1
   

The Middle of the Road or Not?

 
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 02:09 am
If you were repulsed bt the opposite sex and attracted to the same sex, you would live a life of misery and never be fulfilled?

I wouldn't wish that on you--or anyone.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 07:06 am
real life wrote:
Anon-Voter wrote:
......... I would hope that Momma and those who believe like her would look into the cause and reason for homosexuality. It's not a disease, and it's not a mental illness. It can't be cured, it can only be suppressed ... and I don't think that can be done successfully over the long term. There are physiological, physical, and mental reasons for homosexuality, and they are as natural to the individual as life itself.

Anon


Are you assuming that homosexuals are born that way?

I know homosexuals who would disagree with that very strongly.


You may know homosexuals that would disagree, but the facts remain. If you would try educating yourself instead of being an ignorant homophobe, it would make a big difference.

Anon
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 07:11 am
I have met gay guys who knew that they were "different" at the age of 3 or 4. You can't say that THAT is learned behavior!
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 07:35 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
I have met gay guys who knew that they were "different" at the age of 3 or 4. You can't say that THAT is learned behavior!

It's not a learned behavior. Anyone who things it is is kidding himself.

One the other hand, one can hardly be called a fiend for not wanting to grant homosexuals something (mariage) that they have never had in any era or place on Earth. I am not saying that just because something has always been done a certain way it is right, but what I am saying is that it's an exaggeration to call one evil for not wanting to grant them privileges they have never possesses in any human society in human history.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 07:39 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Phoenix32890 wrote:
I have met gay guys who knew that they were "different" at the age of 3 or 4. You can't say that THAT is learned behavior!

It's not a learned behavior. Anyone who things it is is kidding himself.

One the other hand, one can hardly be called a fiend for not wanting to grant homosexuals something (mariage) that they have never had in any era or place on Earth. I am not saying that just because something has always been done a certain way it is right, but what I am saying is that it's an exaggeration to call one evil for not wanting to grant them privileges they have never possesses in any human society in human history.


Evil is always evil, no longer how long it's been evil.

Anon
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 07:41 am
Lash is now officially a poopity head.
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 07:59 am
Lash wrote:
Exercize your mind just a dab, if you can crack it open just a tad.

If they can be born with these conditions:

and I have seen one child, who was born with both male and female genitals, and more than a few born with dominant male traits, but feminine genitals--and plenty of men, who walk, talk, have mannerisms the most accomplished actor couldn't fake. Since more than a few of them were teased mercilessly and some, brutally:

I don't know why any rational person would insist that there is no reason other than some evil inherent desire to be reviled by society and maybe killed.

You sound like someone who despises gay people, and wants to blame them for it, to justify the way up feel.

I worked closely with several people, who needed community services--and also interacted with a troupe of local actors--and I'm not guessing.


Of course you're guessing. Your experiences that you've mentioned point to the fact that you have experience with those individuals. That hardly qualifies you to speak authoritatively on the subject. Thus you are guessing.

This subject has been hashed and rehashed again. Some claim that science has already proven that homosexuality stems from a chemical balance in the mind. Others claim that homosexuality is not, in fact, natural and isn't something that the brain can influence outside of how it's used to rationalize the feelings a person has.

What it all comes down to is that no one really knows, some people just have very strong emotions towards same gender, others just like to have fun with it, and others are repulsed.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 08:12 am
I have a question. How many of you are actually homosexual and living in the United States? Why do I ask, you may wonder?

Well, I'm just wondering what the situation here is. I'm wondering whether those who are arguing for homosexual marriage will actually benefit.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 08:16 am
Questioner wrote:
Lash wrote:
Exercize your mind just a dab, if you can crack it open just a tad.

If they can be born with these conditions:

and I have seen one child, who was born with both male and female genitals, and more than a few born with dominant male traits, but feminine genitals--and plenty of men, who walk, talk, have mannerisms the most accomplished actor couldn't fake. Since more than a few of them were teased mercilessly and some, brutally:

I don't know why any rational person would insist that there is no reason other than some evil inherent desire to be reviled by society and maybe killed.

You sound like someone who despises gay people, and wants to blame them for it, to justify the way up feel.

I worked closely with several people, who needed community services--and also interacted with a troupe of local actors--and I'm not guessing.


Of course you're guessing. Your experiences that you've mentioned point to the fact that you have experience with those individuals. That hardly qualifies you to speak authoritatively on the subject. Thus you are guessing.

This subject has been hashed and rehashed again. Some claim that science has already proven that homosexuality stems from a chemical balance in the mind. Others claim that homosexuality is not, in fact, natural and isn't something that the brain can influence outside of how it's used to rationalize the feelings a person has.

What it all comes down to is that no one really knows, some people just have very strong emotions towards same gender, others just like to have fun with it, and others are repulsed.


Actually it has been proven. It is not a "chemical imbalance", it is an actual difference in brain structure and makeup. There are distinct differences between the hertero brain, and the homosexual brain.

Anon
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 08:37 am
Anon-Voter wrote:

Actually it has been proven. It is not a "chemical imbalance", it is an actual difference in brain structure and makeup. There are distinct differences between the hertero brain, and the homosexual brain.

Anon


Has it? There may be differences to some degree, but even the science community doesn't agree on the significance of the findings.

Quote:
Biology and sexual orientation is the concept in industrialized societies that there is, at least in part, a biological basis for sexual orientation. An increasing number of studies have investigated this link, but no scientific consensus exists as to the specific biological factors that may play a role, nor to the precise nature of their influence on sexual orientation. Causal areas these studies have examined include morphological brain structure, prenatal environment, chromosomes, and viral genetic influence. Methodologically, some studies have used twins as controls.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 09:05 am
Wolf--

There are no homosexuals (that I am aware of) in my immediate, or extended family, though my great Aunt Pearl insisted on wearing pants.... lol)

Questioner-- I'm not guessing, and you are uninformed about the science re homosexuality.

What does it profit you to impose your opinion on their life?

dys--

Pootyhead.

Pooty.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 09:23 am
I think that you will find the answer to the reason for homosexuality to be dependent on who is giving the reason.

Consider that the more conservative stance generally considers homosexuality to be an abomination. They consider it to be immoral and a chosen way of life. The consider it to be a changeable and abnormal, unnatural addiction.

The more liberal thinking views homosexuality as one of three normal, natural, unchosen, fixed, and morally neutral sexual orientations which is natural for a minority of adults.

I have known both lesbian women and gay men and they are what they are. They did not made a decision that they WANTED to be gay. They just are. They have mannerisms that would normally be associated with the opposite sex. These are not learned and put on mannerisms. They are natural.

Let me ask the question. How does a woman know she is a woman and how does a man know he is a man? I contend that the homosexual has the same mindset based on what they should have been if they had not been born as they were.

When people use the bible to point out how horrendous homosexuality is I consider the fact that I would agree with them if it is a chosen way of life. If it is not a choice then I do not think that the biblical description applies. I know that many of my religious contemporaries will want to stone be for that.

Even though I am heterosexual, I can empathize with those who are tormented solely because of what they are instead of who they are.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 09:31 am
Actually, Intrepid, I, for one, kind of like the way you stated that. I have no clue as to whether it's choice, learned behavior, etc. I would imagine there are examples of each within the whole.

Yes, the Bible says the act of homosexuality is wrong. Is that just talking of the sexual act? Does that include what is in the heart and mind if they refrain from the sexual act? I don't know.

I know what the Bible says God says about it. I know what my friends Betty and Sue tell me about it in their life experience. Does that make the issue any clearer for me? No. I wish it did.

0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 09:46 am
I agree with your assessment, Trep. I think it must be horrible to come to the realization that "you" (collective) are different, and that society hates you.

Your stock just continues to rise. <deferential nod to Trep>
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 09:47 am
I have always admired the Quakers for their stance on civil rights issues, including gay marriage.

In 1997 the NPYM issued this:

Quote:
Preamble

For many years, Friends have struggled with one another to grow in mutual understanding about issues relating to the lives of gays and lesbians within our Meetings, in our communities, and within our families. In our Meetings we include sexual minority members, some of whom are in same-sex marriages, and we have shared times with each other's families. Again, we have found evidence of the truth to which Friends have witnessed throughout the years: "There is that of God in every person."
We have struggled with the meaning of marriage. As Quakers, we recognize marriages to affirm the choice and commitment of individuals, to support loving families, and to strengthen our own spiritual community. We use the process of corporate spiritual discernment when deciding to take a marriage under our care. In recent years, most of the Meetings in North Pacific Yearly Meeting have felt called to take the marriages of gay couples and lesbian couples under their care. Each of these Meetings made this decision after a corporate search under the guidance of the Spirit.

Marriage, however, is not only a religious, spiritual matter, it is also a legal or civil matter. Marriage, in the civil sense, conveys a broad array of civil benefits, including access to health insurance for dependents, tax benefits, inheritance rights, parental and custody rights, and next-of-kin status for medical decisions and visitation. As we have educated ourselves about the lives and struggles of our sexual minority members, we have become aware of what effects the denial of these legal rights has on gay and lesbian couples. We now feel led to speak publicly against this form of discrimination and injustice and for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.


We, therefore, approve the following minute:

North Pacific Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) is deeply concerned that access to civil marriage is presently denied to gay and lesbian couples. This injustice brings legal, financial and social discrimination against lesbian and gay couples and their children. We, therefore, support legal recognition of the marriages of gay and lesbian couples to permit them the same legal rights and responsibilities that pertain to heterosexual married couples.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 09:51 am
Ok, question. I realize this is not why you posted this boomerang, but I'm curious about something.

It seems that it might be "ok" for churches/religions to be involved in politics in some cases and not in others?
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 10:02 am
This is not a political document. It's a church document.

Quakers have been "marrying" their gay members for years. This document is a position paper showing this particular chapter's position.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 10:10 am
Thank you for clearing that up, boomerang. I wasn't quite sure if they were taking that position outside of their church or not. It says:

Quote:
We now feel led to speak publicly against this form of discrimination and injustice and for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.


I was wondering if that meant they were endorsing this in the public sector yet?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 10:13 am
I like boomer's answer.

Still, I do think churches can be involved in politics, sure. Churches had a lot to do with the civil rights movement, for example.

It's not churches being involved in politics per se that bothers me, any more than any other special interest group. It is WHAT they are involved in and HOW they are doing it. Depends on the situation.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 10:14 am
Am I reading this right? It is ok for the Church to be involved with politics if they are involved with what you think is right?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 12:54:34