quote:

---

The groups protesting the Web site also contend it is biased against gays and lesbians.
The site says: "If you believe your adolescent may be gay, or is experiencing difficulties with gender identity or sexual orientation issues, consider seeing a family therapist who shares your values to clarify and work through these issues."
Rodriguez said the Web site's definition for homosexuality — "a person who prefers sexual contact with people of the same sex" — implied that being gay was a sexual preference rather than a sexual orientation.
"There's no information whatsoever for their parents other than to go talk to a therapist," she said.

---

quote:

---

For example, she said Thursday, the site should promote the proper use of contraceptives, and it should not imply that homosexuality is wrong by encouraging parents of gay or lesbian children to consult a therapist.

---

quote:

---

The groups protesting the Web site also contend it is biased against gays and lesbians.
The site says: "If you believe your adolescent may be gay, or is experiencing difficulties with gender identity or sexual orientation issues, consider seeing a family therapist who shares your values to clarify and work through these issues."
Rodriguez said the Web site's definition for homosexuality — "a person who prefers sexual contact with people of the same sex" — implied that being gay was a sexual preference rather than a sexual orientation.
"There's no information whatsoever for their parents other than to go talk to a therapist," she said.
Fagan, though, said the Web site would be useful for parents of gays and lesbians.
"Teenagers involved in homosexual acts . . . are worth the same transmission of information on the effectiveness of condoms and on the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases," he said.

---

quote:

---

46.1% of the celibate homosexuals and 21.8% of the celibate homosexuals were severly depressed

---

Um...



-Trevor
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
A lot of the perceived negative aspects of homosexuality will never go away until homosexuality itself is accepted and truly tolerated. Many, if not most, gay youth still grow up fearing their sexuality and hating themselves for perceived deficiencies in their own character.

Many gays, especially religious gays grow up fighting their natures rather than learning to responsibly control themselves. The end result for many is that they actually do practice sexual abstinence until they reach a critical point where they "come out of the closet". For many of them, this requires a rejection of so many of the things that have been pounded into them about how evil and sick they must be that they have a very difficult time distinguishing what things should be legitimately rejected and what things actually have wisdom and value. Some reject God altogether (which, regardless of my personal philosophy, is not necessarily the healthiest thing to do before you are really ready.) Many reject all notions of chastity, abstinence, or moderation. Many in turn denounce anything that resembles "respectable", or "traditional" American values simply because they feel they can no longer trust anything family, society or religion has taught them. They "clean house" philosophically, but often instead of sorting through the junk and keeping the valuables they just chuck everything and start over.

This period of philosophical house-cleaning is often accompanied by a period of (sometimes extreme) promiscuity. Some may have come to feel that none of the old rules apply. Others might feel that if they're already "going to hell" they might as well enjoy the trip. Others may have repressed themselves so thoroughly that they find themselves suddenly left alone with the keys to the candy store. They rush in and try everything and can't see when to stop. Some don't grow out of this period at all. Most do, but many take with them permanent emotional and physical scars. Some literally gorge themselves to death.

The point of my whole essay here is that chastity itself is not incompatible with homosexuality any more than it is incompatible with heterosexuality. The problem is that abstinence is often taught right alongside "The Evils Of Homosexuality 101" and the two become perversely intertwined.

It would be far more healthy for teenagers to be taught that some of them might be feeling attraction for the same sex and that attraction is normal. For some of them it might simply be extra strong fraternal or sisterly attraction. For others it might be hero worship. But for some, it could be that they are gay. There is nothing wrong, and in fact everything healthy, about exploring these attractions to find out what they really are. This exploration isn't incompatible with chastity or abstinence any more than heterosexual exploration and sexual awakening are incompatible with it. Teenagers who feel same-sex attraction should be warned of the dangers of sex before they are mature enough to handle it. They should be taught about STDs and other negative aspects of having sex too early. But they should also be encouraged to date whoever they feel an attraction to and get to know themselves as emotionally and sexually maturing individuals instead of being introduced to a world where abstinence, chastity, goodness, light, and Christianity are all on the one side and sex, evil, homosexuality, and godless heathenism are all on the other. It is only by accepting sexuality (including homosexuality) as natural and good that the message of chastity and abstinence will be able to be taught with a straight face. (pardon the pun).

So, mothertree, contrary to Mr. Squicky's reaction above, I think your question is a legitimate one. Unfortunately, I don't think it is the gay perspective that is incompatible with chastity as much as it is that chastity has been co-opted by the anti-gay crowd.

[edit to improve a shakey metaphor and fix spelling errors.]

[ April 02, 2005, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
 

---

Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
 
Wow. That was an amazingly well articulated post, KarlEd. So much of what you said is what I have always thought, but never really been able to say with clarity. Thank you.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
An extremely well thought out post that I agree with entirely, except one teeny tiny point.

Probably more an argument with your word choice, which is more literary than substantive. You say that homosexualty should be accepted (yes!) and tolerated (ehhh..)

You tolerate a cold, you tolerate a toothache, you tolerate your annoying neighbor that won't stop playing loud music. You tolerate things that you still think are wrong. Again, just an argument against the word choice. I'm picky, and annoying, ignore me.

Still, I think one of the biggest things that can happen to solve the issue of homosexuality and chastity is making homosexual marriage acceptable. Then homosexual teenagers can develop knowing they have something solid to plan for and look forward to.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Hate to break it to you, but tolerance isn't a bad word. Nothing you can do will make people advocate things they don;t believe in, nor should you wnat to really. We have religious tolerance here in the US< or we are suppose to anyway, and I tolerate all sorts of things in my every day life because that si what you do in the real world.

I don't expect people to love every thing about me, but I do expect them to tolerate my behaviors, as long as they don'texceed specific bounds. It is all you, or anyone else, has a right to expect of another person, and tolerance would be a great improvment on what exists now, don't you think?
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Sure.

But wouldn't it be better to set our sights even higher than tolerance?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Such as?

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
KarlEd you rock my world. I'd date you if you weren't otherwise engaged.
 

---

Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
 
Thanks for your replies, I didn't mean to disappear for 2 days after posting this.

I think the all-too-common conservative view that if you have any "naughty thoughts" about the same sex, you are going to hell pushes a lot of bisexuals "out of the fold" and also leaves homosexuals without much in the way of a value system as opposed to a moral system, if you'll indulge me. Chastity is the moral concept, whereas fidelity may be more of a value concept.

While I do think condom use is essential (due to the incubation times involved with diseases) I also hope for people of all orientations that promiscuity can be decreased.

Whether to promote alternatives to the best method is a tricky public health question. If breast feeding is best, do you mention formula? I believe they do, because otherwise people will use plain milk. They don't, however, talk about ways to be safer if one chooses not to immunize.

And "abstinence" is a difficult thing to define, for some people. There have been huge AIDS outbreaks among people who think the are virgins, at least by the "can it get you pregnant" definition of sex.

Can't we just invent a brain ray that makes people smarter and gives them a grasp of epidemiology?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I've read articles about kids who didn't realize STDs could be transmitted by oral or anal sex.

They thought by skirting the written rules, they could explore loopholes. Fine print, however, is a killer.

If you teach abstinence, make sure you fully embrace and educate on the subject so they know what is and isn't covered by the term "sex."

As for a brain ray...we learn and develop by trial and error. The most we can hope for is not to err too badly in the learning curve.

How's the cliche go? Sometimes your grand purpose in life is to serve as an example to others.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I can't tell if you meant that double entendre or if it was accidental, T. If you meant it, I can't decide whether to applaud or groan.

Just in case, *groan*
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Never give me too much credit - you'll often find yourself shortchanged.



-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 

quote:

---

Such as?

---

quote:

---

You tolerate a cold, you tolerate a toothache, you tolerate your annoying neighbor that won't stop playing loud music. You tolerate things that you still think are wrong. Again, just an argument against the word choice. I'm picky, and annoying, ignore me.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, I reiterate, the same standard applies to all. Sexual thoughts and sexual relations for someone who's not your spouse are what's sinful, not being in love with another person.

---

All I see here is someone being set up to fail and then being blamed for their failure.

This thread makes me so very sad.

edit: not to say I think homosexuality is a wrong choice, it was just a broad analogy of sorts.

[ April 03, 2005, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: Uhleeuh ]
 

---

Posted by Temposs (Member # 6032) on :
 
The previous reply was for Dan

Now for Ryuko. You are assuming that the belief would be tenuous. Sure if someone's belief isn't strong enough, they're likely to throw it out the window.

If their faith is strong, though, they will not put what they want first, but what God wants. It's just a matter of priorities, and people have them in different places. They could live with the person they're in love with for the rest of their life, and still not have sex with him/her. It's just a matter of keeping your top priority on pleasing God.

[ April 03, 2005, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Temposs ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Assuming we presume to understand the Will and Mind of God.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Temposs (Member # 6032) on :
 

quote:

---

All I see here is someone being set up to fail and then being blamed for their failure.

---

quote:

---

Assuming we presume to understand the Will and Mind of God.

---

quote:

---

Everyone fails. It's part of life. I fail all the time. The point is to always try, and when you mess up, get up and try again.

---

Well, I suppose if you think

A) It is a sin to have sexual thoughts about or actions with someone you're not married to,

B) You set up a belief that only a man and woman can marry,

C) Say that homosexuality occurs in nature, thus making it natural,

D) Deny homosexuals a right to marriage, making any physical exchange of love in the form of sex a sin

E) Tell them they have the choice to not sin and that choice would demand they deny their orientation and fall in love with someone of the opposite sex or they can live their entire lives celibate...

and there's nothing wrong with this, then I can understand you don't see this as setting someone up for failure.

I, however, think it is setting someone up for failure and as far as I'm concerned, if two people are faithful to each other, regardless of sexual orientation or access to marriage, the physical expression of their bond is not a sin.
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 
Uhleeuh, I believe people have an enormous ability to control who they are and what they feel. Setting up laws that help them govern themselves is not setting them up to fail. It's setting them up to strive to become more than they are. That's why I feel that the view of sexuality as being out of someone's control is so harmful. It causes people to just say, "Well, I can't do anything other than what I'm programmed to...Might as well go with it." To me that is plain cowardly.
 

---

Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
 
That's fine, Boris. I believe that for most people, their sexual orientation is as easy to change as their eye color. Sure, you can wear contacts and fake having a different color but at the end of the day, you can't change or hide your natural, God-given color. But I won't change your mind and you won't change mine, so you keep believing what you do and I'll do the same.
 

---

Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
I would be hesitant to legislate anything against the expression of love between members of the same sex because of the potential for harm is greater if it is not true that monogamous homosexuality is a sin. I think it is better to err on the side of giving people freedom of conscience--to engage in this behavior *or* refrain according to their beliefs.

I agree, however, that it is possible to control one's behavior--to a degree. Didn't Paul say that it's better to marry than to burn with passion? So it seems that he would acknowledge that asking people to be celibate their entire lives is asking more than some can handle. Nevertheless, I believe we do have choices and that our natures and drives are not always good or healthy. We can't justify behavior based solely on the fact that people have a natural inclination toward it.

Also, I think Boris's concerns about his religion not even being accepted, let alone tolerated is justified. What do you when acceptance of a particular behavior is specifically prohibited by a belief system? It would be pretty intolerant to ask Mormons to celebrate or even condone homosexuality when it is against their religion.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
From a purely legislative/freedom/equal rights standpoint, I couldn't care less about anyone's religion when it comes to homosexual rights and equality. America was founded on the basis of majority rule with respect for minority rights.

If whoever's religion demanded that everyone of that faith treat a certain race as lesser beings, not allowed to marry, not allowed to reproduce, etc, would we be forced to accept it based on the premise that accepting it would offend someone's religious beliefs?

I don't see how homosexuality can be a sin, if homosexuals were created by God. And thus I don't see why God would see fit to create people that from their birth he intended to suffer, unless he meant for those people to some day be equal and free, a trial of sorts for them to win their freedom, as has happened with so many peoples in the past (Jews and Christians especially). Thus, religious arguments that restrict the rights of homosexuals ring very hollow and hypocritial in my ears.

I don't think that homosexual behavior and chastity are any more contradictory than heterosexual behavior and chastity save for one detail. I'm willing to bet that many homosexuals don't see any point in saving themselves for their future spouse, when they know that they will never have a spouse. (Which is to say nothing of the whole argument about heterosexual divorce rates, irresponsibility, adultery, pre-marital sex, so on and so forth)

So yes, I think the government should allow homosexual marriage, and alleviate an inequality. How many times is America going to oppress a minority for the sake of the majority only to reverse itself later on?

Is there no limit to our shame?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
There does seem to be somewhat an impasse here. The two mindsets are different enough that they can't help stepping on one another's toes. I don't know what the solution is, but if there is one, it must involve compromise.

I totally understand what you are saying, Shigosei, and I remain torn on the matter.
 

---

Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
 
Lyrhawn

So much better than I could ever say, but dead on for what I think.
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 
Here's the problem, though. What happens when homosexual marriage is legalized? I want to let you know what my fear is. My fear is that there will be even more reason for activists to picket my church and to yell out at people of my religion that we are all nothing but "homophobes." I fear that another natural urge will start falling into play, the urge for humans to be violent, especially in numbers. It has happened to my church before. Can you honestly say that when this matter is resolved that there won't be an increase of animosity towards religion, and my religion in particular (Because I can guarantee that homosexual marriages will not be recognized by my church)? Will it not give those who are against religion now a reason to stand outside my church holding a sign that basically says *I* am a lesser being?
Let me tell you something. I do NOT believe that homosexuals are lesser beings than me. I believe in weakness. I believe that each person has something in their lives that is particularly difficult to overcome. But I also believe that it is possible to overcome. I believe in fighting against what is "natural" about me (habits of just about any kind) in order to become better than I am. And it seriously makes me sad to see people who are willing to just sit there and let themselves be "natural."
But you see, regardless of what the government can do, I don't think they will be successful in legislating religion, it's the *people* that I fear. I am honestly afraid that in giving rights to some we will be taking rights from others. Do not tell me that people would not try to attack my religion because it won't allow homosexual marriages. It *will* happen. It already *is* happening. Now, is it right to allow one group to escape from persecution only to place another back into its midst? I don't think so. But I'm not going to try and convince anyone of that fact. Most don't believe as I do. But don't think for a minute that I don't already understand what many homosexuals are going through. Don't even start trying to think that a Mormon who grew up in the south doesn't know what it's like to be called the devil or told he's going to hell simply because he is what he is.

Now, I'm not saying that there is anyone here who would do that. I respect almost all of the people who use this forum. I do my best to respect their opinions and I try hard not to insult people. But it seems to me like so many in the world today are unwilling to look at every possible outcome of a decision. I don't care if no one shares my beliefs. At the very least, I want people to listen to what I say and consider my beliefs as a part of the equasion instead of telling me that I'm just being religious and that religion shouldn't play a part in this decision. When you do that, when you refuse to acknowledge the opposite view, when you refuse to negotiate something that is acceptable to all parties, you basically destroy the original point of democracy.
This shouldn't be about making sure you have enough of the population on your side to have your view become law. It should be about making sure that the vast majority of people feel something is acceptable.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Boris - You pose a troubling problem. I don't know what the answer is. I'm sorry to say that I can't agree with the argument that homosexual marriage should be denied because there might be a possible reaction against some religious groups.

The problem I think, is that religious groups, in particular the hard core religious right, have built up such a negative stigma against religion in general that it will be hard to overcome. You should look to abortion activists that stand outside abortion clinics calling young girls "whores," "sinners," and worse, yes, there is worse. Don't tell me it doesn't happen, I've seen it.

You might argue back that it isn't fair to lump all religious groups together for the crimes of a minority, but I would counter with this: Is it fair to hold homosexuals back for the possibility of the crimes of another minority within the gay community?

I'm trying to understand your argument. But you are creating a situation where its You vs Them with no middle ground. I believe in the virtue of American democracy, and the foundation that all people in this country are free and equal peoples, regardless of their religious convictions, or the convictions of others. And I think if we are to err, it should be on the side of equality, not on the side of religious dogma made law that excludes some from the full benefits of American citizenship.

I have less respect for a religion that creates second class citizens.

[ April 04, 2005, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
 

---

Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't see how homosexuality can be a sin, if homosexuals were created by God.

---

quote:

---

I'm trying to understand your argument. But you are creating a situation where its You vs Them with no middle ground.

---

quote:

---

Just as a point, I've been wondering something. Do unmarried heterosexual couples have more rights than unmarried homosexual couples? If this is the case, that's where we need to start working. I think people are latching on to marriage for homosexuals because it's a kind of quick fix. I've seen numerous unmarried heterosexual couples that believe marriage is nothing more than a "piece of paper." Do these people have more rights than a homosexual couple? If that is so, it shouldn't be.

---

I don't exactly know what you are saying here. Unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples I would suppose have the same legal rights, with the exception that one group has the optiong to marry (or join the military) and the other does not. And what are you suggesting homosexual marriage is a quick fix for?

What rights are you suggestioning unmarried straights have that gays don't?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Teens and Oral versus Vaginal Sex

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Tempboss, I understand your point of view and applaude it, but you would be surprised by the number of church going people who would denounce two men holding hands in church, and would assume that two men living together were having sex together, and would never let them teach Sunday school based on ungrounded fears and suspicions.

Boris, two things:

You say that marriage is designed to produce families and better children. If the parents can not have children they can adopt.

Why must that still be Man and Wife? Why can not two women or two men marry, and adopt children to raise in their loving home?

The answer I get is that it will confuse the children by making them think that such a relationship is right, when it is wrong, but the only wrong thing about the relationship seems to be this. Very circular reasoning.

Others have argued that it is the foreknowledge that gay marriages will be sterile that makes them wrong. Yet no one suggests that a man or woman who are sterile should be not allowed to marry.

Do we need proof of fertility?

You also argue that you do not want people, possibly turning violent, to march on your church because it does not and will never recognize gay marriages.

Where does this fear come from?

I have never heard a liberal or gay rights person, organization, or leader suggest violence or protesting any church for its beliefs. I have heard conservative Christian leaders, who I doubt are truly very Christian, spread these fears in order to scare thier followers into supporting them.

But I understand it is a real fear with you.

Can you understand the fear that is in the hearts of gay couples that people from your church will take the illegalization of homosexuality as an opportunity to march on those couples. That those good church marchers may possibly turn violent, because of the insult thier "sin" is doing to your church's beliefs?
 

---

Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
 
Wow. I think this thread is one of the most reasoned, civil, and productive threads we've had concerning homosexuality here at Hatrack. It makes me very happy.

Boris, I want to thank you personally for your posts. You have stated your beliefs in a clear and respectful manner. I think that if everyone (on and off Hatrack) were to follow your lead, then the violence and animosity you fear would not be an issue.

I want to address two of your concerns. First, that legal recognition of homosexual marriages would impinge on your beliefs and religious freedoms. Second, that such recognition would lead to an increase in violence against you, your church, and others in similar situations.

Legal marriage is already divorced (no pun intended) from the various religious practices of marriage in this country. A man and a woman can be married by a justice of the peace. They sign the marriage certificate, and they're married in the eyes of the law. No religious entities are involved. To date, this has not raised much of a fuss, except within some families, because the legal definition and application of marriage has not strayed far from the beliefs of the religious majority of this country.

In essence, legal marriage is a contract between two people and the government that accords certain rights, benefits and responsibilities. This is important because the government recognizes that family members do have certain rights and responsibilities that are different than those of non-family members. A classic example is visitation in a hospital.

If you were to get married in a temple, according to the practices of your religion, you would consider yourself married regardless of what the federal/state/local government said, wouldn't you? Yet you still would sign the marriage certificate and have the governement recognize your marriage because without it you would be unable to receive the legal benefits of marriage. The situation is analagous to homosexual marriages. There are men and women that have committed, lifelong relationships with people of the same sex. They don't need the government's permission. Yet without legal recognition, they are barred from having visitation rights, from recieving all the benefits that come with being legally married.

The crucial point here is that legally recognizing homosexual marriages would not in any way hinder your ability to marry according to your religious customs. Nor would it impinge on your belief that homosexual relationships are wrong. It is legal to lie, have premarital sex, to be a crude, vulgar, and mean-spirited asshole, despite Christianity, Judaism, and Islam teaching that those things are wrong and immoral. Judaism teaches that a person should not eat the flesh of an animal with split hooves. Islam teaches that women should be modest, and cover themselves with clothing. Yet millions of people eat bacon and millions of women go jogging wearing shorts and a sports bra.

The old cliche is that America is a place where we are "free to be you and me". Legal recognition of homosexual marriage would not restrict your ability be yourself, to believe in your religion, or live the way you think best. It would, however, extend that freedom to another group of people. Just because you disagree with the way they live their lives, does not mean that they do not deserve the choice, just as you do.

I don't know why increased acceptance of homosexual marriage would result in violence against LDS (or any other religion's) churches or temples. Even if it did, that would not be enough to dissuade me from advocating for legal recognition of homosexual marriage. Many people were hurt in the civil rights movement. Should it have been suppressed in the name of keeping the peace? If violence was perpetrated against Mormons because of their beliefs, I would demand that those who did it be treated the same as anyone else who commits a hate crime.

As for picketing and social stigma, that is beyond the scope of legislation. I would disagree with anyone who picketed a church or temple in a disruptive or hateful way. At the same time, I would support their legal right to do it, the same as pro-life pickets of abortion clinics, or the rights of any other group to express and advocate their beliefs.
 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
Boris, you make a point that no one has offered to see things from your viewpoint, which is a bit strong on a very conservative, Christian and in many cases Mormon website. I think the anti-gay message is loud and strong. Thankfully, this discussion has remained civil which is both surprising and refreshing.

I see the issue of sexuality and homosexuality as having its lines drawn in the same battlefield as slavery and women's rights. In the latter cases, it was clearly the Haves and Have-nots at odds with one another. With slavery, those with Freedom were happy to have a world where others didn't have Freedom. Those without were assumed to be that way because of a variety of reasons, largely economical. But Biblical and Social reasons were found as well (they were heathens/pagans with little intelligence, etc.). Either way it is always much more comfortable to keep things the same when you Have something others do not.

Same with women's suffrage. I cannot possibly imagine a time when Women weren't in all legal ways, anyway, equal to Men. I can't imagine looking my wife in the eye as I headed off to vote, knowing she couldn't. I couldn't imagine seeing her as property, another asset along with my house and car. I couldn't imagine her as anyone other than my partner, my co-conspirator, my companion in life. Yet there we were, not that long ago when Men who had Rights were fine and dandy with living in a country where someone didn't Have those rights. Boggles the mind, really.

Then we have Homosexuality. Clearly another case of Have and Have Nots. Hererosexuals Have the ability to get married. As noted repeatedly, the Religious Right tends to frame this discussion around sexual acts, but you don't have to look far to find that the issue has absolutely nothing with the ability of one man to have sex with another. I mean, if they worried about what a particular church thought of sin then they wouldn't be involved with another guy in the first place. No, the real issue is that a Man and Wife can be there for each other in sickness and in health, both in action and, at times more importantly, in legality. It is this last issue that is more important than any other aspect but one that doesn't much discussion.

So, Boris, I guess I can see things from your perspective. It is easy, as I am one of those that Have what others Want. I am married, happily, to a woman. It is all legal and in times of need, the law won't get in my way (though, Terri Shiavo taught us otherwise, but that is another thread entirely). I have a child and shared custody with my wife. She shares my insurance along with my child, and so on. If nothing changes in the laws around Homosexuality, my life will not change in the least.

Yet with all that I have, I cannot take the next step as you have, which is to deny this same joy that I have. Sure, you have religious reasons to not engage in certain behaviors in your life and that is fine. My religious belief says that I must accept that there are other religious beliefs different from mine that see the world differently. And if those religions come under fire because of those beliefs, I would gladly stand to defend them. But sadly, religions rarely decide to sit comfortably in their own world.

This is the second issue I have with religious piety and dogma surrounding homosexuality. If religions that claim they believe and trust in the word of God, why don't they act like it? What does God care about Countries, Cities, nations, cults, sects, laws, etc.? If God is truly going to hold to task those that go against His will, what does it matter how other people live as long as you live the way you think He wants you to live? If the US had legal status for Gay marriage, does that mean they have found some sacred loophole that would not only allow them entrance into heaven but also condemn those that allowed it to come into being? Or, did I misunderstand your trust in God?

As an example, I am very pro-life. This means I do not want to see the loss of any life unnaturally as much as I can help it. Yet, in this country, there is a law that says I can shoot a man dead if he breaks into my home. Does this mean I want to go out and do just that? The law also states that I can sign a piece of paper and go off to serve my country by killing other people, ones that I don't even know (or may not even truly see). Just because it is a law that doesn't mean I have to do it. Just because there is a law that allows killing doesn't mean I break my contract with God to go ahead and do it. Same with homosexuality. Just because it is legally recognized in public courts doesn't mean that churches across the land will have to step to and start marrying Gay people. Trust me, your membership won't suddenly swell with gay couples looking for a pastor. Also, there are plenty of Christian denominations already doing marriage ceremonies to meet the demands of gay couples across this country.

So it boils down, to me, that those that Have clearly have the ability to lord over those that Have Not. Clearly, this is an unacceptable outcome in our nation, especially considering the hurdles we as a nation have had to jump in order to stay free.

And religiously, it is clear that many that claim trust in God truly do not trust Him at all to do what they think He will do to sinners. Thus, they find the need to punish those on earth in His name.

[ April 04, 2005, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

And religiously, it is clear that many that claim trust in God truly do not trust Him at all to do what they think He will do to sinners. Thus, they find the need to punish those on earth in His name.

---