posted
I wouldn't like to think so, but I have thought about it a bit this week and then I came across this story about gay rights groups opposing the teaching of abstinence until marriage. If there is gay marriage, wouldn't it be possible for there to be gays who wait for marriage? Isn't chastity about being faithful to your spouse, even if you haven't met them yet?
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
And since gay marriage currently isn't legal, I can understand them having a problem with "abstinence until marriage".
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev makes a good point, but then there is also this quote:
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.
I think they're asking for comprehensive sexual education and there was some exception taken to the descriptions of condoms instead of abstinence which they claim is promoting unsafe rather than safe sex.
Edit: Or perhaps better phrased as downplaying safer alternatives rather than giving them due credit and if you decide not to practice abstinence, then at least consider...etc.
Edit: Emphasis mine
So I don't think the homosexuals quoted in the article are protesting abstinence per se, but rather this website's approach to promoting it.
posted
No, they are not incompatible at all. What these people are worried about is lack of information and the subtle ways this site seems to put homosexuality in a bad light
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.
and
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.
[ April 01, 2005, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, as Telp notes - they aren't even protesting abstinence as the issue at hand, but rather a website that purports to promote abstinence and its handling of homosexual issues.
posted
The answer to that question is the same as "Are Chritistianity and not being an ignorant bigot incompatible?" Seriously, why ask an intentionally offesnive question that you already know people obviously disagree with? What did you expect to get out of this other than to insult people?
posted
I'm doing a paper on homosexuality and I read an article today that I thought was very interesting. It was a survey of 750 Canadian males age 18 to 27. One of the most interesting findings was that when the researchers looked at current levels of depression 46.1% of the celibate homosexuals and 21.8% of the celibate homosexuals were severly depressed. Among the people interviewed who were sexually active the largested levels of depression were among active bisexuals, 10.8% of them were severaly depressed.
*shrugs* I just read that and thought it was very interesting.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.]
posted
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.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
That's what I said before on it.
Toleration to me is what you do to things you fundamentally do not like and refuse to accept, but will allow to exist.
I tolerate homework, but I don't like it. I tolerate work, but I don't like it. Toleration would be a nice stepping stone, but I'd hope as a society we can do better.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To define a more conservative stance for the sake of argument, and the one I actually happen to hold...
Being a Catholic, I believe that marriage is only valid between a man and a woman, and that only married couples should have sex.
Having said that, I don't think that having the homosexual tendency in your thoughts and feelings is any worse than heterosexual thoughts and feelings. Indeed, having lustful thoughts toward anyone who is not your spouse is sinful.
There is no discriminatory standard against homosexuality in the Church, or there shouldn't be. We are all human, and we all have lustful feelings towards both sexes at one time or another. There is the same standard for all humans.
I consider homosexuals having sex outside of marriage the same as heterosexuals having sex outside of marriage. I am tolerant and loving toward people who do it, although I don't personally think it's the best thing.
Homosexuals have to face something very difficult, as we all do in our own way. We all have our own issues that make it hard to be human. Homosexuality is just another part of being human, and it's clear that it occurs naturally. As long as it's not acted on, I don't see this particular tendency as being bad.
Some people are not called to marry, and Paul even discourages people from getting married(if it can be avoided) quite emphatically, as in 1 Corinthians 7. So it is quite an expectable(although difficult for most) thing according to Paul for people to just go through life celibate.
The problem comes in where everyone wants to have sex, no matter what orientation. And so people act to get what they want without doing it properly(i.e. without marriage). It's the same problem with everyone.
A close analogy is if a friend wants something in your house that belongs to your parents, but you don't feel like waiting to ask your parents, so you decide to give it and hope everything works out ok.
I believe God owns our bodies, and we should get permission from Him through marriage in the appropriate way before we can give our bodies to someone else. All this, of course, precludes some belief in traditional Christianity.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would it be? You are how you are. God made us all. Sin is not based on being, but on action, things you do, and what you think. The bigger sins are always the ones involving action. Sin by definition is action or thought that pulls you away from God.
It's simple...lustful thoughts for anyone who isn't your spouse is a sin(though more minor), and having sexual relations before marriage is likewise(but much more serious, i.e. takes you further from God). Heterosexuals are just as likely to commit these sins as homosexuals, and they are in essence the same for both.
If you want to have sex, get married. If you don't want to get married (in the proper way between a man and woman), stay single. This applies to everyone.
posted
I think you're assuming it's completely impossible for a homosexual to fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. I don't think it is. But then, I guess it's also impossible to love someone without being physically attracted to them (Oh I admit, it's a big part, but it's not the only part).
edit: By the way, has anyone else noticed that this has become a major topic in both forums lately?
[ April 03, 2005, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You say, Bob and Fred can't have sex unless they are married for that is a sin.
You say, Bob and Fred can't get married because marriage is only between a man and a woman.
So Bob and Fred's only sexual choice is to be virgins their entire lives.
But, can Bob and Fred fall in love with each other? Can they care about each other, live with each other, hold hands in the park? Can they go on dates together, to movies together, look longingly in each others eyes and know that they are made for each other? Can they be in love if they do not have sex?
Can they go to church together, holding hands together, sharing a picnic basket at the church social?
Can they teach abstinence classes? Sunday School Classes? Tell the world how they endure separate but together?
The Christian Right makes this all about sex.
The Liberal Left will win this fight when they dare to make it all about love.
posted
I think we're missing the point here. The point is not, can mr. so-and-so fall in love with miss. such-and-such if mr. so-and-so identifies as gay? In my opinion, possible. The point is, if mr. so-and-so and mr. such-and-such fall in love, why shouldn't they be able to be married like a man and a woman.
Ask anyone who's happily married. Could they have fallen in love with someone else? Probably. Would they have given up the love they already had to go seek an uncertain and heavily unlikely love? Probably not.
If you're talking in general, I'm sure people who identify as gay have fallen in love with the opposite gender. I'm also sure people who are straight have fallen in love with the same gender. But someone who's been in love will tell you that you don't drop something like that because you can't get married. And if a belief system that you're tenuously connected to comes directly up against a love that you're strongly connected to, which one do you guess is going out the window?
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, they can. They can do all that. In America we have something against men showing affection and love to each other.
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.
I should say at this point that the argument from my detractors from now on will most likely consist of insisting that this way I'm proposing is too hard on those with homosexual tendencies and so should be considered too old fashioned and therefore invalid. I never said it would be easy, but the easy way out is almost never the best thing.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
quote: All I see here is someone being set up to fail and then being blamed for their failure.
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.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And will the government then force religions, like mine, to recognize homosexual marriages, even when it goes against the very basis of what they believe in?
I have nothing against love. I don't deny the possibility of two people of the same sex being in love with one another. But to be honest, I believe that any contact of a sexual nature outside of marriage (that includes making out or touching areas of another person's body that would result in sexual stimulation) is sinful. I believe it is a misuse of the reproductive power given to humanity by God, the power to create life. That is the main purpose of sex. Yes, it brings people together. It is a result of love. It is often a fulfilling and glorious act. But I think that there is something lost when sex becomes a matter of seeking pleasure and gratification only.
I believe marriage is meant to create an environment that is for the most part stable and healthy. Where families can be created and grow alongside one another. I understand that there are many hetrosexual marriages where families cannot be created. That's why adoption exists. It gives the oportunity for married couples who cannot, by themselves, create a family the oportunity to do so. I understand that there are many families where family members are abused. I find this kind of thing to be one of the greater evils of this world. When a spouse is abusive or selfish, it completely destroys the sacred nature of a marriage because it destroys the health of the environment.
There...That's what I believe. I've tried very hard to understand what other people believe about this subject. I've struggled to see the other point of view. And for the most point, I can understand why homosexuals want to have the civil rights allowed married couples. I understand why they want to be able to be in the hospital when the person they love is suffering from illness. I understand why they would want to have families. I can understand why homosexuals would want to be treated as equals. I understand it because these are all things that every person really does deserve to have. But I also have a belief that goes much deeper. And that is the belief that we should do what God has intended. I don't care if you don't believe in God. I do. And every time someone tells me that religion is trying to make this all about sex, it's like someone just smacked me in the face and told me that my beliefs don't matter. And that is just as wrong as inequality, because it's that person saying they are better than me. I have seen NO ONE attempt to look at things from my viewpoint. I have seen no attempts to understand why I believe what I believe. All I have seen is mockery and hatred towards me because I believe what I believe. How is that treatment of my beliefs any different from the assumed (Though, I admit, often actual) bigotry of people who are opposed to homosexual marriages?
(Sorry if I have offended anyone with this. But if you are incapable of attempting to understand and respect my beliefs, why should I be expected to give your beliefs better treatment?)
edit: And for those wondering, I am a virgin. And if I fail to find someone who I care for and who cares for me enough to get married, I WILL remain a virgin for my entire life. It isn't as hard as you think, and it frankly bothers me that people feel it is impossible to live a full life without sex.
[ April 04, 2005, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 378 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 378 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
quote: I don't see how homosexuality can be a sin, if homosexuals were created by God.
It's been explained in the past on this board that God made liars, thieves, and rapists as well. That argument doesn't hold water with Mormons and others of similar belief because they view homosexuality as the expression of a sin.
posted
I doubt that argument will sway a lot of people. Liars, theives and rapists can choose not to be what they are. Homosexuals can't.
But then, that's a matter of personal belief, and I won't bother to expend any effort to convince anyone otherwise.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm trying to understand your argument. But you are creating a situation where its You vs Them with no middle ground.
I'm not very good at expressing my views. That's the main reason I tend to stick with the fluff threads on here. What I'm trying to say is that we need to find a middle ground. What I want people to do is to step back and look at things for a minute. I understand the impatience on this matter, people want to have equality now. But there HAS to be a way to reach equality without completely ignoring the beliefs of a large portion of this country. True change takes time.
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.
[ April 04, 2005, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in one of those unmarried heterosexual relationships where we believe the marriage ceremony is nothing more than a "piece of paper."
However, that does not mean we don't see some value in it...namely, a public acknowledgment and celebration of our coupledom, and a legal recognition of the ties that bind us.
Which is why, though we don't consider marriage "sacred" or "necessary" or "inevitable"...we will marry one day. It's an idea that appeals, for no other reason than it's a nice idea and the legal recognition.
posted
Personally, I intend on abstinence until I'm in a long-term, lifelong relationship.
Anyways, Boris, I personally don't hold it against any church that's against it happening on their grounds, as long as they allow it elsewhere. But what you're saying is you fear you'll be pegged as homophobes, so it shouldn't be allowed at all. This seems rather senseless, even though it will probably happen.
And btw, I've tried for a very long time to be straight. It's not a switch you can flip either way.
Finally, the question for all those who insist on marriage as strictly reproductive: what about my friend who's sterile? Can he marry? Marriage is about a lasting commitment to some one you love, trust, and respect, to build something greater out of your union than you could ever build alone. It could be a community, it could be a child, it could be a house, a home, whatever. Creation isn't strictly reserved to sex and reproduction.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boris - I agree that precautions have to be taken to make sure that there is no backlash to religious groups. I don't see what those precautions could be though.
As militant anti-abortion groups have proven, there is nothing legally wrong with standing outside a building and protesting, regardless of whether or not that building is a church or an abortion clinic.
Violence however is another matter. The thing about it is the gay community would never support it. They aren't, as a whole, out to hate religious groups, they just want what they feel is owed to them and that is all. When African-Americans were freed from slavery, by and large they settled down and didn't go on killing sprees. I agree that some precautions will have to be taken, but that can't be used as a sticking point to slow down the process.
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?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Lyrhawn
