Homosexuality
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Homosexuality
This argument is going to be on the basis of my Christianity because it honestly is who I am, so I am sorry if this doesn't mean anything to those who are not believers. I just don't know how to explain it in any other way.
I am personally not in favor of same-sex marriage for the reasons that Pam mentioned in the other thread. I believe that the more same-sex marriage is accepted, the more of a societal breakdown our nation will experience despite the best efforts of some homosexuals to provide a stable loving family. However, I do not dislike homosexuals. They are God's children, God loves them too, and I think it is abhorrent that any church would exclude them from worship.
I do believe that people can be born with homosexual tendencies. However, it's still wrong because God doesn't want us to practice homosexual behavior. Just because they have been born with those tendencies doesn't mean that they have to practice that lifestyle. Sexual orientation may not be something one can choose anymore than one can choose their skin color, but they can choose their behavior and their lifestyle. They are not any less loved by God, but they have been presented with a challenge. God gives many of us challenges. Some of us are born with physical disabilities, some have mental illness, some have addictive tendencies. Many of us have challenges that we must rise to, and we can do this best with the help of a Higher Power. I am not saying that prayer will "cure" homosexuality, but I am saying that with God's help, we can endure.
I suppose that this all comes down to freedom of choice. (Yes, I have been reflecting on this a bit.) God gave us all free will to follow Him or not to follow Him. Someone who is born with homosexual tendencies can choose not to practice homosexuality. They can also choose to do so. Someone who is faced with an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy can now choose to abort the baby, or can choose to give the baby life.
So you think it would be fair to ask you, a hetero female, to ignore your hetero feelings if God said they were wrong. I don't know about you, but I like men only, and couldn't just "practice" homorsexuality against my true feelings, if the roles were diverse. Out of curiousity, do you follow EVERYTHING written in the bible? Do you take very word literally or do you interpret as it occurs in our lifetime. Do you also believe there is NO chance that one of the people who wrote the bible added a bit of their own personalities? Think about it, if someone said "Gd is speaking directly to me, and he wants me to write a new chaper to the bible" you'd consider them insane. You see, with mental illness and addictive tendencies (both things I suffer with) medicine can help, and you can avoid the things you are addicted to. With homosexuals, you are asking them to either lie (which is against God's word) or become asexual, when God wants us to procreate. You are denying someone their civil rights by not alllowing them to marry a partner they were committed to, but celebrities can have marriages that last less than 3 days. THAT is the breakdown of the moral fabric of our country.
One more questions for you Chriatians against homosexual's being given the same rights as heteros, would God approve of you excluding them? After all, He made them gay, why would he make then gay if he didn't approve?
Darn it, Lisa and Crys. Couldn't you have waited until Friday evening so I'd have the weekend for research. Though, I don't think Lisa's beliefs depend in any way on research or science, and I understand what you are saying, Lisa, though I disagree with you fervently.
I will have to do some thinking this evening before I can respond.
(Oh, and Crystal, the argument that "God wants us to procreate" doesn't fly when talking about homosexuality. That God created homosexuals as they are, yes, but not procreation.
There is no fact that God made them gay. I do believe every word in the Bible. I believe that it gives us principles to live by. every aspect of the Bible is applicable to us. For instance when it says not to put an ox and mule together as beast of burdens it is telling us that God cares about animals and how we treat them. There are other examples that for the sake of time I won't list.
Homosexuals are homosexual for a number of reasons. I don't think we can group everyone in the same category as to why they are gay. I do not believe that they wake up one morning and decide to feel romantic feelings for the same sex. It is horribly insensitive of people to think that. I think many have those feelings and hate that they do at least for a time.
I strongly support traditional marriage. Marriage between a man and wife is what God intended. My beliefs come from the Bible and my christian background. The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin and I will not call it otherwise, but it is not an unforgivable sin.
I will address the writing of the bible and inerrancy later today. I do not claim to have all the answers or solutions. I do agree that divorce is also eroding the moral fiber of people, but the two cannot be compared. Two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that people get divorced is not a valid reason to support homosexual marriage. It is just as eroding.
God does not make us sin. He has allowed Satan to tempt us. It is His wish that we turn to him for support to get past any temptation.
Just like alot of things, we don't wake up one morning and decide that I'm going to be gay, or I'm going to have an affair or I'm going to steal a dress at some fancy store. Things will happen over a course of time and become easier each time until you really see nothing wrong with it or at least think you deserve it.
"become asexual, when God wants us to procreate"-that statement kinda crakced me up. I mean no disrespect really. But two gay people can not procreate through a natural means without outside help.
I really shouldn't get into these debates. If I were sitting around a table with a bunch of people who started debating topics like on the Kitchen Table, I would sit there and never open my mouth. I'm just not confrontational. I just don't know why I'll do it here.
Debbie, we try (really really hard, and don't always succeed) to discuss without confrontation, setting forth our individual perspectives and opinions and the reasons for them. We just watch our manners and when we disagree, disagree with and maybe critique the opinion but not the right of the writer to hold that opinion.
There are alot of hetero couples that can not pro create with outside outside help as well. I personally do not think anyone chooses to be gay. If you look at our society as a whole- it can be a very difficult road to be gay- there are alot of very mean spirited people who are extremely crule and even violent to gays. I am not sure many people would "choose" a path so wrought with "trouble" if they felt there was a reasonable alternative. I am a strong supporter of gay rights and hope that one day we will be a country that emabraces each others differences and allow all people to love the people of their own choosing with the same rights as everyonelse.
I think it is very difficult to assume that homosexuals could "choose" to not follow their tendencies. I actually don't even like using the term tendencies- it makes it sound like they are just dabbling in something when really it is no different than the relationship I have with my husband. There are good and bad straight couples as well as gay. I certainly could not stop choosing to love my dh (or men in general) just because to some people it is wrong.
My post is now starting to ramble as my dd is becoming very distracting so I will quit before I make no sense at all!  Perhaps more later!
Sorry, was exhausted when I said that. What I meant was "God" wouldn't have created homosexuals, because it goes against "his" own words telling us to procreate. However, HLGmom had a good point, many m/f couples cannot or will not procreate. I still stand by my argument that they cannot just sau "OK, I like people of the same sex, but God says I shouldn't, so I'll spend the rest of my life miserable. Also, since I don't own a Bible, can someone please cite where it states "Thou shall not be gay", or whatever? I have the feeling I'm going to have to purchase a Bible, this weekend, since some say they follow it to the word, and I *KNOW* there are other things in there that you do not follow in this time period. One other thing I know is that He says you should not judge, for it is his job to judge, and by not allowing gay marriage I feel the Christian community is judging homosexuals.
I have no problem with homosexuality or gay people and think they should be allowed to marry, adopt, inherit or pull the plug or whatever else straight people do.
You can read the Bible online
http://bibleresources.bible.com/bible_read.php
Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ)
Leviticus 18:24
Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. (NKJ)
Romans 1:24
So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. (NLT)
Romans 1:26-29
That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.
And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.
When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.
Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. (NLT)
Romans 1:32
They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (NLT)
I didn't mean to suggest that God made homosexuals gay. The way I undersand it, God allows us to have certain challenges in life. We gain strength through Him, through prayer, and through worshipping and fellowshipping with other Christians. Sort of like the caterpillar on its journey to become the butterfly. It's very difficult and a whole lot of work, but if it doesn't make it out of the cocoon, it will either die, or it will not have the strength to fly. Through our trials and challenges, we become stronger both spiritually and mentally/emotionally, especially when we face them with God.
Yes, God meant for us to procreate, which means that we cannot accomplish His will through same-sex relationships. The fact that some heterosexual couples are not able to procreate is just another challenge that they are faced with. Maybe in those cases it is God's will that they adopt and provide a loving home for an otherwise unwanted child.
Yes, the fact that some people change spouses as often as we change socks is also very degrading to our society. But that is a different issue. It cannot be used as an reason for making homosexuality an acceptable alternative. There are just as many homosexually promiscuous people as there are committed ones. So it is with heterosexual people as well.
You can go through the Bible and pick and choose whatever you like and then say " what about this, You eat pork. But without a proper understanding of the Bible and the principles there in you won't understand it.
Another thing is that the do not judge versus are routinely taken out of context. It is saying that you cannot judge whethe or not a person has a relationship with God, but you can look at them and what they are doing and know that it is wrong. So to see someone sinning you can call the sin what it is, but you cannot judge whether that person is saved (has a relationship, or is a christian) There are sins of ignorance and sins of willful disobidience. Homosexuality is not new and as you can see has been around for a long time from the scriptures above. You can also see that the Bible does not condone homosexuality anymore than it condones lying, stealing, adultrey, or anyother type of sin.
God also does not give someone homosexual feelings just to make them stronger. That seems a little ridiculous to me. God doesn't give anyone homosexual feelings, but it does arise from other things in the persons enviroment (not necessarily sexual) and a lot of other contributing factors. Like I said I am not a phsychologist so I do not know exactly why some people are homosexual and others are not, but I do know that it is wrong. Homosexual relationships are not what I want my children to grow up and think is normal or acceptable.
Crystal- You seem to be very antagonistic toward christianity and the Bible. I would think that those judgements, assumptions, and biases are exactly what you would not want to see toward homosexuals. I am in no way mean, mad at, act as a bigot or raise my children to think or act any differently towards homosexuals, but I am raising them to know that it is not the way the relationships are supposed to be between the same sex.
I'll be straight with all of you....okay, no, I do not mean that to be funny or anything. But I am on a new pill that is known to mess up your mind, so I am not thinking clearly right now and that is killing me with my mid term exams the next two weeks!
Anyhow, I just want to make one point. I can't debate it at this time. Maybe if I bring it up, someone else can such as Pam or someone. But as far as homosexuality being a sin. So is alcoholism, cursing, lying, and doing other worldy things. I'm going to try to quickly make my point here before it leaves me. As a sinner, you have the desire to do things like this. Once you are saved as a Christian, you are forgiven, and you no longer want to do such worldly things anymore. So if an alcoholic gets saved, he/she would no longer have the desire for the alcoholism. If a person who loves p*rn gets saved, they no longer have the desire to look at p*rn. If a woman who enjoys going out and into the bed of a different man every weekend gets saved, she will no longer have the desire to do this.
Now, everyone sins, and those sins will be forgiven, but you don't have the worldly desires that you did before giving your live to Jesus.
So many feel that if you are homosexual, and you become a Christian and are truly saved, you will no longer have the desire to be with the same sex in a relationship. Basically, to Christians, when you are saved, you no longer feel the desire to do the same worldly things (sins) that you did before becoming a Christian.
I have no idea if any of this makes sense or not. And I probably shouldn't have even attempted this. But maybe someone who understands what the point I am trying to make will be able to jump in and clarify this for everyone else!
Juli, you are partially correct. I was raised with the Bible, but chose to leave that part of my life behind, because it didn't reconcile in my mind. It's too much fantasy to me. I mean no offense to you or anyone else by questioning the actual word of the Bible. However, just going off of the scripture posted, that would mean oral sex is not ok in God's eyes. It is not the way we were "meant" to have sex. So, you don't have to answer me if you are not comfortable doing so, but you can answer to yourself. Do you not have oral sex?
As for what "contributes" to making one homosexual, most families of homosexuals will say they knew from a very early age that the person was gay. Even if you have 4 kids, 2 boys, 2 girls, and one is gay, you certainly can;t say it's and environmental thing. What would you do if your child was gay? Would you be so anti-homosexuality then?
Sexual orientation may not be something one can choose anymore than one can choose their skin color, but they can choose their behavior and their lifestyle
To my way of thinking, that's like saying an apple should taste like an orange.
Homosexuals are born homosexuals - so this is saying they can *choose* to *ignore* their sexual preference and basically live a lie.
It is not necessarily whether or not you have oral sex or not, but who you have it with. Oral sex just like intercourse is what is natural with a husband and wife. Oral sex or "intercourse" with the same sex is what the scriptures are talking about. It in no way is talking about what heterosexual couples do, but what people of the same sex are doing. I don't think that you can in any way take out of those scriptures that oral sex between married man and woman is wrong. That is a little far fetched.
If my child was gay or ends up being for whatever reason then I will be disappointed and upset, but I know that the kind of person that I am now I have the ability to disagree with what people do and still have a relationship with them. I have had homosexual co workers that I worked very well with and their sexuality was never an issue. Listen I am not insensitive to what homosexual people go through in society or privately. I am not so naive or bigotted to think that they are sub human people with no feelings. But when the discussion comes up I do have an opinion and belief based on many things one of them being the Bible of what is right and wrong as do you. I am getting the feeling that you have grouped me in a category or as a person that I am not. It is easy to do, but Christian people who disagree with homosexuality are not necessarily mean, "holier", insensitive or judgemental in the sense that I make judgements of someones character based on their sexuality. I do however make judgements of peoples character on what they do and how they act and that goes for hetero or homosexual people.
never mind
I understand the Bible DOES condemn homosexualtiy in parts but I also believe the Bible is a work of man (a description of our relationship with the divine. Not the word of God.)and subject to the prejudices,politics, culture and personalities of those who wrote it. There are great threads that run through it and things demanded of us that can't be questioned, like loving our neighbour. And there are things like slavery and the treatment of women that simply have no place in our society.
To me though, I think it should be irrelevnet to Christians. Whether it's right or wrong we are obligated to care for other people. If we feel homosexuality is wrong, we shouldn't practice it. Despite our feelings we aren't to hesitate if a gay neighbour needs a kind word or some support.
As for gay marriage, I'd would support it within my church. In terms of civil marriages that's a secular matter.
I'd just like to point out that the quotes from Leviticus are part of the holiness code for jews of the time. There are rules there about animal sacrifice, what kinds of fabric you can wear together, and what you can and cannot eat mixed in to rule about sexual conduct.
I think science has shown that homosexuality is natural. Where we get into problems is trying to now say it's okay because of what we know scientifically. You can't say it's okay theologically because the bible and tradition have always portrayed it as deviant and sinful.
I know that when Christ came, he destroyed the old Law. I know that there was a huge discussion about whether new Christians had to follow the old jewish laws and it was determined that they did not.
In that regard, there might be some biblical justification for the acceptance and blessing of homosexual unions.
Ame
Hmmm.... Ame, yes, I do remember that about the old law, and that we no longer follow the old laws, such as sacrifices, etc. That is an interesting point...
I'm with Ginny. Couldn't we have postponed this for a little bit. I'm tired of thinking. There's no way to address all of the millions of thoughts and ideas that have been expressed on this post already, but I'm gonna try and pick a few. Listed below are my personal beliefs, but I think I could substantiate most, if not all, scripturally.:
1) I don't think homosexuality is a sin. I think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person feeling an attraction to a person of the same sex. It is acting on that attraction that is the problem (or lust also, which is thinking about doing some sexual act to another person---and it is wrong when heterosexuals do it too). I don't believe that sex (and that includes intercouse, oral sex, manual stimulation---anything that involves the genitals of at least one of the 2 people) should be practiced outside of marriage PERIOD. Gay, straight, or whatever. So, since in most places gay people can't be married, then they shouldn't be engaging in a sexual relationship by default. Even if they can be married, that is a govt. thing, not a God-thing. I think the Bible is clear about homosexuality and that God does not ordain or bless it.
2) I don't think God creates people gay. God only totally created 2 human beings--Adam and Eve. I do believe hook, line, and sinker in creationism and I do interpret the whole Garden of Eden story in Genesis as literal. I know many of you don't (and many theologians think it is a parable too), so take what I say with that knowledge in mind. So God created 2 perfect people who chose to disobey. Since that time, we (mere humans) have played a crucial part in the creation of humanity. Of course, God is still involved, but He designed us so that we could do the mechanics of baby-making. So now you have 2 fallen people or "sinners" creating more. So...you get a brother killing a brother right from the start (Cain and Abel), then jealousy, favoritism, and other non-desirable characteristics creep into the gene pool. I haven't really studied the genetics of homosexuality, so I can't wax eloquently on if it is genetic or not. However, I can believe that it might be. That doesn't mean that God said, "I shall make homosexuals" anymore than He said, "I shall make people who are multiply handicapped, have paranoid-schizophrenia, or have a low self-esteem." (And please---don't say I am comparing homosexuality to cerebral palsy---this is an example solely for the purpose of argument). I think all of these things are the result of screwed up people (all of us) giving birth to screwed up people.
3) So...if homosexuality is genetic, then it's okay right? Well, alcoholism is genetic too, but my grandmother wasn't willing to sit idly by and watch my grandfather drink himself to death and deal with the instability in the home during the process. And here I AM comparing homosexuality to alcoholism. If you are alcoholic then you refrain from drinking alcohol. If you are homosexual I think you should refrain from a sexual relationship. Just the same, if you are a single heterosexual I think you should be celibate. Is it easy? No! Are there a lot of struggles in life that aren't easy? Yes! I wish God had taken out the non-gossip gene in me. I love to talk about other people---the juicier the better. I was probably to some extent born that way (because I plain and simply love to talk), but I think my environment (mom and sister gossips) encouraged it as well. It is a huge moment-by-moment struggle for me to shut my mouth about rumor and innuendo. I fight against it constantly, esp. at work---and sometimes I succeed. Paul referred to his struggle with a "thorn in the flesh" (which many theologians think was migraines or some severe visual problem). Homosexuality could be considered a huge thorn in the flesh. Paul prayed 3 times to have his thorn removed and then finally conceded that God didn't take it away because God wanted him (Paul) to learn to rely on Him to find peace and meaning beyond the thorn. That's when he wrote, "when I am weak, then He is strong."
4) Yes, the Bible was written by men. Again, different denominations and theologians will believe different things about the inerrancy of scripture. I do believe that the Bible is inerrant, however, it also clearly has the personalities and cultures of the writers in it. I think God did that on purpose though. Just a quick reading through the 4 gospels will illustrate that point of different personalities since all 4 books recount generally the same events, but in very different ways. Luke was a doctor and writes in a more detailed and medical type way than the other gospels. Matthew was a tax collector---the worst of the worst---and his writings reflect from whence he came. I do accept the Bible as a whole, but I do interpret it with (1)what was God saying to the specific society at the time which it was written? (and keep in mind that different books were aimed at different groups, esp. many of the Pauline epistles) and (2)what is God saying to me personally on 2/15/06. That's part of why we can read and reread the Bible again and again---the depth of scripture changes based on life experience and our personal history of God. You can also study the bible from a purely historical, literary, or philosophical frame of mind, but for Christians we have the Holy Spirit which helps interpret on a totally different level.
Dang it---no one is allowed to post when someone else is typing, agreed?
The "old law" was invalid with the coming of the Messiah. Jesus fulfilled the old law during His life, death, and resurrection. Galatians and other books explain this in great detail, but for quick reference you can check out Galatians 3:10-14 and in particular Gal. 3:13--"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.'" That's why we don't have to do animal sacrifices any more (Jesus was THE sacrifice that put an end to that practice) or have periods of being unclean, or go to a temple and be purified, or avoid eating animals with split hooves, or ....."
Sorry- it's my fault that we are having this thread- I started it- so I am standing here waiting for the stones to start flying!
I just had some things to say about homosexuality in the other thread, but Ginny said it would be better to put in in its own thread. Sorry I couldn't wait.
It is going a bit fast, and it is difficult to keep up- I haven't read all the responses since this afternoon yet.
I remember in school learning that God doesn't make mistakes. Research has proven that people are born either straight or gay, so what happened there?
Why would anyone choose to be gay? The violence, stereotypes, and prejudices they face on a daily basis would make me straight if I were gay.
I went to catholic school and was taught that oral sex is a sin because it wastes a potential life. Sex is a gift from God meant to be shared between a man and wife for the sole purpose of procreation. As a Christian, I do follow it some extent but God has also given me free will to choose to make my own decisions.
Sometimes when people recite from the bible it reminds me of the game telephone I use to play as a child. You tell one person a phrase and he/she tells the person next to him/her and so on until it reaches the last person- completely distorted.
So, why if the old law passed away, is homosexuality still such an issue? I would think that it falls into that category of the old law?
I think homosexuality remained taboo because it is so well associated with those who persecuted the jews and early chrisitans who wrote the bible. The ancient nations, the Romans, the Greeks, all condoned homosexuality. It was the social norm. Perhaps condemnation of it was one way that the early chrisitans could separate themselves and remaian distinct, despite the fact that it was quickly assimilating many pagan customs and rituals. That is of course, my own interpretation.
So, in essence, is homosexuality deviant? Well, that depends on social norms. Is pedophilia deviant, as Vicki alluded to? Well, in ancient Greece and Rome, it was unheard of for a nobleman not to have a boy to love. Now, of course, that's grounds for a jail sentence.
Am I saying I think that pedophilia is alright? No. I'm just trying to make a point about societal norms.
Now, the issue of marriage. If our society accepts homosexuality as a "norm" then why should homosexuals be denied the freedom of a civil union?
A religious union, as I pointed out before, is a tougher case because the religious body would have to give some pretty darn good theological and biblical reasons why what was sin for so long and now is okay.
I think that is why so many churches are having problems. Some have made the leap to bless unions without setting the theological/scriptural/traditional groundwork.
If this rambles, I apologize. I am sitting here as my children do their absolute best to distract me.
Ame
funny
BTW I've always thought this was cute. It points out how ridiculous it is to use Leviticus to condemn homosexuality.
Ame
Very valid points Ame. That's why I would personally rely more on the references to homosexuality in Romans, i.e., New Testament, than I would the reference in Leviticus. Can't type more now---off to church.
Paul - Romans. Immediately preceding Romans 1:24 is Romans 1:23 (I'm using the Revised Standard Version (RSV) throughout.)
Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
24: Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
25: because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen
26: For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, nen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28: And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
29. They were filled with all manner of wickendness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy,murder, strife, deceit, malignity, theyare gossips,
30: slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31: foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32. Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve them who practice them.
As I read the section, in its totality, Paul is decrying those who are pagans, who worship "images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles", and those who, in the course of that worship, give themselves up to all kinds of sin. And it does seem that "God gave them up" to these various immoral acts because they worshipped "images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles". Paul does not single out the homosexual acts (temple prostitution or orgies done in the context of worship) from the other sins.
But don't overlook 1 Corinthians 6: 9: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homsexuals, (10) nor theives, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Except that depending on which translation you use, "homosexuals" is translated as male prosititutes, catamites (boy prostitute), pederasts, perverts, or sodomites (that old story that the sin in Sodom was sodomy, rather than abuse of hospitality).
And there is 1 Timothy 8-11 (usually it is 9-10 that is used to argue that homosexuals are sinners) 8: Now we know that the law is good, if anyone uses it lawfully, 9: understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murders of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers; 10: immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11: in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
Except that the word for homosexuality, in the Greek, is "arsenokoitai" (male-bedders), which is, basically, a word which does not appear in Greek literature before or of that time, and which appears to be a word that Paul made up.
That appears to be almost all, if not all of what the New Testament says about homosexuality. I, like Ame, will cheerfully disregard the Old Testament, unless you are willing to accept all of the Levite laws in their totality. Everything I learned in 11 years of Missouri Synod Lutheran Schools affirmed and trumpeted rather loudly that with Jesus, the laws of the Old Testament (except for those that Jesus reaffirmed) were overturned and fulfilled in Jesus.
If God didn't create people as homosexual, who did? I don't know if there is a homosexual gene. I do know that homosexuality has been around for almost as long as there is recorded history, and the percentage of the population which is homosexual has remained fairly stable throughout, as far as any historians and scientists can determine. There is certainly evidence of homosexual behavior in animals. (National Geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html Science News: http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm National Institute of Health: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11746281&dopt=Abstract
Lisa, you say "God gives many of us challenges. Some of us are born with physical disabilities, some have mental illness, some have addictive tendencies." I don't - repeat, don't - believe in a god or God who gives us any challenges other than the gifts of life and free will. I absolutely refuse to believe in a God who deliberately creates children with Downs syndrome, cerebral palsy, the genes for ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease), multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease, or any other "challenge". Those things happen, but I will not believe in a loving God who deliberately inflicts such things on God's children. Nor will I equate homosexuality with any genetic disease.
I do, in fact, believe we can group all homosexuals together in terms of "why" they are homosexual. As many of you know, my oldest son is gay. I can tell you, from talking with him and some of his friends, and from conversations with homosexual men and women in my congregation, that no one would choose to be homosexual. No rational person (and all of the people I know who are homosexual are also rational) would choose to be something that subjects them to persecution, prejudice, harassment, potential violence, rejection by family and friends and a significant part of our society, presents legal barriers to being able to live in a loving and committed relationship with all of the protections and privileges automatically granted to heterosexual persons.
Asking homosexual persons to refrain from sexual relations because they are "apples" is, in my opinion, just part of the continuing prejudice against homosexuality. Yes, I believe people should refrain from sexual relations outside of marriage, but homosexuals aren't allowed to marry. So our society presents them with a Catch-22.
And for all of the hooraw about living celibate lives if you can't marry (or if you are homosexual and, of course can't marry), I can tell you that in my church, the United Methodist Church (UMC), there is definitely a double standard. Beth Stroud, who is a lesbian in a committed, loving and honorable relationship with another woman, had her ordination removed. But, while the United Methodist Church calls for celibacy except in marriage for its pastors, a former pastor in my church was "counseled" by the Bishop and by a committee, but did not lose his ordination when he entered into a relationship with a woman in our congregation who was, at the time, married to another man - they both divorced and later married each other.
Most denominations, if not all, call for celibacy outside of the marital relationship. But no one has denied church membership to a man or woman living in a sexual relationship with an opposite-gender person outside of marriage in the UMC, nor have any adulterers been barred from or removed from membership in the UMC that I know of. But, to my great shame and anger, the top judicial body of the UMC upheld a Virginia church which denied church membership to a gay man.
I'm done for tonight on this topic. See you all in the morning (and I get up real, real early!)
But ... the ones in Romans are suspect as well. Once again, the motivation - political, social, personal - for them must be fully examined.
I don't think the "outside of marraige" flies for argumentation against homosexual relations, either. After all, how can they have a sacramental relationship if no one will bless it? I really think christianity should be beyond such ploys.
Why should someone who is homosexual be forced to live their lives without a partner.
BTW there is a difference between chastity (refraining from sexual relations) and celibacy (refaining from marriage).
I'd like you to know I have come 180 degrees on this argument, however. Two years ago,I was in church and was shocked to encounter two men raising a baby girl - one of them asked me for baby wipes.
After much fighting against it (within myself) and research and prayer, I came to the conclusion that it was not something that was hurtful to anyone, that the little girl was growing up in a really loving home of people who wanted her and that I was committing the sin of being judgemental.
So, I looked to the plank in my own eye and have come to support the right of homosexuals to marry, both in civil and religious ceremonies
Ame
LOL, Ginny - we were posting at the same time and basically saying the same thing. Is that a first, or what?
Ame
Ame, I don't think it is a first. I will say that you certainly surprised me (and did it in far, far fewer words than I used - which is also not a first). I will also say that as I have observed people in my church and other settings, many of them have done the same 180 as they got to know individuals rather than focus on or object to sterotypes. It is a whole lot harder to condemn someone who is asking you for babywipes or planning a potluck supper with you than that out-there "gay life style" stereotype. (And, by the way, no one, ever, in all the many times I've asked here and elsewhere, has explained to me just what a "gay lifestyle" is.)
Oh, and you're right about the difference between chastity and celibacy, and I misused celibacy when I should have said chastity.
I think it's funny how people use the Bible to explain other people's lives.
Here's the way I see it...
When I was in high school, I wore a t-shirt saying "Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve" because there was some sort of political thing at the time in Colorado about homosexuality. I was church born and bred.
I went to college...and, I actually got to know someone who is gay. It was a person who did more good than anyone I knew of who was straight.
So...I got to thinking...why is it that we care so deeply about this? Is it because we hold dear our own sexuality because it's SO important to us? Are we worried that someone might touch us and give us "THE GAY" ? Are we fearful for our children to see 2 men hold hands and ask questions?
For those men who have chosen not to act on their homosexuality, they are called priests. Some go that route. And, yes, I know a gay priest.
Those who are "gay for the moment" have yes, turned gay, because it's drug induced. My cousin is an example of that. He is heterosexual now. He's off drugs.
Then, there are those young men who are suicidal because they know they're gay and they're still in high school, scared out of their minds that someone is going to find out. I had a kid try suicide because of this. I seriously doubt that you would tell him, face to face, that "No, you might have these tendencies, but you must say NO!" Can you imagine if someone told you that you cannot have sex with the person you're attracted to?
Your sex life is important...whether you're gay or straight or somewhere in between. Maybe that's why we care so much.
Does it really matter that Paul doesn't single out homosexual acts? What I think matters even more is that he included them in his diatribe of sins that had been committed. He illustrated that committing those sins was in and of itself idolatry, which includes worship of self. He is saying that it is selfish to want things which are forbidden by God.
Ginny, I know you are busy, and this isn't the best time for you to spend a lot of time online, so maybe you didn't read my last post thoroughly.
I didn't mean to suggest that God MADE homosexuals gay. The way I undersand it, God ALLOWS us to have certain challenges in life. I believe that God has plans and purposes that we are not privy to, that nothing happens without His oversight, and that somehow He knows something about us that we don't. I think that He never gives us anything that he knows we can't handle. Since I know God is in control of everything, I believe that He allows pain and challenge to enter our lives. The Bible says that God will never leave us nor forsake us. He walks with us into every painful experience and He stays with us through them, whether we feel His presence or not. When pain or challenges enter our lives, we have a choice. We can either overcome it, or we can be overcome by it. It boils down to this- are we willing to trust Him? Mother Teresa said, "Don't run from pain, but let God work through it."
I believe that we gain strength through Him, through prayer, and through worshipping and fellowshipping with other Christians. Sort of like the caterpillar on its journey to become the butterfly. It's very difficult and a whole lot of work, but if it doesn't make it out of the cocoon, it will either die, or it will not have the strength to fly. Through our trials and challenges, we become stronger both spiritually and mentally/emotionally, especially when we face them with God.
I have never told anyone here this, but I have a family member who once had homosexual feelings for a lady in her church. She knew it was wrong, and she fought her urges. She has now conquered her feelings through prayer and therapy. It can be done. This woman is a hero. She has been through so many challenges in her lifetime, from an abusive mother to a sexually abusive brother, a physically and emotionally abusive husband, struggles with depression, and a rock-solid faith in Jesus Christ, which is what has gotten her through it all. Jesus is her coach as well as her teammate. Without her unwavering faith, she wouldn't be where she is today. This is how I know that it can be done. Through Christ, anything is possible.
I also do not believe that homosexuality is a disease to be cured, but rather a behavior that can be controlled through will and prayer, and even therapy, if there is a desire to lead a more "normal" life.
And please understand that I am not prejudice against homosexuals. As I said, they are God's children, too. They should never be turned away from a house of worship. I agree that if Beth Stroud was to be forbidden from ordination, so should the adulterous pastor have been. I have worked with many homosexuals, and one guy in particular that I grew fairly close to. I do not look down upon them and I do not judge them to be unworthy of respect. I am just trying to provide the basis on which I believe that the act of having sex with a like gender is wrong. And Ginny, I appreciate that your son is gay, and I admire your ability to talk about this without getting overly defensive or sensitive. I truly mean no offense toward your son or anyone else.
And Heidi, I don't understand what you mean by using the Bible to explain other people's lives.
I am using the Bible and my faith to explain how I believe, for whatever it is worth to anyone who is interested. I understand that it may not mean much to a non-believer, so I apologize if anyone is offended by the religious nature of this thread. But I am only being honest about myself here.
Nicely explained, Lisa. I don't agree with you, but I think your post is a model of how to express one's deep beliefs clearly and without giving offense. And, I understand that you mean no offense to my son or me.
Yes, Paul didn't single out homosexual acts. But, by and large, the organized church does. Why is it that of all of the "all manner of wickendness" that Paul lists, homosexuality is the one that bars one from ordination, and produces the most hating and hateful words and actions? Certainly your interpretation is one I've often heard - that the acts of wickedness (including homosexuality) were themselves idolatry, the idolatry of self. But the words say that they were idolators, worshipping idols, and therefore God gave them up to all manner of wickendess. As Paul presents it, the idolatry was the cause and the acts of wickedness were the effect. My preference, if the words are clear (and I think these are) is to take them as they are written and not "interpret" them. (see my ending note)
In my thinking about this, I came to the conclusion that while the church (any church) does not at all approve of harassment of or violence towards homosexuals, the church has done a lot, by its teaching and preaching, to make gays and lesbians "the other" - not quite right, not quite like us, not in the "mainstream", not "normal", not "natural", not quite "human". And in so doing, they have, in the minds of stupid and nasty people, given a sort of tacit permission for those acts of harassment and violence, because "they" are sinners, and "they" are "not right".
A lot of preachers have done a lot of preaching about "hate the sin", but they haven't done nearly as well in preaching "love the sinner", and many churches (including my own UMC), have acted in less than loving ways towards those they deem sinners.
I know that no one on this board would in any way approve of or condone any act of even unkindness towards a homosexual person. But I would urge you to think about what you can do and say, in your circles, that would condemn unChristian behavior toward homosexuals when the discussion turns toward condemnation of homosexuals or homosexual activity.
Note: the matter of interpretation. I was recently in a discussion on another board where the subject was Peter's vision, where God let down a net with all manner of animals in it, including those that were not allowed by Levitical laws, and told Peter that he could eat of all of them. This person argued that his interpretation was that God was telling him that he(God) had made people clean, and that the animals were a metaphor. Which I said I found rather silly, inasmuch as there was a subsequent long debate in the early Christian church specifically about "clean" and "unclean" foods (resolved, eventually, in the discarding of the Levitical laws about food by the church), and not a debate about clean and unclean people.) As I said above, by and large, if the words are clear, I prefer to take them as they were written, and only seek for interpretation where the words aren't clear (and mostly what I am looking for is language interpretation, as there are Hebraic, Aramaic and Greek words that have more than one meaning).
You'd think after so many repetitions I'd be able to spell "wickedness" correctly. Drat!
I don't have much to add.
As far as Biblicial interpretation goes, we are all sinners. I do believe sex outside of a marriage is a sin. But I also beleive that lying is a sin, gossipping etc. "all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord". That is why we have this thing called grace. I disagree that when you are "born again" that you lose the desire to do unChristian things. I think we are supposed to recognize them as such and try hard to stay on the right path. And I guess we lose the "want" to do wrong things, but I think desire is deep within us and it is something we have to fight, all of us, and the "sin" is something different for all of us.
So do I care that the couple next to me in church is openly gay, well, I do. I also care that they guy next to me is talking about how hung over he is. And heck while I am throwing stones, as I weigh well over my ideal, here I am sitting in the "sin of glutteny". So my point is, my caring is my own issue. As much as any one of us belongs in Church, we all belong in Chruch. If it were a building (or gathering) where only the sinless were welcome Jesus would be the only attendee.
What makes people gay? Who knows! I don't love how the media sensationalizes stories about gay people. I also don't like that even in the best of shows we see sexually deviant behavior (come on how many people are fighting for meredith and dr mcDReamy..HE"S married! Lets fight for marriage). But hey, here I am watching Will and GRace, Desperate Housewives and Grey's anatomy. So I am as much of the problem as the media!
Ginny as far as the UMC, we were recently part of a UMC congregation. Our minister came out as having an affair with a lady in the church. He was also stripped of his ordination and can no longer be a pastor within UMC. I had mixed feelings on this. I don't think we can find a sinless person to lead a church, but still want to believe that those "called" by God can be a little less sinful than me. But my point was, I believe that any "sexually deviant behavior" is reason for "disbarrment" from the UMC.
In my post I wasn't trying to say that once saved you no longer have the desire to sin. I meant that a lot of times you will no longer have the desire to do a lot of the more worldly things that you once had no problem with. Yes, I still sin. A sin is a sin is a sin... We all do. That is the point of Jesus dying on the cross, thus forgiving us for our sins. I will continue to sin until I reach the gates of Heaven because that is the way I am made. But, I realize it when I do something wrong, and I am chastized for it. And I try not to be a repeat offender. And I do emphasize the word try. However, there are some activities that I once had no problem taking part in, that I no longer feel the desire to because of my Christianity.
Homosexuality has NOTHING to do with CHristianity or religion!
More later.
I don't think anyone has said that homosexuality has anything to do with christianity or religion. I think christianity or religion can and does affect people's beliefs regarding the issue of homosexuality.
That's it exactly, Michelle. Which is why religious beliefs get brought into discussions about homosexuality, and so many of us use references to scripture.
I understand Ginny. I was just commenting on Kim's statement above which I am assuming she is going to add to later.
I knew a wonderful, kind and caring man who committed suicide at age 28 because he was homosexual and unable to come to terms with the guilt he felt. He came from a family that attended a church that did not allow homosexuals through the front door.
I also knew a woman who was married to a man who was homosexual but denied his true feelings. They were married for years, had children. One day after the children were grown and gone from the home, he came straight with his wife and left her. He tried for years to do the "right" thing.
I guess I'm a simple person. I don't put too much thought into the teaching of the Bible. I do a lot of soul searching and talking with God in certain places that are special to me. I strongly feel He doesn't want us to hurt each other. And I think He wants us to be at peace with ourselves.
I think the very bottom line for Americans is do we allow our laws to be based on ONE religion's beliefs?? I agree completely with Nicki on the "hiding" or marrying to avoid homosexual feelings. More lives are destroyed that way than we will ever know. Suicides, divorces (can you imagine what that does to the spouse's psyche??) infidelity in marriages, etc all because some homosexuals are taught they have to "ignore" their true personalities.
Lisa, who says that being gay should even be a "challenge"? It's only a challenge because *other* people who aren't gay MAKE it a challenge.
I wholeheartedly agree with Nicki too.
I'm a believer, but I'm also a believer in understanding God's people.
Think about this...if, all of the sudden, people were to harrass you and tell you that you shouldn't be having sex with your husband...how would that make you feel? And, how would it make you feel if they used their religion to "show you the way"? That's what I mean by using the Bible for that purpose.
We have to use the Bible for the sole purpose of it's existence...to show people what Jesus would do. Need I remind anyone how much of a badass he was? AND how amazing he was with words? Imagine that kind of following for God...let's not exlude the 10% of God's people.
I'm gonna leave the main topic alone
Ginny, I have neighbors who are openly lesbian, one being in the military of all things, and they have expressed physically and verbally what the "gay lifestyle" is, they use terms such as "•••••" for lover or one night stand, "Stud" for dominant "male" and more. This is a couple that has just split up, but were in a monogomous relationship for 16 years, raising two children, boy and girl together.
I had the opportunity to do one of my "home parties" in their home one night, the words used, the inuendo, the sexual displays, the offers to "swap", the competition. I do "home parties" for a living and have spent many many nights in what I call the "twilight zone", some houses and people are just so different then me/mine. But I will say that this was the most uncomfortable situation I have been in, they had little to no regard for my presence, teased me about my straight life and openly discussed their sex lives. I talked to one of them afterwards and she said, Oh don't be offended or bothered that's just the way lesbians are!
Another example of the gay lifestyle can be found at the HotTopic chain of retail stores, with bumper stickers, banners, t-shirts, wrist bands, etc all displaying "Gay is the New Straight", "Gay Power", " 2 men are better than 1" and more. This to me is a "gay lifestyle" expression as well. Not to say that heterosexual inuendo is not plastered on t-shirts as well.
It is also becoming "popular" for young teen girls to act out with lesbian tendencies, to gather attention, to express early sexuality, to over compensate for low body image and past sexual abuse. I will search for the article I read on this and post it if I can find it.
Oral sex just like intercourse is what is natural with a husband and wife. Oral sex or "intercourse" with the same sex is what the scriptures are talking about.
I'm sorry Julie, but your posting cracked me up. There are many Christian religions who would debate this with you. Far be it from me to interpret the bible for you. I would hope you'd stop interpreting it for me. Please give me the chapter and verse of that portion.
Those are indeed examples of some lesbian lifestyles, Kym. Sounds similar to me to some posts on the board (nnd stuff I have read in other places) about people living in so-called "open" marriages, spouse-swapping, etc.
The lesbian couples in my congregation (about 12 that I know of) and the gay couples (about 8) are all pretty staid, quiet, middle-class type people. Hard working, church going, leading pretty ordinary, quiet, well-behaved lives. Some of them raising children, some not. But nothing like what you describe.
My point is that there is no one "gay life style" or lesbian life style. Anymore than there is one heterosexual life style. We've all seen the flaming gays in the Gay Rights parades in San Francisco and New York City; along with the marchers who look just like the rest of us ordinary folk. And in Philadelphia we see the Mummers, some of whom are individually outrageous, and will vomit drunkenly on your shoes if they/you get too close. But that's not typical of all South Philadelphians in general (or on days other than New Years Day), any more than what you describe is typical of all lesbians.
Bea
I was refering to the fact that the scriptures above are not addressing what husbands and wives do, but what two people of the same sex are doing to eachother.
You are trying to place the burden of proof on me, but you are the one making a claim that oral sex is wrong. I was not trying to argue for or against oral sex, but that the scriptures above are not even talking about it. So it seems a little far fetched to even bring it up. Which I was not the one that did.
there is only one Christian religion. Different denominations, but only one Christian religion.
And from all this discussion of the Bible why is it that you single me out and ask me to stop interpreting the Bible? I was not interpreting it for you, but telling you my interpretation. There is a difference.
Vicki, I would urge you not to link homosexuality with pederasty (or other forms of sexual abuse). When I am talking about homosexuality and homosexual relations, I, for one, am talking about relationships between consenting adults. Neither sexual abuse of a child nor rape involve two consenting adults.
While I don't think for a minute that you intended to really equate pederasty or rape with homosexuality, some public figures, when they speak out against allowing same-sex marriage, throw out the grab bag of pederasty, child abuse, polygamy and bestiality as being the natural consequences of allowing a legal relationship between two same-sex consenting adults. Which is, of course, nonsense. There is a big difference between consenting adults and sexual abuse of a child or an animal.
As for polygamy, well, it is against the law in this country and Europe, but on the other hand, there is a scriptural basis for it, and other religions and nations consider polygamy one of the norms and quite acceptable. I think it is a terrible idea, but others don't. Most of the polygamy cases in this country in recent decades have involved "wives" who were, at least at the time of the "marriage", under age, and I believe charges of statutory rape or abuse of a minor were part of the criminal charges brought in such cases.
Juli, I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. But I have to tell you, the "sin" of "Sodom", or what many who preach against homosexuality call the sin of Sodom, was *not* oral sex. Which is, I think, why Bea giggled. You did, of course, say "oral sex or 'intercourse' ", but I will admit, I chuckled myself when I read your post. I don't think you are being singled out for the opinions and beliefs you are posting, but that particular remark could seem to indicate a level of innocence. Which is not a bad thing - I think innocence is usually a fairly good thing, but can give rise to smiles in some discussions. But still, I'm sorry your feelings were hurt.
Jui,
In fact, most sects of Chritianity feel that anything other than vaginal sex is wrong. Masterbation, @n@l or 0r@l sex are wrong, any kind of "kinky" things are wrong, even if between man and wife. There are actually laws in many states banning what many consider "normal" parts of sex life. A side note, the Army bans oral sex, as well as sodomy, and pretty much anything other than "missionary" position. This is based off Christian teachings, but of course is not enforced.
You may feel singled out, but the point I was trying to make is you are so concerned about what goes on between couples other than man and wife, but in the Bible it DOES limit the sex man and wife can have as well. Oral sex is not for procreation, and the main Biblical part of sex in a marriage is to procreate, to my understanding So, my original question was to thsoe who believe and interpret every word as literal, do you follow those guidleines?? If not, you have changed the teachings of the Bible to fit with the times, but also to fit with your personal lives.
Where in the bible does it say that sex is only for procreation? Where does it say that only missionary sex is allowable? You are the one claiming that the Bible says this and furthermore what people believe or practice does not change what is says about homosexuality.
Again if you don't believe in the Bible then why do you care what it says other than to argue something you know nothing about?
Every single law in America is a legislation of morality. The question is "whose?" Every american law is based on Judeo Christian values so why then should we violate the established precedent for the SMALL percentage of people who may disagree?
While it may be true that there are people within any religion who endorse homosexuality, none of the major religions officially endorse homosexuality. Therefore, America cannot be said to be excluding other religions in favor of Christianity. and even if we were, what's wrong with that?
What's wrong with that?
The constitution for one, no? Even taking the constitution out of the picture, "excluding other religions in favor of Christianity," doesn't present any ethical problem for you?
"Every american law is based on Judeo Christian values so why then should we violate the established precedent for the SMALL percentage of people who may disagree?"
Because protecting the SMALL percentages is what the constitution and so many of the checks and balances in your system are about. So that minorities can live safe, free from the tyranny of the majority. So we don't jail people of Japanese heritage, own slaves or refuse jobs to the physically handicapped again.
The idea that because most people agree on something means that it's right and sound is just wrong. ESPECIALLY for those of us who are christians. Who were the focus of so much concern from Jesus? The people who the majority had turned away from. The sick, the poor, the disinfranchised.
It's easy to use the role Christianity has played in the formation and running of a country and in the lives of the majority to bully those weaker and less numerous then us but it shows a real lack of character(generally, not a personal comment)
I think.
No, not every single law in America is a legislation of "morality", unless by morality you mean a common community understanding of how people should and should not treat each other.
And, our legal structure is not "based on Judeo Christian values". Most of our law came from English common law, which began in the early pagan communities of Britain, later influenced by Roman law, and from the law structures of the Vikings following their multiple invasions of and settlements in Britain (the folk-moot eventually became the British and our jury system, as an example). While there may have been some minimal Judaic influence in the development of Roman law (though I doubt it, from my reading of the development of the Roman Empire), laws and legal structures were well developed in Britain long before Christianity even came along, let alone came to Britain.
As for violating established precedent for a small percentage, that is exactly what the Constitution and Bill of Rights are about - protecting the rights of minorities when the majority tries to impose its will on minorities, or the powerful try to impose their will on the powerless. Violating established precedent, by the way, is what overturned the then well-established precedents for legal support for slavery and for racial discrimination. One of the beauties of our legal system is that it forces us to look at "well established precedent" and decide whether that precedent is indeed constitutional and just.
Crystal didn't say that the Bible endorses only one or some forms of sexual activity. (In fact, in re-reading her posts in this and other threads, Crystal doesn't quote from or cite the Bible at all. I, on the other hand, do - copiously.) In fact, Crystal said "most sects of Chritianity". I don't claim to know what "most sects of Christianity" teach, but it is a firm understanding within the Roman Catholic church that sex is meant primarily for procreation so long as procreation (i.e., fertility) is possible between the couple - which is why that church bars the use of any kind of birth control. The church doesn't say only have sex when procreation is possible, but it does say, very strongly, that a major reason for marriage and sexual reasons is procreation and that nothing should be done by the couple to interfere with the possibility of procreation.
Non-believers are not (or, imo, should not be) barred from using the Bible in debates (even though Crystal doesn't use it), particularly when debating or discussing with those who are believers and use the Bible to buttress their own positions. Nor does not believing in what the Bible says mean that a person knows nothing about it. As for caring what it says - well, if people use what the Bible says to support positions "I" don't agree with, then naturally "I" am going to use the Bible as part of "my" support for "my" arguments. And you are right, nothing will change what the Bible "says" about homosexuality. How people interpret what the Bible says is another story. (I don't understand what you mean when you say "other than to argue something you know nothing about". Are you saying that if one doesn't believe in what the Bible says, one knows nothing about it?)
No one that I know of "endorses" homosexuality. Advocating for rights for homosexuals is not in any way an endorsement of homosexuality, but rather a cry for what we believe is simply justice. What I am saying (as are a lot of others) is that homosexuality is a "born in" gender identity, not a chosen "life style", and that persons who are homosexual should not be discriminated against by being barred from rights and privileges automatically granted to heterosexuals. (And please, don't bring up NAMBLA as "endorsing" homosexuality. What they endorse is child abuse, a very different thing.)
As for your final statement, asking what's wrong with excluding other religions in favor of Christianity - well, it's unconstitutional for one thing. It would make us no different from the Taliban, Iran, the pre-perestroika Soviet Union, and a lot of other oppressive, discriminating systems and nations. It would, in a word, be un-American.
All well stated and taken under advisement.
Help me to understand a few things.
If the constitution is meant to keep us from violating the rights of the minority, why are the ideas of so many groups of people labeled as unconstitutional? If the constitution is primarily to "protect the rights of minorities" why are so many minorities excluded every day in court battles? Arent the judges themselves being unconstitutional? Shouldn't every minority group be given the right to live however they wish according to the constitution? Or is the constitution really about more than that?
If excluding other religions in favor of Christianity is unconstitutional, wouldn’t excluding Christianity in favor of the other religions be unconstitutional as well? And, as stated earlier, since no other major religion endorses the homosexual lifestyle, how could it be considered excluding other religions? Wouldn’t this then be the one issue every major religion could come together and be iron-clad on? Wouldn’t it then be the ultimate point of unity?
BTW - I never said anything about oral sex except to question why people are bringing up oral sex. Who said that the sin of Sodom was oral sex? It wasn’t me. I know the sin of Sodom had nothing to do with oral sex. Crystal is the one who began the discussion about oral sex claiming that if someone participated in oral sex that they were somehow violating a scriptural command. I was simply baffled as to how anyone could come to such a conclusion. I continue to be baffled on how you can mistake her post for mine and then mock me for her post.
It also seems that in this discussion, people go in every direction imaginable, rather than to stay on the actual subject at hand. It becomes a running string of debates on 10 or 12 topics and never addresses the actual subject of the debate. It’s impossible to address every point that has been presented. I think that’s where some of your confusion comes in.
Juli,
I have much less Biblical knowledge than you, and will easily admit that. The ONLY reason I brought up oral sex is you specified "natural act of sex between a man and woman" and in my Baptist years (I was a "saved" Baptist in my teens, and attended church with my grandparents" they told us any sex other than married intercourse was wrong. That included masterbation, sex before marriage, oral sex, or any other sex act other than vaginal sex between a married couple. I was simply playing the devil's advocate, and apologize for any confusion made about "Sodom's sin" (I don't even know enough to tell you what that is, it's been years since I believed in God or touched a Bible). So, in closing, for some of you who are devout Christians, you believe homosexuality is a sin, and I disagree, which is my right. However, I know you (Christians) also know that no one is without sin, and it is not for humans to judge, as your Lord will do that in His wisdom. Perhaps He will forgive homosexuals, much in the same way He may forgive a terminal cancer patient who commits suicide, only He knows how he shall judge, I suppose. In the meantime, It's MY personal opinion that staying with the "not judging others", but not SUPPORTING sin, you should choose to abstain from voting on gay civil marriage, because a vote against is a judgement, and a vote for is supporting sin. Again, all my personal opinion, and I've admitted repeatedly that my knowledge of the Bible is limited and somewhat confused as I was raised Methodist, then Baptist, (completely different interpretations between those sects) and then left the church all together.
That said Juil, no one is mocking you, some may disagree with you, and I feel you have mocked me. I am sorry if you this discussion has not gone in the direction you would have liked, but with a group this large and a topic with so many factors, it can be difficult to zero in on one point.
From Crystal:
In fact, most sects of Chritianity feel that anything other than vaginal sex is wrong. Masterbation, @n@l or 0r@l sex are wrong, any kind of "kinky" things are wrong, even if between man and wife......but in the Bible it DOES limit the sex man and wife can have as well. Oral sex is not for procreation, and the main Biblical part of sex in a marriage is to procreate, to my understanding So, my original question was to thsoe who believe and interpret every word as literal, do you follow those guidleines?? If not, you have changed the teachings of the Bible to fit with the times, but also to fit with your personal lives.
I omitted the part about the Army's sexual "rules," but the rest is the post verbatim. First of all Crystal, you have made it clear that you don't adhere to Christian beliefs nor own a Bible, so I am wondering where you are getting your information that married heterosexual Christian sex is all about the missionary position. Have you ever read "Song of Solomon?" That entire book of the Bible is about sexual expression between husband and wife and refers to manual stimulation, oral sex, and vaginal intercourse---esp. if you read a modern translation (and I do still mean translation and not a paraphrase). No where is the Bible does it say that oral sex is wrong or that the missionary position is only way or even the best way. The whole term "missionary position" is a misnomer anyway. It came from the fact that some missionaries (I think they were missionaries in Hawaii, but not sure about that) hundreds of years ago, brought their unique position to "the savages." Having sex face to face so that you could also kiss was considered more civilized, but is never discussed in the Bible to my knowledge. I would stand corrected if you can provide some specific verses to indicate otherwise. The Bible is also clear that sex is NOT only for procreation, but also for satisfaction and enjoyment. If it was just for procreation, then why would infertile couples continue to have sex or women who had gone through menopause. However, we know that Hannah (infertile) was sexually active, not to mention Abram and Sarai (well into their 90s) with Sarah finally becoming pregnant and Abraham becoming the "father of many nations." Sarah laughed out loud when God told her she was pregnant because she was way past the age of childbearing, but was obviously still having sex. As a matter of fact, the Bible says that the only times a couple should not be having regular sex is if they have MUTUALLY agreed on it and are abstaining for the purpose of prayer ONLY. Finally, the only sexual acts I know of specifically mentioned as sinful are sodomy, adultery, and fornication (sex with multiple partners).
Ginny said:
I don't claim to know what "most sects of Christianity" teach, but it is a firm understanding within the Roman Catholic church that sex is meant primarily for procreation so long as procreation (i.e., fertility) is possible between the couple - which is why that church bars the use of any kind of birth control. The church doesn't say only have sex when procreation is possible, but it does say, very strongly, that a major reason for marriage and sexual reasons is procreation and that nothing should be done by the couple to interfere with the possibility of procreation.
Again, while those ideas may be true for the RC church, I am not Catholic. Catholics and Protestants are both Christian groups, but a huge difference between the two is that Catholicism takes many of its teaching not solely from the Bible, but also relies heavily on the pope and "the church" and its traditions. What "the church" and the pope may say are not always directly out of scripture, but more out of tradition (i.e., confessing to a priest, praying to saints). In mainline Protestantism (not Christian sects, but denominations. A sect by definition is an extremist or heretical group that upholds some ideas of Christianity, but also has many dissenting views as well) only the Bible and the Holy Spirit are the basis for beliefs, so the Catholic teachings on sex merely for procreation--and I'm not sure that they think that is the only purpose for sex, but maybe a Catholic can clear that up--do not apply to me or my belief system.
Scripture to back up my statements:
All of The Song of Solomon
Proverbs 5: 18-19- May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer---may her breasts satisfy you always and may you ever be captivated by her love. (sounds like sex=fun to me)
I Corinthians 7:2-5- But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone, but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (This verse is NOT expressing the idea that a husband owns his wife and can do whatever he wants or vice versa. This is only one passage and must be interpreted in agreement with scripture as a whole. The Bible is clear that the marriage is to be a covenant of mutual respect and love--Ephesians 5--and to coerce or force spouse to do something that he/she does not feel comfortable with is not okay. The point is that sex is for satisfaction and part of the bond of marriage, not just making babies.)
Sorry, but I felt I just had to address those issues. However, like Juli mentioned they are off topic from the original topic of homosexuality. Again, I think the Bible is clear that homosexual acts are wrong. I do agree strongly with Ginny that churches need to change their homo-phobic attitudes of viewing homosexuality as the biggest taboo or the unpardonable sin (which is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) and love homosexuals and not make them out to be any worse than the rest of us sinners. However, just as other sins are wrong (mine too---and I do them every day) and grieve the heart of God, I likewise think homosexuality does and that we aren't to just accept it either. There are a lot of people whom I love, but I don't have to accept their lifestyle or beliefs. My dad is racist and....well, just think Archie Bunker and you pretty much have him except he is a white-collar guy. I love him dearly, but disagree with him on everything from homosexuality to racial issues to poverty and homelessness. He basically thinks that people who don't think like he does should be shot, jailed, or some other horrible thing. He's a nice guy with a lot of not so nice viewpoints on things.
One final thing...I also think that ministers who have engaged in adultery should be defrocked and/or be forced to step down from the pulpit. Ministers are human and do sin. However, they are also held to a higher standard and should not be in any authority position if they are engaging in an affair, beating their spouses, cheating the government, addicted to pornography, or in a homosexual relationship. BTW, Ginny, I went to Beth Stroud's website. I read her "coming out" sermon and thought it was very theological and right-on in many regards (esp. her less activism, more casseroles analogy---brilliant and very much like who I understand God to be), however, I still strongly disagree with her on her interpretation of homosexuality. If we are ever in Philly though, we just might visit your church sometime. I'd love the opportunity to talk to her.
Crystal we were apparently typing at the same time, so you already addressed some of my questions in the post right before my last one...anyway....
Juli, would you be more specific about:
"the ideas of so many groups of people labeled as unconstitutional" What groups? What ideas?
and "why are so many minorities excluded every day in court battles" What minorities? What court battles?
and "excluding Christianity in favor of the other religions be unconstitutional". When has Christianity ever been excluded in favor of other religions in this country?
The Constitution is not only about protecting the rights of minorities - there is a lot more in it, like balancing the roles of the federal and state governments, taxation, monetary stuff, and so on. But the Bill of Rights is very definitely about protecting minorities from majorities, powerless from powerful, and individual citizen from the power of government.
The subject of the debate is homosexuality and what people think about it. But, when people thrown out scripture, laws, legal systems, the basis of the U.S. legal system, etc. to bolster their position, I will respond to what they post. I would never have posted about our legal system if you hadn't made a statement (as do so many) about the purported Judeo-Christian foundation for our laws. What I mean, as respectfully as possible, is if you don't like people bringing in other topics in response to your posts, you shouldn't open the topic. I believe most of my post was specifically in response to topics you raised.
Pam, you are right about protestants and sex, and about the Song of Solomon and the other scripture you cited. And about the role of sex in marriage (at least, imo). I know in Judaism, a wife can bring a complaint against her husband if he "refrains from her" too often (as, from my reading, some serious scholars did), and he against her.
I don't agree entirely with your definition of "sects" being extremist or heretical group that upholds some ideas of Christianity, but also has many dissenting views as well". Yes, most sects are dissenters, as were protestants, at the beginning of the Protestant Church. And some are extremist, or at least imo extremist. (I won't list those I personally consider extremist because I'm bound to insult someone.) On second thought, I guess I do agree with your definition. It's a kind of growth process, I think. Taking the Latter Day Saints as an example - I'm not sure if Joseph Smith was a member of a church or denomination at the time he had his revelatory visions, but I believe the Saints consider themselves Christian. It began as a sect, separated off into communities, suffered persecution (very severe in some places), moved off to the West, and became what is now a well established denomination. The Shakers, on the other hand, were an offshoot of some church or another, separated off into communities, experienced persecution, but because their faith did not allow marital relations and they relied on conversion to bring in new people, the Shakers have pretty much died out except for a couple of very elderly ladies in upstate New York. And you are right, the various denominations of the Protestant Church are by no means sects (although there are probably a lot of sects out there that I don't know about - there are usually sects out there somewhere).
Pam, I'd love to have you visit my church and to introduce you to Beth Stroud. It has been an amazing, often painful, but often wonderful journey with her. Beth made me understand what it is to be "called" in a way I had never understood it before. She is a model of integrity and honesty and love. And she is a wonderful pastor. All through the process, she kept reminding us to love, and to care for each other, and reminded us over and over that those who felt she should lose her orders were only acting out of faith and out of their belief in what God demands. I can't think of very many people (other than someone like Ghandi) who could have been so patiently loving throughout. One of the things I find absolutely amazing about her is that after all this, she could easily go to another denomination and be accepted in orders, but she says she is committed to the United Methodist Church and will stay in it, in love, and continue to try to persuade it to change.
By the way, she and her partner are both presently on maternity leave, having been approved as foster parents shortly before the final UMC decision and being gifted with a foster daughter a month after the decision came down. Their little girl has a number of health issues, which they are dealing with. Right now they take turns coming to church, because they don't want to take the baby into the church nursery until her health situation improves, but we hope that will change soon.
Best of luck and prayers to your pastor and their new baby! How wonderful for them! She sounds like an amazing person- I am sure she will make a great mother!
She is indeed an amazing person, Heather. Thank you for your prayers.
What is remarkable is when you see her, she is this little - maybe 5'3" woman, size 8 at most, with a mop of curly hair, and she looks to be about 20 at best. She looks like little more than a child herself and it is amazing to see such strength in someone who looks so much like a little girl.
Happily for her and her partner, they have the full support not only of our congregation, but of both sets of parents and of her partner's congregation. From what Beth says, that has been tremendously helpful and important to her, to both of them.
again, never mind
Vicki, how about because rape is force against a person's will, and child molestation is also against the child's will (and a child cannot legally or emotionally consent). But a relationship between two same-sex adults does not involve force or acting against another person's will and is, in fact, as you say, if done in privacy, legal. There is a big difference between acting on legal desires and acting on unlawful and harmful desires, between acting on desires between two consenting adults and forcing your desire on a non-consenting child or adult.
Yes, you do point out in your post that one act is legal and the other illegal. And I said in my post that I did not believe you were equating the two.
What I don't understand is why two consenting adults should refrain from a legal act, other than to meet the requirements of someone who believes they should refrain? And why should they be expected, or even asked to meet the other person's requirements?
Ginny so well stated.
To be quite honest, Vicki your post disturbed me as well. Yes, you stated being gay differs because it is not unlawful. But using these other, horrible types of behavior, and the ability to abstain from such behavior, to help make a point about gay people abstaining, well it disturbed me greatly. Frankly, it is this type of thinking that has turned me away from the church.
Why must gay people abstain? Who are they hurting? (Not directing this just to you, Vicki.) If we look into our hearts, and ask these questions. Is it possible to set the teachings of the Bible aside and examine our feelings? Why is this such an issue? Do we fear gay people because they are different?
I haven't been able to access MV for about 24 hours for some reason, so I'm a bit late chiming back in. However, Pam, to adress your question (and I admittedly have only scanned this last few parts) the Baptist church that I attended in NJ during my teen years taught us that any sex acts other than vaginal intercourse between married couples was a sin. I've got to let this one go, simply because my stance is this. America is NOT supposed to base their laws on any religion. I still don't understand why everyone can't leave everyone else to live their own •••• lives. It seems to me that Christians are the most judgemental people in this country, and it's sickening.
Oh Crystal, you only think Christians are the most judgmental because you haven't been exposed (as I have) to Orthodox and Chasidic Jews, and more than a few Moslems. And there is nobody, nobody, nobody more judgmental than a Vegan, faith believer or atheist.
Well, I am not saying that they should have to abstain from anything. As I said earlier, I don't have a hard line stand on any of this. I think I feel one way, and then I also feel the other way too. I guess I was trying figure out why some people think it is so terrible that others feel they should not act upon it. That is all I was asking. I really do see both sides of the argument believe it or not. And I also have a nephew that is gay, so don't think I am not sensative to it.
I think we are all judgemental in some way...
I just want to try to explain what Vicki was trying to say. She was comparing being homesexual with other types of behaviours, i also think that her comparison was out of hand but what i understood is that why are people so surprised that some religions urge homosexuals to change their behaviour.
Let's try another example, that has nothing to do with forcing anyone (as in rape or other sickening behaviours), what about swingers? They too are consenting adults and the church expects them to change their ways and to ignore their urges. It is legal but it is not right for the church or for what the bible says.
That is what i understood.
In terms of my opinion, i really don't know how to feel about this. I know about what the bible says and i am a Christian, however, i find it extremely hard to believe that homosexuality needs to be changed, and can be changed. I know many gay people whom i dearly love and i really find it hard to grasp the concept that there should be another way of life for them.
As was stated before we are a sinners, and as one said before we keep on sinning everyday, so what's the difference? Should we be denied some rights as others who commit less sins than us?
Should they be allowed to marry? I really don't know, but i think there should be something in place for long standing couples in terms of all rights over their partners. I don't know if that makes sense.
She was comparing being homesexual with other types of behaviours
NO, I was NOT comparing the two. Please don't put words into my mouth. Obviously no one understand what I am trying to say, so just forget it!!
I am sorry Vicki, i think i was typing at the same time as you. I didn't know how to write. What i meant was that the comparison was about one thing that Christians think must be changed just as other behaviours that need to be changed. I think i understood that you were not comparing the same as being similar type of behaviours burt as being something that could be changed adn/or stopped.
I am so sorry if i made this worst. I really didn't mean to. Please forgive me.
You are closer, but not exactly. I just must not be good at typing what my mind is thinking. Many people, religions etc. think that "being" gay isn't a sin, but acting upon it is the sin. They feel that they shouldn't do the "acts". Many other people think that is so unfair and how can people be expected to live their lives as a lie etc etc etc. Now, I will admit that sometimes I feel this way too. But then I think about it and sometimes feel another way too. As I stated, I think I feel one way and then I sometimes see the other side too. I do not have a hard stand on this at this time. To the people that feel it is so out there and unfair to ask expect them to live their life as a lie and not act upon their desires I was saying that we expect many people everyday to not act out their sexual desires. That surpressing sexual desires is nothing new and why is it so terrible to feel that gays should be able to do it?? That is what I was asking. I got into trouble by giving examples of people that are expected to surpress desires. That is all they were is examples of people who are expected to do it, NO WAY linking any of those people to gays. I could have thrown preists and husbands and wifes that feel an attraction to someone other than their spouse into the group too!!
I just don't understand how this question is so appauling to some people!!
When you put it the way you did just above, Vicki, it isn't at all appalling. Yes, lots of people and organizations expect gays and lesbians to refrain from sexual activity - because their activity is, by the definitions of those people and organizations, sinful. But I doubt if there is any comparison you can make where people are expected to refrain from acting on their sexual desires that is truly comparable. Husbands/wives have vowed to be faithful to their spouses; priests have vowed celibacy. In both instances the parties have voluntarily taken vows that preclude them from acting on sexual desires that are contrary to their vows.
Yes, I do think it is unfair to ask/expect of people who happen to be homosexual to refrain from acting on their sexual desires with consenting partners. What they want to do is lawful, and if they don't believe it is a sin, why should they be bound by the beliefs or wishes of others. I don't think your question is "appalling", because I hear and read it so often. I just don't think it is fair.
On the issue of whether homosexuals "should" "refrain", the Dear Amy column in my newspaper this morning was a letter from a woman who wrote that a gay couple had moved into the house across the street, and were wonderful neighbors; improving the property, shoveling the writer's walk and clearing snow of the writer's car. But, one morning the writer observed the couple kissing each other goodby on their doorstep and was horrified. At the suggestion of her pastor, she got other neighbors to join in a letter to the gay couple, telling them they should not display their affections outside their house. She now wants to know what to do, as the gay couple have stopped speaking to the people who signed the letter and stopped socializing on the block - how can she get them to understand that they are valued neighbors "but will not tolerate watching unnatural and disturbing behavior".
This link is to her copyrighted column:
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?custid=67&catid=1843
I guess plain and simple it depends on your morals and values and what you believe. No one will ever be right and no one will ever be wrong. Maybe that is why I can't seem to come to a conclusion in my own head as to how I feel about the whole thing. It brings up more questions than answers for me.
Vicki, I do understand. You're right, there is often a difference between what is legal/illegal and what individuals think is right/wrong. A lot of things in life are clearcut, but a lot aren't.
I applaud you for continuing to struggle with an issue that appears to cause you discomfort. Many people just shove uncomfortable ideas under the rug and don't try to do any sorting, and never question what they were taught as children or are told by others. It is painful, and often confusing, and takes a great deal of strength to continue trying to work out in your own mind and conscience what you feel is right.
And, by the way, I also applaud you for coming back and working out a way to help us to understand better what you meant, instead of just walking away. I'm really glad you did. I was afraid you had just "picked up your jacks and gone home", and am really pleased you didn't.
Your right Ginny, I do struggle with how I feel about it in my own head. I guess I never gave it too much thought until my nephew finally "came out". Dh and I always had own suspicions about him from the time he was a very young child. But it was just within the past couple of years that he finally came out and everyone in the family was told. I guess I stated thinking more about it since then. One part of me thinks what ever he chooses to do in private is his own business, but then again, I can honestly say that I wouldn't want to see it either. I can kind of relate to the letter you make reference to above. I would be completely uncomfortable if he were to bring a "friend" to a family function and they were doing any kind of public affection. Does that make me a terrible person?? I struggle with that too. I have always tried to be non judgemental and give people the benefit of the doubt.... the above example of me being uncomfortable seems awfully judgemental to me and I don't like to be that way. Guess I am not going to get this sorted out anytime soon!! LOL
No, it doesn't make you a terrible person. It makes you a person who is struggling.
I will say, I generally don't like public displays of affection (PDA, in my generation) beyond handholding or a hug, or an occasional quick cheek-kiss or peck on the lips, from anyone, including the parents of my darling granddaughter. I just think that isn't for the public.
Let me tell you a story about my dear oldest son. A couple of years after he had come out to us, we were having one of those late-night serious talks. I said something along the lines of - I think I've done a pretty good job of adjusting to and being accepting of your being gay. But I have to tell you, if you wanted to bring a young man home to spend the night with you (he is living in my house at the time), I would have real problems with it. My dear son replied, "That's alright, mom. You wouldn't let [middle son] have a girl spend the night."
No, I don't think you are going to get it sorted out any time soon. And I don't think that makes you a terrible person. I think your nephew might tell you (as my son did to me), that the fact that you are struggling with it makes you, in his eyes, a pretty terrific person, because you *are* struggling with it. You have no idea how many men and women are totally rejected and more or less expelled from their families, or who never tell their families, living entirely secret lives, because they fear how their families will react (or, sadly, because they know how their families will react). I will ask you, though - how much of the PDA are you uncomfortable with because you are generally uncomfortable with PDA, and how much because the couple is same-gender?
Isn't it amazing how much of a difference it can make when you are thinking about some unknown "them" "out there", and suddenly you are thinking about something that affects someone you know and like or, as in your case, a well-loved member of your family?
No, I can honestly say that it is the same gender PDA that I am not comfortable with. Dh's whole family is very PDA, not sickening, but there is always hand holding and little smooches and even lap sitting going on with all of them and their spouses. That doesn't bother me in the least. Now, I wouldn't like big time kissing or any of that. LOL But small PDA I am fine with. But, I wouldn't be comfortable with even the littlest PDA between my nephew and anyone that would ever be there with him.
It does make a difference when you have a family member or close friend going through something. It just makes it more "real" or something. I can say that it hasn't really changed my mind about some things, but it has made me at least examine my feelings and start to question them to make sure that is really how I feel. If that makes any sense.
Vicki, I struggle like you do with various issues. I was raised in a very strict, religious family. I was brought up Episcopalian, and I basically adopted the beliefs of the church and my family without much question. I honestly didn't give much thought to my true feelings until I reached my twenties and left home.
Ginny is so right, isn't she? It is painful and confusing at times. I have chosen to break all ties with any organized religion. But I am truly glad I have chosen this route. My brothers have as well. My parents, on the other hand have gone to the other extreme, at least in my opinion. They have joined the Greek Orthodox Church. Needless to say I do not discuss religion with them!
If I responded too strongly to you I apologize. I admit I have some strong feelings about this subject. My brother was homosexual. He passed away years ago and I miss him very much. He was a kind person. Never, ever wanted to hurt anyone. He just longed to be accepted for who he was, but that never happened in my family. Talk about feeling confused. He must have felt so lost and alone. The family didn't know for sure he was homosexual until after his death. He broke all ties with us three years prior to his passing. I can't imagine his pain. It saddens me greatly to think of anyone hurting like this because we can't love them unconditionally.
I will be honest with you. It is hard for me to see a gay couple being overly affectionate in public. But for that matter, I am uncomfortable to witness heterosexual couples being intimate in public. I am just that way. But, I don't think it's my right to ask them to change themselves to make me feel better. Personally, I feel the church needs to look the other way and embrace the gay community. The church is entitled to it's beliefs and feelings. But, let individuals be who they are, and welcome them with open arms.
I respect you for working through this, too, Vicki. I really do.
Okay, I am thinking more about this, and I am grateful to you, Vicki for bringing this up.
As far as public display of affection between same-gender couples, yes, it makes me more uncomfortable. My thinking is, perhaps due to the fact that I, in my lifetime, can honestly say I have witnessed only a handful of same-gender couples being affectionate. Compare that to many (many) years of seeing heterosexual couples being affectionate just about everywhere one goes in the public. It is pretty common place, or at least in my experience. I'm wondering if I was to see same-gender couples doing the same on a pretty regular basis, maybe it wouldn't seem as uncomfortable? I guess I am saying in a long drawn out way that it just something rather new to me. And that usually causes me to feel uncomfortable.
See, I guess I am still struggling with aspects of this too, Vicki.
I have wondered that too Nicki, if I saw it more, would I get more "used" to it. I guess, I would. Just like seeing violence and swearing etc in movies. After seeing so much of it, you become more desensatized to it. Would the same happen?? I don't know. I say in one breath to live and let live, but then I question how much my heart really means that if it would bother me to see the PDA. I do know that I would never turn my back on my nephew or anyone else in my family who turned out to be gay. It just isn't in me. I am not sure I am ok with the whole lifestyle, but that isn't for me to judge... I have so many more thoughts and "wonders" about the whole thing.
Nicki,
You might consider looking into the Episcopal church again. At least in NY they are very liberal with social issues - including homosexuality. This is not to say that you should look into any organized religion if you don't want to, but I just thought I'd throw this out there, since you specifically mentioned the Epsicopal church.
Ame
Thanks, Ame. That is very encouraging. My family belonged to a very conservative parish here on the west coast. This particular church is dedicated to preserving the integrity of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. It is a traditional Anglican Parish. I believe my parents decision to join the Greek Orthodox Church resulted from their unhappiness with the rift between liberal and conservative views in the Episcopal Church.
I guess between years of private parochial schooling and growing up in a very restricted environment that didn't encourage free thinking (ie; my family as well as the church), well I'm happy to be free!
That's so funny Nicki, the difference not only between denominations but between churches within the same denomination. I have a friend who's the local Anglican minister and he's also the mentor for a lay ministry course I'm taking. He's a complete lefty and is actually a good match for the parish. He's always saying that relgion should be questioned and that you know you're doing well if you end up with a few answers but even more questions.
Dawn, your instructor sounds great. I think I would like taking that course! Very encouraging.
What if this debate was about *your* child? How would you feel then? Would some of the stereotypes and religious rules fall away? Would you *force* your child to be what they are not, like the left-handers that used to get beaten so they would use their right hands? What if you *knew* that child was different from the time they were little? And as they grew up you found out other family members saw it also? For some of us, this debate is about our children. I also agree that religion seems to put gays into a catch 22 and that is not right. Also, if you are with someone for 30 years and they get ill or die and you are the only family they have, then what? You are not allowed into their business because you are "not related". I could care less if any religion deems homosexuality *okay*. I don't believe in traditional religions also. That doesn't mean I don't believe in "God", I just do not believe in the same context. There are so many things I want to say. I have considered letting my daughter come here and do it for herself.
I believe each of us should be the best we can be to ourselves and others and this is what we should strive for. Be good for goodness sake! I am not going to give my views of any particular religion. It should all be about self-actualization, not saving or changing others, in my opinion. Treat others as you would have them treat you. Hmmm...
My daughter deserves a full life, just as any hetero person. If she is a good person who does good things and tries to be the best person she can be, what business is it to anyone else?
I don't believe in PDA for homos OR heteros. I don't want my younger kids exposed to either! I didn't used to approve of gay marriage and couldn't quite grasp why but it all stemmed from my growing up Missouri Synod Lutheran. I am not that person anymore. This issue (homosexuality) is part of my life now and I undersatnd totally why life-long partners need leagl rights to eachother's information. I would never expect my daughter to live a celibate life for the rest of her life! She did not take a vow to become a nun! She is not going through some fantasy experiment to see what she is. She is a masculine girl, always has been! NO ONE can *fix* what she is!
She was baptized Roman Catholic and is having problems with going to church. (Her church is not the asme as ours, long story) SHe doesn't understand how she can be shunned, doesn't understand many things. She is a child of *God* just like anyone else. No?
Ginny, I had the same conversation with K that you did with your son. I would not allow my oldest son to have a girl in his room with the door closed or let a girl spend the night. I told K that the same rules apply to her as everyone else.
My daughter was devestated to tell me that she was gay. She truly thought that I would disown her in every way. I felt so bad for her that she tortured herself over it at all. I said that I had always known. SHe was so relieved she cried and cried and cried. It took her a long time to accept that I truly accept her!
There is right and there is wrong and people will behave the way they will. Kym's experience is unbelievable. Who wouldn't be uncomfortable? That's vulgar and would be vulgar from a straight woman's mouth also. All lesbians are not like that!
I am skipping around waaaay too much here. I read this all and digested it very quickly. All I know is that the only person I can control is ME. And I can teach my children to be the best people possible for the short time they are in my care.
I guess all I can say, again, is what if this was *your* child?
Oh, Kim, I was raised Missouri Synod also, and 11 years of Missouri Synod Lutheran schools. With respect - it is definitely NOT for me.
So glad your daughter could rely on you. It always shocks and saddens me when I hear of a family rejecting a family member when the person comes out or is "found out". I just can't imagine doing that.
Kim, I can only say that I have honestly thought about that too. I know that I would NEVER turn my back on dd, but I also don't know if I could really wrap my arms around it and say that it is ok. I do believe you can love and accept a person and not approve of their life/life style. But, I have thought about that and to be honest, I just don't think you can say things for certain one way or the other until you are presented with it.
Ginny, it is kind of Catholic Lite. I went to the school also for 9 years.
Vicki, you are right. You never know what you will do unitl its happening to you.
Kim, your description of your daughter's pain brought tears to my eyes. I'm so glad she has your acceptance.
And I agree that not all lesbians are like Kym described. In my husband's family we have two women who are lesbian, and I am disappointed when they can't make it to our gatherings. I love both of them. They are wonderful, kind, and courteous. I am glad they are family and am honored to have them as friends, as well.
My mother was raised Catholic. Her mother divorced her father when she was a teenager. At that time, her mother was shunned from the church. My mom still cries when she talks about it. Church was everything to my grandmother. She never returned. "What's wrong with this picture?", I ask myself. I can only hope this policy has changed over the years. But it sounds like they have a long way to go concerning their views on sexuality. Personally, I would refuse to step into a church which shuns individuals because they are gay.
...
Oh, I also forgot to mention.....I really dislike it when I am out with my daughter and people assume we are a "couple". I look young and she looks older than her age. Sometimes I hold her hand because she is my daughter and sometimes we are just walking together. The nasty comments and looks make me ill and it really hurts! We went to buy her bras the other day and I wanted to make sure she was getting the correct size. She was WAAAAAAY off by the way!!! (I saw the Oprah show on bras) The lady was very rude and stern and told me I could get my OWN dressing room! It was obvious what she was thinking! I said, excuse me, but this is my daughter! She was so embarrassed! And then when we came out there were two other women who hadn't been there before and they looked mortified! We have even had people yell at us in Spanish. Its unbelievable!
Kim said, What if this debate was about *your* child? How would you feel then? Would some of the stereotypes and religious rules fall away? Would you *force* your child to be what they are not, like the left-handers that used to get beaten so they would use their right hands?
Kim, like Vicki said, of course there is no way to unequivocably know how I would handle it if one of my sons told me he was gay. However, I can't imagine that I would change my view on homosexuality being wrong to be acted upon. Again, I don't think homosexual feelings are the problem, just the acting on them. I do know that I would still love, accept, and welcome my son, but I would not agree or condone a homosexual lifestyle. I have to think I would feel the same about my son having a boyfriend as I would about my son having a live-in girlfriend or being involved in a sexual relationship outside of marriage. Again, I think it is wrong, there would never be any cohabitation under my roof, but I would still love my kids. I DO have experience with my brother having 2 separate live-in girlfriends. He knew how I felt about it, knew that I loved him, but he also knew that when he and his girlfriend came to visit (we lived 4 hours from each other at the time) that they would either sleep in separate bedrooms or they could get a hotel. That worked out just fine, my brother finally married a different and wonderful girl, and by this time he had figured out the right order of things and didn't live with her before marriage.
Again, can't say as an absolute what I do with my kids, but as strong as my feelings are I don't think I could ever embrace my child's homosexual lifestyle. I would always embrace my child, but not the homosexuality.
I don't think you could emabrace your child and not the homosexuality. They are one and the same. It would be a part of your child, not all of who they are, but I think it falls under unconditional love! I don't think that homosexuality and sex outside of marriage can really be compared. Being gay is not some random choice but rather a part of life.
I do not beleive we have the right to regulate who is married in this country. Whomever we fall in love with should be a personal and private decision. NO person should be excluded from the basic rights of marriage.
PamT- you probably explained this before- but if it is the "act" that is the problem, what do you think homosexuals should do? Be celebite? (sp) I am just wondering how they should handle their lives if they are not to act upon their natural desires?
I think it is possible to love someone and not their lifestyle. I love my dad dearly, but not his racism.
Yes, I did explain it in a previous post and think that they should be celibate. "Acting upon natural desires" makes us humans seems as if we have no self-control and are no better than animals. I think any person could be celibate if they were called to do so (i.e., priests, although that can open a whole different can of worms and people who don't marry). I think homosexuality can be the "thorn in the flesh" sin that we all have to struggle with. It is just a more difficult one.
My beliefs almost mirror Pam's. I do think if you are gay that you should be celibate. I also think if you aren't married you should be too. I have a 40 year old sis in law, who is single, until she finds a spouse I also think she should be celibate. Her and I talked about that once, and she laughed saying only someone who has been married her entire adult life would feel that way
I think there are a lot of desires that people have to "supress". I also agree with what Vicki stated. Homosexuality doesn't have to hurt an individual, but ultimately I don't want it accepted into society. We don't accept polygamy, we don't accect swinging, and those desires are just as strong as a homosexual. I personally feel like the more it is accepted the farther things will go, one day we will be having this debate about how polygamy isn't all bad, as long as everyone is consenting. I say that because 10 years ago we all complained about rosanne using the word itch on primetime TV on a 9 o clock show and now we think the word d ick is okay for a PG movie. Do I dislike people who cuss? No. Do I slip at times? Yes. But I sure wish it was less acceptable in society because I don't feel like it enhances our world any.
Oh I totally think you can love someone without accepting what they do with their life. There are tons of examples of it!! My own father is likely going to drink himself to death. Do I like that he is a alcoholic? NO Do I like that he drinks and drives? No Do I like seeing him waste away and not get help? No But do I love my Dad? Yes
I'm sorry- I did not mean that you would not love them- just that I think the other person would have a hard time feeling that love knowing you do not accept them for who they are! I still just don't think that homosexuality and polygamy or premarital sex are the same thing!
PamT- I do appreciate you explaining again!
I guess I just don't view them as any different than me!
oooops, I meant to add that because I feel like it is not a choice for them, that is what separates it from other behaviours listed.!
I am not awake just yet!!
Kaye, I feel the same way about pushing the acceptance. I am shocked nearly every day by something done or said on TV. I think they are pushing the limits daily and we as a society accept it. Which is adding to the corruption of our society. Our kids are being raised by a corrupt society, even if in our own homes we teach social norms.. They are owning and accepting things that will continue to corrupt our societal perceptions. When will we as a society own that we are the reason for the issues we are having?
I understand monogamous homosexuals wanting equal rights for their partners (medical, death benefits, custody of children of the relationship. etc) I am not saying I am against it, I am saying that just because we want something doesn't mean it will happen.. Our government is dominated by white, rich, heterosexual, old men and we live in a society where the majority rules.. So the minority will always be over looked and repressed. And any changes in our government (meaning changing those dynamics, old, male..etc..) will only mean someone else is repressed, someone Else's rights are taken. I think it is impossible with the way our government (State and Federal) is set up for all people to have access to the equal rights that our Constitution says we have.. because no one can agree on anything.. The rules/laws will always repress someone else's rights. Someone will always be screaming of the injustice of their treatment.. We can't change the fact that our government passes new laws and enforces those laws based on their own emotional, social and financial gain.
Hlgmom, the people that practice the "other behaviors listed" would most surely disagree with you.. Because EVERYONE believes their choices and ways are the right ways. They will all claim it is genetically who they are made to be.
I have heard the argument that men are not made to be in a monogamous relationship.. So in those cases those people feel they are just in having multiple partners. After all, we as humans are one of the only beings on this earth to "mate" for life and to do so in a monogamous relationship. Most animals that mate for life do so in groups (lions for example), so the people that practice polygamy would have an example of why it is natural to mate with multiple people, why it is natural to have more than one wife. IF they didn't have justifications for their actions they wouldn't do them.
HLG mom, like bobbie said people with those other behaviors also don't feel like it is a choice. There have been studies done that seriel killers have a genetic link and cannot control or suppress the desire to kill. I have heard pedifiles say that their desires for young people were so strong they can't not commit acts. On more than one 20/20 dateline show they have had convicted people with both offenses saying to keep them locked up, because there is no way they wouldn't harm again. I had comparing violent acts to homosexuality, because they are different, homosexuality is mostly between consenting adults. But the argument is the same for me. I don't feel like it is a choice, but I don't feel like it should be acceptable in society. I do feel like it harms society, from a science point of view, to be successful you keep your genes in the gene pool, being homosexual does not allow for that to happen. My children are not old enough to state if they are gay or not. But my 12 year old already comes home and talks about how it is the "in thing" to be a lesbian and how she knows girls who pretend to be. When I look at the homosexual people I know, some of them have made that choice, others have had a bad sexual experience with an opposite sex member, others have been molested by an older same sex person. I think we have several types of homosexuals, some who are just born that way, but many others who are "made" that way by circumstances in their lives. I know that is controversial, but our challenges in life make who we are and I believe there are people who are made homosexual by their circumstances.
I don't like cussing in movies, swingers and polygamy also. Maybe I don't like homosexuality either. Does that change what my daughter is??? *EDITED* For those of you that are so strongly against homosexuality, I don't think your children would tell you in a million years if they were gay!
I have had many a heated debate with K about homosexuality. I have my lines also. But ultimately, she is what she is and I accept that. It been her since she was born, whether you believe it or not. I cannot seperate it from her. She is not a sin or an abomination. I don't think she should have to suffer in silence. She doesn't HAVE a "calling", shouldn't HAVE to be celibate! Just so you know, she is though. She's never had a sexual experience with ANYONE. WHat I care about is that she has good morals and is a productive member of society. And she can do that and be GAY too.
You don't have to accept it, I don't have to accept it, its still not going away. I don't want the lines of society pushed. I don't want my kids exposed to bad things either. Pretending homosexulaity doesn't exhist still wouldn't make it go away. As for those heterosexual old white men that run the country, we don't know what they do behind closed doors, do we? Or maybe sometimes we do?
How many of you had sex before marriage? How many of you have inter-racial marriages? How many of you are cheating or have spouses that have cheated? How many of you pick and choose from moral resources what you need to condemn one thing while so blatantly ignoring others? I think so many peolpe are soooo hypocritical and judge way too quickly. How many of you overindulge yourselves or your children?
I am not trying to push anyone's acceptance of anything by the way. I don't care if you accept or not. Its a reality. Its not going away. I just wish people would focus more on themselves, if that makes any sense.
I don't think you could emabrace your child and not the homosexuality. They are one and the same. It would be a part of your child, not all of who they are, but I think it falls under unconditional love! I don't think that homosexuality and sex outside of marriage can really be compared. Being gay is not some random choice but rather a part of life.
I agree with that statement 100%
Pamt, your son would probably never in a million years tell you if he was gay!
Kim, you asked for answers to your question and that's what I gave you. I made no judgment on your relationship with your children and I would appreciate the same consideration. This is a debate, not a forum for personal attacks and presumptions. Obviously this issue strikes a personal chord with you, so you may not at the present time be able to debate with some level of objectivism, but I don't think derogatory personal comments are acceptable regardless.
Kim I think the point of this debate is someone asked a question and people are explaining their viewpoints and why they feel how they do. You have done that. I have done that, etc. When asked I will certainly explain how I feel and why, is it right, well, at this point in time it is right for me. We have these debates because it expands our minds. For some of us we hear things we haven't heard before and it causes us to think, and if we let it, we will grow from it.
I don't know how I will react if one of my children is gay. I will cross that bridge when we get to it. What I do know is that I often talk about what we feel is right and wrong, we try to live that way, but we also talk about how I personally fall short. No one gets into Christ family because we deserve it or earned it, no one is good enough, it is all because of grace. I try to extend that grace to my children when the break my rules, I also try to point them in the right direction. At some point I lose that teaching time. But grace is what is talked about in my home. We don't put down so and so and talk about so and so (at least we try not to). But my kids do often ask about oh they say this and what do I think about it. I tell them, I often give Biblically references to them, because that is typically why I feel like i do. Other times I will say, I am not sure why, but it makes me feel icky. Like Harry Potter, not a fan here. Long story, but it gives me the heebies. I tell my kids how I feel, and they are free to make their own choices, one has read the books, one has seen a movie. But I don't blanket parent my kids. Very simply I don't think the world or the Bible for that matter is as black and white as it can be made out to be. God treats us as individuals and extends grace and we are expected to do the same.
I think this can be explained better by this analogy. Most of us believe the top 10, murder is bad, shouldn't do it, right? It is a sin, right? So someone breaks into your house, threating to kill your child, how many of us shoot? Is that a sin, yep, WWJD, who knows really. What about in war? My dad who is a devout Baptist, deacon, very Christian. Says many time in battle he could see the whites of someone's eyes when he killed them. It is something he struggles with. But he also knows it was them or him each time. The Bible also says to honor your country. Did he sin, yep. Good thing there is grace. I embrace my dad, and accept what he has done, there is no seperating it, it was just part of his life. Yet he is a sinner, just like me.
My long winded post is, we are all going to parent differently. But we all have the same intentions, to pass down morals and values and to have them come in a package that makes sense. For my family we are Biblically based, we don't look out onto others and bash their choices, but when other choices conflict with ours I do explain why MY choice is what it is. Will one of my children be gay, who knows? Will they come to me? I think so, because we live in an honest, but loving home. They come to me when they break something and know they will be punished. They currently tell me when she gets isolated lunch, when there is no punishment from me, but she knows I disapprove of her behavior.
We all pass judgment on others, but it is still wrong to do so. Good thing there is grace
Very well said Kaye and I am in total agreement. Also, I have just restated the same thing several times, this thread is getting too long, and this is my last post on the subject...period. I will continue to follow this thread though if any other posts should be made.
I don't know how to explain that Pamt. I didn't mean it to be derogatory? But I guess there is no other way it could be taken? Does that make sense? I don't think you parent wrong or you are a bad person or anything. I think you are a great person. I have always enjoyed you on the boards.
You are right I guess.
I guess I was thinking that if you (or anyone)are so dead set against something I think your child would be scared to tell you fearing ultimate rejection. I am an accepting person and my dd was afraid to tell me. For years. Even knowing I am accepting person. And she ultimately thought I would throw her out like a piece of garbage.
I am very sorry. I am bad on the debate board. Its hard for me to express myself in a sufficient way sometimes. I didn't mean to single you out personally. I hope you accept my apology.
Kim, my brother was gay, but unlike your daughter, he did not feel he could approach my parents with the truth. The years he lived at home were filled with such messages; Change and we will accept you. Become what "we" want you to be, and we will embrace you. Disguise who you really are, and keep your secret to yourself. My parents ridiculed him for the way he dressed, the way he laughed, his mannerisms, his interest in female activities. My parents are and were very self righteous, religious people who worried a great deal about what others thought. It's little wonder to me he left home just days after graduation from high school. He entered the military and cut all ties with the family. Then, at age 28, he ended his own life.
It saddens me greatly to think how different his life may have been, if, from the start he was accepted for who he was. He was extremely talented, and had tremendous empathy for others. Instead he suffered from low self-esteem and often shared with me his feelings of self-loathing and his desire to please my parents.
I agree wholeheartedly with the statement, "I don't think you can embrace your child and not the homosexuality." It would be like saying to my daughter, "I love you, but not who you are."
I agree we learn much from threads like this one. I applaud the fact it is so very long, because this tells me we aren't going to settle for biases. We have evolved, and we are using the minds God gave us to think. And think hard. Because this is a topic worthy of extensive debate.
And I have also learned I have had a bias of my own, thanks to some of you. I have made the error of generalizing all religions as opposing gay individuals. I am grateful to be enlightend, and learn that some religions are making some wonderful progress in the acceptance of homosexuality. I'm still not eager to jump back into the world of organized religion, but for the sake of our society and the gay people who I consider my brothers and sisters, I am excited and hopeful.
The night my brother passed away my father stood in our living room and stated, "It's as if he never belonged here in the first place." Nothing, absolutely nothing in this debate has swayed me to believe that gay individuals deserve to feel like their feelings are sinful. Nothing has led me to feel they should change. If anything, I feel stronger about my opinions and beliefs. I believe God talks to us through our hearts and souls. That is where I search and find my answers.
Kim, I applaud you, and your acceptance of your daughter. I know it may not have been easy to reply to this thread, but I have learned a lot from you, too. I thank you.
Nicki, I don't know whether you feel you need some religious "belonging" in your life, but I can tell you definitely that there are some mainstream denominations which are, to a greater or lesser extent, accepting of homosexuality. The Episcopal Church, for one, has ordained an openly homosexual bishop (who also happens to be in treatment for alcoholism right now, but that's a different issue). While my own United Methodist Church has recently ruled very strongly in removing her ordination from Beth Stroud, I can tell you that my specific church, and nearly 200 United Methodist Churches across the country have taken an official stance in opposition to the denomination's position. I believe that if Beth had chosen to leave the UMC and go to the United Church of Christ, they would have ordained her, and this denomination has passed an official resolution supporting same-sex marriage. I know that just by looking in Philadelphia's Gay News weekly newspaper, I can see dozens of churches and synagogues listing themselves as being open to gay and lesbian members. If you are interested, here is a web page that links to discussions of various denominations' positions on homosexuality, the ordination of homosexuals, and same-sex marriage.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chur2.htm
Nicki, I am so sorry for you and for your brother - and for your parents. And I agree with what you say - if a child knows that his/her family strongly disapproves of homosexuality and believes it a sin (or acting on it a sin), that child is not very likely to go to the parents when s/he comes to the realization that s/he is homosexual.
On another note, as I have said, I have a very personal interest in this subject, because my oldest son is gay. I am very pleased with the general tone of all of the posts on this thread, and I want to applaud and thank all of you for the care and courtesy you have shown in this debate.
Kim, I just wanted to say that I am very proud of you for sharing your truths with the group. I think you are a wonderful mom and a wonderful person... K is very lucky you came into her life (you are also very lucky she came into yours), I just hope that after all these years and all the pain you both have been through that she finally sees it.. 
By the way, I am not homophobic (just in case you thought I was because of my above post). I can honestly say that I do not want to know what my children do in their "bedrooms" any more than I want them to know what I do in mine.. Gay, straight or otherwise that is their business.. Thus, if my child came to me and told me they were gay I wouldn't have an issues with it. I have chosen to not choose the lives my children lead. I really would not take it as a personal issue because I know I can only do so much in my rearing and the rest is up to them and fate/God.. My God is a loving God and I couldn't even begin to think that he will judge one mans sins as more sever than another's (I am referring to sins that are based off of loving another person, not as in seeing lying as equal to murder sins) .. I could list off examples of why I know I wouldn't be shook by something as minor (truly in the big scheme of life, this truly is minor) as their sexual preference but I won't go into all that.. other than to say, I have been raised around "Gay" people my whole life.. My parents are not homo phobic, I truly didn't know there was an issue with people being gay until I was in my teens and in turn my children are not homo phobic. I am also not impressed by social status or financial standings, by the way. I see people as people.. Some are meant to be doctors and others are meant to pump gas.. I don't care what you are or what you do in life.. I base my acceptance on who you are and how you treat me.
But my feelings don't change the facts. African Americans are still seen by the stereo types that were set as socially acceptable centuries ago.. They were given rights that are not enforced because it doesn't have political value.. Because in spite of the successes of the few (Oprah etc) they as a group are still repressed/oppressed. The oppression/repression in our society reaches far and wide.. Has and always will.. And like it or not homosexuals will not be given equal rights because a bill passes in congress that says that we should. There are too many divisions in our society, to many people see their ways as the right and only way.. Differences scare people.. These are historical truths.. Way back to the "founding" (Ha!) of the United states.. The American Indians, the Salem witch trials, the war we fight in Iraq on this very day.. Repression and oppression.. It all boils down to fear of the unknown.. But those truths won't be changed.. Not when the social stigmas still hold true with the other groups that are oppressed and judged based on things they themselves can't change... A black man didn't choose to be black, a woman didn't choose to be a woman, and a gay man may not choose to be gay.. But one stigma won't be changed when the others still hold value in our society.
|
Members
