1. How do you feel about homosexuality in general? Do you think homosexuality is wrong?
My personal feelings are that it's not for me. That much I know for sure. As far as it being wrong in general....I don't know. I guess in a way it is NOT. How can love be wrong? Although I find it interesting that for the vast majority seeing two women kiss in public is not as offensive as two guys doing it. Odd. I all though I believe that it should be, "To each his own." If it is good for you fine, just don't go forcing every one into it. But that goes for both hetro' and homosexual.
2. If not, do you think gays need to adavnce their agenda?
Advance it how? If you mean all the gay pride marches and events then...yes. But on the same note it does not have to be low key like it is evil. Just be normal. So you are a guy who likes other guys, does that mean you have to walk down the middle of the street and tell the world. It is one thing to be proud of who you are but it is another to open the door for riddicual. But I also feel they should continue to fight for legal marriages and things like that. But only the things that are denied to them because of thier sexual preferance. Why should they be denied the ability to do so? Of course I feel the same way about a lot of the race issues also. Yes I believe that every one should have equal rights, but I do not believe that your color, or sexual preferance entitles you to special rights.
3. Do you know anyone who is gay (the chances are high that you do).
Yes I do. I also know several people who are bi. I have also talked to a couple of them in length about these issues.
4. Spiritually and naturally, how does it fit in?
Spiritually...ummm....If you believe in past lives then you must also accept the idea that you may not have always been your current gender. In which case homosexuality could be view as carry over of sexual preferance. IE: Being of the opposite gender before and still have the same sexuality now. To me in this case it would simply be a part of you. Some thing you would have to accept.
Naturally...I don't know. But some fish and frogs are capable of changing thier gender based on the population. It could be that the same kind of thing happens in humans but with out the physical change. I have witnessed dogs and such acting out the same way. I have two female dogs. Before we had them fixed the larger one would try to mount the smaller one when they went into heat. They showed the same kind of change, if only in mentallity, that other species show physically. We as humans just have a beter control over our more animalistic tendancies.
5. Are people born gay?
Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. That is a question of much scientific debate. And to me it makes no difference. Are we born liking certain foods or does it change with time. You could have one bad experience with brocoli and never be able to eat it again even though it tastes the same.
6. Can gay people change?
Again, maybe. We could all change. Hell your happily married, but you could wake up tomorrow and suddenly find yourself attacted to the UPS guy. It being that not all men in brown shorts does it for ya but just that one. It's probably unlikely but it "could" happen. (please note that this is only an example. I am not saying anything.)
7. How is sexual abuse tied into homosexuality (or is it??)
In some cases yes. See above section concerning brocoli. But it is not a 100% of the time thing. Not every single homosexual has been abused. But any abuse can have an infinate number of psychological effects on a person. It can have no effect at all or it could cause a person to go postal. You never know.
1) Homosexuality doesn't bother me, I don't feel it's wrong.
2) Yes. I think gays/lesbians need to enlighten people as to what it is to be homosexual.
3) yes.
4) Spiritually- my gay friend describes himself as a female born into the wrong body. In some cases I think gays (i think bisexuals may be the better term here) may be more spiritually advanced in some ways because they can find their soulmate, be it a man or a woman. Maybe their soulmate is the same sex as they are and they have learned to accept their fate.
5) I think they are born heterosexual, but in some cases they may be born gay.
6) I think that gays can change and I also think heterosexuals can change.
7)I think sexual abuse is only "tied in" with homosexuality due to homophobia. People associate the two. I don't think it's tied in any more than heterosexuality, i think people just make a bigger deal of it.
Most people who are truly comfortable with their sexuality will not worry about how they appear to others. I have a friend who has pictures of Disney princesses all over his room and he's the straightest person I know. He'll put up something pink if he thinks it's cool and doesn't care about what it might look like to someone else.
well, normally my stance on homosexuality is this: if they don't hit on me, i don't care.
but i guess i'll answer the questions too[|)]
1. i don't usually think much about homosexuality, but so far my own personal opinion is that it is a corruption of nature for humans to be homosexual. but like i said, i don't do anything about my personal opinion (ie, i don't participate in hate crimes, nor do i disrespect/judge/treat people based on their sexual preference.)
2. ?
3. yes.
4. i don't know.
5. no.
6. yes, of course! the same way anyone can change to become someone else.
7. i don't know.
there, that was easy [;)].
~kakkarot
Ha
My thoughts....
1)I have no problem with it whatsoever providing their views are not pushed down my throat. I don't consider it wrong. I am comfortably heterosexual, and providing homosexuals are ok with that, I'm ok with their sexuality.
2)Yes, I believe stable homosexual couples should have exactly the same rights, legal or otherwise, as any other couple.
3)I've had / I have gay neighbours, workmates and friends. I tend to get on with them quite well as I'm far from what you'd call the "macho" type myself. I've had very limited contact with true lesbians, but I've gotten on with them as I would anyone else.
4)Absolutely no differently to anyone else. Why should they be? I doub't the higher beings even care about a person's sexuality let alone discriminate against it. It's what's in thier hearts that matters.
5)Don't know! There's been quite a bit of conjecture about this, but I don't think anyones proven it one way or the other.
6)I've heard of it happening, but again haven't seen anything to substantiate it.
7)That's a tough question! Sexual abuse can psychologically affect people in all sorts of horrible ways. There could be links here, in terms of sexual repression or similar. I've no experience to draw on at all here.
To me homosexuals are just people, to be liked or disliked as anyone else. I don't actually put them into their own category.
James.
1. I think as long as noone is hurt, what harm is done? As for kakkarot's quote, "a coruption of nature", like MJ said, wild animals can be bi/gay as well. So, how can something be a corruption of nature when it's part of nature?
2. Hardly. I personally think the gay pride parade is a bit to far, don't see very many non-smokers parades, or working business man parades?
3. 2 others, and depending on how you look at it, halfway myself (bi).
4. Same way as everything else I suppose.
5. Possibly, I think it's more along the lines of potential though, eg someone could be born with a very good or very slight chance of being gay.
6. "The one constant in the universe is there is no constant." Of corse one can, but it's up to the indivdual if one should.
7. Probably any sexual, or even emotional, abuse could change the odds towards liking the other gender, expecially at childhood. In general I don't think it makes one gay or straight, but it could tilt the odds one way or another if it's about even.
-Spiirt
Yes, "I'm bi.", not that see me waving any signs advertising it.. wait a sec.. DOH!
i have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING against homosexuality. let me make that loud and clear :)
there is a comedy sitcom over here called I'm Alan Partridge.. he's one of the funniest characters on TV over here. Mid-life crisis kinda guy.. he is terrible.. i will just quote,
"God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.. I'm what you'd call a homoskeptic...".
he takes the tinkle out of people who think like this.. kinda south park-esque. v funny.
b
Well, I guess it's my turn.
First of all I want to say how much I admire those who chose to share their thoughts up to this point. I admire how accepting and understanding you are and although I definetly disagree with some of the things which have been said here, I do agree that all people need to be respected as long as what they are doing does not infringe on the rights of others.
Answers to questions:
1. How I feel about homosexuality. Well, I think there are basically three kinds of homosexuals (generally): The first kind is the person who is born predisposed to be attracted to the opposite sex. I feel these people are few and far between. The second kind are those who have been abused in some way, whether sexually or physically, etc. Studies show that a LARGE number of people who are homosexual have had negative sexual experiences, such as sexual abuse, at some point in their lives, especially early on. Lastly, there are those individuals who have simply experimented with so many things that their selfish and twisted ways have led them to be bisexual or homosexual just because they got "bored"...many intellectual figures of the past might belong to this category.
So how do I feel about homosexuality? I think it's wrong, yet I don't judge somebody as "evil" because they are homosexual. I do, however, think it is against nature and is wrong...although I think a lot of it depends on WHY someone feels or acts this way.
to be concluded...
Thanks for the links, I'll check it out.
The following is from the Family Research Council
-------------
Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse
Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scandals involving the sexual abuse of under-age boys by homosexual priests have rocked the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, defenders of homosexuality argue that youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be forced to include homosexuals among their adult leaders. Similarly, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist organization that targets schools, has spearheaded the formation of "Gay-Straight Alliances" among students. GLSEN encourages homosexual teachers -- even in the youngest grades -- to be open about their sexuality, as a way of providing role models to "gay" students. In addition, laws or policies banning employment discrimination based on "sexual orientation" usually make no exception for those who work with children or youth.
Many parents have become concerned that children may be molested, encouraged to become sexually active, or even "recruited" into adopting a homosexual identity and lifestyle. Gay activists dismiss such concerns -- in part, by strenuously insisting that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children.
However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:
Pedophiles are invariably males: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.
Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).
The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.
Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.
Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.
Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote "intergenerational intimacy."
Male Homosexuals Commit A Disproportionate Number of Child Sex Abuse Cases
Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.
The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.
Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases
An essay on adult sex offenders in the book Sexual Offending Against Children reported: "It is widely believed that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by males and that female sex offenders only account for a tiny proportion of offences. Indeed, with 3,000 adult male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales at any one time, the corresponding figure for female sex offenders is 12!" 1
Kee MacFarlane, et al., writing in Sexual Abuse of Young Children: Evaluation and Treatment report: "The large majority of sexual perpetrators appear to be males (Herman & Hirschman, 1981; Lindholm & Willey, 1983)." 2
A report by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children states: "In both clinical and non-clinical samples, the vast majority of offenders are male." 3
A study in the Journal of Sex Research states that "pedophilia does not exist, or is extremely rare, in women." 4
A Significant Percentage of Child Sexual Abuse Victims are Boys
According to the Journal of Child Psychiatry: "It was commonly believed fifteen years ago that girls were abused in excess of boys in a ratio of about 9 to 1, but contemporary studies now indicate that the ratio of girls to boys abused has narrowed remarkably. . . . The majority of community studies suggest a . . . ratio . . . in the order of 2 to 4 girls to 1 boy." 5 Another study found that "some authors now believe that boys may be sexually abused as commonly as girls (Groth, 1978; O'Brien, 1980)." 6
A study of 457 male sex offenders against children in Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy found that "approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males." 7
Sexual Abuse of Boys is Underreported
The actual percentage of child sexual abuse victims who are boys very likely exceeds the above estimates. Many researchers echo the view of the Journal of Child Psychiatry study, which refers to the "under-reporting of the incidence and prevalence of sexual abuse in boys." 8
Dr. Robert Johnson, in Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, reports: "The vast majority of cases of male sexual molestation is not reported. As a result, these young men keep both the incidents and their feelings to themselves." 9
The Department of Justice report on child sexual exploitation explains why the percentage of boy victims is underestimated: "Adolescent boy victims are highly likely to deny certain types of sexual activity. . . . They are embarrassed and ashamed of their behavior and rightfully believe that society will not understand their victimization. . . . No matter what the investigator does, most adolescent boys will deny they were victims." 10
The Journal of Child Psychiatry adds: "Boys are usually encultured into an ethos where self-reliance, independence and sexual prowess are valued, while showing hurt or homosexuality are denigrated. . . . This may lead to powerful repression or deletion of the experience, with failure to report." 11
Homosexuals Comprise Less than 3 Percent of the Population
Relying upon three large data sets: the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. census, a recent study in Demography estimates the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population at 2.5 percent, and the number of exclusive lesbians at 1.4 percent. 12
A study of the sexual behavior of men in the United States based on the National Survey of Men (a nationally representative sample comprised of 3,321 men aged twenty to thirty-nine, published in Family Planning Perspectives), found that "2 percent of sexually active men aged twenty to thirty-nine . . . had had any same-gender sexual activity during the last ten years. Approximately 1 percent of the men (1.3 percent among whites and 0.2 percent among blacks) reported having had exclusively homosexual activity. 13
J. Gordon Muir, writing in The Wall Street Journal, discusses a number of studies that have found that homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population. 14
In a survey of studies on homosexuals in different populations, the Archives of Sexual Behavior reported a random sample of Hawaii State residents interviewed by telephone. The study found "just about 3 percent of males and 1.2 percent of females as having engaged in same-sex or bisexual activity." 15 However, this relatively higher number is attributed to the fact that the study was not limited to exclusive homosexuals, but included all those who at some time in their lives engaged in same-sex activities. 16
Homosexual Pedophiles are Vastly Overrepresented in Child Sex Abuse Cases
Homosexual pedophiles sexually molest children at a far greater rate compared to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. A study in the Journal of Sex Research found, as we have noted above, that "approximately one-third of [child sex offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls." The authors then make a prescient observation: "Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1." 17
In other words, although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.
Similarly, the Archives of Sexual Behavior also noted that homosexual pedophiles are significantly overrepresented in child sex offence cases:
The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 to 4 percent of men attracted to adults prefer men (ACSF Investigators, 1992; Billy et al., 1993; Fay et al., 1989; Johnson et al., 1992); in contrast, around 25 to 40 percent of men attracted to children prefer boys (Blanchard et al., 1999; Gebhard et al., 1965; Mohr et al., 1964). Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles." 18
The stark imbalance between homosexual and heterosexual child molestations was confirmed in the Archives of Sexual Behavior study itself, which divided 260 pedophile participants into three groups: "152 heterosexual pedophiles (men with offenses or self-reported attractions involving girls only), 43 bisexual pedophiles (boys and girls), and 65 homosexual pedophiles (boys only)." 19 In other words, 25 percent of the offenders were homosexual pedophiles -- or 41 percent if those who molest girls as well as boys are included.
Other studies report an unusually high percentage of child molestations by homosexual pedophiles:
A study on pedophilia in the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa reported: "According to the literature, findings of a two-to-one ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles have been documented." 20
The Journal of Sex Research reports a study that included "199 offenders against female children and 96 offenders against male children. . . . This would indicate a proportional prevalence of 32 percent of homosexual offenders against children." 21
A study of male child sex offenders in Child Abuse and Neglect found that fourteen percent targeted only males, and a further 28 percent chose males as well as females as victims, thus indicating that 42 percent of male pedophiles engaged in homosexual molestation. 22
Are Men Who Molest Boys Really 'Homosexuals'?
Gay Apologists Insist on a Simplistic Stereotype of Pedophilia
Central to the attempts to separate homosexuality from pedophilia is the claim that pedophiles cannot, by definition, be considered homosexuals. Relying upon a questionable methodology 23, the gay advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign published a "Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation and Child Abuse," that states: "A sexual abuser who molests a child of the same sex is usually not considered homosexual." 24
The basis for this claim is the view that pedophiles who molest boys cannot be considered homosexual if that individual has at any time been married or sexually involved with women.
'Homosexual Pedophiles': A Clinical Term
The fact is, however, that the terms "homosexual" and "pedophile" are not mutually exclusive: they describe two intersecting types of sexual attraction. Webster's Dictionary defines "homosexual" as someone who is sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. "Pedophile" is defined as "an adult who is sexually attracted to young children." The former definition refers to the gender of the desired sexual object, while the latter refers to the age of the desired sexual object.
A male "homosexual pedophile," then, is defined as someone who is generally (but not exclusively, see below) sexually attracted to boys, while a female "homosexual pedophile" is sexually attracted to girls. 25
The term "homosexual pedophile" was first used in the early 20th century by the Viennese psychiatrist Dr. Richard von Krafft-Ebing, who pioneered the systematic study of sexual deviance. Krafft-Ebing described pedophiles as heterosexually, homosexually or bisexually oriented. 26 This division has been accepted by pedophiles themselves, 27 and is well attested in the literature:
A study of child molesters in Behavior Research and Therapy found that "a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders." 28
The Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy published a study on the same topic, which discussed "the proportional prevalences of heterosexual and homosexual pedophilia." 29 The study commented on a study that found that "the percentage of the homosexual pedophiles would be 45.8." Even adjusted downward for exhibitionists, "this would still indicate a much higher percentage (34 percent) of homosexuals among pedophiles than among men who prefer physically mature partners." 30
In a review of studies on pedophilia, the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa concluded: "The findings of previous studies report that pedophiles can be divided into heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles according to their erotic preference. . . . This was confirmed in this recent study." 31 The article classified homosexual pedophilia into three types: the socially inadequate homosexual pedophile, the intrusive homosexual pedophile, and the undifferentiated homosexual pedophile. 32
A study of pedophiles in Behavior Research and Therapy concluded: "The second, and perhaps the most important observation we made, is that a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders. . . . Categorizing them in this way revealed important differences in the pattern of their sexual preferences." 33
The International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology refers to homosexual pedophiles as a "distinct group." The victims of homosexual pedophiles "were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and that they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences. . . . Other studies [showed a] greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls" and that the "recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders." 34
Homosexuals and Homosexual Pedophiles Engage in a Wide Variety of Sexual Behavior that Belies Simplistic Categories
Despite this evidence, in their efforts to divorce homosexuality from pedophilia, homosexual apologists insist on a rigid, narrow definition of the terms "homosexual" and "pedophile" that permits no overlap of the terms. They deny that homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys. They also claim that pedophiles cannot be classified as "homosexual" if at any time they have had sexual relations with women.
However, such a narrow definition does not do justice to the complex nature of pedophilia. Researchers have long been aware that pedophiles exhibit a wide variety of sexual attractions and behavior -- often to draw attention away from their primary lust for boys. A study on sex offenders in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology notes that "the reason child sexual abusers are successful at remaining undetected is because they do not fit a stereotype." 35
The data indicates that both homosexuality and pedophilia are intersecting categories that admit to a wide variety of sexual behavior:
Homosexual Males are Sexually Attracted to Underage Boys
A study in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that homosexual men are attracted to young males. The study compared the sexual age preferences of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and lesbians. The results showed that, in marked contrast to the other three categories, "all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories," which included males as young as age fifteen. 36
In The Gay Report, by homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, the authors report data showing that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger." 37
Conversely, Homosexual Pedophiles are Often Attracted to Adult Males
A study of sex offenders against male children in Behavior Research and Therapy found that male homosexual pedophiles are sexually attracted to "males of all ages." Compared to non-offenders, the offenders showed "greater arousal" to slides of nude males as old as twenty-four: "As a group, the child molesters responsed [sp] with moderate sexual arousal . . . to the nude males of all ages." 38
A study of Canadians imprisoned for pedophilia in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence noted that some of the adult male offenders engaged in homosexual acts with adult males. 39
Many pedophiles, in fact, consider themselves to be homosexual. A study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual." 40
Fr. John Harvey, founder and director of Courage, a support ministry for Catholics who struggle with same-sex attraction, explains that "the pedophile differs from the ordinary homosexual in that the former admires boyishness in the object of his affections, while the latter admires manliness." 41 However, the categories are not completely separate:
While granting that the majority of homosexuals are not aroused by young boys, the distinction between homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia is not quite absolute. In some cases the interest oscillates between young adolescents and adults, in others between boys and adolescents; in exceptional cases a man may be interested in boys at one time and adults at another. 42
Many Pedophiles are Attracted to Women, Marry, and Have Children
Gay activists insist that pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality because pedophiles are only sexually interested in children, whereas homosexuals only have sexual relations with adults. We have already seen that this stereotypical view is not correct with regard to homosexuals. There is also abundant evidence demonstrating that, while primarily interested in children, pedophiles nevertheless exhibit a wide variety of sexual behaviors, including relationships with women:
A study in Child Abuse and Neglect found that 48 percent of the offenders either were married or had been married at some time. 43
The Journal of Interpersonal Violence studied the sexual preferences of male pedophiles who sexually abused children. When they compared the sexual response of the pedophiles with the control group, they found, unexpectedly: "Surprisingly, the two groups did not differ in their response to the nude female stimuli." 44
A study in the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa reported that "most of the middle-aged pedophiles have had significant adult sexual activity." 45 Fifty-eight percent of the pedophiles in one study had at least one child, while other research indicated that "more than two-thirds of the married pedophiles in their sample had children, with an average of two to three children per subject." 46
A report by the Department of Justice addressed the devious stratagems of pedophiles, who will go to great lengths to conceal their true desires: "Preferential sex offenders may be 'pillars of the community' and are often described as 'nice guys.' They almost always have a means of access to children (for example, through marriage, neighborhood, or occupation.)" 47
Thus, the evidence shows that homosexual pedophiles cannot be narrowly defined as individuals who are solely attracted to underage boys. In fact there is considerable overlap between homosexuality and pedophilia.
Pedophilia in Gay Culture
The Historical Connection between Pedophilia and the Gay Rights Movement
David Thorstad is a homosexual activist and historian of the gay rights movement. 48 He is a former president of New York's Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), a prototype activist group founded in December 1969. The GAA at its inception opposed age of consent laws, which prohibited adults from having sex with children. 49 Thorstad is also a pedophile and founding member of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).
Thorstad argues that there is a natural and undeniable connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. He expresses bitterness that the gay rights movement has, in his view, abandoned pedophilia. Thorstad writes: "Boy-lovers were involved in the gay movement from the beginning, and their presence was tolerated. Gay youth groups encouraged adults to attend their dances. . . . There was a mood of tolerance, even joy at discovering the myriad of lifestyles within the gay and lesbian subculture." 50
The inaugural issue of the Gay Community News in 1979 published a "Statement to the Gay Liberation Movement on the Issue of Man/Boy Love," which challenged the movement to return to a vision of sexual liberation. It argued that "the ultimate goal of gay liberation is the achievement of sexual freedom for all -- not just equal rights for 'lesbian and gay men,' but also freedom of sexual expression for young people and children."
In the early years there was some reluctance to accept pedophilia, primarily among feminist and lesbian activist groups. In March 1979 the Lesbian Feminist Liberation (LFL) accusing "so-called Man/Boy Lovers" of "attempting to legitimize sex between children and adults. . . . Feminists easily recognize this as the latest attempt to make palatable the sexual exploitation of children." The coalition went on record as opposing "the sexual abuse of children by heterosexual or homosexual persons." 51
Despite this opposition, Thorstad claims that by 1985 homosexual pedophiles had won acceptance within the gay movement. He cites Jim Kepner, then curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles: "A point I've been trying to make is that if we reject the boylovers in our midst today we'd better stop waving the banner of the Ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Horatio Alger, and Shakespeare. We'd better stop claiming them as part of our heritage unless we are broadening our concept of what it means to be gay today." 52
In 1985 nambla was admitted as a member in New York's council of Lesbian and Gay Organizations as well as the International Gay Association -- now the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA). In the mid-1990's ilga's association with nambla and other pedophile groups cost the organization it's status as a Non-Governmental Organization in the United Nations.
ilga's renewed attempt to gain admittance to the UN was rejected again in April 2002 because the organization "did not document that it had purged pedophile groups such as [NAMBLA]." The Washington Times reports that Ishtiag H. Anrabi, Pakistani delegate to the UN Economic and Social Council, expressed concern that ilga was continuing to be secretive about ties with pedophile groups: "For more than a year, the ilga has refused to provide documentation or allow review of its membership list to demonstrate that pedophilia groups have been expelled." 53
Pedophile Themes Abound in Gay Literature
The late "beat" poet Allen Ginsberg illustrates the seamless connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Many know Ginsberg as an illustrious "out" homosexual poet: fewer are aware that he was also a pedophile.
Biographer Raymond-Jean Frontain refers to Ginsberg's publications in both nambla Bulletin and nambla Journal. He discusses how Ginsberg's biographers failed to discuss his poems that contained pederastic themes:
Although both Shumacher and Barry Miles (Ginsberg's initial biographer) frankly discuss Ginsberg's sexual politics, neither refers to his involvement with the controversial North American Man/Boy Love Association. . . . I reread Collected Poems and Ginsberg's two subsequent collections, surprised by the pattern of references to anal intercourse and to pederasty that emerged. 54
Ginsberg was one of the first of a growing number of homosexual writers who cater to the fascination with pedophilia in the gay community. Mary Eberstadt, writing in the Weekly Standard, documents how the taboo against sex with children continues to erode -- with the impetus coming from homosexual writers. 55
Revealingly, the examples she provides of pedophilia in current literature come from gay fiction. Eberstadt cites the Village Voice, which states that "Gay fiction is rich with idyllic accounts of 'intergenerational relationships,' as such affairs are respectfully called these days." 56 Other examples of pedophilia-themed gay fiction include:
In the introduction of the "mainstream" homosexual anthology Penguin Book on International Gay Writing, David Leavitt notes matter-of-factly that "Another 'forbidden' topic from which European writers seem less likely to shrink is the love of older men for young boys." Leavitt praises one book with a pedophilic theme included in the anthology as a "coolly assured narrative [which] compels the reader to imagine the world from a perspective he might ordinarily condemn." 57
Several texts included in another anthology, The Gay Canon: Great Books Every Gay Man Should Read, feature scenes of man-boy sex. One such book is praised as "an operatic adventure into the realms of love, personality, ambition and art . . . a pure joy to read." The protagonist is "a pedophile's dream: the mind of a man in the body of a boy." 58 Another novel which includes graphic descriptions of sexual violence against boys is said to "[tear] straight to the heart of one of the greatest sources, community-wide, of 1990's gay angst: What to do with men who love boys?" 59
Yet another anthology of homosexual fiction, A History of Gay Literature: The Male Tradition, published by Yale University Press, includes "a longish chapter on 'Boys and Boyhood' which is a seemingly definitive account of pro-pedophile literary works." 60 The author appears more concerned with the feelings and emotions of the man than with his boy victim. He explores the question of "whether or not you regard [having sex with boys] as a way of retreating from life or, on the contrary, as a way of engaging with it at its most honest and least corrupted level." 61
A significant percentage of books that have appeared on the Gay Men's Press fiction bestseller list contain pedophilia themes, including:
Some Boys: described as a "memoir of a lover of boys" that "evokes the author's young friends across four decades." 62
For a Lost Soldier: the story of a sexual relationship between a soldier and an eleven-year-old boy, set during World War II. 63
A Good Start, Considering: yet another story about an eleven-year-old boy (!) who suffers sexual abuse but is rescued by a teenager who "offers him love and affection" 64
Terre Haute: billed as "A poetic novel of sexual awakening in the American Midwest, tracing an adolescent's journey from introspection to perilous desire."
Shiva and Arun: the story of two Indian adolescents who "discover early on the joys of sex."
Teardrops on My Drum: barefoot kids in 1920's Liverpool search for "adventure, love and sex."
Pro-pedophilia Publications
Recent years have seen the appearance of publications that lend a scholarly veneer to the fascination with pedophilia in the gay community. Such publications attempt to make the case for "intergenerational intimacy." The nation's largest gay publisher, Alyson Publications, which distributes Daddy's Roommate and other homosexual books that promote homosexuality to children, publishes books advocating man-boy sex, including:
Paedophilia: The Radical Case, which contains detailed information on how to engage in sexual relations with young boys. 65
The Age Taboo, another defense of pedophilia which claims: "Boy-lovers . . . are not child molesters. The child abusers are . . . parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody." 66
av
It is easier to vindicate one's self of one's stubbornly held views if love is not present.
Love requires non-judgemental acceptance of others.
The society we are raised in tends to want to prevent that. Ever notice how many "experts" there are in the media who's opinions on just about any subject, in their eyes at least, is to be considered absolute fact?
James.
Wow, That was a lot of information.
SO my question becomes this.
How many of the sex offenders were abused themselves?
Of course I can not supply the documentation like above but I know that most if not all of the people who commit abuse, in all forms, were abused themselves. So what are the percentages of people who were abused as children, ended up being sexually deviant because of it, and then later sexually abused children?
As far as teachers and thier sexual preferance. I don't think any teacher below collage level should be allowed to make any referance to thier sexual preferances. Human sexuality is not some thing that should be addressed until collage. Even in sex edication classes that are given through school don't touch the human sexuality topic. For the most part they only cover parts, how they work, and how to use protection. The referance of the man/woman interaction in these classes is only for the covering of reproduction. And we all no that for the vast majority of people having sex, reproduction is considered a side effect. 95% of the time it is done for the pleasure of the experience. These classes should not cover sexual preferance, more so at the lower level classes, because full mental maturity has not been reached.
For a teacher to be open about thier sexual preferances is akin to them saying sex is fun. (Note, I am not saying it isn't.) However that is not the message we should convey to our young people. And to have a homosexual person being open about thier sexual preferences would drive home the "sex for fun" idea because of the reproduction impossabilities of same gender sex.
That being said, I really don't care what the age, gender, or sexual leanings a teacher has. Just so long as it is not openly discussed in class rooms.
"There are a lot of sexually unhealthy people in this world (hetero and homo alike). You just have to go on the internet to see the MASSIVE very sad heterosexual market there is...even for kiddy porn"
-WELL SAID Timeless. I wholeheartedly agree. I am not trying to pick on anyone here. In fact, MJ-12, please don't get defensive...lile Timeless said, we are just here to share opinions and exhange ideas, that's the point of a place like this.
MJ-12, to answer the your new question of how homosexuals should be treated: with love. It's that simple. I try to love everyone, I really do. Does that mean I agree with what everyone does? No.
I think the family is one of the most important things. Face it, if it weren't for a man and woman getting together, none of us would be here, right?
I think God and Heavenly Mother teach us a great deal about them and ourselves through marriage and family.
Finally, cainam brings up a good point. I am a teacher and I don't share my personal views about spirituality and sex in the classroom and I don't especially don't want others doing this. I believed otherwise I would go teach in a private school.
as
Sorry if I am not being clear.
Here's what I am saying:
I think homosexuality is wrong.
---------------------------------
Although that's the bottom line, I will add that I don't hate homosexuals, but I adamantly oppose same sex marriage and education regarding homosexuality, at least to children. I also feel very sorry for anyone who is sexually perverse, including heterosexuals who engage in distasteful and/or evil practices.
I regard sexuality as a sacred thing.
THE POWER TO PROCREATE IS LIKE THE POWER TO KILL. PROCREATION BRINGS SOULS INTO THIS WORLD AND MURDER FORCES THEM OUT OF IT.
Spoken.
I am gay. i was born gay. i dont think i can change.
Sorry timeless I had erased my post before seeing your response because on second thought it was pretty harsh but i'll put down teh basics of what i said since you responded.
I thought using procreation as an excuse against homosexuality is bovine excrement. Procreation isnt something people need to preserve in anyway. We're over populated and its a way to pretend the reasons are logical.
We use birthcontrol and many couples chose not to procreate soem even adopt. There are most single families due to fathers leaving and social issues way more important than pretending you're offended by homosexual sex because of the lack of procreation. I'll put more of my points back if you want. Only cus i hate when i respond then what i responded to was gone.
the basic gist was i felt this topic was any other anti homosexual topic but it was disguised as being because he loves life. If you love life so much be one of the people finding homes for the thousands of kids without one. Instead of pretending to love homosexuals even though you think they're doing evil because of the fact they're not having babies.
quote:
Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior
Sorry if I am not being clear.
Here's what I am saying:
I think homosexuality is wrong.
---------------------------------
Although that's the bottom line, I will add that I don't hate homosexuals, but I adamantly oppose same sex marriage and education regarding homosexuality, at least to children. I also feel very sorry for anyone who is sexually perverse, including heterosexuals who engage in distasteful and/or evil practices.
I regard sexuality as a sacred thing.
THE POWER TO PROCREATE IS LIKE THE POWER TO KILL. PROCREATION BRINGS SOULS INTO THIS WORLD AND MURDER FORCES THEM OUT OF IT.
Spoken.
dont feel sorry for us! what, you think our lives are somehow worse than yours? dont flatter yourself.
and why is it wrong? I didnt wake up yesterday gay, okay? you think I want this? with people like you closing your minds and hearts to us, it just makes it all the more difficult to be ourselves. what is wrong with us? we dont fit your picture of 'normal'?
I believe people should be open minded to everything until they learn firsthand that it is wrong or untruthful to them personally.
have you found gay people wrong? has anyone gay killed one of your friends? I'm sure most of you will notice that gay people are usually the nicest people you could ever meet!
this isnt about reproduction. this could even be considered a good thing to those considerate enough to consider it!
fact one- the earth is wildley overpopulated.
fact two- allot of those people are children, children who were abandoned.
fact three- who's gonna adopt them all?
fact four- by adopting those children, parents make a better impact on the world by helping others and not adding one more mouth to feed (if you worry about that kind of thing)
my point? gay people adopt. (or i should say some adopt.) by adopting, we are helping a little soul grow up happy and heathy in a world that didn't want it.
why do you have a problem with us? we're going against 'the natural order of things'? we disgust you? I'm talking to everyone here who has a problem with us, get over it.
just let me live.
In some classroom years ago, this was explained to me: It is unusual to be completely heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual. Most people fall somewhere on a scale between 100% heterosexual and 100% homosexual. Being bisexual would be somewhere around 50%. Regardless of how you choose to draw the diagram, it is actually a minority of people who would be at 0, 50, or 100%. Artificial boundaries make for convenience in discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by timeless
Dear Spirit Gurl,
Thank you for speaking up. For you truly are the one who understands this all. You have some very excellent points.
Much Love,
timeless
thank you! [:D] but im not the only one with good points...[8D]
I found an interesting comparrison once.
It seems the way the christian church treats homosexuals today is very similar to the way the jews treated the lepers 2000 years ago. Jesus was very openly against that then, how do you think he would fell about the way his chuch is acting now?
The trouble does not come down to the teachings of the bible. Leviticus is the only book that has any possibly negative references to homosexuality, and the church leaders seem to drag these poor old misinterpreted passages out every time. No mention anywhere that the "homosexual" acts in Leviticus were a description of the way a ruthless people would subjugate and humiliate their captives. The historians seem to know how the society of this day worked. Why don't the churches?
To me the misinterpretation of the meanings of Leviticus by the christian church regarding homosexuality is just the same as Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions because of misinterpreting bible passages, also in Leviticus I think, where it mentioned a ritual to do with drinking the blood of sacrificed animals. Things like this usually get out of hand because of the personal opinions of one prominent church leader and what he considers to be the truth of the matter.
A truly spiritual christian who genuinely seeks the mind of Jesus Himself should look more at how He would be treating this subject, not how church doctorine treats it. I can almost guarentee such a person will find a very different viewpoint.
The negative view of homosexuality held by the churches is not terribly surprising when you consider that many churches can't properly deal with any kind of sexuality, let alone homosexuality.
James.
Just to take the "i know alot of gay people and i respect most of them". This is one of the most annoying things people say in my opinion. What if a gay person were to say "my sister was raped by a heterosexual male therefore I really dont like them". No matter how many gay people you know.. even the ones youre so kind enough to respect (sarcasm here). Gay refers to whom they chose to sleep with. Their individual personality traits differ just like heterosexual people.
What do you care who someone is sleeping with? I personally worry more about all the teenage pregnancies. People having kids they dont want and people having kids and abusing them than I am about people who chose not to have children.
BTW another silly thing i caught you saying was your mother and father could show us what the holy mother and father are like?
"I think God and Heavenly Mother teach us a great deal about them and ourselves through marriage and family."
Are you that brainwashed? What holyfather and mother are you talking about.? Is there a nice married male and female couple in the bible.. does god have a wife? Maybe you're thinking of mr and mrs clause. I honestly dont get what you're talking about.
It is nice thinking of god and his loving wife.. (maybe you were thinking of mary?) sitting up in heaven.. looking down at their kids. Then paying the bills.. her cooking supper for him and him complementing her on her new recipe?
I find it really illogical and weird to worry so much about people that are harming no one. BTW those stats you put up are bovine excrement. I can find stats stating dark haired individuals are more likely to rape.
Again worry about what you do and if you think calling an act which to gay people is love evil you're somehow just bringing up a debate is crap. People have been killed for those types of sentiments. Somehow they think they're doing good by stoping that evil or perversion.
And no im not gay. Although most think if you get upset at homophobia you must be gay.. I hate any prejudice especially when people try to justify it by saying things like not having babies somehow ties into murder.
Homosexuality is no more wrong than heterosexuality, in my opinion. We humans have a distinction that animals do not. There is homosexuality in nature (my dog, for instance, would mate with anything that walks- or just sits there- regardless of its sex), and therefore one cannot say that there is anything unnatural about it. And if one is to say that it is still wrong, regardless of the fact that it exists in nature, then they are contradicting themselves. Sexuality happens. Anyway, what I was saying about humans is, we search out soulmates, people we love, and I feel that no matter what the sex of that person is, you will find them if you open your mind and your eyes. I am not saying be homosexual, but don't be afraid of being homosexual just because you think society will do harm to you for it. There are many who don't give a f*** what society thinks. I am one of those people. I am 100% heterosexual, and I see no problem with homosexuality or sticking up for those who are. My friend collects Barbie dolls, pictures of the princess Zelda (from the nintendo game), and puts up pink posters of Disney princesses because he finds them (the princesses) to be attractive. He is the straightest man I know. I see this as a sign that he is quite comfortable with his sexuality and is not afraid to show it. He's quite ordinary in most ways, yet quite extraordinary as well.
Quite honestly, I think that homosexuality is possibly a fetish in some ways. A very poplular one, as fetishes go. I know Spiritgurl said she doesn't feel she could change, and I believe her. I admire her strength for stating her opinion, especially at her age. She is a very strong person. I know she'll probably disagree with me on this, but I still think it's possible that it's a fetish, and I say this because of what I know about my own fantasies and my own sexual preferences. My friend explained it best- when you find the fetish that best suits you (we refer to a fetish as any sex whatsoever, and how the circumstances of it turn you "on," whether it's "normal," bondage, costumes, whatever), you like it so much that you want to have it that way all the time, because nothing else arouses you. Like I said, I consider "ordinary" hetero-sex a fetish. Just because it happens to be the way most people seem to like it, doesn't mean that it is not possibly a fetish. I will not state mine here, because I feel they are personal and are nobody else's business. But I will tell you that I would want it to be this way all (or most of) the time if it were possible, because that is what I prefer. It's like going to an icecream store that has all the flavors. Obviously most people like either chocolate or vanilla, but there are a lot more people who would choose something else. Some people might have a combination of flavors. Anyway, enough of my corny rant. I completely understand if you disagree. Spititgurl, could you shed some light on this? I'd really appreciate hearing you out, as you are a homosexual who believes that you (personally, not people in general, if I read your post right) cannot change their sexual orientation. I want to hear what you have to say about this. My friend just shared this theory of his with me today, and I want to get opinions and information before I totally and completely agree with him. I believe he's on to something though.
Hey everyone. I sense a lot of hatred and anger towards me because of the way I feel. I just want you to know that I don't feel this way toward you.
...and by the way, GoingSlow, please don't use foul language in these forums. That's one thing I feel adamant about, it degrades the high quality, respectful atmosphere of the forums. Also, attacking my personal beliefs and belittling me (or anyone else for that matter) simply shows your lack of respect and understanding.
---------
Lastly, James S, the bible is full of references to homosexuality was wrong...please look at Paul again. I don't, however, take my stance soley because of what the Bible says.
One more thing:
SpiritGurl, I hope I have not offended you or hurt your feelings, if I have, I apologize. I have a very close friend who feels that he too was born with homosexual tendencies. I love him very much and he has communicated to me what an incredibly difficult time he has had along the way. I don't judge you nor anyone else, that is left up to God.
I agree with you 100% PeacefulWarrior. But I would be careful debating non-liberal views here, it only gets ugly.
jk
Not the political party, but the deffinition of the word, "liberal".
Im in the middle I guess, but as to the lifestyle of my cat, well, he's been known to frequent seedy establishments.
Seriously though, the cat is the cheshire cat from alice in wonderland, only it's from a videogame version.
http://www.alice.ea.com/images/wall1_1024.jpg
quote:
By PeacefulWarrior
Lastly, James S, the bible is full of references to homosexuality was wrong...please look at Paul again. I don't, however, take my stance soley because of what the Bible says.
Both the pro and anti homosexual lobbies seem to be able to interprest so much of the bible to mean what they want it to, the translations could be argued indefinitely. I studied Pauls writings a fair bit. I always tended to find him a little too obsessed with rules. Guess he just couldn't stop being a lawyer. In most things of this nature I would sit down and really draw on what Jesus had to say. He wasn't bound down by rules and regulations, which is why it irritated me so much that Paul seemed to insist on bringing up so many afterwards.
The way I see it, Jesus never had anything bad to say about homosexuals. He accepted everybody and was far less judgemental about people than any of us are. Wether you see him as the true son of god, or one of the great masters that came to this earth, he had an undeniable wisdom.
Yes PeacefulWarrior, there is a lot of anger towards you on this topic. Is it really any wonder? You started out the topic simply posing questions, for which you saw most people were accepting and supportive of homosexuals as being the same, and having the same rights as anyone else, then you come out and say very firmly its wrong and why you think it is so. To bring the religious aspect into it also didn't help. You say your not judging them, but stating your beliefs the way you are contradicts this.
You make no secrets of your beliefs, yet you clearly have not shown the kind of wisdom and tolerance that Jesus, the central figure of your religion is renowned for. How can you aspire to love people as Jesus asks us to, if you can't get over these discriminations.
I've heard the usual comments by christians on this account - "we love the people, its the sin we hate". That's a cop out! That just means that they'll do what they have to to love someone because they're told to, you know, you don't have to like them, you just have to love them. Then they can sit back comfortable in the knowledge that they've done their bit, and the rest will be punished for their sins.
From a religious perspective homosexuals are not accountable to you or anyone else for their ways, they are accountable soley to God for the lives they live, and from what I understand of his teachings through all the religions of the world, He loves everybody UNCONDITIONALLY.
A friend of mine came to me once several years back grieving because he had lost a friend. His friend, a homosexual, had commited suicide. The last place he thought he could go to seek some meaning from a life he was very confused about was a seemingly open and liberal church. The minister then started preaching at him about the sins of homosexuality, and that was just more than he could take. This kind of teaching of so called "loving acceptance of all" really really SUCKS and it happens TOO MUCH!!
Just love people FULL STOP! No ifs, buts, maybeys, and leave the judgement as to wether their ways, their sexuality, their lifestyles, their religion, the music they listen to, or whatever is wrong or not, up to God. Whatever your problem is with homosexuals, GET OVER IT! Your not going to really be able to love people as Jesus taught us until you do.
James.
P.S.
Sorry for lashin out Dan. You seem to me a more thoughtful and caring person than this. Maybe you've just been fed the wrong kind of input. I too once though the same as you on this subject. A little more perspective, and a devistated friend changed that for me.
Bruce Lee has said that the teachings of Zen tell us that there is really no problem, and therefore no solution. The trouble comes from our inability to realize it.
James:
Please don't put words in my mouth. My goal is to love everybody with no "ifs". I have stated this in here and in other threads. If you choose not to believe me, fine, but I don't think it's fair to go off saying what I do and don't feel and what I do and don't believe. I do not and will not do this to other people, yourself included.
I do not judge people, bottom line. I may see someone who is violent and dangerous and therefore might choose to avoid them or their company. This might be a from of judgement, the kind of judgement one must make everyday, but as far as "you are a sinner and are going to hell" kind of judgement, NEVER. I don't even believe in "heaven and hell".
Thanks for you thoughts though, I can tell you are a thoughtful person and I respect that.
-----------------
I don't apologize to anyone for taking a frim stance and having beliefs in a time when it is a fad to accept anything and everything.
Although this may not apply to this particular topic, certain things ARE wrong and certain judgements can and should be made. Murder is wrong. Sexual abuse is wrong... children and other innocent beings, heck -all of us- need to protect oursleves and others from certain things.
Like I said, homosexuality isn't one of these "black and white" things, but to say that there is no need to judge or state, unequivocaly, whether something is good or bad, right or wrong, is denying the existence of these objective principles.
"please dont use foul language" etc etc.
No what degrades this forum is topics like this. Why not put up a topic about abortion right after it?
People like you try to come across as so "peaceful". "i do not judge you that is for god" as if you're somehow about beng judgmental but God is all for it? Why would God "judge" if judging is wrong. That is definitely a cop out.
The worst type of prejudice is said by people who pretend to be so intelligent because they dont cuss. "please i'll talk about the evils of being gay but dont use a curse word.. it offends me".
Worry more about the content than they way things are stated. And again worry more about the excrement you're spouting than the fact i just used the word excrement.
As for "only liberal viewpoints are accepted". As if people are only acting non homophobic to seem liberal. That was a moronic statement...deal with the topic not whether its liberal or conservative. Of course conservatives have used liberal as a stigma instead of dealing with the issue.
It was just too stupid of a comment to even touch on. Should we have answered the homophobia with "oh stop being conservative". grow up and move past the labels.. deal with the issue.
Ill step away from this topic it just gets more absurd. Talking about judging murder and rape of children.. as a way to justify judging homosexuality.
I think you should ask yourself why you're so worried about if its worthy of judgement. If you're being so good as to leave it up to god to judge why bring it up? Why talk about if its wrong or right.
I find most homophobic people are concerned with being gay for a reason.
I guess my problem is i assume people here will be able to think for themselves. AS if being interested in these types of things (OBE.. "spirituality") brings more intelligent people. But i need to accept people on here are just as brainwashed as anyone else.
Before you even put your opinions up I questioned the motives of someone who would put up a topic like this anyway. If you're discussing homosexuality with yoru friends i could see. But if you're in a group where there might be people who are gay.. i really dont think you'd say "so is being gay wrong". Its offensive to those gay people.
What if someone started spouting propaganda about mixed marriages or other prejudice excrement? It would be seen as inappropriate.. so i dont see why a topic like this is even here. But by responding to it im contributing to the fact its not sliding off the front page.
I also like how you're acting as if you're not trying to offend anyone. YOu put a topic like this up knowing there are gay people who read this forum. Its not thoughtful or peaceful even though you're trying to act so innocent and "im just bringing up a debate".
this topic is a waste of time and put here to cause controversy. Ill move on to topics this board is here to discuss. Topics which force us to look at ourselves instead of another group...
GoingSlow-
Relax my friend! Seriously. If you feel you are right then don't get so worked up and angry. Anger only proves that you are unsettled and do not approach things with an open mind and open heart.
You wrote: "As for 'only liberal viewpoints are accepted'. As if people are only acting non homophobic to seem liberal. That was a moronic statement...deal with the topic not whether its liberal or conservative."
Ok, first of all, I never said ANYTHING about liberal or conservative viewpoints, not one thing, so I don't know where you are coming up with that.
Secondly, if you feel this topic has no importance then please ignore it. I, however, feel that topics such as this are very important. If homophobics would approach this with an open heart and mind then we probably wouldn't find them committing horrid acts of violence against homosexuals.
Next, I don't understand some of the things you are saying, for example: "Worry more about the content than they way things are stated." Contnet is the things which are being stated, or in other words, the things stated make up the content. Do you mean the "subject"?
You also said I should not have brought up this topic here and should have instead brought it up with friends. Well, I consider a lot of the people, actually everyone, here a friend. Just because you disagree doesn't mean I should not have posted. I am not making irresponsible or insincere blanket statements. I am not judging anyone and I am not bringing this up just to make controversy. In fact I feel like I have learned more about the subject.
Lastly, the fact that you continue to use foul language is really disheartening. I am not terribly offended by it, but some people I know would be. This forum has always been a place of mature discussion and I don't want to see that turn into mud slinging and swearing.
Timeless- I am sorry if I misunderstood you, I tend to look at the biger picture and sometimes wax too philisophical![^]
Regarding "murder", I don't think that killing is always murder. Murder is the shedding of innocent blood. I am not really "for" war, but I do think killing can be justified (ouch! I can already imagine what people are going to say to that!)[:(]
I can say one thing which I think everyone will agree with me on:
Life is a Hard Place...a Place of Hard Life Experiences
In the end the thing that matters most is that we have tried to find truth and light and that we have tried to live by it. Everyone will have a different and unique life and only God and us, the individual, are perfect judges...
(by the way, the reason I am posting so often is that the job I am at today allows me to be on the net![:)])
The world is not really overpopulated, it's just overflowing with idiots, and those idiots are in charge of resource allocation and nation-state governments. It will also apparently decline, 8 billion being the max(according to the U.N, can't find the report but im looking).
As for the contrast between murder and war, according to dictinary.com:
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
The problem here is with the word 'unlawful' and it's also where pro-war and anti-war conflicts arise. Are there any wars that are lawful? If you say yes then who chose's them to be lawful? The winners or basic morals and conscience that are instilled into everyone? If you say war is never lawful, then what is the answer to foreign powers which do not subscibe to your basic morals and laws. Complete submission to those who will take advantage of you(while biblical sound, is not an easy thing to do). So in the end, we may have to agree to disagree.
Then there is homosexuality. I do agree with peacefulwarrior that it is wrong, but for two reasons:
1)I believe it to be a perversion and as such, goes against keeping the body a pure vessel(for the holy spirit in my case).
2)It goes against the nature of man and woman. What is our nature? An outsider to the human condition would say that we are born from a mother and father, mature, and copulate in a exchange of fluids wherein genes are also exchanged, resulting in the creation in a new life. I would say that the above limits us painfully and essentially adds to the popular belief that there is no point to life. Therefore I believe that we are born and move through life, but we do not chose who we fall in love with, if the love is truly love and not merely an occasion for rapant sexual acts, then so be it. But I also believe that God has put us here to live according to his designs, and we are designed for the procreation act. I think the reason gay people are looked down on, is so much that they are different, but that they fall into a stereotype of some sort, which makes it easy for others to classify and degrade them. So essentially im saying that if love exists, free from the temptations of carnality, than that is beautiful. Of course, I will say the same thing about heterosexuals.
In summary though, I believe that love is love, but in my experience(not saying i've never seen it but 3 time out of 4) homosexuality is linked to perversion, and so goes against our inherrent morals.
I've known two gay people. One was a friend who would get naked at sleepovers and, well, nevermind(nothing bad, more funny than anything). We're no longer friends because he moved away so it was nothing personal. The other was my cousin who died of kidney failure, alone because his family alienated him. No one deserves that.
I think we should have breeding laws- no more than two children per family, unless in the event of a widespread epidemic or disaster which kills off a significant portion of our population. I think anytime the population hits a certain amount, we should instate this breeding law, and every time it falls below a certain number, we should remove it.
Actually, we shouldn't have any laws whatsoever. We should be responsible for ourselves and not depend on others to lead us.
quote:
Originally posted by Nerezza
The world is not really overpopulated, it's just overflowing with idiots, and those idiots are in charge of resource allocation and nation-state governments. It will also apparently decline, 8 billion being the max(according to the U.N, can't find the report but im looking).
The point of this? this is only a speculation.. there is no way to tell what overpopulated means. Sure if suddenly the U.S. decided to share all its resources then there wouldnt be staving people and overpopulation wouldnt be a problem. However the U.S. is nevcer going to share all its resources therefore you still have the problem of starving children. You cant ignore the problem just because there would possibly be a solution especially if that solution will never happen.
Whether the world is overpopulated or not there are still thousands of children who dont have homes. I think that was more the point in arguing the point adoption is important. It really isnt a valid point to state people who are not procreating are somehow doing something evil. If anything they are opening a new market of children who will be adopted who would otherwise only know foster homes etc. Maybe the world isnt overpopulated but can you deny there are also thousands who have kids who decide they dont want them?>
The point of overpopulation was brought up for a specific reason so i guess i dont understand why you brought up if the world were suddenly to change completely; and these idiots decided to share there really isnt overpopulation.
overpopulation refers to the available resources...not "what ifs".
Peaceful warrior:
The only reason i really did come off as angry is i have read your other posts. If this was a political messageboard then I would expect a lot of homophobic type of "being gay is wrong". However, I really do think people here are able to think more for themselves and I guess its more a nuisance that i see it here.
Oh and if homophobics were more open minded they wouldnt be homophobics so i dont really get what you were saying.
If you're suggesting im close minded to homophobia you're right. Its been shoved down my throat since birth like most people; and i have little tolerance for it. And I dont consider it a fault of mine that im close minded to homophobia. Im also close minded to racism and thats not something I plan on changing.
I grew up in a homophobic home too.. I also went to catholic school as a kid. So your environment is never an excuse. when you chose to decide what is wrong and right for you usually revolves around "what hurts other people". At least for me.. murder and rape etc hurt other people. Homosexuality hurts no one. And i personally would be offended if someone said "god will judge you not me". Thats a judgment right there because it assumes god has a reason to judge. People finding love in a consentual relationship hurts no one. And dont bring up pedophilia because thats insulting too when you speak of homosexuality in the same paragraph as murder.. rape.. abuse of kids. I dont even know if you know you're being passively insulting.
what if i put "god will judge you for your belief in OBE" its not my job. would you probably ask "why would god need to."
If it helps I once had an openly gay hairdresser and now I have one that is perhaps not so forthcoming. Not that I really care one way or the other. At my age, still having a full head of hair is kinda nice.
Yours,
Frank
If it helps I once had an openly gay hairdresser and now I have one that is perhaps not so forthcoming.
My highschool math teacher had a friend who wanted to be a hairdresser but didn't want the stigma attached with it(he was straight).
Enderwiggin,
I was actually thinking the other night about whether or not we should have laws, but I keep thinking of the people who will abuse it.
Also I think China has the population laws.
Goingslow,
The point is simple. Homosexuality cannot be used as a case for solving overpopulation. Also I did not say that gays shouldn't adopt, or several other things you assumed from my post.
And the problem isn't largely with the interaction between have and have not societies. Just looked at Eithipia.
Now that so much has been said in regards to this topic and more specifically my view, I find it very interesting and funny how so many people who proclaim to be so non-judgemental and so open minded and accepting cannot accept a point of view/opinion that is different from their own.
I posted this without any guile or need to decieve or anything like that. I have also tried my very best to be friendly and open minded, so I don't think I reflect the plethora of idiots out there who proclaim what it right and wrong according to tradition and blind faith.
So (and I am trying to be very logical here), judging by the way some people have said I need to act or not act, those same people should have just said, "I disagree with you for x reason (s) and I give you the right to think what you think".
Doesn't that make sense?? If we are all so worried about understanding and accepting one another, then why don't we? I accept my friend who is gay, although it doesn't change my opinion about homosexuality and he accepts me. So, since I accept your view, can you not accept mine? If I were violent and/or in some way m militant about this view then I might now expect acceptance, but in this case it only seems fair, right??
quote:
Originally posted by Nerezza
In summary though, I believe that love is love, but in my experience(not saying i've never seen it but 3 time out of 4) homosexuality is linked to perversion, and so goes against our inherrent morals.
It really is a shame that this seems to be the way gays are portrayed by those groups who dislike them. I must admit events like the Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras go a long way to reinforcing that point, but this seems to be what attracts the most media attention to gay issues, and it tends to be the media that feeds our views on such things. HOw can we hope to get a balanced perspective this way?
Why is it that homosexuals are viewed as being any more perverted than heterosexuals?
Among the several gay men I have gotten to know over the years, I have worked with a few who are as loving, kind, considerate and LOYAL to their partners as any woman would wish her husband to be. I felt more comfortable talking with them than other straight men in the office because they
didn't constantly talk about that new girl with the big tits and what they'd like to do to her. I see far more perversion going on in the heterosexual community than the gay community.
A person who is kind loving and loyal to their partner, respectful and considerate of others, whatever the gender, is a person who embodies the qualities that we all should be striving for. It seems to be people's hang ups with issues of sexual activities that clouds the perceptions of many. Sex is not love, love is not sex. They're not mutually exclusive, but they are seperate issues.
James.
My post seems to have been overlooked. I was trying to say that the sharp divisions between heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual are not valid. There are even reasons to say that the differences between men and women are not absolute. We need to focus more on sharing common experiences.
I essentially agree with you James.
Im just tired of a society where sex is used to sell both goods and souls, and where it's abused. Thats all.
Tom,
I understand what you are saying, and most likely you are right. We do not chose who we fall in love with and I think thats one of the beautiful things about life and because of that, labels are meaningless in this case.
Last post for the night, im tired.
Tom I have to disagree completely with you when you say, "There are even reasons to say that the differences between men and women are not absolute."
I think they are. I know that emotionally we can be very similar, etc. but essentially there are HUGE differences between males and females. There always has been and there will always be so. I, for one, believe the differences are wonderful and part of a much deeper spriitual reality and plan than we can fully comprehend in mortality.
I do think there are a variety of reasons why the lines seem to become blurry: 1)some who emphasize the differences for selfish and evil gains 2) biological anomalies: for whatever reason, and I don't pretend to understand why this is so, people are born with certain tendencies.
This is a rough sketch of deeper ideas that need to be treated more carefully and thoroughly, but I did want to share this because, in my OPINION and my reality (timeless) this is the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Below is an exerpt from a discourse that I personally find very informative, especially the factual data...everything else you can discard if you like, and I provide this simply for your information:
"In contrast to our doctrinal approach, many persons approach the problems of same-sex attraction solely from the standpoint of current science. While I am not qualified as a scientist, with the aid of scientific literature and with the advice of qualified scientists and practitioners, I will attempt to refute the claim of some that scientific discoveries demonstrate that avowed homosexuals and lesbians were "born that way."
We live in a time of accelerating scientific discoveries about the human body. We know that our inheritance explains many of our physical characteristics. At the same time, we also know that our behavior is profoundly influenced by psychosocial factors such as parental and sibling relationships (especially during the formative years) and the culture in which we live. The debate over whether, or the extent to which, specific behavior is attributable to "nature" or to "nurture" is centuries old. Its application to the subject of same-sex feelings and behaviors is only one manifestation of a highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy.
Some scientists deny that behavior is genetically influenced. 8 Others are advocates of evidence or theories suggesting that "there is substantial evidence for genetic influence on sexual orientation." 9
We are, of course, aware of evidence that inheritance explains susceptibilities to certain diseases like some cancers and some other illnesses like diabetes mellitus. There are also theories and some evidence that inheritance is a factor in susceptibilities to various behavior-related disorders like aggression, alcoholism, and obesity. It is easy to hypothesize that inheritance plays a role in sexual orientation. However, it is important to remember, as conceded by two advocates of this approach, that "the concept of substantial heritability should not be confused with the concept of inevitable heritability. ... Most mechanisms probably involve interactions between constitutional predispositions and environmental events." 10
Wherever they fall along the spectrum between outright rejection and total acceptance of biological determinism of sexual orientation, most scientists concede that the current evidence is insufficient and that firm conclusions must await many additional scientific studies.
A study of 56 pairs of identical male twins in which one twin classified himself as "gay" reported that 52 percent of the co-twins also classified themselves as gay. 11 A similar study of female identical twins yielded approximately the same proportion of co-twins who classified themselves as gay (34 of 71 pairs, 48 percent). 12 If these studies show some inherited influence on whatever causes a man or woman to classify himself or herself as homosexual or lesbian, it is clear that this influence is not determinative. As a prominent scientist observed, "Even the identical twin of a gay man has a 50 percent or more chance of being heterosexual—even though he has the exact same genes and is reared by the same parents." 13 We should also note that the results of these studies (and others described below) are based on the subjects' self-classifications, a shaky foundation for scientific conclusions when "there is still no universally accepted definition of homosexuality among clinicians and behavioral scientists—let alone a consensus regarding its origins." 14
In any emerging area of knowledge, a new source of evidence is most welcome. In July 1993, Dr. Dean Hamer made worldwide headlines when he announced that he had found "a statistically significant correlation between the inheritance of genetic markers [an identifiable strip of DNA] on chromosomal region Xq28 and sexual orientation in a selected group of ... homosexual men and their relatives over age 18." In other words, "it appears that Xq28 contains a gene that contributes to homosexual orientation in males." 15 Putting the most positive interpretation on his discovery, Dr. Hamer's subsequent book concludes:
"We can make only educated guesses about the importance of Xq28 in the population at large. On the high side, the region couldn't possibly influence more than 67 percent of gay men, the proportion 'linked' to this region in our highly selected group of gay siblings. On the low side, if much of homosexuality is caused by environmental factors, or by a large number of interacting genes, Xq28 could account for as little as a few percent of the variation in male sexual orientation. The median range, taken from our linkage data and from the available twin and family studies, suggests that Xq28 plays some role in about 5 to 30 percent of gay men. The broad range of these estimates is proof that much more work remains to be done." 16
"Some role in about 5 to 30 percent" of self-classified "gay" men surely falls far short of justifying the claim that science has shown that "homosexuality" is "caused by" genetic inheritance. One eminent scientist identified two of the uncertainties:
"What evidence exists thus far of innate biological traits underlying homosexuality is flawed. ... Confirmation of genetic research purporting to show that homosexuality is heritable makes clear neither what is inherited nor how it influences sexual orientation." 17
In their impressive reappraisal of biologic theories of human sexual orientation, Drs. Byne and Parsons of Columbia University's Department of Psychiatry offer these important cautions and suggestions:
"It is imperative that clinicians and behavioral scientists begin to appreciate the complexities of sexual orientation and resist the urge to search for simplistic explanations, either psychosocial or biologic.
"Conspicuously absent from most theorizing on the origins of sexual orientation is an active role of the individual in constructing his or her identity. ... We propose an interactional model in which genes or hormones do not specify sexual orientation per se, but instead bias particular personality traits and thereby influence the manner in which an individual and his or her environment interact as sexual orientation and other personality characteristics unfold developmentally." 18
This observation, but one of many suggestions from scientists, is particularly persuasive because it takes account of the vital element of individual choice that we know to be a true principle of our mortal condition."
-Dallin H. Oaks
---------------------
For what it's worth, I have been happily married for about 9 months now to my young wife Sarah and I feel myself growing and becoming more in touch with my higher self...in fact my spiritual growth has sped up significantly since she came into my life. I feel complete with her and get glimpses into eternity and what it will be like with her...and I know there is something divine about a man and a woman coming together. Procreation in mortality offers us insight to what the future will be like.
If you don't see this the way I do, fine, but I thought I would offer my viewpoint.
I didnt even suggest homosexuality is going to "solve overpopulation". I was saying not procreating is not an evil nor can it be suggested not procreating hurts society in any way. Because of the population thing.
Plus you were saying there was no overpopulation..
And what does homosexuality have to do with selling goods and souls?
Tom..i really agree with you on that. I dont think thats something that most people are going to accept. Some people seem to think their sexuality is given to them by god and has nothing to do with what society says is right or wrong.
I couldnt picture a god who would allow you to be attracted to the same sex then judge you on it. Gay Teenagers commit suicide 30 percent more than straight teenagers. It isnt a lifestyle people would chose due to the fact they are so incredibly hated. Why would gay teenagers just choose not to be gay instead of killing themselves if its a choice. And if it isn't a choice why would God think its evil.
I dont understand people judging because they think god doesn't like it either. "God will judge you"... Its so weird to pretend we know what god thinks. Its even weird for me to call god "he" and act like he's pretty much an advanced human...and he'll judge you because after all he's god and thats what god does. I'd like to see a biography written by some of these people who know what goes against god and what doesn't "inside the mind of god". Where he's sitting around shaking his head at homosexuals.. nodding at those who are pure. Deciding the punishment for the ones who dont follow his obvious dislikes.
Thats interesting peacefulwarrior because I have a girlfriend i've lived with for years and i love very much. In fact she sometimes posts here and is the one who got me signed up.
When im with her what I see is the beauty of love.. I dont sit with her and think "how beautiful this heterosexual man woman thing is" I see it as two souls joining. I guess thats the difference.
Do you think a homosexual couple couldnt experience the love you feel? Not the fact you feel it towards a woman but the love itself.
One more thing you keep talking about procreation as if its a cause. Do you realize there are things that happen where couples cant have babies? It seems you think because you found happiness and want to have kids thats the only way to be. I guess thats just a limited perspective thing. It explains a lot because instead of saying "this feeling is beautiful and love is beautiful." you seem to be only relaying it to your love as a man to the woman you're with and your future(or current kids). Love comes in many forms and never really believe you're feeling it or experiencing it more than anyone else because ther's no way to ever know what other people are feeling.
Nowhere in a scientific paper will it show anything about the human soul's role in homosexuality. Whether homosexuality is a psychological disorder, a genetic defect, a fetish, etc., it is still wrong to discriminate against homosexuals. I don't care if people don't believe in it as long as they respect the views of others who do believe in it. Nobody said we had to like it. It is just like any other difference- it should be respected. We have no right to go around telling others what's right and wrong. We are each entitled to our own opinion. If that's your opinion, I respect it, though my own differs. I do not think we should act upon our opinions, however. We should act upon our goals in life.
Goingslow,
Your last point is something I very much agree with, and believe to be central to this issue.
As I pointed out in another post, My wife and I have not been able to enjoy the pleasures of sex for the last 3 years. Despite this we still got married a little over a year ago. The reason is we love each other dearly. Love is the key element to a good relationship, not sex, and not procreation.
Nerezza's point that sex is abused by society is valid when you consider the whole homosexual debate is too deeply buried in the physical aspect of a relationship.
It seems somewhat ironic that there are people who claim to be seeking spiritual enlightenment, but they can't get past the physical aspects of this issue. I haven't yet seen any arguments against homosexuality based on purely spiritual reasons. Only physical, legal and moral, and moral arguments are the flimsiest of the lot because they're so very subjective.
On a spiritual level, Tom's comments seem to be the most valid. It is in the spirit world where the distinctions between gender become far more blurred.
To this point, who's to say that a female's spirit might not have an influence if she is reincarnated into a male's body?
That might be something worth thinking about, rather than looking only at the sin & science aspects.
James
Goingslow asked me: "Do you think a homosexual couple couldnt experience the love you feel?"
No, don't think a homosexual couple can experience love the way a heterosexual couple can. But I also don't think a heterosexual couple could experience the kind of love a homosexual couple does.
I do think the kind of love a heterosexual couple feels is different and superior. To be able to create new life which reflects the couple's love is something unparalleled by anything else. I have not yet experienced this, but I plan on it. Everyone with whom I have spoken with who has children has told me this. Unfortunately, many people who have children don't feel this way, or at least don't put the amount of love and time towards rearing their children and therefore don't reap the spiritual benefits of parenthood.
Regarding the question about those who cannot have children:
My wife and I are friends with a couple who is not able to have children. More than anything else they wanted to start a family. They adopted two children, one of which was born to parents who abused and neglected the child. They are so very happy with those children and I believe they will be able to rear a family of their own in the future (not in this life).
It must be interesting inside your mind.
Yeah I agree heterosexual love is superior and thats evident by the 70 percent divorce rate. So amongst heterosexuals do youhave a breakdown? do men feel it more or women? Is there a difference amongst the races? You obviously are able to decide who feels love strongest.
What a completely illogical and nonsense argument. I would picture this amongst kids arguing if their love for pizza is superior to some other kids love for hamburgers.
what was your point about your friends? So they adopted and they're happy with their adopted family but their real happiness and salvation comes from the hope they'll be able to have "their own" aka real kids in some other life.
I just cant comprehend how someone makes such incredibly illogical statements. Then you say a homosexual cant feel the love aheterosexual feels.. but try to say you're just being equal because vice versa is true. But then you say one is superior. So you mean heterosexuals cant feel the lesser love homosexuals feel either?
Are you by anychance a person who was thinking you might be gay and then now found a woman and are trying to convince yourself you're happier this way. Im not saying thats your psychology or psychoanalyzing you but i cant logically think how a person can compare two loves unless they've felt them both and decided one is superior.
I find a lot of people are in love with the idea of being in love...and they want everyone to envy their love. But you've been married for 9 months.. its not like you've been together a life time. maybe its a little premature to be declaring your love superior.
I made the mistake of thinking you were a rational human being.
I have no tolerance for ignorance...i dont even think its your fault. Some of the statements you made make me think you're not able to see obvious flaws in your own logic. I dont get how a person can say with a straight face one type of love is superior.
Either way you've gotten too much attention and you obviously just think you're having a logical debate. I get too annoyed with stupid arguments based on nothing but limited perception.
have a good one
Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior:
I do think the kind of love a heterosexual couple feels is different and superior. To be able to create new life which reflects the couple's love is something unparalleled by anything else.
oh, big supirior you.
How DARE you. I have 2 gay aunts, happilly married with a beautiful baby boy, 1 year old. For you to say that they don't LOVE eachother as much as 'normal' couples do,...........
How can you say that? do you have any right? so first you apologise, and then you come back with THIS!?
how can LOVE be any more or less different? How can you say that!? do you think that if it were possible for homosexual couples to have children the 'natural' way, they would say no? are you saying that the simple act of being physically able to conceive babies somehow makes the love more SUPIRIOR!?!?
what the hell would you know about this!? I admitt, I can't say much about my own expiriences because i haven't had a girlfriend yet. (but im still quite sure im gay. i just kinda know.) but NEITHER HAVE YOU.
oh, that's right. your not gay. so tell me again, how do you know that the love you feel is different han the love my aunts feel? is it more passionate? more fufilling? more wothwhile? more holy?
what the hell gives YOU THE RIGHT?
What makes YOU SUPIRIOR TO US!? ARE WE SO DIFFERENT? WHAT ON EARTH COULD POSSIBLY MAKE YOU THINK THAT LOVE IS DETERMINED BY THE WAY YOU HAVE BABIES TOGETHER!!!???
that being SAID, thank you, enderwiggin, for all the beautiful things you said. they made me cry. [8)]
oh, and in reply to something else someone said, HUH? your honestly saying that being gay makes your body not worthy of recieving the holy spirit? what gives you the right to say that? are you the holy spirit? (as if i believed in the holy spirit anyway.) sorry if that was a little rude.
oh and people, I dont have any more or less right to talk about this than you guys do, because ive only known since.... December I think. Ill be more sure about it in high school when i can 'test the waters' or something like that...
anyway, thanks for all your support.
and peaceful warrior, if you somehow hoped not to offend me, then what the hell made you write THAT!? oh yes. I'm offended. (not being sarcastic.)
(sarcastic now.) You have every right to decide what I do or dont feel. after all, you've expirienced it all, and your huge intelligence is simply stupifying. I will now cease to be gay and live a happy normal life, have children, have real love, and god will look kindly on me. thank you so much for being that one more person I needed in my life to feel supirior over me. I needed that to make me see the truth.
as if.
sorry. i just had to say that. he's getting on my nerves.
thanks again people! [:D]
"No, don't think a homosexual couple can experience love the way a heterosexual couple can. But I also don't think a heterosexual couple could experience the kind of love a homosexual couple does. "
Why is it you think this? Is it because of the differences between male and female? Let's assume for a moment that there are a few half-human/half-animal creatures walking around who are each in love with a human (for now, we'll just say the couples are of the opposite sex). Do you think the love there would be any different than regular male-female love? Why or why not?
"I do think the kind of love a heterosexual couple feels is different and superior. To be able to create new life which reflects the couple's love is something unparalleled by anything else. I have not yet experienced this, but I plan on it. Everyone with whom I have spoken with who has children has told me this. Unfortunately, many people who have children don't feel this way, or at least don't put the amount of love and time towards rearing their children and therefore don't reap the spiritual benefits of parenthood."
Ah, but I beg to differ. I've already decided that I want to adopt children if I decide to have any. There are many parents who obviously don't love their children and look where they end up. They need someone who can give them a home. What you refer to is the 30% of married couples who do not divorce. I'm not saying people can't marry, have kids AND adopt, I'm just saying that what this seems to imply is that they'd rather have their own children than adopt. I must bring up this one point: No matter who your parents are, you have free will and you are your own person. I'm a musician who has a family with no previous musical history. I don't think like my family and there are high tensions between my parents and myself. I have a father, a stepfather, and a mother. I disagree with each of their views for the most part. Think about this from a couple's point of view. Let's say they have a child who grows up to be a rebel. Then what? Is that a reflection of their love for each other?
I realize you have addressed this question somewhat, but I'm not clear as to what you meant by it. When you talk about the reflection of two peoples' love for each other, why should it have to be a child? Why not some sort of garden or collaboration of a major project, something that both have a passion for (writing a song or an orchestral piece, for instance)?
This must be a royal pain in the arse for you to be answering all these questions from all of us who beg to differ with your views, especially with such a vast opposition. I am not trying to be hostile, I just thought I would point that out. If I didn't ask questions though, then where would I be today? Not in college, not on this forum.
oy.
Booya, spiritgurl
huh?
Come to think of it, I've come across a sexuality far more obscure than homosexuality. The question I posted for Peaceful Warrior about the half-human/half-animal creatures is actually touching on it a bit. I find it no more wrong than anything else. Actually I look at this sexuality more from a racial viewpoint. The fact that the creatures are still part-human implies that they still have intelligence, which they would. It, to me, would be no different than an African dating a European. Throughout school, what I have learned in my history classes has taught me that eventually acceptance does come, however slowly. I don't see a reason for people to put up such barriers all the time. Society does this and they are knocked down anyway, after the ignorant and closed-minded people finally learn they are wrong to set up such barriers. Blacks and whites were once segregated in all aspects in America. Now they live side by side. Racism isn't completely gone, but it's going, and there's a lot less of it today than there was fifty years ago.
As far as homosexuality goes, it is certainly wrong to not allow them into the armed forces, and it is wrong for people to be opposed to them living their own lives and discriminate them in any way. Why would anyone be opposed to this stuff? I mean, when the Columbine incident happened, people blamed Maraly Manson and the Trench coat Mafia. So just because these kids listened to Maralyn Manson and wore trench coats they were going to kill people? I'm afraid not. Why couldn't people just tell the truth- they were just crazy anyway. People make such a big deal about "bad influence" when all along, it is the responsibility of parents to raise their kids right. You can't shelter your children from the world. Someday you'll be dead and they'll have to take care of themselves. The more experience and exposure to the world they have, the better. You can't stop them from choosing how to live. It is up to them. I was sheltered once. What did I do about it? I exposed myself to the world. I want to see the weirdest stuff in the world so I can come to understand it and learn how to deal with it. Our whole society is sheltered from the world. We are so uncultured. This is one of many things that contributes to the discrimination of homosexuals and anyone else who isn't "normal." You know what? I wear a trench coat. The other day my friends and I were walking in the mall and some guy came up to us and asked us if we were in the trench coat mafia. My friend and I said no and the other one said yes to be funny. I think the guy realized what an ignorant question it was. Would an incident like this stop me from wearing my trench coat? No way. Bring the opposition on. I'm not going to stop just because nobody else does it or thinks that people who wear trench coats are psychos. I'd be glad to avoid those people, and what better way than to wear a trench coat? See? Do something different and ignorant people will stay away from you.
quote:
posted by Enderwiggen
Booya, spiritgurl
In otherwords You Go Girl!!!
quote:
posted by PeacefulWarrior
I do think the kind of love a heterosexual couple feels is different and superior. To be able to create new life which reflects the couple's love is something unparalleled by anything else.
Oh yeah. A quick bonk in the carpark, the guy does a runner and a teenage mum is left with a child she doesn't want. Yep! That's REAL love.
So I ask: Who here really believes that the ability to have sex and produce a child is the mark of REAL love? In fact who here thinks that REAL love is dependent on sex?
James.
Love cannot be categorized. Love is that one being who has created all and is all. Can you categorize that? Of course not.
Religious dogma is something to stay away from. There are too many interpretations of the bible and that is why dogma is dangerous and should be avoided. People take things out of context all the time and use them to justify their actions.
James:
To answer that here I dont think a baby is proof you love eachother. People chose to have babies for whatever reason. Because they want a baby to love etc. But some chose not to have babies because of many reasons too. Examples being life isnt easy.. or a better one they realize there are plenty of children that need homes and they know they love eachother. they dont need to have their "own" baby just to prove it.
And if you're with someone and you're not having sex that to me is actually a sign of deep love. So many are in it for the sex or the relationships have a strong physical aspect.
I just want to say this: I never said because someone has a baby they have found true love...in fact, I don't think that getting married makes your love wonderful or real. REAL love, however, in my OPINION happens between a man and a woman who dedicate themsleves to one another and to God. Marriage is a sign of this love, but obviously, as someone pointed out, divorce rates are tragically high and kids are left hanging out to dry WAY too often...and that's just horrible.
The way life/existence works is that a male and a female can "mate" and produce offspring. In the bonds of marriage this is called starting a family, or raising a family, and I don't care what you say, in my understanding (which is obviously not your understanding) this is the way we can truly come to realize our potential. It's obviously not this straightforward and cut and dry, but I don't have the kind of time (at least this week) to share all of my ideas, nor do I think you really want to hear them...
I know you hate more for saying this, and I know you think I am so simpleminded and cruel for sharing my ideas about this, which is sad, I am doing so.
Thank you for your ideas and I just hope "we can all get along" in the future despite our different takes on this.
What I find truly fascinating is the fact that if one of you were to start a pro-gay thread I might chime in but I definetly wouldn't get all worked up and angry like some of you obviously have been simply because I am not really worried about what others think in the sense that I don't feel strongly compelled to "come down" on others and "preach" my beliefs. I simply like to share ideas and opposing view points.
Understanding others view points and allowing them to speak their mind can only help you come to understand and strengthen your own view point, right?
Until next time!
jk
Thank you for your level headed and open mind. We all have the right to express how we feel without being attacked...I don't mean to offend people and I am not saying "This is the WAY IT IS...or anything like that".
Also, I am very sorry if it appeared that I started out with the idea to make things turn out the way they have. I really did want to know what people think, I still do...I think this is a very important topic and I think EVERYONE who has shared their take on it has contributed something very important to it, including myself.
After I read what people were saying about this topic I found it appopriate to share what I think...I didn't want to start out the post by saying, "Hey, what do you think about this?" and then say "I think it's not good" because then I just would have seen the kind of responses that have been posted recently." In fact I started this post simply to see what kind of constructive debates/ideas would be shared, but I have been a little saddened by some of the responses.
Timeless- thank you for your last post. I understand what you are saying, I really do and I appreciate you putting yourself in my shoes, I really do...and yes, I have thought about what it would be like to be in a gay persons shoes and obviously it would be much different.
Like I said in the previous post (the one before this one), I think everyone has the right to an opinion...I don't see where people get off thinking "Hey you dumb, ingnorant fool...I don't agree with you and I think you are absolutely crazy and wrong..." as you have seen, I have not responded this way ONCE in this post because I think that is a less effective way of sharing ideas and disagreeing.
I know some people here disagree 100% with what I am saying and that's fine and no matter what I am not going to assualt their integrity or intelligence for it...that just makes me feel bad and I think that's wrong. I really, geniunely try to respect people's right to choose one way or another what they believe.
Life offers an infinite amount of subjective realities and despite the fact I believe in a firm, objective reality...a higher truth, I am not going to try to say that everything that is true for me is true for you simply because we are all on different levels. Am I on a lower/higher level than you? I am not going to venture to answer that because I cannot...does this make sense?
So, homosexuality...yes it's a touchy subject. It comes down to this: are we going to tear eachother to pieces over it? Well, I am not. I am not going to go out and beat up a gay person because I disagree with what they are saying or believing. In a way, though, people are doing just that to me...at least verbally. Am I losing sleep over it? Not at all. But it does make me wonder how that can be justified.
I don't even know if what I am saying is making sense....ha ha! I am sure a lot of you like when I say that because I know you don't think I make sense at all, at least regarding some issues...and that's fine! That's my point! It's my right and your right to say what we want, as long as we don't go around beating each other up about it or hurting one another.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ANYWAY---what I am pasting below will likely drive some of you crazy, but if you take the time to read it, it communicates most of my feelings regarding this topic in a way more clearly than I have the time to do so.
I would have provided a link, but I couldn't. Please read this with an open mind and I promise I will continue to read your ideas and opinions with an open mind! [:)]
[:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)]
This page will inevitably offend many people. After all, I am a heterosexual man telling gay men that being gay is bad. I recognize that the issue of sexuality cuts to the most sensitive parts of our nature. There is a lot of pain here, and I don't want to add to that. There is also a lot of bigotry among those who call themselves Christians. Let us get beyond that evil, and try to understand what homosexuality really is.
This page is based on theory and observation. If you want a web site from people who have actually been through it themselves, visit Evergreen International at
www.evergreen-intl.org/
Introduction: "I can't change the way I am"
I will always remember the first time someone told me this. The lady in question was a new member of the church. She felt that she had always been a particular way, and it was no use suggesting that she could change. I have heard the same sentiment many times since. But she was not referring to her sexuality. She was referring to another habit (I forget which) that some others disliked. I wonder if she had an "irritating habit" gene?
Attitudes are very hard to change, and it appears that sexual attitudes, being so deeply felt, are hardest of all. This page looks at whether or not someone should ever try to change their sexual attitude (or orientation – the word means a similar thing), particularly regarding homosexuality. Put bluntly, it asks:
Is anything wrong with being gay?
and
Is anyone born that way?
To answer the first question, we will need to look at sexual attraction in general.
Summary:
People are not "gay" or "straight." We are all more complicated than this, and have more freedom than we may like to admit. Some attitudes and habits are just more difficult to change than others. The main points of this page are as follows:
Heterosexuals are often guilty of cruel, ignorant, unkind and abusive language and behavior toward homosexuals. This is wrong, and heterosexuals need to repent. Sexual sin is very bad, but plain nastiness is also very destructive.
Homosexuality does lasting damage to family life, just as many other behaviors do.
The church strongly warns people away from homosexuality. Not because it is any worse than say, fornication, but because it appears to be extremely difficult to change once adopted.
This is not to say that homosexuals are inferior. Many homosexuals have good qualities that many heterosexuals lack. Sexuality does not determine a person's worth.
Scientists agree that, if there is any genetic element (which is still in doubt), it is far less significant than the choice to be homosexual.
The topic of the church and homosexuality is covered in two excellent articles at "All About Mormons." This page mainly deals with issues that are not directly addressed there. As with many pages on this site, this page reflects my own understanding, and is not an official statement of church policy unless stated.
Why Have a Page on Homosexuality?
Isn't this a web site about prophecy and science? Then why cover homosexuality? Well, there are three reasons:
Misunderstandings around this issue keep many people away from the gospel. That is unnecessary, and saddens me. This site was designed to bring all people to Christ.
I have read some very good materials on the topic, but none of them seem to do it justice. As one writer puts it (an LDS man with a gay son who died of AIDS): "conventional explanations don't adequately account for what is really happening to people."
Many people have not studied the topic, but reject the church because they see it as backward and small minded
Some people who use this web site search for this topic
My Qualifications:
What are my qualifications for writing this? Well, it is true that I have known a few gay men (or men who felt they might be gay). I have a very close female friend (we were engaged) who many years ago "came out" that she was lesbian. I have also served and continue to serve in high ecclesiastical positions within the church, which has imparted in me a certain sensitivity to people and their varied challenges, as I meet with and counsel them. But my main qualification is that, as far as I can see, homosexuality is no different from any other identity issue, and homosexual desire is not fundamentally different from any other desire.
Beyond that, I too have always felt I was different. I have never enjoyed sports, and felt alienated from mainstream society. I can also see that the gay community has a lot to offer. So I find a lot of the accounts I read to be familiar. But I think we all have a lot more freedom of choice than we are prepared to admit.
NB When I use the term "gay" or "gay man" I also mean lesbians, unless the context suggests otherwise.
Sexuality Within Society:
From a religious point of view, heterosexual marriage and fidelity were given by God because he knows what is best for us.
From a scientific point of view, heterosexual marriage is an institution that developed in order for a complex society to live together in relative peace and freedom.
From both points of view, homosexuality is counter-productive. These few pages just look at the scientific viewpoint. (The religious viewpoint is much simpler: God simply states "Don't do it.")
Is There Anything Wrong With Homosexuality?
What is Good About Homosexuality?
Homosexuals are all different, just as heterosexuals are. But many homosexuals reject the more predatory and hypocritical aspects of mainstream culture. If you reject loud mouthed idiots and are more able to speak with members of the opposite sex as human beings, that is a good thing. But you don't have to be gay to be sensitive. In fact, all the good things associated with homosexuality can be had without being homosexual. Homosexuality on its own, has no real benefits. (See the question about happiness and the section on 'what is sexuality,' below.)
In general, the individual problems are relatively minor. Together, they are enough to be significant. They are still not as serious as some other behaviors, so why make such a fuss? Because once a person has chosen this behavior (or allowed themselves to drift into it), it becomes extremely difficult to change – the damage lasts a long time. So being a homosexual is rather like having a leg missing. It is not the worst thing that can happen, but it is very difficult to fix, and even if a person is born that way, fixing it is still the best solution.
This section does not look at the eternal ramifications of homosexuality (e.g. eternal progression is built on the model of the family), but only on its effect in this life.
What is Bad About Homosexuality?
"Nothing – I know lots of good gay men and lesbians!"
This is usually the first response, so perhaps I should clarify some things:
Every individual is a mixture of many things.
If you are gay that does not mean you cannot be excellent in other ways.
The problems listed here are not as serious as some other things.
I am not claiming that gay men are psychopathic child abusers. The overall observable differences are probably not huge. I am just saying that they are real issues that will, if adopted in general, tend to have real (and negative) effects, even if those effects are minimized.
Gays and lesbians are a persecuted minority.
Any openly gay person is aware of being watched with (often groundless) suspicion. So a gay man is likely to try harder. For example, a gay couple who adopt children are more likely to be a model family. Some of the following points would only become significant if homosexuality became ordinary and commonplace.
Everyone says their own friends are good.
This is going to sound offensive, but we can never say "my friends are good and gay and therefore being gay is harmless" unless we know...
...what the same person would be like if they were not gay and had never had any gay feelings in their whole life, and
...that any difference can be attributed to their being sexual orientation. It is quite possible that a typical gay man is happier and more stable for reasons that are not directly related to sexual orientation – see below.
So what is wrong with being gay? I shall ignore the major theological issues for now...
In a Word, Childlessness:
By choosing homosexuality, you choose an affliction that many people (who never had the choice) spend millions of dollars trying to overcome. You cut yourself off from the most wonderful, fulfilling, and meaningful experience possible – having your own children. Some people are unable to have children for medical reasons, and they deserve every help and support. But to voluntarily cut yourself off from this experience is to forever limit the joy and growth you might have received. The fact that having children is important to homosexual persons is evident in the strong push for social acceptance of gay parents adopting children and lesbian couples desiring access to IVF technology. Why artifically cut yourself off from the way God designed for children to be created?
But there are other issues as well.
It Reduces Freedom of Action:
This is the smallest of the three problems.
I am not suggesting that homosexuality is a slippery slope to anarchy and the destruction of society (though this could be argued), but simply that social norms are a good thing. It is a fact (perhaps unavoidably) that when heterosexual men and women are together, they behave differently than when they are in a same sex environment. Why? Because sexual attraction is so powerful, and because roles (whether biologically or environmentally determined) mean that men and women are different. These differences are healthy.
There are times when same-sex groups are preferable. For example, girls perform academically better in same sex schools than in mixed schools. Or there are times when it is just fun to be yourself and talk to people who think the same. There are those who argue that male and female differences are significant in other ways too.
If homosexuality was common, it would be impossible to have a single sex group where there was absolutely no danger of sexual desire. This is not because homosexuals are weaker than heterosexuals. It would be just the same if a few heterosexual men were mixed into a group of heterosexual women. The women could not behave in quite the same way as before. Thus their freedom is limited. Even if the men always behaved impeccably, there is the possibility of misunderstanding, and a precedent is set for other men who may be more devious.
The usual answer to this argument is that people can learn to be self controlled. This is true. But there will always be some who have less self-control than others. Hence he problem can be reduced, but it cannot be eliminated.
It Avoids Variety:
Homosexuality is often portrayed as a form of variety. But there is generally less variety between two people of the same sex than there is between two people of the opposite sex. Homosexuality, in general, thus avoids the challenge of variety.
It could be argued that multiple partners (whether homosexual or heterosexual) provides that variety. But I would argue the opposite: multiple partners means avoiding variety. When one partner presents behavior that we cannot cope with, we just move on.
Living a whole life with someone who is fundamentally different is healthy. It forces us to become more understanding. Men and women in particular tend to have complementary strengths, and learning to live together in love is one of the great growing experiences of life.
You might respond, if heterosexuals are so understanding, why are so many so prejudiced?
Partly due to the sin of serial monogamy. As noted above, many people do not face up to difficulties, but just move on to another partner.
Partly because we often do not face up to our problems but just learn to live with being unhappy. Hence the popular idea that being single is fun, but being married is miserable. We choose to make them so by not facing up to challenges.
The wisest and most balanced, unselfish and nicest people I know are those are elderly married couples who have learned how to be in love their whole life.
It Weakens Family Bonds:
A gay couple cannot have their own children. They can (in theory) adopt, but the biological parent will be someone else. From what I know of adoption, the adopted child usually feels a link with their birth parent, just as a birth parent feels a bond with their child. Hence the gay couple family bond is weaker, being divided.
If we accept the conclusions of evolutionary theory, and these particular conclusions are backed up by numerous studies, we should not expect an adopted family to be as strong as a natural family. This is of course the average – many natural families are very weak, and many gay families will be very strong. But overall, there is a difference, and in a country of several million people, this translates into a few more unhappy and dysfunctional people.
This is not to say that adopted parents are worse parents. At present people adopt because they have no choice. Hence many probably try harder, and this can easily make up for any increased biological risk. This is specially true in current gay families. Because of the adverse publicity and the small numbers involved, I would expect that each gay couple who adopts children would try extra hard to be perfect parents. But as more and more gay couples adopt children, the pressure to be exemplary disappears. Once gay couples are just ordinary couples, the effects of weakened bonds will become more apparent.
One solution is to not have children. But apart from reducing freedom of choice, this avoids all the benefits of having children. As with marrying someone who is different, learning to live with and love children has the effect of improving a person's understanding and unselfishness. (Which is not to say that this is automatic – we choose to bring up children well or badly, just as we choose everything else.)
It Creates Confusion, Which Creates Misery:
Because sexuality is so personal and so complex, it seems to have the unique ability to confuse and create misery.
Many people who "come out" as gay report initial confusion over their sexual nature. This generally makes them unhappy. I suggest that the confusion is not because they are "trying to be something they are not" but because they do not know what they are. Something has made them suddenly see homosexuality as an option (it could be a number of things) and now hey are confused.
Or consider the woman who has been raped. She knows it is not her fault, so why not get on with life and not worry about it? There is no logical reason to get upset, but people do get very, very upset. The worry seems to be "Did I encourage it somehow? Will I feel as happy about my body?" etc. It seems that any hint of doubt over your sexual nature creates confusion.
Or the example of the child who is sexually abused. Logically once they realize it is not their fault, they should be able to forget it. But of course they cannot. The feelings are apparently similar to being raped, but without the experience of an adult to guide them.
Sexual confusion is a damaging thing. It is a simple fact in any sphere of information that more information leads to more confusion. No matter how clearly we explain the options, more options will lead to more confusion. There is no compelling reason for more options (see the comments below about happiness), so why add to the pain?
There is also the fact that, once boundaries are blurred, it is easier to confuse ourselves, to miss he obvious, and to confuse others. Pedophiles, for example, benefit greatly from the boundaries of right and wrong being blurred, even though gay men would be the first to say that pedophilia is wrong (even if there is a pedophilia gene).
When the potential for pain is so great, and there is no compelling need to accept alternative sexual orientations, we should be very careful before adding to the potential for confusion.
The Genetic Argument Favors Adultery – and Worse:
As one writer put it, "The rationalizations presented for homosexual behavior... [such as 'it is not my choice'] are suspiciously identical to the rationalizations I have heard presented by child molesters and confirmed adulterers in the context of my work as an attorney." (Sunstone, Feb '89 p.4)
The usual response is to show the differences between homosexual behavior (consenting adults) and child molesting or adultery (which creates victims). But that response misses the point. We all accept that there are worse things in life than homosexuality. The point is that if we accept the argument for one, how can we reject the same argument when used for the other? For example, there is a very strong case for a genetic basis for adultery (e.g,. men are biologically programmed to spread their seed as far as possible). If we even begin to accept the argument for homosexuality, we will have to say that adultery is acceptable.
"But I am happier being gay than being straight!"
Hopefully, people who "come out" as being gay are happier than before – it would be sad to think that someone became gay and then became more miserable at the same time. But everything that makes a gay man happier being gay than straight can be traced to something other than being gay:
Acceptance from others.
Escaping an abusive environment.
Feeling vindicated in your beliefs.
No longer struggling.
Finding that you are different, special.
Release of tension, and perhaps more sexual opportunities.
Etc.
All of these things can be achieved in other ways, without deciding "I am gay."
And of course it does not help your happiness if you are struggling with self-control, and everyone says "you cannot control it! It is unhealthy to try! You were born that way!" That just creates internal torment.
"Where is the evidence for all this damage?"
I do not claim that these effects are dramatic – life is too complicated for that – but they are real. A person's sexuality is only a part of their life, and the fundamental differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality are easily swamped by other unrelated considerations. That is why I have concentrated on the theory rather than try to produce masses of statistics.
There will be many good gay men and many bad heterosexual men. But the evidence for the above points (as general principles) is clear. It is difficult to see how homosexuality could avoid contributing to these problems.
No doubt some readers will want to help me with this. (Chris stands back as his hotmail account is flooded with angry messages).
What is Sexuality, Anyway?
Before we can understand homosexuality or heterosexuality, we need to understand sexuality in general.
Biology is Not Specific – What You Think Makes All the Difference:
If you have experienced sexual desire, you will know that it is not a case of 'yes' or 'no.' It depends on how someone looks, how they behave, their age, what they say, their shape, height weight, how they dress... if your genes are able to pre-program all of these things, they are very clever indeed.
The genetic element of sexual attraction seems to be very malleable. Why is it that what was sexually attractive hundreds of years ago (e.g. white skin, lots of fat) or even last century (e.g. flat chested women in the 1920s) is generally considered less sexually attractive now? Do genes follow fashions? And what if you fell in love with a woman (or man) only to find that they were actually a man (or a woman) in disguise, as in some stories? It seems that you fall in how you think a person is, and not how they actually are.
"Homosexual activity may be observed in nearly every culture but the way in which it manifests itself varies widely. In some societies, it is an acceptable form of behavior for youth, who then are expected to 'graduate' to heterosexual activity. In medieval Japan many Samurai had male lovers, often in addition to wives, to whom lifelong devotion was the norm. In our culture, however, there is a much more rigid bifurcation between heterosexual and homosexual: gay people are consigned, as it were, to a separate ontological status as human beings, sometimes even to a separate existence. The peculiarities of a given culture doubtlessly color the self perceptions of its homosexuals, and a cross-culture sampling of these perceptions might yield somewhat different results." (Sunstone Review, April 83 p.40)
Biological Drives Are Routinely Re-directed:
Let us start with the assumption that there is a biological basis of sorts. What does it "make" us do or feel?
People seem able to be satisfied by all kinds of sexual experience.
Some people remain celibate because they are so obsessed with their career – they are "married to their work." Is there a gene for this?
We hear of fetishists – people who are 'tuned on' by shoes, leather, or whatever. Is there a gene for loving shoes, or leather? I doubt it.
Some people engage in sadomasochism. Is there a gene for this?
Some people grow to have sexual desires for children. Is there a gene for pedophilia?
If there are genes for these things, who is to say there are not genes for all kinds of other variations in taste? Does it follow that all should be treated equally?
History shows that human societies express sexuality in different ways. In some ancient societies it was normal behavior for men to have homosexual experiences when young, then become heterosexual later on. Is that because the genes suddenly changed? In some societies, homosexuality was the norm (the island of Lesbos was the classic example, hence the name Lesbian). Has normal genetic makeup changed so much since then?
Today, we often hear of people who saw themselves as heterosexual for many years, then decide that they are in fact homosexual. It works the other way too. (Though not as often, given that there are far more heterosexuals than homosexuals.) Some of the people who were once gay but have now become straight form groups (such as "The Evergreen Foundation" or "Exodus") and offer counseling and help to others who feel they may want to change. This fact seems to really annoy the homosexual lobby, though they don't mind if it is the other way around.
So I see no reason to suppose that sexual orientation is not subject to free choice. The only unique feature seems to be that changing orientation seems to be extraordinarily difficult or traumatic. This is to be expected, as it involves so many issues that are vitally important to the individual.
Biology is Only One Small Part:
Sexuality is "the quality or state of being sexual: a) the condition of having sex; b) sexual activity; c) expression of sexual receptivity or interest esp. when excessive." (Webster's Dictionary) Thus, sexuality is a general term for anything covering numerous feelings, behaviors, and attitudes:
feelings of identity in terms of biological gender, self-worth and purpose
beliefs regarding personal identity, biological facts
desires to explore and grow, and for physical stimulation
external physical characteristics, others' opinions
beliefs regarding what is normal, healthy, moral or right
peer group standards of desirability
purpose and goals regarding family and relationships
attitudes to friendship, lust, duty, etc.
desire to fit in, be accepted, feel important, wanted, needed, liked
desire to be different
etc., etc.
It may be helpful to divide all these feelings and beliefs into those we are born with and those we learn. Here I have erred on the side of biology – I am assuming that many things are
Nature
(what we are born with) Nurture
(what we learn)
the need to be loved
the need to feel significant as an individual
the ability to enjoy physical stimulation of many kinds
the appreciation of beauty (a sunny day, a healthy body, etc.)
the desire to learn and experiment
physical appearance
the need to procreate
etc.
some things are forbidden by society (and thus become desirable)
other people expect certain things
goals and ambitions
what gives power
what gains approval
who cares
etc., etc.
Many of these needs and attributes can be satisfied through physically intimate contact with, or intellectual identification with, another human being at an intimate level. We call that sexuality. But it is just an umbrella term for something more complex.
Any complicated experience, if we dwell on it enough or practice it enough, will eventually becomes a feeling, or a habit. That is, we do not think it through each time. Some behaviors start so young, and have so many influences, that it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to identify where they came from.
In truth, of course, all feelings are learned. We learn to interpret feelings in just the same way that we learn to interpret any other stimuli. New born babies, for example, take a while before they can make sense of the messages they get from their eyes.
Breaking Sexual Orientation Into Manageable Pieces
Changing from liking women to liking men (for example) would be a huge step for anyone. But is such a step necessary?
Breaking it Down Into its Component Parts:
Is it wrong to have good friends of a particular sex? Of course not. (It may not be sensible to spend time alone with someone if you have a problem with temptation, but that is a relatively small price to pay.)
Is it wrong to find someone of a particular sex physically beautiful? No – after all, I am very definitely heterosexual, but I can admire a male athlete as well as anyone. A man does not have to be gay to find Michelangelo's "David" beautiful. At the most, this just requires a subtle shift from "sexually beautiful" to just "beautiful."
Is it wrong to behave in a masculine or feminine way? That is a pretty meaningless question, as no behavior is uniquely masculine or feminine. We all need to be firm yet sensitive at all times, and adjust the balance according to need. No fundamental problems here.
What about the sexual act itself? Stripped of all the other layers, it is purely physical. Forgive me being crude, but your nerve endings do not know if your partner is male or female.
So, what is the problem? Just that "I do not love people of that sex." This can be overcome. We love what we know and care for. If we spend time getting to know someone, and see things from their point of view, we grow to love them. If that person is already a good friend, and someone you like being with, it is so much easier.
But perhaps it does not feel right? Then we need to identify where we get our ideas of right and wrong. Perhaps we think something is ethically wrong? Perhaps our friends would not approve? Perhaps we have always done things a certain way? Whatever the problem is, we can address it and overcome it.
And so we can go on. Divide and conquer – whatever is the problem, it can be addressed in some way.
What is it you love about the people you do love (male, female, or whatever)? Let's say you are a man, and you find men more attractive than women. Why? List the reasons. Perhaps you like dominant people? There are dominant women. Perhaps you like muscular people? There are muscular women. Perhaps you like people with beards? Come on, now we are being silly. Whatever a man can provide, a woman can provide the same. So we come down to the last line of defense, which is "I don't know – I just do!"
Let us have a look at that concept. That is the key. It is easy to identify the issues, but eventually we have to face up to the decision – do we want to?
The Key:
This is the point where I make my stand. If I am being offensive to gays and lesbians, I suppose that this is the big issue, the crux, the key to the whole matter. I believe that "I don't know" is not acceptable as an excuse. We cannot afford to allow our lives to be tossed about by mysterious circumstances. We are not slaves to mysterious forces. We can learn what those forces are, or we can ignore them.
There is already a perfectly simple explanation for sexual preference – it is largely motivated by, and wholly controlled by, learned behavior and attitudes. Any genetic element is routinely controlled by these attitudes, whether conscious or not. Unless something dramatic is discovered by science (which seems highly unlikely), these are facts we need to accept if we want to live in the real world.
It's All About the Fall of Adam:
It's the same old story: consciousness, free will, choices, knowledge, independence – call it what you will. We can choose to be controlled by mysterious forces, or we can learn about those forces and take control ourselves. That was the whole point of the fall of Adam. Before the fall (as far as I can see), mankind existed for untold ages as a victim of circumstances, unable to understand or do anything about his life. After the fall, mankind began to take control of his life – and responsibility for it – for good or for ill.
"Man is not the creature of circumstance. Circumstances are the creature of man."
I once knew a man who was very interested in the church, but would not join, and would not get married either, because he once (many years ago) had a homosexual experience. He did not know if he perhaps would again, so his life was on hold. Instead of controlling his life, and deciding "I will not do this" or "I will do this" and living accordingly, he was letting his life control him.
This must sound very "holier than thou," coming from someone who does not have any particular homosexual desires (though I am sure I could develop them if I chose – as a male, I find a lot to admire in other males). But I do have experience of this principle at work in other areas of my life. We all do. It is a common problem. It is perhaps the universal problem in all walks of life. We all choose to let our lives control us in some ways, instead of taking charge.
I often read (in newspapers mainly) of people who have broken up a family because they just felt attracted to someone else, or people who do something bad and then try to blame someone else for effectively controlling them. I have had people tell me "I hope I don't do this or that thing again, but you can never know for sure." Well actually you can know for sure. If something is important enough, you make a decision and stick to it. And if you think you might be tempted to break that decision, you find ways to reduce or avoid those temptations. It is not easy to take control of your life – if I could manage it in every area myself, I would be perfect – but it is possible.
Giving up, on the basis of "I don't know why, I just do," is not an acceptable reason for destructive behavior.
How to Make it Easier:
I realise that, no matter how we "divide and conquer," some changes will still be very difficult. It seems to me that the simplest thing we can do is to stop listening to people who tell us we have no free will. We do have free will. Telling ourselves that we are weak tends to make us weak.
The Bottom Line
When we look closely at homosexuality, it looks just like any other feeling or behavior – influenced by genes, but subject to free will.
Wow that person sounds a lot like you. Right down to his obviously sincere concern that he doesn't offend any homosexuals.
[8)]
I think my favorite part of that was the gene thing. I mean its true there is no gene that makes a man want to have sex with children. Therefore, its only logical homosexuality is a learned behavior.
I wonder why he didnt make the point "there is no gene which makes a man want to be with a woman". Guess it wouldnt have made his point like the leather fetish thing.
I dont know if im relieved or a little disturbed those ideas you were putting up weren't your own. Either way thanks for the entertaining read. Circular logic 101.
Hello.
I mean no disrespect to anyone's beliefs, but what I am about to say problably will offend some who consider the key members and writers of certain organizations as people to be revered.
I have to say that I am suspicious of these articles by groups like the one whose article is quoted at length above (FRC). It looks to me like "statistical spin."
Certain male child molesters molest boys. Since they are male and the boys are male, they can then be considered "homosexual" entered into the statistics as a percentage of the homosexual population at large, as if they were a group homogenous with the rest of the homosexual population. How much does this say about what they really have in common with the rest of the homosexual population? No case has been made that the animus behind the one (male molesting of a male child) is the same as that which is behind the other (two male adults engaging in a consensual sex act). Might not real qualitative differences exist here? Defining the whole of a group can be very arbitrary. From what I can see it is an oversimplification of a more complex issue for some purpose, problably religio-political.
How many of these men who molested boys always engage in sex with women in their sexual relations with adults? This in itself would constitute a major qualitative difference between such men and other "gay" men. They would not seem to be "classic type" homosexuals. Are the statistics taking this into account? Of course, one could then take this as technical license to call these rotten fellows "bisexuals" and enter them into the statistics as a percentage of the bisexual population. Again no case has been made that the animus behind what these guys do is the same as that which is behind what the others do. Inevitably, it seems, the bisexual and homosexual populations are then simply mentioned together and the statistics so garnered passed on to the populace and to politicians, again for some purpose.
Now, before someone starts in with "How dare you accuse holy men of God with spinning statistics" let me say that I suspect that this is all a product of strong belief and possibly emotion driven statistical reasoning that resulted in the spin, rather than craven, intentional deception (not that some still won't be offended). Still, better and more honest to treat the issues separately, I think.
All of this said, I am convinced that both pro- and anti-homosexual groups have been guilty at one time or another of manipulating statistics. I am not just picking on the anti- crowd in this matter. Unfortunately, I believe that truly objective study of this subject is in short supply.
I did post subject matter some time back in the matter of homosexuality and negs. That thread seems to have disappeared, perhaps through disuse. I have come to no firm conclusions on that matter.
The idea that this is patently a "chosen affliction," even the statement doesn't make sense. It's like saying "I'm tired of being blessed with good health, I think I'll get a wasting disease today, that sounds cool." I just cannot buy that any but a very few already mentally ill individuals would think that way, and it doesn't jive with countless life accounts.
If you look at it more closely, I believe you will find MANY homosexuals who were neither sexually abused nor became homosexually inclined only after they got "bored" with everything else. Most problably had inklings of homosexuality before they had much or even any sexual experience at all, let alone had a chance to "try it all," or hobnob with the intelligentsia. (One might better ask a man about his history than tell him.) Whether that means that they were born that way I cannot say. Evidence from childhood of these individuals does tend to suggest however, at the very least, that the tendency was present, for whatever reason, early in life. Again I would say that among these I believe you will find many that were not sexually abused.
Pertinent to this forum, neg (spirit) abuse or influence, often subtle and pernicious, is sometimes, in one form or another, invoked to explain orientation. If this is true in some cases, ways of ferreting this origin out in those cases, or eliminating it as a cause in others might be helpful.
Other forms of abuse (as physical violence or verbal) would be found common, not just by parents, but by peers as well (perhaps even more so by peers). This has led to theories involving sexuality and peer/parent relations (as by Dr. J. Nicolosi and others). The problem with these, in my view, is that they become a chicken or egg issue: Which came first, the troubled peer/parent relations or the sexual tendency (or its precursor)? I have not seen that this issue has been resolved.
On a side note, another thing that I find interesting is that many "change therapists" will state that a percentage of homosexuals will not convert to the point where a heterosexual relationship is realistic and that "successful celibacy" is the thing to shoot for. Perhaps these guys and the religio-political commentators who support them should get on the same page. If they did, the commentators might be less inclined to rub that old "You will never have children, and you are so missing out" statement in their face every chance they get (and I have so often seen and heard this said). This is hardly a helpful statement if they are going to be childless anyway. To me there also seems to be a very strong vein of condescending attitude in a lot of the commentaries and articles that I've seen in various places. Others to their credit take pains to avoid this.
Thank you.
I had to laugh when I read seekenergyaz's comment about "statistical spin". I was reminded of something an old maths teacher of mine told me when we were studying statistics and probabilities:
"Statistics have proven undeniably that most people have more than the average number of legs."
Seekenergyaz's thoughts about statistics are the reason I tend to ignore such information. Like Bible interpretations they can be manipulated to reinforce just about any point you want to make.
I actually read through the lengthy excerpt in PW's last post. Two little problems I had with this that I believe will have tainted this guy's observations:
quote:
The topic of the church and homosexuality is covered in two excellent articles at "All About Mormons." This page mainly deals with issues that are not directly addressed there. As with many pages on this site, this page reflects my own understanding, and is not an official statement of church policy unless stated.
This tells me that the writer's views will reflect the views of the LDS doctorine. We know that this doctorine, like most others, has a rigid bias against homosexuality.
quote:
What are my qualifications for writing this? Well, it is true that I have known a few gay men (or men who felt they might be gay). I have a very close female friend (we were engaged) who many years ago "came out" that she was lesbian. I have also served and continue to serve in high ecclesiastical positions within the church, which has imparted in me a certain sensitivity to people and their varied challenges, as I meet with and counsel them.
Oh yeah, this guys a real expert. Knows all about it!
I no longer wish to make any further comments regarding what I think about homosexuality. I think I've already indicated my position clearly enough.
What I do believe is worth commenting on is the ammount of energy some people put into trying to prove something is wrong or bad. I really believe that this ends up having a negative impact on those people.
As an example - Recently I have looked at the merits of many different beliefs and spiritual ways, searching for my own path, and decided which ones are not for me based on what my intuition tells me. I have not made that decision by investigating what is wrong with a particular belief. I have absolutely no doubt that I could find a great deal of "factual" information as to why a particular belief is wrong, evil, perverted, whatever. I'm not interested! I don't want to become some bitter person being ever critical of the beliefs of others. I'd rather think that the beliefs I've dismissed are all good, just not for me.
Acceptance of homosexuality isn't Ten Commandments stuff. It isn't going to mean the end of the world as we know it. If it is not right for you, then so be it. There is no need to expend energy trying to prove to people why it should not be right for them also.
James.
Hi.
I don't want to give the impression that I'm ranting on about PeacefulWarrior, or am judging him. I do take issue with some of what he posted (most of it had to do with the article that dealt with statistics, some of it did touch on the other stuff a little).
I'm sure from his point of view, he does not believe himself to be judging anyone, that it is a matter of love the sinner hate the sin. Of course this particular type of nonjudgementalism, where I've seen it expressed elsewhere (and as I viewed it myself once) is usually predicated on the idea that one doesn't know that any particular individual won't go straight someday. I'm not sure whether he might stand in the same place regarding those who died still gay. Perhaps he sees them as roasting someplace. I don't know.
He has a right to believe what he does, even if some of us view his basis as being dogma or skewed information. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution nor in the law of most other progressive countries against believing in religious dogma if one so chooses.
My own views are a little ambivalent. I don't always know what to make of it, even though life has thrown me headlong into having to deal with the subject. I've never been LDS, but would have agreed in years past with a lot of what the man in the LDS views on homosexuality article said. The FRC article might have rubbed me the wrong way even then.
Still, wherever I find myself, or don't find myself, in all this mess, we each have to look at this and decide what to conclude, or whether we are going to conclude with what information we have.
I think its a no brainer anyone has the right to state their opinion. And people who it offends have the right to speak back.
Id much rather have my opinion spoken about than have someone say "you have a right to that opinion". That does absolutely nothing. If your opinion is condemning others (even if you think it isnt' doing that) then expect others opinions to be just as honest.
Fair enough.
quote:
Originally posted by goingslow
I think its a no brainer anyone has the right to state their opinion. And people who it offends have the right to speak back.
Id much rather have my opinion spoken about than have someone say "you have a right to that opinion". That does absolutely nothing. If your opinion is condemning others (even if you think it isnt' doing that) then expect others opinions to be just as honest.
Peaceful Warior, you still have not answered my question. Why do you feel that true love can only happen between heterosexual couples? You keep saying that heterosexuals can raise families. So can homosexuals, through adoption. It would seem to me that it's good to have homosexual couples because with such a high divorce rate and people who do not care for their children, the homosexuals can give them a good home and environment to grow up in.
it said that gay couples miss out. why would they choose something they would be laughed at for?
I say, my point exactly. why would we choose this?
__________________________________________________________________
I was born gay. you want proof? number one, ive never had a true boyfriend, so what exactly was i supoosed to become bored with?
number two, my drawing skills.
when I was little, and even now, I can only draw girls. seriously. whenever i try to draw a boy, it comes out looking like... i dunno, too feminine. like if I added a chest and longer hair, it would be a girl. i never even noticed until about a month a ago, i was like, 'hey! if im gay, maybe that's why i cant draw guys! h'mmm...'
but, come on! why would I choose this life? why? that's my whole point. I must seem like a great exeption to you, because im not bored, i have never been sexually abused at all in any way, verbally or mentally or physically, and ive never had a BF or GF, and im so young, you probably think that one day ill wake up mature and realize i was just fooling myself.
but ill tell you something. (you asked for it. those of you with weak constitutions, blease leave this site. ) ever scince i was little, I never thought about 'doing it.' you might say, 'oh! no little kid does! she's still young now! she'll get over it!' but this is different. i imagine a guy doing that to me and i cringe. and it's not just that. when i was as young as.... i think 6 or 7 years old, id stare for hours at the pretty girls in my nursury rhymes book. this was so normal to me, i never even considered that i was gay until last year, and even then i only thought i was bi.
wanna know more? there's a kid in my class. last year in 7th grade, he stood up in homeroom and announced proudly, "I hate gay people. If I ever met a gay person, I'd kill 'em." and as soon as he said that, all the guys started laughing and patting his back.
you think i WANT this? you think i CHOSE this? you think I dont listen to one of my boy-crazy friends gabbering on and on about them, and wish that i felt the same way so i could talk about them too?
and then there are times when im proud. when I talk to my two friends that know im gay, they treat me no different. yes, even at this age. I cried, because i seriously thought they would treat me different, or tell someone. but they didnt and i was so relieved, i cried.
do you know how hard it is to sqeeze those words out? "I think I'm gay"? do you? you don't ever see it said on TV, or in a book, so you dont know how to say it. you just have to use blunt words. and then, needing to sit there looking at the person, or hearing their shocked silence on the other end of the phone.... and then imagine all those kids who are kicked out of their homes for being gay. i know it wont happen to me, but imagine I have at least 5o perople in my family. how hard will it be to tell each one of them? who knows but the more religeous ones will never see me and my future wife as truly married. I know for an almost fact that if i ever told my grandma i even believed in reincarnation, she would try to change my mind. what would she do about this?
what if i get killed in high school? what if a blabber mouth friend tells everyone? what if i meet someone I love?
you have it easy. you get to assume that everyone is straight. you can say 'I love you'. but us? unless we know for a fact that they're gay, we can't have crushes. what would happen if I was mislead, and told a girl i loved her, and she looked at me and said, 'your gay? eeew! get away from me, you freak!'.
have you read about the girl wh wasn't allowed to change in her locker room, because they didnt want her to be around naked girls cuz she was gay? as if all we do is look at someone and fall in love?
we cant just ask anyone to dance. you can ask people out in a snap, but we have to wait such a long time until someone is brave enough to admitt they're gay, and then we can ask.
and then we'll dance together, and it'll be all over school. you cant do one little thing unless everyone else already knows. I need to ask everyone if they have anything against gay people, just in case. i have a sixth grader friend, who, when i told her about my two aunts, she looked at me in disgust, like, how could someone do that?
It keeps getting more and more confusing. I met a guy at a contest last week and got his number. I know I'm gay, but he just makes it all the more confusing. what if in high school a guy asks me on a date? should i say yes, and then years later tell him im gay? should i say no, and leave him to think i hate him? should i tell him im gay, with the all to big chance he'd spread it around school, and the haters will torment me every day until graduation? will I ever go to slepovers and have my friends show me pictures of hot guys and ask me what I think? I can't do that. even if they didnt mind, do you know how awkward it would feel to show them pictures of grls and ask them what they think? to introduce my friends to my new girlfriend? to listen to them talking about how sexy their guy is, how manly and sweet, and wishing i could meet someone like that, if only I actually had a friend who was gay like me? and then everyone assumes that your not gay.
phrases like 'oh, that is so gay' or, 'oh, he looks so gay in that shirt!'
songs that always talk about guys and girls. never guys and guys or girls and girls.
_____________________________________________________________________
peaceful warrior, if you really want to walk in my shoes, read that over at least twice. because I think about most of that every single day.
Hey, thanks for all the comments everyone. I realize that I, like many others, have been getting a little worked up over this...but I am beginning to calm down a bit and realize that this is all positive.
First of all, Timeless, nothing you haave said has "enraged" me as you say...I just got a little upset with the way I was attacked by some of the others. I think it's really funny how people are judging me by saying I am too judgemental, I mean think about that for a second![:D]
Now, someone asked, "Oh, ok...tell me where the gene is that makes a man like a woman and vice-versa?" What a question! I had to laugh...I mean, anyone who knows anything about X and Y chromosomes knows the answer to this one. Furthermore, and this isn't something I thought I would have to share with adults in here, but here it goes: a man is born with male sex organs and a woman with female ones. Men and women are inherintly different because their bodies are made to come together in unity to produce offspring.
Some of the real, underlying set of beliefs that I hold dear which make me believe that homosexuality is contrary to the plans and designs of God is this:
1) We all lived as spirits before we came here (in a state of duality, etc but I won't get into all of that)
2) We came "down" here to earth in order to a) obtain physical, mortal bodies b) to experience duality, ie. right/wrong, dark/light, good/evil, sweet/bitter, etc. etc. There are many lessons we are to learn here in life.
3) One of the most vital parts to this design is for more spirits to continue to come down and expereince mortality, like we are... By producing offspring (multiply and replenish the earth and all the fun stuff) more spirits can come down. I really believe that the negative spirits, those who chose not to recieve mortal bodies, "negs" or whatever you want to call them, are constantly trying to thwart this plan because the plan is to return back with the knowledge we gain in order to become more and more like God until we too are perfect.
Marriage and family, even eternal family units, are the center of the plan.
When a man and a woman learn to live in peace and harmony and come together and are complete, it's like the ying-yang coming together, two very differnt parts and it alomst overcomes the sense of duality that pervades this life and it creates. In the next life I think that a similar process will take place spiritually...and I don't pretend to understand it all, but I do know that this life is a pattern and a reflection, albeit on a lower level, of things much higer and more glorious.
Not everyone born into mortality is born with the physical characteristics or mental capacity to fulfuill these things, and that is FINE! God knows all and he is the only perfect judge. People are born into this life in very different physical, mental and cultural circumstances and all of these things are for their good, in the long run.
Someone BORN with homosexual feelings is not evil and believe that is a unique and, for me, an unimaginable challenge. I don't pretend to judge them in any kind of harsh or critical way. But, I think there are many other ways people begin to develop these feelings...whether because of something someone did to them, because they experimented, etc. I don't think these are good things and, in fact, I think they thwart the wonderful plan that keeps brining new life and new spirits into this world.
So, now, to answer EnderWiggins question about LOVE and why I thinhk heterosexual love is "superior", well, I guess I shouldn't have used that word. "Different" might be a better word, but I still believe that the natural love that has the power to bring about new life and start a family unit, the most influential and powerful organizational unit in the world, is a kind of love unparalleled by any other.
In schools we see children who have all kinds of difficulties and those often tend to be children who don't have both a loving father and mother at home. My parents didn't have both of their parents at home and life was more difficult for them. Even if you do have both parents at home and they don't have true love for one another and for their children it doesn't work.
Now, I am positive that there are homosexual couples who have adopted children who have more love in their relationship and for their children that some heterosexuals, but I am not talking about that. I am talking about a mother and father who really love one another and their children and strive to gorw spiritually. I think that is an unrivaled organization and it is the way God designed it to be...it's apparent by our bodies and the fact that children inherintly want a mommy and a daddy.
thanks! but i had to laugh, you realize how many people would laugh if you told them im level headed! [:D] im not level headed. i have common sense, but i am carazey. (crazy w/ an accent) yup.
huggie! [:)]
the way god designed it to be? how do you know that? i dont believe he designed anything, i think he created life and let it take its own course. besides that how do you know there are only 2 genders in the whole universe i mean on the planet Zigzoom, there could be 3 or 4 genders you dont really know!
have you walked in my shoes yet, peaceful warrior!?!?
usually. im the exeption. but for me its no big deal. all my friends say their thoughts. i have a best friend who writes the most amazing stories.... her last name is sarmiento. if you see it in a bookstand somewhere, dont be surprised. [:)]
besides i talk alot. ever scince i was little id repeat myself over and over to make absolutely sure that this person knew exactly what i was talking about, so thered be no misunderstanding. must've been a real grump back then... [:)]
so, peaceful warrior, how's it feel to be gay?
"i think he created life and let it take its own course"
SpiritGurl- this take on life really helps me understand where you are coming from.
How do I know this is the way it is? I asked God. We can all tak to God, we just have to open our hearts and minds and He talks to us.
-----------------
Hey, thanks for all the comments everyone. I realize that I, like many others, have been getting a little worked up over this...but I am beginning to calm down a bit and realize that this is all positive.
First of all, Timeless, nothing you haave said has "enraged" me as you say...I just got a little upset with the way I was attacked by some of the others. I think it's really funny how people are judging me by saying I am too judgemental, I mean think about that for a second!
Now, someone asked, "Oh, ok...tell me where the gene is that makes a man like a woman and vice-versa?" What a question! I had to laugh...I mean, anyone who knows anything about X and Y chromosomes knows the answer to this one. Furthermore, and this isn't something I thought I would have to share with adults in here, but here it goes: a man is born with male sex organs and a woman with female ones. Men and women are inherintly different because their bodies are made to come together in unity to produce offspring.
Some of the real, underlying set of beliefs that I hold dear which make me believe that homosexuality is contrary to the plans and designs of God is this:
1) We all lived as spirits before we came here (in a state of duality, etc but I won't get into all of that)
2) We came "down" here to earth in order to a) obtain physical, mortal bodies b) to experience duality, ie. right/wrong, dark/light, good/evil, sweet/bitter, etc. etc. There are many lessons we are to learn here in life.
3) One of the most vital parts to this design is for more spirits to continue to come down and expereince mortality, like we are... By producing offspring (multiply and replenish the earth and all the fun stuff) more spirits can come down. I really believe that the negative spirits, those who chose not to recieve mortal bodies, "negs" or whatever you want to call them, are constantly trying to thwart this plan because the plan is to return back with the knowledge we gain in order to become more and more like God until we too are perfect.
Marriage and family, even eternal family units, are the center of the plan.
well? have you read anything i just said? go ahead. walk in my shoes. you said you weanted to, so do it. how's it feel, huh?
the bible says alot of things. the bible says that APs are basically sin. why is it okay to say somethings of the bible are wrong, but other things aren't?
I have to admit I skipped most of the thread but I still have to say a few words. NOW who's realy surprised?
My view of the bible is, while extremely selective due to it being translated by HUMANS for PARTICULAR times and particular PURPOSES quote simple.
According to the bible, Moses came down from the mountain witha selection of direct communications from god. Among these are "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself and god abo all else" (translation from the Finnish text by yours truly).
There are NO interpretation, non exceptions and no special cases. Simply put: Don't kill, aand love the people around you.
Anything and everything above that is there because of us people doing the copying and translating and teaching.
Common sense tells us to take care of the people around because there may (and in al likelihood will) be a time when we depend on them to take care of us.
So all this talk about people being heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual is just so much hot air and orinally meant to make someone feel good about themselves.
Basically it's useless to make the distinction. If the future of mankind was dependent upon us procreating inthe optimal manner things might be different but as it is we're f***ing up the world quite nicely with the current population.
To recap my views of the world: We are souls incarnate. Souls do not have gender as we know it so any reflection of that in the physical is an illusion just like almost everything else. Be what you are to the fullest and let others do the same and things are all cozy and warm.
2cents & L&L
jouni
quote:
Now, someone asked, "Oh, ok...tell me where the gene is that makes a man like a woman and vice-versa?" What a question! I had to laugh...I mean, anyone who knows anything about X and Y chromosomes knows the answer to this one. Furthermore, and this isn't something I thought I would have to share with adults in here, but here it goes: a man is born with male sex organs and a woman with female ones. Men and women are inherintly different because their bodies are made to come together in unity to produce offspring.
I realize you think you're very intelligent but if this was referring to my comment I thought it was obvious in the context what I was talking about.
I said "is it a gene that makes a man like a woman" meaning love.. meaning want to have sex with. I noticed he kept the comparasons to wanting to have sex with children or rub up against leather. I was curious why he didnt ask the obvoius comparason. Is it a gene that makes a man chose to be with a woman.
After i realized you were spouting dogma instead of thinking for yourself this conversation ended for me. I assumed were you using your own logic not spouting someone elses.
I dont discuss religious matters or things which are taught believed blindly.
I do find it interesting you started the topic with "hey me and my wife happened to be discussing homosexuality" this is obviously a cause and you snuck it in.
Good luck becoming a good christian and all that.
"Speak with reason, treat others with courtesy, move others with emotion, and act with result." -Ou Wen Wei
He also says to be kind and benevolent and also be frank and friendly to others around us.
That's all we need to know.
When you say or do something, ask yourself- Is it kind? Is it courteous? Is there a reason for it? Should it be acted upon?
Peaceful Warrior, have you read my question yet? I still do not feel it is answered. You seem to be dancing around it. I feel that Jilola is right. We are genderless in soul/spirit. That's how I see it, anyway. Maybe gay people are here to experience being gay for a reason. Perhaps in some way, some of them are more spiritually advanced, and are put forth to experience this in order to learn something extremely crucial. Remember that there is a reason for everything. There is NOTHING for no reason. Good luck in your quest.
No one can tell us the truth. We have to find it for ourselves. I think arguing about this is sort of pointless. Nobody can change my opinion and I cannot change the opinion of others. If that is why people are arguing, then it is pointless. Being gay is not wrong. This I KNOW to be true.
Hi
Hmm, should we bring up that XX male thing? There is such a thing, although I think it is rare. They can only produce girls and other XX males. Doesn't really have anything to do with homosexuality per se though, as what I read never mentioned any greater likelihood with them as compared to the general population.
How many heterosexuals do you know who describe waking up one morning and having to choose whether or not he was going to be attracted to members of the opposite sex? It just happened that way and was taken for granted that it would right?
It is hard for me to fathom how anyone could automatically find himself attracted to the opposite sex, then just decide to throw that out and change to being homosexually oriented (the old "you chose to be that way" thing). Yet that is so often implied as what happens, often by religio-political commentators, but often by others as well. That position is absurd. Maybe, just maybe, the attraction to the opposite sex isn't that automatic for everyone. Maybe it worked that way for the commentators and all their friends (that they know of), but maybe it didn't and doesn't work that way for everyone. So how could they possibly understand, since they can simply take the majority experience for granted, and have nothing like it in their own experience to compare it to?
A few commentators are at leasthonest enough to admit that they don't know what the cause is. Some will admit that nobody "chose" this orientation. They may then go on to say that it is still forbidden to act on it and that some people just have to suffer in life and that's just too bad for them. Rough maybe, but at least they're being honest with both the facts and their beliefs (sometimes they do add some comfort with that, such as how God will reward them later for suffering cheerfully, or something along that line).
On another note, if it is said that some people come to this earth patently unable to reproduce, and it is argued that "in their case" their purpose is for whatever reason different than reproducing more children, then it seems a similar argument could at least be possible to make for orientation issues as well, one size already not fitting all.
PeacefulWarrior, maybe you'd be better off by this point simply to say that a book that you put faith in to your dying breath says that it is forbidden, and that is that. In the end, you most likely consider no other reason to be necessary anyway. We all know you have a right to hue to it. But your other arguments separate from that seem to be going the way of the one alluded to above.
Plus you're obviously not reading anyone's posts. Just skimming through and picking up things here and there.
If you ever get to the point you can think for yourself you might reconsider all this.
I guess the main idea some of you are getting across is that if I don't believe homosexuality is ok then I am 1) An insincere and judgemental person and 2) I don't really understand love and sprituality.
I, on the other hand, allow you to disagree and don't think: 1) that you are evil 2) that you are going to hell and 3) that homosexuals are evil, sick people
---------------
Ender: Hey. Ok, I'll try to answer your question here, I am sorry if I didn't get to it: "We are genderless in soul/spirit" you said. Well, I believe that our spirits reflect who were are in the flesh, and therefore I believe in gendered beings. I am a believer in duality-opposition in all things. Light/dark, etc etc. I think the universe is one huge ying yang...that's a very simple and gross way of explaining something that's, well, uh, HUGE to say the least. Therefore, I believe in male and female. Is it always this cut and dry in this mortal life, no...and that's what this thread is all about. Are you evil if you are not attracted to a man if you are a woman? NO. But I do think that things were designed for a particular prupose...
GoingSlow wrote "After i realized you were spouting dogma instead of thinking for yourself this conversation ended for me. I assumed were you using your own logic not spouting someone elses."
Well, I don't know why you are so sure that I am not thinking for myself. You seem to know exactly what I am thinking and exactly how I feel. Can you tell me how to do this???? For what it's worth to you, I have given this topic a lot of thought, in fact I really am not someone who blindly accepts things. I know it is very difficult to really get to know someone in forums like this, but those people who know me well probably get a little perturbed by the fact that I analyze everything and study it out in my mind and my heart before I come to conclusions. I didn't just wake up one day and decide, "Oh, I am going to believe _____ because _____ said it!"
You also wrote:
"Plus you're obviously not reading anyone's posts. Just skimming through and picking up things here and there."
Talk about judging people?[V] How would you know what I am reading or not? I have tried to read everyone's ideas. If I havent' responded in the way you like to every idea, I am sorry...but some things I really don't feel like responding too for a number of reasons.'
Finally, you said that as far as your concerned "this conversation is over", I am sorry you feel that way...so frustrated and upset, please don't! I don't want to anger you or make you made. It's about understanding one another, isn't that what you are trying to get me to do?
I also don't know why everyone keeps bringing up the Bible so much. Yes, I believe the Bible is a revealed work, but I also believe that it has been translated badly and in fact contains some huge errors, some of which came about because of mistakes and other things were twisted on purpose by indivuals who wanted to use it to control others...and in fact the book, in my opinion, is still used to control others for evil or otherwise negative ways.
Everything I have said I believe not because I was told, but because it makes sense to me logically and in my spirit.
I also love everyone, even the jerk who cut me off in my car today![:D]
I don't care if you are gay or not. In fact I don't even think about the issue a whole lot unless I see people forcing it down other people's throats, and last quarter in one of my classes I did have that happen. I don't go around forcing my opinions down other peoples throats...you know?
Anyway, I think this conversation is great. I really hope those of you who adamantly oppose the way I feel about this issue won't diregard everything I say in the future![;)]
Thanks for answering my question. I felt quite ignored on this topic in general. I hope you don't feel that I have forced my opinion down your throat (or tried to). I understand how you feel about the gendered beings. However I had a dream I was a girl once, which makes me wonder. It was weird. I wonder if being out of the body will prove whether we are gendered or not. I have yet to experience it though I seem to be developing second sight.
Hi
I don't see a problem with letting norms you were raised with go into your writing as well. It is a part of who you are. I haven't been convinced by a lot of the arguments, but that is another thing.
It is hard to be dispassionate about a subject like this, especially when it has a big impact on one's own life.
It is also a lightening rod for others too though. Just look at any of the usenet forums with the word "Christian" in them and you will see that. Very little else gets the kind of response in those forums than the subject of "homosexuals" or "gays" will get. It's like a big bandwagon. It became a hot one here too, but it has been mostly the same few people going back and forth since after the first several.
I think it's a collective consciousness thing. The greater number of people who touch it or are touched by itjust keep adding more and more energy to it, and it keeps getting discharged in various, often destructive ways. That's one reason why I think that if the gay activists were wise they would force themselves to be a little more dispassionate, which might change the mode of some of their activity. Likewise those who disapprove of it. Maybe then both might meet some liveable truce in the matter.
Strong emotion usually has the qualities of NOT being high on reasoning but being VERY high in energy; and "stuff" is affected by it. Uncontrolled (or controlled by the wrong hands)it can be a dangerous combination.
I wish well for all in the endeavor of getting a handle on that. It is difficult.
Become dispassionate or pretend to. Im sure if most of us are just arguing an intellectual point its easy to say that. If homophobia wasn't something we are all born into I could even agree. It almost sounds like if they're quiet and very calmly try to justify themselves you think they'd be better off.
I think the time has come where Homosexuals should not need to justify their love and choice whenever they're faced with the hatred and dislike of their lifestyle.
I found the tone amusing of that person PW put up. He though by being passive agressive, pretend to apologize and be empathetic people have no right to be offended.
When i think of the extremes of homophobia I think of matthew shepherd. Kids in my very highschool who got beat for acting effeminite and teachers telling them they need to stop acting that way. Tell a person who has lived with that all their life they should remain dispassionate.. try to state their case and hope someday all these religious zealots will accept them.
I don't think a heterosexual person who likes discussing this on an intellectual level should tell homosexuals how htey should be handling all the people who hate them.
I dont understand the brand of love which says "i love everyone" its so christian but its based on only saying you love someone. I love you and its out of my love I am able to tell you what you need to change. I love people I really love I dont throw that word around. I find people who say they love everyone the most often have a really shallow meaning of love. They mean its their christian duty to love but actually feeling love and saying "i love you" are two very different things.
Earlier I was saying that I was taught in school that the categories of sexuality are not absolute, but more like percentages on a single scale. This seems to be correct to me and it avoids placing people into absolute categories. Whether the absolute categories based on sexuality and gender are real or not, though, I want to change directions in thinking.
Suppose I choose to examine my sexuality and gender, reaching a definite conclusion. How should that conclusion affect my interactions with most of the people in my life? And does it affect anything not involving other people?
Any thoughts on complete lack of sexuality and / or gender?
peaceful warrior, answer my question. HAVE YOU WALKED IN MY SHOES YET? HOW DOES IT FEEL?
"Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes, that way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes." that's the way I look at it! JK[:)]
Well, if the answer to that question is so paramount then answer the same question yourself: Have you walked in my shoes? How does it feel?
I really don't understand that. I mean, I know what you are trying to say: don't criticize until you know excatly how I feel. Well, I am not criticizing you. I'm really not, I am sharing my opinion. Period.
By an absence of sexuality I mean for physical or emotional or both types of reasons, it never developed. Low hormone levels or physical damage. Maybe something genetic. No sexuality early in life and no puberty. However it can happen that does not matter. What sorts of consequences do you think there would be from an absence of any type of sexuality?
nothing much. still live a normal life, just wont wanna have sex w/ anyone. no big whoop.
I think a lack of sexual desire would be cool to have. It would solve many man-woman relationship problems.
You know the old saying- men are from Mars, women are from Venus. Well I think homosexuals have an advantage here. They don't have to worry about what it's like to be the opposite sex. Their partner is the same sex as them so they already know what it's like to be the sex of their partner. There are not so many misinterpretations and such.
Either way, sometimes I wish I didn't have a sex drive. It would enable me to get along better with the opposite sex because I wouldn't be worried about screwing up a possible intimate relationship. I don't even have a desire for one right now. But still, it seems whenever I'm attracted to a woman she is harder for me to talk to. Maybe I'm attracted to the wrong type of people.
quote:
Originally posted by goingslow
Become dispassionate or pretend to. Im sure if most of us are just arguing an intellectual point its easy to say that. If homophobia wasn't something we are all born into I could even agree. It almost sounds like if they're quiet and very calmly try to justify themselves you think they'd be better off.
I think the time has come where Homosexuals should not need to justify their love and choice whenever they're faced with the hatred and dislike of their lifestyle.
I found the tone amusing of that person PW put up. He though by being passive agressive, pretend to apologize and be empathetic people have no right to be offended.
When i think of the extremes of homophobia I think of matthew shepherd. Kids in my very highschool who got beat for acting effeminite and teachers telling them they need to stop acting that way. Tell a person who has lived with that all their life they should remain dispassionate.. try to state their case and hope someday all these religious zealots will accept them.
I don't think a heterosexual person who likes discussing this on an intellectual level should tell homosexuals how htey should be handling all the people who hate them.
I dont understand the brand of love which says "i love everyone" its so christian but its based on only saying you love someone. I love you and its out of my love I am able to tell you what you need to change. I love people I really love I dont throw that word around. I find people who say they love everyone the most often have a really shallow meaning of love. They mean its their christian duty to love but actually feeling love and saying "i love you" are two very different things.
Who said anything about need to justify anything? Please don't put words in my mouth.
I was speaking from the point of view of consciousness, the collective consciousness, and how the kind and amounts of energy we put into that system affect things, sometimes in unintended ways.
Don't mistake what I said for a bunch of moralistic musts and shoulds. It isn't about what people have a right to do. It is about what I think might be wiser from the standpoint of the above.
As an example for the need for emotional control, an everyday, not especially "ethereal" one: I'm sure we've all been in situations where even we had a right to express great anger for wrong that somebody has done to us, but have realized that if we start screaming and hollering and carrying on, then those we hope to seek recourse from will just think we're nuts, and that WE are the problem, not the one who did the wrong. Who hasn't learned a lesson like that right in the midst of the peer groups we grew up with?
Now yes, we make our complaint, honestly and with SOME emotion, but it is emotion measured with care. (Timing is often a part of it too, sometimes we jump on it right away, other times we wait.) If the one who wronged us wants to play more games, he or she will try to push our buttons and get the unbridled emotion out of us (Why would he do that? Because it seems to be to his advantage perhaps? Because he knows it will make us look bad in front of the rest?) Now, we had the RIGHT to be hopping mad and show it, but we knew that wisdom was better expressed in another way.
Whenever we've failed to do what I just described, how often have things turned out well? Not often in my own sometimes bitter experience.
Lest you miss this point: YES, emotional control is very DIFFICULT. But that doesn't mean that it isn't wise.
Another thing that I should mention, as I may have seemed to imply the wrong thing, is that I am not advocating having no passion in things, just control of that passion, and I apologise if I gave the wrong idea there.
What makes you so sure that I'm heterosexually inclined? Maybe I've just been coy up until now. After all, whose business is it which I am?
I know this is a touchy subject, at least for some, but I think it needs to be discussed, especially at a time when many things are being questioned by society and the world at large.
Last week, my wife and I were discussing homosexuality. As a nurse she is required to take a number of gender courses and therefore has heard a lot of different opinions, both scientific and religous, regarding homosexuality. I myself know a number of gay people, almost all of whom I respect.
Today while I was walking on campus I was thinking about the various topics which have been discussed in this forum and realized that gender, and specifically homosexuality, has not been discussed...at least not that I am aware of.
I wonder what you, my friends, think about this.
I don't want to share my thoughts and opinions quite yet, but I do want to pose some questions:
[?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?]
1. How do you feel about homosexuality in general? Do you think homosexuality is wrong?
2. If not, do you think gays need to adavnce their agenda?
3. Do you know anyone who is gay (the chances are high that you do).
4. Spiritually and naturally, how does it fit in?
5. Are people born gay?
6. Can gay people change?
7. How is sexual abuse tied into homosexuality (or is it??)
[?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?]
I hope this discussion can be informative and respectful. I, myself, have strong opinions about this topic as well as some unanswered questions, so I hope to learn more about homosexuality.
-Dan