Answered Questions Re: Miss California

[AFPheonix]

Disorders also have a genetic basis most of the time and run in families.

Why are you aligning homosexuality with disorders instead of harmless genetic variances like eye color and handedness?

I think it's really a sickness that anyone would want to marry someone of the same sex as themselves. I'm sorry they're messed up in the head like that but that doesn't give them the right to change the marriage laws to accommodate themselves and force themselves on innocent children by adopting them into that disordered way of life.

Prove that harm comes to children brought up by two members of the same sex. I want examples and studies to back it up.

I've already demonstrated that homosexual behavior is sinful according to the New Testament.

It's mentioned once in the NT, and that passage is often misinterpreted.
Further, it is written by a former pharisee who, as you view the progression of his contribution to the start of Christianity becomes more and more legalistic again as his sight faltered and other reformed Jews from pharasitic traditions came to assist.
Further, many churches ignore many of the direct commands set down in the New Testament by not breaking bread every week, allowing women to be in positions of instruction, allowing them to talk in church and have their heads be uncovered. Why are you more up in arms about one small aside than in these far more aggregious things?

Besides it being sinful I also believe it's a sickness. It fits all the criteria of a paraphilia, but it's not politically correct to think that way anymore.

We've already gone over the causes, it is not a mental illness. It is not a physical disease state. In order for it to be a paraphilia, it needs to be pathological. Because it is not the result of a physical or mental disorder, it does not fit the criteria and was correctly taken out of the books as such.

Christians are supposed to take care of the poor people in their communities, but this is something they do as private citizens to help each other and the community around them.

Also render unto Ceasar's what is Ceasar's. Jesus was no Libertarian.
The early church was very much a commune, in that everyone's possessions and wealth was pooled. Each was given to according to need. That's pretty liberal if you ask me. Actually more liberal that I am.

[Nyoibo]

I've already demonstrated that homosexual behavior is sinful according to the New Testament.

And were I to try I'm sure that I could demonstrate that your life, or even just your behaviour in this thread is sinful according to the New Testament.

From the NT

"Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. "

[Rubystars]

Only in extent. The basis of it is that it's allegedly the will of an infallible, omnipotent divine being who hasn't bothered to speak to anyone in millennia, let alone update it.

In fact, many of the punishments demanded in Sharia are very similar to the stuff in the christian bible.

Rapscallion

It's my opinion that Islam took a lot of things from Judaism and Christianity and made them more extreme. The early Muslims lifted a lot of things from the Bible and then claimed the Bible was corrupt and that they had the true last testament.

In practice, Jews and Christians in the modern world don't engage in those types of brutal things for the most part, at least not on a religious basis. You might hear the occasional story of a lunatic or strange cult though. Islam seems to have these things as part of its mainstream.

[Rubystars]

Why are you aligning homosexuality with disorders instead of harmless genetic variances like eye color and handedness?

Eye color and handedness usually doesn't cause any kind of major social impact.

Prove that harm comes to children brought up by two members of the same sex. I want examples and studies to back it up.

What you would consider harm, I probably don't have anything that would satisfy you. I would consider putting a child into a situation like that would be harmful in itself.

This article talks about how lesbian couples raising children have a feminizing effect on boys and a masculinizing effect on girls:
http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

I don't think that's ok in the least bit, because I think boys should be masculine and girls should be feminine. That's the kind of thing that I would consider to be harmful, but other people wouldn't.

It's mentioned once in the NT, and that passage is often misinterpreted.
Further, it is written by a former pharisee who, as you view the progression of his contribution to the start of Christianity becomes more and more legalistic again as his sight faltered and other reformed Jews from pharasitic traditions came to assist.
Further, many churches ignore many of the direct commands set down in the New Testament by not breaking bread every week, allowing women to be in positions of instruction, allowing them to talk in church and have their heads be uncovered. Why are you more up in arms about one small aside than in these far more aggregious things?

If you really think that a lack of a head covering is equivalent to homosexual behavior then I really don't think I can explain it to you. The level of severity is completely different. Also some of those things might be different in a modern church. For one thing families sit together in a modern church, whereas in the earliest churches, men and women would have sat in separate sections and calling across the aisle to ask questions would have been disruptive.

We've already gone over the causes, it is not a mental illness. It is not a physical disease state. In order for it to be a paraphilia, it needs to be pathological. Because it is not the result of a physical or mental disorder, it does not fit the criteria and was correctly taken out of the books as such.

We're just going to have to disagree on this one, because it looks like one to me. It certainly seems pathological to me when an otherwise healthy man is flouncing around with a purse as if he were a woman.

Also render unto Ceasar's what is Ceasar's. Jesus was no Libertarian.
The early church was very much a commune, in that everyone's possessions and wealth was pooled. Each was given to according to need. That's pretty liberal if you ask me. Actually more liberal that I am.

It was very important that Christians helped each other out because they weren't going to be liked by anyone outside their community.

[Rubystars]

And were I to try I'm sure that I could demonstrate that your life, or even just your behaviour in this thread is sinful according to the New Testament.

From the NT

"Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. "

In my opinion loving your neighbor doesn't mean engaging in homosexual acts with them. It also doesn't mean you have to approve of sinful things they engage in.

[Nyoibo]

This article talks about how lesbian couples raising children have a feminizing effect on boys and a masculinizing effect on girls:
http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

I invite you to read that article yourself as it seems you haven't.

Compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They show greater interest in activities with both masculine and feminine qualities. They have higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female.

Nope, nothing about making them butch, but it does seem to make them want something more than being a homemaker.

In terms of aggression and play, sons of lesbians behave in less traditionally masculine ways. They are likely to be more nurturing and affectionate than their counterparts in heterosexual families.

Nothing there about boys becoming pansies either, seems more that they're taught to respect and consider others more.

Teen-age and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexual mothers. Sons, on the other hand, were somewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste than boys raised by heterosexuals.

This I did have to laugh at, in my experiance it's the total opposite.


And just because you were using this as an example that it harms children.

The studies indicate that sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on the mental health of children.


"These studies find no significant differences between children of lesbian and heterosexual mothers in anxiety, depression, self-esteem and numerous other measures of social and psychological adjustment"

And before you say it, the part at the bottom that actually mentions masculinisation and femininisation is from a member of NARTH, not the authors of the study.

and are probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves.

This one surprised me, every person who I've met who has explored homosexual activity has been from heterosexual family that has a mother and father.

[Nyoibo]

In my opinion loving your neighbor doesn't mean engaging in homosexual acts with them. It also doesn't mean you have to approve of sinful things they engage in.

That says nothing about loving thy neighbour, it says Love does no harm to its neighbor.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I've been reading this thread out of morbid curiosity, so now I'm throwing in my copper coinage for the hell of it (no pun intended)...

(Unless otherwise noted, all quotations are from Rubystars)



Being openly gay affects others in the community to a degree. Their behavior is perverse, deviant, and sinful.

How so? Prove it - with a NON-religious/Biblical-based answer. For my purposes I'm tossing out the religious stuff (mostly), because 1) I'm agnostic (which BTW is NOT the same thing as atheism), and 2) I've seen way too much abuse of *all* religions to take any of it seriously so religion in general frankly means squat to me.

I do believe that it is harmful that homosexuality is accepted as normal. To conservatives, that is the harm, along with this idea being taught to children. These things are considered harmful by conservatives regardless of whatever other harm could potentially happen.

How is it harmful? Are you afraid that by learning that gay people and gay feelings exist in this world, that children will suddenly decide they want to be gay? I seriously doubt this will happen. You are either attracted to one sex or the other (or even no sex at all!), and all the supposed "indoctrination" in the world isn't going to change the way you feel about sex with one person or another.

I was raised in a conservative environment and within the past decade I have learned to reject it, at least the kind that seems to be prevalent anymore. These words are but one of the many reasons I decided that modern conservatism is little more than ignorant, arrogant bullshit.

The fun part? I consider myself neither wholly liberal nor conservative. I do lean liberal more often than not because I decided the majority of liberal beliefs made much more sense; however, there are a few areas where I break rank with liberals (the main one being on the death penalty, which I support). Likewise, with conservatism, I have no problem with a strong military (so long as it is used *sensibly*, which it arguably has NOT been in the past decade).


I just don't want official recognition of them. I don't see how that's forcing anyone to follow my moral codes. It's just saying that I don't want my government to reflect the moral codes of the homosexual lobby.

You are aware that the so-called "homosexual agenda" does not exist, yes? This is but one of many myth-lies conservatives nowadays like to spread - they're playing on that fear factor.

The government is not going to suddenly decide that all heterosexual marriages are invalid by legalizing homosexual unions. Nor is it going to mandate that all heteros must "turn" gay. If it ever did decide to do such (which it wouldn't, for reasons I'll shortly explain), I would be fighting just as hard to keep your heterosexual marriage valid as I do in supporting my friends' gay friends' desire to set up shop with the person they love. I believe that love is love and it doesn't matter if you are straight or gay, and I believe that love is the only absolute mandate for any marriage (as long as the participants are of legal age and full informed consent, so don't try to pull the "but if we let gays marry then people will want to marry their dogs/pedophiles will want to marry kids" card)


If only they would keep it in the bedroom!

I don't know where you live that you'd be seeing a lot of gay people knocking boots in public, but where I come from, seeing heterosexual nooky out and about is a lot more common (and I ain't talking about the general kissy-kissing that couples normally do, I mean surgical explorations of the throat cavity that are better left to a dental office). About the only places I can think of where you'd see gay behavior out the ass (pun intended this time) are as thus:

1) TV. Easily remedied - turn it off! Or subscribe to one of those all-Xtian channels that plays nothing but bland inoffensiveness. (Bonus: it's a great sleep aid for insomnia) There are a gazillion and one different channels out there nowadays catering to just about every viewership imaginable; there has to be a couple of 'em that would be more suited to your palate.

2) Gay pride parades. Also easy - don't go to one (Which admittedly could still be difficult if you live in a city where the parade route runs right through downtown and clogs the traffic, but still, mostly avoidable if you know which streets to take). And as bizarre as this may sound to you, not every single gay person in the world feels the need or even the desire to attend every gay pride parade that's going on, much less perform any outrageous antics. (Just ask Smileyeagle, who is gay)

If by deciding morality for the country you mean basing law on Judeo-Christian moral values, then yes I think that's how it should be.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Judeo-Christian systems do NOT have the monopoly on morality, goodness and values. The system can work when it is applied in a benevolent manner, but too often it isn't, which is why we don't allow any one religion to take precedence in our government - the founders of America knew this only too well, and history has borne out that any time any one religion, whether it's Christianity, Islam, or anything else is allowed to dictate government and law (aka theocracy), VERY BAD THINGS happen.

Case in point: We currently have over in Africa a very horrid situation wherein *children* are being tortured, exiled and murdered in horrific ways because they are "suspected" of practicing "witchcraft." Thanks in no small part to malignant "Christian" sects going over there to "preach the word," combine that with tribal views and traditions and it's a recipe for disaster. As a result, this abuse is on the rise, and they're not just limiting it to children, they're going after ANYbody, adult or child, male or female, anyone they think is a witch or even people they just don't like for whatever reason. And these accused are suffering in indescribably hellish ways for this ignorance and malignant manipulation of religion.

Of course gay marriage leads to more widespread gay adoption, and the teaching of homosexuality as normal in public schools. These are things that many conservatives find to be unacceptable. They don't want their children exposed to that stuff in school or to worry if they have a child up for adoption that it might go to a homosexual couple.

And how are these bad things? How will they hurt children?

The funny thing about isolating and insulating kids against the world: sooner or later reality is going to come crashing down on your head. And those kids that are "protected" from the "evils" of the world are going to be in for one hell of a rude awakening and will be at a serious disadvantage when that reality does come barging in. That's what I see in the conservative mindset that "kids must not be told anything about homosexuality other than that it's OMG BAD 'cuz we/this book/etc. said so".

No, I am not advocating that kindergartners be taught how to use a condom. I DO advocate for age-appropriate education, i.e., a kindergartner doesn't really need to know much beyond "Steve likes Roy, the same way Mommy likes Daddy." If the kid asks why, then you can play the "because" card. As they get older, you help them fill in the gaps. And because heterosexuality is currently the dominant genetic marker (and is probably always going to be so), odds are that Junior is still going to be straight when he matures - he'll just be informed and aware, and probably more likely to make sensible choices where sex is concerned.

And straight parents aren't exactly the most perfect on the planet, in case it escaped your notice. How many kids are tortured, neglected, beaten, starved, abused, raped and murdered by their OWN PARENTS EVERY YEAR? Fact: the MAJORITY of pedophiles are *straight males*.

It is the gay movement which seeks to enforce its own morals on the rest of society by forcing us to acknowledge them as legitimate rather than abnormal.

Nope, sorry, that fails. Gay people are not demanding that all straight marriages be invalidated. Nor are gay people demanding that all heterosexuals must partake of homosexual sex from now on. What gay people ARE demanding is the right to enjoy the legal benefits that heteros get to have. They ARE demanding that people treat them as decent human beings who just want to love and live like the rest of us do.

And this to me is one of the two real roots behind the anti-gay marriage crowd: they don't want to share their toys. See, the government is not going to "promote" gay marriage or discriminate against heterosexuals because technically, your average gay couple doesn't produce more good little taxpayers (barring in-vitro or surrogacy or something like that), wherein hetero marriage usually does. It's a vicious cycle. Married people get more benefits than do single people (who get screwed over in any system because of the cultural bullshit that singles are somehow inferior lonely losers), and if you're gay? Unless you live in a state where your union is legally recognized, you're outta luck. So if your loved one is dying in a hospital, guess what, you can't go pay your last respects because you're gay, since only spouses and immediate family members are allowed in ICUs. But straight married couples get to do that, just because they're straight.

If anything, I would think that the government would benefit from allowing gay marriages, because hey, gay people have to pay taxes too, and let's never forget that Uncle Sam's true love is m-o-n-e-y. And as much as people love to bitch about the government and spending, there ARE times when they DO get it right, and a lot of that money can go towards important services: social safety nets, infrastructure (like roads), public transport, public safety (police, fire, etc.) and so on.

The other is that pesky religion card: marriage must OMG produce children. Says who? (Religion doesn't count) Lots of straight couples out there who've chosen not to have any kids because they don't want to. Are their marriages any less valid because they decided not to reproduce? I don't think so. If you're married, you're married, and I am going to treat you as such regardless if you have kids or don't, are gay or straight. Because ultimately, I believe that getting married is about wanting to spend your life with the person you love, and I believe that how we treat others is what matters most to God (if there is one, which I can neither prove nor disprove, but I'm comfortable with that ambiguity/mystery).


I believe that homosexuality causes general moral decay, simply by the fact that it's something immoral that's openly flaunted now instead of being discreet like it was in the past. Now parents have to try to explain to their children why that man is giggling and swinging a purse around

The real threat as I see it is how society will change as homosexuality becomes more acceptable. When it moves from the fringes into the mainstream, then society itself will be less moral.

Would it be any less immoral to you if it was kept "discreet"? Somehow I don't think so. And keep in mind that being forced to keep it on the down-low, so to speak, is precisely the reason many gay people suffered/suffer stress - it's basically saying "You're not good enough to be with regular people, take your cooties away from us." There is also the threat of violence.

Parents have to explain to kids why some man is carrying a purse? For all you know he could just be holding it for his female partner who is in the restroom or something. (Excepting instances where it may be blatantly obvious that someone is gay, of course, and even then you might not know it unless you went up to the person and asked them flat-out - appearances CAN be deceiving at times) I feel sorry for the kids who will get told in response to that question some variant of "because he's an icky pervert", because those kids will grow up raised on a diet of ignorance and bigotry - and they are that much more likely to continue that ugliness. Did you know that kids who are gay are *relentlessly* bullied in school? Did you know that bullying does a LOT of damage to a person? (And I would know, having been bullied while growing up) I'm talking to the point of suicide here.

When I was growing up I knew a gay couple who were active on the local library board. I didn't know them well, but nobody I knew who knew them had anything bad to say about them. I remember my mom telling me when we were going to meet them for the first time (I think my mom was looking for a book or something) that they were "brothers." And I believed her. Of course, looking back now I know why that didn't quite jell with me, but at the time I thought nothing of it because as a kid my biggest concern was which Saturday morning cartoon to watch first; it was probably her way of sidestepping any potential discussions. Even so, I wish she had just leveled with me in the first place, it might have headed off some of my own ignorance on the matter (Yes, I used to believe that gay people were freaks of nature; told you that's one of the reasons I rejected conservatism - once you get to know somebody it's hard to view them as freaks, much less treat them as such even if they are in the minority "Abnormal" doesn't necessarily always mean "bad", it just means something different that's outside the norm).

Men and women complement one another but homosexual relations are like trying to put two like poles of magnets together. It just doesn't work the same way.

If by this you mean procreation, there's no rule that says every marriage *must* produce children. (And frankly, I wouldn't want to be a part of any institution that mandates forced birth, especially since I'm childfree) Besides, what about those straight couples who for whatever reason *can't* have kids? Oops, guess they must be sinning, ah well, they say all the cool people are going to hell anyway so they'll be in good company.

Men and women can complement one another, but with the straight marriage divorce rate at about 50% these days, straights obviously aren't doing a very good job at maintaining the "sanctity" of marriage. And it has nothing to do with gay people, but everything to do with lack of respect, shared ideals and trust.

(cont.)

[Amethyst Hunter]

Case in point: Couple years ago my own parents came *thisclose* to splitting after 30-some years. I shit you not, if someone had so much as dared to insinuate to me that my parents were divorcing because of gay people wanting to get married, I would have punched that person out cold on the spot. It was lack of trust and respect that led to my parents' near-divorce (they since reconciled, but it's not been smooth going - long story), and nothing else even remotely related to immorality or homosexuality. (And I swear to whatever gods do exist that if someone DARES try to insinuate that outside forces are somehow responsible for influencing my parents' problems, I will reach through this computer screen and strangle the shit out of that person.)

Honestly, I get why some people are squicked out by homosexuality (especially of the male variety), I really do. I write slashfic for fun, after all but I have no problem with the fact that not everybody likes to read slashfic; I go where I know it will be appreciated. The human body is a pretty gross factory when you think about it and I'd rather not dwell on particular aspects any more than I have to. But why should I discriminate against somebody because of which type of hole they like to play around with? As long as you're not having sex with non-consenting adults, children, animals or dead bodies, I don't care what you do with your sex life because it's not harming me. (And trust me, the slippery slope argument that if we allow homosexuality then we'll move on to those things holds no water - gay groups have in fact come out (no pun, blah blah) against idiots like NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association, fyi for those not in the know) and anybody, gay or straight, with half a brain recognizes that doing any of the abovementioned categories is Just Plain Wrong, religion or no religion.) Whatever is a sin, God if there is one will deal with it in his own way; that's why the verse "pluck out the plank in your own eye before pointing to your neighbor's" exists.

Or do you not trust and believe that God is man enough (so to speak) to handle his own problems? If you believe that God is all-powerful, then God doesn't need humans to run the universe for him.

Gay marriage is immoral in my belief because that's what my faith teaches me.

Which is pretty much the equivalent of a parent telling a child "Because I said so" without further elaboration. (and it's kind of a childish response in itself!) Which is why non-religious and even some religious people discount it completely. We are adults, we demand adult reasoning and explanations. Fearmongering and myths might have had some impact when we were children, but that doesn't cut it anymore.

Someone elsewhere - and I wish I could remember who said it and where I found it - basically put it as thus: "You have the right to an opinion; you do NOT have the right to have that opinion taken seriously." Which is why I call bullshit on the conservatives screaming that they're the ones being "persecuted" every time their desire to discriminate via legislation gets shot down in flames. For one thing, you CANNOT be "persecuted" or discriminated against when YOU are the dominant mass, which, let's face it, America is still very much conservative (we did, after all, hail from a bunch of Puritans originally) in spite of liberal progression. Individually, yes, you can be discriminated against. But not the group as a whole, which gay people are because they're still the minority and probably always will be.

From Wingates_Hellsing: It's also important to remember that even conventional marriages are often unstable especially when not based on mutual respect, attraction and interest. A successful marriage has everything to do with the attitude, temperament, and lifestyle of the people involved. I don't see any logical reason why two people of the same gender who are compatible from that standpoint would have any harder a time getting along than a similar coupling of opposite genders.

I support this statement completely. See above for my mention of my parents' own marriage.


I don't think loving people includes being gay.

Why not? Who are you to say that love can be limited? (Again, don't try to pull the "pedos" card or the "beastiality" card - that doesn't wash.) If you love someone, it should be because you respect that person and have a lot in common with them, particularly important points that can be dealbreakers for people (like religion, interests, etc.), and you want to share your life with them. If homosexuality really is a sin - which I doubt it is - it's *God's* problem, not yours. Let God deal with it. Nobody has ever given me a good reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed that isn't based on religion or fear of the unknown, so I see no reason not to prevent legal recognition of and conferrence of benefits to gay unions.

I asked my brother recently why he felt gay marriage was harmful to *him* (my exact words, too). He replied with "because it's demoralizing and confuses children." Nope, sorry, fail. I may not be gay, but I don't feel demoralized because Jenny and Susie are shacking up. And unless you failed basic biology in school, there's no confusion about where babies come from, and kids are not going to suddenly decide "ooh I wanna be gay when I grow up!" just because they see gay couples doing what any other hetero couple does in society.


It will be taught as an achievement of the ongoing "civil rights movement", and stories with homosexual characters will be read to children as if they were normal characters.

Because God forbid that we actually treat homosexuals like decent human beings instead of acting like they're somehow worth less than heterosexual members of society, which is pretty much the message we're sending by denying them access to what everyone else has.

Gay characters in stories read to kids isn't 'normal'? So gay people don't eat breakfast? They don't put their pants on one leg at a time like straight people? Gay people don't work, don't like to read books or play card games? Gay people don't use public transport or drive their own vehicles? Gay people don't worry about how they're going to pay for college or help out a struggling family member? Gay people don't suffer from domestic violence?

A story's a story; kids are not going to care about a character's sexuality unless it's specifically made the focus of a story, and even then, depending on the story and the kid's age, they'll probably gloss over it. Again, it's all about age-appropriate education.


I just get annoyed by the fact that kids these days can't be innocent about that stuff and have to learn it earlier than they used to.

There's no need to go into explicit detail when explaining any part of sex to young children. Just give them the basics on an age-appropriate basis and they'll be fine. If you make a huge stink out of it they're going to pick up the message that something's wrong, and if they should be gay, that's going to make them feel like shit, which in turn leads to coping mechanisms like drugs and such, because they'll believe they can't trust you not to treat them like crap if they tell you they're gay. (Many a teenager has been booted out of the house and cut off from all contact by parents angry that their son or daughter is gay; this is why homeless shelters for gay teens exist) If you keep calm and explain things in a non-biased way, inasmuch as their age can handle, they'll be okay and will likely grow up with a sane view of sexuality and behave in a responsible way in regards to sex (i.e., not getting into it prematurely and risking disease or unwanted pregnancy in an effort to "prove" their hetero standing).

And hey, even though I don't have kids, I get where parents are coming from on the sexualization of children, gay or straight. I firmly believe that kids should be allowed their innocence - kids should not be wearing thongs or makeup at age seven, they should be out picking dandelions and figuring out the best way to blow up watermelons to make the biggest mess possible. But I do think that kids need to be taught that stuff exists, that Shit Happens, and explaining how to make sensible choices regarding either of these things is a necessary part of being a parent, or else the world's going to kick them in the teeth right when they least expect it.


Both people should want to get married because they want to have a life-long bond with the other person.

And that, aside from legal age of consent, should be the only basic requirement for ANY marriage - gay or straight. Gay people don't love any less or any differently (excepting the physical part) than straight people do.


I think it's harmful for things like homosexuality to be accepted as normal even if it doesn't cause other problems.

Why? How does it harm you *personally*? Are there bands of gay people roaming your streets looking to shotgun-wed any straight person they can get their mitts on?

It's not ignorance I'm promoting but just a chance for them to get an understanding of hetero couples first. Thus the prince and princess stories, etc.

Keep in mind that some of these prince-and-princess stories can be quite harmful given the cultural obsession with them. Take the whole Cinderella/Snow White/Sleeping Beauty deal, for instance. Girls are already manipulated into following the "life script" that society thinks is acceptable for females; if they're taught to believe that being "beautiful" is the only thing in life that matters and that a man will "rescue" them and take care of every problem they have, it's a recipe for bad self-esteem and inability to cope with life. (We won't even get into the whole virgin/whore dichotomy - that's another messed-up can 'o worms)

No, I don't think that these fairytales should be banned or anything like that. But I do believe that parents need to emphasize reality, and teach their kids that this is JUST that, a fairytale, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Kids will already have a good dose of hetero-based coupleship from what they see in the world and the media they're exposed to, so it's unlikely that they'll grow up lacking for hetero examples.


You can't legislate morality, but you can hold back from openly condoning immorality.

The government is not and should not be in the business of deciding what is and isn't immoral. The government's job is to ensure a fully functioning civilized society. All letting gay people marry means is that there's some more paperwork to process.

Church marriage and court marriage are two different things, actually. The former is more of a personal thing in regards to religion, which as you know varies wildly among people; court marriage is the one that counts as far as legal status goes, and this is what gay people want. True, some gay people are religious and would like to conduct a religious-based ceremony in the church of their choice, so as far as church marriage goes, I see this as a self-correcting problem. Those churches that will do gay marriages will do them, and those churches that won't should be allowed to reject requests for marriage ceremonies involving homosexual couples. I don't see where gay people are demanding that non-gay churches do this, from what I'm seeing they either opt to go to another church that is gay-friendly, or they go the court route and ignore the religious stuff altogether. In time, the churches that refuse to change will probably die out as more people go to the churches that are inclusive.

(cont. in final post)

[Amethyst Hunter]

Gay people aren't lobbying to change the definition of marriage to mean "homos only," they want it to be *inclusive* of all consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation. I fail to see why this is immoral or a threat to myself, much less society at large. To date, no gay person has ever come up to me and threatened to attack me if I didn't have sex with another woman, or marry a woman on the spot. No gay person has ever suggested or espouse that I should lose or be denied particular rights for not being gay.

I HAVE, however, been given the stinkeye treatment by so-called Xtians because I don't share their misinformed and prejudiced views, or support regulations that would unduly infringe upon the lives of people they don't like/disagree with. You can guess which side I'm more likely to take seriously.

From Flyndaran: You do want to hurt them by denying them rights that we enjoy. Bigotry isn't always direct violence. It is also about refusals to accept others as deserving to be different.

From the_std: Your religion has no place in the law. Period. It doesn't matter what Jesus did or did not say. If your religion is your motivation for your feelings against gays, it has no place in the law whatsoever.

Both of these statements I agree with.

It's my opinion that Islam took a lot of things from Judaism and Christianity and made them more extreme. The early Muslims lifted a lot of things from the Bible and then claimed the Bible was corrupt and that they had the true last testament.

In practice, Jews and Christians in the modern world don't engage in those types of brutal things for the most part, at least not on a religious basis. You might hear the occasional story of a lunatic or strange cult though. Islam seems to have these things

O RLY? Where have you been for the past 8 years? We might not have had a bunch of suicide bombers running around, but we sure did come dangerously close to having our democratic republic shift into the early stages of a Biblical-cult-based theocracy, thanks to all the fundy crap that bunch was trying to implement. Look up dominionism or reconstructionist Christianity, it's pretty enlightening (and terrifying).

And Christianity stole plenty from all the pagan religions it trampled over in its bloody (literally) rise to power. Easter? Comes from Oestre (sp?), a pagan celebration of spring. Christmas comes from the Yule, another pagan holiday. So none of the Big Three religions are entirely pure, given that religion changes as the years pass. Judaism, Islam and Christianity are all related, you might call them cousins of a sort since they all have common denominators (even the Bible bears this out since it mentions just how the split between Christianity and Islam got started, and the Koran mentions Jesus in a favorable light even though it doesn't name him as the son of God). The *warped interpretations* of Islam (indeed, of any religion) are responsible for the damage done; it's unfair to put all the blame on Islam in general especially when the *majority* of Muslims are peaceful - there's probably something like 1 billion Muslims in the world, and if they really all did hate America, don't you think we'd be seeing a helluva lot more terrorism than we are?

This article talks about how lesbian couples raising children have a feminizing effect on boys and a masculinizing effect on girls...I don't think that's ok in the least bit, because I think boys should be masculine and girls should be feminine. That's the kind of thing that I would consider to be harmful

Define what you think masculinity and femininity should be. You think men who cry are sissies? You think women who climb trees are tomboys? Sexist crap like that is a big reason why both genders have major issues. Frankly, I am going to like what I like and do what I want, and I don't give a flying F whether or not it's considered "masculine" or "feminine", because those rigid constructs are just another way to keep people down in their "place."

And finally: I post not because I'm going to change anybody's mind - I know I won't, just as they won't change mine - I post because I'm sick and tired of seeing people excuse ignorance and bigotry as "protecting" someone from something (i.e., the BS "it's for the chilllllldren!") while ignoring the real abuse going on, and I don't want to be counted among those who claim to speak for me in the name of so-called "values". I post to help those who have little to no voice be heard. I post because I have known or seen far too many people who do have personal experience with something like this, and the emotional ramifications have nothing to do with "sickness" or "disorder"; these are REAL people and they ARE getting hurt by groups that would rather pretend they're invisible and didn't exist.

And if there's one thing on this earth that spikes my blood pressure through the roof into insta-kill mode, it's BULLYING. Which is really what the heart of the anti-gay stance is, even if no actual violence is taking place. You don't always need weapons to damage or destroy someone's life.

[Nyoibo]

One last thing I've been meaning to say for a while which I heard someone say a few days ago, unless they were trying to be true to themselves why would someone choose to be gay, with all the persecution, hatred and violence directed to them, why would anyone choose that willingly?

[Flyndaran]

...
In practice, Jews and Christians in the modern world don't engage in those types of brutal things for the most part, at least not on a religious basis. You might hear the occasional story of a lunatic or strange cult though. Islam seems to have these things as part of its mainstream.

It has nothing to do with the religion. It has to do with the facts that islam is the youngest of of the three. Judaism and christianity were just as grotesquely violent when they were this young.
It also has to do with the fact that most of the muslims that we hear about are the extremists and poverty stricken. Poverty leads to religious extremism.
There are many gentile muslims. We just don't hear about them, because americans don't give a crap about anyone that isn't trying to attack us.

Eye color and handedness usually doesn't cause any kind of major social impact.
....

You do realize that throughout history left handed people were persecuted? Up until the 70s in the U.S., children were beaten to force them to use their right hands?
Even today in many cultures using the left hand to eat or greet others is considered a horrible insult?
I didn't choose to be left-handed and live in a world built for the righties.
I didn't choose to be hetero. I was born this way, and find offense in anyone saying I had a choice.

...
We're just going to have to disagree on this one, because it looks like one to me. It certainly seems pathological to me when an otherwise healthy man is flouncing around with a purse as if he were a woman.
....

Wow. So not only is being gay wrong and diseased, but dancing and articles of clothing are too?
Crap on a cracker, you live in a very religiously strict world.

I dressed up as a woman for my 6th grade halloween day. I even used my friend's makeup, because my mom's didn't match my skin tone. Nope, still like the ladies. Clothing does not have a sex. I find the idea silly.

In my opinion loving your neighbor doesn't mean engaging in homosexual acts with them. It also doesn't mean you have to approve of sinful things they engage in.

Loving your neighbor means finding those two neighbors loving eachother sinful? That's some really weird and jarring ideas.

[linguist]

This article talks about how lesbian couples raising children have a feminizing effect on boys and a masculinizing effect on girls:
http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

the national association for research and therapy of homosexuality? nope, no bias there.

care to try again? maybe with an actual unbiased source?

I don't think that's ok in the least bit, because I think boys should be masculine and girls should be feminine. That's the kind of thing that I would consider to be harmful, but other people wouldn't.

you seem to be consistently equating feminine behavior in men and masculine behavior in women with homosexuality. i've known plenty of gay men who are super-masculine and even more lesbians who are more feminine than most straight women i know. how would you account for them?

We're just going to have to disagree on this one, because it looks like one to me. It certainly seems pathological to me when an otherwise healthy man is flouncing around with a purse as if he were a woman.

it looks like it to you, but you've already admitted that you have no qualifications to make that call. why don't you leave it to those who are actually qualified who've already made the determination that it's not a mental illness? or is this a case of since they disagree with you you clearly know better, despite having no professional training or experience?

[Flyndaran]

...
you seem to be consistently equating feminine behavior in men and masculine behavior in women with homosexuality. i've known plenty of gay men who are super-masculine and even more lesbians who are more feminine than most straight women i know. how would you account for them?
...

How about me? I'm a bit feminine but very very hetero. My girlfriend calls me the gayest straight man she's ever met.

[Talon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OegYyA94rs

The above video does a better job than I could of explaining why the bible (new and old testament) argument and the Jesus argument against homosexuality is complete rubbish. If the bible rejects homosexuality, then it also accepts incest, slavery, and pimping one's own daughters to be gang-raped as Lot did.