posted
I don't think he has a clear understanding of gay people, what it means to be gay, what folks who are gay and lesbian have historically gone through and he probably would not read a book like Stranger at the Gate or Stone Butch Blues, which is rather sad as they are good books. Folks just can't go around throwing around statements like all of civilization will collapse because a handful of gay people are able to get benefits and tax breaks for staying together. It isn't right. The sky is NOT falling in that case, and it doesn't show much compassion.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Orson Scott Card, if you do a little research, has a long history of fear and loathing of gay men and lesbians.
I think it's a little more nuanced than that. As far as I can tell, Card doesn't fear or loathe homosexuals. He fears and loathes the public acceptance of homosexual behavior and believes homosexuals should be pressured into struggling to redirect their desires.
I have noticed that he tends to be very displeased with anything that depicts someone suddenly realizing (or announcing) he or she is gay. Something about the suddenness bothers him a great deal. (In this article, he seems to suggest that he considers it disrespectful -- but perhaps that's only in situations where it's being clumsily used for lazy "comedy.")
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought about not even posting again on this thread as the last three or so posts had finally redirected focus. But I thought I'd get on here and just say this is likely to be my last post on this thread. My wife and I had a short devotional last night as we went to bed, and amazingly enough, one of the subjects that we went over from one of the books we use was "Agree to Disagree" and how we need to accept when we aren't going to change each other's minds. And so I thought I would get on here and say that: I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. 1. We obviously aren't going to agree on some issues (I think homosexuality is immoral and unnatural; many of you don't. I think we should live by the N.T.; many of you don't think we should live by all or any or some of it,etc....) 2. I seem to be the only one on my side of the discussion. 3. As I said, I tend to obssess over things, and this has been kinda stressing me out the last few days, and it has been taking up too much of my time. 4. It is also kind of depressing to me. I pray often for this country, that we'll move closer to God and not farther away, as it seems to me we are often doing. It seems to go that way for many nations/empires (not saying America is an empire but we are a superpower)....I forgot what it's called but there is something that was written that goes back and looks at all kingdoms/empires that rose and fell in the past and the writer notes a cycle that all of them go through - and when I look at it, it seems that we are on the downward slide b/c I feel that we are growing more apatheitc (apathy was one of the stages on the back end of the empire's lifespan) towards many important values - God, Security, Strong military presence, etc... Anyways, if yall will, I guess I'll probably talk with many of you in the future on different threads.
Posts: 56 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
volssam, I am sorry that this has been difficult for you. I am also sorry that I have been unable to convince you that it is possible for someone to try to live according to the NT, just as much and as sincerely as you do, and yet disagree with you about what that means.
I hope you feel better soon.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It is now illegal even to kneel and pray in front of a clinic that performs abortions."
This is both untrue and silly. There's no law against picketing an abortion clinic. There are, however, laws against trespassing on private property, and this was true long before Roe vs. Wade.
"Already in several states, there are textbooks for children in the earliest grades that show "gay marriages" as normal."
Please to provide me with the titles of these text books, because I do not believe they exist. Because of the way text books for use in the public schools are sold (often presented to educators in large, southern states such as Texas first) text publisher are generally very wary of such context.
Of course there are picture books that present homosexual families to young children, but that's hardly the same thing. And there are college text books geared toward Queer Studies, but that doesn't really count as "the earliest grades."
"...back in the '70s and '80s, we were repeatedly told by all the proponents of gay rights that they would never attempt to legalize gay marriage."
All proponents of gay rights said that? Every last one? And you talked to all these gay rights proponents, and read all the literature they printed, and that's how you know this?
Huh.
"It took about 15 minutes for that promise to be broken."
Ladies and gentleman, exactly 15 minutes have past between now and the 1970s!
"Human beings are part of a long mammalian tradition of heterosexuality."
I would like to suggest that Mr. Card goggle the word "Bonobo." Add to that the terms "G-G rubbing" and "penis fencing." He might learn something.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:"It is now illegal even to kneel and pray in front of a clinic that performs abortions."
This is both untrue and silly. There's no law against picketing an abortion clinic. There are, however, laws against trespassing on private property, and this was true long before Roe vs. Wade.
A quick check shows that there are laws restricting protests in front of abortion clinics that go beyond enforcement of private property rights. Here's one:
quote: (b) No person shall knowingly enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk adjacent to a reproductive health care facility within a radius of 35 feet of any portion of an entrance, exit or driveway of a reproductive health care facility or within the area within a rectangle created by extending the outside boundaries of any entrance, exit or driveway of a reproductive health care facility in straight lines to the point where such lines intersect the sideline of the street in front of such entrance, exit or driveway. This subsection shall not apply to the following:--
(1) persons entering or leaving such facility;
(2) employees or agents of such facility acting within the scope of their employment;
(3) law enforcement, ambulance, firefighting, construction, utilities, public works and other municipal agents acting within the scope of their employment; and
(4) persons using the public sidewalk or street right-of-way adjacent to such facility solely for the purpose of reaching a destination other than such facility.
(c) The provisions of subsection (b) shall only take effect during a facility's business hours and if the area contained within the radius and rectangle described in said subsection (b) is clearly marked and posted.
(d) Whoever knowingly violates this section shall be punished, for the first offense, by a fine of not more than $500 or not more than three months in a jail or house of correction, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for each subsequent offense, by a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $5,000 or not more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction, or both such fine and imprisonment. A person who knowingly violates this section may be arrested without a warrant by a sheriff, deputy sheriff or police officer if that sheriff, deputy sheriff, or police officer observes that person violating this section.
posted
I don't see how it's polite to pile up in front of Planned Parenthood protesting, especially since it's sort of...well, a hospital, and it's not helpful to their cause. The last time I was near PP, I saw a small group of people praying. They also have a security guard and a metal detector.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
35 feet isn't much personal space to ask for, and again, there's nothing to stop them from praying or whatever 12 yards away.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure I could go inside a Planned Parenthood clinic and pray. I'm sure there is a lot of praying that goes on in and around such clinics. Or any medical facility.
I don't really think that prayer is the issue.
Using prayer as a tool to harass people and create a public nuisance is another story.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The larger argument about the so-called "bubble laws" isn't limited to prayer. It includes all types of expression.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. Which is part of the reason why I think it is disingenuous of Card to imply that it is the prayer part of the equation that is prohibited.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right. Which is part of the reason why I think it is disingenuous of Card to imply that it is the prayer part of the equation that is prohibited.
I don't think that was his intent. I think he purposely used what many would be perceive to be the most innocent and least trouble-making of the behaviors that pro-life people engage in outside abortion clinics.
Edit: I think his use of "even" makes it pretty clear:
quote:Not only that, but the courts upheld obviously unconstitutional limitations on free speech and public assembly: It is now illegal even to kneel and pray in front of a clinic that performs abortions.
quote:I don't think that was his intent. I think he purposely used what many would be perceive to be the most innocent and least trouble-making of the behaviors that pro-life people engage in outside abortion clinics.
I agree with Dag's interpretation. I still think OSC was being disingenious with this statement, but not for the reason that boots does.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yep. Nothing like being prayed at/for as a tool of, well, some other agenda.
I'm curious about this. My initial reaction was like a "Yeah!" of agreement, but thinking about it, what differentiates at least some of these people from those who hold candle light vigils for criminals who are going to get the death penalty? I'm not sure what I think about it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by volssam: I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
1. We obviously aren't going to agree on some issues (I think homosexuality is immoral and unnatural; many of you don't. I think we should live by the N.T.; many of you don't think we should live by all or any or some of it,etc....)
I think there are several others who agree that homosexual activity (not simply being gay, but acting on it) is immoral. Probably also others who think that it's unnatural, too. I just don't think they're using the same definitions of 'immoral' and 'unnatural' as you are. I know I'm not, and I'm glad of that.
If you're depressed by the state of the world, I'd advise tolerance; not prayer. Of course, I know dozens of good people here who practice both. Whatever combination works for you. Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Up here in Canada, gay marriage is equal in the eyes of the government and law. A few years have gone by and nothing has changed otherwise. End of the world and democracy did not happen, but our ecnomy certainly improved. heheh. A few thousand couples tied the knot. No church is required to marry them or recognise them as such in the context of their faith. I hope you'll appreciate how mystified some of us up here are that OSC would be so against it. Volssam has quoted the bible, but the bible also indicates that eating shellfish, wearing blended threads of different textiles, so much as looking at a woman during her time of the month is just as wrong, but the punishment for those things dire indeed. (leviticus). It also states in the revelations of John that none shall add or remove from the bible under any circumstances, or else.
The bible was edited 600 years ago and the removed sections put into a book called the Apocrypha.
It wasn't that long ago that churches refused any form of mixed marriages between visible minorities and whites. The government stepped in and....!!!
What can I say. Canada and other countries that have OK'd gay marriages outside of church weddings are still the same as they were before.
It's probably a good idea to look at these other places, my Canada included, before pressing the panic button. What I'm reading on some of these posts is that a democracy is majority rule in every single circumstance. Really? So that means if the majority decide that child abuse is OK, even if 48 percent of us scream no it's not, it's going to be OK anyway? The courts and governments are able to prevent just this sort of nonsense. Thank God.
Seeing as how a biblical theme has been introduced, here's another. A famous Man said in there, "Whatsoever you do to the least of these..."
Posts: 1 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Now there's a smart person who knows what she's talking about. Marriage has changed over the last several centuries and I think in some ways it has improved.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by volssam: and you told me to stop grovelling....
volssam, there is another way to see TOS, which I wholeheartedly embrace: TOS is a list of what may not be tolerated by people in charge. That has nothing to do with what you should or should not do. You should always do what you think is right and be prepared to face the consequences. In case of this forum, you can be permanently banned for a sequence of heavy violations. Is that a reason to not do what is right? Certainly not!
I know that many people do not share this sentiment and believe that the word of the proprietor of a web site must be obeyed. I think that that is wrong.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"1. We obviously aren't going to agree on some issues (I think homosexuality is immoral and unnatural; many of you don't. I think we should live by the N.T.; many of you don't think we should live by all or any or some of it,etc....)"
I don't follow. Jesus' main point was that love trumps the law of the OT. Jesus never even mentions homosexuality. The OT says it is a killing offense. Why, if homosexuality was some kind of exception to the general idea of "love trumps the law", would he not have mentioned that somewhere?
I've brought this up several times over the years on Hatrack in these diccussions. All I ever get in response is silence. I'm starting to think that's all I'll ever get from the "homosexuality is evil/wrong" crowd. Seriously, though, you're either pro-Jesus or pro-absolute-moral-laws.
I hate to say this, but it really is funny how often the biggest crusaders against gays are often secret lovers-of-men themselves. The list is long, and we all know the many names on it. Not that I'm implying anything about anyone here...LOL
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: "1. We obviously aren't going to agree on some issues (I think homosexuality is immoral and unnatural; many of you don't. I think we should live by the N.T.; many of you don't think we should live by all or any or some of it,etc....)"
I don't follow. Jesus' main point was that love trumps the law of the OT. Jesus never even mentions homosexuality. The OT says it is a killing offense. Why, if homosexuality was some kind of exception to the general idea of "love trumps the law", would he not have mentioned that somewhere?
I don't think that's what Jesus' main point was at all. He never says to ignore the old testament because of love. Many of the old testament ritual and laws were abolished through His death, but the teachings of the old testmaent weren't invalidated. What Jesus does say is that He came to fulfill the law, not abolish it.
Matthew 5 17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill
And He did speak clearly about marriage and divorce.
Matthew 19 3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" 4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female, 5 "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way I choose to see it is that his thoughts on killing people for being gay were probably roughly equal to his thoughts on stoning the adulterous woman, or killing people over various extremely obscure points of OT law. He certainly did manage to rail against
1. people who harm children 2. the money-changers in the temple
but not one word about gay people.
By that logic, it would maybe make more sense for all the gay-bashers to stop bashing gays, and start finding ways to stop child abuse and neglect. Of course, those who bash gays tend not to realize that many of us who are quite straight are laughing at them for their own self-hate over their own closeted gayness. They reveal more about themselves than they realize through their gay-bashing. LOL
[ August 10, 2008, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: steven ]
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by volssam: and you told me to stop grovelling....
volssam, there is another way to see TOS, which I wholeheartedly embrace: TOS is a list of what may not be tolerated by people in charge. That has nothing to do with what you should or should not do. You should always do what you think is right and be prepared to face the consequences. In case of this forum, you can be permanently banned for a sequence of heavy violations. Is that a reason to not do what is right? Certainly not!
I know that many people do not share this sentiment and believe that the word of the proprietor of a web site must be obeyed. I think that that is wrong.
Is it also wrong to enter into a contract if one does not intend to honor it?
(I'll freely grant that if one entered into a contract intending to honor it, there might be circumstances under which it would NOT be wrong to break the contract. However, that's not quite what I'm asking you. I'm asking you to distinguish between obedience to arbitrary rules and fulfilling a promise. )
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom Davidson. You are probably wrong if you think that you are in the majority on this site. In case you were wondering....
Posts: 15 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now there's a smart person who knows what she's talking about. Marriage has changed over the last several centuries and I think in some ways it has improved.
She does describe what has happened to marriage in the last 40 years, but she doesn't really have any true analysis of how these changes are affecting society (for good or for bad). Kind of a pointless article really.
Posts: 15 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:I do normally like to discuss issues, even though it almost always comes back to the Bible for me...
quote: May I ask why? What about the Bible makes it so useful to you in this respect?
Probably because he considers the Bible to be the word of God, and that you can be inspired to better understand God's will by studying it's pages.
Posts: 15 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jarhead: Tom Davidson. You are probably wrong if you think that you are in the majority on this site. In case you were wondering....
Indeed, Mr. Davidson. Fear the majority, of which you may or may not be a part! In case you were wondering...
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we have all turned our pampered backsides to the real threat to marraige in America, the personally affordable automobile. Divorce, out of wed-lock births, sex outside of marraige, and narcotics use have all been on the rise since a man as young as twenty-one could afford his very own transportation.
Spousal abuse and alcaholism remain unperturbed by the social upheaval.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote:Originally posted by Jarhead: Tom Davidson. You are probably wrong if you think that you are in the majority on this site. In case you were wondering....
Indeed, Mr. Davidson. Fear the majority, of which you may or may not be a part! In case you were wondering...
Indeed, Mr. Anderson.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
does anyone else have the feeling that hundreds of years from now, kids will be studying this in history class and think the same things when we studied slavery? I mean think about it. You're essentially denying the rights to a group of people for being born different.
No one had ever challenged slavery before, but when it happened, the pro-slavery people kept whining about how the abolitionist were trying to change their way of life.
I can just picture myself telling my grandchildren how gays used to not have the same rights as straights; just like when your parents told you about how they didn't used to have microwaves and cellphones.
Anyone else see the similarities?
Posts: 9 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do. Gays are not exactly slaves, but they get treated so harshly. Many get rejected by their families, their friends, their churches. Not to mention how many get beat up and abused JUST FOR BEING GAY. That's why I get so annoyed at these sort of articles. I'm sure OSC doesn't agree with the concept of beating up gay people, but calling them dysfunctional just leads to the sort of mentality that makes people think it's OK to torment gay people and bother them. Homosexuality is the final frontier of prejudice. Along with religious discrimination, all of these things folks don't need.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not just for being gay. It is for engaging in a certain type of sexual behavior. The rights being lobbied for are not identical to straights though they are extremely similar. Therefore, I would classify this more as religious discrimination then racial (though that is not quite analagous as there is a genetic component to the desire to engage in this type of behavior which does not exist with religion). The desire is not the issue- the subsequent action resulting from the desire is. Actions are different from desires.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
In any case, it's far more annoying to see something as highly complex as human sexuality reduced to black and white. We have a spectrum of light, a spectrum of sound, and a spectrum of species, geology, cosmology etc etc etc etc, but by god, you're either this or that.
I'm not even sure I like the words "gay" or "lesbian" because it implies such a narrow view, when in reality, or at least some studies have suggested, is that we're all bisexual to various degrees. The bell-curve graph comes to mind.
It was blasphemy to say the world was round, and now it's blasphemy to say human sexual expression is more varied and fluid than rigid Bronze Age roles.
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can just picture myself telling my grandchildren how gays used to not have the same rights as straights; just like when your parents told you about how they didn't used to have microwaves and cellphones.
Anyone else see the similarities?
Yeah when I'm an old wrinkly sot I'll be telling my kids what it was like to be alive back when we were so afraid of gays that we didn't even let them marry each other.
And then my grandchildren will say "but granddad wasn't it letting the gays have their way what destabilized the family unit and collapsed civilization?"
and I will say "Yes. if only we had listened. If only we had listened."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: It is not just for being gay. The desire is not the issue- the subsequent action resulting from the desire is. Actions are different from desires.
So when a lesbian is prevented from marrying the love of her life, who is a parapalegic woman, exactly what "action" is being singled out as unacceptable?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If its the fault of sexual "debauchery" that every last great society or empire in human history has fallen... wait a minute, hasnt every empire fallen except the British empire, and even then theyve simply given up on teaching all of us savages the Queens english and receded back into thier own country to develop a rich culture. You know, one where rugby players say its perfectly heterosexual to open mouth kiss your team mates, or my favorite comedian Alan Cummings, now thats real ladies man right there. So congratulations to Great Britain, due to your zero tolerance of anything other than church sanctifyed man-woman pairings, you are the only surving ancient power still alive, and the sun still never sets on the British empire if you sit in a windowless room for twenty-four hours!
Sarcasm aside, its not very educated to say that homosexuals keep on destroying the greatest of human civilization over and over. Was there a rainbow parade in the Ottoman empire before it fell? did Ceaser have an impressionable young pool boy at his beck and call? no. We are human, we destroy ourselves, I see this as no more intelligent than when the Europeans sorrounded by the black plague killed all the Jews that owned bussines' and banks proclaiming that God had set wrath upon them for accepting heretics against Jesus Christ.
FYI, to anyone who says that being gay is a choice, have you ever thought that things too graphic to post would be so momentusly enjoyable as to defy your religion, and hate yourself to the point of cutting yourself everyday to atone for looking a poster that you shouldnt? If you battle this "choice" on a daily basis, please tell your family and a psychiatrist (or maybe even a born again Christian pastor so he can brain wa-- I mean cure you!), if not, you are straight and are attracted to the oppisite gender alone. See? now wasnt that simple?
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
FYI, AchillesHeel, it's not just gays that suffer from choices like that. Since you were nice enough to use generalizations and broad statements, I'll add that suffering like this is not exclusive to homosexuality.
The same crowd that opposes homosexuality is the one that tends to encourage battling temptations and urges to pornography or drinking or extramarital sex; which are desires that can affect heterosexuals just as easily as anyone else. The people who encourage homosexuals to battle their urges are of an upbringing that instructs them to stand up to temptation, that submitting to natural desires for the sake of doing what one wants is inherently evil, and that love is more than a response to hormonal pressures that can prompt some, from the perspective of a practical bystander, can seem irrational. From this philosophy, homosexuality is not a very special case among natural sins, and is alongside hatred, lust, and violence in the list of natural functions that are not to be condoned.
Just to make sure we're not misinterpreting my post here, I'm not pardoning the crowd that flatly opposes gay marriage because it's something that gays want and the Bible says gays are evil; I'm explaining the position, which I hold, of the group that believes it is possible to overcome homosexual desires.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
But why should a person overcome homosexual desires? It's not at all like looking at porn too much or having an affair (which happens at times with gay men or women who married someone of the opposite sex.) Why should they bother when there are real problems that need to be addressed and overcome. Like spousal abuse?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because some people find it evil. I don't know. I don't think it's a problem really, except when it takes talented, smart, (oh, and attractive) men out of the gene pool. Then it seriously stinks!
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand - I want to say that I am firmly against promiscuity in ANY type of relationship. I think sex is mainly for the purpose of making children... which unfortunately homosexuality skews. I don't like children being brought into such chaotic relationships, and I think any type of promiscuity (hetero or homo) will just increase social instability. Just because homosexual promiscuity can't produce an unwanted child doesn't mean that allowing it to run rampant wouldn't increase the acceptability of promiscuity in general.
However, I firmly believe (or maybe hope) that extending marriage rights to homosexuals would actually encourage committed relationships and decrease promiscuity. I was also horrified when my beloved (though often backwards) state decided to make it illegal for gay couples to become foster parents or adopt from social services!
Here is my view on adoption. Preferably children should be adopted into a home with a mother and father, giving them the closest thing to a "normal" nuclear family. If that isn't available, then other households should be considered. In my opinion, ANY two parent household is preferable to a single parent household. This could be made of an old maid sister bachelor brother (as in Anne of Green Gables) or a Grandmother/mother combo, or a homosexual couple. Any of those give the kids more parental resources than a single parent home. (BTW, I AM a single mother - though not by choice.) Still, even single parents are better than the "state homes" many foster kids languish in.
However, I've come to the conclusion that Card simply will never see the issue through non-church glasses. I really don't think he CAN see the other side of the issue. It's like our great-grandparents truly understanding full equality of the races. Many of them just couldn't believe that other people thought color meant NOTHING. It was plain as day that they looked different!
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
C3PO, you say that the groups that oppose homosexuality are against the sin and not the sinners, and yet somehow every religious leader has, can, and will fallout through debaucherious drug ridden scandals of thier own fault? If I were to referance a specific case, I would be answered "that was a singular event, you cannot blame a whole ideal for one who missused it". That is true to a degree, but I cannot ignore that the ones rabble-rousing to oppress any culture aside from middle-class white protestant falls to thier own religious sinfull enemy.
I did not say pain and undo suffering is exclusive to gays, I do say now that growing up in a religion that instructs you to hate gay people, only to have "unclean" thoughts as a pre-teen makes you hate yourself. Not the church, not the parents, but how is it okay to ever make a child hate themself?
To the adoption issue, if we can tell a gay couple that they cannot adopt and raise a child because they are socially perverted and will not teach said child proper social behavior, why are people who drink allowed to adopt? Surely alcahol is much more common in relation to crime than homosexuality.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
Just to make sure we're not misinterpreting my post here, I'm not pardoning the crowd that flatly opposes gay marriage because it's something that gays want and the Bible says gays are evil; I'm explaining the position, which I hold, of the group that believes it is possible to overcome homosexual desires.
Well of course it's possible.
No one denies that. Plenty of straight people have overcome their heterosexual desires, and lived lives of chastity.
But the same people who tell gay people that they are going to have to spend their entire llives denying their feelings get to go home and indulge in their own sexual desire as much as the partner they chose to share their desire with will let them.
If "submitting to natural desires for the sake of doing what one wants is inherently evil", then why isn't it inherantly evil for straight people to do the exact same thing?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: [QUOTE]Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
If "submitting to natural desires for the sake of doing what one wants is inherently evil", then why isn't it inherantly evil for straight people to do the exact same thing?
It is not that submitting to natural desires is evil, it is submitting to them under certain conditions.
ETA- swbarnes- I did read your hypothetical, I am actually in favor of ssm and so continuing to argue that point is not something I would enjoy doing. I do, however, think that people don't really understand the anti-ssm side and they argue points that will not change anyone's minds. The genetic argument for example does not matter to people who are opposed to ssm. Even if it was 100% proven to be genetic, that would not change their minds. And saying it is just racism will not convince them- because the action part makes it more then genes. Of course, the genetic argument could be used to reassure people that cultural acceptance will not actually increase the percent of the population which is homosexual.
If "submitting to natural desires for the sake of doing what one wants is inherently evil", then why isn't it inherantly evil for straight people to do the exact same thing?
It is not that submitting to natural desires is evil, it is submitting to them under certain conditions.
Take it up with the person who wrote that, not me.
But the "conditions" for some people are "pick one person at a time, and get a one-time $50 licence that will last as long as you like", and those people set the conditions for other people as "never, ever, under any circumstances, for the whole length of your life". And of the people telling others "never, ever, there are no acceptable conditions for you to indulge your desires", a great many of them aren't even going to bother satisfying the comparativly trivial "conditions" that are required of them before they set about indulging their own desires.
quote:I do, however, think that people don't really understand the anti-ssm side and they argue points that will not change anyone's minds. The genetic argument for example does not matter to people who are opposed to ssm.
No, but the reason that such things are worth pointing out is 1) to make those people who are amendable to reason see which side is supported by reason and 2) to make anti-ssm arguers put out the arguments they really think are controlling, not arguments that they think sound more appealing, but that they really aren't basing their thinking on, like facts of biology.
Sure, almost no ssm opposers are going to have their minds changed by the results of twin studies. But if some of them bring up the facts of biology to support their arguments, and then the facts of biology are shown to go against their case, and they don't change their mind, then it shows that the original argument was dishonest, and there's no reason to refrain from pointing that out.
Its the same with this "controlling desires" bit. Sure, the whole "not everything you feel an urge to do is a good idea" is obviously true, but the people who are telling gay people that they should spend their whole lives practicing chastity because obeying those urges are bad have arranged it so they can indulge those same desires perfectly legitimately, with only a tiny bit of inconvenience. So really, the argument is "I get to gratify my desire with no penalty, but you don't, because I say so".
quote:because the action part makes it more then genes.
Are there anti-ssm folks out there who think that allowing to parapalgic lesbains marry is okay?, because they won't be engaging in any scandalous "actions"?
Nope.
So much for the "action" argument. That's not the real reason, anymore then "it's not genetic", or "I'm controlling my desires just as much as I think gay people must" is the reason behind anti-ssm beliefs.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
