arguments and the like, and I will attempt to deal with them as I may. Do else, and all you're being is trollish. I tend to stop feeding trolls until they start being reasonable.
Sorry, but no matter how much you squirm, you're still stuck with the burden of proof. Even anecdotal evidence, as Johndy presents for himself being a homosexual, trumps the "gay is wrong" or "god says so" platforms. None of those actually have any evidence to back them up; opinions are not evidence. Science, at least, has suggestions of links, if not absolute proofs; your platform, on the other hand, has essentially nothing except thousands of years of "because I said so".
If you actually stopped and thought about what you were saying, you'd realize how monumentally stupid, hurtful and backward it is.
I've written another thread, and its thrust applies here. I don't feel the need to give a religious argument a platform purely because it's a religious argument. It has to have more than that to support it before I will dignify it as being significant.
I'm sure you and The Pooka will dismiss me, inserting whatever anti-Christian buzzwords you want - in your own heads, if nothing else - as a means of trying to smooth over what you can neither defeat nor understand. That's fine. I don't care. If you do so, you'll just be proving me right. It is you, not I, who cannot stand up to logic. It is you, not I, who is resorting to misdirection, personal attacks and baseless claims to perpetuate a harmful standard. As always, the floor is open to reason; the floor is not open to bigotry.
Barring further rational discourse, I'm done with this thread and will say no more here. I will probably stick my head in to see how it's going, but this is pretty much a wrap as far as I'm concerned. That burden of proof gets awfully heavy though, doesn't it?
awww poor babies. would you all like some cheese with your wine or do you need a wambulance perhaps?
I’ll attempt the third side of this as one poster has pointed out.
Gay doesn’t hurt anyone.
I do think that it can be, and sometimes is chosen. Here are my reasons.
Some people decide they are bisexual, so enjoy relationships with both sexes. Science may have studied this, but if so, it isn’t causing much of an uproar.
I personally haven’t seen all the pros and cons on bisexuality.
Are these people gay for a while, then straight for a while? Can we be born bisexual?
Some gay people live a life of being straight, and one posters here’s is an example.
If he can decide to do this, even though he says he was never happy, why is it not possible for another person to choose to be gay, or enjoy same sex relations for whatever reasons?
People that live in same sex communities, prison, for example, enjoy same sex, but after release go back to being with the opposite sex completely.
Gay has not hurt population at all, or if anything, it has helped.
Lesbian couples have children all the time, and have probably forever.
Science has made it even easier for them to not involve a man directly.
Sure, they need the sperm, but after that, the women’s child is her child. She does not need to ask a man to help.
Gay men tend to not raise children as a couple as much, and I don’t have the facts why, but it happens.
They, on the other hand, must have sex with a women, or fine one willing to carry their baby.
They do produce children however.
In history, in some cultures, it was perfectly acceptable for a man to have young boys, or male sexual companions.
The richer a man was, the more of these he’d have.
This behavior hurt no one.
I suspect women have enjoyed this same thing, just not so publicly.
Even now, it is perfectly acceptable for two women to share a house, live together in to old age, and such things.
They can even show general affection in public, and no one thinks of them as lesbians.
If you don’t go home with them, and notice they share a bed, you simply don’t know.
If society approached this from the bases of Gay hurts nothing, all the argument would simply die.
Greg, as for your earlier comment suggesting that I'm ignoring rational arguments, that is simply not true. the only rational thing I've seen thus far is the argument against homosexuality.
Wayne, your statement that homosexuality doesn't hurt anything is absolutely ludicrous. homosexuality hurts everything because we are regularly forced to hear about it and see it, since homo supporters and homos themselves have an agenda to normalize their chosen sexuality. in fact, some TV shows nowadays specifically write their shows with homosexual characters in mind. there is nothing else this could mean other than that godless/liberal-minded individuals want nothing more than to portray a perverted act as wholesome. talk about regression rather than progression.
The reason why TV shows show it, is because it is real.
They have black people, white people, Spanish, and even straight people.
TV is suppose to show real life, right?
How does seeing a homosexual person acted out on TV hurt?
If people would simply stop fighting it, you'd not hear about it.
How often do you hear about Spanish people in Texas?
I grew up in a neighborhood that had lots of homosexual men. Am I homosexual?
How have they harmed me?
So, let’s test a lot of these statements out for rationality. To wit: “ *** the only rational thing I’ve seen thus far is the argument against homosexuality.” Really? Then you must’ve been reading posts that haven’t been submitted on this board, because what rational arguments have been presented? Look back on just your own postings and explain how anything you’ve said is rational. Be rational and use your own words to support your arguments. If you possibly can, that is. “Wayne, your statement that homosexuality doesn’t hurt anything is absolutely ludicrous. homosexuality hurts everything because we are regularly forced to hear about it and see it, since homo supporters and homos themselves have an agenda to normalize their chosen sexuality.” First, no one is forcing you to hear about it and see it, since you obviously came to this topic of your own volition and chose to participate. You can leave anytime you want. You’re not forced to hear about or see anything you don’t want to hear about or see. I myself choose not to watch the news a lot of the time these days because there are things that I don’t want to hear about or see. I can certainly, if I choose to, ignore board topics that don’t interest me. I do it all the time. It’s obvious this topic interests you in some way, or you wouldn’t be here. Maybe it’s the prospect of making mincemeat out of people through your obviously superior logical arguments. I, for one, am still waiting to see them. You also haven’t demonstrated that homosexuality is chosen. For that matter, you have yet to answer the question, posed by more than one person thus far, as to when you chose to be straight. If you have, show us. And do you really think your use of slurs like “homo supporters” and “homos” strengthens your arguments? How do you not sound like a simpleton? “in fact, some TV shows nowadays specifically write their shows with homosexual characters in mind.” Deal with it, or don’t. It’s your choice. Don’t watch the programs if it bothers you that much. “there is nothing else this could mean other than that godless individuals want nothing more than to portray a perverted act as wholesome.” Can you prove conclusively that these are in fact godless individuals, or are you saying that all gay people are godless? You can’t prove the former, and as for the latter, there are gay people of every religious persuasion imaginable. That much is just obvious unless you’re saying that only your interpretation of what is godly is correct. . Seems to me that your argument boils down simply to this: Homosexuality hurts because it offends you personally. Well, it probably offends a lot of people personally. Interracial couples probably offend some people, or many people. Guess you’ll just have to deal, or find some other country to move to. May I suggest Syria?
Chelsea, I have an honest question for you, because I'm curious, and not because I'm trying to attack you. Can you, without using the Bible or God, explain to me exactly why homosexuality is a negative thing? Besides the fact that you personally find it offensive, obviously. What about it is harmful, exactly? Perverted is an opinion. Godless is also an opinion. Offensive is an opinion. Can you give me some facts? Again, honest question. I'm very curious because most Christians never give me a straight answer on this one.
clearly, you all have not paid attention to what I have said. anyone who acts on their feeling of wanting to be with someone of their same gender is choosing to be perverted. Johndy has said himself numerous times that he loves the smell of a guy's sweat and that he takes it further by actually getting physical with men when he has the opportunity to do so. go back and read previous posts of his where he has stated that he still thinks about those young boys in junior high. it's there for all to see.
touching on the argument about homosexuality being in the animal kingdom, dogs eat their own throw-up so does that mean we should eat ours? male dogs in particular are known for pissing on lamp posts so should we start pissing on them too?
Okay, let’s take perverted.
I’m a straight male. Gives me license right?
Now, there was this girl in junior high, in fact, I think there were about 3 of them, and we’d play house.
I sometimes think about how exciting it was to kiss in the back of a station wagon, and feel them up.
Now, there were other girls that didn't give me the time of day, but.
Perverted.
I enjoy the sweat, and the smell of a woman. I also like the feel of them, hair, skin, and sometimes I think about these things.
When I’m close to one I like, I have this thing that makes me want to be closer to her.
Perverted.
I suspect if I could go inside a women’s locker room, it turn me on. Of course, I’d not know a soul there, but still?
Perverted.
I’m sure straight men and women, other than myself, experience these things. We are not perverted?
Why do this impulses make a gay person perverted?
Why is the drive, not only sexual, but for companionship turn perverted when it is applied to gays?
You have a boyfriend, right? Are you only interested in him, because he can buy you dinner?
After dinner, you shake his hand, and he goes home, because, this is the Christian thing, and until you are married...
Now, after you are married, you'll sleep in separate beds, and only connect physicaly if you are trying to produce, otherwise, he'll be like your good friend Judy.
I'm interested in your, or anyone elses response.
You don't think they show just as much straight crap on tV? It's just that they do it all the time, and have done it for years, so for you, that's normal. Sex sells. It's really that simple. Look at all the old soaps, general Hospital, days of our lives, even Dallas and the rest of 'em. How much straight crap did you see, as compared to the gay stuff. But us gay people tolerated it. Back in the 80's and 90's, if you read romance books, it's always got a straight couple in it who meet and hate each other through
most of the book, then fall in love at the end. well guess what? Us gay people don't wanna see that crap either. Also, it wasn't all that long ago, and I could find it if I need to, where you said it was too bad that me and Johndy weren't in to having a woman watch. You used to talk about how real and out you were,
then you made a whole turnaround and admitted that you were just pretending all this time. Then you wonder why no one ever really takes you seriously. Give it 3 years max and you'll be off in a whole new direction.
I'd like to amend my post.
Instead of the Christian thing, it should be natural thing.
I say this, because I know several Christians that are gay, so that doesn't apply.
Chelsey, in light of your utter failure to pose an answer to Meglet's question, I felt it incumbent upon me to step in and say something.
Meglet asked if there was anything wrong with being gay, and all you could do was make that silly "perverted" claim (personal opinion) and a failed reference to the animal kingdom and the things dogs do. Never mind that a dog eating its own vomit and a person having sexual attraction are vastly, vastly different. You're using urine and vomit to make your feelings clear, and really all you're doing is making your disgust look all the more cartoonish and overblown.
Meglet asks: Is there anything wrong with being gay?
Chelsey says: Perverted! We shouldn't do as animals do! Also Johndy has a thing for young boys!
Frankly, you're an embarrassment to your religion, and were I a Christian I wouldn't want to be associated with your ilk.
Given your propensity to pick the platform with the greatest potential for both opposition and vitriol, I just can't take you seriously anymore. People have been telling me for awhile now to stop entertaining you, and I've started to listen, but this was the proverbial nail in that coffin. I guess Jesus can understand all the duplicity surrounding you, but from here on out I refuse to.
One day, maybe you'll start making sense. If you doo, I promise to treat you fairly and weigh your arguments as I would anyone else. Until you do, however, you're just another narrow-minded drone with nothing meaningful to contribute..
Yes, I've met a couple gay Christians. One told me about a gay young earth creationist website GayChristian101.com.
There was even a Gay Christians' Alliance who met out here in Portland, and the Westboro Baptists took note, came and protested against them.
So, Chelsea, I remember last year on a post, you said you weren't A Christian but just not an atheist anymore. I'm genuinely curious what god you follow or where you get your ideas, because they sound very like the evangelical Christian majority opinion. I ask, only because you had denied such beforehand, and yet you sound like them in all your arguments.
also, the very notion of 'perverted' is a religious thing.
only religious people could find sex before marriage perverted.
homosexuality being shown on tv does not mean anyone who doesn't want to be homosexual has to automatically become one. Homosexuals do not walk the streets looking for converts like some religions do. so which is more dangerous? homosexuality or christianity?
There was a wonderful documentary that Stephen Fry did where he explained to some African religious nutjob that he didn't want a single person to be converted homosexual against their willl.
I don't want to force homosexual people to become straight, either.
Ah, converting people to homosexuality.
Do you think gays could do like the Jehovah Witnesses, and go door to door, or to the doors of the finest recruits anyway?
They don’t have a Bible, so they’d have to offer hands on teachings.
Okay, okay, enough silliness.
Just had to.
I'd like to know where the idea came from that I'm into young boys. The attraction I had at one time for the guys I went to school with was entirely age-appropriate at the time, and I see no reason to apologize for that anymore than a straight person should have to apologize to being attracted to a teenager of either gender when they themselves were teenagers. My reference to the boys I was attracted to when I was a teenager was an attempt to state how things were for me at the time I was growing up, not how things are now, because I simply don’t have an attraction to teenage boys. As you grow older, you tend to grow into your own age group. I should think this was self-explanatory, but obviously some people have an agenda here. But this one particular individual has failed so often to answer so many questions submitted by so many people on this very topic alone that I don't think it's possible in this lifetime for her to try to fix that. Chelsea, you correct me if I'm wrong, because I think I've seen this movie before. I think you met someone. I think that the person you met, and with whom you're now involved, is a Christofascist who has succeeded in brain-washing you. You're probably afraid of hell-fire and damnation, or maybe you're afraid of the open-minded person you seemed to have been at one time, so you resort to vitriol to demonstrate what a good little Christian you are. I dunno. I admit that in all likelihood I'm reading between the lines. But all I have to go on, all any of us has to go on here, is your words. That and the fact that you don't, haven't, explained yourself and the turn-about you've taken on this issue. Thing is, you don't have to explain yourself. You don't have to respond logically to anything any of us has said here. But there are consequences, and one of those consequences is that you’re that much less likely to be taken seriously. This is all the more so the louder and more vitriolic you get. But you keep going. You keep twisting my words and the words of practically everyone on these boards and see how far it gets you. Could be wrong, but I think you’re the one who’s gunna have to eat your words one day, not the rest of us.
Having now Read through the various pro and con studies regarding the "homosexual gene," including the one quoted above by Johndy, it is clear none of the studies were willing to go the extra step and definitively assert that there is a gene that causes homosexuality. The article quoted above by Johndy used passive words such as suggested, tends, might, suggests, no one believes that a single gene or genes is determinative on the matter, some doubts as to whether it could be replicated, Apparently, looks promising; and most telling, "In short, not a single gay gene has been found." (See the above quoted "pro-homosexual" study). If your belief is based on "might be" evidence, it would appear you are on very shakey ground.
The Pooka submits that if a favorable scientific study could actually prove there was a homosexual gene, rather than surrounded in doubt as to whether it "could be replicated," we would all know about because a certain group of people would be shouting from the roof-tops. However, any scientific study is not scientific by definition, if it cannot be replicated/proved/disproved scientifically.
As Johndy correctly pointed out, and The Pooka concurs, "we have a study that points to genetic factors, but not conclusively."
So when anyone emphatically claims, "Gay isn't a choice," they are speaking from emotion rather than fact. The fact is, There are no definitive empiracal scientific studies or evidence which has been willing to assert a claim that a homosexual gene exist. If the ones currently writing the suggestive studies or papers did make such a claim, they would immediately be discredited and rejected by the scientific community, because they cannot prove their claim through accepted scientific method.
In short, if "brilliant scientists" cannot state with certainty that homosexuality is "not a choice," why would anyone here dane to make claims about homosexuality that even famous "pro-homosexuality scientists" would not dare to make?
The Pooka - humming Wipe Out by the Safaris
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2kIx1QT_xA
Pooka, I'm actually going to dignify this with an argument. I think I see where you're going with this. You're making a couple of big fallacies, but let's see if we can't iron this out.
Okay, so let's get one thing clear. You're absolutely right when you say that science has, as yet, failed to prove that being homosexual is purely involuntary. I'm not sure it's trying to prove this, but still; it hasn't gotten there yet. it notes some weird stuff involving genes and brain chemistry, but because it is careful not to overcommit, it is not certain. I concede that point.
When I'm saying "gay is not a choice", a more accurate phrasing would be "Not every gay person has chosen to be this way". Probably some have. It is, then, a choice for some of them, maybe.
It seems to me, however, that you're making the mistake of assuming that if argument A isn't rock solid, then argument B must be viable. That's incorrect.
Argument B, as I understand it in this case, essentially says that every single homosexual has chosen to possess that orientation.
Are there any studies you're willing and able to cite which prove this? If not, then the platform crumbles. You can't presuppose that all homosexuals have deliberately chosen to be homosexual just...because. In a logical debate, that's simply not good enough.
Now, here are a couple of things which make me think that science is, at the very least, on the right track:
1. Many homosexuals will claim that they've had this orientation since they were too young to fully know what it meant and entailed.
2. No one in their right mind, if given a clear-cut choice to be homosexual or heterosexual, is going to choose homosexuality. Just look at this ridiculous back-and-forth that's spawned on these message boards as proof; I can't think of anyone who would arbitrarily decide to subject themselves to this for no reason greater than because they felt like it.
3. Even if science cannot definitely prove that gay is written into your genes, it generally seems to accept that some people, at least, appear to be gay from such an early age that either genetics, brain chemistry or some other as-yet-unknown factor or set of factors has removed all voluntary choice in the matter.
On the flip side of the argument, we have people talking about how gay is a choice, and they justify their right to act prejudicially against gays on that freedom of choice. They accept that being mean to blacks isn't nice because black people can't help the colour of their skin, but they continue to tell themselves that every single gay person willingly chose this path of "sin" and "perversion" for themselves. There is no basis for this, none at all. It is self-serving, self-righteous, superstitious, bigoted, harmful, backward-thinking dogma that should be tossed out before it causes any more people to be hurt.
What we have here are two platforms...more more accurately, one platform and one power-trip masquerading as a platform. One is uncertain, hopeful and based on common sense while trying to move forward. The other, such as it is, rests in pieces.
Pick up those pieces, if you dare, but those studies you require in order to validate your shattered ideology had better be both logically compelling and totally free of all religious bias.
wow, I think some people are stirring the pot; That is sad. Have some of you nothing better to do than to pretend you're not homosexual, then you are?
Some of you totes confuse me.
It is less than uninspiring as-well-as predictable how devoid of reason the 'pro-homosexuals' _always_ appear to be. Instead of providing reason and intelligently debating a point, they try to change the subject. Mischaracterization and attempted character assassination. The only reason for the attacks on Chelslicious is she gets it. Clearly you are jealous of her because you are unable to get anything. It is not because you are unintelligent, it is because you refuse to be reasoned with. "Don't bother us with the facts, our mind is made up" is what you seem to say.
By the way, this is not a democracy, this is a discussion. You will convince no one by continuously repeating yourself and each other, claiming reason and logic and providing none. (Just because you think a thing does not make it so). provide some solid grounds other than something like the following:
TP: "Why do you say homosexuality is not a choice?"
Homo-supporter: "You are wrong, stupid, and you cannot be reasoned with and clam flavored ice cream is the best!"
TP: "Oh, we see what you mean, you have convinced us all with your cool logic and reason. Why didn't we all see that before. Homosexuality is not a choice." This is an illustration and will never happen.
On the other hand, consider if the tables were turned, would you be persuaded by the same "reason and logic?" If The Pooka says those of you who disagree with The Pooka are wrong and stupid, were you then convinced The Pooka was correct in everything claimed? Of course not. The Pooka would never expect such antics to be condusive to a worthwhile discussion of anything. It is noteworthy that the same people claiming that "homosexuality is not a choice" are the same people trying to change the subject by yelling wrong and stupid and attacking someone because you appear to be frustrated because you have absolutely nothing worthwhile to contribute to the discussion at hand. It is also noteworthy that when The Pooka makes a point, relevant examples were provided. Contrast what the Pooka has written and what the antis wrote.
The Pooka will pose some additional food for thought. If someone is homosexual and an atheist, what is the morality you claim based upon?
The Pooka - humming Kung Fu Fighting
Another question forPooka.
Has science found a heterosexual gene?
If, in all situations, we can choose to be gay, do we also choose to be straight?
I’ve stated, there is a value of choice, but this isn’t 100%.
In my personal life, I can’t remember sitting down and actually deciding.
As a child, I was not sheltered from homosexual people, so they were a normal part of my day to day world.
Most of these, were men, so as a young boy, I should have faced a choice technically, right?
At the time, I happened to think they were nice looking, some flat out pretty, due to the time they took to care for themselves, dress, hair, skin.
I lived with what I felt was a really lovely guy in college for maybe 6 8 months, and he was gay completely.
At that time, I still didn’t feel I had to choose, or have an edge to do so.
He slept in his room, I slept in mine, and at no time did I think, maybe I’ll give this a try.
He simply wasn’t of interest to me accept as a good roommate.
I missed him when he moved out, only because he paid his rent on time, kept a clean house, and was good company.
Did you personally decide your sexual orientation?
I think it is safe to say that everyone likes a roommate that pays rent on time, keeps a clean house and is good company, regardless of race, religion, disability, etc. Even a beautiful roommate can be a pain if they are so inclined. (wink)
The Pooka - humming True Love Ways
Jealous of Chelslicious? Devoid of reason?
Okay, never mind the attempt at rational debate. You just lost all your ground and then some.
The reason I refuse to argue with you further is because instead of providing the proof I seek, you tried doing precisely the same thing you're accusing the "pro-homosexuals" of doing.
In other words: the troll acted as if it was not a troll, I was briefly lulled into thinking a change might occur, I was wrong, and will go back to my anti-troll ways. Good night.
Well? Has science found a heterosexual gene, or not?
I'm late to this party (such a shame, looks like I missed one hell of a good time), so I'll just say one thing here, since everyone else has done a good job of summarizing my response to Chelsea's answer.
Chelsea, I'm a nice person. A very nice person. Some might even say kind. Some might even say too damn nice. I don't like attacking people. I don't like being a jerk even if I think I'm right. I have always tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, even when I vehemently disagreed with what you were saying. Sometimes I even respected your point of view.But right now, I have completely lost the desire to be nice. I am confused, and baffled, and angry.
For someone who was always so fond of telling other people to be up front and honest and totally themselves, sans bullshit, you are one of the most elaborate bullshitters I have ever encountered. I have never, never met anyone so intent upon changing personalities, agendas, and philosophies every couple of years. The way you post now, doesn't even look like you posted a year ago. Your words are straight out of a southern preacher's late-night radio show. It's actually a little frightening. Either you are the most horribly confused person I've ever met (in which case I really hope you figure out who you are one day and stick with it), or you are one of the most devoted trolls, running the strangest social experiments imaginable. Either way, I will never take you seriously again, and that's a promise. That is, until you stick to one personality for more than a year or two.
to anyone reading this topic who previously acted homosexual or who is acting homosexual now, I'm here to tell you that it's never too late to be forgiven of your sins. I know how easy it can be to fall into various temptations that the devil, his followers here on this topic, and elsewhere constantly set for the world (trust me, I've been there before). instead of reacting to their attempts to persuade you how wonderful it is to be homosexual and godless, I urge you to consider what you would rather have on your conscience: the fact you were with people of your same gender who themselves have no moral compass or the fact you lived your life for God, knowing you did what was right for him and humanity every day? because, the reality is that the world needs religion. religion has beautiful teachings not destructive ones. religion gives us structure in our lives that we would not otherwise have. religion shows us the right choices to make and why those choices are so valuable to the world at large. so please, before you think you're doing the right thing by turning away from God, realize that that is the ultimate harm you could do to yourself. the world needs love. be the love you want to see in the world and let God show you the way.
Why are we so focused on homosexuality instead of something like gluttony, which MANY more of us (myself included) are guilty of, and which actually can cause harm. What happened to "the body is a temple of God and you should make healthy choices"? I never hear anything practical like that anymore because Christians have become so obsessed with this topic.
Voyager, you have an excellent point.
The quickest and nastiest explanation is probably the most accurate. When Christians speak out against homosexuals, it's because they aren't homosexual and can distance themselves from it. It's very easy to dismiss a group, a condition or an idea if you yourself don't embrace it. On the other hand, most people will indulge in gluttonous, prideful or slothful behaviour, so those self-same Christians who speak out against homosexuals usually avoid speaking out against other sins, because they know damn well that they're hypocrites if they do it.
Thankfully, the fair majority of Christians I have known personally do not, in fact, speak out against homosexuals. If they're uncomfortable with homosexuality, they keep it to themselves or moderate their discomfort with an honest-to-goodness attempt to see the other side of things. I appreciate that.
I'm definitely not trying to tarr all people of group B with a given brush, because that's not fair.
There is a great example, and a true story about why a person’s sexual orientation doesn’t matter if you are opposing it based on Christian values.
There is a man, he is completely gay, and has never been interested in women.
He has never tried to pretend he was.
This man is currently a high bishop. I can’t remember his group, but he made the grade.
This man, as far as his congregation knew was single, but infect, he has, and at the time, had a life partner.
He thought good sermons, did lots of work in his community, and even won awards not only from his church group, but his city for his community service.
When it became time for his promotion to bishop, he was investigated, as a matter of course for the job, and at that time, it was learned he was gay.
They high church wanted to refuse him, based on this fact, but they couldn’t, because other then privately sleeping with his life mate, he had no blemishes, and was greatly loved due to his work.
He was ask how he got to his life’s mate, and he explained he dated just like any single man would.
They couldn’t find not one person that had anything bad to say about him, and his dating practices related to his being gay.
He respected his dates, and many probably simply refused to degrade him by talking about their private lives.
This is another reason I liked the third side of this, one poster spoke about before I did. Being gay doesn’t hurt anyone.
Where this was man’s sin, and why should he have repented it?
Is he, and wasn’t he doing the work of God?
Sure, I understand the idea might be repulsive to some, just like spoiled milk is not interesting to me.
But, if you are not involved, and you are not forced, how are you harmed?
I am also waiting on the answer to my question.
My roommates being gay had nothing at all to do with his good roommate status, so my question?
Sorry about my type o.
I meant, where was this man's sin, and why should he have repented it?
I'll add, if he'd been dating women, his practices would have been as they should have been, he was just dating men.
Johndy, DevilishAnthony, and any other homosexual/bisexual person who has already read my comments or may yet, I want to apologize.
I've gotten caught up in the back-and-forth about whether or not being gay is a choice. It has not been my intention, but upon rereading my posts, it might seem as if I'm suggesting, by indirection if nothing else, that the validity of homosexuality is based on whether or not you choose it. I have never felt that way, but if you've gotten that impression from me even briefly, then I owe you a heartfelt apology.
If science came out tomorrow and said that being gay is something you can control - just bear with me a moment, because I really don't think this is going to happen - it means almost nothing. Like any other choice that ultimately harms no one, you're free to make that choice willingly if you wish. There would be nothing wrong with deliberately choosing to be gay, if you could somehow do that; I'd sympathize with you, in the sense that you'd probably be in for a world of backlash, but the validity of your sexual identity would be unassailable.
As such, anyone, religious or not, who presumes to judge homosexuals has two hurdles to jump:
1. They must first prove - not suggest or opine, but PROVE! - that being gay is always, always a choice; no exceptions
2. Then they must demonstrate, with more than just flimsy anecdotal evidence, that being gay is harmful.
...And by harmful, I don't mean that it might offend the sensibilities of prudes. Screw that. They can deal with it. I mean harmful in the sense that abnormmal behaviour is doing damage to society as a whole. And please, don't waste your time and mine by citing population control as a reason to act against homosexuals; there are enough poor, starving, malnourished people in the world that frankly I think we can bear to have a small population drop if push came to shove. We're already having serious issues with resource management, so perhaps this is a weird evolutionary mechanic that is, in its way, trying to save us from the crash course we're embarked upon.
Anyway, I'm sorry if at any point I made it seem like choosing to be gay was wrong. It doesn't matter if you have a choice; your sexual orientation is one hundred percent your business, and no one, self included, has a right to judge you and find you wanting on those grounds.
What does the Bible say about Homosexuality?
The Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality very often; but when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let's take a look.
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible. It undermines God's created order where He made Adam and Eve, a man and a woman, to carry out his command to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28). Homosexuality cannot carry out that mandate. In addition, it undermines the basic family unit of husband and wife which is the God-ordained means of procreation. And, believe it or not, it is also dangerous to society. (See, Is homosexuality dangerous?)
Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a heavy judgment administered by God Himself upon those who commit it and support it. This judgment is that those who practice it are given over to their passions and believe its lie, which means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins.
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error," (Romans 1:26-27).
As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing, will not seek forgiveness, and will not repent. They will die in their sins and face God's righteous condemnation.
But their rebellion against God does not stop there. Those thus judged also promote it and condemn others who don't approve of their behavior.
"...and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them," (Rom. 1:32).
So, in their "hearty approval" of homosexuality, they encourage others to accept their practice; and thus their sin spreads. In this, they will reject the ways of God and stand in opposition to Christ's redemptive work on the cross. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, they will have no salvation. Without salvation, there is only damnation in eternal Hell. We don't want this for anyone.
Is this politically correct? No, the Bible's view of homosexuality is not politically correct. Society says that there is nothing wrong with two people "just loving each other." They ask who are We Christians to judge them? But, we ask who are They to say what is morally right and wrong? Do they have an objective standard of morals that all people should follow? No, they don't. They appeal to things like "society" and "common sense" and "basic rights," to promote their opinion of homosexual normality. The problem is that societies have been wrong before (Nazi Germany, anyone?). What is common sense to one person isn't necessarily common sense to another. And, basic rights? Well, we all have basic rights. But, the homosexuals want special rights. They want laws passed to protect their sexual behavior. They also want to redefine marriage and have everyone else to accept it. Will the redefinition stop with homosexual marriage? Don't bet on it. Pedophiles are now asking for rights, too, and they are using the same arguments initially presented by the homosexual movement decades ago.
Think about it. The pro-homosexuals want laws passed to protect a behavior. It is, after all, homoSEXuality. I want to know what right do the politically correct, pro-homosexual minority have to impose their values on the majority? What right do they have to condemn Christians, call us names (homophobes, bigots, etc), and be so very intolerant when we say their behavior is sinful? They don't have sound arguments. But they do have emotional ones fueled by liberal dogmatism. They are successfully getting homosexuality promoted in schools, TV, and movies as "normal" and healthy. Healthy? Check out the health statistics of homosexual behavior.
As a result, their confidence and successes have pumped up their bravado so much that they even oppress those who oppose homosexuality, a fact blatantly ignored by the double-standard-liberal-media. But what are we to expect when dogmatism is king and all opposing views are condemned?
The pro-homosexuals want everyone to think like them and approve of their "inborn sexual orientation"; and if you don't, well, then you're labeled a bigot--and worse! What they want is for everyone to think that homosexuality is normal. After all, it exists in the animal world, doesn't it? Yes, it does, and so does eating their young and cannibalism. Just because animals do it, doesn't make it morally right.
But, believe it or not. We, Christians, aren't judging homosexuals. We are informing them. God has declared that homosexuality is a sin. It isn't our preferences we're declaring. It is God's. I know. I know. Some will say the Bible isn't true, that it is archaic, sexist, homophobic, etc. I've heard it all before. Kill the messenger and let's all jump into bed together and have our fun. Sorry, I'm not interested in freedom without responsibility and the resulting promiscuity and diseases and oppression that accompany the politically correct, sexual promiscuity of liberal morality. Instead, I'll follow my Lord who calls all to repentance (Acts 17:30), myself included.
Your argument would be a solid platform, and worth debating, if not for one fatal flaw.
It can't be verified.
Sure, it's been written down in a book, and that book claims to represent God. But that book has been compiled by dozens of hands, voted on, dissected, mistranslated, misunderstood and misrepresented over two thousand years of muddled history.
Who says it's actually God's word and not the word of people presuming to speak for him in pursuit of their own agenda?
Who says God even exists?
You can't address any of those criticisms, so the argument has no merit. As such, let's toss it on the trash-heap with all the others.
To really sharpen the stick and drive it in, what would you do if I told you I'd read a book that told me it was my duty to kill Christians, or rape them in order to purify them?
You'd dismiss me, laugh at me, call me a monster for believing those things, I presume. You'd judge me, in some sense, and find me wanting. And you'd be right to. I'd be a pretty twisted individual if I 1. read such a book and tried taking meaning from it, and 2. actually tried to do what that book told me to.
That's what I'm doing to you. Judging your viewpoint as professed in your previous post, finding it completely lacking in anything worthwhile, and disregarding both you and your stance on those grounds.
Just a heads-up though:
I'm pretty sure that swindling, by definition, could encompass lying to get what you want. It definitely tends more toward cheating people out of things they have, but dishonesty is dishonesty. You've done quite a lot of that. If you, alone, accept the validity of your previous argument and biblical quotes, then surely you have a lot to answer for on behalf of your bad choices, no matter what you've said about not regretting them. It seems that your views bend to suit yourself and to damn anyone who doesn't think like you.
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation
Homosexuals will say that they are born the way they are, that it is a genetic orientation, and since they didn't choose it, it cannot be wrong. If that is the case, then why do identical twins, with identical genetics, not have uniformity of sexual orientation? This proves it is not genetic.
But let's not stop there. What if I am born with a genetic orientation to dislike homosexuality? Is that okay? If it is not, then why the double standard?
Would it then be okay for me to want laws passed to protect my "homosexuality aversion orientation"? Or, is only their orientation worthy of protection?
Just being born with an orientation doesn't mean it is okay. If I am born with the orientation to lie, does it mean lying is okay? Of course not. Should I demand national rights granted to me because of my lying orientation and its resulting practice? Again, of course not. (See What is sexual orientation?)
What is the homosexual's hope?
The only hope for the homosexual and all people who break God's laws is to realize that God is holy, and He will rightfully judge all who have sinned against Him by breaking his law (1 Kings 8:32; Ps. 9:8; 1 John 3:4). If He did not do this, then He would be approving of wrong doing. However, God is loving (1 John 4:8), patient (Rom. 2:4), wants people to repent (Acts 17:30) and desires that we come a saving knowledge of Him. What this means is that the sinner must turn to Christ, who is God the Son in flesh (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9), who bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), died and rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1-4), and made it possible for sinners to be saved from the righteous judgment of God, by faith in what Jesus did on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21), so they can be forgiven of their sins (Eph. 2:8). This is done by receiving Christ (John 1:12), by believing in Him and accepting His sacrifice that is a payment for our sins to God the Father.
Like any sinner, the homosexual needs to repent, receive Christ by faith, and be saved from God's righteous judgment by trusting in Christ and the judgment that fell upon Him on the cross. They need to pray and ask the Lord Jesus to save them.
What should be the Christian's response to the Homosexual?
Just because someone is a homosexual, does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (or her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be laid at the cross and forsaken.
Please understand that I don't hate homosexuals. I wouldn't care if my neighbor is gay. I've had homosexual friends and have loved them the same as I would anyone else. I was their friend, yet they knew I did not approve of their behavior. But, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, and the solution to the problem of sin (the breaking of God's Law, 1 John 3:4) is found only in Jesus. He is the Lord, the Savior, the risen King. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14), and He died to save sinners from God the Father's righteous judgment.
We are all sinners, and we all need salvation (Eph. 2:8-9) that is only found in receiving Christ (John 1:12-13).
We Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same as we would for anyone else. This is not an issue of arrogance or judgmentalism. We don't want anyone to be lost due to their sin and that includes gays, lesbians, and transgenders.
The homosexual is still made in the image of God, even though he (or she) is in rebellion against Him. Therefore, we Christians should show homosexuals the same dignity as anyone else with whom we come in contact. Don't injure them. Don't hate them. Don't judge them. Inform them that freedom and forgiveness are found in Jesus. Let them know that God loves us and died for us so that we might be delivered from the consequences of our sin - which is eternal separation from God (Isaiah 59:2).
But, this does not mean that we are to approve of what they do. We are not to compromise our witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of rationality, godliness, and biblical truth. Instead, stand firm in the Word that God has revealed to us and patiently love him/her biblically and pray for their salvation. Be kind to them. Be loving. And, when appropriate, tell them the Gospel because forgiveness of our sins is found in Christ.
Interesting. Where'd you steal that one from? I'd like to see that website/book.
She actually ghas it well. Smile.
I'm going to argue on her footing however.
When I post again, I'll accept all she has written is the word and I'll explain it from a different side.
I'll need to work on it a bit.
Shep, has some of it.
We don't know how much of this has been changed to suit the people who wrote this version of the Bible at the time.
I absolutely applaud the fact someone on the Christian side has finally argued affectively from the Christian point of view.
Be back.
meglet, I found the article I posted earlier in my search for answers. it seems that you all already have your minds made up and don't want to be bothered with the facts. however, if you're interested, the link is: https://carm.org/bible-homosexuality
As recently as a year ago, Hillary Clinton was sparring with a public radio host about her position on same-sex marriage, defending her past reticence to discuss the issue and falling well short of full-throated support. Now, in a markedly new position, Clinton is offering just that, calling gay marriage a right afforded by the Constitution.
"Hillary Clinton supports marriage equality and hopes the Supreme Court will come down on the side of same-sex couples being guaranteed that constitutional right," said Adrienne Elrod, a Clinton spokeswoman, in a statement.
This is an entirely new position for Clinton. As a candidate in 2008, Clinton opposed same-sex marriage, supporting the idea of civil unions instead. She did not proclaim her personal support for same-sex marriage until 2013, after she left her diplomatic position as secretary of state.
During a 2014 interview with NPR, Clinton and host Terry Gross sparred over the topic in a conversation that, at times, grew testy. Clinton told Gross that she always viewed marriage as "a matter left to the states and in many of the conversations I and my colleagues and supporters had, I fully endorse the efforts by activists to work state-by-state."
After a handful of questions on the topic, Gross said she was just trying to "clarify" whether Clinton had changed her opinion on the matter or whether the political winds on the issue had shifted, allowing Democrats' 2016 presidential frontrunner to come out in favor of same-sex marriage.
Clinton pushed back on the question, telling Gross, "No, I don't think you are trying to clarify. I think you are trying to say that I used to be opposed and now I am in favor and I did it for political reason and that is just flat wrong."
Clinton's argued that for the four years she served as secretary of state, she was "out of domestic politics" and not in a position to back same-sex marriage. She moved on the issue later than many Democrats, though, including President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.
"And then leaving that position," Clinton said of her time at State, "I was able to very quickly announce that I was fully in support of gay marriage and that it is now continuing to proceed state-by-state."
Wednesday's statement, however, takes Clinton a step further, aligning the presidential candidate with many Democrats who hope that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage as a constitutional right after they hear the case later this month.
Her campaign did not respond to questions about how the change came about for Clinton.
Link to article: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/15/politics/hillary-clinton-same-sex-marriage/
homosexuals, the same as athists, don't want your prayer and don't want your information. so how about leaving it up to your god to judge the people who you think are wrong and leave us the hell alone and pray in silence?
Some homosexuals are Christians Loui.
They pray, believe in God strongly.
Some are Jewish, and other religions.
I thought we'd settled this?
I’ll start by saying, all your points are valid from a Christian, or the version of Bible you have decided to base your points on.
These arguments are the base of Christian’s refusal to accept gay people, but actually not sound.
If you believe that Jesus died for our sins, then you also have to believe in his teachings, and way of life.
You also would have to believe in the reason he died.
That life was based on teaching us to love, respect each other, and live and let live as long as your actions were not directly harming the community.
Judge not, less you be judged, and let God decide was the main reason he died, because people were turning against others for things that didn’t directly affect them.
He taught our relationship with God was a personal one, not a community one.
He taught we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves.
He picked his team from the worst of society, and his supporter or a main supporter was a practicing prostitute.
People had strayed so far from God, and God’s love, that he sent his son to try to straighten it out.
Many of your quotes talk only of what men do, or men with men, but fail to add women.
This was probably due to the short sightedness of the leaders and scribes at the time, not thinking about women.
Many teachings were based on control, not God’s love, and that was the main reason Jesus died for your sins.
If we practice the love of God, we’d have to accept gays, and love them as neighbors, and allow God to do the rest, would we not?
Next, in order to lay the law down to gays, we’d have to have our own lives totally in order.
On a sexual bases, and that is mostly what this is about, I notice your Bible misses fornication in the things that should not be done, or maybe it calls it something else?
How can you enjoy fornication, but hate gay people, and decide what they should and should not do?
If we simply loved our neighbors, would we not be able to build a stronger community?
Could we not fight the diseases associated with as you say, promiscuous sex through education?
Would we not have a happier, and healthier community if we lay aside strife about one private and personal doings?
We legalized booze, and the world still turns.
In some countries, and in the US, drugs are legal, and the community as a whole is better and safer because of it.
We took blacks out of slavery, and the South didn’t fall in to poverty, nor ruin.
In Las Vegas, and other places, prostitution is legal. Medically, it has been shown the trade is safer and better for both customer and provider.
Gambling is now legal almost every place, and the taxes from that trade have helped some communities.
Why couldn’t this be the same for gay people?
All of these things are sins according to the people that want to control others lives, but not one of them directly harms others.
Gay, is lesser of a problem, because you don’t have sex with your lover, and go run over someone due to being intoxicated from it. It is private, and in the privacy of your home, or place you share it.
What is the greater sin, to love our neighbors, or to judge them, and try to control them?
Ah, I see what you're saying Wayne. I think by "homosexuals don't want your prayer", she meant that homosexuals don't need God to fix them, and certainly don't tneed bigoted Christians (or indeed bigoted people in general, whatever religion they may practice) to pray for God to do so.
since this topic is specifically about homosexuality, that is what I'll address.
here is an article that discusses some of the harms homosexuality caused to society:
Is homosexuality dangerous to society? The answer depends on what constitutes a danger. First of all, there is no objective moral standard that secularists have with which to identify wickedness, evil, and moral decay. At best, all that can be offered is the generic claim that what is dangerous is what causes undue harm and suffering among the general population. Such dangers could include economic collapse or upheaval, war, famine, plague, earthquakes, disease, etc. We could add that dangers to society are things that weaken it, make it less viable to care for its population, make it vulnerable to attack from outside and/or within. This could be anything from bad religion to bad government. Also, such things as rampant lying, stealing, and murder would seriously undermine a healthy society and be dangerous to it since they increase the harm and suffering of the society as a whole.
Okay, so now that we have something to work with, let's take a look at homosexuality and see if it is beneficial or harmful to society. Let's start with disease and see what the statistics teach us.
Disease
•2% of U.S. population is gay yet it accounts for 61% of HIV infection: "Men who have sex with men [MSM] remain the group most heavily affected by new HIV infections. While the CDC estimates that MSM represent only 2 percent of the U.S. population, they accounted for the majority (61 percent; 29,300) of all new HIV infections in 2009. Young MSM (ages 13 to 29) were most severely affected, representing more than one quarter of all new HIV infections nationally (27 percent; 12,900 in 2009)." (Center for Disease Control, cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVIncidencePressRelease.html)
•"A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection." (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm).
•25% of HIV infected in U.K. unaware of their infection: "Of the estimated 86,500 people living with HIV in the United Kingdom, about 25 percent are not aware they are infected, the Health Protection Agency said recently." (The Body, thebody.com/content/art59714.html)
Clearly, the disease statistics related to a homosexual lifestyle prove that such a lifestyle is harmful not only to themselves but also to others, especially when you note that in both the U.S. and U.K. large percentages of HIV infected people don't know they are infected. This is a danger to society since it supports the spread of disease on a large scale.
Financial Impact
•$12.1 Billion annual cost in US: "Future treatment for the 40,000 people infected with HIV in the United States every year will cost $12.1 billion annually, a new study showed." (msnbc.msn.com/id/15528984/ns/health-aids/t/new-us-hiv-cases-cost-billion-year/)
•$1.5 Billion Cost for 2001 in Canada: "June 2001, Halifax, Nova Scotia--HIV/AIDS cost Canadians more than $2 billion in 1999 in direct and indirect costs. Health care costs accounted for about $560 million; prevention, research and supports to AIDS victims for about $40 million; and lost economic production due to premature death and disability for nearly $1.5 billion." (gpiatlantic.org/releases/pr_cost_aids.htm)
The financial drain on society due to the medical costs of HIV is huge. The greater the impact, the more damage it does to the society's financial stability.
Mental Health
How is the mental health of homosexuals and lesbians? Does it have the same bell-curve as the rest of society? No, it does not. Take a look at these statistics and note that the mental health issues are not due to social pressure and rejection by the majority of society who considers homosexuality to be aberrant.
•" . . . homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com . . . the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle . . . the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual . . . While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark--the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality--both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s." (onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614)
•73% of the psychiatrists in the American Psychiatric Association who responded to a survey by Harold I. Lief said that they thought that homosexual men are less happy than others. 70% said they believed that the homosexuals' problems were due more to personal conflicts than to social stigmatization. Study by Harold I. Lief, Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 2 (1977), pp.110-111 (Cited in Growing Up Straight by George A. Reker)." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
Sexual Molestation
•Higher sexual molestation with homosexual parents: “A disproportionate percentage--29--percent--of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent. . . . Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.” (P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 772" (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php).
Certainly, no one wants children molested by adults. (Unfortunately, pedophilia is now being pushed as another 'sexual orientation' see http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517). Society needs to protect its children--not subject them to sexual pressures and molestation. However, the homosexual lifestyle clearly presents an increased threat to our children.
Sexual Promiscuity
Sexual promiscuity helps support the spread of disease. What are the promiscuity statistics of the homosexual community? Shockingly bad!
•28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
•Low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexuals. "There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources: Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)
Does anyone think that such mind-blowing promiscuity is healthy for any society, especially when the homosexual community is particularly subjected to HIV infection? Homosexuals are members of society; and their behavior, which is a manifestation of their "orientation," is extremely dangerous.
Death of a society
If we produce no children, our society will die. There won't be enough people to support the infrastructure, medical needs, economic development, etc. That is a fact. So, common sense would tell us that homosexuality is a danger to society since it cannot produce children to further the society.
Opening the door wide
Homosexuality is a behavior that is based, as many claim, on an orientation. What about other sexual orientations such as pedophilia, voyeurism, necrophilia, bestiality, polygamy, incest, exhibitionism, fetishes, frotterism, masochism, sadism, etc? The arguments for and against these other "orientations" are many, and we won't go into them here. But, who is to say that those who fall into these sexual categories won't use the homosexual agenda's orientation argument as a basis to further their own causes? If you think this is a ridiculous idea, then you are not aware of the fact that pedophiles are doing just that. See the article "Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals."
Muslims practice polygamy, and they are increasing in America. Mormons have practiced it in the past, and who is to say they won't get another revelation declaring that it is permissible again once the homosexual movement and its redefinition of marriage is ingrained in society? Incest is sure to follow (See the article "Rick Santorum was right about Incest and the Slippery Slope)."
The slippery slope is exactly the issue. Once sexual morays are loosed, marriage definitions and fidelity are loosened, too. Nothing happens in a society by itself since their intertwining social strings have collateral effects.
Conclusion
So, is homosexuality dangerous to society? The facts show that it is. We have to ask, why then would it be promoted so heavily when it is so harmful? The only answer I can come up with (aside from a biblical one) is that the politically correct don't care about the facts. Instead, they want their agenda promoted. They want their sexual freedom without responsibility. They, like so many tyrants in history, want to force their minority opinion on the majority to satisfy their own appetites.
link to article: https://carm.org/is-homosexuality-dangerous
Wayne, the very first article I posted does mention fornication; it reads as follows: 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Vary well.
I'll be back on this one.
My first thoughts are, I'm not sure these facts are legit, but I'll accept them as so, and address the cause and affect.
Now, what are your responses on the religious aspects? These maybe facts?
First, disease: Homosexuals aren't the problem. HIV is the problem. Lack of sexual education is the problem. Drug addictions, which often result in needle sharing, are the problem. Straight people still get HIV. Straight people get all sorts of STDs, but nobody blames the straight lifestyle for the existence of such disease. If you look at other continents, Africa especially, you'll see that all kinds of people, including straight women, have HIV. Being straight is no protection from it there because it's absolutely everywhere and the only way to avoid it would be to never, ever sleep with anyone ever, and of course to avoid infected blood etc. A homosexual act is more likely to result in the spread of HIV, it's true, but I guarantee you that if a straight, godly woman sleeps with someone who has HIV, the infection will spread. Does that mean her straightness caused the disease? Nuh uh. It means she slept with someone who was already infected. End of story.
Suicide: Gay people wouldn't be so suicidal if they did not face persecution, judgment, and scorn everywhere they went. So that one isn't even worth dignifying.
also, HIV was not the result of homosexuality. it was the result of poor people in africa eating bushmeat from apes. it began there and was spread from there.
Interesting statistic: it is extremely likely that the first sufferers of HIV were straight, not gay.
I may, if I really get bored enouogh, attempt to validate the efficacy of these studies, see how badly they were run or how cogent they are. Not all studies are created equal, and the insidious part of a stance like the ones Chelsea is now proposing is that most people gulp before they taste.
I urge anyone reading Chelsea's previous posts to do a lot more research before committing to anything, particularly given previous trollish behaviour.
I also urge these self-same people to consider how many suicides, rapes, stonings, broken homes, spousal abuse cases, wars, genocides, book-burnings, murders, sacrifices, brainwashings, child molestations, indoctrinations and acts of racism have been caused directly or indirectly by religion. The financial costs as a result of these things...well, let's just say that the medical costs for HIV are a drop in the ocean by comparison.
And that's assuming that every fact mentioned in Chelsea's post is accurate, verifiable and free of study bias. I suspect that while some statistics might be at least within shouting distance of true, others have been doctored and spun in such a way as to make them worse than they are.
Let me put it this way. If I had to choose whether homosexuality or religion causes a greater harm to society, I wouldn't even hesitate before pointing the finger at religion. Religion is one of the reasons being gay is problematic in the first place; the persecution alone is staggering.
Remember, folks. This isn't a Christian-bash, and I'm not pointing fingers at those of you who are not, in fact, part of the more harmful aspects. It would be unfair to blame one for the sins of all.
HIV.
HIV is a problem.
The reason it is a problem is not the sex, but the need for many to sneak around to have the sex, and not be open about it.
Now, when I say open, I don’t mean boasting, or anything, I’m talking about enjoying the same freedoms as heterosexual’s people.
Many gay men are forced in to relationships with women due to peer pressure, or society pressure.
After this happens, they still have the need, so have to get it covered in secret.
Once you add the secret to it, you also add the daring, and many won’t use protection.
In regular header sexual relationships, men’s like of willingness to use protection causes lots of unplanned pregnancy, and that cost money too.
We either have to provide abortions for the women that can’t afford them, or welfare for the women that can’t afford the children they are forced to have.
Even in a header sexual couple situation, not all male female couples can afford all the children they have, so must rely on the society for help, and this cost money as well.
In Africa, it has been learned, that HIV could be reduced, and even wiped out, if people were educated, and the religious, and other restrictions were lifted.
Just getting men to use condoms reduced HIV.
HIV has actually gone down in America, so your study is a bit old, due to free condom programs.
In the poorer community, you add not being able to afford fresh needles, or access to them for drug use, and HIV is even a bigger problem among males.
Educating people about sexual matters gay, or header sexual has been found to reduce many of the problems associated with sex.
Mental Health.
I noticed that your study relates being gay with unhappiness, and states that it isn’t due to peer pressures or outside reasons.
It fails to say how being gay could cause unhappiness however.
Looking at that, you’d have to ask, how does sexual orientation relate to unhappiness, and why. If this study is accurate, where are the numbers on heterosexuals that are unhappy due to sexual orientation?
Sexual Molestation.
On this one, I have no idea how they got these facts. I have to confess, I have no opinion on it, only to say that I suspect gay is linked, and your article points to this, pedophilia.
When these are linked, it shows the narrow mindless of the researchers, because one is not the other.
Sexual Promiscuity.
Now, this centers on gay males, not lesbians, and in part, it is correct.
Men, tend to be more sexually driven naturally to have more mates, and this is true for heterosexual males as well.
There is a sex researcher that explains it like this.
If you have a park full of people ready and willing to have sex with you, or a bathroom, a male will seek it out.
Again, they are forced to be with each other in secret, so form a community, or group to get there needs met.
He points out, for straight males, if there was a park, or place they could go full of pretty women willing to give them sex for free, don’t you think many would go?
You betcha.
You know about the new service called Tender, right? It is popular. It has heterosexual women, and men looking to hook up.
How could a service like that be so popular with heterosexual people, if they aren’t gay?
Your study suggest that sexual Promiscuity requires a person to be gay and that heterosexual, due to sexual orientation are less interested in this.
So, why is Tender doing so well?
A header sexual male can have a girlfriend, or even FWB female, and call her up every night of the week and have sex without restrictions, but a gay male can’t have a boyfriend without problems from his community.
He might have lots of different partners, but that header sexual male has had the same amount of sex with 5 girls freely, because he has the benefit of dating them openly, and doesn’t have to rely on one night situations.
If a gay male could live openly with, or marry his boyfriend, because again, this seems to center on males, he’d get more sex from one person.
Your article states that gay couples are more likely to split up and cheat. If that were so, why are services like Ashley Madison so popular?
It is against the law in some places to have male male sex. Sodomy laws restrict it.
It is also technically illegal to sodomize your girlfriend, or give her cunnilingus. These acts are deemed unnatural, and if you are reported, you can do jail time, and pay fines.
It is less a problem for lesbians.
This is probably because people don’t notice it as much.
Apply the sodomy law, peer pressure, restrictions on living with, or marrying your boyfriend for the gay male, and you put him in a position where he must go cruising to get his needs met.
Take away all these taboos, restrictions, laws, and hate, and your figures will drop to the same levels as heterosexuals.
Education, and again, God’s love could solve all these problems.
I thought about posting articles to refute your post, but that be my facts are more valid then your facts, so I’ve approached it in this fashion.
to those of you who are acting homosexual now or who have acted homosexual in the past, I urge you to seriously sleep on the kinds of things that are being said here. think about people’s reactions to the facts when they are presented such as "homosexuals, the same as athists, don't want your prayer and don't want your information. so how about leaving it up to your god to judge the people who you think are wrong and leave us the hell alone and pray in silence?" do you want it on your conscience that you were/are friends with people who so readily dismiss the facts because they disagree with them? do you want it on your conscience that you associated with people who claim to be sincere, caring human beings who enjoy learning, when all they seem to do is try to turn you away from the only goodness in the world? do you want it on your conscience that you bothered giving people like that the time of day when they have nothing else to say but "religion is wrong because I said so?" I know you don’t, because I too have been lead astray by them at one time. It took some time for me to get out of the hole that I allowed myself to be dug into by these people but I couldn’t be happier to have seen the light. I am on the right path now and you can be too. As I have said, it is never too late to go with God, ask him for forgiveness, and live a wholesome life.
On my side, I'll say the same accept I'll leave out coming to Christ, and put in all the pain caused that could be avoided by helping your brothers and sisters via education and love.
All right. I'm here to take a wrecking-ball to the whole construct of the anti-gay platform. I'm sick and tired of fudged facts and pseudoscience being passed off as valid.
So let's start off with a few facts. They're ugly, but we can't get around them.
1. HIV sucks, and the homosexual community has had issues with it. So has the straight community.
2. The homosexual community has been ruthlessly shamed, reviled, looked down on and dismissed.
3. When people are treated this way - any people, not just homosexuals - they tend to have a tough time of it. Things like mental health and substance abuse suddenly come to the fore.
4. If you molest a child, you're breaking the law.
Pretty straightforward, right?
Now, let's set up a few rules that absolutely everyone should live by.
1. If you're going to use a needle, don't shoot illicit substances, and make absolutely sure that the needle is sterilized. If you can't be sure, don't take the risk. That's how people get sick.
2. Try to avoid being overly promiscuous; at the least, if you're that type, practise safe sex.
3. If you get depressed, try and seek help rather than relying on drugs or alcohol (and yes, even relationships) to solve your problems for you.
4. Don't ever ever molest children, or anyone else for that matter. Consent is key, and if you don't have it, the answer is no. Children cannot legally give it, and an adult must willingly give it before you proceed.
So, many gays in the past used dirty needles, got hooked on illegal drugs, got depressed, killed themselves, molested children. And that sucks.
But many, many more straight people did it. That sucks too.
Frankly, if a gay person followed the rules I set out above, they wouldn't get HIV, they wouldn't be substance-dependent, they would be at least attempting to deal with their oppression and bad treatment in a healthy manner, and they would be minimizing the risk of hurting partners, both physically and mentally. They also wouldn't be molesting children.
If a straight person failed to take my advice, however, he might very well give someone HIV, molest a child, get hooked on heroin, and commit suicide because he got too depressed to fight back.
In other words, basically all of the objections mentioned in Chelsea's posts would crash and burn.
This should tell you something.
The people and problems she's speaking out against have nothing at all to do with homosexuality. Homosexuality is a convenient distraction, a straw man, if you will. It's a neat trick, trying to make you think that all of the related ills are linked to a source.
They're linked to sources, all right. Sources like unsafe sex practices, substance abuse and vicious anti-gay platforms. If we got rid of those, I practically guarantee that mental health, physical health and sexual practices in the homosexual community would all improve drastically.
I'll set up a really simple example of the sort of rhetoric being attempted here. Loosely, it's called correlation vs. causation, and it's the basis for several logical fallacies.
Thirty-eight percent of criminals have black hair. Twenty-nine percent of criminals have brown eyes. Arabs have a large tendency toward black hair and brown eyes. Therefore, there are a lot of Arab criminals.
See how ridiculous it looks when you boil it down?
I'll put this another way, and hopefully it'll speak for all:
When someone gets HIV, cheats on their partner, molests a child, abuses alcohol or drugs, commits suicide, takes multiple partners, or owns a dog named Fifi, don't look to their sexual orientation to try and explain it. Those numbers simply don't matter. They're the equivalent of smoke in your eyes, meant to blind you to the fact that the idiots making that apparently cohesive argument don't have a single god-damned leg to stand on. Look instead to the person who did those things; look at them as an individual, and not a statistic. Did they make a mistake, a poor choice? Was their shame so great that they felt they couldn't reach out for help, and if it was, whose fault is that shame when they've not done anything to deserve it? Did they have a hard home life, a bad parental figure? Are they frankly just an ill-advised asshole who doesn't give a damn about the people they hurt? Funnily enough, the straight are just as apt to be jerks as the homosexuals; your choice in bed partners doesn't really come into it.
If my brown hair wouldn't matter to you if I punched you in the face, then my sexual preference shouldn't either. And that, my friends, is a wrap.
Smile.
Chelsea, I seriously hope that you're ok and not in actual harm of some sort, saying whatever you have to say in order to keep someone from beating or hurting you.
She's fine. Just has an opinion.
Finally, someone posted on the other side with some strong post.
She may not be with the popular, but she's making an effert to say why she thinks as she currently does.
I give and gave her points for that.
Personally, I don't think people have to like the idea of same sex anything.
It could totally be revolting to them.
I just think don't put road blocks in the way to make it difficult, when it doesn't affect you.
Fighting, as history has shown, waste money, time, and sometimes lives.
Your brother sisters well being is not worth sacrificing because of your moral judgements.
That was one of the lessons Jesus tried to teach, if you are basing them on the Bible, or a religious backing.
Yes, but when that opinion is so different, it does make one wonder. I've seen a lot of people lose their whole identity to their partner when they get in to a relationship, until they don't even resemble the same person that they used to be.
I’ve been out of things for about two or three days, but I’ve been lurking nonetheless. I have several observations to make.
First, Greg. I didn’t take offense to your postings, because what I think you were saying is that even if homosexuality were a choice, it is, standing by itself, a harmless choice. You were, however, saying that you did not think it was a choice, if I’m reading you correctly. I concur with both opinions.
Second, Perestroika, Wayne, Meglet and others have echoed the argument that it doesn’t matter how homosexuality originated, and that basically we should all just get along. I wish it were that simple, and I submit that this very topic demonstrates that while this is a worthy ideal, it’s not realistic when you have people who would condemn someone for who they are. I also wish we didn’t have to wage war. War is expensive in blood and treasure, and ultimately does more harm than good. But I’m not fool enough to suggest doing away with the military at this point in our development because we still have people willing to start unprovoked wars who must be tamed by the waging of war, to the good or evil of us all. I think we have to find out what causes sexual identity so that hopefully more of us can be more tolerant, more understanding and generally nicer to one another in the long run. If we knew that sexual orientation one way or the other could not be controlled, perhaps more young teens would not commit suicide for fear of being disowned or hurt by their families, or because they were bullied by their peers. Perhaps there would be less bullying, and I suspect there would be less tolerance of bullying based on sexual identity. There would almost assuredly be less intolerance on the part of families of gay kids the more actual education there was about such matters. For this to happen, we have to find out the root causes, whether they are in fact genetic, environmental, or a combination of both. I’ve set forth why I believe sexual orientation is not chosen. I believe I have demonstrated, through my own life experience and through the submission of what I believe to be scientific argument, evidence that tends to prove my point. Others have presented opposing viewpoints, which I believe are baseless. Someone has to be right. This is the truth whether we like it or not.
Now, let’s examine a few posts. Post 227 sets forth what the bible says about homosexuality. I note that in most of them, there are proscriptions against homosexuality, but those particular passages do not explain homosexuality or what causes it. In the passages that sort of do explain it, god seems to be the culprit. Ergo, did god invent homosexuality? If homosexuality is such anathema to god, why would god give people over to supposedly unnatural passions? Does this mean that this particular god is a hypocrite, or does it mean that the people who wrote the bible are looking for an explanation and pulled it out of thin air with no evidence showing what god did or intended to do? Who is the culprit – god or the people who wrote it? If it’s the people who wrote it, then I wonder how god feels about being charged with a crime he/she/it didn’t commit.
Now, post 229. Why indeed do identical twins, with identical genetics, not have uniformity in sexual orientation? The answer in this post is that such lack of uniformity proves that homosexuality is not genetic. However, I have already pointed to an article in Analog Magazine which suggests that identical twins are not truly identical. Moreover, if you googled identical twins are not truly identical, you’ll come up with at least one Livescience article that points to the fact that cells, in their replication and division process, can create genetic mutations early on, and that differences in pre-natal brain chemistry can occur that render identical twins not truly identical after all. So, if there is a gene, or if there are many genes, or a combination of genes and pre-natal development, that contribute to sexual orientation one way or another, this can explain why one identical twin is gay and the other straight. I submit, admittedly without proof but I think with this knowledge and logical thinking on my side, that the more truly genetically identical the identical twins are, the more likely it is that both supposedly identical twins will exhibit identical sexual orientations, whether gay or straight. This to me only makes sense.
As for me personally, I don’t consider myself particularly promiscuous. I have had several sexual partners over the years, but the number stops when I reach the limit of how many fingers I have, believe it or not. I don’t really tend to sleep around all that much, especially in comparison to some people I’ve known. I’m interested in someone right now, but that person is about three thousand miles away, and I guess I have to find other things to do with my life. So, here’s what I do. I get up, play around on the computer, go to work, and after work I either go directly home or stop and have a drink at a bar with a friend of mine. By the way, neither the bar I drink at nor the friend with whom I have a drink are gay. This week and last, I was picked up from work by another friend whom I’m helping with a music project. And when I get home, I tend to collapse a bit early while reading a book or while the TV is on, nap a bit, go to bed. Get up and do it all over again the next day and the day after that. Life is peaceful and nice. I like it after all the stress. Most weekends I’m pretty much a homebody unless I’m going to the casino, out to dinner or helping my friend with the music project. I talk about going to a local dive to do some karaoke, but I haven’t been there in three years since before my father died. Maybe one day I will. Again, life is peaceful and nice. Could it be more interesting? Yes. Would I like to have a guy in my life? Probably, but right now it’s not the priority it was a few years ago. The kinkiest I get these days is in my mind. Would I love to win the powerball? Yes, as long as it doesn’t mean having to deal with publicity. So, rather rarely, I play the Powerball when the jackpots get astronomically high. Otherwise, I don’t want any drama or bullshit most of the time. I don’t abuse drugs or alcohol, I’ve never molested a child and don’t want to, and I’m not out to jump the bones of anyone with a tootsie-roll between his legs. I’ve had this cold that’s persisted for about a month now, but I’m getting over that. I may just now be starting to get high blood pressure, but that runs in the family. My hairline has receded far more than I ever wanted it to, and I should get out and walk more often than I do because I’ve gained about fifty pounds since I moved back to my home town. I’m doing my own soul-searching where spiritual matters are concerned,but I don’t need anyone to spoon-feed me or tell me what it’s all about. You wanna suggest, you wanna engage in conversation, that’s one thing. You wanna condemn me for existing, we got problems. Yes, my sexual orientation is a part of my identity, as is my blindness, but they aren’t the only parts. Can everyone see how truly dull and boring I am most of the time? Maybe I should start living up to the less flattering steretypes being thrown around by some so that I can be more exciting and controversial. Or maybe I’ll just post this, make some coffee, do some reading and come back later and see what’s going on. Yeah! Sounds like a plan.
to those who are homosexual or who have acted homosexual in the past, again, think about the things being said throughout this topic. one of them says, "Chelsea, I seriously hope that you're ok and not in actual harm of some sort, saying whatever you have to say in order to keep someone from beating or hurting you." he continues, "when that opinion is so different, it does make one wonder."
first, this is a threat and I don’t appreciate it Anthony. second, he is making assumptions because he wants people to believe that there is something wrong with opinions opposing his viewpoint being uttered. don't fall into that trap. he just wants to recruit. his stance has nothing to do with doing the right thing.
here is yet another comment from someone who thinks differently than I do. he says, "I’ve set forth why I believe sexual orientation is not chosen. I believe I have demonstrated, through my own life experience and through the submission of what I believe to be scientific argument, evidence that tends to prove my point. others have presented opposing viewpoints, which I believe are baseless." in other words, what he is saying is, "that any opinion different than his is baseless," because he said so. he left out the ‘scientific argument’ and ‘evidence’ to prove his point. so when you're trying to mull things over, think about the facts, reasoning, real life evidence and scientific studies. what the pooka and I have presented are quotes and links to where you can read the facts yourselves, in contrast to studies verses what is believed to be true by the homosexual community. there is a huge difference between the two. everyone knows this, even those who will never admit it.
recently, Hillary Clinton has claimed to have changed her mind about homosexuality and by the way, did she happen to mention that she plans to run for president? no one here was bothered at all that Hillary changed her mind nor was anything said about the obviously politically motivated change; whereas, after thoroughly researching, studying, evaluating and presenting the evidence, I say something here in opposition to homosexuality and the homosexuals have literally gone ape shit and have even threatened me. why? simply because they disagree with my educated opinion. they agree with Clinton so nothing is said. if anyone disagrees, they shout, repeat the same old thing over and over and will even threaten someone if they disagree.
if you believe homosexuals are a nice group of people, read again what they have openly said on this topic. look at how backwards that is and consider the fact that none of these people have changed within any amount of time that they've been on this site. at least, not that we know of. even if their circumstances or relationship statuses have changed, they have not made those things known to anyone here. is that because they see change as a horrible thing that should be avoided at all costs? most likely so. they are afraid they'll be judged harshly if things are out in the open.
are they trying to assist in discovering the truth about homosexuality; or are they trying to promote homosexuality regardless of the consequences, sometimes deadly consequences? see the study posted above relating to the numbers of those who participate in homosexual activities, have mental illness, disease (HIV and aids) are suicidal, alcoholics and drug abusers to name a few. they don't care about their partners, all they care about is promiscuity without responsibility. if anyone believes these are good assets in a life-long relationship, you are being terribly mislead and should seriously reevaluate. you are being lied to by homosexual promoters.
I find it interesting that the one thing the homosexual supporters have in common is that they have consistently admitted they have lied to, mislead or committed an outright fraud on someone they claimed to care about such as family, friends, fellow Zoners or people they were in a relationship with.
read back through this topic and see the hate, deception and even crimes that were admitted to by these so-called "good godless homosexuals." (by the way, if anyone claims to be homosexual and a Christian, they are lying about that too as God detests the perversion of homosexuality). (see the above posts on what God has said about homosexuals in the Bible). also, good morals are never outdated and you can take that to the bank.
knowing all this and if homosexuality is what you want to be involved with disregarding the proven consequences; and knowing they are knowingly lying to you about the whole homosexual thing, you will likely get exactly what you deserve.
Chelsea,
Let's dispense with the bullshit, and get right down to straight facts.
I've already kicked your straw man to pieces by demonstrating the correlation vs. causation fallacy upon which it was erected. Others have also mentioned bits and pieces wrong with all your supposed studies and what they purport to prove.
You have yet to actually demonstrate that being gay is always a choice. It has been demonstrated that it may not be genetic, but that's as close as anyone has come. There is an appreciable difference between homosexuality being genetic and homosexuality being voluntary. If the former is not true, the latter is not rendered automatically true.
Observe the following analogy which should summarize, in case you're having trouble with this point:
There are sixty-three different types of automobile. I know twenty-six of them. I do not own a Chevrolet; therefore, I must own a European car.
That logic doesn't work. It makes a conclusion without proving it. The only thing that my not owning a Chevy proves is that I don't own a Chevy. Llikewise, the only thing homosexuality not being completely genetic proves is that it's not 100% in your genes. There are simply too many other factors you haven't handled.
That's the real problem here. You aren't handling anything. You're setting up straw men, making personal accusations, and making what seems like a considerable effort in missing the point. Hell, you and The Pooka have made missing the point an art form. If it was just going to result in you looking stupid, I wouldn't care; frankly, that happens on a daily basis and I'd be a fool if I honestly thought it was going to change. But since it has the chance of hurting other people, I felt I needed to oppose your stance.
It is baseless, fictitious and damaging. It's also pretty damning, considering the message of love which is supposed to be embraced by your religion.
As a final note: Anthony sure as hell wasn't threatening you. Therein lies another bit of irony. You see a genuine worry about your safety as a threat.
thanks for demonstrating my point Shepherdwolf.
So if someone thought you were in danger and just left you on the road to die, they'd be a better semaritin for it? Ah, I guess they would, come to think of it. It would allow you to get in to heaven faster. I see now. cary on.
and you're the last one to bring up anyone else's lies, considering the life you've lived, so yeah.
Plus, I'd be careful of accusing people of crimes without foundation.
instead of "so yeah," didn't you mean to say nannynanny booboo?
once again, your reasoning is underwhelming.
and by the way, your "concern" for me is less than credible since we have never been friends.
You're correct on that issue. Never mind the fact that a couple of years ago, you wrote me privately, saying that you thought we'd have quite a lot to talk about, since we seemed to have so much in common. I didn't respond to you. Looking back on it, it's one of the best things I ever did on this site.
Interesting idea, Chelsea.
You don't know most of the people in the world. Statistically, it's just unlikely as hell. So that means you aren't concerned for them. This means any sweet words about supposedly caring for everyone, wanting everyone to be saved, are hollow. You don't care. You're seeking converts, that's all. You don't give a damn what happens to people as individuals. Completely antithetical to God's word, in other words.
Or else you do care, at least a little, and it's just a tiny bit possible that Anthony cares just a little as well. Because if I know Anthony, he may not like you or respect you much, but he probably doesn't want to actively see you hurt.
As such, his concern might not be so deep that he'd fly out there and try to rescue you, but he might care in an offhand "I hope nothing's happening to her. I hope she's all right" sort of way.
Case and point: I don't really care much for you either. I find your arguments meritless and your personal traits less than pleasing. But I still don't want you to be hurt.
Either is possible, I guess, but you're pinned beneath another forked stick. Either accept that your words are empty, or accept that just because you don't know someone well doesn't mean you can't be concerned for their well-being.
Chelsea, the main difference here is that I'm not the one talking about God and love and the likes. If you're trying to turn me toward Christ, all you're doing is showing me that you're just as judgmental and hypocritical as most of the other so called Christians I've encountered in my life. Great work there.
So I'm a bit further up in the topic here, but stopped reading after a time. this is mainly directed at Chelsea. There is something to be said for the commandment given in the new testiment to love your neighbor as you love yourself and to love God above all. Key here is to love others where they are, not where you think or want them to be. Am I saying that seaking the kingdom is wrong no. It's about working with people with indeviduals where they are, and if they choose to repent to work on all sin no matter what that might be. Telling someone that they're sinful and they're going to hell, it's just going to push them further and further away. You're judging them for behaviors God calls his people to. If they don't want to be his children, is it our business? I think in that place not.
How about accusing someone of a crime that they didn’t commit is called defamation? Is that reasoning whelming enough for you?
Chelsea. You said:
do you want it on your conscience that you were/are friends with people who so readily dismiss the facts because they disagree with them? do you want it on your conscience that
you associated with people who claim to be sincere, caring human beings who enjoy learning, when all they seem to do is try to turn you away from the only goodness in the world? do you want it on your conscience that you bothered giving people like that the time of day when they have nothing else to say but "religion is
wrong because I said so?"
All seems admirable and good on the surface. Too bad you discredited your own logic by continuing with:
and by the way, your "concern" for me is less than credible since we have never been friends.
So, by that logic, why would your conscience bother you? We have never been friends. Oops.
I confess, I found it amusing when I read that because she wasn't agreeing, she must be being abused, or something worse.
Smile.
But I never said she was, Wayne. I simply wondered. Maybe I should give a bit of background. Both my mom and my brother, as well as several of my friends, have totally changed their personalities when they got involved with someone new. example include, Mom used to like sweet iced tea. She got with a diabetic for a few years, so suddenly, she hated sweet iced tea and tried to get me not to drink it, letting me know how bad for me it was. After she left the guy, she loved her sweet tea again and has no recollection of trying to steer me away from it. such drastic changes make me wonder. That's all. I was asking if it was a possibility. I don't know Chelsea, or even you, for that matter, so why I'm even bothering to explain or justify myself is beyond me.
You don't.
You have done all a favor by doing so, but you can't be responsible for how a post is taken.
I honestly understand exactly what you are saying, and what you've experienced.
I was amused, on the first hand, because it moved me that way.
I too have seen people change for love, to belong, you name it.
Smile.
"Saying whatever you have to say in order to keep someone from beating or hurting you," said by a person you don't know and the only thing you have in common is opposing view points on homosexuality no less, sure looks and smells like what is known as a veiled threat. With his vast law school training I was surprised that Johndy didn't say something about it first. (I was under the impression criminal law was in the first year law student's required classes.
The Pooka - whistling 'Amazing'
Anthony said what I was thinking on that situation. A year ago Chelsea was asked what she thought, when she said she was no longer an atheist. I was at the time genuinely curious what changed, and more to the point, why. She gave what sounded like an evangelical type response about rebellion, but at the time stated plainly she didn't follow the Christian god. interesting. I was hoping also that this was not a change made out of force.
Chelsea, I understand what Anthony is asking about. If he, and I, are entirely misguided, there could not b better news: You've looked at everything and picked for yourself what you think and believe. Far too often these things do come from a cultic or enforced type situation. And don't think for a moment I'm picking on only the Christians: I, after all, live in a new-age area of the country. Perhaps new agers appear gentler, but they are as hideboubnd, idealistic, and legalistic as any evangelical. I've had the misfortune of seeing peple turned inside out by groups like those. You just happen to be speaking form the most dominant religion perspective -- 3.5 billion strong.
The reason Anthony said it, and I thought it, has less to do with the actual beliefs in question, and more to do with the total 180 change without explanation.
Personally, I think you are confused, and I said the same to someone who got herself caught up into a new age closed group out here when I was younger. Normally, when people change, they understand how they thought before and how they came to the conclusions they did. They explain it the best they can, as to how they see things differently,and the why behind the change.
But when pressure gets involved, pressure or fear, there's a total adoption of the ideology, cutting and pasting like you're doing, simple quotations of the leaders' words. Not your own. It does raise questions: not because of your beliefs, but because of the manner in which things seem to be turning out. I do desperately hope that we are wrong, that you're fine.
You know what, Chelsea? If a Christian like CrazyMusician Kate or SisterDawn Alicia came on here and began to cut and paste from Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, John Loftus's The Christian Delusion, and start intercepting Christian posts with unthought-through rhetoric from an atheist persuasion, odd as that sounds to me, I would be equally concerned. I'm doing serious reducto absurdum here because there is no "atheist ideology" but the point still stands. When peple change of their own volition, without force or malice from another party, they have reasons and communicate those reasons.
People may not agree with ANewHeart2009's perspective, but she came on and presented her thoughts re: a change she went through a few years ago, something similar to what you seem to indicate yourself. But it came from her, her words, her thoughts. It was not the top-down regurgitation of maxims. It is this which gives some of us pause for concerns. I hope at some point when your head is clear, you can see this: it's not the beliefs, it's the manner. Some of us have been closer than we'd like to have been, to situations where people were forced to change like that. Sure, the Christians get a lot of press for this, but like I said, I've seen new age style groups do it too: only nobody believes that because people think those are all grass-chewing innocents or something.
Someday, when your head is clear, provided it's not too late by then, perhaps you will see that it's not the beliefs, it's the manner which has given some of us cause for concern.
so what you're saying, LeoGuardian, is that Hillary Clinton's change within a year's time is real because it represents how you see things but my change is not real because it completely disagrees with how you see things.
At no point did Leo mention Hilary Clinton. Never mind that for all you know, she's been mulling over this change of heart for years and only spoke out about it now.
Take Hilary Clinton out of the equation. She's just another failed straw man, I'm afraid.
Leo is concerned for you in the same way that I am. 180-degree changes in ideology without any explanation are bewildering, to say the least. You're not eeholden to any of us for your actions regarding your change of heart, but that doesn't mean we're going to see and agree with your reasons. Frankly, we don't have to; just don't get injured, outraged or confused when we have trouble taking you and your rhetoric seriously.
You talked a big game about being honest and living a certain way, and now you're abandoning almost all of it. Unfortunately for you, most of the rest of us don't deal in doublethink.
LeoGuardian, what about your most recent change to becoming an atheist? what about the agony you have said you suffered because you were worried that such a drastic change would ruin your relationship with your wife of 20 years? never mind the fact that I have indeed given everyone here an explanation of why I have changed in other topics that I have posted on. in fact, in one of them where I said my acting attracted to females and acting atheist was all a rebellious thing, the blind guardian commented that it made perfect sense to him. however, it was you LeoGuardian who responded with frustration and anger at the blind guardian accepting my admissions. it was also you Leo Guardian who thanked me for giving everyone an explanation and here I am again doing just that. why? because that’s the nice thing to do, especially given how quickly people tend to forget how they’ve chosen to deal with things in their lives within the last year.
I’d like to address this whole silly threat business. The legal definition of a threat is a menace designed to intimidate someone on whom a threat is directed to take some action, and which carries with it “some sanction if not performed.” There is a 1990 case from the Criminal Court of Appeals of Alabama, in which it was written (and I’m paraphrasing here) that the term “threat” in criminal law, is a menace or declaration of a purpose or intent to injure a person, his property, or the rights of that person, through the commission of an unlawful act. This can include nearly any kind of expression of intent by one person to act against some other person, ordinarily indicating an intention to do harm. So, too, a threat has been defined by one other court as something that “instills in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker, is unequivocal, and is objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts.” (See Osborne v Williams.) What Anthony said in post 249 was: “Chelsea, I seriously hope that you’re ok and not in actual harm of some sort, saying whatever you have to say in order to keep someone from beating or hurting you.” Where is the threat? What did Anthony say that can possibly be constituted a threat in the minds of someone rational? What can Anthony possibly do to Chelsea, and what rights is he intending to interfere with? Point to any language in this entire quote to bolster the idea that Chelsea was threatened. Sometimes things simply have to speak for themselves. It pisses me off on some level that I don’t have Lexus/Nexus anymore, but it also really frosts me that this is something that all of us can look up just by googling the terms “what language constitutes a legal threat.” These days you don’t need a law degree, a class in criminal law or even years of legal experience, so I don’t know why my law degree is even relevant. I also don’t know what anyone’s viewpoints on homosexuality or gay rights, pro or con, have to do with the objective legal definition of the term threat. Not telling anyone what to do, but I shouldn’t have to explain this when so much information is out there and you can simply use logic to figure it out.
What about Hillary Clinton? To be honest, I've had my own troubles believing the Clintons
on a great many things since before some of you were born. Clintons and Bushes ... A
couple dynasties in the Corporatocracy.
My own atheism? Yes, I have been, and still am, considerate re: the people closest to me.
Unlike your change, I've written about my transparency on it at length. Perhaps too much
length, according to some. Including the factors that made me come clean.
I mentioned Jessica, because I respect her courage and how she wrote, and her
perspective is far closer to yours than mine.
I should say, re: Hillary Clinton since you asked Chelsea, and since I said I've not trusted the Clintons for a very long time:
She supports the gays now, because it is popular to do so. Had she had a change of heart, she would have come forth and said "I was rong." She's using the gays for a vote now. And when, not if, the Left turns her head away from the gays and on to a new group, Hillary Clinton will abandon the gays as readily as she now supports them, and equally without incident. There isn't any honor in it, Chelsea: the Christians are wholly wrong. There is no "war" and battle lines aren't being drawn. There are only people on both sides of the aisle looking for votes, one side commanding votes because the god says so, the other commanding votes for tolerance's sake, or for some other race to the top of the victim Olympics. They're beggarly thieves in rich man's clothes, that is all.
Let me tell you something ele, Chelsea, something your churches will never tell you: Every congress person in the State of New York, the home of the New York Stock Exchange, voted to support gay marriage. Was that a liberal agenda? Some simpering schoolchildren rioting at a college campus? No: Many of these are Conservatives of the first degree, willing to sell you and yours for a song if it turns a profit. Buy "you", I mean your church who has dutifully funded their campaigns and voted for their men in office for 40 years. Religion is impotent without the financial means to support it, and the arm of the state to enforce it. So to that end, the Evangelicals sold themselves to the Republican Party, who in principal has no real problem with homosexuals, but has patted your little heads and spent a little money to finance anti-gay and other initiatives as a consolation prize. The problem with selling oneself is that you get sold yet again. New York, the Heartland states, and others that voted in gay marriage did so because bigotry is bad for business.
More than you asked for? Sure. Does it reflect on you personally? I think not. If I was Christian, I would be reticent to make alliances with the current political Christian interests, and were I gay I would be equally reticent to sing the praises of the Clintons or others from the Left. In each camp, you might bring food today, but be food tomorrow.
The pooka and Chelsea have one thing in common. They both ignore the hard questions posed to them. And build straw men to attempt to distract people from what's being asked.
We still have no justification for why same sex relationships are harmful, that doesn't involve a god, or religion. You spoke of dogs, vomit and piss, 3 straw men... 3 examples that don't answer the question asked, at all. Three examples of bigotry, with out cause.
Because its not scientifically possible to prove a god exists, and you can't provide a rational argument for why same sex relationships are wrong. You have absolutely nothing on your side but an old set of rules in a book... Half of which christians find reasons to ignore, anway... Because they are too inconvenient.
Plus, I'm still waiting to see any support for the accusations of criminal activity. What crimes? Against whom? What specific language can be pointed to in support of this claim? What admissions were made? These are questions which certain people don't dare to answer because they can point to nothing.
alright, I have taken the time to read a lot of these posts and have a few things to say about it. I am not going to claim that I know a lot about my religion, I have not read much of the bible. I have only been to church a hand full of times. Does this make me bad? I don't think so. my family loves me just fine for it. What I will say though is that the few times I went to church, I asked questions like this. It upset no one. My passter was glad I asked questions like this to get the service going. We had an open church. anyone was welcome to steer the service in any direction they wanted. I say this because I want to tell you something my passter said to me. he Said that god loves everyone that worship him, strate, gay, or trans. If I were to walk into the church one day and tell everyone I was gay, everyone would love me exactly the same, because being gay doesn't change who I would be, and it wouldn't change the fact that I still love god. I have many gay friends that while they are open about it, would bend over backwards to help someone in need. I saw one of my friends actually give the shirt off his back to help someone. If that isn't godly, I don't know what is. Stopping to help someone even though it has no gain to you at all. So I don't understand why you are saying the things you are saying. Being gay doesn't hurt anything. Streight people spread STD's just like gay people do. Strate people think perverted thoughts just like gay people do. Let me also tell you something my passter said. I was sitting in his office having a comvirsation to him because I offered to help play in the church band and he wanted to talk to me about it and well, the conversation just shifted. He told me, Chris, if you ever meet anyone who shuns you for your beliefs, or tells you that believing in something is wrong, if you ever meet anyone that tries to get you to believe something just because they say so, and if they start throwing bits of information at you about why they think this way, I want you to only respond in kindness. The person doing such things is the person who really needs help. the person doing these things must be doing them because of sins they have yet to admit to, and they are the one's who need the lord. Do nothing but show them kindness and pray for them quietly. Don't argue with them, don't tell them what they are saying is wrong, just show them kindness. Maybe one day they will see that and use it to change the way they feel and act. Chelsi, I hope to god that you change your ways. You are going to say this kind of stuff to the wrong person one day and you are going to get a big fat reality check. Its one thing to say it on a sight full of people who will most likely never meet you in real life, but I promise you if you ever went around in public spouting the things you are saying now, someone would take note, and I promise it would not end ewell. its alright to have opinions, no one is faulting you for that. what we are faulting you for is the fact that you are sharing them here and spouting off that everyone who doesn't share them is wrong. Let me tell you something. Anthony has openly admitted to being gay. has he hurt anyone here? he is one of the nicest people I know, and according to him, you said that you wanted to be his friend at one point. Tell me, is he a bad person st5rictly because he is gay? I can tell you that as far as the zone goes, he is one of the most liked people here. I don't know much about his life and the friends he keeps, but I promise you chelsi that his friends still like him no matter his orientation. Not going to lie, I wish I had known you before you went through this so called change so I could have a bit mor background on this, because from what I have seen, you used to be alright. But what you are now is... well, you are doing the very thing that many people have warned me about. You believe in something, and you talk down on anyone who doesn't share your views or who tries to get you to explain yourself in a logical way. I know I have been rambling here, but I really hope something I say here sinks in.
also chelsi, this post was uploaded a long time ago, but I am sure you will remember it well
oh yep sure is, its not you. blame someone else for your shortcomings, yeah, that makes them better. marriage is marriage, reguardless of gender. it signifies the same thing as it does for a straight couple, love! nothing more, nothing less, just that wonderful thing called love!
what happened to that chelsi
But, she isn't alone, and her views are shared often and by many Christians.
She has written them directly from the Bible.
Christians and anyone else for that matter don't read the Bible as a whole, but take small parts to justify the belief.
Even on this post, she is not alone.
I think the reason some of us want others to speak from their own mouth, using their own words, is because we've already heard the propaganda machine. Every single thing out there has a propaganda machine. Individuals, though, have reasons for why they believe it, or believe part of it, or don't believe, etc. An individual's own response is usually more rich and informative.
It's certainly frequent that you can read another response and not agree with it, but profoundly respect the responder, and even try to understand the opinion. I feel that Christians, quite a few on here, have in fact tried to do that. Most don't try to troll us atheists, unlike on some other forums I'm on, where a select group of them come in just to try and start stuff with us.
I think that's all people are asking of Chelsea, and at one time this is what we tried asking of MyGodChosenBride ... Terrance.
People forget, it's possible to profoundly disagree with an opinion while actually trying to understand it, and respect the person giving it.
Agreed, Leo. If all you can provide are stock answers, or things you've copied and pasted, then do you really even understand your own opinions and beliefs? If you can't rephrase it, can't defend it, and can't even articulate it, how valid can it really be? How individual is that "opinion?"
When we were in high school, they used to make us paraphrase our textbooks. Seemed tedious, but it ensured we understood the material enough to actually reword it and preserve its meaning. Skills like that really help people express their opinions without resorting to the paste button. And I think, since Chelsea has never done much besides parrot other people's posts anyway, it's unrealistic to hope that she'll suddenly come up with her own ideas. For all the time I've been on the zone, she has followed other people's posts with "right on, so-and-so" and when she did provide her own opinion, it was usually to the tune of "I'm going to say the harshest thing I can think of, and most of it will be totally insubstantial." Most often, if someone actually asked her to explain herself, she'd respond with "if you can't handle my bluntness, then shut up" which neatly sidestepped the question she was asked.
Every now and then she'd make an original point, but I haven't seen her do so in quite some time. Much as I disagree with them, Kate, Alicia and others never ever do this.
I actually appreciate the fact that people like Kate, Alicia, Shaydz, my own wife and other Christians have expressed their own opinions on various things. And just like us atheist types, everyone is different. For instance, the Wife never took to apologetics / William Lane Craig, or most of the political stuff we AmeriChristian-raised types tend to associate with Christianity. Part of that may be She was raised Methodist, part just Herself. That's actually a good counterbalance to those of us raised Reaganomics-inspired "young Republican" Christians.
I guess in part, because of the nuanced nature of people, I can't get into some of the political active stuff some of my fellow skeptics get into. Too black and white sometimes.
Let me break up all the arguing.
I'm a christian; I'm bi; figure that out if you dare.
In case you don't dare, let me tell you that it is possible despite how the bible was written all those many moons ago.
God accepts me because I am me; that's all that matters.
Well Rachel, out here we have a transgendered Pentecostal preacher, the first of their kind in Portland, has been out since the 60s apparently.
Check out SisterPaula.org or Sister Paula on Youtube.
She's transgendered and definitely as far from atheist as you can get. If you listen to her talk, it sounds like she believes every bit of it.
Oh my good. I literally just sat through reading all of these posts, and I did so for two reasons: 1, because a lot of you whom I respect on this site have attempted to engage in some thoughtful, useful discourse. And 2, because I'm still trying to wrap my head around the drastic transformation of our resident chameleon, Chelsea...
Really, Chelsea? Really? I'm wondering if perhaps there's not two of you in there, wherever that is. One chelsea was slightly rational and attempted to give people the benefit of the doubt once upon a time. She tried to make a case for fairness and openness. Yeah, she parroted many people's ideas and her brashness was usually at once unsettling and unpleasant, but she had some compelling arguments to make, ones I thought were a little different and edgy. I had some doubts about her sense of self-identity, but it was hard not to respect her at least a little.
Now, friends, it appears that the chelsea we now eulogize has been gobbled up by a Foxyhfide, Christianized Chelsea. This chelsea is still her brash, unpleasant self, but with a twist. She is a god-fearing creature now; one who judges, condemns and doesn't think much for herself just as much as the very people she argued against in the past.
I'm baffled. I'm not really worried though, but only because chelsea doesn't really deserve my sympathy, nor does she want it. Maybe I'm just a bit meaner than the rest of you fine folks, but in addition to finding this transformation troubling and confusing, I can't help but find it hilarious as well.
On a serious note, what Leo and Anthony expressed has crossed my mind.. Hey Chelse, isnt' your current beau a Christian as well?
Just saying...
I'm slightly relieved to be honest, though. I no longer feel compelled to take Chelsea seriously either. As I said, some of what the old chelsea spouted made at least a modicum of sense, so she was a little difficult to ignore. This new Chelsea totally complies with my instincts about her.
I'm sorry you're such a confused person,
Chelsea. I genuinely am. But by all means, keep on entertaining us, will ya?
Anyway, now that's out of the way, everyone whom I do respect has already stated my thoughts about homosexuality and its place in the world.
Here are my thoughts on the original topic of this thread: the blog post by the Christian pastor.
I think that Cody's assessment of the matter was unnecessarily harsh, and as someone who makes a living as a content writer, I know better than to think that written word does nothing to persuade people or at least provoke some thought. If that were true, no one would have any business online. Literally.
Let's look at this from a different angle for a second: Say you have a small business in the plumming industry. You're trying to establish yourself in the quickest way possible and you aim to cover an entire region. How are you going to establish your credibility and show people that you indeed do know what you're talking about within your industry? You're going to start and maintain a blog, folks. You're going to do that to gain people's trust, to educate and to widen their perspective. Because that's what blogs do. They are the modern medium of credibility for many businesses and individuals alike. The Internet is as good a medium for provoking thought and expressing one's own beliefs as any. Does it make him less of a man if he writes about his acceptance of his son if he turns out to be gay rather than if he preached it in the pulpit? No. He's being rational according to the culture from which he hails. It's sad, but we see anti-gay rhetoric and attitudes from Christians everyday. It's a reality. Maybe this is the only way in which he can attempt to provoke thought in some people. Even one changed mind, even just one provoked mind for that matter, makes this blog post a purposeful one.
We're impacted by what we read everyday. To discount someone's word which demonstrates a more progressive outlook just because it's written in cyberspace rather than preached outloud is foolish and callous. Not everyone will be a crusader. Not everyone wants to be a martar. Not everyone can afford to do so, for that matter. So if all they can do is inspire some thought through written word, to call them a coward is absurd.
Does it suck that people have to be convinced that if their child was gay, he or she deserves their love? Yes, it does. But that's the world in which we live in. It's the reality we contend with. And I, for one, will take every little step that someone has to offer twoard rationality and justice. I'll take anything that will inspire some thoughtful discourse. I'd be out of work entirely if people didn't believe in the impact of words written in blog posts. Let's not discount their worth.
But what does she believe? I'm a little confused. Is she a self-hating transsexual, or does she simply believe in a spiritual being loosely referred to as god? Because if it's the former, it's wacked, and if it's the latter, well, I'm frankly a little closer to believing in a spiritual being than not believing in anything at all. I call it essentially the Eternal Force, but that's my definition. That, and I tend to be at least sympathetic to the idea of reincarnation.
And now, one more thing:
I have a crazy theory, friends. Two of them actually.
I think Greg eluded to the crazy possibility that Chelsea's change in attitude and perspective is merely a nutty social experiment she's conducting...
Here's a thought: maybe Chelsea and the Pooka are, in fact, lesbians themselves. Self-hating lesbians, anyone? anyone? Some people are so tortured by whom they are attracted to that they feel they must lash out against the very thing they gravitate to.
The only people these two anti-gay lovebirds seem to agree with are each other... Maybe agreeing isn't all they do. Huh? Huh? Now there's a thought, guys. ...
(cue the theme to the Twilight Zone)
It’s possible. I don’t know what the Pooka’s gender is, which is why I referred to he/she/it. Generally speaking, self-hating gays will often spout off extremely homophobic rhetoric in a desperate attempt to prove to everyone that they are not either gay or tinged with any kind of homosexual tendencies. I know. I did it at one time. But I was a teenager myself when I did it. Thankfully I grew up and out of that tendency, but I still cringe with embarrassment to think of the immature brat I once was. But the other possibility that Chelsea has a beau who is extremely conservative and homophobic seems to me to be the closer to reality in terms of what’s going on with her. I’ve seen it happen from time to time. I saw a friend of mine go through it at one point in her life, and there are times when I wonder if she’s all right. Hel, I wonder if her kids are gunna be all right, because what if one of them is gay? Not a pleasant thought to ponder, because it’s still tough for some gay kids in some families. We’re farther ahead than we were when I was growing up, but there is still a long, long way to go.
Perhaps they're the one person? :)
Oh and thanks for the link Leo; I'll go check him out. :)
Johndy,
SisterPaula is far from self-hating. She believes in the Christian god, but that
the god loves everybody and she believes she was made transgendered in order
to preach to people "in such a time as this," as they say in those circles. I don't
think she's like some of the gay Christians who think we atheist are going to
Hell, she says she doubts there is a hell like the traditionalists teach. I don't
know if she's talked about it at length anywhere. But no, she's not a self-hater.
But she's not a spiritual only, she definitely personifies it as Jesus, in that way
sounds like an evangelical Pentecostal minus the hate and the "who's who" part
of it. She thinks she is made transgendered for a reason, that being to wake up
the church to love and acceptance and also to reach out to others LGBT people.
She's also an entertainer.
But as to the spiritual stuff, she doesn't go debate with skeptics or anything, she
just has her own shows where she puts out her messages.
It does sound pretty benign then. Plus, I'm sure it ruffles the feathers of the Christofascists when she preaches.
Yes, I don't know if she interprets other religions as expressions of hers or is an exclusive that way.
Send her a note. She'd be happy to answer I'll bet. Smile.
Essentially all are in agreement, there are no acceptable scientifically provable study or studies which prove homosexuality is not a choice. If you disagree, march out that scientific study here and now including links and quotes. Otherwise, let's drop this whole 'don't have a choice' business because it just does not fly. If you are a homosexual, it is because you chose to be homosexual and are a sexual deviant.
It is abundantly clear that you homosexuals want a study to prove such a thing, but it boils down to you chose to be homosexual and do not care about the studies that show that homosexuality threatens not only your life, but the lives of those you have sex with.
As always, homosexuals were reduced to personal attacks as a result of their utter lack of scientific proof. In other words, "they eat their young." Sad but true.
The Pooka - Nonsense is still nonsense even when repeated often and by many. - original
A professor of mine pointed something out the other day, and I think it's apt:
Religious people who hate homosexuality keep condemning it chiefly because it's a choice--a choice that does harm, causes offence, etc.
Wanna know a choice that can do lots of harm, and can definitely cause offence?
Religion.
Well, I have a few things to contribute.
I'm Christian, and that's that. Some of you can not like me for it. Some of you don't like other choices I have made. Some people don't understand my situation.
Great! We all have different views. But, I wonder how many Christians remember that we were commanded by Christ, to "LOVE ONE AND OTHER"?
What it surely comes down to, is simple conflict:
No, I don't agree with some things that people do. But, nobody, and I mean, nobody, is going to agree with everything each of us does. We aren't puppets, you know. So, healthy disagreement is fine. When you start throwing Scripture at someone to force them to change, I get uncomfortable. I'm not gay, and I chose to be straight. Not everyone may have a choice. I haven't seen proof either way, so I feel in my book, the jury's still out. I frankly, don't care about everyone's choices. I have this big log in my eye, like the parable Jesus spoke of, when he told us to get the board/log out of our own eye.
In other words, I'm just as much a sinner, as any other Christian professes to be. Maybe moreso. But, I don't have the right to say when someone else is wrong. I'd rather worry about what I can do to become a better me, and a better Christian.
My pastor says just because someone is one thing or not, doesn't mean we start hating. Actually, he reminded me that Jesus says we are to "Love," not to judge, and we are have a loving heart. I take Marijuana, and some are critical of that. I'm not just blind, and I get criticized for that. Nobody likes being judged.
I'm not going to quote The Bible, tell you how I think you should live, judge you, or anything else.
I'll admit that a lesbian woman mistreated me. I didn't get ticked because she was gay, till she treated me like an alien, for getting accomodations met. I was mad because, for some strange reason, she felt jealous of a blind person, with other disabilities that I did not ask for. But, that doesn't change my view. I shall judge not, because, I really have a dislike for being judged. I also believe I will face The Father. I don't answer to anyone on here, but Community Leaders. But, the fear of what may come, reminds me that I need to be compassionate.
No, I've not always been perfect. But, I'm starting now. Just kidding. LOL You won't find one perfect person in this world. But, I will endeavor to do my best to love everyone, and unless one of you is very rude or doesn't show respect, I have no beef with any of you.
I think I said enough. Believe me or not, that's my heart talking, folks.
Blessings,
Auntie Hot Wheels
So I just took some time to read (or re-read) many of these posts. Something that Gregg pointed out has stuck in my head: some Christians (or other religious types) are quick to condemn homosexuality because they themselves are not homosexual. If we Christians put as much emphasis on condemning ourselves for and repenting of our own sins (lying, cheating, gluttony, stealing, stating that we hate our brother - which the Bible says is tantamount to murder) as we do condemning someone who is gay, the religious right would be a COMPLETELY different animal.
Does the Bible state certain things unequivocally as Chelsea pointed out? Yes, it does. However, there are very strongly worded passages about many other things (see above) that you wouldn't see the haters spout off about, because it forces them - and me - to look in the mirror at themselves.
Do I believe there are serious problems with our society? Yes, I do. But honestly, gay people are not even on that radar for me. I do have a problem with loud, drunk belligerent gay people filling the streets on a government-sponsored gay pride parade, just as I have a problem with any loud, drunk belligerent group of people after a government-sponsored major sporting event. But more than that, I have a HUGE problem with people claiming the name of my God to browbeat one group of people over and over and over again, telling them they will go to hell, when their own hands are not clean and their lives are not transparent.
AMEN!!!
And, as individuals with a sensory impairment, we know what it means to be judged. So, why do we not take what we know from our own humiliating experiences, and learn? Because, that's the challenge. Learning, growing, and loving. That's the hard part. And, where does it say being Christian is easy? I haven't read the whole Bible, but, I haven't found that part yet. And, I never heard that in church, either.
It's a challenge, and I'm going to accept the challenge. Being challenged, tested, tried, that's what makes me grow.
Blessings,
Auntie Hot Wheels
Oh The Pooka, stuff science and medical text books. You will never know because you're not gay/bi.
I refuse to read any more of your posts; that's the most offensive line of thought ever.
Most people object to being labeled. Blind, fat, thin, ugly, (you get the picture). It is odd that people who are homosexual seem to find it necessary to throw in that they are homosexual, lesbian, gay, trans-gender, or bi-sexual, even when the discussion had nothing to do with homosexuality. First, don't do that. You have labled yourself. Second, if you do, since you brought it up you have no right to complain if the conversation does not go your way and that the majority find your broaching the subject inappropriate or objectionable. Chelsea referenced the homosexual woman who announced to a doctor's packed waiting room to no one in particular, that she was a lesbian. In essence, she unnecessarily discredited herself among the majority of the people who happened to hear her. Was she announcing her sexual preference because she was looking for a fight or looking for a partner, it does not matter, it was inappropriate and objectionable.
Originally when homosexuals started advocating that the various state laws against homosexuality were unconstitutional, homosexuals said something to the affect of "what we do in our bedrooms behind closed doors is our own business." What happened to it being no one's business? Why are we constantly barraged with homosexuality when it is no ones business but their own and their god's? e.g. What a pastor promises to do if his children are gay. I do not know what religion this supposed "pastor" is a pastor of in light of the Bible's teachings on the subject, but he cannot be a Pastor of any known and accepted Christian or Hebrew faith based on biblical teachings.
The Pooka - whistling 'Taking Care of Business'
Something to consider on chelslicious' change, maybe she matured, tired of hearing the same old thing often repeated here on these boards and decided to study the matter and decide for herself. Her posts look to be well thought and no one here has been able to counter her posts with Scripture or scientific study favorable to homosexuality.
The Pooka - humming along with 'When You're Strange' by The Doors
To Rdfreak: "that's the most offensive line of thought ever."
The Pooka: IT was? I will give IT ITs due consideration.
the Pooka - "It depends on what the definition of is is." - William Jefferson Clinton
Post 297 states: “Essentially all are in agreement, there are no acceptable scientifically provable study or studies which prove homosexuality is not a choice.” It also goes on to state: “If you are a homosexual, it is because you chose to be homosexual and are a sexual deviant.” The first part of your statement is false, and the second amounts to a personal attack. There is no scientific consensus that homosexuality is a choice. What scientists say is that sexual orientation, gay or straight, is not a choice. What scientists also say is that they don’t conclusively know what causes a person to be gay or straight, but that there are various theories and studies that may point to one or more reasons, including genetic or prenatal causes. It only stands to reason that if a certain cause is or may be genetic or prenatal in nature, there is no choice. Read post 194 again, which is mine, and you’ll see that I pointed to a study and to an article that cited that study. I named the participants of that study, and the science they used in reaching their determinations, as cautious as they might be, and with as room as there might be for disagreement. The important point is that scientific studies were already pointed to and ignored.
In post 229, it was asked: “ *** why do identical twins, with identical genetics, not have uniformity of sexual orientation? This proves it is not genetic.” I answered that point in 252 by stating that when I googled the terms identical twins are not truly identical, I came up with at least one Livescience article that suggests that so-called identical twins are not truly identical. I note that the opposition did not comment on this article, and probably did not even bother trying to find it.
There is also an article dated November 16, 2010, in BU Today, that speaks of whether sexual orientation is in-born or a choice. The article is by Kimberly Cornuelle, and it quotes extensively from thoughts of medical professor Richard Pillard. It should be noted that when Professor Pillard was in medical school in the 1950s, homosexuality was considered a mental illness. In 1957, one of the first studies was conducted to determine whether homosexuality had a biological explanation. With a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health, Hooker studied the relationship between psychological development and illness and homosexuality. Studying both gays and straights matched for age, intelligence and education, she gave the group participants three psychological tests – the Rorschach, the Thematic Apperception Test and the Make a Picture Story Test. Acording to Hooker, there were no major differences in the answers given by the two groups. She then concluded that because of the similar scores of the two groups, sexuality was not based on environmental factors. Based on these findings, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental illness, and in 1975, stated publicly that homosexuality was not a mental disorder.
Also, in the early 1990s, there were a series of studies conducted by Pillard and J. Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University, that found that homosexuality was largely biologically determined, and not environmentally influenced. Their findings were apparently published in the Archives of General Psychiatry. One of the studies they performed was on identical and fraternal twin brothers as well as non-related adopted brothers. They found that if one identical twin was gay, then 52 percent of the time, the other was also gay. The figure was 22 percent of the time for fraternal twins. The figure was only 5 percent for adopted, non-related brothers. These findings have been debated since that time, and Pillard even points out that “much about how sexual orientation is determined remains a mystery. “It’s really hard to come up with any definite statement about the situation,” he says. “I think some sort of genetic influence seems very likely, but beyond that, what really can we say?”
It’s also interesting that Chelsea, in post 238, cites to the ex-gay movement Exodus to support her claims. Yet, we will note that two of Exodus’s founders, Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper by name, apparently left the group and married each other. What does this say about other supposed ex-gays and their success or failure to change themselves? Another supposed ex-gay, one Colin Cook, had to leave his ministry after having had sex with his male clients. So, too, an organization was formed in the 1970s known as the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (“NARPH”). I note that one of its most prominent members was apparently cited by Chelslicious in #238, namely George Reker (Rekers?) In any case, Reker/Rekers claimed that in 1970, he “cured” the homosexuality of a boy he identified as Kirk. But the Reker/Rekers study ended up being a fraud as Kirk remained gay, and his family apparently believes that he committed suicide thanks to this study which, incidentally, was covered in a three-part series on CNN’s AC360. In 2010, Reker/Rekers had to resign from NARPH’s board because it was discovered that he had been vacationing with a male escort he hired from rentboy.com. Another ex-gay activist, one John Paulk, who appeared with his wife on the cover of Newsweek, was photographed in a Washington, D.C. gay bar in 2000, and was suspended from Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out program. He also had to step down from his position as Exodus International’s chairman. Still another prominent member of the ex-gay movement, one Michael Johnston, a participant in this same Love Won Out program, claimed he had gone from gay to straight through prayer. He had once worked with the American Family Association and the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Evidently he also founded the National Coming Out of Homosexuality Day. In 2003, Johnston checked into a sexual addiction clinic in Kentucky after he was revealed to have been caught having sex with men he met on the Internet.
My point here is that these men who claimed to have been “cured” of homosexuality and that their sexual orientations were a choice are frauds. They are also the worst kind of frauds in that they get gullible people to believe them, meanwhile getting caught in their own lies. I submit that they were and are self-hating gays, and that their actions have proven it. And I also submit that there has been absolutely no proof presented here that one chooses their sexual orientation, gay, straight or in-between. To state conclusively that homosexuality is a choice because we don't yet know with dead certainty why it exists is the equivalent of dark-age thinking.
Johndy,
As was pointed out, the article cited in post 194 said, "suggested a link to homosexuality." The use of the word "suggested" does not constitute a de facto scientific finding of anything. The second study in post 194 was rejected for publication which means it also was not a de facto scientific finding because it was unable to be replicated.
If a scientific experiment is "unable to be replicated," that means the supposed scientific methods used in the experiment failed to meet the requirements to be considered a bona fide scientific fact. No responsible scientist was willing to state something that 'just aint so.' So back to the point above, homosexuality is still a choice and there is no de facto scientific evidence proving otherwise. Thanks for the long response though.
The Pooka - whistling "Sharp Dressed Man" - ZZ Top
First, read more carefully post 194 re the second article. It specifically states that the study was rejected by one journal for publication. That doesn’t mean it was not published by other journals; it only means that this particular journal, whatever it was, rejected it. Second, if you limit your response to post 194, and then conclude based only on that posting, that sexual orientation is a choice, the best you can say for your argument is that we’re in a draw, because you haven’t presented anything but your own conclusory statements that sexual orientation is a choice. The worst that can be said about your argument is that it’s slipshod. You continue to ignore the fact that scientific research on the matter is ongoing. I demonstrated that point in my last post. And while you ask us for proofs or evidence to bolster our claims, you haven’t presented any quotes, studies or proofs of your own to justify your preposterous leap of logic that because science is incomplete, sexual orientation is a choice. It’s the equivalent of saying that because you’ve observed that I don’t drink Pepsi, I obviously must drink Coke. Never mind that I might like Orange Crush or Welsh’s Grape. By the way, speaking of sexual orientation, when did you decide on yours, and how did you come to that decision? I dare you to answer it. You probably won’t though.
Ok I'm putting a couple things out here.
First, it's good to see Christians who will speak out against the consistently
hateful rhetoric. Some of us have known you're out there, for a very long time.
But it's commendable to see this.
Now, if you want to prove to me, a straight man, that being gay is a choice, you
need to first prove that being straight is a choice. I didn't choose to be straight.
I can't imagine myself being with another man, just as I've heard gay people
say they cannot envision themselves being with another of the opposite sex.
Now, I've read that for women the situation is a lot more fluid often times, but
frankly for this straight, white, cisgendered average guy that just tries to get
along, most of this sexuality gender / non gender / binary / non binary stuff just
befuddles me.
However, it should be easy for someone to indicate how and why I made a
certain choice to be attracted to the opposite sex. You could convince me of it
being a choice if you could convince me I "chose to be straight".
I've chosen to do, and abstain from, many things the Christians call sins. I
chose to get in fights when I was a young man. I had a couple of hits of grass
from a friend of mine the other day, nothing like what I chose to do when
younger, quite a bit more moderate these days. I've chosen to abstain from
theft when the temptation was extraordinary. At one time I chose to download,
crack and illegally use software, back in the mid 90s when it was considerably
easier to do. I've also chosen to abstain from said behavior since the late 90s.
Those are choices.
I've chosen, when on business trips, to tell my Wife where I was at and what I
was doing, to honor and uphold the fidelity of our relationship. Because it would
be a grave insult to Her, I've chosen to not flirt with hotel clerks and other
types, and I've worked with married guys who chose to do differently. Because
She asks this of me, I choose not to patronize the Hooters establishments. I
also harbor what Christians would call sinful thoughts about certain groups in
the middle East. You could say these are choices too. I wasn't born with any of
that stuff. Not at all. But sexual orientation? I've never chosen who I was
attracted to. It's impossible for me to be attracted to a man. I would feel
betrayed if I learned that someone I thought was a woman, and was attracted
to her, I later learned was a man. I assume a Lesbian woman would in the same
way feel betrayed in that same situation. I don't even have to imagine: I had a
college professor who experienced just that.
So I've played out here things that are in fact choices. Some of which the
Christians would say I am wrong. Even though I don't think thoughts can be
right or wrong, just actions. There's no way I would say of any of those things I
was "born that way." It's just blatantly obvious to me, someone who admittedly
doesn't understand a lot about psychology or sexology or similar sciences, but
someone who is an engineer for a living, that either sexuality isn't a choice, or
you can work the opposite side of the equation and tell me how it is I chose to
be straight. Because people choose to act more or less on all kinds of things.
But everyone has been tempted to be dishonest, and made one or more choices
about that. Everyone has been tempted to commit an act of betrayal against
another's trust, it doesn't have to be sex. And everyone makes choices one way
or the other how to respond. Most people I know have had more or less violent
thoughts towards someone, and may or may not act in accordance with those
thoughts. But I never chose to be a heterosexual. I was one before I knew what
heterosexual even was. If the world was gay, it seems I would have been forced
to come out straight.
Now I understand from what I read recently that the situation is, or can be,
more fluid among women. Again sexology and psychology type discussions are
seriously out of my depth intellectually. I deal in things you can dissamble, look
at the parts, and then put the parts together with improvements.
But surely, someone can tell me how I chose to be straight, if they are of the
persuasion that one must by definition choose sexuality. Because we choose
more or less all kinds of things.
But it's well worth noting that many of the Christians, even among evangelical
groups, are "coming out," as it were, against the hateful browbeats. I respect
anyone who wishes to win the argument by proofs, by definitions. This was my
rationalist claim against the Young Earth movement. One very decisive proof is
for some of these to explain how we who have been "forever straight" chose to
be straight.
But Leo, I’ve asked the same question numerous times myself. Frustratingly, and unhappily, I’ve yet to get a satisfactory answer. Other people here have asked the same question. I’ve concluded that there are certain questions some people will not answer because to answer them would require confronting their own delusions and misperceptions and finding them wanting. Maybe they don’t want to confront their own fears. It’s just simply easier to hold to certain beliefs than to deal in reality. Witness the argument that because scientists haven’t established conclusively a root cause of homosexuality or heterosexuality, the obvious answer is that sexual orientation is a choice. You cannot sway someone like that if they’ve decided that blue is green or that four and four is 22. Someone here asked that we present scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. I’ve attempted to do that. I’ve pointed to some scientific studies and admittedly they have been found wanting because at this point, scientists are hedging their bets. But because scientists have hedged their bets, because they have not made any firm conclusion on what causes sexual orientation, this fact allows the other side to use faulty logic to conclude that we chose to be deviant, sick degenerates, at least in so many words. It makes no sense, but I’m concluding that it makes no sense to try to argue the point anymore. You will not get an answer to your question. I will not get an answer to the same question. At least, I’m willing to put my money on this. I wonder then that the answer is to just concede and let the matter rest; just walk away from the argument. Because when all is said and done, I could leave this discussion, never revisit it again, and ultimately it wouldn’t matter. Any one of us could do the same thing. Because really, life is so much larger than this discussion. At least my life is. I have a job. I have friends and family who care about me. I have the potential to find a life partner. I have my music, books, computer games, good food, good health, the ability to travel anywhere I want, more money than I’ve ever had before. My life is good. I have my problems, but who doesn’t? Looking at it all this way, the temptation to walk away is very strong at this point. But I feel like that just might be the coward’s way out.
As you will recall, it was the proponents of homosexuality who claimed homosexuality was not a choice and that there were scientific studies proving the same. When challenged on this claim, no one was able to come up with a single scientific study which actually proved that homosexuality was anything other than by choice. BTW, Leoguardian chose to date women instead of men, he had a choice and chose women and ultimately his wife, who is a woman. You guys could have easily figured that out yourselves, but as Johndy admits, "You cannot sway someone like that if they’ve decided that blue is green or that four and four is 22." Homosexual Johndy has already made up his mind, don't bother him with the facts. That seems to be a common thread among homosexuals. They care not about who they hurt, as long as they get what they want. Just calling it as I see it, not trying to hurt anyones' feelings here; but as pointed out before, if you are going to inject homosexuality into the conversation, you probably won't get much sympathy if the conversation does not go the way you wanted.
In the situation brought up for discussion, an apparent pro-homosexuality pastor of some unknown religion or cult is apparently talking with his minor children about homosexual relationships. Conveniently, his/her/its' name was not identified within the article. Similarly, neither was its religious beliefs or anything else that might clue us in as to what basis the pastor thought having such a conversation with minor children was somehow justified or appropriate. Certainly the article was carefully crafted to lead the reader to conclude that it was a Christian Pastor, since the word pastor was carefully chosen and Pastor is a term usually associated with the Christian faith. Similar to the scientific studies supposedly supporting homosexuality as not a choice, the article about the pastor was misleading and full of holes, considering that the Biblical teachings on homosexuality is evident and clear. If you disagree with the Scriptures cited previously on this subject, feel free to post the pro-homosexuality scriptures here. Better yet, feel free to give that pastor from the article a call and have him/her/it post all the pro-homosexuality scriptures they can find. However, I will save you the suspense. Just like the scientific studies, there are no Biblical Scriptures supporting homosexuality. that does not mean if you were once a homosexual and have since changed or looking to change, you still have a chance to be redeamed. Yes, even Johndy has a chance.
The Pooka - humming Smoke on the Water - Deep Purple
I'm not typing this as the average woman, so, don't get all happy, Pooka.
I chose to be straight. My mom wasn't there like most mom's were. She gave me broken promises, hurt feelings, neglect, lack of compassion, and she betrayed me as a human being. Because of this, when I was growing up, I wondered if I was a lesbian, because of my feelings. I could've gone either way.
HOWEVER, because I knew my reasons for feeling the way I didn't wouldn't solve the aching in my soul, that my loving mother left, I had no right to inflict my wounds on women.
I don't know how others chose, but 2 factors, and 2 alone made my choice:
1: I believe that those thoughts weren't right. I don't agree with being gay. No, I won't dis anyone who is, until, they start in on me for my blindness. Ironically, that happened. Me and a friend did work for our library her, and the place that they hired, discriminated. I took it. I was mad, but I took it. For the cause. We were raising funds for a good cause. When they wouldn't let my friend raise funds without the library, when she wanted to work on a "MAJOR," AIDS program, we both got totally ripping mad, because how could they!
I don't hate gays, and won't hate them. I say what I think, and, maybe I'm wrong. I hope to ask God my questions about what makes someone gay or not. Scientists don't always get it right. And, I did not come from the turd of an ape. But, whether this program was mostly gay people or not, they must respect the ADA. Just as law says I can't shout epithets at anyone not like me. I don't like being mean, until I'm cornered. Which is why The Game and James are on Ignore. Not because they're rude, but they disrespected "my," faith. "My belief choices."
And, just as you wouldn't want someone to use words that start with D, F, Q, well I fight back, when someone thinks it's cool to talk about the boogers in their tissue looking like Jesus.
My #2: I believe it's not right because of my reading and how I was brought up. Now, just cause, I feel the sky is blue, ya don't gotta believe or agree with me. I'd listen to arguments, believable ones, if you said the sky's made of Pink Cotton Candy.
I do have some questions about stuff, that I want to talk with someone I trust, with medical knowledge. And, these questions will be asked, by me.
But, my reasons for the desires are not true to me.
So, as I said, this is no "Point for my side, or the other." It's bald, no bullshit, Sarah being honest.
I know what I've said might cost a friend to ask questions. But, before you get mad and call me a bitch, read what I wrote carefully. I still will not judge. I still will not mock, or make light of, or become abusive because of. I've been there.
I know what lack of control can do to a person's feelings. But, I know that we all even Christians, have the right to agree or disagree. I'm just now realizing the hell I had to overcome.
Guess what? I don't know everything, and question Science, like some question The Bible.
I don't say this but to mean, that I can except anyone, unless that person/s gets abusive, demeaning to others, or starts with making tasteless humor, that makes me wish my arms were long.
And, Something else:
I say this for my own protection, and must ask respect in this. What I said, was hard for me to bring up. Wounds don't disappear, just because you want them to. So, Please try to respect why I felt it was important?
Blessings,
Aunt Hot Wheels
We are all capable of making errors, but it seems to me that some errors aren’t as excusable as others, particularly when we’re dealing with information that can easily be retrieved and quoted. The Pooka has made at least three erroneous misstatements in post 311 that can easily be disproven or called into question. For instance:
“BTW, Leoguardian chose to date women instead of men, he had a choice and chose women and ultimately his wife, who is a woman.”
But what Leo said in post 309, and it’s there for all to see and quote, is this: “I didn’t choose to be straight. I can’t imagine myself being with another man, just as I’ve heard gay people say they cannot envision themselves being with another of the opposite sex.” That’s one quote. He said in that quote that he did not choose to be straight, and cannot imagine himself with a person of the same gender as himself. What in that quote is difficult to understand?
He also says: “However, it should be easy for someone to indicate how and why I made a certain choice to be attracted to the opposite sex. You could convince me of it being achoice if you could convince me I chose to be straight.” Again, Leo states conclusively that he did not choose to be straight. He also sets forth the choices he has made and has not made. You will all note that these are choices in the kinds of actions he took or didn’t take, and chooses to take or not take. And again, I quote: “But sexual orientation? I’ve never chosen who I was attracted to. It’s impossible for me to be attracted to a man.” Those are his own words. This is his own truth. Yet the Pooka in post 311 denies that truth. He does not say, nor indeed can he say, when Leoguardian became attracted to women. He does not state how he became attracted to women. He does not, nor can he, state why it is that Leoguardian cannot possibly see himself being attracted to another man. Why exactly is that? Might it be because only Leoguardian can answer this question for himself? Would Leoguardian care to explain himself on this point? Would the Pooka like to explain how he or she became attracted to the opposite gender? Why is he or she attracted to the opposite gender? Which one of them is going to offer up the greatest truth?
Further, the Pooka states: “In the situation brought up for discussion, an apparent pro-homosexuality pastor of some unknown religion or cult is apparently talking with his minor children about homosexual relationships.” I went back and read the blog. Where does it state that this pastor, who identifies himself as Christian, is talking with his minor children about any kind of sexual matters? Please quote, and use exact words, to support your statement. Also, I wasn’t aware that Christians were members of an unknown cult. Aren’t there at least a billion Christians around the world?
Further: “Conveniently, his/her/its name was not identified within the article.” Again, and anyone can correct me if I’m wrong, I believe the man’s name was John Pavlovitz. It’s there in the title, if you go back and look at the OP’s posting. It’s also in the title if you actually go back and read the blog. Honestly, how did you miss that?
I think "The Pooka," is desperately wanting a fight. I've said it before:
I don't get why some people like Pooka think that the gay population wants to hear him expound on how it's wrong.
Look Pooka. Read this very carefully, and think:
You won't do any good, repeating what you believe. No. I don't agree with each person on this site. But, really? You think they're so bored, they want you to tell them how bad you think they are? They are people too. And, whether I agree or disagree with anything they do or don't do, I would rather quit jabbering, make a friend or 2, shut up and listen, and maybe find someone I like as a person.
If you hear me, fine. If not, you are wasting time, saying the same thing, and saying what you cannot prove.
You've made it clear how you feel. Time to shut up and listen. You won't make any friends, by not listening to the other side.
Sarah, I hope you forever question scientific findings, because science is a set of tools not an authority.
Now I erealize the Pookah won't answer this, but for the lurkers:
In argumentation, it is dishonest to ask someone to prove a negative. Proving a negative is impossible. So in skeptical argument, the burden of proof rests with those who state that homosexuality is a choice, not because of an agenda but because they have3 the positive claim -- "is". I laid out in my prior post one method one could choose to prove this. Prove by using the other side of the equation. How did a straight man choose to be straight? I gave examples of known choices I've made, for good and for ill. I could prove any of those as choices because there was a decision point. Or is one, in those cases where things are ongoing.
Ironically, I feel like my Wife chose me at first. But I didn't choose to find Her the most attractive woman in the world. I just did, and have, and still do.
I wouldn't choose to feel betrayed if someone represented themselves to me as a woman, provided I were available and looking, and later I found after voice and other contact they were a man trying to make a joke of me. I don't believe that Lesbian professor I had in college chose to felt betrayed in that situation, when she encountered it, either.
Now I am not saying a Christian or anyone else has to prove this in order to believe it. To say "It's my belief" is one thing. There's some fruity new age types who claim all sorts of things are their beliefs out here, including that we rationalist types "disturb the energies" if we're around them. But to make this a rational claim, it falls to the claimant to prove it.
And all claims are met with skepticism, because skepticism makes the claimant prove their claim. Then, because people were skeptical, the claim is made more sure and corrected.
The bible/scripture are hardly scientific, in any way, shape, or form. The bible is flat out wrong about several things. The world being flat, rabbits chewing cud, jesus believing that one needs not wash hands before eating, etc, etc, etc... The bigot loses all logical credibility when sighting a clearly illogical and misinformed source, that lacks provable knowledge about how the world works, on several counts.
Considering its not even possible for the bigot to prove that god even exists, and the "god" of the bible is clearly misinformed about the bible created in his name... Using god as any kind of argument is about as relevant in logical contexts as sudo science is in a conversation about real science. Interestingly enough, animal behavioral psychologists have found proof of homosexuality in over 1500 varieties of animal. Some homosexual parings are life long, while others are not. Sometimes homosexual behaviors are used to keep society functioning in their communities. The only animal groups researchers have studied who are not homosexual, that I can find, are asexual to begin with.
Further more, ongoing research supports the idea of several biological links that can impact weather or not one is homosexual. While this research is far from perfect, its got a lot more rational support than an outdated bookthat advocates slavery, rape, brutal murder, and animal sacrifice. At least we have studies to work with, information we can investigate and build off, with the modern approach. Is it always accurate or complete, no. Do we know everything, no. Is science anything more than a set of instructions used to create results that can be replicated... No. But using science, we've found out a lot more real information about the world than that contained in the bible.
But I suppose the above is mostly irrelevant as the bigot doesn't address anything on this board that challenges his world view. He relies on straw men and logical fallacy, to create misinterpreted versions of easy arguments he can knock down. Put another way. He's a troll. Not someone honestly trying to engage the topic from a serious position. He creates arguments based on loaded questions and false dichotomies. That's hardly as honest as he'd like you to believe he is.
some quick googling, which is hardly all the information that exists.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/33
http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/
Are you going to believe their may be some validity presented by the scientific method in this case, or, are you going to believe the man brandishing the blatantly inaccurate, bronze age book?
I'm straight. I've never considered being gay. I am capable of choosing to engage in a homosexual relationship, assuming 1. I found someone else and 2. I could somehow fake/work up enough interest, and further assuming that wouldn't be a pretty ugly thing for a straight person to do. I might choose to act straight, but I didn't make a choice one day to be straight. For pretty much as long as I can remember, I have been attracted to women while not being attracted to men. My biology, my environment, or goodness knows what else set this up for me. I made zero conscious decision in this.
And Leo's right, folks. We should stop feeding the troll. The only reason I spoke up is as another straight man claiming my sexual preference was not a choice.
I made another thread about burden of proof and the validation of a flawed platform purely by arguing with it. If you stop arguing with it (in the context of this board at least), it loses. Arguing with it further just lends it validity.
Put a much sharper way: we know we're right. Nothing, absolutely nothing, suggests we're wrong, much less proves it, while tons of rhetoric and science offer myriad ways which pretty much shoot all religious-based anti-gay sentiments to hell and gone. Let's stop trying to prove it. I don't have to prove to you that gravity exists, and I don't have to prove that gay is a choice, nor that it's wrong. But if you say that there's an invisible man in the sky watching my every move and then you expect me to actually give a damn, and if that invisible man supposedly endorsed rules that hurt, marginalize, ostracize people and find them wanting based on largely arbitrary and nonverifiable claims, you have to prove it. I am not obliged to prove you wrong; you are obliged to validate your claim before I will even entertain it. And I think that in the context of this board, a lot of you others might get further and be happier by doing the same. Believe what you want; just don't hurt anyone else with it. I hope this is painfully clear.
I'm sick and tired of mincing words on the subject.
Or the trolls; there are clearly more than one.
I won't do it any more here.
This was a very interesting topic at one time. There was a lot of heated debate that often turned personal, but oh well, I guess that’s gunna happen every little once in a while. But this jam is dying. It’s turned into a stalemate; a draw. I believe the side I’m on has tried to fight the good fight, and that we have more allies than not. I think the other side has taken the easy way out very often by engaging in personal attack, avoiding tough questions and ultimately making themselves look silly by uttering supposedly factual statements that can easily be negated or called into question just by looking more fully into the actual truth of what’s already been written. But I don’t foresee anything different at this point where this discussion is concerned. Reluctantly, I’ve concluded that at the very least, it’s time to take a break, and at worst, it may be time to ignore someone or a couple of someones completely. I don’t really want to leave it at that because it still seems like taking the coward’s way out, and I’ve never consciously ignored anyone in board discussions since I got here, but speaking for me, I really don’t see any other alternative. Because no matter how interesting I might find a board topic to be, the honest truth is that no board topic is as important as reality. I’ve got bills to pay. I’ve got a job to go to. I’ve got the powerball to win. I’ve got gambling to do, a guy to start dating if it works out that way, friends to hang out with after work, a family that cares about me, and so many other matters to which I must attend, including trying to get this annoying sleep pattern I seem to be in under control. My belief is that I’ve already made my points here as satisfactorily as I possibly can, and that there is nothing left to do except to leave it to others to think and judge for themselves. Meanwhile, I intend to take things under advisement and let the world go on about its business for a while. Because this is really getting stupid.
Sometimes, you just need to vacate the topic. I actually learned some things about myself, and some people I hoped had a redeeming quality or 2.
Yes, I'm Christian! and I can believe in Christ and not hate. I'll come out and say for those that are Christians and do hate, or display a hateful tone, I am sorry. I'm sorry for how you treat others, because they don't believe. I'm sorry you feel being disrespectful is all right, if someone is gay. No, I'm not leaning on any fence, I'm standing by what I feel is right.
I've said what I can, and I have some harder feelings than that. But, it won't do any good to say how sincerely I feel. Or, to explain myself.
Time to say goodnight for a bit. I know that not everyone will understand. But, isn't that how it goes. I respect those who spoke out for how they feel. You can tell who who really expresses themselves, and those who would rather quote this or that. And, the same Book they quote from, also tells us not to judge. Just words to think on.
Blessings,
Auntie Hot Wheels