We are going to talk about this. If you want to. This is a rare request for me to be moderator. I really have some questions. But let's not start just yet. Just lurk and post a quick " I'll watch - but no promises " and we'll get started in a bit.

I have a fair format planned - but we'll see where it goes.

OK - yes I'm eager;

It would be cool if anyone who is interested in talking about Homosexuality could just give a background on their personal experience with someone who is gay. Or maybe you are gay. Cite as many specific instances as you wish. If you could, for the moment, omit how you felt about them being gay. Just a list of experiences with people who are gay. I guess it would be also a good plan to note how you knew they were gay. Did they tell you? Did you just suspect it? Etc.

This will be REAL interesting.

My guess is that those of us who have a loved one in our lives who is gay will be on one side of the aisle, and many of those who refuse to associate with gay folks will be on the other.

I have a question CJ - why the interest? If you don't want to answer at all, or even to me via email, that's fine ... just wondering, that's all.

Grew up in a very anti-gay place.

Got to know a friend who was gay. We talked, things changed big time.

Married a left leaning and strong woman. Why?

Because deep down, I knew better :P

I suspect Brian is right.

Here's one! Anyone find some kinds of gay more difficult than others to deal with?

It was weird in my childhood, the two polar opposites I had.

My father was as homophobic as one can be. He beat up the guy who lived behind us in South Dakota because he was "Frenchy the Faggot" ... I had that to deal with, KNOWING the truth about my mother. My grandfather hit my mother after finding out about her homosexuality, thinking that he went wrong in his upbringing of her ... credit to him, he eventually saw that she was no different and accepted it.

I had suspicions about it in my preteen years ... moving away to Spokane, her new friends and how one was over all the time, sleeping in the same bed, etc. I thought about it a lot for a couple of years, and finally one day when we were driving back from Seattle I asked her if she was gay. She damn near drove off the road when I asked her, and we spent the next four hours talking about it. I cried, because I felt so horrible for her ... I was 13 at the time.

Seeing what she has been through, it has made me appreciate the struggles of not only the gay community now, but other ethnic minorities and their struggles for equal rights over the years. She is now part of a Spokane-area task force that goes out into the community and discusses intolerance of any kind, and she is doing a world of good for the community. She is very much someone that I look up to, and I hope that in my lifetime I can be a fraction of the human being she is.

Well I'll jump in.

My sister is lesbian and has been in a 19 year relationship. My folks had their suspicions for several years. She finally "came out" in 1983 but on the prompting of my folks.

It was hard on them at first. Being from a Christian family and my dad being a pastor we had much to learn. My mom had felt she had lost another daughter. My other sister died at 3 and half. So this hit mom hard. Dad got quiet and kept busy.

My sister had told my younger brother a year earlier on a visit to Spokane Washington where my brother worked at the time. He kept it quiet upon my sisters request.

When she told me I told her how hard this must be for her, we hugged, I told her I loved her. Nothing has changed that.

But I would suggest a great read that really helped me come to a better understanding of what it really means to be gay in America today. "Stranger at the Gate: Being Gay and Christian in America today" by Mel White. It came out in 1993. This book may not change your mind on gays but it will let you into the difficult struggle many gays go through, especially those who do have a deep faith, albeit Christian or otherwise.

Organizations like PFLAG (Parents, Friends of Lesbians And Gays) has also been a wonderful place for resources. My sister has been my best resource and has allowed me and others to ask any questions we want. No subject is off limits. And believe me I have taken her up on many questions over the years.

So Chickenjuggler was that the kind of thing you're looking for?

I have a few friends who are gay or lesbian. One close friend from high school that I still keep in touch with is a lesbian. We were never more than friends anyway - her becoming a lesbian didn't change our relationship at all. I don't care at all what her sexual orientation is.

Another friend of mine came out as a lesbian for a few years (until she decided she really preferred men after all and "switched back."). I went to some "gay events" with her during that time. One was a drag queen thing at a bar. Sorry, that's the first and only time I need to experience that! Some people I've met at events like that have that pushy "gay rights" attitude that some on the right find so annoying - and so do I, to some degree. But to me, it's the same kind of annoying I get when someone tries to talk me into attending their church or pushing their religious beliefs on me. I respect people's beliefs, but I don't want them pushed in my face.

Once one of the guys I met at one of these gay events hit on me and it made me very uncomfortable - not because he was gay but he did it in kind of a sleazy way (and he was kind of a sleazy character). Had he been a woman, I would have been just as uncomfortable. I wouldn't be offended if a gay man asked me out in a polite way, though - I'd simply decline politely.

I work out at a gym downtown where, I later learned, many of the men were gay. It had never occurred to me, but I guess it was obvious to a lot of people. I notice that in the locker room, some of the guys are very self-conscious about wearing a towel to cover themselves, perhaps for that reason, but I don't care at all if some gay guy sees me - so what? (And no - I'm not an exhibitionist.)

I wouldn't care if I were gay - shoot, sometimes I wish I were, given how hard dating women can get - but I'm sure I'm not. I think some of the most homophobic people are closet gays and that's kind of sad, when you think about it.

Andrew

"I have a question CJ - why the interest?"

Alright - I'll tip my hand and hope that my following dialogue doesn't come off as loaded because I do NOT have an agenda. No judging from this side. Even though I may ask pointed questions, it's to get to the individual truth for each individual.

I have no backstory except to say that when Wayne was around, we would hit this wall and NEVER progress past it. It would stop at a certain point and then just devolve into Bible citing or name calling. There was absolutely ZERO talking. Just announcing. That always bothered me. This is a heated topic - I could have just as simply picked another topic and done the same thing.

I'm not gay. I have no gay tendencies. But I also just have no problem with those that are. I don't say that to sound superior or flawed - it's just the way I am. I make gay jokes. But I make jokes about myself 10 fold. I happen to have many gay friends - mostly lesbian. I also have more than a few that I see struggle with the living every day life while gay. I don't pity them. I support them. Sometimes actively.

This topic get's talked about on a level that I like - but I never get down to the core. And it gets brought up enough around here to desire some really deep conversation. It's not easy to do on the internet - but it can be talked about better than we treat it around here sometimes.

Some of what I see and feel is " injustice." Not to hold some high ground - but that bothers me. It FEELS VERY wrong to see a gay person treated as less than an equal. Some of it is complex - some of it is simple.

But some of the phrases that get tossed around so much around here are just...well...lacking context.

I'm trying to find some context.

If I were raised in a household that really drilled one thought or another, I don't know where I would land on all this. But something tells me that there is a climate out there that has brought this to the front burner that would not have otherwise been the case. Leaders making such strong statements for or against it. Closested homosexuals being forced out into the open. Etc.

On one hand it's easy to say " What's the big deal? " But really, by it's own inertia, it IS a big deal. So I wanted to talk about it more.

And missing - yes - I DO find some kinds of gay more difficult to deal with than other. Absolutely. But the fact that they are gay doesn't get any more weight from me than if they weren't. Some poeple have a militant personality. Some of those poeple are just assholes. Just because they are gay doesn't give them a free pass. But those poepel are in a minority and there are some that like to point to that as representative as gay people as a whole. When, in fact, they only represent assholes.

No pun intended.

Oh and by the way - just because you decide to cite a biblical passge, that will NOT be held against you. It's a VERY valid reason. I wish I could articulate the " Wayne Era " better - but give me a break on that - I'm not levellling judgement towards people that decide to use The Bible. I just want to ask a couple question PAST that. Just a couple. Even if you bring it ALL back to The Bible - that's cool with me.

Actually, Andrew put it very well. It is more about the kind of person and the approach that is unsettling.

I got hit on once at a book store in Bellview. Did not pick up on it until later. That was slippery --smooth, whatever, but it stuck with me for a long while. Do not know why.

Chickenjuggler, thank you for this thread. It good to just share. Healthy and valuable. A "format" is actually a very valuable thing --often missed in the free form mode we deal in here. Nicely done!

I have a problem with inequality. Actually, this thread is making me realize it is bigger than it needs to be. Growing up, a lot of things were unequal and I took a LOT of crap over it, because I would always go the distance to try and make it right.

My wife and I both have some gay friends. Going through the acceptance stage with a couple of them makes one step back and realize perhaps life just is not that bad. I actually find some lesbians hilarious! We like the same things, but the perspective is still different.

The first gay person I met, I knew before they did. It was like the elephant in the room! When it all came out, there was this pressure just gone. In place was this void of unknowns:

were we still friends?

did somebody do something wrong?

is it catchy?

(small town remember!)

who is at fault? Parents, etc..?

The conversations were REAL. That does not always happen --perhaps it should.

Took a while for that to work out. We ended up doing stuff, first just a couple of friends, then more, then it was all ok as the circle of acceptance reached a point where this person felt liked they belonged again, not just tolerated.

I have heard many stories of people being "healed" from their homosexuality. I posed this very question to my sister. Her response was that the person was probably never homosexual in the first place just sexually messed up.

Think back to when you were discovering your own sexuality. All the changes your body was going through, your hormones raging and then realize that you have different sexual feelings towards the same sex. Puberty is hard enough let alone being gay and trying to fit in.

Is there a segment of the gay community that drives me nuts? Sure. I used to run a Domino's Pizza on Seattle's Capitol Hill ... where the majority of Seattle's sizable gay community either lives or congregates. I got hit on CONSTANTLY. 99 percent of them understood after the first time I said, "Sorry, I am not interested. I am straight." There was always the guy who wouldn't take no for an answer ... much like there is the guy who won't take no for an answer from a woman.

Having issues with certain gay people isn't a gay issue, that is an issue with ALL segments of society. I can also tell you that the majority of homosexuals disassociate themselves from the stereotypical feminine "flamer" or "dykes on bikes" or what have you, because they feel that those groups do them and their group a disservice.

"So Chickenjuggler was that the kind of thing you're looking for?"

Yes. Thank you. It's just that this is such a hot issue and sometimes the actual humanity get's lost in labels from both sides. " It's not a big deal " vs. " It's a big deal." and just a simple internet discussion, saying things out loud, gives perspective.

On to the next context; ( And I don't want to slow down anything or steer it - but it's an issue );

The issue about born that way vs. choice.

Is there anyone here who believes that BEING gay is a choice?

It's a simple question. Look at how I asked that; BEING gay. Not the actual homosexual acts - but the real knowing that you, or me, or someone, is making the conscious decision to be attracted to your own sex vs. the opposite sex?

I know it's a somewhat age-old question - but it's part of the foundation of this thread. It counts. Right or wrong or in between, it counts.

Is the feeling/knowing or whatever you want to call it ( and I would like to know each of what you'd call it ) a choice? You don't even have to support it - yet. But do you feel it's a choice?

Chickenjuggler, is having a difficult time being monogamous a choice?

Is fighting the temptation to gossip, or steal, or behave in a myriad of other less than stellar manners a choice?

By framing it the way you do, it leaves no room for free will. Then add the factor that a significant portion of homosexuals have been abused as youngsters. That certainly makes it even more difficult, because those poor kids did not choose that path; it was foisted upon them. They need love, and prayer.

Herb

Herb, thank you for joining in. Frankly, even though you don't need or ask for it, I want to pay special attention that you don't get slammed.

But Herb, let me try this again with you - I'm talking/asking about the very desire to sleep with men. To put it bluntly. I'm not asking about the actual carrying out of it - I'm asking about the desire.

Do you feel that it is a choice to have that desire?

Herb said - "Then add the factor that a significant portion of homosexuals have been abused as youngsters."

I don't know if you added that while I was posting or I miised it - but I promise, we'll get to that. Can we just go step-by-step just a little bit longer? If you have a problem with how I've phrased it - I understand. But one step at a time. Just for now. And honestly, it will be quite short before we get to your point.

Herb said - "Then add the factor that a significant portion of homosexuals have been abused as youngsters."

Folks - it's tempting to go off on that - but PLEASE - just let me ask in the format I have planned.

OK - I'm coming of VERY pious. I swear, if you give me ONE day or two to do this, we can understand it all a little better.

"But Herb, let me try this again with you - I'm talking/asking about the very desire to sleep with men. To put it bluntly. I'm not asking about the actual carrying out of it - I'm asking about the desire. Do you feel that it is a choice to have that desire?"

I believe that the initial desire you speak of is, like many others, often not a choice. However, like many other desires, it can be nursed, excused, toyed with, and therefore grow.

People can be influenced and it isn't always easy to resist. Why else does Madison Avenue insist that advertising has no effect on human behaviour, as it sells billions of dollars in advertising to their corporate clients so they can effect human behaviour?

We all can be weak at times, but don't deny free will, either.

Herb

P.S. "Folks - it's tempting to go off on that.."
Chickenjuggler-That was indeed my nod to the left that change is not necessarily easy. But often very worthwhile.

"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."

C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory

OK - well - So you feel that someone can be convinced ( by various means ) to actually BE gay? Not just act on it - but to prefer their own sex?

And do you feel that that majority of homosexual people have been convinced to be so?

Not to pull a Rosie, but those are three " Yes or No " questions.

"...you feel that someone can be convinced ( by various means ) to actually BE gay? Not just act on it - but to prefer their own sex?"

Consider the depravity that is visited on a young girl who becomes a prostitute. It's a gradual situation, like the frog in the warming kettle.

Humankind has changed little in millenia and as we've seen throughout the ages, is capable of tremendous good and evil. We are part saint and sinner.

The question you should be asking is "Does God love the sinner?" God loves the homosexual just as much as every other person. But like others, he also loves them too much to have them stay there. If you're going to say that the prostitute can have a better life, then don't be surprised when homosexuals, who have a dramatically shortened lifespan, can also have life more abundantly.

I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.(KJV)

John 10:10

Herb

By that logic Herb, and correct me if I am wrong, a strong enough persuader could convince a weak-willed person ( or perhaps undeveloped ) to be homosexual. To actually prefer their own sex.

Is that correct?

"The question you should be asking is "Does God love the sinner?" God loves the homosexual just as much as every other person."

I will ask that question. Soon. But not yet.

I believe the facts show that to be true, for a high number of homosexuals have been abused as kids.

Now here's yet another nod to the left [I'm the kinder, Francophile Herb, remember]: Those abusing these kids are often "nice, conservative, family people" in a position of authority: priests, scout leaders, etc. And in today's culture, many of these youngsters have no Dad in the household. What kid wouldn't be confused?

The attempt at normalization from groups like NAMBLA, and lowering the age of consent will only make it worse. Watch Chris Hansen on "To Catch A Predator." There are PLENTY of evil doers trying to abuse our kids. It's not even necessarily a homosexual thing. It's just an evil thing. Young kids by definition cannot give informed consent.

Herb

"I believe the facts show that to be true, for a high number of homosexuals have been abused as kids."

Alright - since you brought it up - what is the percentage of professed homosexuals that claim to be abused?

I would be surprised if you thought, much less could cite, a majority. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Can you?

And you think that single mothers contribute to it too? Right? Is that not what you said?

Feel free to cite stats. Like you, I've seen plenty and have known numerous adults abused as kids who were homosexual.

What can be seen in many studies is that absent a positive male role model in the home, kids don't fare as well.*

*Sexual abuse. A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.
Source: Beverly Gomes-Schwartz, Jonathan Horowitz, and Albert P. Cardarelli, "Child Sexual Abuse Victims and Their Treatment," U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Herb

"often not a choice. However, like many other desires, it can be nursed, excused, toyed with, and therefore grow. "

I think this is significant.

Thought exercise:

Let's assume those core elements of our being, just are not a choice.

However, ignorance is a factor!

If one does not come to understand their being well enough to exercise the choice, what then?

Interesting, is what.

So, living a lie, in the context of gay people being looked down upon, really only has meaning if one possesses enough self awareness to realize such a lie is in play.

If one then is ignorant, is denial of ones core being, living a lie then?

Would this then just equate to not being happy?

Worse, is this better than just doing / having what it takes to actually understand the self?

Stopping there, per our moderator of the evening.

Everyone is wired differently. Sex research Alfred Kinsey found that some people are almost completely gay, some almost completely straight, some are right in the middle somewhere.

So it seems that some people who somewhere in the middle (potential bisexuals) might be perfectly happy in a hetrosexual relationship yet have tendancies - and in some circumstances "turn gay." But if someone is wired to one extreme or another, it's pretty much impossible to change their inclinations. Many gay people knew as soon as they could have such thoughts that they preferred the same sex - nothing "turned them" gay, just as many of us have known from a very young age that we preferred the opposite sex.

So I think it's important not to put everyone in one basket and say we are all the same in regards to sexual inclination. While it's quite easy to change someone's behavior - get a gay person to "act straight" through some sort of moral peer pressure and guilt - it's not possible to change their desires.

Social Conservatives like Herb don't care about people's sexual orientation - all they care about is that people behave according to their Biblical version of Morality. It's OK with them if you prefer the same sex as long as you "resist temptation" (which makes those people REALLY happy) and behave "straight." But if you don't see homosexuality as a sin, as I don't, then there's nothing wrong with homosexual behavior. On the contrary, it seems immoral to me to FORCE someone to behave contrary to their natural sexual desires (with consenting adults, of course). Let people choose. If a gay person chooses to live a straight lifestyle due to guilt, I'd find that sad but still their choice.

Andrew

Herb, I have yet to get a straight answer from you to my questions. You don't have to answer them - but let's not pretend that they are answered.

Do you feel that it is a choice to have that desire?

So you feel that someone can be convinced ( by various means ) to actually BE gay? Not just act on it - but to prefer their own sex?

And do you feel that that majority of homosexual people have been convinced to be so?

A strong enough persuader could convince a weak-willed person ( or perhaps undeveloped ) to be homosexual. To actually prefer their own sex?

We're getting down to the core here, Herb. You can say it out loud or not.

Need for roles:

On the male role --I've experienced this closely.

I've two lesiban friends, raising a son. The need for male role models is clear, given the child self-identifies this way, and that's the key. This youngster had a lot of trouble, prior to having males to model on, identify with, etc...

No matter the gender, family situation, etc...

Everyone needs to experience a diverse set of roles, if they are to properly self-identify!

So, the same could easily be said for females, not having a female role, given two fathers.

Ties into the ignorance bit I mentioned above.

This totally begs the question then:

Are we doing young people a dis-service by limiting the roles they see?

My position on this is that we are. I went through significant issues in my 20's because the range of acceptable roles I saw was limited somewhat. I also suffered because the roles I did see were not presented in an honest way.

(discrimination, bigotry, etc... was in play)

What got me through to a point where my self formed properly (I'm happy with me and do not need nor seek acceptance from others, or require them to define my value), was having seen others be open to explore these matters. Had I not seen that, I would very likely still be quite troubled today.

Good stuff here. I know Herb and I differ on this but I'll just go with the experience of having a lesbian sister.

I have asked my sister the very questions about choice and being born gay. And reading the book by Mel White was a true eye opener and educational. In both cases both my sister and particularly Mel didn't want to believe they had feelings toward the opposite sex. It's a common battle with young people trying to figure out their own sexuality.

Some gays go to great lengths to free themselves of being gay. When my sister announced she was gay my folks talked to other clergy who had gay daughters and sons and asked a lot of questions. This lead to us reading scientific and medical reports and the more we read the more we believed it was not my sisters choice.

So how does my sister who shares the same Christian belief system I have, come to terms with her sexuality in the face of some who say the bible says otherwise. I really wish I knew that answer to that. I know God loves my sister and I truly believe she is heaven bound because her heart knows that she is one of Gods precious children.

Some of you may have seen this another thread but I will share part of this here. It's from a pastor friend of mine:

Many Christians tend to forget that the Scriptures for Jesus -- and for Paul and all the disciples -- were the Hebrew scriptures. I wonder if Jesus had any idea that there would eventually be a "Christian" set of scriptures, and that his sayings would become so hotly debated centuries following his life on earth. I'm fairly positive that the Apostle Paul gave little thought to the idea that his letters would late become part of a sacred canon.

Just because Jesus is quoted in the New Testament doesn't mean they were his actual words -- or that if they were -- the way we modern Western believers interpret them is in the manner he intended them to be understood....

Ultimately I think we need to move away from a them verses us kind of mentality and be more inclusive in trying to understand our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

Herb writes:
I believe the facts show that to be true, for a high number of homosexuals have been abused as kids.

I'm sure lots of kids are abused for being gay - that's pretty obvious, just as lots of fat kids were abused and teased, too. Obviously, it's easy to confuse cause and effect to support your own preconceived notions. That hardly means that "abuse causes kids that would have been straight to be gay." Never heard of a study that has proved that.

Andrew

"Never heard of a study that has proved that."

I haven't either. But the premise is cited OFTEN. I'm not asking for a cite - I'm askng if you BELIEVE a cite. Just any cite?

I'd believe it if the study was done scientifically, with as much bias removed as possible. Somehow, I'm guessing Herb's studies come from extremely biased sources.

Andrew

I have close family members who are gay, and my thinking on this subject has changed over the years. While I don't agree with parades and this whole "outing" movement, I will admit that most of these people with this orientation did not choose it. Why would they? To be put-down by the rest of society? I think not. The evidence is that most of these individuals feel they were "born" gay and their sexuality is as natural to them as any straight person. Too bad many in the anti-gay community refuse to accept this. They are wrong. Quote the bible all you want, but Gays are put on earth the same as straights are. Let me conclude with this question...Do you think straights could simply "change thier minds" regarding their sexuality? What makes you think gays can do the same?

move away from a them verses us kind of mentality and be more inclusive in trying to understand our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. -- Chris

Absolutely. Either one is a member of the human race, or one is not. From there, we all have our issues. Thankfully, there are a lot of us, ideally representing a lot of help!

Can being abused turn one gay?

This is morbid, but...

Consider an all male prison. Somebody is going to have some needs and somebody else is gonna satisfy them. It's a pressure cooker. Stuff happens.

Ok, so an abused one could be living in a self-prison of sorts. Lesser of two evils. Perhaps, living true to ones own self is too horrible, given the abuse. There are still needs, perhaps choosing to live the lie is easier than working through the issues?

IMHO, this seems valid. However, it's living a lie, not turning gay.

One can choose to live a lie. Nobody gets to choose their self-truth!

So, is there any defensible reason why someone should be compelled to live a lie?

Do you think straights could simply "change thier minds" regarding their sexuality? What makes you think gays can do the same?

And really, this part of the talk is summed up by that question. I'd like an answer. My answer is " They can't." I can prove me answer. Can anyone prove their answer that " They can."?

(reads with great interest)

If a solid proof, case, whatever is presented for the idea that ones sexuality is a choice, legislating that is defensible.

This is the crux of the matter.

"Herb, I have yet to get a straight answer from you to my questions."

Let me be clearer, then.

What I've been saying is that young people are impressionable, and are often more easily persuaded to experiment with a variety of activities. That includes sex.

For a variety of reasons, adults are less likely to be 'swayed.'

Herb

I know I can't change my sexual orientation and neither can my sister. So that just makes us brother and sister whom came out of the same womb.

If I'm to believe that we are all made in God's image, then as I look around my neighborhood, family and friends I must realize God sees a much bigger picture.

Herb I really recommed reading Mel White's "Stranger at the Gate." It's a quick read. Read it not to change your mind, but read it to gain valuable information about a dear brother in Christ who went through tremendous struggles with his homosexuality.

Herb, I agree - these are the questions.

Do you feel that it is a choice to have that desire?

So you feel that someone can be convinced ( by various means ) to actually BE gay? Not just act on it - but to prefer their own sex?

And do you feel that that majority of homosexual people have been convinced to be so?

A strong enough persuader could convince a weak-willed person ( or perhaps undeveloped ) to be homosexual. To actually prefer their own sex?

So, younger people could become gay?

ie: they can choose, if they know the choice is there?

This is slippery indeed!

Let's say we've got weyland the gay person that has never seen another gay person, no stories, nothing. Everybody else is straight.

If weyland does not know anything else, do we think he would conform, or not?

If he does, is that living a lie or not?

Would he actually, through ignorance, just not be happy, choose to not marry, etc..?

Now the twister:

At age 50, weyland meets another gay person and they talk! He finally can self-identify!

Were the tools necessary to realize the self hidden, or the self changed at this moment in time?

Herb writes:
What I've been saying is that young people are impressionable, and are often more easily persuaded to experiment with a variety of activities. That includes sex.

That's irrelevant for the people who are wired as completely straight or completely gay. No childhood sexual experience will flip such people's orientation. People who are sexually "in the middle" could be swayed one way or the other, that's very true - but to many of us, the question is, "So what?"

Andrew

To suggest that a 5-7 year old is "choosing" to be gay is absurd. What child can base their human urges on morality? It is NATURAL! What else could you expect from a child of that age? These roots begin in the womb, IMHO.

IMHO, the only case where it could not be a "So what?" kind of thing is if there are no fully gay people.

Choice again...

In that case, we've got straight people and less than straight people, but no born gay people. Conforming then is a matter of discussion.

Herb, this is the wall we've hit before - you want to seem open minded, but you have your own ideas but won't say them out loud.

Answer the very specific questions and I'll move on. Don't imply. Don't even support. Just say, out loud, what you believe.

Do you feel that it is a choice to have that desire?

So you feel that someone can be convinced ( by various means ) to actually BE gay? Not just act on it - but to prefer their own sex?

And do you feel that that majority of homosexual people have been convinced to be so?

A strong enough persuader could convince a weak-willed person ( or perhaps undeveloped ) to be homosexual. To actually prefer their own sex?

Redford: Totally.

Chris, did you two talk about this? Just curious where that discussion went.

There is being able to change and not wanting to change. Could it be the two were confused somehow? If not, what nailed it down?

"*Sexual abuse. A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.
Source: Beverly Gomes-Schwartz, Jonathan Horowitz, and Albert P. Cardarelli, "Child Sexual Abuse Victims and Their Treatment," U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention."

Herb, I REALLY am biting my tongue here and trying not to reach through this computer monitor and strangle. I will play nice.

Reading this quote you provide us on the "stats", I don't see ANYWHERE where it provides a correlation between homosexuality as an adult and abuse as a child. I DO see one between broken homes/step-parents and abuse, but that isn't homosexuality and abuse.

You're once again quick to provide scripture to defend/validate your stance. This reminder once again, the Bible was written by, and to this day is interpreted by, man. Do you REALLY think God would create roughly 10 percent of His people on Earth to be in a light that is what you consider an abomination to God? Do you REALLY think that he would create all of these people, KNOWING that if they were to not sin and have homosexual relationships that they would spend their entire adult lives miserable and lonely? Did you know that among 20-year-old males, the suicide rate among homosexuals is THIRTEEN TIMES higher than among straight 20 year old males?

Herb - you're always "wanting facts" on issues, so here's some facts provided by Wikipedia, stating that there IS a genetic difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals:

# the average size of the INAH-3 in the brains of gay men is significantly smaller, and the cells more densely packed, than in heterosexual men's brains.
# the anterior commissure is larger in women than men, and larger in gay men than in straight men;
# gay men's brains respond differently to fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor;
# the functioning of the inner ear and the central auditory system in lesbians and bisexual women are more like the functional properties found in men than in straight women (the researchers argued this finding was consistent with the prenatal hormonal theory of sexual orientation;
# the startle response (eyeblink following a loud sound) is similarly masculinized in lesbians and bisexual women;
# three regions of the brain (medial prefrontal cortex, left hippocampus, and right amygdala) are more active in gay men than straight men when exposed to sexually arousing material;
# gay and straight people emit different armpit odors;
# gay and straight people's brains respond differently to two human sex pheromones (AND, found in male armpit secretions, and EST, found in female urine);
# gay men have slightly longer and thicker penises than straight men;
# finger length ratios between the index and ring fingers may be different between straight and lesbian women

I know that you are going to believe what you choose, and that is fine. Just do us a favor though and think about it: would YOU "choose" to be gay? Would YOU "choose" to be someone in a society where you are constantly pooped on, and where it is perfectly legal (at the moment) to fire you, say you can't live here, deny basic health coverage, or a loan, or any basic deed or service to you ... because of who you are? Because of something you have NO control over? Would you CHOOSE to be that person?

You dont choose to be gay, I can accept that, but you do choose to perform homosexual conduct.

If a 50 year old has sex with a 16 year old, can he use the argument, well I didnt choose to want to do it.

I'm not picking and choosing. Whatever the activity, we have a choice. That is diminished in young people, because they cannot give informed consent.

Sounds like you guys want to tell people with struggles that they have no free will to change.

I'm the guy who says we have more power than we know, especially with the Grace of God.

Herb

"You dont choose to be gay, I can accept that, but you do choose to perform homosexual conduct.

If a 50 year old has sex with a 16 year old, can he use the argument, well I didnt choose to want to do it."

You have a point. That said, does that mean, in your eyes, that someone who is gay should be celibate and miserable and without a loving relationship in their life because of who they are? Is that really fair to them?

And Herb, yes, we DO have a choice. I still want to know what relevance your statistic has to increased homosexuality in abused children, because there is none there whatsoever from what you posted. And please get off of this high-horse of "changing" a gay person. It just doesn't work that way.

Nwokie writes:
You dont choose to be gay, I can accept that, but you do choose to perform homosexual conduct.


Exactly, just as you can choose to perform "hetrosexual conduct."

If a 50 year old has sex with a 16 year old, can he use the argument, well I didnt choose to want to do it.

Sure, he didn't choose to WANT it, but there are laws to protect minors under the age of 18 from having sex with adults. So the 50 year old needs to understand that if he violates that law and has sex with a 16 year old girl, he will be arrested and prosecuted.

Minors do need to be protected. But between consenting adults, it's free choice.

Andrew

Look...we are all born with a road map. On that map is our starting point. There is also a unique destination on each persons map. That destination is the one were a person is fully aware of who they are and happy with it. How we have to travel through life to reach that point is the problem. You got traffic cops telling you to stop, detours, dead-ends, and all sorts of road blocks statnding in our way. Some people will never arrive at that destination, they will get lost and stop at something close to it but not quite there. Others get hopelessly lost. People are who they are and nothing will change that. When people are forced to live a life not meant for them these are the people you see in mental hospitals, unhappy people, bitter people, etc. I know my destination is just over the horizon, I can feel it, now it's just getting on the best possible road and getting there. I'm sure on my journey I will make a few wrong turns but I will eventually wind up there!

I guess what I am saying....quit trying to force people down roads they were not meant to travel. It's OK to give a lost soul directions but just remember to give them directions to were they need to go and not were you think they should go! I can't tell you that gay is right or wrong...it just is! Or that abortion is a bad decision.....it's that person's choice about the road they need to follow. (I think prevention is the best option BTW)!

Don't steer people wrong, don't be a road block, help someone that has a flat tire get back on the road and the world will be better for it!

Someone once said:
"Quit trying to live everyone elses life for them and live your own to it's fullest!"

Makes sense to me! How bout U!

I'm up for that.

Seriously, this discussion was fantastic. Thanks to Chickenjuggler for handling us nicely!

(you've a talent man, you really do)

At the end of the day, we've not established any solid justification for telling others what to do here, other than some of us don't like it, can't identify it, think God has said it's not ok, etc...

I know I have a BIG problem with others making choices for me. Aren't you guys in the same position?

"You dont choose to be gay, I can accept that, but you do choose to perform homosexual conduct."

Absolutely.

Herb, do you agree with all of that?

I only have a couple more questions - but I want to know where people stand on that issue alone.

Ditto KSKD. Hopefully this helps end the impasse we seem to come to so often on this subject, even in other threads about other subjects.

Now that Wayne is no longer here, I believe that this board is completely filled with people that can make rational arguments for their case, one way or another. Yes, even you Herb and Nwokie and Deane, we don't always agree but you have SOMETHING to offer. If we can just get past the mudslinging on this ONE subject ...

I promise to work harder at seeing the other viewpoint here. I admit, it will be HARD, as I grew up firsthand seeing the damage, but I do know that others don't feel the same way. Everyone is entitled to that, and it is wrong of me to think otherwise, even if I WANT otherwise.

"You dont choose to be gay, I can accept that, but you do choose to perform homosexual conduct."

"...Herb, do you agree with all of that?"

Good questions.

I believe that like many other behaviours, homosexual tendencies can be innate. But so can a tendency toward alcoholism, promiscuity, and the like. But yes, I believe that even aside from many who are abused as kids and become homosexual, certain others have a 'bent' toward certain behaviours, homosexuality being but one.

But that does not mean one must be an active homosexual, any more than those who struggle with chemical abuse need to indulge.

Herb

Thanks.

Actually, Herb makes a good point here. You can have the tendency, but you don't necessarily have to act on it. Some may argue, this will cause many to go to "crazy", but if you look to a higher power, you will most likely be OK in this life.

Herb writes:
I believe that like many other behaviours, homosexual tendencies can be innate. But so can a tendency toward alcoholism, promiscuity, and the like. But yes, I believe that even aside from many who are abused as kids and become homosexual, certain others have a 'bent' toward certain behaviours, homosexuality being but one.

But that does not mean one must be an active homosexual, any more than those who struggle with chemical abuse need to indulge.

Good job comparing homosexuality to alcoholism, Herb. I guess hetrosexual tendencies are like alcoholism, too. One need not actually INDULGE in them, eh?

I mean, just because you are strongly attracted to the opposite sex, you could certainly buy into peer pressure that tells you that that kind of behavior is wrong - you should either have sex with people of your own gender (even if that repulses you) or simply not have sex - because of peer pressure and "moral" issues. Why even consider a relationship with a consenting adult that seems natural and normal for you when you could choose to fight your impulses and live an unfilfilled life just to measure up to some group's moral beliefs?

Andrew

"Why even consider a relationship with a consenting adult that seems natural and normal...."

Why draw the line there? How about cousins, or siblings, then mightn't we simply lower the consent laws? It's all subjective, right? There's an excuse to be made for any limitation.

Herb

Well ok - let's get into that now I guess. The whole premise of " slippery slope " is going to come up. So let's talk about it.

Let's say that homosexuals would be allowed to marry freely everywhere.

What would happen? Take it to the end. Specifically. What would happen?

We'd be slouching toward gomorrah.
Great empires are rarely destroyed from outside. They rot from within.

"Jesus would have accepted homosexuals. But like the above mentioned group of sinners, Jesus would have required a change in lifestyle to go along with the claim of a change in heart. The woman caught in the very act of adultery was told to “go and sin no more.” Jesus would have said the same thing to the homosexual."

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/06-20-06.asp

Herb

What verse was that which specifically say's being homosexual is a sin?

Herb - is it by chance even conceivable for you to be in this discussion WITHOUT bringing your religion into it? Is that somehow humanly possible here? Using your logic, if gay marriage is indeed legalized all across America, will that mean the end of American society as we know it?

PLEASE show us that you have the capacity to think and speak for yourself, and not hide behind the Bible.

Fine.
Forget Sodom and Gomorrah.
Look at Rome and Greece.
Or do you actually think our enlightened society can do away with right and wrong? Deny the faith of our founders at our own peril.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Santayana

Ok, who are we to define right and wrong in this case? Just because **YOU** don't like homosexuality, does that make it wrong for EVERYONE? Do you REALLY think that gay marriage will end America as we know today?

Our founders did a great job of putting their faith aside when founding our country. It's called the Constitution of the United States of America, and it happens to be in the first amendment of that Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Our founders had their faith, yet they realized that ALL faiths needed to be recognized. Guess what, some of those faiths don't seem to think that homosexuals should burn at the stake like the fundamentalist Christian faith does.

Speaking of Christianity, it is largely blamed for the fall of the Roman Empire. Not homosexuality. Think about that!

Could someone tell me examples of how homosexuality contributed to the fall of Greece and Rome? I'm not doubting it - but I don't know how it happened.

And how would accepting gay marriage within our culture/society actually bring it down to the level which is suggested and/or feared? Again, speficially. How would that physically manifest itself it the relatively advanced age we live in now.

CJ, my kudos also to you for deftly managing the discussion of such a volatile subject. But, as often happens, the direct discussion points keep being waylaid by discussion threads that lead away from the point, not toward it.

Ancient Greece and Rome: these two examples, if truly 'destroyed' by homosexuality (doubtful), must be compared to the the hundreds of other civilizations throughout history that have survived and maybe even thrived with homosexual behavior present. *If* these two civiizations were brought down by homosexuality, so what? How is their situation like/unlike ours? How is a civilization brought down by homosexuality? (you ask this). Herb presents this as an irrefutable fact, when it is merely his interpretation of one part of history. He has a heavy burden to prove this statement, and beyond citing like-minded fundamentalist Christians like himself I don't think he can do it.

Slippery slope: Long ago, only heterosexual marriage within your social class was acceptable. Then, we slide a little by allowing marriage outside your social class. Then we allow it outside your faith. Then we allow it outside your race. Each of the above liberalizations of marriage was accompanied with predictions such as Herb makes ("How about cousins, or siblings, then mightn't we simply lower the consent laws?"). So, if we are already sliding headlong toward people marrying their pets why not allow gay marriage, since there's no way to stop sliding down this slippery slope, right? (it is slippery after all)

Well, one might say "Let's stop it right now by not allowing gay marriage." But if we can stop sliding down the slippery slope at gay marriage, we should be able to stop it an any point. If that's the case, then it must not be so siippery after all. In fact, it must therefore not exist.


What is Marriage?: Marriage traditionally has three aspects to it - social, religious and legal.

The social aspect is when two people - usually of the opposite sex - are joined at the hip in a way usually seen by married couples. This can occur with any two people - brothers (think of Niles and Frazier), friends (Turk and JD on 'Scrubs' or Will & Grace) or even a couple having a sexual relationship, be it M/F, F/F or M/M. We see these all the time, and they are generally accepted. ANd there is nothing the government can do to prohibit these kinds of relationships.

Religious marriages can happen anytime and anywhere. At this very moment, a gay couple can go down to an accomodating church and get married in the eyes of God. Government is not required to legally sanction that marriage (we don't in Oregon) but there is nothing the government or law can do to stop such a union under God if a church or religion decides to grant such a union.

Then there is Legal marriage, which is what we are really talking about on this thread. Since it is a distinct facet of marriage, clearly different from the other two, I think it is incredible that we continue to couch the argument about the right of gays to be married under the law in a social or religious context. I think everyone here would agree that a gay (or straight) couple could live as if married in society, or have a marriage-type union blessed by a ceremony in a church. Why can't we allow the legal aspect as well? All a legal marriage does is to consolidate the resources and decision making of two individuals into one entity recognized by law. Corporations have this much; perhaps gay couples should form a two-person corporation? Fred & Bob Jones Inc.

Here's where I got some of the above ideas:

http://philosophersplayground.blogspot.com/2006/05/countering-slippery-slope-non sense-why.html

Sorry for being so long-winded. I'm heading to Central Oregon tomorrow so I may not get a chance to chime in again.

IMHO, looking at our own nation and it's success (current times set aside), is very telling where this point is concerned.

America was founded by people looking to advance social causes! Our law --written my religious people, specifically calls for a permissive environment where the social debate can happen freely. This is what freedom is and it's brought us civil rights, end of slavery, etc...

Agreed with Ed, the history thing is a non-starter. My history classes sure didn't cite homosexuality as the downfall of those nations. Did I get a bad primary education?

All I've seen is "god says it's not ok", and that we are a nation of god; therefore, we cannot allow this behavior.

It all comes back to choice. If, ones sexuality is a choice, then we've a case for reform, if not, then we just don't.

I want to put something else here as well. It may well be that child molestors, rapists, etc... are wired wrong where sexuality is concerned. We are coming to grok the brain and it's many attributes at a level where this may be a defensible view to hold.

So we then must invoke harm as well.

There is no harm between concenting adults, where homosexual behavior is concerned. This is why the sodomy laws were rejected by the Supreme Court. Now this court may reverse that, but one could claim undue bias as the reason, and the strong efforts of the GOP to achieve said bias as well.

If the makeup of the courts leans one direction, or is dominated by one view in particular, can it be said their decisions are just? I know, another thread, but it's gotta be part of this aspect of the discussion.

We then fall to the kids and harm.

Honestly, there could be some harm, given the lack of appropriate role models, depending on the kid, family scene and the attributes present in the parents.

This same argument was used by the state of oregon to prevent me from adopting a black child. I stood before a court and made this winning case:

If the parents are loving parents, and can be shown the best interests of the child are their primary concern, there are plenty of viable solutions to the role model dilemma; given that, what basis does the state have for denying this adoption?

So, we ended up with a black child, who needs to see some black role models. No biggie, we did that and nobody was harmed.

Where gay parents are concerned, this discussion is no different and the solutions the same.

It is my belief the case I made for adopting a black child (which should never have had to be made at all), would apply equally to gay parents and ordinary parents, for that matter.

Bottom line is we have plenty of ordinary parents not providing good role models to their kids and those kids are being harmed. Additionally, the social pressure today, for both parents to work, deny the children more family support and time than ever before!

I know lesbian parents and gay male parents. Have for years. I've actually had the discussion on role modeling with the lesiban parents and their son. Know what? They started the discussion and asked for our family to help out --extend the family somewhat to incorporate enough support for their son so as to provide what he needs.

No biggie. Easily done and the results today, 10 years later, are no different than one would have seen with no gay people involved period. In fact, the tolerance demonstrated by everyone involved is significantly higher than I see in many non-gay family groups. This can only be a good thing!

Getting back to harming the kids and adults. If ones's makeup is such that it is harmful to others, then choices or restrictions must be applied for the greater good. I agree with this, but have not yet seen the burden met for extending it to gay people.

Herb's point here is a good one, but needs more support to be directly applied to gay people and their choices. We have harsh penalties in place for these behaviors because of the harm they do. So we do force some choices, but we do it based on harm.

To sum up, our society is a permissive one, that more or less debunks the whole fall of Rome thing. It's success remains the proof necessary to shut down that line of reasoning.

Where protecting the kiddies is concerned, our existing body of law is adequate, and does address matters of choice and harm.

So, even if being gay is not a choice, or is, does not matter! This discussion actually settles on harm to other adults and kids.

We can actually set choice aside and leave it to the scientists and tackle harm then.

(for me, this is new reasoning!)

So, where is the harm to other adults and kids? Perhaps we can craft law to address that harm, thus regulating gay behavior the same way we do normal straight behavior!

(I'm ok with this actually, as harm, if validated, must be addressed.)

This is all very well and good.

But if homosexuality is on a par with heterosexuality, please explain why any boundaries are necessary at all?

Herb

Refine what you mean by boundaries...

And we can talk from there!

Yes. I'd like to hear that.

My boss and many of my co-workers are gay. My boss (who has also become a good friend over the years) is fighting in choosing what gender he wants for the rest of his life.

I say whatever he picks is fine with me. You have to admit being in a city that is much more tolerant than rural areas you grow up with a lot more understanding than many others. Unfortunately for him, his parents are farmers and have told him if he chooses to be with men he will be ostricized from the family.

People's decisions are their decisions. Private lives were never meant to be public. That's my contention.

gender problems...

IMHO, that's THE WORST. Acceptance among people in general, gay or straight, is poor. Diagnosis is late, law is horrible, results generally in someone having to make serious choices way later than make sense.

Feel for the guy. I know somebody dealing with that too and it's not pretty.

Meta: I think ChickenJuggler needs to continue to own this thread, despite it spanning more than one evening. Anyone second?

Herb writes:
But if homosexuality is on a par with heterosexuality, please explain why any boundaries are necessary at all?

I don't think any "boundaries" are necessary. I yearn for the day when nobody cares about your sexual orientation. Unfortunately, people treat you differently in today's society if you are gay and that's a shame for gay people.

Andrew

Hey Andrew,

Would people treat me differently if I had a wart on my face? How about if I had Diabetes and somehow my insurance company forced higher rates because of it?

I wish boundaries weren't necessary man... I do. But you need to face the facts that boundaries will always be there. Sexual orientation, mental disorder, physical disability, deformity etc. Trying to erase boundaries is like trying to erase our Nation's history, it just doesn't happen.

And on your point about discouraging behavior in response to Herb, would you not discourage heterosexual behavior to a 16 year old who wants to be promiscuous or maybe have a child? It may be a natural part of life, but you know as well as I do encouraging or not saying a word about it could lead to a disaster for someone who needs to be out in the real world for a while.

I can't help but imagine how homosexuality might change for children in a homosexual family. There is nothing to discredit any changes or really credit change, but I can't help but wonder if I lived in a homosexual environment that I might be pushed to do the same (despite the roadmap). Just like heterosexual fathers secretly push their sons to score.

We all measure up to some group's beliefs at one point or another, that is what peer pressure is all about. Were you ever asked to smoke weed when you were younger? If not, you are lucky! Taking the hard road means losing friends and at younger ages we aren't all there yet with our established behaviors to realize independent decisions can be the right ones.

Hell, if you were asked to go to The Olive Garden last week and you said yes knowing the fat in the food would you blame the group for pressuring you into that?

My friend who I mentioned I believe chose to be homosexual. He was pressured too much by his family when he was in his teens and was welcomed by a group of then outsiders at his high school. He used his free will to make a choice, and I feel there was no map for him to follow that would have lead him to this point aside from outside factors. As children we grow up and establish our behaviors based on our surroundings. He did like every other person did and lives his life his way today.

I believe chose to be homosexual.

Which one? The gender trouble one, or one of the others?

The boss, the very same.

Well, that may well be a choice, all things considered.

Surgery is pricey, he might not pass, could risk things, etc...

I don't think this is the norm however.

You know, I can't leave you all alone for a weekend without you gettin' into something!

Seriously, I'd love to chime in, but you've covered so much ground, and very well, I think I'll just watch and listen.

Kudos to all of you, this is a great discussion. I may chip in as it progresses during the week.

Drchaps-

My sister and her partner raised my partners two children since the age of 3 and 6, both now young adults in their 20s. Both heterosexual and both decently well adjusted young people.

I grew up as a preacher's kid. Heard a lot about God but was never pushed to be in the ministry or even pushed to believe anything my folks said. But what I did see was two people who showed how to love each other and in turn they showed that love to us. Today my brother teaches elementary education, my sister is in social work and I'm the outcast who chose radio.

If your friend chose to be homosexual he was probably one to begin with but fought it for a long time or has some sexuality issues and is trying to figure out who he is sexually. Just my initial reaction based on having a lesbian sister.

"Actually, Herb makes a good point here. You can have the tendency, but you don't necessarily have to act on it. Some may argue, this will cause many to go to "crazy", but if you look to a higher power, you will most likely be OK in this life." --Redford

I've reached this point:

One's inherent desires are immutable and are a function of ones biology. Did some digging and there really isn't anything that suggests otherwise that compares with the growing body of information that supports the above.

***I do handwriting analysis. Have done this since late teens and have gotten quite good at it. Essentially, ones core attributes are revealed in the elementary constructs used to form characters.

They vary somewhat, but not by that much.

Interestingly, gender is NOT one of the things that can be determined from a writing sample. I've always found this interesting, and I think it's relevant here.

Secondly, one can choose to act on ones core desires or not. In this, I believe Herb and others are right. This goes a long way toward understanding where the friction comes from. I was not here, prior to this thread.

The key is differentiating what one is from what one does, and the divide lies in where freedom (boundaries, I hope I'm getting that right Herb) ends.

Whew!

Ok then.

Andrew has stated between concenting adults, all of this is a non-issue. I agree. Where kids are concerned, it is an issue --maybe.

Taking adults first:

Why should any of us live a lie? I propose the only solid answer is that doing so prevents harm to others. Anything else is off the table.

Thoughts on harm, or other core justification for limiting ones personal freedom, in this context?

On kids:

Until such time as I see families working a LOT harder at core issues and forming healthy relationships, I'm not inclined to trust the judgement of others codified into the law, on this matter.

I think harm can happen, but it happens in all familes because we are permissive in this regard; therefore, we either more sharply limit all families, or we accept the less than perfect balance and go from there. Sexual orientation has no real bearing on this question.

"One's inherent desires are immutable and are a function of ones biology."

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Many express the desire to murder.

Herb

OK - so here is where we are at -

Homosexuals are born that way. Performing a homosexual act is a choice - but actually BEING gay is not.

Next area;

If homosexuals were given freedom to marry, declare, etc. what would be the result?

We got started on that topic, but I want to address it further. So I'll ask again, what would happen if those who fight gay marriage ceased putting up any fight? Let's say that a homosexual just, overnight, was granted all rights of a heterosexual. What would happen - specifically?

All the Democrats would marry each other, would not be able to reproduce, and pretty soon we wouldn't have any Democrats. Win, Win.

There's one scenario. Anyone else got one? Besides the one listed above, I see no effect on anyone other than those that are wanting to get married.

Am I wrong?

It probably doesn't have any effect on anyone else. But, it diminishes the meaning of marriage. You might argue "so what". With the divorce rate being what it is, marriage may not mean much anymore anyway.

I have another question. Why do gays want to marry so badly. The non-gays don't seem to want to any longer. What's wrong with civil unions that give them the benefits of marriage?

Why does it diminish the meaning of marriage? I don't believe it does. Why do you?

And since you have joined Deane, will you go back and talk about your experiences with gay people? It would be cool if anyone who is interested in talking about Homosexuality could just give a background on their personal experience with someone who is gay. Or maybe you are gay. Cite as many specific instances as you wish. If you could, for the moment, omit how you felt about them being gay. Just a list of experiences with people who are gay. I guess it would be also a good plan to note how you knew they were gay. Did they tell you? Did you just suspect it? Etc.

Over the years I have worked with a number of individuals who are gay. Some openly, others closet but it was obvious.

In one instance I had a program director who had a partner whom he lived with for years. Still does I think.

I don't think I really have any instances to talk about because I have long felt it was a non-issue, and I never gave much thought as to whether someone was gay or not. Gay individuals should be treated the same as anyone else and left alone.

Thanks for that Deane. I just find it interesting to hear some background. My mind paints pictures of people that are iften incorrect about why a person says the things they do.

So why does it diminish the meaning of marriage?

Marriage is the coming together of the male and female for the purpose of reproduction. All of nature is based on a male-female relationship.

Gay marriage is nothing more than an imitation of the real thing. It mocks the real thing. It's not marriage, so why pretend it is.

I have no problem with gays living together, having civil unions to enjoy the legal benefits, but don't pretend it's a marriage.

Herb, I mean core characteristics. Many desire murder, and for a lot of reasons. It's the reasons that differentiate what I meant, from murder.

Ones sexual desires are simply there.

Specifically, being gay is not a choice.

Acting on it is.

Well, the civil unions bit Deane mentioned is exactly what Oregon did. Shouldn't be a problem, but it somehow is.

A while back, on another thread, endorsement was mentioned. One effect of allowing civil unions at least, would be a greater level of acceptance toward gay people. Given the non-choice thing, this is a good thing, IMHO. And that's the point of all of it really.

To me, this is not devaluing anything, only enhancing it by making it clear that people are not required to live lies, which is exactly what a fair number of us are asking others to do.

In that vein, besides harm to others discussed above, what other reason justfies asking someone to live a lie?

Diminishing marriage for others could be one of those reasons, but we've a ways to go before that burden is met, and civil unions are differentiated from marriage too.

"It mocks the real thing."

So if gay marriage was allowed, you would feel like your marriage is lesser somehow?

No, I'd think the gay marriage was just pretending and not the real thing.

So can I assume that you hold marriage in very high regard?

Yes, for me it is a lifetime commitment.

Are any of your reasons for holding it in high regard faith based?

Probably not. It's probably based more on believing the home should be a stable, loving family atmosphere in which to raise children.

And homosexuals are unable to do that because...?

It isn't natural for heterosexual children to grow up on that kind of atmosphere. It doesn't give them the real life family experience.

Because if they lack that they...?

Deane writes:
It isn't natural for heterosexual children to grow up on that kind of atmosphere. It doesn't give them the real life family experience.

What is a "real life family experience?" Living with two parents who both work mega hours a week and never see their kids? Divorced parents who shuttle their kids between househoulds? Seems to me that living in a household with two women or two men isn't any less "normal" than the weird living situations our kids endure otherwise.

The American single family home is itself far from "normal" - it's just what western society has evolved into. In other countries, it's quite normal to have grandparents, aunts, uncles, adult siblings living in the same big house or close by. The isolation of the "nuclear family" is far from what humans started out as, living in villages with numerous relatives immediately in the children's lives. Having just Mommy and Daddy and the kids isn't exactly something ordained by Jesus.

Andrew

I think you need to support that quite a bit more Deane.

What about kids with one parent missing, both? Living with mixed parents, divided parents, etc...?

And family... What does that mean exactly?

My family consists of my immediate members, but also includes birth parents and many close others. It's a rich experience that is supportive to all members.

I think the whole, "poor straight kid, living in a bubble, only seeing gay things" bit is less than accurate and not typical of the family structures most common to both straight and gay people.

Besides, crafting one of these environments pretty much is up to the parents right? Do we want to regulate this and submit to others definition of what is and what is not family?

I sure don't, and with that comes the good and the bad. The lack of governemnt involvement means parents are largely free to be good or bad parents and everything in between. Either we allow that, or everybody submits to a more rigid definition of family and what is and is not good family.

Sexual orientation really has no bearing on this matter, if you think about it.

Just for the record, the Jesus card hasn't been played. However valid it may be - other reasons are being talked about. They are all important. We'll get to Jesus in a bit though.

Nice post Andrew.

Having family and a close community of people being extended family is the best overall scenario as far as I am concerned. This is exactly how we do it and it's excellent. Interestingly, my immigrant neighbors do exactly that and call us "good Americans" for having extended family around.

I agree!

The movement toward the small, discrete family unit is harmful, IMHO. Far better to have community and lots of connections and people to interact with.

At the very least, younger people see a lot of role models and have a lot of support they can trust.

Beats the hell out of day care, nannies, etc...

Also counters both parents working and the harm that comes along with that.

If you say it takes a village, I'm going to sock you in the arm.

Yeah, but it DOES take a village. I know, I know - I haven't read Hillary's book, but I agree with the notion she expressed in the title very much. The idea that a child should be raised exclusively and primarily by a mother and a father in a single home is absurd. A child needs good adult role models of both genders but that doesn't mean they MUST be Mommy and Daddy. In ancient times Daddy may not even have been around that much if at all, but Aunt and Uncle and Cousin were and provided the needed role models.

And it's essential that any children growing up with a gay or lesbian couple like Dick Cheney's daughter's case have good role models of both genders. I strongly reject the idea that children doesn't need both genders in their upbringing.

Andrew

Again, because if they don't have an influence from both genders, what happens?

LOL!!!

It (almost) takes a village!

So there!

If they don't see both genders, then they run the risk of not seeing enough role models for them to self-identify properly. Also, forming relationships --healthy ones, depends on understanding both genders.

Chickenjuggler writes:
Again, because if they don't have an influence from both genders, what happens?

Missing has it exactly right. Having gender role models of both genders is important for childhood development, to develop an identity. While genetics has a huge impact too, so do your role models.

Andrew

"it takes a village to raise a child." total bunk. It takes a set of parents, or one very dedicated parent. Its called responsibility, and a vilage to raise a child, is child raising by committee, no one is responsible.

Nwokie, I read the "It takes a village" statement as recognizing that a child learns through every interaction they have in their formative years. Parents are the primary rearers of their own children, but neighbors, relatives, teachers, police, etc. play an important role. Also, the rules and expectations that the community puts on a child (through laws) also teach important lessons to kids. Many of these lessons can only be taught by interactions with people who are not their parents.

Don't forget the power of social norms.

Laws are one thing, but norms are another --and are nearly equal to laws in their power to influence behavior.

Having an extended set of people, regularly interacting with kids, means regular reinforcement of social norms. This speaks directly to peer pressure. Essentially, if one has a nice supply of known trusted peers, the power of not known trusted peers to influence behavior is sharply diminished.

This makes the job of the parent a lot easier.

Also on that note, having that extended set of relationships in place means more watchful eyes on your kids. This means knowing about bad things occuring earlier and earlier is both safer and better in almost every case.

None of this diminishes the role of the dedicated parent. One must be dedicated in order to foster and leverage these relationships in the first place. Being a really great parent rubs off and others tend to enjoy that, share in it, become willing to help, etc...

One key element in these relationships is establishing just who the parent is and what the boundaries are. If this is not done, then it is raising by committee and the values the child ends up with will not be the parents!

Not cool.

All in all, this is just a difference in parenting though. (I didn't read her book either --it's just how the KSKD family happens to work best!)

None of this has anything to do with ones sexual orientation and is very likely off topic, unless I'm missing some core element of relevance.

Wow, did someone mention the specially made plumbing?

Perhaps I missed it.

Admittedly, I have not read every post here. But, huh? "specially made plumbing"? What does that mean?

All of us are born with the same plumbing...(exception being male vs. female), but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Sexual orientation has nothing to do with "plumbing", more to do with hormones and hereditary disposition. Oh, and isn't God ultimately responsible for this? (Sorry, brought religion into it...I guess I should be burned at the stake for that comment).

Nope.

If you believe in God, then it's completely rational to ask that question.

Why a perfect and all powerful being would create lesser ones, whose being is not in line with his expectations is completely beyond me.

We're never going to be able to cover that accurately. Never.

I don't mean to jump the gun, but I am genuinely curious;

Why is there SUCH a big deal made from Christians on this issue? I mean, all sins are sins, why does this one get such special attention? - easy now - no bagging - just talk - I think there is a repulsion factor that comes into play and it just takes over some people to make a crusade out of it. I'll add more to that end later - but repulsion is a factor for many as to why they hate homosexuals AND their acts.

Any chance we could get some more discussion on valid reasons to require people to live lies?

Harm is the only one I see being valid. Others?

I'm asking because of the choice point raised above and it's comparison to rapists / child molesters.

Yes, repulsion is in the eye of the beholder. What straight people see as repulsion may not be identified as same by gays. Who is to judge? I may be in the minority here, but I believe in the heavenly father and I truely believe that since he created both staights AND gays, then these are not "repulsive" thoughts. The behavior may be judged differently, but the "thoughts" are natural and can be forgiven within the framework of Christianity. In other words, there is no sin in being gay, but how you act on it is the ultimate test. I know this is controversial, but there is plenty of Christian thought that accepts this. Are homosexual christians less welcome into the Kingdom than heterosexuals? Their actions will be the ultimate proof. Think about it. Get rid of the "repulsiveness", and think about humans as souls who need to be saved.

CJ, you choose to focus on the Christian "sin" factor, and also the "ick" factor that many heterosexuals have. I think we should also consider the simple biological "perpetuating the species" factor. As much as people try to be open minded about gays, it might be an innate, ingrained rejection of people (you own offspring in particular) that are less likely to perpetuate the species. This is a very Darwinian, hard science approach, but may explain the hang-up that many people have about gays.

For what it's worth, you are not in the minority here, or elsewhere --And I respect your faith as well. Just sayin' ---> better safe than sorry!

So one can be created gay, but it's a sin to act on it? This then is one of the reasons people could use to justify living a lie, right? It's valid, IMHO given your belief system works this way. It sucks huge for the lucky born gay winners however.

But is this the stuff of laws? And that's my big beef on this whole thing. Not everybody is gonna deal with gay people.

That's all fine and good. ...well, not in my book, but so long as the law preserves equality, issues are issues --we all have them, we all must deal So that will all sort out in some fashion, just as it continues to for women, black people, etc...

If one is free to believe what one will, that whole line of reasoning is optional right? We are free, in this nation, to do exactly that. Therefore, one can believe and follow that reasoning, not follow it, follow other reasoning, believe something different, not believe, etc... all within the framework of the law --even the new Oregon law.

So far, this discussion has revealed choice being one reason to challenge said law, harm to others being another one.

Choice in being has not been established as a known true thing. We are what we are, created, evolved, whatever, it just is.

Choice in action has been established as a known true thing, thus the question about living lies, I posed above. (and that differentiation is new for me personally)

Harm between concenting adults has not been established. Harm to kids has not been established either, but that one is still open, IMHO.

Does this form a third potential reason for requiring someone to live a lie?

It was touched on above, but not so clearly as you just put it.

"So one can be created gay, but it's a sin to act on it? This then is one of the reasons people could use to justify living a lie..."

The ones living a lie are those who violate God's design of creation.

'This then is the reason why God gave them up to vile passions. For not only did the women among them exchange the natural use of their bodies for one which is contrary to nature, but the men also.' Romans 1:26

Herb

Well maybe I am projecting. Point taken. My being " repulsed " by say, two men kissing ( and repused is over-stating it for me - but there is something that smacks of that - so I took it out further to encompass as much as I could ) doesn't interfere with my acceptance of it. I can deal with it.

Rapists, child molesters and murder harms others. So does a penchant to steal and lie. All degrees of harm - but harm of others nonetheless.

As far as perpetuating the species - and I promise, I'm not being dismissive of your point, Redford - but that just has zero effect on me. There are plenty who make up for that single lack of ability - AND many want to adopt. That is a need they are filling just fine and it's win win for everyone involved. Yes, even the child. ( At least it's just as much of a win win as ANY other parenting scenario ).

But in case you are saying, Redford, that the reason I am repusled is because of something innate within myself that makes it feel wrong - I can admit that that is possible. It doesn't feel likely, but it's possible. And certainly more plausable than some other reasons I hear mentioned ( although I have to admit - I haven't heard them expressed here in this thread...we've gotten pretty far here wouldnt you say? )

Someone is going to have to convince me to change my mind when I say; Child molesters, etc. are in NO way like homosexuals. And I think that's the core of it.

Not to sound overly pious, but I am grateful that I have issues with seeing it displayed in front of me - yet have ZERO problem with them actually doing it. I judge people for stuff all the time. Being gay or displaying it is very near the bottom. It's just something I do not relate to in any form ( and I may be in the minority for men, but seeing two women dosen't do really anything for me either - that's a different feeling though ). It just doesn't have any real effect on me. I see it at note that it's not something I see often, note that I don't relate - but it stops there. Others take it further to " They shouldn't do that in public." I disagree with that. It makes me feel mildly hypocritical to even try and think that way - much less actually feel it. That's not to say I have to stiffle something that is occuring naturally - it's just not there for me.

I talk parenthetical often. I know. And I'm doing it in public. How gauche.

"The ones living a lie are those who violate God's design."

Even the ones that are born that way? Which you agree happens, Herb.

Chickenjuggler, just like many, many, married people are born with a temptation to stray, that's not an excuse.

You're overreaching. Waay overreaching. And your liberal guilt will drive you nuts. Contrary to popular culture, there is a right and wrong. And to think that any exception proves a rule is simply silly. You're smarter than that. Yeah, maybe Grey Whales can fly from Portland to San Diego. That's not something to bank on.

Herb

So then, it's reasonable to say some of us are born gay, and that acting on it is a sin, according to your belief system?

Actually, acting on it period is the problem, not how one is created correct?

CJ, you might have attributed some of my comments to Redford. Nevertheless, let me respond to some of what you have said.

On the "perpetuating the species" argument you present a thoughtful, logical response. But I'm not making an argument about the "logic" of gay couples. I'm saying that deep, deep down at a purely intinctive level, we may reject these couplings because they almost assure that our genes will not be perpetuated through those two people. And I'm not talking about the genes of homo sapiens generally (no, homosexuality will assuredly not result in the end of the human race) but rather MY genes. We see it in nature all the time. I think that's why parents may often have the hardest time accepting a gay child. On the flip side, because parents usually are the most selfless with how they love a child of theirs, they are the most supportive of them being gay. I guess it can work both ways.

Repulsed by public displays of affection between gays: Hey, my kids are grossed out by my wife and I when we get affectionate in public. When I see a guy kiss what I think is a very unattractive woman - especially if she is a smoker - I get physically grossed out. If Mary Kay and Vili Fualaau were seen in public and started necking, I would be pretty repulsed. All these incidents completely legal but are are "wrong" as far as I am concerned (except the me kissing my wife part), but that is my problem, not theirs. (On the other hand, many men think it is *hot, hot hot* when two attractive women make out with each other. Go figure...)

I really think this point is moot toward the entire discussion of homosexuality you have started here. If you think it is gross, that's your problem. Even if a solid majority of people in society think it is gross - still their problem, not the problem of the individuals, unless they are violating the law. I know this is obvious, so I wonder why it is an issue of this discussion...unless we are trying to figure out *why* many of us are repulsed by public displays of gay affection.

Acting on theft is not good, but plenty of kleptomaniacs deal with it and live exemplary lives. Would you say they are 'missing out' by not stealing? How about looking at the positive change we're capable of by elevating standards and living in accordance with God's laws? Anything worthwhile is rarely easy. And it matters not whether it's gossip, slander, sexual sins or lying. We all have our own issues, and to focus only on one sexual sin misses the point.

You're doing two things. One, trivializing sin. Two, giving a pass on behaviours we are explicitly warned against.

Herb

Herb, is a sin a sin? Are their categories or rankings of sin? If so, what, or who, decides the severity of a sin?

But it has to be said God's law is not universal. If it were, we would have one set of law, and everybody would buy it.

Everybody doesn't, there are lots of Gods, and lots of Gods laws. This is an absolutely known true reality today, right here, right now.

This does make sin, in the context of violating Gods law, arbitrary, does it not? The same then applies to the warnings as well.

I don't want to get into a god is real, my god is the real god, etc... discussion. That's not the point. If you have a god, then you have a god. For you, it's the god and all is good. No biggie.

The point is, even here on this small board, we've got several interpetations of Gods laws, what is sin, what is not, etc...

This is exactly why I phrased it like I did. If ones deeds harm another, then law, common to all, is justified. Harm is something that diminishes the person in some fashion.

So, where is the harm to others in this performing gay acts? The two loving gay people clearly are not diminished. One could argue they are enhanced as any couple is!

Barring that harm, sin is really what any of us says it is. We are free, of course, to live by our own words. That's a given and should be respected.

"Are their categories or rankings of sin? If so, what, or who, decides the severity of a sin?"

I'll give you a hint. It's not man who decides.

"But it has to be said God's law is not universal. If it were, we would have one set of law, and everybody would buy it."

Oh, really? Who says? Your assumptions are fallacious at their very core. You presume to know more than the Almighty? God's fairness doesn't always appear that way to man.

http://www.rbc.org/odb/odb-05-07-02.shtml

Herb

I'm not challenging god. And set fairness aside too.

I'm looking around at my world, filled with my peers. I see lots of gods and lots of gods laws.

Pretend I'm an alien. Explain to me how the set of laws that go with your god are the true ones all should adhere to.

"I'll give you a hint. It's not man who decides."

Okay...is God keeping it a secret? Honestly, what are the worst sins? Why are they the worst? Are there any "misdemeanor" sins? Can two similar acts (theft, for example) be judged differently in God's or man's eyes? If homosexuality as a sin is going to continue to be a part of this discussion, I think we need to clarify this.

My only point is that homosexuality is natural to those who are born with this inclination. To them it is it not repulsive. While we need to accept this, we don't need to neccesarilly to accept the behavior. Is it a lie? Not necesarilly. Many gays can accept their inclination, but not necesarilly act on it. It isn't the end the world, if they have faith. And it most likely won't cause mental illness, child molestation, or worse. It helps if they have have faith. (Believe me, I'm not trying to sound like a preacher here, but so many in my realm of relatives and friends don't seem to see this eternal truth) My advice to those who are in this situation (and frankly, there are more than one might expect), is don't deny who you are, but don't give in to what is clearly the wrong road. I realize not all will agree with this line of thinking, but that is where I'm at at right now. Christianity and homosexuality can go together if the there is a respect of the basic belief that all souls can be redeemed. Despite the perceieved human "repulsiveness" that some buy into.

I have mentioned Mel White's book "Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America"

This is from the forward written by his wife Lyla White who had two children with Mel and were married for 25 yrs.

She writes: " Mel had no choice about being homosexual. Believe me, if he had a choice, I know he would have chosen his marriage, his family, and his unique ministry; for Mel's values, like most of the gays and lesbians I know, are the same as mine and my heterosexual freinds: love, respect, commitment, nurture, responsibility, honesty and integrity."

Just so you know Mel served as the ghostwriter for Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jim and Tammy Bakker, W.A. Criswell, Ollie North and many others.

Contemporary theologian Phil Yancey says this about the book: "Even for those who cannot share his conclusions, Mel White's story is illuminating, challenging, disturbing and heart-wrenching"

Again- I highly recommend this book to at least read the true story of a gay person. I'm not trying to change anyones mind just enlighten them.

"to focus only on one sexual sin misses the point."

Agreed.

So you are of the thought that it's the acting upon the sin is the actual sin. Not BEING gay - but acting on it? It's not a loaded question - it's the question. I think you've answered " yes." Correct me if I am mistaken.

I'm not implying that anyone here are like those people that picket veteran funerals saying that they deserved to die because we, as a nation, accept homosexuals too much - but there is a sect that does. Even though it's an extreme example, I'm trying to get to the bottom of what motivates them to do it. I mean, if "to focus only on one sexual sin misses the point " is true, why do they do that? Why do they show up at Veteran memorials, with kids in tow, and shout to the greiving. Why do they hate homosexuals THAT much?

I know nobody here can answer that. I ask anyway.

So for those of you that believe that there are souls to be won in this battle, why this battle? Of all the ways to save souls - why does this one issue carry so much weight within the church...I take that back. That's way overreaching. It's not the church that seems to sponsor so much of it. I was wrong. I could have just deleted that and nobody would have known - so take it with a grain of salt.

I guess if I were called to save souls to the degree that others purport to feel called, I could say " Well, I can do both/all; Try and save souls of all sinners."

So let's take that out to the end for a moment.

And here's one more rare request - if you are going to address the following topics at all - please - for the sake of focus - copy and paste my actual questions and respond to them directly in the beginning of your answer. Support or discuss it all you want after the answer. But don't assume anything and just make a jump to your answer as if it's obvious how you got there.

( Assuming you believe in God and Heaven - of the Bible ).

How is a person saved? What specifically has to be done?

( And come on people, no slamming beliefs here. I have mine. You have yours. It's all fair ).

Can a person lose their salvation?

If so, how?

Can you be saved, sin, but still go to Heaven?

Can people that were born gay go to Heaven?

Why or why not?

Great questions CJ. Not easily answered.

Herb and I are both Christians yet we interpret the bible differently, most likely because of our different experiences in life.

I greatly admire Herb's ability to come up with scripture quickly to help prove his point. I need time to locate scripture and read what Herb has posted and study it before I believe I can engage with his post. Makes it like a mini-bible study for us.

I will wait and see what Herb posts because I know he has his brain a bit more engaged than me currently.

I'm wondering why this thread automatically devolved to discussion of biblical references without the Bible thumpers first showing that the Bible is a credible source of facts, is error-free, clearly specific and that it is indeed the "word of God."

One could certainly produce a "book" (perhaps even bogus one) that "proves" beyond a shadow of doubt that being gay is not a choice. But long before the exact meanings are discussed, Bible thumpers would first be scrunitizing the credibility of the book and the writers first.

By engaging in discussion of the contents of the Bible without actually proving that the Bible is what certain elements claim it to be is to automatically tip the playing field in favor of the Bible thumpers.

If one thinks a balanced discussion is occuring here, they'd be wrong, unless we spend a great deal of time quoting and disussing passages from such books as "Green Eggs and Ham" which IMO quite clearly shows that gay relationship IS normal.

I don't understand why the Bible gets a pass.

It doesn't. But it's brought up enough that it also shouldn't be ignored.

Chris - when you are up for it - I really want to hear your thoughts ( even if they aren't answers ).

"So you are of the thought that it's the acting upon the sin is the actual sin. Not BEING gay - but acting on it? It's not a loaded question - it's the question. I think you've answered " yes." Correct me if I am mistaken."

You're correct. It's the same as if a pickpocket who doesn't steal, or an adulteror who doesn't cheat, or a liar who stops telling untruths. It's not exclusively a sexual thing. It's a sin thing.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it?
I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.
Jeremiah 17:9-10

Herb

I too don't think it should be ignored because it speaks to the why part of this discussion thread.

Understanding the why is worthy, so I'll read on with interest.

If we are to have this discussion, we also should address Ed's question of sin.

Finally, I'm with Skep in that I recognize religious support for one not acting gay (Isn't it interesting we can get here huh? Acting instead of being?) ,but with that recognition comes understanding that we really don't have these matters nailed down very well at all. They are infact, arbitrary. Unless we become a theocracy, that has serious implications where law and equality are concerned.

Clearly we are not gonna arrive at many answers here, but leaving that off the table leaves me feeling incomplete where this discussion is concerned.

We have made some excellent progress though. IMHO, the group here participating regularly would make an excellent talk show! Could be a gold mine, I tell 'ya.

(sits back, grabs coffee and reads with interest on the matters of redepmtion, salvation and such going on right now)

Edit: I have a problem with the scripture cited above. It makes the assumption we are bad by nature. I reject this. People are born good people and learn to be bad, not the other way around.

"It makes the assumption we are bad by nature. I reject this. People are born good people and learn to be bad, not the other way around."

This is a key question of philosophy, though I'm not sure if its germaine to this discussion. Are people basically social/selfless (thinking primarily of the needs of others), or selfish (thinking primarily of the needs of yourself)?

(I think it is wrong to say "good" or "bad" because those are loaded terms, and because they do not really reflect the dichotomy.)

What's fascinating is the "ripple effect" that the answer to this question has on so many other questions of society and government.

"I have a problem with the scripture cited above. It makes the assumption we are bad by nature. I reject this. People are born good people and learn to be bad, not the other way around."

It's a foundation which explains why the Christian world view is so different from secularism. Children are by nature innocent, yet very selfish. Far smarter people have written about this topic than I.

From the web: 'Adam and Eve were created "good" and not sinful, and that freewill allowed us the potential for sin, which they and everyone since has partaken in. However, I think anyone with children agrees that selfishness (sin) is inherent in every one of us...'

Like anything else, our free will allows us to disbelieve this fact. That still doesn't make it any less true.

Herb

Agreed on all counts, was just trying to be somewhat less verbose...

I know lost cause, but still, that's why.

OT: (and probably should be it's own thread)

Yes it does have quite the impact! IMHO, it's a zero sum game type of balance. The self matters as one cannot be social if one is dead. However the self is limited and cannot fully realize it's potential without others, meaning one needs to be social in order to thrive.

Living, at the expense of all else, is not so simple in that said living can often cost the lives of others. In this, we all share an equal burden. What is life, only to live it, rejected by ones remaining peers, or if there are no peers left?

It is this dynamic that gives us a reason to continue on. If one or the other were found to be true, then our nature would not evolve past that point. We have no absolute truth in this matter. As a race, this dilemma lies at the core of who we are, why we question, etc...

A known here would permit us to reason much of society to an ultimate end. We then would be static. IMHO, any sentient beings that reach this point would then suffer apathy and die complete.

"What is life, only to live it, rejected by ones remaining peers..."

Very ponderous questions. People will ultimately let us down. If approval of mere mortals is the gold standard, we're likely to be disappointed.

I suppose that's the difference between living for self, or living for God...or anything greater than oneself. An argument could be made that ultimately, whether one is Ghandi or a Salvation Army worker, good is good. The Bible says to take care of the poor, the orphan, the alien [conservatives may not like that one] and the widow. In providing for the needy, one is doing God's will, whether one believes in Him or not.

'I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink'...Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink?...'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.' Matthew 25

Herb

IMHO, there is a very strong case for the idea that living for God is a fundemental rejection of the self...

Just saying.

Absolutely.

Dying to self, as modeled by Christ, is precisely that.

Herb

Well, I'm just not there. I'm happy with my own self. Living with god could be an option, but living for, or under, just isn't, barring some revelation that actually solidifies god being something other than a coping construct.

And I don't mean to diminish god for you. That's not the point at all. I've just no reason to not be happy with my self as it exists today. There are things to improve and grow, but the journey is coming along nicely.

We should probably move this to another thread. Chickenjuggler has worked hard on focus, and is not done just yet. Worthy conversation though.

When things are sailing smoothly, the last thing people often think of is God. Only when the water gets choppy does He become clearly relevant. Then we make deals with God and say we'll change. Sometimes we actually do change. That's what happened to Martin Luther, when he was almost killed by lightning.

The ironic thing is that we who try to save our life will lose it, and we who lose our life will save it. And it's hard to receive abundance whilst tightly gripping what we have in our puny little fists. Life can be far greater with God than without, but then it becomes a faith thing and many don't want to go there. It's our choice.

"I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly." John 10:10

Herb

Why should gay persons repress their sexual urges and not participate in gay sex when heterosexuals are free to do so?

I'm just wondering why if someone is born with a homosexual orientation, they should go through life not pursuing it. After all, it's not their fault they are born that way.

Is that really you Deane? Because that just makes total sense. How does it hurt anyone? That's the question I have had reading all this.

Deane, it's a big day! You and I agree!

Unless you were just being facetious. I hope not.

>>>"Unless you were just being facetious. I hope not.:

I was not.

My contention is that they should not. Other contend it's a sin or unnatural. But if they were left alone to do so, it would not harm society to any significant degree. There's a fear that it would - but as it turns out, it's not true.

If a homosexual person feels guilt about it, then they can deal with it. If they don't, then they should be allowed to live in the same manner as I get to. And for the same reasons.

LMAO - as I type this, I am listening to my online station - The Wings - Theme from Brokeback Mountain is playing.

How is a person saved? What specifically has to be done?

By decalring, out loud, not always in front of people, but out loud, that they believe in Jesus Christ

( And come on people, no slamming beliefs here. I have mine. You have yours. It's all fair ).

Can a person lose their salvation?

Maybe. That's a tough call for me to make/support either way. Right now, I believe " no." I believe that someoen would have to work really hard to renounce their salvation. And there is something that makes me feel like God would be able to go " Well, he was in a really bad place when he did that - I forgive him."

( And for the record, I'm only going to say this once - I am going to talk casually about God. Do not interpret that as choosing to forget that God has power to smite or be, you know, Godly in his actions ).

If so, how?

See above.

Can you be saved, sin, but still go to Heaven?

I hope so. I'm banking on it.

Can people that were born gay go to Heaven?

Yes.

Why or why not?

Because they can be saved. I don't believe that being gay is a deal breaker for God. others do and that's fine - I do not give it that kind of weight.

One thing I would like to get to is why it is given SO much weight.

And that's what I believe.

If as some here have said, the homosexual "act" is the sin, then practicing gay folks are then sinners. Christians believe that we are all sinners, and if you believe you can be saved, and go to Heaven. Hence, Christian gay people can be saved and go to Heaven, just like the rest of us sinners. You can't give different values or weight to different sins.

God makes no junk. Old adage I have heard.

I can totally take the bible and God equation out of this for myself an agree with Deane and CJ.

I can then add the bible and God equation and come to the same result.

"God makes no junk."

That sounds fine, but the problem is that many choose to dwell in a cesspool, rather than the glory available to them. Our choices determine what we do with what God has given us.

Here's an adage from C.S. Lewis:

"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in the slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."

Herb

"Our choices determine what we do with what God has given us."

Can't argue with that.

Really then it's a matter of personal choice. If one thinks gay behavior is a sin, there are plenty of options and good company to keep in that regard.

If one does not believe this, one has a right to that belief, and there really is no solid justification for discriminating on that basis. That's an excellent equality statement, reaffirmed here.

Seems Oregon got one right then. Two actually, in that civil unions are differentiated from marriage well enough to not matter.

Advocacy is still ok on both sides too. All in all a nice balance.

From now on, barring something new, I will continue to hold a position of support for the Oregon law and gay people in general. Nothing has been presented here that suggests I do otherwise.

I'm encouraged by this thread and the company I keep here. Good show all! Chickenjuggler, thanks a bunch for guiding us through something pretty tough.

"Why should gay persons repress their sexual urges and not participate in gay sex when heterosexuals are free to do so?

I'm just wondering why if someone is born with a homosexual orientation, they should go through life not pursuing it. After all, it's not their fault they are born that way."

DEANE! Now you're thinking, sir! That's our whole point!

I'd like to tie up a couple loose ends on this thread and then really, just be happy to have had this talk at all.

I want to talk a bit more about the precept that Andrew said - as did others - "Having gender role models of both genders is important for childhood development, to develop an identity."

Using the context of being raised by a gay couple, what exactly is the child at risk of?

How does it manifest itself within that child?

What kind of person does that create?

Does that risk manifest itself with single parent families? What about both-parent families?

How do you know that gay couples cause more of those manifestations within their children? What if I could prove to you that dual and single parent families create more children that minifest those risks than gay couples' children? ( A higher percentage, I mean ) Would that change your mind? Or is it just a personal preference for you that there is a male and a female? That's valid if it is a preference. I just want to know.

Again, if you are going to answer any of the questions, at least try and answer all of them. It's no fair to just cherry pick and you will be deducted 12 points for each answer not given.

And then you won't get a sticker at the end.

...at risk of:

If one gender, is not well represented within the childs primary support group (and said group can be parents, grandparents, close others, birth parents, etc...), then there is a chance the child may not experience the social norms necessary for them to properly self-identify.

This may manifest as frustration, inability to relate to ones peers properly, inability to form healthy relationships, violence (difficulty with conflict resolution), tendancy to abuse, poor adademic performance. Those are the biggies.

In some cases, this may manifest as sexual confusion and risk taking, but that depends on the combination of issues present, not the actual misalignment of roles presented, IMHO. (I can probably support that, but it's gonna take some research. I will, if anyone is interested.)

...what kind of person:

A frustrated and troubled one, with obvious implications.

...risk:

Yes to all families. Essentially, we have a wide range of personas and any given family runs the risk of not presenting that persona in such a way that their child can both self-identify and model the persona that best fits them.

Being an adoptive foster parent, I've consulted with a lot of professionals on these matters and I've seen the results. I don't know that a gay family runs a higher risk than a single family. IMHO, the core of this happens to be the overall health, in this regard, of the parents.

An unhealthy dual family runs the same risks as an unhealthy single family, or gay family. The results are the same in any case.

BTW: The state of Oregon does involve it's foster parents, both adoptive and not, in a fairly comprehensive series of classes and seminars delivered by working professionals in their fields of interest. Many of these professionals volunteer their time, and will present themselves for consults to those in need.

If one is interested, I believe anyone can attend these, foster participant or not. IMHO, making these programs available to more new parents would address these problems and would deliver a significant return on our investment.

Chickenjuggler I'll answer a question you didin't ask. (my cop - out)

After my sister "came out" my parents sought and found council with other clergy who had children that were also gay. Most of the gay/lesbian kids I have met and know to this day came from solid father and mother households.

See now, that's my experience as well. Yes, the parents are often shocked - because they think they somehow contributed to it ( or at least had a better chance of staving it off as they WERE so, you know, normal ans strong ) but just because I had that experience, consistiently, doesn't mean that it's the norm.

The false notion that people choose homosexuality furthers the potential for parents thinking they did something wrong in the upbringing of their child.

Deane- As a parent I have enough challenges as it is.

You are spot on!

There is another view, and it's definitely not PC:

http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/pages/joe_d.html

http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/menus/faq.html

Herb

But, why should gays change. Just because organized religion says so?

That's a great additional viewpoint and experience. Good to read it.

"Just because organized religion says so?"

Hardly. And that's a very fair question. When it comes to organized religion, no thanks, it's often wrong. Don't buy what people SAY God intends. Instead, look to God's Word. That's what got the pope so riled up by Martin Luther during the Reformation. I like this saying:

Going to church does not make you a Christian anymore than going to the garage makes you a car.

Martin Luther, bravely risked his life by standing before the powerful pope and stating:

Unless I am convinced by Scripture or by plain reason (for I do not accept the authority of popes or councils, for they have often contradicted each other), my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.

Herb

Herb, don't tell me you're a Lutheran? That would mean you and I have something in common, which would be kind of nice for once.

I much prefer the Popeye philosophy:

"I am what I am and that's all that I am"

Pretty simple and straight on!

Popeye was a wise man!

Popeye also dug the skinny chicks!

Yes but Herb - what is the TRUE meaning of God's word? That's the $10 million question here.

I know you "don't carry water for the Pope", but maybe you can shed some insight on this for me, since I admit I am not a religious person, I believe but refuse to be in an organized church because of the hypocrisy. If Dr. King, a southern Baptist preacher and who was very much a God-fearing man, had issues with the Pope and the stance of the Catholic church ... who's right? Don't BOTH read from the same Bible? Isn't God's word the same? How is it that Dr. King can preach tolerance through peace using God's word, when Richard Butler uses the exact same Bible and the exact same message from God to teach hatred, intolerance and violence towards the exact same people that Dr. King helped free in American society?

You and Chris are both Christian. Yet you have vastly different viewpoints on what the same verses from the same Bible mean. Who's right? Who's wrong? What gives? Chris obviously has a family member who is gay, is that why he is more compassionate about homosexuals? Fill me in here, sir!

Brian sez: "You and Chris are both Christian. Yet you have vastly different viewpoints on what the same verses from the same Bible mean. Who's right? Who's wrong? What gives? Chris obviously has a family member who is gay, is that why he is more compassionate about homosexuals? Fill me in here, sir!"

This is the most important observation made in this thread. It opens a boatload of questions.

For example, are some using the Bible as an excuse to hate and spread that hate in our society?

And two, Chris has done a FAR SUPERIOR job of interpreting the word of God to skeptics, nonbelievers and those believing in non-Christian supreme beings for acceptance and accomodation for everyone.

Just like there seems to be two different camps in the Christian evangelical bunch.

You have the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world to use their considerable religious clout for their own self-serving standards, spreading hate and venom in the name of God. You then have the Billy Grahams and Luis Palaus of the world who seem more set on getting God's word out to the masses, truly helping the poor, the needy, the helpless worldwide, sacrificing so much of themselves in the process. Truly, what Jesus would do.

Some use the power of their religion to HELP. Unfortunately, too many use it to kick people while they are down, to attempt to cut out entire segments of society they deem unfit and unacceptable. It's this kind of hypocrisy that keeps me away from church!

"You and Chris are both Christian. Yet you have vastly different viewpoints on what the same verses from the same Bible mean."

I won't pretend to speak for Chris. One key issue that must be addressed is the significance of sin. God forgives those who repent and look to Him, but He also takes sin very seriously. If He did not, Christ would have not needed to die on the cross for our sins.

Those who downplay sin, or believe repentance is optional, or feel that the relationship between God and mankind is now different, need to address this.

Repentance is called for throughout the Bible. In other words, turning from sin. It's not enough simply to be forgiven if one continues to embrace what God says to disavow. It's a lifelong process, but we are given the Holy Ghost in us to triumph over satan. Remember, satan is not God's equal. satan is a created being, and but a fallen angel.

When it comes to sin, some re-interpret plainly spoken words to mean something else. Others attempt to deny that they are even significant. Kum-bah-yah doesn't cut it with God. When it comes to sin and repentence, clarity is better than compromise.

Like Christ Himself, the Christian walk is fraught with controversy. But it isn't supposed to be easy. We were told it wouldn't be.

Herb

I've a coupla comments. Know I'm not trying to devalue this element of things, but I've got to point out:

-lack of consensus

-lack of support to realize it

(and this is true, to a significant degree, for all involved, believers or not Not enough is known, and or preserved for any absolute reference)

-lack of precision in what does exist

all contribute to an arbitrary reference. It's the best we have.

This is exactly why we call it faith people, and not fact. It's the journey that has value, not the elements presented along the way, for each said element means exactly what one thinks it does. What any of us does with these elements is up to us and who we choose to share the journey with. It's perfectly reasonable to share ones faith with another and see unity and strength and perhaps greater understanding in that. Many of us do just that. This, in and of itself, is not a worry.

It should be obvious to everyone that this lack of absolute reference entitles all who seek a choice, the right to do so. However, our need to see our faith more fully realized tempts us to confuse truth with conviction, treating the latter as if it were on par with the former, though this is clearly not so.

For this reason, we have seperated our system of law from our matters of faith, but for those regions where the two overlap and consensus or rational proof provides a more solid justification that many, if not all, can agree upon.

Read back through this thread and you will see this elementary error in reasoning manifest itself here.

It's a small error. This is a human thing and we all will be caught by it. This core reality should bring with it understanding and thus the elements of character necessary to face this error, deal with it and move onward. We should have the realization that allowing it to fester and grow will do us harm, but we often don't.

We don't because we need the implications, we don't because we simply won't, we don't because we don't understand, we don't because we can...

Yeah Herb, it's not easy. Just thought I would post the same sentiment from my (largely rational) side of the fence.

"It should be obvious to everyone that this lack of absolute reference..."

You've just nailed why the liberal view is flawed.

Of COURSE you see a lack of absolute reference.
That's what liberalism is all about. No absolutes. And this is news? But it's not because the absolutes are missing. It's that they're not believed.

Ever read the 10 Commandments? That absolute enough for you? There are plenty of absolutes throughout the entire Bible. But those who see only grey insist its because it wouldn't be fair, in their estimation, to take the Bible literally. Strange how they never seem to believe God when He says His ways are Higher than man's ways. The pride of man is folly indeed, where he would prefer to believe he descended from apes than at the marvelous hand of a Creator.

You're picking and choosing about a book you don't even believe, and about faith, which you also do not even profess to have. Then you wonder why you have a problem discerning absolutes and God?

I don't have all the answers. In this life, no one does. But at least Bible believing Christians know where to look for them.

For now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. I Corinthians 13:12


Herb

The answer may be buried somewhere in one of these posts that I missed, but does the Bible really say clearly that homosexuality is a sin? Or is this someone's marginal interpretation?

IMHO, it's an interpetation.

Herb, I'm gonna go ahead and continue this discussion as the gay thread has run it's course. Chickenjuggler is free to slap me down, if I'm wrong!

(I'll play nice too)

I was a staunch believer Herb. I miss it actually. Know my discussions here, surrounding matters of faith, are seeking to a degree and advocacy to a degree. The topic is vital to nearly everyone I know!

It is exactly your absolute claim that shattered my faith. Frankly, it was unexpected and quite profound. The implications of that run deep in my thoughts to this day. I value the conversation highly.

Without getting angry at one another, as we usually do, let's try it again. I don't want to break your faith, please do remember that as we go forward. That's not the point. My primary point is equality and what that means for this discussion and the implications for society and everyones faith --more importantly their ability to have it, live it, advocate it.

There is nothing wrong with the 10 commandments. They should be followed, they make sense, etc...

For a moment, consider all of us to be equal. I believe this is fact and am quite willing to support this notion.

If one takes the notion of equality and thinks it through, the 10 commandments one could get the following: (wikipedia point by point version, so it's not gonna add up to 10 --no worries as the first few are lumped together, suggesting again a work of man, not that of a divine being. What's the significance of 10, not 12 or 9?)

1. I am the Lord, your God.

If there is a god, then it is our god. Period, end of story. Multiple gods then are out of the question as we would need a lot more commandments to sort that out. So there is one god only.

2. thou shalt not have gods before me

Either there is a god or there isn't, but making up your own god makes no sense and devalues the real god. And this reinforces the above.

3. no idols

This is unhealthy. If there is a god, that is enough to know. If not, then making gods up makes no sense and can only decieve others. Also puts the work of the self above that of god and that's no good for obvious reasons.

4. wrongful use of name of god

Again, disrespect for higher beings makes no sense. Also we should feel no shame before higher beings as animals show no shame to us. This part of religion bothers me as it's inconsistant with the idea of a healthy good self. Shame is learned, not innate.

5. remember the sabbath.

Could be any day really. There is a strong case for this being a construct of man. I see no real significance to this one.

So those are the ones dealing with god and our fundemental relationship to god.

Honor thy Father and Mother

We are all young for a time, thus we owe those that came before for their efforts to realize us fully. We are old for a time, and take care of the young so we may be cared for in like kind. This makes sense on many levels. Healthy people, with no shame and no overpowering ego, would do well to follow this. This can be reasoned as being just and true, god or not.

Common sense. This works rationally and religiously.


Thou shalt not murder.

If we are equal as beings, then we all are entitled to live our gift of life. Denying another the gift, for any reason, is not just. Again, this works rationally and religiously.


Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Saying what you will do and doing what you say is common sense as well. To do otherwise is a lie and a lie is false and unjust. Again, rational and religous thoughts work here.

Thou shalt not steal.

If one has worked to build, another is not entitled to this work without permission or compensation. To allow otherwise is a travesty and would devalue work in the first place. Permitting this does not empower us to build a greater society through shared efforts. We would just squabble. The notion of property then is both rational and religious.


Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Lying is mentioned in the commandments multiple times! IMHO, this is a big deal and really should be considered. Lies are means by which we control the actions of others and put our selves above others and god. Rationally, there is no reason to lie but for shame or self indulgence.

Thou shalt not covet (neighbors wife)

The idea of coveting in general, be it another person, or a thing, is putting the self before others and is unhealthy on a lot of levels. One can work for what one wants and needs. Rational.

Thou shalt not covet house.

Same idea reinforced again and again.

Lying and coveting are reinforced multiple times in the commandments. They are significant --very significant. This is where my faith broke down Herb.

If one accepts the notion of there being a god, then we are equal under that god. One is either the god, or one of us. There are no divisions beneath that. We then are equal on that basis as beings. I strongly agree with this and have found nothing that suggests otherwise.

Truth then is valuable. Knowing what is and is not true is extremely valuable. Representing truth to others, when it is not known true, is a crime under god as well.

In my late teens, I was compelled to do things and behave specific ways. Things were represented to me as known truth that simply were not. This is bearing false witness and is a violation on both rational and religious levels and it's DONE ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

To sort this out, I've been looking to differentiate that which is faith from that which is known absolutely true.

You Herb, are bearing false witness to me in your claim of your book being absolute. Don't worry, I mean you no malice, only understanding.

A quick look at the commandments reveals common sense among rational beings expressed as rules to follow. They are good rules with the right emphasis, IMHO.

However, one could craft a set of rules, derived from our equality and justify them nicely. So tell me this:

Pretend I'm the alien again.

What about your particular belief system sets it above that of others?

You've got a book and it tells you things. You see meaning. Others have that book and see different meaning, yet the words are the same.

Others have their books and their meanings too.

What is absolute about that?

I put here the idea of our equality being the only absolute in this entire discussion! And I generally self identify as liberal where social matters are conserned, somewhat conservative where fiscal matters are concerned.

Again, if you are to speak to me about absolutes, and claim I've no understanding of them, where have I got it wrong?

No problem.

Any observant alien visiting our planet would eventually have several likely questions.

What is the purpose of suffering?
Why does evil exist?
What happens when you die?
Who created us?

I've heard it said that the faithful must answer a single question: how a loving God could allow suffering. The atheist must arrive at a cogent answer for virtually every other topic under, and including, the sun.

Here's an excerpt from my personal favourite book that addresses suffering:
http://www.cslewisclassics.com/books/problem_of_pain-excerpt.html

Since we live in a fallen world, there will be sin, suffering and pain. In the end, God the Creator has promised a new heaven and new earth. The godless have no such promise. Frankly, that's a pretty dreary and depressing prospect. Make it up as you go alone if you want. We're given that choice. God is not a cosmic killjoy. But the One who created us knows us better than we do ourselves.

Herb

(read mine again... sorry. I want to address this notion of absolute. I'm tired of getting the grey liberal claim.)

Oh, to be really clear. It was not your literal claim, but that of others like yours. Sorry, you didn't do it! I'm not putting that mess on you.

Another damn edit (really sorry):

By equality, I mean as beings, not our attributes as such. Some of us are smarter, taller, more beautiful, older, younger, GAY, etc...

Differentiating those things from what it is to just be human is important where the discussion of equality is concerned. In this, ability to choose is my primary tool. I don't know if there is another, but if there is, I want to discuss it, because it matters.

"Some of us are smarter, taller, more beautiful, older, younger, GAY, etc..."

Look at it from the big picture.

No matter how good looking, or wealthy, or healthy one is, we are all going to die. It could be argued that those possessing the most 'unequal' attributes will lose the most at the end of this life.

But there's something else, too. By focusing on one, or even a handful of traits one might possess, we ignore all the others. Errol Flynn and Brad Pitt are undoubtedly two of the most handsome male leads to grace the silver screen. However, they may not have possessed knowledge, wisdom, love, health, or a plethora of other very desirable traits. And as evidenced by the shortened life-span of the dashing Mr. Flynn, even his money, women and good looks were fleeting.

It's easy to focus on what we don't have. But we can all be grateful for our strengths and strive to improve on many areas within our purview.

Most important, all of God's creation have intrinsic value, and are loved by Him. That is huge.

Herb

God loves all creatures, you righties are another story. God created gays, I know you hate hearing the obvious.

He also created axe murders and pedeophiles.

News flash! God does not exist and gays are gay cause of a mental disorder.

And your answer to the absolute claim?

In the context of this thread, you state that your book is absolute and your interpetation of it is absolute. The specifics do not matter. What I am focused on right now is your absolute claim.

Essentially, you claim ownership of some absolute truth that forms the basis for some authority over others. That's what you need to provide some support for, if you are to call my view --and the view of many others who self identify as being liberal in some fashion, flawed.

I wrote what I did to put equality into this context. As equals in these things, you need to tell me from where your authority comes and you just haven't done that.

When facing another of your equal peers, asking them to change their behavior, you have to give a reason. Said reason could be harm, mutual greater good, etc...

Essentially, your position here on this thread, is that gay people should deny their core nature and behave in a manner more to your liking. You claim a higher authority in this, also claim to just be the messenger as well, yet will take every action possible to make sure your message is not only received, but enforced via our system of laws and government.

That takes some serious justification, not provided here just yet.

So, starting with absolutes then, what exactly can you tell me about your book and your interpetation of it that would place it above the others presented here?

If there is such an absolute, then detailing it here and now should be a no-brainer and we can continue the discussion from there.

...or you can take back your "liberals are flawed because they lack absolutes" bit and we can still talk from there.

I am reasoning from the only absolute I know and that is our equality. I can support it, have supported it and will continue to support it. Can't you do the same in like kind Herb?

..or am I just supposed to trust you on that?

(I'm serious!)

Boy, this is a thread I have avoided responding to because it really is personal.

A gay family member brought shame upon our family by his actions - not just by being gay, but by the lifestyle he lived. He used his position to acquire young targets, was caught and convicted. I think it's that particular aspect of the gay lifestyle that offends so many. Since they've already broken society's mores, why stop? Those who live the gay lifestyle (at least as I have witnessed it) have not been monogamous in their relationships and that has cost them dearly.

In that respect it's not much different if you're married and straight and violate the commandment not to commit adultery. Yet much of our society believes consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want. What's the harm? Uh, if you've ever been cheated on then you already know the answer.

Whatever one's sexual orientation, the "Good Book" admonishes us over and over again that God hates sexual immorality. That's speaking about our actions and choices, not about however we might be wired.

Even King David was guilty of sexual misconduct - and murder! He lusted after Bathsheba after watching her bathe on a rooftop one hot summer night. He actively pursued her even after learning she was married. He got her pregnant, then tried to cover up his actions by recalling her husband from the battlefield for some R&R and, when that didn't work, had Uriah sent back and killed. David had wanted to build God's temple, but, even though God called David a man "after his own heart," he told him there was "too much blood on [his] hands" so David never realized that ambition.

Missing_KSKD, I grew up in the church and later realized many of the fundamentalist teachings I received weren't quite right. I learned far more about the wrath of God than about the love of God. I was told some of my best friends were going to hell because they believed a bit differently. What kind of message is that to deliver to a young child?

Jesus came so that the world might see the light. He was hardest on the religious leaders of the time because they had stopped following God's law and were making up their own. Jesus reached out to sinners, associated with tax collectors and prostitutes. The church leaders despised him for it. When Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well, he told her about her five previous marriages and that he knew she wasn't married to the man she was currently living with. Jesus didn't condemn the woman. Instead he offered her "living water" to quench her thirst for carnal pleasure. Jesus showed love and compassion toward the woman, despite a whole lotta reasons not to, or to not even have spoken to her in the first place (since Jews did not associate with Samaritans).

I filled in for someone one summer who made many of his coworkers uncomfortable not only because of his obvious orientation, but because he would hit on some of those around him, including me. The gay porn and toys that I discreetly removed from his work vehicle and disposed of were disgusting. So were the comments others made about him. ("Better sanitize the steering wheel, don't wanna catch anything!") So was the disease he died from. That never stopped me from visiting him or from caring about him as a person, regardless of my convictions about the lifestyle.

Whether you agree with Herb or not, we do live in a fallen world. We've all come up short. We are all given choices and the free will to do so. And there are consequences for our choices.

I personally believe that acting out homosexual urges is wrong, just as acting out many other urges is wrong, yet I am not ashamed to associate with some of my friends who happen to be lesbian.

Without artificial means, two people of the same gender could not reproduce together. Doesn't that tell us anything? Haven't we distorted some of the issue by introducing artificial insemination, surrogate mothers and adoption while equating child bearing between same-sex couples with childless hetro couples?

CJ, thank you for this thread and for the dialog.

gb

Welcome to the deep end of the pool

No kidding! Good thing I was taught how to swim. Thanks.

"Essentially, you claim ownership of some absolute truth that forms the basis for some authority over others."

Consider the law of God to be empirical evidence, like the law of gravity.

Those actually living in accordance with God's laws, not those who simply mouth them, are the best evidence. I could say I'm a rutabega, but unless my life actually squares with Scripture, it's only words, as the Bee Gees might say.

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:20

Herb

"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

You've quoted that more than once - what do you think that means?

I would like to hear that too.

Ok Herb, emperical... So do others, who read and hear the same things you do, but see it differently have it wrong?

If so, why are they wrong, how are they wrong?

I would ask others the same, but they didn't make the absolute claim you did. It's that claim I am getting at.

And I'm not asking you to prove your faith --it is faith, so that would not be fair. However, I am asking you to clarify just why yours is the right faith, and how it is tied to some absolute that gives it authority over others.

This is the implication you make repeatedly here, so support it.

"What kind of message is that to deliver to a young child?"

You know it! This particular one is nearly 40 and still sorting some of that crap out! Arrgh...

"By their fruits you shall know them" (NIV) is actually a warning spoken by Jesus to his disciples. Taken out of context, we might be tempted to equate it with the saying "actions speak louder than words," but that's not the real meaning.

One's kids then?

"One's kids...?" I think I missed something,

Missing, I'm a bit older than you. I can't say that I ever really lost my faith, but, like everyone, I had a lot of unanswered questions. I also had some anger about things I had been taught early on by well-meaning, but heavy-handed teachers.

During my extended "down time" between gigs, I heard about Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life on K-Love. When I started reading it, I didn't want to put it down, but you're supposed to read one chapter per day for 40 days. So I played by the rules. While I may not totally subscribe to all of Warren's theology, the concepts presented were an eye opener to me. I was actually doing a lot of things right! Affirmation is a good thing!

It was also during that period that I first read the entire Bible. For those who have never done so, there are surprising topics you might not expect. It's full of sex, violence and betrayal - just like life! I also read from different translations and paraphrases. I never did understand the King's English in the King James version. The Message by Eugene Peterson is a good paraphrase in current language that may add new interest to some familiar passages.

I guess we may both have grown up being taught by our own "Pharisees," if you get my drift.

Which might bring us back to Herb's quote from Matthew...

Got it. Thanks.

"...clarify just why yours is the right faith..."

When everything is stripped away, the bottom line is Christ. Either He is who He says He is, or He is not. That's essentially the whole enchilada and that's where I shall place my faith. You're free not to, but as for me, it's the least I can do. He gave His life for me, so why would I not trust Him?

Speaking of quotes I've noted before, here's an appropriate one and among the very best:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would be either a lunatic -- on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us" C.S. Lewis

""By their fruits you shall know them" (NIV) is actually a warning spoken by Jesus to his disciples. Taken out of context, we might be tempted to equate it with the saying "actions speak louder than words," but that's not the real meaning."

It is applied to other things as well. The one I've seen it used most in favor of, and if I recall correctly, Herb used it to support a point that works play a part in salvation. Or no, that wasn't quite it - but the discussion was about being saved and Herb used that cite then. Maybe that's not WHY he said it - but that was when. So I was asking for clarification as to why he is saying it now.

Ok then, so you really don't have an absolute, thanks.

At this time, we are left with who we think Christ is, and we are left with what we think that means. This does not devalue faith one bit --IMHO, it strengthens it through freedom to persue it.

This is true for all of us, meaning any one view is not an absolute one! It can't be, or we've other reasoning issues here, not in play. There is an awful lot of grey there Herb --color too, if you want to extend the analogy.

I can appreciate your comment above more fully now:

"You've just nailed why the liberal view is flawed.

Of COURSE you see a lack of absolute reference.
That's what liberalism is all about. No absolutes. And this is news? But it's not because the absolutes are missing. It's that they're not believed."

Essentially you've just said your view of God, Christ and the implications on our society today is the correct one, because you say it is!

Gotta give credit where credit is due. That's staunch!

God may well be absolute. In fact, either there is one, and only one, or there just isn't one at all. If there is, then it's absolute, but that does not, by extension, make your less than perfect understanding of these things divine absolute.

I harbour no expectations of getting anywhere past that, but can't you at least see where others might be seriously put off by that kind of talk? Talk though is as free as we can stand, so more power to you there. Advocacy is ok --even if one does not agree. It must be, or we stagnate. Laws though... I'm not so sure they would be justified on this basis alone.

Edit: And that's where religion and the law can play together fairly well actually. Taken on it's own, the arbitrary nature of religion does not, in and of itself present justification for laws that apply to all, but it can and does help to guide the search for said justification, does it not?

I did produce an absolute Herb --equality. One is either divine or one isn't. Pretty black and white, even by your standards huh? That absolute is the justification for the two new Oregon laws, BTW. --and they carved out exemptions for the church too.

Given none of us happens to be divine, we are equal as people. That's a very solid justification for giving others the benefit of the doubt, wouldn't you say? They could be right after all! If you are not known right, then others could be right --again by defintion, unless one wants to confuse conviction with truth.

And that, if it's to be characterized as "liberal" is the basis for all of my views on discrimination. Based on an absolute; namely, equality. (Yeah I think the civil rights movements, when they happen, are just the shit!)

At least I'm not saying something is because I say it is.

BTW: I love C.S. Lewis, and I'm quite sure he would not fall on your side in this exchange.

troll sez: "Consider the law of God to be empirical evidence, like the law of gravity."

Wow. The law of Flat Earth has more empirical evidence "like" the law of gravity than the law of God does.

IMO engaging in discourse with those who hold such beliefs requires TWO major suspensions of beliefs -- faith that there IS a God and faith that intellectual logic can safely be ignored.

Uh, no.

"Given none of us happens to be divine, we are equal as people..."

That car doesn't drive very far, and if you're not careful, will take you over a cliff.

Equal as people does not connote equal validity of belief. If you want to insist you're an onion, well, be prepared to have some problems-you may even be poked fun at. Yet how much more important are the far more weighty issues of life, death and eternity?

Likewise, if you continue to deny the black and white proof of the Bible's historicity, of the Bible's prophecies which have come true, and the myriad fruits of the faithful through the centuries, you have some serious problems. And what exactly are you saying; that Christ didn't die? If that's the case you have a major problem with credible historians. This isn't merely a religious issue. Unlike so many others, Christ's birth, life, burial and resurrection are so well documented that in denying those events, you place yourself squarely on the defensive.

Once again, it's not that the facts aren't there. It's your denial of them. Just like evolutionists insist the law of entropy doesn't really apply to their pet THEORY.

So if any proof isn't enough for YOU, that doesn't make it any less true. You wanna defy God, and walk away from a gift offered to you, that's your deal. Problem is, like everyone, you'll be held accountable at the end of this life, and well, by then it's just a little bit late.

So be angry at people like me if you wish. But if your ship is about to crash against a rock, don't cuss the guy out who gave a heads up; be thankful there was someone who cared enough to warn you.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Herb

Setting up a straw man doesn't advance your position Herb.

And what is historicity? Is this like the ultimate truth buzzword you presented here a while back?

I said I was gonna play nice, and I will.

Nowhere did I say that equality of people means equality of belief. It does mean one is free to believe what they will however. Either you are confusing the two, or being less than honest about this aspect of things.

So let's just set that one aside huh? It's obvious you have a problem with being asked to support your beliefs, where imposing them on others is concerned.

Hey, it's part of how things work. If you are gonna ask others to live as you do, that is your right. Heck, they might choose to, given some solid advocacy. There is free choice in this, and we are all entitled to that.

Mandating they do so, as a matter of law, is off the table, barring some justification. And this is where the problem lies.

Again, what places your beliefs above others --in particular, those others presented here, to make it simple. You continue to speak to me, and others here, as if you have in your possession something we do not.

Personally, I believe you confuse conviction with truth --or don't care about the distinction and only want to more fully realize your faith in others --no matter what. But, that's just me. I could be wrong, so I'll discuss the matter to see just where and how that might be so.

I'm not angry at all. This whole conversation is about understanding --that's it. I'm following CJ's lead here to see what comes of it.

I've put forth rational points here, identified the absolute from which I reason my position and have asked you for the same.

We have a law here, preventing people from discriminating against gay people, without the same kinds of justifications we consider valid for other elements of being, such as gender, race, etc...

You are here, essentially saying you don't think that law makes sense. You say God does not think highly of these things, and that others should heed this at their peril, yet you bring nothing to the table to substantiate that position.

Others here, who believe as you do, have stated beliefs that run contrary to yours, derive them from the same book, history, etc...

So I ask, what puts your belief above theirs?

It's not a hard question.

Either you have a solid answer or you don't. So far you don't. This does not diminish your beliefs. They are yours! However, it does make your statements here less than honest --that's false witness Herb.

To address your straw man somewhat:

Beliefs that contain errors in reasoning, such as being circular, not self consistant, etc... are not likely to be valid, all things considered. Fallacies are fallacies period. A circular thing cannot be offered to others as any kind of absolute proof, by way of example.

So it being so, because you say it is so, is circular, therefore false on that basis alone. It isn't just ME that would call you on this, it is in fact, everyone capable of rational thought who would do so.

From there we reach beliefs that are more plausable.

Are they equal? Who knows? That's not the point, is it?

Coming back to the topic then, the point is really about yours carrying more weight than others. I've not seen anything presented here EVER that would substantiate that claim.

And one more time, that's not an attack on what you believe, only your efforts to convince others you are right in persuing means and methods where said beliefs are mandated for others.

Don't take it personally. Instead, go do your research, think hard and either you have an answer for that or don't. There will be implications on future discussions depending on how that all goes.

BTW: There is another way this could all go. You could demonstrate our equality to be something that is not absolute. This could open the door for some beliefs to be authoritative over others. Heavy burden, but it's there for you, if you want a go at it. I've done my homework and it's solid, yours?

The "law" of entropy (aka "heat death") says that when there is no more energy to be exchanged (trading warmer heat for colder heat), the universe will die from entropy. I don't see evolutionists disgreeing with this.

On the other hand, what makes mere mortal's claim of needing to comply to a book written by a God more valid than a true nutcase's claim the earth is gonna end unless we pay him to ward of evil spirits?

So to deal with separating the non-bogus claims from the bogus claims I resort to my BLACK and WHITE debunking system: If there's evidence, I'll consider the claim. If there's no evidence, I won't consider the claim.


Besides, I've a hunch that the Man upstairs is gonna be a bit more unhappy with your interpretation of the Bible by assigning values to individuals based on the way they live their lives, while I on the other hand, assign NO LABELS to humans -- in fact, I don't care to know who is gay and who is straight -- what does it matter?

IMO, your behavior is akin to separating people with moles on their penises from people without moles on their penises and saying God prefers one class over the other.

None are so blind as those who don't leave the God business up to God Himself.

"A gay family member brought shame upon our family by his actions - not just by being gay, but by the lifestyle he lived. He used his position to acquire young targets, was caught and convicted. I think it's that particular aspect of the gay lifestyle that offends so many. Since they've already broken society's mores, why stop? Those who live the gay lifestyle (at least as I have witnessed it) have not been monogamous in their relationships and that has cost them dearly."

Ok, don't take this personal. I don't mean anything towards you in the slightest.

That said ... gay people don't "turn" gay or "become" gay, they are BORN gay. That has been established here ... so please, don't go there on how a gay family member brought shame to your family by "being gay". That is not of their choosing.

Now their ACTIONS ... well, now that is something to not necessarily hold up high to show the world. I understand your angst and disappointment. However, pedophilia and infidelity are HARDLY representative "of the gay community". Lots of straight folks do the same things, and bring shame to their families.

To blame these actions on someone simply because they are gay is a bit extreme, don't you think? Does the actions of ONE represent the actions of an entire community? Since my mother, who is gay, has basically taken a vow of celibacy and separated herself from any relationships, represent ALL lesbians? Hardly.

You ARE correct in saying that we are falling victim of our own choices. AIDS has hit the gay community hard over the years. That said, the fastest growing segment of new HIV transmissions worldwide is in heterosexual WOMEN. Hardly gay men making bad choices there!

To say that it is wrong to act out on homosexual urges ... is that really fair? Is it really fair to find love and be able to settle down and be HAPPY simply because one is gay? That doesn't seem fair to me at all, and I don't wish that upon anyone ... gay or straight.

"...what puts your belief above theirs?"

I accept the Bible as authoritative, and try to resist bending myself into a pretzel to make it conform to what I think it should say.

As for evidence you continually call for, ample historical evidence is one leg of the chair. Prophecy fulfilled is another leg of the chair. The lives of believers who performed miracles heretofore unseen, as foretold in the Bible is yet another.

http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/Bible/strobelT1142.htm

http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/Bible/strobelT1140.htm

Herb

Ok then, your beliefs are correct because you say they are.

You have strong conviction as your justification.

These are not bad things, please don't get me wrong. However, they are not justifications in and of themselves, for punishing people for what they do, in the legal sense --the law. This is not an anti-God thing, but a rational thing, given our current level of understanding as a race.

Put another way, you choose to follow what you believe law of God is over the law of man. It's your choice, shared by a lot of people. But it is a choice, not the law of the land. Where choice cannot be demonstrated to cause real harm, not the perception of harm, our law does not provide for regulating others. That, by defnintion is what a free society is all about.

This is also why we differentiate church and state. This is done to insure the state is regulating matters of harm and property, not acting as the enforcement arm of the church --whatever church it may be.

That is our only difference in this matter. Thanks for going the distance Herb. I understand things a whole lot better now.

I'm not going to judge you for your personal choices. Nobody should do this, unless they cause harm to others --and that's the key right there with me.

When you are active in promoting means and methods to mandate your choices for others, that causes harm, in that others are denied their freedom to choose in like kind. This is a problem nationally and it effects a wide range of issues.

I do have a pretty serious problem with that, as I value my freedom to make my choices very highly. It is an elemental thing --an American thing. Our religious founders understood this, and legislated accordingly.

Going forward, please do not make the non-absolute flawed Liberal claim again, without some solid support for it. In return, I'll recognize where you stand on this and deal with it rationally.

Thanks CJ for that!

At this time in my life, I am not particularly religious. I fear it frankly. I fear it for the reasons uncovered here in this discussion. I don't want to harm others and do not wish to be harmed. A fundemental reaction to this desire is to not support those who would do harm, without some solid justification.

I do not support you in these things. I do not support our elected representatives who share your view. This litmus test is in our Constitution, in that holding a particular religious view cannot be a test for public office.

On this thread, the reason for this is clear, as it goes against the founding principles of America. It's tempting to put some labels here to identify groups of people and what that means, but I'm not going to.

Instead, I encourage all who read this to consider the discussion above and decline support for those who fail this test. By doing so, you will limit harm and preserve your ability to make your own life choices and live them fully.

That's it for me on the matter, barring something new is brought to the table, that is reason and not dogma.

"Ok then, your beliefs are correct because you say they are."

Either you chose not to read what I wrote, or you're simply ignoring it.

My beliefs are not correct because I say they are. Show me where I've ever said that.

If you actually read what I wrote, I provided evidence. As an example, plenty of witnesses attest to the fact [some not even Christian] that Jesus Christ walked this earth and healed people. Since you haven't answered my question about Jesus, this is evidence in the historical record which you apparently choose to deny. That's fine, as you have free will to refuse the claims of Jesus and His gift of eternal life, if you so choose.

What's particularly odd is that whilst arguing about faith, and questioning whether you yourself have any, you've shown yourself to have plenty of faith. Only instead of placing it in the Creator, for some reason you seem to have placed it in your own smarts. The bottom line is to whom, or what, we have faith in. Vaya con Dios, amigo.

Herb

Brian, I think you missed something in my original post or I may not have stated it well. I started my post by saying this hit close to home - and it did. It was and still is a very emotional topic. No doubt for you as well.

The first event described was during a time when society in general did not accept homosexuality. The way that it came out was indeed damaging to the family and ours pretty much fell apart because of it. We were largely ostracized by the community. The events that happened then pretty much proved society's worst fears about homosexuality. Whether the community's fears were rational or not, fair or not, "enlightened" or not, that's what happened.

I think something else I said may have been misinterpreted, in part, because our language keeps changing. Kids now use "gay" to mean dumb or stupid, nothing to do with sexuality. "Gay," to me, applies mainly to males practicing a particular lifestyle.

Taken in that context, the "gay lifestyle" I have witnessed involves men actively seeking multiple male sex partners. They are not monogamous and, even when living with a long-term partner, they still cruise for pick-ups. It's part of the thrill for them. Do all male homosexuals act this way? No. I didn't say they did. I said (or meant to say that) it is a particular type of sexual behavior that society is unwilling to accept.

One of the best teachers I ever had was partnered with one of his own gender. When we saw the play Becket, his insights into the homosexual overtones added something we would have otherwise missed. (We did miss them and couldn't figure out what he was laughing at 'til he explained it to us later.) He is a very interesting person with very different perspectives. Making the effort to get scheduled into one of his classes was a worthwhile experience.

Can some here get over the idea that most gay males are looking for multiple partners for the
"thrill"? From my experience with family members, this is simply not the case, especially in today's sexually dangerous world. I may be naive, but this behavior ended, or has been greatly reduced in the past decade. So, perhaps there is a much greater responsibility among gays today.(Afterall, most male-female reltionships don't meet these standards) But, among gays, wouldn't that be a good thing, agreed? And who does it really hurt? I take great offense that those "gay-haters", have no real argument to defend their disdain. Yet, they still feel the need to hate, and in some instances, promote violence. Just as bad as racial intolerance, if not worse. Let me ask the question...is someone born black be treated worse than someone born gay?

"placed it in your own smarts."

No, that's a work in progress. Sometimes better --sometimes worse. To take this on faith would be folly. Thankfully, I am smart enough to reason and thus ideally improve, and I don't care past that. And I did say I've worked for it. If one works at it, one improves. If not, then one does not. Period, end of story.

These matters are very important going forward. I want to make absolutely sure the positions I take and advocate to others are defensible. They are, nor are they the only defensible positions either. I don't think yours is, but many others are.

Don't know what else to tell you on that matter. If it stings, it stings. Stung quite a bit getting here, for what that's worth. Having experienced that pain --and will again most likely, I'm not gonna sweat another feeling the heat. All part of that which makes us better.

BTW: I did read quite a bit of it. It's not new, not differentiated from the pool of evidence or proof offered by others, whose belief systems are contradictory to yours, thus it did not warrant a response. It didn't address the question; namely, what makes your beliefs, justification for law essentially? Remember, you did write, "Nothing else matters but fighting terror and getting those right wing court appointments."

It was a personal thing, but it's not now. Again, thanks to CJ for showing the way on that score. No worries, I understand where you are coming from and just simply don't support it. I can take that understanding and learn and build on it for better advocacy and to more easily see others on the same path and treat them in like kind. No biggie.

I will buy you a beer anytime though!


Re: Gay. Also used to mean happy, joyful too.

For what it's worth, anyone engaging multiple partners is trashy. This happening back in time had to be just ugly.

OK, I can see this is now pointless. Some are only reading and/or hearing what they want to. Am I being told that I hate gays? That is ridiculous.

Good grief and Goodnight!

Fm - sorry if I mis-interpreted what you said. Again, I was not trying to call you our or anything at all, and I understand where you are coming from. We both have gay family members, so it hits home (literally!) for the both of us.

Please accept my apology. I wasn't trying to be a prick, and if I came across as such that was not my intention.

Brian, please accept my apology as well. As with email, it's often difficult to convey complete and complex thoughts without writing a book.

I was only trying to relate some personal experiences in the spirit that CJ used in starting this thread.

"If one works at it, one improves. If not, then one does not."

Very well and good on this globe, but useless beyond it. And last time I checked, the mortality rate for those who live on this planet is still virtually 100%.

The essence is not does one have faith. It's where is your faith placed. Given continual critiques, it's odd how few defensible and even logical positions come from those who hang essentially their world view on ridiculous notions like evolutionary THEORY. Besides, science is only good at recording what's happened, not discerning any meaning behind it. So to attempt to pick at the Gospels without a cogent, comprehensive explanation of your own of why we are here and how we got here, is intellectually vapid. I think you even know it.

But to believe one has the ability go it alone after we're done here means you have waaay more faith than I do. Besides, from a strictly logical standpoint, it's sheer folly to suggest that the created has superior knowledge than the Creator.

Everytime man faces the reality of our own impotence, he comes up with a contrived alternative, i.e., evolution.

The lie mankind swallowed in the Book of Genesis is that we would be like God. In many ways, we haven't changed.

Herb

I'm not saying your faith isn't valid --only your support for those who would legislate it for others.

That's the ONLY ISSUE.

The difference here is that I am completely willing to recognize your faith, have shared it at one point, and will support you fully in your right to explore it, live it, etc...

Either of us could be right. Said exploration is vital.

You however, stand apart from the majority of people, in that you want to make others choices for them. That's just not ok, and that is what I consider not defensible.

My position on these matters actually does it's part to make sure you are completely free to make your choices. Yours, does not return the favor in like kind.

Give that some thought. Not about who is right, because we are just not gonna get there. We've not enough time and or understanding for that. Think about making others choices for them. I'm quite sure you would have a problem with that, so how come you don't return the favor?

Put into the context of this thread, the new Oregon law insures that people are not making choices for other people! If any of us has a problem with that law, it's because we are actually trying to make those choices, when we shouldn't.

Advocacy is ok. Encouraging people to make what we think are better choices is all good.

Oh, and take a look at this poll of younger people:

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/tolerance_toplines.pdf

(found on Kos yesterday.)

Essentially, the up and coming generation understands these things better than many of us do. It's only a matter of time before we look back and wonder just how foolish we were to try and make choices for others.

Once again, that's the ONLY ISSUE. If you are going to make choices for others, then you need to justify that. You've failed to do so and I strongly urge you to reconsider. Your choices are yours, your life is yours. None of that changes, but you really should leave others alone, when you've clearly got no solid reason for doing otherwise.

"I'm not saying your faith isn't valid --only your support for those who would legislate it for others."

I have never supported legislating faith. It simply is not possible, nor is it even desirable.

But if one is against murder, you're legislating if not faith, then morality. And whose morality shall we use? Since over 80% of Americans describe themselves as some form of Christian, you are in the minority to believe that we should all check our beliefs at the door when weighing such important issues as how we shall govern ourselves. Remember, our founders stated that while we are to have no laws establishing religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.

Given that our representatives are voted in to represent views of the people, you're living in a fantasy world to expect have it any other way. Constituents want their values promoted, and religious belief is among the strongest and most important area from which those values are derived.

No wonder you're frustrated. You're simply outnumbered.

Herb

I'm not frustrated, BTW.

All else ignored. I've no desire to circle around back to ground covered already. So, you've the last word on this matter.

Herb, does it ever cross your mind that if you don't protest acceptance of Homosexuality in various forms in our culture, that God will judge for not speaking out more? I'm not implying that is the case with you, but I am asking. Just plain and simple.

I wonder if that motivates people sometimes. I wonder if they feel compelled to make some noise about Homosexuality because God will say they accepted it too much by not doing more to fight it.

Man, you come up with the most interesting questions!

Excellent, and I'll be reading with interest.

"I wonder if they feel compelled to make some noise about Homosexuality because God will say they accepted it too much by not doing more to fight it."

Absolutely right on.

It's about the Great Commission from our Lord Himself:

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matthew 28:16-20

Another factor is: "All that evil needs to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

A secular example is if we hadn't put up a fight against Hitler, evil very well could have prevailed. We battle against a vicious adversary, who, like a bloodthirsty terrorist, will take your life in an instant at every opportunity.

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour. 1 Peter 5:8

Herb

This has been an interesting read for the past few days. Kudos to all who have kept it on an intellectual level.

OK. That makes sense to me. Not everyone has the same sort of calling to fight the same sorts of fights that others do. I was trying to take myself out of my own shoes and try a different perspective.

And this is SLIGHTLY off topic - but I'll bring it back around;

Have you ever done anything tangible to fight homosexual sin? ( I'm not implying that you are a gay-basher or ANYthing like that ). Have you ever felt compelled to take a more active action against Homosexuality? I'm guessing besides voting, not. But that's a guess.

What about other things? Abortion seems to touch you in a way that it doesn't all others. Have you ever felt the call to make a notion present - say - in public?

I'm also interested in if you've ever felt the call to do something about a particular " sin " ( and come on, let's just call it that for the sake of arguement - semantics aside ) but for whatever reason, didn't?

Once again, people, this is talk. Not judging. This is a sensitive area for some. Try and take a deep breath before anyone starts applying labels. On all levels. We're just talking.

I have missed opportunities to witness because I feel like I would be a hypocrite. Yet somehow, letting people know that it is an issue for me to feel one way, yet be weak in other ways, seems to actually work. It's not a gimmick or a trick or anything that smacks of " it's ok - do whatever you want - God doesn't care."

That's about as close to a public witness as you guys are going to get from me so take it however you wish.

I have issues. I feel I am in NO position to lead someone to God in ANY other way than to say; I try harder than it looks. I fail quite often.

Maybe that's part of the reason why it bothers me to see Gays treated with such...so much...it's not even hypocrisy. It's more akin to hate...yeah. I guess that's the most accurate word for it. I don't see ANY compassion when anti-gay stuff that stems from Church is said. I take that back - I don;t see enough. Every other sin seems to garner compassion or even pity - and certainly an attempt at understanding. But boy, get a gay person in their midst and they go OFF. Liar? Come sit next to me right here. Adulterer? Here, have a cookie - let's pray together. Not repentant yet? That's ok - we'll talk about it.

Homosexual? I should probably tell the pastor that you are gay. He may ask you not to come any longer.

That's seems off to me.

If it harms others, and said harm is identifiable and clear, I'll nearly always do something. What that something is, depends on my life circumstance, the harm involved, etc...

I've let some abuses go, because I didn't want to get involved in the scene at a greater level. I've also declined to help some people, where I thought they needed it, but also thought the effort would be lost.

Been around some affairs too. That's adultery and it's not my call, unless invited to act.

Well that is part of my confusion.

I gotta think about how to ask what I am thinking so it comes out clearly - I'm " on the air " groovin out - with beer.

I'm tellin' ya, CJ. It's the "Ick" factor. You're diplomatically looking high and low for answers to some good questions, but it comes down the the "Ick" Factor. When one counsels an adulterous sinner they can see the potential for that sin deep in themselves. The same with lying, along with most other sins.

But gay? Ick. I can't empathize because I can't relate. I can't console you because it's not just a sin, but a gross, icky sin. And I don't want to even talk about it, because its bound to get icky. And gross. Ew.

Adultery, however, is a sexy, forbidden fruit sin. Lying is an I-can-relate-been-there-done-that sin. Even stealing is an in-the-right circumstances-I-could-do-it-too sin. Gay doesn't fit any of those.

True story: This last weekend I met the wife of a good friend of 30 years who I haven't seen often in the last decade. She shares that they have divorced, and the reason is that he is gay. He shared it with her 25 years ago, but they kept it a secret from the world, and kept the relationship going for the sake of their kids and both their professional lives.

I was startled initially (mostly for their failed relationship) but then was suprised how much I didn't care about his homosexuality. His sexual orientation had no bearing on the friendship we had over the years, so it had no effect on my feelings toward him.

Anyway, kind of off on a tangent there. But thought it might add something to the discussion.

Oh BTW, he is a devout Methodist whereas I am not a churchgoer. I'm sure he is struggling much more with his behavior in the eyes of God than probably any of his good friends are. Hey, if we strive to live in the way of the Lord, is not the granting of forgiveness one of the things best learned and practiced in His name?

" Ick " is more accurate than my " repulsion " used earlier. That has to play a part - like you note. Has to.

Totally does. I think this is a simple human thing --like some of us are squeamish about blood or needles. That kind of "Ick" is difficult to get around.

Yeah - and it seems to give some a license to, you know, hate. Because it feels so natural to feel.

I'm not above feeling a twinge of that. Can't help it. And gays that cavalierly say " What's the big deal? You shouldn't feel it's any deal at all." are mistaken, in my opinion. I mean, it's understandable to WANT it to be not a big deal - but come on; It's a big deal.

( I'm trying to give that phrase proper scale - meet me halfway, eh? )

Been there. Will be there again.

IMHO, this is why tolerance is hard! To get past these things takes some effort, builds character, etc...

Some don't need it. Squemish about blood? No biggie. Your "Ick" feeling leading you to harm others? Well, IMHO, there is a case for applying some solid rational thought to that, at the least. There is religion too. Both can help, both can harm. One has to want to not harm, in order for it to work, right?

Right.

Serious Question:

Do you men have the same equal "ick" factor/reaction if it's 2 (or more) really hot-looking "lipstick lesbians" as you would to 2 men together, or even 2 stereotypically "dyke/ butch" females in a sexual context?

Do you enjoy Playboy, Penthouse, or "Adult" DVD's with that element? I don't really want to know anyone's specific answer to that, just threw it in there for thought...

It seems to me that there's often a double standard at work here.

(And I'm also not saying that that's just from a male point of view, either.)

For hetero guys, I think getting females involved in the action increases the tittilation. Lesbian lovemaking is clearly less taboo than male gay lovemaking. Even platonic kisses on the mouth in public is gender biased - women can do it, men cannot.

On the other side of the coin, how do heterosexual women feel about seeing lesbian lovemaking depicted v. male/male lovemaking?

Two chicks don't do it for me. I don't know why. I think it's part of my somewhat modest nature.

Although there have been scenes that get close - Mulholland Drive smoked me. As did Bound. But it's rare.

...not doing enough for god.

I find this very interesting! So, making choices for others, in the form of law, is for God's benefit?

So then, if we have free will, in that we are free to deny God, shouldn't these activities be limited to advocacy then, barring a known harm to others?

If God were known to exist, absolutely, it's totally defensible to make sure one is doing their part --even if it gets in the way of others. However, this is not an absolutely known thing!

(Which is why we call it faith, remember?)

So, we've got the human "ick" factor that can cause people to act, in that experiencing that "ick" could lead to a very high perception of harm or unpleasant state of being. And we've got the "god does not want this" element that acts in a similar fashion, in that those believers really need to be square with their creator.

(despite said creator clearly allowing for others, who do not believe, deny, whatever, being completely free to do so.)

This really speaks to the why part of this discussion. Not sure what I think past that, but I do know I hadn't really considered that particular aspect of things.

Right out of the gate, without some deeper consideration, it seems to me, given the free will element, advocacy should be the limit. One cannot force a belief anymore than one can change sexuality. (innate elements of being, not choice)

Given this, wouldn't God then be served poorly if people were forced, by means and methods of man, such as the law, money and social norms, to worship or live as though they actually did worship? Living a lie essentially is a sin! It's false witness right?

Maybe we should call it the "Fundamentalist Clause" to that Commandment.

"Though shall not bear false witness" ... (unless you are gay, then it's perfectly OK to live a lie!)

Well I think this went really well. I'll remember all kinds of things said in this thread for a long time. ( I mean, like, I will remember what I learned. Not anything else ).

Thanks - we can totally let it die now.

Next topic.

Van Halen.

Did someone mention Van Halen? My Spidey Sense just went all tingly on me!