Homosexuality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shea

It's a two way street guys. If you respect other's opinions, they'll be more likely to respect yours.

---

So true. Thumbs up to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shea

It's a two way street guys. If you respect other's opinions, they'll be more likely to respect yours.

---

Some opinions don't deserve respect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Some opinions don't deserve respect.

---

If my opinion was that it's perfectly fine to shoot up a movie theatre, then yeah, I'll agree with your statement.

But if you think I'm a bigot because I won't write gay fiction, well then, you can just shoot me, Diana Moon Glampers.

I am wondering if certain things are not about principle.

I don't think I would be able to frequent a restaurant which refuses to serve Muslims or Jews or blacks... Or gays, for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

I am wondering if certain things are not about principle.

I don't think I would be able to frequent a restaurant which refuses to serve Muslims or Jews or blacks... Or gays, for that matter.

---

I agree. I would not be able to frequent a restaurant which discriminates in such a way. But by the same token, (if I were a drinker) I probably wouldn't frequent a gay bar. Not because I'm a bigoted against the patrons in it, but because it's not my thing. Bars really aren't my thing at all anyway.

Just because my publisher dosen't publish gay fiction dosen't mean that a gay person isn't welcome to read the books. She also wouldn't publish anything like 50 Shades of Grey either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

I am wondering if certain things are not about principle.

I don't think I would be able to frequent a restaurant which refuses to serve Muslims or Jews or blacks... Or gays, for that matter.

---

I'm guessing no Chick-fil-A for you then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

I'm guessing no Chick-fil-A for you then?

---

Chick-Fil-A doesn't discriminate anyone. As far as I've been able to tell, the owner simply stated their opinion on what defines marriage. I haven't found anything hateful in their statements. I've seen more hate coming from the gay supporters. If I've missed something, please show me an article (I am a busy mom of 2 boys after all :D )

The CEO of Chick-fil-A doesn't think gays have the right to marry, and espouses this belief. What more is there to say? He doesn't want gays to have rights and has said so. It's a discrimaging opinion. I won't be eating there. I think it's really stupid for a company to express any political/religious opinion, and if they do and I find it abhorrent, as I do the mindset that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, I won't be eating there.

Also, what is it about the "gay lifestyle" that you "disagree" with? And what does that even mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

The CEO of Chick-fil-A doesn't think gays have the right to marry, and espouses this belief. What more is there to say? He doesn't want gays to have rights and has said so. It's a discrimaging opinion. I won't be eating there. I think it's really stupid for a company to express any political/religious opinion, and if they do and I find it abhorrent, as I do the mindset that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, I won't be eating there.

---

I'm not sure if gays are big market for Chick-fil -A. :)

True, but I'm not gay and they're going to lose my business (not sure if they would've had it in the first place, but they assured my non-business with their statements), along with others I know, gay and straight. Still, they may gain some business, too, from like minded conservatives--that fat moron Mike Huckabee is even organizing a .Support Chick-fil-A Day" on August first (obviously a good use of his influence). It probably evens out in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

The CEO of Chick-fil-A doesn't think gays have the right to marry, and espouses this belief. What more is there to say? He doesn't want gays to have rights and has said so. It's a discrimaging opinion. I won't be eating there. I think it's really stupid for a company to express any political/religious opinion, and if they do and I find it abhorrent, as I do the mindset that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, I won't be eating there.

Also, what is it about the "gay lifestyle" that you "disagree" with? And what does that even mean?

---

Still doesn't mean he won't allow someone who is gay to eat at his restaurants. It's a christian company which takes the view that being gay is not in line with their christian beliefs. If you disagree, then you don't have to eat there. Just like I choose not to go to gay bars.

I know that someone is going to smack me for saying this, but I believe that "being gay" is a choice. People choose to give into urges everyday. That's why people have sex before and outside of marriage and will take the stance that they were only doing what they felt to be "natural". I disagree with it. They choose to give into sexual urges. This is why I hate being labled a bigot. No one chooses to be born with light or dark skin. Bigots will hate someone because of the color of their skin. Granted they will also hate someone because of their "sexual orientation". I will reiterate, I don't hate someone because of their "sexual orientation".

If you are friendly to me, I'll be friendly to you. Plain and simple.

I hope that answers your question. Both my boys are now awake, so I hope I make sense too. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

that fat moron Mike Huckabee is even organizing a .Support Chick-fil-A Day" on August first

---

Isn't that a double standard?

So, you make a conscious decision not to be gay?

And what's a double standard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

So, you make a conscious decision not to be gay?

---

Yes. But personally, I don't have those urges.

Quote:

---

And what's a double standard?

---

People support "Gay Day". What's wrong with supporting "Chick-fil-A Day"

Like I said, two-way street...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shea

Yes. But personally, I don't have those urges.



People support "Gay Day". What's wrong with supporting "Chick-fil-A Day"

Like I said, two-way street...

---

Yea I know, damn double standards, every year there is a holocaust memorial day, but where is the Nazi Pride day? Society is a btch like that.

Also this is why I hate it when people say that being gay means that you are part of a culture. Loving musicals, wearing strange clothes, acting in an effete manner, and all those other stereotypes (which have some truth to them) that is all choice.


Being attracted to other guys, is not a choice, that is just genetics.


Also are you anti-gay because of religious reasons? Because it says so in the bible? Because there is also a passage in the Bible which mentions that if a man rapes a virgin he by law must marry her. Why is no one fighting for a law to force rapists to marry their victims? So double standards...

(Yes I do watch the daily show)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Yea I know, damn double standards, every year there is a holocaust memorial day, but where is the Nazi Pride day? Society is a btch like that.

---

Uh, no. Chick-Fil-A hasn't murdered millions of people. Your comparison dosen't work.

Quote:

---

Loving musicals, wearing strange clothes, acting in an effete manner, and all those other stereotypes (which have some truth to them) that is all choice.

---

I agree and people are entitle to their opinions

Quote:

---

Being attracted to other guys, is not a choice, that is just genetics.

---

I need unbiased proof for that one.

Quote:

---

Also are you anti-gay because of religious reasons? Because it says so in the bible? Because there is also a passage in the Bible which mentions that if a man rapes a virgin he by law must marry her. Why is no one fighting for a law to force rapists to marry their victims? So double standards...

(Yes I do watch the daily show)

---

First of all I'm not "anti-gay", I think I've made my stance on this quite plain.

Secondly, your biblical comparison doesn't work either. Its from the "Old Law" (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), which was "nailed to the cross" when Christ died (Galatians 3:15-25) Incidentally, this is why it bugs me when people push the 10 commandments.

Oh, and I meant to add (sorry, having a massive headache right now), that, yes, it does say so in the Bible. It also talks against drunkeness, rage, discord, hatred, and envy in the same context. (I really don't like things taken out of context) I have trouble with rage and envy sometimes. It's a struggle, and I fail sometimes. But I'm always trying to fix it in my own character.

This is also why it REALLY bugs me when other "Christians" are very hypocritical on this topic. They start attacking people who say they are gay, and forget that they are guilty of the very sins listed in the same verse of the Bible.

Quote:

---

Uh, no. Chick-Fil-A hasn't murdered millions of people. Your comparison dosen't work.

---

Because being gay in the last 1000 years has not got anyone killed right ?

So are you trying to use the logic that, if millions are killed because of an ideology it is wrong to support, but if it is only thousands which were killed because of an ideology, that is quite fine?

Quote:

---

I agree and people are entitle to their opinions

---

Entitled to their opinions yes, entitled to act upon those opinions no.

Case in point:

Bin Laden say's "America is evil" - socially and morally acceptable.

Bin Lade bombs the twin towers killing civilians - socially and morally unacceptable


Persona A saying: I do not approve of homosexuality - socially and morally acceptable

Person A legally preventing homosexual couples to get married (which is a basic human right so long as marriage comes with tax privileges, tutelage of one spouse if the other is to die, and medical regulations allowing visits, not to mention the adoption of children and raising them as non-bastards)- socially and morally unacceptable

Quote:

---

I need unbiased proof for that one.

---

Try having sex with a member of the same sex, see how much of a choice it is in determining whom you are attracted to.

Quote:

---

First of all I'm not "anti-gay", I think I've made my stance on this quite plain.

---

Denying human beings their basic rights, because of the manner in which they were born? Im' not racist or anything, I just think mixed racial marriages should be illegal. That does not make me racist, just not pro-black.

Quote:

---

Secondly, your biblical comparison doesn't work either. Its from the "Old Law" (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), which was "nailed to the cross" when Christ died (Galatians 3:15-25) Incidentally, this is why it bugs me when people push the 10 commandments.

---

So Jews don't count? By not forcing rapists to marry their victims you are infringing upon the freedom of an entire religion.

That is not my logic by the by, that is just standard christian logic when it comes to gay marriage.



I detest thing kind of religious hypocrisy because I come from the land where a prime-minister hosts orgies and solicits sex from underage girls, and that is seen as bad behavior and a regrettable vice. But if he were to mention the topic of gay-marridge, that would make him an ally of satan.

Alex, I'm obviously not going to convince you to agree with me, and I really don't care. You ARE entitled to your beliefs and opinions. I'm okay with that.

But this is what bothers me:

Quote:

---

I detest thing kind of religious hypocrisy because I come from the land where a prime-minister hosts orgies and solicits sex from underage girls, and that is seen as bad behavior and a regrettable vice. But if he were to mention the topic of gay-marridge, that would make him an ally of satan.

---

I REALLY do not like being held to the same standard because of my personal opinions and beliefs. And I LOATHE being called a bigot because of people that. I'm not your prime-minister. This is not a black and white issue. I really hurts ME when people behave like that because people jump all over me before I get a chance to explain myself.

Many people for religious reasons will often make the following statement: "I don't hate gays but we (strongly) dislike their lifestyle".

That is tantamount to saying you don't hate black people, but dislike their blackness". It's sort of absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonywalt

Many people for religious reasons will often make the following statement: "I don't hate gays but we (strongly) dislike their lifestyle".

That is tantamount to saying you don't hate black people, but dislike their blackness". It's sort of absurd.

---

I'm not even going to bother with this one. I'll just be repeating myself.

I think my earlier Diana Moon Glampers reference was too subtle. Kurt Vonnegut wrote an excellent example of why people don't think, feel, act, etc., in exactly the same way.

"Hate the sin not the sinner", to me, does not make sense. Indeed, it is an excuse to stay judgmental without judging. How can one not hate the rapist but his act of raping? Semantics abounds in fundamentalist religiosity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

"Hate the sin not the sinner", to me, does not make sense. Indeed, it is an excuse to stay judgmental without judging. How can one not hate the rapist but his act of raping? Semantics abounds in fundamentalist religiosity.

---

That's what forgiveness is for. For many people it may take years to forgive. For example, look at Craig Scott, one of the survivors of the Columbine shooting.

"Hate the sin and not the sinner" seems incredible, but it is most certainly possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shea

That's what forgiveness is for. For many people it may take years to forgive. For example, look at Craig Scott, one of the survivors of the Columbine shooting.

Hate the sin and not the sinner" seems incredible, but it is most certainly possible.

---

I am not sure I agree with this because the underlaying message of this is to hate still and that for me is wrong.
No hatred whatsover regardless is what it's at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

I am not sure I agree with this because the underlaying message of this is to hate still and that for me is wrong.
No hatred whatsover regardless is what it's at.

---

Phrase is actually one of those "bibleisms" and it's really not in there. But the idea is kind of there and you make a good point. We need less ideas of hate in our lives. I would amend the phrase to say, "Do not love the sin, but love the sinner."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shea

I need unbiased proof for that one.

---

The question is a bit of a red herring, but there is overwhelming evidence of hormonal, genetic, and environmental contributing factors and little to no scientific evidence that it is a "choice," which is itself usually a poorly defined parameter by those who use the word. What constitutes a choice?

It is the official stance of the APA and the AAP, the two largest American scientific/medical associations that address issues of sexuality, that sexuality is not a choice.

Both organizations also hold that "conversion therapy" doesn't work. So, there is also no evidence that one can reliably change sexual orientation, something which one would expect if it were readily a choice.

Also, this does not mean that sexuality cannot be malleable, people can change how they relate to their sexuality. However, just as someone's favourite flavour of ice cream can change from vanilla to chocolate over a lifetime, it doesn't mean people make conscious choices about their palette.

This issue is going to pull the Anglican chruch apart as they struggle with the evolved worldview of those who accept homosexuality within the church, and those traditionalists who do not. (In the UK)

I think the problems arise when a religion is tied to what they regard as the holy book and therefore sacrosanct. It has driven some to the catholic church already.

Now they are fighting the idea of gay marriage because they know that denying the right to a marriage in a church will then constitute a breach of a couple's human rights.

The claim of the church over the word marriage is interesting too as they are trying to define it in terms of the church's view on it - it being in their view a sacrament.

I am still not sure what "gay lifestyle" means.

Can anyone offer an explanation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

This issue is going to pull the Anglican chruch apart as they struggle with the evolved worldview of those who accept homosexuality within the church, and those traditionalists who do not. (In the UK)

I think the problems arise when a religion is tied to what they regard as the holy book and therefore sacrosanct. It has driven some to the catholic church already.

Now they are fighting the idea of gay marriage because they know that denying the right to a marriage in a church will then constitute a breach of a couple's human rights.

The claim of the church over the word marriage is interesting too as they are trying to define it in terms of the church's view on it - it being in their view a sacrament.

---

The Canadian branch is already out of communion with some of the African ones over issues of gay marriage. Although, they eventually decided on only blessing unions and allowing openly gay clergy, instead of full on marriage in order to prevent a schism with England.

We actually had an openly gay Catholic priest as an MP in Montreal, but he was eventually forced to resign his seat to remain a priest. I think the churches will always reflect the societies they find themselves in, the Catholic Church will come to the left in Quebec simply to stop itself from being completely abandoned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

I am still not sure what "gay lifestyle" means.

Can anyone offer an explanation?

---

An American term they seem to use to emphasize that gay people choose to be gay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shea

Yes. But personally, I don't have those urges.

---

But if homosexuality is a choice, and one is judging homosexuals because they've made the choice to love someone of the same sex, how can one claim they don't have those urges? If you don't have those urges, you didn't have to make a choice in the first place. Why would some have to make a choice and why would others, like you, not have to? It would seem to me that the whole "it's a choice" accusation is dependent upon, you know, people actually having to make a choice. That some do and that some don't, as you concede (even if flimsily so), would seem to support that it is indeed out of an individual's control. If it wasn't, we would all be on an equal playing field, each of us having urges for both sexes, and each of us choosing the sexuality we want to practice. I'm betting homosexuals feel pretty much the same way about being in a heterosexual relationship as you feel about being in a homosexual one.

Also, if it is a choice, why would anyone choose to be gay? Why choose to put yourself in a position of otherness, and lead yourself to possible prejudice and persecution? What, gays just want to be different, like the kids who has his face pierced up and dresses all in black?

And you never answered what exactly you disagreed with when it comes to the homosexual lifestyle.

Just did a quick search on Chick-fil-A... Luckily, I don't like chicken. When I go to Nando's, I order the only non-chicken items available on their menu: Steak sandwich and Mediterranean salad.

;)

*sigh* this is getting harder to explain because "the church" takes such a political stance on this issue, and I'm not part of "the church." I guess when someone brings up religion (which wasn't me in this conversation), it's inevitable that I'm going to get grouped in with it.

Maybe it will help if I explain it this way:

I make the choice not to get drunk. I've zero desire to get drunk and I never have. Getting drunk happens to be a popular and accepted activity but I don't agree with that lifestyle. But I also don't go shoving my Bible under people's noses and say "You shouldn't get drunk."

I'm also wondering if you guys think that I'm completely anti-gay marriage? Honestly, I really don't care if it's accepted in this country or not. I don't fight for it, and I don't fight against it. People can do what they want. Just DON'T call me a bigot! :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

But if homosexuality is a choice, and one is judging homosexuals because they've made the choice to love someone of the same sex, how can one claim they don't have those urges? If you don't have those urges, you didn't have to make a choice in the first place. Why would some have to make a choice and why would others, like you, not have to? It would seem to me that the whole "it's a choice" accusation is dependent upon, you know, people actually having to make a choice. That some do and that some don't, as you concede (even if flimsily so), would seem to support that it is indeed out of an individual's control. If it wasn't, we would all be on an equal playing field, each of us having urges for both sexes, and each of us choosing the sexuality we want to practice. I'm betting homosexuals feel pretty much the same way about being in a heterosexual relationship as you feel about being in a homosexual one.

Also, if it is a choice, why would anyone choose to be gay? Why choose to put yourself in a position of otherness, and lead yourself to possible prejudice and persecution? What, gays just want to be different, like the kids who has his face pierced up and dresses all in black?

And you never answered what exactly you disagreed with when it comes to the homosexual lifestyle.

---

Right. LGBT people have moments when they ask themselves why they are what they are. If you think gay men are happy with their gayness, you don't really know their suffering. Too many of them have been duped by therapies because of their desire to change but have failed. Also, too many of them have succumbed to suicide and intentional HIV infection for eventual death because of too much suffering. If what they are is a choice, who, in their right minds, will choose death over life or suffering over stability and comfort?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shea

*sigh* this is getting harder to explain because "the church" takes such a political stance on this issue, and I'm not part of "the church." I guess when someone brings up religion (which wasn't me in this conversation), it's inevitable that I'm going to get grouped in with it.

Maybe it will help if I explain it this way:

I make the choice not to get drunk. I've zero desire to get drunk and I never have. Getting drunk happens to be a popular and accepted activity but I don't agree with that lifestyle. But I also don't go shoving my Bible under people's noses and say "You shouldn't get drunk."

I'm also wondering if you guys think that I'm completely anti-gay marriage? Honestly, I really don't care if it's accepted in this country or not. I don't fight for it, and I don't fight against it. People can do what they want. Just DON'T call me a bigot! :lol:

---

Believe me, if it were a choice - hell, I'd be happy enough to be gay for a bunch of superficial reasons. I have never had a choice, as I've had heterosexual feelings even during my prepubescent stage. And that is true of virtually everyone here - just think about your first feelings of sexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

Right. LGBT people have moments when they ask themselves why they are what they are. If you think gay men are happy with their gayness, you don't really know their suffering. Too many of them have been duped by therapies because of their desire to change but have failed. Also, too many of them have succumbed to suicide and intentional HIV infection for eventual death because of too much suffering. If what they are is a choice, who, in their right minds, will choose death over life or suffering over stability and comfort?

---

This vid is from 1979. It made an impression on me when I saw it in the early eighties. It clarified the situation for gay people for me in a way I had never considered before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLc-bh_DrKw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

The Canadian branch is already out of communion with some of the African ones over issues of gay marriage. Although, they eventually decided on only blessing unions and allowing openly gay clergy, instead of full on marriage in order to prevent a schism with England.

We actually had an openly gay Catholic priest as an MP in Montreal, but he was eventually forced to resign his seat to remain a priest. I think the churches will always reflect the societies they find themselves in, the Catholic Church will come to the left in Quebec simply to stop itself from being completely abandoned.

---

Yes - I think the African church has a powerful impact upon Anglicanism - in the UK anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

Right. LGBT people have moments when they ask themselves why they are what they are. If you think gay men are happy with their gayness, you don't really know their suffering. Too many of them have been duped by therapies because of their desire to change but have failed. Also, too many of them have succumbed to suicide and intentional HIV infection for eventual death because of too much suffering. If what they are is a choice, who, in their right minds, will choose death over life or suffering over stability and comfort?

---

No need to be so dire though, plenty of LGBT people have been and are happy with themselves.

I don't agree with that. I still have to meet a transsexual who is happy with herself. I'm accepting of what I am, so I'll survive. I force myself to be happy, so sadness won't drag me to the gallows. My happiness is forced and shallow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

I don't agree with that. I still have to meet a transsexual who is happy with herself. I'm accepting of what I am, so I'll survive. I force myself to be happy, so sadness won't drag me to the gallows. My happiness is forced and shallow.

---

Well then maybe you are projecting and should worry more about working out your own issues.

All you have to do is read transsexual memoirs. When your transsexual friends disappear one by one by death, murder, suicide, drugs, AIDS, or despair, you can't really say that they live happy lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Yes - I think the African church has a powerful impact upon Anglicanism - in the UK anyway.

---

The West Indian Anglicans and Episcopalians and the other churches in Grand Cayman were/are the driving engine behind embarrassing protests against gay cruises - namely the large Atlantis cruise(s).

As a Caymanian this sort of bigotry was embarrassing for myself and diminished the integrity of the island.

http://www.caycompass.com/cgi-bin/CF...gi?ID=10384177

Here is a pic with the waterfront church in the background and protesters shouting insults as the passengers disembarked.
http://www.bugbitten.com/photos/Nort...0-1194114.html

And that's why the church receives well earned criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shea

I REALLY do not like being held to the same standard because of my personal opinions and beliefs. And I LOATHE being called a bigot because of people that. I'm not your prime-minister. This is not a black and white issue. I really hurts ME when people behave like that because people jump all over me before I get a chance to explain myself.

---

But it's my "opinion" that what you've said in this thread has reflected that you are bigoted, and that in fact you're regurgitating flimsy faux-lighthearted Fox News rhetoric which everyone here has heard a million times and which is universally gagged over and/or mocked in every developed nation which isn't the United States to cover up what you know is nothing more than plain old hateful intolerance. I also "believe" that if you vote to restrict the legal rights of other citizens based on their sexual orientation you're committing a human rights violation which will be abhored by your descendants, in the same way that people today are ashamed of their ancestors who voted against the civil rights of non-whites and women, because in voting (if you do) you're actively taking part in their oppression. Even if you don't vote, you're still going along with a modern social movement which restricts human freedom for your own personal religious reasons, which is deplorable.

Oh sorry, you said that hurts you? But it's my opinion, I just really disagree with your lifestyle.