Day of Silence

[Duper]

Why? And why should it matter? Men with a double Y chromosome have a genetic predisposition toward violence. That doesn't mean it's ok for them to be violent. Some people have a genetic predisposition toward alcoholism. That just means that have a harder fight against that temptation. Having a genetic predisposition towards a certain behavior has nothing whatsoever to say about whether that behavior is moral or not from a Christian perspective. We ALL have a genetic predisposition towards sin.

Why?? you're joking right?

It's pretty simple. Because God said DON'T DO IT. and not just once. He doesn't "Oh, unless except.."

Remember "greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world"? The Lord didn't say is would be easy, He said resist and don't sin. We have that ability and freedom as Christians. Those who are not, are just kinda stuck, and THAT Spidey is why we tell them. ( don't mean beat anyone over the head with a stick) But it seems that the better part of our culture swallowed the lie that's been aggressively propagated over the last 30 years or so that homosexuality is "ok".

[Pandora]

could somebody post the relevant sections in the bible where god condemns homosexuality? This atheist would love to have some background ... thanks!

[Kilarin]

It's pretty simple. Because God said DON'T DO IT.

Sorry, I must have been unclear. Or I'm misunderstanding you. Because my point was NOT that homosexual behavior is acceptable. My point was only that whether or not some people have a genetic predisposition to be homosexual has nothing to do with whether homosexual behavior is moral behavior from a Christian perspective.

There are MANY things that people have genetic predispositions to that the Bible says are immoral. Christian doctrine says that we ALL have a genetic predisposition towards sin, and that doesn't change the fact that we aren't supposed to do it.

If the Bible says that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is wrong, it doesn't matter that I have a strong genetic predisposition to want sex.

[Spidey]

Why would anyone “want” to be gay?

And, I don’t see what the fuss is all about anyway, God did not see fit to prohibit homosexuality in the commandments, and it’s not even one of the seven deadly sins…

[CUDA]

Spidey, do you REALLY want to go there

[Duper]

Why would anyone “want” to be gay?

And, I don’t see what the fuss is all about anyway, God did not see fit to prohibit homosexuality in the commandments, and it’s not even one of the seven deadly sins…

You need to go back and read Leviticus and Exodus. and ALL sin is deadly.

Why would they? I dunno, ask my daughter's girlfriend/boyfriend...

Kilarin:
I understood your point. My point is that genetics "argument" is mute. The homosexual community uses it as justification (that's just a generalization), God does not.

Pand: give me a day or so and I'll track those down for you. I've been meaning to do that anyways. This thread has got me thinking of all the places I've read it.

[Drakona]

(I apologize for the tldr nature of this. I don't have time to make it short. I'm just trying to do the right thing and respond to folks who directed questions at me--I can't come close to commenting on the rest of the thread.

Find your section, I guess, if you really care about what I have to say. Or ignore me, otherwise. No skin off my nose either way. )

As you might expect from anecdotal evidence, mine does not agree with yours. . . Do you have very many [gay friends] if any at all? . . . if you have gay friends, I believe that you will have a much more difficult time coming to your conclusions regarding their lifestyle.

I don't have any current friends who are gay. The closest friend I've had was a roommate in college, and after that, it is probably just folks who are "in my community," like Kodekeeper on this board or another board with a fairly active GBLT/polyamorous contingent. I also had a pretty good friend at one point who was ex-gay--with a wife, five kids, and a 17 year marriage, and he had some pretty strong opinions on it. I like to think I seek them out and observe, when I have the chance, but I'll admit that after ten years of that, I'm still in 'gathering data' mode.

That said, I don't think having a close friend would change my intellectual opinion all that much. People and relationships are so very individual.

Let me give a (mostly) unrelated example. I don't approve of sex outside of marriage--same opinion, I think it's self-destructive. Yet a couple of my close friends have been living that way for the last little bit (perhaps contrary to your expectations, none of my close friends right now are Christians). I didn't approve of one of these relationships at first, but it's been a year, they've gotten married, and the effects on my friend have been very good. And even though I don't think living together was a good idea, I do think it was a step up for him, and that marriage was the next natural step up from there. I disagreed with (but respected) the first decision, and soundly blessed the second, think the whole relationship has been good and healthy and am nothing but happy for him. But it hasn't changed my opinion of premarital sex a bit. I still think it's destructive.

People are individuals, and the world is complicated. There are a zillion different kinds of gay relationships, just as there are a zillion different kinds of straight ones. I'm sure some are more and less healthy, more and less beneficial, some open, closed, shy, bold, crooked, upside down, or purple. At the end of the day, you have to judge and respect them individually, and in the context of the person's life. Sometimes what would be destructive for one person is--while still destructive--an improvement for someone else.

Another thing I try to keep in mind is that my (and God's) standards are incredibly high. Some folks do not care to live up to them, and that is their business.

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.

On the contrary, I think I have said exactly that.

First of all, I don't think most folks realize how little the Bible says about why homosexuality is destructive. It says very little in general--a brief reference in Leviticus outlawing it and remarking that it's "an abomination", and a reference or two in Romans and another epistle or maybe two about it being unnatural, sinful, and undesirable.

As a Christian, I think the Christian way of life is the natural, intended, healthy one, and that pretty much anything else is going to come up short by comparison. I think this is a Biblical view, and that many of the commandments and advice in the Bible are written from this perspective. My own view is that the closer you are to that, the better off you are--even if you're entirely secular, a lot of the advice in the Bible is just plain good advice.

But I am keenly aware that many folks are not Christians, don't have Christian values, and quite frankly won't miss the things that the authors of scripture are worried they'll destroy. I do not generally advise non-Christians to pray without ceasing, to love their enemies, to humble themselves before God, to meditate on the scriptures, etc. Some of these things might be beneficial, but the benefits are at least largely spiritual, and quite frankly you've got bigger fish to fry on that front.

Now, the Bible gives a lot of advice. Some of it's good advice for everybody, and some of it's only useful advice if you're trying to accomplish the objectives God has in mind for you. Some of the things it says are harmful are harmful to everyone, and some are things you might not consider harmful if you're not a Christian. I don't think it distinguishes between the two--that requires wisdom--and I don't think it says enough about homosexuality for me to be sure which of those two it is.

All of that is to say, while I'm theologically wedded to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong (er . . . mostly), I'm not wedded to the conclusion that it's wrong for everybody. Maybe it's just a problem for Christians. My opinion that it's generally destructive is based on observation more than scripture, and is not a very strongly held belief.

To draw an analogy, I think going to college is a good idea, so I'll generally advise people to get good grades in high school. Now, if you're a high schooler who has no intention of going to college, I'll think it's a bad decision and that you're settling for too little . . . but I'll also understand that you don't care as much about your grades. So it is with Christianity and Christian Ethics. I honestly think everyone would be better off as a Christian--but I also understand that some folks aren't interested, and don't care too much about mucking up the associated stuff.

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.

The Bible promotes the care and creation of family, though not as much as you might think--it promotes the call of God a lot more. But the Bible is not the only thing that promotes family. Islamic culture promotes it too, or so I'm told. Indian culture promotes it. Humanists promote it. Japanese culture promotes it. Everybody promotes the creation and nurturing of families. Fact is, families are in the Bible because they're good, not the other way around.

I do think this is fairly universal ground. Building a family is a different pursuit than building a relationship; one is great for society, and the other is a hobby that might turn out good or bad, but is in any case highly personal. Praising romance, stability, and selfless love is not a Christian thing. It is a universal thing.

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 agree. I think all relationships should be judged for the effect they have on individuals, on communities, and on society as a whole. I would not say that gay relationships cannot have good effects. Individual ones might be right for what an individual's trying to do, and some might even be great for society. Bill Gates was a college dropout, and that does not diminish the honor I give his success. But I'm still gonna advise you to stay in school.

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?

That's a matter of opinion. I personally think you should command respect first, and get legal reconition afterwards, not the other way around.

Folks have been getting married without legal support for a long time. Slaves did it in the south; mormons do it with polygamy; gay folks do it now. Marriage is essentally about stating what you're trying to accomplish and getting the community to support you and hold you accountable. Yeah, the legal aspect is significant, but that wouldn't stop you from pursuing the social aspect--which I see as the primary thing. If the social thing were more widespread among gays, I'd be a lot more willing to entertain the legal thing.

Put another way, there are countries where gays can get married now. I don't recall where I read it, but I believe there are countries were gays have been able to get married for decades. And the marriage rate among them in those places is tiny, and the culture is not significantly different.

You can make of that what you will. To me, it's a sign that, in general, gay relationships and marriages aren't really about the same thing.

I can't disagree with you that Christians are made fun of, but gays are made fun of on an entirely different level.

Well, that's a function of what communities you hang out in, isn't it? Eight years ago, I remember three pages of flames (and no friendly responses) in this very forum for no less than declaring I was a Christian and that I thought the view was correct. And this was my primary social scene. I'm not saying you should be sorry for me--I certainly wasn't. I'm saying that I didn't whine in response, I argued. You all respect me now because I've forced you to. That's how healthy people respond to communal disrespect.

There are communities where Christians are teased, and communities where they are affirmed. And there are communities where gays are teased, and communities where they are affirmed. And gamers, and geeks, and old people, and black people, and white people, and on and on. My point wasn't who gets teased more or less in various places, but only that everybody does.

The right response to being teased is not to whine and cry about how unfair it is. It is to command respect by being great. "I get teased more than anyone else, so I need extra validation" is not a winning approach to life. It's whiny, weepy bull****, and a sign that you need to develop some emotional security and self-respect.

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?

Ha! Well, I said everyone had a theory. I've got a lot of theories about why marriage works, but I think the roots are physiological, psychological, and--where spiritual--have more to do with human nature and natural theology than supernatural blessing.

I'll point out, though, "sanctioned by God" is an argument that it should work, and--for a Christian--a reason to do it. But it's not a reason that it works (unless you're arguing for supernatural blessing).

I think it's important to understand the reason for things--not just what's right or wrong, but also why. You may recall that the pharisees got into trouble following the law rigorously without understanding its purpose. I think the church is in danger of the same thing, these days. Especially when it comes to sex and homosexuality. Righteousness requires wisdom as much as rigor. If righteousness would demand that we make an exception to a law, and we persist in hard-headed zeal--as the Pharisees did condemning the lame man's healing on the Sabbath--we sin. If righteousness would demand that we hold fast to a law, and we loosen it out of misunderstanding, we sin. Being scrupulous and zealous is not the safe route. There is no substitute for understanding. Scripture is a source of wisdom--the source of wisdom, even--but not a substitute for it.

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.

LOL, you are libertarian, aren't you? I salute.

You make two points: that you can't condemn something innate, and that you can't condemn something harmless to society. I disagree completely with the first, and partly with the second.

You actually can condemn something innate--we do it all the time. People have innate tendencies toward alcoholism, pedophilia, domestic abuse, etc. We simply expect them to suppress those tendencies because what they're doing is wrong. It doesn't matter why someone is abusive, it doesn't matter if it's a chemical problem, an emotional problem, an environmental problem, what. It doesn't matter if it's beyond their control or not. We expect them to stop, because it's destructive.

When I draw that analogy, people usually immediately say, "OMG, I cannot believe you just compared something harmless to something vile." Well, yes, I did, but that wasn't the point. I'm not trying to say homosexuality is like abuse in that it is vile (it isn't). I'm only saying that whether you had any choice in the matter is irrelevant. You are judged on what you are and on what you do, not on how you got that way. If you are born with a blessing or curse--great looks, poverty, a great mind, a chemical problem--folks may be kind enough to help you, or they may not be. But it's up to you to make the most of your life, not to make excuses. Ultimately, you'll be judged for who you are, not how you got that way.

Or, let me put this another way. We've all been told that we should not judge people based on race, because people have no control over race. This is a half-truth. We shouldn't judge people based on race, not because they have no control over it, but because it has no innate value. Sometimes people control things (like style of dress) that don't mean anything, so we shouldn't value them for that. And sometimes people don't control things (like great athletic potential) that we value highly--and we should. It's not about control, but about value. You're judged on what you are, not merely on what you control, and that's as it should be.

(As a between-the-lines comment, I don't think homosexuality is innate, at least not entirely. It's . . . complicated. Sexual taste is, in general.)

Can you condemn something that doesn't hurt other people? On a personal level, yes; on a social level, no; on a legal level, hell no.

On a personal level, I condemn dropping out of school, doing drugs, viewing porn, and not being a Christian. And by that I mean, I think these things are bad for you, that you shouldn't do them, and if you were to ask my advice as a friend, I'd advise against them every time.

. . . but they only harm you. Or, only mostly. I don't think I'd be justified--even as a friend--in putting pressure on you to stop. I could give you advice, but I couldn't make demands. I love you and want to see you do well, but I also respect your decisions. It'd be different if you were directly causing me problems--for example, if you were crashing a party I threw.

I view relationships as a pretty personal thing. I don't think any of them should be illegal, and I'm pretty hesitant to give advice--even to close friends--about how they should be run. I may think homosexuality's self-destructive, but I'd fight to the death for your right to practice it, and I'd be pretty slow to criticize it in person. For example, I don't think I ever said anything to my roommate.

I do think that respect for people's decisions shouldn't be ideologically one-sided, though. If you're a man and you want to be a woman, everyone's required to give you support. If you're married, and then you decide you're gay and want to pursue that lifestyle, everyone's required to respect your choice. And if you're gay and view it as healthy and want to stay that way, everyone's required to respect your choice. But if you're gay and view it as a psychological problem, and want treatment to help overcome it . . . nobody respects that choice. They should.

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.

You are spinning a series of just-so stories, Pandora. You have your reasons for why it is that way, and I have mine; for every story you tell, I can tell one in counterpoint.

My point was only the very limited one that the cultures are marching in completely different directions. Craigslist is not my only source, and I think the conclusion is abundantly warranted by the evidence. You're trying to explain it away, and I'm unimpressed by the attempt.

For what it's worth, though, I'm aware Craigslist is a cesspool of cheapness--I used it as an example because it's free/doesn't require registration, but I'm well aware that that makes the more aggressive and spammy community look worse. For what it's worth, I looked at some more serious gay personals on the net, too. Still, for some reason they all felt the need to append something along the lines of, "I'm looking for a boyfriend, NOT JUST SEX, OKAY?" [/cheapshot]

For a while, I was following a group of Evangelical Gays -- folks who thought they could have godly relationships and that being gay wasn't wrong. I've lost track of them, and can't find them now, but they were an interesting data point.

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

Mmmmm.... no. We're all validated and mocked to some degree, and being in the majority has absolutely nothing to do with it. I stand against crowds by myself all the time. I'm doing it right now. I don't need other people's validation because I'm an emotionally healthy individual.

Since gay relationships are the only type that can contain two said parties, you will be able to find more graphic solicitations if they are sought out.

I wasn't 'seeking out' graphic solicitations. I was literally taking the top three ads in the two categories. That the one set was more graphic and the other more romantic speaks entirely for itself. I wasn't expecting it to be as big a divergence as it was--it's generally not that bad on other personals sites. I think it has something to do with Craigslist.

But it still makes the point just fine. Two cultures, same site, what happens? Perhaps not what you'd expect from first principles. Or perhaps what you would. My point only was that the cultures that evolved were different, and that the usual argument ("men and women are interchangeable, and you can't judge their relationships differently") doesn't hold water. I think that's well-warranted by the evidence.

A whole lot of nonsense and crap

That's a whole lot of nonsense and crap.

[woodchip]

Day of silence my ass. I'm sorry but Perez Hilton just epitomized why the whole gay movement is farcical at best. To ask a Miss USA contestant a dog eared question about gay marriage and then make the comment he did afterwards is why a lot of people look at gays as a aberrant form of life. To get respect one needs to give respect.

[Will Robinson]

...

LOL, you are libertarian, aren't you? I salute.

You make two points: that you can't condemn something innate, and that you can't condemn something harmless to society. I disagree completely with the first, and partly with the second.

You actually can condemn something innate--we do it all the time. People have innate tendencies toward alcoholism, pedophilia, domestic abuse, etc. We simply expect them to suppress those tendencies because what they're doing is wrong.
.....

I need to quantify the level of 'condemnation' I object to. Your own stance on where you draw the line seems to be where I wish everyone who disagrees with homosexuality stood.
I think everyone should be able to accept, in spite of their personal distaste for, same sex relations at least as far as where they want the laws to intervene and the general public to speak out.
We don't have laws forbidding alcoholics or obsessive/compulsives from getting married so the selective interference in the lives of homosexuals compared to all the other people with unusual traits is based on something other than protecting society. It seems to be built more on protecting religious teachings.
It feels to me the homophobic rejection I was taught as a kid hasn't been addressed the same way racial or class prejudices have been and I guess I'm looking squarely at religious condemnation as the reason for that. I'm not sure I'm correct but I don't see any other force sustaining it generation after generation.

[woodchip]

It feels to me the homophobic rejection I was taught as a kid hasn't been addressed the same way racial or class prejudices have been and I guess I'm looking squarely at religious condemnation as the reason for that. I'm not sure I'm correct but I don't see any other force sustaining it generation after generation.

Have to disagree with you here Will. I don't remember (and at my age take that with a grain of salt) being taught by any organization to condemn gays. I probably did learn it from my father and from my friends. I think instead of looking at religions, I'd look closer at a heterosexual's inborn abhorrence of the idea of being non-heterosexual. Kinda like a fear of falling if getting to close to a cliffs edge.

[Will Robinson]

Have to disagree with you here Will. I don't remember (and at my age take that with a grain of salt) being taught by any organization to condemn gays. I probably did learn it from my father and from my friends.

Same place I learned it along with racial and class prejudices but somewhere along the line we started getting taught to give up the racial and class component but the gay bashing wasn't included. There is an underlying acceptance of the gay bashing that you describe as an inborn abhorrence but I wonder, to what degree is that abhorrence innate and to what degree is a product of the cultural acceptance of gay bashing?

An example: At any age of my life I could share a gay joke with my mother or father much more readily than a racial joke no matter how funny/clever/poignant the joke might be it would have always been safer to go with the gay joke if you wanted to avoid being scolded and just get a laugh. I think because we were taught being gay is something people do, being another race was something that happened to you. That difference is championed by the church by virtue of the "hate the sin, love the sinner"....lesson. Sin doesn't happen to you, sin is something you do. even in it's most tolerant mode religion tells us homosexuality is a choice and I think they are wrong. Some people decide to experiment with it but I've met people that were born gay, heard their stories etc. and watched a young guy grow up gay and I knew from his early years he was going to be gay, it was obvious in everything he did long before he had any conscious sexual desire he was feminine to the core.

[CUDA]

Perez Hilton Typifies what is wrong with the Gay community. his behaviour to Miss California has been abhorent. she was asked her \"OPINION\" on Gay marriage in a Loaded got ya question and gave it, and since it was WELL KNOW by Perez that Carrie attended a San Diego Christian College, he obviously had an agenda in mind when he asked it.
She did not criticize the Gay's in any way in her answer. only stating her Opinions, since when has stating a non hateful opinion in this country become illegal??

But now she is being crucified by the Gay community and Hollywood (one in the same) and being called vile and hateful things publicly by Perez. calling her a *itch and a *unt, how mature Perez.

I do have contact with some gays in my life. My wife has a cousin who is openly Gay and My best friends son is openly Gay. While I do not agree with their Life style, it is their choice, and I will support that, however wrong I feel that it is. but Perez and the other Gay rights activists are trying to destroy Miss California's reputaion and character. their approach is just as bad as those from the Westboro \"church\" who say God hates fags. and while the majoirty of the Christian right call their behaviour abhorant, I have seen NO ONE from the Gay community say that Perez or the other Hollywood Elite's are wrong in their attempted destruction of Carrie Prejean. and that is sad

[Sergeant Thorne]

even in it's most tolerant mode religion tells us homosexuality is a choice and I think they are wrong.

I've heard that a lot, and I have probably said it before. Actually, though, the idea that it is always or purely a conscious choice (as in something you could just as easily choose not to do) is unbiblical.

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.

At the same time everyone has a free will, and people can change, though sometimes it may take the Lord's intervention for them to be able to change something so integral. This has actually been reported as happening in our day, through Christian ministries. We also see it having happened in the Bible:

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

I also believe that it can happen through choice, or through exposure, and that is corroborated by stories I've heard of men who became homosexuals through being molested by a homosexual when they were young. This is why I believe the idea that it's firmly locked up in genetics is an incorrect and a dangerously naive one.

[Kilarin]

I think it's important to understand the reason for things--not just what's right or wrong, but also why.
...
I'm only saying that whether you had any choice in the matter is irrelevant.
...
Can you condemn something that doesn't hurt other people? On a personal level, yes; on a social level, no; on a legal level, hell no.
...
I may think homosexuality's self-destructive, but I'd fight to the death for your right to practice it

hear hear!

But here:

If you're a man and you want to be a woman, everyone's required to give you support

I presume you don't mean that I should directly support behavior I think is wrong?

I had a friend in college who was a very nice guy but, well, not the sharpest tool in the shed. He was picked up by one of those predatory women who only go to college to find a husband. They were engaged after the first date. The poor boy didn't really understand what was going on, and the girl didn't care, just as long as she could put a Mrs. in front of her name.

I, my future wife, and several other friends of both parties told them that this was a big mistake. They ignored the council and got married. Most of us, regretfully, told them we couldn't attend the wedding. We adamantly opposed the wedding. This wasn't just a case of "I don't like your choice", but one where multiple people all agreed that the boy was being taken advantage of, and that the girl was going to find him unable to hold up his end of supporting the family.

Attending would have been implying a level of "support" that wasn't there. They were both of legal age (although of questionable mental competence), so they had every right to get married if they wanted. It wasn't an easy decision, many people agonized over it for quite a while, these people were both our friends, and we remained their friends, they were not ostracized or hated, but we did not feel that in good conscious we could lend any official support to this decision.

As you said, I'll happily fight to the death to defend peoples right to make their own decisions, but I do NOT have to attend the wedding.

If you're married, and then you decide you're gay and want to pursue that lifestyle, everyone's required to respect your choice.

To me, this is in an entirely different category. When you make a promise, you should keep it. Whether the temptations are heterosexual or otherwise. This is part of the Tao that everyone can understand. "Good" people can disagree with me on sex outside of marriage, homosexual behavior, and many other issues. I can still respect people who make these decisions. But I don't have any respect for people who walk out on a marriage just because they've found someone else they are attracted to.

This is why I believe the idea that it's firmly locked up in genetics is an incorrect and a dangerously naive one.

Ah, we agree more closely than I thought! Yes, limiting something as complicated as sexual orientation to ONLY genetics is obviously wrong in my opinion. There are too many variables. But, also in my opinion, the evidence seems to be pointing towards physical factors being a part of the equation.

[Jeff250]

Everybody promotes the creation and nurturing of families.

I never meant to suggest otherwise, but too often much more is packaged under "family" values, such as issues of homosexuality (hence the scare quotes around "family"). The idea that traditional families are good is universal. It's the idea that everything else then must not be that I take issue with and that does not demand universal assent.

Building a family is a different pursuit than building a relationship; one is great for society, and the other is a hobby that might turn out good or bad, but is in any case highly personal.

I can think of a lot of traditional families that turn out bad too. It's not as though a traditional family is magically different from any relationship in terms of how we should analyze its goodness. We know good things "by their fruits" as they say.

Something that goes as well here as anywhere else: If we're asking, what is better, a straight relationship or a gay relationship? then we are asking the wrong question, since this isn't a realistic choice for most people, gay or straight. I think you have to argue for a much stronger claim to show that gay relationships are destructive, namely that a gay person is better off having no romantic relationships at all than having gay romantic relationships.

I suppose that one response to this is to just deny that the choice between straight and gay relationships isn't realistic for most people. After all, even if flipping the orientation bit isn't physically possible for most, then God could use divine intervention to do it. I suppose that if you believe in a God that can do anything, then you can't, to borrow your language, on first principles deduce that this choice doesn't exist. But a lot of gay people that I know went through a phase where they were either originally religious or tried to use religion to become straight, but it just didn't work. Did they just not "do it right"? Some perhaps, but I'm skeptical about this being the general case. When it comes to people who try to alter their sexual orientation, most people fail, which is compelling to me.

The right response to being teased is not to whine and cry about how unfair it is. It is to command respect by being great. "I get teased more than anyone else, so I need extra validation" is not a winning approach to life. It's whiny, weepy bull****, and a sign that you need to develop some emotional security and self-respect.

Your response to being teased was more than fair, but, even if your criticisms of how gays approach being bullied are appropriate, I think that it is unfair to justify those criticisms from the original topic. By most accounts, the day of silence idea had a noble goal (although whether it is effective remains to be seen). Why are gays special and why not have a day about all bullying? Well, their circumstance has some special characteristics, like what you possibly agreed with in your post, that they tend to be bullied worse than other groups. Is it more effective to take a stand against those who are bullied the worst or to try to take a general stand against all bullying? I don't know, but I don't think that you can use the answer to this question as ammunition against gay community.

[Bet51987]

Deleted

[CUDA]

uhm Bee, Bi-sexual IS NOT the same thing as Ex-Gay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-sexual

[Lothar]

I also had a pretty good friend at one point who was ex-gay--with a wife, five kids, and a 17 year marriage, and he had some pretty strong opinions on it.

He's not "ex-gay". He's bisexual.

Pretty arrogant to make such a statement about his nature, don't you think?

[Bet51987]

Deleted

[Spidey]

/me thinks we are all guilty of some degree of arrogance on this topic.

[Kilarin]

I suppose that if you believe in a God that can do anything, then you can't, to borrow your language, on first principles deduce that this choice doesn't exist. But a lot of gay people that I know went through a phase where they were either originally religious or tried to use religion to become straight, but it just didn't work.

Obviously God COULD suddenly switch your orientation, and I believe He sometimes does, but nothing in Christianity demands that. Heterosexual Christians are supposed to resist temptation to have sex outside of marriage, even if they never get married and never have the opportunity to have sex. A homosexual who believes that God forbids homosexual behavior doesn't have to waste a lot of time trying to be straight. They just have to be celibate. Which ain't easy, but its certainly possible.

My mother-in-law, an unmarried conservative Christian, once showed up at a meeting for Christian homosexuals. These were Christian Homosexuals who believe the Bible forbids homosexual behavior. She was asked to introduce herself and in the conversation it came out that she was straight. There was much confusion and they asked why she was there. She said, "Well, it seems to me we are struggling with the same issue, how to live a Godly life when His rules demand celebacy". They were shocked, but had to admit she had a point, and she stayed for the rest of the meeting.

/me thinks we are all guilty of some degree of arrogance on this topic.

Granted.

I obviously missed the details on Bettina's post, but I happen to be a fan of the Science Fiction author Lois McMaster Bujold, and there is a scene in one of her books that I think applies here. A political enemy approaches the heroine of the story and starts talking to her about her husband. Then he says, "He's bisexual, you know". Without batting an eye she responds, "Was, now he's monogamous"

could somebody post the relevant sections in the bible where god condemns homosexuality? This atheist would love to have some background ... thanks!

here are a few:

Rom 1:19-27 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

The phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind" is the Greek word: Arsenokoites which means "one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual"

There are more, but those should give you the idea. You'll note I chose new testament quotes. The old testament barely touches on homosexuality, and where it does, the words used are archaic and of very questionable translation. If all we had was the old testament, I'd be inclined to side with the liberals on this issue.

I'm going to get myself in trouble with the conservatives here, but I'll be honest. I don't LIKE this rule. I don't understand it. Most of God's rules make sense once you think about them. They keep us from hurting others, put us in a correct relationship with God, and make our lives run more smoothly. You want me to explain why God insists on Monogamy, happy to do so! But this rule, well, it obviously is important, but I don't understand why. And I won't try to defend it on any grounds other than "The Bible says so".

Of course, it makes SENSE that I can't understand all the rules. God is the omniscient creator of the entire universe. He understands many things I can not. Most of the rules make sense, I should expect there to be a few I don't understand.

[Spidey]

You know, I grew up as a Christian, and I was taught that most sins are done in the mind, as in the case of lust. You can stop someone from practicing gay sex, but you can’t stop them from being gay.

As for your last point, I believe crimes need to have a victim, and in the case of gay sex, the only victim seems to be God, so why don’t you let him deal with them?

[Duper]

You know, I grew up as a Christian, and I was taught that most sins are done in the mind, as in the case of lust. You can stop someone from practicing gay sex, but you can’t stop them from being gay.

As for your last point, I believe crimes need to have a victim, and in the case of gay sex, the only victim seems to be God, so why don’t you let him deal with them?

interesting point Spidey because sin is only relevant to God. And frankly, encountering God is the Only thing that will remove being gay from a person. It is indeed a supernatural thing. So you are right on the money on all accounts. Also, that's why I don't hold the unsaved in judgement. I don't approve, but I won't condesend. (unlike my spelling) I WILL stand against a movement to change the culture, however. It's been going on for over 30 years now.

[Tunnelcat]

Day of silence my ass. I'm sorry but Perez Hilton just epitomized why the whole gay movement is farcical at best. To ask a Miss USA contestant a dog eared question about gay marriage and then make the comment he did afterwards is why a lot of people look at gays as a aberrant form of life. To get respect one needs to give respect.

It turns out that Perez Hilton is a hypocrite queen. He asks her that charged question and it comes out that he didn't even donate any of his own money to the 'No on Proposition 8' campaign like most gay people did. He needs to practice what he preaches if he's for a cause.

I personally don't think Miss California was sunk by her anti-gay answer. It was the WAY she answered, can you say "BIMBO" or AIRHEAD! Come on, heterosexual marriage is "opposite marriage" to 'gay marriage? Haahaahaahaa! She sounded like a moron with no brains in her head. Of course, all the guys were getting turned on and didn't see past the bimbo part. BOOBS, BOOBS, BOOBS! Even Matt Lauer looked like he was getting horny while interviewing her on the Today Show!

Duper, how do you know that God disapproves of gay people? Has he told you personally? Have you gone and looked in Hell to see if all the homos end up there? If science were to prove that homosexuality is a product of our genetic coding, in other words, created by God, what would your opinion be then? I don't consider the Bible as a reliable source of info. in this matter since it was written and translated by superstitious and unscientific people in the Middle Ages. Scholars are still arguing over what the actual relevant Hebrew passages meant to the writer. So until God himself comes down to earth and tells me otherwise, I will not consider 'being gay' as a sin, but a part of the human condition.

[Behemoth]

So far from what i've heard on how \"Gays experience love like the rest of us\" it comes to me in a very hedonistic sounding tone from these posts.. The exxageration of the importance on Homosexual relationships,
Sounds to me like the only reasonable explanation is that love in a sexual relationship is to derive pleasure from one another.. The way i've read so far into this anyways.
I think as humans we have to take everything concerning humanity as a whole in general with a grain of salt considering the fact that from early on in our lives our sense of morality(and/or lack thereof) is in a very significant way shaped around our sexuality in general.
I think i can say that in the fact that it is one of our most basic drives or needs (like food, water, shelter..etc..) to survive with a certain satisfaction out of this life.
That being said, It seems only natural to me that a different opinion will always be had concerning such a fragile issue, All of us are guilty of having a selfish based ego system (you say something i like is distasteful, wrong, sinful, Yet what you like or believe in is righteous, healthy, and good)

The only difference i'm getting from both sides is one wants to be open about the fact that their relationship is nothing more than a means to satisfy a natural lust.
Yet the other is aspiring to be more than just something natural, Something respectful and worthy of praise in a certain way, To give and not just take from the other.
Thats what i thought the essence of love is anyways?
To give and be selfless for someone on a very personal level, not just sexually but in all ways.

Disclaimer:
I've somewhat read half of this thread so far (so forgive my ignorance if i've stereotyped your opinions in anyway.)

[Neo]

While bullying people is never good, condoning \"anti-human\" action isn't either. Neither is the demoralization in schools, and neither is the demonization of morality.

[CUDA]

Duper, how do you know that God disapproves of gay people? Has he told you personally? Have you gone and looked in Hell to see if all the homos end up there? If science were to prove that homosexuality is a product of our genetic coding, in other words, created by God, what would your opinion be then? I don't consider the Bible as a reliable source of info. in this matter since it was written and translated by superstitious and unscientific people in the Middle Ages. Scholars are still arguing over what the actual relevant Hebrew passages meant to the writer. So until God himself comes down to earth and tells me otherwise, I will not consider 'being gay' as a sin, but a part of the human condition.

/Me points to Sodom and Gomorrah. I think he spoke pretty clearly then

Genesis19:4-5, the final episode in the story of Sodom is described as the angels visit Lot to warn him to flee:

When they had not yet retired, and the people of the city, the people of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, the entire populace from every end [of the city]. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, and let us know them."

Lot refused to give the visiting angels to the inhabitants of Sodom. He offered them his two daughters instead, but the people refused. The men were struck with blindness, allowing Lot and his family, who were then instructed to leave the city, to escape.

[Duper]

TC, If you don't consider the Bible a reliable source,then why are you concerned about Hell or God? Why are you even asking ME? You won't convince you're correct in your thinking.

You want to swallow what the status quo says on the matter, then fine, but personally, aside from my spiritual beliefs, I've yet to see anything truly good that is long lasting come from being gay. Drakona's example sums it pretty well.

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.

Go back to the first couple of pages and you'll see one of my posts, I mention that 2 gay people live in my house. One is my daughter. Do I hate her because of it? no. The other person? no. I'm disappointed in the decisions she's made for her self. Some are based on that lifestyle, some are not. Vulcan and Supersheep can confirm this. They both have known her for some time. In the 30 some years that I've been encountering gay people, I've yet to meet one that hasn't had major trauma or abject abuse in their lives. I've never met a gay person that was a Christian and remained so before the fact.

That all aside, the two point of the day of silence have been well addressed. Where bullying is concerned, it's not a bad thing, but it will draw unwanted attention from the negative side of the spectrum as well. It goes back to the same trouble that some of the black community have created for themselves: a new twist on the \"Separate but Equal\" idea. but from the other side now. \"We are unique but don't treat us different\". kinda goth-Emo if you ask me ... \"nobody understands me! .. leave me alone\" i.e I'd rather dance at my own pitty party thanks\". ...my daughter went through this too. three cheers for public schools.

btw TC, there is no science that confirms that being gay is genetic. .. any Real geneticist worth their salt will tell you that. Don't buy that lie. Actions REQUIRE choice. period. You are accountable for your actions the same way you are accountable for your words.

[Will Robinson]

...

btw TC, there is no science that confirms that being gay is genetic. .. any Real geneticist worth their salt will tell you that. Don't buy that lie.

But is there a science to confirm that being heterosexual is genetic either? I don't know but I'd guess not otherwise it would probably be touted as proof that being gay is definitely not a natural thing.
And if there is no science to show heterosexuality is genetically founded either then doesn't everyone "believe that lie" about their sexuality?

Actions REQUIRE choice. period. You are accountable for your actions the same way you are accountable for your words.

We choose things for a reason, either a conscious choice or by instinct.

My guess is if we could identify and catalog all the components of the stimulus/environment/physiology recipe that causes most of us to choose heterosexual orientation we could identify why some people are gay and we would see that it isn't a conscious choice but an instinct that is exactly like the heterosexual instinct with just one or two ingredients of that recipe switched or missing that creates the difference.
It seems like a stretch at this point to declare it must be choice just like it's a stretch to declare it must be genetic/chromosomal.

I don't see society having ostracized alcoholics or compulsive gamblers any where nearly as vengefully as we have done so to homosexuals.
Why do you suppose that is?
Do drunks choose to be drunk less egregiously than gays choose to be gay?
I think it's because the keepers of morality have decided gays are more evil than drunks even in the face of statistics that prove drunks are far more harmful than gays. The keepers of morality have made this choice.

[Spidey]

Ok, I’ll give it a try…here we go…going to try to be gay….mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Nope, still repulsive.

[Duper]

Ok, I’ll give it a try…here we go…going to try to be gay….mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Nope, still repulsive.

.. you didn't try hard enough.

Do drunks choose to be drunk less egregiously than gays choose to be gay?

Will, by the same reasoning guns kill people...by themselves.

Until a drunk picks up that bottle and ingests alcohol, he can't get drunk. .. I won't elaberate on the other half of that quote... you can do that math. Spidey is right. It starts in the head, thoughts, desires. Emotions. Most decisions are made on an emotional level. Advertising thrives on this.

I'm not a genetisist. I've repeating what I've heard Genetists said. If you want "proof", go talk to them. I don't have time to research it out nor the energy.

[Spidey]

Is there a trick, do you know something I don’t, I’ll try anything you say.

[Dakatsu]

Sorry, been really busy, so I haven't posted in a while. A few things I'll mention:
1. I think a gay community is retarded. It's like a black community; in a theoretically perfect society, everyone lives together without having to separate communities by race. Perez Hilton, I don't know much about him, but he seems like the Jesse Jackson of gay people.
2. I think homosexuality or bisexuality is caused by something in early life; triggered. That explains why some people may change sexuality very late in life, and why straight parents can birth straight kids.

Day of silence my ass. I'm sorry but Perez Hilton just epitomized why the whole gay movement is farcical at best. To ask a Miss USA contestant a dog eared question about gay marriage and then make the comment he did afterwards is why a lot of people look at gays as a aberrant form of life. To get respect one needs to give respect.

Perez Hilton seems pretty stupid, so that must mean all gays are jerkwads!

If I were to say all right-wingers are nuts because of the words of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, you'd complain about my judgement of a whole group.

[Jeff250]

Heterosexual Christians are supposed to resist temptation to have sex outside of marriage, even if they never get married and never have the opportunity to have sex. A homosexual who believes that God forbids homosexual behavior doesn't have to waste a lot of time trying to be straight. They just have to be celibate.

Is this true though that they "just" have to be celibate? Unlike a straight, unmarried Christian, wouldn't you also forbid a gay person from having *any* form of romantic relationship? And you also forbid a gay person from the prospect of ever getting married. I mean, I see the comparison you're trying to make, but it doesn't work at all. By forbidding someone from exploring their romantic feelings, even at all, you're depriving them from some of the best elements of the human experience.

I'm going to get myself in trouble with the conservatives here, but I'll be honest. I don't LIKE this rule. I don't understand it. Most of God's rules make sense once you think about them. They keep us from hurting others, put us in a correct relationship with God, and make our lives run more smoothly. You want me to explain why God insists on Monogamy, happy to do so! But this rule, well, it obviously is important, but I don't understand why. And I won't try to defend it on any grounds other than "The Bible says so".

I can respect this position.

[Kilarin]

in the case of gay sex, the only victim seems to be God, so why don't you let him deal with them?

I believe that's what I have been suggesting. Consenting adults should be free to act as they wish, and homosexuals should be free to espouse the wonders of homosexuality, just as those who disagree should be free to express their opinions.

I've never met a gay person that was a Christian and remained so...

I have.

If science were to prove that homosexuality is a product of our genetic coding, in other words, created by God, what would your opinion be then?

there is no science that confirms that being gay is genetic. .. any Real geneticist worth their salt will tell you that.

Again, I'm baffled as to why both sides seem to think the genetic component has anything to do with the morality issue. Because Muscular Dystrophy is genetic doesn't mean it was part of God's original plan for humanity. Not that I'm trying to equate homosexuality and muscular dystrophy, just that whether something is genetic or not doesn't prove whether we were meant to be that way. As Duper said, actions require a choice, and the actions are what matters, not the inclination. From a Christian perspective, the CAUSE of homosexual orientation doesn't tell us anything about the morality of homosexual behavior. For or against. It's just unrelated.

I really recommend this surprisingly excellent article on the topic of genetics and homosexuality from a Christian perspective <link>

wouldn't you also forbid a gay person from having *any* form of romantic relationship?

Good catch, true. Not that they couldn't have friendships, but yes, homosexual romantic relationships would probably be out.

By forbidding someone from exploring their romantic feelings, even at all, you're depriving them from some of the best elements of the human experience.

Yep. Stinks. But it IS something that has been demanded of heterosexuals, so I think the comparison is still quite direct. Catholics demand it of all their priests and nuns. Many Christians feel that remarriage after some divorces is forbidden. Some Christians are stuck in loveless, sexless marriages, and do not believe in divorce.

Despite the divinci code , Christ never married. Many theologians believe He did not marry because it would have been inappropriate for God to bond with one human like that above all others. So it's not something that Christ Himself didn't go through.

You'll get no argument from me that this isn't rotten. Lots of things in this life are rotten. But it's not unique to homosexuals at all.

[Duper]

I've never met a gay person that was a Christian and remained so...

I have.

I wrote that poorly. That should have been something like this (I was in a hurry as I was at work on break)

"I've never met a Christian that became gay after becoming a Christain."

Again, I'm baffled as to why both sides seem to think the genetic component has anything to do with the morality issue. Because Muscular Dystrophy is genetic doesn't mean it was part of God's original plan for humanity. Not that I'm trying to equate homosexuality and muscular dystrophy, just that whether something is genetic or not doesn't prove whether we were meant to be that way. As Duper said, actions require a choice, and the actions are what matters, not the inclination. From a Christian perspective, the CAUSE of homosexual orientation doesn't tell us anything about the morality of homosexual behavior. For or against. It's just unrelated.

That's easy. It give a person the easy out of "It's not my fault. I'm not responcible for how I behave because it's geneic coding". I'm sure everyone's going to disagree with me.

For me, it's all really simple. The Lord said don't so I don't. I'm tempted with other things to be sure that are just as bad. Heck, I had an affair 10 years back. Not very Christian is it? And it didn't "just happen". I payed for it too. Did God forgive me? Yes. Did my wife? remarkably yes. Have I forgiven myself? I'm not sure; I should as I'm not better than God, but that's pride for you. Sexual sin or indiscression is always the worst because it's so self destructive. If you can coldly walk away from a gal after having sex like it was nothing more than changing a shirt, then you need a reality check on your humaity.

[Tunnelcat]

/Me points to Sodom and Gomorrah. I think he spoke pretty clearly then

Genesis19:4-5, the final episode in the story of Sodom is described as the angels visit Lot to warn him to flee:

When they had not yet retired, and the people of the city, the people of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, the entire populace from every end [of the city]. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, and let us know them."

Lot refused to give the visiting angels to the inhabitants of Sodom. He offered them his two daughters instead, but the people refused. The men were struck with blindness, allowing Lot and his family, who were then instructed to leave the city, to escape.

Even the "let us know them" part is in debate about what the original intent or meaning was by the author. So that passage is not proof of sin in my book.

Duper, I don't believe in a Heaven or a Hell, but I do believe there may be a God. I also believe the Bible is just a historical parable that is lacking in scientific rational thought or facts. Until God himself tells me and the whole world all at once the facts according to Him, not just some psyhcobabble from some preacher, I won't believe all the lurid, superstitious and biased tales that came from the minds of mortal men. Sorry, you are free to believe what you want, I'm not trying to change your faith and beliefs. I've tried to live my life as an honest, nice person, so when my chips are called in, I'll take whatever comes forth. I'm not going to worry about the unknown.

However, homosexuality HAS been found in animals, which don't, by the way, make 'choices' about their sexuality and research IS starting to show that it may be coded in our brain's software during early gestation. If it doesn't go right, nothing goes perfect in nature, you get anomolies and if they're not fatal to the organism, they perpetuate. So if God created us, he either had a sense of humor or has the same problems any coder has keeping track of a program. You guys know all too well the variations of software and hardware behavior in computers. Humans are just organic code and 60 to 70% water. However, proof of the existance of a soul is something we'll never know for sure, will we?

Let me ask some males here a question. If another male propositioned you and you're heterosexual, how would you react? Would you be flattered or angry? I'm guessing that many would be violently angry, but not all. All I know is that the insults of 'pu**y' or 'faggot' are the most biting and get the most reaction from males.

[Drakona]

We don't have laws forbidding alcoholics or obsessive/compulsives from getting married so the selective interference in the lives of homosexuals compared to all the other people with unusual traits is based on something other than protecting society. It seems to be built more on protecting religious teachings.

You're not drawing the right comparison--alcoholism doesn't have anything to do with marriage. We do, for example, have laws about disorderly conduct and when you can drive, so we do interfere with their lives inasmuch as they affect the rest of us. And socially, we treat alcoholics and OCD folks with pity and support in the "I'd love to help you change" mold, not the "I respect your lifestyle choices" mold.

But marriage is closely tied to homosexuality, so it is the right issue to talk about. Put another way, homosexuals are not forbidden to marry--in the traditional sense--by anyone. What they are forbidden to do is change the definition of marriage to suit their sexual tastes. That does affect the rest of us, and is rightly a decision we make as a society.

If you're a man and you want to be a woman, everyone's required to give you support

I presume you don't mean that I should directly support behavior I think is wrong?

Of course not. In that paragraph, I was only talking about the way things are and criticizing culture for being hypocritical. The culture at large respects and supports folks who choose to be gay, but not folks who choose to be straight. What they're doing isn't respecting personal freedom, but favoring homosexuality.

I don't support the decisions I mentioned. I think they're wrong, and depending on the friendship I have with someone, I may even tell them so. And even then, I don't hold myself up as a standard on that front. I think I tend to err too much on the side of mercy and compassion, and too little on the side of discernment and giving good advice. The way you treated your friend sounds exemplary to me.

If you're married, and then you decide you're gay and want to pursue that lifestyle, everyone's required to respect your choice.

To me, this is in an entirely different category. When you make a promise, you should keep it. Whether the temptations are heterosexual or otherwise.

I agree completely, and think this is one of the areas that society screws up royally in its pious and self-righteous rush to affirm all things homosexual. When this happens, the adulturer is generally not reproached with "you scumbag," as would be the case if he were straight. The sentiments are more along the lines of, "well, it wasn't going to work out anyway" or "good for you for discovering and embracing your true self" or even "best wishes in your new orientation."

I disapprove pretty loudly in that case. Be alert for it in culture. This sort of hypocracy is really destructive and needs to be yelled at.

Building a family is a different pursuit than building a relationship; one is great for society, and the other is a hobby that might turn out good or bad, but is in any case highly personal.

I can think of a lot of traditional families that turn out bad too. It's not as though a traditional family is magically different from any relationship in terms of how we should analyze its goodness. We know good things "by their fruits" as they say.

I agree completely. I also think I didn't communicate my point clearly.

Both families and relationships may turn out good or bad; this is not a difference between them. The difference is that one matters to society, and one matters to the individuals involved.

I view the pursuits as directly analogous to "starting a business" and "taking up a hobby". Business may be good or bad for you, but you are trying to build something that is great for society as a whole. Hobbies may be great for you, and may even grow into businesses in time. Some hobbyists are even better at what they do than professionals, but this is all beside the point. I respect business and marriage as something that builds society; I approach hobbies and relationships as fun personal diversions. The first rightly commands my support and admiration; the second I view as your business and not mine.

If we're asking, what is better, a straight relationship or a gay relationship? then we are asking the wrong question, since this isn't a realistic choice for most people, gay or straight. I think you have to argue for a much stronger claim to show that gay relationships are destructive, namely that a gay person is better off having no romantic relationships at all than having gay romantic relationships.

You are correct. And this is where I must say, "I don't know." It is my belief that this is actually true--that in all cases, secular or otherwise, a person with gay tendencies is better off celibate than practicing--but I do not know it with sufficient certainty that I'd argue it here.

I view it identically to how I view drug use, I guess. I can't really say how it'll turn out for any individual. The most I can say is that the community is a picture of how folks who have those tendencies turn out after pursuing them, and the view is not flattering. If you think you can beat the curve, I do not know enough to stop you from trying. If you think the average result is acceptable, then we do not have enough common ground for me to offer you advice. But it sure as heck isn't a direction that looks smart to go!

So yes, I haven't proven the case. With things like extramarital sex, I think I have the background to offer a strong opinion, but I don't here. The strong case--that gay folks are always better off celibate--is something I believe, but not something I really think I have the experience to back up. It's a vertical study--how individuals making those choices turn out--not a horizontal study--how communities turn out. I will defer to folks who actually know gay folks.

I suppose that one response to this is to just deny that the choice between straight and gay relationships isn't realistic for most people. After all, even if flipping the orientation bit isn't physically possible for most, then God could use divine intervention to do it. I suppose that if you believe in a God that can do anything, then you can't, to borrow your language, on first principles deduce that this choice doesn't exist. But a lot of gay people that I know went through a phase where they were either originally religious or tried to use religion to become straight, but it just didn't work. Did they just not "do it right"? Some perhaps, but I'm skeptical about this being the general case. When it comes to people who try to alter their sexual orientation, most people fail, which is compelling to me.

I do not hold the view that orientations change quickly or easily, and I do not hold the view that they ever necessarily change entirely.

My model of appetites, in a nutshell, is this: What you feed grows stronger, and what you starve grows weaker. Appetites which you regularly indulge grow to consume your attention, and those which you regularly deny die down until they can be easily ignored. Like losing weight, managing your appetites is not a one-time-deal. It is a lifestyle. (This view is based on the writings of Christian mystics such as St. John of the Cross and self-reflection).

Sexual appetites have some extra wrinkles. It is my experience that with sex, you acquire tastes much faster and stronger through experience (and here I include fantasy, porn, even allowing yourself to wish for something as experience), and they are very, very hard to lose. I'm not sure it's possible to ever completely lose any sexual taste you acquire through self-discipline, though you can starve it down to manageable levels.

The actual honest-to-goodness loss of unhealthy appetites only occurs by the grace of God, and any Christian will tell you, it's not an easy road. This is true whether we're talking about a bad temper, an adulturous craving, a sense of pride, an affinity for telling lies . . . anything. God changes people--this is the gospel--and he changes them so completely that you have to see it to believe it. But the level of repentance and commitment and self-examination and honesty and struggle involved is high, and on top of that, God acts with sovereignty.

The loss of sinful nature through God's grace is not something you achieve (though it is something you can fail at). It is something you are given. And it is extremely complicated and difficult. Theology is thick, and the gospel is complicated as well as simple. When you go this far into human nature, you are on the part of the map labeled "here there be dragons." There are no sure principles, only a Guide.

I understand, some people are born gay and may never lose those desires, though they try as devoutly as possible. From my perspective as a Christian, this is not extraordinary. I believe everyone is born with twisted, sinful desires--sexual or non--and generally that controlling them is difficult, and losing them is only possible by the grace of God. I am not singling out gay folks as being born wretched in a world where grace is hard to find. I believe everyone is in this condition.

Your response to being teased was more than fair, but, even if your criticisms of how gays approach being bullied are appropriate, I think that it is unfair to justify those criticisms from the original topic. By most accounts, the day of silence idea had a noble goal (although whether it is effective remains to be seen). Why are gays special and why not have a day about all bullying? Well, their circumstance has some special characteristics, like what you possibly agreed with in your post, that they tend to be bullied worse than other groups. Is it more effective to take a stand against those who are bullied the worst or to try to take a general stand against all bullying? I don't know, but I don't think that you can use the answer to this question as ammunition against gay community.

You're right. I can't.

I will say this, though. I think the over-the-top compassion for gays is misplaced. You want a hard row to hoe? Try being born mentally retarted. Try being born in true poverty. Try being born in an abusive setting. Try being physically crippled. A little bit of social disapproval is nothing. A little bit of difficulty pursuing the romantic relationships you want to have is nothing.

I don't view the original effort as noble. I view it as pious and self-righteous, a public display of superior morality. Noble is donating your money to the center for the mentally retarted. Noble is sticking up for your gay friend at the moment all of your friends are being mean to him, and will be mean to you too. Noble is giving your life for your country or your community.

I'm not sure I even view the original effort as productive. I'm sure the folks involved mean well, but my read on the gay community is that it collectively needs both a hug and a swift kick in the rear. More hand-wringing over their hard lot in life is just going to blow things further out of proportion for everyone involved.

Ok, I’ll give it a try…here we go…going to try to be gay….mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Nope, still repulsive.

.. you didn't try hard enough.

Is there a trick, do you know something I don’t, I’ll try anything you say.

This is a very silly criticism. The fact that the choice is not simple, easy, or available to everyone does not make it less of a choice.

Everyone has a choice as to lifestyle; that much is obvious. Everyone has a choice as to inclinations, too, though it's a choice made through many small decisions over time, many of which--if you are not used to managing your appetites--you don't even realize you're making. And the starting point is at least partly innate. But to answer your question, to acquire a sexual taste, experiment with it until you find a piece of it you like, and then pursue and indulge it.

[Bet51987]

....Until God himself tells me and the whole world all at once the facts according to Him, not just some psyhcobabble from some preacher, I won't believe all the lurid, superstitious and biased tales that came from the minds of mortal men. Sorry, you are free to believe what you want, I'm not trying to change your faith and beliefs. I've tried to live my life as an honest, nice person, so when my chips are called in, I'll take whatever comes forth. I'm not going to worry about the unknown.

However, homosexuality HAS been found in animals, which don't, by the way, make 'choices' about their sexuality and research IS starting to show that it may be coded in our brain's software during early gestation. If it doesn't go right, nothing goes perfect in nature, you get anomolies and if they're not fatal to the organism, they perpetuate. So if God created us, he either had a sense of humor or has the same problems any coder has keeping track of a program. You guys know all too well the variations of software and hardware behavior in computers. Humans are just organic code and 60 to 70% water. However, proof of the existance of a soul is something we'll never know for sure, will we?

Well thought out and said.

And, I find it hard to believe that there are still human beings who believe that being Gay is a choice.

Bee

[Duper]

....Until God himself tells me and the whole world all at once the facts according to Him, not just some psyhcobabble from some preacher, I won't believe all the lurid, superstitious and biased tales that came from the minds of mortal men. Sorry, you are free to believe what you want, I'm not trying to change your faith and beliefs. I've tried to live my life as an honest, nice person, so when my chips are called in, I'll take whatever comes forth. I'm not going to worry about the unknown.

However, homosexuality HAS been found in animals, which don't, by the way, make 'choices' about their sexuality and research IS starting to show that it may be coded in our brain's software during early gestation. If it doesn't go right, nothing goes perfect in nature, you get anomolies and if they're not fatal to the organism, they perpetuate. So if God created us, he either had a sense of humor or has the same problems any coder has keeping track of a program. You guys know all too well the variations of software and hardware behavior in computers. Humans are just organic code and 60 to 70% water. However, proof of the existance of a soul is something we'll never know for sure, will we?

Well thought out and said.

No, it's not. God HAS told the whole world already and YOU called it bunk. Do not blame Him for your misconceptions and opinions based on an emotional response that comes from where ever.

The kind of affirmation you're looking for will only come at the end of time. And at THAT point it will be too late.

..no heaven or hell but you believe in God. That sounds like Hinduism.