BlogCatalog

comment removed by the community.

I'm going to quote Gore Vidal: "There is no such thing as a homosexual or a heterosexual person. There are only homo-or heterosexual acts. Most people are a mixture of impulses if not practices."

[reply]

9/21/09

DougP

[reply]

9/21/09

DougP

Exactly the type of "open minded" reaction I would expect.
9/21/09

Bullgrit

I've never responded to a "removed by the community" post, so I don't know if it is the BC forum equivalent to the subway third rail. And this one is one of the rare few that I actually read before it got removed.

Although I didn't/don't agree with what DougP said in his post, he did answer the question posed by the first post. And he didn't come across as mean or offensive.

It looks like the only allowable answer to the original question is "gay is okay." A "gay is bad" answer gets removed.
9/21/09

Rainhat

You make a good point here, Bullgrit.
I didn't see what was written before it was removed, but obviously a post should not be removed just because it indicated disagreement. Sure, it's probably more PC to be for than against gays, but censoring the posts of people who are not for gays is just as oppressive as censoring gays. Everyone has the right to an opinion, whatever it may be. As long as it's not attacking or bashing anyone, why remove it?
9/21/09

timethief

I did not see the comment that was removed. Perhaps it violated the TOS or the guidelines for forum posting in the Read Before Posting thread.

Along with freedom of speech, which the owners of BC choose to allow in this privately owned space and place, come reasonable restrictions, which we all agreed to in order to become members as stated in section 8 of the TOS, and in the Read Before Posting community guidelines for forum posting.
www.blogcatalog.com/tos
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/read-before-posting-1

Prohibited Content includes, but is not limited to Content that, in the sole discretion of BlogCatalog.com:
1. is patently offensive and promotes racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual;
2. harasses or advocates harassment of another person; ... (section 8 of the TOS)
9/21/09

Rainhat

@TT
That's an interesting point. Not knowing what was actually said in the deleted post, this is a bit of a tangent to the actual discussion at hand, but I think it's related enough.

Now, if I were to say "I'm against gay people", would that be offensive, promote bigotry or harass a group of people, and therefore subject to removal? I'm not attacking or harassing anyone in particular, only expressing an opinion on the matter?

(Note that I'm not actually against gay people, this is just an example.)

Being anti-gay is one of those things that has become so not PC that it's practically a crime to even have the opinion. But if this is taken too far, it seems it starts infringing on people's freedom of speech and thought. So where does one draw the line in a forum like this? If in a discussion you're not actually allowed to argue both for and against, but only for, then at least in my opinion we have a taken one step too far into Big Brother Censorship land.

9/21/09

Being that I've known I've been a lesbian all my life, (not knowing specifically why) but knowing that I particularly cared for women more so and was attracted to them growing up, I believe that it is genetic makeup that determines our sexual orientation. My parter of 14 years and I just got married legally in the state of MA. Many people feel that being a homosexual involves promiscuity. They rarely see the other side: a loving couple who just want to live their lives like anybody else. For me, it's not about 'gay rights', as much as it's about human rights. And I'm glad you brought bisexuality up, because it's also an orientation. Some people fall in love with the "person" and not so much the gender.

[reply]

9/21/09

Rivy

I am a heterosexual male. 71 years of age. Sex, of my childhood, was a taboo. Not to be practiced in any form outside of the sanctity of marriage. Even what married people did was private. Never discussed. Strict morality for all.

Thankfully, society has changed. And continues to change. Taboos are being lifted. Honesty and openness is encouraged. I applaud.

The question of marriage for Gays? Yes. The right to adopt children? Yes. For those who want to repeal such rights, and go back to a former rule of morality - how far back are they willing to go?

Now - on the lighter side - some questions for those who seek to re-install the morals of yesterday. Should civil marriages be nullified? Shouldn't marriage be performed before a church alter? By a minister or priest? Not a county clerk. What about non-virgins? Should they be allowed to take the vow? (Couldn't tests be required that they meet the laws of scripture?)

What about allowing divorces to occur? Or widows to re-marry?

In marriage itself, what if a couple were found to practice sex in a non-missionary fashion? Should they be spared the rod? Particularly if it was being done for mere pleasure, and not to procreate?

I am curious how far back you would prefer we go? At what point should we stop? And why?

[reply]

9/21/09

Theresa111

Freedom is a funny word. I seems it is a good thing. But are we free really? Doesn't it mean that we are free as long as you are just like me, as long as you think the way I think? Freedom to everyone who behaves the same as I and looks the same and believes the same. Otherwise ... we are only free to be just like you ... the ones who decide in their own minds who really matters and who does not.

Before you speak your words and ask your questions ... consider how they might affect someone else. Why must you think your way it the high way?

[reply]

9/21/09

sjtavo

Theresa111 I loved your counterpoint to harveyavatar re: The first is construed with the natural family unit in mind, whereas the second is grounded in love/pleasure.

describe a natural family unit for a male/female union in which there is a case of infertility - if they choose to adopt/use a surrogate/sperm/egg donor, is that not "unnatural" by the above defintion? And I'd really love to think that ALL marriages are not only entered into to create some form of family unit but ALSO are grounded in love/pleasure?!
9/21/09

Theresa111

@sjtavo ...

I my earlier response to @Harvey, I should have then dropped down and then replied to: your original questions in the body of the discussion head.

@sjtavo

Why is there so much labeling going on. Is it out of fear or hate? What is the basis of this negative way of asking a question? A question which will normally elicit a negative response?

Are you a disease? Could be answered with: Might we all be a disease of some kind?

This is prosaic thought meant to make one consider the truth and the reason for the questions in the first place. Let's say that a new blogger who may or may not be gay decides to find a topic for discussion. The point I am showing is one of gentle consideration of feelings. The question being, is homosexuality a disease ... and those other choices. I am beginning to think perhaps just like a persons race or any negative connotation, it should be left unasked because someone's feelings might get hurt. Someone might not feel welcome or get turned off thinking, "I knew the world at large looks at me or someone like this, this way, but I thought this BC forum would be accepting of everyone, without making some of us topics for discussion."

You can understand my meaning and I am not presenting this to you in order to make waves, but it is a way to look at this from my standpoint without taking any offense.

If simply we would not discuss any fellow member in a way that might make them feel excluded in any way.

9/21/09

I think why a person prefers sex with someone of the same sex is irrelevant. It's a question that shouldn't even need to be asked. It implies that it's an issue that requires special attention. Some people do, and that's that. Case closed.

[reply]

9/21/09

timethief

Hear! Hear!
9/21/09

jeremyjanson

Yeah and there is 1) no significant state interest in preventing it, and 2) every state interest in preventing the evil behavior that accompanies those who try. Homophobes are a threat to the peace by their own unjust actions, and hold no real respect for human life, Homosexuals are not and tend to do a good job taking care of urban neighborhoods (LOL).
9/21/09

harveyavatar

Difficult to disagree, NP.
9/21/09

voodooKobra

NP pretty much said all that needs to be said.

Anyone who would deny any right to one man that they would deny to another (or woman, as the case often is) is being judgmental and unfair. Labels serve to divide (liberal, democrat, conservative, republican, etc.)
9/22/09

jonyx

Aww you said what I was thinking. It's the same as that man over there who loves that women next to him. No one cares, good for them, focus on one's own life instead of trying to change that of those they don't even know.
9/22/09

nogueira

Bravo!
9/22/09

nogueira

A great comment. I have never understood why people are so intereting in someone else sex life. Maybe because a lot of people have sex problems and just have the courage to face them. Shame on them.
9/25/09

BeamingBalance

Well said. I agree.

9/21/09

ToughCookieMommy

I say live and let live.

[reply]

9/21/09

voodooKobra

If homosexuality were a disease, would there not be an observable change in the immune systems of gay people? No matter how bigoted a person is, to say that it is a disease is just plain stupid.

The word disorder's not any better, since it implies an inhibition against functioning within a society. However, the only inhibition I have noticed is that of an inefficient society's ability to accommodate people who have different preferences.

So before any trolls come in here to drop the IQ of this discussion board one notch, take heed of the words you use, and the observable natural consequences of the implications of those words.

[reply]

9/21/09

Rainhat

While I agree with your point, I'm gonna play the devil's advocate here and say there may be a flaw to your logic.

A person's immune system doesn't necessarily show any measurable change just because there is an illness. It could be a mental illness, for example. And disorders don't necessarily imply a decreased level of functionality in society, but often just that something deviates from what is usually considered "normal". Sociopaths, for example, are often more than capable of functioning perfectly normally in society, a big reason to why you so often hear "but he was always such a nice person" in the news when they're talking about some serial killer or something. They're nuts, of course, but they seem normal and function normally.

Now, obviously, I'm not comparing gay people to sociopaths, and as I said, I agree with your point. Posing the question whether homosexuality is a disease is in some ways odd. This could be further illuminated by a comparison; I could ask the question "Is heterosexuality a disease?" Suddenly, the question seems more absurd. Or to take it even further: "Are you sick if you're attracted to women?"

Like NP pointed out, how is it anyone's business who is attracted to who? Private life is not as private as it used to be.
9/22/09

jeremyjanson

Part of the problem VK is there's no clear definition of a mental illness, and as such any way to think that anyone can consider bad for you or anyone else, from schizophrenia to conservatism to the ownership of lawn gnomes, can theoretically be labeled one. Homosexuality could be considered a reproductive impairment.
9/26/09

ReneMonroe

@JeremyJanson I believe, however I could be wrong, that a mental disorder is defined by as any set of cognitive, emotional, or mental symptoms that inhibits a person from functioning normally within society.

I also agree with VK on this. However, I believe that the reason why homosexuality keeps being brought up as a "disorder" is because there are people who claim that it is a disorder. Dr. Paul Cameron is one such individual who has manufactured studies which claim that homosexuality is a disease.

As for the "cause" of homosexuality, there have been numerous studies done on this. Generally speaking though, most professionals agree that sexuality has a variety of genetic and environmental factors, and that sexuality is not a choice. There have been some recent studies that show that prenatal hormones have some effect on sexuality.

Whenever the "choice" argument comes up and someone says that sexuality is a choice, I simply ask them when they decided to be straight. If people choose to be gay, then wouldn't people also choose to be straight?

9/21/09

lnclark1950

I support equal rights for everyone not special rights for some.

Homosexuality is a choice. No one is born homosexual.

I believe just like with women, blacks or other minorities one should be judged by the content of their character and hired according to their talents. No one should receive special treatment based on their color, their sexual preference or their sex.

[reply]

9/21/09

Rainhat

lol I agree with your conclusions, though not completely with your opinions.

Women are a minority?
9/21/09

Pasquella

When have women been a "minority", other than being restrained from their rights? I don't believe homosexuality is a choice. Why would I choose a harder life to live - why would anyone choose that?
9/21/09

drjay1966

Have you ever seen a gay person desperately trying NOT to be gay, as most gay people do before finally realizing that they can't change their sexual orientation? Obviously not, because if you had, you wouldn't believe anything as ridiculous as "homosexuality is a choice."

And, I assume that saying "no one should receive preferential treatment based on their sexual preference" means that you don't think only heterosexuals should be allowed to marry.
9/21/09

Theresa111

It all comes down to how everyone was politically brainwashed through the centuries. Putting people into neat little categories is separatism and a way to control the masses.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to take away all preconceived notions and pretend that from now on, every person you meet ... that you and this person are the last two people on earth. How are you going to look at them now?

Everyone try this for one week and see if it doesn't allow you to ease up on the restrictive automatic, knee-jerk responses.

Today is world peace day.
9/21/09

celticmusicfan

@lnclark1950 considering what you've been through , it is good to know that you still have the heart not to hate .
9/22/09

nogueira

Hello! Where have you been? Homosexuality it's not a choice. It's a condition or orientation. A lot of scientific studies say people are born with this condition.
9/23/09

lotusb

I agree clark, although I do beleive people are born gay. Women are not a minority, we were simply oppressed from equal rights at one point and sometimes still are in some places.

9/21/09

clioandme

If ignorance and intolerance were diseases . . .

[reply]

9/21/09

Theresa111

You have it in a nutshell Professor.
9/22/09

sjtavo

Sorry I was so out of the loop everyone (spent last evening with my brother and his wife and newborn son) but I'm glad a discussion was stimulated and didn't seem to get too offensive to everyone... I guess my whole point in posting such a discussion topic, and may not do again just because of the initial flak, was that my impression of joining BC was to be able to have scintilating conversations - I always enjoy a good debate because I never take someone else's opinions to heart, nor do I try to sway someone one way or the other - i simply like the trading of ideas. to log on daily and discuss recipes or my favorite color is not my cup of tea - I would hope there could be conversations that inspire us, motivate us, captivate us on this site.... Thanks to everyone for participating, the limited (only 1 that I saw!) comments that had to be revoked and for keeping the rants to a minimum =)
9/22/09

Rivy

@sjtavo,

I appreciate your opening a serious discussion here on BC. I see too many one-liner "topics" with questions like "how many times did you tie your shoes today?" or such, and while some are fun for the moment - and I throw in my own quips, they do not provide a true interchange of thoughts and ideas. I would like to see more. On all subjects. Thank you.
9/22/09

nogueira

I don't.
9/22/09

nogueira

"If ignorance and intolerance were diseases . . ." we wouldn't have such a stupid dicussion here.

9/22/09

andrasnm

Being gay is a "condition" not a disease. Equally wrong are those, who claim it is a "choice" only and a change in the person's thinking can alter his/her attraction towards a certain sex.
I support gay rights and their right to protest and speak out. But sometimes their activist stand and "in your face", naked marching on the street with nipple rings, leather cod piece, bare buttocks just does not help their case. I have lived in NYC where I have witnessed a march and I do not get offended by that, but many people do and I suppose the march is just to show and rub their face in it..I do not know how much that helps the actual change of laws and attitudes towards gays?

[reply]

9/22/09

nogueira

Great comment. I agree with you.

9/22/09

harveyavatar

"And, I assume that saying "no one should receive preferential treatment based on their sexual preference" means that you don't think only heterosexuals should be allowed to marry."

As I stated above, with same-sex marriage we are speaking of a whole new ethical paradigm: love/pleasure as the basis of administrative marriage. I am under the distinct impression that most proponents of same-sex marriage do not perceive a difference between the heretofore ethical basis of marriage and the proposed new basis - along with its full implications. I am somewhat intolerant of logical fallacies.

[reply]

9/22/09

Rainhat

If I'm not mistaken, having children was never the "basis" of marriage for heterosexual couples. Sure, it was considered a "sin" to have children without being married, but I've never heard of it being any kind of requirement to have children just because you are married. So if love (if not a family business arrangement) was the driving force behind marriage for heterosexual couples, why would it be any different for gay couples?
9/22/09

harveyavatar

Administrative marriage comes after non-administrative marriage, not the other way around. It is because it was noticed that a man and a woman would unite under a same roof and have offspring that there has been a "political management" of marriage - in particular in view of assuring greater protection to the less autonomous members of the unit - as a general rule.

Again, this is not opinion. It is how the ethical debate plays out.
9/26/09

ReneMonroe

@harveyavatar I am curious. Where is the "logical fallacy" here? The very basis of marriage started out of money. People married one-another for the desire to marry into a more wealthy family, or a family that was in someway part of an elevated class. However, now the basis of marriage is simply love.

As for your love/pleasure idea, all love starts as lust. People lust first, then love, then marry. It really is that simple. So in actuality, I am going to correct myself. Lust (pleasure) is the basis of marriage. How can one love someone they do not physically desire? Do people not believe that their spouses are beautiful/handsome? I personally believe my boyfriend is amazing, both physically and intellectually.

Are you going to try and say that having children is a requirement of marriage or that the point of marriage is to have children? If yes then for someone who has a problem with logical fallacies, you do seem to enjoy presenting them.

9/22/09

nogueira

I just can't believe it. There are many decades sinse Word Health Organization banned homosexuality as a disease.

I support gays and I put it in my blogs. I think people who have problems with gays are just hiding their own conflicts with their sexuality. I'm straight and my best friend is gay.

[reply]

9/22/09

bettieblogger

Personally I get tired of hearing people use terms such as "the gays" "the blacks" and let us not forget those that are "on the pot".

Labels should be used for nothing more than the items you purchase in a store...

[reply]

9/22/09

insomia

Its worse than a disease..go beyond the boundry

[reply]

9/22/09

MountainSage

I think being homosexual is genetic but frankly it doesn't matter to me if it's genetic or a choice. It's really just none of my business. Gays should have all of the rights heterosexuals have. The constitution is a legal document, not a religious document. I believe everyone has the right to believe what they want but not to impose it or anyone else. If gays marry it doesn't effect me one bit and I think if people were honest they would realize it doesn't effect them.

[reply]

9/23/09

harveyavatar

"Gays" do marry, since they form de facto unions. However, if you speak of equality in administrative marriage, whilst comparing its present form (recognition of the natural family unit - as a general rule - as a foundational bloc of society), with one whose ethical basis would simply be love/pleasure between two beings, then you are committing a major logical fallacy, AND I WILL HAVE NONE OF IT!! lol

9/22/09

crpitt

One day I hope to open a discussion like this and be pleasantly surprised by all the comments.

[reply]

9/23/09

sjtavo

I don't think you'll ever have a society where everyone agrees 100% on all topics - I am glad to see the discussion keeps going and it doesn't seem to have gotten too disrespectful, just an open and honest discussion. Everyone is going to have their own opinion, just as they will on crime, punishment, religion, politics, race, etc... it's just the way we are.
9/23/09

crpitt

Oh I don't think that day will ever actually come, but it would be nice.

9/23/09

sorcerer

I think, Its not a disease or genetic disorder(but again.science always has its fromulas and X and Ys,yeah not against science too).
I think its more to do with our, evolved brain.
and most of the time..people 'discover' themselves in strange forms.
also..we humans are more and more seeing and perceiving things away from religious framework, which always / to an extent called SEX a taboo.
There are times when a girl feel attracted towards a girl or a boy towards another boy because they dont trust the opposite sex(something bad which happened in the past, haunts them).

also, sex being an integral part of human life.Every organism ,lives, reproduces, dies. and I think humans are the only animals who has find many ways to reproduce(cloning counted).
So all these, so called categorization of humans based on their sexual orientation is just good for fillin up forms.
We humans have to understand and support, not create barriers around us from a person with a different sexual orientation.

__

FOOT NOTE: A wise man once said,Sex is inside the head, not between legs

[reply]

9/23/09

thinkies

Maybe one day we won't feel the need to put people in tidy little boxes and put labels on them.
Maybe one day the thought that two consenting unrelated adults who love each other, have to fight for the right to do so without discrimination will be seen as shameful and amazing.
Maybe one day the human race will grow up.

[reply]

9/23/09

lotusb

I think Gay men and women are proud of their culture. I think they don't mind the label of "Gay" as much as the negetive connotation applied to it. As I minority I WANT to be seen as a black women, but I don't want that title to be seen as less than.

Simple as that.

9/23/09

lotusb

I have a few gay friends and I love them to death. I think they face a lot of challenges in today's world. I don't see them as any different because they are people and some are good and some are bad just like the rest of the world. I support them in my political choices and by staying open minded. I love my gays too.

[reply]

9/23/09

Before answering this question, just think of one thing. "What would Jesus say?"

[reply]

9/23/09

lotusb

What does jesus have to do with it?
9/24/09

carsonfb

Jesus says to love thy neighbor and to not judge others. Just my $0.02.

9/23/09

Like, how do you mean? Jesus have to do with everything pretty much. What do you think his reply would be?

[reply]

9/23/09

Pasquella

Weakmach: What DID Jesus say about it in the Bible?
There is not one reference to Jesus saying anything about homosexuality. Please refer me to a biblical scripture that points what Jesus has said about this.
Thank you!
9/23/09

lotusb

Jesus has to do with everything that Christian's beleive in...

Jesus is not everyone;s beleif.

And he said not to judge. So I think he would say "Don't be a hater"
9/24/09

carsonfb

@lotusb
"Don't be a hater" = well said

Many churches teach that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. And in fact, I attended "an open and affirming" church for several months where about 1/3 of the congregation were non-heterosexuals (gay, lesbian, or bi).

9/23/09

Pasquella
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Should I elaborate?

[reply]

9/23/09

lotusb

Yes...explain.

9/23/09

Jesus said that the law could not be changed. At least not until "heaven and earth pass". In the old testimony it is clearly stated:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22).

[reply]

9/23/09

nothingprofound

@weak: There's a lot of prohibitions in Leviticus. Read through and tell me if you agree with or follow each one of them.
9/23/09

lotusb

The law in the US is not against gay sexuality. It's against them being married. The bible also said that women should not give head and people can't get divorced...but no one seems to be too worried about sticking to those principals.
9/23/09

sjtavo

I wondered how long it would take for a Bible passage to be presented here. That could be a whole topic unto itself and I'm sure I'd get reamed for it given my stance...
9/24/09

carsonfb

Many of the laws in Leviticus were directed at the priestly class, not the populace in general.
9/26/09

ReneMonroe

@weakmachines Funny thing about that verse. Especially with the word "abomination." See the definition of the hebrew word that was translated to abomination did not mean innately immoral as abomination does.

It actually meant it was more taboo or against ritual which would make sense since homosexual sex does not produce offspring. Oh and don't forget the shellfish, or wearing wool with linen, or planting two seeds in one hole.

What I am trying to say here is that yes the Bible may say many things. However, this does not mean that we need to take it word for word. My point is Leviticus is full of do's and don't and very few of them are taken literally. Why should we take this one when the translation is not even correct.

9/23/09

iratedog

Maybe not GENETIC as such, I can't really see homosexuality running in the family can you?

But biological? Sure! It might be a choice whether to then feel natural or not (and but FEELING natural I mean embracing who you are, not conforming to society's 'natural') and the whole issue of Gay Rights is bizare. Can anyone give me one solid reason to why homosexuals are different in any way other than the people they love and sleep with?

[reply]

9/23/09

nothingprofound
No, of course not. (It forbids you from cutting your hair and shaving!) 19:27-28

[reply]

9/23/09

nothingprofound

Maybe the prohibition against homosexuality is just as silly and irrelevant.
9/26/09

jeremyjanson

@NP: Christ said that the entire law could be summarized to two commandments: (Matthew 22:40)

"Love thy God with all thy heart, mind, and soul"

and

"Love thy neighbor as thyself."

The reason why certain prohibitions are no longer prohibited is because, at this time, they no longer apply to these two central commandments.

As for homosexuality, I'm still trying to figure out where it lies, but God the Father made us free and tyranny and laying heavy burdens on his children is a far greater abomination to him then ANY sexual behavior. May I remind you how many Kings of Isreal and Judah were smited for ruling tyranically or hypocritically (which is related); Christ even referred to the Pharisees as a "brood of vipers" and "children of Satan."

I'm not gay, and I'm still trying to figure out where this particular commandment lies, but regardless, your life is your own and if you obey out of fear of people, you gain nothing.

I would encourage every person here to take up the Lord with their full heart, but no matter what I force you to do, I am not going to make your life any better in any meaningful way until you do that. You are an individual, and every individuals' calling is unique, and God is there for you, wanting you to join him. He is a jealous God, and will not be stood up in his invitation, but he loves you with all his heart and is resolutely loyal.

9/23/09

lotusb

What does law in US have to do with any of this? Jesus was talking about the biblical law. People can get divorced according to bible, but only if one of the parties have committed adultery (which is almost a fair go). Refer to Matthew 5:32

[reply]

9/23/09

lotusb

Are you kidding me?? What does Jesus have to do with any of this. Your opinion is that Jesus would disapprove. Fine. Your Chrisitan or whatever. Not everyone gives a crap about what Jesus would supposedly say according to a ancient book. Some people make their decisions based on what they want to do and still live good clean lives.

9/23/09

Couldn't find anything about women giving a head. :-(

Wait a second, this is smut eh?
I think I just managed to upset the mighty chicken.

[reply]

9/23/09

lotusb

Is the "Mighty Chicken" the leader of your cult?
9/23/09

RoscoeAntHillz

IMO jesus would have been a gay right activist.
he shook up the temples and angered the priests....
he forgave and harboured a prostitute...

im pretty sure jesus was more concerned with peace, clear conscience and well being for all mankind than he was concerned about if john was sleeping with Mark....

9/23/09

lotusb

Live good clean lives and burn in hell for eternity. No I'm just kidding. Don't take this whole Jesus thing seriously. Everybody knows that Jesus is there to forgive, not to smite.
I'm sure he could even forgive Richard Simmons.

[reply]

9/23/09

lotusb

If you beleive in that whole thing. I think Jesus won't have anything TO forgive. They didn't do anything wrong.

9/23/09

lotusb, no its a lady from another thread, who doesn't like smut on BC, and got seriously upset because of it.

[reply]

9/23/09

nothingprofound

maybe

[reply]

9/23/09

lotusb

gotcha

9/23/09

[reply]

9/23/09

Here are some scriptures that are thrown at homosexuals:

Leviticus 18:22 (Whole Chapter) “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."

This is the old law. If this were to still be applicable, then eating shellfish would be detestable, having a clean-shaven face would be a sin, and sitting next to a woman on the same couch who is menstruating would be a sin as well. Galatians 17:21 proves that the old law no longer applies to Christians.

1 Corinthians 6:9 (Whole Chapter) "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

But wait! There’s more!

The people who shout this scripture to the gay & lesbians also seem to be missing a very valuable portion of this passage. In the next verse, it says this:

Verse 11 says: "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Now look at this next scripture that they’ll force-feed you, in order to sway you away from loving someone of the same gender.

Romans 1:26-27: “Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.”

Even before that verse, there’s another verse that clearly states what’s been happening in this book.

Romans 1:24 “So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshipped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen.”

These people they speak of in Romans were having sex with many people. The entire sexual practices were based on orgies. Promiscuity has been confused with loving relationships. People will interpret these scriptures and claim that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality in the terms of loving relationships isn’t a sin. This is what I firmly believe.

Which sin is greater? Regardless of whether it’s a sin or not – (which I fully believe with all my heart it’s not), all of us sin. This is the reason why God gave us His only son to die for us on the cross. He saved us from our sins. He knew we couldn’t make it here without Jesus’ sacrifice.

Many Christians live life in fear. A healthy fear of the Lord is good, but when you fear other people’s judgments, telling you that hell is in your future, who do we believe? God is the only judge.

This is where religion gets scary. People plant the seeds of hate within their minds, due to twisting scriptures and claiming that they’re ‘fighting for their God’, when actually, they’re fighting against their brothers and sisters. We are all in this together. Take for instance, the Phelps family. They believe that all gays are doomed to hell. They protest with picket signs at funerals and parades displaying hate.

What would Jesus do?

Let’s just say that homosexuality is a sin. First of all, no one has the right to judge and ridicule them. What about the immoral woman in the bible? It’s about faith- and not anything else. If you fully believe that Jesus died for you up on the cross- you are saved.

“Jesus Anointed by a Sinful Woman”

"One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to come to his home for a meal, so Jesus accepted the invitation and sat down to eat. A certain immoral woman heard he was there and brought a beautiful jar filled with expensive perfume. Then she knelt behind him at his feet, weeping. Her tears fell on his feet, and she wiped them off with her hair. Then she kept kissing his feet and putting perfume on them. When the Pharisee who was the host saw what was happening and who the woman was, he said to himself, “This proves that Jesus is no prophet. If God had really sent him, he would know what kind of woman is touching him. She’s a sinner!” Then Jesus spoke up and answered his thoughts. “Simon,” he said to the Pharisee, “I have something to say to you.” “All right. Teacher,” Simon replied, “go ahead.” Then Jesus told him this story: “A man loaned money to two people—five hundred pieces of silver to one and fifty pieces to the other. But neither of them could repay him, so he kindly forgave them both, canceling their debts. Who do you suppose loved him more after that?” Simon answered, “I suppose the one for whom he canceled the larger debt.” “That’s right,” Jesus said. Then he turned to the woman and said to Simon, “Look at this woman kneeling here. When I entered your home, you didn’t offer me water to wash the dust from my feet, but she has washed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You didn’t give me a kiss of greeting, but she has kissed my feet again and again from the time I first came in. You neglected the courtesy of olive oil to anoint my head, but she has anointed my feet with rare perfume. I tell you, her sins—and they are many—have been forgiven, so she has shown me much love. But a person who is forgiven little shows only little love. Then Jesus said to the woman, “Your sins are forgiven.” The men at the table said among themselves, “Who does this man think he is, going around forgiving sins?” And Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace." ~Luke 7:36-50

Your actions don’t mean anything if you don’t have faith. This woman displayed faith to Jesus, whereas the Pharisee didn’t. She was forgiven, in despite her sins.

Christianity is much more than just obeying the law. It’s having faith and love for Jesus. It’s loving one another and accepting each other ‘as is’---to not judge and ridicule for what you may think is wrong. God’s job is to judge. People are trying to fill God’s shoes. That’s quite a task to take on. They live such stressful and hard lives.

“All of you should be of one mind, full of sympathy toward each other, loving one another with tender hearts and humble minds. Don’t repay evil for evil. Don’t retaliate when people say unkind things about you. Instead, pay them back with a blessing. That is what God wants you to do, and he will bless you for it.

For the Scripture say,

If you want a happy life and good days, keep your tongue from speaking evil, and keep your lips from telling lies. Turn away from evil and do good. Work hard at living in peace with others. The eyes of the Lord watch over those who do right, and his ears are open to their prayers. But the Lord turns his face against those who do evil.” ~1 Peter 3:8-12

So, my question would still remain: What DID Jesus say about homosexuality? Think about that when you're having your next shrimp scampi.

[reply]

9/23/09

weakmachines

Pasquella

I'm at work, so I got to be brief. Just one question before we go any further, what translation are you reading? I already went through five translations and couldn't find chapter 17 in Galatians book, in fact it usually stops at Chapter 6.
9/24/09

carsonfb

With regards to the "a man shall not lie with another man as he would with a woman"...

One of my wife's professors at seminary pointed out that this would be physically impossible anyway (differing equipment and such). So, no need to fear.
9/24/09

jeremyjanson

But you do have to believe in God, his wisdom, et cetera, and there was no clear sanctification of Homosexuality in the New Testament. This said, the real evil of the Christian Right is believing that government is ever the answer to a moral problem? Or is it?

"The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?" (1 Corinthians 6: 7, NIV)

Notice the last two sentences. Notice also this passage from the sermon on the mound:

" 38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38)

This clearly indicates that we should not live our lives seeking to use power and force over others for ANY kind of utopian end, be it social conservative or socialist. Coercion is NOT okay. Government is inherently evil, wicked, and a thing of this earth that is damned. Do not use it as a source of wisdom or progress, only to enforce the duties that are by necessity governments.

But there's something even bigger here:

" 1Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2and he began to teach them saying:
3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. " (Matthew 5: 1-7)

Nowhere here are you promised the conduct of others. It is entirely between you and the Lord.

" 16 There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:

17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,

18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,

19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers." (Proverbs 6: 16)

The Beatitudes indicate a state of mind that doesn't try to rest and wrangle it's way through life, but does what it is responsible for and only it. The Seven detestable things very clearly indicate an almost Taoist noninterventionalism that is very Antimachiavellian. Together these two represent a kind of balance in the world that does not seek absolutes or ideals, but loves people for even what is wrong with them. This recurs elsewhere in the Gospels as well:

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." (Matthew 7:6)

Nowhere does it say kill the swine or change the swine in to something better, but accept them for the evil they are.

Christians are not supposed to live life trying to busybody in other people's time. They speak the truth, act well, live well, live holy. The Bible is a very individualistic document. You will be judged as you, not your society or anything else. This is something the church has been trying to repress for years (and has had some success) but IMHO you do not understand Christ until you understand.

So regardless of whether homosexuality is a sin or not, you do not have the right to "resist an evil person." (Christ, NIV translation)

9/23/09

timethief

"Same-sex activity in biblical times:
In Biblical times, same-gender sexual interactions could take many forms. Some were:

---- Kings of conquered tribes were sometimes anally raped by the invading army as the ultimate symbol of defeat and humiliation. Such rape was also a way of humiliating visitors and strangers. These were acts of power and domination. [They had nothing in common with consensual sex by gays and lesbians today.]

---- Some religious groups both in and around ancient Israel had male prostitutes in their temples who ritually engaged in same-sex activities. These practices were frequently condemned in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). [Temple prostitution is no longer found in most areas of the world.]

---- In biblical times, sex was regarded as an activity engaged in by a dominant person and a submissive person. For a man to play the role of a submissive partner would be a reversal of roles, and unacceptable. [Most adults engaged in sexual activity today consider each other as equals.]

---- It was common within the Roman Empire for male adults to keep boy prostitutes for the purpose of sexual activity. The boys were often slaves. [In modern times, this is considered extreme child abuse, a criminal offense.] "
www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi1.htm

[reply]

9/25/09

jeremyjanson

"---- In biblical times, sex was regarded as an activity engaged in by a dominant person and a submissive person. For a man to play the role of a submissive partner would be a reversal of roles, and unacceptable. [Most adults engaged in sexual activity today consider each other as equals.]"

Sexuality in the bible is used as a metaphor for religious faith and humanitys place in the universe. May I remind you that, in the story of the Virgin Mary where God is directly present, the role is reversed and Mary's husband actually ends up being more submissive then Mary herself.

9/23/09

I read the NLT, as well as the KJV. That would be CHAPTER 2, ---verses 17-21. Galatians 2:17-21. Hope that helps.

Sorry for my typo!

[reply]

9/24/09

People who do not want to hear religion: skip my comment! This is only in response to Weakmachines reference to "Jesus" and what he would do.

I just wanted to jot down what I have read instead of just giving scripture reference. This is what I read:

"But what if we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then find out that we are still sinners? Has Christ led us into sin? Of course not! Rather, I make myself guilty if I rebuild the old system I already tore down. For when I tried to keep the law, I realized I could never earn God’s approval. So I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ. I myself no longer live, but Christ lives in me. So I live my life in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I am not one for those who treats the grace of God as meaningless. For if we could be saved by keeping the law, then there was no need for Christ to die.
That one sentence says it all: {“For if we could be saved by keeping the law, then there was no need for Christ to die.”}

Then you have this passage:

“You and I are Jews by birth, not ‘sinners’ like the Gentiles. And yet we Jewish Christians know that we become right with God, not by doing what the law commands, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be accepted by God because of our faith in Christ-and not because we have obeyed the law. ***For no one will ever be saved by obeying the law.***” ~Galatians 2:15-16

Weakmachines: I interpret this as the old law of Leviticus no longer applies any longer, unless of course you are Jewish. How do you interpret this to be, that goes against homosexuality? There are many abominations that have been abolished once Christ died on the cross.

For everyone else reading, I apologize for the bible thumpin' segment here, but when someone mixes in religion and homosexuality, I would prefer concrete answers, just for my own knowledge. I'm still learning so I love hearing other people's point of views.

Thanks for bringing this up. I do not wish to debate in an unhealthy manner. I think it's great that any discussion can be held in a civil way.

Thanks everyone!

[reply]

9/24/09

TonyB

I find civil discussions about controversial issues to be really fascinating as they require a much higher level of thought than simply calling someone a name and insulting their intelligence.
9/24/09

sjtavo

I'm glad the discussion thread is back - mistakenly deleted by an admin-in-training. I appreciate everyone keeping this stimulating without becoming insulting or trading personal jibes at each other!

9/24/09

When it comes down to name calling and insults...delete delete delete, I say! But I am fascinated by learning from those with different views. So, I hope that my question/comment back to Weakmachines doesn't seem offensive in any way.

[reply]

9/24/09

Hi Pasquella

Sorry for the late reply I had trouble finding the thread.

"I do not wish to debate in an unhealthy manner. I think it's great that any discussion can be held in a civil way."

Yes, I do believe we can do it in a civil way, since its sure is an interesting perspective (at least for me :-)

As I said above, it is definitely possible that the Leviticus' restrictions no longer apply, since half of it is ridiculous in any case :-). Though I was pretty confident that all mainstream Christians including catholic, protestant and orthodox churches preserve the old testament as the book of laws.

The scripture you quoted ( Galatians 2:17-21) is somehow controversial in regards of Christ disregarding the past law. Here's my thoughts on that.

"For if we could be saved by keeping the law, then there was no need for Christ to die." what if you quote his reply like that:

"For if we could be saved by ONLY keeping the law, then there was no need for Christ to die."

Meaning that a person cannot be righteous if he's only keeping and being obedient to the old law. He'll have to accept Jesus as his lord and savior.

If Jesus would have disregarded the old testament - does this mean that we can murder, steal, and disregard our parents? I think not. In fact the concept of sin was never redefined and Jesus would never want you to sin.
As the scripture quoted earlier by me stated:
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Jesus was not only in acceptance of the old testament, he also protected it, saying that not one jot or tittle shall be changed from the old book.
Meaning that all the stuff in Leviticus and other books in the old testament are still in power, or at least they're supposed to be.

And yes, Christ has forgiven a prostitute who commit more sins during her single shift then a squad of soldiers on the scavenging mission :-)
Keep in mind that every prostitute who slept with the married man have commited at once three deadly sins (one against herself, one against the man, and one against his wife). Same goes for the bloke. The fact that Jesus have forgiven her mean that a faithful person could be a subject of a Godly forgiveness, and the faith is the salvation.
But does that mean that Jesus gives an approval for a prostitution? I really don't think so.

[reply]

9/24/09

Synthesis: In most strict case of Christianity - homosexuality is still 'no-no', though the person could be saved by his faith. That's my opinion.

[reply]

9/24/09

Talking about shrimps and Jesus. There is (yet super controversial) scripture that indicates that Kashrut was abolished.
"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." (Matthew 15:11)

Does this also mean that Christ is in approval of a binge drinking? Not sure about that.

[reply]

9/24/09

sjtavo

The thing I love (and hate) about the Bible is that it is sooo open to interpretation.

To live your life the Bible would be to own slaves, to never get divorced, death penalty for adultery (wait aren't we (US) the country who chastises other countries for the oppression of women's rights, caning for adultery, etc... in other countries...which is based on religious doctrine?) I'm just not one to base my life or beliefs on a book handed down through the centuries and carefully edited - my sense of morality may have a basis in Christianity, but it is not dictated by it.

9/24/09

Weakmachines: I understand your point, but when you say that homosexuality is a "no-no", then do you also agree that premarital heterosexual sex is a "no-no" too? Also, what are your views regarding a woman who is a divorcee, who remarries another man, while her ex-husband is still alive?

So, what I'm trying to get at here is: interpretation, as sjtavo commented on as well, can be different. As you've stated, "This is my opinion"---and that's okay. In "my opinion", as well as my belief, I really don't think we're all going to hell, because right there, the majority would be flung into a fiery pit. I doubt God wants that...

It gets so complicated, doesn't it? Thanks for clearing up your views, I really appreciate hearing your side.

[reply]

9/24/09

sjtavo

yes, to reiterate, i'm not condemning one opinion or another - it's really interesting to hear everyone's opinions and bases for those opinions, as they have been far-reaching. it's been a great discussion that hasn't involved anyone getting too far up on their soap boxes one way or the other
9/24/09

weakmachines

Pasquella

Yes, technically premarital heterosexual sex is also a 'no-no'. According to bible, as I stated above divorce and remarriage is possible but only if one of the parties have committed an adultery.
I'm not sure about the majority. The faith is the salvation. If you have committed sins all you gotta do is to ask for forgiveness and live clean.

9/24/09

sjtavo

Fair enough. Don't forget that Christianity is a choice, but so is burning in hell :-)

[reply]

9/24/09

sjtavo

LOL you are absolutely right - and to quote one of my favorite authors, Tucker Max, "I hope they serve beer in Hell" :-)
9/24/09

weakmachines

"Heaven is famous for its climate, Hell for community."

9/24/09

Richer44

I have been holding back on responding but I think it is time I throw my 2 cents in. Just as a warning, my comments are probably going to be scattered and all over the place.

First of all, I don't believe homosexuality is a disease but I do believe it is a genetic trait. Similar to someone having black hair compared to blond hair. Homosexuality could just be a recessive gene that is expressed in some people. I haven't read up on the science on this though.

I am not sure why religion always gets thrown into these conversations. I am going to go the opposite way and throw in evolution. From a basic evololutionary stand point, the purpose of life is to ensure that your genes are passed on to the next generation. Side note - this is why men base a lot of their attraction on physcial appearance (symmetry and beauty indicates good genes and healthy). On the other hand, women tend to have more empahsis on security (i.e. money, strength, probably the ability to make fire back in the old days). Basically, what we want is to have healthy offspring that is well provided for and gets every opportunity to survive. But I digress! So from an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality does not make biological sense since they can not create offspring. This doesn't mean that it is wrong, or immoral, just that it doesn't make evolutionary sense.

Obviously, I haven't added in the whole society pressures side of this debate. But as a society we should be accepting everyone for who they are. Why does it bother people so much if two same sex people get married? It is their life so let them live it!! I don't agree with the style of the Gothic person that lived down the hall from me in University but I still hung out with them (they were cool). I didn't agree with the religion of my friend from Pakistan but he turned out to be my best friend. It shouldn't matter if you are gay, or a different race/creed. It only matters what you are like as a person. Being gay shouldn't define who you are. Just as being straight shouldn't define who you are.

One more thing, I have decided to touch on the religion aspect! I understand people taking the Bible as the holy grail and trying to follow it to a tee. That book as been translated and changed so much over the years that you can't take it word for word. I have a catholic background and I have always regarded the Bible as a guide to being a good person. I am pretty sure that throwing stones at people just because they are different then you isn't what a good person should do.

Well, that is my two cents!

[reply]

9/24/09

sjtavo

Well I for one appreciate your two cents and here's a couple more - homosexuality and bisexuality DOES occur in the animal kingdom....species of some birds, beetles, dolphins, sheep, penguins, etc... have been observed have in the act of same-sex sex [I refer you to National Geographic]. So if the "survival" instinct would dictate opposition to same-sex sex, how do you explain homosexuality in the animal kingdom? =)
9/24/09

Richer44

I am not saying it doesn't occur in the animal kingdom. Don't forget, we are part of the animal kingdom. The fact that it does occur in other animals furthers my belief that it is your genetic make-up that determines sexuality and not your choices or environment that you grew up in.

My point remains that even with other animals that have same sex partnerships, their genes would not make it into the next generation. So for the most part same sex-sex will not be the dominant characterstic of a species otherwise that species would eventually perish. I say for the most part because there are some animals that are only female, but they are able to fertilze their own egg and reproduce offspring... whole different story.

One of the biggest differences between humans and other animals is the social factor. I don't think other penguins would hold it against the same sex couple and throw them down an icy hill. As well, I don't think a dolphin would start quoting the Bible and condemning other dolphins.

Again, it is not a disorder or disease but just a different set of genes being expressed. It is no different then me having brown eyes and you having blue eyes.

9/24/09

But, when are we ever without sin and completely clean? I have faith in God and believe that Jesus died for me upon the cross. I do not believe that my marriage with my wife is sinful. I think there's a bigger picture to be seen here - we only see a small scope of it. The fact is: we're all in our human carnal shells that are automatically sinful. In our belief (and I say "our" because you're a believer in the same religion), when Jesus died on the cross, we were automatically saved. Intentional sins, like murdering, lying, cheating and basically anything that hurts another human being is considered sinful. But, two loving people in a relationship or marriage is blessed, in my belief...

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I'm just happy that I am very content knowing that I'm right with God, flaws and all. Because God knows I have many flaws to work on, aside from what's thought to be sinful ie: being gay.

Thanks again, Weakmachines!

[reply]

9/24/09

weakmachines

"But, when are we ever without sin and completely clean?"

All we can do is to do better every day.

"I do not believe that my marriage with my wife is sinful."

Man lie with the man. Nothing said about woman with the woman. But in either case :

"Intentional sins, like murdering, lying, cheating and basically anything that hurts another human being is considered sinful. But, two loving people in a relationship or marriage is blessed, in my belief... " - this is probably what makes the most of the sense anyway. My point in all that was not in regards of a gay relationship or marriage, but more like a question on should the old book be disregarded or not? I believe not, but who knows?

That's one of my top priority questions to ask Jesus personally if I ever get to meet him.

One small note though: "when Jesus died on the cross, we were automatically saved" - practically true, but only if you baptised AFAIK. (I mean the automatic part!)

Thank you Pasquella.

9/24/09

FaithfulinPrayer

I don't believe it is an illness, but I also don't believe people are just born that way. I feel it is a life choice. I don't believe anybody should be discriminated against. I have not agree with their choice, but in America, they have a right to choose.

[reply]

9/25/09

voodooKobra

Current medical data (twin studies) strongly indicate that it is not a choice.
9/28/09

FaithfulinPrayer

Yeah, probably the same medical people who say alcoholism is a disease. I suffered from it, but it was not a disease. If you drink everyday you will become addicted at some point. Our whole culture and society suffers from the inability to take responsibility for their own behavior. Maybe that's a disease too.
9/28/09

nothingprofound

Faithful prayer said: "Our whole society and culture suffers from the inability to take responsibility for their own behavior. Maybe that's a disease too." I agree with that 100%
9/28/09

sjtavo

I have to disagree with the alcoholism as a disease comment - I truly feel it is one as it can be traced generationally through families, including my own. All of my siblings and I are susceptible to it, with some of us having to stop drinking all together for years before slowly regaining control over it. My best friend is a recovering alcoholic - true, anything you do in excess could be considered addictive - but that doesn't mean it's not treatable. I don't consider homosexuality to be "treatable" because I just cannot classify it as a disease.

9/24/09

sjtavo

The nature's mechanisms are ain't perfect contrary to one popular belief. There were a lot of species that were wiped out from the face of the earth without humans even remotely getting involved.

[reply]

9/24/09

sjtavo

Weakmachines-I don't understand where ur comment to me came from, and am a little confused by it?

9/24/09

polybore

"is homosexuality/ bi-sexuality a "disease," genetic, a choice?"

Is by the by really. There always have been and always will be people who are physically and emotionally attracted to people of their own gender.

Like it or lump it but for goodness sake don't get nasty about it because what other people do in the bedroom should be no one else's business.

From a Christian perspective, if it were such a big deal you would think Jesus would have mentioned it.

[reply]

9/24/09

stjavo

This is regarding homosexuality in animal world.

[reply]

9/25/09

sjtavo

gotcha - my comment wasn't so much only directed to you just directed to everyone in general who feels maybe it's a disease or "just in their head" - if homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom, wouldn't it be safe to say that it's a natural occurrence in many species and shouldn't be ostracized, criticized or "cured".....

9/24/09

acousticguitarist

humanity is a virus

[reply]

9/24/09

jeremyjanson

I suppose it depends on your perspective and what you consider important.
9/25/09

voodooKobra

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate.
9/25/09

jeremyjanson

@VK: What a sweet disease, I'm melting with joy.
9/25/09

nothingprofound

Is humanity a virus? Or is a virus humanity? Or is a virus a virus, and humanity humanity?

Questions. So many questions.

9/25/09

amitchopra22

no, it is not a disease, it is a state in which a person finds satisfaction or relaxes his sexual needs with anyone who can listen him, can share his feeling.
feelings may be sexual or any kind of...

[reply]

9/25/09

mister2mike

it's a choice one person makes.

But here's what I believe: it's a SIN before God's eyes! It's not our design. When we stary away from the design of the Lord, we sin.

[reply]

9/25/09

sjtavo

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

and why is homosexuality a sin - is it the act of sodomy [loosely defined as any act that does not result in procreation?] Because if that's why it's a SIN - then I'm guilty of sodomy in my own relationships because I engage in the act of sodomy (oral and anal acts - I'd hope most of us would agree beastiality, which is included in the definition of sodomy, is a no no). Thus, just me being me and being straight is a SIN.

9/25/09

I think these comments are delayed, which is why my comments back to you all aren't in full length, because I'm not receiving all the messages for some reason.. hrmm..

I'm not going to make this long, but in any event, whether someone believes that homosexuality is a sin or not, that's their thing. That's their "truth", and I totally respect that. As long as everyone is content with their own lives, then that's what's most important here. We're all accountable for "sins" and we all hold different viewpoints - that's what's so amazing about the world.

Thanks so much for your input regarding your thoughts, beliefs and biblical references. I appreciate all the info given on this site!

[reply]

9/25/09

sjtavo

I completely agree that I'm not trying to sway someone away from their own truth. Since I am not a die-hard Christian, I'm just trying to understand what it is that makes homosexuality a sin according to Christianity - the sexual acts, the same-sex partnering, etc....? Just as no one can convince me of my own beliefs, nor do I question or judge others' - just trying to understand the basis of them. I absolutely love that this discussion keeps going!
9/26/09

voodooKobra

[That's their "truth", and I totally respect that.]

www.kobrascorner.com/opine/words-phrases-fallacies.php

Please refer to "Personal Truth."

9/25/09

longtimer

From what I have read, homosexuality and transsexualism are likely a condition or a 'disease' with an environmental and genetic component, though I must stress that in using the words, I intend no ill will or personal judgment or a need to cure for that matter. The reason I state this is that new research is finding that the expression of genes is controlled by environmental factors in the womb. When women are ill or stressed during pregnancy, genetic changes are made to the embryo and operation of certain genes.

Such changes have been tied to Chrohn's Disease, Lupus and other autoimmune conditions so it would seem quiet possible that these sorts of genetic changes could rewire brain operation somewhat as the brain is being formed.

[reply]

9/25/09

jeremyjanson

More likely an endocrine condition. Sexual attraction at that level is more a result of the glands.
9/26/09

longtimer

If it is endocrine in nature, my only argument would be that something has to program the endocrine system and that could easily be genetic or environmental changes.
9/26/09

jeremyjanson

Absolutely. I just wanted to note that it's most likely endocrine.

9/26/09

comment removed by the community.

Voodookobra places a link that responds to my comment, "That's their "truth" and I totally respect that", with his link that says anyone who says "personal truth" or in my case, "their truth" have empty skulls. In my opinion, I had thought that was more of respecting other's beliefs---and yes, their "truths". But I guess my skull is just empty, as Voodookobra puts it.

Nice!

[reply]

9/26/09

sjtavo

I think you have a lovely skull. I think this has been a really interesting discussion. I think it's also interesting how peoples' opinions can change over time. My parents used to be "fine" with gays but didn't want to see them affectionate in public, marriage, etc... and certainly didn't want to see any of their children gay. After all that I've been through, I tell them all the time (to tease) that i'm going to marry my best friend (she's bi-sexual) because I love her so much and vice versa. My dad, at christmas, finally said "you gotta do what's going to make you happy, sweetheart, you do what will make you happy." I think the threat of me becoming gay has made them more open-minded to the whole idea of it... you can say one thing until you're confronted and then you can open yourself up to it and change your reaction when it's more of a reality for you.... does that make sense?
9/27/09

voodooKobra

comment removed by the community.

9/26/09

dynamo214

[reply]

9/26/09

timethief

And I don´t have anything about homosexual, but I consider offensive their attitude of bothering heterosexual people.

Please be specific and speak soley from your own experience:
(1) How do you define "bother"?
(2) How many heterosexual people have bothered you?
(3) In what ways did they bother you that the law did not provide a remedy for?

I am a heterosexual female and I believe that some heterosexual people have bothersome attitudes towards homosexual people. The minority I refer to appear to fail to recognize homosexual people are human beings who ought to have the same rights that issue to all heterosexual citizens in their countries of residence. Sadly, it does appear that there is a heterosexual minority, who are inclined towards minding the sexual business of others, ridiculing, insulting, and even defaming, and assaulting homosexual people.

I believe that homophobia is most assuredly a dis-ease, the kind that occurs between the ears of heterosexual bigots, and that homosexuality is a naturally occurring condition.

Presumably, you do not share this belief so we will have to agree to disagree without becoming disagreeable.
9/26/09

longtimer

Trying to "make sense" of nature is a task that continues to stump the brightest scientific minds at different levels so assuming that homosexuality does not "make sense" presumes we know what the most logical way for nature to operate is. I don't think that we can reasonably argue that we know what the large extremely complex entity called nature is all about.

In nature some fish readily change gender in response to environmental stimulus because it works for their species. Homosexuality could have a purpose for our species as well and we just don't know it. In any case, right now we know it does no harm other than to the egos of those who assume it is wrong.
9/28/09

dynamo214

comment removed by the community.

9/26/09

trailofpen

I don't believe homosexuality is genetic in any way, shape, or form. I think people just have a disposition towards one sex or the other. I wouldn't even call it a choice per se. As for gay rights, I haven't looked too much into the issue.

[reply]

9/26/09

Another point: I think there'd be a lot more homoerotic activity, especially among adolescents, if it wasn't culturally proscribed. I'd be curious to see what percentage of a population would avail themselves of the opportunity if, from birth, homosexual relations were treated openly and casually.

[reply]

9/26/09

jeremyjanson

Ironically I think there might be less because you'd take away the "Banned in Boston" feeling to it. Sometimes prohibiting something actually encourages it, like blasphemy!

9/26/09

That might be the case with certain individuals, but I doubt that feeling would permeate a whole society. I think the "Banned in Boston" tactic works very well as a general rule.

[reply]

9/26/09

jeremyjanson

And that's where we fundamentally disagree. When rules are extensive, they tend to make the law a laughing stock. The Southeastern US has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country - the more religulated an area is, the worse the sexual immorality. There's a reason why the first rockers put "Banned in Boston" on their CD's and rock and rollers still use extensive Satan references.

9/26/09

If what you say is true, there would've been more women engaging in pre-marital sexual activity in the 50s than the 60s. I can tell you from personal experience that's far from the truth.

[reply]

9/26/09

jeremyjanson

Perversity is not the only societal force at work. Less then 20 years before, a major war had been thought and America came through the toughest 20 years it has ever been through to a suburban security that had it's own attractions. The rules seem more legitimate when they come with the promise of stable employment, good kids, and a nearly perfect suburbia.

The world is always composed of many competing forces. Legalism, looks strong outwardly, but inside creates perversity. Only a mandate from heaven can extend the rules.

9/26/09

ArsenicCookies

I hope it is anything other than genetic

[reply]

9/26/09

Friday13

Why?
9/26/09

sjtavo

Same question..... Why? What is your fear?
9/26/09

ArsenicCookies

my ex husbands mother is a lesbian, his sister and brother are both gay. If it were genetic, then it would likely pass to my boys and my "fear" is I would have to end up breakin people's faces that picked on my boys. I am an uber Lioness when it comes to my cubs, if someone were to hurt them over being gay I would probably do something that would make international headlines. So again, here's hopin it's not genetic because this area is not very gay friendly and I am a fan of meeting gratuitous violence with excessive brutality
9/26/09

Friday13

Well, most LGBT people are born of heterosexual parents, so ...

If that should ever be the case for you, you should use your uber-lioness...ness to teach people a lesson in tolerance.
9/26/09

ArsenicCookies

see that is what confuses me as far as the genetics argument goes. There are links for depression, alcoholism, etc so I have no idea where the genetics theory comes from if there is no history.

I'm thinking that it may be interuterine conditions? Perhaps too much of a certain hormone affects the growing fetus?

As for the last question, I support most gay rights though one in particular I think would need a lot of fine tuning to avoid disaster

9/26/09

aspotofblog

Homosexuals don't reproduce like bunnies and bring unwanted children into the world every time they have sex. More power to them!

[reply]

9/27/09

sjtavo

thanks to everyone for making this a great discussion! there have been some interesting arguments/ideas presented and a good level of respect throughout.

[reply]

9/28/09

To Voodoocobra:

You said: "'Personal truth' does not make sense on any level. It's one of my pet peeves and people always use "their 'truth'" in place of "their beliefs" as a kind of apologetic nicety that is wholly unnecessary. There is only ONE truth. One reality. One actuality."
*****
It may not make sense to you, but it does make sense to me and many other people. Your opinion does not count for as fact. And yes, "their truths" and "their beliefs" are the same. If this is a pet peeve of yours, then that would be ----"your opinion".

There is no such thing as "ONE TRUTH", when it comes to beliefs or opinions. I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense at all. These are just personal pet peeves you have against people who use certain words. If you put logic behind it instead of mere opinions, then that would be different.

[reply]

9/28/09

voodooKobra

[There is no such thing as "ONE TRUTH", when it comes to beliefs or opinions.]

What you fail to see is that things are what they are regardless of what we believe they are.

Beliefs are not truth. If I believe that Barack Obama is a woman, does it make it so? It could be my belief, but it will never be the truth. (Even in the event of Obama becoming transgendered, he is still male on a genetic level so don't even go there. )

And you tell me to be logical when you fail to understand the basic concept of truth and falsity? How ironic.

9/28/09

ReneMonroe

When it comes to the cause of homosexuality, the scientific community is rather divided on the cause. There are the group who claim that it is genetic, those who feel it is environmental, and then the group that believes the cause is a mixture of genetic and environmental factors. Generally though, the scientific community does agree that sexual orientation is not a choice.

However, no matter what the cause, when it comes to equality, all people deserve to be treated the same. With same sex marriage for example, there is no logical scientific argument against it. The only argument that is used against same sex marriage is a religious one. Now I believe that every person has a right to hold whatever religious belief that they wish to, however when it comes to the creation of our laws, as with same sex marriage, those laws should be based off of fact, not religion.

No matter what the cause of homosexuality, the ethical debate is quite clear. Claiming that the LGBT community already has the ability to marry is really quite flawed. That same argument was used to justify bans on interracial marriages. People who opposed interracial marriage usually said one of two things. A) Interracial marriage would create a blending of the races, or B) that all people already could marry, they just needed to marry someone who was a member of their own race.

That is the same argument that is made against same sex marriage and/or civil unions. The majority of people who are opposed to same sex marriage and/or civil unions claim that A) Homosexuality will lead to social decay, and B) that marriage is already equal, you just can't marry within the same sex.

Now if we throw out the first argument because of its obvious stupidity, and simply examine the second argument, it is quite clear that the argument is extremely flawed for one simple reason. The basis of marriage is love and lust. That is it. People marry because they love each other and they wish to make that a formal commitment. Marriage is not a "foundational bloc of society" as it has been called. If it was, the divorce rate would not be what it is currently.

People meet their future husband/wife and lust for them. By this I mean they either find them physically or mentally attractive. In other words lust is not limited to a simple sexual desire although that is usually a contributing factor. No people are attracted to the personality and/or the physical appearance and desire (lust) to become closer to that. Eventually, this desire (lust) turns into love or it dissipates and both people involved moved on with their life.

In the case where love then grows, the two individuals then move on and as their loves grows, the desire to formalize that love may also become stronger, thus leading to marriage. Thus the basis of marriage is love and lust. Typically it may be nothing more than that but there are exceptions when people marry for money or because of children.

So with keeping all of that in mind, where is the logical argument against same sex marriage and/or civil unions. Is the love of a homosexual man or woman in some less strong than that of a heterosexual man or woman? Obviously no. Therefore, present a logical, fact based argument against same sex marriage and/or civil unions. Until then, the unions of homosexual people should be recognized and the rights that are granted to heterosexuals should be granted to homosexuals. Ethically, that is the only way the debate plays out...at least in a logical and rational world.

As with other rights/protections (i.e. employment protection, hate crime protection, medical benefits) those should also be granted unless there is a logical fact based argument that can be made support not granting those rights/protections.

[reply]

9/28/09

sjtavo

ROCK ON!!!!!!!!!
9/28/09

timethief

Generally though, the scientific community does agree that sexual orientation is not a choice. ... However, no matter what the cause, when it comes to equality, all people deserve to be treated the same.

I second that. It seems ridiculous to me that in a country where religion and state are intended to be separate that something has gone awry. The American religious organizations appear to have an enormous influence on governance that was not intended by the founding fathers. Their intervention into governance has grievously affected individuals by creating superficial classes and groups to deny them rights. What I think I see south of the border is that self righteous bigots have been aided and abetted in their quest aimed at "dehumanizing" other citizens and denying them full equality under the law.

Given the Constitution and amendments, expecting government to enforce biblical/religious morality codes through legislation is an outrageous suggestion that has become a reality. It appears that some religiously handicapped elected representatives are in cahoots with lobby groups, and are inclined towards abusing their authority by creating legislation that flies in the face of equality, and makes a mockery of their Constitution and amendments (bill of rights).
9/28/09

Richer44

Well Said!

The argument doesn't get much better than that. Nice post!
9/28/09

jeremyjanson

@TT: Any citizens group is allowed to have influence in government. The important part is that this influence is normal electoral influence rather then special influence through government institutions and funding, like in England where the crown heads the official church and gives it money and a vote in the House of Lords! Religious morality =/= religion, morality is morality, and beyond that, not all opponents of gay rights are opposing on religious grounds, it's just the religious people started the party and the rest showed up with their six packs for the fun. This also happened with MLK's civil rights movement in the 60's - handled through the church but attracted many secular humanists, muslims et cetera under church organization. I know of secularists who oppose homosexuality out of sheer personal disgust. I don't support them, but I know they're not religious.

You are making a lot of assumptions here, and among them is 1) the idea that separation of church and state means that Christians can't be citizens and 2) the idea that a religious group would have no allies and would fight completely on it's own like the Sheriff in High Noon!

I oppose this kind of legislation, but more from the standpoint that it is not the proper role of government. Government is not to be your nanny in any manner, including morally. Government has no right to tell you that you can't fall to the dark side. From the religious standpoint, God doesn't ban it, so why should I? And why is it my business anyways?

The first amendment does not strictly say, as you seem to think it does, "church and state will be separate," it says that congress 1) can't establish an official religion and 2) can't interfere in religious practices. The idea is not to give secularists 100% control of politics - that would be the equivalent of, not true democracy, but installing the Communist Party as the only legal party, like in China, or regulating which opposition parties can exist, like in Malaysia and other fun authoritarian racist countries. The idea is to make sure that such influence is strictly through the morals and conscience of the voters, whatever it may be from whatever direction it may come. If this country was mostly Hindu, it would be hindu; if it was mostly Muslim, it would be Islamic. I agree with your conclusion and disagree with EVERY ASPECT of your reasoning.
9/28/09

ReneMonroe

@JeramyJanson, I actually agree with you here...well to an extent. While I believe any person has the choice to voice their opinion and try and pursue any kind of legislation that they see fit. However, when it comes to actually passing that legislation, I believe that it is the job of our legislators to ask two questions:

a) What is the purpose of this legislation?

and,

b) What is the justification for this legislation? (i.e. is it motivated by religious dogma/philosophy and does it have scientific fact to back it up, is it meant to help the greater good and so on.)

It is because of this that I believe in a separation of church and state however, I believe that it should only refer to matters of law. The creation of our laws should not have to pass some kind of religious litmus test.
9/28/09

jeremyjanson

@RM: Absolutely, although in a democracy, social conservatives, misguided as they are, have a right to disagree with you. I just find certain lines of reasoning I hear that bypass the real problem (relevance, tyranny, and busybodying) and try to blame it on something else (someone elses' religion) to be very dangerous to democracy and create kind of a 1984-ish mentality with the very freedoms that we claim to protect. Why don't we just say that it isn't governments job? Why do we have to go in to this long and philosophically bankrupt discussion (you're forcing people to accept a belief they don't have) about religious intent that is only going to end with more disagreement, more divisiveness, more anger, and no one being persuaded?

Even the worst of the Evangelicals, I've found, can be reached if you frame this in the right terms, but first you need to see that some people see from a religious viewpoint, and instead of fighting this, you should simply point out, in correct terms, why government is not the place for it and why THEIR OWN GOD would not support this kind of legalistic hogwash! Once you do that, you can get somewhere.

But stop this nonsense about intent - intent's in the eye of the beholder and nowhere in the constitution is religious intent prohibited, only interfering in religious practices and free speech and expression, and governmental establishment of religious organization. Besides, may I remind you that segregation was gotten rid of with religious intent as well, as was giving women the right to vote. Men were encouraged by their churches to give women the right to vote to stifle unchristian women-hating behaviors. Focus instead on keeping government to what government should do so those totalitarian pervs can't meddle with us.
9/28/09

ReneMonroe

@JeremyJanson Well, I've always thought that the Governments job is what its citizens believe its job is to be. If the citizens wish the government to step in and make something legal, illegal, or to regulate something, then fine. However I understand what you mean when referring to the government being a "nanny." I also agree with you that most evangelicals can be reached.

However, I also know from personal experience that some people simply cannot be reasoned with no matter what their faith. The problem I have with these types of discussions is the lack of understanding that seems to come from both sides, and I say this as a gay man. For instance, when people quote me biblical scripture such as Leviticus 18:22 I get annoyed. I understand and accept their beliefs, being a former Christian, however I become frustrated because I do not understand their personal understanding of scripture. I feel that the same thing happens coming from the "other side" if you will. Some people just do not understand what a LGBT person means by saying "equal right".

Overall I think this entire debate would end if people would simply put aside their personal beliefs for a mere moment and try to understand the other person's view of the situation.
9/28/09

jeremyjanson

@RM: I think the bigger problem is people trying to nanny and control other peoples lives. Empathy's great, but this isn't the only difficulty we have as a result of this. Regardless of what you think about their behavior, getting government involved here is violent and evil.
9/28/09

ReneMonroe

@JeremyJanson Agreed. Control, I think, is in someways human nature. We, as a species, do not deal well with change. Something dramatic happens and people get all agitated and emotional. Then they feel the need to control everything around them to ease the agitation. So while empathy will go a long ways, the simple act of letting go, will finish the job. By that I mean live and let live.
9/28/09

jeremyjanson

@RM: But control can also be in the direction of creating "change." It's all in the eye of the beholder. I think it's more of a sick habit that human societies have developed over the last 150 years of believing that if we don't like something about other people we can beat it out of them. It's really a genuine lack of respect for human beings, and respect for people in general is at an all-time low today. No one really likes humanity any more.

9/28/09

deoangel

I don't think that a person can be born gay. I think that is a choice, just like heterosexuality that should be respected as such.

[reply]

9/28/09

voodooKobra

Wait, heterosexuality is a choice? You woke up one day and said, "From this day forth, I shall only feel biochemical attractions to the opposite gender," did you?
9/28/09

jeremyjanson

Although on the flip side, actual homosexual acts are a choice. All the same though, these things are up to the individual. Neither I nor government am your nanny.
9/28/09

ReneMonroe

@deoangel Well I would like to know when you decided what your sexuality was and why you chose that.

@JeremyJanson homosexual acts do not make a homosexual. What defines sexuality is the attraction. Just as a gay man and sleep with a woman and still be gay, so too can a straight man sleep with a man and still be straight. However, I agree with your overall statement, neither the government nor anyone else, is a nanny in my own personal life or anyone else's.
9/28/09

jeremyjanson

@ReneMonroe: Interestingly, many Christian (and Islamic) groups would say there is nothing wrong or sinful with a homosexual who does not engage in homosexual acts. Indeed, some would even claim that King David was one. This is often the crux of their argument, especially considering Christ's statement about "making yourself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."
9/29/09

UncleBeau

voodooKobra, you're confusing being conditioned through circumstance into having a preference with making an on-the-spot decision. For instance you can like some sports while others you don't. Do you really think that you decide in an instant which ones are to your liking? You try everything out first, which is what I guarantee homosexuals do also. It's still making a choice, whether you agree or not.
10/01/09

voodooKobra

Yes, but if you are conditioned to have the preference, it is not a choice in a strictly philosophical sense since you were not a free moral agent.

9/28/09

Voodookobra:

You said: "Beliefs are not truth. If I believe that Barack Obama is a woman, does it make it so? It could be my belief, but it will never be the truth. (Even in the event of Obama becoming transgendered, he is still male on a genetic level so don't even go there."

Read this with an opened mind, ok? When I say, "personal truths", or "their truths", what that means is ---it's such a strong belief, that it becomes "their truth". For me, Jesus is real. He is MY truth. (May not be other people's "truth" ie: belief.) "Personal truths" have nothing to do with factual for someone who doesn't hold the same opinion. Does that make better sense? Personal truths is the same as faith ---you cannot compare science and spirituality - it'll always defy one another.

I hope that made better sense though. It's a stronger meaning for faith, belief or opinion.

[reply]

9/28/09

jeremyjanson

What you mean is literary truth.
9/28/09

voodooKobra

[it's such a strong belief, that it becomes "their truth".]

The word you are looking for is delusion, not truth.
9/29/09

UncleBeau

Um......there's fact and there's fiction. Anything fictional people choose to believe is because they "think" it's truth. If one discovers what they believe is actually fiction, they won't believe it anymore.

9/28/09

VoodooKobra, you're very offensive. I'm done communicating with you.

[reply]

9/28/09

voodooKobra

If you're offended by my objectivity, you are not ready to tackle the issues that plague the world.
9/28/09

jeremyjanson

LOL. Somebody's ready to tackle the problems that face that world? vK, what the heck are you doing on this board instead of tackling all of our problems for us, huh? Why are you so selfish? Huh? Don't you see how many people are suffering here and need your superpowers? Now there's a phone booth over there, you can change in to your leotard.
9/29/09

voodooKobra

Patience.
9/29/09

jeremyjanson

VVVVVVKKKKKK!!!! IT'S TIME!!! SHUT UP AND DO IT!!!!!!
9/29/09

jeremyjanson

Are you procrastinating on solving the worlds problems VK?
9/29/09

voodooKobra

I don't think you're going to like how I go about fixing many of the world's problems. Economic turmoil and millions of deaths are the best case scenario, for the short term.
9/29/09

jeremyjanson

Ohhhhh.... That's too bad.
9/29/09

voodooKobra

Yeah, so I'm not in a super big hurry to get started down that path just yet.

Of course, none of the deaths will be ordered nor carried out by me. They will be the deaths caused by foolish leaders who refuse to fix their own problems and instead rely on military might to get things done.

9/29/09

UncleBeau

Society adds more and more things to their ever growing "disease" list. Look, it's all based on choice. Either you choose to do this or you choose to do that. Diseases do not make choices for you on whether or not you enjoy butt sex or scissoring.

[reply]

9/29/09

sjtavo

I had to laugh - because this breaks it down to the truth - choices, or inclinations, are not attributable to disease and the example of butt sex was perfect. I'm straight, I like butt sex - therein, anyone who would say that homosexuality (or sodomy) is a side effect of a disease, how would you explain me, a heterosexual female, who enjoys all forms of sodomy, including butt sex?

sorry - bit loopy from exhaustion from the KISS concert so I'm trying to wake up still....

9/29/09

scf

LOVE is the blackest of plagues
-- and you don't even die of it.

(the wandering knight in Ingmar Bergman's film, "The Seventh Seal")

[reply]

9/29/09

dazzlair

As EM Forster said, " If there is any perversity at all, it is the perversity of a society that insidiously denies an inherent part of human inheritance."

Heterosexuality is neither an accomplishment nor a victory. It is a result of hormonal, biological, chromosonal and environmental factors out of one's control. It is not a virtue or a sin. A person's heterosexual behaviour can be selfish, hurtful, manipulative. It can also be considerate, loyal, kind and beautiful.

Homosexuality is neither an accomplishment nor a victory. It is a result of hormonal, biological, chromosonal and environmental factors out of one's control. It is not a virtue or a sin. A person's homosexual behaviour can be selfish, hurtful, manipulative. It can also be considerate, loyal, kind and beautiful.

[reply]

9/29/09

ReneMonroe

Wonderful. You have stated it in a way that I never could have. Kudos to you!!!!

9/29/09

I'm going to repeat my Gore Vidal quote:

"There is no such thing as a heterosexual or homosexual person. There are only homo-or heterosexual acts. Most people are a mixture of impulses if not practices."

[reply]

9/29/09

jeremyjanson

Interestingly, as I brought up to RM and I'll bring it up one more time to you NP, many Christians actually use that against gays. They make the case that since its only the behavior and not the person that is gay, there is no great crime in simply calling the behavior unacceptable as they certainly have impulses in the other direction. I'm exaggerating slightly, but that is the basic line of logic.
9/29/09

sjtavo

I just can't get that argument - "most people are a mixture of impulses" an impulse to me is buying a purse every time I go to TJ Maxx, not so much my sexuality!
9/29/09

nothingprofound

Sjtavo: Substitute desires for impulses. The point is that one's sexual desires or practices don't define a person. A person is not their sexuality.

JJ: Right. Then it becomes an honest debate about morals and value judgments and the question is: Does one segment of society have the right to impose their morality on another?
9/29/09

ReneMonroe

What NP is referring, at least indirectly, is a theory in psychology that sexuality exists on a spectrum with complete homosexuality on one end and complete heterosexuality is on the other. The majority of people are somewhere in the middle of this spectrum. Thus why the acts are not the defining point of a person's sexuality but their attractions.
9/29/09

jeremyjanson

@NP: I don't believe so, but where do we draw the line? In the end I don't think it's so much about sexuality at all as it is about basic respect for human beings, something that all authoritarian philosophies (including social conservatives) lack, regardless of their view on homosexuality.

9/29/09

dazzlair

It does seem odd that pockets of some religious groups can work themselves up to such a frenzy. Why so het (sorry...couldn't resist!) up over homosexuality? We don't see demonstrations over people over who tell white lies, commit adultery, have sex before marriage, or greedily eat all the red M&Ms leaving none for their guests.

Yet if I remember correctly from bible class, all have sinned and come short of the glory of god. I don't understand the disproportionate response. Why not concentrate on being the best person that you can be, instead of the person that I'm with?

[reply]

9/29/09

jeremyjanson

Because it's not really about religion.

Homosexuality, interestingly enough, is barely mentioned between the Torah and the Epistles of Paul. The histories include many sexual infidelities, as do the prophecies, but no examples of gay offenders except for temple prostitutes, which more cleanly fits with idolatry and symbolism. It may well be, in this sense, the most minor of all capital sins - certainly the least talked about. But see, some people, and I also talked about this when talking about the state of Texas in another thread (www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/texas-on-alert), are just very fundamentally afraid when they witness, or even conceive the idea of, perverse sexuality. It is a common and natural human fear, and may be the psychological source of stories about werewolves and humans turning in to animals. I've even known of people with no religious background at all who hated homosexuality.

When you have such animosity and fear, and a group that is somewhat desperate as many older churches are, sometimes that desperate group will make a bargain with the devil and exploit the angers of a mob to extend its pathetic existence. The fact that people aren't supposed to think that way in our society means that religion may well be the only group where such people can be comfortable expressing their fears. I only wish that more of these preachers had Christ in their hearts.

The Bible is not exceptionally venomous against homosexuals, except in maybe a dozen one-or-two sentence passages, but it is an easily misunderstood document among those who do not have the patience to read each and every of the books to completion before drawing judgements. The fact that Deuteronomy and Leviticus have drawn such negative feeling troubles me, because as someone who has read those books to completion front to back, if you understand them in their full context they are so unbelievably loving, humane, idealistic, at times humorous, and glorious, a true law of God himself - but if you concentrate on small aspects you can turn the Bible in to anything you want, a practice as old as the Pharisees at least.
9/29/09

ReneMonroe

Those that oppose gay rights can be divided into two groups. While there is the small but very vocal minority who oppose it because of religious dogma, there is also the majority who simply oppose it out of fear, as JeremyJanson has stated.

9/29/09

GalaxyPress

This discussion has evolved into a religious discussion. I think the question was whether it's a disease or not. I have never seen any evidence that homosexuality has a biological cause, so it must be based on people's choices and preferences. Evidently it has been around for thousands of years for it to be mentioned in the Bible.

[reply]

9/29/09

jeremyjanson

That actually doesn't stop something from being classified as a disease. There is far more evidence that Homosexuality has biological cause then NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) or Psychopathy.
9/29/09

ReneMonroe

@GalaxyPress Studies on twins, prenatal hormones, and brain structure actually disagree with you on that one.

9/29/09

As I said earlier it's really irrelevant what causes a person to interact sexually with members of their own sex. As irrelevant let's say as why some people like to play football and others don't. The point is: do they have the legal right to do so? And if not, why not?

[reply]

9/29/09

ReneMonroe

Agreed. Enough said.
9/29/09

jeremyjanson

Well, just to play devil's advocate for a moment, there are certainly people out there who still subscribe to the Ancient Roman "if our society is impure the gods will squish us like little bugs" mentality. It doesn't always take exactly that form, but the basic principle is that if we don't uphold uber clean righteous moral standards, the corruption in our society will shred society to hamburger.
9/29/09

sjtavo

Definitely want to avoid religious tirades but appreciate the insight and discussions. My original question was whether you feel homosexuality is a normal, natural state of being, a "disease" as joked about in the quote; are you supportive of the gay community, rights to marriage, etc....
9/29/09

jeremyjanson

@stjavo: I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to marry in a courthouse. I'm not sure if they should be allowed (this requires more study) to marry in a Church, but I certainly believe they can be married by a justice of the peace and any temple that wishes to marry them. I also believe that workplace protections for gays, which are not currently on the books at the federal level though some states have them, are a necessity to prevent abuse by management.

I don't really like regulating people. I don't believe such laws should exist because, as I said before, government is not your nanny. I have more respect for those people then to deny them the freedom in their lives.

9/29/09