Day of Silence

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:59 pm

Today, or rather yesterday, Friday, was The Day of Silence, basically where students choose to be silent to, and bring \"attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools.\" One of the most bullied groups of people are LGBT people, and this day of silence was to spread the anti-bullying message. Many people are affected by this bullying caused by bigotry, so to stand against it is a wonderful thing to do. I was surprised how many people were supportive of this at my school

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 12:03 am

Bullying and name-calling isn't good, but homosexuality is wrong and people ought to be acknowledging or admitting to that, not supporting it/showing solidarity. The people in this generation (as well as the one(s) before it) are already reaping the rewards of having no moral compass.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:16 am

Sergeant Thorne wrote:homosexuality is wrong and people ought to be acknowledging or admitting to that

"Wrong" ? Can you define and back that up ?

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:33 am

Opinion? We are still allowed to have them correct?

Octopus · Post by **Octopus** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:37 am

Depends on what state you're in.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:09 am

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Bullying and name-calling isn't good, but homosexuality is wrong and people ought to be acknowledging or admitting to that, not supporting it/showing solidarity.

I don't understand any reasoning to how it's wrong, but I am pretty sure I can't change your mind on that...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The people in this generation (as well as the one(s) before it) are already reaping the rewards of having no moral compass.

Moral compass? What have we lost from this so called "moral compass"?

VonVulcan wrote:Opinion? We are still allowed to have them correct?

¿Qué? Ummm... yes? I don't understand what's being said here.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:18 am

They can't procreate. Something wrong about that.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:23 am

flip wrote:They can't procreate. Something wrong about that.

Heterosexuals get around that by adopting without any grief...

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:28 am

flip wrote:They can't procreate. Something wrong about that.

Many times, the non-religious anti-gay arguments focus on the sexual aspects of the relationship, and not the romantic feelings that are exactly the same as heterosexuals.

That is the only argument I've heard that holds a tiny bit of merit; yes, heterosexuality is the intended course of nature and evolution, as sex produces offspring. As human beings however, we fall in love and hold someone dear to our heart, and homosexuals experience love just like the rest of us.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:30 am

Is it just me, or has the interest level of threads gone way down lately?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:40 am

Spidey wrote:Is it just me, or has the interest level of threads gone way down lately?

It's not just you. After years of rehashing the same debates, maybe people are beginning to look elsewhere.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 12:45 pm

Child molesters possess real love for children too aside from their sexual attraction towards them. It's still aberrant behavior. Now I don't mean to equate homosexuality between to consenting adults to be on the same level as child molestation, but your argument that it's human does nothing to justify it. It's confusion. Something that humans are all to susceptible too.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:13 pm

flip wrote:Child molesters possess real love for children too aside from their sexual attraction towards them. It's still aberrant behavior. Now I don't mean to equate homosexuality between to consenting adults to be on the same level as child molestation, but your argument that it's human does nothing to justify it. It's confusion. Something that humans are all to susceptible too.

There is a huge difference between sexual preference and sexual orientation. I like tall girls - that is a preference of mine, but it is not my sexual orientation. Pedophilia is a preference, not an orientation. I don't know what "confusion" is supposed to mean, many of these people are not confused about their sexual orientation, they know for a fact what it is.

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:36 pm

flip wrote:Child molesters possess real love for children too

you don't really believe that, do you? If you do, can you back this up?

but your argument that it's human does nothing to justify it. It's confusion. Something that humans are all to susceptible too.

animals do it, too. Apparently, it has been observed in over 1500 species, so far.

We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives.

So there really is no basis for saying its not what nature intended.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:40 pm

Pandora wrote:
but your argument that it's human does nothing to justify it. It's confusion. Something that humans are all to susceptible too.
animals do it, too. Apparently, it has been observed in over 1500 species, so far.

Just proof of a very broken system.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:48 pm

Look the animal argument doesn't cut it either. I've got a dog that will hump a pile of leaves. Doesn't mean that he has a sexual attraction for a pile of leaves, just that animals will hump anything.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:54 pm

I've watched enough documentaries where even the molesters knew what they were doing was wrong and hated themselves for it, but were still attracted to children on many different levels. So yes they feel as if they love them but of course it's demented for them to feel that way. It's the same condition that homosexuals suffer from or for that matter anyone that is sexually perverted.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:12 pm

flip wrote:...It's the same condition that homosexuals suffer from or for that matter anyone that is sexually perverted.

Maybe the urge or desire is born of the same kind of unusual chemical or electrical process in the brain but sharing attraction with another is not the same as raping a child who is helpless and doesn't share the attraction to the rapist!
So it seems like you can accept the homosexual as unusual but natural and benevolent. Where as the pedophile is also a natural phenomena but abhorrent and violently dangerous!
One has a lover the other has a victim....a very large difference worth noting!!

It's like photographers and hunters both "shoot" animals, one kills the animal the other admires it in a harmless fashion. You would hardly lump them both in the same category when discussing the problems animals face.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:26 pm

WIll what you call natural phenomena, I call the sinful nature. So yes its the same aberration, revealing itself on different levels. I said in my first post I didn't equate the 2. One being between consenting adults and the other being a victim. What I do say is that although the point of attraction is different, it's still the same mentality.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:49 pm

flip wrote:...What I do say is that although the point of attraction is different, it's still the same mentality.

But looking at the process on that level wouldn't you have to say that heterosexuals, homosexuals and pedophiles are all three the "same mentality"?

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:04 pm

No not if you've read everything I've posted beforehand. That should bring the broader language more into context. Fact is that both homosexuality and pedophilia are part of a broad spectrum of sexual dysfunction.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:32 pm

Dakatsu wrote:basically where students choose to be silent to, and bring "attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools." ...
this day of silence was to spread the anti-bullying message.

As long as that was the exact and precise message, I could support it 100%. No one should be bullied, (except for bullies)

That, of course, also includes Fundamentalist Christians, Jews, racial minorities, nerds, and any other frequently bullied group.

Unfortunately, kids are jerks, and I would be very (pleasantly) surprised if any such demonstration actually made any long term difference in their behavior

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:49 pm

flip wrote:No not if you've read everything I've posted beforehand. That should bring the broader language more into context. Fact is that both homosexuality and pedophilia are part of a broad spectrum of sexual dysfunction.

And heterosexuals can't be pedophiles too? In fact, by proportion of the population, there are more numbers of heterosexual pedophiles out there in the wild than homosexual. By the way, homosexuality is NOT considered a sexual dysfunction in any psychiatric medical treatise today.

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:01 pm

tunnelcat wrote:
flip wrote:No not if you've read everything I've posted beforehand. That should bring the broader language more into context. Fact is that both homosexuality and pedophilia are part of a broad spectrum of sexual dysfunction.
And heterosexuals can't be pedophiles too? In fact, by proportion of the population, there are more numbers of heterosexual pedophiles out there in the wild than homosexual. By the way, homosexuality is NOT considered a sexual dysfunction in any psychiatric medical treatise today.

Nothing was posted here that indicated Homosexuals were more likely to be pedophiles. It was opined that the acts were dysfunctional.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:01 pm

Moral dysfunction, more than sexual dysfunction.

I think that the discussion fails abysmally for lack of an understanding, an experience, or a proof based on either, of what real love is. I don't know that I would say that homosexuals are completely without love, but I draw back from assuming such a noble emotion (and more than an emotion) for either homosexuals or pedophiles. I don't know if any of you know how big of an assumption that is. Actually I'm quite certain that pedophiles do not love the objects of their interest, no matter what they might think, and I base that on an understanding of humanity that is quite frankly beyond most of you.

Just as an example, Dakatsu, some very vital principles regarding and effecting marriage has been lost, for the greater part. Someone told me the other day that some large percentage of children in the U.S.A are born out of wed-lock (more than 40%, and maybe as many as 60%, but I don't recall the exact number). Divorce rates are incredible. And relations between men and women are based primarily on sexuality and physical attraction. Real love involves a degree of commitment that doesn't even enter into the equation, the majority of the time, now-a-days, except as a poorly grasped afterthought.

The point is that society and the people in it are spiraling downwards in more ways than anyone even knows, and something has caused it. I am telling you that it is a direct result of a loss of sound moral \"landmarks\"--or anchors, and more precisely the active undermining and removal of such, often by quite intelligent people. The answer is not an attempt to re-lay \"good\" morals, or to fund \"pass it on\" commercials, the answer is Jesus Christ--the answer is the word of God. I'm sorry that most of you are too wrapped up in relativism to even be able to hear that.

Drakona · Post by **Drakona** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:08 pm

So, here's something funny.

Women are complex. Men are complex, too. We don't understand each other, and I'd argue most of us don't even understand ourselves. Romance is difficult. Relationships are really complex. There are people who claim to be relationship experts, but it's not like there's really a science to it. Nobody can really tell you what makes it tick. Nobody can tell you for sure why some relationships uplift everyone they touch and become bedrocks upon which communities are built, and others are devouring voids that drain everyone they come in contact with until they go nova and take out everything within fifty yards, leaving behind charred wreckage and broken lives.

Nobody gets this stuff.

Until we start talking about making major changes to the system--basically, whether man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman relationships are basically interchangeble. And then all of a sudden everyone's an expert, and we understand the system so well that we know all the effects of a change. Genders are totally interchangeable, and that's so obvious that it's not even up for debate.

Really?

Look, I know it's PC to say a woman can do a man's job, and that the only difference between us is a little plumbing. But that just ain't so. Speaking in strictly platonic terms, everyone knows that friendships between guys and between girls and between a guy and a girl are all very different animals. I couldn't tell you why. I don't think anyone can. But the idea that we're interchangeable is very wrong.

The folks arguing for gay rights will tell you that if you have the same relationship, you should respect it the same way, whether the participants are two men or two cactuses. Now, that's true and I agree. But I also think it's beside the point. If you take a friendship between two guys, and then you replace one of them with a girl, you do not still have the same friendship. The fact that I can't give you a first-principles reason for it doesn't change the fact that it's so.

Seems obvious to me that romance is the same way. Change the genders, the whole ball game changes. It boggles my mind that people take the opposite conclusion as self-evident.

So the question isn't, given the same relationship, do the participants matter? Of course they don't, and I'll gladly agree. If you have a kind, loving, nurturing friendship, it could be between a dog and and elephant, and we'd celebrate it. But this is entirely beside the point. The question is, given different participants, do you get the same relationship?

You don't always, even when you'd think you should.

Let me give an example: take folks who live together, who aren't married. Is there any reason why those relationships should be treated differently than marriages? The fact is, when that first became socially acceptable two or three decades ago, a lot of folks thought they wouldn't be treated differently at all. That over time we'd see a blurring of relationships, some shorter term, some longer term, some with paperwork and some without. I mean, there's no first-principles reason why paperwork should make your relationship fundamentally different.

Only, for some reason, it appears to. Everyone's got a theory as to why that is, but the fact is, even if we don't understand why they're different, folks who are married and folks who are living together are different types of relationships.

On the one hand, relationships are very individual things. Some marriages are destructive, some non-marriages are uplifting. You judge them individually. But at the same time, different classes of relationships behave in different ways; when you say, "I have a boyfriend" and "I have a husband", your intent is different, what you're committing to and trying to achieve is different, and what type of relationship you're going to have is different.

And the amount of respect I have for you is different. How un-PC is that?

Polygamy. Polyamory. Open marriage. Is there any first-principles reason why these relationships can't work? I mean, when you get right down to it, why should marriage be only two people? I can't think of a reason. I certainly can't give one that I know will hold water for everyone. And yet each of those examples, we know from experience, end in spectacular failure almost without exception.

Relationships are complicated. And with complicated systems, you can't reason from first principles. There's only one way to know if something works, and that is to try it. Or rather, look around and see what happens when other people try it.

"What?" I can hear folks yelling at monitors. "Generalizing from anecdotal experience? Drawing general conclusions about groups of people? Isn't that discrimination? Isn't that bigotry? Isn't that RACISM?" No, it's wisdom.

So . . . what do these relationships look like, in the wild?

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know very much about them. It's a topic I've been gathering wisdom on for a while, but I've only seen a little.

But my anectodal experience isn't flattering. I had a roommate in college who was a lesbian; if she'd been straight, we'd have called her something between a slut and a player. I ran into a guy in the ER once who was distraught over a lover who had thrown him out and gotten a restraining order against him. I've never seen someone so desperately lonely before or since. The folks I've known have been all over the map, but the portrait is almost never flattering. The dominant themes are not generosity and stability, but hedonism and dependence and emotional insecurity.

The culture isn't flattering, either. GBLT events have a reputation for being loud, rude, and crude; the culture has a reputation for pressing boundaries and just generally making folks feel uncomfortable. While straight folks celebrate manly strength and restraint or ladylike propriety, GLBT culture seems to celebrate shallow over-the-top mockeries. I can't respect that.

Even the original topic points to insecurity. I mean, has anyone here ever been made fun of? I know I get made fun of all the time for being a Christian. When Lothar and I announced our engagement on this board and our intent to marry as virgins, we got no end of crap for it. You know what? It didn't matter to us. We had a great relationship, and didn't depend on your validation. Why are gay folks special? Why this deep need for others' validation? That's not a healthy sign.

Here's a simple test you can do. Go find your favorite personals ads on the internet, and read a few of the men-seeking-women and a few of the men-seeking-men. Here's the local craigslist - first 3 in each section -

Men seeking Men wrote: http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/m4m/1129240172.html
NSA Tonight - 27; Not much luck so far, but giving it another shot tonight. Masculine, good looking guy here. Looking for another in shape guy to hang out with and see where things go. I'm fit, 5'6, 135, asian, workout.bod. Safe play only, very discreet, ddf. Your pics get mine

Group 2 nite 10p - 37
anyone interested in getting a group together tonite
hit us up not going to get to intense about this
send your stats and pic lets keep it casual
NO DRUGS
two good lookin guys 37 & 32
no back and forth emails
nice place porn on 52"
be checkin back

anyone want to swap blowjobs -24
looking for a clean guy who's std free like me to come over 2nite and suck eachother off. hit me up if your interested. send a pic or I won't reply to you. and be 18-24 yr old.

Men seeing Women wrote: Looking for a lady who loves film, music, milkshakes, salmon burgers - 28
I love life, being healthy, eating right, find the healthiest people are also the sexiest. At the same time I'm not attracted to someone who's weight-obsessed and would rather be with a borderline natural BBW over someone petite or rail-thin. I love going out to movies, plays, musicals, museums and live rock shows around town ... i really enjoy cooking, Italian or Asian - Chinese, Thai or Indian all my favorites. I would like someone who also can work the kitchen as well and cook up a storm. I'm 5'10, handsome, fit, educated, college grad, a business manager and a writer. Tell me how you roll

looking for the real thing - 22
I am looking for a real relationship, not one that only has to do with sex. what am I looking for in a woman? I've been thinking a lot about this and this is what I came up with: she has to smart( has to keep up with world events and have a conversation that is about more than superficial things.), she has to love to run, like I do, has to want to get out of the house and experience life, has to want to get out of bed on Sundays and look forward to doing things, has to love labs, has to respect my opinions and feelings. (Blah,blah,blah . . . )

Looking for you - 41
I would like to meet a freind to go out and enjoy life. I am into the outdoors, motorcycles, going out on the town, or just staying at home enjoying each others company. I would like to be in a ltr someday, i figured starting as freinds can't hurt. If you want to know more, just ask!!

You can reproduce the experiment anywhere on the internet.

These are two cultures marching to a totally different beat.

------------------------

So what?

So nothing's simple when it comes to relationships. You can't go from first principles, you have to go from effects.

But there's one class of relationships that dominates when it comes to effects, and that's marriage. Great marriages are bedrocks of stability--they last 50, 60, 70 years, through thick and thin. They're the foundations on which larger communities are built. They're families unto themselves, with or without kids--if you've ever been a houseguest at grandma's, you know what I mean. A great marriage is a friendship, a functional family, a grand romance, a satisfying sex life, and an efficient household all rolled into one package. It blesses children and strangers alike. It's powered by noble things like self-sacrifice, mutual celebration and understanding, and hard work toward worthy goals. A great marriage is fueled by incredible love, and it uplifts everyone.

Not every marriage achieves that, but a lot of 'em do. But they're all trying to head that direction, and most get pretty close, and a lot of the rest get partway there. Depends on who you hang out with, but I'd say great marriages are common enough to be routine.

So you can make all the first principles arguments you want. But when the rubber meets the road, it's no competition. Traditional marriages are the one class of relationships that routinely produces relationships like those 50-year marriages. Show me another class that can do the same thing, and I'll show you an institution that warrants my respect.

Until then, you can put away the PC stuff. I'm sure there are individual exceptions; healthy and uplifting relationships warrant respect whoever's involved, and above and beyond that I wish everyone the best no matter where they're at. But that doesn't change the fact that gay culture and relationships, as a group, look destructive to me. Don't tell me the two groups are fundamentally the same, because they're not.

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:27 pm

Excellent post Drakona.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:48 pm

Yea, but what does all that have to do with bullying people for no good reason?

I mean, if I draw the obvious conclusion…

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:17 am

Drakona wrote:Endless wall of words

It's two in the morning, so I am not going to respond to all of this at this moment because I need to get to sleep. One thing I'd like to mention is that the number of gay couples are going up, mainly because being more open and accepting about their own sexuality allows for them to openly search for relationships, instead of privately search for sex.

Octopus · Post by **Octopus** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:11 am

I do love all you stubborn people.

Traffic has not been brought into argument. Do we really need more people? I'm not gay, but I sure wish there were more of them. Not that they can't obtain a child or breed. If they want a period of silence, fine. As long as it doesn't slow my day down in anyway. So going back to traffic.. ever been stuck in it and say, \"Yeah.. we need more people doing this.\"

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:39 am

Drakona, in depth thought is the last thing that I want to be doing late on a Saturday night. However, I have some serious objections that I would like to raise against your analysis.

As you might expect from anecdotal evidence, mine does not agree with yours. We can speculate as to why this is, and even though we probably will not get very far, I'm going to try. I'm sure that we both try to hang out with \"good\" people, but I'm sure your good friends are more predominantly Christian and thus more predominantly heterosexual in orientation than mine. In fact, although you mentioned other ways in which you knew gays, you did not mention having any gay friends in your post. Do you have very many if any at all? I mean, we all run into questionable folk--both gay and straight--out there in the world, but, if you have gay friends, I believe that you will have a much more difficult time coming to your conclusions regarding their lifestyle.

I also think that you are holding gay relationships against your Christian value system and that this is unfair. It's not as though, as a Christian, you can say something like, \"ignoring that homosexuality is evil in and of itself, these gay relationships are still evil\" and really be saying anything enlightening. The Bible promotes the so-called \"family\" values. I suspect that if the Bible didn't explicitly say that homosexuality was evil, then you could still easily infer it from the rest of it. So it is not surprising that you would find gay relationships as something short of good, even disregarding the fact that they are gay in and of itself. (For instance, you praised heterosexual relationships for the men tending to value \"manly strength\" and for the women tending to value \"ladylike propriety,\" but how can this possibly be a fair metric for gay relationships?) A good heterosexual relationship is going to be different from a good gay relationship--they are going to be good for different reasons, and they are going to contribute differently to society.

I do agree with you regarding the function of marriage in promoting stable and healthy relationships. I think that we all know people who have had very longterm relationships that, although between two people who are not married, are still nothing short of ideal. Yet unarguably marriages do tend to promote stable and healthy relationships. But, by denying marriage to gays, aren't we unfairly denying them a tool for stable and healthy relationships? Isn't it unfair to compare relationships between people who can get married against those who cannot?

I can't disagree with you that Christians are made fun of, but gays are made fun of on an entirely different level. In fact, even straight people are made fun of for being gay. \"Gay\" has become a synonym for \"weak\" and for \"stupid.\" However badly Christians are made fun of, it's not as though you could substitute calling someone stupid with calling them a Christian unless you are at an atheist convention, whereas doing this with \"gay\" has become the status quo.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:01 am

Drakona wrote:Only, for some reason, it appears to. Everyone's got a theory as to why that is, but the fact is, even if we don't understand why they're different, folks who are married and folks who are living together are different types of relationships.

I'm very surprised that you apparently don't know why. I guess that proves my point about a loss of moral landmarks.

Could it be, perhaps, Drakona, that one is sanctioned by God and the other is not, for starters? You know that the Bible says that righteousness "tendeth to life." Did you realize that that could be literally true?

To me it's obvious, as well, that the two situations just come from completely different foundations. The ideal marriage begins from a firm and explicit foundation of commitment. Like I said, a loss of moral compass... People don't even know what has been lost, and partly because it has been a generational abandonment.

To give a very poor example of what I would call a generation abandonment of truth: say that a man has a choice between a right and wrong. He recognizes the choice, and has been taught about the consequences. He chooses wrong. This is when it begins, because now that he has commited himself to go in that direction he will certainly not be inclined to recognize that it is wrong. He later has a son. When his son grows up, and is faced with the same choice he has nothing to go on but his conscience, if he is able to listen to that, because nobody has taught him what is the wrong choice, and the consequences of choosing it. Unless he is able to listen to his conscience (something that must also be taught), he has nothing to go on but his own very limited understanding. And even...

Proverbs 14 wrote:12 There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

There are many other aspects to this, many reasons that the Bible itself gives for the lack of understanding, or "blindness" that is so prevalent in our day. But I believe that that's at least a part of it.

In our day people overwhelm their consciences with reasonings more acceptable to their own desires. This also contributes to moral blindness. They know what is right, on some level, but they refuse to accept it, prefering to believe their own reasonings (or the reasonings which they've adopted).

Romans 1 wrote:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man -- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

And it even goes on to address the very subject of this topic:

continuing Romans 1 wrote:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:07 am

Dakatsu wrote:mainly because being more open and accepting about their own sexuality allows for them to openly search for relationships, instead of privately search for sex.

This is like part of a story-line of in a movie. You have to accept it in order to reach the conclusion so you do, but it doesn't actually make sense in reality. It was all about sex because they were not accepted, but now it can be about relationships because they are? How uh... romantic... [/sarcasm]

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:26 am

Spidey wrote:Yea, but what does all that have to do with bullying people for no good reason?

I mean, if I draw the obvious conclusion…

I don't totally understand what you mean, Spidey, but if you're saying that a stand against homosexuality has no place in a stand against bullying then you're wrong. People are being fooled into accepting homosexuality, bit by bit, through things like this Day of Silence. It's like I said about movie story-lines... if this has to make sense in reality we might ask why only homos if its a matter of bullying? You see?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:07 pm

You’re close…

This is a thread about what society is doing to combat bigotry (right or wrong) when someone goes to great length to point out the problems associated with the people feeling the bigotry, then I can draw only one conclusion.

(the bigotry is being condoned)

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 5:58 pm

flip wrote:Look the animal argument doesn't cut it either. I've got a dog that will hump a pile of leaves. Doesn't mean that he has a sexual attraction for a pile of leaves, just that animals will hump anything.

ahem, I don't think they are just talking about one animal humping another. Homosexual intercourse involves another animal *letting* itself be humped. Would your dog enjoy this?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:02 pm

If I was a kleptomaniac or pyromaniac I could understand society wanting to control my actions. On the other hand if I have a fetish for dark eyed fair skinned girls under 25 years old I suspect I wouldn't be a threat to anyone.
So the only way I can see anyone justifying their condemnation of homosexuality would be if they think it is arrived at strictly by choice not by instinct. And even then you would have to believe it is doing harm to you or your fellow beings.

Why would anyone want to assume the moral authority on this issue unless God himself spoke to them about it?

And I mean God, in person, literally one on one, convincing you as in-person-as-he-can-get-without-consuming-you-in-the-flames-of-his-perfect-presence in person....not just some average preacher Sunday morning reading a sermon he prepaired the night before where he relates the weekly word of God as he 'heard' it. Boy, if there was ever a time to think twice about heresay evidence it should be when someone is passing you some of the divine variety!!

What compels people to pick a totally harmless trait in another person and then try to harm them for it?
I think that is a much bigger flaw than someone who pursues same sex relations.

If you don't know for sure what makes us tick and you haven't been granted an audience with an omnipotent being high on the mount behind a talking burning bush then just go with logic and facts until you do get that calling:

Pyromania, kleptomania, homophobia. All harmful to society.
Heterosexuality, homosexuality, asexuality. Harmless to society.

Who do you want to pick on and why?

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:04 pm

Drakona wrote:Here's a simple test you can do. Go find your favorite personals ads on the internet, and read a few of the men-seeking-women and a few of the men-seeking-men. Here's the local craigslist...

sorry, Drakona, but this "test" is incredibly biased and self-serving. It should be obvious that both gays and straights use the internet due to very different pressures. Your test will therefore naturally find a higher percentage of ads for sexual intercourse with gays than for straights.

1. In society, gays have a much harder time finding appropriate sexual partners than straights, simply because of the lack of choice, and the difficulty of identifying whether someone is appropriate (i.e. also gay). The internet is, for them, a way to deal with this problem, which does not exist in this manner for straights, who can - in principle - just go the bar around the corner where 95% of the people, even though they might not feel attracted to them, are at least of the same sexual orientation.

2. Add to this that being gay is still widely stigmatized. Even if there was a suitable locale for chatting up lovers would be nearby, many don't dare to go because they would rather be dead than be seen at such an establishment. Again, for them, the internet is the only discreet option.

3. Consider sexual experience. Most straight youngsters have their share of sexual expierences while growing up. Most gays realize that they are gay only later in life. For them the internet offers an easy way to enter this new way of life, and this will of course revolve around sexuality --- coming to terms with their new sexuality is, after all, the defining problem of their life from now on. From my anecdotal experience, they only turn to romantic relationships once this stage is beyond them. (edit: one of my gay friends met his long-term partner - and whom he has married two years ago - through exactly an ad like this, by the way).

4. Both groups also have totally different cultures that define the way they write ads. From my experience, in gay circles (at least from my own experience) sexuality is much more openly discussed, and sexual advances are much more open than in straight society where sexual advances often have to be couched in the bla bla of love, the ritual of dating, and so on.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:08 pm

Dak wrote:That is the only argument I've heard that holds a tiny bit of merit; yes, heterosexuality is the intended course of nature and evolution, as sex produces offspring.

I've never understood why a couple that doesn't produce off spring interferes with nature's intentions. Not all parents will survive to raise their off spring, having same-sex couples fill that role could be nature's elegant solution.

Will wrote:So the only way I can see anyone justifying their condemnation of homosexuality would be if they think it is arrived at strictly by choice not by instinct.

I would just add, that the pro-choice arguments often leave out the nessasary follow up question: Which is, why would anyone choose that? Why would a heterosexual man deny himself women and--trying to not get to graphic--choose a less pleasurable sexual experience? I really think there is some truth to people who make such statements being themselves bisexual. Then add another level of subjecting yourself to ridicule, who would choose that?

Drakona wrote:Even the original topic points to insecurity. I mean, has anyone here ever been made fun of? I know I get made fun of all the time for being a Christian. When Lothar and I announced our engagement on this board and our intent to marry as virgins, we got no end of crap for it. You know what? It didn't matter to us. We had a great relationship, and didn't depend on your validation. Why are gay folks special? Why this deep need for others' validation? That's not a healthy sign.

Drakona,

I was recently joking with a friend, who isn't white, that in 2040 I can finally tell racist jokes. I was all ready to party, have banners, you know, all that good stuff because I will no longer be in the majority.

He was a real party-pooper, his response was I have to hold off until we are no longer the majority in power. Until we are no longer the majority on the supreme court, the majority in congress, and have the majority of the wealth.

Your Christian/Gay bashing example is exactly the same scenario. It just doesn't have the same impact in a Christian majority nation to bash someone for being Christian. Yes, of course people do it, but you are reinforced by this massive reservoir of individuals who make you feel comfortable with who you are. That reinforces the idea that not only what you are is ok, but also that what you are is the norm.

It is not uncommon for a gay individual to be the only one in his school who has come out. To be the only one who is openly-struggling with his identity. To then add ridicule on top of this isolated-personal struggle is several order of magnitudes worse then calling someone a bible thumper.

If you witnessed the following acts: Which would outrage you more?
1. A nerd making fun of a player on the football team for being a dumb Jock?
2. A group of individuals picking on a child who was born without a limb?

So long as Christianity holds dominance in America, I wouldn't expect their rally's to be as vocal and upfront.

You don't need other people's validation because you have other people's validation.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:28 pm

Homosexual intercourse involves another animal *letting* itself be humped. Would your dog enjoy this?

Why yes, I have witnessed him doing so and he didn't seem to mind it at all. LOL sry I had to respond to this.

WIll, according to Christian faith, the idea that same sex relations is wrong and a condemned act, was given to a man named Moses directly from God. All the people that stood there that day believed that to be true as many of them do still today. I myself would defend any homosexual being bullied or attacked. I would in no way show any partiality towards him as I would no one else. What they do is their business and I am not nor will I judge them.

Problem is this. It is a condemned act by God. A total slap in the face really if you believe that man was made in God's image. Not my face being slapped so I do nothing about it, but when society as a whole starts to accept and promote homosexuality, then judgment comes on everybody. We should at least label it as it is. A sin. We all sin in many different ways so for me to cast judgment on them for their particular sin is to cast judgment on myself for mine. It's easier to just be kind to everyone and let God sort out the mess. No way though can I accept it as anything other than a perversion of what was intended.

Day of Silence

Day of Silence

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: