posted
What a surprise. John L thinks it's okay to call religious people bigots. Wake me up when something interesting happens.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
He doesn't call us bigots, he calls us opinionated, very opinionated. And I like being opinionated. Rhaegar
Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So his point is ... what? "Ha ha, I caught you, Dog! You said that calling gays perverts was a retarded thing to do, and now I've got a quote where one of your own authorities did it! Gotcha! Ha ha!"
It doesn't change the fact that I think name-calling is a retarded thing to do (and I'm fully aware of the irony of calling name-callers names). My church is NOT a name-calling institution of the "godhatesfags.com" variety, and the insinuation that a single vague quote implicates me and my own religion in that kind of retarded behavior is clearly a childish attempt to score points. It's counterproductive. I don't do that kind of thing to you. I treat you with courtesy and respect as opponents, and I would appreciate the same in return.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off, didn't mean to pick on Mormons. LDS just has a much friendlier search engine than the vatican.
To be fair, I did not find more than three references to homosexuality as a "perversion" during my search. However, there is one fairly important reference in the scriptures:
quote:Homosexuality and other sex perversions are an abomination, Lev. 18: 22-23.
posted
John, I think you're one of the only people on this forum whose blinders are thick enough, and who is capable of holding his fingers in his ears tightly enough while singing loudly enough to misinterpret my motivations so completely.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beren, condemning an act is different from condemning a person or calling a name. It leaves room for things like extenuating circumstances and tolerance for individuals.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if a person commits an act that has been condemned, we are not allowed to condem the person for performing the act that we have already condemned?
posted
Yeah, Rhaegar. That's how tolerance and non-judgmental thinking WORK. You can believe an action is wrong without believing that everyone performing that action is a bad person.
Which is what Beren's quotes are doing. They are informing practicing LDS of what is and is not a sin, according to their religion. Those quotes are not our arguments TO the gay community, and they do not condemn individuals. LDS theology is very clear on how people who violate such standards should be treated, and the word "love" gets used a lot.
I'll bet you if you used google to find quotes about homosexuality from mainstream Christian sites, you would very quickly see the big difference between the Mormon view and the homophobic view.
[ February 26, 2004, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, if it an action, that we know is wrong, and has been condemned in many religious texts, and it is well known that it is wrong, and the person willingly commits this act, does this not say something about the person? Are we not allowed to do what we believe is right because it might offend the person whom we belive to be a violater of the mandates of whoever our supreme being is?
posted
Wait, hold on, John. You call me a name, and then think you have some morally-superior position until I apologize for taking you to task for it? Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, here we go yet again arguing over the definition of a word. The challenge this time? Define perversion:
Perversion - verb; to use or change something in a way not designed or intended. Pervert - noun; One who creates a perversion. A spoiler.
Though the popular conotation (sp.?) of a pervert is a sick and disgusting person, if you look at the language in a Biblical sense it is less judgmental.
Though I am certain to enrage many by this statement...Can anyone actually say that homosexual sex is the way that God, or creation, or nature, or whatever intended it to be? If the purpose of sex is reproduction, and no possible reproduction can come from homosexuals relationships, then it is a perversion.
Wow, let the hate mail begin... But first let me state because I am rather new to this dicussion and forum and many of you have no basis to know where I am coming from as you do not know me that I am not a homophobe, nor do I hate homosexuals. So please try to keep the name calling and personal attacts to a minimum. to tell the truth, I am not sure what to think about gay marrige to tell the truth as i see valid ppoints in both arguements.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rhaegar, we have a responsibility to be honest about our beliefs, but that honesty does not need to drive us to cruelty. I know I'm not perfect at living by the standards of my religious community, and so how can I hold myself up as a judge of others who similarly do not meet those standards ... especially when most of them do not even believe in the same standards I do?
I don't think that homosexuals are evil or perverse. My moderate opinion on gay marriage stems from my concerns about intellectual rigor and the larger good of society, not from a desire to condemn.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paladin, there are those who would say that if it occurs at all, then it was intended by God ... otherwise, why would it exist?
Personally, I think that the major challenge of human life is the fact that chaos and misfortune are built into the system, and not everything that occurs represents the specific intention of God ... but just be warned, that is a vulnerable argument Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll bet you if you used google to find quotes about homosexuality from mainstream Christian sites, you would very quickly see the big difference between the Mormon view and the homophobic view.
That's true. I think most Mormons see gay people are basically decent folks who made a wrong turn somewhere. Although that view still offends me, it is nothing compared to some of the other stuff you see out there.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly Rat (is that how you wish to be called? ) THat counter agruement is quite weak aswell though. Murder exists but is it then intended etc..etc..
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rat, I do not have a hunger to condemn or a wish to, but when I see something that in my eyes is a affrontal to the very faith I worship, I must do what I must.
quote:John L said: You see, Dagonee, I'm not going to apologize to you until Geoff apologizes for calling me the equivalent of "the enemy of religion."
Hmm. Group blame. Isn't that something a nice tolerant person wouldn't do? I've expressed no opinion your being an enemy of religion.
I have no idea why you're lumping me in with Geoff. I disagree with a large chunk of what he's been saying in these threads. I've agreed with a large chunk of what he's been saying. But I haven't commented on any of it directly nor contributed at all to the enemy of religion stuff. So why am I lumped in with him?
quote: I cannot separate my "religious" self from myself. I am a Christian, and it means more to me than just a definition of where I go on Sunday Mornings. A person redeemed in Christ is a new creation, and they will be that new creation forever.
When a person changes religion, does that person cease to exist? If you give up Christianity one day, will you no longer be the parent of your children or the owner of your property? I believe you WILL continue to exist, and thus your religious views CAN be separated from your actual self.
Furthermore, I believe that the vast majority of attacks on your religious views are not intended to be attacks on you as a person. After all, do you intend to attack a person when you claim their religion is wrong? Or do merely wish to help that person or show them that they should accept your views or allow them to understand your views? I think that for most people, in most cases, it is the latter.
Therefore, I think you are wrong if you take attacks on your religion to be attacks on your self. They are, conceptually speaking, two different things. I could understand that perhaps you are simply not capable of distinguishing between the two in your mind, or something like that, but that does not change the fact that they are distinguishable and are probably distinguished between by the "attacker." So, although you may still consider it an attack on you, and maybe even be unable to think otherwise, it is not. Not in my view.
What's more, I believe you ARE capable of separating the two in your mind, and accepting criticism of your religion without interpreting it as criticism of your soul. This is part of my religion, and the message I think Christ was delivering to us - that judging people is different from judging their beliefs, or their morality, or their actions. Christ frequently negatively judged other religions, and other views, and various actions he called wrongful - but he did not judge other people, and considered all of them friends and neighbors no matter how wrongful they seemed to be.
quote:But don't tell me that anyone who opposes allowing the union of gay couples to be considered on the same level as a marriage between a man and a woman is someone who hates gays and wants to deprive them of basic rights. Bigots and homophobes take their positions out of hatred and fear.
I won't tell you that, and I'm not. I'm just saying that you do not need to reject those that do as bad people. So they think your religious views are bigoted - so they misjudge you - so what? Does that invalidate them as a person, or as a potential friend? I don't think it should. I think it just means they're wrong on this one.
(Also... I do, though, think you may find that bigots and homophobes believe they take their positions out of valid reasoning, not hatred and fear.)
quote:Now, if because I cannot play games with children means I'm not going to be welcome in issue threads, then just let me know.
No, as far as I'm concerned at least, you are always welcome. However, it might mean you will interpret the statements of others wrongly (as attacks on you), and bring on trouble.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, I'm rather burnt out on the homosexuality issue as well -- though I hope to get a decent breakdown of your father's essay in by the weekend -- but I have to say, I'm growing increasingly unimpressed with your defense. Or do you consider it intelligent to respond to every point with an accusation of blinders, putting fingers in ears and screaming "la la la la la," or something equally pointlessly misconstruing?
And here I'd come to expect that from only Kat.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dragging someone's name in for the sole purpose of being an asshole (your Kat reference) is exactly what this thread is trying to get people to stop.
Are you making an elequent point? Or just saying that Geoff only defends his ideas with childish tactics and that Kat is the epitome of such behavior? Did you win something by making that point? Will Geoff and Kate drop their religion and switch sides because you got a zinger in on them?
You know I do not oppose you in this particular issue, but if I did, your aggressive and insulting style of defending your ideas would do nothing to change my mind. I would daresay Karl Ed has more to lose or gain by winning this particular argument, and I never see him dragging anyone through the mud to make his position seem superior.
People will believe things that you do not believe. Being pissed off will not bend the universe to your will.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point, actually. While I'm frustrated with Kat's behavior, I should point it out only on threads in which she's acted accordingly.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or perhaps, Eddie, you shouldn't point it out at all. You KNOW we've had this conversation before.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:When a person changes religion, does that person cease to exist? If you give up Christianity one day, will you no longer be the parent of your children or the owner of your property? I believe you WILL continue to exist, and thus your religious views CAN be separated from your actual self.
That depends on your definition of actual self Tres. See, the physical self of me that is a mother to my children and owns property is not my actual self. My actual self is my soul, that part of me that is made in the image of God, the part of me that will continue to exist after this physical body is dead. Since, by accepting Christ, I was reborn (hence the phrase born-again Christian) that part is irrevocably changed.
I didn't say (or didn't mean to say) that an attack against Christianity couldn't be separated from an attack on me personally, I criticize actions taken and words said in the name of Christianity myself. What I take issue with, and can't set aside, is someone who attacks me solely because of my Christian beliefs. Someone who says "You're a bigot because you are Christian." That, to me, is the same as saying "You are a racist because you're white." If I've done nothing to merit the charge of racism, that is an insulting statement.
Religion is a very personal thing, some people like to play religion because it's socially acceptable to belong to the right church. They call themselves Christian but never really learn about what it really means and have never truly dedicated themselves to be a follower of Christ. That is not the type of Christian I am. Those people may be able to shed their religious views as you describe and take up another and not change at all. I cannot.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's unproductive of me to point out the following, and though I may be using some offensive terms I do not mean the directed at anyone specifically.
It seems that pointing out percieved bigotry in religiously motivated attitudes is seen as an attack on some people who hold their religions dear to them. They react very strongly because they feel that their religious beliefs are a part of them and are under attack.
My view of the universe, while I don't give it the name "religion" is nonetheless just as much a part of me as the Bible is to a Christian. My worldview is influenced by my sexuality and by the experience of being gay. My world view is made up of a million personal experiences and quests for "truth" or evidence of the lack thereof. It is something I have come to discover through years of searching and deep critical thought. That is something some of the more devoutly religous on this board should be able to relate to well as I assume you have reached the point in your philosophical development because you have worked equally hard (at least in your own estimation.)
I have listened to all manner of slights as to the validity of my worldview. What I think is an integral part of my life experience and worldview, I have heard called perverted, misguided, having fallen to temptation, corrupted, without evolutionary relevance, or productivity, and in all manner of ways lesser than those of you who are more religiously enlightened. If I can continue civilly in this discussion and not retreat to thin-skinned demands for appology, then perhaps some of the more religious could try harder too. I can see why you religious might take offense that something you hold dear could be said to be a form of bigotry (something we all agree is detrimental to society -- well at least I think we agree). Why, then, can't some of you seem to see how your own attitudes toward my worldview are no less an attack on my very being?
Looked at this way, gay civil rights issues could be looked at as religious freedom issues. Just because we don't have the luxury of claiming an organized structure to lend (questionable) validity to our worldviews does not make them any less valid than the Catholic worldview or the Mormon worldview, etc. Do we have less of a right to live according to our worldview than you? If so, why is that?
quote:Geoff, I'm rather burnt out on the homosexuality issue as well -- though I hope to get a decent breakdown of your father's essay in by the weekend -- but I have to say, I'm growing increasingly unimpressed with your defense. Or do you consider it intelligent to respond to every point with an accusation of blinders, putting fingers in ears and screaming "la la la la la," or something equally pointlessly misconstruing?
If someone repeatedly uses the same exact cheap, childish argument ("Yeah, but you're still a bigot!") again and again without taking into account anything their opposition is saying, then yes, they remind me of a child sticking his fingers in his ears and singing. A couple of people have acted that way recently, and I think it's an annoying behavior.
That behavior is pointless. Me pointing it out and trying to persuade people to rejoin the intelligent, respectful discussion is very pointful indeed.
However, I ultimately fail to see what in the world qualifies you as the judge of an intelligent argument Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(this post was meant to be facetious but I now feel guilty for typing it) And I'm rarely this wishy washy but I'm inserting it back after seeing the googly-moogly thread.
quote: However, I ultimately fail to see what in the world qualifies you as the judge of an intelligent argument
quote:Looked at this way, gay civil rights issues could be looked at as religious freedom issues. Just because we don't have the luxury of claiming an organized structure to lend (questionable) validity to our worldviews does not make them any less valid than the Catholic worldview or the Mormon worldview, etc. Do we have less of a right to live according to our worldview than you?
No, I don't believe you have any less of a right to live the way you want. That's why I'm adamantly opposed to things like sodomy laws that would infringe on your right to live by your own sense of what is proper for you, whatever that may be. I don't think the government has a right to tell people what religious pattern to follow, or what they can do in their bedrooms.
There are a lot of visions out there, as many as there are people, of what can be considered a "right" way to live. Some are obviously morally wrong, some are obviously just fine, and some have people divided on the issue. I very often find myself in the position of having to explain the behavior of my own ancestors (I'm descended from the later wives of several nineteenth-century Mormon authorities) because polygamy is largely recognized in our society as a "wrong" way to live, no matter how good or well-intentioned the participants, or how healthy the relationships may have been.
When you are talking about people's right to live however they see fit, and to follow the dictates of their own conscience, I absolutely agree with you, and fight just as adamantly on the same side of the argument. But when it comes to choosing which lifestyles will be codified into the law of the land, I'm more divided. Maybe it's partly due to the fact that my own people gave up any chance of their own treasured marriage practices being accepted a hundred years ago, and instead changed our expectations in order to live in an orderly society. It was a hard choice, but I think it was the right one.
So I don't see the refusal to codify a lifestyle as a form of negative discrimination. You are allowed to live however you like. You aren't hounded by U. S. Marshals or driven from the country the way my ancestors were. You are simply asked to accept that your lifestyle is rare and unique and has not been codified into the law.
I'll help you fight for any of the "smaller" advantages ... those related to taxes or bereavement or what-have-you. Cohabitation and simple devotion should have their own benefits, regardless of what lifestyle you might be pursuing. And maybe expanding the laws that way could help us keep polygamists from abusing the welfare system because their extra wives are seen as single mothers
But I don't think that defining marriage by the process that perpetuates our species is a bad thing, and I'll be slower to accept the idea that we need to revamp society's core structure to encompass every possible alternate lifestyle. I think it should be okay to be unique or different without having to demand that society make specific accomodations.
So that's why I'm moderate on the issue. I have a strong distaste for the people who oppose gay marriage for reasons of revulsion or bigotry, and I would hate to see them win a total victory, because the world would see it as a victory for their attitudes, rather than for mine. That could never be good. But I'm not yet persuaded that conceding to the other extreme is the answer, either. So what can you do?
[ February 27, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, for one we could recognize that producing offspring is not the whole of what marriage is. No one yet has been able to answer why it is worse for two men to marry than for a barren couple or even a couple that chooses to not have children.
Also, I believe that gays should be able to adopt. And even if they aren't able to in many cases today, it is a fact that there are many children who are in the care of homosexual couples. Why is marriage so fundamentally important to the stability of a straight couple with children, but not equally important to the stability of a committed gay couple with children?
quote: I very often find myself in the position of having to explain the behavior of my own ancestors (I'm descended from the later wives of several nineteenth-century Mormon authorities) because polygamy is largely recognized in our society as a "wrong" way to live, no matter how good or well-intentioned the participants, or how healthy the relationships may have been.
When you are talking about people's right to live however they see fit, and to follow the dictates of their own conscience, I absolutely agree with you, and fight just as adamantly on the same side of the argument. But when it comes to choosing which lifestyles will be codified into the law of the land, I'm more divided. Maybe it's partly due to the fact that my own people gave up any chance of their own treasured marriage practices being accepted a hundred years ago, and instead changed our expectations in order to live in an orderly society. It was a hard choice, but I think it was the right one.
Hey, they're my people, too. I'm a direct descendant of Brigham Young through one of his plural wives. Frankly, it's pretty ironic that the LDS church is so vociferously against this recognition of unorthodox unions. The Mormon church never renounced the principle of plural marriage, they only suspended the practice. Presumably, if the doctrine was ever sound, it is still sound, even though it is currently superceded by the doctrine of obedience to civil law. Do you think that if the legal restrictions against plural marriage were removed that the practice would remain suspended indefinitely or do you think it might someday be restored?
quote: But I don't think that defining marriage by the process that perpetuates our species is a bad thing, and I'll be slower to accept the idea that we need to revamp society's core structure to encompass every possible alternate lifestyle.
This is cleverly worded. However, the definition of marriage "between a man and a woman" (as it is currently being put forth) does not specifically mention the procreative requirement. So, in fact, that is not what is being "defended". Also, you have included nicely the slippery slope arguement there at the end which has already been pretty well refuted in these discussions.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I don't think it makes one any less "adult" to argue without rancor, and to approach issues with both passion and playfulness. It's when we lose that sense of joy that we become dark. After all, we have a brief time in the sun together, and then we die. Is it worth getting terribly upset about? I cannot think of any issues that are worth wasting energy upon in argument, unless there is a sense of sparring, as Tresopax mentioned. It's a joy and a blessing to interact with your fellow man, even if you don't agree. And when things get too heavy or annoying, then it is time to withdraw and adjust your perspective.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think that if the legal restrictions against plural marriage were removed that the practice would remain suspended indefinitely or do you think it might someday be restored?
Personally, I see the arguments against polygamy in the Book of Jacob as the higher law in this regard. He states that if God has some special exception to make, He will make it, but that otherwise, marriage to more than one woman is, by default, a bad choice.
Still, at the time we were hounded by U. S. Marshalls and driven from the country, the practice was a critical part of our culture, and giving it up was difficult for a lot of people (as we can see from the continuation of the practice by splinter groups). But we did it. If a Mormon wishes to remain a Mormon, he must not take multiple wives. (I know you know this, Karl, I'm just stating it because ... well, it's part of the argument )
Gays aren't being asked (at least by me) to marry members of the opposite sex. They are not being arrested or driven away. I think it's possible for homosexual and heterosexual unions to exist side-by-side in our culture without sniping at each other over semantics. I believe it is better to let the traditional camp hold onto the word marriage and continue to pursue the valuable goals of strengthening traditional values and restoring some of the cracking foundations of our society, while still catering to the desires of homosexual couples. This all-or-nothing attitude espoused by both sides can only lead either to eternal conflict or total victory over a beaten enemy, neither of which will be good for our nation in the end.
I can see situations (human slavery, for instance) where it is worth a bitter war to achieve a political end. I don't think this is one of them. Homosexuals are not in bondage. They simply desire official codification of their version of marriage during a time in America's history when the value and meaning of marriage is in flux and a lot of people are very worried about the future. Maybe that looks like an opportunity to make a difficult change. But it could also be an opportunity to do a lot of damage. Can we come to a compromise that doesn't require an entire side of this argument (EITHER side) to feel like their world is being ripped away?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd, I know my views are hurtful to you. And there's nothing I can do to change that, I really wish they weren't hurtful.
I feel like Franklin Graham when he was being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly and O'Reilly kept grilling him about his belief that Christ is the only way to salvation. "You mean devout Muslims aren't going to heaven? Devout Hindus? etc." Graham finally threw his hands in the air and said "Mr. O'Reilly, I didn't write the book!"
I didn't write the book. But as a Christian I believe it. It means I have to believe some tough things, like the fact that my father is likely not going to be in heaven someday, unless there is a change. You think I want to believe that?
Geoff is right, you are not in bondage, you are not in internment camps, you are not imprisoned. No one is saying you can't love whom you wish.
Comparing this to religious freedom is not going to wash either. We have constitutionally declared rights to choose and practice what religion we wish, there is no guarantee concerning marriage. This is not a question of stripping rights from anyone. Homosexuals have never been able to get a marriage license (in most states). You're not seeking to have re-instated some right that has been denied you, as blacks were given the right to vote. Your asking for society to change irrevocably an institution that has shaped the way we live our lives.
This is no personal attack on you. I am not telling you that you're perverted, that you need to change or you're going to hell, that you don't deserve the right to live with and love whom you wish.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd said: Looked at this way, gay civil rights issues could be looked at as religious freedom issues. Just because we don't have the luxury of claiming an organized structure to lend (questionable) validity to our worldviews does not make them any less valid than the Catholic worldview or the Mormon worldview, etc. Do we have less of a right to live according to our worldview than you? If so, why is that?
KarlEd, excellent point! This is at the heart of why I can't for sure say what my opinion is about gay marriage. Many good points have been made on both sides.
But I am getting ahead of myself. I am new here, led here for the same reason as all of you, a passion and admiration for the writings of OSC. I have been following the discussion on homosexuality and gay marriage for the past few days. From what little I have seen, I really like the group here, and feel the pain of the rift that this issue has caused.
For the sake of background, here is my self-declared stance: I am LDS. I believe that I hold no hate or contempt whatsoever for homosexual individuals. I have no desire to deny those in homosexual relationships many of the benefits that those who are married enjoy (I don't know enough about those benefits to say "all"). I believe that homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes and does have negative effects on the individual and society. I believe that no matter how I feel on this issue, that the our increasingly permissive society will continue to become more and more accepting of homosexuality over time. I believe that the increasing accpetance of homosexuality does threaten me primarily in that it threatens my children and their children, etc. I will try to explain each of the points I have made above.
First, on my statement that I have no hate or contempt for those who have homosexual tendancies or live homosexual lifestyles. No matter what I say, some here and elsewhere will claim that I in fact DO hate or hold contempt for them. I hope that most of you here will not jump to such conclusions thinking you know myself better than I do--I just don't understand that. I admittedly have not known many homosexual individuals, but I can say that I have genuinely liked every one that I have known. I dunno, it just seems that in my experience, the homosexuals I have known are very likable people. Does that make me a bigot?
On homosexuals being denied many of the priviledges married couples enjoy: Again, I do not know nearly enough about this to comment competently about it. But I definitely think that at least some of the things that are currently denied to men/men or women/women committed relationships by law ought to be granted them. That they are denied them seems silly and unjust to me. I don't know how I think this ought to be done, I just don't know enough.
About my belief that homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes: I think that if I were not a religious person, I would have nothing against homosexuality at all, so for me it is very much a religious issue. If I had any lingering concerns about it, I can't imagine that I would be able to rationallly explain them. Unless I am mistaken, this "rift" between pro and anti gay marriage is pretty close to being drawn along religious boundaries.
Now on the subject of my feeling that homosexuality is destructive and does negatively effect society and those dearest to me. This is where things get really tricky, controversial, and have great potential for offense. I think because of that, few that may feel this way would choose to share it and open themselves up to be hated and criticized. Now, my reasoning here will be heavily based on my religious beliefs, because as I said, were I not a religious person, I would have no such issues with homosexuality.
There are a few points that I have seen brought up, but not as thouroughly explored as I think they deserve. I am particularly intrigued at the idea that sexual orientation is open to influence for many, if not the majority of people, since I have long believed that to be true myself. I believe that the human psyche is extremely complicated, as is sexuality, and I really don't think that genetics or nurture fully explain homosexuality. I think that just as people have speech impediments for a variety of different reasons, the same is true of homosexuality. Someone else made a good analogy with alchoholism. Just being genetically disposed to it does not make you an alchoholic. Some people would never become sexually attracted to one of their gender no matter what they experienced. But one of my children might.
My concern here is not true homosexuality, but bisexuality. If my son is attracted to females and could conceivably be happily married to one, I would far prefer that to him deciding that he also likes guys and wants to be married to one. If he had no attraction to females whatsoever, I would still be very sad, but there wouldn't be much anyone could do about it. I imagine under such circumstances he would be miserable married to a girl.
Sooooo, as homosexual attraction becomes more and more accepted, more and more the norm, I figure that my children are more likely to choose it, regardless of my efforts to guide and teach according to my understanding of "Things As They Truly Are". So, I guess to some extent, that makes me a homophobe?
I am not saying that I am going to hide my children away from those with such a lifestyle. On the contrary, I intend to be quite open about it and teach understanding and compassion. But the overall messages of society and the media have great power and influence. I do believe that it will cause a higher percentage of youth to experiment with homosexuality--youth who would have been very happy paired up with the opposite sex. I worry that it will become a powerful "fad", so to speak. And that the likelyhood of a girl "hitting on" my daughter or a boy "coming onto" my son will be much higher and thier aversion to experimentation lower.
I guess I feel that extending marriage to gay couples is a major move in that direction. It is a very big victory indeed for those who feel there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. More than one person here has said that if such movement leads to more people choosing to be gay, that is totally cool with them. Of course you would feel that way! I understand that! And of course I would feel the way that I do. I feel threatened. And at the same time, I don't think there is a blame thing I can do to stop society's chosen direction. All I can do is tell people how I feel, gently, and teach my children what I think is right.
It is only a matter of time. Gay marriage will become accepted by this country and many others. Whether or not I am right about an increase in individuals participating in homosexual practices, only time can tell that, so PLEASE don't jump down my throat and tell me I am wrong when I am not trying to prove that I am right. Perhaps with such major changes being made in the definition of marriage, polygamy will eventually be allowed by law, and I expect under such circumstances, the LDS church would resume practice of it. I am certainly not hoping for that process to speed up, for though I believe that it is a true principle, I am glad I am not living it at the moment! ;D
Now to OSC. I imagine the poor man feels somewhat the way I do by this, threatened. I think that he may have gotten a bit caught up in those emotions as he wrote the article "Humpty Dumpty Logic". I certainly don't think there is any hate against homosexuals involved there. Fear, yes, hate no. How could ANYONE who has read his works widely come to that conclusion? This man is one of the most compassionate men I can think of. He is extremely opinionated to the point of rudeness, yet he has such tender compassion for the human soul. I am really hurt by the slander I have seen posted against him here by his most devoted fans. You know him better than this! He is human. He spoke in anger about what is happening to society in general for reasons I already stated. I do not think he spoke in hate.
Also, I think OSC has very strong feelings about the extreme differences between men and women and the odds overcome when they unite together. That is why he so vehemently wants to keep "marriage" reserved for such couples. I think he feels that they deserve special recognition for the amazing task they are taking on. (Think: Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus) He implies this in his article. I have personally felt for a long time that one of the major purposes for our experience in mortality is for men and women to successfully learn to become "one" with each other despite all that is stacked against them. Not an easy task, as my husband and I have learned, but a very rewarding one! A pursuit of increased homosexual experimentation does threaten that ideal. I do not suggest that love between two men (or women) cannot be very deep and real. I simply do not think that they have to overcome so great a barrier, and that they are missing out on the beatiful reward that comes of it. It also means that their relationships may often be more peaceful and stable, and many men/women pairings end in blood and tears. I also recognize the existence of exceptions.
I'm the resident conservative evangelical Christian Mom of four. I've recently found out my birth father, that I haven't known for 30 years is a liberal, but I'm talking to my therapist about it. Acceptance may come in time.
I hope you enjoy it here, it's a pretty cool place. Prepare to have some of your views challenged, that's part of the fun. Just remember, at the end of the day after all the arguing is done, most hatrackers would want to sit down and have coffee with you. Wait you're LDS - herbal tea? Water with lemon? it's not personal, most of the time.
Want some cookies? I just baked some, they're fresh. Chocolate chip and toffee chips.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thak you so much for the warm welcome! You are a sweetie! I would politely turn down the coffee offer, but I could really go for a cookie right now. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
