But the fact is, its evident that you are not a flying monkey while it is a fact that they ARE gay, so even if its not "scientifically proven" (which there have been many studies saying that you can be born gay), it is still a much more valid claim that I am more likely to believe than your flying monkey claim. So for my own personal opinion, that is proof. I never said it was proof to everyone, I just said it as my opinion.

Hmmm, so why would someone who is really heterosexual pretend to be gay; even when faced with ridicule, hatred and perhaps the opposition of friends and family?
I'm also a little puzzled as to why your first statement was 'I don't like homosexuals'- by what you are saying, then- it would be akin to saying 'I don't like red-haired people'? It's a difficult statement to make considering you are socialising on this forum with a lot of homosexual (and possibly red-haired) people. You can only really make a statement like that if you have met all members of a set- or at least a good sample? Just because I dislike a particular girl is it any reason to dislike all girls?

First of all, there is zero scientific evidence that being gay is any sort of choice.
It is something one simply discovers about oneself over time, just like heterosexuality. If it was a choice then why do so many gay teenagers commit suicide? Do you really think they would choose to be hated by others? Sally may have been taught that girls are suppose to like boys but that doesn't mean she doesn't like girls. I recommend you watch the Gwen Arujo story on the Lifetime Movie Network. And I am not understanding your other posts about it being encoded, if it's encoded then how would it be a choice? Do you think Sally chose for it to be encoded in her head to like the same sex?

As a forewarning: I know many of you have little patience for anything other than what you are spoon-fed at school; so read my words carefully and consider my inspirations before making ascertaitions about anything. The thread is to ask for two cents on an issue; so the following are mine; whether you would have them or not. It means no ill toward any of you; so please hold on the allegations which I know those who do not read carefully are so prone to do...


"Choosing" is relative. You can develop a sudden fascination for a really fattening and unhealthy dish of ribs loaded with saturated fat, but you can still train yourself to refrain from it.

Contrary to popular belief, not all sexual urges have to be satisfied as we understand them. They can be curbed (read: not "repressed") the same way we can learn to curb unhealthy dietary desires when we develop them, or the way we can curb desires to smoke. Nobody said it's easy once it develops.

Also, "choosing sexuality" is to assume that all choices are made with clear deliberation and forward consideration of consequence. Life and common sense should tell us otherwise.

In 2002, I learned about a lot of things I didn't previously know much about concerning sex, and the twisted minds of porn spammers. But that doesn't mean I have to continually pursue such things just because I've been exposed to that world.

A curious mind can be lured to experimentation, or to a never-ending pursuit of unhealthy knowledge which colors the mind darkly. A discerning mind can, in spite the lure of the sirens, still overcome the urge to throw one's self into a volcano.

Concerning homosexuality in particular, I am most pursuaded in my positions by an article written in 2007 by a man named Scott Barefoot. He was born without proper brain wiring to learn desire for women, and was frustrated that such desires never developed in him. He was, clinically, asexual in his chemistry for desire.

However, at the time, understanding of asexuals was limited. It was a mindset of "you're either straight or gay, no exceptions" that he grew up with. Since he didn't feel a passion for women, (and was not encouraged to read about how Paul in the Bible resolved his lack of desire for a woman), his own family and friends had led him to believe that he was gay.

He tried for years, unsuccessfully, to find satisfaction with gay partners, and developed AIDS from one of them. Upon learning that he had AIDS, he was determined that those who had prescribed the "gay lifestyle" for him had mislead him.

It took him several years to collect his thoughts, but he rejoined the church of his youth and adopted a policy of himself of celibacy. He decided the best thing he could do for men and women alike is to pursue neither and devote the time he has left to soul-searching and helping others.

Just because your mind isn't always right doesn't mean you have no free will. We always have choices. The real question is not whether or not we choose our sexuality; it's whom we allow to exploit our desires, and to what ends.

I'm sickened sometimes by how gays have been exploited by radicals for disingenuous causes. The raid on Mt. Hope Church, which made national news, is just one such example. It is not as repugnant as some of the assaults made against Canadian evangelicals; but it's time the gay community woke up and realized how its grievances against a few flakes in the American South has been exploited by those who would wish to fight a more comprehensive war.

A few have come to that realization. A gay group near Lansing called Mt. Hope Church after the raid to give their apologies and sympathies; saying that not all of them should be understood by the actions of the radicals responsible for the raid.

Much of the violence is spewed because the radicals were also anarchists. Democracy resulted in Prop 8 passing in California. So to that crowd, anarchy seemed a viable solution.

Anyway, I digress. As the very homosexual-subtexted show "Xena: Warrior Princess" once put it: "We all have [at least] two natures; it's the side we choose to nurture most, that defines who we are."

Those are words we should not soon forget; regardless our opinions about man-man and woman-woman attraction.


On the second point, one must ask: who is calling for the "punishment" of whom?

Regardless of one's orientation, to take marriage and force the church to redefine it is to punish its members and to punish the One around which the members claim to unite. A punishment for what; for being in the world but not of it? Is that fair?

The assaults on Mt. Hope, for all that building's faults, were still unwarranted. What was done there can hardly be described as "harmless" by anyone who is self-honest. Self-dishonesty always claims victims, though the situation and the harm done varies both in form and in intensity.

What does one mean by "punish"? I need to know where you live; because even those in my state who find the lifestyle repugnant would think it completely absurd for lynch mobs or anything of the sort to form.

I'm not saying you are entirely without foundation for your question, but I need more thorough definition to know the state of mind behind your question. One of the long-forgotten guidelines to healthy argument is that to in question should agree to be on the same page and define their terms before they argue. Such formal and polite discourse has become rare today, as we live in an echo chamber and embrace only what our ears find pleasant.

======

This is usually the part where I am called a wet blanket; or something worse. I am not intending to throw daggers at anyone; nor do I intend with this post to demand that anyone burn anything. I ask not even for a reply, but only for ponderance, from whoever reads.

Tolerance should work both ways. How one responds to this post, if one in fact responds, will put the practice of this theory to the test.

I have a badge that says that :-D I wear it pinned to my jeans. It still makes me laugh. Isn't the English language wonderful! :-)



Exactly. Though, well, if you were a flying monkey, it'd probably be quite obvious from an early age that you were a flying monkey. You know, 'cause of the wings and all. So you wouldn't have to claim that you'd always known about it. Whereas if you were a gay person it wouldn't be as visible......

Only homophobic people, extreme religious fanatics and repressed closet-cases allow these things to bother them. Really, those are the only three types of people who would be bothered by homosexuality if you think about it.

Please forgive me if I've misunderstood your post, CormorantEnt. It's late, and I'm a little lost, I think. I'm going to try to go through your points one by one.

First of all, my thoughts on this or on anything are not influenced by my RL peers. I live in South Carolina, and, believe you me, what I hear at school is usually the opposite of my own opinion.

I hadn't heard of the Mt. Hope Church incident, but from what I read online just now, I can say that I would never advocate disruptive demonstration like that. There are correct and incorrect ways to make a point, and even mild violence is not okay. But I have to tell you, although I hate to make blanket statements of this sort and I don't have statistics at hand at this moment, that there has been more anti-gay violence than anti-anti-gay violence in history.

I wasn't saying that homosexuals are harmless, whatever that means. They're not harmless as a group any more than straight people or Christians or atheists or redheads are. But, specifically, the "choice" (however it's defined) to be homosexual is a personal one that affects only the person making it.

In the United States at this time, marriage is not only a religious institution. Nonreligious people (my parents, for example, btw) get married outside of church, and married couples are given secular benefits in society, both officially and not. It goes against the First Amendment to deny those benefits to gay couples solely because of religion.

Churches should have the right to refuse to marry gay couples. But gay couples should be able to get married in the eyes of the law. When they can't, they don't have the benefits that their straight peers are entitled to. That's the punishment I was referring to.

The difference between marriage and civil union is that a marriage is an agreement between a man and a woman in a religious ceremony and a civil union is an agreement between two people in a legal setting. Marriage is based around religious beliefs which is why some couples choose civil union instead of a church ceremony if they have no religious beliefs. Expecting any religious institution to go against their own beliefs (by making homosexual relationships acceptable in their own environment) is an unfair thing to ask. Also, calling their beliefs "outdated religious commentary" is narrow-minded. It would be the same whether you said it to a Catholic or a Buddhist (their beliefs are their beliefs, they aren't forcing you to uphold them).

I'm sure you can probably tell by now that I have my own religious beliefs. I am a Christian and while I believe that "homosexual sex" is wrong (according to my beliefs), I would not judge someone as being a bad person if that's what they choose to do. Just like I have gay/bisexual friends and co-workers and while I don't agree with how they live their lives, I wouldn't preach to them or try to tell them that they are bad people or were going to hell. Personally, I try to take people on a case-by-case basis. I completely agree that homosexuals don't choose to be born with homosexual feelings/urges but I do think that it is their choice whether or not they act on them. Don't misunderstand though, I don't expect a homosexual to have to abstain from sex for their entire life because its against God, but I think that they (like all of us), have to be willing to accept the consequences of their actions.

My feelings in this area are focused on the act of "homosexual sex" though - not the state of being homosexual/bisexual, whatever. Like I said, I don't care if you're gay, straight or a lover of all, but I have the right to say I don't agree with what you do. It doesn't mean I will treat you any different if you're in line next to me at the grocery store (unless you try to feel me up), it just means that I don't really want to hear about how you scored with another homosexual.

I know many people will think I'm old-fashioned, maybe even narrow-minded, but I just think that sex is an act that is primarily for procreation which requires a man and a woman. Sex between any other combination just seems like it is used to fulfill lust. But like I said, this is only my opinion and I would never force someone else to share my beliefs.

Feel free to start throwing produce in large quantities.

It was my understanding that a civil union conferred less rights than a marriage did, in most places. If that is true, then it is certainly unfair (religious blessings should not give you more legal benefits).

Darn, don't have any produce on hand.

No, seriously. Do you think it's okay/agreeable for a married couple to have -protected- sex? Say, if they already have children, don't want them, or want to wait before they have them? What's the difference between that and homosexual sex, if the "procreation" bit is your distinction? I'm mostly just curious.

Doddibot: They don't give more legal benefits, but in a church union, you are making an agreement before God. In a legal setting, your agreement is made before a legal representative.

Daisie: I totally see your point. I guess I just think that sex in a marriage (by that I do mean heterosexual) is "sanctified" I guess you could say.

Am I just digging myself a deeper hole?

Your definition of marriage and someone else's definition may differ- to me, marriage is a union between two people who love one another. It bears no religious significance, and this union is not limited to existing between heterosexual couples. It's really semantics, but herein lies the problem- religious extremists and social activists will be arguing about the true definition of marriage for years to come. I think that someday, we'll all look back at the political/social issue of homosexual marriage like we do black/female voting- what the hell were we thinking?

If we define marriage as a loving union between two people rather than a loving union between a man and a woman, it's not asking the church to go against their beliefs. The act of marriage/partnership was practiced in prehistorical civilizations long before the dawn of organized religion- it's not an exclusively Christian term, and therefore it's not asking the church to go against its doctrine. Religious people do not have a monopoly on the concept of marriage. If gay marriage were legalized, churches would be able to reserve the right to marry homosexual couples. Doddi is right that civil union allows fewer rights than marriage- property rights and the ability to vouch for one's partner are dramatically espoused in a civil union. This is discriminatory, unfair, and it needs to be rectified.

You say that calling such beliefs "outdated religious commentary" is narrow-minded, but isn't it more narrow-minded to deny human beings a first amendment right based on religious prejudice? The fact of the matter is that such inalienable rights are endowed to citizens in various legal settings, and often such rights are overshadowed by religious prejudice, hence the phrase. Religious people are asking nations to uphold such beliefs by rallying against the legalization of gay marriage, and it's not right. Seperation of church and state- laws CANNOT be made based on such judgement. When religious beliefs are taken out of the equation (because the traditional definition of marriage is often derived from dogmatic text), there is no other reason to prohibit gay marriage.

What I don't understand is why people are so against the idea of others being happy- how does it directly affect your life if a couple is allowed a loving partnership? How does it harm you if someone is happy? It doesn't- people need to stop sticking their noses in the business of others where they clearly don't belong. One of the things that I most desire to say to the anti-gay public is to butt out.

Looking at the UK government website on marriage/civil partnership it seems that they both convey the same legal rights on the couple concerned (though it lists the similarities, not the differences, if there are any). But in the UK I think that marriage is the term used for all opposite sex unions and civil partnership is the term used for all same sex partnerships, which doesn't mesh with hexywoman79's idea that opposite sex couples can choose a civil union if they are not religious. In the UK, at least, it seems that marriage is simply the accepted term for any legal and/or religious union between a man and a woman.

I totally agree with you, Rabid, and I'd like to add/clarify that marriage is NOT exclusively performed in a religious setting. For example (anecdotal evidence, I know, but true - I just verified), my parents went to a courthouse, said vows, and signed a certificate of -marriage-, not civil union.

In my experience, the same philosophy exists in the United States. Even when an irreligious couple wishes to seek a formal partnership, it is commonly referred to as a marriage. Despite being an atheist, I would still rather marry a man than enter a civil union with him- that's just how it's done. Even seeking a formal partnership in a courthouse with no one but a judge to preside is seen as a marriage, not a civil union.

I must admit that I don't disagree with homosexuals having the right to be married - but any church has full rights to say they will not marry the couple in their church. The last thing I want is to keep anyone from being happy and to be completely honest, I know its none of my business what a homosexual couple does in their own private time. But I also think that I have the right to my opinion, which is why I gave it. After all, the poster asked us for our opinions.

And I don't think anyone has refuted that. A church is a private institution, after all, and it can do whatever it wants.

I guess it just sounded to me like people want marriage (i.e. in a church) to be legalized. My mistake.

Yup, same here. If I told people I was entering into a civil union they would assume I meant with a woman! That's just conventional use of language. Both myself and my boyfriend are atheists, as our both our families, but if/when we wed I'm sure we will both refer to it as marriage - even despite the lack of religious connotations.

And hexywoman79 of course you have a right to your opinion! From what I've read on this forum, people are generally more interested in finding out exactly what your opinion is and why you feel that way than in rejecting your opinion out of hand or telling you that you're wrong!



I don't. So long as the legal rights are the same for all couples it's all good as far as I'm concerned :-D

Ummm, in my country you cannot get married religiously if you haven't been married legally first. Most couples do that, the non religious ones have only the legal ceremony.

But marriage =/= in a church, as many people have pointed out.

Yeah I know, what I meant was a church marriage.

Okay. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I think that that is also the case in the Netherlands (where I used to live). Because only state/government/whatever people have the authority to confer the legal rights/benefits of marriage I guess. Makes sense to me, though it makes for long and complicated weddings!

Daisie I'm confused can you explain the =/= thing??