[ebuddy]

I struggle with this issue, I really do. I'm about the most open person you'll ever meet. I was raised by women and am very comfortable with my heterosexuality while still very much in touch with my emotions, design, tastes, and the needs of a woman. In fact, have often been thought by others to be a closet gay. Now, I'm assumed to be "metrosexual" . My problem is I actually appreciated women too much and almost trashed my marriage over it.

I want everyone to enjoy rights and freedoms granted by our Creator and facilitated by our government within reason. Homosexuality is an act I do not understand. I'll openly admit (and do not take this the wrong way people) that I do not understand what man would find desirable in another man. I know and am close with several gays and haven't really had the kohonas to ask them outright when/how they realised they were gay. I know that an overwhelming majority of them had severe problems during upbringing. Abuse, both verbal, sexual, and physical and neglect. I know that each of us mentally internalizes child trauma in unique ways and many of us have been through similar circumstances yet did not engage homosexuality. I personally believe something snaps and roles and desires get reversed. A boy will generally try to gain favor first with his mother, then his father. Often times roles are skewed in many families for various reasons and this sends the child off in the wrong direction. Yes, the wrong direction. How as an open-minded person can I say this and sleep at night?

Let me qualify; All of the gays I've talked to did not want to be gay out of the gate. They wanted to be like everyone else. One of them had been married several years with a child before coming out. Understandably devastating to his wife and child. Another in particular went through eight years of counciling with a shrink. He REALLY did not want to be gay. The shrink eventually convinced him that he should openly embrace his homosexuality and this person while admittedly still struggles, seems to be happier with it. For very specific reasons; our field of medicine has not aggressively pursued answers to the questions. This has been a matter generally left up to psychologists when I believe it should be handled by those more knowledgeable of brain stimuli. i.e. doctors. In short, I don't believe people have to be homosexual. I believe it is something that can be cured. Having said that; I want to further qualify that current attempts to "change" homosexual behavior have been drastically unsuccessful and have led to hermits and suicidals. We're not there yet, but I believe a healthy dose of God (and not what man has done with Him mind you) and sound science are in order. Don't get me wrong, I want people to be happy, but I'm not entirely sold on legislating to a minority due solely on an abnormal sexual behavior pattern. Before you bash me, Homosexuality is simply not normal IMHO and my mind will not be changed on that. It doesn't turn my stomache. It doesn't make me hate the individual, it doesn't make me not want to talk to them, be with them, console them, hug them, love them, etc...and many of the gays I know openly admit it's not normal. What they are embracing is the idea that this is simply the chemicals they've been "given" since birth and have to live with and still maintain happiness. I don't discuss this stuff with them because it appears judgemental. I really am not qualified to judge them. I did not create them. What I can influence is the affect they may have on society via legislation. I am not prejudice. I'm simply concerned.

Lastly, we all fall short of Jesus' teachings. We all fall short of the Kingdom. It is only by God's grace through his son's actions on the cross that affords us the opportunity to go to Heaven. The wage of ONE sin is death. To ALL HOMOSEXUALS; do not be alienated from attending church based on your misgivings of the Biblical principles on homosexuality. If the church you are attending attempts to judge you and alienate you from it's service they do not fear God and should not enjoy your tithes anyway! Too many Christians forget this when they attempt to persecute another for their lifestyles. Biblically, thoughts are the same as actions with regard to sin and the wages of it are not exclusive to the sin in question! So, it may be better for a man to remain abstinate than to lie down with another man. So it would also be better for me to goudge out my eyes when viewing the petite blonde jogging down the street and the ensuing thoughts of extra-marrital bliss. We will all be judged as brothers. His sin is not worse than mine. My sin is not somehow more acceptable than someone elses. We all have sin. We all deserve death. Thank God we've been given the opportunity to LIVE if we so choose.

[GRAFF]

Thanks, ebuddy, for sharing this with us. It is refreshing to hear someone honestly say they do not agree with a person's lifestyle without condemning them at the same time.

I think you will find that most gay men have gone through a stage of not wanting to be gay, because everything and everyone around you says that you should be straight, get married, have children, (and lust after busty blond women who do odd dances with fire-poles). But as soon as you find out that there are millions of people out there who have the same orientation, you begin to care less and less what the "majority" thinks. (Some people, of course, are capable of attaining this attitude without being gay, but it seems to take longer.)

I have no religious affiliations or beliefs, but that Jesus fellow did have a good idea about loving thy neighbour and not judging others lest ye be judged yourself. Unfortunately, the image portrayed by the average American Christian today seems to be one of hate and condemnation. Their God is one of vengeance and retribution (very old Testament). I already have a boss who provides me with this.

That lust you feel for a "pretty blond" is no different than the lust a gay man feels for a "handsome blond". Don't get yourself into a Jimmy Carter style guilt trip for having natural urges. It goes with having testosterone. You can feel proud that you are the master of these urges and not cheat on your wife, but the fact that you have them is completely normal. This is where Christian teaching really screws people up (IMHO).

Anyway, talk with your gay friend about this. Men always enjoy talking about sex. They will appreciate your honest curiosity and they will certainly learn something from your viewpoint as well.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Let me qualify; All of the gays I've talked to did not want to be gay out of the gate. They wanted to be like everyone else. One of them had been married several years with a child before coming out. Understandably devastating to his wife and child. Another in particular went through eight years of counciling with a shrink. He REALLY did not want to be gay. The shrink eventually convinced him that he should openly embrace his homosexuality and this person while admittedly still struggles, seems to be happier with it. For very specific reasons; our field of medicine has not aggressively pursued answers to the questions. This has been a matter generally left up to psychologists when I believe it should be handled by those more knowledgeable of brain stimuli. i.e. doctors. In short, I don't believe people have to be homosexual. I believe it is something that can be cured . . .

Wow. The guy's not doing anyone any harm (the only apparent harm having stemmed from his pretending that he was straight), he's happier being who he really is, and you're still determined to "cure" him. That's some pretty disturbed thinking, IMHO.

You sound like a compassionate person, so I'm not trying to insult you, but I do think you should re-examine your priorities.

[fireside]

Originally posted by netgear:
It could but why change it?

well why did we let women vote? why did we stop slavery? why did we stop segregation?

because its the just thing to do.

why should we let other people have a right and not let someone else have the same right? are wel all not constitutionally bound to be able to live the life we want to live? how would YOU like it if someone said that you couldn't get married over something as trivial as your skin color? or your hair color? or how about you weren't allowed to talk in public because of your haircolor? its not just, its not fair.

[ebuddy]

Hey, differing opinions Zig. I sit and wonder how many would absolutely claw at the opportunity to be heterosexual. I listen to what one friend said in particular about his eight year stint with a psychologist to get "straightened out." I wonder how much better for him had he been able to be heterosexual. Which, as you may have forgotten was what he wanted to be so badly that he ended up trying to live a lie and really screwed up two other people's lives. One could say that your lack of compassion is disturbing. I know you better than that though Zig so that wouldn't be me saying it.

[fireside]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Hey, differing opinions Zig. I sit and wonder how many would absolutely claw at the opportunity to be heterosexual. I listen to what one friend said in particular about his eight year stint with a psychologist to get "straightened out." I wonder how much better for him had he been able to be heterosexual. Which, as you may have forgotten was what he wanted to be so badly that he ended up trying to live a lie and really screwed up two other people's lives. One could say that your lack of compassion is disturbing. I know you better than that though Zig so that wouldn't be me saying it.

of course he doesn't want to be gay. its just like no one wanted to be born a black person during the 50s and 60s. being gay has horrible, HORRIBLE connotations these days, so it makes sense that this man didn't want to admit to himself that he was gay because he would feel inferior, because of the social perception of gay people. i remember reading something where that after awhile, black people actually started to feel inferior for something they had no control of, because of the social connotations of being black. you can choose to be gay no more than you can choose to be black.

now before you tell me that being gay is a "psychological," please explain to me that if it is a psychological thing, how animals in nature have been observed to also be gay. we're talking about animals that don't have the same advanced thinking as us humans, and they're just as gay as some humans are.

[ebuddy]

Look fireside, before you get all fired up. I'm not representing my point well obviously.

First of all, I've seen dogs pump around at air brother. Many a wildcat's stimuli over prey has led to the feeding on one's own kittens. Do not presume to put homosexual humans in the same category as animals in any manner. When an animal encounters stimuli over the sight of prey, the animal's "hunter" instinct kicks in. If it drives too hard and over-stimulates the animal, it's behavioral outcome will engage whichever opportunity is most available to it. Humans approach it's stimuli intellectually. One cannot argue that this behavior is rare among animals and has been scientifically viewed and documented as "abnormal." It only follows that society in general would consider this behavior abnormal among it's own. Now, the choices we make regarding our treatment of this issue has been most disappointing. As a child I've even engaged laughing about it. It's actually quite a difficult issue for those having to deal directly with it. I'm glad I'm able to see that now.

While we're immersed in political correctness; it may help you to know that a significant number of African-Americans do not appreciate your comparison. You may want to take into consideration the level of political clout and socio-economic status the homosexuals enjoy in this country before you attempt to draw comparisons between the two cultures.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
While we're immersed in political correctness; it may help you to know that a significant number of African-Americans do not appreciate your comparison. You may want to take into consideration the level of political clout and socio-economic status the homosexuals enjoy in this country before you attempt to draw comparisons between the two cultures.

Fireside's point was that it's not being homosexual that traumatizes people like your friend - it's the stigma of being homosexual. Your attitude and proposed "cure" only serves to reinforce that stigma. Our approach would be to end that cycle and respect them for what God (or nature, as the case may be) made them.

The analogy to being African-American in this country is apt, not because African-Americans are gay or are like gays, but because both groups have suffered from stigmatization and marginalization. Unfortunately, despite their own experiences, African-Americans are human and are also capable of prejudice.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Fireside's point was that it's not being homosexual that traumatizes people like your friend - it's the stigma of being homosexual. Your attitude and proposed "cure" only serves to reinforce that stigma. Our approach would be to end that cycle and respect them for what God (or nature, as the case may be) made them.

The analogy to being African-American in this country is apt, not because African-Americans are gay or are like gays, but because both groups have suffered from stigmatization and marginalization. Unfortunately, despite their own experiences, African-Americans are human and are also capable of prejudice.

Very, very, well said.

Just to add also that my experience is that gay African Americans often seem to go through a particularly hard time. They get so overlooked because people forget that gay people come in all colors. because of this, there is a real tendency for them to get whipsawed between majority racism (yes, gays are also human and can also be prejudiced) and homophobia in the black community. It's a double whammy.

Of course, that's not unique to gay African Americans. Other culturally conservative minority communities produce the same dynamic. I've had gay Moslem friends with similar issues. But my experience is they don't tend to suffer the same degree of alienation from the majority-white gay community. But they do run up against the same family issues. But of course, the real possibility of being rejected by your family is something all gays and lesbians face. That's one area of discrimination that gays suffer that other minorities do not. Nobody has to come out to their parents as black and risk being rejected for it.

[ebuddy]

ireside's point was that it's not being homosexual that traumatizes people like your friend - it's the stigma of being homosexual. Your attitude and proposed "cure" only serves to reinforce that stigma. Our approach would be to end that cycle and respect them for what God (or nature, as the case may be) made them.

Conversely, it's precisely this thinking that hinders medical research from ever gaining ground in this arena. It is not generally "arguable" that one is born with pigment necessary to have brown skin. It is debateable whether or not sexual behavior can be altered. Irish people BTW were also persecuted in America and thought to be "inferior". This means absolutely nothing and the comparisons I'm afraid fall upon deaf ears. While we're at it, we can talk about ugly women, fat people, zits, etc...none of these are sufficient arguments. I would ask that you not knee-jerk in debates over one word "cure". I know that rubs you the wrong way, there's just no other way to express the word.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Fireside's point was that it's not being homosexual that traumatizes people like your friend - it's the stigma of being homosexual. Your attitude and proposed "cure" only serves to reinforce that stigma. Our approach would be to end that cycle and respect them for what God (or nature, as the case may be) made them.

The analogy to being African-American in this country is apt, not because African-Americans are gay or are like gays, but because both groups have suffered from stigmatization and marginalization. Unfortunately, despite their own experiences, African-Americans are human and are also capable of prejudice.

Utter BS.

I'm not saying that homosexuals or anyone else should be automatically worthy of scorn, but you're comparing a proven uncontrolable visual physical difference from a condition effecting a small portion of the population which causes them to desire to do things differently than most, which has moral implications.

If the standard should be that because someone was born with a predisposition to do something in a way that society frowns on (for whatever reason..morality...societal norms...normal codes of decency), then we should accept that and respect them because that's the way god made them, then the same is true logically for those who may be predisposed to violence... attraction to children... lying .... theft becauset they are afflicted in the same manner.

I'm not saying that being gay and being a child molestor are moral equivalents in any sense. Just that if "I was born that way" is a defense against discrimiation based on what you choose to do, then it logically follows that all uncontrollable desires could be caused by a genetic predisposition and should reasonably be given equal protection. Otherwise, you've got to go back and fall on moral judgements about which behaviors are bad and unacceptable, and to what degree. I think that most Americans already do this concerning homosexuality and the other situations, and that's why homosexuality will probably never be a constitutionally protected status.

[fireside]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Utter BS.

I'm not saying that homosexuals or anyone else should be automatically worthy of scorn, but you're comparing a proven uncontrolable visual physical difference from a condition effecting a small portion of the population which causes them to desire to do things differently than most, which has moral implications.

If the standard should be that because someone was born with a predisposition to do something in a way that society frowns on (for whatever reason..morality...societal norms...normal codes of decency), then we should accept that and respect them because that's the way god made them, then the same is true logically for those who may be predisposed to violence... attraction to children... lying .... theft becauset they are afflicted in the same manner.

I'm not saying that being gay and being a child molestor are moral equivalents in any sense. Just that if "I was born that way" is a defense against discrimiation based on what you choose to do, then it logically follows that all uncontrollable desires could be caused by a genetic predisposition and should reasonably be given equal protection. Otherwise, you've got to go back and fall on moral judgements about which behaviors are bad and unacceptable, and to what degree. I think that most Americans already do this concerning homosexuality and the other situations, and that's why homosexuality will probably never be a constitutionally protected status.

being a homosexual doesnt hurt anyone. being a violent person hurts someone, lying hurts so one, etc. being a gay person doesn't hurt someone.

and about these moral implications: is it moral to discriminate someone because of the way they think? i mean, lets even forget that being gay very well may be genetic, but is treating someone different just because of the way they think moral? do we treat people who like asian women differently than someone who likes blonds differently? why should we treat someone who likes their own sex differently? is that really moral? and whats not moral about being gay? is loving someone not moral?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Utter BS.

I'm not saying that homosexuals or anyone else should be automatically worthy of scorn, but you're comparing a proven uncontrolable visual physical difference from a condition effecting a small portion of the population which causes them to desire to do things differently than most, which has moral implications.

If the standard should be that because someone was born with a predisposition to do something in a way that society frowns on (for whatever reason..morality...societal norms...normal codes of decency), then we should accept that and respect them because that's the way god made them, then the same is true logically for those who may be predisposed to violence... attraction to children... lying .... theft becauset they are afflicted in the same manner.

I'm not saying that being gay and being a child molestor are moral equivalents in any sense. Just that if "I was born that way" is a defense against discrimiation based on what you choose to do, then it logically follows that all uncontrollable desires could be caused by a genetic predisposition and should reasonably be given equal protection. Otherwise, you've got to go back and fall on moral judgements about which behaviors are bad and unacceptable, and to what degree. I think that most Americans already do this concerning homosexuality and the other situations, and that's why homosexuality will probably never be a constitutionally protected status.

I'd be curious to know exactly which statement I made that constitutes utter BS. Nothing you've said refutes the fact that homosexuals, like African-Americans, have been stigmatized and marginalized in our culture, or that continuing to stigmatize them reinforces a cycle of shame and self-loathing.

Where we actually differ is on the "moral implications" and the "choice" issue. My guess is that you think homosexuality is a choice, and an immoral one at that. You're entitled to that opinion, but I think the evidence is to the contrary.

Your statement that "I was born that way" would by extension be a defense to all genetic predispositions is mistaken, because not all genetic predispositions are harmful. If I'm genetically predisposed to like long-legged blonde women and ice cream, there's no harm. I'm not aware of any evidence that homosexuality in and of itself has caused anyone any unique, direct harm. The problems that have been described are virtually all related to social stigmatization.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by fireside:
being a homosexual doesnt hurt anyone. being a violent person hurts someone, lying hurts so one, etc. being a gay person doesn't hurt someone.

and about these moral implications: is it moral to discriminate someone because of the way they think? i mean, lets even forget that being gay very well may be genetic, but is treating someone different just because of the way they think moral? do we treat people who like asian women differently than someone who likes blonds differently? why should we treat someone who likes their own sex differently? is that really moral? and whats not moral about being gay? is loving someone not moral?

This is ultimately what this conversatoin will always come back to.

It personally reminds me of the fact that Christians and Jews for many years killed those with mental and physical disorders feeling that they were cursed, and not chosen by god, among various reasons that changed through time. During the times of Jesus Leopards were in a similar place. To the high priests of the time, they were dammed according to most accounts.

And your right, we don't discriminate against people who like blondes, asians, fat, skinny, tall, short, older, curly haired, etc. They are all personal preferences.

It's also quite ironic how Christianity in some cases has gone as far as teaching to avoid sinners. When Jesus himself befriended sinners.

Jesus never once in his life according to the Bible treated a sinner differently because of their sins. He always judged them by the basis of their heart.

Yet Christianity often teaches the opposite.

He who cast the first stone?

Quite interesting how religions get distorted. Many Catholics today commonly think that Priests were never allowed to marry. When in fact it's somewhat "modern" of a rule (in terms of Church history). But now it's distorted and thought to be something very core to the teachings. When in fact there are very likely some men who would become priests and give their lives to serve others as a priest if they could also marry and have a family on the side. I've seen a few priests who became priests after their spouse passed away, most likely the better of the bunch. They understand a bit more about the family dynamic of life, since they live/lived it.

Strange how love and hate while seeming opposites are in fact so closely related.

[ebuddy]

Someone completely skipped over all of my statements then went on to blather about how Christianity is persecuting people, then Catholicism and priests marrying, etc... C'mon man, I didn't say homosexuality is evil brother. is not anything I'm saying sinking in? Look if you hate Christianity because of all the cumbersome rules and regulations simply don't adhere to it. There's no sense in continuously beating the dead horse of the travesties committed by alleged Christians who obviously didn't fear God or heed the teachings of Jesus. The Bible talks specifically about how Christians will disappoint more than most because more is expected of them. For every one killed by the injustices of the fool-hearty and greedy doing things in the name of Christianity, I can give you at least five that were saved mentally, physically, spiritually, and financially every day by someone praying for them and giving them aid. Hospitals, missionaries, open door missions, inner-city brotherhood programs, shelters, food pantries...Unless you're ready to acknowledge the fact that many great things came of those living Christianity, your statements will continue to fall on deaf ears. I notice no one is really responding to the Christian guy who doesn't persecute the homosexual. BTW, Jesus didn't hang out with leopards man. They surely would've thought him nuts.

In closing, please stop minimizing the plight of the African-American and the Jew by trying to force similarities in where they don't fit. The argument is tired and the cultures you site are not in favor of you exploiting them. Don't take my word for it, leave your gated community and talk to a few.

[fireside]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
In closing, please stop minimizing the plight of the African-American and the Jew by trying to force similarities in where they don't fit. The argument is tired and the cultures you site are not in favor of you exploiting them. Don't take my word for it, leave your gated community and talk to a few.

how does it not fit? it fits perfectly. 50 years ago, the African-Americans were struggling for their rights. they were being discriminated against, much like the homosexuals of today. in the 50s, there was a stigma that automatically if you were a black person, you were a bad, horrible person. much like there is today with homosexuals. in the 50s, blacks started to feel themselves that they were inferior to the white people, because they kept being downplayed, etc. just like the homosexual population of today. you know, if you keep on saying to someone that they're fat, after awhile, they'll start to feel overweight. it's a perfect analogy to the way gays are treated today.

im not trying to downplay African-Americans, im just speaking the truth.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by fireside:
how does it not fit? it fits perfectly. 50 years ago, the African-Americans were struggling for their rights. they were being discriminated against, much like the homosexuals of today. in the 50s, there was a stigma that automatically if you were a black person, you were a bad, horrible person. much like there is today with homosexuals. in the 50s, blacks started to feel themselves that they were inferior to the white people, because they kept being downplayed, etc. just like the homosexual population of today. you know, if you keep on saying to someone that they're fat, after awhile, they'll start to feel overweight. it's a perfect analogy to the way gays are treated today.

im not trying to downplay African-Americans, im just speaking the truth.

[ebuddy]

Really? Thumbs up MacVillage?

how does it not fit? it fits perfectly. 50 years ago, the African-Americans were struggling for their rights. they were being discriminated against, much like the homosexuals of today. in the 50s, there was a stigma that automatically if you were a black person, you were a bad, horrible person. much like there is today with homosexuals. in the 50s, blacks started to feel themselves that they were inferior to the white people, because they kept being downplayed, etc. just like the homosexual population of today. you know, if you keep on saying to someone that they're fat, after awhile, they'll start to feel overweight. it's a perfect analogy to the way gays are treated today.

Let's talk briefly about the differences shall we?

Homosexuals are "struggling" for the right to marry.

Blacks wanted a peaceful night's sleep and did not want to get beaten the next morning or sold in yet another slave auction because of the color of their skin. They were dragged from their homeland, separated from their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and country. Read up on the trip to America alone. Many did not make it.

Blacks wanted the right to home ownership and basic freedoms therein.

Blacks wanted to be able to sit where they wanted on a bus.

Use clean restrooms and water fountains.

They wanted to eat where they wanted to eat.

They wanted to live where they wanted to live.

They wanted to vote.

Blacks were persecuted (note the word; persecuted. they were more than shunned my friend) because of the color of their skin.

Homosexuals want to marry. note the period.

You cannot compare the plights of Jews and Blacks to that of the homosexual. The homosexual has enjoyed all the basic, ESSENTIAL freedoms endowed us by our Creator. The others did not. Do not minimize their plight.

Are there any other "comparisons" you'd like to debate?

[ebuddy]

Let me answer for you; uh...no.

You started off making comparisons between animals and homosexuals. I made you look foolish and exposed some potentially severe biggotry in you. You said nothing more on that I'm sure for obvious reasons, then attempted to compare the black man and the Jew's STRUGGLE for RIGHTS with the homosexual's struggle for dignity. Please formulate debate material that is more sophisticated than; "if you call someone fat, they'll begin to feel fat." The Black man and the Jew absolutely need to here sound reasoning for your comparisons.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Blacks wanted a peaceful night's sleep and did not want to get beaten the next morning or sold in yet another slave auction because of the color of their skin. They were dragged from their homeland, separated from their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and country. Read up on the trip to America alone. Many did not make it.

Not many blacks were dragged from their homelands etc. in the 1950's (using the years from fireside's post) as far as I know. That happened generations earlier. I'm not saying it's irrelevant to the history of slavery, or that it doesn't bear on the fight black people have been through. But it doesn't bear on the fight black people had in the 1950's for getting equal marriage rights.

Blacks wanted the right to home ownership and basic freedoms therein.
Blacks wanted to be able to sit where they wanted on a bus.
Use clean restrooms and water fountains.
They wanted to eat where they wanted to eat.
They wanted to live where they wanted to live.
They wanted to vote.
Blacks were persecuted (note the word; persecuted. they were more than shunned my friend) because of the color of their skin.

You cannot compare the plights of Jews and Blacks to that of the homosexual. The homosexual has enjoyed all the basic, ESSENTIAL freedoms endowed us by our Creator. The others did not. Do not minimize their plight.

He wasn't comparing all of these to the present problems of homosexuals, he was only drawing a comparison between the marriage-related issues black people had in the 1950's when their marriage-related situation was similar to that which homosexuals are now in.

All the other fights you mentioned above are relevant and valuable in their own right, in their proper content, but they were not part of the comparison (as I understood it anyway). Just like the homosexuals being hauled into gas chambers and killed by the thousands in the 30's and 40's in Germany wasn't. Or the attempted curing of homosexuality by lobotomies for decades. These are all relevant and valuable in their proper context, but the comparison drawn was a direct one between homosexuals' present fight for marital rights, and the fight for marital rights that black people fought in the 50's; it wasn't a comparison between the fight for marital rights that homosexuals are currently fighting and the entire history of black people and slavery.

And by the way - although I haven't replied to it, your points and statements, I didn't skip over them either, I read them and although I disagree with many of them, I can see their logic and to be honest I wish more people who disagree with me would do it the way you do (I hope that made sense)...

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Blacks were persecuted (note the word; persecuted. they were more than shunned my friend) because of the color of their skin.

Homosexuals want to marry. note the period.

You cannot compare the plights of Jews and Blacks to that of the homosexual. The homosexual has enjoyed all the basic, ESSENTIAL freedoms endowed us by our Creator. The others did not. Do not minimize their plight.

Are there any other "comparisons" you'd like to debate?

Analogies are seldom if ever perfect. If that were necessary, we would never be able to draw them. No one is pretending that the oppression and struggles of gays as a group have been as acute as those of African-Americans as a group. The point is that in terms of the struggle to be accepted in this country, and in terms of the majority's attitudes, there are similarities among numerous groups, not just African-Americans. The Irish weren't enslaved but no one would argue that they didn't face some serious obstacles towards being accepted in America. African-Americans simply represent the most egregious example (although I've seen conservatives here argue that other groups suffered just as badly - go figure).

Despite your blanket denials, there are similarities. Gays have not been enslaved, but they have been routinely and even institutionally discriminated against, marginalized, etc. Consider Simey's acquaintances: they have won privileges and status as blacks that are still denied to them as gays.

Skin color is certainly a different parameter than sexual preference, but skin color wasn't the only basis for discrimination against blacks: there were and still are cultural differences that foster discrimination. Skin color wasn't the basis for discrimination against the Jews. So you've pretty much invalidated your own argument that one can't draw parallels between discrimination based on skin color and discrimination based on culture or behavior.

Again, the fact that there are dissimilarities doesn't mean that there aren't also similarities. In the opinion of many, the similarities are instructive.

[ebuddy]

Again, the fact that there are dissimilarities doesn't mean that there aren't also similarities. In the opinion of many, the similarities are instructive.

In the opinions of most, there are none. Do homosexuals worship in a way that is unique to other people? Do homosexuals have a skin color that is unique to other people? Do homosexuals come from a very specific region? Were they enslaved? Were they treated poorly by virtue of the above? Does absolutely anyone NEED to know the sexual preference of another person? In what case is this important? Did they struggle for BASIC human rights? No. In all things that truly matter, there are absolutely no similarities. They are heavily funded and have much political clout. The others in search of BASIC human rights did not have the above going for them.

Don't be so concerned about offending man that you lose all common sense Zig. Attempts at comparing these sects of people are a desperate attempt of bringing the plight of the homosexual to an equal plane with the aforementioned. It is an alarm tactic and again, will fall upon deaf ears. Continue to pursue that line of comparison Zig and you will find that it is only detrimental to your cause here.

[ebuddy]

BTW, how do we legislate against the marginalization of another?

Should I walk into an employment office and say; "ATTENTION EVERYONE, I'M A HETEROSEXUAL AND THEREFORE AM QUALIFIED FOR A JOB!".

What am I in denial of? Please avoid sweeping generalizations, you should know who I am by now.

[GRAFF]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
"ATTENTION EVERYONE, I'M A HETEROSEXUAL AND THEREFORE AM QUALIFIED FOR A JOB!".

Now that you have our attention, could you please answer this simple question. What do you personally stand to lose if gays are allowed to marry?

[fireside]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Let me answer for you; uh...no.

You started off making comparisons between animals and homosexuals. I made you look foolish and exposed some potentially severe biggotry in you. You said nothing more on that I'm sure for obvious reasons, then attempted to compare the black man and the Jew's STRUGGLE for RIGHTS with the homosexual's struggle for dignity. Please formulate debate material that is more sophisticated than; "if you call someone fat, they'll begin to feel fat." The Black man and the Jew absolutely need to here sound reasoning for your comparisons.

what are you talking about? i wasn't saying that homosexuals are like animals, i was just stating a that not only humans are homosexual. there was a good article on salon.com awhile ago about it.

and i wasn't attempting to compare the plights of African-Americans to homosexuals. i was attempting to compare the stigma of being an African-American in the 50s and 60s is the like the stigma of being a homosexual today. obviously, i didn't make myself clear enough. the stigma of being gay is comparable to the stigma of being an African-American in the 50s. again, i was attempting to compare the stigmas, not their right fights.

[fireside]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
In the opinions of most, there are none. Do homosexuals worship in a way that is unique to other people? Do homosexuals have a skin color that is unique to other people? Do homosexuals come from a very specific region? Were they enslaved? Were they treated poorly by virtue of the above? Does absolutely anyone NEED to know the sexual preference of another person? In what case is this important?

this is my point. even IF (and thats a big if) being a homosexual was just a choice, should we discriminate against someone purely for their choice of thinking and acting? should we act like Mao and kill people for thinking differently than him? we have no basis for discriminating someone against the way they decide to act in their own life. we don't discriminate against people for liking rap? do we not let them marry? do we find that a basis of giving them a job or not? NO. so why should we do the same for people who happen to be gay?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
In the opinions of most, there are none. Do homosexuals worship in a way that is unique to other people? Do homosexuals have a skin color that is unique to other people? Do homosexuals come from a very specific region? Were they enslaved? Were they treated poorly by virtue of the above?

No, but who said those are the only criteria by which people can be mistreated?

Does absolutely anyone NEED to know the sexual preference of another person? In what case is this important?

I don't know - you tell me. Perhaps if you answered you own question we wouldn't need to have this debate. I think that unless they can demonstrate some palpable harm, people should mind their own business. I'm glad you agree.

Did they struggle for BASIC human rights? No. In all things that truly matter, there are absolutely no similarities. They are heavily funded and have much political clout. The others in search of BASIC human rights did not have the above going for them.

Well, according to you they're the only things that "truly matter." Apparently, quite a few people think it truly matters that they have access to the same legal rights and benefits that attach to married but non-procreating heterosexual couples, among other things. It'll be up to the courts to decide whether, in the context of civil marriage, discrimination based on gender is any more valid than discrimination based on race.

But we're starting to get questions of law mixed up with personal beliefs. I'm still trying to figure out why, absent any palpable harm, sexual preference is anyone's business, including yours.

Don't be so concerned about offending man that you lose all common sense Zig. Attempts at comparing these sects of people are a desperate attempt of bringing the plight of the homosexual to an equal plane with the aforementioned. It is an alarm tactic and again, will fall upon deaf ears. Continue to pursue that line of comparison Zig and you will find that it is only detrimental to your cause here.

Noted.

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
... I know that an overwhelming majority of them had severe problems during upbringing. Abuse, both verbal, sexual, and physical and neglect. I know that each of us mentally internalizes child trauma in unique ways and many of us have been through similar circumstances yet did not engage homosexuality. I personally believe something snaps and roles and desires get reversed...

Let me respond to a few points here.
First of all, I wasn't abused or mistreated as a young child (later on is different, but that was after I knew I was gay). My brothers and sister are all straight, and we all grew up in the same environment.

As for the "something snaps" part, I've known I was gay since I was 6 years old. Not the typical "I knew I was different" you usually hear, I knew I was gay and wanted to be with guys. So if anything happened to make me gay, it would have had to happen very early. There is nothing in my background from birth to age 6 that was unusual or would have made me different. There is no environmental or developmental condition present to explain why I am gay, and my siblings are not.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Let me qualify; All of the gays I've talked to did not want to be gay out of the gate. They wanted to be like everyone else. One of them had been married several years with a child before coming out. Understandably devastating to his wife and child. Another in particular went through eight years of counciling with a shrink. He REALLY did not want to be gay. The shrink eventually convinced him that he should openly embrace his homosexuality and this person while admittedly still struggles, seems to be happier with it...

Like most people, I hid being gay until just a little while ago. Being Gay is not very socially acceptible. Great progress has been made recently, which is wonderful, but it's still a simple fact that there are people in this world who would beat and kill me just because I'm gay. In the face of this, natually, most gay people hide it.

The difference is this: I LIKE being gay. I'm glad I'm gay. I've always liked being gay. I enjoy being gay just as much as any straight man enjoys being straight.

I've never liked hiding myself from my family and straight friends. Now that I am out to everyone, I am so much happier because I can share all the great things in my life with them. They can finally see how happy I am. I never hid it because I was ashamed of it, I hid it because I was worried how they would react. Once I overcame that fear and came out our relationships improved dramatically.

Getting around to the point of this thread, Gay Marriage, I do want to get married some day, and I would certainly like to have the legal protections that go along with that.

What annoys me about the whole debate is that marriage is 2 things: A legal status. A religious ideal.

There is no legal basis to keep me from marrying. There is religious objection to it.
The thing that pisses me off, is that the seperation between church and state seems to have gone missing when it comes to this issue. Religious institutions have no place dictating new laws any more than the legislature has a place dictating the inner workings and beliefs or a religion.

Why then are so many religious organizations pressusing lawmakers to pass bills that will make so there is a legal basis to prevent me from marrying the person I choose?

It very well may happen that gays and lesbians will be enshrined in the constitution as second class citizens. Fine, but if you want to make me a half-citizen, just put a box on my 1040 form that I can check to indicate that I am a gay half-citizen, and as such am only subject to half the taxes as full citizens.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:
First of all, I wasn't abused or mistreated as a young child (later on is different, but that was after I knew I was gay). My brothers and sister are all straight, and we all grew up in the same environment.

As for the "something snaps" part, I've known I was gay since I was 6 years old. Not the typical "I knew I was different" you usually hear, I knew I was gay and wanted to be with guys. So if anything happened to make me gay, it would have had to happen very early. There is nothing in my background from birth to age 6 that was unusual or would have made me different. There is no environmental or developmental condition present to explain why I am gay, and my siblings are not.

Apart from the fact that I have no siblings, that goes for me too. I had a very happy childhood, I would say, I was never molested or abused or anything like that. Yet I also knew I was gay very early (I know I knew it when I was 5).

The difference is this: I LIKE being gay. I'm glad I'm gay. I've always liked being gay. I enjoy being gay just as much as any straight man enjoys being straight.

's all about the feelgood

It very well may happen that gays and lesbians will be enshrined in the constitution as second class citizens. Fine, but if you want to make me a half-citizen, just put a box on my 1040 form that I can check to indicate that I am a gay half-citizen, and as such am only subject to half the taxes as full citizens.

Hehe. Get me one o' those as well, eh?

[ebuddy]

Wow, all I can say is you guys were awfully in touch with your sexuality by kindergarten. I don't remember thinking I was gay, straight, wanted to be with guys and/or girls at all at that age. Hmmm. Very interesting.

Are you claiming that you've never been aroused by the opposite sex?

Did you only switch once, or did you go from straight to gay to straight then back to gay?

Is that behavior also genetic?

Freud's thoughts

The key here is the patient must as always, be willing to think "out of the box" and work toward change. BTW, it is disingenuous to claim that something is awry @ birth because you are gay and your brothers and sisters in the same household are straight. This is not a sufficient "test/control" for several reasons. Stimuli affects differing brains in differing manners. You and your brothers are probably very different in many respects not related to sexuality. How could this be? How could you be so different having been raised by the same parents?

The 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association to delete homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (the APA�s official list of disorders) was "not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times," according to Dr. Ronald Bayer in Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (New York: Basic Books, 1981, pp. 3-4). A 1977 survey conducted by the journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality reported that 69 percent of the 10,000 psychiatrists polled considered homosexuality a pathological adaptation.

For over 70 years, prominent medical and mental health professionals have been helping people who struggle with homosexuality to lose their same-sex attractions and recover heterosexual identities. Here are statements from just a few of them:

* "There is at present sufficient evidence that in a majority of cases homosexuality can be successfully treated by psychoanalysis."

Charles W. Socarides, M.D., Homosexuality (New York: Jason Aronson, 1978), p. 3. Positions held include clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. In 1995, he received the Distinguished Professor Award from the Association of Psychoanalytic Psychologists, British Health Service. He is the current president of National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (N.A.R.T.H.).

* Masters and Johnson reported a 71.6 percent success rate for patients leaving homosexuality after a follow-up of six years.

William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, Homosexuality in Perspective (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1979), pp. 402 and 408. William H. Masters obtained his M.D. from the University of Rochester. Positions held: professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology for the School of Medicine of Washington University; director of the Reproductive Biological Research Foundation; and co-director and chairman of the board of the Masters and Johnson Institute. Virginia E. Johnson obtained her M.D. from the University of Missouri. Positions held: research director of the Reproductive Biological Research Foundation and co-director of the Masters and Johnson Institute.

* "The rate of recovery among the homosexuals treated in these groups is 49 percent."

Dr. Toby Bieber, "Group Therapy with Homosexuals," Comprehensive Group Psychotherapy, Harold I. Kaplan and Benjamin J. Saddock, eds. (Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Company, 1971), p. 532. Formerly a faculty member of New York Medical College, she is now on the group-therapy faculty of the Contemporary Center for Advanced Psychoanalytic Studies in New Jersey.

* "In nearly thirty years, I have successfully concluded analyses of one hundred homosexuals ... and have seen nearly five hundred cases in consultation. ... On the basis of the experience thus gathered, I make the positive statement that homosexuality has an excellent prognosis in psychiatric-psychoanalytic treatment of one to two years� duration, with a minimum of three appointments each week provided the patient really wishes to change."

* "And cure denotes not bisexuality, but real and unfaked heterosexuality."

* "The color of a person�s eyes cannot be changed therapeutically, but homosexuality can be changed by psychotherapy."

Dr. Edmund Bergler, Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life (New York: Collier Books, 1962), pp. 176, 79, 166. Graduated Vienna�s Medical School and served on staff at the Freud Clinic from 1927 to 1937.

* In 1950, Dr. Anna Freud "lectured in New York on the recent advances in treatment of homosexuals, stating that many of her patients lost their inversion as a result of analysis. This occurred even in those who had proclaimed their wish to remain homosexual when entering treatment, having started only to obtain relief from their homosexual symptoms."

Dr. Charles Socarides, "Homosexuality," American Handbook of Psychiatry, 2nd edition, Vol. 3 (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1974), p. 308. Dr. Anna Freud studied with her father, Sigmund Freud.

* "I do not believe that there is a basic genetic homosexual tendency in man. If this were true, the cured patient would still have his homosexual needs, which he does not."

Dr. Arthur Janov, The Primal Scream (New York: Dell Publishing Company, 1970), p. 328. Positions held: psychologist and psychiatric social worker at Los Angeles Children�s Hospital and consultant to California Narcotic Outpatient Program. Developed the Primal Scream program.

* "The myth that homosexuality is untreatable still has wide currency among the public at large and among homosexuals themselves. ... Although some gay liberationists argue that it would be preferable to help these persons accept their homosexuality, this writer is of the opinion that, if they wish to change, they deserve the opportunity to try, with all the help that psychiatry can give them. ..."

Dr. Judd Marmor, "Homosexuality and Sexual Orientation Disturbances," Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry II, 2nd edition, (Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company, 1975), p. 1519. Grad. Columbia University. Positions held: resident neurologist at Montefiore Hospital; president of the American Psychiatric Association; and president of American Academy of Psychoanalysis.

* "There is, nevertheless, continuing conviction among most, although not all, dynamically oriented psychiatrists in general and psychoanalysts in particular that homosexuality can and should be changed to heterosexuality."

Dr. Richard A. Isay, "Homosexuality and Psychiatry," Psychiatric News (February 7, 1992), p.3. Positions held: Clinical professor of psychiatry at Cornell Medical College and chair of the American Psychiatric Association Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues.

The problems my friends had was that they sought help in simply accepting their homosexuality, not to change it, or even try.

[ebuddy]

's all about the feelgood

Interesting statement here as well.

Don't forget that "separation of Church and State" or the "wall" as it's affectionately called, was a letter sent by Jefferson. It is not in the Constitution. You have an extremely broad interpretation of the Establishment clause. The Establishment clause was specifically concerned with the thought of a "Church of America" much like the "Church of England" scene they wanted to avoid. It has nothing to do with callous indifference to religion. Which reminds me, I hope you don't expect the State to require the Church to perform homosexual marriages. You know, separation and all. It will come up, trust me.

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Wow, all I can say is you guys were awfully in touch with your sexuality by kindergarten. I don't remember thinking I was gay, straight, wanted to be with guys and/or girls at all at that age. Hmmm. Very interesting.

Are you claiming that you've never been aroused by the opposite sex?

Did you only switch once, or did you go from straight to gay to straight then back to gay?

Is that behavior also genetic?

Freud's thoughts

Well, in my house, my mother was always very open and discussed all sorts of subjects. I knew what "gay" meant because my mom was always bitching about "Those goddamn faggots". (Hence the 20 following years of life in the closet.)

I've been with a girl. If by "Aroused" you mean erection, then yes. If by aroused you mean sexually attracted to the girl, then no. I had to imagine I was with a guy to even get off.

The girl was my first time, so by your critera I switched to gay, but not really. I knew I was gay when I was with the girl.

I know that a family setting isn't the best scientific setting or sample size to determine wether homosexuality is environmental, but until we raise dozens of children in a lab by robots, it's the only thing we have.
What I find interesting, though not leading to any definitive conclusion, is a study I read that found that if an identical twin was gay, then the other twin was far more likely to also be gay than fraternal twins where one brother was gay. Now theorectially, fraternal twins would share the same environmental conditions, but have different genetics. Identical twins share the same gentetics and the same environmental conditions. The sample size was too small to be sure of anything, but it's definately interesting.

As for the rest of your rather extensive comment, Freud is an idiot (and your link doesn't work).
I find the idea of being changed to straight both insulting and laughable. It's like me trying to convert you to being gay. How would you react if people tried to change your attractions. If there is a hot guy and a hot girl walking down the street I will not check out the girl any more than you will check out the guy. I like being gay, and it's an integral part of who I am.

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Which reminds me, I hope you don't expect the State to require the Church to perform homosexual marriages. You know, separation and all. It will come up, trust me.

No, I don't expect any religion that opposes gay marriage to be forced to perform the ceremony any more than I would expect an islamic church to perform a jewish wedding. It's just silly.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:
The difference is this: I LIKE being gay.

Don't worry - there's research underway to cure you of your happy condition. Meanwhile, don't rent Spartacus.

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Don't worry - there's research underway to cure you of your happy condition. Meanwhile, don't rent Spartacus.

That's OK, I've got my own counter-research going on. I will convert every living person, plant and animal on this planet to homosexuality though my amazing personal style and dancing ability.



Oh, gotta run. I'm late for my "Conversion and Recuitment Conspiracy" meeting down at the Gay Mafia headquarters. It should be interesting. The Loch Ness monster is going to be giving a speech saluting Elvis' recent achievements in the gay rights movements. Oh, and I want to play around with the lunar module used to fake the moon landings. The Mafia just bought it on eBay.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Interesting statement here as well.

Don't forget that "separation of Church and State" or the "wall" as it's affectionately called, was a letter sent by Jefferson. It is not in the Constitution. You have an extremely broad interpretation of the Establishment clause. The Establishment clause was specifically concerned with the thought of a "Church of America" much like the "Church of England" scene they wanted to avoid. It has nothing to do with callous indifference to religion. Which reminds me, I hope you don't expect the State to require the Church to perform homosexual marriages. You know, separation and all. It will come up, trust me.

Erm... was that all in response to the feelgood comment? 'Cause that was just joking...

[Oisín]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Wow, all I can say is you guys were awfully in touch with your sexuality by kindergarten. I don't remember thinking I was gay, straight, wanted to be with guys and/or girls at all at that age. Hmmm. Very interesting.

Well, I do... I suppose I was very early in forming a sexual identity. I can't say that at that time, I was sexually aroused by guys, but I knew what it meant to be sexually aroused by someone, and I knew that if I were ever going to be sexually aroused by anyone, it would have to be by a guy, just wouldn't make sense with a girl...

Are you claiming that you've never been aroused by the opposite sex?

Yes. Never.

Did you only switch once, or did you go from straight to gay to straight then back to gay?

I don't believe I ever switched even once, I believe I started out gay.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:
Oh, gotta run. I'm late for my "Conversion and Recuitment Conspiracy" meeting down at the Gay Mafia headquarters. It should be interesting. The Loch Ness monster is going to be giving a speech saluting Elvis' recent achievements in the gay rights movements. Oh, and I want to play around with the lunar module used to fake the moon landings. The Mafia just bought it on eBay.

Oh, DAMN!!! I forgot that!!!

Confucius wasn't too angry with me, was he? I mean, I know I promised I'd bring him those Dead Sea scrolls that prove that Jesus was gay... I'll give them to him next time, promise!!!

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
It's also quite ironic how Christianity in some cases has gone as far as teaching to avoid sinners. When Jesus himself befriended sinners.

But Jesus wasn't a Christian (thankfully).

[ebuddy]

Oisin, thank you for your honest replies. For the others who only seem to be able to jeer, I appreciate your humor, but the comments on Jesus being gay, and conversion meetings, etc...just does not help you make a point. Conversely, it makes you appear to hate Christians and Christianity. I was as clear as possible about my acceptance of homosexuality. I was clear that while I don't understand the behavior, I know much about it and have formulated a view based on my research. Acceptance does not mean that I am not allowed to have a view. In forums like this, my view was requested. Unless of course, you're not interested in topical debate. Most here are not I've found. It's unfortunate.

RazaRazor, something's wrong with your browser my friend. I was even able to link to the URL using your copy-paste of my statement. I also happen to agree that Freud was pretty "all over the place". This does not mean his life's work was in complete vain. However, it's for this reason that I continued to site at least six more examples of those with significant credentials. I believe homosexuality has been dragged into the political arena and any sense of it's mental nature and origination has become lost.

Regarding the twins studies; there are very few examples of twins raised in separate environments available for study, but the results of several such studies rendered 0% correlation. What does this mean? To me, it means environment is a significant factor in the manifestation of behavioral patterns. To some, it may mean the studies were skewed and the doctors pre-supposed too much. There is a pattern of family relationships that appears so often in the homosexual's family of origin that it is now considered a stereotype: a domineering mother and a passive or absent (either physically or emotionally) father.

RazaRazor; I'm sorry you had to endure your Mom "always" bitching about gays. You know, as screwed up as my folks were I can honestly tell you that I do not recall once, my own mother saying something as derrogatory as "Goddamn Faggots!" I do appreciate the glimpse into your past though. I wish parents were more focused on how they treat their children and how they represent to them.

To avoid sinners in my case would be to deny my own humanity. It would not be "treating the least of these as you would treat me." We all sin and the wage of one sin is death. True Christians believe in Grace through Faith. Grace is granted, it is not earned by being heterosexual.

All that said; you may recall that I never once stated that gays should not be endowed the right to marry. I am concerned, but not opposed. I did this for a couple of reasons;

A. I wanted honest debate and not kneejerk, nonsense and argumentative blather.

B. I struggle with the issue. Part of me does not understand why it matters. The other part of me understands and while I belong to a religion that considers it sin (keeping in mind that human-nature is sin-nature), should be fundamentally opposed to making it "alright", but I'm not. It simply does not relate to me and therefore, am apt not to hinder it. I'm concerned about how marriage will be defined in the future, but I don't jump on the "Sanctity of marriage" bandwagon. No homosexual could damage the institution more than has already been done by the heterosexual.

In short, I did not create you or your influences, therefore I'm not qualified to judge you. I certainly don't persecute you. We are brothers in the shared experience of life. I want you to be happy, if you are truly happy and will go and live in Peace, then I too am happy.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Ois�n, thank you for your honest replies. For the others who only seem to be able to jeer, I appreciate your humor, but the comments on Jesus being gay, and conversion meetings, etc...just does not help you make a point. Conversely, it makes you appear to hate Christians and Christianity. I was as clear as possible about my acceptance of homosexuality. I was clear that while I don't understand the behavior, I know much about it and have formulated a view based on my research. Acceptance does not mean that I am not allowed to have a view. In forums like this, my view was requested. Unless of course, you're not interested in topical debate. Most here are not I've found. It's unfortunate.

The Confucius/gay Jesus/Dead See scroll thing was not in any way meant to be taken seriously, it was just kind of the most ludicrous nonsense that came to mind. Just joking. Didn't mean to offend anyone. I'm Danish, I have a very sarcastic humour...

And I don't hate Christians or Christianity - I can say that I (at least partly) hate what Christianity has evolved into and come to reflect; but that's the case for most religions I think, and it's not the fault of the religion itself, nor of most of the people who follow it. The only thing I can say about Christians (or followers of any other religion) is that I don't understand why they need/want to believe in a god, that there is something bigger, etc. I can't blame them for doing it, I just don't understand why...

[ebuddy]

The only thing I can say about Christians (or followers of any other religion) is that I don't understand why they need/want to believe in a god, that there is something bigger, etc. I can't blame them for doing it, I just don't understand why...

That's actually a very good point. I'm fascinated with studies regarding where we came from and the miracle that is our existence in general. I'm fascinated by little factoids that had any one planet we're aware of been more than .000001 out of place, our galaxy would be nothing more than complete debris. It's all very seemingly "planned", perfect, and deliberate. This curiosity led me to Christ. You see, some believe in the god of evolution, but the more you learn of it, the more faith is required to justify it. In short, either you believe in the God of the Bible or other books and religions, you believe in nothing and couldn't care less how we originated, or you believe in the God of Evolution. Either way, it's dogmatic.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
That's actually a very good point. I'm fascinated with studies regarding where we came from and the miracle that is our existence in general. I'm fascinated by little factoids that had any one planet we're aware of been more than .000001 out of place, our galaxy would be nothing more than complete debris. It's all very seemingly "planned", perfect, and deliberate. This curiosity led me to Christ. You see, some believe in the god of evolution, but the more you learn of it, the more faith is required to justify it. In short, either you believe in the God of the Bible or other books and religions, you believe in nothing and couldn't care less how we originated, or you believe in the God of Evolution. Either way, it's dogmatic.

I suppose I belong in the "believe in nothing" category. Though I'm not sure I'd call it dogmatic... To me, dogmatic has to do with something that's been put forth by some kind of authority; something we can never really prove beyond a doubt, but which has nonetheless been put forth as an absolute truth. I like to think that what I "believe" in has been put forth as a theory, not an absolute truth. Well, small difference, but big enough that I wouldn't call it dogmatic, though I see the comparison... [/splitting hairs]

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Oisin, thank you for your honest replies. For the others who only seem to be able to jeer, I appreciate your humor, but the comments on Jesus being gay, and conversion meetings, etc...

OK, this clearly needs to be posted for the humor deficient among us.

Joke:
Pronunciation: 'jOk
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin jocus; perhaps akin to Old High German gehan to say, Sanskrit yAcati he asks
1 a : something said or done to provoke laughter; especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist b (1) : the humorous or ridiculous element in something (2) : an instance of jesting : KIDDING <can't take a joke> c : PRACTICAL JOKE d : LAUGHINGSTOCK
2 : something not to be taken seriously : a trifling matter <consider his skiing a joke -- Harold Callender> -- often used in negative construction <it is no joke to be lost in the desert>

[fireside]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
B. I struggle with the issue. Part of me does not understand why it matters. The other part of me understands and while I belong to a religion that considers it sin (keeping in mind that human-nature is sin-nature), should be fundamentally opposed to making it "alright", but I'm not. It simply does not relate to me and therefore, am apt not to hinder it. I'm concerned about how marriage will be defined in the future, but I don't jump on the "Sanctity of marriage" bandwagon. No homosexual could damage the institution more than has already been done by the heterosexual.

gay people aren't asking to be married in the church in front of god or whatever. they're just asking to have equal rights as heterosexuals, and that includes being able to get "married" so the state recognizes that these two people are "married" so they can get benefits that other "married" heterosexual couples get. i say married in quotes because im not talking about married in front of god, im talking about getting married in front of the government.

[fireside]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Interesting statement here as well.

Don't forget that "separation of Church and State" or the "wall" as it's affectionately called, was a letter sent by Jefferson. It is not in the Constitution.

once the state and church get together to make laws, it voids the first amendment which states ever so clearly: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

[ebuddy]

What religion is being established? This is a loose interpretation based on a letter. The establishment clause does not mean a callous indifference to Christianity.

ebuddy's full and initial quote;

For the others who only seem to be able to jeer, I appreciate your humor, but the comments on Jesus being gay, and conversion meetings, etc...just does not help you make a point.

lit�er�ate__(ltr-t)
adj.
1. a. Able to read and write.
b. Knowledgeable or educated in a particular field or fields.

2. Familiar with literature; literary.

[vanillacoke]

Originally posted by fireside:
once the state and church get together to make laws, it voids the first amendment which states ever so clearly: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

How does a bill become a law? If Congress can't pass it then it can't be signed into law, can it?

[vanillacoke]

Originally posted by fireside:
gay people aren't asking to be married in the church in front of god or whatever. they're just asking to have equal rights as heterosexuals, and that includes being able to get "married" so the state recognizes that these two people are "married" so they can get benefits that other "married" heterosexual couples get. i say married in quotes because im not talking about married in front of god, im talking about getting married in front of the government.

Don't they have equal rights already? Are they being denied citizenship? Ability to vote? Ability to hold a job? Ability to own a house? Own a car? Get a credit card? Go to college? Own land? Start a business? Borrow money? Invest in the stock market? Go shopping in the same grocery store as everyone else? Do they have to sit at the back of the bus? Do they not count as a full citizen when being counted in the census?

I'm confused as to what rights are being denied here.

[GRAFF]

Originally posted by vanillacoke:
Don't they have equal rights already? Are they being denied citizenship? Ability to vote? Ability to hold a job? Ability to own a house? Own a car? Get a credit card? Go to college? Own land? Start a business? Borrow money? Invest in the stock market? Go shopping in the same grocery store as everyone else? Do they have to sit at the back of the bus? Do they not count as a full citizen when being counted in the census?

I'm confused as to what rights are being denied here.

Someone hasn't been paying attention. Your list has nothing to do with the benifits provided to married couples which are currently denied to gay couples who cannot marry. Try to take this discussion seriously. It is important to many of us here.

"An estimated 1,138 federal rights and up to 300 state-level rights come with a civil marriage license. In contrast, California domestic partnerships only offer about 5% of the total California state rights currently available to married straight couples and none of the 1,138 federal rights."

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories...ing_points.asp