The Middle of the Road or Not?

I know of a teenager, whose identity shall remain secret, who struggled mightily with his sexual identity. One day he looked upon another male student and felt a sexual attraction. The mental ruminations resulting from such a realization led to many months of confusion and guilt. He was sure he must be homosexual and that nobody else would understand.

Quite a conundrum.

Finally, through reading, he understood that random homosexual urges do not necessarily define one as a homosexual; he was able to move on to a reasonably normal life.

Had someone told him that the homosexual lifestyle was perfectly normal and if that assertion had been emboldened by the 'legitimacy' of homosexual marriage, he might have acted on his urges, reinforced them with masturbatory fantasies and adopted a gay lifestyle.

Is there anyone here recommending the gay lifestyle as a healthy sexual alternative? The medical literature supports the contrary.

Civil union with secular privileges - fine.

Calling it marriage - an assault on clear thinking and human health.

Some of those people know from a very young age that the opposite sex is not for them. Some people are born with hormonal makeup that precludes heterosexuality. It isn't a preference for them--just a reality.

I was pretty sure if some of the people responding here were ever really close with someone this had happened to, you'd change your opinion out of compassion.

compassion; interesting concept, rarely seen.

Can I just pick up on the compromise thing? It's the center of a whole lot of Momma Angel discussions here, and the premise/ title of this thread makes it as good of a place to go into it as any.

Momma Angel, you seem to take it as axiomatic that compromise is good. Sure, as a concept. However:

A) It's not always possible. Period.

B) The structure of your compromise is often, "this is my opinion, when will you people stop thinking so much and agree with me??"

C) You seem to think that compromise should be reached out of a desire to get along rather than based on any actual, logical, rational (yep, there I go again) shared ground.

Observe the following two scenarios:

Scenario 1

Me: Cats are the spawn of Satan. You: No they aren't! Me: They really are. I can prove it. You: They really AREN'T! Let's see your proof! Me: [link to www.catsareSOthespawnofsatan.com with a list including, "their eyes are slitty", "Egyptians worshipped them", and "They're too flexible."] You: That doesn't prove anything! Me: It does too! You just can't see it! All spawn-of-Satan-deniers can't see it! It's so obvious! You: See [i]what[/i]? You haven't offered any concrete proof of anything. Me: Always asking for proof! Can't we just get along? You: I'm perfectly happy to get along with you, I just don't believe this spawn-of-satan stuff. Me: I'm so tired of all the people on this board doubting what I say. You: Maybe say things that can be supported a little better, then...? Me: Why won't you compromise?! You: Um, how? I don't think cats are the spawn of Satan even a little bit. Me: How can you be so SURE?! [goes on in that vein for a long time] Me: I'm going to keep at this until you see that cats are the spawn of Satan. You: OK, whatever, I'm out of here.

[is that a compromise?]

Scenario 2

Me: Cats are the spawn of Satan. You: Um, no, they aren't. [back and forth for a bit as above] Me: OK, but I'm allergic and every time I spend too much time around them I am at risk of death. You: Oh no! That's too bad. No wonder you don't like cats. Me: Hate them. You: But can you understand that for people who aren't allergic, it's different? Me: I guess. You: For all I know, if I was allergic, I might think they were the spawn of Satan, too. But I'm not, and I love them, and I have 47 of them, and can you stop calling them the spawn of Satan? Me: But they are... ;-) You: Can you accept that it's what YOU think and not necessarily something that's true in a general way, though? Me: Hmmm, I guess. You: Cool. ~finis~

[Is that a compromise?]

Some principles just won't be compromised. You won't see people saying here black is white just because they want to make get along -- you also won't see them saying black is gray, just to compromise. Black is black, period.

If compromise is what you want, you have to work harder to find common ground -- or else accept that compromise ain't gonna happen.

Compassion is the keen awareness of the interdependence of all things. --Thomas Merton


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compassion is the ultimate and most meaningful embodiment of emotional maturity. It is through compassion that a person achieves the highest peak and deepest reach in his or her search for self-fulfillment. --Arthur Jersild
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compassion is not sentiment but is making justice and doing works of mercy. Compassion is not a moral commandment but a flow and overflow of the fullest human and divine energies. --Matthew Fox
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole purpose of religion is to facilitate love and compassion, patience, tolerance, humility, forgiveness. --H.H. the Dalai Lama

Let me add, to bring it back into this context, work harder to support the principle as being logical and just. I've certainly changed my principles in the face of logic and reason before. NOT in the face of pure emotion and a desire to compromise, in and of itself.

Quite a few less than one might be led to believe by the leftward leaning psychological establishment.

But how does the idea of civil union equate to lack of compassion?

And there's our chance to make this logical and rational.

Any stats to support that contention, neo?

I am beginning to think that my main idea of this thread has just vanished in favor of arguing who is right and who is wrong, as usual. It has become abundantly clear to me by some that unless I change my way of thinking to theirs then I am just wrong, a homophobe, a bigot, hatemonger, etc.

A few on this thread have actually told me I have the right to vote the way I want to vote if I do want to vote. That is what I thought our rights were about. I get to vote my conscience if I decide to vote. I am glad there are still those that will not argue with other people about this. To me, that is complete respect for their rights.

I see nothing wrong with discussing these issues. I do have a problem with the mud slinging that usually goes on. If you believe in what you are arguing for then I'd think your issue and reasons for it should stand on their own without attacking the individuals. But, that's just me.

Now, I came to an understanding about this issue that I did not have before. I came to that understanding with the help of many people explaining things to me. The ones that actually took the time to have a discussion with me and not call me names, etc., because of what I believe have taught me the most. I am very grateful to them for that. With their patience and civility, I actually understood a side of this issue I did not understand before.

So, if I were to get the opportunity to vote on this issue, I would abstain. I won't vote for something I think is wrong. Not casting my vote does not discriminate against anyone. It is my right. It is my obligation to do the right thing. The right thing for me to do would be to abstain.

For those that can't understand that, well, then I respectfully submit that perhaps you are more concerned about being right than you are about doing the right thing.

I normally state the reason that I start a thread. Perhaps I didn't make that clear in this thread and I apologize for that. I just wanted to know if it is possible to reach any kind of a compromise on this issue with those that post on A2K. Well, I got my answer. A few are willing to compromise but it seems the majority are not.

Ooh, looks like my "compromise" screed was timely -- if a bit early.

Even if the number were miniscule, I would still support civil union. I'll dig up some statistics later but I gotta go now. Maybe someone else will beat me to it.

sozobe,

Compromise is finding common ground that all involved can live with. They don't have to like it but they can live with it. I would be more than happy to come to a compromise on this, but it has to be one that ALL benefit from. Being told or made to feel that unless I change my point of view to your (not literally) is not a compromise. That is the kind of thing that so many are accusing the Christian Right of doing, isn't it?

Nope.

Not if you can support it logically.

I think Lash has made great sense about the Good Samaritan and how not doing something to stop something that is not just adds to the injustice -- and you have not shown that it is not an injustice.

This is the only solution, I think. Otherwise, as real life has pointed out, there will be those who face discrimination.
For this reason, I do not support or oppose gay marriage. I think it's the wrong fight.

See what I mean? Unless I change my view to your view (literally this time) then I am still wrong and you won't accept the compromise.

I am expected to compromise my principles for yours?

I have already stated my views on this near the beginning of the thread. It does seem that the thread took on a life of it's own and branched out into other areas.

I felt that abstaining would not be a vote for but would also not hurt the outcome like a no would. After following this thread completely, I am coming to the conclusion that to abstain so that others will not think badly etc. is a mistake. If no is what is in the heart, then no should be the vote.

Personally, I cannot pick just homosexuality from the bible as being against the will of God. There are many things that are also written that today are condoned by Christians. We cannot have it both ways. It should be all or nothing. Otherwise, we do not have the right to pick and choose.

I wonder if the same passion would have been displayed if the discussion was on a vote on, say, jaywalking. Yes / No / Abstain.

By the way,



Right. (I think, the sentence is a bit garbled.)

Just "you're wrong", "I'm right" doesn't get anyone very far. That's where the logic, support, etc. comes into it.

Where is your logical support for the idea that homosexuality is wrong?

Where is your logical support for the idea that failing to stop an injustice contributes to the perpetration of the injustice, itself?

Intrepid,

If I had changed my mind because I didn't want others to think badly of me that would be one thing. But I changed my mind because I could see how it actually might be discrimination. I thought that abstaining would let me stick to my principles and not hurt anyone else in the process.

I do agree with that.

As for jaywalking, I think the passion would be less because the injustice is less. Whether someone can or can't cross the street at a certain place is far lower stakes than whether he or she can marry the person he or she loves.

sozobe,

I love you to death but right now you are frustrating the heck out of me. I have explained my position how many times? I have not held anything back. Why can't you just let me exercise my right the way I think is best? (No, you aren't physically hindering me, I think you understand what I mean.)