I fully support this, but as an experiment, it would be interesting to post this on the christian forum and sit back for the reaction:
Sometimes shocking, sometimes enlightening, always entertaining.
Douglas
Maybe you're right, but all Christians who do not support human rights, regardless of sexual preference, give the rest of us a bad name!
Salvete!
I am neutral.
BUT I don't think that gays and lesbies should get rights to help them and my reason is very simple. No matter what way universe was created, it WAS created, and man and woman were created. They were created with a reason. God(or whatever way you call the higher power) created man and woman. He could have created man and man/woman and woman, but didn't. So when you step against this simple man-woman connection, you step against the order of universe. There are always exceptions etc, people have to be allowed to be free and all that is right, but if this "giving rights" continues as it does at the moment, I think that the universal powers will get messed up and that will not mean anything good.
May shadows reach the light,
Gwathren
quote:
as an experiment, it would be interesting to post this on the christian forum and sit back for the reaction
Add an Islamic forum to that experiment...
And personaly, I don't care about people's sexual orientation; so they can do whatever they want... BUT, if you involve having and raising kids... That's another story.
I think it's okay for gays to get married. It might be a good idea to add a figure of the opposite sex to the child's life though, if the couple is raising children. I think it is important that the child has at least one person from each sex that they can talk to intimately (get your mind outta the gutter, that's not what I meant [|)]). I think someone should do a study, if they haven't already, of how a child turns out if they only have members from one sex that they are close with. There are many heterosexual married couples whose children favor one parent over the other, or one leaves and the child ends up being raised by a single parent. I think the main thing to worry about is that the child must have at least one parental figure or role model that they are close with.
quote:
Originally posted by EnderWiggin
I think it's okay for gays to get married. It might be a good idea to add a figure of the opposite sex to the child's life though, if the couple is raising children. I think it is important that the child has at least one person from each sex that they can talk to intimately (get your mind outta the gutter, that's not what I meant [|)]). I think someone should do a study, if they haven't already, of how a child turns out if they only have members from one sex that they are close with. There are many heterosexual married couples whose children favor one parent over the other, or one leaves and the child ends up being raised by a single parent. I think the main thing to worry about is that the child must have at least one parental figure or role model that they are close with.
Exactly. Balance is needed, I am quite sure that when a man and a woman bring up a kid togeather, he/she will be normal, but two daddy's or two mummy's have a great potential two have a bad effect, specially in the early stages. That's rough psychology..
I am actually surprised that this post has not been deleted. Maybe this is a good example of "reverse bigotry", if there is any such thing. Woe to the Christian or Muslim that would post fx. a request for support for reinstatement prayer in public school, anti abortion or what have you, or any other "unpopular" cause. They would be reprimanded , would they not?
This post is in my opinion off subject and not part of the tenents of the AP......yet becourse of the humanistic or new age orientation (read : pro gay/lesbian rights) of most people posting, as well as possibly the moderators.......it is still here.
Now THIS I find interesting, and worthy of a debate!
Yours
Mustardseed
Hardly, Mustardseed!
Its just a point of view, which people are free to disagree with, and do!
Anyhow, I'm sure that many christians would admit that they dont agree with the sentiment behind this declaration; others don't mind, but the ensuing vitriolic debate is exactly what makes it interesting and indeed entertaining for those of us outside of the christian community (or the islamic one for that matter).
Douglas
quote:
This post is in my opinion off subject
Welcome to Astral Chat!
Astral Chat is for members to chat about things generally, and to get to know each other.
Almost any subject is permissible, provided always that usual forum and Internet protocols, ethics and netiquette are strictly observed. enjoy!
Thankyou for your welcome Nag . Just in case you have not noticed it I have been here for a while[;)]. In case you were being sarcastic disregard this thankyou.
Hi Douglas That VITRIOLIC word threw me off a bit, (maybe I suffer from Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia )[:P], man you are good with fancy words. I have no problem with the subject as such. I believe that gay lesbian rights are a debatable subject, but more of a political nature. My point is that there has been a change in the way we APers accept posts that has very little to do with Astral projection. This in itself is not bad, but I also have a idea that popular opinion or opinion of the moderators decide which political, or humanistic interest groups are acceptable, and certainly who is not.
Maybe I should set up a few threads, to illustrate my point. How about a thread soliciting votes for the republicans or democrats. A vote for the albanian minority in kosovo or maybe a link to al Jazera and the militant muslims. All these are causes that a % of people in the world seek support for, however I do not find soliciting votes signatures and support within the foundation of the AP.
Do you.?
I would like to have a debate about the subject as well as the ones above. That might be a positive and helpful idea but soliciting signatures for a political or humanistic cause seems to be misplaced.
Now I am pretty sure you will both stick to your guns and come up with all sorts of clever and maybe sarcastic points or whatever, but if you would take my advice you should both admit that I have a point.[:)]
Yours Mustardseed
quote:
Thankyou for your welcome Nag . Just in case you have not noticed it I have been here for a while. In case you were being sarcastic disregard this thankyou.
I was not sarcastic; I was just reminding you that the "Astral Chat" forum can be used (from its description) to chat about almost anything... There are plenty of other forums dedicated to AP on AstralPulse.
Yeah. Everyone must have the possibility to state his/hers opinion. It's the right of every human being. Of course your opinion is wrong, but...
[:D]OK
Everyone's opinion is right, and if you are allowed to talk about masturbation, you are also allowed to speak about gays and lesbies.
So, what about poilitics? Anyone wants to discuss poilitics?
Anyone?
OK that would get boring, I'm afraid. Because the actual point of astral pulse is the astral, right?
I usually keep my mouth shut when it comes to politics and such, I like my head were it is and do not need it ripped off..[:P]
I did find a few links concerning raising of children by gay parents here's a couple of them
http://archive.aclu.org/issues/gay/parent.html
http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2004-03-09-gay-parents_x.htm
I say go ahead get married, then pay for a divorce like the rest of us if it doesn't work out..[;)]
I am a bit confused by you, Mustardseed...are you against or for it? I don't understand when people judge others because of their sexual prefrences...really I just don't get it. [:(]
Nay
Who said anything about judging anyone. ??? Not me. All I said was that I find it inapropriate to use the AP to solicit signatures (as well as votes, or anything else) for ANY cause. In my understanding this is not a forum for lobbying for political or humanistic causes.
Regards Mustardseed
If you don't go get the people where they are (to sign a petition or whatever); there's not much chance that they will come to you...
It's the same problem as with advertising. As much as I hate advertisment, I understand that the only way to make people aware of your product is to reach them wherever they are... Otherwise, how would they know about it?
Hi Gwathren, I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. I am actually for gay and lesbian marriage. I was simply pointing out that it might be worth trying to add an important figure of the other sex to the child's life. Remember, there are many kids out there with only one parent, so who is to say that the child will turn out screwed up? Had my mother not remarried, I would not have a father in my life. I am not too close at all with my stepfather as it is, but I think I turned out alright, as do most people around me.
Did you know that many homosexuals actually have a part of their brain that is the opposite sex? That's right, brains can be male or female. Not all homosexuals have this biological anomaly, but many do.
Anyway, I see no harm in the marriage of homosexual couples.
quote:
Originally posted by EnderWiggin
Hi Gwathren, I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. I am actually for gay and lesbian marriage. I was simply pointing out that it might be worth trying to add an important figure of the other sex to the child's life. Remember, there are many kids out there with only one parent, so who is to say that the child will turn out screwed up? Had my mother not remarried, I would not have a father in my life. I am not too close at all with my stepfather as it is, but I think I turned out alright, as do most people around me.
Did you know that many homosexuals actually have a part of their brain that is the opposite sex? That's right, brains can be male or female. Not all homosexuals have this biological anomaly, but many do.
Anyway, I see no harm in the marriage of homosexual couples.
Homosexuality has existed for a long time. We all know the stuff about anicent greece and the sick games of some of the roman caesars, but then they were all also married to women. If men keep marrying men and women marry women, where will we finally end up?
I would actually add, that this very thing – homosexuality might eventually cause the end of human rule on Earth. That might become the "end of days".
So let me get this right. Does that mean you have no problem with people advertising on the AP, for say physic readings, selling crystals healing etc. Or is your allowence merely for humanistic causes.
In my opinion you are grasping for straws instead of just admitting that soliciting signatures for various causes, in these forums are is at best "iffy", at worst........opportunistic or worse.
Regards Mustardseed
I would actually add, that this very thing – homosexuality might eventually cause the end of human rule on Earth. That might become the "end of days
Oh, get real!
Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time, and always will continue to be a feature of human life.
Has it ever threatened the survival of the human race? No.
This is because the gay/bisexual percentage in any given population is always tiny. Every wondered why they are called a 'minority' group?
The vast majority of the population is and always has been heterosexual and the heterosexual biological drive to reproduce is so strong as to be unstoppable.
In fact, the problems in the world today and in the years to come are due to *overpopulation*, not because of a lack of it.
Gays can never 'threaten' the continuation of humanity like some extremists argue, since it will always be the case that the vast majority of the population will be heterosexual.
For those stupid enough to say otherwise, I say look at the whole of human history up until this point, (and the animal kingdom, where 'gayness' occurs from time to time).
Has humanity at any point in history ever been threatened by 'gayness'?
Of course not, despite the fact there have always been gay people.
What about classical Greece? They accepted and practiced homosexual relationships *alongside* heterosexual ones; Classial Greece was aguably one of the greatest civilisations in the world and has gone on to become the foundation of modern western civilisation.
Secondly, the main problem seems to be with the monotheistic religions, who have decided for us that 'god' is angered by those who engage in sexual conduct which is 'other than biologically intended'.
However, if we accept the premise that this god character exists, the above notion is nothing more than an assumption. As I said, history has proved that gays are only ever a minority of any population they can NEVER directly threaten its survival; the biological balance is tipped WAY in favour of the vast majority of people being straight.
Since this god knows that gays can never make any slightest difference to population variance, it could well be the case that he doesn't mind one way or the other, as the whole system works to max efficiency anyway; in fact at present it is actually a bit too efficient. Also, since with many gay people, their chromosomes dictate their sexual preference, why should god punish them for a fault in the biological system he created?
I think in reality, people are free to be whatever sexual orientation they want; and since the basic biological forces and attractions will always reign supreme, the vast majority of the population will always be straight, they have no choice, their chromosomes dictate it, just as gays' do. As for the tinier minority still, who swing both ways, they can do what they like.
This basic setup has operated throughout history and will continue to do so. The only difference is that the gay minority now makes its voice heard; this is in line with the general policy of recognition for all minorities and should be welcomed as part of a healthy modern society.
Unfortunately, some people's minds have not caught up yet, and are unlikely to do so in the future. However, they themselves are also becoming a minority grouping and as such, have the freedom to voice their concerns.
Regards,
Douglas
quote:
Originally posted by Gandalf
I would actually add, that this very thing – homosexuality might eventually cause the end of human rule on Earth. That might become the "end of days
Oh, get real!
Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time, and always will continue to be a feature of human life.
Has it ever threatened the survival of the human race? No.
This is because the gay/bisexual percentage in any given population is always tiny. Every wondered why they are called a 'minority' group?
The vast majority of the population is and always has been heterosexual and the heterosexual biological drive to reproduce is so strong as to be unstoppable.
In fact, the problems in the world today and in the years to come are due to *overpopulation*, not because of a lack of it.
Gays can never 'threaten' the continuation of humanity like some extremists argue, since it will always be the case that the vast majority of the population will be heterosexual.
For those stupid enough to say otherwise, I say look at the whole of human history up until this point, (and the animal kingdom, where 'gayness' occurs from time to time).
Has humanity at any point in history ever been threatened by 'gayness'?
Of course not, despite the fact there have always been gay people.
What about classical Greece? They accepted and practiced homosexual relationships *alongside* heterosexual ones; Classial Greece was aguably one of the greatest civilisations in the world and has gone on to become the foundation of modern western civilisation.
Secondly, the main problem seems to be with the monotheistic religions, who have decided for us that 'god' is angered by those who engage in sexual conduct which is 'other than biologically intended'.
However, if we accept the premise that this god character exists, the above notion is nothing more than an assumption. As I said, history has proved that gays are only ever a minority of any population they can NEVER directly threaten its survival; the biological balance is tipped WAY in favour of the vast majority of people being straight.
Since this god knows that gays can never make any slightest difference to population variance, it could well be the case that he doesn't mind one way or the other, as the whole system works to max efficiency anyway; in fact at present it is actually a bit too efficient. Also, since with many gay people, their chromosomes dictate their sexual preference, why should god punish them for a fault in the biological system he created?
I think in reality, people are free to be whatever sexual orientation they want; and since the basic biological forces and attractions will always reign supreme, the vast majority of the population will always be straight, they have no choice, their chromosomes dictate it, just as gays' do. As for the tinier minority still, who swing both ways, they can do what they like.
This basic setup has operated throughout history and will continue to do so. The only difference is that the gay minority now makes its voice heard; this is in line with the general policy of recognition for all minorities and should be welcomed as part of a healthy modern society.
Unfortunately, some people's minds have not caught up yet, and are unlikely to do so in the future. However, they themselves are also becoming a minority grouping and as such, have the freedom to voice their concerns.
Regards,
Douglas
Salvete Douglas,
I am talking about gay and lesbain marriages and I hope you are doing the same very thing when arguing with me. I have nothing against gays and lesbies (they existed in ancient greece). BUT in ancient Greece they were not married. Men were married with women and gave birth to children. Men were gays ALSO, by the side of being married to women. They f**ked both. (Sorry for the expression, but I wanted to keep it short, again). Today gays and lesbies want to get married with those of their sex. That's what I don't like. Marriage is a holy union made by a man and a woman that form an entirety. This must not be broken.
May shadows reach the light,
Gwathren
Keep it even shorter by using my asterisk friends..[;)] Thanks..Nay
quote:
So let me get this right. Does that mean you have no problem with people advertising on the AP, for say physic readings, selling crystals healing etc. Or is your allowence merely for humanistic causes.
In my opinion you are grasping for straws instead of just admitting that soliciting signatures for various causes, in these forums are is at best "iffy", at worst........opportunistic or worse.
From my point of view, there is a difference between activism and commercial advertising... My comparison was only about the "reaching the people" aspect. If for you it's the same, there's nothing I can do about it...
I just signed[:)]
I'm considered to be christian in my own way and I support gay rights - as God has made one person in that way there must have some reason for that[:)] And I don't approve any kind of discrimination - still inspite of our colour, sex, sexual preferences and mony state, we're equal in our essence[:)]
I hope that petition will have success, good for you, GhostRider[:)]
Gwathren_
I know you were originally talking about marriages, but then your comments angled towards general hysterical comments about homosexuals 'ending life on earth', and these ridiculous comments needed countering.
That's what I don't like. Marriage is a holy union made by a man and a woman that form an entirety. This must not be broken.
This is the argument which i find unconvincing, for the reasons given in my post about assumptions that 'god gets angry when people engage in sexual conduct other than biologically intended'.
This is often used to attack gay marriages as there is a view that only heterosexual marriages are sanctioned by god, for the above reason.
In fact, this is just an assumption.
Of course christians like yourself are perfectly free to express your beliefs on this matter, as are jews or muslims, and if you feel that marriages are holy ceremonies sanctioned by god and only applying to straight couples then it is fine for you to apply this to members of your own religious community.
However, for the rest of us who do not follow these doctrines, we shouldnt be dictated to by people using religious arguments. I don't give any credance to your justification above that marriages are 'holy unions'. In my view they are social unions, which some people reinforce through religion.
Douglas
quote:
Originally posted by Gandalf
Of course christians like yourself are perfectly free to express your beliefs on this matter, as are jews or muslims, and if you feel that marriages are holy ceremonies sanctioned by god and only applying to straight couples then it is fine for you to apply this to members of your own religious community.
Gandalf (by the way you are my favourite character in "the lord of the rings"),
I am not a christian[:D]
I simply think that marriage is more than a social thing. You don't have to get married to have a relationship. But I leave you be, I'm afraid our beliefs here are too different.
Peace to you,
Gwathren
Edit: By the way I read your profile, that you know about antique, do you agree that the position of gays and lesbies in the antique is not comparable to their situation at this time?
Gwathren_
Yes, I too accept that homosexuality in the classical period cannot be directly compared to homosexuality in today's world. I was just pointing out that homosexuality played a role in Classical Greek society.
We have to remember that the Classical era is too wide an area to apply one definition in any case.
For example, with regards to Greece: In Athens it was acceptable for an adult man to engage in sexual relations with a boy (ages 12-18 approx); this was viewed as a vital part of a youth's education.
However, sex between two adult men was viewed as perverse!!!
In Sparta however, sex between two adult men was accepted.
However, with all these case, we are talking about the customs of the upper classes, and it is likely the case that these customs were not generally shared by the common people.
In Rome, contrary to popular belief, homosexuality was actually frowned upon, although, again in the upper classes it did tend to go on in private; however it was seen as contrary to traditional Roman values and a feature of 'Greekness'.
For example, archaeological evidence from a region where Antony was laying siege to one of Octavian's (later Augustus) strongholds, catapult shot has been recovered which has graffiti inscribed upon it with insults which refer to Octavian as a gay f***!!! Clearly, to be accused of such leanings was not exactly a compliment!
Regards,
Douglas
quote:
Originally posted by Gandalf
Gwathren_
Yes, I too accept that homosexuality in the classical period cannot be directly compared to homosexuality in today's world. I was just pointing out that homosexuality played a role in Classical Greek society.
We have to remember that the Classical era is too wide an area to apply one definition in any case.
For example, with regards to Greece: In Athens it was acceptable for an adult man to engage in sexual relations with a boy (ages 12-18 approx); this was viewed as a vital part of a youth's education.
However, sex between two adult men was viewed as perverse!!!
In Sparta however, sex between two adult men was accepted.
However, with all these case, we are talking about the customs of the upper classes, and it is likely the case that these customs were not generally shared by the common people.
In Rome, contrary to popular belief, homosexuality was actually frowned upon, although, again in the upper classes it did tend to go on in private; however it was seen as contrary to traditional Roman values and a feature of 'Greekness'.
For example, archaeological evidence from a region where Antony was laying siege to one of Octavian's (later Augustus) strongholds, catapult shot has been recovered which has graffiti inscribed upon it with insults which refer to Octavian as a gay f***!!! Clearly, to be accused of such leanings was not exactly a compliment!
Regards,
Douglas
...but all these men were MARRIED to women.
That's the very thing I was trying to say.
[:)]
God Bless all of you who support equal rights for everyone.
[:)][:D][8D][:X][8)][:)][:D][8D][8)][:)][:D]
Gwathren_
What paint have you been sniffing?
What I say here wasnt intended as an argument against your earlier statement, it was just a comment about homosexuality in the ancient world in general.
As for your earlier comments, I would still like to see your evidence for how homosexuality may 'threaten the future of humanity'.
I say again, that the percentage of gay/bisexual population in ANY given society: Classical, Masai tribesman, modern western, whatever, (never mind whether they have straight relationships also) has always been, is and always will be *tiny* compared to the vast majority of the heterosexual population.
If you can show me any human society past or present in the entire history of humanity that shows otherwise, then I'd like to see your evidence; otherwise, please refrain from making hysterical comments about how gays may 'threaten humanity' and 'form a part of the end times'. Such extremism only fuels more prejudice.
Douglas
i have no real problem with gays, as long as they dont hit on me. at that point, i go someplace else. i have an uncle who is gay, anf is married to a man, and they have a child....... that kid is gonna be messed up
quote:
Originally posted by Gandalf
Gwathren_
What paint have you been sniffing?
What I say here wasnt intended as an argument against your earlier statement, it was just a comment about homosexuality in the ancient world in general.
As for your earlier comments, I would still like to see your evidence for how homosexuality may 'threaten the future of humanity'.
I say again, that the percentage of gay/bisexual population in ANY given society: Classical, Masai tribesman, modern western, whatever, (never mind whether they have straight relationships also) has always been, is and always will be *tiny* compared to the vast majority of the heterosexual population.
If you can show me any human society past or present in the entire history of humanity that shows otherwise, then I'd like to see your evidence; otherwise, please refrain from making hysterical comments about how gays may 'threaten humanity' and 'form a part of the end times'. Such extremism only fuels more prejudice.
Douglas
I don't sniff paint, Douglas
(whatever that means)
I don't say that tomorrow gays will make Earth explode. It's just that NEVER had they had the right to get married to each other. I KNOW that you talked about ancient times, so did I. I'll repeat: yes of course gays and lesbies have existed for a long time, but THEY HAVE NEVER HAD THE RIGHT TO MARRY.
That was my point. I would like them not to have that right either. They might be the end of the world -- if they become a normal thing, then more and more people may become not heterosexual. They have existed what? 8000 years? The end of the world might be I don't know like umm... after millions of years? I'm talking about evolution here, Douglas. I am not an idiot, so don't take me as one. These are processes that take a long time. Have you observed the changes that take place during millions of years? Has any "tiny minority" of a species ever tried to be not heterosexual, for example do you imagine gay-dinosaurs?
That's weird isn't it? But remember, human is only an animal with brains.
Gwathren
How come Mariage is sooo important for some people...? Personaly, it does not mean anything to me... It's just a human invention to try to force the couple to stay together. So, you can give monkeys or aliens the right to marry, I would not care at all! [:D]
And, seeing the number of divorces... mariage became useless a long time ago.
Gwathren_
So you actually believe that by sanctioning gay marriages, this will encourage so many people to 'become gay' that it will actually threaten the future of humanity?
How exactly does gay marriages encourage homosexual practice *to the extent* that it would actually threaten heterosexual reproduction and future of humanity?
Yes, it might encourage a small amount of people who already have bisexual tendancies, but once again, since the bisexual/homosexual percentage of the population is so small, this cannot have any significance for everyone else; such people will decide to have gay relationships and feelings in any case, and the new right to get married makes not a jot of difference.
If on the otherhand, you are not gay/bi, its not going to have any effect on you, apart from your own prejudices.
I would still like to see a good argument to back up your hysterical claim that gay relationships and gay marriage in particular will cause 'gayness' to threaten humanity. You havent shown any so far, apart from some wild kneejerk apocalyptic rants of biblical proportions.
With regards to your comments about 'gay animals', actually animal species on occasion display gay tendancies from time to time. However, as with humans, they are a small proportion of the total species, and make not a jot of difference to the fortunes of the species as a whole, they are not a problem and nobody is particularly concerned.
Your argument rests on the idea that some humans may be 'persuaded' to 'become gay', even when they are not.
However, the latest scientific evidence points towards a real genetic difference between gay and staight people, their chromosones are different.
As for those 'straight' people who are open to 'persuasion', the liklihood is that they too have this chromosone difference but have suppressed it for social reasons. These people might be encouraged to come out a bit more if gay marriages were sanctioned, and I can tell you now, such people would be far happier to acnowledge their own true identities.
Even so, those people we are talking about are still a *small* proportion of the population and the idea that somehow the majority of the heterosexual population are going to 'turn gay' is ridiculous and utter fantasy; all that is being displayed is a hysterical kneejerk reaction to your inbuilt conservative prejudices, which you feel are under attack from the prospect of gay marriages.
Douglas
could you guys please stop arguing? neither side will ever win
quote:
Originally posted by Gandalf
I would still like to see a good argument to back up your hysterical claim that gay relationships and gay marriage in particular will cause 'gayness' to threaten humanity. You havent shown any so far, apart from some wild kneejerk apocalyptic rants of biblical proportions.
Thank you for that, Gandalf,
You got me wrong. I don't try to say that straight people will be convinced to become gay. I'm saying that if we give gays so many rights, they will be taken as a normal thing which I don't like. Marriages are a way too big thing to let them have. Men should play their role and women theirs. You have not understood what I'm trying to say when I'm talking about EVOLUTION. This might be because english is not my native language and I'm still learning it, but maybe because you don't want to see what I'm getting at.
This is my last comment at this topic. I'm saying that the cause of human's downfall might be human itself. And the reason of that is forgetting what we really are(and not only being lesbies and gays).
I would actually add, that this very thing – homosexuality might eventually cause the end of human rule on EarthI haven't seen this from a glass-ball. It's just a theory.
I have nothing against gays and lesbies, but I personally don't imagine sitting by the side of my wife at a party around the table with 5 more happy couples and one couple is formed by two men..
It's just not right.
That was my opinion. Accept it as I have accepted yours and don't think that you know what future will bring to the human race.
Mine was just a theory. It's a bit ridiculous, but I don't think that 2004 years ago anyone imagined what human can do now.
Now, with best regards let us stop this arguing. Maybe I can find a way to express myself better and I'll pm you.
But Gandalf,
I never say something hysterical,
I have my view of things and you have yours,
Don't say I'm wrong
That's all,
May shadows reach the light,
Gwathren
What Gawathren is saying is very simple.The accepted concept of marriage is set.To allow a different set of standards will cause the purpose and function of the traditional marriage concept or idea to be muddled or weakened.
Another name other than marriage can and may be given to gay couples.Why is there such a demand for the name "marriage"? Legal purposes, of course.
There's a lot of names,words,and phrases out there for coupling or partnerships. Is this a challenge or attempt to destroy? It sure is beginning to appear that way! I hadn't realized it until reading this thread.
Political correctness shortcuts at the expense of the majority is a cheap trick! Why can't gay couples do it like everyone else in the political and legal arenas, or are they exempt from having to take the same routes everyone else has to (no pun intended)? It's an easy path to attach oneself to the concept of marriage. In this situation I highly suspect inheritance rights and other such things. It sounds like money gain,and legal and political maneuvering is behind all this. If so, it's bound to fail (universal law and all).
Special interest groups are getting better and better at what they do. Short term effects may look innocent enough, but the long term effects will leave a mark.
Gawathren, correct me if I didn't represent your point correctly, I've only read a few of these posts.
There is a lot of disinformation being thrown around out there about gays and society. I would like to clear some of it up. (1) Gay marriage will not change society as much as people think, and (2) The legal definition of a marriage is simply a union between two people, and has nothing to do with religion. I think it should be possible for gays to get married by the State. The church doesn't have to accept it, but it should be legal, in my opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by wisp
What Gawathren is saying is very simple.The accepted concept of marriage is set.To allow a different set of standards will cause the purpose and function of the traditional marriage concept or idea to be muddled or weakened.
Another name other than marriage can and may be given to gay couples.Why is there such a demand for the name "marriage"? Legal purposes, of course.
There's a lot of names,words,and phrases out there for coupling or partnerships. Is this a challenge or attempt to destroy? It sure is beginning to appear that way! I hadn't realized it until reading this thread.
Political correctness shortcuts at the expense of the majority is a cheap trick! Why can't gay couples do it like everyone else in the political and legal arenas, or are they exempt from having to take the same routes everyone else has to (no pun intended)? It's an easy path to attach oneself to the concept of marriage. In this situation I highly suspect inheritance rights and other such things. It sounds like money gain,and legal and political maneuvering is behind all this. If so, it's bound to fail (universal law and all).
Special interest groups are getting better and better at what they do. Short term effects may look innocent enough, but the long term effects will leave a mark.
Gwathren, correct me if I didn't represent your point correctly, I've only read a few of these posts.
Thank you wisp,
Exactly, you got me right. Especially the sentance:
Short term effects may look innocent enough, but the long term effects will leave a mark.By that I meant evolution. It's a problem like the low birth-rate in european countries. We don't notice it, but it will have an effect. The difference there is that the birth-rate may make a difference in years, but we have no idea what will come out of this gay-marriage stuff after thousands and millions of years.
Sure, maybe nothing, but it might become a much bigger problem than we imagine right now.
As I've said I really have nothing against gays and lesbies, but marriage is something they really should not have. However, I am quite sure that they will have what they want. It's jsut a matter of time. And that's exactly what I don't like. We live in a free society. But after the flourishing free greece and rome came another period – medieval age. We know that history is custom to repeating itself. Something like that striking the hole world would not be beautiful and yes it's unimaginable and hysterical, so Gandalf, don't comment on that. By the way I don't think that peolple will start to ride on horses and fight with swords.
I think I've again thought a little off the topic, but that's me[:)] I won't say anything about making my "last post regardig a topic" again either.
Hoping that I have made clear my opinion about gays and lesbies,
May shadows reach the light,
Gwathren
Here's the really dangerous part of your argument, Gwathren:
"I'm saying that if we give gays so many rights, they will be taken as a normal thing which I don't like."
...which you don't like. So, you don't like the idea, huh? Well fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but so what? Why the hell should your personal likes/dislikes affect other people's very rights?!
What if gay people had all the power, and decided to ban heterosexual marriages simply because they didn't like it? How would that make you feel? And by the way, citing religious reasons amounts to exactly the same thing, because even if there is a god like the one the Bible describes, who is to say what he really thinks about it? Furthermore, why should people who don't believe in that god be affected by his followers?
Deciding the rights of others based on your own personal opinions is dangerous and wrong. There are no two ways about it. It's wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Huwie
Here's the really dangerous part of your argument, Gwathren:
"I'm saying that if we give gays so many rights, they will be taken as a normal thing which I don't like."
...which you don't like. So, you don't like the idea, huh? Well fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but so what? Why the hell should your personal likes/dislikes affect other people's very rights?!
What if gay people had all the power, and decided to ban heterosexual marriages simply because they didn't like it? How would that make you feel? And by the way, citing religious reasons amounts to exactly the same thing, because even if there is a god like the one the Bible describes, who is to say what he really thinks about it? Furthermore, why should people who don't believe in that god be affected by his followers?
Deciding the rights of others based on your own personal opinions is dangerous and wrong. There are no two ways about it. It's wrong.
This will go on the account of my disability to express myself. I don't like it, because it's wrong. It's wrong because it's not natural. This does not get any simple then that. Prove me that nature has not expressed itself by designing man and woman as they look like -- different. Man and woman are different and they are meant to be so. Allowing legal unions between man and man and woman and woman raises their realtionships as high as is the marriage between man and woman. Call it whatever you want, but
it simply is not marriage.
If you are convinced that a family that consists of two men or women is just as good as the one between a man and a woman, then that is your opinion.
Gwathren
You don't like it because it's wrong? Why? What's wrong with it? You seem to be saying that marriage is fundamentally about man and woman to the exclusion of all else. I just want to know why. And please, don't cite religious reasons because they're irrelevant when discussing morals and ethics (not to mention irrelevant to anybody who isn't religious).
"Prove me that nature has not expressed itself by designing man and woman as they look like -- different."
So, is it wrong for a white man and a black woman to marry too? They look different.
"Allowing legal unions between man and man and woman and woman raises their realtionships as high as is the marriage between man and woman."
Yep. I don't see a problem with that.
"Call it whatever you want, but it simply is not marriage."
It would be marriage in the eyes of the law, if the law was changed to accomodate it. Again, don't talk to me about religion because if people aren't religious, then marriage has nothing to do with religion.
"If you are convinced that a family that consists of two men or women is just as good as the one between a man and a woman, then that is your opinion."
Yeah I am, and let me tell you why. I have seen many, many marriages between man and woman fail. I have seen partnerships (because gay marriages aren't allowed here yet) between man and man or woman and woman succeed, for many years. There's no distinction as far as I can see between the prospects or anything else for gay couples as opposed to straight couples.
quote:
Originally posted by Huwie
You don't like it because it's wrong? Why? What's wrong with it? You seem to be saying that marriage is fundamentally about man and woman to the exclusion of all else. I just want to know why. And please, don't cite religious reasons because they're irrelevant when discussing morals and ethics (not to mention irrelevant to anybody who isn't religious).
"Prove me that nature has not expressed itself by designing man and woman as they look like -- different."
So, is it wrong for a white man and a black woman to marry too? They look different.
"Allowing legal unions between man and man and woman and woman raises their realtionships as high as is the marriage between man and woman."
Yep. I don't see a problem with that.
"Call it whatever you want, but it simply is not marriage."
It would be marriage in the eyes of the law, if the law was changed to accomodate it. Again, don't talk to me about religion because if people aren't religious, then marriage has nothing to do with religion.
"If you are convinced that a family that consists of two men or women is just as good as the one between a man and a woman, then that is your opinion."
Yeah I am, and let me tell you why. I have seen many, many marriages between man and woman fail. I have seen partnerships (because gay marriages aren't allowed here yet) between man and man or woman and woman succeed, for many years. There's no distinction as far as I can see between the prospects or anything else for gay couples as opposed to straight couples.
Excuse me, but are you saying that the difference of skin-color is compareable to the difference that separates man from woman. If that is so, then I'm not the only one who is hysterical here.
By the way I'm not a religious person, but i still think that religion is not always dark and idiotic, but is very often quite useful.
Marriages are divorced, because partners are not suitable, not because of their sexual orientation.
Really...there was someone who channeled God, we should give him this question.
The natural point (this is added to love and the happiness that two persons share) is to give birth to kids. Gay parents can't do that the natural way.
And, finally,
for all I care, gays may marry each other if they want, but the term "marriage" can not be used there. If having a partner of the same sex makes gays happy, go ahead. You want to know why marriage is fundamentally between man and woman? It's because otherwise humans would not have two sexes. We would be like dewworms. It is meant to be so. It's pure nature and that's it. If you don't like religion as a reason, then accept nature. And forget about asking "but we can change that" because that is acting against the very thing we are -- humans.
Gwathren
Ok, I was *really* tempted to continue this argument, but i am going to bite the bullet, as i can see that this debate is not going anywhere; we agree to disagree!
But I just wanted to say..... arrghh, no I've stopped myself.
Regards,
Douglas
quote:
Originally posted by Gandalf
Ok, I was *really* tempted to continue this argument, but i am going to bite the bullet, as i can see that this debate is not going anywhere; we agree to disagree!
But I just wanted to say..... arrghh, no I've stopped myself.
Regards,
Douglas
I agree, since I have nothing else to add. This has been only my selfish opinion, but for me it is based on ethics and the ideas that I value.
PEACE,
May shadows reach the light,
Gwathren
I think it's great ya'll are going to agree to disagree.[:D]
Some topics are just like that..they can on forever, everyone trying to convince the other that they are right.[:P]
I do appreciate that no one started verbally attacking each other.[:D]
Take care~ Nay
Hi Gandalf and all
I would like to hear your reactions to the following essay(very lenghty). It was written along with the usual Christian scriptures quoted. I have taken the liberty to ommit these and only include the facts as they were quoted to me. I dont really know what to think about it.
Regards Mustardseed
PS apologies for the size
HOMOSEXUALITY--an Essay
Historians are well-versed in the bisexuality of Grecian culture just three and four hundred years before Christ. Socrates was a practicing homosexual, as were most of the Greek leaders and philosophers. Plato penned an entire section in his Symposium exalting homosexual "love." Even Alexander the Great, often thought to be the greatest military leader of all time, had both male and female lovers. Because Greece was a small country with enormous expansionist ideas, childlessness was made illegal but homosexuality was widely accepted. The Greek warriors spent much of their lives away from home--with their lovers at their side. They felt that homosexuality helped to produce battlefield valor since they fought so fiercely to protect their lovers. This didn't keep the Grecian empire from falling to Rome, of course.
Historians verify that homosexuality was rampant in the days of Rome, particularly in the upper echelons of leadership. Sutonius, in his book The Twelve Caesars, indicated that fourteen out of the first fifteen emperors of Rome were homosexuals. The book chronicles the lives of these Caesars in detail, revealing their homosexual lifestyle and demonstrating how it permeated the empire. King Nikodimes had none other than Julius Caesar as his bed partner, exulting on one occasion that he was "the queen's partner and rival in the royal bed." Caesar Augustus, it is charged, sold his services for 3,000 gold pieces. He even softened the hair on his legs so he would be more desirable to his lovers. Tiberius, a sadist, adopted young boys and used them cruelly. Nero seduced little boys; one, it is said, particularly met his fancy, so he had him castrated, put a bridal veil on him, and married him in an official ceremony. After the death of Nero, the next Caesar adopted the lad and continued the relationship. The baths of Caracalla in Rome were not significantly different from homosexual baths of today; you could get a bath, sex, or both. No wonder both Gibbon and Toynbee concluded that homosexuality was one of the moral sins that contributed to the decline of the Roman Empire. Part of that deterioration included a population decline due to homosexuality.
Homosexuality has found its way, however secretly for fear of discovery, through many cultures and civilizations. During the last three decades there has been a tremendous increase in homosexuality; now some of its advocates claim there are 20 million in the United States alone. They say that being a homosexual or a lesbian is completely natural and normal, and that everyone opposed to it is "homophobic" or suffering from "homophobia." Let's examine what the "natural and normal" homosexual lifestyle entails.
The Homosexual Lifestyle
Sexual promiscuity: Moral fidelity among homosexuals is almost unknown. Despite what the gay rights people would like to have you believe about the acceptability of their lifestyle, the homosexual way of life commonly involves "cruising" or some other form of search for young, fresh sexual partners. During the course of one research study on AIDS, it was discovered the average homosexual interviewed had had 550 sexual partners. The AIDS victims averaged 1,100 different sexual partners, with some reporting as many as 20,000. This means that every day sexually addicted homosexuals are out looking for attractive young men and boys whom they can introduce to the world of sodomy and oral sex. One homosexual quoted in The Gay Report said, "Sex is very important in my life. If I was really hungry and had to make a choice of a steak dinner or a cute young boy, I would take the youth or young male every time." Another said, "I think that sex between older men and young boys is a beautiful thing if the child wants it."
It has been argued that heterosexuals are more prone to molest children because only 30 to 45 percent of all sexual offenses committed against children under fourteen were homosexual. But if homosexuals constitute only 10 percent of the population, then they are very disproportionately involved in child sexual abuse. And if more realistic estimates that homosexuals constitute only 2 percent of the population are correct, their involvement in 30 to 45 percent of crimes against children is quite remarkable!
An insatiable quest for the erotic: Although the homosexual community does not discuss this aspect of their sex life freely with "straight" (non-homosexual) people, the known practices of the homosexual clearly indicate that his sex drive is rarely satisfied. And two men are often given to demanding greater degrees of experimentation than a man and woman. This is often unhealthy, of course. One doctor, an acknowledged homosexual, pointed to an increase in hospital emergency rooms of cases of "rectal abscesses and infections of the intestines." He further stated that "damage to the wall of the intestine can lead to peritonitis, which can develop into a life-and-death-situation, as can a ripped colon. We're seeing a lot of that now, too." Upon questioning, he indicated that this increase was caused by homosexuals forcing objects of larger and larger size into each other's anal canal. Doctors have removed "whiskey glasses, bananas, coke bottles" and almost "anything that will fit." Another doctor, deeply concerned about the homosexual community because he was one himself, said, "There's a near epidemic of syphilis and gonorrhea--in the throat," and he went on to point out that most homosexuals don't realize that the throat is as vulnerable to venereal disease as the rectum. In addition to syphilis and gonorrhea, the gay male community has experienced outbreaks of ailments such as hepatitis (a liver infection) and amebiasis (infection from amoebas), shigellosis (bacterial dysentery), and giardiasis (intestinal parasites).
Not even AIDS slows down many homosexuals. According to two recent studies by the American Psychiatric Association, even if a homosexual has AIDS, he probably won't stop his compulsive behaviour. The majority of the participants in both studies did not change their high-risk activities even after learning they were infected with the virus. Their sexual activities then take on the aspect of mass murder, since AIDS is transmitted by sex and is almost always fatal. "Patient Zero," a homosexual airline attendant who apparently launched the AIDS epidemic in the U.S., intentionally infected people until he died.
Studies have shown, by the way, that 75% to 90% of AIDS cases can be attributed to homosexual contact between men, despite a great deal of media hype about "heterosexual AIDS." In one Australian study, figures available in February 1990 suggest that over 88% of those who have died from AIDS in Australia have been homosexual or bisexual men (National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research 1990). Of the remaining percentages, 5% of AIDS deaths were from blood transfusions, 3% from drugs and 3.8% from other causes.
Bestiality is also increasingly common in the burgeoning homosexual community. Charles Shively, a prominent homosexual, wrote an article for the gay Fag Rag entitled, "Bestiality as an Act of Revolution." The Gay Report, a widely read and lauded book in the homosexual community, reports positive testimonials with no apparent shame and no adverse comments from those having sex with a variety of animals. According to a survey of the gay community, sexual stimulation by or with an animal, including pets and farm animals, was within the experience of 13% of the men, who had tried it at least once.
One of the alarming practices that comes out of this insatiable quest for the erotic is sadomasochism. In recent years doctors have reported an increase of patients who obviously have been brutalized during sex practices, in some cases resulting in murder or accidental death. In his book "Gay Manifesto," originally published in 1969 and reprinted in Out of the Closets: Voices of Gay Liberation, Carl Wittman declared that sadomasochism "when consensual can be described as a highly artistic endeavour, a ballet, the constraints of which are the thresholds of pain and pleasure."
The "coming out" of homosexuals is old news now. The latest news is the "coming out" of the SM community in Europe (the Sadomasochists or "leathermen"), a move which is heartily supported by the gay community, as they are, of course, part of this too. Many experts view homosexuality as the beginner's phase of sadomasochism anyway, since a large percentage of homosexuals in their bid for the "ultimate sexual climax" will go to ever greater lengths to achieve satisfaction for their perverted sexual appetites.
Statistics indicate that rape occurs with alarming frequency in the gay male community. 18% of the responders to a survey among gays said they had been raped. There were several men who filled out the survey who might be called "rapists," or who at least stated they had forced others to have sex with them; 4% said they had raped or forced another man.
Are Sodomites Really Born that Way?
Many studies have tried to prove that homosexuality is simply inborn. Homosexuals have claimed that it's a hormone condition, that it's hereditary, or that it's "just natural," as it seems to take place in the animal world. Let's examine each of these arguments:
1. Scientists who have run extensive tests on male and female homosexuals have found their hormonal level to be the same as heterosexuals. After studying androsterone and the effects of estrogen therapy, two doctors writing in the John Hopkins Medical Journal reported that "when extremely effeminate males (homosexual or heterosexual) have been tested by these means, they have shown entirely normal hormone levels." Other tests have verified these findings, and some have uncovered an even higher ratio of male hormones in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. To date there is no scientific evidence to support the notion that homosexuality is a hormone condition.
Researcher Simon LeVay, himself a homosexual, has recently tried to prove that homosexual brains are different from heterosexual ones. However, many technical aspects of his study are subject to question, as LeVay himself concedes. Although he found minute differences in the brains of heterosexual and homosexual men, it's possible that the difference is the result rather than the cause of homosexuality. "My freshman biology students know enough to sink this study," declared Anne Fausto-Sterling, professor of medical science at Brown University in Rhode Island.
2. Another highly publicised conjecture was that homosexuality is a hereditary condition, but work done by recent geneticists has overwhelmingly refuted the idea. Not only has the view that homosexuality is a chromosomal anomaly been overthrown, but so also have many of the alleged "scientific" methods once used to bolster the view. Techniques developed for viewing all the chromosomes of a cell in connection with chromatin-sexing studies have found no abnormality relating to homosexuality. In other words, it's not hereditary. If it were an inborn condition, why couldn't any other sexual preference be inborn, including pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, violent rape, etc.?
3. Finally, the last plank of the theory of homosexuality's biological "normality" has been removed by the most advanced ethological studies, which have shown homosexuality to be uniquely human. For years it was popular to think that many animals engage in homosexual practices, but recently the evidence for such a view has been found to rest on faulty observations. The fact is that no mammal in its natural state seeks and prefers same-sex sexual gratification. This is found uniquely among human homosexuals. Therefore, among many contemporary scientists the theory that homosexuality is a biological condition (congenital, hereditary, or constitutional) is deemed a theory without support, a conjecture demolished by hard empirical evidence. Homosexuals are made, not born!
God's Word teaches that homosexuality is not "natural" at all. Whatever physical factors may influence it, homosexuality cannot be viewed as inborn. It is artificial and learned, contrary to what a man is by God's creation. The occasional homosexual defense, "I can't help it," cannot be acceptable in light of the Word of God. Homosexuality is not a cross to be borne, but a pattern of behaviour to be thrown off with the old man and his lusts.
Is It Really Gay?
Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., objects to this synonym for homosexuality by saying, "Gay used to be one of the most agreeable words in the language. Its appropriation by a notably morose group is an act of piracy." "Gay" isn't gay for the majority of homosexuals, not even some of the time. It is more of a propaganda word than a definition, an illusion to hide the loneliness their way of life imposes upon them.
If from 2 to 6 percent of the U.S. population is homosexual, then homosexuals face a suicide rate several times higher than that of the straight community. One writer claims that 50 percent of the suicides in America can be attributed to homosexuality. Homosexuals themselves were asked, "Have you ever attempted or seriously contemplated suicide?" and yes answers were given by 40% of the men and 39% of the women. 53% of the men and 33% of the women who had attempted suicide said it was related to their homosexuality. (Despite this survey, however, many homosexuals and even authorities try to blame their suicides on religious values that condemn homosexuality. A recent report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services blames "traditional religion" for gay youth suicides and demands that Christians in particular accept homosexual behaviour as normal. It even suggests that those who refuse to alter their theology should be punished by the law.)
Leaders of the gay liberation movement use every modern means at their disposal to flood the minds of today's youth with the notion that homosexuality is a "gay" lifestyle. To help counteract this devious concept, here are several reasons why "gay" isn't gay:
1. Loneliness. Murray Nonis, a reporter who has studied the California homosexual scene, states: "One of the biggest problems with homosexuals is their own loneliness. In homosexuals' own publications, in the writings of psychiatrists who treat them, in the words of the ministers who try to help them, there is this constant repetition of the loneliness of the homosexual life." This loneliness has led many homosexuals into drugs and alcoholism. One psychologist said, "Not every alcoholic is a homosexual, but every homosexual is an alcoholic."
2. Deceit. Only two options are open to homosexuals. They can "come out," announce their homosexuality to the world, and face the rejection and ridicule that many people subject them to, or they can hide it, which is the way all homosexuals begin and which remains the lifestyle of the majority. Anyone "in the closet" about his homosexuality must learn deceit to keep his closet door closed.
3. Guilt. A natural stigma of shame and guilt seems to be attached to homosexuality. The psychological community tries to blame that on culture or religion, but it is so basic and consistent that we must find a better explanation: It is intuitive and God put it within them.
4. Strong tendency toward selfishness. A Chicago psychiatrist reports, "The two most selfish clients I deal with are the alcoholic and the homosexual. Of the two, I think homosexuals are prone to be the more selfish."
5. Produces poor health and an early death. Dr. Daniel Cappon, a Canadian psychiatrist at the University of Toronto, has treated several hundred homosexuals. In his book Toward an Understanding of Homosexuality, he states, "Homosexuality, by definition, is not healthy or wholesome... The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person. There are emotional and physical consequences to this protracted state of mental dissatisfaction. At worst, the homosexual person will die younger and suffer emotional, mental and physical illness more often than the normal person. The natural history of the homosexual person seems to be one of frigidity, impotence, broken personal relationships, psychosomatic disorders, alcoholism, paranoia psychosis, and suicide..."
6. Increased hostility. A large percentage of homosexuals reveal an excessive amount of hostility. Anger is a natural defense response to rejection. This could explain why many homosexuals are hostile at police "for infringing on their rights," at psychiatrists for calling them "mentally ill," at the church for labeling them "sinners," or at straights for calling them "perverts" or "deviates." Many are openly hostile toward all who oppose or disapprove of them, and remain in a state of constant discontent. And angry people are not "gay" people.
Homosexual Anger, Violence and Crime
Gays have become increasingly militant and violent. One graphic example of this is how the homosexual community viciously harassed and badgered singer Anita Bryant and her husband a number of years ago after Ms. Bryant took a public stand against a Dade County, Florida, proposal that would give special legal status to homosexuals. Followed from city to city by gays, Anita and her manager/husband Bob Green received repeated death warnings, had concert after concert broken up by bomb threats and were locked out of contracts to perform. Even now, years later, they are often harassed by gays at their public appearances.
This propensity for violence can also lead to crime. A northern California police officer assigned to the vice squad said that homosexual crimes in San Francisco have "doubled in the last three years. Over 40 percent of all violent crimes in San Francisco involve homosexuals." If that is true, their violent crime rate must be five or six times that of the straight community.
More than any other organisation, ACT UP ("AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power") has become the voice of gay rage. ACT UP uses tactics that shock and often offend many Americans. The group has halted trading on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange to protest drug pricing by pharmaceutical companies, staged traffic jams from Boston to San Francisco, disrupted Congress, tossed stink bombs in the hallways of the Capitol Building, and even necked in Jesse Helm's Capitol Hill office. At St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York shortly before Christmas one year, one member stomped on a Communion wafer--a desecration of what Roman Catholics believe to be the body of Christ. At the St. Patrick's incident, leaflets attacked the "fanatic followers" of a church that "teaches hatred" and a cardinal who "wants to obliterate us" and "fosters genocide."
ACT UP will attack those who oppose it at their office, church or home with picketing, poisonous phone calls and face-to-face abuse. Press coverage of their attacks is muted, because publishers and editors do not enjoy being harassed as anti-gay bigots and murderers. Other groups quick to defend homosexuality, sometimes violently, are Queer Nation and GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
Homosexual Inroads in Government
In most nations, Sodomy was officially against the law for hundreds of years; it is only in recent years that laws have been passed making it legal. In the Bible, the good kings "did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord" and "took away the Sodomites out of the land" (1Ki.15:11,12; 22:42-46; 2Ki.22:1,2, 23:7.) The laws of modern Man, however, are not only tolerating Sodomy, but even encouraging it! There is no longer a stigma attached to being a Sodomite; it has become a perfectly acceptable and legal "philosophy" or lifestyle.
In the last three decades, homosexuality has grown from an obscure subject, almost too embarrassing to mention, to a movement which has many political candidates falling all over themselves, trying to secure its backing without alienating their other supporters. Even "born-again" President Carter, who realized he would be elected by a thin margin, did everything he could to cultivate the homosexual vote. He promised he would move immediately to federally decriminalize Sodomy and related sexual acts. His stand was advertised to the homosexual constituency in full-page advertisements appearing in gay publications.
Former President Gerald Ford refused to cultivate the homosexual vote and lost the election by three percentage points (representing less than the registered homosexual voters). This lesson did not go unnoticed by politicians, who now cater more and more to the homosexual lobby. During the 1992 presidential campaign, a Newsweek poll reported that an amazing 40% of Americans held the issue of gay rights "very, or somewhat important" to their presidential vote. 27% felt that Bush had gone too far in opposing gay rights. Clinton, on the other hand, openly sought gay votes, and says he will lift the ban against gays in the military and sign gay rights legislation. His support was obvious at the 1992 Democratic National Convention, where 13 pro-gay speakers addressed a Madison Square Garden audience that included 108 openly gay delegates, alternates and party officials. Gay activists were as important to Clinton's effort to get out the vote--and to his election--as the Christian Coalition was to Bush.
AIDS has done more in recent years to create sympathy for the gay community than anything else. By and large, the devastation AIDS has created has led to great sympathy in the straight world. According to a Gallup poll taken in 1990, 47% of all adults believe that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal, up from only 33% in 1987.
The gay community now has real political clout in the U.S., with more than 9 million voters. There are more than 61 openly gay elected officials around the U.S., compared with fewer than half a dozen in 1980. Homosexuality is certainly no hindrance to reelection: Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank disclosed his homosexuality in 1987 and was re-elected the next year by a 70% majority. The Human Rights Campaign Fund, a gay lobbying group with 60,000 members, was the ninth largest independent PAC (Political Action Committee) during the last presidential election, and contributed up to $1 million to campaigns.
Homosexual Inroads in Education
* A school sex education program produced by the National Center for Health Education in New York City notes that "most people fall somewhere on a continuum between ... homosexual and heterosexual orientation." The program's target audience: kindergarten through seventh graders. Its first-grade textbooks feature passages about "daddy's roommate" and a girl who has "two mommies." The books are designed to accustom first-graders to the idea of homosexual parents. This program is used in 45 U.S. states and 8,000 schools, according to a spokesman.
* Britain is following the same path in educating its children. Some children's libraries feature books such as "Gloria Goes to Gay Pride," about a girl with two mommies who goes to a Gay Pride meeting and how happy she is. This is just one of a series of books, part of a campaign to "change the traditionally negative and hostile environment in which young homos find themselves in school," according to Hugh Warren of the London Gay Teenage Group.
* One of the most striking examples of homosexual influence is a sex counseling program for homosexuals in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Called "Project 10," it is a program that has been introduced into numerous Los Angeles high schools since 1984. The aim: To target students who may be homosexual or who "express conflict over sexual orientation." The program purports to "break the wall of silence" surrounding homosexuality. It teaches that homosexuality is simply another normal variation of sex and seeks to "develop a philosophy that is non-judgmental with regard to sexuality." Project 10 is going strong in Los Angeles schools today, offering counseling, books and lectures on the homosexual lifestyle. "The only opposition," said school district spokesman Shel Erlich, "is from so-called family-oriented groups who prefer to hide their heads a little bit."
* A proposal for health education from the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene notes that "a range of sexual orientations is normal." And in a program called "About Your Sexuality," distributed through the Unitarian Universalist Association, junior high-age youngsters are shown explicit filmstrips that depict various homosexual acts.
* New York has a special high school for gay and lesbian youth, cross-dressers and transsexuals: Harvey Milk School. Located in Greenwich Village, which has a large gay community, Harvey Milk has two full-time teachers and two classrooms for 40 students, only a handful of whom show up at the three-story waterfront building on a given day.
* San Francisco boasts the Lesbian and Gay Parenting Group, storytelling hours for tots at gay bookstores and Congregation Sha'ar Zahav, a largely gay synagogue with a Hebrew School for members' children.
* Gay power is burgeoning at Harvard. For the first time, an assistant dean has been delegated to deal with gay issues on campus. A tutor specializing in gay concerns has been assigned to each of Harvard's undergraduate houses. Lesbian couples now appear at Radcliffe's formal Senior Soiree, and gays routinely dance together at Harvard events. That can sometimes lead to friction. In February a ruckus broke out when a gay student asked the younger brother of a straight student to dance. Gay students soon after staged a "kiss-in" to protest alleged harassment.
* Homosexual teachers in Switzerland enjoy total freedom of operation and are virtually untouchable as they spread the gospel of the pleasures of gay life into the minds of unsuspecting and innocent youngsters. To illustrate how liberal thinking has become the norm among intellectuals, here's a statement from the principal of one of the most prestigious high schools in Switzerland, Dr. Lscher: "I'm not interested in what kind of sexual beliefs my teachers subscribe to. This is their private affair. If they choose to reveal their homo or heterosexuality to their students, that's entirely their own business. We can't stop them from doing this! If they would `come out' and make statements to the class like, `Some people are heterosexual, others are homosexual; personally, I fancy the homosexual way of life', they'd be perfectly within the bounds of legality and are merely exercising their legal rights of freedom of expression." Consequently there are several gay teachers associations which meet, convene and plot very openly how to further their cause, sowing the seeds of sodomy into the hearts of their young students. Their phone numbers are proudly advertised in brochures.
Switzerland begins its sex education classes in the 5th grade in some cantons, and addresses homosexuality very openly. The head of one education department said, "We endeavor to present our students with a liberal view of these matters (homosexuality). `Normalization', not `Polarization', is our concept here. We ... want to present this to our students as normal and nothing out of the ordinary."
In a recent issue of "SLZ" (an influential Swiss magazine for teachers), the writer gave a discourse on how to deal with the growing rate of youth homosexuality: "We have to learn to view youth homosexuality in a positive light. If any given youth seems to have homosexual tendencies, they should be encouraged to stand by their convictions and not feel condemned about these feelings. We advocate directing them immediately to an appropriate group or association of like-minded homosexual youth, where they can find the help and assistance they need to lead a normal life. We further suggest that more assistance and support should be given to such organizations and associations of young homosexuals, modelled after the example of the Northern European countries such as Denmark and Holland, where such associations receive substantial governmental funding and support."
* Australian homosexuals object to the fact that "The education system presents children with a heterosexual, nuclear family oriented lifestyle model." They insist that the education system accept and teach that homosexuality is "a normal variation of sexual behaviour." In "Young, Gay and Proud," a book published for high school students by the Melbourne Gay Teachers and Students Group, students are told: "You have probably been told as you have grown up that your anus is a dirty place and shouldn't be touched. This is stupid. People should be happy with all parts of their bodies, and if they aren't, it means they can't like themselves very much."
In a 1982 report on Discrimination and Homosexuality, the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board specifically recommended that non-government (including Christian) schools should be forced both to employ openly homosexual teachers and to revise curricula to present homosexual behaviour in a positive light.
Homosexual Inroads in Religion
* The Metropolitan Community Church is a church founded specifically for homosexuals, and now has over 267 churches in 11 countries. It was founded by Troy Perry, who claims to be an Evangelical, but has reported that at one of the crucial junctures in his life, an occult minister directed him by prophecy to leave the gay world and return to the Christian ministry as an active homosexual.
* One-third of the bishops of the U.S. Episcopal church now knowingly ordain homosexuals and lesbians.
* The United Church of Christ in America also knowingly ordains homosexuals and lesbians.
* The Unitarian Universalists openly welcome gay clergy.
* After three years of study and debate, a special committee of the 8.9 million-member United Methodist Church said it was unable to agree on whether homosexuality is compatible with Christian teaching. In a report to the nation's second largest Protestant denomination, the 24-member committee did say the church should be "a place of acceptance and hospitality to all persons."
* Homosexuality has apparently made tremendous inroads in the Roman Catholic Church. Father Andrew Greeley complained in a recent article that regard for priestly celibacy is being undermined by a "national network" of actively homosexual clergy. "In some dioceses, certain rectories have become lavender houses," he grumbled. (Lavender is a common homosexual theme colour.) Theologian Richard McBrien of the University of Notre Dame contends that homosexuality is so widespread that "heterosexual males are deciding in ever increasing numbers not even to consider the priesthood." Just how common is homosexuality among the Catholic clergy? A Washington Post article cited the figures of a Baltimore therapist, A.W. Richard Sipe, who, after 25 years of interviewing 1,000 priests, concluded that 20% of the nation's Catholic clergy are gay, half of those sexually active. Sipe also estimates that 4% of priests are sexually attracted to adolescents and an additional 2% to children under 13.
Catholic spokesmen in Basel, Switzerland, commented, "We have arrived at a point where it seems unavoidable that we have to accept the officially still abnormal practice of homosexual love as normal. We can't help but accept that love can exist between consenting homosexuals of legal age. And since the prerequisite for marriage is love, there shouldn't be any reasons why we can't let them marry." (Sorry, pet-lovers, it's still out of the question for you!) On the issue of homosexuality and Catholic priests, he said, "Since Catholic priests are supposed to abide by their vows of celibacy, it makes no difference to us whether or not a priest has homosexual inclinations or not. Even if certain tendencies are known to us, as long as we receive no complaints and things don't get out of hand, we won't act on this."
* Leaders of Canada's largest Protestant denomination, the United Church of Canada, have decided that homosexuals can be considered for the ministry.
* Many Danish theologians believe homosexuals shouldn't be condemned for their "weakness." One said, "No one can stamp homosexuals as degrading or non-Christian without at the same time stamping himself as being degrading and non-Christian."
* The organization of Reform rabbis broke with 4,000 years of Jewish tradition and endorsed homosexual rabbis as qualified leaders of congregations in the United States at its 101st annual convention.
* The media spokesman for the Uniting Church in Australia said they "have every sympathy with homosexuals" and that it is only a matter of time before they ordain professing homosexuals.
* In the Anglican Church of Australia, the Archbishop of Perth ordained their first homosexual minister in 1992. This was front-page news in many Australian papers, but didn't cause much of a reaction from the public.
* The utter contempt with which many homosexuals hold Christianity is illustrated in the first issue of Homosexual News Service, which was compiled and published by the Australian Union of Students. This newsletter contains the poem "The Love That Dare Not Speak its Name," which was outlawed in Great Britain when the magazine that published it there was convicted of blasphemy by the British Crown prosecutor. (The poem describes a Roman centurion engaging in varied and repeated homosexual acts on the "still warm" body of Christ after it had been taken down from the Cross.) The publication of the poem was bad enough, but the reasons given by the AUS were as follows: "We reprint it not for any necessary artistic or political merit in the poem itself, but as an act of solidarity with English homosexuals and as an act of blasphemy against Christianity and all religious idiocy."
The contempt of many homosexuals for Christianity is further illustrated by a Sydney group calling themselves the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Adopting names like Mother Inferior, Sister Malicious Intent, Sister Disgrace, Sister Ophelia willy, they dress in nun's habits and perform mock religious rituals at homosexual functions and rallies.
Of course, their attack on Christian freedom of belief is best illustrated, not by their act of blasphemy, but by their demands for access to Christian schools and churches as teachers, priests, and role-models.
Other Homosexual Inroads in Society
* In the last 21 years, legal battles have produced major changes in the status of gay men and lesbians. The repeal or reform of Sodomy laws has taken place in half the states of the U.S., comprising over half the nation's population. According to a recent Gallup Poll, public tolerance for homosexuals is now higher than support for racial integration was 40 years ago. The gay community's goal is "integration--just as it was with Martin Luther King," says Harry Britt, president of the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco. "We want the same rights to happiness and success as the nongay."
Most Americans now seem to feel homosexuals are entitled to those rights. An August 1992 poll by Newsweek magazine found that 78% of the public believes gay men and women should have equal rights in job opportunities. Getting down to specific jobs, 64% believed homosexuals could or should be hired as members of the president's cabinet, 59% as members of the armed forces, 54% as high-school teachers, 51% as elementary-school teachers, and 48% as clergymen.
* More than 140,000 people marched in "Gay and Lesbian Pride" parades across the U.S. in June, 1992, on the 23rd anniversary of a police raid on a New York bar that helped fuel the gay pride movement. In the New York parade, one of the grand marshals was a homosexual with the AIDS virus recently elected to the city council. In Chicago, dignitaries and politicians joined the marchers. And in West Hollywood, California, the parade went on as planned despite two severe earthquakes in the region. More than 200 groups ranging from the Gay Bankers to the Radical Fairies to a Shriners marching band signed up for the Fifth Avenue march along a lavender line painted down the center of the parade route. The marchers included drag queens and disco floats led by the "Dykes on Bikes" brigade of motorcyclists in leather regalia.
* In the U.S. there are 1,580 gay and lesbian organisations nationwide, including political, social, activist and student groups.
* More and more, homosexuals are coming out on television. U.S. television shows such as "Cheers," "Northern Exposure," "Roseanne," "The Golden Girls," "Designing Women," "L.A. Law" and "Thirtysomething" have all depicted non-heterosexual characters. Chris Fowler, executive director of the Los Angeles chapter of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, or GLAAD, said television is miles ahead of films in the positive portrayal of homosexual characters. "The incidence of gay characters in episodic television series is phenomenal," he said. Hollywood is changing its act, though. At least six major gay or AIDS-themed films are in development now.
* The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Los Angeles is a major force in Hollywood, and many studios submit movie scripts dealing with homosexuality to them for approval before shooting takes place.
* A homosexual who was fired from his job with a Shell Oil Co. subsidiary won $5.3 million for wrongful termination in what is believed to be the largest award of its kind by a U.S. court. Jefferey Collins was fired after he prepared a "house rules" flyer for a "safe-sex" homosexual party on a company word processor and mistakenly left a copy of it in the company's copy room, where it was found by his secretary the next day and passed on to his superior.
* Since April of 1990, a group called Queer Nation has staged mass "kiss-ins," as they term them, at heterosexual bars and demonstrations outside the homes of accused gay-bashers. Another group, the Pink Panthers, organizes late-night patrols of Greenwich Village to protect homosexuals from assailants.
* In Florida, a prisoner has sued his jailers for more than $50,000, saying they discriminated against him by separating him from the gay lover he was arrested with.
* A society for the defense of pedophilia exists in England; it has recently been encouraged by a visiting Catholic monk who is a child psychologist. A priest who finds nothing harmful in a homosexual practice with consenting children is currently ministering to gays in the Boston area.
* A new credit card issued recently, the "Pride Card," is the first in the U.S. designed expressly to help fund activities and causes dear to the gay community.
* Gay and lesbian literature has become one of the book industry's hottest niches. Even the staid Book-of-the-month Club is touting homosexual titles. Many gay bookstores generate impressive revenues. Norman Laurila's three gay and lesbian bookstores in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco gross more than $2.5 million a year, above average for specialty bookstores.
* An estimated 10,000 children in the U.S. are being raised by lesbians who conceived them by artificial insemination. Other lesbians make arrangements to have children with gay "uncles." In New South Wales, Australia, the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby has embarked on a campaign to improve the chances of homosexual people to be able to foster or gain custody of children.
* The European Parliament has urged EC member states to abolish laws against consenting sexual relations between people of the same sex, introduce an equal age of consent for heterosexuals and homosexuals, ban the keeping of special records on lesbians and gay men by the police and other authorities, and reject the classification of homosexuality as a mental illness. An EC-wide delegation of lesbian and gay groups has also urged the European Parliament to appoint a senior official with formal responsibility for homosexual issues and liaison.
* Delegates to a 1990 International Lesbian and Gay convention in Copenhagen claimed their peers numbered up to 30 million in the 12 nations of the European Community, or 10 percent of the region's population. Whatever the case may be in the rest of Europe, homosexuals are certainly very numerous and active in Denmark, where an estimated 10,000 homosexuals are now able to get married in Danish town halls, and benefit from many of the legal advantages given previously only to heterosexual couples.
Danish homosexuals also have various teams which specialise in going to schools, youth clubs and institutions to give speeches on the homosexual lifestyle and share details on male prostitution. For those interested in more information, there's the homosexual library in the center of Copenhagen, which features more than 700 different gay magazines from around the World, as well as around 4,200 books and publications in Danish and other languages. Copenhagen also has a daily gay and lesbian radio show called "Rosa," gay and lesbian saunas, discos, video centers, and a few male escort services.
* Homosexuals are setting up their own organisation in the Dutch armed forces with Defense Ministry approval. The main Dutch homosexual organisation estimates there are half a million to a million homosexuals in a population of 14.5 million people.
* Switzerland has been a leader in homosexual legislation, with laws passed as early as 1942 allowing consenting partners to "enjoy" homosexual relationships. This led to an influx of German gays and laid the foundation for the current situation in Switzerland where just about "everything goes." With the freedom of a new sex law, any adult can entertain a homosexual relationship with a 16-year-old teenager without having to fear any repercussions or legal implications.
The gay community of Switzerland boasts about being one of the few countries in the World to have had two consecutive annual "coming out days." "Coming out" is a phrase commonly used for the process in the life of a homosexual where he begins to confess openly and publicly his sexual leanings. On October 10, 1991, thousands of gay youth took to the streets of Switzerland and let an astonished nation know that they were a force to be reckoned with and that they were going places. In an information campaign they presented themselves as an alternate "fun" lifestyle, laced with pictures of homosexual couples having "fun" together swimming, dancing, strolling down a sidewalk, talking, discussing, or relaxing. In Basel, much to the shock of many disgusted onlookers, they presented a gay couple lying in a bed, in the middle of the street, while others were passing out leaflets to passers-by. It's certainly no coincidence that Switzerland, with 2,500 AIDS casualties so far, leads Europe on a per capita basis.
* The Israeli Parliament (Knesset) has legalised homosexual acts between men over the age of 18 despite a Biblical ban on Sodomy.
* A recent poll by AGP Australia showed that 45% of Australians said they believed that all Australian States and Territories should remove laws that make sex between consenting adults of the same sex illegal. In their lobbying to change the laws, gay activists have insisted that even silence was discriminatory in their attempt to force organisations to make statements supporting the legalising and acceptance of homosexuality. They've also fought against reforms to the law which were in their favour when they felt they weren't strong enough.
Courts have generally supported the homosexual cause. A recent front-page article in the Sydney Morning Herald announced an endorsement by the courts for a "sex on premises" homosexual club with the headlines "Gay Sex Club Gets the All-Clear." The article went on to say, "A gay club which offers private rooms for its members to have sex is fulfilling social and public health needs."
Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras is now in its 15th year and has grown to become one of Sydney's premier social and tourist events, promoted as being the largest such gay and lesbian event in the World. Advertising for the event features such groups as Toyota, the New South Wales police and the State Transit Authority. The Toyota ad shows two men with their dogs and a Toyota Seca. It is headed "The Family Car." Reaction to the ads has reportedly been "overwhelmingly positive," a situation the advertising executive puts down to a more tolerant society. "People who might have been morally aghast a few years ago appear to be far more accepting now," he said.
In general, gays reject the "family values" that many politicians espouse nowadays. Dennis Altman, an Australian writer and academic, himself a homosexual, notes that "The homosexual represents the most clear-cut rejection of the nuclear family that exists." He also notes that, "By and large it seems true that as long as the concept of the nuclear family remains the central reference point of social organisation, the homosexual will necessarily be excluded from society. Because of this, the radical wings of the homosexuals' and womens' liberation movements came together in common opposition to the nuclear family concept." Homosexuals repeatedly and indignantly point out that, "One of the ideological functions of the family is to impose the values of heterosexuality and monogamy."
Homosexuals are childless, of course, and most of them report feeling "very positive" about the fact. As one man interviewed in The Gay Report commented, "Straight people concerned with the problem of overpopulation ought to be happy there are gay people. Of course, some people need to continue having children, but I don't think heterosexuals are an endangered species." (By the way, many homosexuals contemptuously call normal males "breeders.")
Conclusion
Many homosexuals will say that any critique of their sexuality is a sign of a bigoted perspective on homosexuality. But disagreeing with homosexuals about their rights and disapproving of their behaviour does not make someone a bigot. Opposition is not necessarily a violent hatred or exaggerated fear, rooted in unfair and irrational attitudes based on blanket preconceptions; it is not an evidence of "homophobia." and viewing something as immoral is not the same thing as being bigoted; for example, someone who condemns the killing of innocent people is not a bigot toward murderers!
There are many misconceptions about homosexuality, and all that essay serves to do is perpetuate ignorance, myths, stereotypes and fear.
I have no room for these things in my heart or in my life. Do you?
You can read essays about what heterosexuals opinions of homosexuals are all you want. But the person who actually takes the time to meet gay people, not just one or two, and really get to know them, know who they are, what they are really about, and what it is like to be them in this society, that person will then have at least some understanding of homosexuality. And that person will not judge or condemn or try to deny rights, because that person will have truly sought the truth and truly made the effort required to understand.
Of course the only person who can fully understand homosexuality, is a homosexual. So why don't you ask them? Ask them who they are, you will find that they are just like you, only they have lived their life in fear of persecution by those who are ignorant and are determined to stay that way.
Imagine if you woke up tomorrow and were told that you could not love the person you love, because of what is between your legs.
Only gay people don't wake up with that one day, it is forced upon them every day by a society that has no room for diversity.
Children are raised to think that they will grow up , marry someone of the opposite sex and have children, and live happily ever after.
Imagine if you grew up being told you would have to marry someone of the same sex? Whether you wanted to or not, and when you tried to explain to your parents that you didn't want to date members of the same sex, you were attracted to members of the opposite sex, and their reaction to this was to throw you out of the house ,after verbally or even physically abusing you.
This is what it has been like for most gay teenagers. This is why many committ suicide. This is why it is so important to grant gays and lesbians equal rights. So that we can stop perpetuating the idea among young people, that to be gay is to be less than human.
The community on this website, seems to be made up of enlightened people in general, so it surprises me to find ignorance even here...
But we don't all grow in the same time, some of us are more enlightened than others, and I have faith that the people here will grow to understand that homosexuals are normal human beings, who happen to love a little differently than the way we were all taught we must love.
If we all believed exactly what we were told, and never questioned anything, never followed our own hearts and souls, and never grew and explored and accepted change and diversity, this website would not exist.
We need to respect and honor the brave souls who do not follow blindly what others try to force upon them, who do not hide themselves away and pretend to be something they are not, but proudly express who they are, even in the face of ignorance, ridicule, discrimination, and even violence. And we need to not only "tolerate" them, but we need to stand up and speak out for them, and make sure that they are granted the rights they deserve as human beings. The right to love without fear of persecution.
Because one day it may be you who is persecuted, or your child, or their children. Wouldn't you want someone to stand up and do the right thing by them?
Just re-reading the thread and finding various ignorant statements I would like comment on:
Someone stated that marriage is simply to procreate, that's all.
When someone says this, do they really actually believe this?
Do they really not realize that not every marriage produces children, or even can? How do you just ignore the marriages of people who marry after child bearing age? Why is it legal for them to marry?
What about marriages where one or both people cannot have children for medical reasons? Does this mean that they must get a divorce when they discover this? I truly do not mean to seem sarcastic, I'm just trying to understand what people are thinking when they casually make such statements that impact the lives of others so strongly.
And the statement about "marriage is between a man and a woman" is another one I would like to comment on , because, I have recently learned a lot about intersexed people, and I am wondering where they fit into this equation.
I watched a documentary about intersexed people, and decided to do some reasearch. If you don't know what intersexed is, it is when a child is born with indeterminate sex. As in , they have genitals of both sexes. Yes, it happens, more often than most people realize. This is from one website; "The number of intersex conditions is high and each condition has different statistics. For instance, babies born with chromosomes that are neither XX nor XY is about one in 1,666 births. The total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births. The total number of people receiving surgery to "normalize" genital appearance one or two in 1,000 births."
Another fact that most people don't realize is that a person can "look" male in every way, but have female chromosomes, and vice versa. These babies are created by God, as we all are, but they are immediately operated on and assigned a gender, usually female. These children then grow up confused, and more and more intersexed adults are speaking out against this unnecessary surgery. Does this mean they are not allowed to marry? Does this mean they can only marry other intersexed people?
These are things you need to learn about and understand before you go dictating how and who other people should be.
In this country, one person's religious beliefs, should not affect the rights of another. I don't know about you, but I think that is a good idea. But that is not what is happening currently. Currently in this country lawmakers are being persuaded by the religious beliefs of others, or letting their own religion get in the way of their duty to the people of this country.
DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan who bore him a daughter 7 months after the marriage.
Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.
Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer at the time.
willy Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced.
Senator Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced.
Governor John Engler of Michigan - divorced.
Governor Pete Wilson of California - divorced.
George Will - divorced.
Senator Lauch Faircloth - divorced.
Rush Limbaugh - and his current wife, Marta, have six marriages and four divorces between them.
Senator Bob Barr of Georgia - not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. He had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr -WHICH marriage are you defending?!?)
Senator Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced.
Senator John Warner of Virginia - once married to Liz Taylor.
Governor George Allen of Virginia - divorced.
Representative Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced.
Senator John McCain of Arizona - divorced.
Representative John Kasich of Ohio - divorced.
Representative Susan Molinari of New York (Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker) - divorced.
-from an email mistakenly forwarded to me by a person who only read the heading and didn't realize the email ridiculed his "sanctity of marriage" agenda. Don't know if every one of them is correct or not, but it humorously brings home the point that these hypocrites that say they are worried about homosexuals destroying the sanctity of marriage, will have to stand in line behind the heterosexuals who are doing such a good job of destroying it themselves.
We should all have equal rights. That's my opinion. Why should I care that a gay couple marry and raise children? I have seen no proof that a child raised by a gay couple will be psychologically screwed up when they become an adult and I fail to see how gay marriage could be harmful in any other way. Things cannot remain the same forever. Social change is inevitable.
An innocent bystander has just asked me, how many different human sexual practices are there in the world?, and should we consider each specific practitioner a member of a bonafide minority group with special rights to be recovered? Here in the mountains of the Island of Hispaniola, I know of a few men who would rather 'cohabitate' with a donkey than with a woman. Should we allow 'marriage' between' man and donkey? should we just tolerate it? should we condemn it? What's the issue here!!!
Mirador
Mirador, I don't know why I'm responding to such a ridiculous comment, but perhaps you truly don't understand the difference, so I will try to explain it to you...
Donkey = Animal
Gays and Lesbians = Human Beings
I think that is a pretty distinct difference.
Especially since the topic at hand is not simply "sex" but the rights of people to be able to marry, not have sex.
When people make such ridiculous comments, it only proves to demonstrate how vast their ignorance truly is.
If you cannot discern the difference between a loving committed relationship between two consenting adults, and that of a man abusing an animal, then I don't think anything I can say to you will make any difference, but now at least now I've tried.
Hi, all. I have been following this issue in the news and in my state which is just beginning the political debate about it.
Just as an aside, I wonder why the only men who seem to really want to get married are gay...[;)]but that's another issue.
On this one, I am conflicted about it. I do believe marriage is a special relationship between a man and a woman, and within society.
Someone mentioned the long term effects. I would say unintended consequences. If we change the definition of marriage, does this mean I can legally have two husbands? More, assuming I was crazy enough? We know about the polygamists in Utah. No doubt, they would like to have that as a legal definition of marriage. What about traditional Muslims who believe in having four wives? Will that also become legal?
It is a far more serious debate than just two men or women who want to get married. I can understand why. Real love of any kind is such a rare thing in life that any two people who believe they have it should be able to live as they please. I know two men who have been together for four decades, certainly longer than any of the traditionally married people I know. They are about as married as anyone can be and ought to have some legal status as partners. I don't know if that should be called marriage or something else. Most of the legalities can be taken care of with wills, trusts, and powers of attorney. About the only thing they can't claim as a benefit is social security as a legal spouse.
The whole gay rights movement as a political movement does disturb me as I don't understand why sexuality has to be flaunted. I don't wonder if someone is gay when I meet them. It is not the first thing I think of. And why the need for parades?
I don't think anyone should discrimminate against them or harrass them in any way. But I do have a concern about the agenda of the activists who get so in-your-face with their problems and sexuality and yes, often their sexual conduct in public. Much of it is offensive.
I don't know the effects on children if they are raised by a gay couple. However, I do know that being raised in any kind of loving family is better than being shuffled from foster home to foster home as an unwanted child in our welfare systems. I do believe that many gay couples adopt such children and I am sure those children are better off having a home, a place where they feel they belong.
So I really don't know what is right or wrong in this. I know it is possible for a gay person to be as moral and as ethical as anyone else, but some of the more outrageous behaviors of the activists certainly bring attention to the promiscuity of another, very visible
segment of the gay community - one that is not at all emotionally healthy for any child to see, much less live in.
Of course, the divorce lawyers are dancing in the streets at the prospects of another whole group of people who will be paying their very high hourly rates.
If it ever came up as a vote in my state, I really don't know how I would vote.
quote:
Donkey = Animal
Gays and Lesbians = Human Beings
I think that is a pretty distinct difference.
While this might be another (controversial) debate, animals are living beings as much as humans are... Putting man above all other species is like putting white people above all other races. So, from this point of view, I see no difference.
quote:
If you cannot discern the difference between a loving committed relationship between two consenting adults, and that of a man abusing an animal
I do love my cat, and I am not having sex with it... Love does not always come with sex.
Jenadots, I see where you're coming from, but I do have issue with this one remark you made:
"The whole gay rights movement as a political movement does disturb me as I don't understand why sexuality has to be flaunted."
Campaigning for equal rights is hardly what I would call flaunting their sexuality (it's not like they chose to be gay or to be discriminated against). Being able to marry each other is, at a guess, enough to appease most homosexuals - as far as I'm aware, it's the last real legal barrier. It's my belief that if homosexuals were allowed to marry and have the rights of heterosexual couples we would see a drastic decrease in the political lobbying. They just want to be treated like any other couple.
As for the polygamy thing, it's an interesting point but doesn't really apply here as the morals and ethics of polygamy are doubtless no more or less relevant to homosexuals as they are to heterosexuals.
Jenadots,
You have some very valid concerns, and you seem to truly want to know what the right thing to do is, and I respect that.
It is very simple why gays and lesbians need to be granted the right to marry. Because whenever you deny a minority group, the same rights and privileges as another group, it is discrimination.
Marriage is simply not defined by a male and a female, that is simply false. It has been used to describe that yes, but anytime you talk about marrying two things, that is all it is, simply the bringing together of two things. Our society however, teaches us from the time we are children, that we will grow up, and experience this thing called Marriage, and we are told that it is a wonderful thing.
Then when that very same child grows up, and falls in love with another adult human being with the wrong genitals, that experience that they have always been told all human beings will get to have, is then taken away from them. Now, if they are lucky, they can have domestic partnerships or in one state they can have civil unions. Do you not see how their rights are being denied them?
Think about this, when you tell a child that if he grows up to love a woman, he can have a marriage like everyone else, but if he grows up to love men, well then he can have this new thing we created just for people like him, called something else. You are enforcing the idea in a childs head , and even ignorant adults, that there is something wrong with being homosexual, and when you teach in a society that something is wrong, the immediate response is to try to fix that! And that is terribly, terribly dangerous. Just ask Matthew Shepard, or Sakia Gunn or any other child that has been murdered by people who thought that the way they love is wrong.
Separate is not equal.
About flaunting sexuality, it is so not about that. In fact I'm glad you brought that up, because it is quite the opposite, the opponents of same-sex marriage are the ones making it about sex. What gays and lesbians are asking for , is for genitals to NOT be an issue when two people want to marry. The anti-gay marriage people are the ones who seem to be obsessed with the sexual aspect of it. They are making it about sex, gays and lesbians want it to be about a loving, committed relationship with someone you want to share your life with.
Another important thing to remember is, whether or not it is accepted at the moment, it is already happening and has been happening for years. Gays and Lesbians are living their lives as married couples. They are raising children together in loving and understanding homes. Whether or not other people agree with it, it is a fact of life, it already is. It is not going to go away. That is why gays and lesbians need to be given the rights that go along with the life they are living. They deserve this right, and their children deserve it too.
And Nagual, you obviously have no interest in understanding.
Your comment makes no sense, and comparing people to animals in a matter where people are being denied a basic civil right, is just offensive. I pray you can open your heart and mind to love and enlightenment.
quote:
What gays and lesbians are asking for , is for genitals to NOT be an issue when two people want to marry.
quote:
Visionquest, that's exactly the issue I was trying to point out. Sexual orientation and marriage are two different things. Marriage is a social institution established for the procreation of children, and for that you need a man and a woman. The terms 'gay' and 'lesbian' are arbitrary and don't even come close de define the infinite variety of human sexual experience and orientation (you just can't imagine what people would come up with to satisfy their sexuality urges [;)], and you don't need marriage for this. There is no such thing as a 'gay' and 'lesbian' minority, like a religion or ethnic group. There is no problem for two, or three or more men, or woman for that matter, to live together, and satisfy their sexuality how they please. Just as there should be no law to prevent a man and his donkey from 'cohabitating' as they please [;)]
Mirador
"Marriage is a social institution established for the procreation of children"
I disagree. Marriage is simply a legal confirmation of status for a couple. Children don't have anything to do with it (which is why it's legal to have children when unmarried). This is why I don't see why homosexuals can't marry, too.
(Edited to correct a very stupid mistake)
quote:
And Nagual, you obviously have no interest in understanding.
Really? Damn... Hum... Understanding what?
quote:
Your comment makes no sense
to you.
quote:
and comparing people to animals in a matter where people are being denied a basic civil right, is just offensive.
Offensive? In what way? Funny how you critic people denying rights to gays/lesbians, when you yourself deny rights to other beings (animals).
quote:
I pray you can open your heart and mind to love and enlightenment.
So nice of you; but might take a while... I am not as clever as you. [|)]
Mirador,
I already pointed out in an earlier post, how marriage is not for the procreation of children since people past child bearing age can legally marry, and people who are infertile or otherwise unable to have children are also legally able to marry, and people who have abandoned their families can remarry without any intention of having any more children. Not to mention the fact that gays and lesbians do have children together, whether by adoption, as many heterosexual parents do, or by artificial insemination, again, just as many heterosexual parents must. Why can heterosexual parents who adopt children legally marry, but not homosexual parents?
I could go on, but It seems silly that i have to point this out once, let alone twice.
And as I also previously tried to explain, it is not about sex, it is about love. Marriage is about two people being committed to sharing their lives together and being devoted to only each other, as partners in life. But you seem to think that marriage is based on sex, and it is not. If your marriage has no more substance than that, I am sorry. You do not have to be married to have sex, you do not have to be married to have children or to raise them. But you do need to be married for everyone else to know that two people are committed to each other, and only each other. Again, I am truly sorry that you do not understand this. I know with the heterosexual divorce rate being what it is, and adultery, that it may seem to you like marriage doesn't mean anything, but it does mean something to those of us who do not have the option, because people like you think you have the right to tell other people what they should and should not be "allowed" to do.
Nagual, there is nothing worth commenting on in that post, sorry.
I'm only going to respond again, if it is in response to someone who actually is interested in understanding, or has an intelligent argument that has not already been explained, repeatedly.
In the event that that does not occur, lol,
God Bless you all, and may you all find inner peace and understanding and love.
Ok, so we allow gays and lesbians to marry. Then why not allow multimarriages, like polygamy, or close kin marriages, like dads with daughters or brothers with sisters? Aren't we starting here a slippery slope cascade of possibilities that will transform society? Will it work? will it be a better society for all? and what about those who hold the belief in the sacredness of the tradicional family, that a child should have a male father and a female mother? Will they accept the change? Will they fight back? Are we ready for the backlash, are we willing to fight? Remember, the Civil War was fought for a less passionate ideological difference than this. And all to redress a misconceived sexual prejudice!
Mirador
Polygamy is a totally different thing, because at least those who want it can be married once, homosexuals aren't currently allowed even that. They're being denied a basic right that is available to everybody else. Don't you see that?
"what about those who hold the belief in the sacredness of the tradicional family, that a child should have a male father and a female mother?"
What if they're wrong? Also - and I'm getting sick of repeating this now - marriage has absolutely nothing to do with children!
Mans that are against homossexuality are stupid: dont you see that with less men "in the field" there will be plenty of womens wandering for heterossexual man [:D]. I mean, with less heterossexual man, i will have more chances with womens!
Well, i was just kiding. But i think that the phobia against homossexuality (i will abreviate with HS) it is based on natural instincts: if every individual on a population it is homossexual, there will be no new new childs, and thus damning the population, as a whole, to the death. Maybe it is that what happens in nature, and if true, it may be the same thing happening with humans. Of course that this is just an extrapolation, not an excuse for the phobia.
I just have problems on seeing HS womens....it is sad to know that will never have any chance with her! lol, again, i am just kiding.
Dear Visionquest
I have read your replies with interest. First of all I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this essay is not mine and my views does not nessesarily reflect those of the one who wrote it. However that said I must admit he/she presents a compelling argument. In comparison I find your arguments quite tame and on the borderline to becoming agressive, flaunting words like unintelligent etc etc. You present a emotionally charged type of argument mostly asking us/me to make desisions as if "it was me". If I chose wrong or right based on MY FEELINGS is unimportant. Just becourse I may or may not agree does not make something a just cause. I could be wrong. If you are hinting that their cause is just becourse some feel in a similar way, consider the words of the famous historian Toynbee. "the majority is often wrong....mostly in fact".
All that to say that the issues brought up in the essay are valid. Maybe I should turn things around and ask you the same way.
What if you became the mother (in time) of a sweet boy. YOu watched him grow and go from a kid to a young man. At 13 of age he starts being curious about sex and spends a long time in your neighbours apartment. After some weeks he appears one day with a 60 yr old man clad in leather and presents himself as a sexslave to this guy. Saying that he has come out of the closet. How would you feel.
Before you all scream child abuse remember that the age for sexual consent in some countries is 13. This scenario though very emotionally charged and somewhat on the edge is not an impossibility.
Regards Mustardseed
Mustardseed, I was starting to think that was a very coherent and well-put post until that last bit. What, exactly, does that have to do with the issue at hand? We're talking about the right of homosexual couples to marry. No more, no less.
That's what I'm trying to discuss, anyway...
My point exactly. If one uses examples like the one I use above the issue gets emotionally derailed. This is what I felt Visionquest did. Hence you get into discussing these excamples instead of the issues at hand.
Regards MS
According to one of my anthropology texts (Small Places, Large issues: an introduction to social and cultural anthropology, Eriksen, 2001):
a man can theoretically have as many children as he likes, while a woman's capacity is restricted to one child per year. From the perspective of human reproduction, it can be said that sperm is cheap while eggs are expensive. This fact may be a partial explanation why men try to control the sexuality of women as well as the tendancy for men to regard the women of the kin group as a resource they do not want to give away without receiving other women in return.
Why do men want many children?
As well as the obvious male urge 'to reproduce', They often require the labour power for their fields or herds, or in modern 'western' societies, to bring wealth to the kin group through other means (financial). The children can form the basis of political support and provide a form of 'old age insurance policy'.
Children provide continuity to the kin group and allow the transmission of property and status to between one generation and the next (within the kin group). This allows the kin group to pool resources over time and stop them bleeding away to their competitors.
In many societies in the world, polygyny is widespread. In some other cultures, such as modern 'western' culture, one wife is the prefered choice. Certainly, regarding the marriage institution as such, its rationale is evidently, at least partly, its ability to produce and socialise children, in order to continue the kin group and transfer resources to the next generation, denying its use by any other group.
Comparatively speaking, romantic love is *rarely* seen as an important precondition for a good marriage. Rather, marriage is frequently arranged by kin groups, not by the couple concerned. If the couple happen to like each other, this is seen as a bonus. Marriage is therfore most commonly viewed as a relationship between groups, not between individuals.
The ideology prevalent in 'western' societies that marriage should be based on 'pure love', which may even trancend class boundaries, is peculuar if seen in a comparative perspective. Among the Maasai for example, it is seen as a distinct disadvantage if romantic love between the two spouces is to powerful.
To sum, the 'western' notion of marriage being related or for the purpose of 'romantic love' is a minority concept, comparativly speaking, only arising in the later middle-ages.
Marriage is a purely social construct. Its perceived importance is that it allows for the union between two groups, allowing them to ally and become more powerful through the sharing of their resources; in this respect the creation and socialising of children is viewed as an essential characterstic, as it is the children who allow the group to continue beyond the present generation and therefore allow the transfer of resources (property & status) beyond the current generation. By pooling resources in this way, kin groups can survive in the greater world where resources are limited and competition between groups is fierce. This is as true of 'western society' as it is of any other.
A notable point about marriage as a social institution is that it is so important to some groups that they emphasise its importance by attributing 'divine' attributes to it, to give it more social power.
Modern 'western' christian marriages are an example of this, along with hindu, some buddhist, islamic and judaic ones. However, marriage is very much a social (and political) idea, and as such is so important that many attempts are made to increase its social force, including religious attributes.
--------------------------------------------
Now, the above comments by Eriksen here might lead some people to think that i am backtraking on my previous support for gay marriages. Actually i'm not. What I am pointing out is that the 'western' concept of marriage 'for love' is actually unusual among most cultures in the world. This concept IS unusual, therefore the usual arguments do not apply to the same extent. Although Eriksen is right that the same concerns are expressed by western males as by all others, the fact that western culture has this odd trait of marrying for love marks it out from the others.
In the particular case of western civilisation, since it supports the unusual notion of marriage for love (which can often inhibit any child bearing possibilites), then gay marriages should be allowed as it is also a form of 'marriage for love'. Many marriages for love do not produce children, perhaps the woman is too old, perhaps they are infertile; whatever, what I am saying is that in western society, children are NOT always the prime motive anyway, so this cannot be used as an argument against gay marriage. As for marriages' other main function, to forge alliances between kin groups: gay marriages, if recognised, can fulfil the same function as straight ones in any case. Therefore, seen within the unusual contxt of western society, I see no reason why gay people cannot marry. They are a minorty group in any case and do not 'threaten' larger kin groups in any way, and suggestions that they do are paranoia.
Regards,
Douglas
PS Mustardseed, I read that essay you posted. I'm not sure about the rest of it, but most of the material related to the classical period was sh*t!
To say that the baths of Caracalla were like any other 'homosexual baths today' is bullsh*t. Roman Thermae (public baths) were huge complexes, like our leisure centres today. They were for public use and were certainly not attributed to gay people. Of course, now and again you might have got the odd incident, like you get anywhere but it was not a 'gay hangout'.
Your author has swallowed hook, line and sinker, the old stereotype about 'gay greeks and romans'.
In fact, although greek aristocrats and the upper classes practised a form of homosexuality in some areas, (alongside heterosexual relationships), this was still a minorty grouping, and there is no evidence that these practices were endorsed by the population at large. In addition, homosexuality was frowned upon by Roman culture and was negativly viewed as 'greekness'. Likewise, the comments about Augustus and other roman aristocrats being gay, owe more to slander by their political opponents than reality, which incidently, provides more evidence that homosexuality was not endorsed. If it was, why use it as an insult? Again, your source just accepts these allegations without engaging his/her brain: tell them to do a history course. Sure, there is evidence that some in the upper classes liked to swing both ways, but hell, what's new.
I think this is an appropriate topic for this forum. I will paraphrase something I read in Robert Bruce's book: Negs can have a lot of effect on someone's sexuality.
This may be why there are warnings against that kind of thing in the Bible. Also, in some smaller psychological circles, homosexuality is considered an illness.
From the cowardice that dare not face new truth
From the laziness that is contented with half-truth
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth
Good Lord, deliver me. Kenyan prayer.
Thou my mother, and my father thou
Thou my friend, and my teacher thou
Thou my wisdom, and my riches thou
Thou art all to me, O God of all Gods. Ramanuja Indian prayer.
Hi all
Since we are all living in a very "spiritual" reality I would like to air the following theory. I would like to ask you all to refrain from emotional outbursts and name calling and treat this theory with respect, and use valid arguments instead of ridicule.
Is it possible that Homosexuality, especially male, but also female, could be an overshadowing of an succubus that has turned to a fullblown posession. In a sense a posession of a female entity, a symbiotic relationship of sorts.
Regards Mustardseed
I was expecting someone to answer this question. How about it , is that a possibility?
quote:
Originally posted by Kazbadan
Mans that are against homossexuality are stupid: dont you see that with less men "in the field" there will be plenty of womens wandering for heterossexual man [:D]. I mean, with less heterossexual man, i will have more chances with womens!
I take my words back.
I support gay marriages!
quote:
Originally posted by Kazbadan
Mans that are against homossexuality are stupid: dont you see that with less men "in the field" there will be plenty of womens wandering for heterossexual man [:D]. I mean, with less heterossexual man, i will have more chances with womens!
But only the gay marriages between men.
None for women.
Sorry.
I suspect that what Mustardseed said about negs and homosexuality may be right. There is too much about human nature that we don't know, what Robert has written has very wide implications but not enough technique on clearing. But in saying this we must remember many people have burdens that we don't know where they are coming from.We need less of a scare job and more practicalities which is very lacking in the psychic arena.
Human sexuality and interference with this energy is of great concern because it is cwntral to the human race. In present form we cannot exist without it , hopefully someone will come up with a way of clearing the human field of this problem.
We must remember that human kind is complex and closes away what we don't want to look at. What about intersex people. Life can be difficult and believe it or not much of the time evrything is trying to get you down especially through conflict, anger, antagonism and group gang-ups, blow-out bloodshed,be careful who you criticise the world can gang up on you like you did something wrong in a terrible way.But the abuse homosexuals receive from other can be horrendous, along with self hatred and doubt, they have a heavy deal as it is,and they like everyone else have a right to live. Who knows why we act like we do or choose what we think we want.Who knows if what is written about God is the truth about God.
Thinking about this issue has made me think that having to gain a "right" is a great example of man's inhumanity to man,why are we so much less than that we have to gain a right to some kind of liberty, think of the suffragatte movement for women, and the struggle of the african-american in America. "Giving them rights" while being a step forward will still be used somehow for restriction and defining of the human reality. This world is about "divide and conquer" but there are times when people have had enough of brutality and unfair inhumane wicked treatment and group-up against the offender. Oppression always leads to upheaval.
As an alternate reason as to why some people are homosexual, and the one I'm leaning more towards now, I've read article from a website on spirituality that it has to do with our past incarnations. The idea goes something like this: when we reincarnate, we usually incarnate as the same gender as we were in our last life. However, we do incarnate differently on occasion as we need it. In doing this, sometimes feelings we'd been used to in previous lives are suddenly awkward, but nonetheless people go with these feelings over their hormones, and so it's natural in a way. I'm not saying that homosexuality is necessary as spiritually healthy as heterosexuality, but either way I wouldn't hold anything against gay people or want to restrict their free will.
[:O]
Hi Lola
I am really not kiddin' I still believe it is in its place to consider this and ask the question. IMO Your reasoning is flawed. You seem to say that it is inconcievable that a large part of a population could be yielding to or under attack from negs.
How about taking another issue like say drug abuse. It is a very very likely possibility that people addicted to some drugs are influenced by negs, is that also unlikely? how about obesity? I believe that this might also be a neg problem. How about different mental problems etc etc. Give me a better reason than "it ain't possible becourse that would be a lot of people" [;)]
If you would like to explore a very different view point than your own, read Robert Bruces book on Astral Self defense. If you still feel a need to laugh out loud .......keep laughing, no problem with me. In the meantime be so kind as to answer and debate these issues without resorting to ridicule and sarcasm.
Thankyou
Regards Mustardseed
...
The words below are not mine, but they are important enough to get them out to as many people as I can. You are not required to support or sign anything if you do not wish. But if you wish to sign a petition to help Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgender folks worldwide start to enshrine their rights as universal, then please, read the request below and follow the link to sign the petition.
Thank you~ GhostRider (Kevin)
Dear all,
A few words to remind you that ILGA?s online petition to support the
Brazilian
resolution ?on sexual orientation and human rights? at the United
Nations
will close this Monday at midnight (Greenwich Mean Time - GMT). The
petition
can be seen at http://www.brazilianresolution.com/
40 000 persons have already signed: if all of them forward this message
to
5 of their friends, the petition would rise to 200 000 !!!
We still need your support!
Organisations and associations can sign collectively. (Please do not
write
anyting in the ?organisation? box if you are not signing on behalf of
one).
The petition, co-signed by 1000 organisations, will be delivered this
Wednesday
March 24 by ILGA Co-secretary General Kursad Kahramanoglu to Mike
Smith,
Chairman of the 60th session of the United Nations Commission on Human
rights.
Please forward this email to your friends.
Stephen Barris
Information officer
International Lesbian and Gay Association